Response to my column in the Guardian today:
"I was Head of a school in one of the most disadvantaged areas of the country. We formed a group of ten schools who agreed to collaborate. We met regularly and looked at the good ideas happening in each school. I took a number of good ideas from my colleagues and they did the same. These covered a range of initiatives such as better reading standards, increasing the quality of experiences for children and getting parents involved. There were a number of other initiatives that made a dramatic difference.
At the beginning of this collaboration we had two schools out of ten that were deemed outstanding by Ofsted. After five years all ten schools were judged as outstanding.
Another five years down the line all ten Head teachers have now retired. The LA Education department no longer exists and the whole collaboration has stopped. Over the last five years now only one of the ten is outstanding.
Government policy is taking things backwards."
Tuesday, 5 January 2016
More Alice manuscript just found: Times Tables
Alice found herself in a room full of tables.
She was pleased to see the Mad Hatter, Dormouse and March Hare sitting at one. They had stopped trying to stuff the Dormouse into the teapot. They were sitting in a row chanting something she couldn't quite hear. Or, if she could hear it, she couldn't quite understand it. That was because people at the other tables were chanting too.
At another table, the Playing Cards who had once been painting the roses, were now sitting and chanting; and there was Humpty Dumpty and the Caterpillar at another table...
And over there, at another table, were the Walrus and the Carpenter. They had stopped crying over eating oysters...but wait a minute, thought Alice, where are the Oysters?
They were on another table, all in a row, chanting too.
Alice sensed that the Blue Queen and the Gibblet were coming up behind her. They were beaming.
'What do you think?' said the Blue Queen.
'I don't know what to think,' said Alice, 'what's going on? Why are they all here? Why are they sitting at tables? Is this a cafe?'
'No,' snapped the Gibblet, 'of course it isn't. These are Times Tables.'
'I see,' said Alice, though in truth she didn't.
'Everyone sits at Times Tables now,' said the Blue Queen proudly, checking with the Gibblet that this was the right thing to say.
'This one,' said the Gibblet, pointing at the one with the Walrus and the Carpenter, 'is the top Times Table.'
'And this one,' said the Blue Queen proud as ever, and pointing to the Oysters, 'is the bottom Times Table.'
'We're the bottom Times Table,' echoed the Oysters, 'because we're no good at Times Tables. Listen!'
Alice listened as they chanted: 'once one is one, two ones are two, three ones are three...'
She was puzzled.
'They sound alright to me,' she said.
'Too slow,' said the Gibblet.
'Too slow,' said the Blue Queen.
'How slow is slow?' said Alice.
'This slow,' hissed the Gibblet, showing her a complicated-looking machine he was carrying. He pulled a lever, there was a whirring and clicking and out came a ticket. He handed it to Alice. On the ticket, it said, 'Slow is 12 mph, fast is 3 times as fast as slow, which is 36 mph.'
'Thank you,' said Alice. 'That's a very handy machine.'
'Yes,' said the Gibblet proudly, 'it's my Times Tables machine.'
'I think we can be just as proud of the Walrus and the Carpenter', said the Blue Queen, 'listen to how they chant.'
And sure enough, they whizzed through their Times Tables faster than the March Hare could run.
'You're very fast,' said Alice, 'if slow is 12 mph and fast is 3 times as fast, do you think you're going that fast?'
'I don't understand you,' said the Walrus, who was beginning to get a bit hungry.
'Well,' said one of the Oysters, 'I think you're 3 times as fast as us, aren't you? We're very, very slow. You're very, very fast. You're much better than us, aren't you?'
'I don't know,' said the Walrus, 'that's not what we're doing today.'
'Exactly!' said the Gibblet who was beginning to get a little worried about the way Alice was asking all these questions.
'I'm hungry,' said the Walrus.
'Me too,' said the Carpenter.
The Blue Queen and the Gibblet took up a position of policemen directing traffic. They pointed towards the slowest Times Table where the Oysters sat.
Alice watched while the Walrus and the Carpenter went over to the Oysters and started to eat them.
The Gibblet and the Blue Queen watched too, nodding and smiling. Alice thought that they were very pleased with the way things were working out.
She was pleased to see the Mad Hatter, Dormouse and March Hare sitting at one. They had stopped trying to stuff the Dormouse into the teapot. They were sitting in a row chanting something she couldn't quite hear. Or, if she could hear it, she couldn't quite understand it. That was because people at the other tables were chanting too.
At another table, the Playing Cards who had once been painting the roses, were now sitting and chanting; and there was Humpty Dumpty and the Caterpillar at another table...
And over there, at another table, were the Walrus and the Carpenter. They had stopped crying over eating oysters...but wait a minute, thought Alice, where are the Oysters?
They were on another table, all in a row, chanting too.
Alice sensed that the Blue Queen and the Gibblet were coming up behind her. They were beaming.
'What do you think?' said the Blue Queen.
'I don't know what to think,' said Alice, 'what's going on? Why are they all here? Why are they sitting at tables? Is this a cafe?'
'No,' snapped the Gibblet, 'of course it isn't. These are Times Tables.'
'I see,' said Alice, though in truth she didn't.
'Everyone sits at Times Tables now,' said the Blue Queen proudly, checking with the Gibblet that this was the right thing to say.
'This one,' said the Gibblet, pointing at the one with the Walrus and the Carpenter, 'is the top Times Table.'
'And this one,' said the Blue Queen proud as ever, and pointing to the Oysters, 'is the bottom Times Table.'
'We're the bottom Times Table,' echoed the Oysters, 'because we're no good at Times Tables. Listen!'
Alice listened as they chanted: 'once one is one, two ones are two, three ones are three...'
She was puzzled.
'They sound alright to me,' she said.
'Too slow,' said the Gibblet.
'Too slow,' said the Blue Queen.
'How slow is slow?' said Alice.
'This slow,' hissed the Gibblet, showing her a complicated-looking machine he was carrying. He pulled a lever, there was a whirring and clicking and out came a ticket. He handed it to Alice. On the ticket, it said, 'Slow is 12 mph, fast is 3 times as fast as slow, which is 36 mph.'
'Thank you,' said Alice. 'That's a very handy machine.'
'Yes,' said the Gibblet proudly, 'it's my Times Tables machine.'
'I think we can be just as proud of the Walrus and the Carpenter', said the Blue Queen, 'listen to how they chant.'
And sure enough, they whizzed through their Times Tables faster than the March Hare could run.
'You're very fast,' said Alice, 'if slow is 12 mph and fast is 3 times as fast, do you think you're going that fast?'
'I don't understand you,' said the Walrus, who was beginning to get a bit hungry.
'Well,' said one of the Oysters, 'I think you're 3 times as fast as us, aren't you? We're very, very slow. You're very, very fast. You're much better than us, aren't you?'
'I don't know,' said the Walrus, 'that's not what we're doing today.'
'Exactly!' said the Gibblet who was beginning to get a little worried about the way Alice was asking all these questions.
'I'm hungry,' said the Walrus.
'Me too,' said the Carpenter.
The Blue Queen and the Gibblet took up a position of policemen directing traffic. They pointed towards the slowest Times Table where the Oysters sat.
Alice watched while the Walrus and the Carpenter went over to the Oysters and started to eat them.
The Gibblet and the Blue Queen watched too, nodding and smiling. Alice thought that they were very pleased with the way things were working out.
If you don't know how to use times tables, they're not useful
Out of all the maths that people did at school,
why do they so often say that the times tables are the most useful?
I agree they can be useful.
If you know how to use them.
If you don't know how to use them
they're not useful.
I also find really useful:
addition, subtraction, angles, simple graphs, if a plus b = c and a plus b = d then c = d, and symmetry...
I've always liked symmetry.
why do they so often say that the times tables are the most useful?
I agree they can be useful.
If you know how to use them.
If you don't know how to use them
they're not useful.
I also find really useful:
addition, subtraction, angles, simple graphs, if a plus b = c and a plus b = d then c = d, and symmetry...
I've always liked symmetry.
Monday, 4 January 2016
Some can learn tables. Some can't.
Some can learn tables.
Some can't.
Some can use the tables and understand maths.
Some can't.
You can know the tables and be good at maths.
You can know the tables and be no good at maths.
You can not know the tables and be no good at maths.
You can be no good at tables and be good at maths.
Knowing the tables is not the be all and end all of maths.
Maths is more than tables.
If you have a high stakes test on tables, you end up saying to children that maths is knowing the tables.
You end up saying to them that the most important thing about maths is knowing the tables.
Giving them a high stakes test which will judge the child, the teacher and the school, will add one more stress to education.
Some can't.
Some can use the tables and understand maths.
Some can't.
You can know the tables and be good at maths.
You can know the tables and be no good at maths.
You can not know the tables and be no good at maths.
You can be no good at tables and be good at maths.
Knowing the tables is not the be all and end all of maths.
Maths is more than tables.
If you have a high stakes test on tables, you end up saying to children that maths is knowing the tables.
You end up saying to them that the most important thing about maths is knowing the tables.
Giving them a high stakes test which will judge the child, the teacher and the school, will add one more stress to education.
Sunday, 3 January 2016
Is teaching, 'teaching the tools you need'?
I've been thinking about some metaphors and phrases that we use in connection with teaching and learning: tools, skills, building blocks.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with them but I would suggest that they can sometimes end up with giving us a misleading idea of how we learn and think. A tool or a building block suggest something very mechanical:
1. We either have it or don't have it.
2. It's a necessary 'thing' I need to have before I can do other things.
3. It has to be acquired by me as, supposedly, it's no use being something I use in a shared way.
Let's suppose that we learn in different ways. For example, what if learning involves me in something more 'reflective'? So, I can't ever 'get' anything unless I do something with it in my mind. So if it's a 'tool' or 'building block' then at the very least, I can't just learn the tool, I have to learn how to use it. Otherwise it's use-less.
So, given that today we're talking about the times tables, most people can learn most of the times tables. We can then test that. This will distribute into those who can do it perfectly, less perfectly, quite well, OK, not OK and hardly at all.
But so what?
None of this will necessarily tell us whether these people will be able to use whatever they know. They may or they may not.
The national high stakes testing of knowing the times tables will ensure that yet more time is spent in schools on learning them off by heart. I think it's fair to argue that this will mean less time on learning how to use them.
What's more, we know that high stakes testing has a knock-on effect in terms of stress and segregation of children. This detracts from the supposed objective in the first place: to help children learn useful stuff. Instead, large numbers of children get worried that they are not good enough, and this is reinforced by the setting that goes on in classrooms.
So, rather than acquiring 'tools' or 'building blocks' we're acquiring 'stress' and 'knowledge that I am not good enough'!
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with them but I would suggest that they can sometimes end up with giving us a misleading idea of how we learn and think. A tool or a building block suggest something very mechanical:
1. We either have it or don't have it.
2. It's a necessary 'thing' I need to have before I can do other things.
3. It has to be acquired by me as, supposedly, it's no use being something I use in a shared way.
Let's suppose that we learn in different ways. For example, what if learning involves me in something more 'reflective'? So, I can't ever 'get' anything unless I do something with it in my mind. So if it's a 'tool' or 'building block' then at the very least, I can't just learn the tool, I have to learn how to use it. Otherwise it's use-less.
So, given that today we're talking about the times tables, most people can learn most of the times tables. We can then test that. This will distribute into those who can do it perfectly, less perfectly, quite well, OK, not OK and hardly at all.
But so what?
None of this will necessarily tell us whether these people will be able to use whatever they know. They may or they may not.
The national high stakes testing of knowing the times tables will ensure that yet more time is spent in schools on learning them off by heart. I think it's fair to argue that this will mean less time on learning how to use them.
What's more, we know that high stakes testing has a knock-on effect in terms of stress and segregation of children. This detracts from the supposed objective in the first place: to help children learn useful stuff. Instead, large numbers of children get worried that they are not good enough, and this is reinforced by the setting that goes on in classrooms.
So, rather than acquiring 'tools' or 'building blocks' we're acquiring 'stress' and 'knowledge that I am not good enough'!
More newly found pages from 'Alice' - "If we say it is, it is!"
MORE PAGES FROM ALICE
...The Blue Queen and the Gibblet wanted to show Alice something.
'This,' said the Blue Queen, 'is a glass-room. It's made of glass so we can see into it. We can see everything that's going on in there. '
'It looks nice,' said Alice, 'what do you do in there?'
'WE don't do anything in the glass-room,' hissed the Gibblet, 'We put children in the glass-room.'
'Why?' said Alice.
'To fill them up with knowledge, of course,' said the Gibblet.
Alice looked in to the glass-room. There were rows and rows of children in there but they didn't seem to be being filled up with knowledge. Alice was puzzled. She remembered from...where was it?...before she fell down the hole...that when she went to school, there was a person there they called a 'teacher'. In the glass-room, there was no teacher.
'Excuse me,' said Alice, 'isn't there supposed to be a teacher in the glass-room?'
'There is a teacher in the glass-room,' said the Blue Queen.
'There is a teacher in the glass-room,' said the Gibblet.
Alice stared again. She didn't want to annoy them but she believed in saying true things. So she said, 'Where?'
'The teacher,' said the Blue Queen, 'is where the teacher is.'
'Very good,' said the Gibblet, 'exactly. The teacher is where the teacher is because the teacher couldn't be where the teacher is not.'
'We're not running out, you know,' said the Blue Queen.
'I didn't think you were running anywhere,' said Alice.
'No, no, no,' said the Blue Queen, 'we're not running out of teachers. We've got loads of them.'
'Loads of them,' repeated the Gibblet.
'But not actually here. In this Glass-room,' said Alice.
'We've told you,' said the Blue Queen, 'there is a teacher in the glass-room.'
'And if we've told you something is what it is, then it is!' said the Gibblet.
Alice tried to understand this but she couldn't.
Just then some heralds blew trumpets and called out:
'The Blue King is going to make an announcement! The Blue King is going to make an announcement!'
This made the Scribes very excited and they all wrote down, 'The Blue King is going to make an announcement.'
The Blue King stepped forward and said, 'I have good news. This year there will be no more poor people.'
At this, everyone started clapping and cheering. Even the Scribes stopped writing for a moment to clap and cheer before getting back to the hard work of writing, 'There will be no more poor people.'
'Where will they go?' said Alice.
Everyone went very quiet.
Then the Gibblet said, 'the poor people won't be anywhere, because they can't be anywhere if they're not there.'
The Scribes loved that too and scribbled that down.
Alice looked at her hand. She wondered if by saying it's not there, it would disappear. Or, as she was feeling a bit hungry, if she said that a sandwich was in front of her, it would appear.
She was just about to try when...
[the manuscript ends here]
...The Blue Queen and the Gibblet wanted to show Alice something.
'This,' said the Blue Queen, 'is a glass-room. It's made of glass so we can see into it. We can see everything that's going on in there. '
'It looks nice,' said Alice, 'what do you do in there?'
'WE don't do anything in the glass-room,' hissed the Gibblet, 'We put children in the glass-room.'
'Why?' said Alice.
'To fill them up with knowledge, of course,' said the Gibblet.
Alice looked in to the glass-room. There were rows and rows of children in there but they didn't seem to be being filled up with knowledge. Alice was puzzled. She remembered from...where was it?...before she fell down the hole...that when she went to school, there was a person there they called a 'teacher'. In the glass-room, there was no teacher.
'Excuse me,' said Alice, 'isn't there supposed to be a teacher in the glass-room?'
'There is a teacher in the glass-room,' said the Blue Queen.
'There is a teacher in the glass-room,' said the Gibblet.
Alice stared again. She didn't want to annoy them but she believed in saying true things. So she said, 'Where?'
'The teacher,' said the Blue Queen, 'is where the teacher is.'
'Very good,' said the Gibblet, 'exactly. The teacher is where the teacher is because the teacher couldn't be where the teacher is not.'
'We're not running out, you know,' said the Blue Queen.
'I didn't think you were running anywhere,' said Alice.
'No, no, no,' said the Blue Queen, 'we're not running out of teachers. We've got loads of them.'
'Loads of them,' repeated the Gibblet.
'But not actually here. In this Glass-room,' said Alice.
'We've told you,' said the Blue Queen, 'there is a teacher in the glass-room.'
'And if we've told you something is what it is, then it is!' said the Gibblet.
Alice tried to understand this but she couldn't.
Just then some heralds blew trumpets and called out:
'The Blue King is going to make an announcement! The Blue King is going to make an announcement!'
This made the Scribes very excited and they all wrote down, 'The Blue King is going to make an announcement.'
The Blue King stepped forward and said, 'I have good news. This year there will be no more poor people.'
At this, everyone started clapping and cheering. Even the Scribes stopped writing for a moment to clap and cheer before getting back to the hard work of writing, 'There will be no more poor people.'
'Where will they go?' said Alice.
Everyone went very quiet.
Then the Gibblet said, 'the poor people won't be anywhere, because they can't be anywhere if they're not there.'
The Scribes loved that too and scribbled that down.
Alice looked at her hand. She wondered if by saying it's not there, it would disappear. Or, as she was feeling a bit hungry, if she said that a sandwich was in front of her, it would appear.
She was just about to try when...
[the manuscript ends here]
Saturday, 2 January 2016
"Reading is improving" - is it?
This is part of a discussion that has gone on elsewhere (at David Didau's blog). The phonics community are claiming that the Year 2 assessments made by teachers show that the new curriculum of compulsory phonics teaching every day for KS1, is causing reading to improve.
I am querying that on several grounds:
1. To show that something is 'improving' you have to compare 'like with like'.
2. Are the tests administered over time, the same, so that like can be compared with like?
3. What constitutes 'reading' in the context of these tests? Is it a) 'reading out loud' b) comprehension c) both? If both, is it in the same proportions across all tests?
4. Are the tests standardised? In other words are teachers in one place using the same test as being used somewhere else? If not, then the test scores can't be 'aggregated'.
5. I have no problem with teacher-led assessment so long as we understand what it's good for and what it's not so good for. It can be good for teachers trying to understand where pupils are at. It can be good for pupils who are trying to understand where they're at - so long as that conversation takes place.
6. If you put schools under the threat of closure, take-over, humiliation and punishment, then teacher-led assessment becomes a problem. This is not to accuse teachers of doing wrong. The 'wrong' is the external force acting on schools in a punitive and politicised way. In other words, teacher-led assessment in this context becomes less about helping teaching and learning and more about how to fit the bill, satisfy those external punitive requirements.
7. In the context of finding out whether children are improving their reading - supposedly because one kind of programme has been brought in, this is yet another reason to query a finding claiming to prove that reading is improving.
I am querying that on several grounds:
1. To show that something is 'improving' you have to compare 'like with like'.
2. Are the tests administered over time, the same, so that like can be compared with like?
3. What constitutes 'reading' in the context of these tests? Is it a) 'reading out loud' b) comprehension c) both? If both, is it in the same proportions across all tests?
4. Are the tests standardised? In other words are teachers in one place using the same test as being used somewhere else? If not, then the test scores can't be 'aggregated'.
5. I have no problem with teacher-led assessment so long as we understand what it's good for and what it's not so good for. It can be good for teachers trying to understand where pupils are at. It can be good for pupils who are trying to understand where they're at - so long as that conversation takes place.
6. If you put schools under the threat of closure, take-over, humiliation and punishment, then teacher-led assessment becomes a problem. This is not to accuse teachers of doing wrong. The 'wrong' is the external force acting on schools in a punitive and politicised way. In other words, teacher-led assessment in this context becomes less about helping teaching and learning and more about how to fit the bill, satisfy those external punitive requirements.
7. In the context of finding out whether children are improving their reading - supposedly because one kind of programme has been brought in, this is yet another reason to query a finding claiming to prove that reading is improving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)