Forums

/ Subjects / Mathematics

Sorry, I was guilty of missing some of these gems.

weebecka:

 Because of all the strikes my school was shut a lot when she did this so I went to her lectures with her.  Of course the educational psychology taught was a mess, but what it did do was it started her and me talking about everything.

So, you are telling us that as a 8 or 9 year old you went to university lectures with your mother and had deep meaningful discussions with her on Educational Psychology? So either

a. the lectures were so dumbed down that you could understand them ( I doubt it )

b. your mother, as most mothers would, tolerated your questions and answered them as best she could ( perhaps )

c. another deliberate misinterpretation of an event where you went to some university lectures with your mother because you couldn't go to school, read a book or did some colouring in while the lecture was going on, and asked her what it was about afterwards and she mumbled something polite and pleasant ( most likely )

weebecka:

By the time I was in year 4 I was doing year 7 work.

I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that you were doing year 7 work in year 4. However there is no such thing as year 4 maths or year 7 maths. The only thing that changes is the depth and complexity of understanding. You can teach a 7 year old to differentiate if you so wish. It does not mean that the 7 year old knows what differentiation is. All they know is what the mechanical operation of differentiation is.

The question I would ask is what really was being learnt by the students? Mechanical operations or real understanding of mathematical operations?

weebecka:

  We had to do 6 projects, topics chosen by us.  Now this was a very powerful thing to do.

Why? I still don't understand why giving some students a free reign on projects is such a "powerful" thing to do. Was it because you were allowed to discover mathematics for yourself? Surely this is a daming indictment of the teaching that was going on in your school anyway as it left no room for individual discovery.

weebecka:

Meanwhile over in Cumbria

We all now know about Cumbria, thank you very much.

weebecka:

Many key characters came from here, for example Eric Love who went on to head up maths at the OU was head of maths at Wyndham.

So what? It doesn't mean anything. All it means was that he was a good administrator who managed to obtain a post with the OU. It doesn't tell us anything about his teaching, although the fact that the school was damned by Ofsted and closed down tells us a lot about how his department may have been operating.

weebecka:

These schools were not chaotic hippyfests Karvol.  They were very well organised, effective and highly respected school.

No they weren't. Stop deluding yourself. They were failures who were damning whole generations of children to underachievement. They deserved to be closed down.

Karvol:

Every single point or anecdote you make is a lie or a deliberate obfuscation. 

 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You ask me about schools in the 70s and then throw their results in 2010 at me to prove I'm lying?  Like I've concealed what's happened here in between!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is so scary about this line of discussion that you have to attack me to viciously rather than actually engage with the issues?

Obviously there are many people in the maths teaching community who can talk more extensively about some of these things.  For example if you go to any of main residentials you'll have met David Cain who's does the maths and music mass participations. (He's doing EF2 at ATM50).  

David use to be a composer for the BBC.  Between 1972and1974 he had a placement for the BBC as composor in residence at Ehenside, which was well know for it's music, especially it's brass band.  It was while he as at Ehenside that he was inpired to change career and be a maths teacher, because of the quality of the community of teachers and the vocational work which was going on at that time.

There are so many people around in maths teaching who were part of this community. 

Have you never met any of them Karvol?

 I asked you about the gems of pedagogical practice from the 70's and the only example was, literally, give the kids a book and let them get on with it.

It is not really all that ispirational now is it?

You made a big show and tell about all the mathematical learning and discovery going on in your classroom and your response is

 Sorry I haven't really done mathematical disocoveries by students yet.

Do you realise how damning a statement this is?

For a start it means that you compartmentalise the learning of mathematics. It also means that all that wonderful stuff you were saying about how students learnt in your classroom was not true. They really did not discover anything.

Again do you not see how damning a statement this is, that in so many years of teaching nothing of note, nothing mathematical was discovered by a single student?

weebecka:

Have you never met any of them Karvol?

Funnily enough, no. 

I have never taught in the state sector and I doubt whether many of them hang around international schools.

Karvol:

The Ofsted reports on those schools was quite clear.

The teachers were failing the students and had one dimensional teaching. The same strategy was used for all and there was chronic underachievement going on in the school. 

None of these schools got into trouble when they were well run Karvol.  The trouble began after years of being forced to teach according to very narrow targets and to focus on incremental, fragmented progression only.

You have to stand inside a school and compare the reality with the Ofsted report to have any insight into the reality of quite how wrong and destructive reports from such an ignorant system can be.

The Scots have enough complaints about their system where grading is banned and inspectors can't report on what's going on without actually having professional discussions with the people they are reporting on.  Heaven forbid that I might suggest even the tiniest mistake or lack of insight could possibly be made by an English inspector

Now DM, I know I'm losing because it's blindingly obvious that Karvol (and many others) either can't or won't have any insight into this.

Even though I was only arguing that some of the pedegogical strategies which thrived here were interesting and that it was worth considering whether they could be integrated into 21st century teaching without compromising the delivery of a robust curriculum!  Have me hung, drawn and quartered. 

Right.  Got to go to Wilkos.

Karvol:

 Sorry I haven't really done mathematical disocoveries by students yet.

Do you realise how damning a statement this is?

Er no.  I was just recognising that I hadn't covered everything you'd wanted me to in that particular post because I'd run out of time and offering to come back to it later.

Ooooops, did I not understand that I need to be damned again!  My apologies.