To Set Or Not To Set, That Is The Question

There has been a lot of debate on social media recently, particularly from mathematics teachers, about the pros and cons of setting classes by ability for their subject. I have weighed in a little but thought I'd get my thoughts down in writing, from the point of view of someone who has almost exclusively taught in schools that set, but has some experience of mixed ability.

Self-Esteem Issues With Setting
There's no denying that setting can have a negative (for those in bottom sets) or positive (for those in top sets) impact on self-esteem. This is certainly not desirable and however a school, department or whatever dress up sets, the students invariably work out where they stand in the ability "league table", which is ultimately what setting is doing, and this can affect their self-esteem. However, in a mixed ability class there will be some who understand the work very quickly and some who don't; surely this also has an affect on self-esteem too. To be the one or ones who always need extra help whilst seeing classmates race ahead must be equally as demoralising as being in the bottom set.

Perceptions of Setting
"Being in the bottom set means that you only cover certain stuff and can only achieve certain exam grades." Whilst this doesn't have to be true, it is the common belief of many students, parents and teachers. This, in my view, is the most damning thing about setting, but it is entirely down to perceptions, not the setting itself. The key to successful (if you can call it that) is that the sets are fluid and can change every half term on the basis of an assessment. This should ensure that the set are all starting at approximately the same point and can progress accordingly, allowing the teacher to target the learning and progression more accurately. Parents often like setting, especially when their child is in the top set, although possibly not so much when their child is in the bottom set. What people (students and parents) don't like about sets is that they can often be stuck for a relatively long time in an inappropriate set; this is why regular assessment and fluidity between sets is crucial. The other thing that is key is that there should be no ceiling on the learning and material on offer to any set. The bottom set should be able to access the same material as the top set if they can manage it. This is not to say that one should introduce differential calculus to bottom set Year 7 but don't write it off if their progress merits it! You will often hear the slightly cheesy phrase "glass ceiling" and for want of a better term, this should be the aim for everyone. Scaffolding "trickier" topics is the job of the teacher to enable all to reach a similar point by the end.

Perceptions of Mixed Ability
Those who believe in mixed ability are, in my experience, pretty vociferous about it. My experience of it was reasonably painful in the early part of my teaching career. At that stage of my career I did exactly what I was told as I knew no better or were yet to form an opinion, but I had to essentially produce three lesson for one to challenge all students in the class. With experience I wouldn't do it this way again but the issue remains similar if not the same: some students will fly with the work whilst some will not go quite so quickly. Keeping everyone challenged is the main issue. Parents also don't understand mixed ability so well, wondering why their "genius" is in a class with "non-geniuses". This can be explained and ultimately the parents should accept the school/teachers' judgement but increasingly parents are becoming bolder and are being encouraged to question that judgement by media/politicians. The positive is that everyone is exposed to every part of the curriculum, without fail, which is great as long as everyone understands it and doesn't feel left behind.

So Which Is Better?
Neither is the short answer to that question. Every system of placing children into classes will have a positive effect on some and a negative effect on others. There are classroom resources that cater for all systems but none are perfect. The key is that in whichever system is employed there shouldn't be a limit on progress imposed; the teacher's job is to ensure that all students reach their potential (before anyone says anything, no-one can reach beyond their potential).

The Chinese Are Coming To Save Us! Or Are They?

In a desperate bid to make British children better at maths the DfE, via Liz Truss, have decided to jet in 60 Chinese mathematics teachers to run maths classes in 30 "maths hubs", whatever they are. The story from the BBC website is here: click me!

I can see numerous business leaders and politicians breathing a huge sigh of relief that we will finally have a numerate generation ready for employment and a set of Pisa results that can be boasted about around the world. On second thoughts, business leaders aren't that stupid and surely can't believe that these 60 visitors from the East will make any difference whatsoever; politicians, however, are stupid enough to believe that this will work despite being told otherwise by various people (read the comments on the BBC article).

So why won't it work? Why the negativity?

I shall answer the second question first, as it's quick and simple:
This is just the latest in a long running campaign to denigrate the current teaching profession in the UK. For a while now ministers from the DfE have stated in various speeches to anyone who will listen that we need top graduates in teaching, and mathematics is one of those subjects where there are relatively few top graduates working as teachers. This because mathematics top graduates are like rocking horse poo (rare, if you're unsure) and get snapped up on big wages, that schools can't really afford to compete with, by industry. And anyway, would a top graduate really be the best person to get algebra across to a stroppy bunch of teenagers? Probably not, as the aforesaid top graduate won't be able to understand why these teenagers struggle to see the point of "letters in maffs". All the government are currently doing is ensuring that no-one will really want to become a maths teacher and the crisis will build in schools from what is already a critical state.

So now we move onto why flying in 60 maths teachers from Shanghai is frivolous at best:
What ministers fail to realise is that the results from certain provinces in China aren't truly representative; statistics are doctored to show them in their best light, something that politicians, particularly those from the DfE are well practiced in. What ministers, and clearly Ms Truss also fail to acknowledge, is that the learning culture of Chinese students is completely different to that of UK students. I'm not saying that UK students shouldn't be like their Chinese contemporaries, but the fact is that they aren't and are highly unlikely to change due to a guest speaker from Shanghai. The consequences of not doing well in maths in China is poverty and starvation; the consequences in Britain is the entitlement to endless benefits which allow you to have much of what you desire without any personal outlay. The incentive to succeed in maths is just not there in the UK. So no matter what these Chinese teachers, very good they may well be, if the horse doesn't want to drink, forcing its head under water will be pointless and will likely end up in a four-lettered tirade towards the guest. Until attitudes towards mathematics change in the UK, the DfE may as well save on the air fares.

This is yet another example of pigheadedness from a DfE minister designed to fool the public into believing that they actually care about anyone but themselves in the run up to a general election. Fortunately, I think that the general public have been under-estimated by ministers and they can see through their smoke and mirrors; at least I hope they can.

Maths Teachers Are Rubbish

In his latest assault on the teaching profession, the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw claims that maths teachers are letting all children down. The school system is so focused on the C grade that the best mathematicians are not being stretched, those who fall behind early in their educational career are just left to flounder, and exams are getting easier.

As a maths teacher I would like to try to justify, maybe defend, the maths teacher's predicament.

1. C grade being a Holy Grail - whose fault is this? Ofsted's, the very body Sir Michael heads. Schools are judged on their A* to C grade percentage, and for some reason the government and public seem to think that Ofsted know what they are talking about. Smell the coffee people, Ofsted don't have a clue what they are on about. The quango is made up of failed and ex-teachers who have little idea how modern classrooms work. Wilshaw himself has had success at a local level, but that's because he got rid of people who didn't toe his line. That's the path the Children's Minister told me our school should go down, and is easy to do on a local level, but what they all forget is that the children have to go somewhere. They can't be left to roam the streets surely.
2. Those children who fall behind are always going to flounder, because if they struggle with the basics, they are going to struggle with the tougher stuff - obvious, no? Not everyone can get a C grade (a pass in real terms), or the pass mark would have to be raised. This government, and in that breath I include Ofsted, who although apparently independent, are just a government vehicle, are fixated on getting everyone a C grade or higher. It's not going to happen I'm afraid - some people just aren't very good at maths. Fact! Not the teachers' fault.
3. Exams are easier - not the teachers' fault either.Government have allowed exam boards to be privatised, which has led to exam boards trying to attract customers. The more A* to C grades candidates achieve, the more customers you have, the more money you make. Simples.

The "celebrity" mathematician Alex Bellos was on BBC Breakfast this morning and hit the nail firmly on the head when he said something along the lines of:

The problem with maths in this country is cultural. People are happy to say that they are rubbish at maths, but they would never admit to not being able to read.

Spot on Alex - not teachers' fault! Wilshaw - shut up you idiot!

Over Half Of Adults Are Poor At "Maths"

Would you openly advertise that you couldn't read or write? Very few will. But people will openly admit to not being able to do "maths". A report by a new group called National Numeracy claims that just under half of adults have the numeracy skills expected of an 11 year old and only about a fifth of adults are capable of gaining a C grade at GCSE.

The body is unfortunately fronted by Carol Vorderman who is not only awful but also knows absolutely nothing about education beyond her personal experience as a student. The report does have a point though, and is absolutely correct when it says that being poor at maths is a "badge of honour" and a "British disease". Celebrities are cited, even named and shamed as openly admitting to being awful at maths, usually followed by a laugh on a chat show. I invited our local MP into school recently and he even asked why we we bothered with algebra, which is like asking why you need bricks to build a house, which is encouraging!

Once again the kicking of the teaching profession begins - all students should be enthused when it comes to mathematics, despite clear and obvious parental/family influence to hate the subject. The government has repeatedly said in the recent past that they would like all students to continue with mathematics until the age of 18, for no other reason than other countries do it. I want an ipad2 because loads of my friends have one, but it won't make me any more efficient as a person, in fact it may well lead me to neglect other areas of my life. Totally pointless.

Maths teachers are under-qualified and lack the knowledge to enthuse and stretch their students, apparently. The desire of both government and National Numeracy is to get the top graduates, those with first class or upper second class degree to become teachers. Good luck with that - quality mathematicians are few and far between and will almost certainly be offered (and accept) jobs that pay far more than that of a teacher, and could well be less stressful. Those who do end up teaching (it sounds worryingly like the bum deal, doesn't it?) are perfectly well qualified to stretch the students and make the subject accessible. Politicians are dreaming if they think that teaching is currently a desirable profession.

The problem is that the politicians (people who talk about stuff, but actually do very little) are targetting the wrong people. Those they need to target are the pupils, their families and their attitude towards maths rather than the teachers and the curriculum. The curriculum is essentially fine, although the questions could be more geared to real-life situations i.e a little more relevent. The problem is that many children refuse to even attempt the work despite the best efforts of their teachers, and this behaviour is condoned by all the parents of those children who immediately say at parents evening that they can't help because they are rubbish at the subject. Giving up in maths is seen as acceptable to everyone but a teacher.

My "solution":
Educate the parents as well as the children. I already teach an after-school course for parents at our school, but funding is limited and take up is relatively low. It needs to become an embarrassment to be poor at maths and those who should be getting the snide comments should be those who are poor mathematically rather than those who are good at the subject as currently happens. No-one wants to be embarrassed, so people need to be embarrassed when they have insufficient skills in the subject - it should force them to improve. Enough of the covering in cotton wool, these people need to know the truth.

There is another point to be made: I think that what the politicians mean is "numeracy" rather than "maths". Maths involves pretty complex stuff that you wouldn't necesarily expect most people to understand or use outside of the classroom, although you'd be surprised at the uses of some mathematics. Numeracy is a necessity for people to function efficiently in the real world - stuff like percentages and fractions of a numbers, estimation. No wonder so many people get into horrible debt (including some mathematicians!) if they don't understand the interest they pay (percentages) and how much they're spending (estimation). I had a conversation with a class with whom I was teaching linear graphs, when one child asked what they were used for. I suggested a profession as an example amongst many, to which a few said "Oh, I don't want to do anything like that, so I don't need to learn this".

When anyone asks me when they are going to use this in later life, I now have a standard reply, which is: "During your GCSE exam, which will lead you on to a job decent job, assuming that you get a decent grade".

Still, it's all their teachers' fault, not a dreadful national attitude towards the subject.

The Vorderman Report

Yes, you read that correctly, Carol Vorderman has penned a report for the government about the standard of mathematics teaching in England. The former Countdown co-presenter and owner of a 3rd class mathematics degree (a great CV to comment on teaching) describes the maths curriculum as "not fit for purpose".

Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds, my main issue is that a Z list celebrity has been recruited by those in charge to comment upon something they know precious little about. Her main finding are that England's mathematics provison is some way short of the likes of Hong Kong and perhaps alarmingly, Scotland.

The most sensible thing she does say, and I wholeheartedly agree with her about this, is that there should be two different mathematics qualifications available at GCSE level:

• "Academic" maths (as we currently have).
• "Lifestyle" maths (what has been called "functional" recently, but was integrated into the current "academic" qualification).

Vorderman bemoans the fact that only 15% of children go on to study maths beyond GCSE, but is that really any surprise? The step up from Key Stage 3 to Key Stage 4 maths is marked, and with the well-publicised dumbing down of GCSEs in a desperate government attempt to make it appear that standards were rising, the step from GCSE to AS or A Level is ever widening and this must discourage young people from opting to take the subject.

Part of the problem is also the fact that many students are just simply not interested and those who may have an interest are put off due to peer group pressure not to like the subject when they may actually have some talent in it. The option for people to take a "lifestyle" maths course instead of the "academic" one could actually see some benefit. The number of times as a maths teacher I have fielded the question "when am I ever going to use this in real life?", I would run out of fingers and toes within a week. No matter how many examples you come up with for the use of a mathematical concept in the outside world, the students tend to have an answer that gives them an excuse to avoid work. For example:
Me: "Algebra is used all the time nowadays - Excel uses it and if you are self-employed you are likely to use that when doing your accounts"
Student: "I'll pay someone to do my accounts for me."

But what does Scotland do so differently to England as far as mathematics is concerned?

Apparently Scottish students are able to "progress at their own speed".  The report also suggests that all students study maths up to the age of 18, which could be purgatory for teachers with some particularly challenging students, but it may allow more time for the penny to drop with some students, so careful setting would be required in schools so that those who are less keen don't encourage those who have potential to give up.

These reviews are all well and good but it appears that no teachers were consulted as to their thoughts (why change the habit of a lifetime?), and any changes to the curriculum will require schools to spend a lot of money on new resources just a few years after the curriculum was changed and lots of money was spent. The constant tinkering with mathematics may have to bear some of the blame for the perceived low standards as teachers may not know whether they are coming or going. Maybe this needs investigating.

Get me Katie Price's number, I need a report compiled.