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.

The Problem With Top Graduates...

The government has been on about attracting more top graduates into teaching for a while now. They've offered bursaries (see here), expanded the remit of the teaching recruitment charity Teach First to allow it to recruit greater numbers (see here), and made various announcements that have been lapped up by the media of varying quality (Telegraph, Independent, Mirror, Daily Mail to link just a few). A simple search online will unearth hundreds more articles I have no doubt, if you can be bothered that is.

The requirement to actually have a qualification to teach in the state schools of England has been relaxed in the most favoured types of school for the Department for Education, namely academies and free schools. The qualification requirement has never been compulsory in private/public schools, the type of school that a high proportion of MPs attended, or in the case of my local MP, wish they'd attended. Now you may say that if it's worked in private and public schools, what's the problem? They get great results that state schools could get after all. It's a question of intake, student motivation and support from home that is a major difference my friends. Anyway, that's a separate point; what I wanted to cover is the myth regarding top graduates.

There are a few subjects that have been highlighted by DfE ministers and other MPs on programmes like Question Time that really ought to have top graduates teaching the youth of today; namely mathematics and science. You could throw "new subject" computer science into that mix too, as you are either very good at it and therefore probably did it at university; there is no middle ground with computer science: either you're brilliant or you're crap. I'm the latter.

At A Level and Degree I couldn't agree more that maths and science could do with being taught by top graduates, although they need not be the be all and end all. Teaching of those courses is to children who have chosen to take those subjects and already have an deep-seated interest in the subject. They not only want to know how to do something, they want to know why it works that way; something that a top graduate can explain with ease, whilst others would possibly have to do a little research. So, dear DfE and those in expensive suits in Westminster, feel free to attract top graduates for those posts, but don't disregard others. You will have to dangle numerous carrots in front of these high flyers to divert their attention from the lucrative careers that top mathematicians and scientists have traditionally entered. It might help if DfE press releases and various Ofsted employees didn't consistently criticise teachers in the media too. I digress again...

My main query is whether a top graduate really is the best type of person to teach maths and science to disinterested children who have no choice but to be there and just want to get the minimum grade in order to never have to sit through a lesson again? Unfortunately with a total lack of interest in the subject, the likelihood of achieving that grade is minimal. These students need to be taught in a different way. Empathy with the inability to understand a concept first time around is hugely helpful. A top graduate in their subject will invariably have found most, if not all of their subject pretty straightforward. The trouble is this means that our much lauded top graduates will get increasingly frustrated as their charges fail to grasp covalent bonds or simultaneous equations. A teacher who was not a top graduate probably won't have found everything easy, and can therefore understand the frustrations.

If you couple this lack of empathy for a  student's woes with a lack of any teacher training or qualification then the recipe is potentially disastrous. If there's one thing that my PGCE did teach me it was different strategies for dealing with classes, mainly through teaching placements admittedly, but without it I would have floundered even more than I actually did in my NQT year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that top graduates couldn't empathise, they are just less likely to understand. So Mr Gove, DfE, Sir Michael and the various other political types who drone on and on about top graduates, they may not actually be the answer to all your problems!

From the ridiculous to the paradoxical

Now whatever you think of the Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove and/or his politics, you have to admit that he's probably pretty clever, what with being an Oxbridge graduate etc. He is being somewhat careless and forgetful at the moment I would suggest.

Why is this?

I shall explain.

Last week he announced that teacher training requirements are going to be made tougher (Click here to read the BBC article) so that the requirements for those wishing to embark on teacher training must pass tests in maths, English and "reasoning" (whatever that may be). They will get two chances to pass, and if they fail to do so they will not be allowed on the course. Where's the problem with that then? Well on it's own there is no problem, and no teacher will ever argue that there is. The only quibble one could have is that many of the skills that these tests will examine haven't been used for a long time, especially the maths ones, and the equivalent GCSE grade would be B, so not overly simple. Currently teacher trainees take the test during their qualification period and can seek help on it.

The problem is that in July, just 3 months ago, Michael relaxed the rules on teaching qualifications for those wishing to work in a free school or academy (Click here to see the BBC article), meaning that people without any qualifications can teach in those types of school.

Confused? Me too. In one breath he want more rigorous testing of teachers, and in the next breath he wants to allow unqualified teachers to practice.

Conspiracy theorists have suggested that Michael is using this as a smokescreen to get more people from industry into teaching and the increased difficulty of the training programme will mean less competition for those with no qualifications. Schools have to fill teaching posts, and if the only people who apply are not qualified, what choice does a school have?

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory particularly, although I see where it's come from. I just think that all the reforms that Michael's trying to cram in before his party gets voted out of government or he gets sacked have confused him, meaning that the backside has no idea what the elbow is doing. In other words, he's making it up as he goes along.

Gove's seemingly perpetual digs at the teaching profession just show how much he dislikes the people he leads. His policies have undermined education in the England (other parts of the UK are sensibly now opting out of Michael's reforms), as although there may have been the occasional decent idea, much of the educational policy emanating from Whitehall has been hogwash and designed to undermine teachers' rights.

The good thing is that it does appear that he has finally lost his marbles and therefore he can't be far from losing his job. The problem is that he has possibly inflicted irreparable damage on the teaching profession. 

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!

Make Maths Workplace Relevant

This article appeared on the BBC website: Here!

I totally agree, the problem being that when we already do this sort of stuff (it's not a new idea) most of the kids will say "I'm never going to do that kind of job". I had over half of my Year 9s claim that they would never work in a office the other week.

Essentially it boils down to child apathy and/or laziness. It doesn't matter what you do, many of the kids can't be bothered, simple as that. Make the curriculum more relevent, they say, but as so few children have any idea or inclination about what to do once they leave school, a lot of money, time and effort will be wasted rewriting the curriculum only for it to be slated by public and politicians alike.

A lose/lose situation.

Help! I'm In Maths

Not a phrase you are liekly to hear at the moment, apparently. An "extensive" survey of 1000 students between the ages of 10 and 16 was carried out that stated the following:

1. Most students would rather struggle alone than ask for help for fear of looking foolish.
2. The older a student, the less likely they are to answer a question aloud.
3. Girls are far less likely to contribute in maths lessons.
4. Those who are good at maths don't like showing that they are good for fear of being persecuted as a result.

Is any of this surprising? Not really because maths is considered a "geek" subject, and what do people do to geeks? Take the mickey out of them, or a fair proportion of the population do anyway.

Maths is not something British people readily admit to liking or having talent in. Many parents, if not most will open a parents evening appointment with the line "I was terrible at maths when I was young", or words to that effect. What they are doing is excusing their child's lack of work or effort due to them "not getting it" and the parents not helping.

Various "experts" , Carol Vorderman being one, are stating that the teaching of maths needs to change. As a maths teacher I could throw a cat among the pigeons by saying "I don't get it" and asking Carol to stand in front of a group of Year 11s and deliver this new, engaging curriculum. I can guarantee that she would turn a shade of green and run as far as she can.

I agree that much of the maths syllabus seems irrelevent, but in some jobs quadratic equations are essential, along with other areas of maths that appear of no use. I thought that the idea of education was to keep as many professional doors open for children. It's an accusation that could be levelled at any subject - I don't ever remember having to describe what happens to sodium when I put it in water, apart from now of course. No-one questions science though.

The main problem that maths teachers face is a national attitude towards the subject that it is generally useless in real life and therefore why try?

The curriculum may need to change, but the focus should be on attitude, of both children and parents.

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.

Teach Maths Up To 18

The latest bright idea from Michael Gove, who seems to have a new policy for each period of 24 hours that he remains in the job of Secretary of State for Education is to teach most student maths until they are 18 years old. Gove apparently said that he found it "bizarre" that the vast majority of children in Britain have never even heard of calculus.

This is the brainchild and thinking of someone who is so far removed from the classroom that he may as well be holed up in a cold war bunker somewhere in Hertfordshire. Although I agree that many students forget very quickly the mathematics they were taught in schools, there are fundamental flaws in the idea that most young people should continue studying mathematics for a further two years beyond the age of 16.

The flaws are, in my view, below:

1. There aren't enough decent, or even part-decent maths teachers to teach most children mathematics up to the age of 16, let alone 18. Even now some children aren't capable of sitting GCSE level maths and end up taking what is known as the Entry Level Certificate. This exam requires candidates to turn up with a writing implement and their fingers to aid calculation. It is an excuse for a qualification and part of the reason that the general public believes that standards are falling. The extra two years will require thousands of extra hours and therefore teachers, which in turn will require a lot more money at a time when budgets are being slashed.
2. For well over half of GCSE maths entrants, the finishing of their final GCSE exam can't come quick enough - a further two years would be (even more) purgatory, not only for the students, but also the people who have to attempt to teach them the blessed calculus lessons. If I had a pound for every time I was asked by a student "When am I ever going to use this in real life?" I wouldn't be bothered by the pension debate, I'd have been able to retire within a few years of embarking upon my teaching career. Students don't learn for the sake of it nowadays, they will only learn of there's something in it for them (a decent qualification is not a sufficient carrot). Calculus is not going to whet a lot of 18 year old appetites.
3. Where are all these extra classrooms going to come from? Infrastructure will be required in the form of, presumably, portacabins in which these extra lessons will be taught until more permanent structures are erected. More money.
4. Presumably the 18 year old students will need a qualification at the end of it - more money. And are those who got an E grade in their foundation GCSE going to be taking the exam? What would be the point? They couldn't even properly pass the GCSE, so what chance are they going to have on a new, potentially more difficult exam?

There are probably many more flaws to this policy, but they have escaped my notice for now.

The more Michael Gove opens his mouth, the more idiotic he seems. He has commissioned a review of the curriculum in general, which will almost certainly mean that all the new resources schools bought 2 or 3 years ago to cover the last "new curriculum" put forward by government will be totally useless, and thousands will need to be spent updating them.

Clueless!

The article is here!

Gambling Lessons

The latest bright idea from the Department of Education: lessons in gambling and the odds/probability of winning, or not as the case may be.

Genius - well done! That stuff is never covered in maths lessons after all, not that anyone has bothered to ask maths teachers around the country. During my teacher training I was first shown a worksheet or two on the topic, and have used or at the very least, discussed it when covering probability in class. In fact I purposely cover gambling and how the odds are stacked in favour of the bookies, casinos or bingo halls. The old phrase "you never see a poor bookmaker" springs to mind.

However the government clearly see this as a vote winner, and no doubt millions will be spent implementing this new "idea", with resources having to be written by expensive consultants, training having to be provided by expensive consultants, and then the printing/distribution of resources to all schools. All this will need paying for when maths departments up and down the country are perfectly capable of delivering what the resources they already have to hand.

The whole drive behind this new policy is that more and more people are apparently accruing mountains of debt with the numerous online gambling sites, from bingo to spread betting to poker, available to anyone who is prepared to hand over their bank details. Advertisements are all over the television for these sites, and one can't fail to think that there surely can't be a market for so many, but presumably there is as new sites seem to be advertised on almost a weekly basis.

In my opinion it's not the lack of understanding that more often than not you will end up losing money - I actually believe that the government underestimate the intelligence of much of the population (how much intelligence do you need to work out that you are unlikely to win?). The problem is two-fold:

1. The "Somebody's got to win, so why can't it be me?" attitude. This is fair enough, and is part of the reason that people have gambled away their earnings for hundreds and thousand of years.
2. "I want something for nothing". This is education's fault, or should I say, education policy-makers' fault. Students have left school with certificates oozing from every orifice for the last 15 or so years, many having not actually lifted so much as a finger to gain these "qualifications". In other words, school has taught them that they will be just fine whether they work or not, so when they can't get meaningful employment, they turn to gambling as a potential quick fix. Obviously not every young person leaves school with this attitude, but the fact that a record number of 18 to 24 year olds is currently unemployed would suggest that many are.

Gambling is a relatively healthy hobby, in moderation and kept within a gambler's means. The problem is that the more desperate one gets, the bigger the risks and the more they tend to lose. That is not a lack of understanding of gambling and the odds associated with it, that's looking for a quick fix. So why are we just about to waste millions of pounds implementing an expensive new policy that has been happening in classrooms up and down the land for years?

I'm not sure I'll ever understand those people up in Whitehall.

Teacher Bashing Season Is Open!

As the schools go back in September, so the non-teaching critics pipe up, usually at the behest of government ministers and their thirst for political points. This year is no different and it's maths teachers who are the focus of the seemingly bad press. I wasn't aware of this until I opened The Sunday Times to page 7 last weekend and saw the following headline: "Number of clueless maths pupils soars". It was accompanied by a picture of "celebrity mathematician" Carol Vorderman and two maths exam questions:

1. O-Level Maths 1979: "Prove that the internal bisector of any angle of a triangle divides the opposite side in the ratio of the sides containing the angle".
2. GCSE Maths 2010: "Write the number 50,000 in words".

Now I hate to be picky, and I regularly read what I would normally regard as a reasonable newspaper with well rounded and balanced articles, but I am very tempted to change my allegiances from now on. The article is the most shoddy piece of work I have ever read, and I have read the some shoddy stuff in my time.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that the two questions illustrated by the picture of our Carol are aimed at two totally different students. The O Level question is aimed at a high achieving student, maybe A or A* grade, possibly B at a stretch. The GCSE question is G grade, and no more. And let's face it, a G grade isn't worth the paper it's printed on in many cases (not all, I realise that for some, a G grade is an achievement, although ultimately useless). The newspaper's education correspondent, Jack Grimston, ought to have been pulled up on this by the editor.

I would also like to question the relevance in everyday life of bisecting the angle of a triangle so that it divides the opposite side in the ratio of the of the sides containing that angle. When is anyone ever likely to do this? They might be have to write the number 50,000 in words if they write a cheque though. Some of the billions of pounds spent on mathematics in the past 30 years has gone on making the curriculum more relevant and therefore accessible to the majority, meaning that less pupils are left in the cold by an irrelevant and archaic curriculum that Vorderman and Grimston clearly pine for.

A "specially devised test" on algebra, ratio, decimals and fractions was taken by 14 year old in 1979 and 2008/9 and the proportion of pupils getting level zero approximately doubled. Now this is probably a fair point but to lay the blame purely at the feet of maths teachers is unfair. Part of the reason for this increase in "cluelessness" is down to the fact that parents who struggled with maths at school pass their phobia onto their children. This means that numbers will increase and could go towards explaining the rise.

There's also the fact that governments over the past 30 years have taken away any powers teachers once had, and it is now nigh on impossible to get a student to work if they don't want to. I'm not calling for a return to corporal punishment, but it would be nice to feel as though I had some power in my classroom.

Vorderman does make a reasonable point towards the end of the article though when she says that those who struggle initially are thrown on the "scrapheap" to be taught predominantly by non-specialists. This doesn't happen in every school, but happens in most, and can be placed squarely at the feet of government once more, as they aim to cut budgets by making tiny little savings in some areas that have a huge effect on education in schools rather than saving a whopping £200 million per year plus by abolishing Ofsted and other pointless quangos that are remarkably still in existence. It's not fair on those students who are "taught" by non-maths teachers but schools often don't have a choice. The statements seem to suggest that those teachers don't really try, which in almost every case won't be true.

Apart from Vorderman a Professor Dame Julia Higgins, chair of the government's education committee is quoted as saying that we need to get more specialist maths teachers in schools, and she's absolutely correct. The problem is that teaching is becoming a genuinely unpleasant profession to be in, and most people who are competent at maths could earn more or the same in a different profession which almost certainly has a far more pleasant environment. It is for these reasons that poor maths teachers do get employed, because there aren't enough good ones to go around.

Maths teaching is not in any way desirable nowadays; many students don't want to learn the subject but are (rightly) forced to do so, however staff have zero comeback on a student who refuses to make any effort. The pressure on teachers to achieve unrealistic targets of C+ grades also makes many teaching positions untenable. Why do people who advise not actually try the job for a year or two before criticising those who do? Wasn't George Bernard Shaw who said "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach". Perhaps he should have added "Those who can't teach, advise".

I would agree that gaining a C grade is now a lot easier (political targets need to be met people), but it's still just as tough to get the top grades of A and A* and don't let anyone tell you different - the article claimed that an A grade now is equivalent to what a C grade was at O Level. That's harsh, and in my opinion wrong. C grades are now probably equivalent to about an E grade at O level, but you can't blame teachers for that. Government set targets, and grade boundaries are lowered in order to meet those targets. It's a badly kept secret in education.

The only way these sorts of comments from Vorderman and Higgins could be of any use is if it forces central government to put more money into education, but I reckon there'd be a snow day in Hell first.

Social Networking for Mathematicians

Do you know how he feels?