to be horrified at the behaviour in bohunt school

[SEsofty]

Just watched the programme about Chinese teachers in uk. Whilst I appreciate that it is reality tv and thus exaggeration for effect I was still horrified with the apparent number of children who were talking in class.

I'm not that accident and went to a very normal school but talking whilst teacher did simply didn't happen. I don't agree with the Chinese methods but talking whilst someone is trying to teach you is simply rude.

I don’t understand why in a democracy the idea that teachers should believe in potential of all students and teach them at the same pace, at least in primary school, rather than pontificating that children are not created equal is so controversial. This ideology is routed in the class system and has no place in 21 century. We are talking about basic maths that other countries are teaching to their students successfully.

Were the lessons boring though? Or were they just unadorned with distracting, time consuming add-ons. There was stuff to be learned on the board and the teachers knew their stuff. If the pupils got into a mindset of wanting to learn, wanting knowledge for its own sake then they wouldn't expect teachers to behave like show ponies in order to find material interesting.

I skimmed through the report and skipped some of the daunting polemic about press releases. I tried to ask the questions: what the data do tell, what they don’t tell and why.

The Mastery treatment used in the trial is not an adaptation of the Chinese method by the teachers, as I thought, but a toolkit of materials prepared by a private company. (ups)

This means that the results reflect on the toolkit, rather than on the method in principle and its potential benefits with a better implementation. Those privately developed materials are not necessarily the best and last word in assessing the merits of the Method. They need improving. “The overall conclusion is an indirect criticism of the Toolkit”, states the critique.

The Mastery treatment didn’t involve a different teaching style, just different content, the teachers were not trained for long and it is difficult to ascertain whether they engaged with the method. So if the teaching style was suboptimal for introverted or visual learners, or for less able students, the Mastery method would not have removed the problem. The analysis shows that the effect of the statistical significance of the benefit of the method is smaller than that of a learning style. As I said earlier in the thread, serious research is need with regards to learning style and trials should be controlled for learning style and ability.

1. The data show that with the Mastery system, a limited initial experiment, presumably well controlled, showed better results as illustrated in the graph. This initial basis to start the experiment is good and I would take it for my child.

2. Scaling up the experiment to many schools involved paying a fee to a private company, training the teachers afresh, buying the new to those teachers materials and basically having the teething problems and political polemic inside the experiment, like at Bohunt school. There ought to be some variation and some cultural issues that might pollute the results. I would really start the randomised trial only involving the Mastery trained teachers with several years of experience with the Mastery method and materials. Then you would have sufficient control of control variables in order not to compromise the results…

I understand that the actual Mastery training and materials are from a private company with some American connection. In order to participate, the schools should have paid some £6000 fee and/or the cost of training and materials to that company. There was even a suggestion that this private company would become a permanent feature, resulting in small ongoing cost of £127 per pupil per year, implying privatisation of education and the controversy that comes with it.
So the political context and the resulting resistance to the idea amongst teachers might be quite significant and driven by all sorts of factors nothing to do with the pupils learning. The critique states that “it is not possible to determine the extent to which schools adhered to the prescribed programme. “

Ideally you should have state controlled training and materials to pilot a reform in state education, I would think… Maybe I am misunderstanding, I am sorry, I didn’t try to understand some of the details…

3. So, with all those poorly controlled variables, the results shown overall small improvement of the average attainment of an average student with the Mastery system after a year. The advantage of 1 or 2 months over a school year. Not huge, but nothing wrong with that. I would take it too. 2 months over 13 years is 26 months, which corresponds to the claims that the Chinese students are 3 years ahead…

4. The question is what do those averages mean? The stated purpose of the Mastery system is to not leave anyone behind, to advance in one front. In that case the average attainment of an average student in theory should mean nearly no student performed much worse than that average and they did better than control by 1-2 months… I would take this any time.

5. But yes, unfortunately the data do not decisively prove or disprove that because of questionable materials and poorly controlled implementation. The results reflect poor trial design and political context. So the 95% confidence interval showing the difference between the Mastery group and the control includes zero, which means one could statistically argue there might be no difference overall in pace of the averages. The Mastery system as implemented by the controversial trial did not progress significantly faster than the control, but qualitatively, directionally faster.

Even if the trial did not conclusively prove that, the method that has a potential to improve outcomes for many DC is worth piloting further.
Mainly it shows that the results are encouraging, the private provider aspect and political controversy needs to be taken out of the trial to generate reliable data, that a broader, better controlled trial is needed. What’s not to like?

I just skimmed it, because I feel the big picture is this:

The main advantage of the Mastery method is in not leaving students behind while advancing at an overall similar or faster pace than the current method. I think it is a good thing and worth trying (unless I want to protect the advantage my DC could enjoy in the top set). Of course it needs better design and harder trying from the teachers and removal of private supplier thing. Why not?

"I don’t understand why in a democracy the idea that teachers should believe in potential of all students and teach them at the same pace, at least in primary school, rather than pontificating that children are not created equal is so controversial"

But we're not talking about primary school are we? And if they were all taught at the same pace, how do you decide what pace? My dd, for example, was in set 5 of 7. She would have been utterly miserable and failed in set 1. Her friend would have been utterly miserable and probably failed because of sheer boredom in her set.

I have to say I watched a bit of the first episode but as soon as the kids start speaking rudely to the teachers I have to switch off as it makes me cringe so much. I think because I'm imagining how my high school teachers would have reacted to being spoken to like that. We'd have been murdered back in the 70s/80s! Anyone else find these sorts of programmes hard to watch?

You can't treat you pupil with an IQ of 70 the same way as one with an IQ of 135 - it is unfair to both. Brains also work in different ways.

Nonsense, the practical difference in relation to school maths is minor. Similar statements could be made about black people, wemen, you name it. The Chinese and Europeans do just that (educate in the same way) successfully. You just need to respect the complex and flexible potential of the human brain. Just believe in your pompous statements of idividuality, rather than dividing people into strata of those who desserve and don't desserve...

The Chinese methods takes no account of individuals - it says they are all the same, you fill them with knowledge and they regurgitate it. this is just an ethically questionable stereotype being put forward every time to distract from the main issues and fact that in UK with the current method we are less successful at teaching maths than the systems that use the method similar to the Chinese.

Do you realise that most of the world, and most of Europe use the same structured method as in China? The Finns, the Germans, the Belgians, the Dutch - they are all doing well in league tables too. How do you think the Poles are educated? British employers do not seem to have problems with their skills, creativity and individuality.

There is nothing to 'regirgitate' in relation to maths problem solving, it is a flexible skill if taught properly.

I remember an article about GCSE maths at the Manchester Grammar school that implied that with the current method of teaching maths to GCSE, it is the British pupils that are rote-learning and regurgitating limited examples without being able to approach more diverse and complex problems. This ideology is not helping anyone.

"Just believe in your pompous statements of idividuality, rather than dividing people into strata of those who desserve and don't desserve...

What on earth do you mean by that? It so happens that all 7 sets at my dd's school were expected to get As and A* (and a couple of Bs) but they were taught very differently to get there.

Maybe I am not reading it properly, but is the gist like my post of this morning, where my mother had to be bored stiff in 1929 for the common good so that everyone is equal?
What would you do when the enter school aged 4/5 able to add in their head? Do they have to learn numbers with the majority?
Does everyone have to equal so that the pupil who wants to be an actor needs the same level of maths as one who wants to be an actuary?

You haven't answered my question Vanilla- have you taught maths to a mixed ability class of 30.

Are these children supposed be robots where the teacher dictates his/her lessons and they regurgitate it later and all get top marks?

Here is the description of the method from the analysis:

What is Maths Mastery?

According to the NCETM (October 2014) the mastery approach in mathematics is characterised by certain common principles:

‘Teachers reinforce an expectation that all pupils are capable of achieving high standards in mathematics.

• The large majority of pupils progress through the curriculum content at the same pace. Differentiation is achieved by emphasising deep knowledge and through individual support and intervention.

• Teaching is underpinned by methodical curriculum design and supported by carefully crafted lessons and resources to foster deep conceptual and procedural knowledge.

• Practice and consolidation play a central role. Carefully designed variation within this builds fluency and understanding of underlying mathematical concepts in tandem.

• Teachers use precise questioning in class to test conceptual and procedural knowledge, and assess pupils regularly to identify those requiring intervention so that all pupils keep up.

The intention of these approaches is to provide all children with full access to the curriculum, enabling them to achieve confidence and competence – ‘mastery’ – in mathematics, rather than many failing to develop the maths skills they need for the future.’

The NCETM paper itemises six key features, as:

• Curriculum design: Relatively small, sequenced steps which must each be mastered before learners move to the next stage. Fundamental skills and knowledge are secured first and these often need extensive attention.

• Teaching resources: A ‘coherent programme of high-quality teaching materials’ supports classroom teaching. There is particular emphasis on ‘developing deep structural knowledge and the ability to make connections’. The materials may include ‘high-quality textbooks’.

• Lesson design: Often involves input from colleagues drawing on classroom observation. Plans set out in detail ‘well-tested methods’ of teaching the topic. They include teacher explanations and questions for learners.

• Teaching methods: Learners work on the same tasks. Concepts are often explored together. Technical proficiency and conceptual understanding are developed in parallel.

• Pupil support and differentiation: Is provided through support and intervention rather than through the topics taught, particularly at early stages. High attainers are ‘challenged through more demanding problems which deepen their knowledge of the same content’. Issues are addressed through ‘rapid intervention’ commonly undertaken the same day.

• Productivity and practice: Fluency is developed from deep knowledge and ‘intelligent practice’. Early learning of multiplication tables is expected. The capacity to recall facts from long term memory is also important.

‘Instead, countries employing a mastery approach expose almost all of the children to the same curriculum content at the same pace, allowing them all full access to the curriculum by focusing on developing deep understanding and secure fluency with facts and procedures, and providing differentiation by offering rapid support and intervention to address each individual pupil’s needs.’

Of course brains work in different ways!
I am a visual learner and I have to see things. My mother has a cryptic crossword type of mind and she pulls a maths answer out of nowhere- it is generally right but she can't give workings. I am not going to give all the different learning styles but there are too many to list.

So have you actually taught like that Vanilla?

At one point my dyslexic son was being kept in at school to learn his French spellings. I rang up to point out that they could keep him in every break until Christmas but he still wouldn't get them right, he couldn't spell in English.
Some children are like that with numbers. A friend was saying only the other day that she always thought she was stupid but her numbers jump around and she can't even copy a phone number without covering all numbers except the one she is copying.
All brains are not the same.

CarlaJones pupils were disruptive in our lessons in 70s and 80s. Not the same level of chatting back to the teachers as though they are minions and the pupils entitled princes and princesses, but deeply disruptive all the same. There were loads of practical jokes: buckets of water or full waste paper bins propped on top of the door; tacks on their seats - real Beano stuff. And some teachers were treated vilely. I met a woman at a party once who told me our class was the reason she failed her teacher training. I remember her begging everyone to behave for just this one lesson as her examiner was in. The pupils who were disruptive were really quiet and civil at first and let her get confident then went awol, climbing out of windows, throwing stuff at each other. She was very very bitter about it.

I know lots of people will shout me down but my experience of state education is the reason my DC go private.

We messed around and were disruptive in about 5-10% of lessons, but not at all in the rest as the teachers had good control, but we didn't answer back as rudely as I've seen on some of the programmes. I saw a child tell a teacher to fuck off on one of "Educating. ." programmes and it was ignored.

I think kids who were born in the 70s on the whole just learned from an early age that answering back was never going to end well.

Evaluating Shanghai test scores from the Economist.
I think we should at least have like with like- and we don't take the top third of our schools and miss out those pupils newly arrived from elsewhere with English as a second language.

Ah yes, the truth about Shanghai's PISA results
Meanwhile some of the brightest of Shanghai’s migrant children have dim prospects for social advancement, due to their choice of parents. The training centre I visited in Shanghai gives young migrants a sobering message that shows how irrelevant the city’s impressive PISA scores are to their lives: “Don’t complain about things that you can’t change.”

I wonder how the UK would compare if the only State schools entered for PISA were the London superselectives .....

Finland making radical changes They want education fitted for 21st century.

Absolutely fascinating information on the Chinese schools system and Shanghai in particular here

It is quite clear that students with IQs of 60 through the top are not taught together. They are not set with in the school because they can't get into an elite school without selection. Even then they can't all keep up and they use private tutors and attend crammers.

They all go from primary to lower secondary and they need tests to get into the 'right' lower secondary. They don't all go to the upper secondary and they often leave school aged 15yrs.

In addition teachers are only in the classroom for about 40% of the time. I can't see that happening here! Way too expensive.

Shanghai leads and the rest follow and they are already seeing that the lecture and regurgitate is too narrow.

Estimated that 80% of Shanghai pupils have private tutors BBC news
Of course you can have large classes if the pupil goes home and gets filled in with what they didn't get in the lesson.

Is it time for me to ask about liberal arts and be told I'm aggressive again?

It comes under my link of 19:36 where Shanghai is working to modify the curriculum as China realises that pupils need more than regurgitating information for exams.

I am hoping that Vanilla will come back and tell us if she has whole class, mixed ability teaching experience - or whether she just has the theory.
If so I would love to know how she deals with the parent who complains that their child can't sleep through worrying, their child is in tears with homework and doesn't want to go to school.