Do any teachers on here support Michael Gove's education policies?

[SummerExhibition]

Just wondering. Everything related to curriculum changes, academies, free schools etc gets a bashing on here and just wondering if there's another side to the argument really.

Noble so much for stressed and busy teachers- if they have time to post on MN!

This comment really is desperate. I'm part-time, so don't go worrying about my stress levels

The Russell group is a highly respected body of top unis so I prefer to listen to them re. what under grads need to know about maths for either maths or science degrees.

Oh dear, you really didn't understand read the link I provided to the open letter from the Advisory Committee On Mathematics Education to Gove. I am fully aware of who the Russell Group are - they are a narrow band of quite academically selective universities, who are naturally only concerned with their own interests. As ACME point out in their letter, only 5% of students studying A-level Maths go onto a Maths degree, and fewer than that to a Russell Group University. Therefore when considering what is best for Maths A-level, if we only focus on what they want, it is excluding the views of an awful lot of other interested parties. As ACME also point out, if Russell Group universities are concerned that Maths A-level is insufficient preparation for their maths-heavy degree courses then they are missing the point that it isn't supposed to be. If they haven't grasped that by now and amended their entry requirements to include Further Maths, which is good preparation for a Maths degree, then one wonders about their supposed intellect.

Chrsit Noble your arrogance is breathtaking.

Not only do you accuse me of being ignorant- and yes, I didn't read the link because I am working - but you are now saying that the Russell Group is dim as well.

The RG unis are the gold standard of university education.
If they feel that maths A level is not up to scratch for their degrees and students are being disadvantaged by the current maths syllabus- then that's relevant.

I totally understand your point- but I don't have to agree.

It should not be the case that the syllabus was made easier so that more students would study maths and therefore be able to access higher ed which required a maths A level.

Why not admit that most maths teaching ( and teachers IME) is rubbish a lot of the time, many maths teachers have poor communication skills when it comes to teaching, turn students off maths, and they do not want to do it at A level?

"Why not admit that most maths teaching ( and teachers IME) is rubbish a lot of the time, many maths teachers have poor communication skills when it comes to teaching, turn students off maths, and they do not want to do it at A level?"

I think this is the crux of the matter. How can the profile and desirability of mathematics ever be raised when so many pupils have such a poor classroom experience?

Why not admit that most maths teaching ( and teachers IME) is rubbish a lot of the time, many maths teachers have poor communication skills when it comes to teaching, turn students off maths, and they do not want to do it at A level?

Erm, you yourself linked to an article saying that maths take-up is increasing and is in fact the 2nd most popular A-level choice. Must be all those rubbish teachers turning the kids off maths, right? There is an issue of a high drop-out rate on top of that which I think is a consequence of a terrible current GCSE course, which I have discussed in previous posts. If that's addressed, and Maths A-level isn't made harder, I would expect to see a continued increase in the numbers taking A-level maths.

It should not be the case that the syllabus was made easier so that more students would study maths and therefore be able to access higher ed which required a maths A level.

Why not? A lot of university courses are perfectly happy with the current A-level, a lot more would be happy with students with the current A-level but there aren't enough of them, and the maths-heavy courses which need more than the current A-level have the option of requiring Further Maths A-level to suit their needs. No need to make the current A-level harder at all.

noblegiraffe - the standards of Maths A-level are dreadful when benchmarked internationally with other school-leaving (18+) exams. That is reason enough not to lower standards.

Who's saying anything about lowering standards, Bonsoir?

They have been lowered. They need to be raised. They are shockingly low.

Has it also occured to you Noble, that if a student also has to do Further Maths, it will potentiallly exclude other A levels that they need to that degree? If they also need 2 science subjects for uni and can only cope with 3 A levels, then there should be no need to add in FM if the syllabus was rigorous enough.

I think rather than trying to convince me and the Russell Group that the current maths A level is adequate, your profession and Associaiton should be looking at why maths is not as popular as you'd all like. Maybe it's the way it's taught. Which is an issue that is and has been given attention- with somethingl ike 40% of maths teaching being done by teachers not qualified to do so!!!!

You don't move the goal posts or lower the bar to ensure success- you look at why people are not succeeding in the first place.

Has it also occured to you Noble, that if a student also has to do Further Maths, it will potentiallly exclude other A levels that they need to that degree? If they also need 2 science subjects for uni and can only cope with 3 A levels, then there should be no need to add in FM if the syllabus was rigorous enough.

They should be starting 4 AS levels even if they can only cope with 3 A-levels. The availability of AS Further Maths (if Gove doesn't idiotically scrap it, that is) would probably be enough to top up for science purposes.

Maybe it's the way it's taught.
One of the issues identified by the ACME research was that university subjects that required post-16 maths weren't listing this as a requirement or recommendation. If universities were to advertise to students the maths requirements for their degrees then this would also improve take-up. Maths isn't as popular as we'd like because a lot of students seem to think they don't need it, when actually they do.

I hate A-levels. They shrink a child's mind right at the stage when they are most able to take on board many things.

Firstly, I think the Russell Group are the gold standard for university research. I went to a very research intensive institution myself, and there was practically no teaching. Lectures and a library. And labs, with PhD students earning money on the side.

There has to be a curriculum for students who want to do A levels but who are never going to go to university, Russell Group or otherwise. Raising participation, remember? And a maths course seems like a pretty useful option. I teach Science, and we run an Applied Science A level as well as the three academic subjects, because we want an option for encouraging scientific literacy for all students. Something similar for Maths would be great. A different qualification. I might be wrong, but I think there are different types of Maths offered in the IB.

Bonsoir, saying that they are 'shockingly low' is not a reason to raise them. The numeracy standards of sixth formers will not be improved by severely reducing the numbers taking post-16 maths.

I agree with noble that it is odd to allow the Russell Group which educates a very small minority of students going on to HE which are themselves the minority of all young people to set the agenda for A Levels. They may be experts in their field but they are not experts in teaching students at 16-18. I also think they should put their own house in order first. Students who are now paying thousands for a supposedly top education at RG universities are horrified by the paucity of education they're getting for their money.

There is a very good argument that says that A-levels are an anomaly and that 16-18 year olds need to be studying more subjects than the A-level system allows for.

And the message it sends out is that A Level is mainly for the elite which is not what it should be.

But their complaints are also very strange. RG universities are in a position to pick the cream of the cream. If they're not happy with the calibre of students getting As, they can set their entry requirements to A*. If they're not happy with the calibre of those students, then they already have access to the number of marks students achieve and they can pick only those students with 100% or as near as damnit and grade 8 piano and north pole expeditions under their belts to boot.

RG universities are going to set A-levels soon. That will shake things up!

FallenMadonna I agree another maths qualification (or 2!) would be good - Maths for humanities types who need to do data analysis, for example. I wouldn't like to see people who currently take the full A-level shunted off onto this lesser course though, that would be depressing. Further Maths is where the serious mathematicians should be going. A-level Maths on its own will always be too limited for them because it also needs to be suitable for people not headed towards a maths degree who want to do maths.

TheFallenMadonna - maths is obligatory for the IB, but there are at least 3 and possibly 4 levels.

Bonsoir, my point was that I'm not sure that RG universities should or are in the best position to set the agenda for A Level reform. They need to focus on their own lamentable teaching it seems to me.

Why? I think that if universities set the standards for the knowledge and skills their entrants needed in order to hit the ground running on their courses, that would pull schools upwards. Sounds good to me.

I think there is a tension between widening participation in post 16 education, and allowing a small group of universities to set the agenda. What is needed for Russell Group degrees will not be what is required of many sixth form students. We are insisting that more students stay in education, yet narrowing the options available to them. Someone who would find Physics A level far too tough (and frankly uninteresting) might enjoy and achieve in Applied Science and vocational maths, and leave school with far better maths skills and science literacy and understanding than if those courses were unavailable. And I think those two things are important, even, or indeed especially, for middle attainers.

RG universities intentionally cater for an elite minority of students age 18+. It is much a mistake to assume that this makes them experts in teaching a whole range of 16-18 year olds as it would be to assume that secondary school teachers can and should tell primary school teachers how to teach. It is also the case that RG lecturers are notorious for providing a very poor standard of teaching for their own students. They might be brilliant at research but a brilliant researcher can have no ability to teach at all. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have input into the curriculum but allowing them to set it misunderstands the purpose of A Level and RG lecturers which are very different.

I have never yet witnessed a RG lecturer who would get anywhere near passing an OFSTED inspection.

I know things are changing but there is still very little training given to lecturers and their understanding of the learning needs of their students is often limited at best. Why on earth would anyone assume they have the ability to tell trained and experienced teachers of 16-18 year olds how to do it better?

They're not going to tell us how to teach though fivecandles, just what to teach I suppose.

But it is all based on the assumption that the purpose of A levels is to prepare school leavers for an academic degree, whereas the majority of post 16 leavers will, at just about the time these reforms kick in, not be headed for academic degrees.