Something does not add up – politicalbetting.com

The great Scottish comedian Hector Nicol used to joke about a signalman in the Highlands who applied for a promotion and had to sit a test. This includes the more bizarre scenario of what would happen if two trains were running on the same track when some disaster struck the signaling equipment. The punchline of the joke, after the signal box is on fire, the points have been jammed by lightning, and the cabinet on the side of the line has been damaged by a runaway truck, it is the signal that will run down the village and take his uncle. Alistair. When asked why, the signalman simply replied ‘because he had never seen a train wreck.’

Uncle Alistair doesn’t have to worry about this negligence in his life now, because all he has to do to see a train wreck is to look at the English education system. Mr. Sunak, to try and undo some of the mess, has made it known that he is considering making all students study math until they are 18 years old. , quite simply, our math education system doesn’t work.

Is he right? Well, it must be said that there is a big problem in mathematics. However, none of the existing problems in maths education can be solved by another two years of study dreamed up by a civil servant in Whitehall who was questioned by the police about an illegal key party and appears to have been unconscious ever since. . To briefly list what it is, this gives a taste though not a complete picture of the problem:

1. The way mathematics is taught in schools is prescriptive and intensive. In common with most government curriculum tools today, today’s math curriculum is designed by people who think it’s important that everything is covered. If we have enough time and enough, this will be a great and wonderful ambition. Unfortunately, in this strange thing called the fact that most of us live but the Department of Education does not, there is something like ‘time constraints’ which makes this to put it mildly completely impractical. The irony is that they have developed a mathematics curriculum that is not divided into available time or added to an effective teaching program.
2. This disaster spread to the high school. We again have an outstanding maths curriculum GCSE that cannot be taught in two years. Schools therefore have the difficult decision to cut GCSE maths provision to fit into two years, or get bollocking from Ofsted for having decided to spread maths content for GCSE over three years and therefore cut key stage 3 provision. . Both of these have significant drawbacks. I would say that the most notable of the former is GCSE mathematics so little more than an estimate of how well the teacher has guessed what will be on the exam paper, while the latter means the knowledge of mathematics that the person sitting on this paper. (which is 99% of all children in the UK) will be miles wide but inches deep at most. There are no beneficial results for the employers or for the people who are sitting in the newspaper. However, it is hard to see how forcing people to study extra will solve the problem. It will be more useful to ensure that they have learned the necessary skills correctly in the first place.
3. This is exacerbated by the lack of logic in the mathematics curriculum. Key stage 2 does not prepare anyone for key stage 3. Key stage 3 does not build children’s understanding for GCSE. And GCSEs alone are usually not enough for A-level maths. If you don’t get a grade eight or nine at GCSE, it’s almost impossible to access the A-level curriculum, so many private schools now have a level 2 qualification in further maths to allow their children can do math and further math in the level.
4. If the exam doesn’t prepare people for further study, and the teaching doesn’t show ability, and the study doesn’t provide the math skills you need in the workplace, then the obvious question is what’s the real point? This is particularly important with the new maths GCSEs trying to put all students into classes that were previously occupied by around 50% of students in the old classes. Predictably, this was not a useful exercise. To try and hide what has been lost, passing marks for the fourth class are more often removed than catches when Bangladesh runs out. Which means, it can’t be beat, they’re actually less rigorous than the old GCSEs and they don’t teach people maths either. With the old GCSEs, at least people had a fair idea of ​​where a candidate stood in relation to their peers. with the new it does not even do that effectively, make a botched reform a complete waste and say time.
5. This is compounded by insufficient provision for lifelong learning in mathematics. A member of the extended family has resat maths GCSE 25 years after failing the age of 16 and to his great delight (and all of us, I might add) got 5. He said the most difficult thing is not maths but the fact that the only way he can do it is in a class designed for 17 year olds who have failed their GCSEs and just don’t want to be there. Is it wise to play this system out more? Or would it be better if there were proper facilities for lifelong learning when people realized the importance of mathematics and really wanted to do it? I know that I will choose.

Any reasonable analysis of how to solve an identified problem in mathematics must begin with this identified problem. It is not for one very, very good reason. The current mess was engineered with the best of intentions by a group of Conservative activists and politicians about a decade ago. These people are all successful and certainly want us to be as well. He did it by passing many exams, including very difficult math exams, so he strongly believed that passing very difficult exams including math was the way to be happy and successful. Unfortunately, in their arrogance and limited life experience it did not occur to them that this could be a mistake.

However, it is not only the culture, but the individual that makes the reassessment impossible. Let us consider who this group is and why they do not want to be told that they have failed better and more completely (though fortunately less lethally) than Vladimir Putin in launching a special military operation.

1. Michael Gowe. The former Secretary of State for Education has long been obsessed with the idea of ​​lowering academic standards. This led to a radical overhaul of the curriculum and GCSEs, which is a problem today. He is now Secretary of State for leveling up (or whatever it is called this week) in his role as one of the top ministers in Sunak’s cabinet. He is a Sunak who can’t be offended and definitely can’t lose.
2. Dominic Cummings. A think tank operator failed with a string of episodes of extraordinary mindless incompetence behind him, who spent a great deal of time formulating education policies for Michael Gove even though he exhibited not the slightest understanding of education. Although he has now left the government (perhaps to get a good deal while he’s gone) he remains a key supporter of Rishi Sunak who was promoted to chancellor mainly because of Cummings’ incompetent political maneuvering. Whether Johnson fell because of Cummings’ attack is an open question – I would say, personally, that he is at most a small factor – in fact, Sunak could not fight him if he was in the same fight in the fight. Sunak is weaker.
3. Nick Gibb. One of the relatively few ministers who have served in the governments of Cameron, May, Johnson and Sunak (although not Truss, of course) is a minister of a very long school with dogmatic ideas about what is right and proper. The new GCSE system is very infantile and they will be outraged if they try to destroy it just because it is a total and utter disaster, which is unacceptable. Gibb was obsessed with the idea of ​​falling standards and prescriptive methods of education. He is the one who came up with the idea that the be-all and end-all of assessment should be good math and English grades. He then complained bitterly but most schools only taught maths and English in years five and six, which he didn’t want. Never mind, maybe if he can’t teach other subjects and tells people that other subjects aren’t as important as maths and English, people won’t teach them. Again, Sunak can’t lose on this issue, so he has carte blanche to protect a small area.
4. Amanda Spielman. Spielman was briefly the finance director of the Ark Academies chain, but before 2012 he had no experience in education. However, for reasons that remain unclear, he was first appointed head of Ofqual where he oversaw the new exam system, and is now head of Ofsted in a role in which he has repeatedly shown he does not know what to look after. During this time they have created some of the most important new inspection frameworks as they have been repeatedly misrepresented to staff causing confusion and unnecessary work while doing nothing to improve children’s education. . However, this individual was given a contract extension as head of Ofsted when Sunak’s ally Gavin Williamson took charge of education. Therefore, admitting that he is completely incompetent, completely out of it and suffering a terrible disaster because of this unfortunate incident also means admitting that Sunak’s allies are a bunch of clueless muppets.
5. Conservative MPs. He has spent the last several years trying to defend the reforms and say how they work. It would damage them – and little of their credibility as a government – to admit that they have compounded their total failure. Sunak didn’t dare to tell the truth about it – he even thought he knew it himself, which was actually impossible because he never had anything to do with education and no expert could tell him about the current situation.
6. District Education Department. They implemented the reform of the exam and admitted they cocked it all will – unfortunate, minister. At a time when credibility is at an all-time low, they can hardly admit to overseeing a fiasco.

So what will happen? Well, we’re going to get another pointless initiative created by people who may mean well but are unintelligent, very stupid and don’t know what they’re doing, because they won’t admit to these insignificant details. Butt-covering remains, as always, the first rule of politics.

And it will probably be popular because most people know less about education than about advanced algebra, and think ‘more math = good thing’, but the real problem in the current system is complex and involved.

And in the meantime, maths in English schools will remain a bit of a bastard.

Don’t you just love politicians?

Doctor