Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

SATs Results - My Experience and an Optimistic Response

I'm not a stranger to SATs result day nightmares (read about it here), and if it wasn't for my past experiences I dare say today would have been a different experience for me. Our SATs results this year are alarmingly low, not approaching anywhere near the national picture.

We were expecting it really. Under two years ago, our school was placed in special measures and subsequently academised as a result (read a bit more background here). Whilst the academisation has brought about many changes it would seem that there is only so much underachievement, bad behaviour and poor attitude to learning that can be tackled in a short space of time. This year's year 6 cohort have suffered in a school that previously had low expectations and inadequate teaching, along with a whole host of other issues (really, there are many!). We have a large number of SEND children, many on the register due to behavioural needs, who have not had their needs catered to in the past. We knew we'd take a hit.

Coupled with all the changes to primary assessment arrangements this year, we were under no illusions: children who had been taught very little for years and then had been taught a new curriculum for less than two years had a long way to catch up, especially when they had to meet two sets of criteria (the NC objectives and the interim framework objectives) and sit new and more rigorous tests. The word omnishambles has been used to describe the government's operations within education this year; it's not a bad way to describe it. We knew what was coming our way.     

Despite being saddened by what has befallen these particular children, my natural optimism kept on fighting me. After calculating our dire percentages I looked for all those who nearly made the magic 100 mark - there were so many. Then I looked at all who had achieved 100 or over and felt proud of their achievements. I scrutinised the spelling and arithmetic test results and found great successes there. Comparing our SATs scores to our teacher assessment data I found that we had been very accurate in our judgments: even where we had said EXS and a child hadn't achieved the pass mark, they were always very close. This led me to the conclusion that if the SATs results tallied well with our teacher assessment (so, for example, a child with 98/99 scaled score who has been assessed as Year 6 developing) then the phenomenal progress our children have made this year (as shown by our in-house data tracking system) is something worth celebrating.

Yes, I briefly went though the feelings of self-doubt (Did I do enough? Could I have done it better? Is it all my fault?) and my mind has been full of things to try differently next year, but I remain optimistic (perhaps you think I shouldn't). I know that my team and I have done a great job this year - the progress proves it, as do many observations, book scrutinies, pupil progress meetings and external reviews (my phase working at 'Good' 18 months after the school received its 'Inadequate' Ofsted judgement). I know that the kids have worked incredibly hard; they're exhausted, bursting with new skills and abilities and actually, their conduct and learning behaviour has steadily improved - even acknowledged just last week by our MAT's executive principal. These are children who really have learnt so many things that the tests just can't test - we have set them in much better stead for their high schools, and indeed for the rest of their lives. And did I mention that their progress has been ridiculously phenomenal?!

I don't know if you can find the silver linings in your results, but I would urge you to try. There are schools out there who have done exceptionally well his year despite the changes - I intend not to resent them, only to learn from them; for the sake of the children I'm willing to humbly take any advice going and I hope you are too. Perhaps you just need to cling to the fact that our government ministers have stated that these results are non-comparative and that Ofsted should not pay much heed to them (read more about that here).

I know there will be some teachers out there who feel terribly unsupported by their school today, and I sympathise with you - perhaps next year is the time to try to move one to somewhere with leaders who care a bit more or perhaps you need to fight your corner and present the case for why results were low (there is plenty of universal evidence out there). There is definitely a time for mourning too - I'm definitely not saying suck it up and get on with it. 

And I still think we need to be optimistic about the future; maybe next year will be more settled. We'll know the curriculum better and we'll know the height of the expectations (let's face it, that sample reading paper really didn't prepare us for the hardcore-ness of the actual one). I also know I'll be receiving a much more settled year group next year - a group who've also had one more year of new curriculum teaching - that's got to count for something, right? 

If you've experienced poor results then you're not alone - please get in touch, even if just to offload - I really don't claim to have all the answers but am an open (and anonymous) ear.

Monday, 4 January 2016

Times Tables: What is Knowing?

@tombennett71: There should be nothing controversial about a mainstream expectation for children to know times tables and we'll look daft if we dispute it.

And I agree. Apart, perhaps, from the part about 'know'. What does 'know' mean? Merriam-Webster defines 'know' thus:

  • to have (information of some kind) in your mind
  • to understand (something) 
  • to have a clear and complete idea of (something)
  • to have learned (something, as a skill or a language)
If a child, when they are tested on their tables in 2017, can choose their own version of 'know' then I definitely agree. When you've wiped away your tears of laughter after watching Nicky Morgan avoid answering 11x12, read what she said: "We are introducing a new check to ensure all pupils know their times tables by age 11." She says 'know'. The 'by heart', 'by rote', 'by memory' rhetoric has been added by the papers who gleefully reported the news, glad at the chance to stick another knife in the back of the profession. So, theoretically children don't have to know their tables by heart.

The reason why this issue resonates with me, and with many others, is that as a child, despite my dad's best efforts, I found it impossible to learn my tables by heart. And I still don't know them all today. What I can do is work out multiplication problems very speedily using Merriam-Webster's second, third and fourth definitions. I understand what happens when you multiply one number by another so I can solve a problem. I have a clear and complete idea of how timetables link to other areas of maths. And I have learned lots of methods (you might say skills) to help me to work times tables questions out before anyone realises I haven't memorised them.

The beginning of my journey out of times-tables-embarrassment-land was when I realised that my dad, at random moments during the day, in an attempt to keep the practice up, would only ever ask me what 6x6 was. So I learnt 6x6 (it's 36 - see, told you I'd learnt it). I soon realised that if I knew that then I could work out 6x7 really quickly.

The next step of my journey was my realisation, in secondary school, that if a teacher tried to get me to learn a method without explaining how and why it was working, then I wouldn't be able to do it. I had to understand the mechanics of the mathematical process in order to be able to solve problems. As my teacher took the time to model processes in a way that I understood them, I began to improve in maths. I started to enjoy it too. In fact, I started to think mathematically, could problem solve, reason and I sure was getting fluent. Recognise those three terms? Yes, the aims of the National Curriculum. If I had only learnt by heart the formula for finding the area of a triangle without understanding why it worked then I'd have been far less fluent and would not have been able to problem solve or reason. So why are so many teachers hellbent on getting kids to memorise stuff like times tables?

OK, if a child can memorise them then great, but teachers beware, I truly believe there are kids out there in year 5 right now who will be better supported this year if you teach them some tricks and tips so that instead of rapid recall, they can do rapid work out of tables. Take it from someone who knows.

Here are a few tips and tricks for how you can help those children once you've identified who they are (probably by giving them one of the hundreds of times table check practise tests that will appear online by the time the month is through):
  • Find out which tables they have learnt by heart - the majority of children will definitely have 2s, 5s and 10s.
  • Assuming children know 1s, 2s, 5s and 10s they already have good reference points for other tables. 3s and 4s could be taught using manipulatives such as Numicon shapes or cubes (or you can get really creative - Ikea's dogs' bums coat hooks are fun for 3s) to reinforce what is happening when multiplying 3 and 4.
  • When learning 4s and 8s make links back to 2 times tables. Lots of simple investigation opportunities here too i.e. Which times tables does the number 16 appear in? If the kids can make these connections themselves they will be more likely to learn skills that they can apply in a test situation.
  • Similarly link 3s and 6s together. Later they can be linked to 9s and 12s.
  • Teach 9s using the finger trick. Make sure children have identified the pattern in the answers: the digits in the answers add to 9 - do investigation so that they find this out for themselves.
  • Teach 11s by looking at the pattern in the answers. 10x11, 11x11 and 12x11 might be a bit more difficult so these might need to be learnt by heart - reducing the number of answers that need to be learned by heart is still helpful.
  • This might sound totally ridiculous... OK, it absolutely will, but Weetabix taught me how to work out my 12 times tables quickly. I know the pack sizes.  Each tube inside a box contains 12 Weetabix. You can get boxes of 12, 24, 48, 72. Help the kids tap into outlandish methods like this - maths in real life will be a saviour to many. So many kids need to know why maths is important and relevant to them SO THAT they can begin to understand it.
  • Your children probably are capable of retaining a few facts. I could always remember 6x6 which inspired me to learn my square numbers. Mathematically square numbers are interesting and are more likely to stick in the head (nice links to actual squares in geometry too as a model). Once you've learned square numbers the world is your oyster, especially if you know the square of 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. You can use those as a reference point and quickly add or take from them.
  • Many children will be able to get a feel for which numbers sound like correct answers and which don't. Some work on what a prime number is might help - children will learn to avoid 17 as an answer in a tables test because it doesn't sound right. They will begin to know that 56 and 42 do appear somewhere - this gives them a reference point to check their answers by. 
  • I use the idea of The Hard Tables. This reduces the number of times tables that children have to really worry about in year 5 and 6. The Hard Tables (even the name shows a child who struggles to memorise them that you understand their plight) are basically any problem (beginning at 6x6) above the square roots of square numbers i.e. 6x6, 7x6, 8x6, 9x6 and 12x6 (most children will know 10x6 and 11x6)
  • Give the children tests where you model a thought process e.g. "The question is 8x7. So think of your square numbers: 7x7 is 49 so you need another lot of 7. 49 add 7 is... is your answer one of those numbers that we know is an answer in the times tables? Does it sound right?"
Put me in front of the nation and ask me a times table question and I'll answer it right away. Not because I know everything up to 12x12 by heart but because I will THINK MATHEMATICALLY about the answer. I will demonstrate fluency as I link areas of my mathematical understanding together. I will demonstrate, invisibly, my ability to problem solve and reason. I will demonstrate that I 'know' my times tables without actually ever having memorised them all. I will be using one or two of the above strategies to get to answer. It will take me a fraction of time longer than someone who has memorised the answer, but out of the two of us, I'll be the one demonstrating better mathematical thinking.

Photo Credit: WoofBC via Compfight cc