How did we get to half term and me not write a blog about the start of the year?
There has been a shift in what I am seeing to gathering evidence as soon as possible. I am guilty of this too. That CAG TAG hell has forced change. Change can neither be good or bad when we are in it I feel, so time will tell as to whether this is long term the right approach. I seek no joy in setting initial assessments, local and college wide ones. Whilst I see the benefit of knowing what students know I also see the significant harm issuing initial assessments can do.
The argument, "students are used to assessments" rings partly true, there would be an expectation from them for us to initially diagnose. Likewise it is an opportunity for students to shine. For them to celebrate what they can do. This idea I like, the opportunity to shine. Yet it jars with me how we assume performance in an exam style scenario is success. Wrestling with the linear programme of GCSE maths study and an end of year summative exam is the defining grade for their efforts. So is it best that we get students ready for this process?
Also, if we are giving a diagnostic to learn what students can and can't do, will one diagnostic give us this information? Another point I am musing is...majority rule.
When planning lessons, can we honestly say, hand on heart that we are individually planning for every student, every lesson? I have observed some masters of this craft, and even then I saw groupings happening and majority ruling. If a class of 20 students have all done well on substituting algebra there could be some adjustment in the lesson to stretch them. But in the same class of 20, if 2 can do expanding brackets and 18 can't, do we have the space to send the 2 who can to another classroom or area to work on expanding double brackets whilst we concentrate on the skills the 18 need? Yet how often, do we set the diagnostic, do all the things with it, and then park it?
There is no blame attached, we are busy. When I am planning I will add a comment to my scheme of work at relevant weeks with top performers from diagnostics to remind me that they will need different work, potentially. Yet before the lesson I will always check for knowledge in the next week's topic, and often this isn't what the diagnostic told me. Factors affecting this are, what questions did I ask, how are they different to the diagnostic as well as the time lapse from the diagnostic to now. One time one student openly told me they wrote a random number down so they could go to lunch. We can't account for every situation.
Some teachers (not current nor recent colleagues) diagnose and then plough on through the scheme of work regardless. Again, there is no blame attached. And there is a performative expectation that the whole GCSE maths content be covered in one year. There are one year schemes of work that condense the two year programme for FE. Likewise there are local schemes that are full of topics, that work for our students.
Recently I reviewed a scheme of work for a college. A former colleagues asked me to give their new scheme a quick glance with their maths staff. We had a lovely meeting, all sharing how a personalised curriculum is best for students, how students do better when we adapt. How hefty the scheme is and it is daunting so if we can trim it down it will really help students. We had a lovely discussion. I then opened the scheme and it was full, every lesson, with a lesson slide deck to teach from.
I am sure that siren in my head was loud enough for the world to hear. If we are going to personalise the curriculum, we need to leave space for that to happen. Absolutely theme the week, assign a topic and maybe plan some activities that might work. But we can't verbatim plan the slide deck that we teach from, can we?
When I chatted to the maths team they were very open and said we still have a curriculum to cover. And that's it we still have a LOT to cover. Personalising the approach is wonderful, but that one year you don't teach vectors and the question comes up (this has happened to me and still hurts) means students have a right to be upset that they weren't thoroughly prepared for the exam.
And that is what it comes back to, we have a linear, rigid summative exam that is paper based. All the things we do in the classroom have to lead to that point. But I am not sure that day 1 paper based diagnostic assessments are the way we should start that preparation. If everything we know about teaching comes back to relationships, how do we build those whilst forcing students to sit a diagnostic early doors?
