I’m writing this as a way to reflect so you may want to just pass on by … there’ll probably be nothing worth reading if I’m honest as I’m just going to freestyle and write whatever springs to mind so strap yourself in.

A few weeks ago I was discussing how departments can’t just keep intervening in year 11 and that running a department is like being on a 3 lane motorway – with year 11 being the fast lane, 9 & 10 the middle lane and 7 & 8 the slow lane. I get why this happens – you only have to look at the results the departments (the students actually!) I’ve worked in have gone onto achieve but this drive for results is driven by the accountability measures that schools are beholden to. Anyway, the discussion then expanded on this analogy by saying that we need to make sure that we’re increasing the speeds (i.e. introducing improvement strategies and not just doing “more”) in the first two lanes so that we can slow down from 120mph that most schools seem to go at during year 11 as its unsustainable (hmmm … when did the swing from it being the students responsibility for their final outcomes to it being the teachers responsibility take place? I suspect it was with the introduction of performance tables). It was quite an interesting discussion but now that I’ve written it down … it doesn’t sound do riveting does it … I promise it was! As part of this discussion I got talking about how I would adapt different strategies to different groups of students and that (I did then ask not to be hated!) during year 11 it sometimes isn’t about “teaching for understanding” (and I didn’t and don’t believe it’s right by the way … just saying how it is for me with some topics) whereas lower down the school that should always be the case.

This discussion got me thinking about what teaching for understanding actually means and so I’ve been doing lots of reading around the subject and have come to the conclusion that it’s a very personal conclusion that each of us comes to.  I’m really not convinced that my view is right but I’m also not convinced that there is a general consensus as to what it means as a teaching body … it’s definitely obvious that what “us” teachers think about it may not be exactly the same as the views that are written about it in the research papers I’ve been looking at, many of which would claim that there has been very little teaching for understanding in maths historically and many teachers will look to teach shortcuts and algorithms.

*Mel going off on a tangent alert*

I use a story when I’m talking about not teaching for understanding (and I’m definitely not saying that I don’t at least try to do this but like I said before sometimes you just have to teach them “stuff”) Please don’t laugh at me … when I was doing a two-week booster course many years ago and there was the bit where we had to explain something new we’d learnt over that time to the group I remember having a massive epiphany about … OMG this is embarrassing … oh feck it … it was about index laws and why we added the powers, subtracted the powers and multiplied the powers … you know the rules!! Anyway it wasn’t until that point that I think I truly understood the “why?” … no scrap that. It wasn’t until that point that I’d thought about it in any depth and had an interest in understanding the “why?” I have no doubt that as a child my teacher would have explained this to us and we’d come to the conclusion that we didn’t want to write out the “sums” longhand and were happier to use these handy rules. The point is that the things I took away and were still with me years later were the “laws” and being able to apply them … I am convinced that at school I would’ve been able to describe the “why?” had someone asked me to explain … but fast forward a few (ok more than a few!!) years I didn’t have a clue. Does that mean I didn’t understand? Who knows?

I think that all teachers (despite what some people on Twitter might think!) want our students (in the main) to understand what they are learning and not just know “how to do stuff” … we are, however, often faced with students who say “just show us how to do it!” Of course, I want my students to be knowledgeable and skilful when it comes to maths – I also want them to understand what they are doing. What I’m struggling with is the question of whether this is anything new from my perspective … remember my perception is my reality and your perception is your reality. The reading I’ve done suggests that teaching for understanding is more skilful than simply transmitting information but I’ve yet to see a teacher who simply transmits information (with the exception of some year 11 groups at certain points in the year where its sometimes a case of throwing enough stuff at them hoping some of it will stick … I’m not saying it’s right but needs must!) So, I get that knowledge and skills do not guarantee understanding but I’m also thinking that some of the ways I’ve seen current teaching practice described are massive generalisations. 

Let’s make this clear: I personally don’t think that algorithms and shortcuts are  inherently bad; the key is to use them to help rather than hinder understanding and I feel that this must come down to the sequence of events that occur in learning maths. I think that most teachers try to make sure that conceptual understanding is embedded – it is at this point that more efficient methods/processes should be introduced. Having displays/posters with these efficient methods on alone, does not imply that the teachers are going straight in with the shortcuts and it is not on to suggest to a teacher that because they’ve got a poster with say, a formula triangle on that they are focussing on the shortcuts – a poster is not enough evidence to make that claim.

As with all this stuff once someone gets hold of whatever is trendy (and I know the use of the word “trendy” probably isn’t trendy anymore!) it gets all a bit warped. I have a feeling that one of the latest things I’ve heard being done at some schools EVERY single lesson stems from some  misunderstanding of what “teaching for understanding” (and I’m not saying I have a fully formed idea of what it means to me yet!). Some schools are asking teachers to write (and get students to write down) their learning objectives followed by “why we are learning it” … telling students how what they are learning fits into the wider picture isn’t enough. It has to be written down. Again I can see the rationale for including “bigger picture” stuff and can see that it would be useful in some contexts but enforcing it as a standard is de-professionalising. I know that during my PGCE I believed lots of the tosh we were told (much of which is now de-bunked and has no scientific basis) and I just fear that … oh what do I fear? …. ***massive pause***

***walks dog***

Right ….

I fear that it’s the “thin end of the wedge” for the next new big thing. The next wave of madness that will drive people over the edge and have people leaving the profession. I even fear that it will be used by fellow teachers to denigrate other teachers about their practice as a way of emphasising their superior knowledge. It shouldn’t be like this. A few weeks ago I was looking at the consultation for ITT and the suggestion of a 3-year programme which made me laugh – the current state of recruitment means that lots of new teachers are well on their way to becoming HOD in maths by year 3! I worry that in striving to do a good job each new generation of teachers/HOD is looking at the workload of the previous incumbents and doing “more” which means that we’re on this ever increasing cycle of more workload. What we should be asking ourselves (as someone said to me yesterday) is: Could what is being asked of my team, be done by someone teaching a full teaching load (and not 12 hours a fortnight!!) who also has a family? If it couldn’t be done by them we shouldn’t be doing it.

Part of this little amble through edu-bollocks stemmed from (once again!) my insecurity about my ability as a teacher. I often suffer from imposter syndrome … when being interviewed for my PGCE I was told that I should consider doing business studies but I was adamant that I wanted to teach a core subject. Maths is beautiful. I use the following that I think sums up why I teach. Maths has been developed over 100’s/1000’s of years and it is this body of knowledge that I want to pass on to the next generation. I want them to cherish it. Love it. Look after it. Use it and understand it. There are times when I look at something and at first glance I have to stop and think about my plan of attack – what maths has given me are the tools to attack it. That’s not to say, that my definition of “tools” is just “knowledge” – it isn’t – but without a “body of knowledge” I’m going nowhere. We have to teach kids “stuff” and through thoughtful use of examples and questions/problems for them to have a go at the ability to apply familiar ideas in unfamiliar contexts will come.

I started this by saying this post may end up as not worth the time you’ve spent reading it …. Ummm … it’s just a load of old rambling but it’s all I have!

Soooooo … nope … nothing to see here … move along!!