So I’ve finally gotten a response from Nick Gibb and I suppose in a roundabout way he hasn’t said that the accreditation process was or wasn’t flawed but that lessons have been learned. He states that he is confident that we can trust the comparability of the SAMs and that we are in an excellent position to deliver the new GCSE backed by the excellent work of the maths hubs.

I know that many of the people working in the hubs are doing a sterling job, and want to make a difference. In fact some are doing amazing things BUT they aren’t the panacea … too many teachers are telling me that the hubs are doing nothing for them at the coalface; I am hearing tales of hubs only doing “stuff” with other schools in their own teaching alliance and this worries me. Additionally many are now telling me that where there is a local hub they are feeling a squeeze of recruitment even more than they feel they would as potential recruits are choosing to work in a more “high profile” school than their own. We will have further academisation with the new “coasting” standards being set and schools will become even more isolated places to work and the hubs should to be there to support maths teachers. Don’t get me wrong this isn’t aimed at the hubs … we just need more of them!

So back to “the letter” – it also confirms the “good” pass and I know I probably shouldn’t have made it public the week before after my phone call (I posted a blog -> HERE  and HERE TOO ) but hey ho … what’s done is done!

On the theme of where people get their information from (whilst I’m on a roll and I mentioned organisations putting a spin on things in my previous post) last week in an interview with SCHOOLS WEEK Nick Gibb said:

This really concerns me – making statements like this makes a great soundbite …. But it’s wrong! Vectors and conditional probability have always been taught to Higher Tier students and making these kinds of statements is misleading – especially given the large proportion of students that actually sit the higher tier compared to the foundation tier. If you want to make this kind of statement, at least get it right and give people the correct information.

Anyway, it’s now time to look forward. I have a massive “to-do” list of things to blog about and prepare for September, but before I get off to school I’ll give you a sneak preview of my initial thoughts on the new SAMs … they are not “that” ground breaking. It all feels a little like a whole lot of fuss about nothing much. What a flipping waste of time and money … I could have achieved the same outcomes of raising attainment, reducing the pass rate to levels of the early 90’s (which is what will happen with the new “good” pass – how demoralising is that going to be?) by asking exam boards to raise their grade boundaries by 10-15 marks and also telling schools that the new “gold standard” is a grade B at GCSE.

I am of course being EXTREMELY glib about it all, and there are some fundamental shifts in the papers (which I’ll write about this week), but is it any wonder that teachers who have been “around the block” say things along the lines of “oh … we’ve seen this before and it’ll pass”? It all feels a little “emperor’s new clothes” to me …. And no I don’t want to see you naked!