[Maths-Education] 0.01 of a national curriculum level in mathematics?

[LC Brown, Graduate School Education]

I don't feel that strongly about the first part - I'm used to averaging and 
realising that this might not give a 'real' category - simply give a 
notional idea of what's necessary - hence, a school can hit its target - 
doesn't mean I think the exercise great either - I like to work with 
students so that they work with their students' learning, creatively - they 
then don't worry so much about all those levels anyway because they do not 
feel the straitjacket of a framework/scheme of work but are prepared to go 
where students lead - something about - doing complex work can help to make 
skills secure ... just a thought - Laurinda (good to find you in my mailbox)

--On 04 July 2006 13:55 +0100 "Boylan, Mark S" <M.S.Boylan at shu.ac.uk> wrote:

> *************************************************************************
> ********************************** This message has been generated
> through the Mathematics Education email discussion list. Hitting the
> REPLY key sends a message to all list members.
> *************************************************************************
> **********************************  Dear all
>
> For the last few years we have set out student teachers an assignment
> that requires them to critically (hopefully!) analyse performance data
> on pupils that they teach.
>
> One reason for this is that we hope that as mathematics teachers in the
> future they might be able to counter the worst excesses of the way in
> which performance and assessment data is misused in statistically very
> dubious ways.
>
> The level of critical engagement needless to say is not always as great
> as we would like, not least becuase it appears many mathematics teachers
> in schools  are swallowing some very dubious practices.  They then pass
> these on to our students.
>
> Regularly I have to  challenge students to explain the meaning of 4a,
> 4b, and 4c when given as national curriculum levels without comment.  Or
> worse 4.30, 4.60 etc (I think this is do to with the influence of the
> Fischer Family Trust).  In particular questioning, if  a school is going
> to have a decimal place for national curriculum levels, why this is
> given as 4.30 rather than 4.3?
>
> I point this out in the, I admit generally vain, hope that the students
> might start to realise this has a lot more to do with ideology than any
> meaningful quantitative measure.  Presumably 4.30 has greater weight as
> it conforms more neatly to a metric measurement or perhaps it has a
> greater finanical appeal - it looks more like a financial measure.  This
> is after all, in pursuit of 'Value Added'.
>
> But of course in the performance data competition between schools, it
> would only be a matter of time before some schools will go one better,
> and now I find data offered by a student from one particular school, via
> its mathematics department, in the following way:
>
> Y9 Level Feb 06 as being variously, 4.03, 3.54, 4.96, 5.03 etc.
>
> So could anybody enlighten me as to exactly what 0.01 of a national
> curriculum level is?  Is the difference between 4.96 and 4.97 the same
> difference as between 5.03 and 5.04?  If we can have 0.01 then how about
> 0.001, surely we need to be able to distinguish between students who are
> at 5.030 and 5.031?
>
> What really concerns me about this is that I have not been able to find
> any research papers actually debunking this sort of nonsense - any
> suggestions?
>
> Whilst I am at it, I also am deeply troubled by students reproducing
> very dubious material and comment given by teachers in schools which
> apparently originates with NFER with regard to CATS scores.  (For
> overseas readers CATS scores are basically what used to be called
> intelligence tests)
>
> Apparently a pupil who scores low on verbal and non verbal reasoning
> will be a 'kinaesthetic learner'
> This apparently is because verbal reasoning indicates an 'auditory
> learner' (!), and non verbal tests indicate a 'visual leaner' (!)
> Given that pupils must be either one of these or a kinaesthetic learner
> then it follows logically that someone who scores low on both sorts of
> tests must be a kinaesthetic learner
>
> Would anyone connected with NFER like to comment on this?  Again anyone
> know of any critical comment on CATS etc?
>
> Is this just going on in schools in South Yorkshire  (UK) or is it a
> national phenomenon?
>
> Is this happening in other countries?
>
> regards
> Mark
>
> Dr Mark Boylan
> Subject Leader, Mathematics Professional Year
> Divsion of Education and Humanities
> Faculty of Development and Society
> 25 Broomgrove Rd
> Sheffield S10 2BP
> +44 114 2252349
> m.s.boylan at shu.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> An international directory of mathematics educators is available on the
> web at www.nottingham.ac.uk/csme/directory/main.html
> ______________________________________________
> Maths-Education mailing list
> Maths-Education at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/maths-education



----------------------
LC Brown, Graduate School Education
Laurinda.Brown at bristol.ac.uk