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

[Tamara Bibby]

Hi Mark
The situation you describe is distressingly familiar. I can't comment on
secondary school practices but the primary school I'm working in is also
full of fractional levels. The Y5 class I am in has just done its optional
(?!) SATs and the children now know who is a 4a, who is a 3b and so on. I
enclose a part of a conversation I had with two boys (U & S) where they are
discussing what these labels mean to them - this is part of a longer
conversation about what it is like to be in maths lessons and what it was
like doing the tests they've just finished, life, the universe and
everything (always hard to know where to crop things like this).
 
Reading the (whole) interview again I am really struck by how hard it must
be to maintain a coherent, positive story about oneself as a learner in this
kind of environment. It is also striking how they work to make their friends
'okay' with labels they aren't sure about. Such a lot of energy is expended
on creating these tales or myths about the meaning of the numbers and the
other labels they have had appended. I wonder why Y5 children are worrying
they aren't working at NC level 5? What happened to L4? Why is their talk so
saturated with these numbers? And what happened to planned opportunities for
creativity (art, music, drama...)?

On the other lables - I had a comment from another child in the same class
that he couldn't sit still to listen for long because he is a kinaesthetic
learner! I actually quite liked the way he was subverting the title - it
gave him permission to indulge his high energy and low boredom threashold
and, for a while at least, the teacher had no way of coming back at him! She
doesn't seem to use those words nearly as much as she did before
Christmas...

Best wishes
tamara




On 4/7/06 13:55, "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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Talking about tests.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33792 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/maths-education/attachments/20060706/8aad0864/Talkingabouttests-0001.doc