It's (not quite) the end...

... for the moment has been prepared for. Get thee over to our new site/blog/whatever - Maths teacher goes to the movies. We have popcorn and everything.

Man bites dog

... and other less than sensational headlines.

In today's Scotsman, an article on the introduction of (A) Curriculum for Excellence (apparently the A is optional... no-one tells me anything these days), telling us that confusion is about to reign.

Well, mebbes aye, mebbes naw. They are totally right to say that teachers want much more detail than we're currently getting, but it frustrates me to see union leaders grumping on again about lack of funding. Listen mate, it's not funding that worries me, it's the fog of fuzziness in the outcomes themselves. Give us some detail, for goodness' sake!

Math Wars: Ceasefire?

Well, I'll have to do a whole lot more googling to find out how this is going down across the pond, but I was very interested to come across a US government report on the teaching of Maths, sorry, Math in the US. Very, very thorough. I'm impressed, initially at least, by the high standards the contributors set for assessing or including research in their considerations, and can't help but think it's a much more rigorous piece of work than we have seen from (say) HMIe of late over here. Also, just look at the detail included in their recommendations for the content of what should be taught at each stage of school life, and compare it to the jelly on a stick candy floss fare of "Curriculum for Excellence" and ask yourself... are we even on the same planet?

It's quite a read - even a quick flick takes a wee while - but I'm struck by their good sense on the Math War business of "teacher-directed" versus "student-centred" approaches. Basically they say that you need both, and that any program (sic) based solely on one or the other is just plain dumb. Ah, the sweet voice of common sense! They also put out an urgent call for quality research into the effect of long-term calculator use, which again makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Quite what this means for current teaching programs in the US, I don't know. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any news on this.

I'm in love...

After all these years, it seems that the search is finally over... I've long been a fan of the Pilot drawing pen, though frustrated that it's only available in black. But it's never felt quite right to me, for some reason, so I've vascillated between it and a few other makes when seeking a black pen for school work (Staetdler, I'm talking to you here). And what size nib to use? The 0.1 is elegant but feels a little too fragile, while the 0.3 feels a bit overkill.

And all the time the solution has been staring me in the face! Have Pilot been making a 0.2 nib for some time, or is it brand new? Either way, I stumbled across one the other day, and whahey, I'm in love! (Well, within acceptable limits of those of us with stationery fetishes, of course.) It's sharp, clean, and has all the depth and definition a jobbing sums teacher needs. Just writing with it, you can practically feel your handwriting getting neater.

Now all I have to do is persuade them to make models available in red and green... the campaign starts here.

Proof, if proof were needed...

... that all is not entirely rosy in "Curriculum for Excellence" land. Here's Prof Lindsay Paterson, all round good egg, on how education is faring just now under our new Scottish Government (from this week's TES):

Lindsay Paterson, professor of educational policy, Edinburgh University
The SNP, like other significant parties, is constrained by the National Debate consensus. This does encourage durable, evidence-based policies. The class size reductions will gradually happen and work: teachers, parents, and rigorous research support them. Universal free school meals and the ending of the graduate endowment come under the same pragmatism, as perhaps may the school examination proposals. But the consensus is balefully anti-intellectual. A Curriculum for Excellence, veneration of the vocational, and a disregard for the achievements of liberal education will be challenged only by rather daring leadership. None of the parties yet provide that.

"Balefully anti-intellectual", "veneration of the vocational", "disregard for achievements of liberal education"... ouch! It'll be interesting to see if any of this stooshie is picked up elsewhere.

For what it's worth, I do kind of see what he's getting at.

It's That Time of Year Again

Yes, once more by public demand (ahem), we here at TPIOT bring you our annual review of the Scottish exams, starting with part one: the Mathematics Standard Grades (Foundation, General, Credit - in increasing order of difficulty) which took place last Thursday in sweaty exam halls and school gyms up and down the country.

So, what's the skinny?

Well, I thought they were all pretty reasonable to be honest. Keen fans of this blog will recall that I was worried last year at the lack of testing of algebraic skills at Credit, and though this does remain an issue, I do think that they managed to produce a better paper overall. Last year's was just too darn easy, which has ultimately done no-one any favours, as a lot of pupils have ended up heading on to Higher this year when really they shouldn't have.

I've spoken with a few teachers at other schools and there are perhaps some concerns that some of the reasoning questions in Credit were a tad obscure, but I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me a pretty pathetic position to be in, when we expect every question in the exam to be one which pupils have seen before.

Meanwhile General and Foundation seemed very decent. I was pleased to see that the amount of reading in the F exam has been cut down, which is a good thing as often the less able pupils are disadvantaged by issues other than their mathematical ability when there is so much waffle going on. (I am happy to predict now, by the way, that we'll eventually be told that the worst done question was in fact the one requiring pupils to draw an angle of 80 degrees... which must have sent invigilators across Scotland scurrying to maths departments in a hurry to get yet more protractors.)

Final point: I couldn't help but notice that quite a few questions in the exams dealt with "real life" situations with a slight environmental or social tinge... that'll be SQA getting in on the "Curriculum for Excellence" jamboree bandwagon bunfight then.

Gasp!

Well, michty me, would you credit it? The mathematics outcomes are indeed now available on the LTS website which you can find... och, away and google it yersel'. Not had much time to look in detail but... hmm... could be worse, I think, but I'll reserve judgment for now.

However I am amazed to see that a particular rumour is indeed true. The maths outcomes contain the numeracy outcomes (and extend them), so obviously it's helpful to be able to quickly see which is which in the full list of outcomes... and so step forward, A Curriculum for Excellence, for the first of our "Pure Mince, So It is" awards, for the sheer brilliance of deciding to... print the numeracy outcomes in green, and the maths ones in black.

Yup. Green. That's it. No italics, or different font, or even font size... just green type.

Did I mention that these outcomes aren't being published in paper form but are instead just to be taken from the website? And then freely copied and distributed to staff?

And they think this is going to happen in colour?

This one speaks the truth...

Blimey, things have come to a pretty pass when we have to rely on the Head Teacher of a private school to speak up about the impending mess that is "A Curriculum for Excellence" (or Mince as I described it in a recent post). So fair play to the head of "Smellies", as the good people of Edinburgh might refer to the august institution that is (deep breath) Daniel Stewart's and Melville College, for doing just that, as reported by the Scotsman newspaper here.

Apparently the outcomes for Mathematics are due for release... today? I'll believe it when I see it. Even better would be for the ACE people to fess up and actually make clear precisely how we are meant to contribute our thoughts and opinions, as (scandalously) there seems to be no actual mechanism for feedback at all just now. To be fair, this is entirely in keeping with the so-vague-it's-saying-next-to-nothing approach taken thus far by the whole enterprise.

This is all very worrying.

Still breathing

... more or less. I even saw a couple of films, but they were so meh I can't really be bothered writing much. "Elizabeth: the Golden Age" - avoid at all costs. "Lions for Lambs" - yawnsville.

And on the maths front? Well, a few good ideas, here and there. But for just now I suppose I'd better head into work...

But first: hey, let's hear it for the Pilot Drawing Pen 0.3mm black - very much my pen du jour. Why don't they make other colours though? Why?? Why???

Failed in the real world?

Nice line in jokey ads from Armstrong & Miller, a patchy sketch show on the BBC. Take a look here (click on the clip on the right with the title above). Especially like the web address!

More to be found on YouTube, I'm sure.

Maths Teacher Goes to the Movies: Sicko

Now bend over... this may hurt a little.

There's been an impressive amount of anti-Michael Moore stuff out there of late, most of which is, it's surely only fair to say, right-wing propaganda. It's also fair to say that Moore does play fast and loose with facts from time to time, but rare indeed is the documentary film-maker who doesn't arrange the facts in the way that best supports their point. Fahrenheit 9/11 was one hell of a movie, as was Columbine... heck I could probably still sing the guitar-riff theme tune from TV Nation, his TV series way back when. So, declaration of interest up front: yes, I'm a fan.

How was the movie?
Well, this is a bit odd. I was pretty depressed to be reminded just how awful US "healthcare" is, and I was moved to be reminded of just how great the NHS is, in comparison (yes, people have complained that Moore presents a sanitised NHS, but listen carefully and you will hear nothing that's a lie)... but at the end of the day I was just underwhelmed. Maybe it's because there's no clearly visible Big Bad to get angry at, though Bush and Co. do lurk in the background. Or maybe it's just because you can't see for one second how things are ever going to change over there. I'm not sure. But - oddly for me - I felt that this was one documentary I could have happily waited for on telly. Not enough laughs either.

How's the maths?
Gosh, I can't remember. There's a fair amount of figures and percentages flying around, which counts for something, but the only equation I recall is (desperately poor people) x (high insurance premiums) + (refused claims repeatedly) = (filthy rich capitalist gits).

Can I teach with it?
Well, wouldn't that be fun? Seriously though, if I used this with a class and analysed healthcare costs in the US in a way which (let's say) puts across a pro-liberal agenda, would that be acceptable? Or if I did the same with party political matters in the UK? "Hey kids, let's analyse which party is more reliant on private donors and look for a positive correlation with peerages!" Would that be part of A Curriculum for Excellence? I'm sure Alex Salmond wouldn't mind...

Man bites dog

Wow... an academic (I think) is claiming that there is too much exaggerating of the figures for bullying in our schools - as in over-exaggeration. It seems that we are guilty as a society of wrapping our children up in cotton wool, instead of getting them used to some of the hard knocks which life will throw their way. (Hey, it's my blog, so I can mix metaphors all I want.) See here for the article in the Guardian reporting this.

FWIW, I agree a far bit. I'm impressed by how much is done to combat "genuine" bullying in schools (compared to in my day), but I do think that some parents can have unrealistic expectations of how much the school can do about "lower level" stuff - name-calling and so on - and how quickly the bullying tag can be applied to stuff which is more your everyday sort of sometimes-kids-can-be-wee-beggars. (Which isn't to say that name-calling can't be devastating, either, in some cases.) Encouraging kids to stand up for themselves is surely a good thing (that, and perhaps karate lessons).

Read 'em or weep

What, can't a blogger go on holiday?

OK, so I'm back. And impressed by Channel 4's current week of programmes on literacy (I think you'll find it here). Can't quite decide yet if Ruth Miskin, the woman with the mad evangelical gleam in her eye for a particular style of teaching kids to read is mad or... well, no, she is bonkers, to some extent, I don't think that can be disputed but still... hmm... it's sobering and also inspirational stuff.

Of course this has nix to do with teaching maths - does it? Miskin's prescribing one method which should be used alone, to exclusion of all others, for teaching reading (called synthetic phonics, at which point I'm guessing she's asking for your credit card number) - one teaching method to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them, sort of thing.

And I do sort of see the point for the (non-PC language ahead alert!) less-able, even in maths. I mean, with my more able classes we can have a fairly interesting time discussing different methods or ways of setting out a solution to a problem, but I tend not to give that freedom to the less able, because they seem to thrive on the safety of knowing that this is how you're meant to do it. OK, so they thereby miss out on some of the vast richness of the subject but... if it means they can work out a percentage without a calculator, I reckon I'll take the trade.

I can't help but wonder if there's going to be a ground-swell of opinion in favour of teaching reading this way, on the back of such a high profile media campaign which (as far as I can see so far) backs it. It's a shame it has such a ring of "back to basics" about it though.

A Curriculum For Mince?

OK, maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but the much heralded "numeracy outcomes" for ACE (as those in the know call it) are now out, and boy, you might just as well try to nail jelly to the wall as get a grasp of these beauties. Those of you working in schools needn't dash off to find which member of the Senior Management Team has received the paperwork and is hiding it in a cupboard somewhere, as - of course - the outcomes are available online. (Is it just me, by the way, or is it not an appalling dereliction of duty and responsibility for major public organisations like LTS and SQA to unilaterally transfer the copying and printing costs on to already-cash-strapped schools?)

So, you can find them - and various other bits and bobs - here. Early response from maths teachers I know is basically "despair". We shall see. More to follow.

Maths Teacher Goes to the Movies: Atonement

A bit late in getting to see this film, I admit, which is perhaps a curse rather than a blessing as I seem to have forgotten any negative reviews and went in with high hopes. And for the record, before we begin, I haven't read the book. So:

How's the movie?
Well, let's be fair and say that it all looks terribly, terribly nice up there on the screen - or should I say tahbly, tahbly ness, in keeping with the movie accents? There's some impressive cinematography, but by heck they want you to know about it, so it's hard to lose yourself and get really caught up in the story. I believe the book unwinds in a tricky manner that lets on from the outset that one of the central characters is telling the story, so it would be nice to think that what was going on here was that the film-makers were playing with the idea of someone making a film about the story... but that would be crediting them with more than they deserve.

The film hinges on a misunderstanding (wilful or otherwise), from which follows much woe - gorgeously cinematic woe, never fear - but to be honest it's hard to care over much, or not to feel at the end of the two hours that you really didn't need to bother. Whereas a misunderstanding offers much in the way of comic potential, there's not many laughs to be had here - although there were titters from the audience at one point in the film which I think was meant to be very erotic.

So anyway: go see it if you want. It looks nice; the actors do their bit; war is terrible; atonement is... well, what exactly I don't know and nor do they; and that's your lot. Can they have a Bafta now please?

How's the maths
Oh, dahling, I'm afraid everyone's far too frightfully posh or clever to talk about mathematics - don't be such a bore. Pass me another ciggie, won't you?

Can I teach with it?
Well, in the movie world time is seldom linear and much more a big ball of timey-wimey stuff, and seldom more so than here, as the scenes jump forward and back over (eventually) about 70 years. A chance then, surely, to apply negative numbers in context: let the initial scene have value t=0 (years), in which case (ooh, here comes a flashback) this must be t=-2, and then boom! it's Dunkirk so t=3, but wait now (blimey! it's Vanessa Redgrave) t=70... and so on.

However, be warned: the central conceit mentioned earlier does include a letter from one character to another, containing the use of a certain four-letter word (and not the one starting with f, either) ... and I think you can safely wave goodbye to your teaching career if you let that crop up during the DVD. All the same, I daresay the History department will happily borrow it from you in order to show that war is A Bad Thing.

Tum te tum...

Jings but time flies, eh?

Those headlines again... um... I've been busy.

More on that story later.

Math wars - coming to a school near you?

Well, OK, I exaggerate for effect. But by jings, this is all very interesting. Basically there's a war raging in the US over how maths should be taught. No surprises that it's a sort of traditional v modern thing, but the extremes are pretty extreme, and if reports are to be believed then there is a real question over whether or not students are being damaged in the crossfire.

See here
and here
and here
for a few details/comments/op-eds, though be warned that these are pretty one-sided (even if they do seem fair enough to me, but what do I know?).

I'll post my own thoughts later, but would be glad to hear any comments from colleagues from the US in the meantime.

Maths Teacher Goes to the Movies: The Bourne Ultimatum

Well, in a summer of "threequels", finally a movie that does what it says on the tin. No more than that, mind you.

How's the movie?
Pretty exciting stuff - certainly never a dull moment. Lots of gripping set pieces, all filmed in shaky Steadicam (that's not-at-all-steady Steadicam, then), with fast editing in all the fight and chase scenes. Basically you have no real idea what's happening in these moments, but it sure is fun to watch. There's a visceral confrontation between Bourne and a hitman that'll leave you gasping for air. When the movie slows down enough to start to wonder about delivering a plot, it's maybe no surprise that it opts to rerun that of the second Bourne movie. But who cares? I mean, can you remember the plot for any of these, beyond the basic amnesia thing?

Rating?
In keeping with the Hollywood belief that hi-tec needs many decimal places to sound cool, I'll give the movie 7.00000000001 out of ten.

To be critical I would say that the movie could do with more warmth, in terms of human relations. Julia Stiles pops up again and does her best, but a brief hint of a romantic past goes unexplored and before too long she's off dying her hair in order to vanish from the baddies (meanwhile Matt Damon continues to look like Matt Damon, complete with Action Man haircut, yet the authorities never ever recognise him until he bursts in, guns ablaze) and the movie moves on apace to the next loud moment.

How's the maths?
Not too much on the go, though lots of hi-tec stuff kicks around and I suppose there's all manner of projectile motion going on, what with the guns and stuff.

Can I teach with it?
Well, morally, would you want to do an exercise on bullet trajectory with a class? Alternatively, maybe a brief probability study, with null hypothesis "the bad guys can't shoot for toffee" tested at varying degrees of significance.

Meanwhile, back at that press conference...

The story so far...

Alert readers of our humble blog will recall that in a recent press conference with Gordon Brown, President George W Bush was asked the key question: what is 37 times 23? The good Mr Bush gave what can at best be described as an evasive answer (see here if you've forgotten). But we here at TPIOT are made of sterner stuff, and so we recently managed to sneak into a recent press conference, bribe the PR guy with several twinkies, and ask the question again.

Now, dear reader, read on...

(Transcript of press conference follows)

TPIOT: Mr President! Mr President!

GWB: Yup, the... um... the geek with the glasses. Yo! Whassup, dude?

TPIOT: Mr President, back in July at a press conference with Gordon Brown...

GWB: Yup, I remember. Scottish guy. Big. Not dour.

TPIOT: That's right... anyway, at this press conference you refused to give a definitive answer to the question, what is 37 times 23? I was wondering if, now you've had time to read the reports, you might have an actual answer?

GWB: Um... well, yeah, kinda. Me an' the boys bin kickin' this one round for a while. I mean, I'm no mathematician, right, but we called in the experts and I think it's maybe time to set the record straight on this one. We dun looked at this from all the angles, and though we're not prepared to say exactly what 37 times 23 is, we can reveal that the answer is... an even number.

TOPIT: An even number.

GWB: Bullseye! Now we ain't ready at this time to reveal just how big this even number is, but we at least hope that y'all will give us credit for the progress we made so far. Knowin' that the answer is an even number... well, sir, that kinda military intelligence takes years of hard work an' countin'. I mean, just getting' all them fingers in the same place, so we can count on 'em.... makes me proud to be an American. Next question?

TPIOT: But Mr President, isn't it generally accepted that, if you take an odd number and multiply it by another odd number, the result will be odd itself?

GWB: (audible sigh) Y'see, this is exactly the kind of... um... unpatriotic line of questionin', that makes me wonder if you even care about the war against terror. Oh sure, the liberal elite will tell you that an odd times an odd is odd, they've always believed that... but the rules have changed, son, the rules have changed. 9/11 put paid to that. An' y'know... this kinda talk, it's just emboldening the enemy, is all it's doin'. You gotta trust me on this one.

TPIOT: So, 37 times 23 is even?

GWB: Welcome to my world, son, welcome to my world.

Maths Teacher Goes to the Movies: Knocked Up

Well, what do you know, but I finally managed to mark enough orange jotters to be able to take a night off and go see this... apparently it's been a big hit Stateside, and been well here too. What's not to like?

How's the movie?
Meh. I mean, it's OK and everything, but I really couldn't care too much about what happened to the lead characters, which is a bit of a downer in a romantic comedy. Everyone was a tad too self-obsessed, and overall the movie seemed to want to have its cake and eat it (or, perhaps, to have the bun in and on the oven?), in terms of portraying how empty our lives are when we are stuck in long-term relationships going nowhere (speak for youself, mister!), yet still give us the pat happy ending. And then all of a sudden in the midst of the angst comes an avalanche of bong-themed stoner jokes more at home in American Pie. In a word: confused.

Still, by the good Doctor Kermode's litmus test for a comedy: I did laugh out loud several times, so who am I to complain? But it's far from being a classic.

How's the maths?
Well, any number of variation on multiples of four weeks abounded, with a maximum being reached naturally enough at 36, more or less. But not much else.

Can I teach with it?
Lordy no! far too many swearies for that, even if you are a Biology teacher.