Is anybody else concerned that the provisional GCSE statistics from our local Northern Ireland exam board CCEA indicate that only 50.5% of boys in non-selective schools in Northern Ireland passed GCSE Maths this year? Bluntly, that means that out of 6024 boys in the non-selective system, just over 3040 passed. The girls fare marginally better, with a pass rate at A*-C of 55%. The combined pass rate for non-selective schools in GCSE Maths of 52.9% in 2018 is a stark 42.4% below the average for pupils in the grammar system, where 95.3% passed GCSE Maths at A*-C.
What should this tell us? Does it tell us that pupils in the non-grammar system are being taught less effectively? Absolutely not. The teachers in our non-selective system in Northern Ireland are, I'm sure, some of the best of any corner of the United Kingdom. Does it tell us that a cohort of our pupils (and teachers) is being ill-served by a centralised curriculum which does not meet their needs? Absolutely.
The sheer fact of the matter is that GCSE Maths results have - on the whole - demonstrated no real tangible improvement in the past 12 years of the Revised Curriculum. For many years now, I have been uneasy about this Revised Curriculum - a Curriculum which emphasises 'skills-based' learning outcomes, whether 'generic' or 'transferable'. If you were to look at the Learning Outcomes for History at Key Stage 3, they are identical to the Learning Outcomes for Maths and indeed every other subject, framed around 'skills' such as Working with Others, Being Creative, Managing Information, Using ICT and Communication. Yet the evidence, not least Simon and De Groot's experiments with chess. would suggest strongly that the prioritising of skills in the biologically secondary environment of schools is surely dubious at best, and pernicious at worst.
This focus on generic / transferable skills which - if they exist - are almost certainly biologically primary and therefore not suited to school-based instruction, is harming a cohort of our pupils. Activities which favour collaborative learning, pupil-led research and the teacher acting as a facilitator, the so-called 'guide on the side', are ultimately hindering our children - those very same children who are potentially destined to fail GCSE Maths - from acquiring the basic knowledge in long-term memory which frees up working memory and allows them to develop from novice to expert in a subject discipline without cognitive overload. I see it on occasions - pupils who come into secondary education without the likes of times tables embedded in long-term memory. As a result, their working memory is quickly overburdened and overloaded in the classroom, meaning very little progress is achieved.
The distinction between the Maths pass rate in the grammar and non-selective sectors in Northern Ireland may be a potential example of the Matthew Effect - the notion that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Some of our children - in both the grammar and non-selective sectors - will come from backgrounds where education is valued, where they are taken for example to museums and where strong literacy and numeracy is encouraged and extolled at home. However , some of our children - those very children who need the curriculum to work for them most - do not have the same cultural capital, as such values may not be embraced in the home backgrounds. Without the very strong focus on subject-specific knowledge from word 'Go' in secondary education, they struggle, as they do not have the automaticity of knowledge in long-term memory.
And our Revised Curriculum does not encourage a focus on Knowledge, thus exacerbating the Matthew Effect.
The GCSE pass rates in Maths are deeply concerning, and it is certainly the white elephant in the room. What exactly has the Revised Curriculum, now in place over 12 years, done to drive up standards? Not much, in my opinion, other than to ensure that more and more children go through our education system without the automaticity of vital knowledge such as times tables in long-term memory.
Our regional curriculum requires root and branch reform, and that is why Markethill High School has moved away from the Revised Curriculum at Key Stage 3, to a knowledge-based curriculum focused on the effective use of Knowledge Organisers, strong approaches to retrieval practice and a robust standardised-based assessment system which is miles away (and miles better) than the current mediocrity of the 'statutory' assessment levels at Key Stage 3 in Northern Ireland which continues to prevail, despite having a negative impact on teacher workload and even though level-based assessment descriptors have been quite rightly and roundly panned. We have also become the first school in Northern Ireland to introduce the knowledge-based, evidence-driven English Mastery Curriculum which sees every child in Year 8 undertake an additional 2-3 hours of English per week, with a strong focus on embedding high-level cultural literacy. In this school, our teachers are not 'guides on the side' but 'sages on the stage' - we believe that a teacher standing at the front of the room imparting knowledge is the best deal for our children. We believe in explicit instruction. And we believe that we remember what we think about, so therefore lessons here do not and will not revolve around 'research', 'ICT use' and 'collaborative learning' such as sorting cards in groups so extolled by the Revised Curriculum where children may be ultimately more interested in what font they are using or what colour background they will use on their presentation.This is exactly what we don't want them thinking about at this school. I talk more about my views on collaborative learning here.
Tom Bennett and others write extensively about the importance of strong behaviour management systems in schools. Sadly again, it is my view that the paradigms espoused by the Revised Curriculum can - albeit inadvertently - negate against strong behaviour management. In group work, you may have the 'social loafers' more interested in discussing last night's football when teacher's back is turned. In the computer room, you will have those more interested in checking their Facebook page when the teacher's 'facilitation' of the lesson requires that they spend time with other pupils. Indeed, Peps McCrea in his excellent book 'Memorable Teaching' states that you may as well put 20 TV screens on the ceiling of the ICT room and expect them not to look. Research in a computer room for young novices often equates to cognitive overload and distraction from real learning. When cutting out cue cards, our pupils will not be focused on what is really important in their learning. These ultimate 'distractors' can all have an impact on behaviour and behaviour management.
Markethill High School is revamping its curriculum with much evidence on our side - unlike the Revised Curriculum. The writings and research of eminent educationalists and scientists such as Daniel Willingham, Peps McCrea, E.D. Hirsch, Daisy Christodoulou and Tom Sherrington indicate strongly that if we move quickly in Year 8 to close the knowledge gap of our pupils and narrow therefore the Matthew Effect, we will be giving our pupils the greatest possible opportunity for success not just in GCSE examinations, but also in later life.
So it is time in Northern Ireland, in my humble opinion, to start talking about change to our Curriculum. Whilst there may be other factors for the performance of our boys, in particular, in GCSE Maths, the writing is surely on the wall for the Revised Curriculum.
Oh, and one-final thing...people may respond by indicating that we need 'boy-friendly' strategies to improve the results. That, in my opinion, is not the case. We need first and foremost a curriculum which emphasises subject-specific knowledge and which explores how we can best ensure that this knowledge embeds in long-term memory. As for 'boy-friendly' activities, my experience is that the strategies to improve the performance of boys and girls do not differ. They both need high expectations, strong feedback and a positive rapport with the teacher in the classroom. Anything else is illusory, including the notion that boys respond best to kinaesthetic activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment