Tag Archives: Oak Academy

Could everyone study mathematics to 18?

Posted on by
2

Are there enough teachers of mathematics to allow all 16-18 year olds to be taught the courses required by the Prime Minister? Not surprisingly, the teacher associations state that in the middle of a teacher recruitment crisis then there certainly are not enough teachers. Are they correct?

Well, as a famous radio personality of the 1950s once said, ‘it depends upon what you mean by’. In this case it depends upon what you mean by a teacher of mathematics? The first problem is that those in the 16-18 year old age-group divide into four: those in the school sector; those in further education; those in apprenticeships or other work environments and finally the NEET group, not in employment, education or training for one reason or another. Some of these, such as the small group in custody could receive some maths education, but most, by the nature of the category, would be outside any scheme.

However, let’s concentrate on the school sector. Could adding perhaps two hours a week to the curriculum of those in Years 12 and 13 be staffed? The obvious answer is that yes it could be. After all, any teacher can be required to teach any subject to any year group while QTS (Qualified Teacher Status) remains just that, a certification to teach, not a curriculum limited certification as I have long advocated. Additionally, academies don’t even need to employ staff with QTS, so they could hire retired engineers or undergraduates from a local university interested in earning a bit of cash to support their studies.

With the Oak Academy, schools might just sit the students in a room and show them pre-recorded learning modules, especially if no assessment was required at the end of the course. After all, discipline shouldn’t be an issue with this age group that are still in schools.

Of course, schools would expect some more funding from the government for putting on more courses, even if they reduced other teaching hours so as to keep programme levels at the same overall package length for students.

The government has been developing strategies to improve the teaching of mathematics in schools with more maths hubs and CPD available, that will have made a difference to the skill set of the teaching force, but probably only a small impact.

More importantly is the number of new teachers, where there are far fewer in training than in recent years.

2013/142014/152015/162016/172017/182018/192019/202020/212021/222022/23
2125217024502545245021742145279226711834

The ITT Census number of 1,834 is by far the lowest for over a decade. With STEM subject trainee numbers also being lower, there is support for the position being taken by the teacher associations.

Even if the mathematics was in fact statistics and problem-solving father than pure mathematics, it seems likely that there would not be sufficient teachers to staff any normal method of delivery. Might this be a time to consider the use of technology in delivery of the curriculum?

Debate about Oak Academy

Posted on by
2

There is to be a short debate in the House of Lords this afternoon, initiated by a Conservative Peer, about the creation of the Oak Academy to provide government funded resources for schools to help teach the curriculum. The House of Lords library has a helpful briefing note ahead of the debate Oak National Academy: Impact on the publishing and educational technology sectors – House of Lords Library (parliament.uk) I find the debate about the Oak Academy interesting in the light of the lack of any concerns about the government’s creation of a recruitment portal and control of the ITT application process.

Clearly, control of the curriculum through a body such as the Oak Academy can have implications for the publishing and technology industries that are both sectors that are large export earners for the education sector. This debate reminds me of when the same sector challenged the BBC over their potential control of education resources in the early days of the internet.

I will be interested to see the arguments put forward on both sides today. I am sure that there will be concerns that Ministers can direct schools to use Oak generated resources, and ensure that the values imbedded in such resources contain values approved by the current government. What might this government and a Labour government have to say about lessons generated by Oak Academy in such circumstances on the issue of industrial relations and the right to withdraw labour in any dispute between employer and their employees in history materials generated by the Academy.

Similar arguments were current when the Education Reform Bill in the 1980s mandated a National Curriculum. The concerns were around the powers of any Secretary of State to dictate to teachers what to teach and how to teach it. Of course, since then, we have seen Ministers dictate on phonics and multiplication tables, and schools being forced to follow the ministerial line even when authorities question its validity.

The Oak Academy started with good intentions during the covid pandemic, and removing the profit element, could produce materials at a lower cost than the private sector. Lower costs would be helpful to schools, but there does need to be effective oversight of materials being produced. There is also the issue of whether schools should be compelled to use Oak Generated materials? I am sure that these and other issues will be raised in today’s debate at Westminster.

As the chair of TeachVac, www.teachvac.co.uk the job board for teachers established before the DfE vacancy site was even considered, I can see the concerns of the industry about the loss of income from a lucrative sector that always needs new resources. However, there is a need for a wider debate about the role of government in state-funded education in a democracy, and that debate is more important than just the possible loss of business to existing providers. We cannot ignore the fact that ‘values’ are implicit in much of what we both choose to teach and how we then teach it.