LEARNING THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS

growing, absence rates high and unpredictable, and the severity of gaps in student knowledge and ability as a consequence of the pandemic as yet unknown, teachers can’t possibly be expected to do and fi x all, and tuition that is bonded tightly to in-school lessons o ers a powerful opportunity to support both classroom teachers and students.

A BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER?

Although there aren’t many silver linings to the impact of COVID-19 on education, it has blown the door wide open on discussions about tutoring, how e ective it really is, and how it can be best used.

The recent study by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) suggests that regular structured 1:1 tuition sessions run over 10 weeks, led by a teacher, and closely linked to classroom teaching can add upto +6 months’ progress with primary school students, and +4 months in secondary school students. Small group tuition too is impactful, particularly when led by a good teacher, which could serve as a positive reminder that rather than being ‘has beens’, former-teachers-turnedtutors are still some of the most skilled professionals out there. E ective and cohesively planned tuition is potentially incredible in terms of student impact and outcomes, and provides a perfect opportunity for teachers and tutors to start to work together.

Schemes such as the National Tutoring Programme also o er the chance for bridges to be built, particularly in cases where the school strongly leads, communicates and collaborates with the tutors delivering the additional lessons. Plenty of schools have reported a positive experience with NTP partners, and it could be that this is the very seed that needs to be planted in order for tutors to be welcomed back into a school environment.

FIXING A HOLE

Rather than teachers hiding what is clearly a widespread side-hustle, or wondering if the use of a tutor suggests their classroom practice is not good enough, I think there’s an opportunity here to see tutors as the Polyfi lla of education: hopefully the foundations are strong, and it won’t be needed, but if some repairs do need to take place, there’s a reliable resource the exhausted builder can rely upon to be there and get the job done when needed.

The problems around tutoring shouldn’t be focused upon from within the education system: they are indicative of all of those making choices about it from the outside. It says so much about us as a collective that, even after seeing potentially hundreds of students all day, teachers don’t stop - they go out and do it all again once the school gate is closed. It also shows that often teachers who leave the classroom don’t leave education; thousands still have that spark that made them enter in the fi rst place, and they still care about making a di erence to student’s lives… and ultimately, isn’t that what it’s all about, regardless of whether you’re in your classroom or their kitchen?

“teachers end up with the same money for signifi cantly less stress and signifi cantly more time with their families”

EXPERIENCE

IS GATSBY REALLY SO GREAT?

What does the phrase “a good job” mean? How can CEIAG guidance in schools help students to aspire towards and obtain such a job? Clive Hill presents his view in his latest article for HWRK Magazine…

By Clive Hill

Careers advice has changed over the last decade, and despite the push from stakeholders involved in education we still see lower levels of engagement and success in higher education from those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. As a sector we seek to address the inequality within society by steering students towards university, and miss the real aim of careers advice. The Gatsby benchmarks do little to address this because they fail to address the needs of communities in areas of social deprivation. Delivering an e ective careers programme in these areas needs to be more than a box-ticking exercise for Ofsted.

In 2013, Sir John Holman was commissioned with leading the Gatsby Foundation’s report on good career guidance. The aim of the report was to produce fi rm actions which had the ability to improve careers education, information and guidance (CEIAG) in England. Upon the report’s completion, the Good Career Guidance report presented “The eight Gatsby benchmarks of Good Career Guidance”; more commonly known as ‘the Gatsby benchmarks’ that would establish a good CEIAG guidance provision in England when measured by international standards. The Gatsby Benchmarks have been fully embedded into the 2019 School Inspection Handbook where Ofsted inspectors assess whether a school is “providing an e ective careers programme in line with the government’s statutory guidance on careers advice…”. These eight benchmarks require consideration of their e cacy themselves. While they form the framework in which schools operate, due to the nature of Ofsted inspections, they are not all fi t for purpose without consideration to the impact they have on schoolcommunities.

Current research and literature linking CEIAG and social inequality is aimed at addressing the needs of individual students within a cohort. In many communities in England and Wales the socioeconomic demographics of a cohort present inherent challenges for schools serving them.

Teach First, the Education Endowment Foundation, and Careers and Enterprise Company have all carried out extensive reports to look at the e cacy of CEIAG education. While these are comprehensive in their nature, there is an absence of advice produced by these reports on how CEIAG education should be structured in order to be e ective in areas of social deprivation.

CEIAG is the unfortunately pragmatic bedfellow of the education system. I’m a fi rm believer that education has its own worth, and should be enjoyed by all; I’m also a realist. The narrative around those living with social disadvantage comes from a middle-class positionality. Literature from organisations such as Teach First uses terms such as “good job/employment” to address social disadvantage. Successive governments have argued for universities to address disparity regarding access to degrees for these students. But the problem with the terms used is that without fi rm defi nitions agreed, the lenses through which those terms are read are not the same for all people.

Yet, we have a defi nition, from the Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices and the DBEI’s Good Work Plan. I believe that by adopting these principles we can all have a shared vision of what a “good job” looks like - good pay; participation and progression; wellbeing, safety and security; and voice and autonomy. By doing this we can prevent students from disengaging from education because they feel that a trade or apprenticeship is the best-suited route for them, rather than university, when it may not be.

This is not to say we shouldn’t be opening up the world of graduate careers to students in these areas. In fact it is crucial to present all the options available to students and their families (working with parents and carers is critical for real success), so that they can make truly informed choices about their futures.

Schools that are invested in breaking the cycle of social disadvantage need to ensure that the opportunities to engage with employers and universities are fi lled with

“CEIAG needs to start earlier; much earlier than the statutory Y8 proposed by Gatsby”

purpose – simply putting on an external speaker doesn’t pass muster. Students need to be sold the point of these sessions. All too often these are put on KS4, after options have been taken, and the boat has been missed regarding ‘informed choices’.

CEIAG needs to start earlier; much earlier than the statutory Y8 proposed by Gatsby. Primary schools have a part to play in this; there’s evidence that student career choices are a ected by their knowledge of employment opportunities though limited networking opportunities in their social circles; this is also a great place to start challenging stereotypes. This broadening of horizons needs to be carried on in secondaries, where engagement needs to be seamless right from the beginning of Y7.

Obviously this leaves those working in education in a di cult position. We have the evidence to show that graduate careers provide the best opportunities for social mobility, positively a ecting health, life expectancy and life-time earnings. However, we also risk removing student voice, and damaging self-concept by not respecting the choices of the full range of students and families in our communities. I would argue that there is a time to park our inner-academic egos, and understand that our role is more than passing on a passion for our subject, but also to enable those in our charge to make informed decisions regarding their futures.

Admittedly, I do have a personal perspective here; I was one of the students from a socially deprived background – a living example of one of these statistics. I was written o at secondary school, as I wasn’t someone that was destined for university. I dropped out of sixth-form to take up an engineering apprenticeship in the Army. I’m a “black-hand trade”, that trade was key to me changing my outlook on learning and aspirations. It was only this year that during a presentation to a group of teachers that I checked myself as I said “I’ve never been an academic…”; this was a blatant lie. Three degrees, one of which involved research into the e cacy of careers provision in areas of social deprivation, were there on the board for me to refl ect on.

Yet, right there at the start of it all was seventeen-year old me, learning how the internal combustion engine worked, and wanting to be the best mechanical engineer that I could be. I just needed to fi nd my fi rst steps in believing I could be really good at something – this is the role of the classroom teacher in CEIAG; to nurture the drive and passion of students and help them make the choices that will gain them “a good job”.