ICTeachers - The Interesting and Independent Voice of Teachers ICTeachers Magazine April 2003 Probably the best and least monthly educational newsletter in the world! |
|||
To Subscribe to the ICTeachers Newsletter
-
Go to the website http://icteachers.co.uk/
and sign up! What is ICTeachers? ICTeachers is the reason why I'm going grey and the buttons have come off two pairs of trousers. Did you know that the DfES are giving away bursaries of £500 to teachers who have been teaching for four or five years in order for them to further their professional development? Isn't that great! I think that's wonderful. I've been teaching for 13 years, what is there for me? Well! I've discovered TIPD!! Teachers International Professional Development plus a whole host of goodies!! http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/professionaldevelopment/opportunities/ AND... I've recently come back from a visit to Melbourne AUSTRALIA!!! Oh Yes MAMA!! Now you have to understand, up to this point the sole experience of international travel has been flying to Scotland when I was 8 and driving a van to Poland and Romania along the cobblestone highways of Eastern Europe when I was 28. WHOOSH!!! In a Big Fat AIRBUS!! WHOOSH WHOOSH WHOOSH!!! Thank you British Taxpayer!! : )) Oh, sunshine, sand and sea for 7 days!! Yes, just a week but it was worth it. Oh yes. What an experience. What's that? The education system in Victoria? Fascinating, truly fascinating. I learnt so much looking at someone else's system. You know what, the primary schools have non-teaching deputies who are in charge of...guess what....literacy? numeracy? assessment? monitoring?...no....Teaching and Learning. YES! There is a place in this world where PROCESS is seen as more important that PRODUCT!!! Where professional development is not about assessment but truly about development of the teacher. Where they have a yearly questionnaire about staff moral and every teacher has their own laptop leased to them for about £2 per week, changed every three years. Oh yes, oh yes...... I think I need to lie down again. : ) Have a great holiday colleagues! : ) The Editor
There's a
new, superwiz spreadsheet for calculating children's chronological
ages at the time of testing and the variance of their actual age from
their reading / spelling etc. ages. http://www.icteachers.co.uk/resources/resources_policies.htm
Several
"clients" have helpfully told me of broken links, especially
on our collection of cyberhunts. With the help of Tony Poulter, the
author of many of them, I have been updating the cyberhunt collection http://www.icteachers.co.uk/children/children_cyberhunts.htm.
The
Science Links page has recently undergone a complete review and
update.
The
Vaultman apologises to anyone who has submitted resources or sites for
inclusion in our list which have not yet appeared. I have a very long
ToDo list and will eventually get to them (Promise).
The 2003 KS1 SATs debate A
contribution to this important debate by
a group of Isle of Wight Primary School Headteachers. There
is a growing and deeply rooted dissatisfaction with the Key Stage 1 SATs.
This dissatisfaction has been developing over the last few years. The
inappropriateness of the SATs testing regime for children aged 6 to 7, the
changes in the writing test, together with the totally inappropriate new
marking scheme, the lack of trust in the teacher assessment, the over
rigorous moderation process have led us to a position to question the
purpose, the validity and the status of these tests at the end of KS1. At
the Isle of Wight Primary Heads Forum held on 11th February
2003 a discussion was held with regard to the KS1 SATs for 2003. The
inspectorate and the Literacy Consultant were present. We had a
wide-ranging debate that covered many areas - some very contentious.
During the discussion we focused on the external moderation process. The
meeting was informed that in 2002 when apiece of writing marked as a L3 by
the teacher and agreed by the school was presented for moderation it was
returned as a L2a. The school contested this and to resolve the issue we
were told that an inspector for assessment from another county was called
in to arbitrate. At
this point in the debate the minutes record that I “spoke with some
passion” questioning the purpose of the SATs, the moderation
process, the resources spent on this process, the impact that such
arbitration might have, the inadequate consultation process, the impact
that this whole process is having on learning and teaching in our schools
and importantly questioning what this all means for the individual
children involved and asserting that in my opinion it meant little if
anything for the child in terms of their broader and long term
development. My
view was confirmed by a significant number of Headteachers at and after
the meeting. In
the week following the meeting I was asked by the Island’s inspectorate
to give my views in writing so that these can be used to inform that
important national debate. It seemed to me that as my view was so widely
affirmed by all those Headteachers at the meeting that a collective view
would carry more weight than my personal view. I
sent an email to all Primary schools (a copy is attached) requesting that
Primary Headteachers give me their views on the KS1 SATs so that I might
be able to collate them. I used the format of questions circulated by the
Primary Education Alliance (National Association for Primary Education
(NAPE), National Primary Trust (NPT) and the National Primary Headteachers
Association (NPhA)) as the focus of my email and my request for
information and views I
have collated the views of the schools that did respond and the report is
attached for your information. I, we, hope that our views are of interest
to you. The
Isle of Wight has 46 Primary Schools and 16 responded within the very
short timescale to contribute to this debate. Shanklin
CE Primary Plus a small contribution from 3 Headteacher colleagues on the mainland This paper will be given to a wide audience including Isle of Wight Primary Heads Forum, other Isle of Wight schools, the Isle of Wight LEA, the National Primary Alliance (NAPE, NPT, NPhA), the NAHT, the TES, the Secretary of State for Education and others. KEY STAGE 1 SATsThe
views of Isle of Wight Primary School Headteachers
March
2003
The
Headteachers were asked for their views on a set of statements about the
KS1 SATs made by the National Primary Alliance. The views that have been offered by the Headteachers (and the KS1 teachers through them) have been bullet pointed and I have attempted to summarise the collective view in each of the comment sections to conclude I have made some strong recommendations. The first view that Headteachers were asked to comment on was on: 1: ........ the reliability of Teacher Assessment compared to the results of the SATs?
Comment: It
is abundantly clear from the above comments that Headteachers firmly
believe that the professional judgement of teachers made through the
process of Teacher Assessment should be sufficient to confirm the levels
attained by the children at the end of KS1. This snap shot method of
determining the achievements does not give a true picture and that other
forms of assessment which are more diagnostic provide a clearer, better
and more secure set of data / information with regard to the achievements
made and the future potential of the children involved. 2:........ the teaching time lost to prepare for and administer the SATs?
Comment: Again, there is a clear consensus that the KS1 SATs testing regime consumes a disproportionate amount of time. Huge amounts of real teaching time and therefore real learning opportunities are being lost at an important time in the development of these young children. The time spent, wasted some would say, does not balance with the quality of the information about the children that results from the process. The time would be better spent engaging the children in real learning. 3: ........ how the
resources currently used to sustain the SATs process might be better
spent? · Resources would be spent on innumerable other ways e.g. books, materials, equipment, creative activities. · We would very much prefer to spend money that we allocate to support SATs elsewhere. · Putting in place assessments processes that would help teachers help children and inform parents about the child’s progress. · Agreed systems and banks of materials to support ongoing teacher assessment perhaps with more child friendly assessments used as and when teachers judge them to be appropriate for groups of children. · The overall budget must be vast. There are many other worthwhile things it could be spent on: far too numerous to list here. · Time for teachers (particularly in small schools) to moderate assessments within their clusters. More time to assess other areas of the curriculum more thoroughly. · The huge cost of ever changing papers notes of guidance, salaries of those that invent them could be better spent on extra staff and resources. · This is obvious the resources we spend on supply cover etc could be much better utilised in teaching specific groups on catch type of activities – like ELS etc or to put in more TAs to work with the classes to ensure that all have equal access to the curriculum. · Money would be better spent on resources to enhance the curriculum to make it more motivating and exciting. · Time out for teacher assessment. · Not just at KS1, as a country we must spend an absolute fortune on assessment. If I had direct control over that budget I would put some of it into additional Pupil: teacher contact and some into teacher release time so that teachers had time for individual assessments of children and more accurate recording of their assessments. Comment: Given the professional choice of how best to spend the resources that are made available for the KS1 SATs testing regime it is clear that this would be spent on enhancing and extending the process of Teacher Assessment, providing better adult: pupil ratios, allowing teachers time to engage more productively with the children and securing appropriate resources to offer better learning opportunities, real resources such as books etc. If teachers were given the trust to use their professional judgements and then to have that professional judgement valued and respected they would develop better, more accurate and much more useful assessments of children. 4: .........are there any tangible benefits for the child from the SATs process? · Not that couldn’t be achieved in a much less expensive and less bureaucratic way. · No. · The 1st cohort of SATs children were not informed of their results and it made no appreciable difference to their overall ability. · It may draw attention to an underachieving child but other systems could do this. · No. · I can’t think of any. · NONE AT ALL! · None. · Some children enjoy the small group work and a very few children do rise to it and show hidden strengths. Sadly some enjoy the process!!! · I do feel that the whole process takes up so much of Y2 teacher’s time and energy, which could be put to better use. · NO – no benefits for the child, it gives their parents something to discuss but this could just as well be the teacher assessment which would be much more meaningful, especially when you tell a parent well he could have got a L3 if he just got this one correct! · Very few if any tangible benefits – useful on-going teacher assessment much more beneficial in improving levels of attainment. · No. · None. · Not at KS1, and at KS2 they are outweighed by the negative impacts. Comment: The SATs offer no benefits for the children. Therefore, if the teachers see little value in the tests, if the curriculum and therefore the learning of the children is disrupted, if they cost a disproportionate amounts of resources we have to wonder just what are they for. KS1 SATs / tests are not about children these tests are being used by a system that fails to trust its teachers to make judgements about schools but at such a high and negative cost to the children involved. 5: .........do the KS1 SATs impact in any positive way future potential?
Comment: The consensus view is overwhelming in that there is NO positive impact of the SATs; they have NO influence on the future potential for the children involved. There is very little in the way of positive impact for the schools. 6: ......... the creation of unnecessary anxiety caused to teachers, parents and more importantly children? · Although we generally manage to avoid anxiety for the children, it certainly causes some anxiety for parents and considerable pressure and stress on the teachers. · Small schools with mixed age classes have considerable problems. · Whilst every effort is made not to concern the children with the SATs process there is an inevitable pressure form some homes and parents are made very anxious. · This is an increasing problem. Parents are now very aware and make children feel pressured even when the school policy is to play it cool for the sake of the children. “SATs” used to be a not in front of the children term but many are now very aware. Teachers feel their professional credibility, their pay, and their careers chances are at risk. SEN children are made aware of their problems. · This is a big problem, particularly for immature children, (and there are increasing numbers of these……..but maybe they aren’t immature at all……they are just young children) children with low self-esteem, anxious children. There is a huge amount of pressure on children, parents and teachers and for what? · I would like to see parents starting to judge schools by other means than SATs results. Also parents often start to panic about this time of year (March), asking what can they do to make sure their child “scores well” in the SATs. The teachers can also become anxious albeit unintentionally – all this must make children feel very pressured. A few children, I am sure “enjoy” the test situation but I have seen many children tears, as they struggle to complete work, at the young age of 6 and 7 and having their teachers suddenly unable to help them. · It depends on the teacher’s attitude towards SATs. · This is one of the most worrying factors, children wetting the bed, staff off sick with stress, the horrible bribes paid to schools who raise their results (by what ever reasons !!!?!). the whole thing is stressful and so against human rights. It is too soon for the children. · Enormous workload for teachers. · No matter how we present the SATs they are now so much like tests and the conditions that we have to impose mean that the children are working in totally alien ways which is stressful. We are not allowed to help – children go through the system being told to ask for help and then in the SATs situation are told that we can’t help. · Teachers find the whole process stressful. They are under pressure for the children to perform well on the day, but they know there are many factors beyond their control affecting the children’s concentration……social and emotional. · Huge amounts!!!!! · Personal stress for all involved. Unreasonable workloads and expectations on all involved. Meaningless results. · In a recent phone call form a parent moving to the Island, they related to me that the Head of the current school had told them on no account to move before the end of may, as harm to the school career of the Y2 child would be enormous! · The tests produce a sense of pressure in both teachers and pupils. · Teachers LOADS, parents some, children (in our case) very little. · We don’t have a problem with anxiety to the staff as the governing body and the management do not put excessive pressure on the Y2 teachers – but the workload this year (2003) has risen enormously. Sadly we have some parents who are exceedingly anxious about KS1 SATs and transfer this to their children. Comment: The SATs do cause considerable stress to everyone involved - unreasonable stress that does not need to be in the system if other more productive and child friendly, teacher generated and teacher needed, processes were implemented. 7: ......... the current curriculum that does not take into account known research into child development and styles of learning? · Totally agree. · There is too much coverage and not enough learning. · The curriculum is being increasingly guided by what can be tested. The need to teach for tests limits opportunities to respond quickly to new research and ideas. · This is a huge problem that needs addressing urgently. Boys in particular have problems which we can all see becoming worse as they progress through the system. · As headteachers I think it is up to us to account of learning styles etc in our delivery of the curriculum. We need to be brave and take stands. (SATs however do not take the above into account) do any tests take account of learning styles? · TRUE. The foundation stage curriculum is good and takes account of the needs of the children then suddenly 6 weeks later the needs of the child come second to the learning objectives of an overly prescriptive and overloaded curriculum. Teachers are not able to use their talents and creativity fully and children are not able to follow any of their interests and learning styles. The curriculum is too departmentalised for young children and it is hard to find to provide the context and the purpose to some of the activities. · Why would those you impose this unreasonable testing regime upon schools have any knowledge of, interest in or indeed understanding of how children learn? The SATs have nothing to do with learning they are the antithesis of real learning. · I agree the climate for learning is different for different children and so many different learning styles. We are constantly being asked to account of these. OFSTED looks for a variety of approaches in teaching and then the SATs really only are presented in one format if that does suit your learning style – TOUGH. Also what about those children with SEN who rely on TA support – they are put under immense pressure to do the work on their own. · The obsession with narrow testing of young children does not take into account all round development of young children or the natural peaks and plateaux characteristic of learning. Neither does it take into account the differing brain development of boys and girls. Many boys are put off writing by the age of 7 because they have been put into a failing situation at too young an age e.g. being expected to write before their abilities are sufficiently mature. · Agreed – what a surprise! · Particularly for boys. We know that boys do not like writing because they think their writing is untidy and they can’t spell. We need to encourage them in both these areas but to test them at 7 and then confirm for them that they are getting lower scores only causes problems for encouraging boys development of writing at KS2. Comment: The KS1 SATs have nothing to do with how children learn, why they learn, how we can help them to be better learners, how we can develop within them a love of learning, how we can enable them to want to learn. The Headteachers were also asked to offer comments and to be specific about the current 2003 SATs with regard to............ A: the writing SAT at KS1 · Writing tasks have 2 components one of which is timed. Young children do not respond well under this sort of unnecessary pressure. · The requirements re. content and instructions are far too prescriptive and not suitable for infant-aged children. No freedom to write about their own interests or in their preferred genre. Goes against current concerns about boys writing. Only one attempt at each piece of writing allowed, regardless of their emotional, physical state on the day. This increases pressure on teachers to inform children that this is a test. What about children who are absent – they cannot be offered the full preparation that the others have had. I am very angry about this; this is not child-centered and will not do justice to many children. Teachers will feel much more pressured. · Totally inappropriate in style, subject matter and expectations. · Too much, too long! · Inappropriate task not age related that takes no account of the child. · We have just got to grips with the way the writing was and now it has changed. A timed piece of work gives no facility for those children who have the ability but take longer to record their ideas. The subject is very narrow and won’t appeal to all of the children. Again SEN children are being encouraged to use ICT to record but in the SATs they are not able to do so. · Untested for real yet. · Very unhappy with the double dose of writing. Comment: The views expressed clearly state some major dissatisfaction with the writing tasks set for this year in particularly the style of the task, the timing, the rules that are to be applied, the lack of consideration for the child in the centre of this process, the appropriateness of the task, the effect of the teaching in the school, the lack of consultation. IT IS AN INAPPROPRIATE TEST FOR 6 and 7-YEAR OLDS. B: the marking scheme for the writing · Yet again we have to take on another marking scheme, which will slow us down. · Ridiculously convoluted and time consuming, especially when you put it next to some of the writing being assessed – a few incoherent or illegible lines. They aren’t PhD students. What a waste of expensive teacher time that could be spent improving children’s writing. It might as well be externally marked. · Laughable: more suitable for essays written by high school students. · Too onerous and too open to change year on year (can children miss a level by 1 point?). · The scheme is very prescriptive and it will take a long time to mark the work – it will mean more time being needed for the internal moderation so all the staff feel confident with the marking. · Looks very time consuming. · A good teacher can tell at a glance the level of a piece of work they can verify this with a colleague – do they really need this regimented and ridiculous time consuming mark scheme to confirm that judgement? · The gut reaction of experienced teachers is still the best method · Very unhappy at the workload issue for KS1 teachers. KS” staff send off all their papers, but at KS1 it all lands on a hard-pressed teachers desk. If you provide more release time for teachers for the teachers simply to undertake the marking you have extended the disruption to the class. Comments: The view is clearly stated that the mark scheme for the writing SAT this year is totally wrong in its format, its detail, the timing and the outcomes that will be produced by its application. WE DO NOT WANT OR NEED THIS MARK SCHEME. C: the moderation process and its purpose · The moderation process makes us feel mistrusted. · Moderation is needed within the current testing regime but the school has had doubts in the past about some of the judgements by the moderating team. What is the cost? Do the end results justify the costs? Requests to moderate all level 3s is insulting to the teachers. · Its purpose is to make teachers insecure. Moderation is acceptable if it is a debate conducted at a professional level with all views being valued the current external moderation fails in this regard. · Impossible to work effectively. If the tests are to continue then ALL papers should be marked externally. · External moderation is very costly and sometimes seems to have the sole aim – to stop children achieving a level 3 writing at KS1. · The moderation is a good idea to ensure compatibility across the school but the involved for this can be difficult and there should be some conformity so all schools have the work moderated or none. · I have no problem with moderation, but it ought to be by suitable sample and does not have to involve every school every year. Comments: Moderation is an acceptable process for us to engage in as long as it is a professional debate with the views of the class teachers being listened to and properly valued. At this time the teachers view is dismissed and not valued. D: the view that we should be teaching to the test · We are all aware of schools that cram their pupils inappropriately. · The information from QCA re the changes to tests made it quite clear we should adjust our teaching because of changes to the test. Surely it should be the other way round. · Hideous but unavoidable. · So how much we believe we shouldn’t the pressure is on! · We don’t teach to the test and perhaps that is why our results don’t match some other schools (hence we never win the money prizes!). · We have a dilemma in education……….teachers seek to develop creativity in the curriculum (even QCA are encouraging this) but the testing regime at KS1 SATs is the opposite to everything that has real educational value and everything that is about becoming a better learner. · Teaching to the test will only achieve higher marks – will this actually benefit the children? Some schools prepare their children for the tests to try to minimise the stress but then what is being judged – the teacher’s preparation or the children’s knowledge? · Regardless of whether we should / or want to we have to as the results and judgements about the schools depend on the results. · Definitely not, otherwise all we are measuring is how well we can teach the test – sadly that is happening in some of our schools. Comments: If you teach to the test you test only the ability to do the test. Real learning is set aside and children’s education is sadly diminished. E: the view that the SATs are now TESTS and not assessment tasks · SATs are tests, not assessments. Each year the goalposts are moved and one can’t help wondering if they are trying to trick us! · Definitely true – the whole nature of the writing “task” has changed. · The first SATs were tasks and were helpful to teachers in making real constructive judgements about children the current SATs are just test and fail to enhance the educational process. · The original tasks were much more helpful, but difficult to administer. Also large cost implication. · Of course they are TESTS – set timing / conditions what else could they be! · Of course the SATs are tests, they are not activities they have long been paper and pencil tests. · When the SATs first came out they were supposed to be used in the classroom and the children would not realise that they were doing different work! Not any more – and if the children are aiming higher they have to sit more tests in a test situation with no adult support and without using equipment that all year they have been encouraged to use! · Definitely. · THEY ARE! Comments: Once we had assessment tasks now we have tests. We are testing very young children in the most offensive of ways. In doing so we are devaluing real learning and potentially creating a cause for children to be switched off school at the very moment that they should immersed in it and enjoying every moment, at the time that they should be learning to learn. F: ……..the time required administering the SATs · 2 writing tasks means more time, as does the need to test all children in spelling even when the teacher assessment shows it to be pointless. We have to keep re-grouping children to sit tests at different levels so the time ripples out across the whole class, particularly damaging in mixed-aged classes. Normal timetable is disrupted for a whole month. · It is not a productive use of time. · Time – number of days cover to support administration. · TOO MUCH TIME – valuable learning time is lost! · SATS require non-contact cover that is in short supply. Supply cover could be used to support improvements in the classroom. · The time this year will be greater and so more expensive for all schools to cover with supply etc. · Half a term wasted. · Unreasonable – and if this time demand had been made at secondary level it would have been thrown out straight away – but in primary teachers, particularly of infants will always try to make it work. Comment: If only the commitment of teachers were recognised and supported and given the same priority as these extensive and inappropriate tests, if teachers were given access to the resources spent on this process I wonder what the education of 6 and 7 year olds might look like? G: the resources made available, or not, to effectively do the job · there is no financial support for the increased time required to administer and mark the new writing and spelling tests. · Not really a problem. · Where is the money coming from – standards fund which is now non-existent and not ring fenced so there will be different emphasis in different schools depending on budgets Headteacher priorities and needs. · What resources? The specific grant is now hidden in standards fund, which has been slashed this year. · Scarce resources are wasted. Comment: Education of the younger child is grossly under funded except when it comes to the implementation of centrally imposed initiatives. H: the views of parents with regard to these Tests · we always share the process with parents in an attempt to reassure them, but they are usually appalled at the expectations, particularly for those that are still 6. · NO COMMENT. · All the parents that I have spoken to hate the tests and do not think they are worth doing. They also don’t like their young children working in this way. · Parent’s views – most parents think that their child’s progress and happiness is more important than the KS1 SATs results. · Parents at this school – on the whole – do not want KS1 SATs. As a parent myself I am not looking forward to the next year. My son will probably do OK but I don’t like the idea of him being put under pressure, him being used in appoints make prizes game and the loss of education he will experience in Y2 doing SATs. I would love to pull him out of school during the SATs so that he does not have experience it! · Many parents do not want their children assessed in this way at this young age…………….they have little interest in the outcome. · Many parents are concerned that the children do become very stressed, upset and worried about the SATs. Even though we try to keep them key by not sending home revision books etc. some parents see them as a competition and I want my child to do well. Others just want heir children to be happy and would be happy if the tests did not continue. Most parents just want what is best for the child a smooth, enjoyable primary school education where they see learning as fun and most of all that the children ‘s needs are identified and addressed within a secure caring environment. · Some paranoid. · Varies from overly anxious to dismissive. Comment: Schools are frequently told to listen to the parents and to take in account their views. Perhaps it is time that the DfES listened to the voice of the parents as well (and listened to the voice of the teachers). Other statements made in response: 1: On the positive side Teacher Assessments, for which
I am prepared to be held accountable, are worthwhile as an ongoing
procedure for raising standards.
On the negative side, the time and emotional energy spent on SATS
tests in May cannot be positive! The tests produce a sense of
pressure in both teacher and
pupils. This is then reflected in the
PANDA outcomes and then in OFSTED scrutiny.
I am all for raising standards and improving methodology but feel
as
though more is being demanded increasingly with less resources and
time - and something must give! 3:
With a self-evaluation culture now easing
OFSTED's load and with schools now adept at planning and evaluating programmes
of study largely imposed by DfES through the QCA why not trust schools to
use a range of up to date, standardised testing materials devised by
NFER et al in concert with their "cluster partners" and LEAs to
guide their target setting. Such materials/data will save the DfES a
fortune and get them off the senseless, purely arbitrary national target
hitting neurosis. No resignations, no "eating of hats", merely
encouraging schools to become more adept at using universally
accepted testing data (reading tests, NFER maths/language tests, CATs
tests etc) to move individual schools/classes/individual children along at
appropriate paces. The incidence of cheating by falsifying scores will
stop. Data will be shared because fatuous comparisons will put an end to
pointless competition. A climate of creative, shared innovations and
growth points will be enabled. What more can I say?
4:………..Research currently is showing the narrowness of the
SATs
geared curriculum is actually counter productive. The COCKCROFT
Report (1982) stated that “no
one ever grew as a result of being
measured”. We know that to be
true and want to be able to provide a
rich but challenging curriculum
to enable and extend all our children. FINAL WORD AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Thank you to everyone that contributed to this paper. I hope that your views have been fairly included and that the comments and recommendations that I have made are in line with the common and consensus view. Dave
Kitching Tel: 01983 862444 dfkitching@portables1.ngfl.gov.uk Review of RM Maths Portfolio - www.rm.com RM MATHS PORTFOLIO
I was asked to trial RM Maths Portfolio for my LEA
and have done so for five months. It consists of three pieces of software:
RM Maths - an ILS (Independent Learning Software)
package RM Snapshot - an assessment package EasiTeach Maths - a whole class teaching tool Technical There were some difficulties putting RM Maths on the
network due to Viglen Classlink but individual teachers could handle
installation on stand-alone machines. Manuals These are very basic and do not explain much of the
rationale behind each program. Certainly
the RM Maths booklet did not explain many of the features of the program
and left you wanting to know more. RM Maths The initial reaction of my Y5/6 children was positive. The children who benefited most from these were the high-end maths children and those who found maths a struggle. The coverage of a wide area of maths in each 15-minute session at least three times a week ensured they were challenged across all the strands of maths. All children |