Letters

Letters

'Right or Wrong' view of Maths doesn't add up

There are many misconceptions about exams but perhaps the greatest fallacy is that there are only right or wrong answers to mathematics questions. Many questions do have answers that can be easily classified as right or wrong. But consider this question: "Is 6 a factor of 42? State Yes or No and give a reason fior your answer." For an answer, you are not looking necessarily for a textbook explanation but an explanation that shows that the candidate understands the concept. Anyone stating "No" is easily marked as zero. But what about these answers? "6×7=42", "42÷6=7" or "42 is in the six times table" are perfectly acceptable. Whereas "6 is a factor of 42" does not show the candidate knows what a factor is, "42 is a multiple of 6" shows they have interpreted the concept with a different word and is acceptable. "6 guzinta 42" is an example of bad spelling ("goes into"). At first sight, "42 marbles can go into rows of 6" and "42 marbles can go into 6 rows" say the same thing, but the first answer is better, as any number of marbles could be arranged in six rows. Similarly, a candidate may write "6 children could share a bag of 42 sweets", but they could share a bag with any number of sweets: they simply wouldn't have equal shares. It is likely they mean equal shares, but in a written exam, you can only mark what they have written. "The equation 6x=42 has a solution" is true, but the candidate should have said whole number or integer solution. The equation 6x=45 also has a solution, namely 7½. Nevertheless, it may be considered an acceptable response, especially from a young pupil. Anthony Robin, Retired maths teacher, Colchester

Improving Learning How to Learn: classrooms, schools and networks

In the latest of our occasional reviews, Guy Sheppard finds learning skills are hard to teach Improving Learning How to Learn: classrooms, schools and networks Author: Mary James, Robert McCormick, Paul Black et al Publisher: Routledge Price: £21.99 Ratings (out of five): usefulness (4), relevance (4), readability (3) In a world where knowledge gained at school may be redundant by the time pupils enter the workforce, the capacity to learn new things is essential. This book grapples with the complexities of enabling pupils to know how best to go about this process. Improving Learning How to Learn is based on four years of research in 40 schools that had agreed to promote the practices of learning how to learn (LHTL). The overriding impression from in-depth studies of three primary and four secondary schools is that, as the authors state, "the difficulties of spreading innovation from a few committed individuals to the whole school are particularly evident". The research partly stemmed from the premise that practices likely to promote LHTL would overlap with and build on those associated with Assessment for Learning (AfL). Only one in five teachers encountered during the research was found to be capturing "the spirit of AfL" so it could be argued that most schools probably have enough on their plates without embarking on LHTL. Yet the authors give a clear sense that LHTL is worthwhile even though its true meaning sometimes feels difficult to absorb. Guy Sheppard is a teacher and journalist

Routledge is offering CIEA members a 20 per cent discount (£17.59) and free p&p (within the UK) on Improving Learning how to Learn. To claim your copy, email cis@tandf.co.uk, quoting ref IEA-CIS0508 and ISBN number 978-0-415-40427-3. The offer is valid until 30 June

Make the Grade welcomes letters. Please include your address, job title and telephone number. We regret that we are unable to print letters from sources we cannot verify. By email:makethegrade@ redactive.co.ukBy post: The Editor Make the Grade Redactive Media Group 17 Britton Street London EC1M 5TP

Read all about it !

Read all about it

At Make the Grade, we are keen to involve CIEA members and to air their opinions. If you would like to review the latest professional publications, please email your contact details: makethegrade@redactive.co.uk

Head to Head : Workplace accreditation

Carl Sutcliffe

In-house is just the job

Employer-customised qualifications will be a major contributor to improving the skills and productivity of the UK, says Carl Sutcliffe

In 2004, Lord Leitch was asked to identify the UK's optimal skills mix for 2020 to maximise economic growth, productivity and social justice, and to consider the policy implications of achieving the level of change required.

In the resulting report, he recommended increasing employer engagement and investment in skills. As part of this larger programme of activity, the government asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (which became Ofqual on 1 April) to investigate how employers could contribute more directly to the national qualification system.

The Leitch report identified employercustomised qualifications as necessary to help the UK become a world leader in skills by the 2020 deadline. The approach Network Rail has taken, with a small number of other employers, is a radical change for the UK. By becoming an awarding body, Network Rail will be able to offer its staff training that leads to national qualifications that sit alongside NVQs, GCSEs, BTECs and A-levels. Network Rail will be able to issue certificates and credit to its employees that will have national and where relevant international currency.

By offering national qualifications, Network Rail will raise the skills requirements of the sector and help the UK to become a key player in the global economy. As an awarding body, Network Rail will retain control over its training needs and get the best-skilled workforce for its core business.

We will initially offer three awards from September, focused on our core business. These will be: level 2 award in track engineering maintenance; level 3 certificate in track engineering maintenance; and level 3 diploma in track engineering maintenance. For comparison, GCSEs (A*-C) are level 2 equivalent and A-levels are level 3. The internal qualifications, while mainly based around track engineering competences, also include health and safety modules, and the level 3 qualifications include units on management capabilities. Delivery of these qualifications will be undertaken through the national network of maintenance training centres and our leadership development centre at Westwood in Coventry.

The initial delivery and assessment is based either in the classroom or simulates track conditions, but doesn't stop there. A successful pass on a classroom course merely enables our employees to work under a mentored programme where abilities and competence are assessed continually on a vocational basis. Only when deemed competent to work unsupervised will an individual receive full validation of the modules making up the award. There is also an annual assessment

"By offering national qualifications, Network Rail will help to raise the skills requirements of the entire sector "

programme for the technical skills called "Assessment in the line". This rigorous quality assurance and assessment regime is one reason Network Rail achieved awarding body status.

The process is quality assured by an in-house competence assurance team, together with line management and a computer-based assessment tool, "Question Tools", to ensure competence levels remain valid and that evidence supports assessment decisions. Awarding bodies also have to have independent third-party assurance and this will be provided by, among others, the Railway Standards Safety Board (RSSB).

Network Rail is looking forward to offering a range of qualifications in the future, not only based on our core business activities, but reflecting the whole spectrum of training we undertake, while investing in our staff.

About the author Carl Sutcliffe is iLearning and training plan manager at Network Rail

Sally Hunt

Provisos on providers

Sally Hunt gives a cautious welcome to the new in-house qualifications

The government's decision in January to grant Flybe, McDonald's and Network Rail the power to award their own qualifications was a dream for sub-editors and the predictable "McQualifications" headlines filled the newspapers. The government and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) knew what the headlines were going to be and they would not have risked doing it unless they knew the qualifications were rigorously policed with watertight criteria.

In-house qualifications at various firms and within specific fields of industry have been around for years. In accountancy, for example, employees have an industry-recognised qualification that other employers understand.

But how portable would a McDonald's qualification be? Is it purely McDonald's knowledge and practices or something more substantive? We thought the power for employers to gain accreditation and recognition for in-house qualifications was supposed to be for adult learners and would be part of the new Qualification and Credit Framework, which is essentially a bank of units from which qualifications are made up. So it was something of a surprise that these new qualifications have been linked to being on a par with A-levels and Diplomas.

Employers and potential students already face a jungle of qualifications. The government has promised to reduce the amount, but these new qualifications will, ultimately, add to what is already available. For this scheme to work properly we would need a large number of companies, big and small, to sign up. Sadly, the UK's track record on company investment in workforce training lags way behind continental Europe or south-east Asia.

We have major worries about the lack of proper workforce development to support the delivery of these courses. It is already hard enough to ensure that all qualifications are being delivered by trained teachers and lecturers. All school teachers and further education lecturers have to be teacher trained and we are unsure exactly who is going to be teaching these new courses. And we are concerned about the issue of increased workloads of people involved in Information Advice and Guidance services for both young people and adults, and for schools and college staff.

The key point is how would the quality of "off-site" provision be actively and effectively monitored? It is worth remembering that when the Adult Learning Inspectorate was born and given the task of inspecting all workbased learning, nearly half of private providers "left the market" when they realised that they couldn't, or wouldn't, get through an inspection.

Obviously, much has changed since then but the most robust quality insurance procedures are absolutely vital

"For the scheme to work, a large number of employers need to sign up. But the UK's record on workforce training is worse than Europe and south-east Asia"

for off-site inspection, as they are for all training delivery. Following the collapse of Carter & Carter, 25,000 students need to be picked up by other providers, inevitably colleges. This raises, once again, questions about the longevity of private employer qualifications.

The bottom line is that we support initiatives to encourage people to take up training or further study at work or in college or university. We believe in education and the power it has to improve people's lives. What is absolutely key is that people are given the best options and information about what will suit them, and that what they study is rigorously policed, properly accredited and recognised by colleges and employers.

About the author Sally Hunt is general secretary of the University and College Union