This is the thousandth post on this rude, silly blog. And the thousandth thought is: what to make of it all? A thousand posts, half a million words, and fifteen thousand comments from you guys, is a lot of words and a lot of time spent simply to be pissing people off and making enemies. Is it worth it to continue? If so, how and to what end?
There are signs here and there of progress, of small battles won. Most wins, however, are smaller than they appear, if not entirely mirages. Explicit teaching is the new black, and it is more attractive than the old black, but the Explicit Crusade appears to have largely degenerated into calls for pre-packaged PowerPoint claptrap, with the Explicit Crusaders seemingly as tribal and as slogany, fundamentally as thoughtless, as the inquiry fruitcakes they’re hopefully supplanting. ACARA is finally getting rapped over the knuckles for their appalling curriculum but the appalling curriculum will be there for many years, and ACARA is still a black box basket case, concocting new stuff away from the prying eyes of people who might have something sensible to contribute, and testing kids on NAPLAN swill that no one is permitted to see, all under the guidance of a shiny new clown. VCAA got properly whacked by Bennett and there have been significant and good changes, but the reforming leader is gone and VCAA is still fundamentally an asylum run by lunatics. AMT removed some clowns, is still excellent and is still primarily a country club resort for Polo Grammar and Our Ladies of Perpetual Properness. AMSI is still as passively useless as ever, and MERGA and MAV and AAMT and AAS are still as actively destructive as ever. The education faculties are still not remotely about education and are still devoid of faculties. And on and on.
In short, we’re still doomed.
So what am I doing here? Of course it is Messianic to imagine that this nasty blog could redirect Australia’s education Titanic in any meaningful manner, although, as Woody Allen said, you gotta model yourself after someone. But the only real purpose is to make a few idiots and assholes sweat a bit. That, and to make a few sane people, including me, more confident in their sanity. Maybe that’s enough, but I wonder. And if it is enough then I wonder if it can be done better. Should I be nicer, or at least pretend to be? Should I emigrate to a nicer sounding site, maybe become a Substack Bro? What else, better, might this site be?
I know this blog is appreciated by some, and some of you guys are gonna respond to the above by writing nice things, and thank you in advance. But that’s really not the point of this post. I don’t need bucking up. I am genuinely asking, myself and you readers. What is the point of a thousand posts, or of any more?
“What is the point of a thousand posts, or of any more?”
All we each have is time, and how we choose to use it.
(Sure, some have “choice” and others have choice.)
My recent (simple) model for choosing how to use my time is to consider a 3 circle Venn diagram.
Set A consists of things done for health.
Set B consists of things with a purpose that is not self-serving.
Set C consists of things that are autotelic (Done purely for the experience; the experience is the purpose, period).
(Draw it and think about all the intersections.)
For me to want to continue my life, I need the correct mix of A, B and C.
My correct mix is, my correct mix.
My mix ≠ a third, a third, a third.
Based on my simple model, there is only a point to a thousand posts (and all that led up to each of them), or any more, if the time required fits into your correct mix.
For the sake of all of us, our children, our … – I hope more posts (or whatever is a better way to do what you have been doing) can fit into your correct mix.
*Passing Marty the vodka*
People come here for different reasons. I come here for ideas. To be told my ideas are stupid (or wrong) in a direct way sometimes. It is refreshing and appreciated in ways that some people will never understand.
I come here to learn and to un-learn.
By this I mean that there are things I have “learned” by doing hundreds of VCAA, Cambridge, Nelson, Jacaranda, NAPLAN etc problems with and for students that I have (thanks to this blog and those who frequent it) realised were stupid, wrong and often both. I have amended class notes and tried to start discussions in the staffroom(s) because of this.
Is it succeeding? Not at all.
So why keep trying? Because the alternative seems far worse.
I smugly thought I had worked out this teaching game. Your site has been a correction, so thanks bigly.
You’re still young, tom. You’ll get there.
If you migrate to a new website or just change the domain name of this one, it will take time for people to be clicking on it in numbers they do now.
I had a blog about programming and when I changed the domain name to be more appropriate to what I wanted the blog to be about, the number of clicks tanked.
Thanks for the warning.
Yours is pretty much the only site with a rational discussion of what really works in maths teaching. Change takes time, a long time. The standard medical reference is 17 years between an idea being shown to work by research and general implementation. So please keep up the good fight. It is slowly getting better, even if in primary schools it’s PowerPoint. Where else is a maths teacher supposed to find a sensible discussion so that they can learn what really works rather than what they’ve been taught in their education courses. And yours was the first place I found, where discussion of Cas matched what my gut said. This government is likely to go following the next state election. Continued pressure on VCAa is the best method to ensure they don’t go backwards and possibly even go forwards. As Philip Adams was wont to quote, the situation is hopeless. I must take the next step. Thank you! One thing that I think would be incredibly helpful, would be a single document setting out what really works. This could be referred to and pointed out to people. Maybe Tony Gardner’s got some stuff out there but there’s so much nonsense out there already.
A manifesto? Maybe, but I dunno.
It seems to me that culture is what is lacking, rather than a sensible program. (Although a sensible program wouldn’t go astray.) At its heart, is there much more than KKK?
of course it’s culture, but a manifesto may
Help with cultural change in that we can point to it. By the way, what’s KKK?
Yeah, but it can also be a lot of words that cloak simplicity.
Know your subject.
Know your students.
Kare deeply about both.
(I’m about to dive in to a full day workshop at my school on teaching models. Riding my bike to school, I remembered your “teaching model”. I’m glad I refound it. I hope to quote it at some stage. Really, how hard can it be?)
1. Thank you.
2. Don’t comment as “Anonymous”.
There are enough manifestos. If people do not accept them is another matter. The best ones were both serious meta-analyses. “Teaching Functions” is one of them. Better, the other one was not accepted by Boaler! So you just have to notice that some other people has written them.
Click to access ED500486.pdf
When Politics Took the Place of Inquiry: A Response to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s Review of Instructional, Jo. Boaler, 2008, Educational Researcher
Both publications are available in the internet.
P.S.: I am not the enemy.
Thanks, Solange. I’m not sure that any manifesto 120 pages in length is worth much. I don’t think I’ll look further at that one or, of course, at Boaler’s response. You don’t give much of a clue about the other manifesto (unless you mean Boaler’s as the second manifesto.)
I don’t think you’re the enemy. But if you get loud, I’ll reserve the right to get loud back.
Marty:
I included the link about the NMAP introductory report. It is available here and it is very well known. You have to read it. It represents several volumes. The one I sent the link before is just the introductory volume. So I did not understand what you wished when you wrote:
“You don’t give much of a clue about the other manifesto (unless you mean Boaler’s as the second manifesto”
I have written before about the NMAP (2008) report in here. You have to read it. It is a well performed meta-analysis (such as the other one I mentioned called “Teaching Functions”).
Nothing to do with Boaler. She just did not like it and wrote some stupid things about the NMAP report! So I thought that, by send you her criticisms of a well performed research (the NMAP was performed by many well known professionals in several exact sciences, including physicists and mathematicians), it would interest you!
Do you wish a summary of the NMAP report?
Which kinds of clues do you wish?
Thanks, Solange. Maybe it’s the language, or maybe I’m getting senile, but sometimes I have a lot of difficulty understanding you. Anyway, I have no idea what “Teaching Functions” is.
Thanks, but no I don’t want a summary of the NMAP report. Maybe I’ll look at the thing, probably not.
Perhaps it’s just the use of words, but I regard “manifesto” as a clear declaration of position or goals, and that’s what I’m interested in. It’s gotta be short and punchy and to the point: it’s not a multi-hundred page plan.
Maybe these encyclopaedic plans have a purpose, and maybe NMAP is very good, but that is not what is needed at the moment, at least not in Australia. What is needed in Australia is for people to be clubbed over the head with plain common sense. Without that first an encyclopaedic plan, whether or not it is of intrinsic merit, is useless.
People throw bibles at each other when what is needed is a Golden Rule or two.
FWIW.
Having not been a Head of Faculty since 2003, in 2023 I stepped back into such a position.
The first thing I did was write a manifesto.
I allowed very few people to read that document.
After 2 years of observing the 2020’s maths-in-school landscape, I then wrote a document called An Ideal. It is largely a subset of the original manifesto.
At the start of 2025 I presented An Ideal to the mathematics teachers in our faculty.
Both the manifesto and the An Ideal have proven to be very useful, at a local level.
I’d trust a Manifesto or mini-manifesto-Ideal from Anthony much more than anything I could produce (although mine would have more jokes).
Perhaps we could see Anthony’s manifesto please if it’s appropriate? As is so often the case, the process of drafting a document is often as helpful as the document itself to the author. While you wouldn’t want to crowd source such a document, the comments it aroused among an informed community could be rather interesting.
I would also be very interested to read these documents if they can be shared.
I will do my best, with Marty’s help, to facilitate the reading of the document I wrote, once this term is done.
Congratulations on the milestone, a really significant achievement.
I imagine the success of the blog is due to the sense of humour and the proper appreciation of mathematics set against the standard practice of maths ed. I enjoy the tone but I imagine a number of those I have worked with would find it a little bracing! It definitely helps me to clarify my thinking but I probably think carefully before sharing it.
I can see the argument for something more diplomatic but I struggle to imagine it being enjoyed as much. Also would you really want to write it? Maybe you could team up with some others for a shared space which could be a collection of coherent thoughts on mathematics and education.
Thanks, YT. All very good points. And yes, independent of the merits, it is far from clear that I could or would want to write in a much different manner. I’m pondering, and had already been pondering, your “shared space” idea.
Gardiner is there. But there is an introductory bla bla bla in Portuguese. So wait until Antony Gardiner speaks. Be patient. It is a great “manifesto” by him, a mathematician!
A video is easier to grasp. You can just listen to it while cooking!
There is also a very important manifesto by Nuno Crato, a Portuguese mathematician.
Thanks, Solange. It breaks my no-videos stance, but Gardiner is always a worthwhile exception. I’ll watch.
Solange is right this would make a great manifesto. Not a huge amount of editing to bring it down to a one pager, probably a couple of points to add and Bobs your uncle.
Thanks, JJ (and Solange). I haven’t had time to watch Tony’s thing yet, nor to (re)read Anthony’s thing, but both are on my agenda, and I hope to post on both in the next day or two.
Thanks Solange-I’ve been looking for TONY Gardner talks and there aren’t many. Very much appreciate this.
Hello JJ
Perhaps you wrote the wrong surname in the internet. It is “Gardiner”. I found 3 more videos:
Best wishes!
Thanks very much, Solange. The first two videos are just snippets, but any snippet by Gardiner is worthwhile. The third video has some length and substance, and is (of course) very interesting.
There is also a very well hidden video of Gardiner debating Wolfram, to which I link in this post. (See the second Update and follow the instructions.)
Thanks Solange. I will share it with colleagues.
If you transcribe to a text, Gardiner’s talk also becomes a great manifesto. He even talks about Jerome Bruner and representations, almost at the end of his main talk. And about the Singapore textbooks and curriculum!
Thanks again. I’ll ponder doing something with this. No idea who Bruner is.
That’s because you have not been forced to complete a Master’s in education – where you have to learn a bunch of ed psych theory and attach simplified stories to their research. From memory, he was caste as having social constructivist theory of education – and advocating a guided or scaffolded discovery learning approach.
Every field has its own pseudohistories – but in maths and physics it’s a side dish of the subject and not the main course.
Ugh! My one-year Grad (big) Dip was plenty. Thanks for letting me cross Bruner off my list.
Bruner is actually one of the good guys, Tony praised if I remember correctly.Apparently he’s the bloke who originated the concrete pictorial abstract idea.
Huh. CPA is good. Simon can explain why he thinks Bruner is on the side of the Play Clowns.
He probably was one of the good guys! I was more commenting on how most of the stories we had to learn were cartoons of what the researchers actually thought/did.
I am not an expert… but from rereading a little, he was a constructivist theorist that built on ideas from people like Piaget and (maybe) Vygotsky. His Discovery Learning is a lot more teacher guided than inquiry based learning – which is why he also talked about CPA, Scaffolding and Spiral Curriculum.
Here’s a description of Bruner from MathsNoProblem.com:
“””American cognitive and developmental psychologist Jerome Bruner revolutionised maths education, shifting the psychological mindset from behaviourism to put cognition at the centre of modern educational theory and modern educational practices everywhere.1 Bruner was a researcher at Harvard and Oxford, focusing his attention on children’s cognition in developmental psychology and educational psychology.
Some of Bruner’s influential works include The Process of Education and The Culture of Education. In these books, Bruner introduced his theories: Discovery Learning, the CPA Approach, Scaffolding, and the Spiral Curriculum.”””
Thanks, Simon.
His dig at Conrad Wolfram (at 5:50) is swift and brutal!
I’ve been so busy I haven’t had a chance to watch the while thing yet. But yes, I got to the Conrad bit, and it was hilarious.
There’s a separate video on the web where he goes head-to-head with Steven Wolfrum. Suspect that’s what he’s referring to.
I don’t think so. It sounded to me as if he was referring to an earlier talk by Wolfram at the same conference. But I’m sure they were sparring in many places, because there are always idiots, like VCAA, advocating Wolfram’s twaddle.
In any case, I will post on this soon.
Solange, are you aware of any other videos or talks by Tony Gardner please? I’ve only found one at Cambridge where he debated Wolfram. very much appreciate that video you posted
I know my English is not good enough, but it must be readable as I have two degrees from a very formal English university. A master’s, in 1986 and a doctorate, in 2001.
Meta-analises is a potent type of research for generating strong evidence for using (or not) certain practices. Especially in medical and educational research. Ok, A manifesto should be short, but it should also be research-based.
Jerome Bruner was a very famous psychologist who did research and formulated a theory about learning and teaching in general. The same is true for David Ausubel. Both of these theories were considered by many people as very useful for the teaching of mathematics and science.
Nuno Crato is a Portuguese Mathematician who (as Gardiner) attempted to study, debate and interfere in the teaching of mathematics. There it goes a sort of large “manifesto” written, in English, by Crato:
“Teaching Functions” by Barak Rosenshine and Robert Stevens from the University of Illinois is a seminal publication and meta-analysis about direct/explicit teaching!
Any proposal to implement explicit teaching well needs to be both research-based and textbook-based as in medicine.
I must also say that I would have many of my “manifestos” rejected/ignored because I did not abandon explicit teaching both in my teaching and in my research.
To make matters worse, I “explicity” rejected most of the constructivist’s ideas that were published about teaching. But I was a hard working and serious mathematics teacher (15 years) and educational researcher (25 years). Now retired. I did my homework well.
I’ve treated your blog as mostly entertainment, especially with the WitCHes which are like fun puzzles.
It’s pretty remarkable your blog has made any progress, usually complaining on a blog accomplishes nothing at all.
As bad as VCE mathematics are, it’s very low on my list of things that need to be changed. For one, the other VCE subjects are worse, it’s just that no one has a blog for VCE english or biology or god forbid one of the niche subjects. Further, on the whole, I’d argue that VCE isn’t the worst part of the educational system, there are significant issues with the universities in this country that cause problems bigger than a question being wrong on a year 12 maths exam. And going past education entirely, the housing crisis, drug reform and a lot of other issues in this country should be addressed first.
Thanks very much, Joe. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.
I don’t know exactly that the blog is responsible for any (minimal) progress. I think the specific acts that have made a difference were not blog posts. Still the blog may have helped organise and to publicise those acts.
As for other VCE subjects, I have always assumed it to be the case that all the subjects were screwed in a similar manner. I have in fact been asked the question “why is all the trouble in maths” on at least one occasion, when meeting someone from VCAA and/or government (can’t remember which). I can’t remember what I answered, but I think it was along the lines of “are you sure about those other subjects?”
I think a large part of it is what you say, that mathematics is the only subject covered by such an aggressive, and accurate, blog. Plus, John Kermond has been no small factor. But I think another aspect is that with mathematics it is much simpler to argue truth and falsehood, and thus error. Simply stuffing things up is a very small part of what is wrong with VCE mathematics, but VCAA attempting to deny the undeniable has exposed them for the bad-faith charlatans that they are: if VCAA are willing to lie about blatant error then why should they be trusted on anything? And of course they should not. I’m pretty sure that VCE English, for example, is also screwed, but I’m not aware of the undeniable elephants in their room, which might give the corresponding leverage.
I don’t know that as a problem university mathematics (and all) is worse, but there is no question that Australian universities now are a farce, an absolute disaster. The Vice Chancellors and their henchmen are some of the most repugnant, least principled people on Earth. As far as I can tell most mathematics departments have largely given up, or at least given up teaching the plebs. No one really cares if the plebs learn anything. Academics are simply trying to duck the idiocy imposed from on high, and not just or mainly the DEI lunacy. They keep their heads low, jump through the stupid hoops in the simplest and most efficient way possible, and hope to wall off a little space and peace to do their research and teach, only, the kids from Polo Grammar.
The reason I seldom write about universities is not because I think it’s all good there but because it is a lot harder to write about. You’re writing about individual lecturers’ subjects, which is much trickier to do, both for getting reliable information and also for trying as hard as possible to not attack individuals. Not that I excuse these individuals, any more than I excuse teachers who calmly feed VCAA’s/ACARA’s/Cambridge’s/Nelson’s/Jacaranda’s swill to their students, lacking the brains and/or integrity to do other. But it is harder to attack such decentralised nonsense. For different reasons, it is difficult to attack the university leadership over their anal and idiotic micromanaging. The stories I hear are horrifying and maddening, certainly maddening for the poor academics who have to bow silently and obey. But it seems difficult to confirm and to nail down this madness in a manner sufficiently clear to me that I think I can make it clear enough to readers.
Of course, the country is doomed, or at least dooming, in much broader ways, but I think a lot of it is indicated by the woes of education, and I think if there is a fix (there’s isn’t) then it is through education. In this sense I think secondary education, as a problem and as a potential solution, is much more important than university education. And, I think primary education is much more important that secondary education.
Reply number 2^5…
Congratulations on reaching out to so many ~ and also on such a “magic milestone” as a 1000 postings ~ truly marvelous…
I too have toyed with the idea of blogging ~ but have now decided to publish my contribution to Maths in an ebook ~ and can say that your (often profane) but genuinely heartfelt whingeing has helped steer me towards the rocky shores of cynicism and satire…
Don’t hold you breath but sN00Ze shall emerge this year ~ unless we’re nuked by Putin ~ or perhaps even Trump should he fail to get his Peace Prize
Thanks, Ewen. I have no real idea what is worth doing in this stuff, for me or for anyone. On the macro level, I don’t think anything makes much difference other than power, and this blog has little or no power. On the micro level, it seems some people get something from the blog, even if, like Joe, it’s mainly entertainment.
I’d like to say I do it because it is fun, but it is not nearly that simple. Rewarding? That doesn’t really work either. Dunno. I need a therapist.
NAH, you don’t need a therapist, but others might…Writing is a bit of a cathartic experience (IMHO) ~ so it’s well worth your while aiming for posting number 2000..
For what it’s worth, I’m gonna go completely crazy trying to Make Arithmetic Great Again! Am putting some of my thoughts together (yes, even about the Power mob) for posterity to either ignore or take on board… sN00Ze is end date driven (11/11/2025) and will either be a total disaster or just “yet another” sad, angry voice (screaming into space) where no-one can hear, lol
Concerning arithmetic … I have just bought Pendlebury, C. & Beard, W. (1899). “A `shilling’ arithmetic”. G. Bell and Sons. A lovely little book; less than 200 pages; written for lower and middle years of secondary school and the upper levels of primary schools. I plan to use exercises from this book in my teaching.
Hi Terry. Why did you choose that one? Or was it random, just what you ran into?