No, we’re not by any means done with whacking PowerPoint and scripted lesson plans and the explicit overreachers. But, there are a couple things fresh in the in-box, and it would be a relief to quickly out-box them. And, the easy way is to WitCH them and then worry about them, well, probably never.
The Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, key player in the WMCC farce and proud producer of their (literally) marvellous Pedagogy Statement,* have just released a new paper:
TOWARDS EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS
God knows who wrote the thing.** God knows who AAMT thinks will read it. AAMT’s email announcement suggested:
What is it for?
Towards Excellence in Teaching Mathematics is designed to support career-long professional growth, guide reflection and professional dialogue, inform professional learning, and strengthen collective understanding of effective mathematics teaching. It is not an appraisal or accountability instrument — it is a resource for the profession, by the profession.
How to use it
Read it. Reflect on it. Share it with your colleagues, your leadership team, and your professional learning community. Use it as a starting point for conversation about what excellent mathematics teaching looks like in your context.
That would appear to be the wishfullest of wishful thinking.
Anyway, we don’t expect anybody to attempt to read AAMT’s thing, to determine whether there is anything other than truisms and twaddle buried in the way too many words. Any such foolhardy readers can let us know, however, if the Statement, to the extent such statements can ever be worth more than zero, is any better than AAMT’s 2006 version.***
Whatever. That’s one more in the out-box, a little yay, and back to the salt mine. So, much crap …
*) The previous AAMT post reminded me that we have (at least) four yet-to-be finalised book-prize competitions: here, here, here and here. I promise, I will get to this very soon, and please let me know if there are any other forgotten comps wandering about (while I ponder a new one). The post also reminded me that commenter Fox had already alerted us last year to VicEd’s horrid ARC lesson plans. Clearly, I need to pay more attention to my commenters.
**) When asked, ChatGPT claimed “possibly 60-80%” of the authorship.
***) For the true masochist, some pre-2006 history is here.
I do love how one of the core characteristics of a teacher who is ‘excellent’ in ‘being a teacher of mathematics’ is to:
‘advocate for equitable and high-quality mathematics education’
All who tell the AAMT to shove it are doing exactly that, although I doubt AAMT would agree…
Indeed.
Interesting that “Productive Challenge” has been used as a substitute (in item 2.4) for “productive struggle” – I guess the latter is now a bit on the nose. Although the whole thing is a masterclass in jargon – and no evidence of the evidence base they claim to have.
AAMT also dropped the claim to have “Standards” 😀
The 2006 document was called “Standards for Excellence”.
In 2026 it’s “Towards Excellence”, claiming it is “a framework to support that work — not standardise it”
I got Claude to read their website for evidence of how the statement was put together – its final summary was quite snarky!
Well done, Claude.