1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

£15,000 grants available for innovative teachers....

Discussion in 'Mathematics' started by SHINETrust, Apr 23, 2013.

  1. <font face="Calibri">The deadline for entries is Sunday 19th May. The proposals can be entirely new, or build upon innovative work a teacher has already begun testing in the classroom. Any qualified teacher working in England with students aged up to 18 can apply. The competition is being run by the educational charity SHINE and TES with financial support from Bloomberg.</font>

  2. <font face="Calibri">The deadline for entries is Sunday 19th May. The proposals can be entirely new, or build upon innovative work a teacher has already begun testing in the classroom. Any qualified teacher working in England with students aged up to 18 can apply. The competition is being run by the educational charity SHINE and TES with financial support from Bloomberg.</font>
  3. empoweress

    empoweress New commenter

    On the Website it states that this is for disadvantaged pupils in London and Machester only...
  4. Hi Empoweress,

    Normally, we do only operate in London and Manchester. However this is a NATIONAL competition, so any teacher from around England can apply - please see the link below for further details. Thanks.

  5. PaulDG

    PaulDG Occasional commenter

    One of my year 12s asked me today if the year 11s really were about 5% smarter than their year.

    As exam results go up about about that every year, she said, they must be that much cleverer than us.

    I think she was being serious.

    I suppose if she's right, this "ever changing world" is one where they should be helping us, isn't it? I mean, anyone with a degree is at least 5 years older than a year 11 so we're all at least 27% behind those year 11s in the "smartness" stakes - kids in reception will be more than twice as smart as recent graduates...

    Was that what you meant by "ever changing"?

    Or was the "ever changing" tag a reference to nonsense like "Shift happens"?

    (Cos last time I looked, d(x^2)/dx was still 2x, just like it was when I was at school and, know what, most of those "jobs that don't exist yet" are an awful lot like the jobs that existed 20 years ago..)
  6. Colin_heg

    Colin_heg Administrator

    I just don't understand this! I'm not criticising anybody if you read my post. All I am saying is this is a great opportunity to take time to think if you have an idea to help kids. Anything that encourages teachers to come up with a project to help disadvantaged things is great - surely! In terms of innovation, I am just saying it's a chance to think a little and come up with something you may have had in your mind for ages but didn't have the bit of money you might need to kick the project off. I am not affiliated to SHINE. Yes myself and Brian won the competition last year but we are just two maths teacher trying to help kids - that's all. Let's not argue if we all care about kids learning - where is the sense in that!
  7. arny85

    arny85 New commenter

    The bottom line is the money from that charity has helped us have a positive impact on the achievement and success of our students and others. This is why I teach. I would think that most, if not all on these forums takes the same attitude towards their job. It's not about promoting shine but more about helping students achieve and that kind of money, along with dedicated teachers has potential to benefit students. Shine measures the impact of the winners and continues to fund successful endeavours. Should we not celebrate a competition like this? If anything, what possible harm does a charity like shine do? The mind boggles.
  8. mature_maths_trainee

    mature_maths_trainee New commenter

    I certainly don't pretend to understand the apparent criticism here of SHINE, or its competition. I haven't looked to see how well it evaluates and distinguishes between the (potentially) great ideas and the rubbish - and if it does a good job of that then I've no problem with it whatsoever - its good.
    But...and this is what I think concerns some other posters...as Hattie ('Visible Learning', 2009) critically observes, in teaching ESPECIALLY 'everything seems to work'. You can always find a teacher somewhere who will claim that their particular method 'works'. It is also incredibly easy to introduce almost any new teaching method into your class (so long as you do so with enthusiasm and conviction) and it will indeed 'work'. [Power of psychology etc.].
    Hattie's point is that such 'working' isn't an adequate basis to continue using them, or to promote them. We must seek to teach by the very *best* methods, not merely by those that 'work'.
    I'm not sure, but I think there's some experienced teachers on this board that have become very sceptical about many 'new' ideas either because i) they know they are not new ideas, and have been used before (and that irritates them a little) ii) they do not see the 'new' ideas tried out and tested in any methodical, worthwhile manner, or even just critically examined against well-established teaching principles before going ahead with them.
    I think that's what frustrates / angers some posters. The issue is coming up time and again in recent threads with 'novel' uses of Ipads, videos, BYOD, Singapore Maths,...
  9. I feel sure PaulDG can defend himself but for arny85 to call him a troll is a bit much. I don't always agree with Paul, and have said so on several occasions but there is no way he is a troll!

    Colin seems to be spending a lot of time dashing around being 'shocked'; I thought the idea of a forum was to have frank and open discussion/comments?

    MMT is bang on the money, I think people are tired of being told this or that fad is the thing that has come to save us all. Before arny85 has a go at me, I have to say I actually like to look at new ideas/methods for teaching, especially ones using technology. I've gained much from going to 'Network' meetings in my local area and sharing with/learning from other teachers.

    I have to say though, I'm always a bit suspicious of awards. Some teachers from my old school made the worlds first maths video podcast back in 2005. They took a maths concept and wrote little 3 minute sketches around a theme, filmed the sketch, added first rate motion graphics and posted to iTunes. Their aim was to reach their local community and get parents involved with a homework project. They were top of the iTunes education chart for over a year, were achieving over 50 000 downloads a month and had email from teachers all around the world. True, the greatest impact was in their own school but when they applied for an innovation grant they were rejected for not being innovative enough! And remember, this was 2005, long before any of the marker pen on a whiteboard video merchants were even teaching. Now that is something to be shocked about!

    In conclusion, I agree totally with MMT but wish any Shine entrants all the best.
  10. googolplex

    googolplex Occasional commenter

    According to just about every TES job advert out there, just about every school in the land lauds itself for being innovative (amongst several other superlatives). I think we should all have a share in the £15k. That would be enough to buy each school a couple of boxes of chalk... Thanks, everyone - I've just had a good laugh reading this thread!
  11. Colin_heg

    Colin_heg Administrator

    I think MMT has some grea points here and well said.
    I believe that in line with your mention of Hattie that an idea/method can work if the person working on it truly believes in it, can convince those they are working with the do the same and implements it with passion and understanding. In the very worst case scenario if a method that wins is not the "best" then a group of disadvanatged kids are helped byt the passion - this is a great thing and so extremely worthwhile. In the best case scenario, the award may ignite an idea that could turn out to be a "best" method in which case the award has incentivised teachers and thrown something of great use into the mix. Either way there is benefit. I would say SHINE evaluate their projects with care and consideration and so believe that they too are looking for the things we all are.
    In terms of people being annoyed by things being called "new ideas" when they are not actually new. Perhaps they are annoyed but I'm not concerned with nomenclature or who invented what etc. All I care about is discussing ideas and sharing what we all think is best practice. With particular reference to Singapore Maths. Again I understand much of their basis for teaching came from 1982 Cockcroft. Many many great teachers in the UK are using these methods and working in maths classrooms for depth and understanding over coverage. Perhaps it is fair to say that many though are not. I see other forums discussing the spiralling scheme of work and questioning it's effectiveness and I agree this is a concern. As such, perhaps the Singaporean's have just embedded the ideas of depth over coverage and modelling techniques across the whole of their profession where we in the UK may not have. In that sense it has become known as Singapore Maths due to their "all in" approach - perhaps this is not correct as they didn't "invent it" but names for methods do not bother me. In regards to iPads there is no doubt there is a new pedagogy here and as such they are "novel". Lessons where students can immediately go on Desmos and check a graphical solution of an equation, where every time a students solves and equation they get the computer to draw the graphs, where when doing Circle Theorems students can go on to Geogebra and play around with the dynamic software to generate the Thereoms by discovery, where students can draw 3D graphs and picture them better, where students can log onto Beluga Maths, where students can use CAS software to think about more complex problems that they would not have access to with paper and pen methods due to the laborous nature of the problem, where students can look up a definition each time they come to one first and the class can evaluate the different defintions and decide on the best/most appropriate, a class where after an exam you can get them to fill in a Google docs spreadsheet with their grades on each question and then direct them to videos to have a look through to work on their weaknesses in the sheet, where collaboration can be built up even more using twitter and google docs/google plus. So I really do believe this is different. The ideas may be similar but the power that comes with an iPad or such like means the pedagogy can and should change.
  12. Guish

    Guish New commenter

    I think that thre's a general misconception that ICT may/will replace traditional Mathematics teaching. I don't think that this will happen. ICT may help to support the teaching but not replace it. The main techniques and procedures still need to be practised. ICT will help to analyse the conceptual part of the learning eventually. For example, Quadratic equations has to be taught traditionally and solved in the classroom. Later on, an ICT lesson may be used to look at the solutions on the graphs. Physics (Higher level) students may look at the use of Quadratic equations in determining the velocities at which cars were travelling before a collision. Furthermore, a software can be used to fit a quadratic curve on a bridge.

    However, a lot of students get stuck on the methodological part of the process. Hence, that's why Mathematics teachers tend to be cynical. It all depends where one is working and whether one can apply such strategies given his/her context.
  13. 'The ideas may be similar but the power that comes with an iPad or such like means the pedagogy can and should change.'
    Colin, on what authority do you make the above statement?
    I agree whole heartedly with Guish's post. ICT has its place. As Tandy commented earlier this year, after 30 plus years of computers in the classroom, their effect has been marginal to say the best in relation to mathematics. In other subjects they seem to be viewed by students as a glorified pair of glue and scissors when it comes to essay writing.
    Is the iPad different? I think one to one deployments will make a difference. I've been a Mac user since way back when but to be honest, I've not really got along with the iPad at all. I can though see around me others who would shy away from a computer really enjoying the iPad and doing things they would never have attempted on a traditional machine.
    Can the pedagogy change? I teach in a fairly average school, though we do get good results in terms of 3 levels of progress. What I deal with though on a daily basis are youngsters who see no value at all in learning. Each new class that I get I have to chip away at them and 'turn them around' in terms of their attitude to the subject, often with success. I simply don't see that sitting them down twitching away with an iPad is the answer to motivating them.
  14. PaulDG

    PaulDG Occasional commenter

    Well said SS..
    I'm old enough to remember the introduction of calculators (the electronic device, not the job title).
    They instantly made the use of log tables for multiplication redundant - freeing a lot of curriculum time (which I believe has not been well used since!), so you can certainly say they triggered a change but it was what was taught, not actual pedagogy.
    And I also remember the introduction of calculators didn't only make log tables redundant, but many believed they made all mental/pen and paper four function arithmetic skills redundant.
    So out went "boring, old fashioned" learning times tables and doing page upon page of column addition, subtraction, long multiplication and long division.
    Except it wasn't, was it?
    Secondary schools used to get kids in the first year (i.e. year 7 or 8 depending on borough), who didn't know anything about statistics - but who could be relied upon to accurately add up a column of figures and divide the result.
    So teaching them "how to find the mean" was generally quick and painless for all concerned.
    But now, thanks to the wonderful improved pedagogy that came in to fill the space left by not doing pages of arithmetic, secondary schools now get kids who can't be relied upon to add up a column of figures correctly (even with a calculator), can't divide, but who have done some statistics.
    IF those kids could remember which average is "the one where you add everything up and divide by how many you've got", then perhaps the lack of accuracy would be a price worth paying.
    But, in general, they can't remember.
    So the improvements have meant more kids now have a superficial knowledge of more things - but fewer of them can get the correct answer for anything.
    Sorry, I don't believe those are "improvements".
  15. Not only can they not divide, they have no clue as to when it is appropriate to divide to work out a simple worded question.
    I could see 'flipped learning'/watching videos on YouTube being a reasonable idea for fairly well motivated top/middle groups. In truth, those groups will do quite well choose how we teach them, even if we teach them 'badly'.
    I'm passionate about teaching lower ability and probably put more effort into their lessons than any other but I just don't see them picking up things for themselves and then me ironing out misconceptions. It's with the lower ability and the disaffected that the real innovation is required, and most of that is down to the individual skill and energy of good classroom teachers, not getting grants from SHINE to make videos.
  16. I think the Shine grant could provide schools with a great opportunity to implement something really worthwhile. So glad my school isn't full of a bunch of miseries out to poo-poo any idea that's not their own/not their cup of tea!
  17. I'm a fan of Hattie's work (indeed I bought the book for myself having borrowed, and read, it from the school library).
    There is one quite significant flaw though - the collecting together of individual pieces of research about a particular approach and, effectively, averaging them out to give a measure of impact can lose some of the detail.
    The classic example is homework - overall shown to make little difference but, dig a bit deeper and you find that at Primary it makes little difference but at Secondary quite a large difference.
    This equally applies to appraoches schools may try using such funding. Whilst a particular approach, say Saturday schools as an example, may work very effectively for schools in some circumstances they may not work at all for schools in other circumstances.
    I'm imagining that, in this case, a Saturday school for all 'disadvantaged students' in a school that had relatively few such students could make an impact but in a school with a much higher proportion - over half for example - it would be much harder to get the same level of impact per individual student. [Of course my bag of a fag packed analysis may be wrong on that particular example but I use it to illustrate a point].
    Personally I think the whole SHINE project is a load of tosh and nobody at all reading this should apply - hence leaving the field open for my bid for funding for an idea I've had up my sleeve for a couple of years but couldn't secure cash for!
  18. Guish

    Guish New commenter

    Add parents who think that they can teach their kids better than you.

  19. I don't have the behaviour problems to the same extent but all of the other things on this list sound very familiar. The latest 'innovative' idea that I had to sit through an hour of CPD on the other week was 'letting the children write their own questions' because the questions we set them are so 'limiting'. I guess it really is just KWL in another form (take shelter Colin, if you are still reading).
    Having had a good look at Heagarty maths, I'm wondering how it was possible to spend &pound;15k on it. I notice the author is using a Mac (thumbs up there) say &pound;2k for one with all the trimmings, say &pound;1k for pro-software (though I didn't observe any of that in action), maybe &pound;500 for domain name and webhosting (though that should come in much lower since the videos are all hosted on YouTube) giving a maximum total of &pound;3500. Even buying two Macs and software gives a total of only &pound;6500.
    Perhaps people use the money to 'buy time' from their school? If this is the case then how does that help students that they would usually have been stood in front of? How is producing something that covers the same ground as commercially available products/already available free products seen as 'innovative'?
    Maybe I should apply and make a free version of 'MyMaths' or a version of Beluga where even the teacher data panel is free?

  20. Tandy

    Tandy New commenter

    You might find that takes a little more than &pound;15K! But made me smile.
    As for the Shine thing... at least it's nice to have someone out there saying positive things about educaiton. Seems in recent weeks a whole host of people have been attacking schools and teachers (even more so than usual).


Share This Page