Festival of Education

I was persuaded by @Arakwai to come to the Festival of Education. I have enjoyed the science festival and sessions in the Bristol festival of ideas, so I was keen to go along.

The first session I went to was Andrew Andonis. There was no description of what he was going to talk about in the programme, but I decided I wanted to hear what he had to say about himself anyway. I wasn't disappointed.

I was impressed that Andrew Adonis seemed to speak clearly without notes. I think this is the way that Labour politicians approach speeches these days? Both myself and my OH are teachers and we discuss the state of education under the Tories a lot. He works with students who are 'hard to reach' and is concerned by the pressure on them to go to university as the only route. So when Andrew Adonis talked about the improvement in number and access to apprenticeships as being the next step Labour would have taken I nearly punched the air in agreement.

I also agree with Lord Andonis about teacher training. Separating teacher training from universities isn't going to make the profession more respected or professional.

Due to the number of questions the session over ran and I didn't go to anything in the next slot. Instead I went into the Pearson tent. Interesting, they are using research to influence their products. I was told that the literacy in exploring science: working scientifically was tested in a RCT. I was interested in this, because I feel that as a head of department the resources in the scheme of work have the opportunity to influence the teaching within the department, rather like UpD8 SEGUE has had a massive influence on me. I await to see what Pearson produce.

After a hot chocolate, which was the biggest disappointment of the day (get a Barista Machine Wellington College), we went to a panel discussion about maths. Panel discussions are, for me, what make festivals tick and I found this one disappointing. I did discover that if we improve the maths level of the lowest achievers then we can massively increase GDP. 11% of our young people don't reach PISA's level 1.

Then (fortuitously) a speaker didn't turn up so went to lunch early to avoid the queues. The Paul Rankin burger was lush. Then Arakwai (not her real name) saw via twitter that there was an impromptu panel debate about research and research leads and involving Tom Bennet. So we strode off towards the spiritual room. The session raised more questions about how to turn teaching into a research lead profession. Questions that even the introduction of research leads into schools don't currently answer, but hope to in the future. I can't speak for the wider education community, but it was clear from the room that there is an appetite for teachers to be more involved with research. I was interested in the project Harvard are running to try and make links between teachers/schools and research, but (I might be wrong here, there wasn't much description of the project) it sounded like Harvard were linking with specific schools, what about the rest? How do these small scale projects scale up to a national picture? I was itching to ask a question, but people far more interesting and intellectual than I had their hands up, so I let them speak.

After that I dragged Arakwai to see David Starkey, Keith Vass, Claire Fox and Katie Hopkins in a panel debate. I didn't like Katie Hopkins when she was on The Apprentice and that opinion has not improved. This debate allowed her the opportunity to be extremely vile and make David Starkey sound like the voice of reason. I found some of the opinions of Claire Fox rather unpleasant too. I hope the panel were booked for their entertainment value rather than their expertise? This isn't something I am used to: When attending the science festival I haven't experienced a debate where the panelists attack each other and make statements with so little evidence or experience to back them up. "I don't want my daughter to sit next to someone naughty" and "we shouldn't educate the bottom 20%  intellectually" are not the best informed statements I have heard. If Katie Hopkins has a problem with the education of her children then she should speak to the school, not take education on in the national media.

Second to last we went to another panel debate on whether students should get a say in what they learn. The debate meandered all over the place. I did get the impression the lady from BBC learning didn't know much about education in the classroom as she spouted the corporate lines. Johnny Ball was an interesting addition to the panel, obviously passionate about education. Most interesting was the student from Wellington where students do have some say in what they learn. Not being restricted by doing GCSEs must help an awful lot when it comes to making a creative curriculum that will inspire your students. I was envious for a moment, but then nervous as the straight jacket to GCSEs at least gives me a benchmark.

Final I went to see Richard Dawkins. Everything can be linked to evolution apparently. I think the speech Alice Roberts did to the ASE about humans and education was much better than what Richard Dawkins had to say. But it was good to hear him talk about the scientific method during the questions at the end. He was much calmer than I was when asked silly questions.

I enjoyed being able to go to so many sessions, however I found that 40 minutes wasn't enough. I am used to at least an hour, and often sessions had only just got going when we had to stop.

The idea of an education festival is a good one. I enjoyed being able to listen to debates that were high above my normal pay grade. I like being able to talk about education without feeling guilty that I am not putting something I have heard about into practice on Monday morning. But most if all it was great to be in an beautiful environment, with people who care about education talking and sharing with passion.

I can't wait for the next one.

Pedagoo SouthWest 2014

It has been a week and a day since I went to Pedagoo South West and it has given me time to reflect on what  I saw, heard and thought about during the event.

The welcome from Bristol Grammar School was great and the main hall is an amazing room to spend time in. The tea and biscuits was very welcome. Emma Payne did a great job collecting the prizes for the raffle, very impressive.

I enjoyed Rachel Jones' key note speech. https://www.haikudeck.com/pedagoosouthwest-education-presentation-Fo3Rg5Fse7 I enjoyed the comment about twitter and dichotomies, oh how I hate straw men when they get thrown about in arguments. I also agree with Rachel that there is no right way to teach.

To me her presentation may have consisted in a series of what might be described  as sound bites, but they summed up the positivity that we can feel as teachers when we want to. It was important for me to start the day by thinking about the bigger picture and realising the importance and solidarity that teachers can feel.Rachel's passion was a great way to start the day!

The video made by Rachel and her students was a real high point of the day:




For a while now I have been thinking that I must force myself to go to CPD and INSET sessions that I aren't in areas that I am currently interested in. Why? Because I often don't learn anything as I will have already investigated, and CPD can end up as a disappointment.

So with this in mind I went to Paula Worth's session about teaching a knowledge-rich curriculum. I went partly because of the knowledge vs skills debate on twitter. That debate actually leaves me cold as it often involves the word dichotomy. I have tried to keep myself out of this debate. However, it was interesting that Paula seemed to say it was a real issue in History. It made it more real.

I was very impressed by the activities she outlined in the ways that she scaffolds students using their knowledge in a skill based activity such as a debate. Facts to outline the points they were making were important. The session certainly made me wonder if I can think of more creative activities for students to learn from. I am glad I went.

After that I went to Robert Massey's session about gifted and talented students. This is another area that I don't have a great deal of interest in. Years of hearing about G&T, but not ever working at a school that had this area sorted has turned me off it as a concept. I actually found it very interesting to be able to drill down into what another independent school does. I hadn't made the connection between 'scholarships' and 'G&T', and I felt a little silly when the penny dropped.

It was certainly a session that made me think about what we do at school and what we do in our department. I need to take more responsibility to ensure that I am confident I know who our scholars are and consider how best to interact with them.

I like the idea of teaching to the top. It can be difficult to do this when SLT (not my current managers, they are reasonable) expect to see specific G&T resources.

After a short break and a cup of tea I stayed in the hall to hear Nick Dennis speak about multipliers. I realised that I hadn't been subject to a leadership talk for a while, and it is always useful to reflect on this area of being a teacher, middle leader and future senior leader. Currently my focus is science education and I have lost my passion for school leadership as a topic.

Nick first talked about diminishers:

And made a comment that I know I have to take more notice of. I have encountered it from managers, but I am still guilty of being 'always on' myself. Taking on too much and trying to implement it all can be as damaging to leadership and those who are being led. 

Nick talked about giving someone within the group, but not in the highest leadership position the casting vote. I can see how this might be useful. But I do wonder if people realise they are having a leadership game played on them and resist? I would! 

The rescuer is an interesting title. I have worked with SLT who really enjoy having this role! I did enjoy all the descriptions of people as they did make me think about real situations and were personas that I could relate to.

It is always useful to reflect on leadership in education and how our actions induce behaviour in others, and on the team we want to lead. I certainly don't feel like a multiplier at the moment.

The last session was by Chris Hildrew. "Closing the Gap" marking. He said himself that he had borrowed from others across the web, and did acknowledge them in his talk. 

I went this talk because marking and planning for marking is something that I know I can be better at. 

http://chrishildrew.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/closing-the-gap-marking-twilight-cpd/ This link takes you to Chris's presentation. 

He put together all the little pieces about marking and feedback from around the web, and it was really great to have it all sewn together. My favourite piece of the day was the handout from Chris with 12 ideas for marking and feedback.

I came out of the session feeling that Chew Valley School must be a great place to work.

The day ended with a talk from David Didau, it was a shame that we struggled to see his presentation because he stood between the projector and the screen.

David was talking about his premise 'what if we are all wrong'? http://www.learningspy.co.uk/myths/wrong-pedagoolondon14-presentation/ 

Great afternoon. 

KS3 Published Schemes

I am asked a lot what scheme will I be going for.

I had a free trial of the kerboodle online resources and was pleased with the quizzes and the idea behind how they work, but I was less impressed with the worksheets. Too much paper and not enough to make a lesson from. I feel that the lesson resources really missed the point. I did think that the questions they contained were good, and there were some strong links to contexts.

I knew then that buying kerboodle would not be enough. Luckily a copy of exploring science was sent out at this point. I wasn't exactly pleased that I was unable to find my school on the Pearson website and I had to make a phone call for Pearson to realise that we existed. I felt sorry that the reps that found me were not going to get the business. However, I have always found the worksheet resources for exploring science useful. So we have bought the worksheets from Pearson too.

I did look at the Collins resources and thought that they could have been more imaginative and really what I was buying was more of the same. The Hodder 'progress science' resources didn't do it for me either. I wanted something different.

However, I did buy "better teach science" by Hodder. These activities seem very imaginative and are linked to a context. Something that I couldn't do myself.

I hope that all these resources can compliment what we have an help to build a strong key stage 3 curriculum that helps students understand science.

For those of you who will criticise me for not writing our own and buying *worksheets*, we are a department of 6, only 3 of whom teach key stage 3. And more than that I want to explore the interactive resources that the publishers now offer. I will subscribe to the new exploring science textbooks in September, the interactivity in them looks amazing and is something that I could not hope to do to such a level and in such quantity.

I continue to strive to a 'perfect' key stage 3 scheme, aware that none of the published schemes are quite it.

The cost for what I recommend is upwards of £1600.

The Changes to Physics NC 1999 to 2014

Electricity and Magnetism 

I think that the new national curriculum does show an increased ambition for students. 

There is specific reference to potential difference and resistance as well as V=IR in the new curriculum. However, I imagine that most schools are similar to the ones I have worked in and teach potential difference as part of key stage 3, and the concept of resistance as something that opposes the current flowing. The extra activity will involve the students calculating resistance. We have fixed resistors with small values, that will be useful for this type of activity. 

Static electricity is new, but I don't think that this will take a lot of time to teach. Students are familiar with static electricity and the national curriculum doesn't expect them to understand earthing as a concept. If students have studied magnetism previously then the idea of 'opposites attract' should sit comfortably. They may also be aware of electrons as a concept from current electricity, if this has been introduced. 

Magnetism has been increased to include compasses, but these are usually part of schemes anyway, so won't be a departure. Including the motor as an application of electromagnetism is a bit different and will require adaptation of resources, but I don't believe that it will require more of a challenge than teaching the door bell or speaker. 

Forces and Motion

Looking at each section in turn, using the speed = distance / time equation isn't new, although distance-time graphs seem to be, they are currently taught at key stage 3. The new section seems to be relative motion. 

In the forces section, there aren't many areas that are not currently taught, except perhaps work done and energy changes on deformation. I am interested to know what this should look like, and whether it should be approached in the forces topic, energy topic or both.

We already teach Hooke's Law in Year 7, but it is more about developing the ability to draw a line of best fit and interpolate from a graph than about recognising when a material obeys Hooke's Law. Air resistance is taught in Year 9. Most schemes of work I have taught have also covered the difference between contact and non-contact forces, so schools may already have resources to cover these curriculum points. 

Pressure in liquids is not explicit in the 1999 curriculum, but this is taught in schools, so again should not be a stretch to develop lessons for.

Waves

The obvious addition is the mention of waves in water. As we use water waves to teach about light, I can see that this can be added into light topics. In the QCA schemes light came before sound, but teaching sound first, then light and water and finally being able to compare the three would be useful. That water waves are light light and transverse, but also like sound in that they need a medium to travel in. 

I have never taught the pin hole camera before (although I have made and used a 'real' one in an extra curricular activity run by one of the technology teachers), it is part of some schemes however. 

The human eye is something that I have not taught at key stage 3 before. As I write this I am wondering what level of detail I will go into about how the eye works; will I mention long and short sightedness for example?

The word frequency appears in the new national curriculum. I don't usually ensure that students understand that different colours have different frequencies. I think this is because I don't usually teach light as a wave, I teach more about the properties of light and what it does. Teaching that light is a wave introduces some new questions for the learner - what is it that is vibrating? Light doesn't wiggle, it is a straight line.  

Space Physics

This is the area where information seems to have been stripped out. Satellites haven't been included. 

Although the seasons and day length were not included in 1999, but were taught in the QCA schemes, and I also think I have seen SATs questions about day length and the movement of of the sun across the sky. I note that the planets are not explicit in either curriculum. 

Energy

Energy is the bit that needs work. I am not entirely sure how I will include 'simple machines'. Physics for you will help, I hope. I am also undecided of how to approach kWh as a unit of energy. 

The issue with physics is that we need to teach transfer instead of teaching transformation. Reading work by Robin Millar is a good place to start. e.g. http://www.york.ac.uk/media/educationalstudies/documents/research/Paper11Teachingaboutenergy.pdf  and http://esummit-msu.net/users/robin-millar

Teaching food energy, energy resources, and heating and cooling is something covered in previous schemes of work. It is interesting that convection is not explicit in the new national curriculum. I think that it is something worth teaching to recap the idea of density and prepare students for GCSE, where it will be necessary to help understanding of how insulation works. 

Power is an interesting addition. I know the OUP scheme from the early 2000s covered it, so there are resources available. 

Matter

The new addition is the reference to matter. 

It will be interesting to see the ways that schools and publishers approach this. I would prefer to teach the particle model in Year 7 chemistry and then use physics contexts to revisit the ideas. In that way we will cover the concepts written in the national curriculum, without needing to add another topic that recaps the ideas already taught in chemistry. 

For example, Brownian motion will be taught in air pressure, change of state will be taught as part of the heat energy topic as well as the changes to the spacing of particles as temperature changes. Density will be taught in floating and sinking, etc etc. 

Hopefully these observations will help someone. I will try and do the same things for biology and chemistry. 

My Ideal Scheme of Work (1) Giving it Purpose

It is not a secret that I love the Segue schemes of work. My ideal schemes of work would be built on the some of the same principles from the Cracking Science manifesto of Tony Sherborne.

Please see: http://www.upd8.org.uk/wikid-tick.php

Through experience I agree with the idea of having big ideas as themes through schemes of work; adding to the ideas of the students, nudging and supporting them in building their ideas about science. I want to go back to the 'Principles and Big Ideas of Science Education' document on the ASE website to work out what those big ideas are. I was not always confident that the 5 big ideas of the old key stage 3 strategy are the best choices. However, I did always use them in my teaching, e.g. student study particles in Year 7, develop this in the Solutions topic, recover the basics again in the sound and heating topics in Year 8 and again in the pressure topic of Year 9. This only scratches the surface, the ideas interweave throughout science and this revisiting of the ideas can only help students to remember and understand ideas about science.

Using these key ideas it is possible to help students make links between the concrete knowledge of the student to abstract ideas, allowing them to use what they know to explain things they don't. As real scientists do.

In the cracking science manifesto, Tony Sherbone mentions the term 'backwards design'. It is something that I am familiar with. When working with a team in London in February we outlined what we want from key stage 3. We need to work back from this to ensure that the opportunities for students to develop the skills (knowledge was only a small proportion) are part of the schemes.

Following this starting point, Ed Walsh (leaning heavily on the work of Robin Millar) has convinced me that having a 'working scientifically' objective alongside the content objective is the best way to teach the skills and knowledge that students need from science education. This is what the upd8 schemes have.

I also agree that the teacher has to motivate the learners. In science this is important to inspire the next generation of scientists.

• We have achieved Motivation To Learn when students find meaning and purpose in science. Unfortunately, it is clear from research into students' attitudes (as well as low uptake of science subjects) that too many view science as 'important, but not for me'.

Emotionally engaging the student in the learning journey, either by helping them overcome a challenge or through relevant activities and contexts. I like the question asked 'why should I care?' Actually, "because it will help you get GCSEs in the future and this is a compulsory subject" isn't helpful, because we have to do more, we have to help students to see that science is an important part of their lives, because it is!

I like the 5/7E lesson cycle, I believe that it has the potential to engage students both intellectually and emotionally in their work. The idea of engaging students with a question in context helps students to engage in the lesson and give it purpose. Starting with an engaging problem also helps to give the end of the lesson clarity. The elaborate section is my favourite bit, the plenary of the lesson and it usually gives the chance to assess the student formatively and build their literacy skills.

I have written about it before. In my ideal world all my lessons would be structured this way, but it takes time to think about it especially when it also needs to be fitted to the GCSE curriculum. However, I don't see why my KS3 lessons can't have this structure, upd8 wikid and segue prove that it is possible.

The criticism of the wikid schemes was that the students got too wrapped up in the stories. In my ideal scheme of work I would try to make the 'story' more real. It may curb the excitement, but hopefully it will help students find out more about real science discoveries.

I also want to think about how new technology can change the way that students will learn. Our students will have an iPad each. (Or should have). Watching videos, researching using the web, working on collaborative documents, answering online quizzes, writing blogs, creating graphics, auras and videos should all be possible. Alongside developing future scientists and scientifically literate young people I have the added responsibility of helping students get to grips with ICT, and using it to help them learn. I want to develop a scheme of work that also makes the most of this new technology.

I want to develop a scheme of work that

a) starts with the end in mind,
b) interweaves the big ideas of science throughout, building a progression in understanding from concrete to abstract models in these areas
c) has learning objectives that reference working scientifically and knowledge for each lesson
d) is emotionally engaging for students by including a context and/or story for lessons or sets of lessons
e) is made up of lessons that are structured using the 5E lesson cycle
f) makes use of new technologies to support the learning of students and helps them develop ICT skills
g) most importantly helps students to see that science is relevant to their every day lives and is a subject worth following as it is for everyone. 

Key Stage 3 Planning

I have now done a bit of work on the new key stage 3 national curriculum and had time to think about the opportunities as well as the inconveniences it affords us. Having looked at the resources from a variety of publishers I am pleased with the move forward in some ways and wonder at the lack of movement in others.

I really like the idea of online resources and textbooks. I will admit that I don't yet know how useful they will be to 11-14 year olds, but I think as the technology develops for GCSE and A-level students I can see being able to interact and annotate an online textbook will be really useful. As I type this it feels like I will buy the kerboodle/OUP resources, this is because I am impressed with the online testing. I know other publishers intend to produce similar resources with the ability to support students in dispelling their misconceptions through online testing/resources. I look forward to seeing this at GCSE and A-Level.

Online resources have come a long way since samLearning. It is an exciting time.

However, I really can't see a great deal of progress in the schemes themselves. I haven't looked with forensic attention to detail, but with the exception of 'better teach science' by Hodder I don't see anything that catches my imagination.

The order of the information, the route through the sub-topics, seems to be very similar to previous schemes. The ideas, activities, contexts, and investigations seem to be very similar to resources I already have in my possession.

(There are two possible reasons I can see for this: Science education is well researched and we know enough about the best order of teaching to be pretty confident we have it right and it doesn't need to be changed or we lack the creative skill and motivation to come up with anything new).

What does this mean for me? Well, my department is going to invest in a new scheme, a one that includes all the online learning that I mentioned. We'll see how that goes. For me it is perfect timing as the girls have to come to school in September with an iPad alongside their pens and pencils etc. The timing is right to invest in this technology. Even if this were not the case our textbooks are out of print and looking very tired, so it is opportunity to change. (We give each student access to their own copy of a textbook, and this isn't something I am in a position to alter. I don't have the time to write my own set personally - one day?).

On a leadership level I feel I need to help my department continue to work on embedding the development of literacy, numeracy, ICT and working scientifically skills into their teaching. I believe that 'how science works' is the single most important thing I am teaching the young people in my school. This needs to be reflected in the changes we make at key stage 3. There is more to come in this area.

I have realised that rearranging everything isn't necessary. (I hear you Richard and Linda!) As I did with the draft curriculum I will point out the deviations from the QCA schemes of work and work on these areas. As I see it at the moment, genetics in biology and energy in physics are the areas that need most attention. (I am ignoring catalysts and ceramics in chemistry for now). The other areas get a nod in at least one of the old key stage 3 schemes I possess, although I think upd8 segue covers a section of the genetics part.

I won't get the scheme I want from this, but I might get something more workable than what we have at the moment.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:John Street,Bath,United Kingdom

The Textbook

When reading the reports from the primary bloggers who went to the DfE and met Liz Truss a while back, I was not the only one who was struck by her attachment to the textbook. Then when she made a speech later referencing textbooks I felt I wanted to write a blog post about textbooks.

I am not against textbooks. However, I rarely use them. Throughout my career I have used them less and less. As I write this I have spent two days surrounded by the textbooks on offer for the new key stage 3 science scheme of work. I was hoping to look into them and find contexts, activities and ideas that would inspire the next, much improved, iteration of the schemes of work I have been using over the years. But I find them hopelessly lacking.

I wonder if Liz Truss is genuinely looking for a way to reduce teacher workload and see the textbook as a possible answer. She sees teachers making and copying worksheets and thinks 'why can't they just get students to work through a book?' I can understand that, but she's not in touch. 

Part of me wonders if it us teachers that should expect more?

I want to think about my key stage 3 and GCSE teaching separately from my A-level teaching. I do use textbooks more in my A-level teaching, and I do go into that later.

After some research I found a speech in December 2013 when she said:

Textbooks less popular in England

So it’s odd that almost uniquely in the developed world, in England, textbooks have fallen out of fashion. ....

And in science, across the world, on average 74% of teachers use textbooks as the basis of instruction for 14-year-olds [eighth grade].

In Korea, it’s 88%. Hong Kong - 87%. Malaysia - 83%. Chinese Taipei - 92%.

In England - it’s 8%.

I am still wondering who the 8% are (and how we know this).

She seems to associate not using a textbook with progressive education. I don't think I am particularly modern in the way that I teach. I spend a lot of time delivering information and handing out worksheets for the students to practice what they have learned,  ironically at A-level I do this by (illegally) photocopying pages from textbooks! (although I have bought some second hand copies of those books now, and I will come to A-level later). 

 She says that 

In that view, textbooks were - and are - seen as regimented, old-fashioned, as stifling creativity.

This is certainly not the reason I have reduced the amount of time I spend using textbooks. 

I can understand the sentiments she goes onto express in her speech. The usefulness of a textbook to accurately cover the key concepts and ideas (they aren't always accurate). She expressed that a textbook should structure knowledge and build on ideas as a student progresses through the book.

She highlights examples of textbooks that were used in the 70s and 80s. I used the Nuffield science textbooks when I was at school. We worked through the chemistry one from beginning to end, and it was possible to see that our teacher was certainly using the biology one, although not always that closely. Physics, however did not match the book in a way I could work out. I remember struggling to use it to revise from too. (Although I did OK!)

I believe that "Physics for You" is a fantastic book, and the first place I look when considering how to explain a topic in a clear succinct way. I have used both the GCSE and A-level versions of the book extensively throughout my career. It isn't a new book. 

Of course teachers should be using the best methods and materials in line with evidence and experience. But to have such a low rate of usage of a technology the rest of the world relies on should at the very least be questioned.

I can't disagree with this sentiment from Liz Truss. Who has it right? Does it make a difference? If there is a difference who is it to? A good textbook may help to reduce teacher planning time, this cannot be a bad thing. 

In her speech on April 10 2014 Liz Truss says just that: 

I’ve said before that there has been an ‘anti-textbook orthodoxy’ in this country. In TIMSS, an international study of maths and science teaching, an average of 75% of teachers in countries studied use textbooks as the basis of instruction for 10-year-olds.

In England - it’s 10%.

This doesn’t make sense to me: surely a well written and designed book or online course means that teachers can spend more time on subject knowledge development or working with children, rather than photocopying worksheets.

I am one of the 90% who don't use textbooks. All my students are assigned a textbook at the start of the Year. Key stage 3 get 'Scientifica' from Nelson Thornes. It seems you can buy it from amazon, but Nelson Thornes (OUP now) don't seem to have copies to sell (if I wanted them). They aren't what I want from a textbook. They do ask the students questions, but if you don't follow the scheme to the letter they aren't much use and the information can only be described as 'thin'. An amazon review describes the Year 7 book as "the book is looking exciting but it only is giving enough information if you have extra support from school. It does not give a clear overview of the subjects." 

At GCSE we give all the students a copy of the Collins OCR Gateway book. I don't use these in class either. They give the basics of what the students need, and on the whole are accurate, but they don't help the students understand or think for themselves. They don't help them make connections, and there are no where near enough activities. Their structure of dividing the information into low/medium/high demand is great for clarity on the students' working level, but I still prefer to give more succinct notes myself. The students who prefer not to make notes bring their revision guides to class and check what I write or present against what is written in the CGP guides. (I really don't like them either, but at £3.50, you can't argue with the cost).

At A-level my students don't use the book recommended by the exam board either:

Instead the girls have spent £37 each to buy advanced physics for you. The book gives clearer explanations, has many more worked examples, lot of simpler end of chapter questions and several examples of exam questions. And 'Advanced Physics for You' gives the answers! 

But, "Advanced Physics for You" does not have the information in the order for the specification I follow. Even "Advanced Physics for You" would benefit from even more example questions. Practice makes perfect. So I supplement the physics textbooks with more physics textbooks. I have the Collins book, the Heinman book, (I don't have Muncaster, but aim to get a copy), Calculations for A-level Physics, Practice in A-level Physics, Breithaupt etc etc. I can't afford to buy each of these books for all my students and to ask them to do it would cost a lot. 

So (forgive me) but I photocopy pages from these books as practice questions and activities for my students. This is what I want from my textbooks: questions and activities. This is what I don't get.

We chose to buy the red Edexcel book following the content-led approach and I do regret that. I have copies of the concept-led approach and find the resources, practical ideas, tasks and information much more informative. There is a lot to select from and this is something that I would prefer. The blue concept-led book is £5 more expensive than the red ones I have. 

So why not use books that do have lots of examples? 

One reason is cost. Physics for You (the GCSE version) is £21.99, the Collins book is £14.99, what would you choose if you had to buy 50 or 100 or more? (15 per classroom could be 155 copies, and that means 1 between 2, I worked with a geography teacher who couldn't believe we made students share in science - that is because we have 11 classes on at once, not 2).  Yes, there are ways you can get the cost down, only have the physics books in the classroom you teach physics, order textbook sets from the technician etc. 

Another reason is content. Exams require students to use technical terms in a specific way. Buying the book from the endorsed publisher means that book will contain those words in the right order as expected by the exam board. Shoot me, I am teaching to the test. 

I am afraid even though I consider the 'Physics for You' books as the best, they are simply not a viable option. (A personal reason for me is that we give the girls books and carrying a biology chemistry and physics book is too much for their bags, I hope that Nelson Thornes/OUP will consider an online-version https://global.oup.com/education/content/secondary/series/science-for-you/?view=Standard&region=uk). 

Lastly, as a science as a science teacher I want a worksheet, especially when I am doing practical. An editable one that I can add details specific to my circumstance and equipment. My data loggers may need a greater level of explanation to allow the students to understand them. I might choose to give my class 50cm rulers instead of 1m rulers, I might want to use sulphuric acid instead of hydrochloric acid (although probably not!). I might want to give out a sheet so that I don't need to worry about a book taking up space in the working area. I might want my class to have photographs of the electrical equipment rather than a technical drawing. The platform on my microscopes may move instead of the lenses. I might not want my students to do the experiment in the book, they may have done it before in primary school, I might be pressed for time, I might want to develop a different skill so I need another activity.

My favourite ever textbook was Thinking Through Science Book 1.

As the name suggests there are thinking activities and it does exactly what Liz Truss suggests, building up the concepts and ideas. However, I have never had a class set or the teacher book. I still covet that. And, unfortunately book 2 and 3 were not of the same quality (although book 2 is still pretty good). I have (ah-hem) copied many of the activities from this book to use with my classes on worksheets because no school I have worked at ever had a class set. 

In a lot of ways I am glad that Liz Truss has challenged the publishers. She says that:

So for children, parents and teachers - a good textbook is far from restrictive.

It’s liberating.

 The issue is I haven't come across this liberating textbook (yet). I would love to see it. I would challenge Liz Truss to find me this book for less than £15 per student at KS3 and £20 at KS4.

Liz Truss talked about the possibility technology brings. I am exited by this. However, I think it will take me further from the textbook. (Another blog post I believe).

I find it ironic, that the most 'liberating' scheme of work I have used: Upd8 Segue is the most worksheet heavy (laminating, coloured worksheets, the works) scheme I use!