I have attended many of the workshops and there is little or no opportunity for teachers to express their unhappiness with the new syllabi. Often if this does occur it is trivialized and the teacher is told the problem is theirs in the implementation and understanding of the syllabus. The workshops conducted in the past two years in the lead up to the introduction of the 2008 Maths A, B, C syllabi have mainly focused on information giving, pointing out the changes to the documents with some very limited suggestions of ways to implement these changes. Very little time for feedback is allowed.

At the last meeting in Townsville when questioned on why we can no longer use marks, the reply suggested that it is a much more accurate measure of a student’s work and less time consuming for the teacher if  criteria only are used. The Maths staff  at my school and I do not agree with this, but we are made to feel inadequate and somewhat lazy if we disagree. The response is then that the setting of the assessment item is of vital importance, and if this was done with great care, the results of students would fit the mould perfectly. The time necessary for the setting of these “interesting” assessment items is totally overlooked. The time necessary for internal moderation caused by marking towards this new criteria, is totally overlooked. One ludicrous example in the new syllabus for Maths B, is a D standard student is able to do “rehearsed” problems  whereas a C standard student can do  ‘simple routine’ problems and we are meant to make sound decisions based on this lunacy.

The most frustrating aspect is that the students are no better off for the extra time these changes take and, as QLD NAPLAN results show, they are in fact worse off.