Technical Framework : Task 1 by

2025-06-11 11:45:12 UTC

Consistency of language across all levels is required e.g. use of “sharing” in one section and “fractions in another.

2025-06-11 11:45:14 UTC

Great to see framework ‘coming together’. What we have been shown (PowerPoint etc) shows improved clarity in comparison to what we currently have. The A3 pages are effective in displaying the progression between levels. The ‘phases’ again provide clarity for each ‘stage’

2025-06-11 11:46:11 UTC

This is absolutely clearer than previous e’s and o’s and benchmarks. This, along with the 4th level exemplification should eliminate the need for all local authorities and schools to reinvent the wheel in order to have a clear progression and shared understanding of the curriculum.

2025-06-11 11:46:33 UTC

A3 pages improve clarity between levels. Note to include (where necessary) a ‘nod’ towards prior knowledge. ie. Using prior knowledge of multiples and factors’ prior to adding fractions etc.

2025-06-11 11:47:27 UTC

I am convinced that how this new technical framework and the description of the layers and knowledge statements will provide much better clarity for practitioners.

I can see the elements from our work as a core group coming together.

2025-06-11 11:47:33 UTC

I like the progression as seen so far. It will be quite different to what came before and quite ambitious in some ways. It will require good pl support to give practitioners the confidence to implement it well.

2025-06-11 11:47:48 UTC

Consistency of language is a necessity. Terms such as quotient, divisor, zero pair are all very useful. However we need to be wary that we don’t overcomplicate the landscape with language that is not totally necessary.

2025-06-11 11:47:48 UTC

Important to consider that some practitioners will be using the framework, coming from a non maths background (primary teachers, ELC staff). Ensuring all mathematical language used is clarified with clear meaning and exemplification.

2025-06-11 11:48:15 UTC

I think there should be consistency of language across the stages. E.g. if it is mentioned in early 1 that we should be using the word fraction, this should then be in each box as it continues along to enable consistency. No point in introducing a concept in early then no one realising they should be using that word as it is not in the next two boxes.

2025-06-11 11:48:29 UTC

We need to be explicitly teaching the correct mathematical language to deepen learners (and practitioners!) understanding of mathematics. Learners should be exposed to specific mathematical terms and have opportunity to deconstruct mathematical terms to aid their understanding of the meaning. This is often missing in current practice.

2025-06-11 11:48:36 UTC

Consistency of language is important, and a certain degree of accuracy. It will be important to ensure all practitioners will be confident with the language.

2025-06-11 11:48:36 UTC

We need to be careful about the way that concepts are used to organise content and be mindful of the facts that changes to the existing organisers might cause confusion.

There is also potential for things like fractions to become ‘fragmented’ across different concepts and unintentionally lead to them being taught as individual pieces rather than more coherently due to teachers not seeing the connection across concepts.

2025-06-11 11:48:54 UTC

I think this is much clearer for practitioners than what we have currently.

2025-06-11 11:49:49 UTC

Consistency of language is important but need to prioritise this - not over loading with technical language for the sake of it.

2025-06-11 11:49:59 UTC

Labelling it Early Early as opposed to ELC Early and P1 Early.

2025-06-11 11:50:49 UTC

Significant training and supportive documents will be required to ensure consistency of mathematical language used across the system.

2025-06-11 11:50:55 UTC

We need to be careful of how the early level boxes are presented. There is a risk of creating two separate levels where there should be one. The early level should be named as the other levels are.

2025-06-11 11:51:03 UTC

Equations…. Show clearly what type of equations have to be solved in third level - include links to video tutorials (must be balancing method!!)

Nod towards prior knowledge required to progress.

Include ‘links’ between areas of the curriculum in the documentation.

Include NON-NEGOTIABLE LINKS between ie. Solving equations and geometry (graphicacy) …. There are some areas of the curriculum that should always be linked and this needs to be consistent.

2025-06-11 11:51:15 UTC

It is worth discussing and having a clear understanding around which technical terms are for practitioner use and which is for pupils. In most cases this is probably the same, but maybe not all. It should be considered whether the language terms used will follow through through all levels, and whether the pupils understanding will be enhanced by using them.

2025-06-11 11:51:22 UTC

The progressions shared today will support the planning of learning and attend to the non negotiable aspects of knowledge that our curriculum should focus on.

2025-06-11 11:51:30 UTC

The importance of building number sense should permeate the framework

2025-06-11 11:53:08 UTC

I think consideration should be given to what is expected at the end of early level, or when children should achieve early level, in Gaelic medium education. The amount of language acquisition which must take place before some concepts can be taught and understood is vast.

2025-06-11 11:53:21 UTC

Due to the progressive construct of learning in mathematics, the stage-by-stage outline provides clarity which I think will be welcomed by practitioners.

2025-06-11 11:54:37 UTC

The incorporation of technical language is important, particularly language that will be revisited through progression. Language included must be relevant. Need to be careful that the development of language doesn’t detract from the teaching of mathematical ideas and concepts.

2025-06-11 11:55:18 UTC

Conceptual knowledge but that will be part of the do statements I am presuming.