In this episode, Tom Manners, Naomi Bartholomew-Millar, and Steve Lomax explore two key subject leadership moves for November in secondary maths: running year 11 mocks well and using book scrutiny in a way that reveals real learning. The conversation is practical and context-driven, with a strong focus on consistency, collaboration, and making sure monitoring leads to improvement rather than just compliance. We discuss how to prepare students, staff, and parents for mocks, what makes a fair and useful mock paper, and how to use work scrutiny alongside pupil voice to judge standards more honestly.

Key topics

• Tom, Naomi, and Steve reflect on October feedback from a head of department who runs learning walks in pairs, showing how collaborative practice can build trust and richer professional conversations.
• Naomi argues that mocks should have a clear purpose before anything else: are they a snapshot, a diagnostic tool, or a way to identify gaps and groups needing support?
• The trio stress the importance of triangulating messages for students, parents, and teachers so everyone gets consistent guidance on revision, expectations, and what the mock is for.
• Naomi suggests making revision manageable by giving students a small, targeted list of areas to work on, based on prior assessment and QLA, rather than overwhelming them with huge lists.
• Steve frames mocks as the start of a training camp, not the finish line, with year 11 staff aligning around the idea that this is stage one of a longer journey.
• The group debate what a mock should actually include, with a strong view that calculator and non-calculator practice should both be represented and that the mock should mirror the real exam experience as closely as possible.
• They warn against overinterpreting mock grades if the paper does not fully replicate the summer exam, especially if content coverage or paper structure is incomplete.
• The conversation shifts to post-mock marking and standardisation, with Naomi recommending department meetings focused on question-level analysis rather than just overall grades.
• Steve shares a practical marking tip: keep a blank copy of the paper beside you and note recurring misconceptions question by question so standardisation is evidence-based.
• For work scrutiny, Naomi argues that books alone can mislead, especially in maths classrooms where much of the learning may happen on mini whiteboards, tables, or through manipulatives.
• The group suggest that book scrutiny becomes much more valuable when paired with pupil voice, because students can explain what is in their books, what is missing, and how the learning connects across lessons.
• Steve and Tom both return to the same principle: any monitoring activity should have a clear improvement purpose, not just be a check for the sake of checking.

Timestamps

00:00 - November context and paired learning walks
04:28 - Planning Year 11 mocks and defining their purpose
10:21 - Mocks as the start of a training camp
20:37 - Marking, standardisation, and question-level analysis
26:55 - Book scrutiny, pupil voice, and meaningful monitoring

Notable quotes

Copy

“A good collection of teachers is better than a collection of good teachers.”

Copy

“This is the start of the training camp.”

Copy

“What is it you need to adapt or change or tweak moving forward?”