Children Go Back To Basics In Maths - Telegraph

[Cronky]

Children go back to basics in maths

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9323340/Children-go-back-to-basics-in-maths.html

Ministers will this week announce key tasks pupils are expected to master at each age under wide-ranging plans to counter more than a decade of dumbing down in schools.

 

A draft mathematics curriculum suggests that five and six year-olds will be expected to count up to 100, recognise basic fractions and memorise the results of simple sums by the end of the first year of compulsory education.

 

In the second year, they will be required to know the two, five and 10 times tables, add and subtract two-digit numbers in their head and begin to use graphs.

 

The proposals are intended to ensure that children are given a proper grounding in the basics at a young age to prepare them for the demands of secondary education and beyond.

 

It represents a dramatic toughening up of standards demanded in English state schools in a move designed to benchmark lessons against those found in the world’s most advanced education systems, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and parts of the United States.

 

Will the Government here attempt to raise maths standards too? I hear lots of complaints about the quality of maths teaching in our local schools - particularly from employers.

[NeverAgain]

Both Maths and English need looking at, my secondary school English teacher couldn't even spell without a spell checker (pocket dictionary type!), written work was just as poor. My maths teacher was actually a former English Teacher, who was actually better at English than Maths!

 

Anything but the first two 'sets' sat foundation exams and as such was given lesser quality 'foundation' English teachers.

[MilitantDogOwner]

The problem is the schools are teaching to the exam method to keep SAT scores high is not giving the broad spectrum of education.

[Albert Tatlock]

Most of my work is maths in one form or another. I think this is far more than simply a 'government' responsibility. There are a couple of issues in terms of employment as far as I see it:

 

Employees themselves:

The number of 'clever' people I see who simply refuse, or are too lazy to learn a little maths for their work is amazing. Many seem to prefer to do things the long way repeatedly rather than search out simpler solutions. Everyone from accountants to marketing and basic admin types. Considering the likes of Excel has been around for nearly 20 years now, I find that quite staggering. In my experience 90% of people use only around 10% of Excel's capabilities, and maybe 5% use around 60% of it. Only around 1% to 2% are capable of using it fully. If office workers utilised the software they have efficiently, and bosses understood its capabilities, probably 50% of the 'jobs' could go - so perhaps that's one of the reasons they are so reticent?

 

I also hear a lot of the argument 'Why learn maths when the systems can do it for you?'.

 

Type of Work:

Also, do we really need maths when the majority of people work in the service sector? Maths and science graduates are a rare breed these days. It is far easier to do 'Media Studies', 'Business Management' etc. than a maths or proper science degree. Look what kind of shops fill the high street. How many engineers do people know these days? (and I don't mean fixing washing machines or wiring houses - engineers used to have to have degrees to be called engineers).

 

Until we create more mathematicians, scientists and engineers and market far more tangible goods, the economy will remain in the crapper IMO. The service and housing sectors is the reason it all got into the crapper in the first place.

 

 

But Governments in actual fact love people that are short of maths. It suits them, as people can be more easily scared by statistics, herded via mis-information, and not be very sure of what their government is actually up to nor analyse how they are really performing. You only have to look at BBC Breakfast to see this in daily life as the 4 or 5 pseudo-scientific reports a week about: 'This being bad for you, that being bad for you', 'A 136% increase in this and that'. The audience just panic and the headline writers love it.

[wrighty]

It amazes me that people are quite happy to admit to not being able to 'do maths', whereas you don't get many who are just as happy to admit not being able to read or write. Why is it that maths is seen as something difficult to be left to the geeks, but reading and writing is something we all do?

 

Both Maths and English need looking at, my secondary school English teacher couldn't even spell without a spell checker (pocket dictionary type!), written work was just as poor. My maths teacher was actually a former English Teacher, who was actually better at English than Maths!

 

Anything but the first two 'sets' sat foundation exams and as such was given lesser quality 'foundation' English teachers.

 

This is a recurring theme - the top sets get the best teachers. I understand why from the teachers' perspective, that if you're a maths teacher with a PhD in algebraic topology you don't want to be teaching the dullards to count on their fingers, but in general, shouldn't the weakest students get the strongest teachers? (Yes I know that being really good at something doesn't necessarily make you a really good teacher of the same, but the point remains)

[VinnieK]

This is a recurring theme - the top sets get the best teachers. I understand why from the teachers' perspective, that if you're a maths teacher with a PhD in algebraic topology you don't want to be teaching the dullards

 

I'd prefer teaching weaker students who had an interest in the subject over those who were apparently* more able but had enthusiasm for little more than doing well in the exam.

 

I say apparently, because it's very possible for someone to breeze through their GCSE's and A-Levels with little to no understanding of what they're learning. Secondary level maths is, and to some extent always has been taught as a bag of tricks to apply according to the circumstances presented to you in the exam. The end result is that you get a lot of pupils doing very well through the 'jigsaw' method: identifying which piece goes where, without necessarily having an appreciation or understanding of the picture as a whole.

 

And it really does happen! In the past I've helped out with the teaching of undergraduates (all of whom have very good A-Levels, in the AAA-ABB range, often including further maths) and foundation year students, who either haven't touched maths since GCSE, or didn't do very well, and in general the rule has been that the latter group has been far more interested, curious and generally mathsy even if they lack some of the (not always justified) confidence of the former.

 

However, in general you're probably right (especially with regards to algebraic topologists, on account of them being an odd bunch). You probaly wont get many PhD's teaching at all, never mind in the lower sets for a number of reasons:

 

Firstly, doctorate holders overwhealmingly tend to view themselves as researchers first and foremost. Even at a university level, that's their priority and where their interests lie, with teaching being at best viewed as an interesting side line (or at worst an unwelcome obligation).

 

Secondly, getting into teaching is a royal pain in the arse. To become a teacher you need qualified teacher status, and the two main ways to achieve that are through the PGCE or GTP. With the PGCE you have to put your life on hold for another year in addition to the eight you've already spent at university, scrimping away and possibly travelling across the country to do so. The GTP on the other hand appears to offer an opportunity to leap into teaching and gain QTS whilst earning a wage, but usually requires a shedload of experience volunteering in schools first. Not only is this difficult to do when you're working (and impossible when you're on the PhD), but even if you can volunteer a lot of schools who initially expressed interest will drop you like a brick the moment you mention they'll have to go through the hassle of running the enhanced CRB check necessary for you to volunteer.

 

Thirdly, both the GTP and the PGCE are intensly competitive, particularly now with the economy the way it is, and doctorate holders aren't in that much demand. Some providers will (understandably) value someone with a BSc in Engineering or Physics more for the simple reason they are already equipped to teach two subjects rather than just one.

 

Personally speaking, I'd love to teach. But I'm not sure of my chances, and with the whole rigmarole of actually getting into the classroom is enough to make me think twice about it.

[Cronky]

But is the Isle of Man Department of Education going to try and raise the maths standards along with the English school system? Education makes the news daily in the UK National press. We copy the English system - but there is sweet FA said here about raising standards. They can't keep claiming to work to English standards if they fail to catch up with the times. Here is part of what is proposed:

 

Draft Programmes of Study for mathematics

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/d/draft%20national%20curriculum%20for%20ks1-2%20primary%20maths%20%20-%2011%20june%202012.pdf

Pupils should be taught to:

 identify multiples including common multiples, and factors including common factors [199]

 know and use the vocabulary of prime numbers, prime factors and composite (non-prime) numbers [200]

 establish whether a number up to 100 is prime and recall the prime numbers up to 19 [201]

 multiply numbers up to 4-digits by a 1 or 2-digit number using a formal written method, including long multiplication [202]

 accurately multiply and divide numbers mentally drawing upon known facts [203]

 divide numbers up to 4 digits by a 1-digit number and 10 and interpret remainders appropriately [204]

 multiply and divide numbers by 10, 100 and 1000 [205]

 recognise and use square numbers and square roots and the notation for square (2) and square root () [206]

 solve word problems involving addition and subtraction, multiplication and division

 

If the Isle of Man does not get on board with these new standard then how are the children going to be placed when it comes to English exams etc? Given all the changes in education I would have expected some kind of announcement locally as how we are going to deal with it all. Needless to say, it doesn't help cutting back on teachers . . .

[ballaughbiker]

Personally speaking, I'd love to teach. But I'm not sure of my chances, and with the whole rigmarole of actually getting into the classroom is enough to make me think twice about it

Wouldn't bother. You'd be just as disposable as in any other job after all that effort and dedication.

[NeverAgain]

This is a recurring theme - the top sets get the best teachers. I understand why from the teachers' perspective, that if you're a maths teacher with a PhD in algebraic topology you don't want to be teaching the dullards to count on their fingers, but in general, shouldn't the weakest students get the strongest teachers? (Yes I know that being really good at something doesn't necessarily make you a really good teacher of the same, but the point remains)

 

I believe so, I always (openly) struggled, I was always willing to learn but got got shoved aside, the weaker teachers could only work (and read) out of a textbook, any further queries resulted in long winded complicated answers because the truth was they could not simplify it themselves.

 

Had I gone got signed off as having dyslexia i'd of got one on one support. What actually happened was I got shoved into a class of 33 pupils, many of which had more interest in trying to stop you working or concentrating as much as possible, end result? my written knowledge of English and Maths stopped at around 12-13 years old.