Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Should children be taught maths until 18?

86 replies

Mitmoo · 08/08/2011 08:04

Children should be taught maths up to the age of 18 to avert the ?educational catastrophe? of 300,000 teenagers a year failing to grasp the basics, a hard-hitting report claims.

By 16 there is a ?colossal? ten-year range in mathematical learning between students, the report by former Countdown presenter Carol Vorderman reveals.

She calls for a ?mathematics for citizenship? course to be introduced for those studying A-levels that don?t involve the subject. And she recommends splitting the maths GCSE into two qualifications, one designed for those going on to A-level.

Surely if children havent grasped the basics by 16 after 12 years of education another two isn't going to make much of a difference?

OP posts:

diddl · 08/08/2011 13:50

How can maths be compulsary to 18 when school isn´t?

amigababy · 08/08/2011 14:07

I work in the same primary school that dd attended (but am not a teacher). We were once invited to a numeracy evening so that we could then teach our children how to do maths in the same way that it was taught in the classroom because it had changed so much since we were at school.
I did not attend, because I contended that there are many ways to teach maths and obtain an answer, and the more ways a child is aware of, the more able they are to check their own answers for reasonableness and silly mistakes. Also if they don't grasp the school method, maybe a different method would work for them rather than only approaching it in one way. And how can it have changed so much - numeracy is numeracy.
It just worried me that parents had to conform to the single school way rather than showing that maths is a varied and enjoyable subject (ok I'm an accountant so I like numbers anyway)

TotemPole · 08/08/2011 14:54

I think it's a good idea, if the mathematics for citizenship course covers the areas such as those in DrCoconut's post. Maybe have it as a component of the GCSE, it earns a certificate in its own right but you need the other components to be awarded a GCSE.

But the problems with basic maths should be dealt with earlier on in school than at 16.

diddl · 08/08/2011 15:00

Well for me, I did 4 Alevels the best part of 30yrs ago & I can´t see how I could have fitted anything else in tbh.

Plus, I´d about reached my limit at O level!

TotemPole · 08/08/2011 15:15

diddl, they were planning on increasing the leaving age to 18 over the next few years.

I found this but I don't know if they're going ahead with it as its archived.

Dorje · 08/08/2011 15:23

Where I am maths and english and another language are compulsory for every child up to 18.

Indeed you can't matriculate and get into university without maths and english and the other language.

It always struck me as very backward that they don't make children in the UK take maths as a subject in their later years and make it compulsory. And a European language also now I think about it seeing that the UK is part of Europe.

diddl · 08/08/2011 15:46

"diddl, they were planning on increasing the leaving age to 18 over the next few years. "

Blimey-I have been away a long time!

Seems like a good idea, but not sure how it would work for those on apprenticeships for example.

Feenie · 08/08/2011 15:47

I did not attend, because I contended that there are many ways to teach maths and obtain an answer, and the more ways a child is aware of, the more able they are to check their own answers for reasonableness and silly mistakes. Also if they don't grasp the school method, maybe a different method would work for them rather than only approaching it in one way. And how can it have changed so much - numeracy is numeracy.

You are right - there are many ways, and that is what the school would have shown you, as opposed to just one formal method that you have to do whether you understand it or not, like when we were at school.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 08/08/2011 15:57

I do think that some schools real struggle to teach maths in a helpful way at Primary level. I think that the national curriculum (or perhaps the way schools interpret it) is part of the problem.

At the school I am at, each maths 'subject' is taught for a week. so for instance teaching to tell the time in Year 3 is a week long activity. Then they move on to something entirely different, regardless as to whether the majority of children have grasped the concept or not. It leaves a good many children with little grasp of many areas of maths. By the time they are in year 4 you can see them losing confidence and already labeling themselves as 'bad at maths'. Once they give themselves that label, they dont concentrate in lessons and become even more lost. If you havent grasped the foundations of a topic of maths, you have no chance as you move through the years. Some of the children end up in 'catch up' groups, but those groups are out of step with what is being taught in the class room, so they still end up disadvantaged.

IslaValargeone · 08/08/2011 16:14

I'm currently home educating my dc, and have looked at the current guidelines for the maths she would be learning at school. I have ignored much of this however, as I feel that a good grasp of the basics will provide a good foundation and give her a feeling of confidence to tackle the more 'useless' aspects of maths. For example, we have learnt tables up to 20, and got a realy good grasp of the four basic operations. I have also covered fractions,percentages and decimals and she understands how they all relate to each other. Symmetry and what a dodecahedron is can wait. I think schools are trying to teach too much fluffy stuff too soon.

IslaValargeone · 08/08/2011 16:15

I can normally spell really by the way :o

amigababy · 08/08/2011 17:37

@Feenie - no, sorry, as I am (and was) working in the school and dd was attending the school I know how numeracy was being taught - in one way only. And that is what parents were having explained to them.

Andrewofgg · 08/08/2011 17:42

About a million years ago, before GCE let alone GCSE, there was something called the School Certificate, or School Cert for short. To get it you had to pass exams in English, maths, a science, a foreign language, and I think at least one more subject; even I was not around then and I only know of it by repute, so I do not know all the details.

The point is that if you failed any, you failed all. It sounds harsh by today's standards but perhaps that is because today's standards are too soft.

I believe they have something similar in Ireland and perhaps someone can tell s more.

It sounds like a good idea!

Feenie · 08/08/2011 17:44

I am very confused now - that's contrary to most modern methods. So, multiplication, for example - don't they learn arrays/times tables, then partitioning for larger numbers, then the grid method, then a more traditional, formal method? How do they show progression?

Original poster

Mitmoo · 08/08/2011 17:51

To the teachers who are getting a little upset, I've seen it done in other schools with subject specialist leaders to spearhead seeking out new ideas for their area specialisms and bringing them back to the other teachers. I don't see why maths teachers need to be insulted to be honest.

To the pedants who are outraged I didn't ask AIBU - tough. smiles sweetly.

OP posts:

Feenie · 08/08/2011 17:59

What you describe there is called in-service training, which any subject coordinator would undertake in primary school. That's different to bringing teachers 'up to speed', whose skills might otherwise be lacking.

As Literacy coordinator, I may lead training in teaching spelling, for example. That doesn't mean I teach crap teachers how to spell.

Who insulted Maths teachers?

And you are posting in AIBU - that's exactly what your thread title is asking.

Cherrypi · 08/08/2011 18:35

I primary school teachers having at least AS Mathematics is a good idea. A lot of children get to 16 without the ability to add shopping lists, know basic times tables etc let alone get a GCSE. Maybe we need to consider keeping children back if they don't pass the school year and offering alternative provision if they are held back twice.

GeoPuzzles · 09/08/2011 00:30

As touched on in a couple of earlier posts, I think that Maths is not being taught properly at primary school. Problems exist even before they get to senior school! I have a couple of DD at primary school. The tables are taught like this 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 etc...3, 6, 9, 12, 15 etc...what happens if you make a mistake 3, 6, 8, 11, 14 etc... The only children who seem to know their tables in school are those that learn them at home by rote, the methods in school just don't seem to work. The new method of multiplication, the grid method (aghh), is like using a calculator, plug the numbers in and wait for the answer. Using the grid method does not give any feel/idea of magnitude.

TotemPole · 09/08/2011 00:34

GeoPuzzles, what's the grid method please?

snippywoo2 · 09/08/2011 01:16

The government have stated today that they have no intention of forcing children to learn math until the age of 18.
Maybe what they should be teaching teenagers amongst other things is how to budget and manage their money, teach them about running bank accounts, how to write a CV, how to give a good job interview, above all give them hope that they are not all viewed as trash/hoodies as portrayed by the press and the majority of them are decent kids just trying to find their way into the adult world and become part of society.

Jux · 09/08/2011 02:01

I'd like to know why the government keep on getting people to report on things and then completely ignore them. How much did it cost to do this? What's the point, if the gov aren't going to do anything about it anyway?

sunshinenanny · 09/08/2011 02:42

18 year olds are young adults not children and forcing them to stay on at school to massage the unemploymebt figure is the only maths this government is interested in

We should teach them more efficiently when the are younger and not try to force maths on them when as Mitmoo point's out if they havn't learnt it by 16 they are not likely to!

Feenie · 09/08/2011 07:31

I disagree re the grid method - it shows children explicitly that they have to multliply everything by everything else in a very practical way. It also promotes thorough understanding of place value.

Grid method for Totem Pole.

I don't think all modern methods help - I can see the logic of chunking in division, but it's very longwinded.

TotemPole · 09/08/2011 09:50

Feenie, thanks for the link.

Primafacie · 09/08/2011 09:56

I was educated in Canada, where the focus on maths is much stronger than here. I will be the voice of dissent and say maths are the building blocks of logical reasoning and it is thus important that not only the 'practical' stuff such as percentages be taught, but also the abstract and more 'advanced' aspects such as geometry, trigonometry, algebra and so on. This is irrespective of whether these will be useful in later life - at the very least this teaches how to approach complex problem solving. I don't know if making maths compulsory until 18 is the solution, as all these can and should be covered by 16. I would be alarmed if the English curriculum focused only on arithmetics.

England is falling well behind other countries in the PISA study on education, and maths teaching (or lack thereof) is part of the problem.

Flip

1 2 3 4