to think that number bonds epitomise everything that is wrong with the UK approach to education?

[IceBeing]

For the uninitiated, number bonds are groups of numbers that form additions. Eg. The number bonds for 10 are 1-9, 2-8 3-7 etc.

If you understand what addition / subtraction are, then clearly you don't need number bonds. They are a means to get kids to give the right answers by rote to questions they presumably don't understand yet.

This leads on smoothly to learning times tables by rote as a substitute for having any idea what multiplication is, learning the grid method for multiplying multi-digit numbers...learning by rote to rearrange algebraic expressions.....learning to factorize quadratic equations by rote...learning to manipulate vectors by rote...

Then at the end of this I have physics undergraduates telling me they don't like exams where you have to work things out, they prefer questions where you just repeat the right facts.

But it all starts with number bonds.

AIBU to think it matters a hell of a lot more that kids understand how numbers work, what addition and multiplication mean, than that they can give a nice clear confident, and above all, quick answer to a list of approved questions?

AIBU to think the best thing you can do for a kid that doesn't 'get' addition yet, is wait until they are bit older and try again, and that the very worst thing you can do is replace understanding with a rule set to learn?

Thenew I have learnt all the hiragana and katakana and about 80 kanji before giving up so I know about those bits...I had never heard of Furigana - that sounds like a truly awesome idea.

There isn't anything to stop us using something similar in english is there? You could give the phonetic version above/next to in the case of stupidly spelt words? Or we could get over ourselves and normalize our spelling system as other countries have done!

However I totally disagree about memorization being labour saving.

Calculators, phones and computers are labour saving - memorization is thought saving and that is a Bad Thing.

I disagree with you there TheNewStatesman. The entire school my DCs attend uses calculators (3500+ students)

It's not a bit like overloading the circuits in a home.

It's actually freeing up the circuits for thinking of the order of operations and where you are heading. None of the working out of the calculations is creative. It is drone work.

I don't think there is an issue with calculators being used after a certain age--however, high-performing maths countries usually delay the introduction of calculators until secondary age... and even after that age, students are encouraged to use mental math/pen and paper to work out a lot of stuff.

Bring back the Initial Teaching Alphabet, I say ...

thenewstatesman that is interesting. When I was at school (over 30 years ago) the top set at maths wasn't allowed to use calculators until we were able to show confidently that we could do the maths without one. The bottom streams were allowed to use calculators all the way through.

Or we could get over ourselves and normalize our spelling system as other countries have done!

The main problem with spelling standardisation is that we have more variation in basic pronunciation than other languages you are thinking of.

For example, should "far" have an R in it or not? Not at my parents' house, but yes at my grandpa's.

When I went to school calculators had only just been invented and we used slide rules and log books, there have always been ways of automating parts of maths.
I am sure there are still non-calculator papers up to A level as well.

Well a lot of A-Level work - and Further Maths, and degree level - is sufficiently theoretical that the arithmetic tends to be pretty basic. Where numbers crop up they tend to be sinh e or something which is far more manipulable by hand than on a calculator!!

The TI-Nspire with touchpad or CX model is what my DCs use for school maths from age 14.

English spelling isn't just about pronounciation. It also indicates grammar - most regular verbs end in -ed in the past, whether it's pronounced -ed or -t. And it can indicate etymology - English is one of the world's biggest borrowers of words from other languages. But that does all make it difficult for learners.

No, on the whole orthography does not inform pronunciation (there are a few exceptions such as "often").

For me, paw, poor, pour and pore sound the same; in areas of Scotland no two are the same. Standardise to my accent (losing precision) or theirs (reintroducing redundancy)?

To me, knowledge of number bonds and times tables are simply aids to mental arithmetic. How these are acquired doesn't, in the end, matter, I feel.

There's much evidence that setting tables to music helps the acquisition process - and here's a tune that makes 'Number bonds to ten' fun - at least it did with my grandchildren.

To the tune of Knees up Mother Brown:

1 and 9 is 10
2 and 8 is 10
3 and 7, and 4 and 6, and 5 and 5 is 10
Hoy!

This last shouted with glee and arms and legs akimbo!

All learning should be fun, right?

I think infants can find out the number bonds by doing the subtraction and addition often enough, dont need to call them number bonds. Maybe schools need something to measure infants maths skills nowadays so knowing number bonds is a measure . In the past infants just did lots of sums, once youve added 3 to 7 often enough you will know they make 10. Likewise the chunking method for long division seemed odd, hard work when you can use the proper method and it works every time. I work in IT with graduates and find the emphasis on speed of getting the answer at the expense of thinking about and understanding concepts can be depressing. Understanding tens and units and carrying from one column to the next, using toys which help visualise how 10 units add up eg cuisinaire rods, to me these are better for understanding concept of number.
For example i can tell you 74 to 80 is 6 but not know this is a 'number bond', its just from practice using decimal system and visualising the size of 4 and 6 and 10.

I think you are correct to suspect that measurable skills are the name of the game, and never mind that the skills themselves are often irrelevant to what comes next.