To be slightly horrified at how poor my basic skills are?

[primrosesandmaths]

In my professional, graduate profession, I have just been told I have to work out something as a percentage.

I have no idea how to do it.

I shall google - it isn’t an advice thread as such, but my maths is just dire and I can’t help wondering if this is common or whether I am an imposter in my role.

It's called open source intelligence.

I and they know 1 is not prime thanks CuboidalSlipshoddy -

I debated adding it to my definition and then though nah - eveyone knows that which on a thread like this is an odd thing for me to conclude I agree.

I think it's interesting that MN is full of people bemoaning their lack of knowledge about computers and saying that they want their children to know more, while at the same time advocating stripping the maths curriculum of absolutely fundamental knowledge.

I think what people are saying that even the basics/fundamentals aren't being taught properly. Without those fundamentals, the more complex "pure" maths concepts are more difficult to teach/learn so large numbers of kids reach 16 years old with neither. The end result is something like just under half 16 year olds not achieving a "good pass" at GCSE, i.e. old grade C or new grade 4, which require as little as 30% or less marks in the GCSE exams. Personally, I think circa 60% of kids, after 11 compulsory years of education not reaching acceptable standards in Maths shows something is going very wrong. No point in teaching more advanced maths only to set up most kids to fail because they've not learned the basics. Far better to keep on at the basics to get far higher numbers with basic numeracy, say to 11+ level, so at least they understand fractions, percentages, which are more likely needed in real adult life for everyone, etc., rather than try and fail to teach the quadratic function to everyone, knowing that over half won't have a clue, and only a few percent will ever need it in their future careers. Sounds like Wales are heading in the right direction if they're breaking down maths and having a separate "numeracy" qualification.

I don't know how up to date this is but it is GCSE Maths curriculum. What would you take out of this?

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254441/GCSE_mathematics_subject_content_and_assessment_objectives.pdf

Kazzy, I take your point about how shocking it is that so many people are innumerate and fail to understand basic concepts in Mathematics. However, at the same time, I just don't know if stripping mathematics down to the basics of "day to day arithmetic" would be beneficial. I'm no expert though

It is shocking how many people cheerfully admit to being essentially innumerate. I've come to see it as an aspect (a fault) of our society and culture: it's acceptable to admit you 'can't do percentages', whereas most people would be ashamed to let on they 'can't read street names', say. It's an aspect of what C.P. Snow dubbed the 'Two Cultures' (in 1959 I think).

Would we expect any minimally educated person in our society to be able to complete this: 'To be, or not to be, that is ...'? What about this: 'VAT at 20% included in a final bill of £20.40 is ...'? I'd say yes to both, but I know I'd often be disappointed in the second case.

Why and how did our society fail in this way? Lots of reasons, including class division (think aristocratic layabouts vs hoi polloi (ugh!) tradespeople ) and consequent educational divisions; connected general attitudes to do with 'high culture' vs 'utility'; and so on. Sadly, Snow's points are still valid now, mutatis mutandis.

Oh, and btw Kazzyhoward, if you let me know " the formula for working out every prime number from 1 to near infinity " that you referred to, we can publish it jointly and make our names! Last time I checked no such formula was known. (Check out, for instance, Wikipedia prime formula.) So I'm not sure what it was you thought you were being taught!

I've got an A-level in maths and a science degree which used lots of maths but I'm bloody useless at stuff now. I haven't used anything beyond simple maths in years and think you just forget stuff if you aren't using it often.

As an engineer, I've forgotten how to solve certain types of differential equations, as I don't use it frequently. However, I would think percentage people do see and use regularly (sales, interest rates, understanding the news - "there has been a 5% increase in the ....")

I don't know how up to date this is but it is GCSE Maths curriculum. What would you take out of this?

Take surds - the vast majority of the population won't have any use for surds, so why does everyone have to learn them?

Obviously, pupils thinking of science, engineering, computing careers will need the option taking more advanced maths, so there does need to be the option for those who may need it or may be just interested in it.

But trying to teach surds to kids who already struggle with the basics/fundamentals is just wasting everyone's time and demotivating them. Surely it would be better to ensure that they had a firm grasp of indices/roots etc first and if, and only if, they master them, then move onto surds.

Same with simultaneous and quadratic equations. Just why? Same applies - only start teaching when the pupils are confident with basic algebra.

Perhaps we need a "numeracy" qualification taken at any age. Those who pass in earlier years (maybe year 9) move onto the higher maths GCSE. Those who don't reach the standard in year 9, carry on in basic/fundamental/numeracy lessons until 16. That would ensure more people gained at least the "numeracy" qualification by allowing more teaching/learning time on the basics. The ones who struggle with the basics were never going to get a good grade at full Maths GCSE at 16 anyway so nothing lost for them, but they gain a "numeracy" qualification at least.

@wenter:

I found it very clear for a pick and mix of maths topics, primary to secondary.

What would you recommend?

And what is the political bias? I wasn't aware of it on the topics I looked at!

The end result is something like just under half 16 year olds not achieving a "good pass" at GCSE,

It's worth pointing out that O Level was only aimed at 20% of the population, so even the result you are lamenting is an improvement.

The problem with "who needs this stuff?" arguments is that it implies you're going to separate people who are taught elite knowledge and people who aren't at an early stage. That means you're going to say "a large portion of the population will be denied, on the basis of tests taken at an early stage, the knowledge and more importantly the meta-knowledge required for social mobility". And the middle classes, who can either tutor their children themselves or pay for education, will move further out of reach.

I've posted under another name a piece which ran and ran in "Higher Education" about how depressing it is to turn students away at open days who want to do computer science (now! happening!) but will only be able to access a small and decreasing number of the selective courses in the country because they almost all require A Level Maths, and within ten years a significant number will need A Level Further Maths.

Obviously, pupils thinking of science, engineering, computing careers will need the option taking more advanced maths

Regular complaint in any education discussion on MN: "I / my children didn't when when we were 12 / 14 /16 / 18 that those jobs existed".

Are you saying people should choose their career path at 12 and get an education to suit? Great: for those of us with the social capital, our children and grandchildren win big. For those whose parents don't have the insights to guide effectively, of course, tough shit.

Just an old anecdotal here but I find my kids and grown up nephews and nieces are poorer at getting the required info from search engines than me and my siblings!

Helping in schools I found the " book" research skills of kids poor ( ok they don't get much practice!) But their computer research was fairly dire too.

Are you saying people should choose their career path at 12 and get an education to suit?

No. I'm saying that there should be options and flexibility. If you're struggling with maths upon entering secondary school, you need remedial lessons to improve the basic skills first. Those with good enough skills, at various points during secondary and further education, should have options/flexibility to take further studies in those skills. It's no benefit to anyone, regardless of class, social mobility, etc., to try to teach things that they can't access because they don't have the basic/core skills. I'd rather see a modular/building block type of teaching where you only move up to more complicated things or different subjects when you can demonstrate you've mastered the fundamentals, but where you can actually "earn" credits or certificates etc along the way, i.e. a nationally recognised "numeracy" certificate before you move into GCSE Maths - which you can gain at various stages in your compulsory education years. Personally I think that would be a huge benefit and incentive for the disadvantaged and/or lower achievers as they can work towards things that are more easily achievable to gain confidence to move onto the harder stuff. It may appear good for social mobility to have the illusion of everyone having equal opportunities and doing the same exams, but in reality, the battle is already lost at a far younger age if the pupil hasn't mastered the basics and it's just setting them up to fail and even lower confidence etc trying to teach them things they simply don't have the skills to deal with. I'd be pretty confident that a large proportion of the 60% who don't get a "good pass" and have a lifelong "I'm crap at maths" belief would have better life skills and better self confidence if they achieved a proper pass at a lower maths exam called something like "numeracy".

Why not teach kids to 'learn how to learn'. I think that's a better way of raising kid's confidence in most subjects instead of telling them that they're innately "gifted" or not.

Academic success is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.

I also think children need to be taught how to regulate their emotions as this can have an impact on their cognitive performance.

Poot emotional regulation effects working memory and attention.

Poor*

To find 12% of 25

Divide 25 by 100 to find 1%

25 divided by 100 = 0.25 (1%)

Multiply 0.25 by 12 to get 3 (12%)

So; 12% of 25 is 3.

This method works for any %

Or...

12% is 0,12 (12/100)
So: 0,12 x 25 = 3

This definitely works for any percentage and it's waaaaaay faster.

I despair because graduate students come to my lab and can't work out 10% of something, or work out a dilution of 1 in 10.

I despair because graduate students come to my lab and can't work out 10% of something, or work out a dilution of 1 in 10.

I despair because I've taken on graduates with top GCSE and A level grades who don't know there are 28 days in February (and most can't even spell February!), can't work out simple percentages, can't draft a letter or report without numerous spelling and grammatical errors rendering it meaningless, etc. A few years ago, I designed my own in-house "test" for job applicants which I based on 11+ standards (questions picked from random 11+ papers) - it was a far more useful evaluation of applicant's abilities than their formal qualifications.

Realistically, how many people need to know whether 1,179 is a prime number? 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%? So which teach the formula to the other 99%?

Let’s apply that approach to the rest of the curriculum, and see how much teaching there is left.

The real point to maths isn’t the what, it’s the why. And the idea that reasonably basic algebra is either pointless or too difficult for GCSE is bizarre.

I refuse to believe there is something unique to British children that makes them less able to do maths than children in other countries. The solution isn’t to dumb down the curriculum or write off more than half the population as not capable of doing it.

QuietWalking, your recommendations pretty well sums up my kids' primaries.

It feeds into the problems.

Actually that's not right because they are not really taught or shown how to do anything wisely.

For example 5 year olds are left to choose their own reading book from too wide a variety of levels so they make suboptimal choices every time. For research they are let loose on books and the internet in groups with little sensible adult guidance. It's all so random.

And the idea that reasonably basic algebra is either pointless or too difficult for GCSE is bizarre.

Who said that, I didn't? I was saying it's pointless to try to teach more advanced algebra to those pupils who havn't grasped the basics of algebra.

I was saying it's pointless to try to teach more advanced algebra to those pupils who havn't grasped the basics of algebra.

In large part because primary maths education is heavily dominated by people who think maths is hard and/or irrelevant.