To agree with this article re. curriculum whilst home schooling maths and english

[fabulousspider]

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/feb/20/im-a-maths-lecturer-and-i-had-to-get-my-children-to-teach-me

Just read this, and have to say I agree with the maths and english sentiments from the experts.

Having been teaching my kid (age 8) english which involves "fronted adverbials" and all that malarkey whilst trying to encourage their creative writing seems backwards to me. Overcomplicating what should be an enjoyable experiment in creativity. Making the kids stressed out! Kids will learn appropriate language usage by default as they write. They don't need to know what a fronted adverbial is whilst they are trying to grapple with the creative side of writing. I believe that they will pick up the appropriate language by a process of osmosis whilst carrying out the creative writing.

And the number of times I've noticed that frequently the maths work set and the answers seem plain wrong! Like the maths teacher says, you teach them one thing when younger and then change this as they get older. I see that some concepts need altering for younger kids but I am honestly suprised at some of the ways the methods are put across. They don't always seem intuitive.

Do others feel the same?

*teacher's

As I was reading that amazing article, I slowly realised that I needed some more wow words to enhance my writing.

I wonder how much primary teachers realise that all their effort to teach the language of fronted adverbials, modal verbs, etc doesn't seem to be followed up in secondary school English lessons.

Talk for Writing is great. Teaching different ways of writing is great. But it can get a bit boring identifying words and the type of word they are in a piece of writing.

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/23/dear-gavin-williamson-could-you-tell-parents-what-a-fronted-adverbial-is

I teach KS1. The curriculum is definitely too grammar heavy but I manage to incorporate it into lessons that are largely based around texts or topics so it doesn't become too full. I like the basis of the maths curriculum with lots of focus on concrete and pictorial before leaping straight to the abstract. I think it's so important that children really understand the concept of number. However my gripe with the maths curriculum is that it is too overloaded so not all young children really get the chance to grasp this understanding fully before having to move on. Strip the primary curriculum down to really well understood fundamentals with the opportunity for more complex problem-solving and application for those who are ready.

too dull not too full, that should say

@chomalungma thank you for sharing that amazing article. Michael Rosen articulates everything I was trying to say (but wasn't able to very successfully communicate).

I'd be interested to hear what @sausagesizing thinks of this article....

@SarahAndQuack
sorry reading that back it does sound patronising, I didn't mean it to. What I was trying to say is that the people who contributed to that article may be experts in advanced levels of a subject, even in teaching advanced levels of that subject, but they're not experts in teaching it at a more basic level, which is a very different game.
Just like hospital consultants are experts in their particular field, they wouldn't necessarily be great GPs if thrown straight in as GPs are expert generalists and have a different set of skills and knowledge.

but they're not experts in teaching it at a more basic level, which is a very different game

True - but I don't think there was any evidence that teaching the words for parts of grammar and testing children in KS2 SATS on being able to identify the words in texts actually improved writing when Gove introduced it.

Do you think testing children in KS2 SATS on what a fronted adverbial is or a modal verb is helps improve their writing?

DS could identify a modal verb but it didn't help his writing.
Talk for Writing does help with writing.

I’m an English teacher and I totally agree with this. The English work set for my primary school aged DC is usually stuffy and boring, it completely stifles creativity and everything I personally love about the subject.

One week they were asked to watch a 30 minute Oak academy video every day with a woman sitting down asking questions about a Phillip Pullman book. I found it drab and monotonous so really did not blame my DC for feeling that way too, I didn’t want to force them to do it.

I give you the KS2 SPAG test

drive.google.com/file/d/19CFIcs0KOgfSalGdwidg4YWgXQij1kXm/view

I agree with a lot of their points though with the maths teacher, I found it a bit contradictory to discuss how maths can be a really creative subject and needs time to explore, which I agree with, but then think teaching multiple ways to do certain types of maths problems teaches kids they haven't really learned something rather than different ways to explore (whether there are better ways is up for debate, but I'm not against teaching multiple ways to think about and solve problems). Bar models can be creative for some, and have been around for ages.

I recently asked my Y7 DD2 what she'd been doing in history, and she talked about how she learned how to answer a yes/no question by discussing both sides and other types of exam questions. It took some pulling to get her to discuss any actual historical. She usually really enjoys discussing history, so it was jarring how she now seemed to view history as answering questions a certain way.

[quote Sausagessizzling]@SarahAndQuack
sorry reading that back it does sound patronising, I didn't mean it to. What I was trying to say is that the people who contributed to that article may be experts in advanced levels of a subject, even in teaching advanced levels of that subject, but they're not experts in teaching it at a more basic level, which is a very different game.
Just like hospital consultants are experts in their particular field, they wouldn't necessarily be great GPs if thrown straight in as GPs are expert generalists and have a different set of skills and knowledge.[/quote]
I do appreciate you saying that.

And yes, sure, those people aren't experts in teaching at school.

But plenty of people who do teach school, still have reservations about the current curriculum.

I didn't think the maths lecturer was saying that he objected to the maths teaching just because it was wrong and he was a pedant - he was saying it seemed to actively confused and upset his children, too?

I am another English graduate/ writer who didn't know what a fronted adverbial is. That doesn't mean that the way our kids are taught is wrong though. I went through school at a time when we learned shockingly little grammar - we didn't even learn nouns and verbs until we started studying French at secondary school. Ask most of my degree-educated friends what a subjunctive is and they wouldn't have a clue. Actually, if we think language is important (and I do), then we accept that we don't just learn by osmosis and pick it up as we go along, but we learn the system of rules and structures, and from that you find the beauty within: the way a structure is emphasised, bent or smashed to pieces for effect. I find it amazing and wonderful. Nobody expects you to just pick up other concepts in school. As a poster up above said, reading loads of books and having loads of interesting conversations teaches you these things, but that often depends on your parents providing those for you. Yes, the current system is not perfect, but it is certainly miles better than the way I was (not) taught grammar at primary school in the 80s.

SarahAndQuack
The curriculum does teach that a square is a rectangle. They are taught the names before they are taught the properties. It is progression. Without the properties, they can't reason why a square is a rectangle.

I don't disagree that there can be too much on identifying grammatical devices and it can be dull at times.
Best practise is to incorporate that teaching in context and balance it with immersion in text types, a motivating purpose for writing and lots of opportunities for applying things in fun and creative way. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
My main point is that assuming all children can pick these things up by osmosis is wrong, some (often the most who need our support) need explicit teaching.

@Notanotherhun

A square is not a type of rectangle. Both are types of quadrilaterals which are shapes with 4 sides. A square is a regular quadrilateral whereas a rectangle/oblong is long and thin. So your little one is correct.

I disagree. A square fits all the definitions of a rectangle. It just happens to have side of the same length

Just like a rhombus is a type of parallelogram.

rectangle = quadrilateral with 2 pairs of parallel side, and 4 right angles.
square = quadrilateral with 2 pairs of parallel sides and 4 right angles, and all 4 sides the same length.

@Awalkintime

SarahAndQuack The curriculum does teach that a square is a rectangle. They are taught the names before they are taught the properties. It is progression. Without the properties, they can't reason why a square is a rectangle.

That's sort of my point, though?

Teaching 'this is a square' and 'this is a rectangle' and 'this is not a rectangle, it is a square' is teaching them that a square is not a rectangle.

Then later you teach them how to define square and rectangle, and they learn that a square fits the definition of rectangle.

So why do it in that order?

They learn something incorrect, then they have to re-learn it.

I'd also suggest that what is being given as home learning isn't necessarily indicative of what normal teaching is.
At my school for example, loads of parents have requested we stick to spag stuff for the time being as they're having such a hard time motivating their children to write a long piece. They much prefer a twinkl worksheet.
I agree Oak academy lessons are the most boring lessons I've ever seen!

The man in the article who's a maths lecturer is making the point that what children are being taught is wrong, and then later on he's having to unpick those mistakes again.

I'd be rather worried if a student arrived at Bath to study maths, still believing there are no numbers between 0 and 1, because they had been taught that in year 1 (although I don't agree with children being told that).

Yes, fronted adverbials is a stupid recently made-up term, but the point is that for a lot of children if they aren't taught how to use them, they would start every sentence the same way, because they haven't read enough to absorb the more sophisticated ways of creative writing.

As for punctuation, the amount of adults that think you can just throw in commas every now and again shows that it does need to be explicitly taught.

SarahAndQuack
But you teach your child to identify and label a chair before they define it as a noun? Why?

Micheal Rosen has written lots of opinikn pieces on teaching grammar. Here are jist 2 recent ones I found interesting.

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/23/dear-gavin-williamson-could-you-tell-parents-what-a-fronted-adverbial-is

michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2021/01/primary-school-grammar-issues.html?spref=fb&m=1

The curriculum does teach that a square is a rectangle. They are taught the names before they are taught the properties. It is progression. Without the properties, they can't reason why a square is a rectangle

I can see the lesson.

This is a rectangle. Shows them a rectangle that's not a square.
Shows them a square. This is a square. It's also a rectangle.

Child asks 'Why is it a rectangle?'

Because it has 4 sides with the opposite sides being parallel and of equal length to each other and there are 4 right angles.

Child "What does that mean?"

@Awalkintime

SarahAndQuack But you teach your child to identify and label a chair before they define it as a noun? Why?

What's that got to do with it?

*"That's sort of my point, though?

Teaching 'this is a square' and 'this is a rectangle' and 'this is not a rectangle, it is a square' is teaching them that a square is not a rectangle.

Then later you teach them how to define square and rectangle, and they learn that a square fits the definition of rectangle.

So why do it in that order?

They learn something incorrect, then they have to re-learn it."*

You can't not teach them the word square until they're ready to learn all the definitions and properties. It's a word in general use, and many children will have met it before they even get to school.

I'm a maths teacher, and I'm quite happy that young children learn to sort and name shapes without realising that some of them fit more than one definition. They will then be quite happy with those terms when we get to defining them later on. I would like to hope that all primary teachers know that a square is a special sort of rectangle, so that if they get the odd child (probably mine*) who says "but isn't this a rectangle too?" they can have that conversation with them.

By the way, someone mentioned that triangles can be equilateral, isosceles, scalene or right-angled. That's a dangerous one, too, as right-angled triangles are always also either scalene or isosceles. Too many people think there are four sorts of triangle!

*Mine definitely had a dispute with the pre-school over the shape she called a rhombus! But again, diamond is the everyday term, so one to be learned, especially if you're ever going to play cards - it would just have helped if the adults had recognised the technical term!

A really interesting lesson would be to get a square, rectangle and a parallelogram and get the children to say what they have in common - and what makes them different.

Without knowing the words for the properties.

Or to play 'guess the shape' by getting a child to describe a shape and see if they can draw it.

SarahAndQuack

Because it shows progression in understanding.

Lets make it maths related....why do we teach kids to orally recite numbers 1-10 before they can count.

Why do we do that when they have no idea of the 1ness of 1?