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?

I believe that they will pick up the appropriate language by a process of osmosis whilst carrying out the creative writing.

We know that doesn’t happen though, even in homes where English is the first language of all family members.

English isn’t my first language and I like the primary English curriculum, when I attended primary school the only things I was actually taught to use were upper case letters and fullstops.

My written English is fairly poor, despite that I managed to get an A at GCSE, that shouldn’t be happening.

Now I follow my sons curriculum it is so much easier for me to write (as you can see my writing needs a lot of work) and my spoken English is much better as I can now easily make a more direct comparison between English and Urdu. This has also improved my sons spoken English as I’m not speaking as much pig English at home.

A better understanding of grammar etc makes it much easier to learn a new language.

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

Hopefully it gets related to something concrete so as you count objects, you use the numbers. So they can see the connection.

It then gets interesting if you put objects in a circle and ask them to count how many there are.

chomalungma

That is pretty obvious that it will be done in some context and repeatedly but it takes a long time to learn to count to 10. There are a significant number of things to achieve before being able to count to 10
I think its about 50 things they need to be able to do and my point being that it can't all be done in 1 sitting. Therefore learning needs to be progressive as the previous poster wondered why kids can't learn it all in one go and being to reason at 2 about shapes.

When learning to count they would learn the reciting before they have any understanding of one to one correspondence or cardinality.

Learning needs to build on what they already know so therefore learning shape names during play as a toddler when they can parrot off names and then when they begin to learn words like sides and corners and vertices they can begin to include these. Then they can begin to reason and justify about shapes.

I don't entirely agree. I only read the article quickly, but found some of it pretty ridiculous tbh. For example,contrary to what the article suggests, it is perfectly possible to teach grammar and creative writing. And withholding more complex concepts like fractions until a child is old enough to cope with them is not 'lying', it's pretty much necessary.

I've been an MFL teacher for over 20 years and have always thought it ludicrous how little we are taught about our own language in the UK. People from other European countries seem to manage to learn grammar without getting their knickers in a twist or becoming imagination-free robots.

I'm not saying that the SATs grammar curriculum was particularly well designed,but the idea of teaching more grammar was good, and should be continued into early secondary school rather than dropped like a hot potato the minute the SATs are done. It's absurd that generations of adults and children only ever learned a bit of English grammar by the 'back door' of MFL. At least post-new-SATs they actually know what nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs are,which is a start.

Learning needs to build on what they already know so therefore learning shape names during play as a toddler when they can parrot off names and then when they begin to learn words like sides and corners and vertices they can begin to include these. Then they can begin to reason and justify about shapes

So when a preschooler is shown a square - do you think they should be told that it's a square and a rectangle?

Or both?

And when they are shown a rectangle (that's not a square), should they be told that it's a rectangle but it's not a square?

it is perfectly possible to teach grammar and creative writing.

Entirely agree with this

@lanthanum, I'm quite sure not all primary school teachers know that a square is a rectangle, FWIW.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well (it started out as an off-the-cuff comment about the early years curriculum).

I've no issue with children picking up words for shapes. Fine. We all did it.

What I have an issue with is that children aren't just casually learning labels whose precise meaning may be slightly different from what they assumed. That's a normal part of language learning and it's fine.

My issue is that, currently, I see children being explicitly taught to memorise something that is incorrect. Not incomplete, or a bit simplified, but incorrect.

I don't like that.

In the same way, the maths lecturer in the article wasn't objecting to teachers not raising the issue of decimals or fractions when teaching counting or basic arithmetic. He was objecting to teachers telling children that there are no numbers between 0 and 1. That is a very different thing.

If a child asks you, with interest, 'mummy, what comes between 0 and 1?' it's a good question. Replying 'there are no numbers between 0 and 1' is wrong. But, unless he's making something up in that article (and I bet he isn't), that's what he's seeing happen.

@Awalkintime

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?

I don't think I did? I started with blocks or bits of grape or whatever and got her counting. She still sometimes says '1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 ...' but if she needs to find the lego block with 8 points on it, she can do that.

I would have thought generally you do start with counting before reciting?

Just as you teach a child to recognise some letters before you teach them to recite the alphabet.

I think maybe some parents (and possibly even some teachers) are a bit scared by grammar and grammatical terminology. It's not some terribly difficult, esoteric and unnecessary field of study! People in other European countries seem to manage to learn grammar without getting their knickers in a twist or turning into unimaginative robots.

I teach an adult MFL class of mostly retired people. They love learning the grammar. They find it fascinating and are constantly astonished to learn 'new' grammatical structures in German which they had no idea also exist in English. They find it baffling that they were never taught these things in their own language. If you teach these things from an early age, children do not see them as any more scary than learning addition, subtraction etc.

@Sausagessizzling

As a highly educated primary school teacher, I completely disagree. Regarding English, unquestionably the best way to learn to be a good writer is to read extensively (and be read to). Any teacher will agree. It is by reading that you pick the tricks, tone etc up by osmosis. Creativity doesn't ever come from nothing. It's only by absorbing and being exposed to similar things can you use that to create something (somewhat) original. Another factor is how much high level conversation you hear and contribute to. However, a lot of children do not read extensively or have high level conversations. Research has shown that these children are more likely to come from low income backgrounds. They are also the children who have worse educational outcomes - the gap between rich and poor children here is huge. So as educators, we have to do our best to increase children's vocabulary and to circumnavigate their lack of reading. All in an effort to narrow that gap. We can do this a few different ways. One is very explicit teaching of devices such as fronted adverbials. Another is a programme called Talk for Writing which helps children verbalize and learn high level vocabulary and sentence structures so, just as if they had experience of reading them, they can innately use them in their own writing. Another thing to bear in mind is that there are lots of children absolutely terrified by a blank sheet of paper. It can cause huge anxiety for the reasons I've already talked about - they don't have the tools they need to be creative. So we teach them the tools. Regarding maths, the only thing that some teachers teach incorrectly is the rectangle thing. Yes we start by teaching whole numbers, but what an earth is wrong with that? We don't say "decimals don't exist", we don't need to because it doesn't come up until we introduce them to it. If they ask, we may follow their lead and teach them a bit about it or tell them theyll learn more about it later (usually depending on how much time we have). There is nothing in maths teaching that requires unlearning, just learning more about. We also teach multiple ways to 'do an operation' like addition because maths isn't actually about a series of methods to get to an answer. It's a beautiful language that we teach children to visualise and manipulate, to fully comprehend and have command over. We show them the connections between things and help them.form their own connections, see patterns, solve problems and develop reasoning. Just teaching them a few column methods by rote and saying 'use these' doesn't allow them to develop that fuller understanding. Instead it leads to scores of adults happily declaring that they're no good at maths, and scores of confused children in classrooms. So if anything that you've seen through home schooling has confused you or you've struggled to see the reasoning for, I empathise. You've not had training or years of experience of pedagogy (the science of teaching). But that doesn't mean it's wrong. Most teachers know exactly what they're doing.

This! The maths one particularly pissed me off. He obviously has natural maths ability. Not every child does. And those children need bar models, part whole models and to do something in lots of different ways

chomalungma

I say it's a square rectangle and an oblong rectangle and that is how I teach them. I use both words at the same time.

If a child asks you, with interest, 'mummy, what comes between 0 and 1?' it's a good question. Replying 'there are no numbers between 0 and 1' is wrong. But, unless he's making something up in that article (and I bet he isn't), that's what he's seeing happen.

Y1 Maths
Number - fractions
Pupils should be taught to:

recognise, find and name a half as 1 of 2 equal parts of an object, shape or quantity
recognise, find and name a quarter as 1 of 4 equal parts of an object, shape or quantity

You've not had training or years of experience of pedagogy (the science of teaching). But that doesn't mean it's wrong. Most teachers know exactly what they're doing

One thing about teaching pedagogy is that 'good practice' changes over the decades.

Literacy Hour anyone?
Unit plans?
Grammar for writing
Brain gym

Now was it personalised learning, themes, cross curricular topics or separate subjects?

Sorry, @derxa, I'm not following what you're getting at? You mean, you think he's lying?

I do think the curriculum is dry, but on the other hand there's a lot of very poor adult writers and spellers (and talkers) who kind of fell into a hole with English teaching during the end of last century. Agree most children aren't exposed to great models of speech, although of course everyone thinks that's what they're doing. And most people use models when they write, even subconsciously. The curriculum at least acknowledges this and makes it explicit.

On maths, the man in the article just seemed to be piqued that thinking in mastery had moved on and he didn't seem to be able to appreciate that different visual models help a variety of children in different ways. There is a gap between individual tutoring, where you can move on at the learners pace, and catering for a group all at different places. The different methods taught support the latter very well. It's like shaking a sieve lots of times so more fall through. I found myself irritated and hoping he had the chance to reflect on how he came across!

@Mountainpika

Agree. Too much of the technical stuff and not enough freedom to write spontaneously. Let the story flow - none of this planning it all in advance - see where it takes you. Get it down. Spellings can be corrected later. I've done a lot of creative writing classes in my teaching life time and always took that approach. I'm horrified at what children are expected to do now. Yes, plan a factual report - but a free flowing story? Let the imagination go and the characters will go their own way - often unexpectedly. I never learned a lot of the technicalities that my grandchildren have learned at primary school and I've managed just fine. Let them be children.

Actually, as a teacher, I’ve seen a massive improvement in the creative writing of the vast majority of children as a result of actual teaching. It’s all well and good to say ‘let the creative juices flow’, but most children don't actually have any! Structuring the teaching sequence so children explore texts, learn about how to develop different sentence types, writing for a specific purpose and audience plus the many other technical aspects of writing that we teach is proved to work. The days of reading pages of writing that had np structure, all sentences the same linked by ‘and then, and then’ and no cohesion between different parts of the story is well and truly over - thank god!

And as for things that happen now in schools compared to what happened when grandparents were at school, we don't use corporal punishment, we don't humiliate children for not being ‘clever’ enough, we don’t have a ‘remedial’ class for those children. Times have changed, mainly for the better.

@SarahAndQuack

Sorry, *@derxa*, I'm not following what you're getting at? You mean, you think he's lying?

I think he knows nothing about teaching maths to young children.

That might well be, fair enough.

@chomalungma

You've not had training or years of experience of pedagogy (the science of teaching). But that doesn't mean it's wrong. Most teachers know exactly what they're doing

One thing about teaching pedagogy is that 'good practice' changes over the decades.

Literacy Hour anyone?
Unit plans?
Grammar for writing
Brain gym

Now was it personalised learning, themes, cross curricular topics or separate subjects?

You’ve made me shiver in horror at that list 🤣🤣🤣

The eysfp is changing next year - shape is taught as part of a mastery approach in number. So you won't have to be so cross anymore! 😊

FGS.... please can all the non teachers sit down and calm down!!! You're all getting your knickers in a right twist 😂😂

You’ve made me shiver in horror at that list

I'm an English graduate and primary school teacher.

Unfortunately, the focus from Gove's 2014 curriculum was all about measurable facts and knowledge. Creativity and exploration have very much taken a back seat.

I very much agree with Michael Rosen on this one. When the curriculum first came out, it was soul-destroying to have to assess what is a 'good' piece of writing against a ticklist of what you should see in a 'good' piece of writing.
Ticks for fronted adverbials, modals and a technically good piece of work even if it was as dull as dishwater.

A brilliant poem however wouldn't cut it. In fact, poetry has also taken a massive backseat in recent years.

I remember reading a brilliant story with my DS who was about 9 at the time. I asked what he liked about it and the first thing he said was 'Ooh, it has lots of fronted adverbials.' Not how it made him laugh, the vocabulary or style....

Teaching of writing has improved slightly in the last couple of years in terms of balancing technical knowledge with creativity but, yeah, it's still very much about being able to quantify learning against a long list of what kids should know.

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.

😂 This made me laugh. I teach English at secondary school - every time I try to make use of anything I assume they've learned at primary, they stare at me absolutely blankly. The number of times I've had to pause my scheme of work to teach students nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, dependent clauses, independent clauses, how to use punctuation...

I would love to be able to "follow it up" rather than teach it from scratch, believe me.

@TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross

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.

😂 This made me laugh. I teach English at secondary school - every time I try to make use of anything I assume they've learned at primary, they stare at me absolutely blankly. The number of times I've had to pause my scheme of work to teach students nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, dependent clauses, independent clauses, how to use punctuation...

I would love to be able to "follow it up" rather than teach it from scratch, believe me.

Is that possibly because they cram it all in to pass a test? It's all surface learning, not real quality, meaningful learning with depth. And I say that as someone that has to teach it!!