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 read this article as well and so agreed. Particularly with the English. I think it takes all the joy out of writing and reading to focus on grammar to such a great extent. The focus should be on spelling and punctuation as so many people seem to have such a poor grasp of this.

@Notanotherhun
Yes it is. A rectangle is a group consisting of squares and oblongs.

Does this help?

@Abraxan

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.

That's not necessarily how it's taught though.

We teach 'this is a square' and 'this is a rectangle' - yes

But we don't say a square 'is not a rectangle.' Simply as that isn't correct.

If asked we would tell children it is a special type of rectangle and we call it a square. It's not often we get asked in reception but we do answer questions correctly if asked, we just don't go into the properties in as much details, so as to not confuse children who may still be learning the basics.

However, come key stage 1 we do say a square is a special rectangle and talk about properties.

I was referring specifically to my own experience with my child who is in early years education.

My point is that, actually, she really is being taught 'a square is not a rectangle'. I would imagine the people (who are amazing, lovely, and wonderful) who say this don't have any idea that a square is a type of rectangle. But someone, in their wisdom, decided it was important for preschool children to learn the names of shapes in a semi-formal way, so they know they have to drill her.

I do understand that some children aren't exposed to enough language to gain vocabulary, and I know it is a worry. But I don't think this is a good solution and I shared the maths lecturer in that article's concern about children being taught something that is clearly, definitively incorrect, because they're too little to understand the correct version and the curriculum requires they learn something.

The confusion occurs because , in day to day life, we call oblongs rectangles. Most people- except for pedantic teachers probably!- would buy a rectangular table rather than an oblong one. It seems to be a word that has fallen out of fashion!

(And in case it's not obvious by this point in the thread, I am really embarrassed I even mentioned this as it's dominated so much! It was meant to be an anecdote relating my experience to the article, not a major controversy!)

@spanieleyes

The confusion occurs because , in day to day life, we call oblongs rectangles. Most people- except for pedantic teachers probably!- would buy a rectangular table rather than an oblong one. It seems to be a word that has fallen out of fashion!

But an oblong table is a rectangular table.

However - if you asked somone to make you a rectangular table with an area of 4 square metres and they made one that was 2 m x 2 m, then you can't complain as you should have been more specific

And if you were sent out to buy a rectangular table and came back with a square one, you would be technically correct but probably in trouble!

It's really difficult to teach children fully correct facts with understanding all the time though. They shouldn't be being told a square isn't a rectangle if they ask, but we do often only teach a basic part of something before building upon that knowledge and extending it.

There's nothing wrong with pre school children learning shape names. It's sad that nursery has to do this because parents don't.

@spanieleyes

And if you were sent out to buy a rectangular table and came back with a square one, you would be technically correct but probably in trouble!

That would be an interesting AIBU

[quote SarahAndQuack]@kolo, sure, but nor are most teachers experts in pedagogy.[/quote]
Are you a teacher, @SarahAndQuack? Genuine curiosity. I was a teacher for 20 years. I did a degree for 3 years, which granted didn't teach me any pedagogy. Then pgce for a year, which was based in pedagogy and educational theory. Then NQT year, which also included pedagogy. Throughout the next 17 years I did lots of CPD on pedagogy - through departmental training, whole school inset, work with my local universities through ITT. That's all pretty normal for an experienced teacher, no? Because of my location I also had very good links with Nottingham university (I'm an alumni and worked with them on ITT for my school, so had a 20 year relationship with Nottingham university school of education) through which I participated in shell centre research projects. Maybe that part isn't universal, but I'd say my pedagogical knowledge and practice was good and ever evolving and I don't think that's rare.

After helping my 10 year old at home I have actually been quite shocked at how technical they make the writing. We've been doing parentheses which is actually something I've never heard of. My very creative child, who can write pretty well, actually doesn't enjoy creative writing very much because she can't just enjoy it and use her imagination, she has to think of fronted adverbial statements, parentheses, similes etc. It does suck the fun out of it somewhat.

I also find the maths very long winded. She was doing division with bizarre tables splitting up the sum into different parts. Neither she or I quite understood it so I showed her how people in the real world actually do division on paper and she understood it within about 2 minutes. I understand the tables were probably a build up to actually doing normal division as thankfully by the end of the week that's what they had moved on to. Personally though I find 4 days of one long winded method before moving on to how everyone actually does that maths, more confusing than helpful.

And don't get started on trapeziums

""What is the definition of a trapezium? Is it a shape with exactly one pair of parallel sides or at least one pair of parallel sides? Or maybe even none at all!

Different cultures define a trapezium slightly differently and many have the term trapezoid too.

In the US (for some) a trapezium is a four sided polygon with no parallel sides;
in the UK a trapezium is a four sided polygon with exactly one pair of parallel sides;
whereas in Canada a trapezoid has an inclusive definition in that it’s a four sided-polygon with at least one pair of parallel sides - hence parallelograms are special trapezoids.""

www.cambridgemaths.org/blogs/where-in-the-world-trapezoid-trapezium/

@HercwasanEnemyofEducation

It's really difficult to teach children fully correct facts with understanding all the time though. They shouldn't be being told a square isn't a rectangle if they ask, but we do often only teach a basic part of something before building upon that knowledge and extending it.

There's nothing wrong with pre school children learning shape names. It's sad that nursery has to do this because parents don't.

I absolutely agree it's difficult to teach children.

Nursery teaches children shape names because it's the early years curriculum, not because parents don't. My DD's nursery are (thankfully) quite sensible and have said explicitly that they try to spend as little time as possible on the bits of the curriculum that strike them as being a bit silly (such as 'British Values'!). But it's ridiculous it's even in the curriculum.

I love the idea of saying to teachers of small children that they should get children excited about finding out names of shapes and enjoying words. IME small children really enjoy funny words and a lot of them will be delighted to try to remember what a 'hexagon' is, just as they'll love knowing the names of their favourite dinosaurs.

What I don't love is a curriculum that makes it very easy to prioritise rote learning an impressive word over teaching something correct and/or useful.

also find the maths very long winded. She was doing division with bizarre tables splitting up the sum into different parts. Neither she or I quite understood it so I showed her how people in the real world actually do division on paper and she understood it within about 2 minutes

Did she understand what she was doing or did she learn the method of short division?

Could she tell if she was right by doing the inverse?

Can she estimate an answer?

Schools spend a long time teaching what division means, looking at chunking, recognising that it's repeated subtraction, making groups etc.

Parents draw a 'bus stop' and teach them short division.

The key stage 2 curriculum needs a complete overhaul. It's overcomplicated, joyless and not fit for purpose. I say this as an experienced primary teacher.

@kolo Your experience of pedagogical knowledge chimes with mine (not quite as many years as you). But I'd say half of our dept just does what they've always done because that's how they want to do it.

Trapeziums are exactly one pair of parallel sides. The US definition baffles me. I'm on a US maths forums and it's one topic I avoid.

And there's no cohesion between primary and secondary either.

@kolo, as I said, I'm a junior academic. Your pedagogy experience will be much better than mine, and I am always in awe of what teachers do. But I was reading your own post when I pointed out teachers aren't pedagogy experts. You said:

There are university school of education research departments and global research projects which aim to further our understanding of teaching and learning and inform practice.

I absolutely agreed with that, and just wanted to make the point that neither the lecturers in the article, nor the vast majority of school teachers, fall into the category of experts you're describing here.

Trapeziums are exactly one pair of parallel sides. The US definition baffles me. I'm on a US maths forums and it's one topic I avoid

It can't come up that much?

(FWIW, I have ten years' of teaching experience, training during my postgrad teaching years, regular training courses, engagement with pedagogical research ... it's a drop in the ocean compared to what people know when they do pedagogy research full time, and I know that. I would guess the lecturer in that article has a lot more pedagogy experience than me, though.)

Nursery teaches children shape names because it's the early years curriculum, not because parents don't.

I disagree here, the EYFS curriculum was made to cover stuff that some parents don't. There are kids who won't hear shape names at home.

Rote learning isn't inherently bad either. It's the context and how the questions that are answered around it that can lead to confusion later on.

British values on the curriculum is crazy, agreed! I think there should be more freedom for EYFS to interpret and provide their own curriculum.

@chomalungma Not often, but when it does bunfights occur!

@chomalungma

also find the maths very long winded. She was doing division with bizarre tables splitting up the sum into different parts. Neither she or I quite understood it so I showed her how people in the real world actually do division on paper and she understood it within about 2 minutes

Did she understand what she was doing or did she learn the method of short division?

Could she tell if she was right by doing the inverse?

Can she estimate an answer?

Schools spend a long time teaching what division means, looking at chunking, recognising that it's repeated subtraction, making groups etc.

Parents draw a 'bus stop' and teach them short division.

Yes, apart from probably doing an estimate, she did understand it. She is good with maths though and does grasp things quickly.

I appreciate that understanding it is just as important as doing it. However I'm not sure splitting numbers into dots in tables helps with understanding either. A table with 20 dots and 4 dots doesn't help explain why 24 divided by 6 is 4 does it? Although perhaps we were doing it wrong.

I was only ever taught the traditional way to divide. However, I also understand how division works, can estimate and work out the inverse, without specifically being taught that.

@HercwasanEnemyofEducation, ok, I do take your point that perhaps some nurseries would concentrate on drilling children in shape-names even if it weren't in the curriculum. Perhaps.

But do you really think a three year old who didn't know the word 'rectangle' would suggest a linguistically impoverished home?

I'm afraid I am too much of a cynic. When I was little, my brother had a friend whose parents were native English speakers and who reached age 5 not knowing words for colours (basic colours - red and blue, not cyan or teal). That is an example of a child who has not been exposed to enough language. A child who is three and doesn't know the word 'rectangle'? That's only a problem if someone has decided it is a curriculum requirement.

I also agree with you rote learning is no bad thing, and in many context can be helpful. I've no quarrel with rote learning. I have an issue with the prioritising of rote learning of seemingly 'fancy' words, over understanding or accuracy.