To think this is a crazy maths challenge for a Y4?!

[Newbie887]

My son in Y4 has been coming home the past few weeks talking about a maths challenge his class do each Thursday. They have 100 multiplication questions using times tables up to 12, and have 10 mins to answer all the questions. Fine.

However, they can only move up to the next challenge when they manage to get 100% of questions right in under 3 mins. under 3 mins?!? That’s like 1.8 seconds to read and answer each question!

He is putting a lot of pressure on himself and is getting frustrated that he can’t get near the 3 mins (currently gets 100% but in 6-7 mins). is off school today and wanted to practice which is why I’m now processing how hard this is!!

he goes to a state primary, it’s a good school but nothing special.

am I just crap at maths or is this extremely hard for 8/9 yr olds?

I don't think it's too hard. Knowing them instantly really really helps with the more complex stuff and is great to practice.

But I wonder if you're putting too much into the 3 minutes. You said one child has managed it. Is anyone actually saying they must do it in 3 minutes and if you can't you're behind?

You say "move onto the next one" as if that's the expected level but perhaps that's the advanced level?

One of the things I liked about teaching in this country that didn't exist in some others is the idea that if a child gets 100% then it's too easy and they should be challenged more. I'm some places the "bright" kids get 100% on things and that's it. I like that here there's the culture that everyone has their own goals no matter what level they are at.

Is it not a possibility that this one child is SO good at them (under 3 minutes) that he's exceeding expectations and has been given something harder? And when others have asked for the same they've been told that they can have the harder one if they do it under 3 minutes?

That's very different to being told all 8 year olds need to be able to do it in 3 minutes and there's something wrong otherwise. Perhaps it's just a fun ambitious goal to get them practising?

Like when my teacher offered to give us 20 "merits" if we could solve the Rubik's cube at lunch time. It didn't mean there was something wrong if we couldn't and in the whole year only one kid a managed which is likely what she expected.

My child sat it two years ago- 25 question with 6 seconds for each question, so they give plenty of time

Haven't done this in a very long time so printed out those photos and gave it a go (with no practice first). Managed it in 2min 28sec (including writing the answers). It is purely a case of recollection of facts though and yes 40+ years on from doing this at school those times tables are still stored in there. Is it a crazy challenge? No. Had a go at the online government one and 6 seconds per answer was very do-able. I'm no maths prodigy either.

I sat next to a friend in maths from yr9-11. She didn’t know her times tables at all because she hadn’t been taught them at her primary school. I know mine because I was taught them. She got an A* in maths at GCSE and an A in A level maths (no stars in our day.) It’s not about being good at maths.

I agree this challenge is about rote learning. That, and the number sense to be gained from the multiplication tables, are valid goals in themselves.

But I agree with @cakeorwine and other PP that being able to use multiplication in new ways - and crucially, understanding that it is just repeated addition - is more important.

@HisNibs are you good at spelling?

That's quite possibly true.

But the kids who understand and have instant recall will do even better at understanding maths later. It really is worth learning times tables by heart.

Btw I smile when I'm reminded young children in England are taught to remember up to 12x12. Eleven and twelve times tables are not really necessary, given the decimal basis of our number system, any more than thirteens etc. So, why?

-- Interesting answer: ... it's because when Michael Gove was a child, Britain had currency in which 12 pennies made a shilling, and length measurements in which 12 inches made a foot. Oh, and also because when grown up and Minister of State for Education, Michael Gove was a complete fool with no understanding of maths or pedagogy but nevertheless enjoyed dictating to people he thought of (and described) as 'The Blob'. Funny how such things play out. (No real harm. Gove is still a fool, of course.)

I was taught times tables by rote, and it was years before I realised you could just add another one of the same number to get to the next position, ie,
if 6 x 8 is 48, then 7 x 8 is 48 + 8 = 56. Before the light dawned if I couldn't remember one I was totally stumped.

And I did eventually do pure and applied maths as separate subjects at A level.

I did it in 3:58, and had to go back and forth between my phone with the questions and my paper, so I reckon if you're regularly practicing (think it's been about 30 years for me!) and writing on the same sheet it's pretty doable once you know them.

I'll admit I did find it stressful though!

2 mins 19 here with some total brain farts and distractions with emails popping up etc. And I rarely use times tables - the kids do every day so you’d expect them to be better than adults as consistency is key! Some of them are the same backwards so they can just copy their original answer too.

I’m probably at Y4 level, I never moved on with maths. Stuck at arithmetic but I’ve managed. Times table question should be easy but yes, you’re right, 3 minutes is unrealistic.

Yes if you worked in a shop (Saturday girl here) in the olden days, with no electronic till you needed all your tables for £ s d, 12d in a shilling 20s in a pound and coins in denominations of 1/2d 1d, 6d (the 3d had gone in my day, edit: no there was a 3d the bronze one, the silver 3d had gone), 1s, 2s, 2s 6d and 10s notes. Oh the pressure to calculate what was owed and the change.

I was taught that before times tables - when you first learn to multiply and use something like coins or blocks to count out two lots of two, three lots of two etc.

Your initial post, that has been quoted, suggested that TT knowledge was unimportant and unnecessary.
You did not explain yourself well.
You can potentially be good at maths without knowing your TT but I’d bet a lot that good mathematicians know their TT. Just as they will automatically know al number bonds and be able to multiply and divide by 10, 100, 1000 without having to think about it. Their brains will be able to spot and remember patterns like this easily. It’s what makes them good at maths.
You can learn these things but it takes more effort for some.

I probably didn't make the association between the two activities, I do remember blocks and beans and things as props for simple sums.

Yes, usually. I can remember those days of spelling tests and getting one wrong would result in having to write it out 100 times before being allowed to go out at break time. It was much easier to do the homework and get them correct the first time around.

This is absolutely standard. You may feel it’s too difficult, OP, but I think that says more about your own mathematical abilities than anything else. I’m not having a go, but parental attitude has a lot to answer for. So many parents tell their DC that they were ‘rubbish at maths’ and this creates the notion that maths is hard, unachievable, etc. It isn’t, it’s logical, and extremely useful. Rather than trying to fight the system, I’d focus on your DC practicing more. Kumon classes could help.

Blocks and beans are my level of maths. That’s very much my wheelhouse. I dropped it like it was on fire after GCSE.

Lol Michael give wouldn't have started school by the time decimalization happened

On that sheet, there's a mix of stuff you should have the steps to work out though, which takes the average time down: for example, anything x 5 is add a 0 zero and half, nines will always add up to nine (or the first number goes up as the second goes down), 11s are always the same number, etc.

We used to fill in times tables squares every Friday morning, but I never remember being taught the 'hacks' (or that 5x7 was the same as 7x5, for example).

12x14 is 13 squared -1, much easier

Instant recall is helpful later as you don't need to lose your train of thought to do the basics. It is worth schools trying to get most kids up to reasonable instant recall. However some with SpLD will never manage it / not be able to do it at speed.

@Smartiepants79 this post? I’m failing to see where I said it was unnecessary? I didn’t comment at all on whether it’s important or not.
It IS a memory test. DS is good at it. Doesn’t mean he understands why it’s important though or how to apply it. That’s a completely separate part of maths. He’s no maths genius because he can do his times tables.
Yes, knowing times tables does help people to be more efficient at maths. On its own, it’s not maths, it’s memory.
All of this is irrelevant to the question the OP asked, I just thought I was innocently answering @NerdWhoEatsMedlar ’s question (which I quoted) 🤣

It's sounds like a good plan! Difficult enough to make it hard work but not so difficult that it's impossible. It's obviously inspired him and it's great that he's so keen to practice IMO.

I learnt my times tables while Michael Gove was still at University and well after decimalisation of our currency, and I learnt up to 12x12 - so I don’t think this is Gove’s fault.

But it probably is a hangover of an imperial and pre decimalisation (12 is relevant for shillings and feet/inches etc).

I managed to do 100 within 2 mins 50 seconds, and I learned my times tables by rote (though I’ve just identified my 8x are weak and I had to calculate some of these). It’s a different skill set for other maths, but this rote learning gives a foundation for other skills to be built on. It’s important to both be able to rattle off times tables AND understand how they are calculated.