To have not known kids have to attain grade 4 in maths?

[Pepperpotladles]

I did not know this!
I have obviously been living under a rock.
So today someone told me that if kids get grades 1, 2 or 3 in their maths GCSE, it is compulsory that all these kids have to keep on studying GCSE maths until they achieve a grade 4 or above, and they have to keep trying to achieve this up until their 25th birthday.
Is this true?!?
I can't believe my ears.
What about kids who simply can't achieve grade 4 or above in maths, for any number of reasons?

It's not straightforward, but the clues are there.

There's been a change in the way maths is taught in primary schools - with much more emphasis on using bar models to represent maths problems.

Do you think that has improved pupil performance or understanding at secondary?

Personally, I think diagrams, pictures etc are a great way to solve maths problems.

Most gamblers would bet on 5 coming up next....

https://cdn.sanity.io/files/p28bar15/green/4f1b2e87049a6f3f896128672cca828136ed8b35.pdf

Here you go

Does anyone have any videos they can recommend on maths education around the world? I saw one a few years ago about South Korea

It's not straightforward at all, for someone who is not good at maths, and clearly the pupils sitting the paper also found it difficult.

No, I don't think bar models have improved pupil performance. I don't think pupils choose to use them.

I think the arithmetic paper has improved pupils' ability to do arithmetic, but the loss of the calculator paper means they don't know how to use calculators and see it as cheating (which has to be trained out of them because 2/3 of their GCSE is calculator).

Obviously different ways of representing maths problems are useful.

He had cancer and he's in remission now but he had a lot of complications which meant a 10 month hospital stay.

He is getting academic support at school but he's now physically disabled so that's where he's getting most of his support at school.

@Kirbert2 I am sorry to hear that though glad DS is in remission.

DS would be classed as having SEN.

Thanks.

No one has told me that he's classed as having SEN but it would make sense.

@Kirbert2 many use SEN as a synonym for things like ASD &/or think it only covers academic difficulties, but the legal definition as set out in section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014 is far wider and encompasses a lot of other needs.

I have seen you post on other threads I have been on and I think DS has an EHCP(??) so he must be recognised as having SEN by the school/LA. His SEN will be set out in section B of the EHCP.

It would be better to give them a list of stuff like that - there is no benefit in being able to remember it, in real life you’d just use the function on your calculator (app!)

Her point is, her son is good at maths but she’s a bit of a twat 👍🏻

He does for his physical disabilities.

Thanks, that does make sense.

Wow, from a primary school teacher, I agree there is nothing kind about that.
This is not my experience, 2 DC’s with SEN, both got the required mark on year 6 SATS tests for maths, one very slightly above. One DC managed a 4 at GCSE and the other a 5, so that is years later. I don’t believe either of them, who met the required grade at SATS, would have passed GCSE with a 4 grade had they taken the paper then.
However, my other DC, who got a high 8 at GCSE, may have managed it but they are in the top 10% in the country (so the school have told me). It seems like comparing apples with oranges.
A quick google tells me that a child getting a pass (score of 100) in sats Maths, would likely go on to get a 4 or 5 at GCSE many years later. Are you saying that these children are making no progress in the years 6-10? Or are you comparing high achieving year 6 children with average children taking GCSE’s?

@zingally I am 50 and doubt very much I could pass it. Pray tell me what other 'problems' I have?
It's literally only maths I struggle/struggled with. I could read at aged 3, ffs!

Why is there this continued assumption that not being able to pass one exam makes us people with 'big problems' who are not 'normal'?

We don't do this about any other GCSE, not even English! Yes, I get that these days it's a work requirement, etc, etc, but I am sick and tired of over and over again reading this crap on this thread about what sub-standard humans the many adults who have commented on this thread must be because they struggle with this.

And yet, amazingly, here we all are, most of us with jobs, mortgages, maybe families. Some of us have gasp careers! Imagine that!

For all the supposed inclusion and understanding, nothing sodding changes does it? Crap at maths = stoopid. Looks at upper 2nd class degree in English Literature and tosses in bin.

Agree wholeheartedly. I suspect most of us have managed to get through our lives without using pythagorus theorem or the square route of pi.

Providing a person has a basic grasp of maths to work out day to day stuff, putting extra pressure on them if they cannot do it is unfair.

It doesn’t matter how low the pass rate is, there are still people who fail every time. My son (now 25) struggled with all exams, but maths was his worst nightmare. He was in a supportive school, with only 8 in the class, but in Y9 after working really hard, he got 0% in the end of year exam. By the time he took his GCSE, he’d improved to an E (grade 2 today) and when he went to art college aged 16, he was required to take it again. He joined a class of 30+ students with a teacher who regularly humiliated him (“how could you have scored so low?” In front of everyone) until it made him ill and he couldn’t get out of the house on maths lessons days.
i managed to get Learning Support involved and after a lot of intervention it was agreed that he was too far from the pass mark to stand a reasonable chance of success, so they suggested that he change to Functional Skills. At his first attempt (a practice) he scored 80% and went on to pass comfortably. GCSE maths is NOT the sort of maths that you need in adult life. FS covers it all - percentages, arithmetic, general number sense. You don’t need trigonometry or algebra. I loved maths but I’ve never needed any of my AO level skills.
Happy ending: my son ended up doing two years of music (after a year of art) at college and got the second highest grade on the course. He’s now a professional musician (in NME’s top 100 last year), so much happier than when he was ground down by maths lessons.

Primary really push times tables now which is brilliant but as ever there isn't time and the help to get each child to the same level and place in a class.

Once they start to fall behind it snowballs and then they loose interest.
Teaching in the same way and getting failures is a definition of madness.
If a student gets past their GCSE and can't pass maths then they need to be investigated and taught differently or just not forced to take it.

The basics are all that are needed in life, addition, subtraction etc nothing else is needed at all.

How can anyone look at a 17 year old and try and convince them they must Keep slogging away at working out the area of a triangle 📐???
It's an absolute lie.

How hard is the area of a triangle?

1/2 X base X height

Why does anyone need to know?
At 51 I have got through life without having to calculate the area of triangles ever.

Let's not start thinking that knowledge is only of any value if one ever has a practical use for it.

But in maths which kids are forced to retake over and over agsin as it's deemed essential for everyday life,in reality most people only use the basics
So why force kids to retake maths again and again when they will never have to calculate the area of a triangle
Why not provide them with a numeracy exam thst just covers the essentials?

Why do you think numeracy (presumably arithmetic?) is the only essential?

Functional skills which is the practical, slimmed down maths qualification still contains the area of a triangle.

Oh dear.

So what's the point? Why do our children need to know that?
One can argue value in nearly every other subject but as I am sat here looking at anything possibly triangle related, my tray ,my table etc how on earth would it benefit me to know how to calculate the triangle in the corner of my tray?

If it's on the foundation paper it needs immediate removal

It's far better for all of us to have students getting really good at the four basics and understanding investing and how to properly manage money.

Those skills would properly point them in a direction to improve their lives.
Understanding the areas of objects will never improve someone's life.

In fact it's ruining lives because some students who are really bright can't get on because of this utter nonsense chained around their necks holding them back.

The way I see it is that GCSEs provide some fundamental base knowledge that will allow you to access a wide variety of careers in the future. People who "build things" need to work out areas and volumes. So do gas engineers as well to an extent.

I feel the UK overall dismisses the value of education.

If it's on the foundation paper it needs immediate removal

Don't be daft. Teaching finding the area of a triangle communicates the fact that if you cut a shape (a rectangle in this case) in half (via the diagonal) you end up with a shape that is half the area of the original.

This might seem completely obvious to some, but it is certainly worth teaching. And then you can move on to manipulating the triangle to show how it is still half a rectangle.

This concept isn't obscure or meaningless and it's certainly not worthless.