Teach Roman Numerals in Primary Maths: Gove

[noblegiraffe]

A story in The Guardian today has a charity expressing concerns about Michael Gove's plans for a new numeracy curriculum in primary school.

Among other things, the classically educated minister with a Latin obsession has decided that primary school children really need to be able to read Roman numerals up to 1000.

Baffling. I can't say it gives me any confidence about the quality of the rest of it.

Had an interestign conversation the other week with two retired teachers and DD1 (1st year student) about falling standards ad rising exam grades. All agreed that what it being taught and examined nowadays is very different to before. DD1 does maths, and gets given most of the formulae she'll need in an exam. She gets tested on how to use/apply/manipulate that formula/data. The ex teachers remembered having to learn all the formulae, and being tested on that, not what they might use it for.

A lot of teaching/testing nowadays seems to be about doing stuff with information, rather than being able to learn and regurgitate that info, except for Y6 SATS and some of GCSEs (the scorn DD had for "Science for the 21st Century" was vicious). Language GCSEs are also very "learn this and write it down in the exam". But in non-exam years, IME there's a lot more teaching round the subject.

The outcome of the discussion was that kids aren't getting brighter (if anything it's the other way as a general trend), nor are the exams easier; they're just different. (also everyone hates Gove, that's a given )

I'm just speechless. Maths isn't about rote learning. It isn't about learning what 12x12 is. (Incidentally I do know, but that's beside the point). I agree with the criticism in the article. Maths is an analytical skill to solve problems in a certain way.

I have a undergrad and PhD in engineering and I don't know roman numerals. I have no knowledge in the classics. Maybe we should teach our kids do maths in binary, that'd be more useful. I was taught it for the equivalent of GCSE here. I actually find it useful, and am amazed when collegues can't work out why 1

I was being sacarstic about the binary maths, btw. I found it sad people can't even work out how much water to add to cook 45g of couscous, when the package says 250ml for 60g. (That's a real life example on a package of waitrose couscous).

3/4 of 250 isn't very easy in your head ! I have been known to stand in the supermarket trying to work out whether it is cheaper to by 2 bigger cartons, or 3 smaller ones, given that one is on offer - it makes my brain hurt ! (I used to be able to do mental maths pre kids).

Binary maths is a good thing to do - it helps put the decimal system in perspective, and highlights place value.

But you'd do 3/4 of 240 then add in the extra bits, no?

3/4 of 240 is easy - you know 3/4 of 24 is 18, so 3/4 of 240 is 180.

Then 3/4 of ten is easy too - 4 into ten goes 2.5, 3 lots of 2.5 are 7.5, so the total is 187.5, right?

That sort of maths is useful, roman numerals are not.

(And I'm going to feel a right twit if that's wrong )

We did roman numerals in primary school as part of a wider project about the Romans. We also learned the measuring system and how we use dates as part of that. I remember light bulb moments in some of my friends when it clicked for them.

It makes me sad that its really unlikely my kids won't learn Latin in school I've forgotten most of it now, but exploring that culture (as you have to because that's the only way they can tell us) by the literature was amazing. Kids need these opportunities to discover learning can be fun, the bigger range they exposed to, the better chance they have of having their imagination sparked. Otherwise, at least in the North East, you might as well just have schools as call centre training camps. Then, at least, when they pass their GCSE in call handling they are ready for the only major industry we have up here.

I would MUCH rather my children be able to use their common sense to cook cous cous without resorting to weighing and measuring

throckenholt we have smartphones with us. Like you say, another very common day to day usage is working out the per unit cost of something in the supermarket. I'm no good at mental maths. But many people now have phones with calculators in their pockets. You'd be surprised how many didn't know the answer is 250 x 45/60.

Indeed.

JodieHarsh it's just a day to day example . Maybe I should pick one of those Asda 2-for-1 vs roll back price instead.

Actually that's a REALLY good point, one - I'm sure Sainsbo's rely on a generally appalling level of mental arithmetic to pull a fast one on customers.

You know - one tube of toothpaste is £1.76, but opt for the 'Special Offer' and you can get 2 for £3.75!

Thing is though, I think the use of these examples - though very helpful, sort of illustrates my point.

It's like there are 2 approaches to learning:

a. Teach only what is necessary to equip people in the everyday world: all else is a waste of my time and yours.
b. Teach the above, plus what is wonderful and life-enhancing and strange and mind-expanding and challenging and offers little insights into stuff that can be pursued later.

I remember once asking my Dad why I could see my school pals kick a football before I heard the noise of the boot meeting the ball. I was about 7. He explained about light travelling faster than the speed of sound.

I didn't need to know that at 7, and probably ever, to all practical purposes. But I loved knowing it, and it made me want to know more.

I would really fear for our children if the curriculum blindly followed option a) totally at the expense of option b).

And this is my favourite one, JodieHarsh

A 500ml of sunflower oil for 80p
www.ocado.com/webshop/product/Sunflower-Oil-essential-Waitrose/13862011

or 1L of sunflower oil (same brand) for £1.64
www.ocado.com/webshop/product/Sunflower-Oil-essential-Waitrose/13863011

O FGS!

Blimey. Comes to something when even Ocado is trying to fuck you over

Those links don't work as they are the same one. Doh!! Where's the permalink when you need it!

250 x 45/60.

CCL x XLV / LX ? (by the way - why isn't it VL rather than XLV ?)

how do you make that simplify to CCL x III/IV ?

By the way it didn't occur to me to do something with 240 - I went for half of 25 is 12.5, half of that is 6.25, then add them back up again - at which point my brain hurts because I forgot how many of which bit, and want a piece of paper and a pen !

You can still be good at maths and lousy at mental arithmetic - not that you would know that from the primary national curriculum.

Yes throckenholt I'm lousy at mental arithmetics, despite working at a classic STEM job with a postgrad degree in it. But I have computers and calculators with me all the time.

For the cous cous, by the way, I'd've worked out how much water you needed for 90g cous cous, and then halved it...250 plus 175 is 425, halved is about 215ml.

Disclaimer: I am AN ARTISTE and cannot be expected to have anything to do with all this vulgar numericals nonsense

But jodie, I don't see how using roman numerals would do what you claim it does.

It might. I don't see the harm in having it as a possibility. But I think Gove needs to recognize that introducing an unecessary element is going to penalize children who can't cope well with that element and could cope fine before. That seems daft to me.

I love knowing roman numerals especially for old statues and gravestones. But that has absolutely nothing to do with maths! I can't believe Gove is still around what an arse.

I'm not necessarily, you know, dedicating my life and heart to the propagation of Roman Numerals

But it's a useful example of something that is poo-pooed as having no relevance in the modern world (not true for a start), and yet....it's fun, it's related to history, it's like a secret code, it involves basic arithmetic...

Anyway. As I say, I've got no vested interest in the bloody things. I'm just saying that attaining the lowest common denominator is no attainment at all.

Can I just clarify - when you say "it is going to penalise children who can't cope well with that element and could cope fine before" - do you therefore mean that you should not, in any subject, bring in anything that might challenge some children (as many aspects of education inevitably will), for fear of penalising the less able in that particular subject?

Because that seems to me not only daft but downright dangerous!

If I had a child that struggled at maths and was great at literacy, I would never expect the rest of the class to only be taught the lowest possible level of maths, for fear of causing my child distress or a sense of being penalised. And in turn, I would expect his facility with literacy subjects to be catered for without fear that exposing him to a higher level of learning would damage those children still at an earlier stage.

Surely education - at the level of the teacher and at the macro level of the curriculum - should be able to cater for mixed abilities? Surely it does?

CCL x III/IV equates to DCCL/IV which equals - ahhh - hmm - how do you do decimals in roman numerals ?! Rounds to CLXXXVIII - which I guess is ok - you wouldn't normally measure that accurately for cooking couscous anyway !

so lets call it CXC and not bother about the odds and sods.

I get that jodie ... just seeing it from another angle, I suppose.

I do agree with you about lowest common denominators and about stretchy, interesting things.

I am biased, because it stuns me how many people have not the foggiest idea their teaching or examining method is actually teaching/examining not one skill, but two. If you have pretty even all-round abilities that's fine, but if you don't, it is depressing always to come out with your good points dragged down by the bad.

This plan just struck me as likely to be an example of that - it sounds like a fun idea until you consider whether it's actually going to work.

Arf @ throckenholt grappling with XXLXLXCSMIIs!

LRD I can't help but feel that if Gove had the benefit of listening to the range of opinions he might find if he swung by MN sometime and dodged the abuse his policies might be more positive and workable.

I do realise that I'm talking very much in the abstract - about what education ought to be, its overall purpose, etc. etc. - without having the constrasting viewpoint of implementation etc.

(I am - or have been - in education, but teaching at grad/post-grad level. I'm not bonkers enough to think it is possible to pursue all these high educational ideals to the utmost in the face of reality).