FURIOUS with Gove's maths comments

[BusterGut]

The man is a total twat.
He is so out of touch, he must be living on Mars.

Bloody 'pre-algebra' - that's missing no. sums in Y2.
Bloody 'maths every day' - who doesn't?
Bloody teaching maths till 18 ????????? (Pity the sec sch maths teachers)

GGrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
(I've written to the slimy little toad. Anyone else going to join me?

Gooseberry I agree with you about multiple methods but literacy (reading) ages will always follow a normal distribution - there will always be children who end KS2 below the average (acceptable, normal) reading age. Ability will always play a part in the speed of attainment. By 14/15 things will usually even out (this is just normal educational development) but 11 is a little early to be measuring. The international figures are based on age 15 for a good reason.

I completely agree about one to one reading. But in the school where I teach, setting homework which is reading with a parent would be tricky for a significant minority of our students.

I don't doubt that 50% of children leave primary school able to read well. But about a quarter of our intake read very badly indeed, and it is a massive, massive problem for us. We run an alternative curriculum for children with poor literacy skills, but as a science department, there is the tension between litercy skills and science ability. There is not necessarily an association between them, and if we have alternative provision based on literacy, then we cannot meaningfully set by science ability. And we are not experienced practitioners in teaching reading. I don't believe a quarter of our students can't read because of low ability. I think if they had had intervention earlier then they might be in a better position when they start secondary school.

I also agree with noblegiraffe about data handling, as I said below. In terms of science, poor basic arithmetic is a bigger problem than having to be taught data handling.

Really Ali?
Some evidence to back that up please.
I look forward to it, being pretty damned hot on reading methods and levels of attainment myself.

QCDA website zipfile previous statistics

haha. i taught maths to chinese kids in Tawian.

the official school start age is 7 though most do nursery from age 2- on - ours was a full time English school that used Abacus and other key stage 1 stuff for our maths course for 4-7 year olds.

we taught the 'fun' way though that doesn't rule out rote, rote doesn't need to be boring. thanks to rote learning i can still do times tables without thinking, and recite Latin verb and noun endings. But the Chinese system tends to do rote to death, and the kids quite often attend fun-method after school maths classes to be able to actually learn the subject and gain the minimum grade necessary to go further in their education.
The English primary course included many things that even my best kids found challenging - where it required shape-handling and non-arithmetical skill. This was ten years ago but....

The Chinese system relies heavily on the parental purse still. State education is usually hugely topped-up.

Actually I think it might even have been one of the files moved over to the Dept for Education. Statistic also occurs in minutes of QCDA threshold setting meeting I think for last December. Try the PDF file search engine - can't remember offhand the exact name for the search engine. hope this helps

ooh sorry did you mean the figures about age 14/15 being the time when intelligence/ability evens out? That has been known more or less forever - that was why they had a re-arrangement during old Year 3 (before 'O'levels started) There are loads of studies to still back this up. Try institute of education website - just google -ing it will probably bring you up quite a lot.

A system, or a school, which soley relied on parents to do the teaching would be odd and wrong, yes. I'm not convinced that's in any way a usual set-up, though. Are you?

soleLy, sorry!

'can't remember offhand the exact name for the search engine. hope this helps'

Nope

'ooh sorry did you mean the figures about age 14/15 being the time when intelligence/ability evens out? That has been known more or less forever'

Really? BY whom? You and who exactly?

Moondog - I remember where I have seen you before and I want to say that I am in awe of all the work you SEN specialists do. I hope you don't think I was intentionally being offhand with you. The attenuated quotes you replied to do sound very offhand and I did not intend that.

I cannot give you links to studies at the moment because I would need to look them up and am in the middle of getting ready to go to bed. I am not lying about this, really I am not. The 50% statistic surprised me too - I came across it on Friday when I was looking something up on QCDA about previous level thresholds I think it was the report on the pilot scheme for the single level tests but am not sure I looked in my history just now and found very many QCDA links/DFE links so I cannot find which one. The rearrangement during the old selective system at age 14 and our old KS3 tests were because of this belief that you could make a more accurate prediction at this age than at 11. I learned this during an educational psychology unit during my first degree (psychology part) when I was 19 (I am now 50), perhaps I should find studies to cite as evidence - but I honestly think I would be able to do it.

Alicatte, I don't take anything personally on internet forums and neither do you need to temper our discussion with comments on my interests elsewhere (although it is very nice that you do so-thank you.)

The point is that if people start bandying around comments about statistics,it is only reasonable enough to expect them to back them up or it makes a mockery both of you and the professional standards you claim you adhere to.

My I also courteously suggest that a unit you did as part of an undergraduate degree you undertook over thirty years ago doesn't quite cut the mustard?

I am sorry if I have offended you it was innocently done, I mentioned something I had seen in a mumsnet forum I was interested in - it seemed just a conversation to me, not a professional forum. I was not telling an untruth it was not my intention at all to mislead and I do honestly still think it is an interesting point. I am surprised by it anyway.

With the greatest of respect, an undergraduate degree may not be a professional qualification but I would suggest it still contains (just a little) mustard.

Just a little repeat comment about the teaching of too many mathematical methods: I mentioned earlier that many schools are now implementing a calculation policy which has a clear progression from number lines through algorithms. I accept that the multi-method approach was unhelpful for children who found maths difficult.

As regards not reaching the expected level at secondary school, there would have been many children who fitted this bill 30-40 years ago when there were no national targets, and the demands of the workplace were less dependent on literacy skills.

Also, with regards to children who are falling behind, it is an Ofsted requirement to show that children progress through their primary education. Children's levels are continuously tracked and any groups of children seen to be falling short of their targets are investigated. Through analysis of certain groups, we have found two areas where we need to give further support next year, and plans are under way to implement this.

Sadly, there are always going to be children who find learning difficult. 30 years ago these children would have been able to slip into a manual job without qualifications. The world has changed and demands on young people are greater.

I apologise for my OP and the offence it has caused. I was very angry with Gove's stupid and (I will repeat) uninformed comments.

Buster, I agree with all your comments and I think you've done really well on this thread.

Buster - You really do know what you are talking about, I totally agree with you too.

And don't bloody apologise, either! You know what you're talking about - Gove doesn't.

Ali, if you are referring to me, no you haven't offended me.I have posted on MN for seven years and have never been presumptuous enough to assume that my feelings are relevant.
This is a public forum and I post because I am interested in the views of all who post, even, nay especially those with whom I do not agree.

"poor basic arithmetic is a bigger problem than having to be taught data handling."

definitely agree, still reading the rest

"I'm not convinced that's in any way a usual set-up, though. Are you?"

I wanted to set up a reading rota in a school. During the conversations I was told the teacher only listens to the children read one to one once very half term. I was surprised. I was told by the head of primary that an Ofsted inspector said he was surprised they could do it as much as that, in comparison with other schools.

To reiterate, I back to the hilt Gooseberry's assertion that it is the job of a teacher to educate his/her charges. Having said that, i don't trust my lot to do the job (nice as they are) which is why, when I am not working to look after other people's children I come home and work with my own on al lthe basics.

Every day of the year.

Oh this is all detail. Moondog, I completely agree with you and think you are super marvellous and a really lovely person too.

I hope you've talked to your dc's teacher about the methods that s/he uses so that you don't confuse your children, and you're consolidating work that they're doing in class.

Presumably your dc are doing daily numeracy and literacy lessons?

Hehe.
I am actually.
I am sure we would all get on famously over a bottle or two.