All children in England will be expected to know up to their 12 times table when they leave primary school, the government has announced

[CandODad]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31079515

Am I the only one that doesn't see how this could be a good thing? All it would achieve is more schools being forced to academies and even then how would that ensure 100% attainment in the years to come?

Yes I think school should go back to having children recite tables as a regular exercise but to demand 100% seems unattainable? What if the school had children that were not capable of memorising data like that?

Aside from visceral politics, .i can't understand why anyone would be anything other than supportive of a policy that aims to help ensure children across the country are encouraged to learn basi literacy and maths skills.

I think so too.

I have been looking at primary boards for a long time to try and help myself learn about primary for my DD and one thing in Maths that has stood out time and time and time again, is help your child with number bonds, and tables, as they help....with loads of other maths.

Now...suddenly learning tables isnt apparently so important well I erred on safe side and my dd mostly has hers...and has broken back of them anyway and knows 12 up too 100, she is 7. But had most of them at 6.

She got them by me drawing out number snakes and getting her to fill in missing numbers...then more stuff like that. She learned them very quickly.

When did it become not the norm to know up to 12 x tables at primary?

I know there is all the electioneering bollocks, but I still don't get why this is all of a sudden such a thing?

But we're not saying that tables aren't important. We're saying that the policy that every child without exception has to know it or the head will be pushed out is wrong. Why should a head that runs a school where children start well below average in terms of attainment and nearly all of them leave at level 4, most at level 5 lose their job because a couple of children are still working on counting to 10 or 20 with 1:1 correspondence? It's rubbish, and children will lose out because of it.

Tables are important, which is why they've been on the curriculum for years, but they are far from the only important aspect of maths. There is no valid reason setting such a high stake on a very narrow area of the curriculum. Base it on the whole curriculum if you must set a bar that high. Children that can use and apply their maths will be the ones that succeed. Those that can recite their tables but have little grasp or concepts or applying are just performing a memory trick. But they will be highly valued under the new system.

The old NNS from 1999 had it as up to 10x10, probably the NC did as well. Not sure how long before that 11 and 12 were dropped. Metric and decimalisation of money meant they are not as useful as they were. Plenty of foreign curriculae only teach to 10, but they are less likely to need the others as they don't still have odd imperial units still hanging around.

Probably doesn't make a great deal of difference if you learn them or not. 11s are pretty easy and 12s can quickly be worked out if you know 2s and 10s. And if you know how to work out 12s, then you know how to work out 13s to 19s as well.

When did it become not the norm to know up to 12 x tables at primary?

It isn't.

The article is saying that EVERY child must pass this test or the management will be replaced (head=sacked) and turned into an academy.

I've read so many comments on the bbc and various forums over the last two days from people saying, 'I learnt my tables at 12/9/7/5 and EVERYONE else in the 1950s did too, so what are the lazy teachers playing at?'! Did EVERY child really know them? Even those who found learning by rote hard? Those with serious special needs? Those in special schools? Because that's what they mean as most of those children are now in mainstream classes. Not 'most' children, but EVERY child.

That's what's new.

It's only being talked about now because it's an easy soundbite for Daily Mail readers to understand....

Knowing your times tables is useful if you can actually do something useful with your rote learning, but utterly pointless if all it means is that you can chant. We don't want a nation of parrots, so it's hardly the be all and end all of maths teaching. And I am 100% certain that it has NEVER been the case that 100% of children in the past have known their times tables up to 12 and were able to prove that in a timed test, and am equally certain that it never will be the case in the future.

I have to say, though, I personally found it very odd that the old tradition of being expected to learn up to the 12 times table was dropped in favour of learning up to the 10 times table, when there are 12 months in a year and 12 hours on an analogue clock and 12 goes so nicely into 360 degrees, and was pleased when it was changed back to learning up to the 12 times table, as I don't think the majority of children would actually find learning up to their 12 times table an overly difficult task and I don't see the point in lowering expectations for everyone in order to suit those who find learning times tables difficult.

I repeat I couldn't learn my tables, just couldn't. Still don't know them and I'm 41! I used to be a member of a darts team and they never let me do the scoring...

However, as far I know I have no SEN. I have a 2.1 maths heavy science degree from a red brick uni and a levels in maths and further maths from back when they were HARD.
I don't know why I couldn't learn them despite chanting rh every school morning for 3 years plus break time detentions. Couldn't learn my alphabet either for the same reason and still have to fucking sing it when filing (slightly embarrassing).
Some kids just can't learn them. It's just plain stupid to say all must know them. Just as all pupils must be above average. Stupid

It is stupid to say all children must learn them - as stupid as saying nobody should have to bother. They aren't pointless - life is far easier if you do know them. Someone needs to do the scoring in darts, even when their smart phone needs charging up, so they can't get access to their calculator!...

Up to GCSE level, a LOT of maths is hugely sped up by basic mental arithmetic.

Oh I wish I could remember them. I know bits but huge gaps. And yes they are important and all children should be given help and opportunity to learn them.

But saying all children should know them? Stupid.

And I do also need to use mental arithmetic on a daily basis in real life. I virtually NEVER need to use the maths I learnt at A-level.

I agree - it is intensely irritating the way the government is still using education as its big political football.

When I rule the country health care and education will not be able to be meddled with by politicians. Maybe allocate a budget if they are good, but no details

Where are you standing? I'll vote for you.

I wish.

I said this on the other thread, but it seems to have gone 'cold'.

I don't personally think this target will become law, 'as in every child must', without exception. The estimation is for this taking 5 years to become policy. In that time a policy will have to be made to protect and support those children who are not on track to achieve this. They cannot all be excluded. There would be national outcry.

Perhaps targets like this will force schools to allocate more of their (non-ring-fenced budget) to successfully tackling SENs....

Mental arithmetic including tines tables is incredibly important. It's how you work out of you're getting s good deal or being diddled among other things.

It's a harsh message and I expect that in reality there will be exceptions but I think its a good target. In fact I can't believe its been ok to turn out 11 year olds who don't know their tables. This idea that rote learning is always meaningless is wrong - you don't have to know why 8 x 8 = 64 - it just does and its a key part of mental maths.

It's never been "ok"! Just not made a sackable offence....

Is there any good reason why children need to learn the 11x and 12x tables? Has anyone in government noticed that this country now uses the metric rather than the imperial system?

I don't disagree with the parent who wrote that for most pupils (with no obvious SEN/ disability) these are achievable targets.

I think the issue is how it's taught. Our primary school went in for quizes grouped into 'clubs' - 11 club/ 22 club/ 33 club/ etc... with progressively more multiplication questions on the quiz each Wednesday morning. Two problems - 1) same test every week/ sometimes teachers would send child home with test to practice and 2) kid's memorized correct answers rather than learning times tables.

I think some schools miss the point that multiplication is multiple additions/ counting at intervals and can be thought of in various ways:

so 8 x 12 - can be thought of through doubling:

doubling 4 times table fact - 4 x 12 = 48 and double again = 96

or triple doubling of 2 times table facts

2 x 12 fact = 24/ double that = 48 and double again = 96

or doubling 6 times table facts

8 x 6 = 48 and double that = 96 (effectively factoring 8 x 12 into 8 x 6 x 2)

or alternatively splitting the multiplication into easier units (handling it as a stepped problem):

(8 x 10 = 80) + (8 x 2 = 16) - add those two up 80 + 16 = 96

Most kids don't get that - they learn the song/ learn it by rote/ or have little tricks (rhymes/ hand tricks/ etc...).

Why is it important: www.greatmathsteachingideas.com/2014/01/05/youve-never-seen-the-gcse-maths-curriculum-like-this-before/ - so seeing it from the point of view of GCSE level achievements without strong multiplication skills you're in a world of hurt.

Literacy skills are much the same. Poor reading skills makes accessing courses such as history/ geography/ RE/ etc.... difficult and can also hinder achievement in sciences & mathematics.

----

So I think at core no parent is really arguing against these standards (possibly explaining their charm for Nicky Morgan)- however, I do agree with the Guardian headline describing this as a 'gimmick' (www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/02/conservative-education-plans-branded-election-gimmicks).

I agree there is a problem - around 15% - 20% of pupils persistently fail to achieve NC L4c or higher at KS2 SATs in recent years (data source: www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/sep/19/sats-results-key-stage-two - see table at bottom). There are ~4.3 million pupils in primary schools which translates to 600,000 or so in Year 6. 15% of that figure would be around 90,000 children failing to achieve NC L4c or higher at KS2 Maths.

We parents aren't told what the percentage is for NC L4b (the ability level considered 'senior school ready') - now that would be an interesting statistics to have freely available on performance tables.

Given you have limited funds, isn't it better spending whatever this new test will cost the government (let's say £1 million) by delving into this underachieving group or pupils and determining which is explainable by other issues (SEN/ disability/ troubled home life/ language barriers/ etc....) and which indicate a real failing at a particular school. And then focusing the money where it will do most good - say a failing school where 30% of pupils fail to achieve NC L4. How can we improve maths there for that school.

Of course that means the school which consistently has 1 or 2 pupils failing to achieve Nc L4 falls through the cracks - but the real crisis (failing a large proportion of pupils) is only at a very few schools I suspect - so why not target training/ resources there rather than an exam everywhere?

Converting to an academy costs money - and there's the whole can of worms of having to have one months salary in reserve for liquidity (which made recent headlines). Surely the more economic thing to do is find the schools where there is an obvious problem and get them help.

As I've already pointed out - we don't use a metric system for hours in the day or months in the year. Personally, I find the 12 times table extremely useful to know.

Is there any good reason for limiting it to up to the 10 times table? I know you have to stop somewhere, but I think stopping at 10 is aiming very low...

They stop at 10 times on the continent, where they also use the metric system. Beyond 10, you just do 10 times plus 2 times or whatever it is. No need to learn up to 12 times. The only reason this is being required is because members of the government, eg Gove, learned the 12 times table when they were at school (pre or just into metric). That's how deeply they've thought about it.

Ds old school were stating that all children should know their tables up to x12, by the end of Y4.

Ds is currently in Y3 and can recite most of his tables, do instant recall etc, they play regular games in Maths to support this. Think the only one we now have to practice is the x12 table.

I have to say, it's helped me too. I'm actually more confident helping ds with his maths (to a point) and of course it helps when we learning them at home that I actually know the answers too

Sorry, I needed to explain my first sentence, this was back in Y2, quite early on.

Do you really calculate age in months rather than years?

In months and years, mrz... especially in relation to school maths problems, where they might choose to ask you how many seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years or centuries there are in a period of time.

On the basis of the argument that you can work out other times tables from smaller ones, all children need to do is learn to count - you can work everything out from your one times table. It's a bit time consuming, though, isn't it? As, frankly, is working out your twelve times table by using your 2 and 10 times table. The older I get, the more I have just learnt off by heart, as there are only so many times you have to multiply two numbers greater than 10 before it gets boring having to work it out rather than just know it...