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?

Rollon you ask whether other jobs come under criticism when things go wrong. I can think of many nurses and doctors (as mentioned above) but also bankers, lawyers, bureaucrats, police, and politicians, not to mention home-makers....

To get back on topic: my mother, aunt, grandmother and greataunts were all teachers, so I have great respect for the profession. I myself teach in a primary school with a large percentage of immigrant and/or economically poor children (as a volunteer working with small groups, not as a full-time member of staff) so I have some direct experience.

The question in this thread is whether the government is right to set base level targets of competency by the end of primary school and to hold school heads accountable for these targets. Clearly, there are very strong political biases among many posters, some even seeing a political conspiracy to impose central control on schools. As an outsider, with no allegiance to any British political party, I tend to look at all political issues here more objectively and so find some of the reactions to the Education Minister's comments perplexing.

I might be naive, but I assume it is implicit that "all children" must achieve certain targets excludes from the Head's accountability children who are not mentally competent to achieve those targets just as if the Secretary had said "all children" should have thirty minutes to run around outside during the school day, I assume it would be implicit that children who are physically incapable of running around would be excluded from the target. To focus on the "all" rather than on the underlying objective is, I think, unfair not to the Secretary but to all children who could benefit from having cleary defined targets.

To me, it seems obvious that attainment of a certain level of education should imply attainment of certain skills. Countless national and international studies point to a decline in attainment of basic skills in this country, a fact I think is likely to be attributable in part to well-meaning efforts (such as seem to be advocated by many posters on this thread) to avoid setting clear targets and holding Heads and teachers accountable for attaining them.

We do children a huge dis-service by letting political beliefs, suspicions and/or cynicsm get in the way of setting high standards for primary education (and beyond).

I think the way PMR has been implemented in a lot of schools has made people vary wary of assuming anything, Abriata.

My target for PMR this year is to get 100% of my class moving 6 sublevels (new levels) in every core subject. Even the ones with SEN and the two with statements and the one who hasn't been at school since December because they have cancer.

If the PM or the Education secretary says EVERY-then many SMT will interpret it like that.

If it's not EVERY as you are optimistically assuming,then there is a lot of scope for very grey areas as to who can/can't achieve it.

Apologies if I'm being cynical but lots of people in my school didn't progress up the pay scale last year for reasons just like these. I think it's naive to assume it won't happen.

Will SMT still interpret it as absolutely every, if it is their jobs on the line?

IMO if there is any room for any choice in the matter they certainly will not.

I was wondering if this might mean more children will be classed as having SEN, even if it is only memorising times tables they struggle with, if this means they can be classed as exceptions....Is not being able to have instant recall on all the times tables up to 12 a SEN? But then if this is not a target for them and they are regarded as exceptions, then there is not so much incentive to tackle any issues they might have regarding achieving this target. So then we are back to square one and the target will do nothing to raise standards...

So we are faced with the risk of of too low aspirations for some (those having learning barriers which could be overcome, but regarded as exceptions) versus too high aspirations for some (those who really are incapable of achieving the target).

If no targets are set, it is left to the teachers but then how can teachers be held to account? They are a paid professional body so it is understandable that people would want them to be held to account in some way. How do we realistically evaluate what is successful in education?

Will SMT still interpret it as absolutely every, if it is their jobs on the line?

When it comes to their own PMR, I doubt it's their call-I would imagine that's set by the lea or the Secretary of State or the Queen or God!

With regards to sen. The changes that have just come in removing IEPs and implementing EHCPs has cut my SEN number in half so the concerns have to be v serious to count now-that means there are loads less rather than more children with SEN.

The changes that have just come in removing IEPs and implementing EHCPs has cut my SEN number in half so the concerns have to be v serious to count now-that means there are loads less rather than more children with SEN.

This does not surprise me, at all, since now the initial 6K of funding for an individual pupil's additional needs has to come from the school's own budget and this is not ring fenced, that is schools are responsible themselves for setting aside a portion of their budget to tackle SENs.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

I have had personal experience of my own DC, who had a Statement with fully funded 1 to 1, effectively, IMHO, being held back due to the resource assigned individually to my child.

What happened was my DC was repeatedly grouped with all the other children with additional needs but no Statements for every lesson, regardless of my DC's individual ability, in order to share the resource (which was supposed to be used solely for my DC's needs). The needs of the individuals pupils in the group were often conflicting - otherwise I would have been happy with this. Also, at at least one point, my DC's progress was seemingly effectively 'managed' as the group did not do the same assessments as the rest of the class, even though my DC had no SEN which meant the assessments were unsuitable. In fact the Statutory assessments were more gruelling in assessment terms. It seemed like criticism and scrutiny of my DC's progress was escalated and acknowledgment of anything positive was played down (to hold onto funding?).

Thankfully my DC did progress so much it could not be ignored, not without input from us as his parents and the Statement is ceased. Most recently my DC has been achieving above what is expected of the age group.

Now I wonder, whether this situation would have happened in the first place, if the school had had to shell out an initial £6k to cater for my DC's additional needs?

I do appreciate some children will need additional help however schools have a responsibility towards reporting additional needs accurately.

So this new target put schools in a dilemma,

-report some children who seem at risk of not achieving targets as having SEN but be obliged to spend a portion of their budgets on them and be shown to be evaluating the success of this (or continue to lose money from their own budgets).

or

-not report the same children as having SEN, save the resource, but risk failing the target.

It's rather clever really, schools will be forced to effectively tackle SEN, cater for additional needs effectively.

Unless I've missed something...

You've missed that SEN is a total red herring.

Any child can be put on the SEN register.

Being on the SEN register does not automatically mean you're expected to make less progress.

Most pupils on the SEN register can learn their times tables. A few can't.

Killa

I don't honestly think SEN is a red herring. Remember my child has been considered as having (fairly severe) SEN. My DC had a Statement for a number of years. My DC has always been academically able.

However, because any child can be put on the SEN register it makes a person question what exactly SEN constitutes. Conceivably, as the situation stands, a child could easily be considered as having SEN, if there was felt there was a risk they could not achieve this target - the motive being that they could be considered an exception to the target and there would be no penalties to the school if they failed. However this would require a financial commitment from the school, so there would be a financial incentive to tackle any barriers to learning.

Seems unwise to trust the Government to interpret their own rules in a common sense way in order to be fair and reasonable to teachers, heads and children. We haven't exactly noticed them treating unemployed people on benefits, or the disabled, in such a common sense and fair way, have we? If you miss a Job Centre appointment because you're in an ambulance having collapsed due to a brain haemorrhage you're liable to find your benefits severely cut, leaving you to live on air alone. There is every chance that schools will be punished on a technicality, with the punishment being the hidden agenda.

Once Not automatically trusting the government, I would say, is a given. However this mistrust is meaningless, without specifics.

Why do you disagree with this particular policy?

How do you think education professionals should be held to account?

How do you think what works in education should be evaluated?

For starters, there should be research and consultation (not just consultation with those you know will agree with you, which is this government's forte), as to what children should be taught. The research which the Tories have carried out on this as far as I am aware seems to be "Gove went to a school that taught the 12x tables many years ago, and he's turned out well, so let's make sure all children have to learn the 12x tables" (which children had to learn in days of yore because of the imperial measures system surely, now defunct).
There should then be a realistic target, which takes into account special needs and children having an off day on test day. And no over the top punishment for those that just miss this one target. Look into what went wrong, and take appropriate measures to improve.
And how about not putting schools under central government control as a priority, when central government doesn't actually have the means to control them effectively (if at all). Again, this appears to be a "Gove went to private school which wasn't controlled by local government, and had a jolly useful time there" policy.
If not Gove who made up this policy, replace with applicable Tory or his Eton educated pals.

Once

There should then be a realistic target, which takes into account special needs and children having an off day on test day.

What if this target does take into account children with SEN and they can be considered as exceptions? (as Abriata hinted) What this means is that the schools have a financial incentive to invest their own funds into successfully tackling any barriers to learning by placing a child on the SEN register. I personally think this would be a good use of school funding.

Children having an 'off' day? This is a problem with most controlled testing. The only way to alleviate this is by taking teacher assessment into account but then you lose the 'controlled' element. Most children who were thoroughly consistent in reliably recalling their times tables I assume would not be very likely to have 'off' days - apart from genuine illness whereby they would have to sit the test on another occasion. If there is a risk they will not be consistent in reliable recall perhaps the school can put them on the SEN register and financially invest in a successful, evidence based programme to tackle any barriers to learning?

And how about not putting schools under central government control as a priority, when central government doesn't actually have the means to control them effectively (if at all).

Do you feel LAs are successful?

I actually feel that primary schools in particular do a pretty good job in this country. And I would rather a school was under LA control than under mythical Secretary of State control - which essentially means that they are not under anyone's control at all, as the Secretary of State has not set up any system whereby they are controlled, apparently believing in a wholly laissez faire approach. I don't pretend to be up to date on all this, but haven't there even been silly arguments about whether Ofsted should be allowed to inspect free schools? State schools which are allowed to do whatever they want are unlikely to develop into Etons, IMO.

Once

I actually feel that primary schools in particular do a pretty good job in this country.

Well that is what I thought, until my DC was classed as having SEN, then the flaws in the system and the apparent lack of integrity from some educational professionals, at the time, were made only too clear.

Don't get me wrong, we have encountered some very good teachers too, however there needs to be a way of introducing more fairness into our educational system. It is certainly not fair to write off a significant proportion of our children because their needs are classed as 'additional' to the 'norm'.

These targets, although they are by no means perfect, I think might just actually force schools to seriously invest their resources into genuinely tackling barriers to learning, instead of all the hand wringing that currently seems to happen.

I disagree.

I don't think children with SEN have anything to do with what DC hopes to achieve with this new idea. I think it's purely about making sure heads WILL fail and are turned into academies so they are directly answerable to the government and not the LEA. Schools won't be given any more funding, and thinking it

might just actually force schools to seriously invest their resources into genuinely tackling barriers to learning, instead of all the hand wringing that currently seems to happen

is a pipe dream.

Or we could go back to very few targets and just the examinations right towards the end of schooling which gain pupils qualifications.

A large part of me thinks that would be a very nice place to be. For it to work, would require true dedication from all parties concerned but this might be actually easier, if children had the space to learn at their own speed and develop a love of learning.

The true dedication bit is the stickler though...

I don't think children with SEN have anything to do with what DC hopes to achieve with this new idea.

It does follow on quite neatly from the SEN reform and some book (I forget the title) that Gove liked, which argued for higher aspirations regarding children who have additional needs.

Schools won't be given any more funding

My experiences regarding my DC's funding (posted about earlier) shows that more funding for schools is not the complete solution. My DC's individual funding became a barrier to learning.

The funding needs to be spent on the right things...

Thinking about it, all in all, I think I would prefer there to be less targets set over our children's performance.

It is difficult to imagine exactly what this would look like though, as teachers assess our children all the time, on how successfully they have learnt what has been taught and report our children's success in relation to this. So even if there are no explicit targets there are more implicit ones. It reasonable to assume that this in turn means teachers are accountable for our children's success. No matter what influences home background etc have if a child attends school, it is assumed teachers are the primary educators - they are paid to do this.

People often say 'SEN aside'. However our children with SEN still need to be educated, still want to experience success. The more people regarded as having SEN, the more our society needs to adapt to include them, the more children regarded as having SEN, the more education needs to adapt to cater for their needs. As it stands a significant proportion of children are regarded as having a SEN at some point, education does really need to cater for them. It does not necessarily take lots of extra money either, a lot can be done with reasonable adjustments and flexibility in approach.

I'm not sure why exactly academisation is so feared. Yes, it is a big change but also offers a huge opportunity for schools to have more automony and be less target driven. Of course with this there is the risk some unscrupulous people will take up the challenge, however I do not really think the bureaucracy which comes with the LAs has entirely successfully prevented some of the less scrupulous practices - these practices are just adapted in a way which exploits LA rules, regulations and limitations.

This is considered very standard in many countries, a lot of them supposedly less well developed than Britain. It's one of the many reasons that our children ate so far behind in maths.

At our DCs school they made a token gesture of teaching times tables in Year 2 and 3. But it was a pathetic effort. Soon as we realised our DCs were really unsure, DH and I had them chanting their tables the old fashioned way.

Took a few weeks til they had them down pat, but well worth it. Makes life a lot easier in the long run.

It's been considered standard here too

To be fair I don't think kids leaving primary knowing all tables is standard here.Much is left to parents and it's hit and miss as to whether they're learnt.

That said it will be nigh on impossible to ensure every kid knows them,even if they were chanted all day and every day.

The expectation has been that children know their tables by Y4 ...

Ha ha

I have friends with kids in many schools and I can assure you they don't.

There is no formal way of testing whether they do or don't.

Testing kids weekly on tables taught at home is not teaching tables imvho and I think some schools trade on this a lot.Other schools with little parental support have a far bigger job and will be disadvantaged by these silly proclamations.