New SATs test on times tables

[BatmanLovesBaubles]

TES link

First three paragraphs:

All children will be tested on their times tables as part of their KS2 Sats, under new plans unveiled by education secretary Nicky Morgan this morning.

The tests will examine multiplication skills in every 11-year-old as part of ministers' "war on innumeracy and illiteracy", the Department for Education said.

Pupils will expected to know all tables up to 12x12, with the skill measured using an "on-screen check" examination to be piloted by 3,000 students in 80 schools this summer before being rolled out across English primaries in 2017.

I am so cross about this.

1. Why remove the Mental Maths test (which did test times tables)
2. More timed tests are NOT what we should be doing at primary where many children already feel under pressure
3. Maths is an area where children often panic and their minds become blank - this is really not going to help
4. What happened to Nicky Morgan's promise that nothing new would be introduced?

I am so, so angry right now

surely it must be possible for parents to have a constructive discussion about teachings without teachers taking umbridge
if 20% are leaving illiterate and/or innumerate we have a system that is not working
surely 20% can't be justifiable by teachers
I wonder what demographic that 20% is coming from?

Lurkedforever1: You have articulated a problem I haven't been able to put across very well. "if they're able enough to be hitting the ceiling, introducing a times tables test will not help them."

I am trying to talk about raising standards for all children. If we have such low standards that the ceiling isn't broken they we are making everyone equal at the bottom. if we break the ceiling then we raise ALL standards. Still probably haven't articulated myself very well.

"I am NOT against most teachers, I know they work hard. But I do think public sectors workers live in a bubble.

I also agree politicians can be bad despite good intentions but I do believe in a democracy that they should be allowed to try and improve things. If they get it wrong we will vote them out. They shouldn't be stopped by self interest. Its not teachers jobs to subvert democracy, or to advocate the magic money tree."

Politicans are in power for five years and that is a large chunk of a child's education. Children only get one chance of an eduation. Trial and error on a national scale means that when a politican gets it wrong millions of children suffer. In a research trial only a few children suffer if an idea turns out to be wrong.

Does living in a democracy mean that we tell doctors how to treat patients.. or hang on do we allow doctors to do randomised drugs trials? We have a quango made up of experts called the National Insitute of clinical excellence to decide whether a drug justifies funding on the NHS. Researched based medicine has improved medical outcomes no end. In the past there were many medical treatment that caused more harm than good.

Children do not benefit from having their teachers micromanaged. If there are sufficent school places, league tables and OFSTED reports parents can vote with their feet.

Where does that 20% figure come from?

Apologies if someone provided a link upthread and I've missed it.

it was a quote further upstream along the lines ...
....20% illiterate and innumerate....
I did ask a few times, as I thought teachers would have real world view

ReallyTired
I don't think all parents can vote with their feet very easily
my kids are stuck in the local school whether good, bad or indifferent
there isn't another local school close enough
wealthy parents can move to the catchment areas of the "better schools" which is what happens

Thanks, I saw the quote, but was wondering what the source is.

As far as I know that level of data isn't collected. The 20% probably refers to the % of children leaving year 6 having not achieved level 4 in maths and English. Which isn't the same as being illiterate and inumerate. It is certainly not true that you can assume 1 in 5 don't know their tables from that statistic.

"Now I agree with your last post too Reallytired. Although we might have to quantify what are the important stuffs? (What exactly do you mean that might be more important but is being neglected too?)"

What is more important than multiplication? A lot of basic keystage 1 stuff.

basic number bonds
knowing which operations are comutable and which operations are not. Undestanding why 4/2 is not the same as 2/4 but 42=24

• Knowing what a muliplication sum actually mean if its applied to real objects. There is little point in rote learning if you don't know what it means. *Understanding what place value means. Ie. the difference between 10, 100, 1000
• number sense. This is understanding that if you multiply a single digit by 200 the rough size of the number you will get. Its the ablity to approximate and know when you have made a stupid mistake.

Its understanding how numbers work. for example you multiply any number by an even number you will always get an even number. Its understanding why any number where the last digit is an even number is an even number however large the number is.

• Understanding mathematical language is important. For example realising that halving is the same as dividing by 2.

My daughter's school is forcing children to learn lots of time tables in year2 when many of the children still count on their fingers to add up. Dd does not go to this school, but she uses a similar scheme to this school.

www.csgvillageschool.org/index.php/parents/maths-corner/408-maths-information-cracking-times-tables

She is has flown through the scheme because she has an excellent memory. Recently she had to learn the eight times table when she cannot double numbers larger than 30. I am hoping a for a snow day so I can spend some time consolidating the basics.

bolognese I think I see where you're coming from. I just see it from the opposite side. That standards are falling because of all the requirements for every child to reach a certain level, and every child should learn x,y,z.

So at one end you have the bored underachievers who have reached that level and are treading water waiting for everyone to catch up. And at the other end, children who won't ever reach that level in the time specified, if ever, missing out on functional maths because the law says they need to learn about all these topics to a level they can't.

I think if standards are going to be raised, a test way too simple for some, and impossible for others is counter productive. Its just setting the bar low. If we're going to raise standards, it needs to be more specific and take individuals into account.

Slightly off topic, but I think a lot of the language and methods in the primary maths curriculum over complicates it.

ReallyTired, I don't think learning times table when they don't understand other concept is such a bad thing.
My ds learned it when he was 3, from looking at the poster, but I doubt he understood the meaning of it then. He just saw it as some kind of puzzle.
But when he realized the meaning, he new the division as well, as a reverse of times.
When they got knowledge of times table buried in their head, once they understand the meaning of it, it will click and those children have a advantage. And younger children have massive ability to learn something so easily.

My daughter learnt to swim and did lots of drawing, jigsaws, duplo and gymnastics at three. I think that learning through play gives a better foundation for maths. Play is a great medium for problem solving or learning language.

A bright child will rapidly overtake a hot housed child when they get to school. Dd is on the top table for maths so lack of times tables at three has not harmed her.

I didn't mean that learning times table at three is a good thing, I just gave the example learning something without a complete grasp of concepts are bad thing. And my ds is not hot housed, I hope.
I just wanted to say that I think learning 8 times table when they can't do double numbers over 30 is a bad thing. It will become handy once they are in your brain when you need it.

..without a complete grasp of concepts are notbad thing.

...30 is a not bad thing.
My brain is bonkers today...

And I totally agree with this.

"learning through play gives a better foundation for maths. Play is a great medium for problem solving or learning language."

The problem is that learning by rota (without understanding the concept behind it) will work best for those children with good memory.
When it later clicks, they will have an advantage, true. But that is not to say that this is the best method for all the children.

Like a previous poster said, the best thing would be that individuals and the best learning style for them could be taken into account. A variety of methods (games, songs, rota, etc) could then be used depending on the children.

It's like spelling. Some children just know how to spell with almost no practice at all. They just look at the words one time and just know how to spell them right away. Visual memory helps a lot in that case. But not all children are like that, so others would need to write their words and practise them until they get them right, etc.

I quite like the idea of the test done in Y4 as a screening test, so that the children strugling with the times table can be identified, and teachers can put in place measures to give them the extra help they need. Rather than do it as a test at the last minute, when the result would be pointless for the child (as it is quite late to receive the needed help by them) and only be used to punish the teachers and the school for not achieving the targets that do not take into account the children as individuals in the first place.

Yes I totally understand/agree what you are saying, Ellle Thank you.

DD (Y4) has a times table/associated division facts test every week - I assumed that was the norm. The teacher said that the lack of instant recall was holding the pupils back in maths. I would imagine that by the end of the year the teacher will have a pretty good idea which children do not know their times table and hopefully those who (incredibly, in my view considering how much time will have been devoted to it) still don't know them will be given help in Y5 (which is sort of what many of you are saying anyway so why don't schools just go ahead and do it themselves?)

I'm not a great fan of SATs, I know that in principle teachers will say that it is not about the pupils and they shouldn't worry about them etc. but in practice schools are so worried about their results that they DO put pressure on them and Y6 can become really pressurised and/or boring. In my Dniece's case she was given extra tuition by the school because she was on the border of two (decent) grades. I'm sure the help would have benefitted less able students a lot more.

Anyway, hopefully at least the Y6 teacher at DD's school won't have to spend too much time revising times tables for the SATs and maybe it will concentrate the minds of heads in other schools.

Your school sounds great, Thecatisatwat

By the way, I didn't deliberately teach my ds times table when he was 3.
He saw the poster on the library wall and wanted it, and learned it staring at it everyday as a kind of number puzzle. Just for record.

The school hasn't always been great but they've had a few new members of staff in the last couple of years (plus a new young head) and it's really improved - dd's teacher is brilliant, she seems strict but fair and has high expectations of all the kids.

@Reallytired: so basically everything else, and what is the guidance of what is minimum a child should achieve be end of primary, any particular test for each. Ok, it isnt actually a question, my point is I like this new rule as its the first time I see something transparent and clear regarding to an important area of primary education, I am hoping alot more to come. How and when to do it in each school might be a more important question as I am sure by then each school/teacher might have their own(better) way, but at least we know what is the specific standard to approach/achieve

The new curriculum has an emphasis on mastery. There are learning goals for each year group. Under the old system it was possible to get a good pass in maths in year 6 if a child could not do division, but got full marks in everything else. A child with lightening multiplication skills, but cannot do division is not numerate even if they have a level 5. The old system of having to show so many levels progress meant that teacher pushed bright children on to new material rather than ensured a solid understanding of the entire curriculum for a particular year.

Good assessment procedures will meant that a teacher will know if Jonny cannot tell the time even if he is good at tables.

What is a solid understanding definition? And they can only move to new material until all aspect of the subject(Eg.maths) are equally as good? You can never good at every single thing, my daughter wasnt good at Clocks/time in the past, she doesnt get the clock/time practise until the whole class doing it again. Does it mean in between she should sit tight?

"Which it seems parents want and teachers oppose"

On this thread, from all I have read, the teachers actually would prefer a test in year 4, so 2 years earlier than is proposed, because that ties in to the national curriculum that we all teach AND gives us the opportunity to sort out any problems before the children move on to secondary.

The 'opposition' is to a further high-stakes test in Year 6 BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HELP THE CHILDREN. If a school works towards a year 6 test, then they are aiming for a target 2 years behind where the children should be for their maths to develop in line with the national curriculum. As a 7th test in a week, this proposed test may not actually have the importance it deserves - as a single 'check' in Year 4, it would become a genuine focus. And if taken at the end of Year 6, schools cannot work with children who failed in any constructive manner.

As for how many children are genuinely innumerate on leaving primary - well, on the basis that a typical tabloid newspaper can easily be read by a child working at the old Level 3, then what might be a mark of genuinely 'innumerate / illiterate' might be W, the old 'working towards level 3 at the end of Year 6'. [I will add as an aside, having taught in a school with many illiterate parents, children in Year 2 working at around NC L2 were well able to act as 'readers' for their families]. At a national level, 6% of children achieved Level 3 or below in reading, writing or maths. It's not broken down into how many of those got less than Level 3, or by subject, but will be much less than 6%.