Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Primary' started by teacup71, Jan 29, 2016.
What do you think?
I'd like to see some writing exemplification before too much longer...
They are now saying sometime in February ... Half term anyone?
Good job I cancelled my moderation course, the aim of which was to work through the exemplification material!!
Oh well, as long as we get it before the end of May we'll be fine, won't we
It's not like they've had 2 years to get this together. Oh wait...
Page 17 of the KS2 maths teacher assessment exemplification:
The question states: Tom says to Lucy, 'Last month I saved 0.25 of my pocket money and this month I saved 2/5 of my pocket money, so altogether I've saved 60% of my pocket money.' Is what Tom says true of false? Explain your decision below.
The student's answer: 'The answer is false because 0.25 of his pocket money is 25% and 2/5 of his pocket money is 40%. So 25% + 40% = 65% and not 60%. I know this because I converted them into percentages to help. This is not the only answer there is another answer which is 32.5%. You can get this answer because 2 months would be 65/200 or 65% out of 200%. So I had to halve the percentage out of 200% to get what it would be out of 100%.'
My answer: What a dumb question. There is an assumption that Tom gets the same amount of pocket money each month, that it is not dependent upon (e.g.) Tom getting his chores or homework done, or getting an increase. Anyway it isn't stated so Tom's assertion could be true or false. Secondly even if we assume that he gets the same pocket money in both months, the statement 'I've saved 60% of my pocket money' could mean 60% of both month's money added up or it could mean 60% of one month's money, it's totally ambiguous. Admittedly his asertion is false whichever way you look at it but honestly, I say again, such a dumb question.
There's no mention of what Lucy thinks of all this. I hope she is a better conversationalist than Tom.
Can someone advise please as I am struggling with the latest materials. In the KS2 Working Towards the expected standard was "national standard" in the September frameworks. Is this a typo or have they massively upped the standard?
The only reason I ask is that the front (January 2016) of the book says Working at the national standard and the table inside says "working towards" with no clue about 'Working at". Panicked a little.
Must be a typo as the booklet is named working at the expected standard.
Just flicked through, but I am sad! Over reliance on 'standard methods' examples dividing by four set out formally, why not half twice, examples multiplying by five, set out formally, why not multiply by ten and half it. Long winded written explanations about why the kids and done something. This isn't useful! especially in the KS2 PDF where the child writes that he/she divided 4 by 1200 and got 300!
Haven't they all got neat handwriting though?
Lets hope so otherwise we are all aiming at the wrong standard. Kind of says it all though, if it is a typo!
I picked up on the explanations as well! I have never asked my children to do this. But like you say, the handwriting is neat, and thats all that seems to matter.
They have uploaded a copy with the correct headings.
Oh dear, yes. It's a pretty ambiguous question to be giving an old level 4 child and the two responses the "child" (do you think it is a child?) has given are pretty muddled too. But it is considered to meet "national standard". Oh well. Who produces this stuff?
Focus Education do some decent writing exemplification.
1000-750 as column subtraction... who on earth wrote these materials. Have they read anything about education? Do they understand the concept of "efficiency." This is inappropriate, ineffiient, and frankly appalling. I hope that NCETM have somethng to say soon.
Which question is that?