1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    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.

    Dismiss Notice

Rant

Discussion in 'Education news' started by Jane Austen, Apr 16, 2016.

  1. Lumpen

    Lumpen New commenter

    Ah...well in a lot of respects he is worth the defense, but also very worth the discussion I think.
    There's always a risk with education (as with anything else I suppose) of assuming that because something has always been so, that it always should be so.
    It always bothers me that people feel Shakespeare to be synonymous with some sort of 'High Literature' ideal...often the same people who think Romeo and Juliet is a love story. I rather suspect many of those (politicians, generally) who advocate its continued study at all levels of not fully understanding it themselves...
     
  2. palmtree100

    palmtree100 Lead commenter

    Surely anyone who still didn't know them in Year 7 would be taught in secondary? Don't you teach to the children's levels? The point is how can they then sit through another 5 years of maths lessons and still not know them?
     
  3. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    If six years of Primary maths teaching hasn't taught them multiplication tables then how do you expect Secondary to succeed where Primary has failed? Unless it is by actually teaching multiplication tables, of course. Where that could be squeezed into the Secondary National Curriculum is anyone's guess.
     
  4. Lukeydoo

    Lukeydoo New commenter

    Primary vs Secondary.
     
  5. Eureka!

    Eureka! Lead commenter

    Can He be fully understood?
     
  6. Lumpen

    Lumpen New commenter

    Fair point...
     
  7. Eureka!

    Eureka! Lead commenter

    You've got me talking about Shakespeare. You must be a good teacher.
     
  8. Lumpen

    Lumpen New commenter

    That might be the nicest thing anyone has said to me all week!
     
    ValentinoRossi and hhhh like this.
  9. Eureka!

    Eureka! Lead commenter

    YW:) I can tell a quality poster.
     
    Lumpen and hhhh like this.
  10. palmtree100

    palmtree100 Lead commenter

    I agree it should be explicitly taught at primary (and if necessary secondary) but unfortunately the primary teachers I know tend to expect them to be learnt at home. They also don't seem to find time to squeeze in a lot of things.
     
    hhhh likes this.
  11. lightningconductor

    lightningconductor New commenter

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 17, 2016
    Lukeydoo likes this.
  12. SportyK

    SportyK Occasional commenter

    My experience (in primary) is slightly different. We teach multiplication tables and associated division facts daily (it's a non-negotiable) in addition we also have a daily 10 mins on timestablerockstars - a website which really helps children and motivates them to challenge themselves and others to improve their understanding of times tables (they also have a login so can compete at home). Of course we also provide them with multiplication homework weekly. I think we have to be fair here and understand that children's retention of facts isn't always an upward curve, whilst I sympathise with your views they don't apply wholesale to ALL primaries.
     
  13. SportyK

    SportyK Occasional commenter

    With respect palmtree100
    Just to clarify our workload - we also run 2 15 minute spelling sessions daily, plus the usual hour on literacy and numeracy, we run daily 25 min guided reading sessions as well as afternoon literacy and maths booster groups, plus 5 minute daily reading sessions. There's also all the foundation subjects to juggle with, if I can teach in a cross curricular fashion.

    Hope this is enlightening.
     
  14. palmtree100

    palmtree100 Lead commenter

    I would expect that in primary, Sportyk, but since I've been working as a TA I've not seen much evidence of it. I'm sure there are teachers that do it, but I mostly just see it given as homework, and not then tested in class.
     
  15. palmtree100

    palmtree100 Lead commenter

    I disagree with Vince's attitude that it's just the responsibility of Primary schools to teach times tables. If secondary teachers find children with gaps surely they need to tailor their lessons accordingly?

    However, I think explicit teaching of times tables should definitely happen in Primary.
     
    SportyK likes this.
  16. SportyK

    SportyK Occasional commenter

    Ok, Palmtree100 fair point, However, my biggest concern at the minute is that we're not in a position to teach to the depth the children need to be high-school ready. It is the lateral thinking and reasoning skills that concern me most with the targets we are set delivering the NC. Teaching to test is the gravest error and doesn't equip children with the skills to be successful. If we were left alone to teach children how we wanted to then you'd find they'd be far more well-rounded come Y7.
     
    palmtree100 likes this.
  17. hhhh

    hhhh Lead commenter

    We certainly weren't taught to join up writing in infant school-though you could srgue they miight have had a case for doing so-unlike now, when our children are very unlikely to ever write anything except notes by hand.
     
  18. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    Anecdotal, therefore proving nothing, but still.....I currently spend a day teaching individuals & small groups. One Y3 child, with whom I work for 45 minutes per week, needs very basic stuff. Since September, one of the things I have focused on is instant recall of number bonds to 10. In September, child needed to count each pair on fingers, starting from one each time. To give me (orally) the 10 number facts took almost 3 minutes. Each week, we did the same activity, with a stopwatch. By March, the recall time was down to 16 seconds, and it probably isn't physically possible to go much faster.

    We have now moved on to number pairs to 20, and adding multiples of 10 (e.g. 40 + 30, 60 + 80). Because the number bonds to 10 are now secure, the child can see how these other number pairs work and is progressing very quickly. In class, the child is apparently much more confident and is using the knowledge in a range of contexts. Now, number bonds to 10 is reception level - but at that age the child wasn't ready / couldn't absorb / didn't learn them, and has fallen further behind in maths because the demands of the NC didn't allow time for these vital building blocks to be learnt.

    But the Government is never going to understand that.
     
  19. Lukeydoo

    Lukeydoo New commenter

    Looking at some of these comments, I think quite a few individuals are misinformed enough that they should stop wasting their time in the classroom and take up a career in politics with the view of taking over from Nicky Morgan.

    Awful to see other teachers posting in this way.
     
  20. Jane Austen

    Jane Austen New commenter

    Where is the misinformation?
     

Share This Page