All children should learn their times tables by age 11

[mikey4444]

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

Isn't this from the school of the *** obvious ? When was it not policy that kids should learn their times tables before they go to Secondary school ?

[Lindylou]

You mean they don't learn their tables by the age of eleven? Unbelievable! We used to practice tables whilst driving on longish car journeys. Which was often. In fact all sorts of mental 'sums'. Add, subtract, divide and, of course, tables. Its always easier to learn anything if its fun.

[jim360]

As has been suggested earlier, this is unbelievable because it's not actually true that it doesn't already happen. This sort of announcement happens all the time. Just means that the testing regime is changing, not the teaching.

[mikey4444]

If we are going to continue to teach children the subject of arithmetic, than the times tables are as essential to that task, as the alphabet is to teaching kids how to read and write.

As others on here have said this morning, I am not convinced that teaching the tables has ceased, just that it isn't being done well enough. To somehow suggest that the times tables are not now needed is just plain daft.

[dzug2]

There will certainly be a proportion of kids who may know the table by heart - but still have to recite their way through from 1x8 2x8 etc to get to say 9x8

Much as kids fooling the schools inspector they could read by knowing the Janet and John or whatever by heart but not actually being able to read anything else.

Hopefully small proportions, but they will exist

[Zacs-Master]

As Jim has pointed out, learning the mechanics of how multiplication can be worked out is much better than teaching children, parrot fashion, what their times tables are. Never learning them has never caused me any problems.

[smoneybags]

Children are also taught alternative ways to using times tables. A simple example: instead of 12x9, they would be taught 10x9 (an easy sum to do in your head) then add 9+9 and then add the two answers together. This method can be applied to various arithmetic all calculations.

[retrocop]

Precisely which one of maybe sixteen different languages and dialects should a British teacher in Tower Hamlets use to teach the multiplication tables in the classroom ?

[factor-fiction]

>"12 was useful in the days of LSD but anything more than 10 is irrelevant nowadays."
What about working out the cost of a dozen eggs at 11 pence each or any other multiplication? Okay I know you can use partitioning or some related method but it still helps to know tables beyond 10.

I'm not sure how you can force someone to learn them though. You can take a horse to water and all that

[bhg481]

I can't remember the last time I saw a dozen eggs FF; they seem to come in 6s and 10s nowadays. Happy to be corrected and I do take your point.

[jim360]

But then the think about the 12 times table is that it's just twice the 6* one, rather than a separate object, or it's the (10+2) times table. Learn relationships like that seems more useful than teaching it as a separate entity.

[Prudie]

Jim I may be wrong and don't mean to be rude but I'd guess from your suggestions that you've never taught in a low ability non selective school nor mixed with that ability. Trying to get them to understand number relationships and thinking of 10+2 is a step too far.

[Old_Geezer]

Not checked the link but yes. Bleeding obvious. Surely that is and has always been the case since compulsory education was introduced ?

[Old_Geezer]

Things may have gone downhill since calculators (and computers ?) were allowed in class. Actually learning basics may have been neglected since then by an incompetent education system maybe ?

For sure, mentally challenged kids would be exceptions to expecting reasonable progress. You teach as well as you can to them.

[alavahalf]

Just an example of where we are today, I found it really amusing, but I do think we should be doing better. I bought a calculator from Currys. When I got it home I had a fiddle with it like you do ...
I tapped in 100 minus 20% the answer that appeared was 117 ? I did it again and the answer was still 117.
When I took it back to Currys I explained the problem to the sales assistant. 100 minus 20% which to me needed no working out it is a fairly obvious answer. I'm sure he doubted my complaint and he certainly couldn't work it out in his head ! .. his reply was
"I'll need to speak to the manager". Now the manager was sat in his office just a few yards away. The assistant shouted "Do you know what 100 minus 20% is" ? Believe it or not I then heard the manager tapping the figures into his calculator before shouting back "80".

We have got a long way to go !

[jim360]

It is true that the lowest level I've taught at is year 7 (ie age 11-12), but then I taught at a whole range of abilities. Primary school is, perhaps, another kettle of fish.

Incidentally, I'm rather proud of my level of mental arithmetic, and hope that people could share it. I just don't agree that an emphasis on rote learning helps. you may well find it easier to get children to remember than 11x12 = 132 rather than that 11x12 = 10*10 + 1*10 + 10*2 + 2*1 = 100 + 10 + 20 + 2 = 132, but if they don't understand this approach then there doesn't seem to me to be much gained by memorising the answer.

You may as well at least try to emphasise the method over the results.

[mushroom25]

times tables, or multiplying in columns, provides a useful way of finding out what an answer is, without having to know an impossibly large amount of data. how many of these columns you need to know depends on what you're using them for. just multiplying in columns needs tables 1 to 9, and an implicit understanding of the 10th to get the order of magnitude correct. more than ten is irrelevant, unless you're working in approximations to nearest significant numbers; then, the higher times table you can work with, the smaller the margin of error will be. twelve just seems to be where the line has been drawn, probably because the results beyond that become harder to remember.

[factor-fiction]

jim360- so are you saying it's not necessary to memorise any times tables ?
Using your argument you could argue that, for example, a pupil could work out 5 x 5 by breaking it down into 5x2 + 5x2 +5.
I think it's far easier if people can recall the answers straight away. And it needn't stop at 12 x 12.

I think people overstate the use of a calculator.
I find low ability pupils are not sure which operations to use and in what order and have no way of knowing whether the calculator result looks sensible

[jim360]

I suppose I'm saying that the memorisation process is, or ought to be, secondary to the understanding process. The more automated maths learning becomes, the less that the maths is being really understood. At the level of times tables perhaps I'm picking the fight a bit too early in the process of learning maths, but still the philosophy that rote learning is the way to go is in general one I strongly disagree with.

[joeluke]

Times tables is basic maths and the fact that any children move up to Secondary school without knowing them is a crime committed by Education authorities.

How the feck can kids be expected to grasp more complex maths such as fractions, decimals, percentages, algebra etc if they can't even do basic multiplication?

The Calculator has a lot to answer for

[factor-fiction]

jim360- in general, I agree with you on that.
If someone has no understanding there are just too many rules/processes to learn