Pupils To Sit Times Tables Check From 2019

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39053483

Am I to understand, from this astonishing news, that children are NOT tested on their times tables now ?

[fiction-factory]

>On the rare occasions I need to find anything bigger than 12 x 12 - that's when I use a calculator too.
Yes jno, I would use a calculator rather than fiddle around for a minute or two. Actually you would never be asked to do such a sum in the exam since they can assess your understanding of multiplication and place value with a much quicker question.
But your point does beg the question why learn your 11 and 12s but use calculators for anything else. What is so special about 11s and 12s? Why not stop at, say, 7?

[bhg481]

12s date back to the old currency. To learn 1 to 10 and 12 would have been silly, hence 1-12.

[fiction-factory]

Yes, I realised that (plus 12 inches in a foot) but we have had decimal currency for over 40 years. I don't see why we don't focus on the 2-10 tables and see any others as a bonus. My own view is they should be learnt by rote by the age of maybe 8 and then parents and schools should focus on making sure children can use them to do other calculations (such as 17 x 30 and 150/6 )

[ichkeria]

Our son's just done his 11 times tables. So testing is done here mikey. Their maths teaching is fascinating: we had a school exhibition on it last year and I wish we'd had that

[Prudie]

Those few left after armageddon will need to know how to do all this stuff without their phones and calculators

[youngmafbog]

All my kids 24 - 32 know their tables. The schools taught them and we did to at home. And there is the problem I suspect. Parents often view the saucepans as accessories and expect the school to do everything (Except when the parent doesnt like it of course then they go to the papers or punch the teacher on the nose).

[fiction-factory]

>lot of people seem to think that education/schooling is in a pretty dire state. It may be a co-incidence but the challengers on Eggheads today were all trainee teachers (on the verge of qualifying apparently).

The first two rounds were on History and Arts and Books. They didn't get one answer right.

I probably wouldn't have got many right, divebuddy, either now or as a 20 year old, but I'm not sure that (on its own) would tell you I'm a dire teacher of maths.

[fiction-factory]

http://www.mathsgenie.co.uk/papers/EDEXCELS21H.pdf
Here's an example of the sort of non-calculator paper

Okay that was the harder paper on which you can geta fgrade equivalent to the old O level pass.

Here's the equivalent practice Foundation (easier) paper which can give you a grade more or less equivalent to a high CSE/old O level fail/scraped pass
http://www.mathsgenie.co.uk/papers/EDEXCELS21F.pdf

[jno]

Prudie, that's where abacuses will come into their own (and the Chinese will take over the world)

[jim360]

"I recall having a conversation with Jim360 about times tables. I think he’s about 26 or 27, so would have been at primary school in the 1990s. He said he’d not been taught them at school."

Could have sworn I'd said the exact opposite, although these days with my advancing years it's becoming harder and harder for me to remember what I said and to whom I said it... I'll see if I can't find the many other threads in which this topic has been discussed.

I did argue certainly that an obsession with rote memory is probably a backwards step, which is perhaps me arguing from a position of advantage as I've never had a problem with mental arithmetic, but I could have sworn that we did our times tables at primary school (and the ones we didn't do I just worked out for myself anyway).

What's more troubling is the people boasting on this thread about how good their times tables are and how it's "basic knowledge" while also demonstrating pretty basic errors on this site when it comes to other important maths skills eg order of operations. There's no good patting yourself on the back for being able to remember 7 x 8 if you can't go on to tell me what 1 + 7 x 8 is. I'm not altogether convinced that being able to tell me what 6 x 2 is matters if you can't invert the result at will, either -- that is, I *do* think that teaching multiplication and division together is important, and teaching them separately seems to send the wrong message.

Either way, I probably shouldn't be anywhere near a primary school maths class.

[jim360]

Here's the same topic discussed last year in which I said I *was* taught them. Phew.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1466338.html

[jno]

[i]There's no good patting yourself on the back for being able to remember 7 x 8 if you can't go on to tell me what 1 + 7 x 8 is[i]

could be - that was one of the things that wasn't done in my day. Which is why I suspect that today's kids are better at maths than I was (and I was actually pretty good) and that they're not losing anything significant by going for understanding processes rather than rote learning.

[maggiebee]

Must admit I was horrified to find out that my grandchildren were not being taught their tables at school. However, eldest is now in first year at University doing Civil Engineering and has no problem with maths. If I asked him what 7 x 9 is he would struggle to answer though.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Could have sworn I'd said the exact opposite…..I did argue certainly that an obsession with rote memory is probably a backwards step//

You didn’t say the exact opposite and I certainly got the impression that you hadn’t learnt times tables at school. I disagree that learning them rote is a backward step. I think I probably use times tables, which I learnt by rote, practically every day – and very grateful I am for the education. It's very useful to be able to muster up an instant answer without giving it a moment's thought.

[jim360]

Well the precise quote was "I can tell that that [sic] I was at school in the 1990s and they [times tables] were still taught" -- so I would say that's pretty much the exact opposite of "I wasn't taught them".

[Cloverjo]

I've seen good mathematicians reach for their calculators if asked to work out a simple multiplication.

On an OU summer school, there was a whizz kid, but he didn't know his times tables. I had a tutor who was a brilliant statistician, but shocked us students by working out a simple multiplication with pen on the whiteboard.

You don't have to know tables to be a mathematician, but I still think it helps though.

[naomi24]

Jim, crikey! You mustered that up quickly! I must have got the wrong end of the stick then.

[jim360]

It was an interesting experience watching one of my friends, an utterly brilliant mathematician when he wants to be, spend an inordinate amount of time working out his total contribution to the bill -- "so that's 7 + 9 which is... err... err..."

It does alter one's perspective somewhat on the importance of simple arithmetic. He made it work for him because he actually finds working with algebraic relations much, much easier than numerical ones.

For myself, I'm proud of my mental arithmetic and knowledge of times tables. What I'm saying is that emphasising them isn't necessarily the best idea when there is a lot more to maths than that, and emphasising times tables seems to be a non-mathematician's perspective. For sure, teach it, test on it, encourage children to be good at it -- but don't rely on it as a metric of mathematical ability.

[naomi24]

Jim, //don't rely on it as a metric of mathematical ability. //

I don't believe anyone does.