14 Feb 10
A recent study has revealed that most primary school teachers in the Uk cannot solve the simplest arithmetical problems, of the sort that 11-year olds are expected to be able to do.
No wonder that as a nation, after 12 years of Labourism, we are way down in the international league table for numeracy (and literacy too for similar reasons).
14 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoThe U.K. has a literacy rate of 99%. As far as I know the rate for numeracy is much the same. My sister qualified as a primary school teacher last year. Because she's never been especially good at maths, she had to do over a hundred of hours of maths training. If I'm not mistaken this kind of rigorous training has been par for the course since about 1982, and was reaffirmed and appropriately funded in the 1990s. Which recent study are you referring to? Why start a thread about a specific "study" and not provide a link to it?
A recent study has revealed that most primary school teachers in the Uk cannot solve the simplest arithmetical problems, of the sort that 11-year olds are expected to be able to do.
No wonder that as a nation, after 12 years of Labourism, we are way down in the international league table for numeracy (and literacy too for similar reasons).
14 Feb 10
Originally posted by FMFhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/7229107/Basic-sums-baffle-primary-teachers.html
The U.K. has a literacy rate of 99%. As far as I know the rate for numeracy is much the same. My sister qualified as a primary school teacher last year. Because she's never been especially good at maths, she had to do over a hundred of hours of maths training. If I'm not mistaken this kind of rigorous training has been par for the course since about 1982, and wa ...[text shortened]... you referring to? Why start a thread about a specific "study" and not provide a link to it?
14 Feb 10
Originally posted by FMFare you suggesting a beat up puff piece by the daily rag perchance?
The U.K. has a literacy rate of 99%. As far as I know the rate for numeracy is much the same. My sister qualified as a primary school teacher last year. Because she's never been especially good at maths, she had to do over a hundred of hours of maths training. If I'm not mistaken this kind of rigorous training has been par for the course since about 1982, and wa ...[text shortened]... you referring to? Why start a thread about a specific "study" and not provide a link to it?
14 Feb 10
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoA survey of 155 teachers in 18 schools is not a scientific study. I think any journalist suggesting that it is, is probably nothing more than a journalist hack, and one with an agenda or one writing for a newspaper with an agenda - too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/7229107/Basic-sums-baffle-primary-teachers.html
15 Feb 10
Originally posted by FMFThe teachers in the study must be pretty dim if after 100 hours of intensive maths tuition they cannot give correct answers to the simple questions posed.
The U.K. has a literacy rate of 99%. As far as I know the rate for numeracy is much the same. My sister qualified as a primary school teacher last year. Because she's never been especially good at maths, she had to do over a hundred of hours of maths training. If I'm not mistaken this kind of rigorous training has been par for the course since about 1982, and wa ...[text shortened]... you referring to? Why start a thread about a specific "study" and not provide a link to it?
15 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoMaybe they encountered some dim teachers, Lord knows I did when I worked in the system, but - the point is - the "study" means nothing. There are - how many is it now - something like 750,000 teachers in the U.K. You'd have to check that figure. A survey of 155 of them is not something to be taken seriously except by those who want to hear the self same silly something that the "survey" purports to show. Your odd claims about the awfulness of a 99% literacy rate suggest that you have an axe to grind and that you won't allow facts to stand in your way. If you believe that a survey of 155 constitutes valid 'research' then you are probably not clever enough to be a primary school teacher.
The teachers in the study must be pretty dim if after 100 hours of intensive maths tuition they cannot give correct answers to the simple questions posed.
15 Feb 10
Originally posted by FMFIf, as I assume, the schools and teachers were randomly selected the study is statistically sound enough to provoke alarm and further invesigation.
A survey of 155 teachers in 18 schools is not a scientific study. I think any journalist suggesting that it is, is probably nothing more than a journalist hack, and one with an agenda or one writing for a newspaper with an agenda - too.
15 Feb 10
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoPrimary school teachers struggled with the following Maths questions. How well can you do?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/7229107/Basic-sums-baffle-primary-teachers.html
Question number
Question
Percentage of teachers who answered correctly
Question 1
1.4 ÷ 0.1
34%
Question 2
2.1% of 400
39%
Question 3
ABCDE is a pentagon. Name all its diagonals
25%
Question 4
7/16 + 3/4
55%
Question 5
The mean height of a group of 4 people is 2 metres. One more person joins the group and then the mean height is 1.9 metres. What is the height of the new person?
14%
The answers can be found here.
15 Feb 10
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoWhat we can assume is that if the Telegraph lent any credence to such a ludicrously small poll, then the Telegraph is in on the propaganda generating exercise. Let's be frank. The Telegraph is notorious for doing this. Large scale research efforts that produce findings that do not fit the Telegraph's agenda go unreported, while bag of a fag packet polls of less than 2,000 respondees get given prominence. Notorious. Been doing it for at least four decades. Good cricket coverage though. When I am in the U.K. I always read the Telegraph as much as I can.
If, as I assume, the schools and teachers were randomly selected the study is statistically sound enough to provoke alarm and further invesigation.