Roman numerals

Here are three questions about Roman numerals that genuinely puzzle me! 

First, why, in the twenty-first century, do we persist in using Roman numerals in particular contexts, such as the hours on clock or watch faces, and dates on buildings or at the end of a movie? 

Second, in such a technological age, can anyone really justify the inclusion of Roman numerals in the statutory English primary mathematics curriculum and in the associated national assessment of mathematics? 

Third, there’s something odd I’ve noticed recently about Roman numerals on clock and watch faces. It is important for teachers to be aware of this, because there are limited contexts for assessment items in Key Stage 2 national mathematics tests in this country, so clock and watch faces with Roman numerals turn up often. 

In an early form of Roman numeration, the numbers we call ‘four’ and ‘nine’ would be represented by IIII and VIIII. A later development was to represent these more concisely as IV and IX, the convention being that when a letter representing a smaller value is written in front of another letter, then the value is to be subtracted, not added. So, XC would represent 90 (100 subtract 10). So, here’s what we have noticed: in most cases where Roman numerals are used on a clock or watch face, the four is written using the early system (IIII) and the nine is written using the later system (IX). Check this out and see if we are right. The question that puzzles me is, simply, why?

I-level grades

Given the current obsessions with the use of i-words (iPod, iPad, iPlayer, iPhone) and (in Pirate movies) iPatch, –  not to mention the irritating overuse of the word i-conic, the meaning of which has been diminished to 'quite well-known' – it was inevitable that the proposed new examinations to replace GCSEs should be labelled i-levels. To be fair to Michael Gove, this is not a term that he has coined or, apparently, proposes to use. But sometimes these first labels stick. The end-of-key stage national tests were called SATs only for the first year of their introduction, after which this name was dropped because the Americans had already coined the term 'Standard Assessment Test'. But nearly everyone still calls them SATs. And some schools still call their staff development days Baker Days!

It's interesting that the proposal is for a range of 8 grades in the assessment of achievement in these new exams. Generally, an assessment tool with 5 or fewer possible grades feels as though it does not discriminate sufficiently between those being assessed - and there's too much random unfairness for those close to the borderline between one level and the next. On the other hand, using more than 10 grades usually feels like an assumption that the assessment tool is capable of discriminating more finely than it really is. So, well done in going for 8 levels in the i-level exams.

The problem though in using such an assessment system to assess the whole population of Year 11 students is that if everyone sits the same examination the lower grades will indicate only what the student cannot do or does not know or understand. The student getting grade 1 or 2 will have failed in most of the the assessment components. That's a depressing and dispiriting experience for anyone. So you finish up requiring different assessment components for those expected to achieve grades within particular ranges. But then, to make these effective assessment tools you need 6 to 10 grades for each of these, and some reliable and valid way of matching achievement within one assessment band with that within another. Good luck, Mr Gove.