Elizabeth Truss, Minister for Education, announced this on 9 November: the use of calculators will not be permitted in the mathematics national test taken at the end of Key Stage 2.
The logic behind this is misguided. Problem-solving, not calculations, is at the heart of mathematics and our assessment of the mathematics curriculum should reward this.
Currently there are three papers in this mathematics assessment: a mental mathematics paper, a non-calculator paper, and a calculator paper. So there are plenty of opportunities to assess mental and written calculation methods in two of the three papers, which is where such questions are concentrated.
The calculator paper makes it possible for the test to assess a broader range of important mathematical processes. In applying mathematics to real-life problems, children learn to identify which calculation is required and how to interpret the result of a calculation and to check the constraints of the real-life context. These steps are as important in problem-solving as the calculation itself.
The minister in criticising the current set-up gave as an example of a calculation for which children currently might be allowed to use a calculator the following: £12.50 multiplied by 7. I really do not believe that 'find £12.50 multiplied by 7' has ever been a question in the calculator paper of the KS2 maths test. It might have been a calculation that would have arisen in the context of a real-life problem and the child would have been required to determine that this this was the calculation that was required.
When the child has done this on a calculator, the result displayed would be 87.5. This has to be interpreted as representing £87.50 in the context of the original problem, whatever it was.
A typical problem might be: Dev earns £12.50 a week doing a paper round and works for 7 weeks. At the end of the 7 weeks, how much more does he need to be able to buy a bike costing £95?
An eleven-year-old who can decide what calculations are required - and if they use a calculator can interpret the results displayed - has done some genuine mathematics! Certainly worth a couple of marks in the KS2 test.
This is a sad day for primary school mathematics and a worrying indication of what lies ahead in the proposed curriculum reform.
Showing posts with label mathematics test. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mathematics test. Show all posts
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Maths for teacher training
More demanding maths tests that must be passed before someone starts teacher training? What do I think about the latest proposals from the government in this respect?
Well, of course, I'm basically in favour of all our teachers being more confident with mathematics, whatever the age range and whatever the subject they are teaching. And the same goes for English language. But the case for passing a rigorous, mandatory assessment in English language is much stronger than it is in mathematics. All teachers need to be able to speak and write English accurately and coherently as part of their everyday professional activity. But, let's be honest: what really are the professional demands for mathematical knowledge, understanding and skills required to be an effective art teacher in a secondary school, for example? And are these the same as those of a teacher in the Early Years Foundation Stage?
Would I prefer one of my grandsons to be taught music by (A) a gifted and inspirational musician, with outstanding communication skills, extensive knowledge of the subject and tireless enthusiasm for the subject, but who cannot meet a particular level in a mathematics test – or by (B) an average, uninspiring, unenthusiastic musician who is a poor communicator and who has no idea how to modulate from F sharp major to G sharp minor, but who can substitute numbers into a mathematical formula and interpret a box-and-whisker diagram in statistics?
It's a no-brainer. The answer is clearly teacher A.
Yes, I would like all prospective teachers to take a national test in mathematics, particularly one that focusses mainly on the ways in which mathematics might be required in the everyday professional life of the teacher (see, for example, my book Numeracy for Teaching, which identifies and explains the mathematical demands of the profession). But this should not be a pass/fail test with a pass being a prerequisite for entering teacher training.
My view is that the individual's performance on this test should be graded, and that this grade is one of a number of factors that should be taken into account in determining whether an applicant should be offered a place on a particular teacher training programme – and subsequently in determining their suitability for a particular post for which they might apply. Anyone applying for a teacher training place will still make sure they do as well as they can on the test – because they will know that their chances of getting admitted will be enhanced by a good performance related to what is stated as one of a number of criteria used for assessing applicants.
Well, of course, I'm basically in favour of all our teachers being more confident with mathematics, whatever the age range and whatever the subject they are teaching. And the same goes for English language. But the case for passing a rigorous, mandatory assessment in English language is much stronger than it is in mathematics. All teachers need to be able to speak and write English accurately and coherently as part of their everyday professional activity. But, let's be honest: what really are the professional demands for mathematical knowledge, understanding and skills required to be an effective art teacher in a secondary school, for example? And are these the same as those of a teacher in the Early Years Foundation Stage?
Would I prefer one of my grandsons to be taught music by (A) a gifted and inspirational musician, with outstanding communication skills, extensive knowledge of the subject and tireless enthusiasm for the subject, but who cannot meet a particular level in a mathematics test – or by (B) an average, uninspiring, unenthusiastic musician who is a poor communicator and who has no idea how to modulate from F sharp major to G sharp minor, but who can substitute numbers into a mathematical formula and interpret a box-and-whisker diagram in statistics?
It's a no-brainer. The answer is clearly teacher A.
Yes, I would like all prospective teachers to take a national test in mathematics, particularly one that focusses mainly on the ways in which mathematics might be required in the everyday professional life of the teacher (see, for example, my book Numeracy for Teaching, which identifies and explains the mathematical demands of the profession). But this should not be a pass/fail test with a pass being a prerequisite for entering teacher training.
My view is that the individual's performance on this test should be graded, and that this grade is one of a number of factors that should be taken into account in determining whether an applicant should be offered a place on a particular teacher training programme – and subsequently in determining their suitability for a particular post for which they might apply. Anyone applying for a teacher training place will still make sure they do as well as they can on the test – because they will know that their chances of getting admitted will be enhanced by a good performance related to what is stated as one of a number of criteria used for assessing applicants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
