This is what 'Education' is all about

I am not sure it matters if it was original or not. I think the idea was to increase the self-worth of those who have those who have worked really hard including those who are struggling.

Those pupils who have been led to believe they will be spoon fed and think that teachers are paid to give them qualifications rather than an education will not be made worse; the damage has already been done. Although I have no doubt their teachers will work to open their view of life.

I think it was a thoughtful message to what will be mainly good all round hardworking and considerate young people - as the majority of them are.

Mamie
Thank you so wery much fur your hyperlink, it was revelatory and enabled me to move forward in my understandings in this area.
====
mcem
Also grateful thanks to you too, I remember the same type of analysis over other concepts fur those early years, fur example the ''dog-ness of dog'' and the narrowing down und differentiation from other animals with similarity.
=====
How delightful to interchange with professionals who clearly understand the process of learning, and the role of the pedagogue. People who have not taken the 'traditional' magister stance.

I agree but have to add that I'd love to see well-intentioned parents (and grandparents) understand more clearly what is important to teach pre-schoolers. Eg far better to encourage consistent and accurate counting of small groups of objects - 3 coins or 5 crayons - than to expect children to count to 100. Big numbers are not that relevant at the early stages. I remember a lecturer using the phrase 'understanding the one-ness of one or the three-ness of three'. Thought at the time it sounded daft but it made sense in the right context. Helping them to acquire pre-maths concepts and vocabulary is also useful.
Equally I find teaching 4yearolds to recite the alphabet is a useless exercise at this stage. I encourage mine to recognise sounds and relevant words but unless they want to try using a dictionary before they can read it's pointless. No harm if they pick up the alphabet song but not worth stressing.

I think another example would be the teaching of "sums" without learning the essential underlying concept of place value. This certainly happened to me at school.
LM if you are interested the maths curriculum for England is here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335158/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Mathematics_220714.pdf
Key Stage 1 is aged 5-7 (infants) Key Stage 2 is age 7-11 (juniors).

I had exactly the same experience at the hands of a some terrible secondary Maths teachers mcem. Luckily I managed to figure most of it out for myself later on and, like you, it made me much more sympathetic to pupils when I started teaching.

Thank you so very much, mcem, that explanation was most helpfully as like the parents you write about when Math is mentioned I do think of the traditional subdivisions you mention. Unterstanding words of position help with their englisch too.
Place words are difficult fur some grown ups never mind little ones: on; over; above; unter; beneath; below ?
Some persons should never be let near a class room nur have influence on what goes on there. I have had surgery done, but that doesnt qualify me to tell how to do it.
Thank you very much again, mcem
Explanation, Not Denigration !

Yes anno and then standard grades which are also now obsolete!
Have to add that I loved arithmetic in primary school but suffered by being thrown into algebra without a word of explanation as I started secondary. Later realised that it was down to very poor teaching and I hadn't simply lost all ability. This experience made me a better and more sympathetic teacher later.

Perfect, mcem. I forgot that soon after I left school, Lowers were replaced by O-grades.

I'm another who qualified as a teacher in Scotland (with O-grades in maths and arithmetic).
If you're finding some of the ideas under discussion difficult to grasp may I suggest you think a little differently.
For young children, mathematical concepts can be as simple as understanding simple position - under, above, behind or perhaps working with basic pre-measurement - taller and shorter, wide and narrow etc.
They can find shapes fascinating -recognising square, rectangle and rhombus.
I apologise if you find this over-simplified or patronising but have found that many parents have been surprised to hear such explanations, expecting maths to be all about algebra and geometry and therefore not appropriate for very young children.
This approach provides the foundations and, done properly, the confidence to tackle maths at more advanced levels.

Thank you Anno for saying it better than I could have.

LM, your approach is patronising. Don't you realise that you are in the company of some very highly qualified teachers? Even a non-mathematician like me knows the difference between maths and arithmetic. In my schooldays in Scotland, long ago, we had to pass a separate exam in arithmetic as well as taking either Lower or Higher maths. That arithmetic has stood me in good stead. My GC do learn mathematical concepts at an early age.

Many thanks, Mamie, and tb.
tb When you write learning ''math concepts'' and teachers MUST ''think mathematically'', what do those mean, please? [They DO seem very good idea.]
Mamie, NQT means provisional, or another name for a probationary year, no?
tb's reply will cover your ''broader than sums'', yes?
Thank you both very much.

....far broader than sums in the early years....

And teachers have one year as an NQT (newly qualified teacher). The probationary teacher status went years ago and was only one year when I qualified in 1975
As Bags says, the teaching of numeracy is far broader than in the early years and had been since before the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988

Actually, LMan, children in primary schools learn mathematical concepts that are not part of arithmetic as well as learning how to do sums. That's why a minimal indication of the ability to think mathematically is required of primary school teachers nowadays.

I haven't noticed any confusion in this thread about what maths consists of.

There seems to be some confusion between Maths = Arithmetic; Algebra; Geometry; Trigonometry; Calculus; (Possibly some statistics),
and Sums (Arithmetic), which in early yars will be what is taught or learned.
The to and fro seems to have forgot that to get a BEd another minimum 3 years of study is untertaken, with long periods under inspection in classrooms which if signs of poor practice are seen will result in FAIL.
'Teachers' with degrees [Not Bed] do one year of intensive study, including teaching classes under observation.
Then there is 2 years as a probationer pre full registration.
Is this not so? And should it continue so? Not have unqualified teachers in the state paid fur sektor, no?

I can't, after such a long period, be quite certain of this, but I think that when I applied for Dip Ed, I needed to show that I had at least Lower (O-level equivalent) maths, even to be an English teacher.

Enjoyed your post Penstemmon. I know a number of excellent teachers who don't have O level maths, all the younger ones do have at least a C at gcse in maths, science and english and these days, have usually achieved a 2.1 at University, in order to get a place on the pg teaching courses. Oh yes, apart from the unqualified teachers who are showing up in academies of course

Sorry for typos am using phone. Still in bed!

Not sure when o level maths became a requirement but I trained to teach 69-71.I do not have o level maths. I do have an MA in Education. I was judged to be a good teacher by HMI and the school where I eventually became head was judged O/S. O level maths is ot everything! I taught maths to my many classes very carefully because I knew how badly I had been taught by unqualicied teachers who were maths graduates.

.. do have ... where is that edit button ;) (got an excuse lol as English is NOT my mothertongue;) )

Absolutely not- I trained as a teacher in England and taught for over 30 years with great teachers, who had been through the English system of O'Levels or GCSEs and A'Levels.

What I am saying- is that depending on the subjects studied for A'Levels- many teachers will not have studied English beyond the age of 15- and many would have not got a better grade than a 'C' (a C is a decent grade at A' Level- but only just a pass at GCSE)- and that the system in England does not ensure that those going on to Uni, the professions and teaching- do not have good all-round general knowledge- which would be impossible in most other countries. Same for maths, history, and all the subjects listed. On the Continent, students do have to continue to study all those subjects to Uni- in England they do not (as said, it has huge advantages too- which I'd be happy to discuss on another thread perhaps- but also disadvantages).

Excuse digression please, but did someone (Penstemmon I think) put a link on here to what 6-7 years will be expected to study/achieve next year. Can't find it, it may have been on another thread. If someone could re-link it I'd be grateful.
Thanks

Granjura -are you saying that no one can be a good head teacher in this country because they may only have a grade C in English?

Didn't I hear recently that in future all teachers are expected to have at least a C in English and Maths? Why hasn't that always been the case?

Nonnie - you really do take the biscuit - you said ^^ and now you're saying

Yes, I agree jura, that was just what I was trying to say, a C grade is not great.

So first of all you say they should have to have grade Cs, the when it's pointed out to you that they already do have to, you say that you were saying that a grade C not that great