Year 6 Online Tables Testing to be introduced

[elsiegee40]

Deep joy!

The checks will be piloted to about 3,000 pupils in 80 primary schools this summer, before being rolled out across the country in 2017.

 

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said maths was a non-negotiable aspect of a good education.

 

The "on-screen check" examination will involve children completing multiplication challenges against the clock, which will be scored instantly.

 

Times tables 'to be tested by age 11' - BBC News

[Dos_Box]

Our kids primary school had stopped teaching the times table in school and passed that responsibility over to parents to do at home.

Oh, apparently they were shown a times table 'rap' video once to learn it by

[elsiegee40]

Our kids primary school had stopped teaching the times table in school and passed that responsibility over to parents to do at home.

Oh, apparently they were shown a times table 'rap' video once to learn it by

 

That's ridiculous. Although, I think many of us learned them at home, alongside the spellings, with the weekly tables test allowing you to progress to the next one when you could get 10 out of 10.

 

I can remember my eldest's delight in Year 2 when her arch competitor was off sick and she managed to get a week ahead if him. Just a little too competitive and gleeful!

 

It shouldn't be necessary to introduce national online testing to prove they're being taught though. I can see many primaries struggling if/when this isn't set up right

Edited January 3, 2016 by elsiegee40

[sparkeh]

Well, whilst I think that knowing times tables are very useful in life, adding another test for 11 years to take is unnecessary. Especially a government online test which is undoubtedly going to cause us major headaches :/

[Michael]

It's all about satisfying statistics - SATs didn't exist in my day, or GCSE IT for that matter at Secondary.

 

What I find confusing is that Academies are not required to follow the Curriculum, so in theory could they avoid teaching Times Tables altogether? It's an extremely patchy situation if the Government enforce another test, yet schools are not necessarily required to cover it. It seems like another fag packet idea to cover silly mistakes in policy.

[mikeprice]

Oh goody - an 'on screen' test

 

whats the betting it is going to be a pain in the whatsit to get it set up

[witch]

Both my schools teach tables pretty well already - but i agree, another test is NOT necessary. Also, I don't really see why there is a National Curriculum any more, round here at least most schools are academies and don't have to follow it anyway

[Garacesh]

Times tables are pointless. If it's anything like I remember, 'learning your times tables' is just an exercise of 'how well can you memorise and repeat information, without any kind of checking on whether you actually understand the information you're parroting back to us?'

 

Teach kids multiplication. They don't need to memorise one two is two, two twos are four, three twos are six, four twos are eight. Even back in primary school I couldn't help but think surely it's better to teach them the method of how they find the answer than make them chant the tables like some kind of religious matra?

[synaesthesia]

If it's anything to do with Pearson, there will be mass revolt!

[witch]

Times tables are pointless. If it's anything like I remember, 'learning your times tables' is just an exercise of 'how well can you memorise and repeat information, without any kind of checking on whether you actually understand the information you're parroting back to us?'

 

Teach kids multiplication. They don't need to memorise one two is two, two twos are four, three twos are six, four twos are eight. Even back in primary school I couldn't help but think surely it's better to teach them the method of how they find the answer than make them chant the tables like some kind of religious matra?

The whole point of learning tables is to facilitate multiplication,division etc. If you know your tables, you can make leaps when working out calculations, because the numbers are just in your head - for example if you need to divide 76 by 8, you already know that 9 x 8 is 72 without really thinking about it and so only have to think about the remainder. It is a shortcut.

[sparkeh]

The whole point of learning tables is to facilitate multiplication,division etc. If you know your tables, you can make leaps when working out calculations, because the numbers are just in your head - for example if you need to divide 76 by 8, you already know that 9 x 8 is 72 without really thinking about it and so only have to think about the remainder. It is a shortcut.

Totally agree.

 

Learning tables is not about replacing understanding with rote learned knowledge (if incorporated sensibly into the curriculum). Learning tables not only helps you make calculations more quickly but helps you understand how calculations and numbers work.

[elsiegee40]

I'm another one who agrees that learning tables is not pointless. Together with number bonds (basic adding up of pairs of numbers in your head) they are the foundation of everything you do in your everyday life. Not having to think about them makes life, work and shopping so much easier.

 

Tables need to be taught. Tables should be known by heart before a child goes to secondary school. Tables don't need yet another national testing programme!

[Garacesh]

Well maybe I just went to a bit of a carp primary school, but it still makes sense to me to teach the method, not the answer. Yes, 7x8 is 56, but that's useless to me unless I know why it's 56, and if instead you teach me how to arrive at that conclusion myself I can apply that knowledge and modify it to other scenarios. It did really feel like it was just rote at the time. I mean, sure, you can still apply rote knowledge (I know 7x8 is 56, so therefore 7x7 should be (7x8)-7, so that's 49) but.. Eh. Like I say. Maybe I just went to a naff school that didn't really do it 'right'

[elsiegee40]

Method is of course useful too and is part of the learning. However, being able to do the basics automatically and with confidence gives you a head start on everything else.

 

In the same vein, knowing the ground rules for spelling and how to check spelling in Word, or in a dictionary or online is important. Being able to spell words correctly without checking makes life much easier.

[pcstru]

Well maybe I just went to a bit of a carp primary school, but it still makes sense to me to teach the method, not the answer. Yes, 7x8 is 56, but that's useless to me unless I know why it's 56, and if instead you teach me how to arrive at that conclusion myself I can apply that knowledge and modify it to other scenarios.

Blimey, it took Whitehead and Russell 300 pages (and 7 years) in Principia Mathematica to 'conclude' that 1+1=2. I'm not sure that your average year 6 could grapple with that!

[Garacesh]

Being able to spell words correctly without checking makes life much easier.

Yes, but I didn't learn to spell words correctly by memorising the dictionary, I learned language structure (even if some of the 'rules' are awful, I'm looking at you I before E!) and then memorising just the odd ones that didn't match up with my current knowledge.

 

To me, for example, (y*10)-(2*y) is a more logical method to work out multiplications of 8, rather than memorising the first 12 and not really learning how to go beyond that. Or to put it in primary school terms, times it by ten and remove the extra 2's afterwards. (7*8 becomes (7*10)-(7*2) / 70-14 = 56. And that's scalable).. And it was easier for primary school me to devise methods like that than it was to memorise 144 different combinations.

 

Maybe I'm just awkward.

 

Blimey, it took Whitehead and Russell 300 pages (and 7 years) in Principia Mathematica to 'conclude' that 1+1=2. I'm not sure that your average year 6 could grapple with that!

Let's not start giving them 0.999...=1 then

Edited January 6, 2016 by Garacesh

[elsiegee40]

Yes, but I didn't learn to spell words correctly by memorising the dictionary, I learned language structure (even if some of the 'rules' are awful, I'm looking at you I before E!) and then memorising just the odd ones that didn't match up with my current knowledge.

 

To me, for example, (y*10)-(2*y) is a more logical method to work out multiplications of 8, rather than memorising the first 12 and not really learning how to go beyond that. Or to put it in primary school terms, times it by ten and remove the extra 2's afterwards. (7*8 becomes (7*10)-(7*2) / 70-14 = 56. And that's scalable).. And it was easier for primary school me to devise methods like that than it was to memorise 144 different combinations.

 

Maybe I'm just awkward.

 

You know you're awkward and so do we

 

And argue otherwise as you might, you DID learn some spellings be heart and do not bother to take them to first principals. The same should apply to tables

[Garacesh]

Some, yeah. I already admitted that

 

I had weekly spelling tests, as I'd imagine were common at most schools, and often I would just find myself memorising the spelling of one particular word rather than figuring out why it was spelled that way, but usually that was after I'd failed to adapt some kind of structure to it. Etymology was a big thing to learning-words me (though at the time I wouldn't have been able to tell you what Etymology meant, nor spell it!). Science, for example. I before E except after C, I was taught. That was the rule. But the rule does not apply to the word 'Science', and so I ended up just memorising the word.

[sparkeh]

Yes, but I didn't learn to spell words correctly by memorising the dictionary, I learned language structure (even if some of the 'rules' are awful, I'm looking at you I before E!) and then memorising just the odd ones that didn't match up with my current knowledge.

 

To me, for example, (y*10)-(2*y) is a more logical method to work out multiplications of 8, rather than memorising the first 12 and not really learning how to go beyond that. Or to put it in primary school terms, times it by ten and remove the extra 2's afterwards. (7*8 becomes (7*10)-(7*2) / 70-14 = 56. And that's scalable).. And it was easier for primary school me to devise methods like that than it was to memorise 144 different combinations.

 

Maybe I'm just awkward.

Whatever works for you, but you can use times table facts to scale as well.

 

Eg if I needed to work out 18x8 I would think "I know that 8x8 = 64 and 10x8 = 80 so the answer is 64+80 = 144. Only takes a second or two in my head as the knowledge is just there.

[Duranis]

Playing devils advocate for a moment. Most of you agree that knowing your multiplication tables is important. Why then the objection to it being something that is tested to make sure kids are actually being taught it?

 

Putting aside the fact that as a government created site it will probably be broken and badly implemented the idea of doing a quick online test to make sure that kids are learning what they should be shouldn't be a bad thing should it?

 

The "on-screen check" examination will involve children completing multiplication challenges against the clock, which will be scored instantly.

 

The kids here already play a bunch of multiplication games on the computers that are very similar. I don't see an issue with formally testing kids to check their progress as long as its not made into a massive deal for them (i.e. it should be part of the learning process). My oldest boy really struggled with school and was basically shunted off to the side by teachers as being too hard (ASD/ADHD so he does sometimes need a different approach to teach but he ain't stupid). Had there been testing on the basics with consequences for the teachers if students were falling behind then maybe they would have been more willing to actually help him.

 

Its not so much about testing kids and pushing them to be able to pass tests but about putting in checks to make sure that they are learning what they need to be and identifying kids that may need extra support (or at least that is what the tests should be about).

[Rob_D]

I have nothing against teaching or testing tables. But why (in a world that is predominantly decimal) do we need to go up to 12?

 

Also, how do you look up a word in the dictionary if you don't know how to spell it?

[witch]

Playing devils advocate for a moment. Most of you agree that knowing your multiplication tables is important. Why then the objection to it being something that is tested to make sure kids are actually being taught it?

 

Putting aside the fact that as a government created site it will probably be broken and badly implemented the idea of doing a quick online test to make sure that kids are learning what they should be shouldn't be a bad thing should it?

.

Absolutely - it is just that back in the day, the SATs were advertised as testing the school, not the child, as indeed they should be and yet the pressure on the children is tremendous now.

I agree, a lot of sites like RM Maths and Mathletics do test this sort of thing and if they can do it without pressurising the children then great, but somehow experience makes me doubt it

[Quackers]

I hope this on screen testing is web based with no flash , no silver light , no other weird plugin and works across many platforms and browsers i.e. iPads, Android Tablets, OS X, Linux and Windows. If not thats when i will be annoyed

[mikeprice]

I hope this on screen testing is web based with no flash , no silver light , no other weird plugin and works across many platforms and browsers i.e. iPads, Android Tablets, OS X, Linux and Windows. If not thats when i will be annoyed

 

prepare to be annoyed