From today's 'Daily Mail':

"Almost half British teenagers are unable to do basic sums, according to an international study.

"They are amongst the worst maths students in the world as they struggle to add up and subtract properly.

"The UNICEF report on literacy, maths and science labelled the United Kingdom's adult literacy rate of 10 per cent as a 'statistic of shame'.

"Britain is one of seven nantions where more than 42% of children aged 14 or 15 are 'unable to apply basic maths knowledge'.

"Forty-nine percent of 14-year-olds in the survey were unable to subtract 4,078 from 7,003..."

-------------------------------------------------------

Question: How could this be? - in a nation which has made maths 'easier' by adopting decimal coinage, and now teaches its children only decimal weights and measures

Is it that bad? I'm not British in terms of nationality but I was educated in the UK system from 1983-1993 (from ages 6-16) and I wouldn't say I can't do maths. I wouldn't say I'm illiterate either. Also, I was educated in the much-derided state sector, with the exception of one private school I went to when abroad (British School of Paris). However, when I go to the AOL message boards (AOL is my ISP), many of the people who post there seem to have problems with their spelling and grammar. Some even seem to write as if communicating with others consists of sending one long text message, sorry 'txt msge'.

Maybe it depends on the school and the teacher too, doesn't it? Hats off to the primary and secondary schools I went to.......

Oh yeah, and my 8, 4, 12, 16 times table etc. is pretty good too (with reference to the end of T Bennett's posting).

Due to the introduction of decimal coinage and the metric system, primary school children no longer learn their 11 and 12 times tables.

As of this year, children have a compulsory 5% of tuition time in politically correct 'citizenship'. This time is taken away from studying other subjects

Tony,

I've never learned a 11 or 12 times table, but I can assure you my math skills are better than yours ;)

Do you really believe in this metrication->bad math skills stuff or do you just pick up anything on the way and make the metric system responsible ?

Ralf

Science and maths are linked to each other. Children want to see the relevance of these subjects to their lives. One of the biggest obstacles to the relevance of science in a child's life is that units which are not part of everyday life are used.

As a nation we have two options - reinstate the Imperial system or complete the conversion to metric. Reinstatement of the Imperial system is not going to happen - the engineering industry will see to that. This means completing the conversion to the metric system.

11 and 12 times tables are among the easiest there are. 11,22,33.....12,24,36......

You get the picture.

How can they be 'hard'?

Martin's impresses me as a good short argument.
It may not be entirely persuasive, or tell the whole story, but it has good points.

[[Science and maths are linked to each other. Children want to see the relevance of these subjects to their lives. One of the biggest obstacles to the relevance of science in a child's life is that units which are not part of everyday life are used.

As a nation we have two options - reinstate the Imperial system or complete the conversion to metric. Reinstatement of the Imperial system is not going to happen - the engineering industry will see to that. This means completing the conversion to the metric system.]]

To counter Martin's argument it might be shown that the nation (UK in this case but more widely applicable) has MORE THAN THOSE TWO options.

I don't accept the role of the "engineering industry" in the argument---suppose that engineers ARE wedded to metric say because of decimality and uniformity with continental Europe etc. why should the engineers object to use of some other system in schools, shops, streets, and society at large?

I AM MOST SYMPATHETIC to the idea that the units used in EVERYDAY LIFE should also be used to teach science to SCHOOLCHILDREN. This seems like good pedagogical sense but it might best be achieved in some way that avoids imposing the engineer's preferred system on everybody. Or do you not think so Martin?

SPECIFICALLY WHICH UNITS are you talking about when you say "biggest obstacles to the relevance of science in a child's life is that units which are not part of everyday life are used." It might be good to be specific about these units which because not a part of everyday life are such big obstacles. It sounds as if you suggest that highway signs should be changed to kilometer because a child might someday see "kilometer" in a science book and be put off science because the unit was not familiar from everyday life. So one should change everyday life to support the reading of science books. Please say WHICH units you consider the worst obstacles. this deserves some more thought.

I did not and do not say that the proven decline in Maths ability of British schoolchildren is *caused* by our abandoning Imperial.

I merely *compared* the two facts - and it perhaps serves to illustrate that not all that is new is better.

It is modern teaching methods that I consider to 'blame' for the decline in Maths skills.

I can recall going to the shops in Derby for my mother when a young child (didn't seem to have paedophiles about in those days). Undoubtedly handling pounds, shillings and pence at an early stage helped my maths skills, even though it is asserted that these are well below those of the pro-metric poster on this thread*

* I have 'A' level Maths but for reasons of modesty will not state what class my two degrees are

quite possibly someone just got run through with a rapier but for reasons of modesty we will not say who

J Doe: Yes! The 11s and 12s are very esay as, afterall, all you are doing with the elevens is adding ones, and with the twelves, ones and twos:

12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, 96, 108, 120, 132, 144.

I love the way Imperial (and customary) accomodates almost all of the twelves, anyway:

12 inches in a foot
24 hours in a day
36 inches in a yard
48 lines in my (rather spectacular, I hope) inchial system.
60 inches in a pace
72 points to an inch
96 hours, if I recall, is the maximum you can be held by the police in this country (as opposed to forever, potentially, under the fascist Inquisitorial European style legal system)
And so on.

You can be detained in England and Wales by Police for a maximum period of 24 hours for all but the most serious charges.

However, this can be extended to a maximum of 96 hours on a Police application to a magistrate who, if memory serves, can extend that original 24 hours for either a further 12 or 24 hours i.e. you have to make a minimum of three applications to keep someone as long as 96 hours (very rare in practice).

The maximum period of possible detention without charge is 168 hours in the case of arrests for murder and serious terrorist offences.

In Scotland, the comparative period is 110 days.

I know of no specific time limit in other European countries, who have the ability to detain *during investigation* i.e. they don't have to charge someone publicly and don't therefore have to prove a prima facie case if challenged. The current arrest of the eight 'Globalise Resistance' protestors in Italy is a textbook example of continental justice - as was the Greek planespotters saga.

Put the above system (i.e. 'habeas corpus') together with jury trial, and you have the most effective barrier to state power ever devised on this planet.

But they are about to be removed.

How convenient that the much-vaunted (though not by me) European Court of Human Rights merely guarantees 'a fair trial within a reasonable period of time' [Article 6], saying nothing whatsoever about how long you can be detained before being produced in open Court, nor about jury trial. The loose definition in the ECHR is much more satisfactory for would-be dictators than keeping 'habeas corpus' and juries

Yes, I thought it was something like that. And, indeed, I am not a fan of human rights legislation, the EU, the Euro courts etc etc etc etc etc etc

I am totally opposed, btw, to the (potential) abolition of not only double jeopardy, but of juries in complex fraud cases- by abolishing juries in yet another place, you further cause the destruction of the single greatest means by which to defend our liberty.

96 hours, eh?

Over here, probable cause must be presented within 48. :)

To return to the original topic posted by Tony, no-one (with all due respects) seems to have noticed the obvious flaw in the allegation that Metrication/Decimal currency is responsible for poor maths.

For this to have any credibility the survey would need to compare the academic performance of non-metric educated countries with those that are metric.

Whatever the source of the Daily Mail report I doubt that was the issue being looked at.

Given the widespread teaching of metric and the fact that most currencies in the world are decimal (including the US), it is hardly reasonable to conclude that it underlies the poor results in the UK, if indeed they are that bad.

I have noticed that you frequently set up 'Aunt Sallies', only to shoot them down, which is dead easy.

Nowhere did I, or the 'Daily Mail' article, ever suggest that going over to decimal was the *cause* of a decline in maths ability.

All I was trying to do was to suggest that it is of more than passing interest that *parallel* with the introduction of the metric system has come a decline in maths ability.

For the record, I think the most likely reasons for a decline in maths ability include:

(a) modern teaching methods, which seem to be significantly less effective in teaching 'the three Rs' than previous ones

(b) a decline in the authority of the schoolteacher in the classroom, meaning that an increasing proportion of time is taken up with control and discipline issues rather than teaching, and

(c) the drift towards 'target-setting', league tables and preparation for the next OFSTED visit etc., all of which drain valuable teacher time away from, er, teaching.

I do also make the point that dealing with duodecimal systems of coinage and weights and measures was no barrier whatsoever to primary school maths ability and may well have enhanced it.

And if I am right about point (a), it shows that not everything 'modern' is necessarily 'better'

[ have noticed that you frequently set up 'Aunt Sallies', only to shoot them down, which is dead easy.

Nowhere did I, or the 'Daily Mail' article, ever suggest that going over to decimal was the *cause* of a decline in maths ability.

All I was trying to do was to suggest that it is of more than passing interest that *parallel* with the introduction of the metric system has come a decline in maths ability.]

I see.

Come off it Tony. The only reason you raised this entire issue was another subtle tactic to discredit the metric system and decimal currency. Why ask such a question on a forum like this, with your background?

Do you seriously expect us to believe that you were only concerned about general educational issues?

[For the record, I think the most likely reasons for a decline in maths ability include:

(a) modern teaching methods, which seem to be significantly less effective in teaching 'the three Rs' than previous ones

(b) a decline in the authority of the schoolteacher in the classroom, meaning that an increasing proportion of time is taken up with control and discipline issues rather than teaching, and

(c) the drift towards 'target-setting', league tables and preparation for the next OFSTED visit etc., all of which drain valuable teacher time away from, er, teaching.]

There was not even a hint of any of this in your original posting.

I can see I am wasting my time talking to the likes of you on this forum.

No More!!!

*quivers in fear* he's serious...

Anyone see "That'll teach 'em" on ch. ? The kids took a test that was an actual 11+ paper, and 19 failed and 13 passed. Tut tut tut.

I hear today that everyone who took 'A' levels has passed! - or nearly everyone anyway!

Some of the question papers appear easier than the 11-plus was 40 years ago.

Standards of education *are* in decline. Look at all those with University degrees working as supermarket checkout cashiers or warehousemen

Who says that papers are getting easier? Why shouldn't it be that students are getting brighter? It's like athletics; world records continue to get broken as athletes get fitter throughout decades. So therefore, why shouldn't students be getting brighter?

Richard,

Your agrument has a fundemental flaw - when looking at atheletes, we are only lookng at the best, when looking at exam resull we are looking at the population as a whole. To take the atheletes argument a little further, why is it that obesetiy is on the increase. This suggests to me that on average, the athletic performance of Britons is probably decreasing, not increasing

I don't like the way so many people claim that an improvement in results must mean a reduction in standards. This seems to suggest that, if the results improve it must be that the tests are easier, and couldn't possibly be that performances are better, as the people taking the exams:

(a) are young;
(b) are probably taking drugs; and
(c) have no respect.

This is the typical media spin. Anyway, rant over!

The reason for all the fuss was because Oxbridge had conplained.

Brian Woodhead (former head of OFSTED now Telegraph columnist) said:

A set of results where 20% of student get A grades is no good. They want to pick the best so they need the results to be around 5%.

Make of that what you will but for my money it smacks of elitism and denies the principle of equal opportunity.

Modern methods of assement are supposed to be criterian based. In other words grades are awarded according to a predetermined range of marks.

In the old days they were 'Norm referenced' in other words the pass mark and the grades awarded were decided after the marking had taken place so as to guarantee a prerequisit profile of results.

This meant there would always be a given percentage of passes and failures.

Under that scheme students were not only earning grades but competing for them.

Surley it's fairer and more important that they are rewarded according to individual achievement and the standard they have reached.

I saw an example today of declining mathematical ability: A 15-year-old boy trying to work out 160 x 2.

He looked puzzled and then completely blank for a minute. Then he got the notion of splitting the problem into two parts: 100 x 2 and 60 x 2. Unfortunately he decided that 60 x 2 = 160.

I tried asking him to multiply 16 by 2. His answer (after about 30 seconds) was 36.

It was only when I told him that 16 x 2 = 32 that he finally managed to come up with 320 for the original problem.

Where did you see this? Was it in a school?

It was at a local office where he was waiting to be picked up. He was trying to calculate the round-trip mileage for a journey of 160 mi. one way.