Teachers of P&B

[mathematics]

7 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Edit- you need a higher B in English to join a primary school teacher undergrad but just need a pass at Nat 5 for maths, how that’s encouraging those good at maths to spread their knowledge and understanding to the next generation?

This gets raised a lot. The question to ask here is “how will a knowledge of Pythagoras help a primary school teacher”? 
 

Now, I agree that the “I can’t do maths, lol” crowd are fucking infuriating, and many [primary] teachers are in this bracket, but I’m not convinced that having a Higher Maths qualification makes primary teachers any better at teaching concepts like arithmetic, times tables, natural powers and such.

Rote learning seems to be the devil these days, but I see a place for it in the early years alongside time taken for understanding what’s going on.

Maybe if (a) parents took more time with their kids and stopped blaming teachers, (b) teachers were paid a decent wage to attract more intelligent candidates, and (c) the government(s) would stop fucking about with the system then we’d be in a better place.

 

[mathematics]

I recognise that my point (b) may be controversial.

[Hedgecutter]

26 minutes ago, mathematics said:

I recognise that my point (b) may be controversial.

FWIW, and almost certainly unfairly, I still hear the line "Those that fail, teach" banded around on occasion.

Not my words, but clearly an underlying perception.

 

Eta: that and a few people thinking of it as a 'fall back career'.  I have to confess having considered that for my own future should my line of work dry up (half my family seem to be teachers, one family of which are all geography ones).  However, having worked with teenagers as a Scout leader for a few years, I can safely say there's now no chance of that happening (I'd like to stress that's entirely through my own choice, nothing to do with the  Disclosure process ). 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Hedgecutter

[parsforlife]

40 minutes ago, mathematics said:

This gets raised a lot. The question to ask here is “how will a knowledge of Pythagoras help a primary school teacher”? 
 

Now, I agree that the “I can’t do maths, lol” crowd are fucking infuriating, and many [primary] teachers are in this bracket, but I’m not convinced that having a Higher Maths qualification makes primary teachers any better at teaching concepts like arithmetic, times tables, natural powers and such.

 

I do agree to an extent, my point would be more about the disparity between the subjects and how that can lead to an imbalance of who you attract into teaching 

[mathematics]

2 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

I do agree to an extent, my point would be more about the disparity between the subjects and how that can lead to an imbalance of who you attract into teaching 

Problem is that you can’t compare the two. They’re so vastly different and assess different skills in different ways.

 

[mathematics]

28 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said:

FWIW, and almost certainly unfairly, I still hear the line "Those that fail, teach" banded around on occasion.

Not my words, but clearly an underlying perception.

It’s definitely true that some people see it as a fall back career. Many of these people don’t last a year.

[jimbaxters]

21 minutes ago, mathematics said:

It’s definitely true that some people see it as a fall back career. Many of these people don’t last a year.

Correct. The International school circuit has a massive amount of flotsam in it. If you are serious about teaching then it consumes you as it's not just the subject matter but all the pastoral care that goes with it. Those who are not fully engaged with the vocation get found out very quickly but unfortunately move on to another school/country rather than admitting it's not for them.

[RH33]

9 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Feel both points,  the ‘maths is hard lol’ rhetoric is ingrained in our culture, it goes beyond primary teachers, I can’t remember the exact study but when you look at 99% of our news reporters, tv hosts etc little have a background in maths/science and most underperformed against their peers.

Edit- you need a higher B in English to join a primary school teacher undergrad but just need a pass at Nat 5 for maths, how that’s encouraging those good at maths to spread their knowledge and understanding to the next generation?

On sets, and we are going back to where we were supposedly doing well, I moved back from being in the English system(and performing fairly well) they saw I had some learning difficulties and I was basically written off in the backwards mindset of being the dumb kid and chucked in all bottom sets.  Nobody bothered their arse to look at previous performances and it took months of me proving how easy it was (I remember one lesson after being severely bored out my pus being given a series of exercises that we we’re expected to complete 5 questions or so, and to attempt the next 5 if we had time, I did all 10 within minutes and got the whole you can’t be done yet questioning before my work was checked and proved correct)

I was fortunate that said teacher was the head of department and could take more action than some(even if it was still slow as f**k) and also I had parents who would fight my corner hard,  resulting in me also by that age also knowing how to hold my own, many don’t have that

I kinda agree with the concept of sets tho, where they are appropriately selected they work much better than general classes where you work to the pace of the slowest individual, but you really need to work hard to make sure sets are appropriately selected and allow for easy adjustments where appropriate.

Tiny point, it was credit maths so whatever it is now. My friend went back five years ago and had to do a year upgrading her maths from a three.

English is more of a indicator of ability to write at university level than primary teaching itself. 

My middle child started high school and they were streamed by September. Another school is streaming now and my friends daughter been bored senseless for weeks.

[Thane of Cawdor]

13 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

FWIW, and almost certainly unfairly, I still hear the line "Those that fail, teach" banded around on occasion.

Not my words, but clearly an underlying perception.

Where are the English teachers pointing out that the word is "bandied" rather than "banded"?*

 

I'm not one.

[jimbaxters]

8 hours ago, Thane of Cawdor said:

Where are the English teachers pointing out that the word is "bandied" rather than "banded"?*

 

I'm not one.

English teachers are just as bad. I had an argument with one about her use of the word "draw" instead of "drawer" in an email.

[hk blues]

2 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

English teachers are just as bad. I had an argument with one about her use of the word "draw" instead of "drawer" in an email.

A drawer is a person who draws, right?

[Salvo Montalbano]

35 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

English teachers are just as bad. I had an argument with one about her use of the word "draw" instead of "drawer" in an email.

English teacher as in teacher from England, or teacher of English? 

[jimbaxters]

2 hours ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

English teacher as in teacher from England, or teacher of English? 

Both! I was raging. An utter fraud.

[sugna]

On 06/12/2023 at 08:39, mathematics said:

Rote learning seems to be the devil these days, but I see a place for it in the early years alongside time taken for understanding what’s going on.

In so many spheres, for example sports skill acquisition and languages, everyone accepts that immersion and repetition have roles to play; but rote learning in arithmetic and maths is vilified.

Being "very comfortable with numbers" (numerate++) removes barriers from tackling exercises in calculus, trig and anything involving algebra: just having the confidence to throw terms around, see factors (for example, when factirorizing to find roots), and sanity-check solutions and intermediate steps.

At the end of 5th year, before the school-year end, our cohort moved classroom and teacher to begin (we supposed) our CSYS maths syllabus. But for the next 3 weeks, all we did was solve sheets of much harder algebra problems. Our teacher's view was that most people could make it through Higher maths without being slick at the tools of the trade; but proper maths needed more fluency.

I don't think there was anyone in that group who didn't manage a "good A" at higher; yet only one person (not me) really owned the pre-CSYS sheets.

Not everyone who is really good at maths has to be good at arithmetic, but I suspect there's a fairly high correlation; and algebra is needed for almost all "other" maths, and for science and engineering in turn.

There is a disturbing new trend for educated people to whine on the side that used to be the province of the proudly anti-educational: advocating not teaching anything that is not immediately applicable to all in everyday life. A lecturer friend made me spit out my beer by calling this (after a shared experience, in discussion with another friend) "faux Utilitarianism". I actually said to him, "My team: Patrick Thistle".

The general concept always reminds me of the maths teacher being asked in class, "An I ever going to use any of this stuff?"; and the teacher replying, "Probably not, but some of the smarter kids might."

Tl;dr

I feel quite strongly that both rote and abstract reasoning are important tools for progressing with anything that involves maths; and I feel that associating the study of maths with only (or primarily) immediate utility is limiting and damaging.

Stl;sdr

Stay in school, kids, and do the hard sums.

[mathematics]

18 minutes ago, sugna said:

In so many spheres, for example sports skill acquisition and languages, everyone accepts that immersion and repetition have roles to play; but rote learning in arithmetic and maths is vilified.

Being "very comfortable with numbers" (numerate++) removes barriers from tackling exercises in calculus, trig and anything involving algebra: just having the confidence to throw terms around, see factors (for example, when factirorizing to find roots), and sanity-check solutions and intermediate steps.

At the end of 5th year, before the school-year end, our cohort moved classroom and teacher to begin (we supposed) our CSYS maths syllabus. But for the next 3 weeks, all we did was solve sheets of much harder algebra problems. Our teacher's view was that most people could make it through Higher maths without being slick at the tools of the trade; but proper maths needed more fluency.

I don't think there was anyone in that group who didn't manage a "good A" at higher; yet only one person (not me) really owned the pre-CSYS sheets.

Not everyone who is really good at maths has to be good at arithmetic, but I suspect there's a fairly high correlation; and algebra is needed for almost all "other" maths, and for science and engineering in turn.

There is a disturbing new trend for educated people to whine on the side that used to be the province of the proudly anti-educational: advocating not teaching anything that is not immediately applicable to all in everyday life. A lecturer friend made me spit out my beer by calling this (after a shared experience, in discussion with another friend) "faux Utilitarianism". I actually said to him, "My team: Patrick Thistle".

The general concept always reminds me of the maths teacher being asked in class, "An I ever going to use any of this stuff?"; and the teacher replying, "Probably not, but some of the smarter kids might."

Tl;dr

I feel quite strongly that both rote and abstract reasoning are important tools for progressing with anything that involves maths; and I feel that associating the study of maths with only (or primarily) immediate utility is limiting and damaging.

Stl;sdr

Stay in school, kids, and do the hard sums.

That’s it, I’m putting you in my Good Guy book.

[VincentGuerin]

My work had a previous policy of taking people who were really good at a certain role and making them trainers. The assumption being that because they were good at something, they'd be good at making other people good at it.

This proved incorrect.

I think people often make the same error with teachers. Especially at primary level. I don't think being some kind of maths expert is particularly valuable. More valuable is the ability to look at a material and know how to present it and how to make it accessible for an audience of yooof.

The materials should obviously be produced and guided by people who are experts in the subject, but the actual delivery does not require that. In the same way as the workshops I attend at work are more valuable when delivered by someone who is good at actually helping people learn stuff, rather than someone lacking those skills but who is an expert in the topic. I think a lot of the talk around qualification specialities for teachers at that level is misguided.

It's like fitba. You can be a great player and a shite coach, or vice versa.

[Miguel Sanchez]

1 hour ago, sugna said:

In so many spheres, for example sports skill acquisition and languages, everyone accepts that immersion and repetition have roles to play; but rote learning in arithmetic and maths is vilified.

Being "very comfortable with numbers" (numerate++) removes barriers from tackling exercises in calculus, trig and anything involving algebra: just having the confidence to throw terms around, see factors (for example, when factirorizing to find roots), and sanity-check solutions and intermediate steps.

At the end of 5th year, before the school-year end, our cohort moved classroom and teacher to begin (we supposed) our CSYS maths syllabus. But for the next 3 weeks, all we did was solve sheets of much harder algebra problems. Our teacher's view was that most people could make it through Higher maths without being slick at the tools of the trade; but proper maths needed more fluency.

I don't think there was anyone in that group who didn't manage a "good A" at higher; yet only one person (not me) really owned the pre-CSYS sheets.

Not everyone who is really good at maths has to be good at arithmetic, but I suspect there's a fairly high correlation; and algebra is needed for almost all "other" maths, and for science and engineering in turn.

There is a disturbing new trend for educated people to whine on the side that used to be the province of the proudly anti-educational: advocating not teaching anything that is not immediately applicable to all in everyday life. A lecturer friend made me spit out my beer by calling this (after a shared experience, in discussion with another friend) "faux Utilitarianism". I actually said to him, "My team: Patrick Thistle".

The general concept always reminds me of the maths teacher being asked in class, "An I ever going to use any of this stuff?"; and the teacher replying, "Probably not, but some of the smarter kids might."

Tl;dr

I feel quite strongly that both rote and abstract reasoning are important tools for progressing with anything that involves maths; and I feel that associating the study of maths with only (or primarily) immediate utility is limiting and damaging.

Stl;sdr

Stay in school, kids, and do the hard sums.

This is very very funny.

[hk blues]

21 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

My work had a previous policy of taking people who were really good at a certain role and making them trainers. The assumption being that because they were good at something, they'd be good at making other people good at it.

This proved incorrect.

I think people often make the same error with teachers. Especially at primary level. I don't think being some kind of maths expert is particularly valuable. More valuable is the ability to look at a material and know how to present it and how to make it accessible for an audience of yooof.

The materials should obviously be produced and guided by people who are experts in the subject, but the actual delivery does not require that. In the same way as the workshops I attend at work are more valuable when delivered by someone who is good at actually helping people learn stuff, rather than someone lacking those skills but who is an expert in the topic. I think a lot of the talk around qualification specialities for teachers at that level is misguided.

It's like fitba. You can be a great player and a shite coach, or vice versa.

I agree with you to some extent, but not entirely. I don't think that someone simply having excellent skills in teaching/training is sufficient and/or ideal.  Rather, the ideal is someone who is both knowledgeable in the topic and a good trainer.  A lack of either will translate into a poor session. Obviously, this would depend on what type/level of training we're talking but if the trainer can't go "off piste" and/or answer questions on the topic then they're f****d.

If you were talking purely about material preparation then I'm with you.  

[scottsdad]

On one of my courses, there is maths in it. Not overly difficult stuff - the hardest individual bit (working out the tensile and compressive forces of a loaded beam) use multiplication. Just lots of it and a lot of work around units. 

I have had students in the past who come to class and on day 1 inform me that they cannot do maths. At All. Literally put their pens and pencils down and refuse to even try the most basic ones. I think its a confidence thing from school. 

The first sum I get them to do is work out the area of a rectangle. Some have even refused to try that. 

[ICTChris]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-68317126

Any P&B teachers been assaulted at school recently?

I know a few teachers and their perception is that behaviour has got significantly worse in the last couple of years, since the pandemic really.  Pupils with mental health problems also seems an increasing issue.