Maths and English

[Gordon Brown]

Anyone who has problems with poor spelling, punctuation and grammar had better steer well clear of the unofficial BMFA Facebook page. I swear that half the people who post on there have gibberish as their first language, I've just about given up on it as I cannot be bothered to fight my way through the tangled mess to try to determine the point of most of the posts. My sixteen year old son no longer even bothers to look at it, but there again he does have a T shirt bearing the message, "I am silently correcting your grammar..."

Edited By Gordon Brown on 16/02/2015 15:49:26

[Prop Nut]

Posted by Tony K on 16/02/2015 14:34:14:

Posted by Prop Nut on 16/02/2015 08:36:25:

Of course, the educational establishment will trot out the usual excuse for their failure to teach correctly by saying that English is a living language.

PN, can you point to a particular moment in time when the English in use was correct and any deviation before or after that date was not?

For example, until the eighteenth century it was correct to say "you was" as the singular verb and "you were" only as the plural (and the future subjunctive). Anyone using "you was" today would be considered uneducated. Who decided that the current illogical construction was correct and must be taught?

The fact that language changes over long periods of time is no excuse for what is generally considered to be poor grammar at a given time, otherwise it would be unteachable. The whole point of language for communication is that it is standardised, or you end up with dozens of different dialects, each incomprehensible to all but a few, as in some third-world countries. My grandfather, born in 1884, considered 'you was' to be incorrect; 130 years later, it is still considered incorrect. That's a long time-frame.

[PatMc]

Posted by kc on 16/02/2015 15:32:36:

Shouldn't the Moderators circle all spelling errors in red!

Before or after they've posted them ?

[Prop Nut]

Posted by Andy48 on 16/02/2015 10:17:45:

Posted by Prop Nut on 16/02/2015 08:36:25:

Of course, the educational establishment will trot out the usual excuse for their failure to teach correctly by saying that English is a living language.

Yawn. Education starts and stops with school does it? Poor English on the part of parents and the community has absolutely no effect on a child's command of English? Whatever happened to the concept of lifelong learning?

Learning should be lifelong, but basic grammar is a building block to literacy in the same way as mental arithmetic is to numeracy, to be taught in the early days of education by teachers and parents. Many avid readers in adult life are still poor spellers because they do not look at the words they are reading with an intention to educate themselves better. I must admit I always thought of schools as maintaining educational standards but, from what you say, it seems that they play only an incidental part and it's really down to parents and wider society to do so.

[Erfolg]

Without in anyway being a clairvoyant, I know that this thread wil run and run.

It does seem that we do mix various aspects of the educational system.

I do believe and have good reason to have some faith in that believe, that the standard of both what were the GCE and "A" level maths have fallen dramatically. A bit of hyperbole, although they certainly have fallen.

What is generally forgotten, is that generally, only a select group took these exams in the past. Also the number of subjects taken were not as many at "O" level.

I then reflect upon the fact that the majority of schoolchildren left school at 15. For many who went into engineering, then a major sector of the economy, a long slog of further education, lay in front of them. Taking entry level studies, then ONC, followed by HNC, for some finally a Degree. Often an ordinary degree, not with honours. Only the most determined and talented would reach Ph.D.. What many younger people today will not comprehend, that this process was like a steeple chase, every hurdle was to be cleared cleanly, if not you could move onto the next stage and failure represented the end of your studies, Very much an elimination race, also a race against age. Again we should acknowledge that for about 70% of the school age population were written of at the age of 11. That so many did succeed confirms to me that the majority of all the people were underrated and failed by the then system.

I would be surprised that if any from this era, do not support the concept that all individuals should be helped to achieve there full potential. Yet the system may be better in that more do get the opportunity to take exams, which provide some validation to the individual that they have some abilities. I think there has been some improvement for the majority, although the 10% of very bright people are not properly catered for. Then we have a problem with some educationalist and certain political groups, who see parents who want the best for their children and are prepared to do something about it, as being pushy, needing to put in their place. The concept seems to be that some children have an advantage due to their birth, and should be penalised by not valuing their achievements as some others or handicapped to reduce their lives chances. Would we be so accepting of deciding that Usain Bolt, should be required to run further andt hen time added to the point they crossed the finish line, because he inately performed better.

There have been many other changes, which are related primarily to technology, those that I am aware off are surds and log tables, where the use of calculators has negated the benefits from these processes.

Again a bias that I have, is that the roots of our language are to me of academic interest only, what matters, is the ability of us all to effectively communicate. Language at the end of the day is primarily not a academic process, its purpose is for all to be able to communicate effectively. Any grammatical constructs that are justified as being a purer form, when not commonly used and all the other reasons trotted out, do not recognise that language is there for communication. I have no problem if common usage has simplified grammar and punctuation. I do have an issue with the apparent trends of todays youth to adopt forms of grammar, that are deliberately imprecise, or do not make sense, without knowing what they are meant to convey because they think it is clever and marks themselves from us old ones. In my opinion they are as bad for similar reasons of the traditionalist.

I had a rude awakening as to how far we have come today. I was delivering BMFA certificates to club members. my sat nav did not recognise the post code I had, i roughly knew where the member lived. I stopped my car to ask a young man for directions, to a Stokoe Lane, it was apparent he could not read, as we stood a mere 100 yards from the road, whilst a perplexed look crossed his face as he looked at the envelop. It seems there is a long way to go. Particularly as I believe that probably 95% of the population can be taught to read over a life time.

Edited By Erfolg on 16/02/2015 16:06:41

[Andy48]

Posted by Prop Nut on 16/02/2015 16:05:17:

I must admit I always thought of schools as maintaining educational standards but, from what you say, it seems that they play only an incidental part and it's really down to parents and wider society to do so.

Schools work to the standards laid down in law, usually by politicians (e.g. it was a government minister who, clearly without any mathematical understanding, decided children should now learn the 12x tables and not just up to the logical 10x tables.)

As far as grammar is concerned, most grammar is learned through the spoken word before a child starts school. Simply telling a child it should be "we were" and not "we was" does not easily change that early learning experience, especially when "we was" continues to be reinforced at home and in their local community.

Perhaps also you need to consider the fact that in the 7 years of statutory education in primary, only 15% of their time is spent in school. During those 7000 hours spent in a primary classroom 13 separate subjects have to be studied. Yes parents and the wider society have their role in the process too.

Finally you seem to fall into that dreadful trap of assuming that children are like sponges, soaking up word for word every morsel of information that is imparted to them in school, with perfect understanding and lifelong recall.

[Andy48]

There have been many other changes, which are related primarily to technology, those that I am aware off are surds and log tables, where the use of calculators has negated the benefits from these processes.

Surds are still taught in "A" level maths.

[kc]

Clearly the minister only needed common sense to realise that 12 times table is still important. Everyone needs to know 12 times table because there are 12 months in a year and much of the world still uses feet and inches!

[Erfolg]

I guess that there is some reason as to why surds are still taught. In the distant past, it was easy to understand why, as a method which simplified many expressions without recourse to the convoluted use of log tables.

This has just jolted the memory that sine tables etc are no longer necessary.

Learning the 12 times table is not such an unbelievably onerous chore. I guess whilst we (particularly builders)still measure some distances in inches, there is some justification.

Perhaps my biggest regret is that history seems to have dropped of the curriculum for all. When it is taught, often a politically correct perspective is taught, rather than a UK centric viewpoint, then a look at the world can be examined. Particularly now that the UK is closer politically than ever to the European nations.

I do agree with the observation that you never stop your education, the problem I have with age is that I have forgotten so much. The other issue, is that I can but observe that the same things are trotted out as the solution, time and time again. When something has not worked previously older observers often note, that it is unlikely to be different this time.

[Pete B]

Posted by PatMc on 16/02/2015 15:46:13:

Posted by kc on 16/02/2015 15:32:36:

Shouldn't the Moderators circle all spelling errors in red!

Before or after they've posted them ?

'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone' is a phrase that comes to mind......

Pete

[Andy48]

Ooooh! I'd forgotten 12 months in a year,

..and quite right, we must not forget the huge number of countries, well 3 actually, which still use the imperial system, Liberia, Myanmar, and of course the United States.

On reflection though, should we not at least go to 13 (months in a lunar year) or 20 times or perhaps even the 60 times table? The latter two are very ancient number systems, indeed the French still use quatre-vingts for 80, or 4 twenties.

[kc]

The astounding thing is that in an era when most children left school at 15 or maybe 16, people were better educated in those 10 or 11 years than the current generation is by staying on until 17 or more! Obviously education was more effective in the 1950's & 60's. . It's clearly not the equipment or availability of information that has changed but the standard of teaching, or to be more exact the ability of teachers to maintain discipline so that they can teach.

[kc]

Actually Andy we also use feet and inches in England so that makes at least 4. Or 6 if you count Scotland and Wales too.

[Andy48]

Posted by Erfolg on 16/02/2015 17:19:01:

Learning the 12 times table is not such an unbelievably onerous chore. I guess whilst we (particularly builders)still measure some distances in inches, there is some justification.

Perhaps my biggest regret is that history seems to have dropped of the curriculum for all. When it is taught, often a politically correct perspective is taught, rather than a UK centric viewpoint, then a look at the world can be examined. Particularly now that the UK is closer politically than ever to the European nations.

Actually the 12 times table adds nearly 50% more numbers to learn. If you'd ever tried teaching classes of kids their tables you will realise just how difficult it actually is. Its far more than just chanting through them. Children have to know them with almost instant recall in different forms, not just 7x8= but how many 8s in 56 or how many 7s in 56.

History has not dropped off the curriculum, it has always been there and still is. Again however the content of the curriculum has been at the whim of the education minister in power. Indeed Kenneth Clark decided that history should end at the end of the 2nd world war, and he also made the subject optional from the age of 14. More recently our wonderful friend Gove (of 12x fame) had his finger in this pie too.

[Andy48]

Posted by kc on 16/02/2015 17:28:32:

The astounding thing is that in an era when most children left school at 15 or maybe 16, people were better educated in those 10 or 11 years than the current generation is by staying on until 17 or more! Obviously education was more effective in the 1950's & 60's. . It's clearly not the equipment or availability of information that has changed but the standard of teaching, or to be more exact the ability of teachers to maintain discipline so that they can teach.

 

Obviously education was more effective in the 50's and 60's . You must be joking!

I don't suppose you have anything but anecdotal evidence and rose tinted glasses to back this up do you?

How much first hand experience do you have of teaching standards over the last 40 years?

Edited By Andy48 on 16/02/2015 17:52:05

[Andy48]

Posted by kc on 16/02/2015 17:31:25:

Actually Andy we also use feet and inches in England so that makes at least 4. Or 6 if you count Scotland and Wales too.

Not formally.

The factory I worked in 45 years ago was fully metric then.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

In the UK the official definition of the inch is,......25.4mm. Ultimately your beloved feet and inches are based on a metric standard. Given that I'd seriously question that the UK is a country truly based on Imperial units.

BEB

PS The definition is the same in the US - so I'd express the same doubt with respect to them. I can't speak for Liberia and Myanmar

[PatMc]

Posted by Erfolg on 16/02/2015 16:05:33:

I had a rude awakening as to how far we have come today. I was delivering BMFA certificates to club members. my sat nav did not recognise the post code I had, i roughly knew where the member lived. I stopped my car to ask a young man for directions, to a Stokoe Lane, it was apparent he could not read, as we stood a mere 100 yards from the road, whilst a perplexed look crossed his face as he looked at the envelop.

Perhaps you should have asked him where the nearest post box was.

[kc]

I think the official measure of an inch is defined by some standard 'ruler' held somewhere, possibly Teddington. It just happens to be 25.4 mm it is not based on that. If memory serves me then the standard inch is also defined at a certain degree fahrenheit too.

I have news for Andy - the inch is still widely used in every town - especially in aeromodelling.

I knew that someone would question my statement that education was more effective in the 1950's & 60's. Well I say just ask any group of pensioners to do some mental arithmetic and spelling , & then ask any group of 17 year olds and a group of university students. For example ask them all to do the puzzles on tomorrows Channel4 Countdown programme .......even give them far more time, but of course no electronic aids. See if youngsters can match pensioners!

One can only judge teaching standards by the results - hardly anyone left school in the 1950's  without being able to read.  Most schoolleavers were able to fulfil employers requirements which is apparently not the case today.  People aged 60 or more can beat youngsters at mental arithmetic etc etc.  It's not that teachers were necessarily better then but they kept order in class and that enabled everybody to learn.  Teachers were respected,  nobody dared be rude to a teacher or severe punishment followed.   Frankly teachers should have insisted on retaining the right to cane pupils.

Edited By kc on 16/02/2015 19:56:54

[Wilco Wingco]

As an ex-teacher in the 70s, Biology and Physics to A level, which I gave up due to financial difficulties, allow me to comment. I worked as a laborer and earned twice the salary I did teaching. From this I trained in I.T. And on taking early retirement from that industry, after working in both public and private sectors, I returned to working in a large comprehensive school in a support role.

Yes education was more rigorous and focused in the “old” days. I attended a Secondary Modern and all pupils were educated to the limit of their capabilities. There was no one size fits all but a planned scheme of work to fit their needs and enable them to take their place in society.

Which included maths and English. All this talk of apprenticeships like it is some new magic elixir. Well it's not it's called common sense and was the mainstay of our work force way back. We NEED skilled people not imports from abroad. We need brickies, carpenters, electricians, engineers etc. but all this talk of university has meant that people totally unsuitable for the academic life have gone on to take totally worthless degrees and leave university with a mountain of debt and no job. Why ?. Because they have been “trained” for jobs that we don't need or may not exist. A good tradesman can earn as much as a graduate and their skills will always be needed. Why do we look down on such skills and import cheep foreign labor?.

Sorry to go on but these young people are our only renewable resource and we owe it to them to do the best for them we can. After all they will be paying our pension.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Depressing thread....but not to worry a bunch of highly educated individuals are about to sort it all out..they just need your vote first. Your grandkids must love to visit. My kids/grandkids i'm proud of them, I think our teachers did o.k. with them...maybe it's my tinted glasses

John

[Chuck Plains]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 15/02/2015 23:28:42:

I went into a pub a few months ago - the sign said "Kiddies Pop" - so I asked "Do they?" The landlord did not share my sense of humour!

BEB

ROFLMAO!!!

[Chuck Plains]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 16/02/2015 10:55:36:

Quite right! Bad apostrophes bug me too!

I've never been formally taught this, but I think I am correct in suggesting that there is one situation in which you can use an apostrophe for a non-possessive plural: when not to do so would produce ambiguity. This is usually only the case for plurals of non-words, for example: "There are not enough A's in my scrabble set!"...

I think your thinking is correct TWS. I'll just have to re-read my copy of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" by Lynne Truss. She wrote an entire chapter about the apostrophe.

Edited By Chuck Plains on 16/02/2015 20:47:51

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 16/02/2015 18:05:39:

In the UK the official definition of the inch is,......25.4mm. Ultimately your beloved feet and inches are based on a metric standard. Given that I'd seriously question that the UK is a country truly based on Imperial units.

BEB

PS The definition is the same in the US - so I'd express the same doubt with respect to them. I can't speak for Liberia and Myanmar

That definition was created in 1959, the inch as a measure pre-dates the metric system by a couple of years

From Saxon times the inch was defined as "three grains of sound ripe barley being taken out the middle of the ear, well dried, and laid end to end in a row"

Imperial measures were defined against subjective values as they came into use prior to modern science (ie the acre being how much a man could plough in a day) while the metric linear system was derived as diminutives of the eather circumerence in the 1790's

[Andy48]

Posted by kc on 16/02/2015 19:35:15:

I think the official measure of an inch is defined by some standard 'ruler' held somewhere, possibly Teddington. It just happens to be 25.4 mm it is not based on that. If memory serves me then the standard inch is also defined at a certain degree fahrenheit too.

I have news for Andy - the inch is still widely used in every town - especially in aeromodelling.

I knew that someone would question my statement that education was more effective in the 1950's & 60's. Well I say just ask any group of pensioners to do some mental arithmetic and spelling , & then ask any group of 17 year olds and a group of university students. For example ask them all to do the puzzles on tomorrows Channel4 Countdown programme .......even give them far more time, but of course no electronic aids. See if youngsters can match pensioners!

One can only judge teaching standards by the results - hardly anyone left school in the 1950's without being able to read. Most schoolleavers were able to fulfil employers requirements which is apparently not the case today. People aged 60 or more can beat youngsters at mental arithmetic etc etc. It's not that teachers were necessarily better then but they kept order in class and that enabled everybody to learn. Teachers were respected, nobody dared be rude to a teacher or severe punishment followed. Frankly teachers should have insisted on retaining the right to cane pupils.

Edited By kc on 16/02/2015 19:56:54

Who cares what a few modellers use to measure in? As for the standard inch.... In 1930 it was defined to be exactly 2.54mm, there is no standard ruler any more. There is a standard metre though. No standard ruler here either. From 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

You judge the effectiveness of schooling based on mental arithmetic? Gee! Pensioners have had a further 50+ years to practice their spelling and mental arithmetic. As I said above it is simply laughable to assume learning ends at the school gate and at 16. In any case, secondary maths and "A" level maths is based very little on mental arithmetic, and skills learned at primary become quite rusty by the age of 17 or 18. Indeed it was no different in my day. I had holiday jobs in a large shop and I remember struggling with basic mental arithmetic. Over the course of the summer it came back though as it would with modern teenagers.

"Hardly anyone left school in the 50s not being able to read." While I would question that statement, (not backed up by any evidence other than the rose tinted spectacles), hardly anyone leaves school today not being able to read. Today we have far more rigorous standards for what is expected in English, figures which the politicians love to manipulate to their own nefarious ends to make it appear that millions leave school illiterate.

As for teachers and respect. That is a change in SOCIETY. Many children today have very little respect for anybody, be it their parents, teachers, or even the police. Caning pupils does not instil respect, though it may instil fear.