|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 4, 2023 12:42:53 GMT
It was just the other day when we were having a maths lesson over in the mind zone, as some fierce opposition developed because someone was having trouble with a Poincaré group, that over in another land called Westminster, a man called Rishi was devising plans to fix the trouble.
From now on all proles will be taught maths until they are 18.
This is Rishi's big idea, as opposed to what he is often accused of in simply managing Westminster. He's going to leave his mark on Blighty, and yes it will add up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 5, 2023 1:13:32 GMT
I can tell maths is is really popular on here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2023 2:31:39 GMT
Making everyone study maths until they are 18 is a ludicrous one size fits all policy.
Everyone is different. Some people will be great at maths. Others will be rubbish at it but might be good at English or Art. We should be playing to an individual's strengths to maximise their potential. If their strengths include maths then great. If not, focus on maximising their potential in what they are good at. A nation of excellent specialists is preferable to one of average all rounders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 5, 2023 6:36:16 GMT
I can tell maths is is really popular on here. It may not be the maths that's unpopular. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 5, 2023 11:58:29 GMT
Making everyone study maths until they are 18 is a ludicrous one size fits all policy. Everyone is different. Some people will be great at maths. Others will be rubbish at it but might be good at English or Art. We should be playing to an individual's strengths to maximise their potential. If their strengths include maths then great. If not, focus on maximising their potential in what they are good at. A nation of excellent specialists is preferable to one of average all rounders. I think what is going to happen is they will teach by the the age of 18 what children of my generation were taught to the age of 16. You say we don't all need to know maths, but what of the stupid cow the other day on the BBC who had a debt problem and did not understand the meaning of 700% interest charges.
You see because we are a nation of thickos, dodgy dealers take advantage and will con you left right and centre, and get away with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 5, 2023 12:07:45 GMT
Making everyone study maths until they are 18 is a ludicrous one size fits all policy. Everyone is different. Some people will be great at maths. Others will be rubbish at it but might be good at English or Art. We should be playing to an individual's strengths to maximise their potential. If their strengths include maths then great. If not, focus on maximising their potential in what they are good at. A nation of excellent specialists is preferable to one of average all rounders. I think what is going to happen is they will teach by the the age of 18 what children of my generation were taught to the age of 16. You say we don't all need to know maths, but what of the stupid cow the other day on the BBC who had a debt problem and did not understand the meaning of 700% interest charges.
You see because we are a nation of thickos, dodgy dealers take advantage and will con you left right and centre, and get away with it.
I agree with you there . I don’t think he expects every 18 year old to get a maths A level. It seems he merely want everyone to study maths up to 18 years old . That may mean more young people being able to master simple arithmetic. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 5, 2023 12:08:17 GMT
Making everyone study maths until they are 18 is a ludicrous one size fits all policy. Everyone is different. Some people will be great at maths. Others will be rubbish at it but might be good at English or Art. We should be playing to an individual's strengths to maximise their potential. If their strengths include maths then great. If not, focus on maximising their potential in what they are good at. A nation of excellent specialists is preferable to one of average all rounders. I was surprised to see you pretty much thinking along the same lines as myself. Without meaning to start an argument It seems to me that you do not take the same depth of thinking when it comes to politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 5, 2023 12:20:31 GMT
Making everyone study maths until they are 18 is a ludicrous one size fits all policy. Everyone is different. Some people will be great at maths. Others will be rubbish at it but might be good at English or Art. We should be playing to an individual's strengths to maximise their potential. If their strengths include maths then great. If not, focus on maximising their potential in what they are good at. A nation of excellent specialists is preferable to one of average all rounders. I was surprised to see you pretty much thinking along the same lines as myself. Without meaning to start an argument It seems to me that you do not take the same depth of thinking when it comes to politics. It will all take a long time for people to agree on a positive motion. Negativity is the easiest way in Blighty to curry agreement. Say a government idea is "ludicrous" is a sure way indeed.
There is a lot of it about in school. Many proles and even governments, public broadcasters and educationalists want more sport(games) in school, so schools themselves become more ludicrous.
Maths is not ludicrous per se.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 5, 2023 12:42:23 GMT
Making everyone study maths until they are 18 is a ludicrous one size fits all policy. Everyone is different. Some people will be great at maths. Others will be rubbish at it but might be good at English or Art. We should be playing to an individual's strengths to maximise their potential. If their strengths include maths then great. If not, focus on maximising their potential in what they are good at. A nation of excellent specialists is preferable to one of average all rounders. Don’t you think literacy and numeracy are of equal importance when starting out in life in this modern world? It’s the teaching of these subjects that needs to be kept under review. It’s worrying that anywhere between 5% and 10% of UK adults are estimated to be functionally illiterate and innumerate… |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 5, 2023 12:59:57 GMT
Making everyone study maths until they are 18 is a ludicrous one size fits all policy. Everyone is different. Some people will be great at maths. Others will be rubbish at it but might be good at English or Art. We should be playing to an individual's strengths to maximise their potential. If their strengths include maths then great. If not, focus on maximising their potential in what they are good at. A nation of excellent specialists is preferable to one of average all rounders. Don’t you think literacy and numeracy are of equal importance when starting out in life in this modern world? It’s the teaching of these subjects that needs to be kept under review. It’s worrying that anywhere between 5% and 10% of UK adults are estimated to be functionally illiterate and innumerate… So if we look at the motive here, rather than this one tiny policy, it does seem to me that the motive is to educate rather than to parent the child with games and amusement.
There was a funny comment on Youtube the other day. It was a chap who claimed he was a professional recruitment person and the subject was on how to write the perfect CV. He confused the word specially with especially. It goes to show that good grammar and spelling on a CV in the real world is not as important as it once was. How sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Jan 5, 2023 15:16:18 GMT
When i was in secondary school i got two percent in a maths test, the teacher said that i had at least got my name right. Once, when he introduced a new maths thing on the blackboard, he came round everyone to help. He looked at me and said that we can agree that i could not do it. I agreed. He might as well have been talking Kling on. By twenty i was calculating dosages in the NHS and went to Uni.
My personality type is rear loaded, the vast potential of my type needs unlocking, and that as time passes, it manifests, if it does at all. I weep for those that go through life stuck. Stuck with the conclusions they come too about themselves that is totally wrong.
We are introverts, but bloom in late years, getting younger. We think in esoteric abstract terms. Maths is for those that it fits, certainly at that age. No sane teacher would teach me maths at 15. I did a bit of maths in later years and can understand how incredible it can be. My type is like deanna troy in star trek, psychology, etc.. Intuition is our strength. Teaching is about understanding who it is your teaching. If your arsed. I did that too. Incredible to think where i started, as an acknowledged dunce. Left school at 16, teaching by 23.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2023 15:38:07 GMT
It was just the other day when we were having a maths lesson over in the mind zone, as some fierce opposition developed because someone was having trouble with a Poincaré group, that over in another land called Westminster, a man called Rishi was devising plans to fix the trouble.
From now on all proles will be taught maths until they are 18.
This is Rishi's big idea, as opposed to what he is often accused of in simply managing Westminster. He's going to leave his mark on Blighty, and yes it will add up.
I think there should be a lot more emphasis on maths, and written English, or the 3 R's as it used to be called. English and maths are the bedrock of education. Anyone who doesn't have a grasp of these two core subjects is unlikely to do very well in life. In my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 5, 2023 15:53:43 GMT
When i was in secondary school i got two percent in a maths test, the teacher said that i had at least got my name right. Once, when he introduced a new maths thing on the blackboard, he came round everyone to help. He looked at me and said that we can agree that i could not do it. I agreed. He might as well have been talking Kling on. By twenty i was calculating dosages in the NHS and went to Uni. My personality type is rear loaded, the vast potential of my type needs unlocking, and that as time passes, it manifests, if it does at all. I weep for those that go through life stuck. Stuck with the conclusions they come too about themselves that is totally wrong. We are introverts, but bloom in late years, getting younger. We think in esoteric abstract terms. Maths is for those that it fits, certainly at that age. No sane teacher would teach me maths at 15. I did a bit of maths in later years and can understand how incredible it can be. My type is like deanna troy in star trek, psychology, etc.. Intuition is our strength. Teaching is about understanding who it is your teaching. If your arsed. I did that too. Incredible to think where i started, as an acknowledged dunce. Left school at 16, teaching by 23. In my earlier school we had three groups where they could never decide whether I should have been in the top or middle group. I was a complete lazy bum so did not fit into the hard-working environment of the top group, but neither fitted in the middle group either because it was too easy for me. The school after that I just came top of the class and my book was passed around the classroom to copy, because everyone knew I'd get it all right and it would take me 5m. Teacher "WHERE'S YOUR BOOK!" - Me "But Sir I've finished." Teacher "GRRRR!!!". |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 5, 2023 17:15:13 GMT
It was just the other day when we were having a maths lesson over in the mind zone, as some fierce opposition developed because someone was having trouble with a Poincaré group, that over in another land called Westminster, a man called Rishi was devising plans to fix the trouble.
From now on all proles will be taught maths until they are 18.
This is Rishi's big idea, as opposed to what he is often accused of in simply managing Westminster. He's going to leave his mark on Blighty, and yes it will add up.
I think there should be a lot more emphasis on maths, and written English, or the 3 R's as it used to be called. English and maths are the bedrock of education. Anyone who doesn't have a grasp of these two core subjects is unlikely to do very well in life. In my opinion. Just shows how an unthinking and patronising reference in olden times to Reading, Writing and Arithmetic has backfired so tragically. We (the organisation I work for) frequently receive badly written inquiries from graduates looking for jobs. Too often it’s been accepted in the past that new recruits may need more than job training but require additional training in report comprehension and drafting. Now it’s no longer so. Today’s applicants should be trying to sell themselves — if they can’t do that, what help can they offer to others…? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2023 18:17:57 GMT
Making everyone study maths until they are 18 is a ludicrous one size fits all policy. Everyone is different. Some people will be great at maths. Others will be rubbish at it but might be good at English or Art. We should be playing to an individual's strengths to maximise their potential. If their strengths include maths then great. If not, focus on maximising their potential in what they are good at. A nation of excellent specialists is preferable to one of average all rounders. I was surprised to see you pretty much thinking along the same lines as myself. Without meaning to start an argument It seems to me that you do not take the same depth of thinking when it comes to politics. I think quite deeply when it comes to politics but am not going to argue about that because an argument about who thinks the most is both unwinnable, unproveable, and childish |
|
