Son's teacher needs to go back to school

welshgirl78

Clearly you are aiming not to understand me, or you have less understanding than you realise.

Literally, as you read it, the sign is traditonally less than, and therefore the statement can be read as "less than" 30

If you have geninue concerns about my ability we can discuss it further. I have no concerns. I was merely pointing out that as a teacher it is interesting to understand Why someone has that misconception rather than just saying they are wrong.

Surely it is a little concerning that you interpret a comment (however incorrect you may believe it to be) as an opportunity to demean all maths teachers. I hope we are not solely responsible.

redpete

welshgirl78 wrote: »

Literally, as you read it, the sign is traditonally less than, and therefore the statement can be read as "less than" 30

I really don't understand what you mean. Given that we (in English) read left to right I don't see how ">" can mean anything but "greater than". (And I'm old enough to count my understanding as 'traditional')

Poppy9

My DD is 16 and has come through the "new way" of teaching maths.

If I remember correctly for the first 2 or 3 years she only did mental maths and used approximation to work out answers so rounded numbers up, down to 10 to add and then took away the odds that she had rounded up - I explained that really badly but if faced with 3 x 9 she would round up 9 to 10, multiply by 3 to get 30 and take away the 3 ones she added to round up!

I remember he showing me how she did long division and I was lost, I was happy to keep my mouth shut on my method as I thought it would confuse her but she wanted to see how I did it and declared her way easiest!

She's now doing A level maths as she enjoys it and her maths skills are excellent, partly I believe because a lot of emphasis was put on maths in her primary.


Last summer when she was helping a friend with revision for her maths GCSE she asked me what something like 27 x 19 was and I spoke aloud going 10 x 27 is 270 so double it 540 and take away 27 = 513.

DD said yes I agree but I did 30 x 20 so 600 and then took 3 x 20 away so 540 and then took away 27.

Her friend was amazed we could both work it out in our head and our different methods. She attended a different primary school and said she had never really done mental maths.

Bumpmakesfour

peaceandfreedom wrote: »

What?

You are saying that '>30' reads as 'less than 30' but that 'x>30' reads as 'x is greater than 30'. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yet you, a secondary maths teacher, thinks it's obvious.

Blimey, it's no wonder our kids are leaving unable to do basic maths - the teachers can't either.

Why does that make no sense??
>30 IS saying less than 30
then when you add a value "X"...
x>30 DOES say x is greater than 30.

Where's the confusion in that?

mrcow

welshgirl78 wrote: »

As a secondary maths teacher, just to point out that reason it is wrong is that if you read it aloud it says " less than" 30

No it doesn't.

If you read it out loud, >30 reads "more than 30" which is what the child put.

redpete

Bumpmakesfour wrote: »

Why does that make no sense??
>30 IS saying less than 30
then when you add a value "X"...
x>30 DOES say x is greater than 30.

Where's the confusion in that?

My confusion is in understanding how people can interpret the same symbol as meaning two opposite things.

Sambucus_Nigra

welshgirl78 wrote: »

Clearly you are aiming not to understand me, or you have less understanding than you realise.

Literally, as you read it, the sign is traditonally less than, and therefore the statement can be read as "less than" 30

If you have geninue concerns about my ability we can discuss it further. I have no concerns. I was merely pointing out that as a teacher it is interesting to understand Why someone has that misconception rather than just saying they are wrong.

Surely it is a little concerning that you interpret a comment (however incorrect you may believe it to be) as an opportunity to demean all maths teachers. I hope we are not solely responsible.

>30 is NOT saying 'less than 30'.

It says 'greater than 30'.

And yes, from what you wrote I have concerns about your understanding of very very basic maths.

Bumpmakesfour

haa oh dear think I need to go back to bed because it made sense to me when I posted it

mrcow

redpete wrote: »

My confusion is in understanding how people can interpret the same symbol as meaning two opposite things.

Because one section of those people don't actually understand the sign

There is only one way of interpreting that sign. My only worry is that there is a teacher out there somewhere who has taught 30 kids the wrong thing.....which means that another teacher out there somewhere is going to have to make sure they "undo" that misconception later down the line.......

*max*

welshgirl78 wrote: »

As a secondary maths teacher, just to point out that reason it is wrong is that if you read it aloud it says " less than" 30

However, if you had an x there (which I am sure the teacher is capable of but didn't want it to be confusing,) it would obviously say x is greater than 30

:cool: Nope. ">" never means "less than", under any circumstances, x or no x. It means "more than/greater than". ALWAYS.

"<", however, does mean "less than". It's the opposite sign.

I'm actually a little horrified now.