MSE News: MPs' report calls for financial education in schools

MacMickster

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I think you overestimate the level of Maths that a good GCSE represents!

Apart from this, I agree with what you've written.

Good grief. Now I feel old. My GCE maths (no "S") some years back included trigonometry, quadratic equations, some basic calculus, basic statistics such as probability etc. No calculators then (although we did have sine and cosine tables).

I assumed, obviously wrongly, that with calculators allowing students to do complex work more quickly, the areas covered would have grown more complex too. If that is not the case then it is all the more reason to ensure that the curriculum is narrowed rather than widened so that greater emphasis is placed on numeracy and literacy.

Person_one

MacMickster wrote: »

Good grief. Now I feel old. My GCE maths (no "S") some years back included trigonometry, quadratic equations, some basic calculus, basic statistics such as probability etc. No calculators then (although we did have sine and cosine tables).

I assumed, obviously wrongly, that with calculators allowing students to do complex work more quickly, the areas covered would have grown more complex too. If that is not the case then it is all the more reason to ensure that the curriculum is narrowed rather than widened so that greater emphasis is placed on numeracy and literacy.

We did all that except calculus in 2001. Calculus didn't come in until AS level.

Oldernotwiser

Person_one wrote: »

It included trigonometry in 2001, well Edexcel did at least.

I never said GCSE Maths didn't cover trigonometry (although I doubt very much that the lower tier does).

Oldernotwiser

Person_one wrote: »

We did all that except calculus in 2001. Calculus didn't come in until AS level.

We did calculus for O level in the 60s.

Oldernotwiser

MacMickster wrote: »

Good grief. Now I feel old. My GCE maths (no "S") some years back included trigonometry, quadratic equations, some basic calculus, basic statistics such as probability etc. No calculators then (although we did have sine and cosine tables).

I assumed, obviously wrongly, that with calculators allowing students to do complex work more quickly, the areas covered would have grown more complex too. If that is not the case then it is all the more reason to ensure that the curriculum is narrowed rather than widened so that greater emphasis is placed on numeracy and literacy.

This might interest you, both in content and concept.

http://www.gcsemathspastpapers.com/examples-model-answers.htm

Also

http://www.mathsmadeeasy.co.uk/gcsemathspastpapers.htm

Oldernotwiser

Person_one wrote: »

We did all that except calculus in 2001. Calculus didn't come in until AS level.

You might like these.

http://www.btinternet.com/~mathsanswers/html/o_level_papers.html

I'm off to bed - have fun!

amiehall

MacMickster wrote: »

Good grief. Now I feel old. My GCE maths (no "S") some years back included trigonometry, quadratic equations, some basic calculus, basic statistics such as probability etc. No calculators then (although we did have sine and cosine tables).

I assumed, obviously wrongly, that with calculators allowing students to do complex work more quickly, the areas covered would have grown more complex too. If that is not the case then it is all the more reason to ensure that the curriculum is narrowed rather than widened so that greater emphasis is placed on numeracy and literacy.

Do you mean the maths curriculum? I think the foundation tier is designed to focus on basic literacy but I don't see why higher tier students should have content removed. Presumably an A or A* means the basic numeracy box is ticked. With maths there is also an intermediate paper that lets you get up to a B with a more limited syllabus than the higher paper. So I don't think there's many students out there being held back by having to do trigonometry or whatever.

MacMickster

Person_one wrote: »

We did all that except calculus in 2001. Calculus didn't come in until AS level.

If that is still the case then I go back to my original point. Why should primary school teachers have to be able to demonstrate competence in trigonometry, probability, quadratic equations etc in order to teach addition, subtraction, multiplication and division to their pupils?

At this age it is their teaching skills that are far more important than any mathematical skills beyond sound basic numeracy.

Originally posted by amiehall
Do you mean the maths curriculum? I think the foundation tier is designed to focus on basic literacy but I don't see why higher tier students should have content removed. Presumably an A or A* means the basic numeracy box is ticked. With maths there is also an intermediate paper that lets you get up to a B with a more limited syllabus than the higher paper. So I don't think there's many students out there being held back by having to do trigonometry or whatever.

I was not suggesting that the maths curriculum be narrowed, but I don't feel that it should be broadened for those who are already struggling to master basic numeracy by including financial education at this stage as a compulsory element.

Taiko

Kids these days tend to only know two fractions; 1/8 and 1/16

Oldernotwiser

MacMickster wrote: »

While large numbers still leave school without the basic numeracy and literacy skills needed to understand both the numbers and small print of any financial transaction I consider this, whilst well-intentioned, to be a futile exercise which is more likely to detract from teaching the basics than to enhance understanding.

I also fail to see why primary school teachers should have a good GCSE in maths. At that age it is more important that they know mathematical basics (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) and have the teaching skills to pass this on to their pupils. Why they would need to understand trigonometry etc to teach these basics is something that I simply can't make add up.

It would be far more beneficial to provide free drop-in education sessions on this subject for adults at the time that they actually need financial knowledge, than to add yet another compulsory element to the school curriculum.

Just rereading this thread and I think you may have misunderstood the term "a good GCSE". It doesn't refer to an A or A* but a minimum of a C. My point was that this can be a very low level of Maths attainment, particularly for someone who's taken the lower tier paper.