Illiteracy and innumeracy?

[cee-dee]

What do you think of this?:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31079515

Personally I think it's a good idea.

When I was at school (!!!) there used to be tables on the back of all excercise books and large posters of tables on the walls. We were encouraged to make our own posters to put on our bedroom walls with the idea that you put up one poster near your bed for a while, then changed it for another.

At one time, tables went "out of fashion" because critics said it encouraged children to run through a table instead of "instantly knowing" what a particular multiple was but I found that once a table had been thoroughly memorised, you "instantly" knew what the multiple was.

As to literacy and spelling.......... oh dear, there's some fine examples of "how not to" on here......?

One thing that stands out is the growth of sans serif typefaces with Arial and Helvetica leading the way?

I like the old style typefaces with serifs because I think they're easier to "instantly" read.

What typefaces are used in textbooks today?

I like these:-

Times New Roman.

Century schoolbook.

Bookman old style.

Book antiqua.

An example of why I prefer a typeface with serifs can be found in the thread title "Illiteracy.."

[joamur_gosof]

CD,if it's written on here then chances are it isn't by students or teachers,so lack of grammar in this instance would suggest to me 'the old school' failed some people who became ebay sellers or forum dwellers

Reading and writing properly nowadays depends on who your communicating with if my kids are anything to go by as they seem to be perfect when need to and write in alien shorthand to each other.

The actual exercise of doing so (writing proper) however takes time and that has it's own rewards,perhaps that is the fault these days 'nobody has time to take time ?'

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

IQ won't change, levels of intelligence vary between people and sometimes those with a high IQ seem to have little common sense so just what is "intelligence"?

---

IQ can change.  The general IQ across the population evolves over time, but it takes many centuries, even millennia, to do so. 

[cee-dee]

OK, but I meant in the context of teaching/learning IQ won't change.

IQ could "change" depending upon how you "test" for it? Comparing levels of IQ during a period when one set of tests was in use to another period when a different set of tests was used could show a false "change" in IQ levels?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

Ahh, right!  I was thinking longer term.  For example, the IQ of our species, or the species that developed into our species, was lower before oily fish entered the diet.

IQ is not a very accurate measure of likely academic achievement anyway.  My original point was if you broaden the curriculum without increasing the time spent on it, you will inevitably dumb down cos today's children have the same intellectual capacity (in general terms) as their parents and grandparents, given evolution works over a much longer period than a couple of generations.

[cee-dee]

There's only so many hours you can reasonably expect children (and they are children) to concentrate on schoolwork and although there are some countries where they're cramming for hours and hours a day, I don't think that's "good" for their well-being.

Having (here) such a wide curriculum in the school week means the core subjects don't get the time spent on them that's really needed.

Although it's considered that all children should be taught equally, surely by the time of early teens, some teaching ought to be "on ability"?

[joamur_gosof]

thats a good point CD 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

There's only so many hours you can reasonably expect children (and they are children) to concentrate on schoolwork and although there are some countries where they're cramming for hours and hours a day, I don't think that's "good" for their well-being.

Having (here) such a wide curriculum in the school week means the core subjects don't get the time spent on them that's really needed.

Although it's considered that all children should be taught equally, surely by the time of early teens, some teaching ought to be "on ability"?

---

Which returns us to my proposition that it is the politicians who are responsible for any failing when it comes to what our children being taught, not the teachers.

I don't think you'll find many teachers claiming that children should be taught equally only that they should have equal opportunities to learn.

[joe_bloggs*]

Government's New Grammar Test For 11-Year-Olds Is Unveiled:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/03/uk-grammar-test-spoof_n_6603726.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

and the new primary school maths test:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/02/maths-test-11-year-olds_n_6594630.html

[Anonymous]

To keep the new generation stupid might be the secret agenda. A smart population could cause the elite quite a few problems.

Generals need soldiers, not people who can think for themselves.

They can't be seen to do nothing about the lack of good education, so they come up with loads of impossible ways to "improve" the system, but so full of red tape that it will halt any real improvement.

Although I'm all in favour for better maths and literacy teachings at primary school, as I was taught "old school" like most of us on here, I also believe that we live in a rapidly changing world where other skills might be equally important.

My children might not always get their grammar right, but they can teach me how to use all the new technology. A 6 year old knows more about that than me.

Although we might morn the loss of some of the old ways, we should also embrace the wonderful things our children are exploring in this new high paced society and give them some credit. They have skills in areas where we're lacking and which might be needed in a future we can't see yet.

[malacandran]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

 I was taught "old school" like most of us on here

---

Yes, most regular posters on this forum show something in common.  Which is, that we were educated in the "Golden Years" of British Education - the 1950/60's.  In those years, bright kids (even if working-class) got an amazing opportunity.  To enter a Grammar School. And get a proper academic education.

Which still bears fruit, all these years later. You can always tell - we never write "there" instead of "their", or "your" instead of "you're".

But alas, we seem to be a vanishing breed, innit?

[upthecreekyetagain]

[joamur_gosof]

If the old school are writing on here, there instead of their is rife innit 

Time is the essence of good grammar that's all ,nothing to do with old or new teachings unless the teachers of today are themselves rushed .which they are thanks to meddling (for the sake of controlling everything) governments. 

Nothing wrong with a watchful body ,everything wrong with targets and or state rule of what teachers are supposed to teach,they already know what they are supposed to teach (thats why they are teachers) how they teach what they know should be entirely up to them and the parents.

Why not state rule ?..because they do not represent the majority of the parents or teachers (which is mindboggling) .If they want a united standard ,and there is nothing wrong with that ,then they should do what any good teacher would tell them..ie take your time and think about it. Sadly lacking in a dictatorship ,which is basically how the govs has been doing things from the comfort of the free pub for 20 years. 

A national survey held locally on what teachers and parants want in their communities is how the government should deal with education at the moment ...but hey its election time and the bankers ..I mean shareholders want to hear promises of more control over the everyday jacks...whats the point of having a country with more people than work if everyone isn't educated enough to be misrible in its understanding. God forbid one thick swine gets away and lives happily stupid to all the bylaws of money money money.

[margaret*e]

You didn't have to be a 'bright kid' or go to grammar school then to know the difference.

I left school at 15, wasn't bright, didn't have a great education,  but I still know the difference   between their, their and they're , can spell, and also know the difference between lose and loose.

[Anonymous]

I don't want to be too harsh on other people's spelling, as I still make plenty of mistakes as well. My education was in the Netherlands. But also there (I could say "their" as well in this case I guess) standards have dropped and the older generation have the same complaints.

My mum (83) told me off a few months back when I used the wrong Dutch word for something, which was actually drummed into me when I was young, but had forgotten over the years. I had to laugh  though. She made me feel as if I was 10 again. My excuse that I had been living in England for the last 24 years fell on deaf ears.

[blackburn_stevie]

Hi CD..... Sorry for the long delay but my PC has been out of action and I only just got it going again.

Anyway in response to your original question/query, I suppose the answer comes back to how interestrd the pupils are in the topic. I rememberback when I was a lad, my bookcovers were full of wrapping paper with relative subjects hand written on them. but on the other hand, people who didn't care two hoots on the subject matter had cartoons and such-like on the wrapper.

So there you go.

Ceers,

Steve     

[5129frederick]

I can better "Your Next"  End of term comments from an English teacher to his parents:

"Could of done better"  Doh!  

[5129frederick]

 I can better "Your Next"  End of term comments from an English teacher to his parents:

"Could of done better"  Doh!  

[e-m-m-o]

Hi cee-dee. Ebay is rife with illiteracy and personally I think it shows people up and I'm always tempted to get in touch with the individuals and correct their mistakes. Favourites of mine are 'to, two and too', so many people cannot differentiate the difference and know which one to use for the right context. I had a friend once who was a professor and he had no idea which of these to use correctly. Other common examples are 'there and their' and 'here and hear'. I've just come across one on Ebay today as it happens, where someone is explaining the condition of an item "...there not to bad"!

When one of my daughters went to primary school, I remember her coming back one afternoon with her homework book with corrections having been made by her teacher and marked up in red. The teacher herself could not spell either so I hastily wrote a note (in red) correcting her spelling and signed it. I never heard anything else on the matter!

Another bug bear of mine is when people write as they speak, in essence dropping their 'H's' like many people do from certain areas of the UK - 'ere is the ouse I am selling', get my drift? I truly believe that they speak like that and have no idea of the correct context or spelling of the words!

When I was at school, times tables were drummed into us like there was no tomorrow. We used to think "why on earth do we need these in the onward life after school", but they have become one of the most useful things I have ever learned and mental arithmetic comes second nature thanks to them. The youth of today cannot for the life of them work simple sums out in their heads.

I agree what you say about typefaces. Times New Roman was actually designed specifically for the Times newspaper as it is easier to read. However, in most cases, it's just lower case that is easier to read irrespective of the fount - note the correct spelling of 'fount', not 'font' as it seems to be used these days! Take signage on roads, airports, railway stations etc., all in lower case because it is easier to read. There is someone on Ebay that continually writes all their descriptions in capitals with no full stops at all and they are a nightmare to read. I contacted them once and asked why they did it in such a way only to be told that it was to help people who have difficulty with their sight! I rest my case!

[e-m-m-o]

But also there (I could say "their" as well in this case I guess) standards have dropped and the older generation have the same complaints.

Dirty Harry - 'Their' is the correct spelling in that context, not 'There'.

[cee-dee]

Why has a six year old thread been re-opened?

As to "font", the use of the word to reference a typeface has been used since the late seventeenth century! Although "fount" is arguably "more correct??" the word font is now in general usage both sides of the pond. As in typesetting, the type was stored in a "receptacle" and as a "font" is a receptacle, as to typefaces, it seems "font" is the more appropriate word to use after all.