What even is American Grade 1 Maths?

FortuitousFluke said:
Wild speculation, you don't get called for many interviews do you?

I certainly wouldn't take a second look at anyone providing thw bare minimum in a job application. For entry and low level positions the interest is too high to waste time on people who can't be bothered and for our higher level positions the calibre is strong enough that you'll be crowded out by those who list more of their experience and background.
Click to expand...

If a person meets the minimum requirements, you do realize its illegal to refuse them just on the basis that they only meet the minimum requirements?

If you require more then you specify you need more on the job advert, this isnt hard!

Take it from someone that won a £1500 tribunal payout for being refused an interview even though I met the essential criteria. Job ad said 'No experience isn't a deal breaker', and they said I didn't have enough experience to be interviewed. This is an easy money win for any applicant that can be bothered to go to the tribunal over it.

Now want to explain why Mother Hubbards wouldn't even interview me when I have 5+ years retail experience, previous 6 months working at the M&S cafe, and a degree? Wish I knew about employment tribunals back then.

Hint, it wasnt because of the things other than the degree part.
 
Last edited:
Street said:
Not so much triggered, more like laughing at you for calling children dumb and "mentally challenged" and then failing to grasp a simple concept yourself.
Click to expand...

Show me where I called children dumb, and where I do not understand a 'simple concept', which the vast majority of people in this thread also cannot understand?

I said your wife is the reason why kids nowadays are dumb, because they aren't being taught these things correctly.

Imagine thinking that kids are too dumb to learn simple algebra and believing they need to learn this kind of crap instead like your wife does.
 
Last edited:
Malevolence said:
I forgot that this is the **** who claims they sued companies for not offering them an interview after applying for a job.
Click to expand...

Imagine there actually being employment laws about such things that 99% of employers think its ok too keep breaking. Maybe its the education systems fault for not teaching basic contractual rights and employment law?
 
Street said:
I think there is a pack of Crayola calling out to you. I hear the red ones taste nice.
Click to expand...

So are you actually denying that some kids are dumb and that learning disabilities exist?

My point was that tailoring education to meet the needs of such kids disadvantages the rest.

You cannot put all kids on the same level and teach them all equally. Doing this is exactly why everyone ends up dumb because the normal and clever ones end up disadvantaged from not being taught appropriately based on their level. This is exactly why any curriculum that teaches all kids the same thing based on their age doesn't work.
 
thenewoc said:
Many don't in practice, they may fall behind in primary school a bit but then at most secondary schools they get put into different grades of class for some subjects like English & Math but I'm not sure nowadays whether all secondary schools do that.
Click to expand...

Then how exactly wouldn't 5 and 6 year olds be able to handle doing simple addition and subtraction without the need for all the junk methods in the OP?

If asking such a useless question, and a kid simply answered 8+9 = 17 because they are simply used to a different method, would they still fail?

Why force such a useless method that doesn't actually help anyone learn anything?
 
thenewoc said:
I don't think it has a lot of bearing what you do in primary school beyond the basics, common sense building, humility and mixing with people, reading, writing and some basic math. When you get to secondary school you either take to academia or don't and hopefully find an alternative like sport, drama, art, wood work, metal work or music etc. Even then your GCSE's aren't really to send you out into the world, they're a stepping stone to making your own choices to do sixth form / A levels or a BTEC diploma. Even mid way through secondary school you should be thinking of a likely career in choosing which subjects to take GCSE's in for the last two years of secondary school. When you're doing GCSE's its also the pupil's responsibility to do revision such as buying the associated GCSE revision books.
Click to expand...

The issue I see is that this is a reflection of what continues on in further education.

Most Grammar schools got defunded and changed into comprehensive ones a long time ago. The best kids are unable to get an education that they deserve because they have to be taught at a lower standardized level.

No one can go above and beyond or excel in anything . Also its a huge problem treating everything up to GCSEs as just a 'stepping stone' - development of the human brain peaks around age 8-14, and then declines past this point. It is far easier for an 8 year old to learn coding than it is for a 40 year old.

Not giving kids the best possible education tailored to each individual kid's needs is the single biggest ongoing flaw with a standardized education system based on a curriculum. Finland already remedied this a long time by personalizing each child's education to what each individual child is best at, and they quickly rose to having the best education in the world shortly after doing so.

We should be trying to emulate this, not the brokenly ineffective standardized system based on US methods which now give exactly zero kids any chance of opportunity.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
The majority of job adverts as part of the person spec state minimum requirements and desirable. If I can evidence that I've scored you fairly and that you did not meet the same level as those I've chosen to interview then I can reject your application even if you meet the minimum.
Click to expand...

While that may be true, no job advert ever states 'minimum of A levels, desirable Degree’

Those generally apply to personal skills and experience.

I hope you don't make the mistake of writing 'While experience is preferred, no experience is not a deal breaker', and then refuse to interview people with no experience, as is what happened in my case.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
Sounds like a fairly useless hiring manager but you won't see that on many adverts.

I'd say the majority of professional jobs have essential and desirable qualifications. My role for instance would include a degree as essential and MCIPS as desirable.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm not talking about professional jobs, and I don't consider any job that simply allows any degree to be professional, just pompous.

There literally are no jobs that only require 'any degree', that couldn't be done by someone without a degree. What about people that have taken the vocational route and been trained up to NVQ Level 5? Would you refuse them over someone with a degree in Dance Theory?
 
adolf hamster said:
have you considered the possibility that they had enough applicants with experience of the role apply, that discounting people for not having experience was a viable strategy when allocating interview slots?
Click to expand...

Whether or not, they also advertised positive about disabled which meant I only needed to meet the minimum criteria for a guaranteed interview.

Do you not think I'd be fed up after constant rejection for 5+ years for basic jobs that I meet all the criteria for?

I was still curious how working 5+ years in retail wasn't enough experience for a job that was just 'helping people do their shopping' on a zero hour contract (they said typically the people doing it only do about 4 hours a week).
 
DXP55 said:
50p+50p=£1

Ordered two cups of tea once and teenager got calculator out and added it up - I said are you sure and he did it again -yes

There is no hope.
As on another page 8+8+1= 17 or 9+9-1 - I had no idea of making 10s :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well according to all the teachers, and people who know teachers, and people who's wives are teachers, you're an idiot that doesn't understand basic addition if you dont know anything about the stuff in the OP.

All these people legitimately believing you have to teach these 'making 10s' things to kids to enable them to understand basic addition is exactly why education and kids today are so screwed over.
 
Thekwango said:
aww man. op, i hope you never over step the rules and get perma'd.....you're good value for a bit of a laugh from time to time. even though it's not fair or nice to laugh at the afflicted!
Click to expand...

So far no one other than teachers and their friends understand the OP or agree that its a good way to teach addition.

Maybe just this once, you don't stop to think that the teachers might actually be wrong about this?

Its like trying to learn to sight read sheet music with 'all cows eat grass' etc, while this makes it initially easier to read music, its proven by classical musicians to make learning to sight read more difficult due to teaching an over reliance on using terribly slow mnemonics to read every note.
 
That estimate crap is just annoying and any teacher that does that should definitely be sacked.

Also 'explain your answer' is not the same thing as 'show your working', and people are legitimately trying to say that maths is actually harder now?

CLOWN WORLD.

That number bonds crap like the thing in the OP is absolutely not maths and is again pseudo nonsense over just doing a normal long addition sum as I was taught at school.

'LOL BUT HOW DO YOU DO 12345 + 67890????!!!!1111PWNEDYANOOB' ...

You write one number over the other, and start adding from the ones and carrying over any remainders?

Yes I absolutely could do that with ease when I was 4. The majority of asian kids in fact could do so.
 
Last edited:
Street said:
Like I said, go and read the maths curriculum. That question is just one example of a method children are taught. Tens and ones is also pretty effective method at getting children to grasp the concepts, hell I was taught the same way nearly 35 years ago, although we called it tens and units. These are 5 year olds we're on about here remember so keeping it simple is key, especially in schools where the kids might speak very little English and there may be up to 15 different languages in a classroom.
Click to expand...

This. Is. Not. Simple. Long addition is easier and makes more sense.

And even if its only one method children are taught, it is the only method they are allowed to use to answer the questions.

5 years olds do not need maths dumbing down to whatever this is. This is a daft excuse and you are the one claiming that 5 year olds are incapable of learning normal and proper addition.

No one that I know of was taught this method. It was not used in any of the schools I went to or by anyone I knew, and we all managed fine without it. No one in this thread or any other elsewhere other than people who know teachers know anything about it either.

Stop making the excuse of needing to dumb things down for 5 year olds, this is completely unnecessary and unwarranted by any rationale.

Also why exactly was the correct answer for the second question marked incorrectly? Especially when the question didn't even specify to use estimates? How is this allowing kids to use multiple methods?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom