Skip to main content

The grammar police never sleeps [sic]

Okay it's time to don the grumpy old man suit and make the neighbourhood safe for humanity.

Listening to the radio the other day I found myself cringing at something that has always got my back up when talking to primary school teachers about maths. These days if you want to do, say, multiplication, there are a number of different techniques available. The teachers refer to these (often while speaking to baffled parents) as 'strategies.' They may even ask little Johnny 'Which strategy are you going to use, little Johnny?'

No, no, no, NO!

These are not strategies. The strategy is having a range of different techniques. A strategy is a broad direction, not a specific methodology. The specific approach being employed at any one time is a tactic, or a technique or a method. It is not a strategy. It is not strategic, it is tactical.

Why do they do this? We've got perfectly good English words for what they want to say, but they have to distort the meaning of another word. I suspect they think it sounds clever, but it's not, it really isn't. So stop it, please. Now.

Incidentally, in the unlikely event you are intrigued by the slightly odd title, it's a reference that might have been picked up by old folk rockers to the Jethro Tull song with the repeated line The mouse police never sleeps.


  1. Or even invent a new word. All primary schools seem to be obsessed with 'minibeasts', which I found defined as creatures without a backbone. Perhaps the existing word was thought to be too difficult?

  2. So does that make a giant squid a minibeast? You would think 'method', say, was a simple enough term. But I can just imagine it becoming a do-way, or ideazap or some such baloney.

  3. On the same theme you might have also had a go at the way teachers have hijacked traditional ways of teaching multiplication and long division because the old ways and methods were too difficult to understand....maths understanding seems to have nosedived in my children's schools because the people that know (parents) now can't help their children to learn without going back to school themselves to learn these new methods (about boxes and grids)

    You with your mathematical mind probably don't have a problem but for those lesser mortals it doesn't help to encourage scientific thought if the kids can't handle the maths required without resorting to a calculator for the easiest of sums because they haven't grasped the principles.

    I could go on but it's your ranting platform not mine!

  4. Thanks Brian - I was never sure what the difference between 'strategy' and 'tactics' was. My boeuf-du-jour is the way that Americans use ('among' when what they mean is 'between').

    laurasdad is quite right - modern methods of primary school maths seem very complicated and time-consuming. I couldn't help my kids with division, because they hadn't been taught the tried-and-trusted 'bus shelter' method, relying instead on a combination of chalk pentagrams and chicken entrails.

  5. I believe the strategy (!!) for division is called "chunking", and I think it involves subtracting multiples ("chunks" I suppose) of the divisor until you can't subtract any more. I actually quite like the idea - what's 6427 divided by 63? I immediately know it's a bit more than 100, because I can definitely take 100 lots of 63 away from 6427 but won't have much left over. My gripe with chunking [great title for a book!] arises if it's taught as an approach where you just randomly guess. 6427 / 63? Let's try 7? Hmmm, 441 down, 5986 to go. How about another 23 lots? OK, but still about 3500 to go. Let's try 1000.....


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope