n525  0114  01 Feb 80
 
BC-MATH-02-01
     By Robert A. Erlandson
     (c) 1980, The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service)
     LONDON-Anxious warnings that British youngsters were becoming
''mathematically illiterate'' may not have been just scare talk.
    The first nationwide survey of primary mathematical skills among
11-year-olds has shown that while they can handle fundamental
concepts and applications, the overwhelming majority are unable to
apply that basic knowledge to more complex problems or in unfamiliar
contexts.
    And, surprisingly, students from higher teacher-pupil ratio schools
did better on the whole than those in smaller classes. This finding
was so unexpected that the researchers did additional studies and
produced the same results.
    The survey of 1,300 students in 1,000 schools in England and Wales
used practical and written tests, and involved simple geometry,
algebra, numbers, measures and statistics.
    In two examples, 76 per cent of the students-and there was little
difference between sexes-were unable to rank decimals by size, and 75
per cent were unable to work out a cricket batsman's average after
being told exactly how to do it.
    The survey was done by the Assessment of Performance unit of the
Department of Education and Science. It did not identify the schools
tested and did not say whether the students were taught by
traditional methods or the ''new math.''
    Sources indicate that government officials have received the results
with shock, and if the primary mathematics survey is any indication
more shocks are in store because the results of three more studies,
of mathematical performance by secondary students and science and
language ability, are being prepared now.
    The analysis is from tests administered in May, 1978. It cannot be
compared to anything because it will be another year before the
results of the second series of tests for 11-year-olds will be
published.
    The report warned that the finding that children in large classes
performed better than those in smaller groups must be approached
cautiously, and that it would be dangerous to draw inferences from
this single set of results.
     In 12 of 13 math categories, classes with fewer than 20 pupils
scored lower than those with 27.5 or more pupils for each teacher.
    The size of schools, however, was directly proportional to the
students' ability, with those from small schools doing the best work.
    The report said these results cannot be explained by the comparative
affluence of their areas. It found no direct relationship between
small schools and prosperous areas and big schools and poor areas,
although scores were better in the more affluent schools, with
economic levels being measured by the number of students who receive
free lunches.
    The National Union of Teachers-which is demanding reductions in
class size-said common sense supports the teachers' view that better
teaching is possible in smaller classes.
    The union said deprived areas have extra teachers and thus smaller
classes, but, because of extra socio-economic problems, that did not
mean that extra teachers could produce better results.
     ENDIT ERLANDSON
    
ny-0201 0414est
***************