Exam results over the past few years have shown a steady increase in the numbers studying maths at both GSCE and A level, and those achieving the highest grades.
Data from Ofqual shows that last year 75% of GCSE and 79% of A level students who took maths achieved a Grade C or above. This was an increase of around 5% for GCSE.
So it came as something of a puzzle to hear prime minister Rishi Sunak announce that students would be studying maths to 18.
His announcement cited low numeracy rates, but the exam results do not seem to support that. It is also worth noting that mathematics and numeracy are not necessarily the same thing – and the ability to pass a test does not prove that the knowledge is embedded; consider how many people would now struggle to solve simultaneous equations which they found straightforward in school.
The prime minister also stated his aim that “with the right plan – the right commitment to excellence – I see no reason why we cannot rival the best education systems in the world”.
A laudable aim, but we’re not talking about education in the round here, we are specifically talking about maths.
Mr Sunak added: “The UK remains one of the only countries in the world not to require children to study some form of maths up to the age of 18.”
There are many other subjects that we do not require children to study. We also do not require students to study a foreign language past 14, and many Europeans are bilingual to a functional extent by the time they are 18. We do not require children to study an arts subject, or even science, despite the importance of these subject areas for the UK economy.
So, what does this announcement actually mean? Of course, there was no detail, and a month since, as I write, there has still been nothing. Not only that, but it is quite telling that the announcement came from the prime minister and not from the Department for Education (DfE) or the secretary of state for education.
Maybe the DfE is already seeking to distance itself from this announcement because it knows it is going to be impossible to achieve, even in the 10-year timeframe envisaged by the prime minister. No matter how laudable the aim, the DfE knows the resources are not there to see it realised.
Recruitment data shows that the DfE has missed its own target of new secondary school teachers by 41% this year (DfE, 2022). Recruitment was down in English and humanities, which are traditionally strong subjects, while maths, which has regularly failed to recruit enough specialists, recruited 10% fewer than needed (1,844 against a target of 2,040), with other subjects such as physics faring far, far worse.
So, we are already failing to recruit enough maths teachers, and other subjects such as science and computing are also missing their targets.
Furthermore, according to the NFER, 45% of schools report using non-specialist teachers to cover maths classes (Worth & Faulkner-Ellis, 2022).
So the question has to be asked, where are all these maths teachers going to come from? Not only that, but how will they be funded and paid for?
There are 1.7 million students studying post-16 in sixth-forms, colleges and work-based learning such as apprenticeships. We would need thousands of new maths teachers to fill the gaps. And there is no additional funding for colleges. Although there has been some extra funding announced for schools, many students leave schools for sixth forms and FE colleges.
The figures just don’t add up.
Maybe what we need is a review of the GCSE process? What do we need students to learn? What are the vital skills going forward?
We have spoken about this before; we have drawn attention to the fact that GCSEs are past their sell-by date. We have spoken about the curriculum developments that are needed to support green jobs, and about the skills that are likely to be key elements of employability in the future.
Even Kenneth Baker, the founder of the national curriculum back in 1988, has recently said that the curriculum feels “outdated”. He added: “We need a new focus on skills for the 21st century, coding and computing, design, drama and creativity activities, or we are impoverishing children’s minds.”
Curriculum development is very much a part of this conversation, but it should not be left to the politicians. If students are required to remain in education until they are 18, and a mandatory curriculum is being imposed, should teachers not at least have a say in what that curriculum looks like?
- Helen Osgood is national officer for education and early years for Community.
Further information
- DfE: Official Statistics: Initial teacher training: trainee number census 2022 to 2023, December 2022: https://bit.ly/3BeblVu
- Worth & Faulkner-Ellis: Teacher supply and shortages: the implications of teacher supply challenges for schools and pupils, NFER, November 2022: http://bit.ly/3WDZPed