Compulsory maths for all students in England till they're 18

[noblegiraffe]

Says the front page of the Telegraph. Sunak's new big plan.

It's not going to happen, they know it won't happen, and they were told it couldn't happen in 2017 when they read Prof Smith's review into post-16 maths education that they commissioned.

We haven't got enough maths teachers, this is just bullshit posturing. Fret ye not.

Big agree

Completely agree with this. Totally unnecessary. What would be useful at post 16 is life maths. Managing household budget, understanding interest rates, getting a loan or mortgage, why loan sharks are a bad idea, that type of thing.

A broader curriculum all around to 18 is what we need, including some kind of maths and English. We are huge outliers in having such big exams at 16 and then narrowing and specialising so much, so early.

We would do well to learn from counties that mandate native language and some kind of maths (whether theoretical or functional) plus other subjects until 18.

Of course the massive shortage of teachers and poor pay and conditions is a huge issue; it will be interesting to see how the projected decline in the school population will impact and interact with this. I suspect it won't be enough but the reality is that the system we have now is quite, quite mad and created for a different time and different economy.

A rare step in the right direction to recognise that better maths skills would aid productivity (and basic citizenship) right across the economy.

When I went through a different country's curriculum, maths was compulsory until 18 BUT for the last two years of school it was split into theoretical/academic streams and what was then called 'maths in society' - the sort of maths that underpin the stuff you're talking about - statistics, probability, interest, data interpretation.

It's crazy that we have a system that says at 16 'hey if you're not good at or don't like calculus, you don't really need to learn any more about numbers.'

Singapore is top in secondary school maths in the world and even it doesn't have this policy. Most students do maths to age 18 because the most common form of A levles in Singapore is BCME (Biology, Chemistry, Maths, Economics), or PCME (Physics Chemistry Maths Economics). These are such common combinations that they are abbreviations and when you were asked what subjects you are doing for a levels, many people would just use the abbreviations and everyone would know what you are talking about. The ones who don't do A levels go to polytechnics where the majority of the disciplines are technical and they probably do some form of maths by default.

You can obviously choose arts and humanities a levels in whatever combination you like but a minority choose this. I chose to do IB where I did have to do maths as well as science till age 18 (though I chose to major in English, History and Economics).

The reason why almost all students do maths to a level standard in singapore isn't because the government forces them to but because the students and their parents know its useful. Most Singaporean students are also strong in maths (I was the worst in maths in my class but I got As for both additional maths and maths at GCSE; getting any less is like a failing grade lol).

He should be trying to improve standards in maths at secondary level; why would anyone not choose to do a subject they are good in

Employers might not need it.

But every single one of us needs to know enough maths to be able to manage our money, day to day.

It would be better to teach real world maths to those who fail otherwise.

Everyone should understand percentages (discounts in shops), budgeting and interest rates (including compound interest because that's mortgages and other loans).

We do everyone a massive disservice by saying 'employers don't need it'. That leaves people vulnerable to being fleeced and getting into financial problems - whether it be in Tesco or taking out a loan.

This should not be GCSE maths. That's largely pointless and flogging a dead horse. Everyone can understand why you need to know about the above though and it makes sense. That's more difficult to argue with. And actually I don't think you need full on maths teachers to teach a much narrower set of skills like this either.

Fiddling while Rome burns.

Who's going to teach it? Nobody! Load of nonsense. Honestly, the sooner the Tories are out the better.

I have a maths learning disability and failed my maths GCSE the job centre has made me do several maths courses and I applied for many colleges but they all insisted I had maths.

This was 20 years ago eventually after I lied on my CV and said I'd passed maths I was able to find fulfilling employment and lived happily ever after.
It's crazy how my life would have been so much different if I hadn't.
I'd probably still be a regular at the job centre attending maths courses one after the other, maths isn't for everyone but they still deserve a job and a future without having to lie.

I would like to see numeracy and financial education added rather than outright maths.

The number of people who can't work out a gas bill or understand interest rates is shocking but it's not really an extension of 'school maths' that would improve things.

These things wouldn't necessarily require a maths teacher so more likely to be achievable.

This party has lost the plot completely. They are trying to distract us all from the misery we are facing. And instead of improving lives of nurses or healthcare staff or primary and secondary teachers, they ask the children to stay in for more maths lessons.

A very interesting thread, as always @noblegiraffe. I have several observations.

The issue with A-levels is that you can easily never write more than a short para from 16-21 (if you opt for certain maths/science A-levels and subsequent degrees) or never do anything remotely quantitative from 16-21 (if you opt for certain arts/humanities A-levels and subsequent degrees). I am not sure that is a good thing and, if you dive into the detail, you often see that year in industry and graduate schemes have to spend time bringing the 'neglected' element back up to par.

Perhaps a better approach, to avoid wholesale reform, would be to ensure all A-levels have a balancing element within them eg science subjects have essay components; arts subjects have quantitative components. I did O-levels and General Studies as one of four. It definitely acted as a balancing force across the science/arts divide that existed then also at A-level. I am not suggesting the return of General Studies but am arguing its demise has left a gap. Core Maths is a good idea that some schools and colleges execute well but coverage is patchy.

A final point, regarding maths (or indeed any subject) is that you never know when an aspect of the curriculum might become very relevant in the future. When learning algebra in the 1970s, I had not idea it would be directly relevant to becoming a spreadsheet whiz on Lotus123 in the 1980s.

Yes, and some basic understanding of statistics would be good for understanding risk etc.
This should be stuff any teacher should be able to understand and teach.

"who have"

which has

The grammar, holy batman the grammar

Fuck knows why pushing data about is so well paid. Maths is boring and irrelevant after GCSE.

This is very interesting.

As for those saying children needs to be taught 'functional maths' to understand their finance. I don't know how you will teach it if the kids are already being failed at primary level.

Both my mum and MIL are terrible at maths. For example, with MIL, neither DH and I can get her to understand that consolidating many loans into a single one with a higher APR% and a broker fee does not save her money. She only sees her monthly payment, failing to understand term of loan and interest rate. My mum can't work out percentages without a % on her calculator, can't figure out 2/5 isn't a majority and is the same as 40% or 60% off.

And recently, we all have examples of people failing to understand the energy price cap, with a standing rate (fixed cost) and unit cost (variable depends on use). The use of a illustrative household further confuses things.

For budgeting, I think the use of new banking apps will help a lot. They predict money left in account after regular direct debits. Many also support envelope budgetting.

Good idea

I think all the core subjects should be continued until 18 like college in the US, and you 'major' in certain subjects. Dropping so many subjects at 14 means many people don't get to find a subject they may have a real passion for. It will involve changing the way we view, train and pay teachers but a big shake up is needed.

Perhaps the teaching of maths should include an understanding of why it is important and how much of what is taken for granted in modern day would fall apart without it.

Do you never use time? Manage a budget? Buy food from a supermarket? Go to a building or travel over a bridge that manages to stay upright? Go to an appointment? Plan a trip? Care what the weather will be like? Have any interest in the spread of a pandemic?

Total dead cat. Appeals to those who hate the woke and start sentences with 'Kids these days'
NHS is still collapsing. Brexit is a disaster. We are all fucked. But still, Maths.

It would be compulsory

I agree with many posters who think financial literacy and numbers in the real world should be taught at 16 plus. It is shocking to me how many young adults cannot understand interest rates, work out discounts, understand tax rates, pension numbers etcetc.

And I don't think you need maths teachers for this - you could train up teachers from other subjects or even have a tier of 'instructors' who would only teach this. Save the maths specialists for A levels or GCSE.

And before anyone says it's 'teachers on the cheap', I am a teacher. And I've seen PE teachers very successfully move into Health and Social Care, RE teachers move into Sociology (I think both these subjects have a surplus of teachers) and Teaching Assistants taking on whole classes in primary.

I just don't see why people would be against making young people more aware and informed. There's plenty of room in the Sixth Form curriculum for more taught lessons as anyone with a Sixth Form student would testify.

Or me trying to explain to our reporting analysts why you can work out the statistics they require with only a record of all previous monthly totals and occurrence, instead of all individual data entries. The maths skills of many of UK reporting analysts are very lacking. Other devs and me can easily spot all the things that are dubious in their reports. It's shocking business decisions are made based on incorrect statistics. This detrimental lack of maths skills do not the data scientists, they tend to all be from STEM backgrounds. I think that's the area Rishi Sunak is thinking of.

I had a look at the Singapore model for A levels after @socialmedia23's post. It's very interesting the more academic kids do 4 A level subjects. Both arts and science streams require a contrasting subject. Arts take maths, and sciences take economics. This ends up being like

Common Arts Stream combinations: HELM (History, Econs, Literature, Math)
or GELM (Geography, Econs, Literature, Math). Common Science Stream combinations: PCME (Physics, Chemistry, Math, Economics) or BCME (Biology, Chemistry, Math, Economics)

This will work well with the older AS models, won't it? The source I used is from www.fa.edu.sg/a-level-subject-combi-guide/

You don't need to take maths officially though. I know because i was that 16 year old trying to get out of taking maths and they told me that I could take knowledge and inquiry which would count as a contrasting subject. You can take biology or chemistry too, they are also contrasting subjects! Its why I ended up choosing to do the IB instead of A levels because I didn't want to be the only student in the college who didn't take A Level Maths (in IB, you can study maths at standard level which is easier and involves fewer hours). But it was theoretically possible and the college I would have gone to would have accommodated that. so even Singapore doesn't have an official requirement like what Rishi is suggesting.

I didn't know it was possible to not do 4 Alevels until I came in the UK. In Singapore, people take A Levels or IB if they think they are likely to go to university. They go to polytechnic after GCSEs to study a vocational subject like engineering or maritime studies or graphic design which would enable them to get a job directly after polytechnic. Many do end up going to university after polytechnic, but it is seen to be better to go to polytechnic if you are unsure if you can get into a local university (many people can't afford to study overseas). As you are seen to have limited job skills with only a bunch of A levels but a polytechnic would actually allow you to train in a profession and make you do an internship which would help you secure a job. But of course university graduates earn more than polytechnic graduates and in certificate obsessed Singapore, it is thought that not going to university would cap your future earnings.

What about proper teaching before 16 to start with?
According to statistics, 30% of the GCSE pupils do not reach Grade 4 in Maths.

Although it is shocking in itself, a more careful look into details shows that to reach Grade 4, pupils need to get just 50% of full marks in Foundation paper, and to get these 50%, they hardly need to know anything beyond primary school content.

Conclusion: for 30% of pupils, five years of five lessons a week of Maths in secondary school are completely wasted.