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.

Studied in US uni not STEM, but all students required a maths module, Business Maths. Maths was specifically for business and what maths studied is in used even today. Credit card, loans, mortgages, invoicing, basic accounting and reading PL statements, investing.

Do most kids "pass" their maths in the US? I've often wondered if we set the bar too high as GCSE has SO much content in it and a much higher level than basic stats/money. But if kids can't access it and fail it's pointless.

Setting the bar at a level where most kids can pass makes more sense to me. Do most US kids pass most their courses? I've often seen tv shows (source of accurate information I'm sure) where parents are cross if they don't get high scores, or they get chucked out of the football team if they get a D- is the expectation that most kids can get that Mark?

FunctionalSkills, the business Maths type courses is at USA University level for those not taking STEM courses ie. History, Art, English majors, otherwise the usual high Maths level depending on focus ie. Economics or Engineering . There is no GCSE at 16 but SATs or the harder ACT at 18 years old. Kids can resist SAT to get better score.

Setting the bar at a level where most kids can pass makes more sense to me.

Technically, grades 1-3 are a pass. A level 1 pass. Grade is the level 2 pass which is considered to demonstrate a reasonable level of maths in terms of job and college applications. You could easily say that a grade 1 (which most kids can achieve) is now the pass required for jobs and college courses but you would find that represents a very low level of mathematical skill and a lack of fluency in basic numeracy.

Having that as the pass level wouldn't be very useful at all.

Ah fair enough.

It just seems crazy at the moment. I get some of the adults who really can't to basic maths yet have been through 14 years of maths ed... somethings going really wrong isn't it.

What does an American student not going to university need to pass high school? Does it need to be a high level of maths? Do most kids leave with a good knowledge of algebra? Probably a bit of a side track for this thread but don't most kids "pass" some sort of maths to finish high school?

Just reread my post, should say grade 4 is the level 2 pass.

I get some of the adults who really can't to basic maths yet have been through 14 years of maths ed

My school has a good maths department so GCSE failures aren't down to poor teaching or absent teachers as might be the case in other schools. Generally the pupils in my school who don't get a 4 have some sort of SEN which makes it difficult for them to retain methods from one lesson to the next. They can have a successful lesson, complete questions, and the next lesson almost be back to square one. Others have behaviour/effort issues so aren't really doing the work, or they have other problems that mean they miss a lot of school.

Oh I don't blame maths teachers (I used to teach secondary - just not maths.)

If around 40% of kids fail gcse maths each year then it isnt something that sets kids up to do well though is it? And I agree completely there's a subset who really can't access gcse maths (hence why they come to my class) but something else really should be provided for them in the first place.

I really don't know the answer.

Yeah, they've never mastered the basics, and without the basics, it's a waste of time moving onto other aspects. I think the rot sets in at Primary school, where teaching standards (and what they're taught) is shocking.

The sheer diverse spread of numerical abilities by the age of 10/11 is massive.

Those who "get" Maths aren't challenged enough, those who don't "get" it really struggle to improve when they're being taught by "generalist" teachers with low Maths qualifications themselves, who don't have the skillset to help strugglers to improve.

At secondary school, again, they're pushed through the different aspects of maths and pushed through the years, which is absolutely pointless if they've not got the basics. You can't solve and simplify equations if you don't know your times tables and prime numbers. You can't move on to complicated fractions and percentages if you can't do the simple ones, etc. Pupils get demoralised and that causes a loss of interest/enthusiasm in Maths and leads to behavioural issues (which of course impact the whole class when a teacher is dealing with behaviour issues rather than teaching!).

Rather than trying to find more Maths graduate teachers who are able to teach A level, we'd be best putting a Maths "specialist" primary teacher in all primary schools to teach Maths, i.e. instead of the same teacher teaching everything, have a specific teacher who only (or mainly) teachers Maths rotating around the year classes to improve Primary level Maths and get pupils up to a higher standard ready for secondary. Far too much secondary teaching time is spent on remedial Maths for those who are struggling.

I struggle to get through the functional skills course in a year (I'm new to this to be fair) as its just 1 lesson on fractions, 1 on percentages, 1 on ratio etc. I can't see how my learners can "get it" in 1 lesson when they haven't before. A term in and a few still struggle with basic addition/subtraction.

My own kids are the other end and we're bored in maths in primary school a lot of the time. I prepped them for 11+ and they just it "got it" with a bit of explanation as their brains are wired that way. Some of my adult learners really need upper primary style lessons and more time on each topic to reinforce learning.

The UK shortage professions list currently includes things like:
-Nuclear scientists.
-Biochemical/biomedical scientists
-A range of jobs within geophysical science.
-Pretty much any type of engineer going.
-A large range of jobs in computing and IT.
-Vets.
-Architects.
-Lab techs.

These are all jobs where a high level of maths skill is really useful, or indeed, necessary.

Sure, but forcing kids who didn't want to do maths A Level to do an extra 2 years of maths 'in some form' isn't going to create a load of people with high level maths skills, nor produce people who want to go into mathsy careers.

Those who "get" Maths aren't challenged enough, those who don't "get" it really struggle to improve when they're being taught by "generalist" teachers with low Maths qualifications themselves, who don't have the skillset to help strugglers to improve.

There can also be low expectations, we were told by the teacher at age 7 that 'dd is just like me (i.e. the teacher). She is never going to be good at maths but that is fine.' Grade 9 GCSE and A at AS suggests maybe she was good at maths with someone who found it hard to teach maths. Dd would admit that she is not natural maths genius level and would not plan to do a degree in maths, but perfectly able to understand and apply A level concepts. Fortunately we did not accept that defeatest view and helped her at home. I have heard so many parents though saying that little Amelia takes after the family trait of being bad at maths. While I understand that sometimes there can be hereditary factors, often I think there are cultural transmission of low expectations.

You need to take maths for at least 2 years in most states. Generally speaking this includes passing algebra I. My state, unusually, requires enrollment in math every year unless you take more than 4 years to graduate, and requires both Algebra I and geometry as a minimum. (The American sequence doesn't have an easy correspondence. The class sequence is generally Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II/Trigonometry, Pre-Calculus, and then Calculus if desired.) My state also requires 4 years of English and Social Studies and 3 years of science.

To be honest, the USA has an unacceptably wide variation in maths achievement depending on socioeconomic status, race, and location, and maths education has been a topic of much debate. The UK outranks the USA on the PISA (maths results at 15). But I do think that not dividing students at 16 and offering a more flexible programme is a good idea. Yes, we need to look at context in other countries, but when the UK is such an outlier in how narrowly it specializes at 16, I think it's worth a rethink.

But in USA they base it more on passing/ ability not on being a very specific age. Not being able to move up or down a year is OK socially mostly but does mean kids that are behind just get further and further behind, often giving up and then disrupting others. Not sure of the answer though as lesson time is limited and primary already focus on maths and English.

In the US, I believe maths is taught in a bit of a different way, so it's split up into e.g. algebra, geometry, etc. My understanding is that if a student e.g. passes geometry I but fails algebra I, in some schools they can just retake the bit they struggled with the next year. Equally, I believe they can follow different modular paths based on what they want to do e.g. chosing pre-calc or statistics type modules.

I'm not sure if this is the case in all schools or all states, but picking, and choosing and repeating modules could be a good model for post-16 maths. I believe Core Maths offers 2 pathways for students (quantitative vs statistical) which is a good start.

I agree, FWIW, a lot of students come to secondary school with low maths confidence, and gaps in their learning, which does really impede them. If there was a system where they could progress at their own pace and attend mixed age classes that might really help them BUT that would be a radical departure from the current UK system.

Core maths does a lot of things people on this thread consider useful, including looking at financial problems, and teaching things like using spreadsheets for maths (which is a useful skill a lot of students don't have). And it wouldn't take up a full A-level slot.

But, to offer it successfully, post 16 would need more maths teachers and better funding.

I think there is a huge elephant in the room and that is the level achieved not the age at which it is achieved.

For a US student to attend a UK university they need 3-7 AP classes. For a UK student to attend a US college 5 GCSEs are taken as equivalent to a high school diploma.

I know there are other factors and top colleges want more than a high school diploma / 5GCSEs.

The UK is unusual in having compulsory education end at 16 (sorry if it is different in Scotland) but we also start schoolearlier than most other countries.

What does an American student not going to university need to pass high school? Does it need to be a high level of maths? Do most kids leave with a good knowledge of algebra? Probably a bit of a side track for this thread but don't most kids "pass" some sort of maths to finish high school?

The requirements for a high school diploma depends entirely on the state and also the school district.

The state requirement in maths in my state is 2 algebra credits, 2 geometry credits, and 2 other math credits, a total of six credits/semesters, three years studying maths. This is the bare minimum.

In total, a student in the local high school needs 43 credits to graduate high school. There are state and local mandatory courses and credit requirements.

www.newtrier.k12.il.us/cms/lib/IL50000651/Centricity/Domain/156/Math%20Courses%20Flowchart.pdf

Here's a math track flowchart from a regional high school ^
7th and 8th grade are middle school grades.
The blurb at the top is interesting.

campussuite-storage.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/1558748/bd01c7ae-765f-11e9-9402-0a56f8be964e/2184653/fa90c1ae-283a-11eb-8e64-123c1cff0335/optimizations/1

Another math progression flow chart ^

www.pths209.org/cms/lib/IL50000037/Centricity/Domain/2249/Math_Department_Courses.pdf

This one has course descriptions if you scroll down.
This school offers the IB.

.............

In general, progression through the mathematics offerings is based on ability and performance determines where you are placed from one year to the next. Your starting point (determined by a placement exam prior to entering high school) has a big impact on your trajectory, though motivated students can do summer school classes and move forward a year over the summer. One of my DDs did summer school math classes two summers in a row and ended up in BC Calc (AP). Her starting point was affected by a very poor math teacher in 7th and 8th grades.

There is a move toward an integrated math curriculum in the area I live in. In most schools the new courses are still in the planning stage.

Yes. And all the kids slogging away at maths in school for 10 years and coming out with a 1. That's shit. Not sure why we are so blasé about this.

When we looked out of curiosity, Oxford was 3-5 APs, UCL too. And 5 GCSEs won't get you in anywhere above community college.

But as I said it's not just the USA. You can't make that argument against the IB or the French Bac.

I think this particular plan is half baked and useless. It's merely Sunak being "maths! maths!" What interests me is the amount of resistance to maths; the number of people saying pupils will be turned off, that there's no use for it.

(If I had my way, we'd go back to requiring foreign languages for most pupils, and history would be mandatory at GCSE, and we'd look at a more general broadening of sixth form, with more varied subject combinations. There would also be more maths options than GCSE and A-Level. I did not take maths A-Level and it wasn't relevant to my BA. After we moved to the USA I decided to do a master's programme to enter a new field, and I did have to go back and take more mathematics to prepare for it, because I needed to be able to handle statistics and data analysis.)

@mathanxiety , great points and thanks for the links. The US system seems to allow extra work to be done, resit on the area of maths you need to and more flow between sets.
The UK primary school system does not allow this, so a kid great in calculation, decimals etc but weak in wordy problems and triangles could be placed in a lower set and never move up or down sets as they suppose to, or the school state they will. Also, kids in the lower set or table never gets to see the harder questions so they don’t get exposure and can never catch up.

Singapore, they show 1 to 20 questions and the those who find it difficult can do as much as they can ie. 1 to 10 but they can see where they should be heading and give it a go. They do the topic for longer so that they get to question 20. So less Maths topics but more in depth so keep trying and see improvements. SE Asia, Maths is not seen as some mystical unicorn that some sees and others don’t, it is a question of practice and getting the basics. Of course the higher levels of Maths is covered but in the early years, less topics and more in-depth.

But wasn't that the right time to do it, when you needed it and were motivated to learn it?

Arguably, if you had done al that at 17, you would have forgotten it! I have certainly forgotten everything I did at sixth form in terms of the two languages I learnt, for example, and if I oved to Germany, I'd need to learn it all again.

Some kids have to get a 1 in every subject , though. Our bell curve, terminal exam system means that there will always be students awarded 1s. Sadly.

@knitnerd90

What interests me is the amount of resistance to maths; the number of people saying pupils will be turned off, that there's no use for it.

I think the main problem is the way it's taught. Pupils struggling with the most basics are forced through the system, forced to try to learn new and more complicated things when they don't even have the basic numeracy skills, so are being set up to fail. This happened to my OH - he got a grade U (compared to passes in other subjects) - he says he just got further and further behind, completely demoralised, and basically gave up as every lesson was like a foreign language, teacher showed no interest in him at all as he wasn't the disruptive type, so basically just sat there in lessons staring out of the window! He did catering at college, and whizzed through aspects such as portion control, meal budgeting, etc, i.e. basic numeracy of percentages, fractions, etc and ended up with distinctions in all his modules! Later in life he did Maths at evening class and got a grade B at GCSE with (as he says) minimal effort because of a much better teacher who started with the core basics (it was a class aimed specifically at innumerate adults) and moved through the topics/complexity from ground zero!

The other aspect is that so much of it is "abstract" that pupils can't relate to. Yes, Maths teachers tell you they teach loan interest etc., but it's couched in terms of an equation for compound interest, which bears no resemblance to real life loans, HP, or not paying off your credit card in full. If I was teaching, I'd start with real life, i.e. an example showing how interest builds up the balance on a credit card, with real figures and specimen credit card statements, and once the seed is sown, then move on to the equations for it, and do comparisons of the total "cost" comparing paying off the credit card in full in month of purchase as against only paying off the minimum balance and watching the interest add up over the years! When pupils can see it in real life, you've more chance of getting them to do it by equation!

Overall, I think Maths is taught far too often as an academic subject aimed at the more able students, and the "middling" and weaker students are basically set up to fail.

It's about time it was changed. There should be a pass mark, and exams should be better written to be at a set level. We only need to use the normal distribution curve because the standard of exams isn't constant and there's so much variation between years. And, yes, by doing it that way, people will "Fail" even if they've done very well, simply because lots of other people have done better. It's a crazy system where a large proportion of pupils are forced to "fail" even though they may have passed with a different cohort.

It's like our definition of poverty being linked to average incomes - because of distribution curve, there'll always be poverty, even if everyone's wages are doubled or trebled because some people will always earn a percentage less than others!

Other exam systems, such as say, Accountancy, doesn't work like that. They have a preset "pass" mark, and should every applicant achieve it, then they all pass, or likewise if they all don't, they all fail. There is rigour in the system to ensure that the exam questions are set at an appropriate level and comparable level to previous years. Yes, there's some "wriggle room" in that those who have just failed by a small margin are reviewed/remarked and there is scope for a few extra marks, if warranted by, say, harsh marking, to push them over the pass mark. But they don't do the opposite, i.e. take marks away from those who've only just passed.