I was hoping the prime minister would drop his plans to make maths compulsory up to age 18. It annoys me that it keeps popping up, most recently as part of Rishi Sunak’s proposal to scrap A-levels.
The thought of our current crop of politicians bumbling their way through a restructure of further education is too much for me. We all know there is a shortage of teachers, so there’s the obvious obstacle of who is going to fill the extra teaching hours required. And how we are going to pay them when we can’t fund schools properly as it is.
Some teachers resorted to strike action earlier this year because they’re worried about the long-term impact this shortage and low funding levels will have on children’s education.
A letter written by the head of my children’s school to explain the strikes over the summer says ‘Current funding levels in schools are inadequate to meet the needs of society (despite the claims of real terms cash increases). We do not have the funding to ensure we can continue to provide the excellent education and experiences that our pupils deserve.’
Maybe I just don’t have a political brain, but wouldn’t giving primary and secondary schools what they need to deliver a decent education make more sense? Tackling problems at source, rather than trying to fix them once the horse has bolted, is usually more effective.
If we got maths education right in the first place, our kids wouldn’t have to sacrifice the freedom to choose the subjects they want to study post-16 – a freedom which the prime minister and his colleagues will have enjoyed.
It also irritates me that somewhere along the line English got added to Sunak’s ‘compulsory to 18’ list alongside maths. I love English – I studied it at degree level, so it’s ‘my’ subject. I’d love more young people to read for pleasure and discover the classic works of English literature such as Wuthering Heights. But you don’t create the conditions for a fruitful learning environment by imposing things because you think you know best.
My eldest would resent being told he had to do maths, English or any other subject past the school leaving age. As someone who wants to work in the performing arts, he’s struggled for years with teachers not letting him out of their class for his in-school music tuition. This leads to a GCSE equivalent which Liam needs to apply for music college, so I’ve had to intervene and point out that the school is contractually bound to support this tuition, which is provided through the local council. What’s crucial for one student post-16 isn’t necessarily the case for another.
It has been said that students would be expected to study at least five subjects under the proposed ‘Advanced British Standard, which could replace A-levels. So, students would have a choice of at least three other subjects alongside English and maths. But how long before science, the other core GCSE subject, would be added to the compulsory list?
And what baccalaureate-style qualification is complete without a foreign language? Would Sunak make French, German or Spanish compulsory too? If so, that would be further erosion of any theoretical ability to choose. Where would we get all our business leaders and future politicians from if we didn’t allow people the scope to shape their own way in the world?
Maths was my weakest subject at school and I don’t think we’ve ever had the right approach to teaching it. I left school with a reasonable C grade in GCSE maths, but I was always more interested in words than numbers. A word or phrase in a book would often jump out at me and fire my imagination.
In contrast, numbers seemed sterile and one-dimensional to me. I didn’t see the point of things like algebra and Pythagoras theorem because I couldn’t relate it to anything meaningful. Nobody told us about the practical uses of what we were learning.
My maths teacher was great but frustrated that I didn’t share his passion for the subject. He once asked me to stay behind after class and I thought I was in for a telling off. But he took his glasses off, rubbed his eyes and sighed before telling me he knew I was capable of doing much better than my last test result had indicated.
I can’t remember his exact words, but the gist of it was if only I could open my mind to maths rather than writing it off, I’d find it more interesting and easier. He talked about how fascinating it was to spot patterns in numbers and so forth. There were interesting observations and stories to be found there, if only I could be bothered to look.
His voice conveyed the enthusiasm I felt when I’d read a book that I couldn’t put down. I’d nodded, feeling as if I’d let him down by seeing maths as something to endure, not enjoy. After that I tried to engage a bit more with maths, but it always felt dry and too abstract. It wasn’t brought to life the way science was, for example.
Most of the things I learned in science weren’t relevant to everyday life either. But when you see your Bunsen burner flame changing colour during a chemical reaction or you build a basic circuit that can switch a light bulb on and off, that’s engaging.
The ‘number problems’ we used to get in maths were bland in comparison. They would be about someone trying to measure the mass or perimeter of something and you would have to help them find the right answer. I didn’t care enough about these situations to want to solve them.
My kids have had a different relationship with maths, thankfully – Ryan, my youngest, is more comfortable with numbers than words. Technology, through gamification, has enabled his maths lessons and homework to be far more fun and engaging than mine ever were.
My other kids also started out really enjoying and connecting with maths. But now Chloe and Liam are in their last years of primary and secondary school respectively, the approach to maths has changed alongside the focus on GCSEs and SATs results.
Although my kids are much better at maths than I was, they have lost interest now. I’m sure that is because as they’ve got older and the gamification element has run its course, they can’t see the relevance of what they’re being taught.
Gamification is a great way to introduce maths and make it relevant when children are young. But when they’re like my daughter – 10 going on 16 – it’s just not enough, so I’m not criticising a change in approach. I just think we need to move to a more practical context – what the Labour party is calling ‘real world maths’.
It’s great that financial literacy would be included in this, and showing children how numeracy is used in things like sports league tables and cookery recipes sounds refreshing. Only last week I dug out my sewing machine from the garage with the urge to make my own clothes. I quickly realised how taking measurements and following patterns is all about maths.
I think Labour’s ideas show an understanding of what kids are really like, not how we want them to be. I remember one of Ryan’s teacher’s insisting an art task set during lockdown was engaging, but it was totally misjudged.
It was a biography of an artist which talked about where he went to college, what he studied and other famous artists who went there. The teacher couldn’t see that it was interesting to her, but not to a five-year old whose art lessons should be creative and very messy.
Kids in the upper primary school years want to know the whys and wherefores of everything before they’ll buy into it. Chloe has already asked me why she’s being taught things she’s unlikely to need when she’s older. I know the gap between what she will need and what she is taught will only widen when she’s at secondary school, so I’ve found it hard to give her a proper answer.
I’ve told her that the government and its education advisers think it’s important to learn these things, but that still doesn’t explain the why. We’ve talked about how the government needs people in certain careers for the country to prosper. Some children might become maths teachers, while others might go into careers like architecture where a bit of Pythagoras theorem could come in handy, so I’m told.
Joking aside, I’ve seen how hard it is to pursue some careers when you struggle with maths. I have a cousin whose dad encouraged him to become a surveyor like his friend’s son, as it was ‘a good, solid career’. My uncle was blind to the fact that maths wasn’t my cousin’s strong point and my cousin naively thought it wouldn’t matter, so off he went to do a course. Fast forward a year later and he’d dropped out of that to do something completely different.
For most people, I think a more relaxed approach to the theory and more focus on the practical application of subjects like maths would be beneficial. But everything seems to have theories and frameworks now, even if they choke the life out of subjects that would otherwise feel more accessible, relevant and dare I say it, fun.
I wish we could just allow people to enjoy the journey that education provides. But we’re obsessed with testing and wrapping everything up – even people – into neat and tidy packages, that we label for easy pigeonholing and comparisons.
That is why I have reservations about Wealthify chief executive Andy Russell’s idea for a national financial quotient. Russell would like to see a national benchmark – similar to IQ – which would enable improvements in financial literacy to be monitored over time.
But going back to my criticism of the number problems I was given at school, I think reducing people to numbers on a chart can blunt the point of what we’re trying achieve. And the last thing schools need is more testing – teachers and students have enough on their plates already with SATs and GCSEs.
If we focused on making financial education fun and relevant in an age-appropriate way, I don’t think we’d go far wrong.
