Here we go again … This type of headline scares me … you can’t see the entire article but you’ll get the gist.

There is no denying … actually I’m going to edit myself … there is no denying that some reports would present findings that culminate (either matter of factly or go “around the houses”) in them recommending compulsory Maths for all until the age of 18. I’ve edited that because I haven’t traced back the findings to their sources so the most I can say is that the following reports all support it. Just because it’s in a report doesn’t “make it so” … and yes! I am THAT cynical. I want to read, see, touch and feel the source of the research in order to validate anything I read that is presented as “findings” … especially when you consider the politicisation that is taking place within education.

Below are just a few publications from various sources that either suggest post-16 Maths needs to change or aim to provide evidence from employers that something needs to change in Maths education:

• In this report put together by a team led by Carol Vorderman (if you didn’t know, this was commissioned by the Conservative party when they were in opposition) one of the key recommendations was that there should be some kind of compulsory Maths education until the age of 18.
• This Nuffield Report makes a point of comparing the proportion of 16-18 who study Maths with other countries – our proportion is unusually small. In fact the report suggests we are an outlier
• The ACME report here makes really interesting reading and agrees that teaching A or AS level Maths to a whole cohort is “doomed to failure” but does support study of Maths post-16. It makes mentions of the gap between GCSE and university where no Maths is learned and students forget everything in the intervening two years.
• The annual education and skills survey -> CBI/Pearson survey  refers to businesses wanting the education system to better prepare young people with the attitudes and attributes they need to succeed in the world of work.

If you have the time, check out the reports but also the published responses from some of the Mathematical Associations. They make really interesting reading. Some of them make no bones about questioning the motivation behind the reports that suggest post 16 Maths should be compulsory. They also hint at the need to improve raising the level of Maths required for Initial Teacher Training especially at primary level. Having confidence and the necessary understanding of Maths is key to getting to the students early … parents are also key too and we can’t underestimate the fact that some parents don’t have the skills to support their child on those crucial early years.

Anyway, back to the article. Let’s assume that the consensus is correct and compulsory post 16 Maths is the way to go, this change cannot happen overnight. In fact, in my mind it shouldn’t happen for at least 1095 overnights (work it out!) and that is just considering the practicalities given that the early adopters programme for the “core Maths” qualifications has only been running since September. Massive consideration (I can’t emphasis this point enough!!) would need to be made as to “who is going to teach these students”? Based on the fact that the general theme I hear from HOD’s is that it’s a biaaatccch to recruit at the minute having to find teachers to teach the additional students would be nigh on impossible with the current levels of Maths teacher recruitment (or is the issue retention? And that in itself is a whole other blog post!)… so what is the alternative? Non subject specialists teaching post 16? Or do schools move their specialists to post 16 and the non-subject specialists to key stage 3? What impact would this have on preparing the students for the increased problem solving at key stage 4?

I have just BLOWN MY MIND thinking about the practical stuff and there is all the “softer stuff” to consider. Some of this seems insurmountable, but bear with me:

• Such a step would require a change of massive proportions – we would need to move from a system where students who are seen as “very good” at Maths are the only one to continue studying it to one where everyone continues it. This means a major cultural change especially for those students that feel they are being forced to do it. As a consequence of the C grade being a key measure for schools lots of students are “hot-housed” in intervention classes and much of the motivation at GCSE is that they’ll never have to formally study Maths again. I know that if I were a student that didn’t want to continue to study the subject I may consider “failing” at the end of year 11 and dragging out getting over the finish line (i.e. a C grade) until such a point where it was too late to get forced to do any higher level Maths in my time at 6^th form. The implications to Key Stage 4 results cannot be ignored.
• The impact of making a subject compulsory is not to be ignored. Some of the countries that have gone down this route haven’t felt the impact so badly (Hong Kong for example) as they had a high proportion already studying Maths. The “compulsoration” of Maths (I know it’s not a word!) is something that needs to be carefully considered … is this a route that we want to go down post 16? Would Maths be singled out as the only subject that you MUST study? What impact will this have on the enjoyment? I could (if I could be ar$ed to re-find it) point you to some research that suggests that as results have improved in Maths the “enjoyment factor” has declined.

I have blogged about “Core Maths” before here and my concern about this getting pushed in through the “back door” remains.

I seriously am not against an alternative to A levels post 16 qualification – in fact I actually quite like the idea and in the ideal world (one where we aren’t subject to the ebb and flow of politics) I’d like to see the new core Maths qualifications bedded in with a sufficient number of students having sat it over the next few years on an optional basis. During this time we should be recruiting more teachers and raising the profile of Maths as providing essential life skills – I know “we” teachers do this already, but maybe parents and politicians need to be more “polar bear pirate” rather than “negferret” when they talk about Maths. More importantly though, this would give us time to make it known that our post 16 options aren’t limited to A levels … let the qualifications speak for themselves.

Combine a meaningful qualification with teachers who are passionate and knowledgeable about their subject and you will get “buy in” from students.

POST SCRIPT:

So I’ve slept on it, bought the paper so I could read the whole article and have reminded myself that it’s an election year and we should expect lots of this kind of stuff. Love the idea of more students studying a suitable post 16 Maths qualification but we really need to make sure that we have both a horse and a cart before putting one in front of the other. At the minute we don’t have a tried and tested qualification and we (the UK) just don’t have the required number of teachers to deliver it.

Maybe if I ignore these kind of headlines, they will go away .. is that possible?