I’ve been thinking! Go on Mel, tell us what you’ve been thinking about I hear you say!
I’ve been thinking about reform … (I know … I am soooo Rock n Roll!)
So, this is where my thinking went … flashback to 2012/13 when we first saw sight of new programmes of study, new subject content documents and new exam specifications we were told we were ushering in a “gold-standard” era of mathematical enlightenment!
Then the new qualifications were first examined 2017, and they were designed to do much more than change the grading system … policymakers wanted to create a tougher, more rigorous qualification that would better prepare young people for further study, employment and everyday life … it placed a much greater focus on problem solving and mathematical reasoning, moving away from simple memorisation of procedures.
For the cynical amongst us we can translate this as: make the content harder, introduce the mystical Grade 9 to separate the geniuses from the rest of us (I did sit the GCSE as a student in 2017 and got a grade 9 though!), and create a “strong pass” at Grade 5 to magically align us with the highest-performing nations on the planet.
Now nearly a decade on, have those ambitions been realised?
Have we raised the Level of Challenge?
Without a doubt … one of the clearest pieces of evidence of the 2017 reforms making GCSE Maths more demanding is the new content. The new GCSE was famously dubbed the “big fat GCSE” because they crammed more content into it, pushed down topics that used to live at A-level (hello, extra trig and transformations of functions), and supposedly demanded deeper problem-solving rather than just memorising a method.
So, yes, I would agree that today’s GCSE Maths is tougher than its predecessor … students are expected to demonstrate deeper understanding rather than simply remember methods and so in that sense, the reforms largely achieved their aim … at this point I’d like to ask you one question: Do Foundation students need to know the exact trig value for cos (30)?
But … and it’s a big but … did it demand deeper understanding? For some kids, sure. For others, it turned maths into an exercise in pattern-matching with a hint of trauma … it is an escapable fact that when you throw more content at students you don’t automatically get “deep mathematical thinkers”, sometimes you get kids who can regurgitate a memorised routine for Question 4(b) as long as the examiner doesn’t change the furniture in the question too much … more on this below!!
Making Grades More Meaningful
By introducing grades 9 to 1 it allowed greater differentiation among higher-attaining students by stretching out that end of the attainment spectrum … so those students that would have previously been awarded grades A or A* are now spread out across grades 7, 8 and 9. The move from A* to G grades to the 9 to 1 scale was controversial in some circles, at first, but it has largely achieved its purpose … in theory, it allows universities, colleges and employers to distinguish more clearly between different levels of attainment, particularly among the highest-performing students.
The reality though can be seen on any parents’ forum and heard at many a parents evening where parents ask, “so what grade is that equivalent to?” … I have visions of employers who still have to Google whether a Grade 4 or a Grade 5 is the one they should be asking for. I know this was always going to be the case … I have friends in the real world who talk about CSE’s, and O Levels and they haven’t been around since about 1988!
Preparing Students for Further Study
One of the ambitions behind the reforms was to create a stronger bridge between GCSE and post-16 study, particularly A Level Mathematics and STEM subjects … so for Higher tier the expanded curriculum and increased emphasis on algebra were intended to help students make this transition more successfully … I hear lots of anecdotes that A level students now arrive with stronger mathematical foundations than previous cohorts and the entries at Maths A level are on the up!
But I think it’s difficult to say if the reforms improved readiness for advanced study because I’m not convinced this is something that we can measure.
Preparing Students for “everyday life and employment”
We heard this one a “LOT” … the government at the time, seemed to think that forcing kids to grapple with a tougher, more rigorous curriculum would magically turn them into economically viable, workplace-ready adults who could confidently navigate the modern world.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on … Ask any business owner or functional skills teacher how well the current GCSE prepares a 16-year-old for the actual workplace and you will get the reality … the curriculum doesn’t teach practical financial literacy or how to build a working spreadsheet for a small business … instead, we are forcing kids who want to be bricklayers, mechanics, or nurses to find the exact value of cos (30) or know how to multiply a column vector by a scalar quantity.
I am concerned that there is a fair bit of content that 60% of the cohort will never look at again the second they walk out of that sports hall and if the goal was to make maths relevant to the average teenager’s future, we totally missed the mark.
Encouraging Better Problem Solving
Another major objective was to place greater emphasis on mathematical reasoning and problem solving … the new specifications increased the proportion of marks available for these skills, requiring students to tackle unfamiliar situations and explain their thinking rather than just perform calculations.
It could be argued that this has influenced classroom practice … problem-solving activities are now much more common in textbooks, schemes of learning and examination papers and anecdotally teachers are generally giving students more opportunities to think independently and make connections between different areas of mathematics. Whether or not its making a difference is difficult to measure.
However, … the picture is not entirely straightforward. Many schools still face significant pressure to achieve strong exam results, which can obviously encourage teaching focused on exam technique rather than genuine mathematical exploration. As a result, while problem solving is certainly more visible than it was before 2017, there is still debate about whether all students are developing the deeper mathematical thinking the reforms envisaged.
Overall Verdict
Looking back (hindsight is a wonderful thing!) the 2017 reforms have largely delivered on their core objectives: GCSE Maths is more rigorous; it places greater emphasis on problem solving (putting aside the fact that some students don’t know how to answer these types of questions) and seems to provide stronger preparation for further study than the qualification it replaced … but that said … some goals have only been partially achieved.
Developing genuine problem-solving skills across all ability groups remains difficult and I would question whether the qualification strikes the right balance between academic challenge and practical mathematical skills. The reforms have undoubtedly raised expectations, but the conversation about how best to teach and assess mathematics is far from over and I for one, am quite excited as to what is going to come out with the upcoming reforms.
… so that’s what I’ve been thinking!
… you asked the question! … oh … you didn’t ask did you?!?
Mel x
Would love to know whether you think the aims were achieved too!
