Mike Ellicock: Why the mathematics curriculum just doesn’t add up

By numeracy, we mean the everyday maths skills that we all need for life and work and which, we believe, everyone can attain with the right support and teaching.

The 2011 Skills for Life Survey showed that only 22 per cent of the working age population were at Level 2 or above in numeracy (compared with 57 per cent in literacy). Level 2 is of course regarded as equivalent to GCSE A*-C. However, among those young people (aged 16-24) in the survey who had passed GCSE maths at A*-C, only 24 per cent were assessed at Level 2. This suggests a startling discrepancy between the maths that most pupils are learning at school (culminating in GCSE) and the maths they need in the real world. It provides the context for National Numeracy’s response to Education Secretary Michael Gove’s reforms.

Let me say first that we acknowledge and welcome the Government’s prioritisation of maths and in particular the recognition by Education Minister Elizabeth Truss that “unless we make maths universal, our young people will never be able to reach their full potential”.

However, our conclusion remains that the curriculum proposals continue to contain serious flaws that run counter to the stated aims of gaining fluency in the fundamentals of mathematics, the ability to reason mathematically and the ability to solve non-routine problems.

Banishing the acceptability of ‘I can’t do maths’ is a key objective for National Numeracy and we were reassured to hear Ms Truss recognising that there are “deep-seated cultural issues with maths in this country which need to be challenged” and that “there are greater issues in maths than other subjects”. It is essential that the curriculum does not offer merely an atomised list of maths concepts and skills that pupils need to learn, but recognises the inter-connected nature of these concepts and skills, and addressed the fundamental issue of children’s confidence and resilience in the subject.

If young people fail to develop a positive attitude towards maths early on, that negative mindset usually persists into secondary education and beyond.

Laying secure foundations is key. All pupils must be helped to build a secure basis of mathematical understanding early on. These conceptual foundations support later learning - without them future study of mathematics is painful and pointless, and many then leave school without the maths they need for life. The scale of adult innumeracy shows that too many people have not built these foundations.

We know that ministers and officials will share our concern in this respect. However we do not believe that the approach in the curriculum proposals provides a solution. It appears to us to impose a rushed, superficial “rigour” by introducing too much too soon, with the danger that many children fall by the wayside and lose interest.

Mathematics teaching already regularly fails learners by trying to impose abstract methods without first laying the necessary foundations. We are clear, therefore, that it is preferable to reduce the primary curriculum to the essential core in order to ensure secure learning at secondary school when more advanced concepts can be introduced. The approach, as set out in the programmes of study, carries with it the risk that both teachers and pupils resort to instrumental methods and follow rote procedures prematurely.

We believe that early dependence on instrumental and rote processes contradicts the best evidence, creates failure and will undermine attempts to raise standards of numeracy in primary school, leaving children unconfident and ill-prepared for the rest of their mathematical journey. Most teachers will welcome the expression of high expectations for all children and many will also welcome the greater freedom to shape their own curriculum aims based on the content of the programmes of study. However, many others will feel ill-equipped to implement the proposed curriculum and there is a great risk that they will resort to “teaching the tes” regardless of their pupils’ real understanding and confidence.

In summary, if children are to have the best chance of becoming competent at maths, the curriculum must foster approaches that encourage a positive frame of mind and broad understanding of linked mathematical concepts, it must ensure that fundamental understanding is secure before introducing new content, and teachers must be better supported in its delivery.

It is not enough merely to prescribe all the separate elements that children should learn, to emphasise “rigour” and to hope that as much as possible goes in. This will not produce the results that we all want.