Over the Christmas holiday I rewatched the film, 21. If you haven’t seen it then essentially disgraced actor Kevin Spacey plays a dodgy maths (they call it math because they’re American) professor at MIT. He leads a group of maths nerds in a card counting operation at Blackjack.
Why have I brought this up other than as a hook, I hear you ask? Well, this week Rishi Sunak said he wants everyone to study maths up to the age of 18. There is some legitimate criticism of this announcement (what will it look like/where are we going to get the money and resources to teach it/is this really a priority right now). However, it did cause a meltdown on social media which I think is unjustified.
In Sunak’s defence, this is not a wacky policy proposal. The vast majority of other European and advanced economies have some form of compulsory mathematics education post-16. As such, the policy would stop England being an outlier and our education system would become more in line with our peers.
Some critics have argued that this would restrict the choices of young people. However, I think the opposite is true. It turns out that maths is really useful for lots of things, not just winning big in Vegas. Maths A Level is a prerequisite for lots of degree subjects. If a student wishes to study any of the natural sciences at any university or social sciences at our very best ones, then they need to be able to demonstrate quite a high level of mathematical ability. Given that we make young people pick their A Level subjects at 16 based on what they think they might like to study at university two years down the line, our current system is incredibly restrictive for young people. Some form of mathematical course post 16 would open up many more doors for young people.
It could also help equip more people for the world of work. This is obviously true for careers in science, engineering, finance, and computing. The UK currently has a natural edge in these sectors, but we risk losing out to our competitors if we have fewer people with maths skills entering the workforce. However, it is true for practically every job. Having people who can use relatively basic maths quickly and confidently will be good for them and good for their employers. There are clear economic benefits stemming from people being better at maths.
What would this look like?
We could be very radical here or take a more cautious approach. If we were to take the radical approach then this could look like completely changing the post-16 system where young people have to study core subjects such as mathematics at the same level as some other subjects which they choose. Although I think this has some merit, it might actually reduce the life chances of people who do really struggle at maths by bringing their average grade down. We already effectively have a system of compulsory maths GCSE resists where approximately only a quarter of students eventually make the grade. Such a system is clearly counterproductive and demoralising.
A more cautious but still ambitious policy is therefore probably the best (think Al Gore in the Simpsons, Sane Planning, Sensible Tomorrow). Rather than force young people to study A Level Maths, they should do a tiered type system. For example, those who do well at GCSE should be encouraged to do a full A Level whereas those who do above average would do a compulsory course set at a relatively high level, those who are average, an intermediate course, and those who fail at GCSE a very basic foundation style course.
Whichever option we go for, it will be almost impossible to implement for most colleges at present. It’s going to involve the government freeing up resources for colleges and attracting more people to become maths teachers. This will involve the government having to increase the education budget and increase the pay for maths teachers. Without this then it’s simply wishful thinking (pi in the sky, if you will).