Rishi Sunak has suggested that the A-level curriculum in the UK should be reformed. The implication is that six formers should study a wider range of subjects to the age of 18, including compulsory maths and English.
I rarely agree with Rishi Sunak, but I do on this issue, subject to a massive caveat. This is that the maths and English to be taught on a compulsory basis in sixth forms across the country should be applied maths and applied English. That requires an explanation.
Applied maths means that the maths to be taught should relate to the real-world experience that students will have either when they are at school or sixth form college, or in the world that they will join when leaving, whatever their future career trajectory. In other words, what day should be taught would include:
- Practical budgeting.
- Real-world statistics, most of which will relate to understanding percentages.
- How the tax system works, including not just income tax and national insurance, but also VAT and other indirect taxes that people pay.
- The basics of government budgeting so that people are familiar with what millions, billions, and even trillions mean when they are talked about by politicians, economists and others.
- The use of spreadsheets, because these are so fundamental to so many aspects of life.
- Understanding the basics of what a set of accounts looks like.
As a matter of fact, well over 90 per cent of people in sixth forms do not need to learn about algebra, quadratic equations, differentiation and integration, trigonometry and much of the statistics that crowds out the current maths curriculum. They do need to know about the things that I refer to above. If they did then this country would be a lot better off, as would be those who received this education.
Turning to applied English, I again suggest that most of what is taught in the current English curriculum will be a little further advantage to most of those studying this subject in the sixth form. What is, instead, required is the ability to:
- Write a coherent email or letter.
- Work out the question a person is asking, and then answer it.
- Write in plain English.
- Eliminate basic grammatical errors without ever needing to understand the terminology of grammar, which is utterly irrelevant in real life.
- Structure an argument and an essay, which, in my experience far too few students can do when they arrive at university.
Again, teaching these things would be invaluable.
It might, of course, be that neither of my suggestions imparts academic skills, to which my response is, so what? The ability to survive in real life is a lot more important.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Yes that sounds eminently sensible. Perhaps the other elements of maths – quadratic equations as an add-on option for those interested?
99% of people do nit need quadratic equations.
Those who do should study academic maths
I agree. I’m a software engineer and have been for more than 15 years and have yet to use much any of the stuff I learnt in A-level maths. Ironically most of the best stats I learnt was in my study of the psychology part of my degree. When arguably a lot of that stuff would have been really useful for computing.
If I had needed to learn quadratic equations, or trigonometry I could have done so as required. Perhaps it would have been useful in 3D games, but not sure I wouldn’t have just used someone else’s work and libraries if I’d have gone in to that.
There’s a vanishingly small number of people in my industry that are heavily maths oriented, but too few people know basic stuff that is actually useful in computer science, like the difference between a median and mean, or what a p90 percentile means for performance stats, for example.
What’s the point in wasting 16-18 year old’s time teaching them something they will never use? Much better to teach them how to learn and skills that are useful for the modern world. Indeed, what job uses quadratic equations or trigg on a day to day basis? What person doing such a job could not have learnt it much later when actually required?
I think perhaps the point, is to force kids to accept arbitrary authority telling them what it is important to learn and spend time on in their lives, so that they don’t spend too much time questioning whether that authority is actually legitimate. But perhaps I am overly cynical.
As a football commentator might say, ‘Agreed a million percent, Richard!’!
Maths can be exciting, fun and rewarding. What it doesn’t want is teachers who preface the class, ‘Now listen and follow me carefully, because this is hard,’ and in one moment put off most of the class from wanting to explore the subject.
In the forex markets in the early 1970s, before computers and with very basic, mechanical calculators, we learnt to work out what answers to calculations should look like, so that you knew instinctively what was wrong. I remember a trader from a Hong Kong bank training with us in London who could use an abacus accurately faster than most of us could use an ancient calculator–it said something of the priority given then, and still now, in many far-eastern education systems.
The Northern Universities Joint Matriculation Board had an additional paper to ‘A’ Level General Studies–I think it was called something like Proficiency in Spoken English. It was an unscripted aural exam and for those of us with the gift of the gab was useful for gauging our ability to communicate accurately, interestingly and carry forward an argument.
I would also beg that Logic be added to the Maths curriculum along with Critical Thinking, because a generation with even those basic skills would cut through the crap that politicans serve up as argument — and a few TV and radio journalists might benefit from it, too, along with a class of acquiring the guts to shred on air what is served up.
Agreed re critical thinking – which is rare
Yes to basic logic too.
Which is actually all that you need for most computing, and can reside eually well in the heads of language/arts students as in those of mathematicians.
Whole-heartedly agreed.
I would add the necessity of teaching how complex systems work: tipping points, instabilities and the rest of it. Although underpinned by mathematics, this needn’t be done in a numerical way at all; the basic phenomena are graspable instinctively by young children, and as an applied subject it permeates absolutely everything in the world around us. Just as linear thinking was endemic to the industrialised world ‘modularise, replicate, scale up and compete’, the digitised world has the power to examine the unique: ‘contextualise, connect, combine, and share’. I think this switch is absolutely essential.
Good suggestion
Hear, hear.
I would add that a similar amount of emphasis could be placed on the functioning of human body systems, and this may cultivate some more respect for the sack of bones that we are given to run out our lives with.
Healthier informed choices made earlier for the long term would reduce our reliance on the state to perform rescues and we could actively model and convey such to our own offspring.
Often knowledge comes too late, but the human body is a fascinating machine to comprehend.
Sounds like you are talking about beefing up the PSHE curriculum and making it compulsory at Key Stage 5 (16-19). An idea which is not without its merits.
https://pshe-association.org.uk/guidance/ks1-5/planning/long-term-planning
As a parent of a child who struggles with and doesn’t particularly enjoy Maths, we are hoping that they achieve the required Grade 4 (for A-level study) and would be delighted with a Grade 5. They are looking forward to leaving Maths behind and focusing on subjects that he has a natural affinity and interest in. I know they would take a very dim view of having further maths misery inflicted on them. Also has Sunk given any thought to workforce planning, training and the extra investment this would require? I’m guessing not.
The broader range of subjects thing has been tried before. My memory might be playing tricks on me but wasn’t there a fashion to get students to study 6 AS Levels rather than 3 A-Levels for a while? I can’t remember why it was dropped, probably something to do with Michael Gove. In Scotland, students can already study between 4 and 6 subjects for the Highers. I’m sure both approaches have their merits and disadvantages.
Alternatively, we could just fund and staff schools properly, let educators get on with educating and cease the incessant political tinkering.
I liked this blog post from Noah Smith
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/how-not-to-be-fooled-by-viral-charts
How to spot when a politician is using a misleading number rather than a percentage (or vice versa)
The difference between a mean and a median
Understanding exponential effects
I guess for English, the question is how to spot bullshit without using the word.
In Scotland, courses in Applications of Mathematics were added to the curriculum in recent years. Poo-ood by The Times as “dumbed down maths”, but seem along the lines you suggest at Higher level.
However, academic maths has an important part to play in Science and Technology.
Thanks doing academic maths (I did) could still do with that course
There are always more good things they should know than the time to teach it-even if we find the teachers.
I wrote 20 pages for my grandson explaining what the titles ‘conservative’, ‘radical,’ ‘socialist’ mean and and a brief time line of events giving the most basic idea of Thatcherism, the EU and taxes. He said the news now made more sense whereas before he was being influenced by the personalities!
I think apart from their main subjects and your suggestions, which I agree with, there should be a short course on mental health first aid ( I have done short courses for MIND with adults and there were two consistent pieces of feedback. 1) I thought it was just me 2) I wish this had been taught to us when we were younger )
AND Recognising common logical fallacies, such there only being two solutions, or assuming some means all ( a tabloid ploy) ad hominem, appeal to authority , causation and correlation. To be practised by asking students to analyse the Daily Mail- no, I’m joking but maybe… useful in all subjects.
My source of information when I was young was the newspaper and the TV. Others selected what information I saw BUT I had to read/watch things I would not have otherwise have known. One problem of today’s world is that many go to the media they already support. Very obvious in the US where so many are hardly aware of any counter arguments.
But the real source of education is one’s own reading. I come across some very well qualified people who are just ignorant of he world they live it.
All my kids love reading. I think it is one of the best gifts I ever gave them.
So agree with last
Mine read and are walkers
My job is done
Like many people who have worked in Education, the idea of more Government reforms of education, can only be met with groans of “Oh Christ, not again”.
Anytime anybody proposes Educational reform I would first ask, where is your evidence?
If they can pass that hurdle I would suggest a small scale trial, including the privately educated.
If it passes that test I would then ask, where is the money and where are the Teachers?
Because “Reformers” never do any of these things, of all the Educational reforms that have happened in the last sixty years I would estimate that 4 out of every 5 have been utter disasters. Particularly for working class children.
The occasional ones that have been a success are still the subject of bitter controversy, and I would include Key Stage Testing and Labour’s Literacy and Numeracy hours in the very brief list of successes.
Maths and English for the 16-18 cohorts was first recommended by the 2010 Wolf report, an excellent review of post sixteen vocational education across the world and therefore almost totally ignored by the Tories.
How mortgages work? Compound interest? APR?
Yes
There are fundamental issues with Sunak’s proposal, which shows it as more smoke-and-mirrors than actual policy. It falls apart as soon as the marker hits the whiteboard.
How will it be integrated into the existing Key Stage 3, GCSE and existing A-Level structures, remembering that at GCSE there are two levels of exams? Will it replace or augment the existing Functional Maths courses being run at colleges? How would the syllabus cope with the wide range of understanding that exist between those that achieved Grade 9s at GCSE, and those that didn’t do nearly so well? GCSE already teaches percentages, graphs, averages (mode, median and mean), compound interest, surveys), so what will be added? And how would it be assessed – this is a critical question, because if it’s to be examined then the course will suddenly become more academic in order to be examinable.
Sunak is going down the usual path. He doesn’t have anything to say, so he talks about education. And he’s an expert on education, because he went to school.
GCSE teaches those mathematical concepts really badly – said as the farther of two sons who totally failed to undertsand them at 16
Don’t call it maths, call it sums (or arithmetic if you want polysyllables. And don’t let mathematicians teach it; they never knew where the stumbles came, because they were good at it early.
When you can do maths it is hard to see why people can’t
Indeed, I had a brilliant maths teacher. If I remembe correctly history was her subject. She took us carefully through every step which she confessed she needed to do herself, so clear and logical, so we didn’t struggle.
Just note that Sunak is only talking about education in England. Scotland has always had a different system, and one which emphasises doing a broad range of subjects. Good enough that e.g. South Africa copied the Scottish system. We also do four year university courses, as e.g. does Princeton University. I did not know until my nephew went there that Princeton was originally the Scottish Presbyterian College of New Jersey, and always had a Scottish principal until just before WWI.
Agreed
Excellent curriculum suggestions, Sir! It should be that for all years. We used to do some of that (tax, budgeting) in Wednesday mornings in the late 90s, along with Basic Food Hygiene Cert, First Aid cert, and skills like basic cooking for students. Others did MFL like Mandarin. All that started to die off with New Labour and was exterminated by Gove and his curricular ‘improvement’ , as schools began to narrow their provision towards the Stem subjects and eliminate the ‘useless’ like most languages, most arts, music, PE etc. Academy chains could lower their wage bills (except for senior management) by buying STEM packages, designating classroom supervision as training (on minimum wage), multiclass silent programmed study, and so on. A levels have been narrowed down to topics that can be marked online by non-specialists, some of them uselessly out of date, rather than ones where the same question can be answered in a couple of different ways. Creativity is dead, rote learning rewarded. And DON’T criticise capitalism or neoliberalism.
Education is headed back to Matthew Arnold’s 1860 prescription: the Populace (proles) get numeracy, literacy and ‘know your place’.
John’s comment resonates with me. I was a teacher of maths and economics who tried always to encourage a spirit of enquiry and an appreciation of the many ways in which mathematical patterns and relationships exist in and help us make sense of the world around us. That aim of appreciating and understanding the world we find ourselves part of, and how to make the most of our place within it, is what to me answers your “Why” question. You can rarely be sure what aspect will fire particular individual’s interest and enthusiasm which is why wide experience when young should be available to all. Unfortunately, of course, the personnel and facilities to provide this have not been invested in and so, as John says, prescriptive methods and rote learning, which can be delivered more cheaply, spread. Additionally they have the advantage for those in power of sidelining critical thinking and individual enquiry.
Also I am concerned that much of the material being supplied to schools by bodies providing support for financial education, which invariably are commercial and often financial enterprises, merely promote the orthodoxy e.g. taxes pay for public services. And attainments such as, “I know I am responsible for my future financial security” (https://www.young-enterprise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/FINANCIAL-EDUCATION-PLANNING-FRAMEWORK-11-19-ONLINE-2020.pdf ) must ring pretty hollow for children in many households.
Thanks
There’s been a lot of discussion about broad (e.g. IB) versus narrow (e.g. just A levels) curriculum over the years.
I guess my plea is not to be ideological because one size doesn’t fit all.
I wholeheartedly agree we need teaching in critical thinking, not just post 16. Good teachers do it anyway as part of other subjects. But, sadly, we don’t pay enough to attract enough good teachers.
If we have pupils/students who are not neurotypical, and there are a large minority with dyslexia, discalculia, ADD, ADHD, ASD etc, prescribing what they must do could do a lot of damage. We very much need to be flexible.
So, I hope we don’t swing from one thing to another and disadvantage some children in the process.
It is entirely possible to have a broader curriculum with A levels. That’s what AS levels are for. But sadly they are less used than they could be. My sons combined science and maths A/S levels with sociology and psychology, which was not so narrow.
But I can see the attraction of a wider curriculum for some pupils.
I’d very much like to see a flexible approach, broader or narrower depending on the pupil’s need.
If we have a broader curriculum then we probably need to have more foundation year University courses, something I favour anyway to increase diversity (another son did one, which was a fantastic opportunity for him); some university courses need more depth than a broad post 16 curriculum can provide.
Then, of course, we need the teachers and the infrastructure. Many more resources are needed.
Most of all, I hope for flexibility not ideology.
Agreed
But I also believe education has always to be relatable
The question ‘Why are we teaching you this?’ Is rarely answered
Richard,
An excellent suggestion which I would very much support, with one major caveat on my side (!): the ‘mathematics’ you propose should not be called applied mathematics. Applied Mathematics is the well-established term to describe the application of mathematical methods in other fields, notably – but not exclusively – science and engineering. As such it is very much an academic subject that includes none of topics you list. I say this as a former lecturer in the subject at a UK University (before becoming a biomathematician in France). How about something live ‘practical mathematics’? Does it actually need to include the word ‘mathematics’, a turn-off for many?
I believe studying mathematics was generally helpful in developing an ability to think and reason logically (which seems to be sadly lacking in many), but none of my formal education covered any of the topics you propose and I remained pretty ignorant on most of them, in particular tax, banking and government budgeting, until I got caught up in the 2008 crash. I have learnt a great deal since then, much of it from this blog, and – now in my early 80s – feel richer for it. But understanding these things earlier would have been much better. Young people would also benefit from help in how to spot scams, Ponzi schemes, fake news etc and generally how to check facts and think critically.
I can’t speak for the English part of your suggestion, but maybe practical English would also work.
Why do I always spot my typos after submitting,
something LIKE (not live!) ‘practical mathematics’
This, of course, applies a fortiori to would-be MP’s, who would, IMO, need the equivalent of Year 1 of a degree course in Applied Maths, particularly this bit “The basics of government budgeting so that people are familiar with what millions, billions, and even trillions mean when they are talked about by politicians, economists and others.”
Indeed, if they didn’t at least understand MMT and the nature of money, even if they rejected it, they shouldn’t be allowed to stand for Parliament!
As to Applied English, including critical thinking, the same holds true. Any idea that a University degree is enough to meet the need is comprehensively disproved by the quality of thinking and analytical prowess displayed by thuggish Reeves, and toddler Sunak, because their starting point is wrong – all GIGO (Garbage in = PPE, Garbage out).
If you wonder at my appellation “thuggish” Reeves, try this
Reeves skewered
https://twitter.com/JackMonaghan1/status/1593265355253846017?t=xIwOt6uraSRupVq3khSDqA&s=07
Much can be learned from other cultures, I am no education professional but as a mental health professional, I am concerned about the lack of consultation & involvement of young adults in matters that affect their education & life.
They have faced the brunt of cuts to their services all because they’re the least likely to vote.
I see many young people with mental health conditions that struggle with emotions, expectations & relationships.
Involve them in decision making, give them time to be heard and try some of their suggestions.
Many of them are very bright, creative & thoughtful, We could much from them, as well could our politicians.
Agreed
As a teacher of maths, I’d love to say that pupils need more maths in 6th form, but realistically many will never need more than GCSE, and many aren’t interested.
But I think there should be many more options available, but not necessarily one subject for a whole year: Youngsters should know something about politics, democracy, economics, critical thinking, empathy, corruption, public services, first aid, etc. No idea how to package it all.
Interesting point about being able to structure an essay. It is a perenial problem and really difficult to teach to students once they get to uni. Don’t get me wrong, students do improve with feedback over 3 years, but this is at a cost of expending more brain energy on writing than getting to grips with some of the complex ideas associated with the discipline. I was taught how to write an essay at school. Teachers tell me this is still the case. And is true some students can structure an essay. Is writing another casualty of austerity and the postcode lottery?
The problem existed before Covid.
Some students seem to learn at school. Many don’t.
Jonathan
I agree. As I said above, on the mental health courses. many adults said they wished they had been taught that sort of thing.
My daughter is an H R manager and she has persuaded her company to run mental courses. We could do with more of that sort of thing.
Most European countries have automatic registration of voters. Millions of British people are not registered and many of those are younger. It’s not a panacea but would increase the number of young people voting.
A few ideas and comments
1. Teach the Theory bit of the driving test, so you have that bit before you pass the practical. Firstly because it might grab pupils attention, secondly if its expanded a bit which includes general road safety and why not to act like a prat be it as a driver cyclist or pedestrian.
2. A Maths Lecturer once said – in a lecture that not many people ‘get’ maths, as a result its not that difficult to get a job teaching it which doesnt help those who dont ‘get’ it so we need to be paying good maths teachers more
3. My oldest son recently bought me Tim Harfords book ‘How to make the world add up’ which really motivated me to understand the subject better as it explains why maths is important not ‘how to do it’ which then motivated me to understand how Maths works better. So perhaps we need to have more teaching of ‘why maths’ not ‘how’
I totally agree with your suggestions about the practical applications of maths and English, but I would also argue that many of the ways they relate to everyday life should be introduced at an earlier stage as I think a sense of relevance is a great motivation to further learning, and a lot of students have already been switched off by the time they get to 16.
I think this is also the case with other subjects, but ultimately, given that there is such an impossible ammount of potential subject matter to impart, teaching how to learn/research, encouraging curiosity and questioning, providing inspiration and building confidence is what children most need….after all, when learning English, why would you want to write if you have never been encouraged to feel you have something worthwhile to communicate ?
It seems that the the freedom to do these things has been gradually squeezed out of the education system and replaced with rather rigid protocols and a rather depressing emphasis on grades.
On a more pesonal note, when my daughter was about 12 or 13 she had a monthly allowance for clothes etc, and after a rather reckless start we decided it would help her see where the money went if she kept an account of all her spending. She duly kept all her receipts and wrote it up in her account book to present at the end of the month, whereupon she received a small bonus for doing so. She’s been brilliant at budgeting ever since.
Compulsory teaching of academic mathematics to sixth formers, when they’re uninterested in it, is pointless and counter-productive.
However, what you’re proposing is not compulsory teaching of academic mathematics but instead of a kind of practical everyday mathematics. “Applied maths” is not the correct term for this since that phrase already has a different established meaning in both A-level and university mathematics.
Whatever it is called it is an excellent idea, that is long overdue. It could be organised as an extension to PSHE education but I think should not involve have to taking an exam, or gain a qualification. The motivation to the students should be based solely on utility.
I would add to your list some more topics in everyday financial education. E.g. how credit cards work, how the student loan system works, how mortgages work, what the deductions mean on a payslip, and how to check they’re correct; that kind of thing. The use of calculators and spreadsheets should be encouraged and taught as the ability to accurately and quickly do the actual arithmetic involved is not the point. But estimation of answers, as a way of sanity checking the output from a calculator or spreadsheet, would also be a useful skill to include.
Practical everyday maths is what they call functional skills. Same in English.
It is taught to children who have problems such as autism.
However, while teaching it, I used to wonder who had written the course and why they thought certain things were needed.
Persevere and pass the exams to the level required for GCSE, apply for loads of jobs, get two interviews and the only people who want you to work for them are those with volunteer jobs.
At the other end of the scale, my granddaughter who got the first with distinction at York university did not study A levels. She studied the international baccalaureate at a Cambridge sixth form college. Why don’t more colleges offer that?
Because only Hills Road is confident enough. Long Road does not do it.
Parents need to be courageous to go against the norm of A levels, too.
However, her mother is half Norwegian and half American. Her grandparents live in Essex, so they must have been courageous, too.
My Danish daughter in law took the equivalent of the baccalaureate, then went to university here to get a degree in psychology. She had her fees paid, and a grant large enough for her to live on.
The government just doesn’t value education enough for ordinary people, only people whose parents can afford to pay.
Denmark supports education so much better than we do.
BLOODY HELL!!!
Excuse me because I don’t swear. Yesterday’s i had an article saying that senior labour figures said the party will end the charitable status of independent schools as soon as possible.
Today’s exclusive;
https://skwawkbox.org/2023/09/27/starmer-breaks-another-promise-elite-schools-to-retain-charity-status-and-tax-breaks/
They’ll still charge VAT, but somebody has got to him in less than 24 hours. No backbone whatsoever.
I wonder which of his donors said he’d not pay millions to the party if he went ahead with it?
Tomorrow he’ll stop the Vat, too, bet you.
How can senior members stick by him?
The understanding is that this change has happened over the last year.
In reality if they do the VAT and business council tax changes then the charitable status issue is not that important, overall.
I am not saying it is insignificant. I am saying there are bigger issues to address.