Is anyone else tired of GCSE maths bashing?

With the latest GCSE maths results showing a slight decrease in the percentage of pupils achieving 4+ the calls are coming again across social media for the GCSE maths to be “revamped”. In the main, this is about making sure the content is more “relevant” to everyday life or the world of work, with people saying that GCSE maths is no longer “fit for purpose” or that the content is a “waste of time”. Frankly, this is just wearing a bit thin for me now.

I am sure I have written this before, but one of my favourite interview questions to ask prospective maths teacher candidates was always, “A child asks you “why do I have to learn trigonometry, I want to be a hairdresser?”, how do you respond?”. Typically, responses to this fell into two categories:

1. Candidates would attempt to find some tangential link between knowledge of trigonometry and the ability to cut people’s hair to a style that they have asked for.
2. Candidates would move the discussion away from the particular content, talking about skills problem-solving and logical thinking that are developed through the study of all types of mathematics.

I have some affinity with the second of these responses but I also know that (a) transfer of these skills across domains is not something that generally happens (i.e. learning to solve mathematical problems doesn’t necessarily transfer to being able to solve non-mathematical problems) and (b) the skills-based argument is not a great one for justifying the study of particular content or a particular subject – is there no other way that pupils could develop these skills? The answer I hope for, which I rarely received, is the truth – that you won’t use trigonometry as a hairdresser and, in fact, most of you won’t use much of what you learn in school (be it maths or otherwise) outside of school. This is not the point of schooling. The purpose of schooling is to highlight precisely that knowledge that humanity has accumulated that pupils wouldn’t encounter in their everyday lives; in other words, to become educated about the world and the scope of human thought. When it comes to maths, this means an age and stage appropriate insight into the world of abstract human thought, where we can reason and generalise beyond specific contexts or problems to probe the deeper uniting structure underneath.

Now, let me reassure you, this question was not a deal-breaker for me in any stretch – a poor answer to it has never cost someone a job in my departments. The question is asked so that I could get a sense of the candidate’s own values when it came to teaching mathematics, and how they could communicate those to pupils. Are they someone whose first thought is to try and make it relevant, make it useful, or simply celebrate that learning trigonometry is simply about becoming more learned. Want to be a hairdresser? Fine. Be a hairdresser that knows trigonometry, that can appreciate poetry, that understands the importance of the 5 pillars in Islam; simply because knowing is better than not knowing. Understand that being educated is a desirable state not because it is useful (although it certainly is), but because it is part of the human experience – we have large brains precisely because we are supposed to learn, and grow in the learning.

The study of mathematics is the study of a subject that has been at the forefront of human thought and innovation for over 4000 years. Advances in mathematical knowledge and understanding have shaped humanity’s transformation throughout that time. It is one of the great disciplines of human intellect and experience, and it is absolutely right that a core and foundational knowledge of this should be passed onto every child, whereas in previous generations it might have only the domain of the privileged few.

And the truth of the matter is that when it comes to 16-year-olds, this works for the majority. The pass rate at 4+ for maths is not outside of the norm. It is higher than that for English Language, Spanish, Computer Science, Geography and History (among others). Even at 5+, the government’s “strong pass” benchmark for comparing internationally, over half of 16-year-olds achieved it. Of course I would like this to be much higher, but that is not necessarily the fault of the qualification. The GCSE specification does what it is designed to do – state the knowledge that is deemed to be the core and foundational knowledge in the subject, and then assess the level at which pupils have acquired it. We can and should discuss whether the assessment does this in a way that has consequences, like driving certain practices that are not in the best interest of learning mathematics, and whether there are alternative approaches we can take that would lessen these consequences. We can also discuss, as with any qualification, what the core knowledge and skills should be that are included. But for mathematics the driving force in this discussion should not, in my opinion, be one of utility. Rather, it should be about whether the knowledge and skills provide the necessary insight into our discipline. Part of this will be about applications, sure, but this should be examining the applications of the knowledge deemed suitable, not looking at which knowledge is required to secure particular applications.

Don’t get me wrong, I have real sympathy for those that don’t secure the grade 4. More should absolutely be done to improve their experience of mathematics learning and assessment, and to support them with alternative ways to demonstrate and gain recognition of their knowledge. I would also support an analysis of the role that GCSE maths has in being a requirement for future pathways for study and employment to ensure that it is only used when absolutely necessary. It doesn’t make sense to me that certain job roles, apprenticeships, or further study options require a level 2 maths qualification, or that progression in those fields hinges on whether a person achieved this by the time they hit 18. I understand that part of the reason that maths comes under this increased scrutiny compared to the other subjects I listed is its status as a core subject and gatekeeper to many of the future opportunities that pupils might pursue. And whilst I think the status of core subject is justifiable based purely on the impact that mathematics has on the lives of human beings, everyday or otherwise (and even when it isn’t recognised), I think the gatekeeper status is one that could be re-examined for a lot of cases.

It is easy to say that GCSE maths isn’t fit for purpose, or that it needs to change in order to accommodate more students. What is harder, but in my view ultimately more beneficial, is to accept that GCSE maths should assess a breadth and depth of mathematical ideas, and that different pupils will secure these at many different levels, and yet to continuously and tirelessly work on improving curriculum coherence, pedagogy, approaches to assessment, and the wider societal issues so that more pupils are able to reach these benchmarks. For me, this is what the mathematics education sector, and wider educational sector, should be focusing their attention on, and what I hope the upcoming curriculum review will help to make a reality.