The report said that the current system was failing young people and argues that radical change is needed to give children the skills needed to succeed in a workplace where numeracy is increasingly important.
Currently almost half of 16-year-olds fail to achieve grade C at GCSE, with just 15% studying maths beyond that level. This compares to a rate of 100% in most industrialised nations.
Ms Vorderman said more than 300,000 16-year-olds each year completed their education without enough understanding of maths to function properly in their work or private lives.
She said 24% of economically active adults were "functionally innumerate", and universities and employers complained that school-leavers did not have necessary maths skills.
To read the full article click here.
Comments
Speaking as a Maths teacher... that sounds an incredibly bad idea.
Firstly - is it realistic to think almost everyone is going to get a GCSE grade C? Not if you want it to mean anything. In fact, of course, more kids are attaining this standard than ever before... Secondly - is achieving a grade C at GCSE what you need to function in everyday life? Most certainly not - you can be functionally numerate without knowing the whole GCSE syllabus. Perhaps there should be a separate qualification in numeracy? plenty of people who find formal Maths off-putting would do fine in that.
It's also quite possible to achieve a decent grade at GCSE and be unconfident with applying Maths in other contexts - just as I often encounter kids with an A* at GCSE English who find it hard to write decently in other contexts. The focus on achieving high exam grades - inevitable though it is - tends to exacerbate that, as Inevitably the skills most taught will be those needed to pass the exam.
And as for requiring the continued study up to the age of 18 - one of the strengths of our sixth form provision is allowing kids to do things they enjoy. Sure, I can see getting someone without any Maths/numeracy qualification to do one in the sixth form. But for a kid who doesn't like the subject but got through GCSE, making them continue in the sixth form is just plain unhelpful - just as making a Maths/science person like me continue with History would have been. It won't make them more confident with Maths, it'll just put more pressure on by creating another series of hoops to jump through. They still won't want to do a Maths-requiring job or degree - any more than I'd have wanted to do an English Lit degree rather than a Maths one if I'd been made to study it in the sixth form. As it stands, more than 75% of my GCSE class are choosing to continue with Maths next year - that's a statistic I'm proud of. 100% of them there under duress -no thank-you!
Yes, there's a whole lot I'd like to change in our education system. But I'd be much more interested in reading the suggestions of somone actually involved in Maths education, rather than a TV presenter with a third class degree that's not even in Maths...
It's reassuring to know that her proposition is not at all likley. However, it seems as though those on the 'outside' of education are adopting a reactive philosophy where a return to the old, authoritarian style of education is becoming idealized. Fortunatley, I personally have yet to encounter a single person in the education system who actually likes Micheal Gove. Perhaps it ought to be remembered, that the old system of education was changed for a reason. As Bertrand Russell commented, knowledge gained a poor reputation because of the pugnacious authoritarianism of insecure 'men of knowledge'. Following the second world war there was optimism and a deep sentiment that humanity needed a change, if it was to avoid nuclear annihilition. One of the ways this attitude manifested itself was in a liberal, child focussed education system, whose priority was nurturing the individual and working towards his or her happiness. These are all noble aims and I challenge anyone to try and claim otherwise. The failure of this philosophy, however, has been with society, which seems contemptuous towards the happiness and liberty of the individual and more focussed on manufacturing obedient, industrious and most virtuously, 'employable' creatures.
This is where mathematics enters the equation, so to speak. In 1957 the USSR launched Sputnik into space, which was an international embaressment for the US in the emerging space race. Money was poured into the sciences, mathematics and engineering. Such a genealogy of mathematical education surley cannot be conductive to individual happiness or the study of mathematics in itself, which becomes subordinated to the practical use of maths... 'employable' maths.
At present, I would certainly agree that education does not fulfill it's role and the education in maths that I was subjected to did nothing other than make me terrified of maths. It is entirley contrary to the spirit and the beauty of maths to rote learn some formulas, for which there is little understanding of and therefore no possibility for appreciation. If you struggle with maths... When you struggle with maths, you are at an age where your pride interferes too much, and you develop the belief that you are no good at maths. Alternativley, if you are perhaps more dilligent, you may acquire the false belief that you are 'naturally mathematical' when in fact, the converse may even be true- it certainly seems that education in maths seems to cultivate least the real skills of maths. However, I am dubious of any such notion of 'natural' mathematical ability and this division between 'verbal' and 'mathematical'. A brief history of maths incorporated into education might firstly serve to demonsrate what an interesting subject it is, but also to corrode this myth; Liebnitz being an example which springs to mind.
If we want children to study mathematics, then we have the burdon of proof to demonstrate that it would make the individual a happier, more contented human being. If that individual of their own volition decides to agree with the current paradigm, that the highest human virtue around which we should conduct or lives is 'employability', then they are perfectly entitled to a superficial study of mathematics. But there is a great deal of satisfaction to be taken from mathematics on it's own, but we have no justification for forcing it onto everyone as if we are all mathematical entities. To do so, on account of 'employability', is not only degrading to the subject of maths itself, but to our humanity.
There's a world of difference between not having a GCSE in Maths and being "functionally innumerate".
Many years ago (when Adam was a lad) I was in the 6th Form, those not studying A-level English were compelled to do the course "Use of English" (even if you had "O" Level English). None of us were particularly upset about this as it was kept light and quite entertaining. It was a period or two per week when we could relax a little but we actually learned something too. The topic concentrated on real world usage, such as writing good reports.
Why not have a "Use of Maths" course for non-mathematicians? This could concentrate on the maths of everyday life, from adding up your weekly shop to appreciating the (mis)use of statistics in your daily newspaper. It should be different to the GCSE; it would be entirely day-to-day practical.
This type of course would have at least two advantages. Firstly it should turn out slightly more numerate Arts people and secondly it would give them the tools to de-bunk some of the maths stupidity in today's press.
Obviously, shuch a course MUST be kept light.