Lake Annecy up close

Lake Annecy up close

 Lake Annecy in all its glory

Lake Annecy in all its glory


All students should continue with some form of mathematics post 16. Just read the report from the Post-16 Smith review and that should convince you.

But, if you don’t already agree/need convincing/haven’t the time to read the Smith report/want to know what ‘mathematics’ means here, then read on.

Just to be clear: my focus here is on students who have passed their GCSE Mathematics immediately after the end of year 11. Many other areas are covered by the Smith report for those in Post-16 education where ‘mathematics’ is compulsory anyway: GCSE resits for those that failed to pass it in year 11, Functional Skills for whom GCSE isn’t appropriate, and T levels for those on a Technical Education pathway.

For far too long England (and the rest of the UK) has been an outlier compared with ‘competitor economies’ for the percentage of students continuing with mathematics post-16, and not in a good way - England remains unusual among advanced countries in that the study of mathematics is not universal for all students beyond age 16.

Almost three quarters of students with a pass in GCSE Mathematics at age 16 choose not to study mathematics beyond this level. Most of these students continue at school or college with A levels (or other level 3 qualifications), and then head off to university to study for degrees, most of which have significant mathematical, statistical or quantitative elements.

Ever since an influential report highlighted how out of step England/UK was, considerable activity has been taking place on this front by ACME and others, but more importantly by Department for Education (DfE).

This culminated recently with the HMT and DfE initiating a review by Professor Sir Adrian Smith, FRS announced in the March 2016 Budget to consider:

‘the case for and feasibility of all students continuing some form of mathematics until 18’, with ‘mathematics being interpreted in its broadest sense, including quantitative skills, statistics and data analysis’

The review was prompted by:

‘the increasing importance of mathematical and quantitative skills to the future workforce’

which is clearly related to the issue highlighted above of low levels of participation in mathematics post-16.

Sir Adrian’s long-awaited report was published in July 2017 and one which I very much welcome. It is the most comprehensive and accurate reflection of the current state of 16-18 mathematics in England one could imagine. The thorough investigation has led to Sir Adrian to make 18 clear, strong and wide-ranging recommendations.

Sir Adrian’s overall conclusion is that:

‘we do not yet have the appropriate range of pathways available or the capacity to deliver the required volume and range of teaching for all to continue studying mathematics post 16’

but he

‘would hope that if we were able to move forward over the next few years with many of the recommendations in this report, we might realistically aspire to such a vision within a decade.’

The case for all students continuing mathematics to 18 couldn’t be clearer – just read the report!

The DfE agree, which is reassuring, if unsurprising, with Nick Gibb, Minister of State for School Standards, saying in his response to the report that the review had made a:

’strong case for raising participation in post-16 mathematics and improving both basic and advanced maths skills’

and the current DfE Study Guide sets out the government’s policy on 16 to 19 study programmes making clear the importance of students continuing with mathematics post 16:

'Level 3 mathematics qualifications
The government has recently published Professor Sir Adrian Smith’s review of post-16 mathematics.

Despite recent progress, participation in mathematics post-16 remains low in comparison to many other countries. There is a strong case that mathematical and quantitative skills are important for students’ future study and career. Higher levels of achievement in mathematics are associated with higher earnings for individuals and many employers are looking for applicants with advanced mathematical and quantitative skills.

To improve the life chances of students we would therefore like to see providers offering a range of level 3 mathematics qualifications and more students participating post-16.

As well as new reformed AS and A levels in mathematics, statistics and further mathematics; awarding organisations have introduced new ‘core maths’ qualifications at level 3 for students not taking A and AS levels in mathematics. The focus of core maths qualifications is on problem solving, reasoning and the practical application of mathematics and statistics. These new qualifications have been designed with the support and help of employers and universities to suit students with a range of pass grades at GCSE maths and provide them with the quantitative skills now needed in a wide range of jobs. We would encourage all providers to offer these new qualifications for their students.'

The review has 18 recommendations which can be found on pages 7-14 in the report.

The first two that need immediate action are:

'The DfE should:

seek to ensure that schools and colleges are able to offer all students on academic routes and potentially students on other level 3 programmes access to a Core Maths qualification

reconsider the institutional incentives and disincentives arising from the 16-19 funding model for schools and colleges, with a view to removing disincentives for mathematics provision’ (AS and A level Further Mathematics within four/five A level programmes and Core Maths)'

The Government’s response includes establishing a new Level 3 Maths Support Programme (L3MSP) which ‘will build on the momentum created by the Further Mathematics and Core Maths Support Programmes’.

My statement at the time (published here, among others) was:

'Professor Paul Glaister, University of Reading and Chair, the Joint Mathematical Council of the UK (JMC) said: “I very much welcome the Smith review into Post 16 Mathematics. This thorough investigation and synthesis has led Sir Adrian to make a number of clear, strong recommendations, all of which I fully support.

“I am pleased to read of the importance placed on the value of students continuing with level 3 mathematics: A levels in Mathematics and Further Mathematics, and the new Core Maths qualifications, including the strong signalling many universities have already given on the value of Core Maths to higher education. 

“I believe it is vital to the UK economy that far more students continue with mathematics Post 16 on an appropriate pathway. I therefore urge the government to implement Sir Adrian's recommendations in full, and in a way that leaves nothing to chance, for the benefit of the UK as a whole, and for the benefit of all young people across the country, wherever they live and regardless of their background.”'

The Government backed this up with the publication of their Industrial Strategy: building a Britain fit for the future, including:

'We are seeing growth in the new core maths qualifications introduced in 2014, which are designed to prepare students for the mathematical demands of university study, employment and life. These have been endorsed by a large number of universities, including many in the Russell Group.

Building on Sir Adrian Smith’s recommendation to make core maths available to all students on level 3 pathways, we will incentivise education institutions to offer maths by providing a £600 premium to existing per pupil funding rates for each additional student who takes core maths. This will help education providers to support more students aged 16 and over to study maths.'

The subsequent announcement and guidance of the Advanced Maths Premium is in addition to the large programme uplift for further mathematics.

My statement at the time (published here, among others) was:

'Professor Paul Glaister, University of Reading and Chair, the Joint Mathematical Council of the UK (JMC) said: “Sir Adrian Smith’s Review of Post 16 Mathematics, and the Industrial Strategy White Paper - Building a Britain fit for the future, make clear the importance of students continuing to study mathematics post 16, and which I support wholeheartedly.

I believe it is vital to the UK economy that far more students continue to study some form of mathematics post 16 on an appropriate pathway.

I therefore very much welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing participation in level 3 mathematics. The £600 Advanced Maths Premium announced in the November 2017 Budget Statement for additional students taking AS/A levels in Mathematics and Further Mathematics, and Core Maths, along with today’s specific details of the funding for schools and colleges announced today, are particularly welcome.

Studying any of these level 3 mathematics courses enables students to acquire, and develop, deep mathematical/quantitative knowledge and understanding, along with reasoning and problem-solving skills, all of which are essential for many careers and further study. As universities and employers alike stand to benefit significantly from better-prepared students and employees, they should also be strongly supportive of this step-change in commitment by the Government.

The additional funding provided by the Advanced Maths Premium should enable schools and colleges to expand their provision of level 3 mathematics courses. This goes a long way to achieving a goal of the vast majority of students studying mathematics post 16 as happens in many other nations around the world..”'

There is absolutely no doubt that Government is fully behind more students continuing studying mathematics to 18, and has provided two clear pathways for those with a GCSE pass: AS and A levels in Mathematics and Further Mathematics and Core Maths:



Core Maths:

Core Maths refers to a set of new level 3 qualifications designed to provide opportunities for students who achieved a pass in GCSE Mathematics (but who are not taking AS/A level Mathematics) to continue with the subject. These qualifications are intended to complement a range of academic and technical programmes, designed to strengthen and build on students’ existing skills, with a focus on using and applying mathematics and statistics, particularly in real life scenarios, and with a strong emphasis on contextualised problem-solving.

So, mathematics for all to 18 doesn’t mean AS/A level mathematics – it means mathematics appropriate to their needs, which for the many with a GCSE pass in Mathematics will mean Core Maths.

Two key recommendations concern negative attitudes to mathematics and the importance of mathematics to a wide range of careers. Only by tackling these will all students willingly studying mathematics to 18 - students will opt to take mathematics so long as it is of clear benefit to them, i.e. it is accessible and relevant.

Compulsion isn’t the answer – getting students’ ‘buy-in’ is, though, so that ‘compulsion’ then becomes a redundant notion anyway.

Finally, the longer-term goals are clear from the report’s final recommendation on the long-term implications of the rise of data science for education and training in mathematics and quantitative skills.

In the meantime, with a cast-iron case already made for all students to continue mathematics to 18, we now all need to crack on and make it happen!