Maths for the future, not Band Aids for the present.

Let's be honest; Maths teaching and qualifications in England is poor; inadequate even.

The recent OECD report on Maths and English, demonstrates:

• England's 16 to 24-year-olds are falling behind their Asian and European counterparts.
• England is 21st for numeracy out of 24 countries.
• The OECD's Andreas Schleicher warned of a shrinking pool of skilled workers.
• Unlike other developed countries, the study also showed that young people in England are no better at these tests than older people, in the 55 to 65 age range.
• The study shows that there are 8.5 million adults in England and Northern Ireland with the numeracy levels of a 10-year-old

 Young and Old are equally unskilled; that is indicative of a long standing problem.

We are no better than ten years ago, when as part of the Skills for Life strategy, a nationwide survey of basic skills (Skills for Life Needs and Impact Survey) was published in 2003. The survey showed that of the adult population aged 16–65 in England:

• 5.2 million (16%) have literacy skills below Level 1 (equivalent to a GCSE at D – G
• 15 million (46%) have numeracy skills below Level 1 (equivalent to a GCSE at D – G
• Only 18% achieved Level 2 in both literacy and numeracy (equivalent to a GCSE at A* - C).

 The following qualifications, achieved by adult learners, aged 16 years and older, then counted towards the Skills for Life target:

• Adult literacy and numeracy certificates (based on the 2000 national standards)
• Key Skills qualifications in 'Communication' and 'Application of Number'
• GCSE Maths and English

The Adult Literacy and Numeracy certificates were pulled and deemed worthless. So recently that a learner completing and achieving the certificate in June, found that it was worthless when enrolling on a new course in September of the same year.

In TEN years of ‘improvements’, new courses, new directions, new qualifications, new foci, we are no further to reaching the numeracy and literacy levels of our business competitors and as a nation, we are still failing our learners, young and old.

Tweaking the Maths Qualifications

Functional skills were originally specified in the Tomlinson report: Final Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform (2004) and were introduced as a replacement to Key Skills in 2007 as part of a three-year pilot programme to develop qualifications that would be suitable for all learners, including adults. The three-year functional skills pilot ended in summer 2010 and An independent evaluation of the functional skills three-year pilot was published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA) in March 2011.

A further evaluation, completed in December 2010, assessed the potential impact of replacing the Certificates in Adult Literacy and Adult Numeracy (Skills for Life qualifications) with functional skills in English and mathematics from September 2012. This evaluation has not been published. In January 2012, awarding organisations were advised that Skills for Life qualifications would be replaced by functional skills qualifications from September 2012.

The CBI, including Sir Terry Leahy, the chief executive of Tesco and Sir Stuart Rose, the chairman of Marks & Spencer, have both spoken about the difficulty of finding literate and numerate recruits. And a report on functional skills for the CBI indicated that more than half of employers thought young people applying for jobs were inarticulate, unable to perform simple calculations or understand written instructions.

The Functional Skills Pilot was born.

These qualifications were designed to introduce learners to Applied Maths; maths they take learn, use and apply in a Vocational Setting. GCSE maths is designed to impart Mathematical knowledge in isolation.

It hasn't worked. Functional Skills have been running for six years and standards are lower than ever.

Why are we running a two tier system?

• O level and CSE
• O level and GCSE
• GCSE and Basic Skills
• GCSE and Adult Skills
•  GCSE and Key Skills
• GCSE and Functional Skills

Are we seriously still saying that learners can be segregated at age 13 into those who will achieve and those who won't?Historically, two tier systems in a particular subject have been proved to be both ineffectual and damaging to a learners understanding, future job prospects and a limiting factor in their employability or progression to university.

The recent OECD report has shown that this approach does not work and if continued, will only add to the problems faced by learners of all ages in their lives, finding a job, progression to university and simply condems them to a 2nd class existence.

Wolf wanted to see all students under 19 progressing towards GCSE A*-C passes in English and maths by pursuing a course that leads towards ultimate GCSE success. Rightly scathing about Key Skills, Wolf questioned the value of ‘equivalence’ qualifications especially where grade C in maths and English is not achieved.

For Functional Skills, issues around teaching Functional Skills were raised, e.g.

• The need for a wide range of vocational contexts
• Most vocational teachers are not maths and English experts
•  “Serious conceptual problems” with Functional Skills, focussing on the massive challenges of teaching skills in a wide variety of contexts, to different learners in different centres, yet being subjected to a set of exam questions that is the same for every learner.

And this is the proposed fix, the cure all for our ills? A qualification with 'serious conceptual problems'?

Consequences for learners of this:

In many colleges, learners have entered onto courses at L2 with a D, E or F grade at GCSE. With support and help from lecturers they have achieved good results and progressed to L3 courses. These are learners, who for the most part are coming out with E3 and E2 on the initial Assessment for Maths and English. Yet they are on an ‘A’ level equivalent course?

They have not retaken Maths or English GCSE and have progressed to roughly E3 or perhaps in some cases L1 on Functional Skills. Many are in their final year before University and have not achieved the required level of Maths and English to study at Degree level.

The Government have now insisted that learners must achieve a Grade C or equivalent in Maths and English before they leave. This has resulted in pushing the problem further up the system instead of dealing with it head on, at source.

Maths teaching and/or the Maths qualification itself is inadequate for the task.

Putting a L2 equivalent (so called) when in reality it is roughly ¾ of the C grade for GCSE, with the final ¼ providing the necessary skills to achieve a Grade C, is not the answer. It is cheating learners, employers and universities of proper preparation.

I am not blaming schools for the problem. They are constrained in myriad ways and finding good maths teachers is a difficult and sometimes impossible problem.

I am not blaming F.E. who take on learners in good faith to develop their vocational skills for future employment or University.

The issue is wider than that; it is a collective responsibility. The mantra ‘I can’t do maths’ is socially acceptable, but it shouldn’t be.

Fiddling with the maths qualifications, patching them up, applying sticking plaster to the problem, covering it up with bolt-on ‘Skills qualifications’, introducing spurious 'equivalencies' rather than facing the facts, unpicking the issues and putting them right is the problem.

Maths education requires a complete overhaul.

• The pace of maths education is too slow; steaming is needed to develop learners at the right pace for them
• There should be one route; encompassing both vocational and academic knowledge not GCSE and Functional Skills
• Maths education should encompass a L3 component, the development of an advanced qualification to equip learners for the practical application of their GCSE, and reinforcing their knowledge of the key concepts
• A L4 component should be standardised across university courses and built into Higher Level Apprenticeships
• Maths should be taught by maths specialists
• Providers should be able to offset the cost of providing expert teachers/lecturers to vocational areas via the ILR return
• Providers would not receive this benefit if they do not hire specialist staff
• Teachers/lecturers should be able to access CPD with a maths focus to develop their understanding of maths in their subject areas
• Teacher / Lecturer qualifications should have clear maths components
• A national survey of maths teachers should be undertaken to gauge and collect their views on the issues

 The recent OECD report is both shocking and shameful and a true indictment of our collective failure in education and Government to face up to the issue.

If we do not now have an honest and open discussion with schools, F.E. Universities, Employers and Government and collectively put our cards on the table and our hands in the air, we will, as a nation, continue to fail our learners and hobble our economy, so that when the next OECD report is published, we won’t be near the bottom, but truly off the scale.

This is not the time to worry about our own ego, egg on our face, political mudslinging or a question of blame; it is time to face the fact:

Maths education in England is wretchedly poor and getting worse year on year. It's time to change. 

It's time to listen.

The importance of being Ernestly mathematical

A huge culture change is sweeping through F.E. this Autumn.

Curriculum Areas who have for many years held sway as the 'leaders and innovators' basking in the spotlight of Principal approval, now find themselves usurped, no longer the pinnacle of SMT approbation. Like the eye of Sauron their gaze has swung away, fixed steely and unblinking on what has, until now, been the dusty, seldom swept, largely marginalised and barely noticed backwater of Maths, English and Functional Skills.

The importance of developing English and Maths to a Grade C or Level 2, beyond the age of 16 had been put forward by Prof Alison Wolf in her report on improving vocational education for 14 to 19-year-olds; "Good English and maths grades are fundamental to young people's employment and education prospects," she said.
"Individuals with very low literacy and numeracy are severely disadvantaged in the labour market."

Given that over one third of all young people leave post-16 education each year without having a GCSE A*-C in English and maths (2011 to 2012), and 44% did not achieve this in both subjects, yet many managed to leave with a Distinction on a L3 course (how is this possible I ask) and despite their importance in gaining any kind of paid work, around a fifth of young people are never taught maths and English after failing to achieve a GCSE pass at the age of 16.


Although this has long been discussed and lauded in the media and prominent in the minds of SMT and MIS, somehow it has failed to be 'real' in the minds of those who run Curriculum Areas or teach on Vocational Programmes. Colleges planning the introduction of the new 'programme of study' took proper account of the need for Maths and English, on paper; but as the new terms starts, many colleges across the country are re-evaluating them on an hourly basis.

Suddenly, those graveyard slots at the end of the day, or after several hours break or squeezed around the workshop and vocational programmes are not enough to guarantee achievement; suddenly there are not enough maths teachers; suddenly, attendance in those obscure little cupboards matters; suddenly requests for resources are not just being approved but actually sought out.

Suddenly; we matter.

We are no longer Oliver, holding out our bowl to be heaped with scathing amounts of 'No and No'.





Our bowls are filled; with books, software, pens, calculators etc. We are roomed in what can only be described as palatial suites (with windows), with computers (that work), interactive whiteboards and a chair for every learner.

Curriculum Heads answer our emails; they actively seek us out (many need maps to locate us), they speak in hushed tones of 'cooperation', 'shared values', 'support' and strangely of 'collaborative practice'.

We are no longer lepers, scratching a few crumbs from the remains of the feast. We are now honoured guests, consulted on the menu, offered the choicest cuts and biggest pieces of the cake.

Is this all we need?

No, this is a long standing issue that has resulted from decades of inattention, under appreciation of the size of the problem and sweeping it under the carpet. Now industry and Alison Wolf have finally managed to bring the issue into the light and generated sufficient impetus to force the change and we are very glad to see it.

The major concern now is just how miraculous a sea change is expected. We are now teaching students who have suffered years of poor Maths and English teaching, in a variety of situations and are now downhearted, disheartened and imbued with a sense of 'failure' and no appreciation of why Maths and English are so vital.They care nothing for 'programmes of study', retention, achievement and lagged numbers. They care that they are on their chosen course, studying to gain a qualification, to get a job. If they were good enough to be enrolled, this year, last year ... why do they now need to repeat ad nauseum Maths and English if they have already failed a couple of times?

Support for these learners is more essential now than ever. They need carrots, not sticks; good IAG to explain to them the importance of Maths and English, tutorial encouragement to keep going and acknowledgement from the Curriculum Areas that Maths and English are as important as their Vocational Course.

I tell them that a Grade C rather than a Grade D is worth an extra £140,000 over their working lives - that often generates some enthusiasm for passing the course if not the actual content.


This year, the spotlight will be on Maths and English departments; they will be examined, cajoled, pushed and berated in turn. Yet this is not just the responsibility of Maths and English; this is the collective responsibility of schools and Colleges (and everyone in them) to help these young people achieve not just their L3 Diploma in (vocational subject) but to equip them with the confidence to achieve, with self belief that they can do 'sums' and 'punctuation'.

What we are doing is part of the bigger puzzle; we have a larger part to play than in previous years but this is still a collective, collaborative effort. To educate our students, fully and wholly fit for economic success coupled with that joyous pride that they can conquer their demons and achieve a Grade C in Maths and English.

We ask that instead of turning the spotlight on us as if we were the new target or scapegoat, you turn the spotlight to see a set of departments and teachers who are emerging, blinking from years in the wilderness but never lost their faith in the young people they taught and will now, with your support, rise to the challenge we have been set, together.

FE Professionalism & Government Betrayal

FE Professionalism

Just over four million 14 to 19-year-olds and adults are educated and trained through the FE system each year. Courses and options are numerous and encompass a fully comprehensive range of students. FE does not discriminate, why? It has a range of highly skilled, professionally trained and continuously developed lecturing staff.

The government proposes to halt this; to remove the necessity for lecturers in FE to be professionally qualified, through its draft deregulatory bill. The key driver for this is on the first page “Publication of the draft Bill is the latest step in the Government’s on-going drive to remove unnecessary bureaucracy that costs British businesses millions”.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the notion that this is designed purely to save money, let’s consider the impact this would have.

Learners enter FE to gain a qualification. The relentless drive by this and previous governments to qualify our young, middle aged and old, has resulted in a plethora of qualifications, courses and options. The rhetoric is well known; ‘you cannot expect to have a worthwhile career without a qualification’. Is lecturing not ‘worthwhile’?

And yet, the government now proposes that those who lecture in FE do not need a qualification to do so.

I find this deeply insulting and from the overwhelmingly positive response to the topic on #UKFECHAT last week, staff in Further Education at all levels agree.

Why?

At the start of my career as a lecturer, with two degrees and a PGCE was I “Grade One”? No. I had subject knowledge yes, but more importantly; I had training in, experience of and an understanding of educational methods and pedagogy.  I was miles ahead of those without a qualification. Enabling me to develop learners, to bring out their hidden talents, manage classrooms, and identify opportunities for learning in a way that a non-qualified deliverer could achieve; qualifications are measure of competence.

Those with subject experience can demonstrate how to plumb, wire or cut hair etc. But the subject aspect, is only part of the package. I have witnessed a number of people employed, brilliant in their own field complete with PhD, utterly unable to connect with learners in their class. This has nothing to do with their subject knowledge, but is directly related to their lack of lecturing qualification.

An FE lecturer is a professional; Trained to do a job and do it well for the most part. Continuous Professional Development as new theories, ideas, models emerge enhances their initial training and continues to prepare them to be better and more effective lecturers.

We have learners from age 14 upwards. In a School they would be taught by Professionals with Teaching Qualifications alongside their subject specialism.  A 14 year old in FE would have a ‘deliverer’.

Is the Government saying that they do not regard lecturers as worthy of ‘professional’ status but teachers are?

 It would seem so.

Are FE lecturers are not equally deserving of Professional Status? If not, then why are only the highly qualified eligible for QTLS to teach in Schools?  I would say we most certainly are worthy of Professional Status. This is dysphemism by the government of FE lecturers.

FE teachers and lecturers – which ever name you prefer, or is that is part of the problem? Are ‘lecturers’ somehow not as “valued” as ‘teachers’? Labelling us one or the other does not change our Professionalism, which gives us our ability to teach, yes, teach all the learners in our classrooms. We take on all comers and we are incredibly successful at making their aspirations and dreams come true. We achieve this because we are trained professionals, in both education and subject.

If the government persists with this foolish and dangerous notion, standards of achievement and progression in Further Education that we Professionals have worked so tirelessly to improve will be decimated. Learners will leave unqualified (surely no connection to the recently introduced measure of ‘retention’ rather than ‘success’), NEETs will rise and the UK economy will suffer the greatest loss of emerging talent for generations.

FE is the engine of the British economy; to remove the need for Professional status will not only result in poor educational standards, lack of future talent, a waste of young people’s potential and economic misery for many years to come. It will also be a betrayal of those who have worked so hard for their professional status and their determination to pass that ethos on to the learners they teach.

Does the government expect future generations to be taught qualifications by unqualified deliverers? For standards to rise by removing the framework that safeguards those standards?

Don’t remove our Professional Status; you will be removing the opportunity to gain professional status for every learner in Further Education for the next twenty years.

Update: Unfortunately, the Government are no respectors of professional behaviour and today (9th August 2013) announced that the deregulation bill had passed and the death knell for qualified staff in FE tolled.