By overwhelming popular demand (and by that, I mean the same two friends who keep asking), Tony’s Angle has officially been recommissioned for its humble return.
Welcome back to Series 2. The powers-that-be have trusted me with a blockbuster run of eight – count ’em, eight – whole episodes this season. Apparently, a full 24-episode network order is still a mile away, so while I watch other bloggers broadcast from what look like Scandinavian furniture showrooms, I’m back in the same cupboard, with a cardboard city backdrop that’s starting to curl at the edges.
Anyway, enough about the high-stakes world of educational blogging. Let’s get to the topic that’s actually important and may dominate some headlines in coming weeks, the future of GCSE Maths.
Warning – it’s a bumper episode … but it’s worth it
One qualification, two purposes
There’s a lot of talk at the moment about ‘alternative’ maths qualifications. We’re hearing about ‘driving-style’ practical tests and standalone ‘numeracy tests’ designed to solve the problem of the thousands of students who leave school without a pass.
As I read it all, I get a powerful sense of déjà vu.
If you look back at my posts, you’ll see I’ve never been sold on ‘alternative’ qualifications. I believe they inevitably create a two-tier system, where some qualifications feel like a ‘lesser’ option or a consolation prize. That’s not what learners want (shown in declining entries) or deserve.
Where I do agree is that our single, high-stakes GCSE in Maths isn’t working for everyone. The fundamental problem is that its purpose is completely confused. It’s trying to be two different things at once and they are often at odds.
On one hand, it’s treated as a purely academic subject, a test of what a student knows in ‘maths’ by age 16. If that were its only job, the grade should only matter for further study in that specific field, just like with History or Geography. We should not be talking about it in the news as much. The ability to complete the square would be irrelevant to most life paths and so let’s not worry!
On the other, its gatekeeping nature means it’s treated as the essential proof of functional numeracy for work and life. The Education Select Committee highlighted this just this week, stressing the need for the qualification to ensure “more children leave school with sufficient levels of numeracy.” In my opinion, these two purposes are in constant conflict, creating a battle over what the qualification should contain and what it truly signifies.
A world with ‘alternative’ qualifications
Before we rush to create an ‘alternative’ numeracy qualification to solve this, let’s actually imagine that world. Picture a system where 70% of students sit GCSE Maths and 30% are guided towards the new numeracy course. This immediately creates several unavoidable paradoxes.
First, there’s what I will refer to as the pass rate paradox. If we remove the 30% of students who are least likely to achieve a Grade 4, then the pass rate for the remaining cohort sitting the GCSE should logically soar towards 100%. Are we, as a system, ready for the headline ‘GCSE Maths is Too Easy’? Or would the grade boundaries simply be shifted to maintain a ‘normal’ distribution, meaning we would just end up ‘failing’ a different group of students?
Next, there’s the curriculum paradox. If the suggestion is that weaker students do both qualifications (as we need to keep pass rates for GCSE about the same), then we create a bizarre situation. We’d be taking the learners who would benefit most from more time and intense focus on GCSE Maths and instead splitting their attention with a secondary course. It’s a solution that could inadvertently put them at an even greater disadvantage.
Finally, there’s the social dilemma for school leaders and parents. If a child is streamed onto this new pathway, how will their parents react? I suspect engaged parents will insist their child sits the ‘gold-plated’ GCSE, the one we keep telling them opens doors. This risks a situation where the students guided onto the alternative path are disproportionately those with less parental advocacy – the very students whose life chances we most need to improve.
I could go on – about employers, universities, and the learners themselves. If we are serious about introducing alternatives, we have to confront these realities. There’s a reason these qualifications have failed to gain traction in the past. The headlines have been just as loud. My question is, why are we so determined to repeat the same cycle instead of fixing the root problem?
A Chance to Rethink GCSE Maths
The curriculum review is a rare chance to bring some clarity, and the real prize is rethinking the GCSE itself. Instead of suggesting useful content for an alternative qualification, we should be demanding that it becomes part of the main GCSE.
If we continue to insist GCSE Maths is both a measure of academic success for future achievement and a measure of a numerate society then we need to stop patching the system and finally become obsessed with making our core maths qualification truly fit for purpose.
Here’s an idea I have seen floated, that I like. Why don’t we seriously consider breaking it in two?
Maths X, laser-focused on the stuff society says everyone genuinely needs – financial literacy, data interpretation, spotting fake news, practical estimation. Maths Y, covering the more abstract algebra, spatial reasoning and trigonometry that are the essential building blocks for STEM subjects at A-Level and beyond.
Make both qualifications compulsory for all students and give them both the full status of a GCSE. With that single change, I believe you abolish the perception of a ‘lesser’ path.
Of course, there are practical questions. The first is time. But we already spend more time on maths at KS4 than any other subject, yet English successfully has two GCSEs and Science can have three. The second question is about comparability with the past. The answer is, it would be different, but perhaps that’s exactly what is needed. This is evolution that the Curriculum Review was calling for.
Finally, there’s the argument for teaching maths for its inherent beauty. On this, my idea is clear – I’m not suggesting different qualifications for different students. I’m saying we should have both qualifications for all students. Everyone gets to see the beauty. Everyone gets the life skills that society says our teenagers need.
I actually don’t think this is a radical shift. However I get to some that this might be seen as a big move and of course system-wide change is a daunting prospect.
I ask, if we can’t be bold right now, can we at least be curious? Let’s empower those of us in the sector who are ready to innovate. All we’re asking is for the DfE and Becky Francis to crack the door open to a meaningful pilot of a dual qualification system with each having equal value.
I’m just part of the problem
Finally, a fair challenge could be – shouldn’t people like me get behind these new alternative qualifications to give them a fighting chance? If we showed them our support, perhaps they’d gain greater respect. It’s a valid point. Maybe I am part of the problem, too busy critiquing from the side lines instead of championing a practical solution for the students the system failing right now.
To me it feels like we’re just patching up a leaking pipe while ignoring the flood warning. Supporting alternatives could be a pragmatic short-term fix, but it lets us off the hook from asking the bigger, more uncomfortable question – why does a qualification designed for universal education still ‘fail’ a third of our learners? Tackling that question properly would mean a fundamental, no-holds-barred look at the GCSE itself. And while that’s a much bigger fight, it’s the one that actually matters in the long run.
And that’s what Tony Reckons.
