9 key findings from Ofsted’s maths subject report

Maths education 'broadly' more positive than 2012, but recruitment is impacting provision, watchdog research says

Maths education 'broadly' more positive than 2012, but recruitment is impacting provision, watchdog research says

13 Jul 2023, 15:45

More from this author

Ofsted has published a subject report on maths, looking at the strengths and weaknesses of teaching in the subject

Maths education in English schools is “broadly” more positive than it was a decade ago, but recruitment is impacting provision, Ofsted has said.

The findings are included within a new subject report looking at the strengths and weaknesses of how maths is taught in school.

The maths document draws on Ofsted’s 2021 maths research review and finds leaders prioritise adopting high-quality curriculums in the subject.

Findings come from 50 research visits to schools between September 2021 and November 2022.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman said “the picture for maths education in England has continued to improve”. But the report added there are still some areas in need of improvement.

1. ‘Resounding’ shift in primary maths

Ofsted noted a “resounding, positive shift” in maths education at primary level over the last few years.

It said the curriculum was “at the heart” of leaders’ decisions and actions, with greater collaborative support for teachers and a focus on the teaching of the subject.

But there were “some deficiencies” in the quality and quantity of practice that pupils undertake, with gaps often centred around addition facts.

The watchdog added that such early gaps in knowledge may not become obvious “until a significant amount of time has elapsed”, leading to issues with their ability to access the curriculum “later”.

Leaders also tended to allocate additional resources to year 6, due to accountability measures and “wide spreads of attainment”. But this meant fewer resources to invest in pupils’ earlier education.

2. … and ‘notable’ improvements at secondary

In its 2012 report, Ofsted identified “widespread” weaknesses at secondary including deficiencies in curriculum guidance and ongoing professional development for staff.

These were now “much less likely to be evident” in schools, but other weaknesses identified 11 years ago continued to “limit pupils’ learning”.

This included a lack of curriculum planning to ensure pupils had practice solving mathematical problems, which was an area of weakness “across many schools”.

Curriculum planning around the teaching of facts and methods was “usually strong”, but was weaker where it took less account of what pupils had learned previously and what they will study later.

3. But schools struggle with recruitment

The report acknowledges a “challenge” for many schools in recruiting and retaining specialist maths teachers

All schools had some classes split between two or more teachers, either due to timetabling constraints or to make sure no classes were taught entirely by non-specialists. 

But some schools did not “take steps to develop the subject knowledge and subject specific pedagogical knowledge” of less experienced and non-expert teachers. This led to “a weaker mathematics education” for pupils. 

Meanwhile, Ofsted also witnessed “misconceptions being introduced by teachers”. Errors usually occurred in lessons taught by less experienced or non-specialist teachers, who lacked subject knowledge when responding to pupils’ questions. 

Ofsted recommends non-specialists receive the “necessary” professional development “to teach maths effectively”. 

4. ‘Strong’ exam results don’t always reflect ‘high quality’ maths

The watchdog found that strong exam outcomes did not “necessarily” indicate a “high-quality” maths education because in some schools, “pupils are taught a narrowed curriculum”.

This “allows them to be successful in exams without securing the mathematical knowledge they need to be successful later”. 

It also noted that some schools’ focuses shifted from identifying pupil needs to exam preparation towards the end of primary and secondary phases. 

“The need for significant ‘last-minute’ intervention in some schools suggests deficiencies in the curriculum, teaching or rehearsal earlier on in pupils’ mathematical education,” it said. 

5. Schools make ‘good use’ of maths hubs

Leaders were said to “make good use of support and resources” from government-funded maths hubs, the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) and commercial providers. 

Many teachers “receive high quality, subject-specific” continual development, while the training could reduce schools’ “vulnerability to quick-fix approaches or unevidenced ‘fads’,” said Ofsted.

Ofsted said professional development, alongside high-quality curriculums, “appeared to be the key driver” of improvements to maths education. 

6. Teaching assistants should understand curriculum

Schools where maths provision was the “strongest” ensured that other adults working with pupils, such as teaching assistants and tutors, “understand the curriculum and its implementation”. 

TAs who worked directly with pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) were “most successful” in supporting their development where they had a “secure” knowledge of the maths curriculum and pedagogical approaches being used by the teacher. 

Ofsted recommended all schools should provide continuing professional development (CPD) for teaching assistants, and other adults working with pupils. 

7. More ‘appropriate’ to set tiers in year 11

The watchdog found most schools made decisions about GCSE entry tiers based on levels of attainment at the end of year 9 rather than “more appropriately in year 11”.

It said early decisions, which determine the curriculum pathway for key stage 4 pupils, “limits the mathematics that some pupils learn”. 

Ofsted encouraged the Department for Education (DfE), Ofqual and awarding bodies to “explore” if the current design of the maths GCSE, including tiers of entry, contributed to “practices in schools that are not in pupils’ best interests”. 

8. Teaching moving too quickly

In all schools visited by Ofsted, leaders said teachers routinely made sure pupils had “securely” learned conceptual knowledge before starting new learning that built on it. 

“However, this assertion was consistently accurate in very few of the schools visited,” the report said. 

It added that in just under half of schools visited, teachers’ focus was on covering the curriculum, rather than on securing learning. 

This was despite the maths national curriculum underlining that decisions about progression should be based on “the security of pupils’ understanding”. 

“Moving on when pupils are not mathematically ready gives the illusion of progress but creates ever greater gaps that will take more time to address in the future,” said Ofsted. 

9. Tutors sometimes have ‘limited success’

Among secondaries, several schools said external tutors had “limited success” with their pupils.

This was because the tutors’ work “was not always aligned with the school’s curriculum thinking”. 

Schools had instead been more successful through employing tutors directly or “spending time” to ensure external tutors understood and applied their maths curriculum. 

Latest education roles from



East Sussex College

Digital Pedagogy Team Leader

Digital Pedagogy Team Leader

Barnsley College

Learning Support Assistant

Learning Support Assistant

The Chalk Hills Academy - Part of the Shared Learning Trust

GCSE Maths Teacher (Mat cover)

GCSE Maths Teacher (Mat cover)

Barnsley College

EA to the CEO & Senior Directors

EA to the CEO & Senior Directors

Haberdashers’ Academies Trust South

Head of Faculty (History and RS)

Head of Faculty (History and RS)

Ark Greenwich Free School

Sponsored posts

Sponsored post

How can we prepare learners for their future in an ever-changing world?

By focusing their curriculums on transferable skills, digital skills, and sustainability, schools and colleges can be confident that learners...

Sponsored post

Inspiring Education Leaders for 10 Years

The 10th Inspiring Leadership Conference is to be held on 13 and 14 June 2024 at the ICC in...

Sponsored post

Inspire creativity in your classroom. Sky Arts’ Access All Arts week is back!

Now in its third year, Access All Arts week is a nationwide celebration of creativity for primary schools (17-21...

Sponsored post

Unleash the Power of Sport in your setting this summer! National School Sports Week is back!

Unleash the Power of Sport this summer with National School Sports Week powered by Monster Kickabout! From 17-23 June,...


More from this theme


Labour’s Ofsted report cards: How they could work, and the hurdles

Party has vowed to 'enhance the inspection regime by replacing a single headline grade with a new report card...

Lucas Cumiskey

Leaders divided over Labour plan for Ofsted trust inspections

Labour wants Ofsted to inspect trusts as well as individual schools

Lucas Cumiskey

Ofsted: Trusts ‘not convinced’ judgments are ‘appropriate or optimal’

CST tells Ofsted's Big Listen that a separate safeguarding judgment may have 'merit', but warns against rushed move to...

Jack Dyson

Big Listen: Ofsted must embrace ‘far-reaching reform’, say leaders

Ofsted 'still has a long way to go to restore credibility', union bosses tell watchdog's consultation

Lucas Cumiskey

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. I love the idea that teachers move on too quickly in Maths or any other subject before students secure the skills and knowledge. Imagine that? Who’d have thought our GCSEs and jam packed curriculums would lead to that outcome. Do you think if we didn’t have league tables and Ofsted inspections we might end up with better mathematicians though?

  2. Emanuel Crisp

    I have two children who are currently being subjected to the primary maths curriculum and can say first hand that it is a horrific sight to behold.

    In the form it takes in our local primary, seven years of maths is atomised into a stream of minuscule learning outcomes, delivered via a conveyor belt of daily worksheets, each one with an incredibly narrow focus. There is no sense whatsoever of a holistic view of maths or of how one concept might link with another.

    A key message, that children need to be taught that there is usually a variety of ways to solve a problem, is brutally misapplied in these soul-destroying worksheets. They are repeatedly forced to use specific methods to solve specific problems where often the method chosen, seemingly at random by a celestial worksheet creation bot, is wholly inappropriate for the task. The intention of the message is that children learn to arm themselves with a range of techniques for tackling a problem and then apply them freely based on their own preferences and intuition: a liberating and creative process. Instead they are left scratching their heads wondering why Enid and Agamemnon are using the bar model in a dispute about how best to share a pizza between 76 people.

    These off-the-shelf curriculum-in-a-box solutions surely need to pass an incredibly high bar to be allowed into our primary schools due to the industrial scale pollution of maths learning they can cause.