Maths

Maths to 18: Why it’s right to end the cliff edge at 16

The argument that maths for all after age 16 is too little too late neglects the evidence and perpetuates intergenerational inequalities, writes Sarah Waite

The argument that maths for all after age 16 is too little too late neglects the evidence and perpetuates intergenerational inequalities, writes Sarah Waite

12 Jan 2023, 17:00

Post-16 maths is in the news. Who knew that so many people – from Nigel Farage to Simon Pegg – would have so many different takes on whether young people should study the subject to 18?

There are several reasons why – if properly funded with a serious plan for recruiting more maths teachers – a couple of extra years studying maths would be no bad thing. We are one of the only developed nations in the OECD that doesn’t do this. We are also the only country where the numeracy skills of 16- to 24-year-olds are no better than among the older generation. Whether we like it or not, low numeracy has a significant impact on life outcomes and finances, and research has proven that studying maths for longer leads to increased earnings.

The arguments against the policy range from pointing out the shortage of maths teachers (and I look forward to hearing how government is planning to turn this around) to saying we should focus on the arts in education. Some see the whole thing as a distraction from fixing the NHS crisis (though I hope it isn’t an either/or), but the most depressing argument against the policy is the idea that any attempt to improve numeracy after the age of 16 is too late and ultimately pointless.

Over the years, the UK has had a tendency to look earlier in the system to find the solution to education inequalities. Undoubtedly, excellent childcare, early years and primary education are vital, but the notion that this is a silver bullet neglects that post-16 and adult education are equally important pieces of the puzzle of improving intergenerational social mobility.

It is well established that family background influences educational outcomes. Research shows that around one-third of the gap in cognitive outcomes between 3-year-olds from high- and low-income families is linked to parental level of education and the home learning environment. These factors remain whenever the gap is measured thereafter (at ages 5, 11 and 16).

Treating post-16 education as less important limits our potential to close gaps

It makes sense that leaving school without securing a good foundation in basic skills could leave you feeling less able to support your own children through their educational journey. If we treat post-16 or adult education as if they are less important or worthy of focus or investment, then we are indirectly limiting the potential to close gaps in the earlier years.

Moreover, many studies show that if early support and interventions are not sustained, their benefits all but disappear later in school. To make a meaningful dent in education inequality, we must step back at what additional support is consistently provided to which groups and when across the system as a whole. Doing so highlights that funding for disadvantaged learners nose-dives at 16 and that the absence of a 16-19 pupil premium makes age 16 a cliff-edge for additional interventions and support for disadvantaged students

But we know that 16 isn’t too late. Every year, Get Further partners with colleges and sixth forms to match students to top tutors to build their literacy and numeracy skills and help them gain gateway qualifications that unlock opportunities in further study and work. We see what can be achieved when more time and effort is provided to young people who didn’t reach the expected standard before they turned 16. Their pass rates are twice the national average when students receive at least 12 tutoring sessions over a year.

Young people’s minds aren’t fixed at 16, and our education system doesn’t end here. The policies we invest in and develop for pre- or post- this age should not be made to compete. They are complementary.

Nor is maths to 18 a new idea. It isn’t even a right-wing one. The policy was included in Labour’s 2015 election manifesto. If additional funding and credible efforts to recruit more teachers follow, then a renewed focus on this policy can only be good.

More from this theme

Maths

How a billionaire plans to make English pupils ‘world’s best at maths’

UK's biggest taxpayer has already committed £25 million to boost maths attainment. So who is he and what's the...

John Dickens

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

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

One comment

  1. Sarah is right about education after 16 being important – as it moves individuals closer to a career and takes them to a higher level than GCSE. The best way to make learning maths post 16 more effective would be to increase intrinsic motivation to learn, by making the maths relevant and tailored to choices made at 16. It surely must not be a one-size-fits-all approach because this already does not work (ie. is not successful for everyone at GCSE). Why would it work, as people narrow down and deepen their education? Where is the research that says it does?