Government considers compulsory maths lessons up to 18

George Osborne wants to make
maths compulsory to the age of 18.

We already discussed plans outlined in the budget to force all schools to become academies by 2020. Another budget announcement was that the government is considering making all pupils study maths to the age of 18.

The move was welcomed by prominent mathematician Marcus du Sautoy, but critics claim it is “undeliverable” because of a critical shortage of maths teachers.

It was one of several education measures outlined by George Osborne in his budget speech, but teachers point out that there are barely enough qualified teachers to deliver GCSE maths in schools, without the extra burden of a course for all 16 to 18 year olds.

The chancellor said, in his budget speech: “We are going to look at teaching maths to 18 for all pupils. Providing great schooling is the single most important thing we can do to help any child from a disadvantaged background succeed."

Currently schools are facing increasing difficulties trying to fill maths posts. Because of this pressure, 20% of maths lessons are taught by teachers without a maths degree. Teacher leaving rates in this subject area are also above average.

The government has called on Prof Sir Adrian Smith, vice chancellor of London University and former president of the Royal Statistical Society, to assess the feasibility of the idea. Presumably he will take into account chronic teacher shortages as one of the factors that may render the scheme impossible.

At the last General Election, the Labour Party called for English and maths to be studied until the age of 18.

The Labour Party's education spokeswoman, Lucy Powell, supported the new proposal but questioned its current viability and criticised the government for failing to achieve its target for recruiting maths teachers four years in a row.

“There is nothing more important to our global competitiveness than mathematics, which will drive success in digital skills, automation and other important jobs of the future,” she said.

There has long been concern about the maths skills of UK children, who fare poorly in international tests. The latest Pisa tests, from 2013, put England in 26th place for maths, behind countries such as Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

Academisation Phase 3 is on its way

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan will preside
over the third phase of academisation,
releasing all schools from  local authority control.

All schools are to be converted to academies by 2020 and then will be asked to join an "Academy Chain". That is the plan of the existing government, announced as a part of the budget on 16 March.

This move will effectively end the involvement of local authorities in school administration. Each academy takes a certain amount of its funding directly from central government. It is also free from the constraints of the National Curriculum and can set its own pay scales for its staff.

The first phase of "academisation" began before 2010. Failing and struggling schools were offered cash incentives to convert to academies. Outside sponsors provided some of the funding and because the schools were no longer constrained by external pay structures, could offer larger salaries to good staff, including to head teachers, to turn the school around.

After 2010, all schools were given the option to convert to academy status. Incentives were still available and a large number of state schools took up the offer. This was then education secretary Michael Gove's idea and they were known as "converter academies".

Phase 3 will see all schools being forced to take up academy status. Many have concerns about these plans, including the Labour Party, teaching staff and the unions. There will undoubtedly be extra demands upon central government and some suggest that the Department for Education is already unable to cope with its workload.

What do you think?
Do you think that academies have more freedom and flexibility to offer a better education to their students?
Do you think that effectively ending the National Curriculum in this way is a good thing?