I can't remember the last time I felt it necessary to close comments on a post because I felt that they had ceased to be useful, but I've now done so on the post that I have made on education, and why I think it is failing so badly.
My primary reason for doing this is because after 115 comments on just one of these two posts I felt that nothing further was being added by any additional commentary. That does, therefore, seem like a good moment to close discussion.
Another reason is that I was becoming quite bored by some of the commentary and the need to carefully repeat myself, endlessly.
Most especially though, after 18 years of writing a blog I have become used to professionals and those with special interest in a subject being abusive about suggestions that I make. Accountants did it when I tackled them on tax abuse. So did lawyers. Politicians were particularly rude. So have right wingers been so. The most common theme has been to suggested that I am an outside idiot who knows nothing about the subject I'm talking about, when evidence has almost invariably shown that the arguments I have presented frequently prevail at the end of the day. I felt some of the teachers commenting have come dangerously close to being in that space.
I'm not, of course, claiming to always be right. I change my mind when appropriate. But in this case I made three points
First, I said that there were more useful things to teach than trigonometry. When there are so many things missing from the curriculum that young people should enjoy this seems to me like a statement of the obvious, but that was apparently not true for others, although very few sought to engage with the point in any positive way. The acceptance of the status quo by most commenting was really quite surprising. I, however, gave some examples, and as a result everyone, it seemed, thought that I was seeking to dumb down the curriculum, as some right wingers would wish. It was also said that I was only interested in teaching finance, which rather worries me about most people's understanding of the importance of budgeting, getting tax right, and many other issues,
Second, I argue that subjects should be taught contextually so that the student has a hope of understanding them, and will as a result be empowered by the understanding that they develop. Fifty years of experience of enduring and then witnessing maths education in varying roles from being a school student, to a long-term chair of governors of a school, to witnessing my sons' own education, to teaching myself, has persuaded me of this. If you cannot, at the outset, explain why somebody needs to learn something, and why they will benefit from it, the chance that they will engage with what is being taught is very low, whatever the subject. This appears to be true from a very young age right through to undergraduates in my experience. This suggestion has, however, been rejected by some. They have suggested that I am trying to deny the relevance of pure knowledge and the beauty of maths. As someone who actually enjoy maths, and is accused to speaking it by my wife on occasions, I found that quite bizarre, and frustrating.
Third, as discussion continued, it became clear that it was widely agreed, even by those adamant that I am wrong, that the current teaching of maths in schools is very poor. That makes the case that everything I am saying is probably right. Not only are students uninterested in what it is being demanded that they learn, but so too are teachers, which is why it is so incredibly difficult to recruit people to teach this subject. Unless maths is made relevant in a way that students have explained to them, as I suggest should be the case, I am quite sure that this will continue.
Finally, an awful lot of nonsense was said about trigonometry, which is only ratio analysis in various forms at the end of the day. Learn ratio analysis in any other context, and it could be easily be taught to those students who might have need of it they are to pursue subjects where it is required, in my opinion. The belief that there is something unique to it seems to me to be quite straightforwardly wrong.
In that case let me explain what I think the role of education is, because this whole blog effectively exists to educate.
I want to empower people to understand the relevance of a subject, and to have at least some insight as to how that subject relates to the real world and how it might be understood. This seems to me to be the whole purpose of any educational endeavour.
Saying so, I stress that this does not necessarily require that every detail be understood. Most of us are not masters of the things that we have to engage with in life. Instead, learning about the basics of a subject so that we might appraise the quality of the information that we are being supplied with by those who are expert is usually of much greater importance. This also, in my opinion, lays the ethical foundation for those who are going to advance in understanding of that subject so that they might, eventually, be expert in it. They then know what others will demand of them.
Secondly, the context within which education might be supplied must be appropriate. Since the vast majority of children are not academically inclined, the presumption that the requirements of the university maths curriculum must prevail, with maths being taught as an abstract subject of value in itself is, in this context, utterly inappropriate, and inherently alienating for the majority of students, as experience has proven. To pretend that change is not needed in that case is also absurd.
Thirdly, education must have reach, by which I mean the person participating in it, rather than having it forced upon them, must have an understanding of why it can benefit their life to know this subject. This is a suggestion far removed from the accusation that has been made against me, that I am applying the idea that education is only relevant if it is of use to an employer. Instead, my suggestion is that education should empower the person receiving it, whether they are a potential employee or not. I am not interested in them enduring learning that they can see no use for, and which they will not succeed in as a result. I am instead interested in empowering them to critically appraise the demands of others upon them. That is what I mean by having an education that reaches into their life.
I will not be opening comments on this post [Note: I have changed my mind on this: perhaps a few hours break was all I needed]. I got a little bored by some of the comments that I received on the other posts, to be candid, many of which looked remarkably like the defence of a status quo that is far from working well.
So why am I writing this? As usual, partly for my own sake. I write to explore what I think, and then I share it.
I am also doing so to make clear that I am a long way from backing down. In fact, conversations I have had in the past day or so - during which I have been unable to find anyone supporting my critics here - persuade me I would be quite wrong to do so.
And, finally I do so because, as is true of all professions, debate on that profession's activities is far too important to be left to those engaged in it. That is because that usually leads to remarkably poor decision making that preserves the status quo in which those in that profession have much intellectual property invested that they feel imperilled by the criticism made. So of course I have a valid opinion to offer, whether teachers like it or not.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’m glad that this debate is still open and I offer this to further the discussion.
At a recent dinner party including an ex-headteacher of a secondary school and an OFSTED inspector, the subject of the national curriculum came up. I said that in my opinion all we needed between the ages of 5 and 16 was to ask the class to bring in an object from the recycling bin every day.
The class would then decide which to look to at in more detail and ask questions about the origin and nature of what they were looking at, so that by devoting an hour a day of critical enquiry they would have a good grasp of the complexity of the world in which they live and the reasons for many problems they see around them.
The national curriculum as currently taught, might be helpful, but far from essential and of course the class would soon get to grips with many questions involving maths – weights & measures, nutrition, regulations, approximations, work, pay, money, profit, tax, wealth ….
In addition, by the age of 16 they would understand enough about local and national voting systems to be demanding PR and be ready to vote ……
There was a silence – the key people who had spent a lifetime in education failed to respond in any form whatsoever which I found totally depressing.
In other circles the concept has provoked lively debate.
You are brave
I am not surprised at the reaction
How would those children learn frontal adverbials, as the national curriculum requires that they supposedly must do?
“There was a silence – the key people who had spent a lifetime in education failed to respond in any form whatsoever which I found totally depressing. ”
Utterly brilliant – to reduce an audience of experts to stunned silence – well done. You have no reason to be depressed – you were able to make a very good suggestion & they were unable to respond. & by the way – very good idea, reality-grounded education..
Richard, thanks for this.
I particularly like your third point, namely:
“Thirdly, education must have reach, by which I mean the person participating in it, rather than having it forced upon them, must have an understanding of why it can benefit their life to know this subject.”
because for me education is entirely about freedom. And I don’t mean the boring Right Wing argument about freedom, which is almost entirely the cynic’s argument for consumerism, in a world where the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
No, the freedom I mean is that of succeeding or failing (hopefully succeeding) on your own terms, without the support and direction of the teacher.
The teacher’s job – a parent’s job – is to make himself, or herself, irrelevant, because the student can act on his or her own judgement.
They are the flying instructor, whose job is to bring the student to the point where he or she can fly solo!
Context is vital here, as you say. And so is individual capability, as each learner will be different.
For some trigonometry may meet the need, but for most it probably won’t. But that key question remains – will this help student to stand alone, without being propped up by teacher or parent.
Education that does not achieve this is not really education at all, but at best what the French call “formation”, or training, useful, even essential, but not liberating, since it relies on “apron strings”, and an implicit supremacy of the trainer.
What needs to be taught in schools, therefore, needs to be put against that acid test.- will it enable the student to “fly solo”?
Thanks Andrew
Appreciated
Richard, you are so right. I sqeaked maths o-level (I`m 1001100 y.o.) by writing sin,cos,tan formulae on my palm, but I found geometry absolutely fascinating. As did the ancients in gematria. It may be/have been wrong-headed, but it hints at a certainty in the order of things, which may have led to the `scientific method`. It also led to the construction of some of the most beautiful edifices. This is to say, with apologies for personalisation, that if I understand you correctly, you are very much in favour of immersive education-is there another sort?-to enable our dearest offspring to critque and therefore choose what may be best for them and for all of us.
Your last paragraph is so true. Thank you.
I get your fascination
We discussed this issue in the context of Palladian architecture over our meal this evening.
The opposite of immersive education is superficial education aimed solely at passing exams – precisely what I loathe.
Aged 16 I asked our (terrible) maths teacher what the point was of this subject. She said so I could pass the exam at the end of term.
That didn’t seem like a good reason to me so I left the class and didn’t turn up for the exam.
I can “do” maths, I just couldn’t see the point in sitting the exam if I’d have no further use for the subject.
These days the government would have forced you to stay in education for doing that
I must admit right away, before I get knocked back for not knowing what I’m talking about that I have zero academic qualifications. At school I was good at composition and the technical classes but could never remember any of what was deemed ‘important’. (Some forty years I came across ADHD and often wondered if that had been my problem). Despite this I believe that I’ve made a reasonable success of my life because I had to learn by doing.
However the point of this, rather long winded, preamble is that my brother had an almost photographic memory, breezed through school, including latin! and was Dux. He lasted just a year at university because he hadn’t been taught to educate himself.
So I fully understand, and agree with, the point that Geoff makes as well as yourself.
(I might have been good at composition but I’m a rotten letter write!).
Engaging the student is vital
I asked two young people about this today and got horror stories
I left School at 17 and while this probably says more about me rather than the Education System at the time i cant of anything i was taught at school , as being remotely worthwhile . i got 4 O levels and studied A levels for a further year but then left because it was un- inspiring . I am 63 years old now and i so wish someone had told me when i started work as An Apprentice Electrician some simple advice , such as to save a small little bit each week in a Private Pension. Nobody told me 63 years would fly by in a Nano second and “Dont rest on your laurels ” is so apt a meaning . I have never needed to know about trigonometry but i have learnt a lot reading this Blog everyday and it is clear as day and night that we are a Docile lot ….. easily led and easily manipulated.
Thanks Simon
Perhaps I shouldn’t put my head above the parapet. But I thought maybe I can add something; I hope l can.
There’s a lot you say I can agree.
I guess the demographics of your blog is towards the older end. Perhaps not everyone is up to date. Definitely changes WERE needed to maths teaching. Definitely better teachers ARE needed (though there’s some damn good ones). But there have been very positive changes over the past decade. These changes are in progress, the change is far from complete, but it is in progress. I hope this discussion is not calling for changes that are already underway. It would be a shame to lose the progress that is being made.
What am I talking about? There is move towards “Maths Mastery”. I’m not a teacher, but what I understand is that Mastery teaching aims to ensure the pupils UNDERSTAND what they are taught, not merely go through the motions (seems obvious I suppose, but it hasn’t always, and doesn’t always, happen). This is being taught first to heads, then to maths leads, to teachers and then to pupils. This is directed through regional “Maths Hubs”.
I’m not really the person to ask. But it seems to be the right direction and work well in primary. In particular it helps to avoid maths phobia, which has prevented far too many pupils from learning. It is also progressing in secondary schools but I know little about that.
Perhaps, if your readers are interested, they might learn a little about maths mastery. Then see if different changes are needed, or whether at least some of the changes they want are already underway.
I have discussed this with quite a lot of young people – and they certainly don’t get that
The people come from several schools
Only read a few comments. Most people commenting here are probably professionals and received education to at least 18.
I went to a 60s Secondary Modern ( a one that offered O levels) I stayed on for a year and got 7 passes. At 18 I went to a teacher training college on that basis plus work experience. Several of my friends from school went on to hold important jobs. One was a consultant for the UN in running furniture factories in the developing world. Now he is confined to a wheel chair and in poor health but is a Patient’s Champion -on zoom- and is writing the biography of an artist. Reading the debate more seriously I reflected how this happened for us.
The economy was expanding and companies would train people; not expect them to already have the qualifications.
My college didn’t charge fees and there was a grant for those from poorer families.
The Open University gave more opportunity.
But it wasn’t just about provision. It was about curiosity and a feeling that with some effort we could learn about new things that we thought worthwhile. I have always read a lot and although we couldn’t afford much in the way of books, the comics of the time did teach a lot of information. The 1960s with civil rights, social reform, ‘Women’s Lib’, Cold War and so on was a time real progress seemed possible. It was optimistic.
After 1988 -the Education Reform Act- education became geared measuring progress against criteria.
Twenty years ago I went with a group of teachers to Denmark and visited the Pedagogical Institute and we saw how they were teaching. A research project. We all said ‘project work”. We used to do that.
They were given a task and guided on how to research and present it. They also skills sessions where they learnt information. Some of that is essential even though we might not think so at the time. One needs to know some facts and one has to just get on and make the effort.
I gather that the successful Finnish system works on a similar model. Maybe what Andrew Dickie wrote about.
I imagine even accounting could be made exciting if presented that way! Sorry flippant again, No lion taming jokes.
Some of the Danes thought they might need to adopt our system. I suggested it was not the way to go. Politicians and some employers have made their demands on the system against some of us in teaching but that cohort have now retired. I invigilated until recently and I heard from the kids that there are still teachers who inspire -without the need for three word slogans.
Make it real and relevant and students will carry on the quest for knowledge in other areas.
Thanks Ian
I was shocked that a head of Ofstead could come from a school where absolute silence was insisted on, not just in classes but when moving about the school, and I was further shocked to learn that this it was regarded as excellent and she was being lauded for it.
I struggled with maths until I had a teacher who loved the subject and communicated it – I can always do a right angle if I have a piece of rope and put 12 knots in it (it can create a 3/4/5 triangle), non of the rest stayed with me. When it was pointed out that a lot of calculus was about 3d graphs, and time, the penny dropped. In one lesson (action learning made it memorable) we stood in groups of 4 (8 arms), raised or down = binary numbers; each 4 of us = a byte. That stayed with me till, at 21 I had to decide what to do and I had a history and politics degree; it was obvious become a programmer.
The school I am referring to was a secondary modern and despite that fact that I was incredibly lucky, being branded an 11 plus failure still rankles (I am now 70).
I’m a self diagnosed dyslexic (you all see my typos). Without that school and the timely arrival of word processors and spreadsheets I am sure I’d have ended up in the minor clerical role the careers advisor put me down for; at 15 he scoffed at my proposal that I’d cram 6 O levels in 1 year to catch up and then transfer to the grammar for A levels and was going to University (I walked out much to mum’s horror and confusion)
The Head of this truly outstanding secondary modern was to be found at lunch in the summer, braces flapping, bowling to train cricket team. He also taught History. He was, I have to say a patriarchal one nation Tory (of the sort who have died out or are cowed by the current rabble). He eventually became chair of Humberside Education Committee. We had great (friendly, disagreeing) discussions about politics.
Secondary moderns like the one I went to were very much the exception, the junior school was the real culprit. We in the bottom classes didn’t get any 11 plus training, or even know it was happening – turn up one day to be presented with an exam – and such weird questions. This schools head ruled by fear, he’d patrol the corridors hourly and cane anyone he found (so don’t get asked to take a message). At assembly he’d put talkers in a corner and when it got to 6 each side he would cane them all). So as I see it this junior school could be a model if you just remove the physical violence. And the secondary modern should be swamped with targets and tick boxes – would its regime be possible?
Somehow I helped make a Consultant Surgeon (ms) and a business communications consultant (partner). We removed her from a so called good school after she was ridiculed by a teacher for her extra-mural activities (gym, swimming, brownies, music), it apparently interfered with homework (at 11 really). She went to the other local (supposedly rough) school and thrived (our bad for being taken in). He was one of those who had to design a pizza (it wasn’t a myth), we by contrast actually made stuff. He also had done WW2 three times (I kid not) by the time he was 14. My partner was a teacher, her school was deliberately marked down to force it to become part of an academy chain. She could not retire soon enough. Gove is a swear word in our house.
Why on earth did we destroy a perfectly good comprehensive system?
Education should be for the sake of learning about the world, and fulfilling your potential, not about preparing fodder for business…It seems Atkinsons, Flexible Firm, which as I recall (from my MBA) had a place for publicly funded trainees in an outer circle (i.e. the disposable bit), has become the norm. If you run a business you should pay for your own damn training. If your employees need benefits society should claw it back in your corporation tax.
Sorry, I’ll stop there because I’m going off the subject: education – it’s personal.
Thank you
Seems surprising how this topic seems to have got somewhat out of hand. I did feel a bit sorry for poor old trig at one point …but on your conclusion Richard :
‘debate on that profession’s activities is far too important to be left to those engaged in it.’
must be the true.
We are only in school – for so long and need to acquire the skills to continue learning throughout the rest of our lives .
Kids need to learn how to think, how to understand – including what maths can do , but it seems they dont get enough on what society and the economy is and how they work .
In the end, in my own case, I concluded its up to kids and students to make their voices heard – several times I had to ask why we werent being taught what was needed. Thats anecdotal of course.
But most people do remember some particular teacher who was a crucial influence.
May be best to declare this thread as a score draw?
Many good, if contradictory – points from many people
A really interesting topic. As a teacher I have railed for years about the junk that masquerades as education. You and your contributors have described its fatal flaws so well. I would add further crucial flaws. Firstly the current structure is based on exams which results in sterile lp
I would suggest the primary problem with education is that it, like so many other public services, has been starved of funds by the Conservative government.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/jun/04/english-pupil-funding-at-same-level-as-when-tories-took-power-study-finds
No surprise there were so many comments – everyone has a view on education because everyone has spent many years at the hands of educators.
Personally, the system suited me perfectly – early specialisation in arcane maths; wonderful. But this would be a nightmare for most.
Having spent quite a few years teaching newly minted graduates as they start their banking careers the most depressing question I am asked is “Will this be in the exam?”. 20 years of schooling has reduced bright, eager young people to mere gamers of a testing regime. They are shocked to find that their Master’s degrees in finance bear little relation to real world practice and that they need to actually THINK and understand. Some never manage it but the inquiring minds thrive.
Much to agree with
I occasionally help a company called ELSA who visit schools to give pupils an insight into the world of work such as helping them prepare for interviews. On one occasion I was in a special needs school for those excluded due to behavioural problems.
We set the kids a task to design something. One of them asked what the point of it was so I gave an answer I had learned a year or so previously: “In and of itself it’s useless. But doing this task will develop soft skills such as teamwork and how to think about different problems. It trains you in aspects of thinking that you may not normally come across. Maths teaches you to think logically, studying History enables you to develop analytical skills, while English gives you a grasp of the language so you can express yourselves better. This task helps in other ways.” All the kids got involved happily.
What surprised me, and probably shouldn’t have, was the reaction of the teachers who don’t seem to have considered this.
I like it
The extreme response to your reasonable suggestion that Maths is taught in a more experience based manner flags an almost religious belief in society and life being limited (controlled) by abstract number crunching. It made me think of Terry Pratchett’s fictional undefinable despoilers and obsessive controlling Auditors.
The past few months I have had a tragic familial experience of just how this form of brutal educational bigotry plays out upon children who are wired to think outside of abstractly decided boxes. Exactly the kind of individual I understand you are attempting to highlight as requiring a kinder and more inclusive Maths. They have been so badly bullied at school, made to feel such a total failure because of their lack of being able to ‘understand’ Maths as presented, they self harmed to the extent that they have now been hospitalised. From what I have heard from the Ward gossip, this is by no means an outlier event.
What social and personal damage are Maths whizz teachers and Prime Ministers willing to inflict on those that simply possess different worldviews ?
I think you understand my concerns
I had to train myself to undertsand those who do not undertsand maths – because to a reasonable degree, I do.
But, for those who don’t the requirement that they do what are to them quite impossible things is akin to torture
Thanks to all for a phenomenally engaging and thought-provoking set of comments.
As a bit of an outlier in today’s system (I’m semi-retired but still teaching 6th form at 72), I have had two teaching students on placement. They are now drilled to an inch on thousands of performance criteria, and lessons are repetitive and formulaic in order to pass their qualification. The target of their teaching is passing waymarking tests and exams.
This system is a) what student teachers were socialised into as pupils and b) the students are not just comfortable with it, but regard most departures from it as worth complaining about (as per a familiar comment mentioned above: “Is this in the exam?”).
Has History passed we oldies by? Have the Matthew Arnolds and their acolytes like Gove won?
To your ast question, yes
Specifically on maths. I believe that most people need to be happy about doing arithmetic, or sums. Doing mathematics isn’t something most people need. Just call the subject “sums” or arithmetic if you must, and present it in whatever way is necessary to make people/students/pupils happy with it. Unfortunately this would probably lead to a loss of status for current maths teachers, and hence is resisted.
One comment I heard is that running Pubs, Hospitals and Schools can be a nightmare.
The reason being that (almost!) all of us have been in one so think we know how they should be run!
Rather amusingly though middle son was asked to take a History Lesson at school as he knew more about it (Self Taught) than the teacher
I was asked to teach my fellow economics students as a sixth former, on gthe economics of nationalisation
I am not sure it was a good idea…
One thing school taught me was the use of the library and the laboratory. (It’s hard to imagine nowadays but students could buy chemicals from school to experiment with at lunchtime.) And so at university I learned most in the library.
I am unaware of how this aspect of my education was created but the desire to enquire and understand is something essential in education.
I read voraciously as a teenager
I still have a book from my school library (it was an error – I realised a lot later)
I was always in public and university libraries – although, I admit not now
How and why? Because people excited me with ideas and issues I wanted to explore
The magic of a library is that you can come out with something you didnt go in for and would not read if you had to buy it
Maths was my favourite subject. Trigonometry was always the difficult part. It doesn’t make sense unless you know the geometry behind it. Geometry is picture analysis. It has very little to do with numbers and everything about language and using that language to describe an object in its simplest form.
Maths can trick someone to understand something that they actually do not.
Having initially intended to comment on the original post, I decided against when I saw it descending in a manner totally inadapted to any form of reasoned debate, with two utterly opposing sides, neither of which I see as totally right or wrong, but seemingly unwilling to consider any of the other’s views. This is not a question of established facts vs fake news, but of a basic difference of opinion which should be open to the sort of respectful debate I have come expect of this otherwise excellent blog.
This new thread, providing many useful thoughts, has pushed me to offer my thoughts, for what they may be worth. I apologise in advance for the unusual length, but for me it was either that or nothing, so – after some hesitation – I decided it was this. But I feel I need to set my thoughts in the context of my career and more recent history which lead me to this blog in 2009.
First a disclaimer: while my whole professional life has been as a mathematician, I have never taught mathematics below University level and have little knowledge of developments in the former since I left school in 1960 (& even less since leaving the UK 40 years ago).
For the first 20 years of my career, I was a lecturer in Applied Mathematics, teaching mostly students of physics, chemistry & engineering at a UK university with a large engineering faculty where my research work included applying mathematical modelling to problems in life science (notably cell biology).
On moving to France, I was thus able to obtain a job with the the recently established European Centre for the Epidemiological Monitoring of HIV/AIDS where (in additon to being a useful English speaker!) I carried out analysis and modelling of data collected from (eventually) all 50 countries of the European region of WHO to estimate numbers of people living with HIV by transmission category and attempt to predict future trends in AIDS cases.
Now for the sting in the tail ….
After 20 happy years, I retired age 63 to spend more time at home with my then seriously ill husband. Following his untimely death, I sold our house near Paris & moved to a village in Brittany, depositing the money saved with a sterling account I held with the Isle of Man branch of The Derbyshire Building Society (DBS) to retain access to sterling for use on visits to the UK (all taxes duly paid in France!). I accepted assurances that all would be well when DBS announced in November 2007 that they had been taken over by Kaupthing, described in a glossy brochure as a norther European Bank operating in [an alphabetical list of countries, with Iceland discretely placed in the middle]. I had never heard of Kaupthing so had no idea it was an Icelandic bank and in any case, ignorant as I then was in financial matters, was unaware that Icelandic banks were already in trouble. My formal education left me totally unprepared for the shock when KSM (IOM) collapsed less than a year later. Joining the Depositors Action Group (DAG) rapidly set up on Internet, I soon discovered this blog from which I have learned a great deal over the years. As a member of the DAG Strategy Team, I became responsible for the news content of a new DAG website and the main link between the team and the members, assessing developments in the Liquidation as objectively as possible in the emotionally charged atmosphere between the Liquidator and the depositors. It took 7 long years, but in the end we recovered 100% of our capital and finally, in 2020, even a little of the lost interest.
Returning to the matter in hand, I have come to believe that one of the main benefits – if not the greatest benefit – of my mathematical education, was to develop a rational, logical, evidence-based approach to problem solving, which stood me in good stead in the aftermath of the bank crash. But this is not acquired through mindless rote leaning aimed only at passing exams.
I accept that there may well – indeed should – be other ways (some evoked by others here) to develop rational thinking and logical analysis, as opposed to emotional reaction. But this is not acquired through mindless rote leaning aimed only at passing exams.
I agree with many of the comments above that the main aim of any teacher should be to educate pupils to think for themselves in life and not be easy prey to unscrupulous /manipulative parties. They need to acquire curiosity and how to question the truth of anything they hear or read without evidence to back it up. Having long researched my family tree and now, in retirement, helping others, I am always amazed and irritated to see how many so-called researchers in this area totally fail to search out any firm documentary evidence before accepting an individual as their ancestor, which they then post on public sites where others unquestioningly accept them, thus becoming part of an unending error-propagation machine.
On the other hand, nothing in my (otherwise excellent) school education prepared me adequately for some of the basic things encountered in everyday life, notably financial, banking etc. It seems to me that the problem lies not so much with maths but rather with a lack of basic training in numeracy and related aspects referred to by Richard – the interpretation of data and statistics presented to them, rounding, confidence limits etc., things I would not personally call maths (anymore than basic literacy belongs to a more formal study of the English language) .
Might it not be better to address them under a different name (to be found – civil skills…? ), in addition and independent to mathematics which could then be treated on a level with physics, chemistry & other topics as subjects from which – after a year of two of introductory study – students can choose for further study.
These are just my immediate thoughts & musings arising from this thread. I throw them into the pot.
PS: Insisting specifically on trig as main culprit in this affair seemed unfair and unnecessary.
Thank you
And I accept that picking on trig was not my best ever choice
I believe ‘éducation civile’ features in the school syllabus in France. I don’t know exactly what it includes, but perhaps something like ‘civil education’ could include the basic areas in question in UK.
I just noted that someone above, in line with my thinking, above has suggested Arithmetic, but on its own this seems unnecessarily restrictive (and a possibly unwelcome impression of returning to Primary school?).
It is encouraging that you have the support of so many people who go for the “Light a Fire” model of education in preference to the recent past and current “Fill the Bucket” model, so harmfully advanced by the 1988 Education Deform Act.
Below is a list of authors relevant to those who support th “Light the Fire” model of education. More may be found under the heading of “Writers on Critical Pedagogy”.
Paulo Freire, Joy Jarvis, Sara Brogdan, Henry Giroux, Antonia Darder, Madeleine Rosa, Mike Seal, Marta P Baltondano, JosephNovaro.
Perhaps not all hope is lost!