Perhaps this article was designed
to provoke outraged response, if so, then congratulations TES on a job well
done.
Why was this article illustrated by a blackboard displaying
gobbledygook never seen inside any A level classroom, or for that matter
anywhere else?
And why was the article's title a non-starter,
given that it is clear to me as a maths teacher of 20 years experience, that
maths does not equal tedium (see this site for evidence). The ongoing debate
about the future of maths in schools needs far more careful handling than this.
There is so much ignorance confusing the debate. Maths is not summed up
by "times tables, long division and equilateral triangles". I would agree that
these skills constitute elements of numeracy or at least arithmetic, but would
argue that "long division" is one of those oft-mentioned activities in maths
lessons that actually rarely take place and are avoided at A Level whenever
possible anyway. Maths is not numeracy. Maths is not arithmetic. What maths
actually is, is a continued source of debate within the mathematics community,
not because we are all "bald nerds", but because the nature of mathematical
thought is bound up with the nature of "thought" in general, and that is
self-evidently a non-trivial issue!
Yes, the introduction of AS Maths
has been an unmitigated disaster. Yes, students do get a rude awakening when
attempting the step up from GCSE to A Level. Yes, there is a perceived view
that maths is the "preserve of the superbright". But there are more difficult
questions that demand asking too. Is Maths alone now in carrying the torch for
intellectual challenge at school level? Haven't other A Level subjects become
trivialized by Curriculum 2000? And are we clear about who is responsible for
all this?
When the Julie Henry's article summarises the views of
others, such as Tony Gardner's take on modular packages, it may well be
accurate, but when she throws in her own analysis I despair. "3000 modular
combinations to create an A level in maths", she says. Current proposals from
QCA to change the syllabus from 2004 will, according to her, axe "applied
maths, pure maths, mechanics and discrete maths". I was a member of the QCA
panel that drafted the proposals. If indeed we had agreed to axe all those
elements as she suggests, I am intrigued to hear what is left! Of course it is
only the titles of the qualifications that are being axed, not
necessarily the contents.
Finally, if the search is on for the magic
formula to revive A Level maths without diluting standards, can we first spare
a thought for all those other subjects where the search was never even begun
and standards crumbled without a murmur of concern from anyone? |
|
|
