Throwing more pupils at maths won’t make them stick Andrew Gilfillan
AS we enter the matric exam season, here’s a question for you: Of those who have written the matric exams in the past four years, how many obtained 50% or more for mathematics — and that’s maths, not maths literacy, which is intended to teach life skills. Answer? Ten percent. So, in any given year, 40% of South Africa’s 600 000 or so matrics — both state and independent candidates — write the core maths papers and only a quarter of them (or 10% of the total number) know how to apply at least half of the work learnt over the 12 years of their school life.
What, then, did the other 90% of all matrics do? On average, over the past four years:
5% obtained a Level 3 (4049%) in maths;
8% obtained a Level 2 (3039% — a “pass”);
19% failed core maths outright; and
58% took maths literacy. Much has been made of pupils who choose to study maths literacy, with several commentators ridiculing the subject.
Although this article is not about maths literacy, what other choice do these pupils have?
Furthermore, what does a pupil who scored 40% in core maths really have?
Perseverance? Certainly. Mathematical thinking skills? I would suggest that they know how to perform basic mathematical procedures, but without applying a high degree of analytical thought.
Surely the aim of education is to encourage understanding? These results in core maths seem to indicate that the opposite is happening.
I attended a lecture given by a well-known critic of schools that do not force their pupils to take mathematics. He spoke of DEFEATED: Pupils need something between maths and maths literacy society not setting the bar high enough and allowing mediocrity to reign.
While I might agree with his sentiments about us needing to raise standards, surely there is a point at which the bar is simply too high for the average student to reach?
First, is it realistic to expect an average matriculant to master such abstract content when that pupil first has to overcome a multitude of societal and edmaths ucational challenges, both historical and endemic? Can we not give them a chance to succeed?
Second, most matriculants will not attend university — so it surely makes sense to give those pupils enough maths skills to help them in life, but rigorous enough to allow access to certain non-technical degrees, perhaps even allowing access to those courses that require some maths, but not the entire spectrum.
Ideally, this approach would meet the needs of the middle two-thirds of pupils.
I’m thinking here of a course which has a rigorous financial section, graphing section, elementary trigonometry as well as volume, area, data handling and probability, all in a context-based framework.
Effectively, such a course must strike a balance between the life skills taught in maths literacy, and the more rigorous core maths. Perhaps it could be called key maths?
If a student wanted to demonstrate academic rigour — but had no intention of taking a highly technical degree like engineering — then “key maths” would allow them to leave school with skills they can use every day, and they can study a BCom.
This cannot currently be said for a tragically high proportion of matrics.
It seems sadly coincidental that we are commemorating 100 years since the Battle of the Somme in World War 1, in which so many young people died because the generals felt that they could conquer if they only had enough bodies committed to the battle.
This seems to be the same strategy being applied by the Department of Basic Education: just push enough people into mathematics and we’ll get the number of passes up.
However, what if the majority of those bodies were committed to a battle that they could win — and that would ultimately make us a more informed and empowered society? That would be better, surely? Any observer of the education landscape might point out that the majority of South Africans do not have access to good education.
Substandard teaching, disruption in classrooms and insufficient resources are oftquoted reasons for poor performance.
Maths literacy results are skewed by papers being in languages which are not pupils’ primary thinking languages.
Ironically, maths is a neutral language, which allows anyone across the world to understand it.
Thus a willing student in a disrupted environment could use tutorials on the internet or in textbooks which they have a better chance of understanding at a more accessible level.
A final, sobering thought: If a committee were to meet today and decide to approve and implement this “key maths” subject, the first matric exam in it would only be written in five years’ time — two years would be spent on policy and resource development, and three years on phased introduction.
No, there are no quick fixes available here, but at least the majority of the country would be on a wiser path.
Gilfillan has taught maths for the past 21 years and maths literacy for the past 10. He works at St Anne’s Diocesan College in Hilton, KwaZulu-Natal
Surely the aim of education is to encourage understanding?