The Government's mechanisms for raising standards in mathematics education are:

1. Supporting teachers to improve the quality of teaching.

2. Increasing the amount of time spent teaching maths.

3. Increasing the amount of content on the GCSE specification.

4. Increasing the level of challenge in GCSE exams.

So is it working?

**Quality of teaching**

The best way to raise standards in mathematics education is to improve the teaching in classrooms across the country. Although there's lots of brilliant teaching, if you look at the bigger picture we're actually seeing a lowering of teaching standards as schools become more and more desperate to recruit. Vast numbers of students are being taught by teachers who lack the subject knowledge to teach maths effectively. There's also many classrooms where behaviour management comes before maths. Sad but true. The current landscape is not conducive to good teaching.

Many of us find that our busy teaching timetable often gets in the way of preparing high quality lessons. The only initiative that would actually make any significant difference to the quality of teaching across the country would be a reduction in contact time, giving teachers more opportunity to develop their subject knowledge and pedagogy. Of course, a reduction in contact time will never happen because of the costs involved.

The Government has made

*some*investment in the Maths Hubs initiative, and a number of hubs are doing fantastic work, but it's definitely not enough. Not by a long way.

As Anne Watson says, reported in today's Schools' Week article, there has been “little support provided for this very radical shift of focus in teaching".

**Timetable allocation**

I welcomed the Government's drive to increase the amount of time spent teaching maths, which was incentivised by double weighting maths on Progress 8. But some schools have not adjusted their timetables. This has resulted in a huge mismatch in teaching time across the country, with students in some schools getting 5 hours a week compared to 3 hours a week in others. This disparity really adds up across the course of a school year. It's a

*maths education lottery for children.*

**New content**

I taught Linked Pair GCSE this year, as part of a pilot in which students take four exams, leading to two GCSEs in maths. My students were taught a lot more content than students in most other schools. So did learning

*more*topics in Linked Pair produce better mathematicians? I don't think so. Just because my class can calculate AER and (on a good day) estimate the area under a curve, it doesn't mean that they are better prepared for A level maths than your class.

If we want our students to be better prepared to embark on A level maths, we want them to be fluent with algebra, indices, fractions and surds. Strong reasoning and problem solving skills are important too. Adding new GCSE content like frequency trees and iteration doesn't achieve this.

The worst thing about the GCSE reforms, in my opinion, is the increase in breadth when in fact all we needed was more depth. We already had too many topics on the GCSE syllabus and now we have even more.

**Harder exams**

Making GCSE exams harder is only an effective mechanism for improving the quality of maths education if it is accompanied by a corresponding shift in teaching quality.

Vanessa Pittard of the Department for Education says, “As a country and culture we do need to reform our whole approach to mathematics, our expectations, our teaching, our attitudes to maths”.

This huge cultural shift won't happen overnight. It certainly won't happen by next summer. It's going to need investment, strong leadership and patience.