Maths GCSE's

I think that maths, like foreign languages and music, tends to be taught by people to whom it comes naturally. Maths teachers, therefore, tend to teach in a way that works for students who also have an interest and natural ability in maths, but not in a way that suits those with little interest or ability (probably the majority). Maths teaching often fails such people. It failed me. I find no beauty in numbers, solving problems for their own sake is not particularly rewarding to me. What I really needed was to be taught why a certain mathematical process was useful in the real world, as its abstract nature was not of any interest to me.

I scraped an O-level pass, but went on to do physics A-level (and 3 others) where the maths content had some real-world relevance. I later went on to be a molecular biologist working in research, any maths that I needed for my work I taught myself, with the impetus of it being directly relevant.

I think one of the problems with maths GCSE is the majority that sit it probably won't use a good half of it ever again. Personally think we're going too big too soon with what we're teaching kids.

I absolutely agree, a qualification involving real life maths would be far more useful at that age and those that want to go on to a career that involves high level maths can go on to do the higher stuff after GCSEs. 

But if all you're taught up till 16 is addition, subtraction, division, multiplication, fractions, percentages, simple odds and maybe how interest and pensions work, it would not be enough for those looking to progress in technical subjects. It's like you need two qualifications, which is why there were O levels and CSEs.

But they merged them and created something with 9 result levels, of which 6 I believe are a pass.

But I think you probably need 2 different syllabuses, which would serve people better. However, you then run into the lower one being looked down on, which is probably  why they got merged.

After maths PE was my worst subject, I hated it with a passion especially those girls who had a permanent period and were let off PE when I was told running around would be good for it. In the end I just refused to do it, I refused to run, if I was put in goal I'd just stand there and let balls go past me. Why would anyone thnk that being in goal is a good position for someone who hates sport? Gym was like torture, in primary school we had to go swimming every week, I was useless at that too, we had to go in the baby pool and I don't think it was deep enough for me I was always tall and I don't think it gave me enough bouyancy, all it did was confirm that I swim like a brick. Nobody was ever in the water with us, just a teacher provided by the pool, who'd shout at us from the edge, we had to dp mandatory tests, like swimming a width or a length, which was hell for me, I feel like they would of quite happily of seen me drown before helping me.

I think some kids get a good choice and it works out well for them but others either can't pick the ones they want because of the set up or like you say are very much guided by parents and staff. The practical subjects can also still be academically challenging like PE so not always a good option for weaker learners. It's also still quite a restrictive choice although it has improved a lot over the years. But we still don't cater to people that are very practical rather than academic.

I think a lot of the choice of what subjects you'll get to study is an illusion, teachers and parents still have imput, or they did when I was at school and when my kids were at school. I wasn't allowed to do Cookery, the only O level I could have passed because the teacher didn't like me, I was a better cook than her and she didn't like that I'd take the things I'd made home and we'd have them for dinner, she didn't like the fact that I did most of the cooking at home by the time I was 13-14. I was made to do Home Economics instead, which was a CSE.

Something like 20% of the population are functionally innumerate, i.e do not reach the level expected at 11.

This represents a challenge for those individuals. Even things like discounts in stores can be confusing. This is partly why stores do buy one get one free (50% off), or buy 2 get one free (33% off) as it is easier to understand than the percentages. It also shifts more volume, in the hope people will eat it faster not just stick in the cupboard.

It is also why stores are required to put the price per 100g or per kg on the labels, so you can tell if 2 small items are cheaper than 1 big item, as it is hard for people to do it on their head. Often the offers are not what they seem.

This is the governments expectations. That all kids will leave school with a 4 in English and maths. They have to keep repeating it until they either get a 4 or leave education. They may get a 1, 2 or 3 but 4 is the standard pass mark. Many employers and college courses now have a 4 in maths and English as an entry requirements but not all the jobs and courses that are requiring this need people to have that level of education.

I don't think we should be viewing kids education as separating those who could learn from those who will not. Not at that stage. We want to be getting the very best we can for each individual and setting them up to achieve in life. At the moment we're not. We're teaching them that they're failures very early on. We're making it that everything revolves around their ability in maths and English. 

Educating kids should be about making sure they have the skills they need for later life not lasered in on the content of a GCSE. If these kids weren't being pushed through GCSE content. Perhaps they could be learning the skills they haven't yet such as being able to manage time and money so they have a chance at independence.

This is the governments expectations. That all kids will leave school with a 4 in English and maths. They have to keep repeating it until they either get a 4 or leave education. They may get a 1, 2 or 3 but 4 is the standard pass mark. Many employers and college courses now have a 4 in maths and English as an entry requirements but not all the jobs and courses that are requiring this need people to have that level of education.

I don't think we should be viewing kids education as separating those who could learn from those who will not. Not at that stage. We want to be getting the very best we can for each individual and setting them up to achieve in life. At the moment we're not. We're teaching them that they're failures very early on. We're making it that everything revolves around their ability in maths and English. 

Educating kids should be about making sure they have the skills they need for later life not lasered in on the content of a GCSE. If these kids weren't being pushed through GCSE content. Perhaps they could be learning the skills they haven't yet such as being able to manage time and money so they have a chance at independence.