I’m a maths teacher… which is why I say the GCSE has to be revamped

In this country, mathematics is a loaded subject. Whenever I say I’m a maths teacher, I'll watch the other person’s face change. There is always a reaction.

A few of them will be like, “Oh my god, I love maths,” and they're happy to talk to me. But the majority will pull that face and sigh: “Oh my god, you must be really clever.”

It’s as though, suddenly, they’re 11 again and back in the classroom, with their teacher telling them they're rubbish at maths, or with their parents as they open the dreaded exams results envelope.

This is something we as a country need to unpick. Because most people who have that feeling are actually really successful and use maths in their day-to-day life. But still they have a usually negative emotional response to the subject.

I was reminded of all this when the GCSE results were announced this week, which showed that, compared with last year, the percentage of students achieving a pass grade in maths (4) has fallen, to 59.6 per cent.

Perhaps anticipating the disappointment, the head of our most eminent science organisation, The Royal Society, softened the blow by declaring it is time the maths GCSE was consigned to the scrapheap, replaced by an assessment more akin to a driving test or a music exam.

I couldn’t agree with him more. Part of me is also glad of the intervention – and that maths results across the board have been quite so underwhelming – because now there can be discussion around it.

I’m a lead practitioner in an academy in south London. Parents understand that maths is important because it's a gateway to other things, and that there’s a grade you need to pass in order to move on with other subjects. So attitudes around maths can be complicated and bound up with negative connotations tied to their own feelings of failure. It’s a very normal thing to say “I'm bad at maths and I can't do it, I find it hard”. Something you would never say if you couldn't read or write.

The problem is some of what we currently teach is an awful waste of time. These days, the maths GCSE is split into two: a foundation and higher level. For the last few years, I’ve been working mainly with students doing the foundation level, giving them more than just the basics to get them above the pass rate of a 4. But it's hard to argue when they ask why it's important they learn about prime factor decomposition, even though it's quite a fun thing to do.

I've got a degree in maths and I don't remember using it in A-levels or in my degree. But I'm teaching it to students who probably spend more of their daily life thinking about percentages – money-off deals in shops and how much their savings could be earning.

These are people who might one day go into nursing or construction where they will need to understand about conversions, and we teach that to them – but we're also diluting that content with other things to get them grades.

Foundation-level maths – which is what I believe everyone should learn – should equip them to go into the world of work and society and feel confident doing so. Which is where changing the GCSE to make it more like a pass-or-fail driving test makes sense.

The reason I think this is a positive development is that the full cohort of students are meant to pass maths; it's compulsory. We want everyone to leave school with key skills that will help them in the real world. Except some of the content really isn't fit for purpose anymore. Now, it’s widely understood that a lot of the computational stuff is being done by computers much more quickly; and for the analytical stuff, increasingly, there’s AI.

At the same time, things have changed so drastically in the real world that you can't afford to allow others to handle your personal finances. You need to have some control of that, and to understand what is going on financially, so you don't get ripped off. But the universal maths GCSE really doesn't cover that.

We’re not fully supporting young adults going into the world of work and into society. The system is also rigged so that those who are seen to fail are generally the most vulnerable students or the most disadvantaged. Barely a quarter of those who resit will pass, so you’re probably not going to.

I feel these students are being failed by the system – and so a rethink is in order.

If it were up to me to revamp the maths GCSE, here’s what I’d do. I think there should be two qualifications. The first would be a numeracy GCSE – the “driving test” bit, which 100 per cent of students have to do, and need to pass. You would not be able to argue that the content was not relevant. It would be practical, real-life maths, which would also involve critical thinking, personal finance, data analysis – things that are needed for almost any job in the world, whether you’re a nurse or a hairdresser, a fashion designer or a footballer with a transfer deal to weigh up.

That's what 100 per cent of the student body should study. And then there would be a “higher” element of the GCSE, which would be an option for students who want to take maths to a high level. So that’s anyone who's doing subjects related to maths, such as engineering, or even geography or A-level psychology, where you need to think about statistics.

In my heart I think it would be great if everyone studied maths until 18, and they loved it. But why do it if you hate it?

A few years back, I was asked to teach the Core Maths Level 3 qualification because I didn't have enough hours on my timetable, so I couldn’t say no. The course covers financial maths and data literacy. I got a bit of training on it, and then taught it, and now I think it’s brilliant, a fantastic qualification. I've got a degree in mathematics and business, and I was learning new things.

For the first time as a maths teacher, not one student asked me: “Why do I have to learn this?” That's amazing – and it could just be transformative.

Susan Okereke is a maths teacher in south London, co-host of the Maths Appeal podcast with Bobby Seagull, and blogs at dothemathsthings.com