HC Deb 31 October 1979 vol 972 cc1413-22

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

12.11 a.m.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

I welcome the opportunity of having a short Adjournment debate on the problem of the shortage of teachers of mathematics in secondary and primary schools. I begin by saying something about the scale of the problem and the vital need for the subject to be taught well by adequately qualified teachers who are well able to teach. We have such a need for new skills that unless we teach mathematics well at an early age there will be another reason for Britain being unable to keep up with its competitors in the acquiring of new skills. As life becomes more and more complicated and technical, there is an additional need for mathematics to be taught well from early years so that our citizens can generally cope with the problems of life.

As a former vice-president of the Institute of Mathematics said some two years ago, Mathematics is an art and a language. The earlier it is well started the better, for absorption takes place over the years almost subconsciously. But it has to be learnt step by step. The problem did not start on 4 May 1979. It has been with us for some time. It has been growing in seriousness and intensity. In an answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave on 27 July, he was able to tell me that 29.5 per cent. of those teaching mathematics in secondary schools—I stress secondary schools—in England and Wales did not have a qualification in the subject. In other words, nearly one-third of those teaching mathematics at that time were not qualified to do so.

There is no reason to believe that the situation has improved. Indeed, rather the reverse is the trend. It is a matter that is growing more and more serious. It was coming to light as a serious problem about two and a half years ago, when The Times, which I am glad to say will be back with us in 10 days, referred on 18 February 1977 in a headline to "Appentices taught basic maths". The article stated: Business has a poor opinion of modern education. The article referred to Newcastle. One passage reads: Some of the city's big engineering and shipbuilding companies are introducing remedial teaching in mathematics and literacy in their training schemes. That was just over two years ago.

A mere two months later, on 22 April 1977, a headline appeared in The Times Educational Supplement, which read: Far too many bad maths teachers". The article stated: The failures of modern mathematics teaching were caused more by the low calibre of teachers than by the contents of syllabuses. That was said by Dr. Edwin Kerr, president of the Mathematical Association.

The then Government in 1977 were finding pressure on them to do something about an increasing problem. At that time the tenth report of the Expenditure Committee for 1976–77 appeared. The date of its appearance was 21 July. The Education, Arts and Home Office Sub-Committee considered the attainments of the school leaver. In paragraph 59 the committee states: We heard more statements about mathematical competence or lack of it than about any other school subject. The CBI described it as the issue most frequently mentioned by their members. Paragraph 65 states: As if to compound the problem, we were told of two other areas of concern. First of all, the shortage of qualified maths teachers exists on a horrifying scale. In paragraph 70 the committee recommended that the Secretary of State should set up an inquiry into the teaching of mathematics. That was done by the previous Government. They set up the Cockcroft inquiry, which, we are told, will report in 18 months' time. I think, therefore, that this is a relevant time to raise this subject. If the inquiry is to report in the spring of 1981, it is relevant for us to know whether there is to be an interim report and what progress the inquiry is making.

In a press statement, the DES said that written evidence had been asked for under eight headings. Two of them, "Mathematics required in employment" and "The mathematical demands made on adults in daily life", concern me and I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether we have much information on these aspects.

The inquiry was widely welcomed by the press. The Guardian of 15 March 1978 said: The inquiry into teaching mathematics announced by the Government yesterday is long, long overdue. The Economist of 18 March 1978 said: Part of the fault lies with teachers. Too few of them—particularly in primary schools—are qualified in "O" level passes in maths… But part of the fault lies with teaching methods". That sort of press comment, from the education sections of our newspapers, on the subject has rumbled on. Not all the stories are good and not all of them have necessarily been proved.

But there was one particularly horrifying story in September of this year in The Daily Telegraph, which said that the lack of mathematics teachers meant no mathematics for a year. That headline referred to an education committee meeting in Bristol where one of the councillors pointed out that pupils aged 11 to 12 at two comprehensive schools would be given no mathematics lessons for a year because there were not enough teachers. We were told that there would be an inquiry into that. The councillor who mentioned the case went on to say: It is a national problem and I wanted to draw attention to it. She can say that again. We do not know the outcome of that inquiry. What we do know is that one month later, on 7 October this year, it was reported in The Observer that the inspectorate had given a check list of mathematics that should be mastered by all 11-year-olds. The list includes addition, subtraction, multiplication and the division of whole numbers. In other words, there is evidence that the inspectorate is becoming more and more worried about this problem. Can the Minister say whether the Cockcroft report will be published in 1981, or is there any chance of its appearing earlier?

On 18 April 1978 I asked a question of the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mrs. Shirley Williams. She said that some 240 teachers had been recruited into the special scheme set up by the previous Government for retraining courses in mathematics for qualified teachers who were not qualified to teach mathematics. It would be interesting to know what the current figures are and whether they are on the increase.

Do we know, from the total number of people who teach mathematics, how many of them have qualifications in O—and A—levels? I draw the attention of the Minister to DES circular 978, paragraph 11. It states that A compulsory course in mathematics to bring students up to the standards normally required on entry to training is sometimes advocated for inclusion as part of the BEd course. The then Secretary of State said that this arrangement would not be appropriate. She said that it would overload the timetable on the degree course and import into it subject matter which should be covered before entrance to training. Is that the view of the present Government? That was a pretty firm statement in 1978.

What is the position now? I end by making two or three suggestions as to what might be done. First, I do not think that it is possible for teachers, full- or part-time, to spend a whole year away from school. One looks with interest at projects such as that at the Cranfield institute of technology, which in July sent a special team to help the Sunderland education authorities in retraining and refresher courses for teachers. Can other institutions do what Cranfield has done? Is the Department able to fund such schemes or to help in any way?

As we move towards metrication, what extra help is being given to teachers? The primary schools present a special problem. The figures that I quoted from the answer which I received on 27 July do not refer to the shortage in primary schools. I suspect that the shortage is worse in such schools. The teachers least able to teach mathematics often teach pupils who find the subject most difficult. Flow do we get out of that spiral and difficulty?

The Times of 15 March 1978 stated: The number of graduates in maths has almost doubled in the past ten years. But lamentably few of them ever return to the classrooms as teachers. Very often, in fact, pupils are bad at maths because their teachers are. That is the heart of the problem. That is the Government's difficulty. They come into office with Cockcroft hard at work with his inquiry. In the meantime, certain action could be taken. There could be more in-service training, there are opportunities which colleges can offer to teachers and special emphasis could be put on improving the quality of part-time mathematics teachers. The Government are beside themselves in their anxiety about the need for people to take up new skills so that industry can expand. Unless we solve what lies at the heart of the problem—the teaching of mathematics in primary and secondary schools—we shall not begin to overcome this major difficulty.

12.21 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson)

We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) for raising this issue, particularly at this time when we have clear minds. I agree that the standard of mathematics is a major problem. My hon. Friend mentioned many reports. He could have added the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications report of 9 March last year. Dr. Kathleen 011erenshaw is the chairman of that distinguished institute. Chambers of commerce have also drawn attention to the difficulty in industry of recruiting because of the low mathematics standards.

The general teacher shortage has disappeared. For six or seven years there was a severe shortage, particularly in the major cities. Now we face specific shortages. The shortage of physics teachers is even more severe than the shortage of mathematics teachers.

My hon. Friend has ensured by his questions that we are aware of the shortages. In January this year there were 463 vacancies for mathematics teachers in secondary schools. I do not minimise the problem, but in September this year 301 qualified mathematics teachers were registered as unemployed. Perhaps if we could move the teachers round more, the shortages would be less severe. Of that 301, 44 were newly qualified.

My hon. Friend referred to teachers in secondary schools whose qualifications were not in mathematics. His figures are correct. A total of 16 per cent. of lessons in mathematics in secondary schools are conducted by teachers who are not qualified in that subject. A total of 29.5 per cent. of teachers who teach mathematics at some time in the week have no qualifications.

Whether these teachers who were not qualified in mathematics were teaching either the able or the less able classes, it is a serious matter. My hon. Friend suggested that they may be teaching the least able, but even in that respect the requirement of at least a good mathematics teacher is something that we should consider.

The only subject that had a greater shortage of qualified teachers was physics. I trust that there are not too many hon. Members present who are qualified in physics. Physics entails the ability to manipulate mathematical formulas in many cases. We had a shortage of 32 per cent. in teachers teaching physics at secondary schools some time during the week who were qualified in physics, and 22 per cent. of lessons in physics in our secondary schools were taken by teachers not qualified in physics.

One could ask whether this matters. There is a climate of thought in this country on the part of people who believe that the fact that we have calculators and miniature electrical equipment will solve all our problems and that people do not need to learn the tables now or to be able to master the four rules. As a Government, we believe, as teachers who teach mathematics in schools also believe, that mathematics is at least as important as it always was. A machine can give one the correct answer only it one knows how to use that machine and if when the figure comes out one can estimate whether it is the correct figure. With many of these machines one can put in a decimal point which could be misplaced.

On this point, it is interesting that Her Majesty's inspectorate recently published a discussion document on teaching mathematics to children aged between 5 and 11 years of age. I shall come to primary schools shortly. The document said that a facility with mental arithmetic was as important as ever. One must be able to get the right figures into a calculating machine and to take them out. In the figures in a table to which I shall refer shortly, which came into my hands this afternoon, I felt on looking through them, without being the greatest mathematician on earth by any means, that certain of the figures were rather strange, so we had them checked similarly.

Whatever the machines that are being provided are, and whatever the calculators that children use, children still need mental arithmetic ability when they go into shops and when they measure and count. Also, even if they are using mechanical or electrical equipment, they need to know whether the figure they have got is likely to be right or whether they have done something the wrong way.

Ultimately, numeracy and literacy are the two basic needs of an educational system. One can only build brick on brick. One process cannot be undertaken without a relationship to another process. We are talking about numeracy, but those of us in the House who are also keen on literacy—both subjects seem tonight to be of greater concern on the Government Benches than on the Opposition Benches—will remember if they have read "Gulliver's Travels" that Laputa was the only place ever visited by Gulliver where houses were built from the roof down. That is a quite unusual process, I suggest—even at this hour of the morning. Gulliver was amazed at this because he did not think it was the usual process.

In mathematics, one does not start with a calculus and do it from the top down. One must start with the four rules and with the tables and the processes that go with them.

People ask why we have these problems. I have spent some time on the table to which I have referred. I must not neglect bringing it to public light tonight. In 1968–69, 22–15 per cent. of leavers from our schools obtained an O-level pass in mathematics. In 1977–78, 10 years later, including the years in which the school leaving age had been raised, when twice as many pupils were staying on and could sit the O-level examination because they were completing that year, only 24.74 per cent. passed at O-level in mathematics. Therefore over those 10 years, despite the raising of the school leaving age, and when more than half left at the age of 15, up to 1973, the only increase overall in O-level passes in mathematics was about 2.5 per cent. That is by no means an impressive figure.

My hon. Friend has done a great service by mentioning these figure. I was astonished at the poor A-level results. In 1968–69, only 3.59 per cent. of all school leavers obtained A-level in mathematics. Ten years later the figure was only 4.1 per cent., an increase of only 0.5 per cent. We must make a greater effort in that area if we are to become a technical society where engineering is important.

My hon. Friend refered to an article in The Daily Telegraph of 27 September about the two schools in Avon which were reported to have stopped teaching mathematics to first-year children. Several days later the Chief Education Officer of Avon put out a press notice saying: The Director of Education, Avon, has identified the two secondary schools which were the subject of a claim that first year pupils were not being taught mathematics this term. In both schools there is a full complement of mathematics teachers and all mathematics teaching is proceeding normally. It is good to be able to give that bulletin on the progress of the patient.

The courses at Cranfield are most interesting. I shall be visiting there in two or three weeks' time. Knowing my hon. Friend's interest in mathematics teaching, if he has not visited Cranfield I shall be pleased if he comes along.

We are in that position, first, because of the shortage of mathematics teachers in schools. It is a vicious circle. If a subject is not well taught, pupils will opt for another subject. I took my O-levels in a Lancashire grammar school in 1941 and had to decide whether to become a physicist or a historian. I chose history because my physics master was called into the Royal Marines for war service. He was replaced by a master whose teaching I did not believe would enable me to get even an O-level after two years in the sixth form.

Two years ago, in 1977, only 2 per cent. of university students graduating in mathematics went into school teaching. That figure is astonishingly low. Of those in post-graduate work, only 7.9 per cent. went into school teaching.

The movement towards comprehensive schools, while not increasing the shortage, has made us more aware of it. There are more sixth-formers and we require more good mathematics specialists.

Some people favour modern mathematics, but one result has been to confuse mathematics teaching in schools, particularly with the mobility of teachers. Children may be taught traditional mathematics and then have to switch to modern mathematics. Whichever system is taught, it should be taught throughout the school.

We do not have figures for primary school teachers with O- and A-level mathematics. It is, however, important that general primary school teachers teaching arithmetic have some training in mathematics and are not trained merely in English, the arts or music.

I should like to mention the future, which I am sure is what my hon. Friend would like me to concentrate on. We are getting more mathematics applicants now for training as teachers. That is the good news. I shall give the figures in a moment. Secondly, from 1984 onwards, any teacher who qualifies will have to have O-level mathematics and O-level English. Of course, some students are undergoing four-year courses and others three-year courses.

My hon. Friend asked whether they could do this while they were on their course. It was the view of the previous Administration that this would not be possible. In this case I tend to share that view, because students on such courses are already pretty heavily loaded. If they were not able to pass O-level mathematics at school, when they were studying the subject regularly every day, they would need so much tuition that it would interfere with the rest of their course. If someone really wanted to train for teaching, and knew that he had to have O-level mathematics, which I believe he should, he should at present be attending a night school or a crash course. If he cannot get O-level mathematics in those circumstances, it is very unlikely that he will do so while undergoing a three- or four-year course.

The inspectorate is encouraging more mathematics applications for courses, and the number of candidates is increasing. In 1974, 804 applicants for the postgraduate certificate of education applied for mathematics. Last year, 727 joined. That may seem a decline of 80, but since fewer teachers were being trained the proportion of those going into mathematics was much higher than 10 years ago. However, the increase in colleges of education is proportionately unsatisfactory. In 1974, 1,740 trained, and in 1977 the number was 646. The planned overall increase is from 7.1 per cent. to 9.4 per cent. for 1981–82, but we need a much higher figure than that.

In the remaining two minutes I shall hurry through the other factors that were raised by my hon. Friend. The Cockcroft committee will report in 1980. My hon. Friend referred to the material on employment in early life. It is rather late in the day now, but we have that material for my hon. Friend. I can also tell him that 14 mathematics retraining courses have gone through and 380 people have successfully completed them. At present, 123 teachers trained in other subjects are being retrained in mathematics. Therefore, every attempt is being made. My hon. Friend, who for so long was involved in employment as deputy-chairman of our Conservative committee, will be aware that the Manpower Services Commission has extended in-service training in mathematics for primary and secondary schools. That has been of particular help.

The astonishing thing to me—I am sure it will also astonish my hon. Friend—is that while we are short of mathematics teachers, one-third of secondary school teachers qualified in mathematics are not teaching that subject. If the mathematicians who are qualified taught that subject, there would be no shortage. Whether or not the Cockcroft committee is looking into this, we shall certainly investigate why one-third of all qualified teachers in secondary schools are not teaching mathematics. If my hon. Friend and I concentrate our minds on that, we may find a solution or at least discover something that we do not already know.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter tonight. It has enabled us to concentrate attention upon it. I know that the education press will follow what has been said. As a Government we shall give all the help that we can to ensure that mathematics is properly taught in schools and that we have adequate teachers so to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.