The UK’s Royal Society apparently engages in something called the Mathematics Futures Program. Launched in 2020,
[MFP] was concerned with the future mathematical needs of young people progressing through education and preparing for diverse futures, ranging from citizens who will require functional numeracy in their lives to those in jobs/professions where mathematical competences will be a core component.
What might this look like? Well, the MFP has just released their Final Report, titled,
A new approach to mathematical and data education
Kind of gives the game away, doesn’t it? And if the oily phrase “data education” isn’t enough, the unceasing chanting of the acronym-mantra “MDE” certainly is. Then there’s the press release:
The report proposes a greater focus on using and applying mathematical concepts and digital tools to solve real-world quantitative problems – from making sense of finances, to understanding statistics in the media and recognising misinformation.
Ugh.
The MFP Report is long, but is thin on content and is impressively tedious, an interminable sermon on “data” and “digital technologies” and “21st century” and so forth. Reverend Lovejoy venerating the God of Excel. Even the executive summary is a struggle to get through, and to be honest we didn’t have the stomach to properly read any of it. But we checked on the canaries. They were dead. Of course.
The first recommendation is framed in a manner to discourage partisan bickering:
System change must be independent of political ideology and grounded in evidence.
Then, the recommendation (p 12):
The government should sponsor an independent task force to plan for long-term system changes and implement the recommendations from this report.
So, an “independent” task force should seek change “grounded in evidence” and then “implement the recommendations from this report”. Sentence first, verdict afterward.
The first recommendation, to accept the recommendations, is amusingly circular, but the rancid meat begins with the second recommendation (p 12):
Design and implement a curriculum that integrates appropriate data, statistics, and computational tools coherently with mathematics.
The Royal Society appears to have no shortage of computational tools.
This recommendation has a second component, which we’ll get to. First, quickly on the fourth recommendation with more on, and from, the computational tools (p 13):
Computational tools and technologies, such as spreadsheets, apps and programming platforms, should be well-embedded at suitable stages within MDE learning. Curriculum designers should ensure these technologies are incorporated to meet the new MDE objectives.
Just the usual crap, although quoting Pólya in support of the crap demonstrates an incredible level of chutzpah (p 77). As for how the Royal Society imagines the manner in which these computational tools will be used, they appear to have provided just the one solid example, on interest rates (p 24):
The example brings to mind Douglas Adams and the digital watches. The Royal Society clowns are so amazingly primitive they think that kids fiddling around with sliders is going to teach them interest rates.
Finally, a little more on the second recommendation, and its second part (p 12):
Review the early years and primary curriculum to provide strong foundations, strengthening key areas such as spatial reasoning.
It’s not clear why “spatial reasoning” requires special mention, but they make it pretty clear what they have in mind (p 82):
[Primary teachers] are familiar with techniques which develop pupils’ knowledge of maths, but the emphasis will have to move to enabling pupils to think, reason and apply their knowledge to solve problems.
Of course what these nitwits regard as a “problem” to “solve” is not quite the same as what sane people regard as a good mathematical problem.
This would be a good basis for MDE. Cross-curricular contexts include broadening opportunities for learning mathematics in age-appropriate ways (for example, with practical design and technology, and physical activity outdoors including geography) …
Um, is there any maths in MDE maths?
… so gaining more time and greater motivation. … creating space to develop deeper understanding of key concepts.
Sure. They say it, but we all know they don’t mean it. And, anyway, it has a snowflake’s chance in hell of working.
At present, the curriculum over-emphasises the performance of arithmetical operations, but it is the structure of the number system and number relationships that are foundational for future study.
This is gonna be the Think System, isn’t it?
In parallel, the curriculum under-emphasises the beginning of algebraic and other types of reasoning such as logical, spatial and statistical.
It’s not clear how “statistical” slipped into the learning of arithmetic in primary school but it hardly matters. The entire thing is pure ACARA-esque twaddle and is utterly mad.
An MDE curriculum would encourage the use of calculators and other computational tools at the appropriate stages to support children’s exploration of number …
Yes, of course. Learning the way numbers work is done by pressing buttons on a black box. How revolutionary.
It would be an opportunity to rethink the purpose of timed multiplication table tests.
And there you have it. It took you a while, but you got there.
And on they go. The same old crap, the glorification of “reasoning” over “recall”, not once pausing to ponder the worthiness of their crusade, and not once coming within a thousand miles of Reality.
Dear Royal Society, thank you. We maths guys are thin on the ground and we can surely use some help. But please, for the love of God, don’t you help us any further. You’ve done way more than enough already. Really.
When Victoria was looking for a 4th mathematics subject at VCE level, I proposed the following idea (as I recall).
We could have a 4 unit sequence on statistics. This would be readily achieved by following one of the excellent text books on statistics that do not depend on calculus.
Statistics could be removed from the curriculum in the other 3 mathematics subjects, thus giving more time to the remaining topics.
Taking statistics out of the General (Further) Mathematics courses would make them a bit empty, but otherwise, this idea has a lot of merit. Especially if it was a properly rigorous course in statistics.
Unfortunately, I cannot see that ever happening.
Descriptive statistics, finance etc could stay in general maths. It’s the inferential statistics that is smeared across the end of the other subjects that could then be put together in a proper sequence. Maybe just import the AP course…
eg https://www.khanacademy.org/math/ap-statistics