Westminster Hall: Supply of Mathematics and Science Teachers in UK

Speech by Annette Brooke MP on Tue 20th Apr 2004

Annette speaking in Westminster Hall

Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this timely debate. I had perhaps not anticipated the direction that it would take, but it has been of great interest. I intend to concentrate on the title, but, funnily enough, something flashed into my mind as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) was speaking. I recall that when I was studying for my maths A-level, which I loved and worked on at all hours, I strayed and read something that Bertrand Russell had written. He wrote that as a young man the only thing that stopped him committing suicide was his love of mathematics. I found that inspiring as an A-level student. However, I return to the topic.

We can quote all sorts of statistics. For instance, more than a quarter of secondary school maths lessons are even now taught by teachers without relevant post A-level qualifications. As has been said, we can go round and round, arguing whether the problem is to do with our uninterested pupils or a lack of inspirational teachers. An article in The Independent on 19 February succinctly illustrated the vicious circle that we face with two equations, which I rather liked. It said that

"unqualified maths teachers + uninterested students = a drop in the number of people taking A-level maths",

and

"fewer maths undergraduates = fewer qualified teachers."

I would add my own comment, albeit on a slightly different tack. The highest level of academic qualifications does not necessarily equal the highest level of teaching ability. We should bear that in my mind. I am sympathetic to Professor Smith's idea about mathematical qualifications at different levels. The inspiration that is needed at the primary school level may or may not come from people with PhDs in mathematics. I would not make a presumption in either direction.

My underlying premise is that all our children have a right to be taught by a teacher who is not only qualified, but qualified in the subject or area being taught. Equally, teachers have a right to professional development. They need to enhance expertise or subject knowledge. I find it scandalous that the most recent secondary schools curriculum and staffing survey took place after a six-year interval. Prior to 1966, such surveys were conducted at four-year intervals. Concern about the shortage of subject specialists is not new. If there is to be a timely, planned response, it is essential that decision making is based on the most up-to-date information and that clear responses are made to identify trends.

Professor Smith commented on that deficiency. He said that he regretted the fact that only preliminary findings on qualifications and age profile were available to him when he was working on his report. How can vital targets for teacher training be set without sound information, collected regularly? I understand that the most recent data are made up of responses from only about 200 schools, which account for fewer than 25 per cent. of those asked to participate.

We have heard reference throughout the debate to two important reports, one by Sir Gareth Roberts, primarily on science but covering other subjects too, and another more recent one by Professor Smith. It is interesting that although they at times approached the problem from slightly different angles, they reached similar conclusions. That is certainly true of their views on centres of excellence, although the formats were slightly different. Both reports say that we seem to have an ageing population of science and mathematics teachers—I presume that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was a science teacher.

Mr. Key : No.

Mrs. Brooke : I apologise.

The point has also been made that school children are not finding science or mathematics exciting. I agree with other hon. Members that it seems nonsense in this day and age that science is not exciting. With the pace of change and exciting developments, how can children be bored by science? We should question what is happening in our schools. I personally have always had a great love of mathematics, and I am not sure how we have managed to turn children off the subject.

It emerges from the findings of both the reports that we compare unfavourably with other countries in both science and mathematics. The curriculum content is vital. We heard from Professor Smith about the fiasco in 2001, which had a particularly bad effect on mathematics. It was bad that such a large number of students failed, particularly as they had already had a bad time with the AS-level. As far as mathematics is concerned, Professor Smith's recommendations to change GCSEs are quite exciting. The possibility of the double qualification that would emerge from those changes would be worth considering. There is a lot of scope for change in that area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham referred to mathematical literacy, which we all see as important. It is a basic life skill. I recall an incident in my local authority area. The weeds were growing at a great pace in the pavements, and a new EU regulation required those who were to apply the weedkiller to have a paper qualification. There was great difficulty in getting the workers through that qualification because they needed to know the proportions. If people can do such things instinctively but cannot translate them on to paper, it is nonsense that they should be required to do so. We should ask questions about our approach.

It is difficult to know how severe the shortage of teachers is. One of the surveys found that many of those teaching mathematics did not have a post A-level qualification in mathematics. However, many of those teachers may have had a degree similar to mathematics, which would mean that they would be adequately qualified. They might, for example, have a degree in physics or in economics. I have a degree in economics, and would consider myself qualified to teach up to key stage 3, although it would be helpful if I had continual development and courses to keep me up to date. We must think outside the box, and perhaps work on the fact that there are people available with degrees with a high level of mathematical content.

Mr. Key : The hon. Lady has just made a profound point. Professor Smith also pointed out in his report that 25 per cent. of mathematicians teaching in schools are not teaching mathematics, which is a huge untapped resource. Like her, I was an economics teacher.

Mrs. Brooke : I was going to refer later to the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall do so now. I do not think that we need to worry about it too much, although research probably needs to be carried out. I know of a secondary school mathematics teacher who did not feel supported in dealing with behavioural problems in their school. The teacher then moved into a middle school and is now making an enormous contribution, not as a specialist mathematics teacher, but teaching mathematics, heading IT, and doing many other things with their skills—[Interruption.] I would give way under normal circumstances, because I enjoy talking about this subject, but I am really short of time.

Many people have identified the problems; we must now explore solutions and ensure that those solutions are the right ones. Top of my list—perhaps because of my teaching background—would be valuing teachers in general. Running teachers down and making false criticisms of them does nothing at all for the profession. I was unhappy about the recent statement made by the Secretary of State for Education to the General Teaching Council. He is quoted as saying:

"It is almost hit and miss whether your classroom teacher is working rigorously and systematically to improve the classroom experience for every child."

That statement worried me in many ways, not least because it is damning of the teaching profession. I found some of Chris Woodhead's comments damning of the profession in general and not necessarily reflecting the experiences to which I could relate. If we want enthusiasm and teachers to give 300 per cent.—I think most of them give more than 100 per cent. now—we need to support them and provide training opportunities.

We have also to consider why teachers are leaving the profession, as the lack of retention is affecting the supply of teachers. A recent survey by the university of East Anglia reveals why new teachers choose to stay or leave. Administration and red tape was cited by 88 per cent. of trainees as what they liked least about teaching, and it certainly does not help inspirational teaching. Poor pupil behaviour is also mentioned and, although I am in favour of inclusion, it should also involve plenty of support, which is often lacking in schools. We know that the work load is too high, and I wonder whether the resources will exist for work-load reform. Currently, about 40 per cent. of trainees leave the profession within three years. Other studies talk about the degree of stress that teachers feel. We have to address all those issues in the wider sphere of teaching as well as homing in on particular subjects.

We could be much more innovative with continuous training and development. I have mentioned the idea of those without pure mathematics or pure science degrees having enhanced training, and that should take place in school or paid time. Will the Minister consider something like a mini-SCITT—school-centred initial teacher training—scheme, in which someone with a degree has to do only three months to bring them up to the required level? We need to consider that, and I endorse what Professor Smith said. Many qualifications could be considered, but the system would have to be simple.

Monetary incentives have been suggested, and I agree about salary differentials. If we are talking about higher salaries, they should be for all teachers. If they attract more teachers, it will be all to the good because there will be more choice and higher quality teachers in other subjects. At the moment, schools in some parts of the country have barely any choice after advertising a maths job. They are lucky if anyone applies, certainly in my part of the country, where house prices are high. That is true for other subjects as well.

The economics argument, which I had thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham might mention, is that we would be giving someone an economic surplus if we paid them more that we needed to attract them, but there is an overwhelming argument for increasing salaries generally for teachers. That will drive up the number of people applying for each job, and market forces could work effectively. I know from experience that having different salaries for the same job in a school leads to a lot of differentials and unhappiness.

We could also think of other ways to improve teacher recruitment. In the last general election manifesto—that is not to say that it will be in the next one—the Liberal Democrats proposed the policy of improving teacher recruitment by paying trainee teachers a full pro-rata salary during their training year. There are many points to consider, including parity for students on the four-year courses and degrees and education qualifications going together, but the idea of training salaries ties in with Professor Smith's thoughts about using the physics and mathematics students in the classroom and paying them. A lot of work could be done on that.

Overall, we are talking about the importance of getting it right at all ages. The emphasis on primary education has to be the most important because there is no chance of stimulating and interesting children if we have not captured them early. We need to appreciate that, although we need the highest level of mathematical skills, we also need basic skills for so many jobs. People cannot take on today's jobs without the fundamental mathematical numeracy and literacy skills.

This has been an important debate. There are many questions for the Minister to answer, and he has a challenge. He must do something about this very big problem.