13
Examination of witness
Baroness Smith of Malvern.
Q162 The Chair: Good morning. We are very pleased to welcome today the Minister who oversees this area. Thank you so much for coming in to see us. We have a lot to talk about. I know that we have an hour and you then have to go off to somewhere else. Without further ado, we will get stuck in, unless there is any preliminary statement you would like to make to set the scene. I think you are aware of what we are trying to get to the bottom of here.
Baroness Smith of Malvern: The only thing I would say, Chair, is thank you for moving the time of the meeting so that I can go and do the debate early this afternoon.
The Chair: Let us get the questions up and running. I will ask the first question. I have written this question because, for me, it sets the tone on where the Government want to go in this area. Do you see this as an important area in the overall education both of young people and of our working and older population? Where do you think it fits into the wider skills and economic growth agenda?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: Yes, I absolutely do. That is because numeracy skills are crucial for individuals and their ability to live a full life, and to be able to get into work, because it is clear that employers recognise the contribution that numeracy skills make to what they need to see from their workforce. Because of that, we know that, at a national level, numeracy supports productivity and therefore economic growth.
For all those reasons, it is really important that we develop numeracy skills. Frankly, if we are going to do it most effectively, we have to do so from the very earliest stages of children’s lives, through the school system, into post-16 education and through opportunities in adulthood. Of course, our key objective in the system—if you like, the signal that somebody has the level of skills necessary to be able to access work and to get those benefits in their lives—is to have achieved a level 2 in GCSE standard maths. That is what we aim for in the school system. That is what we then provide for in post-16 education, in colleges and particularly in 16-to-19 education, if somebody has not managed to get to that level by the time they get to 16. Then, we ensure that, if a young person has still not reached that level by the time they get to the age of 19—although we are seeing an increase in the numbers who get there—then there is a national entitlement through adulthood and into the spending of the adult skills fund, which means that people can continue to have access to free tuition for qualifications that will lead them to that level.
This is perhaps where the DfE-DWP straddling that I do is important: through the skills system, apprenticeships, and the occupational standards that feed into apprenticeships and qualifications, we also have the embedding of numeracy skills within those qualifications and training routes, as well as through the adult skills fund, including tailored learning and more informal provision for people throughout their lives. That is a long way of me answering your question and saying yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Over to Baroness Garden.
Q163 Baroness Garden of Frognal: Minister, thank you very much. Around 70% of the adult skills fund provision is now devolved to mayoral authorities. What role do the Government play in monitoring how that funding is being used? How do they ensure that improving numeracy remains a priority across different areas of the country?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: My experience of speaking to mayors and combined authorities is that there is an alignment of our objectives. In other words, there is an understanding that numeracy is important, in the way I described it, both for individuals and for local economies. It is likely to be the case, in the spending of the devolved adult skills fund, that authorities will want to develop numeracy skills. However, ensuring that that is the case is why we have a national legal entitlement, which means that, wherever you are in the country, the commissioners need to provide free access to a level 2 course in maths for you. Even if they were minded to—but I do not think they are—devolved bodies cannot not make that provision.
We also have a developing accountability mechanism for devolved adult skills fund areas, which comes through the way in which the integrated settlement has been developed. We have an annual conversation as part of this integrated settlement, where we agree what the outcomes should be of the spending and then hold to account, or have a conversation with, those authorities about how they are spending that money. On top of that, we have Ofsted ensuring the quality of what is being provided and Ofqual ensuring that qualifications are of a standard that is appropriate.
The Chair: Do you have a follow-up, Baroness Bull?
Baroness Bull: I will ask a very brief follow-up. We heard from the Richmond Project that the devolution of funds and the local autonomy, if you like, even in that framework, made it difficult to roll out things nationally at scale. The example of online provision was given: some areas may or may not support that, because they want to drive young people or older people to their local colleges. Do you see a problem—or, indeed, a solution—there in how you can get economies of scale and national reach in a devolved system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: It is the nature of a devolved system that different devolved authorities will make different decisions—that is the deal with devolution. We may see more of those challenges and opportunities in the weeks to come—who knows? It is a fair point that you have a tension between what you need to deliver nationally and what might be the priority at a devolved level. That is why, because of the significance of numeracy, there is this legal entitlement. To the extent that either the DfE or the DWP would insist on a national way of delivering something—and, to be honest with you, that does not tend to be the way we work anyway—then, yes, by definition, it is more difficult if decisions are being made in different devolved areas. But, just to reiterate, in my experience—and for all the reasons you are doing this inquiry, the reasons that we know about and the reasons that Skills England, for example, has spelled out about the importance of numeracy—it is unlikely that it would be deprioritised, although it might be delivered in different ways in different areas.
Q164 Lord Hampton: The Multiply programme is very well spoken of, and people talk about it getting hard-to-reach adults back into education in that informal way. But, unfortunately, the evaluation is quite muddy: it got a lot of people in, and people stayed and went on to do other courses, but it has not really proved whether it improved numeracy at all. How can you build on that tailored approach but make sure that it is evaluated and is actually improving numeracy?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: I think you are right on the evaluation of the Multiply programme. As you say, it was always designed to be more tailored and more informal, to get to people who had not necessarily succeeded in more traditional ways of learning, perhaps in their school life or their college life. It was aimed to get at those people. The evaluation started with the objective of being able to measure the impact that it had on learners’ numeracy skills. But, of course, to be able to do that, in essence you need to test somebody at the beginning and at the end. By definition, if you have not succeeded in traditional assessment methods up to that point—and this is a voluntary scheme—you are probably going to be somewhat put off by the idea that you have to take a test. That is my understanding of why that specific bit of evaluation did not happen, but that does not mean that there was not the opportunity to do other evaluations.
The evaluation looked at learner and provider surveys and qualitative evidence, and it found evidence that there were improvements in confidence, that people were better able to practically use numeracy skills, that they were interested in going on to further maths learning. The progression data, through the individual learner record, was able to show that you were as likely to carry on into further maths study from having done Multiply as you would have been if you had done a mainstream adult education course. It will be lagged, but we will be able to see through the longitudinal education outcomes data—the LEO data—the impact on somebody’s earning potential. That will obviously give a more numerical, quantitative measure of the extent to which having done the Multiply course has led you, for example, to increase your earning potential. But there will be a lag for us to be able to do that.
Lord Hampton: If you can prove that Multiply was responsible for an uptick in all this, will you just go straight back to Multiply again?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: Multiply obviously had a limited funding period, based on the root of the funding—I have forgotten the name of it, but it took over from the social fund. The important thing about it is that it replicates many of the things that it is possible to do through the adult skills fund’s tailored learning approach. We are focused now on the evaluation and what it has shown about what is likely to work. We have shared that across different areas. That can be included in the design of tailored learning courses, which can be funded through the mainstream adult skills fund in wider areas.
Q165 Lord Hannett of Everton: Minister, I will ask you about the economic impact. You touched on that in your opening remarks to some extent. We have heard evidence linking poor numeracy to lower productivity and slower economic growth. What assessment have the Government made of the economic cost of poor numeracy? I am also thinking about this in relation to older adult education. How does improving numeracy contribute to the growth agenda?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: I said right at the very beginning that I think that there is evidence. Sometimes, it is quite difficult, including in some of the evidence you have received, to separate out the impact of specific numeracy interventions from other things. Nevertheless, there is evidence that, if you have good numeracy skills, you are more likely to be in work; if you are more likely to be in work, that is adding to the productive capacity of the economy and helping it grow. Equally, there is also evidence that, if you have low numeracy skills, you are more likely not to be able to work. In fact, there is also evidence that, of those vacancies that are due to a lack of skills, about one-quarter of them are because of a lack of numeracy skills. So there are employers who have roles to fill but they cannot fill them because people do not have the numeracy skills that they need. All that suggests that, yes, there is an impact on growth and productivity in the economy. You can see that through the response of employers.
Maths, for example, is one of the subjects with the highest returns to having studied it. A one-grade GCSE improvement for young people is estimated to be associated with an increase of £14,500-worth of earning potential, and a level 1 or level 2 maths qualification has been shown to increase earnings by 3% or more in what employers are willing to pay. That demonstrates to us that it is an important contributor to an individual’s ability to be able to live a full life and to work, and also to the economy as a whole.
That is the reason behind the investment that is being made in maths and the work that is happening pre-16 as well as post-16. The good news is that the most recent OECD PIAAC survey of adult skills showed that there was a marked improvement in England’s numeracy level, compared with the previous survey in 2012, and that we have a higher-than-average level of numeracy skills compared with other countries. In fact, there had been improvements in numeracy levels at all age groups, apart from 55 to 65.
Q166 The Chair: I will take the next question, which goes beyond education. It probably links to what you have just said—that a one-grade improvement in maths can deliver an earnings improvement of over £14,000. That is good. However, for those who are struggling with low incomes, debt is the next issue. Do you agree that we could do more on the signposting to the various advisory charities and organisations on how to handle this and, indeed, how to improve your skills around the managing of personal budgets and so on? When we come up with our recommendations, I am very aware that encouraging you to spend huge sums of money on this is simply unrealistic. You know my views on this more broadly—there are no RISE teams to worry about. There will be simple things that we can do. What we have discovered in this inquiry is that there is a huge number of good organisations offering sound advice on things such as budgeting. Do you agree that we could do more on that? Do you have any thoughts on this area?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: I agree with you, Chair. On the area of financial literacy, there is more that we can do in schools. That is why, as part of the curriculum and assessment review, the suggestion is that we build on what is already provided through maths and citizenship, with compulsory citizenship in primary, for example, and revisions to the programmes of study in the curriculum that enable there to be more financial literacy.
As you say, it is also important that there is the possibility for people, when they are adults, to have access to that type of support with debt and financial work. In particular, there is the work that the DWP does—by definition, if people are poor, they are likely to be in contact with the DWP and perhaps with our job centres as well. We work closely with partners such as Citizens Advice. If you are on universal credit, you get access to a range of budgeting support options to help you manage your money, some of which involve direct payment of your rent, for example, or budgeting advances to support you with unforeseen expenses. We are also the sponsoring department for the Money and Pensions Service, which provides free and impartial money guidance, debt advice and pensions guidance to the public.
There is also cross-government work going on, using, for example, dormant assets to provide more support in relation to financial literacy and support with debt. I agree with you that, if you look around, you will often see good work and resources being provided by the banks and by third-sector organisations. Being able to point people towards those and use those resources is also an important way in which we can help people have the skills they need to understand their finances.
Q167 Baroness Bull: You have spoken about the importance of early years. You will know the UCL research that shows that early maths skills—early number skills—are stronger in ages two to four, but then completely flip when a child gets to ages six to eight, when reading becomes stronger. We know, from the DfE’s own figures, that 22.4% of children in England do not meet expected standards in maths by age five. It is important to stress there is a massive disadvantage gap. You quoted the OECD figures, but we know that there is a cadre of young people who are being left behind, and it starts really young.
This raises questions about what more we can do at school. You have talked about numeracy being a priority, but if we look at the levers that the Government pull for nought to five year-olds, they are largely about literacy. Health visitors check for speech, communication and language skills; they do not check for numeracy. We provide libraries; we do not provide counting houses. So, throughout we are focusing on literacy, not on numeracy. What can the Government do to enhance and encourage that innate number sense that most children have—not all; some will have a learning difficulty? What is the role of parents, grandparents and carers? How can the Government and schools support them to be, in effect, outreach workers on behalf of a young child’s numeracy development?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: For all the reasons you have said, this is an area where the Government want to put more focus and resource in the early years stage. As part of the best start in life strategy, we will fund evidence-based interventions to support more early years educators to build confidence in teaching maths, because it is a matter of confidence not only for small children but for those in the early years education system. We are funding more early years settings to take part in the National Day Nurseries Association’s Maths Champions programme.
From September, we will have early maths leads in local areas. In essence, they will help develop and deliver continuing professional development in that area, supporting people to work with pre-reception aged children and identifying new bespoke support and new resources for early years settings. That includes CPD for those working with nought to two year-olds—babies. There is evidence that you can develop for children a familiarity—not even just confidence—with numbers, counting and the way you use maths from a very early stage. We of course need to be able to assess that, as you said. That is why two of the early-learning goals that a child will be assessed on in their reception year will focus on this. Therefore, we will be able to see whether there is an impact here.
You are also absolutely right to ask what families and parents are able to do with their children; that will be really important in helping to support them with numeracy. The first thing they can do is not to suggest that somehow maths is really difficult or that it does not matter if you do not do maths. We do not tend to say that about reading but we do still tend to say that about maths. That is an important message that parents can give.
Also, through our family hubs, we are providing support for parents in this area. Although it feels obvious, as a parent, you sometimes do not necessarily know that if you are going around the supermarket and counting things into the basket, or if you are talking about measuring and counting when you are cooking together, or if you are reciting songs and stories that involve numbers, those are all helpful parts of your daily life that help your children to be more confident about maths. The tailored learning part of the provision that can be funded through the adult skills fund also provides for work with families—particularly disadvantaged families or those who are under pressure—on how to do exactly this type of engagement with their children.
Because we now have the Best Start in Life website, we can put in more. It already includes many activities that are designed to help children develop these early numeracy skills that you as a parent can do with your child. If a parent or grandparent is looking for ideas about what types of things they might want to do, that would be a good source for them to look at.
Baroness Bull: It is really heartening to hear that range of initiatives aimed before school, because I know that it is a harder area for the Government but it feels really important. Could you do more to highlight this area, so that it is not all about “reading, reading, reading”—as important as that is—but also “count, count, count”, “play, play, play”, “spacing, proportions, groupings”, et cetera? That would be a very good message from the Government—and it would be free.
Q168 Baroness Hamwee: We have talked a lot about the role of grandparents in this committee. My question follows points about confidence, familiarity and maths anxiety. We have heard a lot about that and, frankly, I identify with it. You talked about various government programmes that are pointing people to information. Is the issue of people saying, “I can’t do maths”, in the minds of government when it is designing information about programmes—for example, for pensions, when pointing people to Citizens Advice and so on? You have to pull people in, not just provide the information.
Baroness Smith of Malvern: Yes, it is in the thinking of government. On pulling people in, if you are talking about adults, for example, we have seen an increase in the number of adults doing tailored learning-style classes and activities. Those are not your traditional qualification or traditional classroom activities; they are more along the lines of the activities that were part of the Multiply programme. That is a way of helping adults who have really lost confidence to find a way back into numeracy again.
The other important thing is that, obviously, there is a lot of early years stuff that we need to do in schools. I come back to the point that the most important thing is that we enable children by the age of 16 or 19 to have level 2 GCSE maths, because that will provide them with the important numeracy skills that can open up work and give them confidence in future.
We are also increasingly embedding numeracy skills in the occupational standards that lead into apprenticeships, adult qualifications and 16-to-19 qualifications. If you are doing a hospitality and catering course, for example, it will be based on an occupational standard. Within that occupational standard, it will be clear that the course needs to involve measuring, counting and handling money—all of the numeracy skills that help build people’s confidence.
Baroness Hamwee: One of the cohorts where we have heard that there is a lack of confidence is among teachers. I get that. We have a shortage of maths teachers. Is that a focus? If so, what is being done about it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: First, on the shortage of teachers, we are continuing to take action to recruit more maths teachers. That is why, if you apply for initial teacher training in maths, you get a bursary—it is £29,000-plus, I think—and why, if you teach in an FE college or a disadvantaged school, you can get a recruitment retention incentive of £6,000 in your early years of teaching. That has had an impact on increasing the number of maths teachers.
We are also investing in continuing professional development for teachers. Through the RISE teams—sorry, Chair—we are investing in initiatives such as supporting teachers to support young people going from primary to secondary school, which is often where some of their maths skills drop off, because you need to be able to do maths to access the rest of the curriculum when you get into secondary school. So there is a range of ways in which we are both supporting teachers coming into the profession and upskilling teachers who are in the profession already.
Baroness Hamwee: It is about getting, “Yes, you can”, into their heads.
Baroness Smith of Malvern: Absolutely.
Q169 Lord Blackwell: We know that achieving GCSE grade 4 is a critical issue for many 16 to 19 year-olds, because it is their passport into employment, but we have heard evidence that repeated resits do not necessarily help those who fail. They have lost confidence at that point. Following on from what Baroness Bull asked about earlier, we know that, if children lose confidence and fail to keep up with arithmetic and numeracy early on in their school career, they get left behind as the curriculum moves on. Resits at 16 or 19 are too late.
As we understand it, the Government are consulting on a new level 1 stepping-stone qualification in maths. However, there are already key stage 1 assessments and key stage 2 SATs, which both include maths; there is also a multiplication tables check in year 4. First, can you explain how the level 1 mathematics stepping-stone qualification, if it were introduced, would differ from what is already done to test maths ability in schools, as well as what age group it would be for? Secondly, what would be the consequence of that? How would it be used to help the children who show, at an early age, that they are falling behind in arithmetic?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: I will come back to the level 1 qualification, which we are designing for 16 to 19 year-olds, in a moment.
I believe that it is right, that, throughout a child’s education, there is a series of points at which children are assessed on their maths skills—particularly in their key stage 2 assessments, of course, because that is the point at which they go into secondary school. This is where some of the interventions to support children when they go through that transition, which I talked about earlier, are important. We are also introducing another assessment for students in year 8—their second year in secondary school—because, if they have fallen behind at that point, they are then going to find it difficult to access their GCSEs as fully as they would wish to do. So assessment plays a role but, obviously, it also identifies where better teaching and better teachers are needed.
In relation to the post-16 system, in essence we are saying that, if, despite those improvements, you get to the age of 16 and you do not have your level 2, which will open up opportunities for you, you should continue to have the opportunity to learn maths—and English, in fact—in post-16 education. That is why we fund colleges to do it. It is why we expect, through our condition of funding, that students who have not gained that level will get 100 hours of in-person, whole-class teaching throughout the year. It is why the FE commissioner has guidance on effective practice on that for colleges. It is why we are investing £2 million in CPD over the two years to 2027 in 263 FE colleges, so that teachers in FE can get the skills to help students get their level 2.
When you get to the age of 16, if you have grade 3 in maths—just below grade 4—you would be expected to be working towards a GCSE retake. However, we recognise, particularly from the work that happened in the curriculum and assessment review, that, if somebody has got to that point and they do not have at least GCSE grade 3, it is likely that they do not have the foundational basics of maths that will enable them to succeed. Putting them into an assessment that requires them to have that level, which a GCSE does, will not necessarily be the best way for them to progress.
That is why, as a result of the curriculum and assessment review, we have begun work on introducing this new stepping-stone qualification so that, if you have below grade 3 at GCSE, you will be able to go back and learn the basics to get those building blocks in place. You can be assessed through this level 1 qualification with the intention of you then being able to go on and get your GCSE grade 4 in the second year.
Q170 Lord Massey of Hampstead: Following up on Lord Blackwell’s question, some awarding organisations have proposed a numeracy driving licence or passport-type qualification. That would obviously help children who are okay at arithmetic and good enough to go into the workplace but who have not reached the required level at GCSE, which includes algebra, trigonometry and other areas that are not necessarily directly linked to useful employment. Do you have a view on that?
I have a second question about the future: how do you see the use of data and how this will change? With AI, children are being exposed to such different things. When we were talking about definitions of numeracy, Lord Tarassenko used an interesting definition: general, quantitative and data literacy. I am departing slightly from the script, but I am interested in how, looking forward, you see that issue in the future.
Baroness Smith of Malvern: On the point about different types of qualification, I would not want to comment on particular examining bodies or awarding bodies developing particular qualifications. However, we in this country are fortunate with GCSE maths, which is a highly regarded and internationally recognised qualification. Therefore, our priority, certainly within schools and 16-to-19 education, should be to focus on supporting students to get their GCSE grade 4. That is the reason for the things that we have tried to do there that I have talked about. That does not mean that there are no other qualifications—functional skills qualifications and others—that might be used by adults or by 16-to-19 learners in particular contexts and situations. But we should prioritise GCSE and the routes to GCSE.
AI and digital skills are a really important area of priority. This has been identified as crucial by Skills England, through its contact with employers. A level of numeracy and maths is necessary but, more broadly, digital skills learning is necessary. That is why there will be more digital literacy in the new national curriculum. It is why we have introduced, for example, short courses that can be funded by employers through the growth and skills levy for their employees in AI learning. It is why we will embed it more in the qualifications that we are introducing. In 2027, when we introduce the first of the new qualifications for 16 to 19 year-olds—V-levels—one of the first three of them will be digital skills.
Lord Blackwell: I have a follow-up question. Going back to the earlier tests during school years, there are clearly lots of opportunities to identify children who are falling behind in basic arithmetic and who will not be able to go on to the more advanced mathematics topics in GCSE unless they have a handle on basic numeracy. So is there a requirement to have more explicit treatment to help those children conquer their basic numeracy skills? Whether you call it streaming or different classes, do we not need to break those children out and focus on them, rather than just assuming that they will get left behind?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: Most secondary schools do set by level of understanding, particularly in maths. That is appropriate. But you are also right that you therefore need to ensure that children are getting those basic building blocks and are building them up. That is part of the reason why, as part of the curriculum and assessment review, we will review the way children learn maths from key stage 1, when they arrive in schools, through to key stage 4 and to when they take their GCSEs and hopefully get one. It is about making the way you deliver those building blocks clearer for teachers, so that children build their confidence and knowledge to enable them to go on to the next stage.
Q171 Baroness Bull: I am grateful to Lord Blackwell for raising that question. I will go a little further on that briefly. I declare that I am a patron of the Dyscalculia Network. We know that, even with those interventions, between 6% and 10% of the population will always struggle with these concepts. You have set up the GCSE throughout as a gold-standard, highly regarded international qualification. It is a gateway into employment and future careers earnings. Yet, for that cohort, it is almost certainly—not completely certainly—going to be impossible, despite them being brilliant in other areas. What are you doing to ensure that that cohort of people is not disadvantaged in later life because they simply cannot get that GCSE? Even though they can acquire all the skills they need for their career, that barrier will stop them.
Baroness Smith of Malvern: It is also the case that, for children with particular learning difficulties, there are different qualifications—level 1 qualifications, for example—that might be more accessible and suitable. Then, when people get into adulthood, there is some of the other provision that we have been talking about: more applied learning and different ways of thinking about numeracy and applying it through some of the learning from Multiply, for example.
Baroness Bull: Will that make the difference for a young person not getting a place at Cambridge, which they had on offer subject to the GCSE, because they did not get the maths GCSE? They were accepted otherwise. How can that be fair?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: You would have to ask Cambridge that question.
Baroness Bull: Maybe you could do so. In your ministerial role, you might get a better answer.
Q172 Viscount Stansgate: I would like you to step away from the current situation and look ahead five or 10 years. What improvements would you most like to see in the numeracy outcomes, in the full range we have talked about, from primary and pre-primary through to schools, further education and the workforce? When you look ahead, which of these areas, from pre-primary upwards, do you think will be most difficult for us to succeed in improving the numeracy of our population?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: As a proxy for better numeracy skills, I want to see more people getting to grade 4 GCSE, at whatever point but preferably earlier: at 16, rather than later. I want to see the learning from Multiply and high-quality tailored learning being used to open up chances for people who have got into adult life and have not got the numeracy skills that they would want. I want to see fewer of those vacancies that we were talking about earlier and that employers cannot fill because people do not have the numeracy skills to bring to them. I want to see the impact of higher numeracy skills on growth and productivity in the economy.
I want to see numeracy embedded in the way we were talking about, equivalent to the power of reading at early years. That is about building confidence from a very early stage. I want to see teachers being confident about their teaching of maths and high-quality maths teaching, wherever you come across it, in schools or colleges.
Out of all those, what is the most difficult? We are making really good progress with the early years. We should see what impact that has on what we need to do later on through children’s school lives. By definition, those will not be able to impact on the older ones among us, for whom there is only the chance of adult skills funded provision. The most difficult group is probably the 55 to 65 year-olds, which is the one group in which we have seen a fall in their level of maths understanding. I am sure that the numeracy skills of those around this room are excellent, but, as well as the early years, we probably need to keep thinking about how, as you get older, you can brush up and develop your numeracy skills. Even if you are not working anymore, your numeracy skills, whether for handling your money or for living a full life, are really important.
Baroness Hamwee: Just for clarification, you have twice mentioned the cohort of 55 to 65. What about the over-65s, or are they not counted?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: That is a very fair point. I will come back to you about the extent to which OECD also measures the over-65s.
Q173 Lord Blackwell: You have talked about a whole plethora of programmes, initiatives, testing, et cetera, aimed at dealing with this issue, yet I think none of us are satisfied that we are yet at the point where we can say, “Job done”. In your mind, is everything there, as you set it out just now, and is it just a question of carrying on with that, or is there any aspect of this where we will need a step change if we are going to tackle the problem?
Baroness Smith of Malvern: First, I am not complacent about this, but I think it is worthwhile recognising what I said about the OECD stats: we tend to have better adult numeracy skills than average and, therefore, than some of our major competitors.
This is my third time around in the DfE. The first time I was in the department, in 1999, the last Labour Government were introducing the numeracy hour and improving levels of numeracy for children in primary schools, and that had an impact. They were investing in ensuring that there were sufficient high-quality maths teachers in schools, and that had an impact. In the period in between, Governments have focused on numeracy skills. For example, we have seen a very big increase in the numbers of young people who now take A-level maths. When I was teaching, A-level maths was a pretty small group, and it is now the largest A-level—probably twice as many young people are doing A-level maths now as were when I was teaching A-level economics all those years ago.
There continues to be progress, but there continues to be a need, because we are ambitious to make sure that young people have the numeracy skills they need to take them into adulthood, with all the benefits for them and their ability to live full lives and to work. We probably need to keep looking at where the good evidence is. Multiply is a good example of something that has brought us new evidence about what is likely to work that we can share. We all need to keep working on that, because we are ambitious to make sure that our country has the numeracy skills it needs. Apparently, PIAAC covers only up to age 65; we might all have a view about whether that is the right thing to do.
Baroness Hamwee: With increasing the pension age, it is relevant.
Q174 The Chair: We have a couple of minutes left. Without wanting to lead the witness, I say that I want to produce a report that is useful to you, the Government. This is not a tribal thing, and you have just shown very clearly how, over 25 years, Governments of different colours have done different things but all with the same aim: to improve numeracy. The way I am looking to produce the recommendations is to focus on the five phases of life: pre-school; primary; secondary; what I call “early adults”, which is 16 to 19; and adults in mainstream life. Do you think that is a good way for us to do this? Would that be the most useful way for you to be able to carve it up to the different bits of government, when you get this and look at our recommendations? I genuinely want to give you something that is helpful and will move the dial a bit further.
Baroness Smith of Malvern: That sounds sensible, Chair. When you started this, I think you had a focus on adult and post-16 numeracy skills, but, as we have all recognised, the extent to which you have numeracy skills as an adult is determined by what happens to you from the moment you are born and the time you go through the education system, and there are different challenges about the approaches that you take at different stages. There are possibly particular challenges when people become adults having not got to that GCSE grade 4 level. Any good ideas about what more we need to do, in a devolved system, to make sure that there is a recognition of the need to continue developing numeracy skills, and for that to inform the devolved Administrations, would be useful.
As with all these things, in the DfE and the DWP, we have a specific remit for this, but there are a whole range of different ways to do this—you talked about the organisations that support people with debt and financial literacy. There is a need for a cultural understanding of the significance of numerical skills and a move away from the idea that, somehow or other, it is okay to be rubbish at maths. The way you might think about that goes beyond government.
The Chair: Thank you so much for joining us today. We will bring this to a conclusion, to give you time to get down to the Chamber. Your answers have been very helpful. I am pleased that you share our interest in this and that it is a whole-of-government endeavour. We look forward to sharing our thoughts with you later in the year.
