VIEWS & OPINION How to beat ‘mathaphobia’ Comment by BEN HARDING, Director of Numeracy Programme at Winning with Numbers


We’ve all heard parents exclaim that ‘Maths is hard!’. Little wonder, we see children with a similar mindset, ‘Maths is hard, and I’m not very good at it!’ tends to be the tone of it. Schools often hold meetings for parents, trying to persuade parents that Maths really isn’t that difficult, and warning parents to be cautious modelling this to their children; ‘mathaphobia’, it seems, is contagious!


However, have we really won the right to say that Maths isn’t difficult? After all, in 2023 there were 27% of children leaving primary education in England without the expected level of Mathematical ability. Do we need to change the mindset of ‘Maths is hard’ through children experiencing something different, rather than simply being told to think differently? You could forgive those outside primary education for being perplexed that so many schools can’t seem to nail down primary mathematics success; especially where reading success exists. After all, there is more logic and obvious sequencing of learning points with number compared to phonics. Indeed, phonic progression is far more complex than number. Clearly, children need to verbally count to 10 before reaching 20. Similarly, instantly seeing double 30 as 60 is dependent on recalling double 3 as 6. Somehow, we can’t seem to use these simple ‘dependencies’ to structure a curriculum design, leaving all children rapidly progressing to genuine number-fluency. Why? Why aren’t we using the simplicity of number progression to show children ‘maths is easy, and they’re good at it!’?


Here are four possible reasons: 1. The simplicity is hidden: One reason is that these essential dependencies are deeply hidden in a broader mathematics curriculum, so their usefulness isn’t capitalised on. ‘Problem solving’, ‘using and applying’ and ‘real world contexts’, are all necessary features of wider mathematics, but they can distract from the simplicity that sits within number-fluency progression. To ‘unhide’ these dependencies requires a separation of the mathematics curriculum that isn’t often seen. If we isolate number-fluency, as a distinct central part of the mathematics curriculum, we can see it and treat it as we already see phonics, i.e. almost as a separate subject in itself. When we start to see number-fluency as a tangible, structured, systematic programme, being able to hold it, see it, and say ‘there it is’, we see those dependencies rise out of the fog and present themselves as a clear, logical, visible sequence of learning for children to progress through.


2. Too much discovery? Another reason we fail to see the simplicity of number-fluency progression is because we feel


January 2024


compelled to give children space to discover mathematical ideas for themselves. Again, it’s the above visual separation of Number- Fluency away from the rest of the primary Maths curriculum that allows us to see, as with phonics, that children can benefit from direct instruction with predictable teacher input and sequencing, only later moving to a more unstructured discovery approach for wider mathematical ideas and problem solving. In practice, this involves children entering into a clear, definite and sequential number programme where the teacher is focused on guiding learners through a pre-agreed learning system of concepts, procedures and factual recall.


3. Too much detail? Despite the simplicity of number-fluency progression, the intrinsic level of detail has also been a historical barrier to seeing the sequence of learning in a tangible form. Take the progression of verbal counting from 10 to 20. The child has to succeed with verbal counting to 11 before they can reach 12, and they need to succeed with verbal counting to 12 before they can reach 13, and so on. To document this, resource this, assess this, track this, in a curriculum plan has seemed like overkill in the past. However, one of the main purposes of ‘EdTech’ is that we can now have immediate and easy access to an atomised sequence of learning that provides learners with time and space for every small point of progression.


4. Too much confusion? Finally, ‘number-fluency’ itself has taken on a range of different meanings. For example, it is easily, and unhelpfully, confused with ‘numeracy’ (the using and applying of number-fluency in mathematical and real-world contexts). Furthermore, some schools use the word fluency far too casually, timetabling a daily number-fluency session. However, saying, ‘I’m teaching number-fluency’ isn’t the same as children becoming more fluent with number that day. Slipping into loose definitions of number-fluency provides a barrier to achieving the objective of children becoming more automated with the execution of basic number sequences and cognitive routines. One of the biggest obstacles here is that fluency can be muddled with speed or success. A child that solves 65 + 8 by quickly counting on, might appear fluent but it provides the answer quickly, but, actually, they have used several thoughts to get there and so are being inefficient with their thinking. Keeping with 65 + 8, the child that separates the 8 into a 5 and a 3 (so they can quickly move the 5 across to find 70 and then add on 3) might also seem fluent and deserving ‘fluency praise’, yet they still failed to recall the 5+8 part in one thought. Immediately seeing 5+8 as 13 means we are only one more thought from the total of 73 and it strengthens the recall of ‘5+8=13’ number fact. Genuine number-fluency involves using mental calculation procedures with the fewest thoughts, the recall of number facts and the widest application to questions of that type. In this example we can see that all 2-digit + 1-digit calculations can be solved in this way. Only later on, in the wider mathematics curriculum, should teachers encourage learners to explore the efficiency of different methods depending on the specific numbers involved.


Overall, primary mathematics success starts with seeing and clearly identifying number-fluency as a separate, core, domain of mathematics. Once we see this, we can teach through the simplicity at the heart of number progression that we all know exists; only then can we finally put an end to ‘mathaphobia’!


www.education-today.co.uk 27


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68