The recent announcement from Education Minister, Sarah Mitchell (19/10/22), that all students will sit an HSC Maths exam from 2026 is yet further indication that this government is out of touch and out of ideas.

Mitchell’s prosaic claim that “maths develops skills for life” and provides students “with fundamental skills in problem-solving, analysis and reasoning that are essential no what career they choose” is equally true of all courses studied at an HSC level. Any student undertaking a major work in Visual Arts, Extension History, or Extension English, or who is completing a major assignment in Construction will attest to this fact.

Mitchell’s proposal is likely to cause issues for schools on a number of fronts, especially with respect to staffing. The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) suggests that up to one in four year eight students across Australia are being taught maths by a teacher whose major qualification is in another field. Making maths compulsory at the HSC level is unlikely to address this concern. Meaningfully addressing the workload and salary concerns of the profession would prove more effective.

But Mitchell’s plan will have more far-reaching consequences in the way schools operate. A rudimentary understanding of school timetables will tell you that making maths compulsory will tie up an entire subject line on the timetable in what is already a very tight scheduling process.  

Furthermore, once you include the two units of English required to attain an ATAR, making maths compulsory will inevitably restrict student subject choice.

This issue is further compounded in catholic and most other religious schools, where students are obligated to study one or two compulsory units of religious studies. With up to 60% of their pattern of study now being comprised of compulsory subject, these students will experience significantly limited subject choice options.

There is also the matter of having courses which are accessible for students of all ability levels. Successive governments, bowing to media hysteria that the curriculum was being “dumbed down”, have seen the gradual removal of courses specifically tailored to engage lower ability candidates. It should be noted this culling process took place across all Key Learning Areas (KLAs), not just in maths.

Lower ability students, rather than floundering in classes with content way beyond their capacity, no matter how hard they applied themselves, took the logical option of not including maths in their pattern of study. If we are to cast these students back into the flames, we should at least provide them with content appropriate courses. As yet there appear to be no plans to do so.

There has been some suggestion that maths might only be made compulsory in order to attain an HSC and need not be included in the student’s ATAR calculation. Again, such a suggestion fails to appreciate how schools operate and displays a fundamental lack of understanding of human psychology.

The experience of teaching Catholic studies (non-ATAR), a course taught in most catholic schools, is instructive here. Any teacher of Catholic studies will tell you that many students fail to take this course seriously. In many schools it is referred to by students as “the religion that doesn’t count.” Teachers report students are frequently unmotivated and often resent having to undertake work in the subject as it takes them away from their “real” HSC (ATAR) subjects. Any suggestion that maths would fall in the same category would neither be welcomed by students, nor, I suspect, by maths teachers.

Finally, there is the overarching assumption that not studying maths somehow detracts from a student’s education or future prospects. In my teaching career I have personally witnessed at least three students who did not include maths in their final pattern of study and who became dux of their school. All three went on to pursue highly successful careers and are making valuable contributions to our nation.

Getting highly qualified and motivated maths teachers in front of all students should be the focus of this government. This is a complex and difficult issue to resolve and should be undertaken in consultation with teachers and their unions. Simplistic responses such as compulsory maths suggestions are not part of the solution.

Christopher Harris’ piece in the Daily Telegraph 27 Sept treads the tiresome path as to what passes for the ‘education debate’ in this country. That is, teachers are essentially to blame for the perceived inadequacies of the system, and that the profession is resistant to change.

Harris quotes Premier Perrottet claiming he wants professional development for teachers to be meaningful and not just “a box-ticking exercise.” Teaching quality, the argument runs, will be improved if we can just make teachers more accountable.

In the very next breath Perrottet goes on to acknowledge that the best teachers have an open door policy and employ “observations, team teaching, and other collaborative practice” to improve.

Why then is the go-to response from the government to addressing the complex issues in education further regulation of teachers?

Imposing an inspectorial process on time-poor teachers is hardly collaborative. It is also time consuming, costly in terms of the human resources required, and runs counter to the stated aim of creating an environment where collaborative open door policies are encouraged. In any case, it is highly unlikely that an authoritarian, command style method of classroom observations will effectively establish the level of a teacher’s competency.

Beyond being one of the most accountable professions in our society, the overwhelming majority of teachers, rather than shying away from open and honest advice, are all too often their own harshest critics. If the premier wishes to see increased professional collaboration in schools, working with compatible colleagues should not be seen as a “cosy option” as Harris dismissively claims, it is critical to the success of the process.

The fixation with “teacher quality” in previous decades wilfully ignores the fact that quality teaching cannot take place in an environment which is not conducive to such.

When schools are struggling to secure staff, when teachers are overwhelmed, and when the nature of teaching is now so complex that even our “best and brightest” choose to look elsewhere, blaming the teachers, yet again, is a lamentable response.

There is a role for inspectorial classroom observations in accreditation processes and where there are genuine performance concerns. However, no worker in any industry would be happy subjecting themselves to a performance appraisal when the deck is stacked against them.

Providing teachers with the breathing space that allows them to collaboratively engage with their colleagues in a professional environment, resourcing schools such that teachers can exercise their considerable skills, and re-empowering the professional voice of teachers would be a start.

The condescending tone of Harris’ article, and Perrottet’s insinuation that teachers opt for soft options, is deeply offensive. In truth, it is facile and ill-informed public debates of this nature which are at the heart of many of the issues facing the education sector.

Pat Devery is a professional officer with the IEUA NSW/ACT Branch

In this Current Issues blog IEU officers will respond to the issues of the day as they emerge. Comments are welcome.

IEU Members can contribute an article to the blog by emailing the blog moderator, Pat Devery, (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

Only IEU member articles will be considered for posting.

Not yet a member? https://www.ieu.asn.au/join-page