Ideology and Australia's "maths crisis".
Top engineers and scientists don't own mathematics education.
Mary never told Jesus to get a job - John Craigie
As a mathematics teacher, I’m always interested to hear about mathematics education in the news.
Especially when there’s a crisis.
Late in 2024, The Age released two articles on a supposed “maths crisis” in Australia1.
The first, titled “Why Australia’s maths crisis is at a tipping point and how we can fix it” begins:
Top engineers and scientists say the nation’s mathematics crisis is at a tipping point, warning Australia’s ability to compete globally will be severely hindered without a dramatic lift in the number of teenagers studying the subject at a higher level.
The second article, “School maths crisis: Students are shunning specialist maths and it’s costing the economy billions” builds from the first:
Science and engineering leaders are raising the alarm over secondary school students’ declining interest in advanced maths, warning of a widening skills gap that already costs the economy billions.
The claim that Australian mathematics education is in crisis is worth challenging in itself, not to mention in these articles we also find a number of questionable solutions to the perceived “problem” of low enrolments in higher level secondary mathematics courses. However, I do not wish to focus on these issues here.
Instead, I aim to problematise the very core ideas that led to the publication of these articles in the first place. To do so, I will highlight how these two articles ideologically claim that the custodians of mathematics education are Australia’s “top engineers and scientists”, and that mathematics education is to serve the interests of industries and the economy, which is certainly not the case2.
Let’s begin.
Taking a breath.
I generally feel that it is good practice - rather than getting caught up in the arguments and solutions in educational discourse - to first consider the ideological basis upon which such issues surrounding education are explored. Educational journalism is understandably3 drawn to “crisis”, but casting one’s eyes over the landscape of ideologies that inform educational discourse can support a more critical engagement of it (Ryan & Webster, 2019), especially when we’re dealing with “crisis” rhetoric. It is after first considering the ideological that I believe we can more thoughtfully develop a position towards issues in education, such as the so-called “maths crisis” we see here.
Let’s take a look.
Ideologies of the latest “maths crisis”.
Keeping in mind that our beliefs and judgments in relation to what education is supposed to be for are not “evidence-based” but ideological in nature, we can see a few core ways that mathematics education is framed here that reveal some specific ideological perspectives.
I wish to focus in this post on the way these articles frame the purpose of mathematics education as serving the desires of industry (specifically engineering and science) and as a means of supporting Australia’s economy.
The idea that mathematics education - like that which is stated in the first article - is to churn out a "pool of advanced maths students to draw from for engineering and sciences" reflects Franklin Bobbit’s (he goes way back) belief that education ought to efficiently produce citizens for specific roles determined by society and industry (see Schiro, 2013). This perspective regarding the purpose of education is often referred to as the Social Efficiency ideology. From this perspective, the purpose of education is to meet the needs of a client (however defined) in the most efficient, practical and pragmatic way possible4.
These articles frame the engineering and science industries as the clients of Australian mathematics education, and so the “crisis” is that there will not be enough workers to fulfill the wishes of these industries.
Does this really warrant a “maths crisis” in Australia?
I don’t think so.
Who benefits?
The Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute report, which these articles both refer to, states that “the demand for mathematical science knowledge and skills is rising, making it essential to maintain a strong pipeline of future students to meet current and future need5” (AMSI, 2024, p. 9).
Who does it benefit for Australian education to function in this way?
To suggest that education is responsible for developing a “strong pipeline of students to meet current and future need” reduces our young people into objects of industry and the economy.
It is perfectly fine for AMSI to have concerns over the sustainability of mathematical sciences, but to suggest that education is responsible for developing a “strong pipeline of students to meet current and future need” reduces our young people into objects of industry and the economy.
A quick look at the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration and the rationale behind the teaching of the Australian mathematics curriculum makes it very clear that mathematics students are not the property of the mathematical sciences.
I believe we instinctively know this too.
If we are to truly meet our aspirations and goals for mathematics education in Australia, we need to ensure that our students are not just seen as another brick in the wall of industry and the economy, but firstly as individuals in their own right.
What is the (actual) problem?
In this post I have sought to challenge the idea presented in these two articles that the purpose of education is to produce effective workers for industry and the economy. This is not the first media campaign trying to convince more young people into science and engineering degrees on the basis that "Australia needs more engineers and scientists".
But what happens when the work dries up and all the positions are taken?
Young people are making decisions about their lives and are choosing to opt-out of top-level mathematics courses in order to make informed decisions that benefit their future aims, not those of industries concerned about securing a pipeline of young workers to pick from.
Are we really in a “maths crisis” then?
Depends on our ideological perspectives surrounding the purpose of mathematics education.
In the case of top engineers and scientists, it is.
But engineers and scientists don’t own mathematics education.
So, who does?
Till next time,
References
AMSI. 2024. The State of Mathematical Sciences 2024: 8th Discipline Profile of Mathematics and Statistics in Australia. The University of Melbourne.
Schiro, M. (2013). Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2 edition. ed.), SAGE Publications.
Ryan, A. & Webster. R. (2019). Teacher reflexivity: An important dimension of a teacher’s growth.
Yes, this has passed the news cycle but there is no doubt it will find a way to return with a vengeance in 2025. Consider yourself prepared.
Unless we collectively desire it to be, which I’m fairly certain we don’t!
But not necessarily justifiably.
For a bit more on this, Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of South Australia Amie Albrecht wrote an excellent post recently exploring the prevalence of various ideologies in Australian mathematics education.
Try selling this to your Year 9 mathematics class.
While I always sympathize with a call to treat people as people, aren't you ignoring a real problem by focusing on the way The Age happened to frame it? Are you claiming that enrollments in specialist maths are actually holding steady? Or that it is okay if they drop?
Anecdotally (listening to my older kids), I suspect many children who avoid maths don't realise they could be learning new ways of thinking, or believe incorrectly they are just "bad at maths". This seems bad to me.
And while industry is not the only concern, it is *a* concern. I wish there was more appreciation of maths in my own field (software engineering). I suspect the world would be a slightly better place if more of my peers had done more maths.
Likewise, and good luck!