Exploring social patterns of participation in university-entrance level mathematics in England

Abstract

In recent years in England there has been considerable attention given to a range of apparent crises in mathematics education, one of which has been the long term decline of participation in universityentrance level (Advanced or A) mathematics. Given the negative impact upon mathematics participation of Curriculum 2000, together with the government's emphasis on Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects, the political intent to increase participation in Advanced level mathematics is clear. This paper uses the National Pupil Database (NPD) to develop a descriptive statistical account of how completion of Advanced level mathematics varies along the social axes of SES, ethnicity and gender. The process of working with the NPD is discussed in some depth in order to clarify the processes involved in this type of quantitative analysis and to illustrate how this analysis can be used to raise questions about who is doing what mathematics in the post-16 agerange.

Studying advanced mathematics in England: findings from a survey of student choices and attitudes

“…More general analysis of GCSE outcomes suggest that gender is the weaker social predictor of outcomes, following social class and ethnicity (Connolly, 2006), but this might not translate well to A-level participation. Previous work (Noyes, 2009), and ongoing analysis from this project, suggest that White British students are less likely, other things being equal, to choose mathematics than Chinese and Indian heritage students.…”

“…Elsewhere, we have written about the differential uptake of A-level Mathematics by prior attainment (Noyes, 2009;Noyes and Adkins 2015). For this sample (excluding those for whom a GCSE grade was not available), Table 2 shows that male students at each GCSE grade are more likely to continue with A-level mathematics.…”

“…An earlier attempt to plug this qualification gap with an applied qualification, AS Use of Maths, had failed for various reasons (Educators for Reform, 2010;Noyes, Wake, & Drake, 2011) and the antipathy of many students towards post-16 mathematical study is well documented (Brown, Brown, & Bibby, 2008). Throughout the period from 2004 until now, the numbers of young people studying A-level Mathematics has grown but it still remains a minority subject and there are important differences between males and females, both in England and elsewhere (Mendick, 2005(Mendick, , 2008Nagy, Trautwein, Baumert, Köller, & Garrett, 2006;National Science Foundation, 2002;Wang, 2012), Participation patterns also vary according to ethnicity and social class (Noyes, 2009) and the school attended (Noyes, 2013).…”

Managing learning trajectories: the case of 14–19 mathematics

“…This enabled us to make some general statements regarding patterns in learner performance and progression as well as quantify some differences in learner progress made in schools across the region (Noyes, 2009a). We were then able to identify sixteen different 11-18 schools for further investigation (one of these withdrew prior to the interview stage).…”

Assessing ‘functionality’ in school mathematics examinations: what does being human have to do with it?

“…This means that, unlike other subjects, the majority of students taking mathematics at A-level obtained the very highest grades of A* and A at GCSE; in other words, post-16 mathematics is not generally accessible to students other than the highest achievers. In addition we know that this cohort is differentiated by gender, ethnicity and class (Mendick 2005;Noyes 2009); and that there is also a school effect (Brown, Brown and Bibby 2008) with school differences evident in both participation (Noyes 2009) and attrition (Noyes and Sealey 2012).…”