Low numeracy is a significant cost to nations, and improving standards could dramatically improve economic performance. The OECD in a report this year demonstrated that an improvement of “one-half standard deviation in mathematics and science performance at the individual level implies, by historical experience, an increase in annual growth rates of GDP per capita of 0.87%.” (The High Cost of Low Educational Performance p17). By looking at the effects of educational level in 1960 for the following 50 years, they were able to show that improvements in educational performance cause increased GDP growth, rather than GDP growth enabling more to spent on maths and science education.
Raising the average level is one way of achieving this, but almost as effective could be achieved just by raising the standard of lowest-attaining to the OECD minimum Level – an added 0.68% per annum for all OECD countries. In the UK, for example, this would mean bringing the lowest 10.7% up to the minimum level, with a corresponding additional 0.44% increase in GDP growth.
Besides reduced GDP growth, low numeracy is a significant actual cost to governments. Because people with low numeracy earn less, spend less, are more likely to be sick, are more likely to be in trouble with the law, and need more help in school, KPMG has estimated that the annual cost to the UK of the low numeracy is £2.4 billion (The long term costs of numeracy difficulties). They also estimate that to raise the level of 5 to 7 year olds to an age-appropriate level would cost about £2600 per pupil, but there would be a better than twelvefold return on investment.
The previous government, on an initiative from Gordon Brown, instituted a programme of one-to-one teaching the lowest-attaining ten percent of students in years one and two, called Every Child Counts. Although a full evaluation of this programme has not yet been completed, the early results are promising. In the 2008-9 school year they gave 2,621 low-achieving seven year olds one-to-one help with numeracy, and they made on average 13.5 months progress in Number Age in just 20 hours of teaching spread over three months. This is over four times the ‘normal’ rate of progress.
Of course, to roll out a one-to-one programme nationally, even for just the seven year olds, would be very expensive, and it would take a long time to train enough teachers and teaching assistants in the new methods that have been found to be effective.
Another way to support teachers of these low-attaining learners would be use specially-designed learning software that emulates the best teaching practice, and which adapts to the current level of the learner, just as the attentive teacher does.
Investment in effective methods for helping the lowest maths attainers would improve their life chances and make a significant impact on much-needed economic growth.