John, the reality is more that only a tiny percentage of us is brilliant in any subject at all, whether it be Maths, English, Foreign Languages, Sciences, Art, Music, Sport...But you are correct that brilliance in one subject is no guarantee of ability in all subjects. I met many of these "lop-sided brilliance" students as an undergrad, where my peer group was overwhelmingly people who got in the top 5% on the HSC, with most in the top 2%. I could not understand how one of my closest friends (an Arts/Law student) got 145/150 for 3 Unit English and 140/150 for 3 Unit History, but was "useless" at Maths, which he did not continue past Year 10. He is now a Partner in a top corporate law firm, specializing in insurance, shipping, and international trade law. Somehow, I doubt he really was absolutely lousy in Maths.

Similarly, my niece recently achieved an ATAR of 99.35 and is also studying Arts/Law, without taking any HSC Maths. Even though in Year 10, she was in top class, and in the top 10% of the State. I tried everything I could to persuade her keep on with Maths, even showing her that, all things being equal, if she maintained her current level, she would achieve a very high mark in even 3 Unit HSC mark.

There were 2 reason I was so persistent: 1.With only Year 10 Maths, she was probably locking herself out of a lot of university choices from Medicine to Economics, and so on. 2. Even if she ended up being interested only in Humanities degree at university (which ended up being correct - she is studying a combined Languages/Law degree), she will find that Maths would be needed no matter what career she ultimately followed. The fact she had decided in Year 10 she was "lousy" at Maths would inhibit her later decisions. She will probably think herself unsuited to do an MBA or MPA, as there is "too much Maths" (even though rarely beyond Year 10 level). Even if she joins Foreign Affairs, or an international organisation (as are her current plans), those careers are overwhelmingly about collecting data, representing data, reading other data, and being able to do so confidently and critically.

Rather than being "brilliant in one area and lousy in other areas", I think both my friend and my niece very shrewdly played the "maximize the HSC aggregate/ATAR" game, which means if you are brilliant in one area, and the HSC offers many other subjects, which have considerable overlapping cognitive content, then pile on those overlapping subjects. Fortunately, for both my friend and niece, English is the only compulsory HSC subject. So my niece took 4 Units of English, 3 of History, 3 of French, and 2 of Drama. And sure enough she got the exact same HSC mark (within 2 marks) for every subject.

This tactic might work out fine. I know of one person, who is now the Head of a university Classics department, whose HSC consisted of 3 Units in each of English, Classical Greek, Latin, and Ancient History. His HSC mark was the highest over the previous 20 years. His scholarship in Classical Greek is phenomenally good.

So, maybe these three examples are of people who have extremely high IQs, but have been accustomed to coming absolutely top only in one area their whole lives - English, Maths, Sciences, Languages - while only 'near the top (5-10%) in other areas. While nearly all students would be very motivated if they were in the top 5-10% for some of these subjects, the former group see the difference between coming 1st versus coming 10th or even 5th as an ego-crushing disaster, and thus will do anything to avoid it.

The truth probably is that even though these "lopsided brilliance" kids quit Maths after Year 10, they had it embedded enough in their high IQ brains that even at age 40, they can still read government reports, or business reports, the media etc, with ease, and a critical eye.

Unfortunately, as far as the topic at hand goes, the evidence shows that these "lopsided brilliance" kids do not go into teaching. We know that they once did, when generous Teaching scholarships were sometimes the only way a lot of kids could afford to go university, especially women, who, even a generation ago were relatively unwelcome in most other professional areas. Things have changed a lot since then, so women and even the poorest of those with "lopsided brilliance" will snap up offers in Medicine, Law, Languages, but not Teaching.

I would definitely agree that an education system should not be about excluding people from maths because they are not 'innately' skilled. Whether they should be able to avoid studying calculus if they see little application or interest in it for their lives is another matter.

Also while broad exposure to different fields could be said to be intrinsically worthwhile we select different stages at which it is no longer applicable to a field. From my schooling that was a primary level for subjects such as Art and Sport, early high school for Maths and Performing Arts, late high school for English. Beyond that point in Australia we allow everyone to specialise at a tertiary level excepting general electives which are more about enabling variety than requiring it.

I had a similar experience to your Italian with Music (struggling and having to work at something that didn't come easily), but it was my choice to do so. I don't think that enforcing Music would be a good idea, but I think a flexible kind of requirement that you requires multiple fields of study (eg. humanities/sciences dichotomy) with choice within them would be a good compromise.

Going back to the article I don't think that the case has been made that later high school maths is necessary to get the benefits you have identified. The main problem identified is teachers that are required to teach maths don't know it. It is very ham fisted to to try to remedy this by enforcing maths for all students instead of making it a requirement for teaching. Even if prospective teachers didn't take maths in school and then realise it is required they can easily take a bridging course at university (which my friend did for Business).

What more indeed! It's pretty simple really. If your contention is accurate that mandatory senior secondary maths is a genuinely significant factor in performance, then Australia - nearly alone in the world in not mandating maths - should be somewhere near the bottom of the TIMMS table. We aren't. We're in the top third. What's more, Vic and NSW outperform every other state and territory except the ACT, and if you take Vic and NSW as separate entities, like Taipei and Hong Kong, then they are in the top quarter of the TIMMS table - all without mandatory senior maths.

I did read what you wrote: "I suspect this will be like the London Olympics of education". Perhaps a poor choice of metaphor if you were merely wishing to indicate a wake up call. Perhaps "wake up call" would have been metaphor enough for your purposes without invoking the Olympics. I apologise if I misunderstood your intent.

Economies don't compete, businesses do. Unfortunately "education" has become quite the business in modern times and I suspect that is why it has become so competitive - almost to the point that we aren't educating any more but rather merely schooling and developing a standardised test fetish. Improvements on these tests are not the same as improved education, in fact they are arguably the antithesis of improved education and little more than branding chasing the international student dollar. Surely we who care about education should see through such posturing and look to preserve education qua education.

the link to that study about primary education student numeracy does not work, btw.

You mistake maths with numeracy. Adequate numeracy skills are similar to literacy skills and both are acquired in Primary School. Your (lack of) engagement with poets in high school was predicated on being literate. The reading skills mattered more than the poets, in your case. Obviously there are those who find poets inspiring - you didn't - which is why I think letting individuals decide for themselves is the sensible way forward and, yes, what the last 7 years of high school would be better used for. Certainly the last two years as a minimum.

My son was asked to tutor a year 9 student when he was in his first year at uni.

At the ripe old age of 18, he managed to understand the fundamentals idea.

He told me he walked in the door, asked for the 7 times table, and didn’t get it. He then turned to the parent and said this is a complete waste of time if he doesn’t know his tables. He will learn them by chanting them. Call me when he knows his tables. He was never invited back.

There may be better methods then chanting but know them you must. It is beyond me as to why that is ignored.

And in contrast...

I was schooled in the seventies and fed a diet of practical subjects at school. I was good at maths – usually getting better than 90% but was held back because I liked practical subjects and the maths that went with those subjects was fairly easy.

Since leaving school I did a Trade and subsequently an Engineering Diploma (before the systematic dumbing down started) and so improved my maths and science at that time.

In the last five years I started to self learn maths and physics and this was put into place as my kids were into their last 2 years of schooling and the maths texts in Western Australia are a complete joke and they needed help from somewhere. It turns out I like Maths and Physics.

Recently I have turned my attention to lighting design and have picked up an array of texts to see where I can start. I note lighting is taught at what would be trade level and also engineering level. I have found a book at such a level that relies on vector calculus to explain the propagation of light. The Divergence Theorem not only replaces pages of descriptions and pictures it also gives the ability to calculate and derive plenty. From my perspective, there are many people who are missing out because ‘maths is not cool’ and they have let it pass them by.

Beyond that though is where the real power resides. Everywhere around us is Gaussian Distribution, Limits, Divergence Theory, Counting Techniques, and on it goes. This is not to be a human calculator but to have a set of tools to use as a basis of reasoning.

An example is put a politician on my TV screen and have him or her talk about policy that affects a population and I will rule it in or out within seconds on the idea that if it does not stack up to Gaussian Distribution then it will be a dud. This ability to bypass their manipulative language and half told truths is a handy thing to have.

I wish someone had collared me when I was 14 and given me a very swift run through of maths, physics and chemistry and where it would or could lead. I wish that same person would have stood over me and demanded study effort for the times when I was slack.

Most of all, I wish I was not given the unassisted choice at the worldly age of 14 because I can tell you, I made the wrong one and it has taken 30 years to find out about the thing I passed up.

An interesting personal history Christopher, thank you. It happened to many of us.

The COMPETENCY debate provides the necessary parameters for determining proficiency in both Maths & Reading by Oral Reading Fluency.

This requires a change in present approach from "50% is enough" to Mastery Learning where "100% is expected".

Both Maths & Reading are basic skills that are the foundation for further learning in allied subjects, including "non academic" subjects like Woodwork, Metalwork, Tech Drawing to name a few. Ttry any of those three without counting skills.

This article says, "There is a problem" without providing any real life proposed solution. Unsurprisingly, the answer is complex & extends beyond the classroom. But then, that is to be expected when politicians have reduced teacher salaries to pay for their own entitlements over the last 40 years.

Tony, Australia's public Primary Schools are an academic disaster zone.

1. Only 20% of public school primary school teachers are male, a massive drop over the past few decades. Of course, to replace those who leave, we;ve had to dig lower and lower down the female-only talent pool.

Without language you can't do maths. Perhaps in your world numeracy is more important than expression, but that is a rarefied world indeed. The other 99% of adults need better language skills than numeracy skills, so it shouldn't be that much of a puzzle... ;-) Also reasoning and numeracy are related, but not the same thing. And if you want to teach reasoning, introduce philosophy.

Bruce, a large motivation was the broader "Gender Agenda" ideologues who captured Education bureaucracies during the 1990s.

I don't think I understand what you're getting at. You think I'm trying to teach Bruce the difference between Reasoning and Numeracy, or that I think Bruce needs help on one or more of those fronts? Or just being a smidge snide? Just to be clear, I was responding to the notion that maths is "more important to succeed in our society than language skills". The fraction of people in our society who use higher mathematics professionally is somewhere in the vicinity of 0.4% - which includes the research scientists amongst us. Probably another 9% or so use maths explicitly in their work (draftsmen perhaps?) - so fully 90% could get by on basic functional numeracy concepts that are taught in primary school. I would hardly think that warrants the claim that maths skills are more important than language skills to succeed.