We must learn to decipher numbers

31st August 2007 at 01:00

Michael Blastland devised and is a former producer of `More or Less' on BBC Radio 4

I'm about to make the kind of comment of which every teacher must be heartily sick: Education is missing something. What's more, no one without this "something" will be able to make sense of many of the causes they follow, the issues they love or hate, or the facts of politics and public argument. In preparing people for adult life, that's quite an omission.

What is this thing and how have we missed it? We have missed it because it has crept up on us. Issues we care about have increasingly begun to come at us in their own language a language we seldom teach.

What is this language? From health risks, government spending targets, league tables, surveys, migrants, crime, the economy, climate change and goodness knows what else, the language is numbers. Not maths, but numbers. They are ubiquitous. Those who speak this language rule.

To dismiss it is to give up the game. For numbers, measurement and statistics are now, like it or not, the dominant language of news, politics, even of citizenship.

It's true that those fluent in it sometimes deceive; statistics can seem bamboozling. But that's good reason to learn how not to be duped. And here's the radical claim: you can often outdo the lot of them.

Here is how easily. In 1997, the Government promised pound;300 million to create a million childcare places over five years. Three hundred million? Is that a big number? Three hundred million pounds for a million places equals pound;300 per place. That's simple.

Assuming it is a million places in each year, pound;300 each equals pound;60 a year. Simple again. Yet that suggests childcare can be "created" for pound;1 or pound;2 a week. Could you buy childcare for that? In rural China maybe.

Britain's entire political and media classes discussed the policy as if you could. Does the public debate really not know what "big" is? Often not. Yet the ability to see it can depend on no more than a sense of how big we are as individuals.

We could teach this, and other skills like it, easily. Are citizenship classes the right place to teach pupils how to interpret this language of numbers? I certainly believe this would be an effective way of getting children to understand the social world, how it works, and how it is reported.

Statistics has hitherto failed to be well sold as a subject for study in schools. That failure lags ever further behind its social importance. We should stop talking about it as the language of abstraction and start teaching it as an immediate language of political and public understanding.

* The Tiger That Isn't: seeing through a world of numbers by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot (Profile Books)

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar, Buyagift.com, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today