The drive towards mastery in the UK is widely viewed as having been successful in improving standards. The mastery approach is endorsed by the majority of teaching organisations, and practised by a growing number of primary and secondary institutions. While mastery reinforces foundational skills, problem-solving engages students in real-world applications, fostering adaptability and critical thinking that go beyond exams. Many educators therefore consider that the ultimate goal of maths education should be the apex of the pyramid below, and the issue is often discussed not just in the UK.
In UK Education:
The watchdog found that strong exam outcomes did not ‘necessarily’ indicate a ‘high-quality’ maths education because in some schools, ‘pupils are taught a narrowed curriculum.’ This ‘allows them to be successful in exams without securing the mathematical knowledge they need to be successful later’”
Ofsted, 2023.
In Chinese Education:
Chinese mathematics education is often praised for producing students with strong foundational skills in maths, but it faces considerable criticism, particularly for its focus on rote memorisation and standardised testing. The high-stakes gaokao exam, which serves as the primary college entrance assessment, does not sufficiently encourage creative and critical thinking skills. Scott Rozelle, an economist from Stanford, notes that while Chinese students often perform exceptionally well in high school due to rigorous exam-focused training, they struggle with applying these skills in innovative ways once they reach higher education.
New York Times interview with Scott Rozelle, 2016.
In Singaporean Education:
Singapore’s approach to teaching problem-solving skills in maths is often highlighted as exemplary. The OECD notes that Singapore “places a strong emphasis on problem-solving skills, teaching students to apply mathematical concepts in real-world situations.” This approach includes structured lessons on identifying relevant strategies and promotes flexible thinking, preparing students for complex, dynamic challenges outside the classroom.
OECD, PISA 2018 report.
The obvious question: why does Singapore stand out?
Firstly, there is a much more rigorous process in place for recruiting and training teachers. Singapore has an approach that is highly selective, ensuring that only the most qualified candidates enter the profession. Applicants undergo a thorough vetting process that includes academic assessments, interviews, and character evaluations to assess both intellectual capability and suitability for a teaching career. This selectivity, coupled with competitive starting salaries, attracts top graduates, establishing teaching as a well respected profession. In the UK, meanwhile, government initiatives such as offering bursaries to STEM graduates are often reactionary, designed to address immediate recruitment gaps rather than foster long-term stability. Teaching, however, should be structured and funded as a sustainable profession, ensuring that shortfalls do not arise in the first place.
Once in the profession, Singaporean teachers are supported by comprehensive training programs, with a strong focus on delivering high-quality, problem-solving-centred instruction that meets diverse student needs. This high-calibre training not only prepares teachers thoroughly but may also help them develop a sense of mastery, echoing the motivation we observe in students when they achieve meaningful progress. Additionally, Singapore requires new teachers to commit to at least three years, seeing them through a period of intensive professional growth as per the graph below. This commitment likely shapes teachers’ views of the profession, again fostering a sense of progression and possibly mastery. These teachers are more likely to feel they are meeting the high standards set by their colleagues, which can enhance retention. In the UK, however, with no similar commitment requirement, many teachers leave early in their careers. Recent data indicates that around 30% of UK teachers leave the profession within the first five years, meaning a significant number of potentially proficient teachers exit before they have realised their full potential.
In discussions of teacher retention, it is also crucial to consider the factors driving teachers generally to leave the profession. Surveys consistently cite workload and classroom behaviour management as two primary concerns. While addressing behaviour is complex and beyond the scope of this post, workload is an area where government intervention could make a significant impact. This focus on workload naturally brings us to the next major point that differentiates Singapore’s education system…the benefits from centralised curriculum design:
According to research by Fan and Zhu (2007), centrally prepared resources in Singapore emphasise methods such as Polya’s four-step problem-solving model. Polya’s model, which emphasises understanding, planning, and evaluation, cultivates deeper comprehension and enables students to approach complex problems methodically. This framework helps students connect abstract concepts to practical applications, making Singapore a leader in developing adaptable problem-solvers.
As per a number of my previous posts, I consider the lack of similar centralised planning to be the biggest shortcoming within UK maths education. Considerable time is inefficiently (but necessarily) used in the UK system tailoring resources to unique schemes of work, and the needs of individual classes. The same goes for the creation of internal assessments, making objective benchmarking across institutions impossible. If centralised planning was enacted in the UK, I judge that it would lead to better quality teaching, higher retention of teachers, and critically, a more effective learning experience being delivered. It is interesting to note that a number of multi-academy trusts have decided to centralise the planning of lessons and assessments, ensuring a high minimum standard of delivery, and leading to improved results.
What Other Systems Can Learn from Singapore
The Singaporean model demonstrates that problem-solving must be central to the learning experience rather than an afterthought. In the UK and China, problem-solving often takes a backseat to achieving high exam scores. However, Singapore’s success reveals that students who are trained to think critically and approach maths creatively build stronger, more adaptable mathematical skills.
A structured approach that puts problem-solving front and centre can make a meaningful difference in student outcomes—something I’ve seen firsthand and am passionate about addressing through Maths Advance. By focusing on structured problem-solving activities that support KS3/4 learning, Maths Advance aims to foster the type of resilient, critical thinking skills that benefit students well beyond the classroom. If you’re interested in exploring how problem-solving can enhance your curriculum, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
Another blog post, coming soon.
George
Founder, Maths Advance
MATHS ADVANCE BLOG 
Leave a comment