Fix Grade 1 to 3 maths or keep failing matric
The real conversation is not about whether to offer mathematics literacy in the matric curriculum. It is about why so many learners consider this as an option, writes Lufuno Muthubi-Mthethwa.
South Africa’s matric results arrive every January like a ritual of collective disappointment. The headlines focus on pass rates. The debate circles around the same culprits: under-resourced schools, undertrained teachers, and overcrowded classrooms. And then we move on, and very little changes.
Here is what the debate misses: by the time a learner reaches Grade 10, the damage is already done. The crisis in South African mathematics is not a high school problem. It is a foundation phase problem. And until we treat it as one, we will keep watching Grade 12 results get worse.
There is no question that South African learners can do mathematics. And yet repeated international benchmarks place them far below basic developmental standards. This is not a story about ability. It’s a story of missed opportunity for children who are more than capable. The knowledge economy will not wait. South Africa can, and must, be a producer of digital talent, not merely a consumer of it. But not if we keep missing the basics.
READ | Scrap maths literacy, ‘it’s undermining our children’s future’ – Mamphela Ramphele, experts
The numbers are stark. Mathematics literacy entries in Grade 12 are rising sharply, while pure mathematics entries are falling. Four hundred and sixty-seven schools failed to offer any mathematics last year.
Most tellingly: learners who scored below 40% for mathematics in Grade 9 are significantly more likely to fail matric if they continue with pure mathematics than if they switch to mathematics literacy. The system is quietly steering its most vulnerable learners toward a qualification ceiling, not because they lack ability, but because we failed to secure critical foundations for their future success in the early grades.
Improving foundation mathematics requires working with the full spectrum of learners, from the most under-resourced homes, those whose first language differs from the language of instruction, and those whose teachers are themselves not confident in mathematics. Learners should never be screened out. Here are five things that actually move the needle.
- Mathematics literacy is not the problem. A missing foundation is
Mathematics literacy, taught well, equips learners with functional mathematical skills for life and work while building confidence to participate in a numerate economy. The problem is that too many learners arrive at it by default, not design, because no one built their conceptual foundation early enough. Scrapping mathematics literacy would not raise mathematical achievement or magically repair the systemic issues; it would expose more learners to failure. The answer is not to remove the safety net. It is to ensure fewer learners need it.
- The foundation phase is where the trajectory is set
Grade 4 is not the middle of the story. It is the bridge that divides learners as a predictor of future success or failure. Foundational skills established between Grade R and Grade 3, such as number sense and critical thinking, determine the ceiling a learner will reach a decade later. Concepts not grasped by the end of the foundation phase become exponentially harder to remediate.
Our current systemic approach does not align with modern pedagogy, which emphasises problem-solving, number sense and conceptual skills built progressively from the earliest grades. If we do not change the way we teach mathematics, we will see declining mathematics participation and rising mathematics literacy enrolment in Grade 12. The intervention point is not Grade 10. It is Grades 1 to 3.
- Rote learning – the illusion of progress
A child who can recite multiplication tables but cannot explain why 4 × 3 equals 3 × 4 has learned a performance, not mathematics. Conceptual understanding and curiosity as to why a method works, not just that it works, empowers learners to apply skills to unfamiliar problems and develop genuine mathematical confidence.
This requires teachers who are mathematically confident themselves, able to evaluate their classes and provide daily feedback that identifies gaps long before they become entrenched. Confident teachers do not regurgitate rote learning. They actively assess, adjust and respond to their learners’ progress. This journey of curious mathematical discovery, teacher-learner responsiveness, and developmental pedagogy is what separates classrooms where children grow, from where they merely perform.
- Language is a hidden variable that the system ignores, at its peril
A child reasoning in isiXhosa but who is answering in English carries a cognitive load that their more linguistically matched peers do not have to. China, Japan and South Korea teach mathematics in native languages. A similar argument can be made in South Africa, where Afrikaans-speaking learners have historically been taught mathematics in their home language. There is no principled reason not to extend the same commitment to all official languages. An added complexity is that learners often move into English-medium mathematics in the intermediate phase before they have fully secured the language needed to engage confidently with mathematical concepts.
The JumpStart programme teaches foundational mathematics in the learner’s home language, and one example from Limpopo illustrates why this matters. A Sepedi-speaking tutor explains division by tearing a piece of paper in half while using the Sepedi word ripagana — “to tear apart”. This mother-tongue connection achieves what English second language instruction could not.
- Every learner counts
Success with mathematics programmes applying selective admission can obscure what applies to all learners. Here, selection is for success before teaching begins. The premise, however, must be that every learner is capable of mathematical success. “Disadvantaged” should not equal “low potential”. When measurable improvement is achieved with the most vulnerable, these are results that can be credibly applied anywhere. A national crisis requires a broad national response to reach all children in all schools. That is the proof point that can scale nationwide.
We cannot afford to fail another generation by missing the basics that are both attainable and practical to implement across all schools across our country. South Africa’s young people today can indeed be the future producers of technology, innovation and economic growth tomorrow, but only if we equip them with the critical foundations to get there.
The real conversation is not about whether to offer mathematics literacy in the matric curriculum. It is about why so many learners even consider this as an option, and what it would take to change that before Grade 10.
We know this works. We are seeing this every day, with children given no head start and in schools with no surplus. The question is whether investment in foundation phase of mathematics will match the scale of the problem. It needs to.
Lufuno Muthubi-Mthethwa is executive director of The JumpStart Foundation, a South African nonprofit improving foundational mathematics in schools.
Originally published on News24 03 June 2026.