The EEF funded this project as part of joint initiative with J.P. Morgan to explore how to improve outcomes for disadvantaged 16 – 19-year-old learners without a good pass in GCSE English or mathematics. The intervention builds on an evidence-based body of classroom materials, developed by the Centre for Research in Mathematics Education at the University of Nottingham. The materials are designed for GCSE resit and 16 – 19 learners and focus on key mathematical areas and concepts such as number, ratio, and algebra. They use relevant contexts and problems to help re-engage learners who may feel disengaged after not achieving GCSE maths at school. The intervention aims to address this by using a problem-solving approach, adopting a learner-centred focus, dialogic teaching, and researched-informed diagnostic and formative assessment.

The evaluation found no evidence that Maths-for-Life improved GCSE Maths pass rates, either positively or negatively.

When comparing average GCSE Maths scores between learners in schools implementing Maths-for-Life and those in the comparison group, learners in participating schools made, on average, two months’ less progress. However, 48% of learners who started the trial were not included in the final analysis, and this substantial level of missing data may have biased the findings in unpredictable ways. Similar patterns were observed for pupils eligible for FSM. As a result, these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Despite this uncertainty, a notable additional finding was that learners in the intervention groupAs part of a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), settings will be randomised into either the intervention or control group. Settings in the intervention group will receive the programme being tested. were significantly more likely to attend their GCSE Maths exam, an important improvement given the low attendance across groups and the central role of exam attendance in achieving qualifications. This may indicate a positive effect on learners’ confidence and persistence.

The programme was delivered broadly as intended, although some adaptations were made. In particular, teachers modified several classroom activities, which may have influenced the extent to which the approach reflected the original programme design. The report findings show that, on average, learners in Maths-for-Life settings made two months’ less progress on average, compared to learners in other settings.. Among learners previously eligible for free school meals (FSM), those in Maths-for-Life schools made 1 month’s less progress in GCSE Maths scores, on average, compared to those in other settings. Whilst there was no clear impact on GCSE pass rates, encouragingly, learners taking part were more likely to attend their GCSE Maths exams – a positive indication of improved encouragement and confidence.

• There were 100 settings involved in the trial.
• The intervention was open to a range of 16 to 19 educational settings, including further education colleges, school sixth forms, and training providers (excluding apprenticeship providers).
• Most settings were in urban areas (94%) across both groups. This contrasts with the national distribution, where 25% of settings are in rural areas, limiting the applicability of the trial’s results to rural settings.
• At randomisation, control settings were more likely to be rated ​‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted while treatment settings had a higher proportion of rated ​‘Good’ schools.
• Approximately 34% learners in the trial were eligible for FSM.

• Training included 6 days of training: a launch, five planning/​reflection days, and a closing event.
• Implementation challenges included differences in teacher PD exposure, buy-in, preparedness, and learner engagement.
• Success was strongest where teachers were well-prepared, invested, had positive relationships with students, and fostered supportive group dynamics.
• The intervention is no longer available commercially; there is RCTAn RCT is used evaluate an educational programme by assigning settings to one of two groups: the intervention group, who receive the programme or the control group, who continue with business as usual. This ensures that any differences in outcomes can be confidently attributed to the programme, providing a robust estimate of the impact and contributing to the evidence for what works in improving educational outcomes. evidence from separate work led by the developer of Maths for Life: Mastering Maths