1. Numeracy Forum 7 March 2016 @Nat_Numeracy #nnforum Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved1

2. Functional Skills Reform Programme Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved2 @Nat_Numeracy #nnforum

3. Miranda Pye Pye Tait Consulting Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved3 @Pye_Tait #nnforum

4. FUNCTIONAL SKILLS REFORM PROGRAMME CONSULTATION JANUARY – JULY 2016

5. 5 Contact Miranda Pye Director fsreform@pyetait.com

6. 6 Why?  The Foundation’s review in 2015 ‘Making maths and English work for all’ (MMEW) found that Functional Skills were not broken, but that work could be done to improve their relevance and content, as well as improve their recognition and credibility in the labour market.  Functional Skills standards and qualifications have been in existence for many years and, although employers and learners are generally pleased with them, a number of potential weaknesses were highlighted by the 2015 research.

7. 7 The Programme Functional Skills Reform Programme  Based on research conducted in 2015.  Involves a consultation programme designed to achieve an updated set of standards underpinning Functional Skills qualifications and revised subject content (criteria).  The aim is to find out which maths and English skills employers require.

8. Stages of reform Stage 1: National Standards for maths and English including content to indicate breadth Regulatory feedback Stage 2: Ofqual review of Functional Skills. Sets new conditions for assessment Stage 3: Awarding organisations develop specifications, sample assessment papers and guidance Stage 4: Providers develop curricula to enable learners to learn and demonstrate the requisite skills Stage 5: Learners study revised curricula Workforce Development Consultation Stage 6: Employers report improved maths and English skills Independent evaluation

9. 9 Method The work is organised as a wide-ranging consultation using: 1. Online surveys for employers (and separately stakeholders/practitioners) www.pyetait.com/fsreform/employersurvey 2. In-depth telephone interviews 3. Focus Groups/events 4. Workshops/Webinars

10. 10 Timings Consultation January to July 2016. Standards/Subject Content and findings from the consultation presented to the Foundation in August.  employers,  professional and industry bodies,  employer representative bodies,  unions,  teaching and training practitioners,  FE colleges,  private training providers,  offender learning organisations,  adult learning organisations,  subject specialists,  awarding organisations, and  post-16 learners.

11. 11 The consultation process Led by Pye Tait Consulting with Learning and Work: STAGE 1 – Preparation and initial desk research, setting up stakeholder and employer engagement through various networks and specialists STAGE 2 – Consultation “evidence base” (online, telephone and face-to- face) - emphasis on employers; with early views from stakeholders, technical experts, practitioners and learners STAGE 3 – Analysis and first draft revisions to the National Adult Literacy and Numeracy Standards (NALNS), work on Functional Skills subject content STAGE 4 – Consultation “confirmation” - follow-up conversations with employers to validate NALNS and subject content revisions, and depth discussions on the qualifications with sector, technical experts and learners STAGE 5 – Analysis and production of final NALNS and research report with policy recommendations 30 th Nov 2015 – on-going 14 th Jan – 7 th Apr 2016 11 th Apr – 13 th May 2016 Mid May – Mid July 2016 Mid July – Late Aug 2016 Input from the Working Group and Expert Advisory Group

12. 12 Required Outcomes  Revised standards underpinning Functional Skills qualifications  Subject Content (Criteria) for revised Functional Skills qualifications  A report in support of the above with policy recommendations to include: what levels of Functional Skills are needed for life and work; the breadth of skills that the new qualifications should include; the number of guided learning hours needed to successfully achieve FS for learners on technical and professional programmes of study, including apprenticeships.

13. 13 How to get involved  Visit www.pyetait.com/fsreform for further details of the consultation and how to get involvedwww.pyetait.com/fsreform  Scan the QR code to access the consultation page on your phone  On Twitter you can follow #fsreform or Tweet using the hashtag to spread the word  If you have any questions or comments you can contact us directly on 01423 509433 or email fsreform@pyetait.comfsreform@pyetait.com

14. 14 Focus of today’s discussion  Purpose and audience for Functional Skills qualifications  Skills standards & Adult Numeracy Standards  Levels and structure  Assessment

15. 15 Purpose and audience What is the role of Functional Skills qualifications? What should be their purpose? Who should the audience be?

16. 16 Adult Numeracy Standards Do they remain fit for purpose?  Understanding and using mathematical information  Calculating and manipulating mathematical information  Interpreting results and communicating mathematical information Structured around:  Number / whole number; fractions;  Measures, shape and space  Handling data, data and probability

17. 17 Skills Standards Do they remain fit for purpose? Skills Standards focus on three ‘interrelated process skills’ 1. Representing: selecting the mathematics and information to model a situation 2. Analysing: processing and using mathematics 3. Interpreting: interpreting and communicating the results of the analysis

18. 18 Fit for purpose? Qualification structure Is the structure of the qualifications fit for purpose (for English three units; for maths one assessment of three themes)? Qualification levels Is the division of Functional Skills qualifications into five levels still fit for purpose?

19. 19 Assessment Is the assessment methodology fit for purpose?  Assessment must focus on functionality and the effective application of process skills in purposeful contexts and scenarios that reflect real-life situations.  Does this happen?

20. Lunch Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved20 @nat_numeracy #nnforum

21. Statistics in everyday life Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved21 @Nat_Numeracy #nnforum

22. Sir David Spiegelhalter Centre for Mathematical Sciences University of Cambridge Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved22 @d_spiegel #nnforum

23. Statistics in everyday life David Spiegelhalter @d_spiegel winton professor for the public understanding of risk, university of cambridge Numeracy Forum 2016 Thanks to Mike Pearson, and Gerd Gigerenzer for inspiration

24. www.understandinguncertainty.org

26. Book cover

28. 50g processed meat a day associated with 18% increased risk of getting bowel cancer Around 6% of people will get bowel cancer anyway. So what is an 18% increase over 6%!!

29. 100 people NOT eating a bacon sandwich each day

30. 100 people eating a bacon sandwich each day

31. Absolute and relative risks

32. Uncertainty?

35. “Framing”

36. ‘Framing’ and cancer risk from HRT

37. Beral: 1 million women taking HRT - 10,000 extra breast cancers over 10 years. NICE 1,000 women taking HRT, 6 extra breast cancers over 5 years Which is the higher risk? ‘Framing’ and cancer risk from HRT – Daily Mail

38. Beral: 1 million women taking HRT - 10,000 extra breast cancers over 10 years. So 1,000 women taking HRT, 10 extra breast cancers over 10 years Or 1,000 women taking HRT, 5 extra breast cancers over 5 years. Less than NICE’s statement! ‘Framing’ and cancer risk from HRT

39. Out of 200 women in their 50s, we would expect 20 to eventually get breast cancer [blue]

40. Out of 200 women in their 50s who take HRT for 5 years, we would expect 21 to eventually get breast cancer [blue and red]

41. “Consider the offer” Presents pros and cons Does not make recommendation ‘Uniform reporting of harms and benefits’ New UK Cancer Screening leaflets, 2013

42. Public engagement through Citizens’ Jury

45. A numeracy paradox? Leaflets optimised for people with low numeracy Those people tend to be less interested in shared-care / informed-choice

46. ‘Expected frequency trees’ now in GCSE Maths syllabus:

48. Worthy conclusions Stats are used as rhetorical devices Beware of press releases / charities Framing vital Uncertainty? Duty – balanced presentation not to make them look large or small Numbers do not speak for themselves - context and comparators essential Promote ability to question

49. Hetan Shah Royal Statistical Society Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved49 @HetanShah #nnforum

50. Alun Bedding AstraZeneca Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved50 @AlunBedding #nnforum

51. The Use of Statistics in Healthcare Alun Bedding, Statistical Science Director, Statistical Innovation National Numeracy Forum7 th March 2016

52. Some Headlines 52

53. Lets Take One of Those 53 The raw figures: In 2013, 284 out of every 100,000 people died from cancer. In 2003, it was 312. Difference = 28 As a percentage of 312 –(28/312)*100 = 8.97% NOT 10%

54. Lets Take One of Those 54 Other numbers The death rate for men fell 12% and for women by 8% 10% is the average of 12 and 8 Is it misleading???

55. The Mis-Leading Use of Risk 55 “Women taking tamoxifen had about 49% fewer diagnoses of breast cancer” “The annual rate of uterine cancer in the tamoxifen arm was 30 per 10,000 compared to 8 per 10,000 in the placebo arm” The first is a relative risk, the second an absolute risk. Makes them difficult to compare. –Benefits are exaggerated. –Harm minimised.

56. 56

57. A Systematic Cookbook Review 57 Authors picked pages from a cookbook to give 50 food ingredients. Used PubMed to see which had studies lining them to cancer. Almost three-quarters of the studies claimed that consuming the food in question affected a person’s risk of cancer, rather than making no or little difference. Ah but this was only in the abstract. Many were sub-group analyses – 1 finding out of many Maybe not so convincing

58. The Use of Meta-Analyses 58 Pooling more than one study results together to create some over-arching figures. Popularly reported in the media. Some potential issues: –Similarity of studies – any differences give rise to bias –Publication bias – are we only including the positive studies? –Small sample study – should we give the same weight to a small study as a large one? Not as convincing as a large randomised trial

59. Conclusions 59 Be careful with headline statistics – look beyond the headlines Take many headlines with a pinch of salt and try not to be swayed by large claims Need to encourage better use of statistics in the media in the area of health.

60. Confidentiality Notice This file is private and may contain confidential and proprietary information. If you have received this file in error, please notify us and remove it from your system and note that you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of the contents of this file is not permitted and may be unlawful. AstraZeneca PLC, 2 Kingdom Street, London, W2 6BD, UK, T: +44(0)20 7604 8000, F: +44 (0)20 7604 8151, www.astrazeneca.com 60

61. Questions and discussion Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved61 @nat_numeracy #nnforum

62. Information exchange Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved62 @Nat_Numeracy #nnforum

63. Future plans and AOB Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved63 @nat_numeracy #nnforum

64. Thank you Copyright © National Numeracy 2014. All right reserved64 @Nat_Numeracy #nnforum