I’m a dad, and I’m a maths teacher. That means I spend a lot of my life watching children work hard at things adults barely do anymore, and then I go home and see children living in a world where a machine can do those same things instantly.
So here’s the uncomfortable question I can’t shake: what is the point of some of the maths we teach, or at least the way we teach it, when a device can do it faster, flawlessly, and on demand?
I remember tutoring a primary school pupil preparing for an entrance exam on Zoom. We started one session with a timed multiplication and division set to build speed, accuracy, and confidence. Normally, once we were not discussing his work, he would put the microphone on mute. This time he forgot, and I heard him whisper:
Alexa… what’s 213 times 57?
No drama. No cheating scandal. Just a child doing what modern humans do: using a tool.
That moment stayed with me because it forces a bigger conversation that we often avoid:
Are we teaching mathematics… or are we teaching children to imitate calculators?
The times tables argument: it’s not as simple as “scrap them”
Let’s get this out of the way. I’m not arguing that children should never learn times tables, or that mental arithmetic is useless.
In a world of calculators and Generative AI, the basics still matter. But they matter for a different reason.
They are not mainly there so children can outperform machines. They are there so children can supervise them.
A calculator gives you a number. An AI system can give you a persuasive explanation that sounds confident and polished and is still completely wrong. A child who has no feel for number has very little protection against that. They cannot easily tell when a result is absurd, when a graph is misleading, or when an answer simply does not fit the situation.
So yes, mental fluency matters. Times tables matter. Estimation matters. But not because the future belongs to people who can beat machines at raw calculation. They matter because they help children develop judgment.
Fluency is a foundation; it is not the building.
If a child can chant “7 × 8 = 56” but cannot reason about proportion, interpret a graph, or decide whether an answer makes sense, then we have built a very polished ground floor with nothing above it.
The exam reality: most maths is already done with tools
Another awkward truth is that the majority of maths assessment is already tool-dependent.
In the approved GCSE qualifications used across England’s state schools, two-thirds of the final marks are now earned on calculator papers. But if your child is sitting the IGCSE—as most in the independent sector do—the shift is total: every single mark is earned with a calculator in hand.
By the time students reach A-Level, the calculator is no longer a support for weaker students. It is a standard instrument for advanced mathematical work. Yet many capable students arrive in Year 12 with surprisingly weak tool fluency. They can perform a written method on paper, but they cannot confidently use brackets, switch modes, interpret graphs, or sense-check what their calculator is telling them.
We often act morally superior about non-calculator work in the early years, while the highest qualifications and the real world assume digital competence. It is a bit like teaching a child to navigate by the stars and then acting surprised when they cannot use GPS.
The real skill isn’t calculating. It’s deciding.
This is the part I wish more parents and teachers could see clearly.
The future-proof skill is not doing the calculation. The future-proof skill is deciding what calculation to do, and whether the result makes sense.
A machine can multiply 213 × 57 instantly. AI can even produce steps for a complex worded problem. But the machine does not automatically know:
- whether multiplication is the right operation in the first place
- what the numbers represent in a real-world context
- whether the answer is plausible
- whether an apparently logical explanation is actually sound
That is mathematics.
And too many students do not get enough practice doing it, because they spend years training for speed on procedures that machines conquered decades ago.
So what should change?
If I could change one thing, it would be this: we should teach tool use explicitly, from earlier, and treat it as mathematical literacy rather than as cheating.
That means:
- teaching estimation before calculator use, so pupils know the rough size of the answer they expect
- teaching calculator fluency properly, including brackets, fractions, memory, mode settings, graphs, and conversions
- teaching pupils to interrogate results by asking, “What does this mean?” and “Is this plausible?”
- teaching modelling habits, including defining variables, making assumptions, and testing extremes
- teaching AI literacy alongside maths, so students learn that a polished explanation is not the same thing as a correct one
But won’t standards fall?
People hear “use calculators” and imagine a generation that cannot add. It is a fair fear, but it is a false choice.
We can insist on strong fundamentals and modern mathematical power at the same time.
In fact, good tool use can raise standards because it frees time for the intellectual work that matters most: reasoning, proof, modelling, interpretation, and multi-step problem solving.
The aim is not to lower the bar. The aim is to move the bar to where genuine mathematical strength actually lives.
A better question than “Should children still learn this?”
Instead of asking, “Should children learn times tables if Alexa exists?”, I think the better question is this:
What kind of mathematical person are we trying to develop?
Someone who performs procedures quickly under artificial rules? Or someone who uses tools intelligently to solve real problems and explain their reasoning?
My own view is that we need both. But at the moment, I think we are over-invested in the first and under-invested in the second.
To the parents reading this: if your child is “good at maths” because they are fast, be careful. Speed is useful, but speed is not understanding. Ask questions like: How do you know that answer is reasonable? or What would happen if this number changed?
To the teachers reading this: we do not need to throw out everything. But we do need to stop pretending that mathematical strength means doing everything without tools.
Mathematics has always been about power. The tools have changed. The goal hasn’t. We should not be banning the machines; we should be teaching children how to become powerful with them.
I’d love to hear your view: what is one traditional maths skill you think is still non-negotiable, and one you think we can finally let go of in the age of AI? Let me know in the comments.