Printable versions of this document:
Word Version | Pdf version

Press release in response to the report of the Post 14 Inquiry

1. The Mathematical Association welcomes the report from the Inquiry and the opportunity it has given for a wide range of interested people to debate the future of mathematical education. However, we are seriously concerned about the absurdly short timescale for the Inquiry to make long-term recommendations about very serious and deep-seated problems.

2. We welcome the emphasis given to three key issues:

• the supply of mathematics teachers;
  
• the structure and content of courses and the way in which they are taught;
  
• professional development for teachers and the role of the National Centre.

We are, however, very concerned that the Inquiry has not made significant recommendations linked to three vital aspects of these key issues:

• the retention of good mathematics teachers in the profession;
  
• the ill effects of excessive external assessment;
  
• how to make sufficient time available for teachers to engage in professional development.

3. The supply of good mathematics teachers is rightly identified as the single most important issue. The report makes a number of valuable recommendations which we hope will be acted on urgently. However, improving recruitment is emphasised with little analysis as to what can be done to improve retention. The number of expensively trained recruits who leave the profession within a few years is too high. Suggested measures linked to pay and increased access to professional development will not be sufficient unless there is a change in the political climate, so that creative and intelligent teachers are freed from the constant interference and superficial changes that prevent them giving their full energies to helping students learn and to sharing good practice with colleagues.

4. We are very concerned that the report does not acknowledge the serious harm that is done to mathematics at all levels by narrow ‘teaching to the test’ exacerbated by the existence of targets and league tables. There is a vital need to ease the excessive emphasis given to external assessment.

5. There is no need to make substantial changes to the content of the 14 to 19 mathematics curriculum: the National Curriculum and the recently revised criteria for AS and A level are broadly acceptable, although we agree with the need to review the place of statistics in the curriculum. However, the way in which the requirements of this curriculum are translated into effective practice is given little emphasis in the Inquiry’s report. All students need both to master essential technical skills and to be challenged to think for themselves much more. We welcome the recognition in the report that able students need the challenge of hard problems on current content rather than acceleration leading to superficial coverage of new content. Less able students need to cover less content at a slower pace so that they can master it and use it appropriately. There are significant implications for the way in which the subject is assessed.

6. We welcome the recommendation that much more time is needed to find acceptable pathways for students, but it is essential that structures are simple in form and manageable in a wide range of institutions. The organisational constraints imposed by the break at 16 from school to college in many areas of the country must be given due weight. It is not sufficient to expect that institutions will work in partnership: 16 to 19 institutions need groups of entrants with broadly similar subject backgrounds at each level.

7. All students should study a subject titled mathematics until the age of 16. We do not favour courses restricted to everyday applications of number and data handling. It is essential to offer courses with different levels of difficulty, so that all students can experience genuine success at their level, but courses must be designed with a clear route available to the next level, so that opportunities are not closed to those whose talents emerge late.

8. We welcome the recommendation that mathematics be accorded the same importance as English and science by some form of ‘double award’ at GCSE which does not involve a significant increase in content, but further debate is needed to find an acceptable form for this. We also welcome the encouragement to link such an award to a move towards two tiers - Foundation and Higher - for GCSE.

9. In the 16 to 19 phase, as the report emphasises, mathematics has been faced with a disastrous fall in the number of A level candidates since the introduction of Curriculum 2000. Changes to A level mathematics, agreed by QCA, come into effect with examinations at AS level in 2005 and at A2 in summer 2006. The disaster of Curriculum 2000 should make us very wary about making yet further changes. However, substantial further debate is needed about what is offered to students specialising in mathematics, who need the challenge of more demanding problems. The immediate changes will not be sufficient to resolve all the needs of this important group.

10. We agree that provision for post 16 students who do not specialise in mathematics are inadequate. Priority must be given to providing appropriate courses for students to achieve grade C GCSE standard in mathematics or some equivalent, possibly in a different form for mature students. There is also a need to provide an acceptable lower level qualification for those who cannot aspire to that and also a need to provide appropriate mathematical backup for non-specialists who already have a level 2 qualification.

11. We strongly support the proposals for the National Centre and the emphasis placed on sustained professional development for mathematics teachers. We are, however, concerned the Centre should not become yet another competing agency seeking teachers’ attention. We therefore welcome the recommendation that it should subsume the professional development role of the National Strategies. The Centre should ensure a coherent national approach to professional development with a strong emphasis on the long-term development of teachers’ mathematical and pedagogical understanding.

12. The report acknowledges the difficulties associated with finding time for teachers to engage in professional development, but offers no solutions. Under current conditions of teacher shortage the only way to make sustained professional development possible for all mathematics teachers, is to pay teachers to give up some of their own time, although we support salary enhancements as an important additional incentive.

Notes for Editors

1. The Mathematical Association has worked to improve mathematical education at all levels since its foundation in 1871. Further details of the work of the Association will be found on its web site at http://www.m-a.org.uk/ .

2. Sir Christopher Zeeman is currently President of the Association.

3. The Association’s five responses to the Post 14 Inquiry, dated 27.2.03., 7.5.03., 28.5.03., 23.6.03. and 18.8.03. will be found in the ‘Articles Archive’ on our website.

4. Further information and comment on this response may be obtained by contacting Doug French on 01482 465406 or by e-mail at d.w.french@hull.ac.uk.

23.2.04.

The Mathematical Association
259 London Road
Leicester
LE2 3BE
0116 221 0013