A Response to the Post 14 Inquiry's Summary of Emerging Findings

We very much welcome the opportunity to comment on the emerging findings of the Inquiry at this stage. We have commented below on some specific key paragraphs in the findings and have added remarks on other topics which we feel should be addressed or given greater emphasis.

1. Mathematics: Titles and Pathways

1.1 We broadly accept the basic analysis of paragraph 41, but we are concerned about the way in which this is translated into pathways in paragraph 46. Such pathways must be workable within the constraints of existing institutions where there is often transfer between institutions at 16 and where many 11 to 18 schools do not have large numbers studying at level 3. In addition the shortage of teachers, which will be a continuing problem for the foreseeable future, provides a serious barrier to expanding mathematics provision. These constraints suggest that the pathways should be simple and flexible and take into account the move to a different institution that frequently occurs at 16. Whilst we support the principle of 'mathematics for all' post 16, we feel that caution is needed in making this compulsory. The priority in the medium term should be to deploy scarce teacher resources to improve the quality of learning up to the age of 16, whilst encouraging greater voluntary take up post 16.

1.2 Whatever structure of courses emerges it is vitally important to retain the word 'mathematics' in the title of each element. Any course that is not so titled will immediately be treated with suspicion and accorded a second class status. In order that titles achieve a widespread currency and acceptance they must reflect an easily understood discrimination between the content of the course they describe. The five bullet points in paragraph 41 could be reduced to three by seeing 'quantitative literacy' as an extension to 'basic numeracy' and accepting that 'mathematical literacy' and 'mathematical thought' both contribute to what is now covered by AS and A level mathematics. 'Mathematics in society' is discussed as a separate issue in the final paragraph of this section.

1.3 A simple pair of titles for the first two of these two elements that would avoid an emotive response might be 'Mathematics A' and 'Mathematics B'. An alternative might be: 'Mathematical Methods' and 'Mathematics'. In addition, at level 3 Further Mathematics could become 'Mathematics C' or 'Mathematics: Further'. A further possibility would simply be to have single and double awards for mathematics on the same lines as happens currently with GCSE science, where different titles are not used for the two possibilities.

1.4 At level 3, some degree of choice within courses should be provided either through a modular structure or in other ways, and there should be major/minor courses with a limited range of titles. The constraints in schools which do not have large sixth forms must be taken into account by ensuring that there are a small number of broadly based courses on offer covering the full range of students. We would, of course, hope that measures taken over the next 10 years would greatly increase numbers taking mathematics at all levels post 16, so that many more schools will be able to operate with groups of a viable size.

1.5 At level 2 we do not favour diverging pathways, because age 14 is too early for students to make choices of that kind within mathematics and choices would be difficult to sustain within the organisational constraints of schools, particularly small rural schools and schools which have only a very small proportion of students currently entering higher tier GCSE.

1.6 We advocate a common course to 16 similar to that provided by the current National Curriculum and reflecting the general consensus noted in paragraph 29 about content. Inevitably some students will proceed further than others and a high proportion should take the double award in mathematics at 16 we have suggested in our earlier submissions. Issues related to pedagogy and assessment are much more significant than content in improving motivation and raising standards. However, we support some 'repackaging' along the lines of a double award and support the current two tier pilot as an approach to keeping doors open to a grade C GCSE or whatever replaces that as a determinant of success at level 2. We also feel that greater status should be given to success at a lower level than level 2 by making level 1 and entry level a significant achievement which is given recognition, although that could happen through the two tier structure.

1.7 The diagram below summarises our suggested simple course structure scheme:

 

1.8 We feel that ?mathematics in society' is a separate issue. Any optional course in the history of mathematics would not be popular and therefore not viable. We do, however, feel that a course at level 3 with a title such as ?Public Understanding of Mathematics, Science and Technology' might be offered. This would make the important link between mathematics, science and technology and place the subjects in their historical and cultural context.

2. The National Centre

2.1 Paragraphs 67 and 68 are confusing because there are too many titles: NATM, RMC, LMN. It is not clear whether NATM and the National Centre for Excellence are the same thing. Simplicity of nomenclature and structures is important.

2.2 We made a number of proposals for the National Centre in our response of 7.5.03. We are concerned that the Centre should bring together in a coherent way the work of many existing agencies and not be another competing organisation. Four key points from our earlier submission are reproduced below:

? The Centre would have a small central office, not necessarily based in London. This would facilitate communication across Regional Centres, provide cross fertilisation of innovative practice and ensure coherent national and local provision of professional development opportunities.
? It should be structured with 8 or 9 Regional Centres, preferably based on existing mathematics education centres linked to LEAs or HE institutions, and should encourage links between all local providers.
? Practising teachers should have a major role in the Regional Centres. They should be employed as consultants or on short term secondments (1 or 2 years), so that they retain their links to the classroom, thus maintaining credibility and not adding to the shortage of good mathematics teachers. An alternative, or additional, way of involving teachers would be to appoint ASTs with their outreach defined as being via the Regional Centre. The nature of the staff employed is critical: they must be reflective and adventurous, dynamic and innovative, committed to the ideas of the Centre and they must have a broad and balanced understanding of mathematics education.
? The Centre must be coordinated in a coherent way with all other agencies - DfES, QCA, National Strategies, TTA and the whole range of providers of initial and in-service teacher training for mathematics teachers, including higher education, major projects such as SMILE, SMP and MEI and commercial organisations like SfE and Network Training.

2.3 The Centre should investigate the effectiveness of different models for providing sustained professional development for teachers, including trainers working directly with individual mathematics departments in schools and teachers attending courses away from school.

3. Retention of Teachers in the Profession

3.1 The issue of retention is referred to in paragraphs 56 and 66, but it is not followed up. Attention should be drawn to the root causes of poor morale and workload which we have discussed in our earlier responses. Although these are issues for all teachers they are of greater significance in mathematics where there is a limited pool of potential recruits. Some of the difficulties are directly related to the actions of government - initiative, inspection and assessment overload. It is important that the final report emphasises this as something where changes in both policies and rhetoric could have a significant effect over time.

4. Continuing Professional Development and Initial Teacher Training

4.1 We strongly support the emphasis given to CPD in the emerging findings. We accept that CPD could be significant in influencing retention, but it will only have a significant impact if time and quality issues are addressed in a radical way.

4.2 Reference to providing time is made in paragraph 75, but there are no practical suggestions. We would suggest that the only viable way forward for CPD on the large scale that is needed is to pay teachers to engage in mathematics CPD activities in their own time, with the added incentive of salary enhancement for those who do.

4.3 Priorities for the content of CPD need to be clarified alongside decisions about ensuring the quality of provision. This is an obvious role for the National Centre. The issue of content should be linked to the knowledge and skills that are seen to be appropriate as part of initial teacher training, so that there can be some sense of coherence and continuity about teachers' subject related professional development.

4.4 Initial Teacher Training barely gets a mention in the emerging findings, except under recruitment, and yet it has a critically important role in ensuring that entrants to the profession are suitably prepared. There used to be a 'National Curriculum for ITT in Mathematics' which was quietly dropped by the TTA when the Standards were revised recently. It specified school level subject knowledge and subject specific pedagogical knowledge. Although it was not a well-written document, it was a valuable idea.

4.5 We recommend that an early task for the National Centre should be to commission a group (not the TTA!) to produce a document of this kind to provide content expectations for both ITT and CPD. It is particularly worrying that people entering teaching through the Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) route are given little or no subject input in most cases. Indeed most PGCE courses ought to do more on this than is possible in the available time, because the mathematical understanding and breadth of knowledge of many recruits in relation to school level mathematics is not high, even though they may have a good degree in the subject.

4.6 Many PGCE courses used to offer training in a subsidiary subject so that those training to teach, for example, business studies or geography had the opportunity to have some training in teaching mathematics. There is not sufficient time on most PGCE courses for this to happen now and as a consequence many teachers of other subjects who subsequently teach some mathematics have had no training in the subject. One way of addressing this would be to provide incentives for a supplementary qualification in maths skills and pedagogy for non-specialists in the second or third year of teaching.

26.8.03.