Teachers Talking About Teaching Mathematics

Teachers Talking About Teaching Mathematics Sir Peter Williams Primary Mathematics Review

Primary Mathematics ReviewA review of mathematics teaching in Early Years settings and Primary schools Review Lead: Sir Peter Williams Secretariat: Parag Vaghjiani NCETM Birmingham, 20th November 2007

The Review will focus on a number of broad areas.... • Effective pedagogy of mathematics teaching • Educational provision for all pupils • Intervention programme Every Child Counts • Conceptual & subject knowledge of teachers • Initial teaching training & CPD • Design & sequencing of mathematics curriculum • Engagement of parents & families …in both primary schools and early years settings

The Terms of Reference Through examination of the available evidence including international best practice and through engagement with the teaching profession, to consider & make recommendations in the following areas: 1. What is the most effective pedagogy of maths teaching in primary schools and early years settings. That consideration should include instructional methodologies, teaching and learning strategies, and lesson designs that are most effective in helping children to progress in their learning. 2. What range of provision best supports children across the full ability range, including the most gifted. The highest priority should be given to those who are not progressing fast enough to reach national expectations. 3. The review should specifically make recommendations to inform the development of an early intervention programme for children (age 5 to 7)who are failing to master the basics of numeracy – “Every Child Counts” - as recently announced by the Prime Minister. 4. What conceptual and subject knowledge of mathematics should be expected of primary school teachers and early years practitioners, and how should initial teaching training and continuing professional development be improved to secure that knowledge. 5. What is the most effective design and sequencing of the mathematics curriculum. Recommendations in this area should inform a future review of the primary curriculum as a whole. 6. How should parents and families best be helped to support young children’s mathematical development. The review should build on the recent renewal of the Primary framework for mathematics and the EYFS.

Work Programme • 17 Sep 2007 – Primary Maths Review Commences • 19Sep – 1st Advisory Panel Meeting • 1Oct-16Nov – Call for Evidence • End-Nov – Analysis of responses • Nov-Dec – Focus-groups Heads, Subject Associations, Unions, NDPBs • Jan-Feb – Writing up of Interim Report • March2008 – Interim Report Published • Early Apr – Mathematics Subject Associations Conference • Apr – Workshops & preparation of final report • Mid-May – Final report is sent to Ministers • End-May – Printing Final Report • 17June2008 – Final Report Published (at Annual Conference of NCETM) • July – “Pupils Maths Day” at National Science Museum Advisory Panel will meet roughly every 3 weeks. Dates of Advisory Panel meetings: 19 Sep, 22 Oct, 22 Nov, 6 Dec, 20 Dec

The Advisory Panel • Professor Janet Ainley – Director of the University of Leicester School of Education. Originally a primary school teacher and mathematics co-ordinator, she has over 25 years experience as a mathematics teacher educator, and researcher at Leicester and Warwick universities. She has led a number of research projects, focussing on the use of technology and pedagogic task design. She has particular interests in the learning and teaching of data handling and of algebra. • Professor Celia Hoyles - DCSF Chief Adviser for Mathematics and Director of the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics. Professor of Mathematics Education at the Institute of Education, University of London since 1984 and has directed several mathematical research projects. • Laurie Jacques - Member of the Advisory Committee for Mathematics Education (ACME) – primary teacher representative. Practising classroom teacher. Written several papers including ACME’s report on “Ensuring Effective Continuing Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics in Primary Schools” (2006). • Sir Jim Rose – formerly Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMI) for Primary Schools and Director of Inspection for the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED). He retired from OfSTED in July 1999 and has since acted as a consultant to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (and the then-Department of Education and Skills) on nursery and primary education, and the training of school support staff. At the request of the Secretary of State, he chaired the 1999 Independent Scrutiny of the National Assessment Tests for Primary Schools. He is a member of the board of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and chairs the QCA 3-11 Committee. Jim led the Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading( Rose Review 2006) and was also vice-chairman of the 2020 Review Group on personalised learning, which reported to the Secretary of State in 2007 under the title of ‘2020 Vision’. • Brenda Spencer - Member of the Early Education Advisory Group and a former First and Nursery school headteacher. Currently, an additional Ofsted inspector and a freelance adviser in early education field. Has been an Auditor for Key Stage 1 tests since 1995, advises the London Borough of Richmond in the early years and primary education fields. She works with NAA on foundation stage assessment and moderation. This included Continuing the Learning Journey. Work with PNS included drafting Creating the Picture.3

Call of evidence – who will we target? • Association of Mathematics Education Teachers (AMET) • Advisory Committee on mathematics education (ACME) • BEAM (specialist mathematics education publisher for pupils aged 3-14) • Business sector – including CBI • Children’s Workforce Development Council • Early Education Advisory Group (EEAG) • Early Years (incl.Pre-School Learning Alliance & National Childminding Association) • Family and Parenting Institute (FPI) • Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) • Institute of Physics (IOP) • Maths Subject Organisations (NAMA, ATM, MA) • Maths test development teams at Leeds University • National Association of Headteachers • National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) • National Strategies - Primary & Secondary (PNS, SNS) • OfSTED • Parenting Organisations incl. Parents Teacher Association (NCPTA) • Qualifications and Curriculum Agency (QCA) • Training and Development Agency (TDA) • Teacher unions/professional associations • Women in Science, Engineering and Construction (WISE)

How will we collect evidence? • Via programme of visits • Via website (and consultation email address) • Via face-to-face meetings • Via written evidence (submissions) • Via focus groups / seminars / workshops (both internal DCSF and external) • Via analysis of existing publications, research and statistics • Via visits to schools and EY settings • Via OfSTED • Via pupil voice

………focused at the 1st Panel Meeting Three primary topics for first phase of review: • CPD and subject knowledge for teachers • Intervention programmes and ‘Every Child Counts’ • Underpinned by Early Years Settings In parallel, investigation of curriculum and pedagogy and analysis of responses to call for evidence

Visit Schedule of PMR Panel members

Intervention – ‘Every Child Counts’ • Visits to ‘Numeracy Recovery’ and ‘Mathematics Recovery’ in Cumbria, Liverpool, Hackney and Tower Hamlets • Considerable evidence of success (migration of 1a, 1b …to 2a 2b… even 3!) • Variability in delivery? • Visits to ‘Numicon’ (Brighton) and presentation of ‘Catch-up Numeracy’ imminent • Also encountered ‘Talking Maths’ (Liverpool), ‘Catching up’ (Tower Hamlets) use of RM Maths (Liverpool), ‘Challenging Maths’ (G&T Liverpool)

Intervention – some issues • Intervention clearly yielding positive benefits • But perhaps unrealistic to expect the same programme to deliver uniform results nationally? • So what to recommend to Government (who may be inclined to favour one, or a small number of, options)? • Size of cohort – 30,000 has been mentioned? • Costs? • Availability of trained intervention teachers and their CPD

Case Study : Kingsmead Primary School,Hackney • Visit Friday 5th October • Numeracy recovery – two sessions • Meetings with LA members • Meetings with Headteacher and Staff

Kingsmead – some reflections • Excellent, dedicated headteacher and staff • Outstanding specialist Numeracy Recovery teacher • Supportive and committed LA • Wide range of social issues in catchment area (Olympics infrastructure effect, diverse ethnicity) • Language issues as big a challenge as Maths THE NUMERACY RECOVERY SESSIONS WERE A VERY POWERFUL DEMONSTRATION OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE, BUT………

Economics – some possible consequences: • Kingsmead : 240 children, £1.3 million budget i.e. ca £5.5K per child • Numeracy Recovery costs ca £60K per annum • Current Numeracy Recovery cohort ca 20 children i.e. an additional £3K per child • Extrapolate nationally to ECC target of 30,000 children implies annual costs of approaching £100 million! AND MANY CHILDREN IN NUMERACY RECOVERY ARE ALSO IN, OR HAVE BEEN IN, LITERACY RECOVERY PROGRAMME

The Challenge……. • Can we afford this? Depends on Government priorities. • Can we afford NOT to intervene? THE COST BENEFIT TO THE ECONOMY OF INTERVENTION OVER THE LIFETIME OF AN INDIVIDUAL CHILD IMPLIES THAT INTERVENTION MAY BE SELF FINANCING • The review will attempt to quantify these economic arguments, and it is hoped that KPMG Foundation will model the NPV of cost benefits

Further early thoughts……… • Is there a parallel to phonics? • The importance of teachers’ CPD and subject knowledge • The importance of Early Years • The role of technology • The importance of social and family issues • The importance of transition (including from FS-KS1 and from KS2-KS3)

How to reach us - DCSF Secretariat Website: www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/primary/mathematicsreview Email: WilliamsMaths.Review@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk

Teachers Talking About Teaching Mathematics