David C. Johnson’s research while affiliated with King's College - Pennsylvania and other places

In this chapter mathematics co-ordinators (subject leaders) in primary schools take central place, with their own personal resources, expertise and attitudes relating to mathematics development. In their attempts to initiate, implement and sustain change in the teaching of mathematics in their schools the co-ordinators make decisions about appropriate ways of working and themselves learn from interacting with others. The contribution of co-ordinators to the realisation of zones of enactment through which teachers can engage with change is the key element in this chapter, together with the factors that facilitate or inhibit this development. Co-ordinators are enabled or constrained by the level of support and resourcing they receive from their school situation, the wider network of external professionals, and national policy interventions. Also explored are the ways in which different co-ordinators in six schools carry out their roles, their effectiveness in initiating change, the characteristics which appear to affect their success as agents of change and the nature of this source of in-school support.

Focusing mainly on the mathematics co-ordinator, the preceding chapter nevertheless drew attention to the importance of the situation within which the individual works and makes decisions. In this chapter we move from the mathematics co-ordinator to look at the ways in which the wider school context — the role of the headteacher and the role of school policies — influence opportunities for professional development. We draw on case-study data to illuminate the six linked constructs that appear to have facilitated effective development in mathematics. How a school responds to policy initiatives, how it views and resources the roles of professionals, how it responds to external pressure and support, how leadership is characterised, are all considered. This case-study data is then set in a wider context through an examination of the characteristics of schools from the large-scale longitudinal study in the Leverhulme Numeracy Research Programme that have been successful in achieving improvements in the mathematics attainment of their pupils over the course of the research programme. The ability of schools to promote a collective capacity for reform by supporting dialogue and discussion, recognising and applauding professional expertise and providing opportunities for collaboration and learning, forms a key focus of the discussion.

This paper has arisen from a case-study undertaken as part of ‘Whole School Action on Numeracy’, one of six linked projects in the Leverhulme Numeracy Research Programme. Studied over four years, ‘Wolverton’ School emerged as a success story in terms of consistently increasing attainment results in mathematics. The research revealed some of the tensions that exist for schools in the current atmosphere of pressure to raise levels of attainment. Decisions have to be made about curriculum coverage, about setting, about teaching to the test. These tensions together with the strategies adopted by the school to promote the development of numeracy form the subject of the paper which draws from teacher and headteacher interviews, followed by analysis by the research team, with an additional section summarising the responses from an LEA primary adviser from a different authority who was interviewed and asked to comment on the first two sections of the paper. The Epilogue brings the story up to date with comments from a recent interview with the Headteacher as he moves on to a new school.

Focusing on ‘Whole school action on Numeracy’, research began in six primary schools undergoing an Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) inspection during the year September 1997 to 1998, as part of the Leverhulme Numeracy Research Programme. The Numeracy Task Force was working during that time to prepare the Numeracy Strategy with its implementation date of September 1999. Schools were aware that this was coming, but had the major innovation of the National Literacy Strategy to implement in September 1998. This paper reports on the ways in which three major outside constraints — OFSTED inspection with its attendant Action Plan, a national focus on Literacy and the impending National Numeracy Strategy — caused conflicts for schools as they planned action to raise attainment in numeracy.

The contribution of programming in the learning of school mathematics has been demonstrated in numerous project and research settings. However, it would appear that this activity has failed to permeate the system on any large and systemic scale. I suggest here that one reason for the current situation is that the exciting developments have not themselves been a required component embedded in a major curriculum theme. Further, the position that the programming environments themselves, e.g., Logo microworlds, would become the school mathematics curriculum has clearly failed to gain the support of the educational system. However, discrete mathematics and algorithmics, a strand within discrete mathematics, provides a natural ‘home’ for programming. This in turn supports the use of a programming language in mathematical contexts for which pupil designed algorithms can be used to explore concepts and relationships.

This article examines the policy of the UK Labour Government between 1997 and 1999 in relation to the production and implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy, within the structure of context of influence, context of policy texts and context of practice. It examines its roots in, and differences from, numeracy and mathematics policies of previous regimes. Some tensions between the philosophies of modernisation and traditionalism, which are represented among those responsible for the New Labour education policies and which are reflected in the National Numeracy Strategy are discussed. Finally, evidence from the context of practice demonstrates that despite the attempt at tight prescription and control, cyclical recontextualisation and multiple interpretations exist.

A lay inspector is an essential part of the team conducting an Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) inspection in England. Evidence from a small research project focusing on interpretations of policy for primary mathematics at different levels of the OFSTED system revealed some tensions and lack of clarity about the role of the lay inspector. While expressing positive feelings about many aspects of lay inspection, primary inspectors interviewed felt, on the whole, that limitations in lay inspectors’ experience of teaching and learning meant that the responsibilities allocated to them relating to subject inspection (in this case mathematics) should also be limited. But boundaries were blurred and extensive experience of lay inspection itself could bring its own, perhaps worrying, form of ‘expertise’. Concerns about variations in the quality of lay inspectors were raised by both inspectors and key personnel in schools, variations which might impact on both the process of the inspection itself and the resulting inspection report

There is an assumption that, under the Office for Standards in Education system, inspectors will, through training, learn to put aside their preferred ways of working and come to look at school practice unencumbered by ‘baggage’. Yet primary team inspectors are allocated certain subjects for inspection, based on their previous experience and, to a certain extent, their chosen preferences. The research reported here focuses on the inspection of primary mathematics and provides evidence of the potential tensions between ‘experience and expertise’, and ‘baggage’, at different levels of the inspection process. It seems that some primary inspectors are less aware of problems arising from lack of expertise than of those arising from preferences for particular teaching styles or methods. It may be the case that the greater the expertise, the more likely it is that judgements will be related to mathematical criteria, rather than merely to general teaching criteria—is this then still baggage?

OfSTED's criteria for inspection are published and available to all. However, it is quite possible that there will be a mismatch between schools' interpretations of what OfSTED means by good practice in primary mathematics and those of the inspectors who come to inspect them. The research reported here focuses on the responses of a small set of primary schools to the inspection of their mathematics: their anticipation of issues, their expectations of what would be found and their views of how the inspection would contribute to the development of good practice. Inspectors' reports seemed frequently to match the expectations of the schools. Interpretations appeared to coincide, but in some cases there appeared to be mismatch and disagreement which raised questions about expertise or interpretations of both inspector and mathematics co-ordinator and might, in turn, affect the development of mathematics following inspection.