MATHS ADVANCE BLOG

The recently launched Curriculum and Assessment Review in England has set ambitious goals: 

It aims to update the national curriculum, making it more inclusive, innovative, and aligned with the demands of a rapidly evolving workforce​. The review focuses on foundational subjects such as maths, reading, and writing, while also emphasising the inclusion of skills like digital literacy, oracy, and life skills, ensuring that students are prepared for the modern workplace. Additionally, the review seeks to broaden the curriculum, enhancing access to subjects like music, art, sport, and drama—subjects that have often been sidelined in favour of more traditional academic subjects​.

Whilst a detailed discussion of the scope of this review would be too extensive for this post, I would like to raise a note of caution about the focus of the review, and have made some observations that may resonate with some readers. My viewpoint, guided by being a secondary maths teacher, may lean disproportionately towards the needs and challenges of teaching maths to Key Stage 3/4/5 learners. 

The Structure of the Reviews

The curriculum review process involves subject specific review(s) feeding into a broader curriculum and assessment reform. For the maths curriculum, each exam board is conducting its own internal review, which will then be synthesised into a single subject review. Considered alongside each of the exam board reviews will be input from a broad range of stakeholders including teachers, parents, higher and further education institutions. I have three questions about this meta process: 

1. Is education policy a domain where non-expert opinion should be sought?
2. Is such an extensive multi-layered process designed to protect the government from any negative political consequences that may arise?
3. If the answer to the above question is ‘no’ and the feedback is to be integrated into the process in a meaningful way, does this risk diluting a vision and putting at risk the ambitions stated above?

The Broad Vision: A Zero-Sum Game?

The broad vision summarised in the introduction appears to aim for an impossible goal. Without increasing total teaching time or finding a model of teaching that better facilitates learning, it needs to be recognised that teaching time is a zero-sum game. If you increase time for subjects like maths or English, time for other subjects will inevitably be reduced. A discussion about the relative merits of the different subjects is not something I wish to get into here, instead for noting that such decisions will always be trapped within a zero sum game. 

A Review of Mathematics Education: Subject-Level or System-Level?

In the paragraphs below, I discuss the transition some schools have made to a mastery approach in their teaching of mathematics. It should be recognised that not all of these schools provide effective teaching, and many of those that have not explicitly embraced mastery do provide effective teaching. The key point, however, is not whether there is a perfect overlap of these regions in a Venn diagram, but rather that mastery is an example of a policy that can improve outcomes without changing the respective allocations of teaching time. For the purposes of argument, you might consider this (oversimplified) choice between a mastery approach and a rote learning approach as proxies for other initiatives that are about more than the budget allocated to them.

The push towards mastery learning in recent years has been a welcome development. Organisations such as NCETM, ATM, AMSP, Oak National Academy, Complete Mathematics, and White Rose Maths, along with countless MATS, have either officially supported a mastery approach or offer professional development aligned with this method. Mastery allows students to gain a deep understanding of core concepts before moving on to more advanced material, helping them apply their knowledge in various contexts. This approach informs how schools structure their schemes of work, internal assessments, and even specific lesson content. Mastery is widely considered to lead to higher levels of retained knowledge and understanding.

To reiterate, a shift towards mastery in more schools is not bound by the zero-sum game of teaching time. Much like businesses adopting new technologies to streamline processes, mastery learning leverages better teaching methods to achieve improved outcomes without requiring more time. Research shows it also provides a more rewarding experience for pupils, as it fosters greater engagement and confidence. Pupils develop a sense of achievement by mastering concepts thoroughly before moving on, which leads to more sustained learning. According to a 2020 study published in Educational Psychology Review, mastery learning not only improves cognitive outcomes but also enhances students’ attitudes towards learning, leading to higher levels of motivation and satisfaction.

However, not all schools have embraced mastery learning. Too many still rely on rote learning, and so more pertinent question is: why have more schools not transitioned to mastery? My argument is that the more impactful aspect of the review is the focus on the assessment structure in the UK. The three main stakeholders in external assessments—exam boards, schools, and government bodies—all have an interest in high grades being awarded. The marketisation of exam boards creates a dynamic in which a race to the bottom is incentivised. It is not difficult to change the nature of an exam to reduce the reliance on rote learning, but how feasible is it to control this over time if the existing market structure remains in place? The graph below summarises the proportions of respective degree classes in the UK and is suggestive of the influence marketisation can have.

A further point is the lack of centralised control over delivery of the curriculum. In countries like Japan and Singapore, governments maintain tight control over curriculum delivery, ensuring high minimum standards across all schools. In Japan, for instance, the government’s control ensures consistency in teaching while reducing the workload on teachers. Addressing these systemic issues, such as the marketisation of exam boards and the lack of central oversight, would allow the government to raise education quality more effectively than focusing on curriculum content.

How Important Are These Changes?

Several Multi-Academy Trusts (MATS) have already taken steps to centralise their planning and internal assessment processes, ensuring a minimum standard of delivery across their institutions. The improvements realised in these respective trusts demonstrate that consistency in educational provision can significantly enhance overall teaching quality. Government-level reforms in this area are just as critical as any discussion surrounding curriculum content. Likewise, the market for external assessments remains widely unpopular among educators, and—similar to the lack of centralised planning—presents a dynamic that could undermine even the most well-conceived curricular reforms.

It is crucial that the government directs its attention where it is most needed.