Many in the maths education community were understandably disappointed by the recent decision to significantly reduce funding for the AMSP. This post is not intended as an opinion piece on the AMSP itself, but rather as a reflection on the broader ecosystem of key players within maths education.
There are numerous intermediary bodies influencing maths education, including the exam boards, NCETM (and the respective Maths Hubs), UKMT, Nrich, and AMSP/MEI. With so many organisations involved, how can we ensure coherence and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts? Do most teachers or Heads of Department understand the roles of each of these organisations? Critically, who has the authority to enact meaningful change? Is this a case of multiple organisations each lacking the sufficient funding and authority to realise such change?
Consider two contrasting sectors:
In disaster relief, multiple players such as government agencies, humanitarian organisations, large and small charities, often work toward the same goals. Much work is therefore done inefficiently, but nevertheless the contributions of all organisations will still be welcomed. Imposing too many restrictions or requiring donations to flow through tightly controlled pipelines can discourage giving altogether. This giving will still assist the overall effort, and critically the money is coming from outside of the government purse.
In public health by contrast, there are acute financial constraints, and charitable donations are unlikely to have a transformative effect on the level of delivery. The bulk of funding will come from the central government, and therefore must be spent sensibly, requiring a clear demarcation of the responsibilities for the various bodies involved. One ongoing example that readers are likely aware of is the issue of a lack of social care clogging NHS hospital beds. This is an example of responsibility not being sufficiently demarcated, alongside a lack of funding for social care.
Thankfully, maths education is more akin to public health than disaster relief! It faces immutable financial constraints, and an excessive number of inputs will lead to inefficiencies, which manifest as a lower level of delivery. Whilst disaster relief is helped by broad participation, education requires clearer roles and coordination as seen in numerous countries with consistently high PISA rankings.
Rather than allowing inefficiencies to persist, should we take this as an opportunity to rationalise the landscape? Cuts may be inevitable, but it is crucial to ensure that what remains is streamlined and coherent, (which is not currently the case).
One further event that caught my attention was OCR’s recent announcement calling for urgent reform of maths qualifications. It should be noted, however, that this announcement echoes a long history of similar reports and recommendations. Consider, for example, the 2004 ‘Making Mathematics Count’ report by Professor Adrian Smith, the 2011 Wolf Report on Vocational Education by Professor Alison Wolf, the 2014 Royal Society’s ‘Vision for Science and Mathematics Education,’ the 2021 Ofsted Mathematics Research Review, and the 2024 Royal Society’s ‘Mathematical Futures’ report. Despite these repeated calls for reform, meaningful change has yet to be implemented on a broad scale.
Frankly, these diagnoses are obvious even if the cures are not. Year after year, reports highlight the same issues: widespread low attainment, a curriculum that fails to engage a significant proportion of students, etc. but little meaningful action is taken to address them. One does question how it can be that an issue can exist for decades before meaningful action is taken to address it.
The landscape is too crowded.
Another blog post, coming soon.
George Bowman
Founder, Maths Advance
MATHS ADVANCE BLOG 
Leave a comment