A near irreducible element of education is in-person lesson delivery. Whilst AI may have already reduced contact time in higher education, it is unlikely to have the same impact in schools. I argued in a previous blog post that if the economic situation continues to deteriorate, it may become necessary to reduce contact hours at KS5. However, this is likely where cutbacks will stop. It is easier to trim contact hours at KS5 because there are more of them, and the learners are more mature. At KS4 and below, timetabling blended learning would be more difficult (often impossible), class sizes are larger, and learning needs are more varied. Unless AI develops to the point that it can lead whole lessons with large groups of learners, schools will remain human-centred organisations, with most of their budgets allocated to staff salaries.
Therefore, when compared to total staff salaries across the sector, other educational expenditures often appear immaterial, and this will justifiably remain the case. In this post, I will reference costs associated with education research and resource creation not to criticise the level of expenditure, but to highlight the sheer volume of activity occurring in these spaces.
Research:
It is hard to isolate maths specific research from sector-wide totals, but funding has clearly grown significantly. A few notable examples include the 2024 initiative launched by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), in partnership with XTX Markets and costing £7 million. Separately, the Mathematical Education Observatory at the University of Nottingham was established with an £8 million grant also from XTX Markets to produce research that includes a strong focus on secondary-level mathematics teaching. Additionally, Ofsted’s multiple subject report series each include mathematics-specific evaluations, while both the NCETM and MEI continue to publish research and guidance with direct relevance to secondary classrooms. While over 100 universities are likely engaged in education research (according to Statista), especially those offering education degrees, the number focused specifically on secondary mathematics education is harder to determine and is not centrally tracked.
One question hangs over this discussion, however, “Is this research translating into practice”? Since entering the profession in 2014, I have not once been contacted by a central authority to inform me of revised guidance, or that I need to undertake statutory CPD. This is not surprising, however, given there is no statutory guidance in education, meaning there is no binding framework requiring schools or teachers to adopt particular practices or undergo specific training. By contrast, in medicine, the NICE guidance is effectively statutory, with doctors exercising professional judgement in departing from the guidance in certain cases. The guidance is also dynamic, being continually updated in light of new research. I encourage readers who find this discrepancy striking to follow Aidan Gollaglee, who will imminently publish an article on LinkedIn exploring this argument in far greater depth than I have done here.
It is not the quantity or cost of research that concerns me. Rather, it is the lack of a mechanism to turn it into statutory guidance that could actually influence practice. If there is no control of the delivery mechanism, the research can be lost in the ether.
Resource Creation:
I am not referring to the contributions of individual teachers, but to large-scale, systematic efforts by organisations such as Sparx Maths and DFM. At a recent conference I attended, delegates casually referenced various programmes of study, seemingly assuming all of those present were familiar with the given resources. I was struck by the impossibility of this assumption. Here is a non-exhaustive list of schemes and frameworks discussed:
- Ark Curriculum
- Cambridge Mathematics Framework
- Collins Maths Frameworking
- Complete Maths (La Salle Education)
- DFM
- Lumen Curriculum (Loughborough University)
- Oak National Academy
- Oxford University Press
- NCETM (Curriculum Prioritisation Materials)
- Pearson
- Sparx
- Subject Association Guidance
- White Rose Maths
Even if this list was exhaustive, very few teachers are in roles where they can become familiar with the full range. Consequently, it is hard for any Head of Department to feel truly confident that they have chosen the “best” programme for their school. A whole series of corollary questions then follow such as, “Is tailored CPD available for the delivery of this curriculum?”, “Is this curriculum tailored towards a particular exam board?”, “Does this curriculum cater for the relatively small number of very high achieving learners within our cohorts?”, “Is this curriculum fully resourced or will we need to source homeworks and/or assessments?” etc.
As an aside, Oak National Academy is a notable entrant in the above list being fully publicly funded (approximately £14 million per annum), yet operating in an already saturated space of resource providers, publishers, and pedagogy platforms. If the government wants to centrally control curriculum and resources, Oak should be part of a coordinated national infrastructure: with clear accountability, integration into training and assessment, and a defined national strategy. If we instead value a pluralistic, competitive resource economy, the privileges it enjoys significantly distort the market.
Suppose a significant portion of teaching materials must be sourced beyond the programme of study, which would not be the case in systems like Japan or Singapore. In the UK, this means needing familiarity with a wide range of platforms such as those already listed, plus: Maths Genie, Corbett Maths, Dr Austin, Resourceaholic, Maths Watch, MathsBox, Whiteboard Maths, DESMOS, Geogebra, Autograph, Transum, Integral (by MEI), Mr Barton Maths, DFM, PixiMaths, Mr Mathematics, JustMaths, newer gamified platforms, and I have certainly missed from this list a significant number of widely used platforms, and a significant number of textbook providers.
The breadth of choice can be overwhelming, and simplicity is certainly undervalued. For example, a Head of Department may spend hours comparing overlapping schemes, each with their own terminology, sequencing, and pedagogical assumptions, only to find that staff are already using a blend of three others out of familiarity or habit. This complexity makes it difficult to consolidate practice or measure impact. Unlike the failure to translate research into practice, here the issue is too much reaching the classroom, but with such frequent churn that little gets properly embedded.
The issue with programmes of study and resource platforms is thus the opposite to the problem facing research. It is that too much is reaching the surface, with many of the platforms being of questionable educational merit, and others not enjoying sufficient time to become embedded into practice.
Leadership sometimes necessitates assuming control, and taking responsibility for outcomes.
Where is the leadership at national level?
Another blog post, coming soon.
George Bowman
Founder, Maths Advance
MATHS ADVANCE BLOG 
Leave a comment