Abstract
Mathematics education is rarely out of the policy spotlight in England. Over the last 10 years, considerable attention has been given to improving 14–19 mathematics curriculum pathways. In this paper we consider some of the challenges of enacting curriculum change by drawing upon evidence from our evaluation of the Mathematics Pathways Project (MPP). From 2004 to 2010 this project, which was directed by England%s Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, aimed to improve the engagement, attainment and participation rates of 14‐ to 19‐year‐old learners of mathematics. Our particular focus is upon the temporal problems of piloting new curriculum and assessment and we draw on Lemke%s discussion of timescales, heterochrony and the adiabatic principle to consider the interlocking and interference of various change processes.
Highlights
As education and politics have become increasingly entangled, mathematics is arguably the area of the curriculum which is subjected to the most scrutiny; by policymakers, think-tanks, stakeholders and the media
Language and science receive a great deal of policy attention but school mathematics is uniquely political for several reasons: 1) there is a popular belief that it is culture-neutral and is valuable in making international comparisons of the effectiveness of education systems; 2) it is of foundational importance to the ‘STEM agenda’ (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and associated arguments around future economic productivity and security, and 3) the sheer number of stakeholders with vested interests in school mathematics, in the 14-19 age rangei
In this article we consider the challenge of making substantive changes to complex education systems by focusing on a national curriculum development project undertaken by the Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA) in England from 2004-10
Summary
As education and politics have become increasingly entangled, mathematics is arguably the area of the curriculum which is subjected to the most scrutiny; by policymakers, think-tanks, stakeholders and the media. If a complex dynamic system incorporates various processes happening over quite different timescales, very quick processes generally appear to have little effect upon much slower processes; their impact or energy doesn’t get through the adiabatic boundary This metaphor has some potential for understanding how the quick processes of policymaking, the somewhat slower processes of education and very slow culture changes (e.g. societal attitudes towards mathematics) interact. Lemke argues that the adiabatic principle generally holds true, there are instances where short-timescale processes can produce an ‘avalanche of consequences’ which can have major long-term effects on much larger systems (a butterfly effect) One example of this in England was the ministerial decision in 2008 to include GCSE mathematics and English in the headline school performance measure (% of students attaining 5 or more A* to C grades at GCSE, including English and Mathematics). ‘Tomlinson’ was too radical for the government of the day, functional mathematics, together with functional English and ICT, were taken up enthusiastically by policymakers in response to repeatedly expressed, and increasingly vociferous, employer concerns about young people’s unpreparedness for work
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
