MEI and Curriculum Development
Stella Dudzic & Roger Porkess
Rationale
This discussion paper accompanies a presentation at the ISDDE conference hosted by the Nuffield Foundation on May 26th and 27th 2009. It begins with a summary of the experience of Mathematics in Education and Industry (MEI) and then widens out to provide a more general view of curriculum development in mathematics.
Background
The origins of MEI lie in the early 1960s. The successful launch of Sputnik in 1957 had traumatised the Americans; how was it possible that the Russians had beaten them in the space race ? This caused them to look critically at the education they were giving their young people and to ask how it could be improved. A surge in curriculum development followed as new ideas were tried out. This spirit of liberation crossed the Atlantic and a large number of projects were set up in the early 1960s, mostly in science, technology and mathematics. Few of these now survive but those that do have mostly grown and become influential; MEI is among them.
Development phases
All successful curriculum development is based on ideas. A common pattern is for a project to be set up and to attract a following of teachers who believe in its ideas and are comfortable in the way they are put into practice. Over time, however, a project’s adherents tend to dwindle in number. There are several possible reasons for this.
- Its best ideas are absorbed into the mainstream provision.
- The power of its ideas is restricted by regulation.
- The original band of supporters get promoted or retire, and are replaced by people with other priorities.
Consequently a lot of curriculum development bodies are relatively short lived. To be successful in the long term, such a body must rejuvenate itself, finding new ways to express its underlying core values, new leaders and new supporters.
MEI has now gone through three such development cycles.
- 1963-7 Introduction of mathematics close to that used in the workplace into the school curriculum.
- 1990 Introduction of the first modular A Level (in any subject).
- 2000- The Further Mathematics Network
It is hoped that the next cycle will be about introducing Realistic Mathematics Education into schools in the UK.
Independence
MEI is a registered charity and an independent body.
- In common with almost all other curriculum development bodies it is independent of government. However, at times this can feel like an illusion since changes in government policy, and the associated funding, can undermine almost any project.
- In contrast to many other curriculum development bodies, MEI is free- standing and not attached to a charitable foundation, learned society or subject association. (However, in the past MEI has received considerable help from the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.)
- In order to be effective, MEI needs strong partnerships, for example with an awarding body and a publishing house. Such relationships can be easily misunderstood.
New projects
A number of factors influence whether MEI should undertake a substantial new project.
- The role of a curriculum development body is to look for ways of overcoming deficiencies in the national provision, to try them out through pilot programmes and then, if successful, to extend the influence beyond the initial pilot. So the first and over-riding criterion is that a new project should address a national need.
- In addition, the focus of the project should lie within the organisation’s area of competence.
- It should be financially viable (including finding funding if necessary).
- Potential obstacles, for example those posed by regulation and by acceptance, should not be insuperable.
Two other areas MEI would like to be involved in the mathematics learnt in are:
- improving the mathematics learnt in vocational courses;
- increasing the national uptake of statistics pre-university.
However, so far in neither case has a way been found in which any work would have a reasonable prospect of significant uptake.
The future of curriculum development in mathematics
There are a number of reasons to be worried about the future of curriculum development in mathematics.
- As a consequence of league tables, schools and awarding bodies are now more reluctant to do anything out of the usual. The culture is one of playing safe, even when this is recognised as not being in students’ best long term interests.
- Regulation has become progressively more inflexible. Although the awarding bodies have their own specifications, the rules ensure that the differences between them are small and diminishing. By contrast 15 years ago, syllabus designers had the freedom to encapsulate different approaches to teaching and learning.
- Assessment now concentrates on reliability (that different examiners give the same mark) at the expense of validity (that the assessment actually measures the right things).
- Regulation has increasingly involved applying the same rules to all subjects independent of their needs. As a result, many good initiatives in mathematics have been stifled.
- There are relatively few sources of funding for mathematics curriculum development. (By contrast, the situation for science would seem to be rather better.)
If this list looks rather long, it should be seen as a challenge.
Mathematics is an evolving subject and not just at research level. The ongoing development of new software means that what is regarded as important at school level has changed and will rightly continue to do so, as will the most appropriate ways of teaching it. Without suitable curriculum development the version of the subject taught in our schools and colleges will become fossilised.
The challenge is to create an environment in which curriculum development is not only possible but valued and encouraged. This conference could be an important starting point in achieving this.
Roger Porkess, MEI Chief Executive
Discussion
- Need and knowledge of need are different – we have to produce what people want because otherwise they will not take on what we suggest.
- How to make your dreams real? What is needed is an appreciation of the needs of kids in classrooms and the lack of expertise on the part of the regulators. People on the ground no longer feel that they can innovate. From the 1960s to 1980s there was a combination of very competent people and loose regulation, but things are not like this now.
- The culture of accountability in school, in which maths is meant to be at the forefront of pupils’ attainment, puts people under a lot of pressure. Teachers are now tempted to think they are succeeding if they are tracking pupil progress in sufficient detail. Teachers need space to develop their own capability.