Teachers Talking About
Teaching Mathematics
Sir Peter Williams
Primary Mathematics Review
Primary Mathematics Review
A review of mathematics teaching
in Early Years settings and Primary schools
NCETM Birmingham, 20th November 2007
Review Lead: Sir Peter Williams
Secretariat: Parag Vaghjiani
The Review will focus on a number of
broad areas....







Effective pedagogy of mathematics teaching
Educational provision for all pupils
Intervention programme Every Child Counts
Conceptual & subject knowledge of teachers
Initial teaching training & CPD
Design & sequencing of mathematics curriculum
Engagement of parents & families
…in both primary schools and early years
settings
The Terms of Reference
Through examination of the available evidence including international best practice and through
engagement with the teaching profession, to consider & make recommendations in the following areas:
1. What is the most effective pedagogy of maths teaching in primary schools and early years settings.
That consideration should include instructional methodologies, teaching and learning strategies, and
lesson designs that are most effective in helping children to progress in their learning.
2. What range of provision best supports children across the full ability range, including the most gifted.
The highest priority should be given to those who are not progressing fast enough to reach national
expectations.
3. The review should specifically make recommendations to inform the development of an early
intervention programme for children (age 5 to 7) who are failing to master the basics of numeracy –
“Every Child Counts” - as recently announced by the Prime Minister.
4. What conceptual and subject knowledge of mathematics should be expected of primary school
teachers and early years practitioners, and how should initial teaching training and continuing
professional development be improved to secure that knowledge.
5. What is the most effective design and sequencing of the mathematics curriculum. Recommendations
in this area should inform a future review of the primary curriculum as a whole.
6. How should parents and families best be helped to support young children’s mathematical
development.
The review should build on the recent renewal of the Primary framework for mathematics and the EYFS.
Work Programme













17 Sep 2007
19Sep
1Oct-16Nov
End-Nov
Nov-Dec
Jan-Feb
March2008
Early Apr
Apr
Mid-May
End-May
17June2008
July
– Primary Maths Review Commences
– 1st Advisory Panel Meeting
– Call for Evidence
– Analysis of responses
– Focus-groups Heads, Subject Associations, Unions, NDPBs
– Writing up of Interim Report
– Interim Report Published
– Mathematics Subject Associations Conference
– Workshops & preparation of final report
– Final report is sent to Ministers
– Printing Final Report
– Final Report Published (at Annual Conference of NCETM)
– “Pupils Maths Day” at National Science Museum
Advisory Panel will meet roughly every 3 weeks.
Dates of Advisory Panel meetings: 19 Sep, 22 Oct, 22 Nov, 6 Dec, 20 Dec
The Advisory Panel
Professor Janet Ainley – Director of the University of Leicester School of Education. Originally a primary
school teacher and mathematics co-ordinator, she has over 25 years experience as a mathematics teacher
educator, and researcher at Leicester and Warwick universities. She has led a number of research projects,
focussing on the use of technology and pedagogic task design. She has particular interests in the learning and
teaching of data handling and of algebra.
Professor Celia Hoyles - DCSF Chief Adviser for Mathematics and Director of the National Centre for
Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics. Professor of Mathematics Education at the Institute of Education,
University of London since 1984 and has directed several mathematical research projects.
Laurie Jacques - Member of the Advisory Committee for Mathematics Education (ACME) – primary teacher
representative. Practising classroom teacher. Written several papers including ACME’s report on “Ensuring
Effective Continuing Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics in Primary Schools” (2006).
Sir Jim Rose – formerly Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMI) for Primary Schools and Director of Inspection for
the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED). He retired from OfSTED in July 1999 and has since acted as a
consultant to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (and the then-Department of Education and
Skills) on nursery and primary education, and the training of school support staff. At the request of the Secretary
of State, he chaired the 1999 Independent Scrutiny of the National Assessment Tests for Primary Schools. He is
a member of the board of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and chairs the QCA 3-11 Committee. Jim
led the Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading( Rose Review 2006) and was also vice-chairman
of the 2020 Review Group on personalised learning, which reported to the Secretary of State in 2007 under the
title of ‘2020 Vision’.
Brenda Spencer - Member of the Early Education Advisory Group and a former First and Nursery school
headteacher. Currently, an additional Ofsted inspector and a freelance adviser in early education field. Has been
an Auditor for Key Stage 1 tests since 1995, advises the London Borough of Richmond in the early years and
primary education fields. She works with NAA on foundation stage assessment and moderation. This included
Continuing the Learning Journey. Work with PNS included drafting Creating the Picture.3
Call of evidence – who will we target?





















Association of Mathematics Education Teachers (AMET)
Advisory Committee on mathematics education (ACME)
BEAM (specialist mathematics education publisher for pupils aged 3-14)
Business sector – including CBI
Children’s Workforce Development Council
Early Education Advisory Group (EEAG)
Early Years (incl.Pre-School Learning Alliance & National Childminding Association)
Family and Parenting Institute (FPI)
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
Institute of Physics (IOP)
Maths Subject Organisations (NAMA, ATM, MA)
Maths test development teams at Leeds University
National Association of Headteachers
National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM)
National Strategies - Primary & Secondary (PNS, SNS)
OfSTED
Parenting Organisations incl. Parents Teacher Association (NCPTA)
Qualifications and Curriculum Agency (QCA)
Training and Development Agency (TDA)
Teacher unions/professional associations
Women in Science, Engineering and Construction (WISE)
How will we collect evidence?

Via programme of visits

Via website (and consultation email address)

Via face-to-face meetings

Via written evidence (submissions)

Via focus groups / seminars / workshops (both internal DCSF and external)

Via analysis of existing publications, research and statistics

Via visits to schools and EY settings

Via OfSTED

Via pupil voice
………focused at the 1st Panel Meeting
Three primary topics for first phase of review:
 CPD and subject knowledge for teachers
 Intervention programmes and ‘Every Child Counts’
 Underpinned by Early Years Settings
In parallel, investigation of curriculum and pedagogy
and analysis of responses to call for evidence
Visit Schedule of PMR Panel members
Williams Maths Review – Programme of Visits
Visit
Date
Host
Focus
Panel Member
Hackney
Friday 5 October
Tuesday 30 October
Devon
Monday 5 November
Ian Benson
Hampshire
Monday 12 November
Wendy Hoskin
Liverpool
Wednesday 14 November
TBC
Tower
Hamlets
Birmingham
Thursday 15 November
TBC
Numeracy
Recovery (ECC)
Maths Recovery
(ECC)
Gattegno's
approach / Algebra
Teachers CPD and
OU training
Maths Recovery
(ECC), Parents
EY settings
Peter Williams
Cumbria
Kingsmead Primary
School
TBC
Tuesday 20 November
NCETM
Blackbird
Leys
Norfolk
Thursday 29 November
TBC
Friday 30 November
TBC
Leicester
Friday 7 December
University Leicester
Brighton
Wednesday 12th December
Oxford
Secretariat
Member
Parag Vaghjiani
Celia Hoyles
Janet Ainley
Jim Rose
A.N.Other
Peter Williams
Jim Rose
Peter Williams
Janet Ainley
Peter Williams
Brenda Spencer
CPD and Maths
Peter Williams
Innovation
Celia Hoyles
EY settings and
Peter Williams
Parents
Brenda Spencer
Catch Up Numeracy Jim Rose
(ECC)
A.N.Other
CPD, PGCE, ITT,
Peter Williams
Primary School
Janet Ainley
Parag Vaghjiani
TBC
Numicon
Peter Williams
Parag Vaghjiani
Thursday 17 January
OU
Making Maths Make
Sense MMMS
Jim Rose
Peter Williams
TBC
Reading
Thursday 18 October
Tim Coulson
TBC
Peter Williams
TBC
London
Thursday 22 November
TBC
EY setting
Brenda Spencer
Jim Rose
TBC
Parag Vaghjiani
TBC
Parag Vaghjiani
Joanna West
Parag Vaghjiani
Jeannine Beckford
TBC
Parag Vaghjiani
Intervention – ‘Every Child Counts’
 Visits to ‘Numeracy Recovery’ and ‘Mathematics Recovery’ in
Cumbria, Liverpool, Hackney and Tower Hamlets
 Considerable evidence of success (migration of 1a, 1b …to 2a
2b… even 3!)
 Variability in delivery?
 Visits to ‘Numicon’ (Brighton) and presentation of ‘Catch-up
Numeracy’ imminent
 Also encountered ‘Talking Maths’ (Liverpool), ‘Catching up’
(Tower Hamlets) use of RM Maths (Liverpool), ‘Challenging
Maths’ (G&T Liverpool)
Intervention – some issues
 Intervention clearly yielding positive benefits
 But perhaps unrealistic to expect the same programme to
deliver uniform results nationally?
 So what to recommend to Government (who may be inclined to
favour one, or a small number of, options)?
 Size of cohort – 30,000 has been mentioned?
 Costs?
 Availability of trained intervention teachers and their CPD
Case Study : Kingsmead Primary School,
Hackney




Visit Friday 5th October
Numeracy recovery – two sessions
Meetings with LA members
Meetings with Headteacher and Staff
Kingsmead – some reflections




Excellent, dedicated headteacher and staff
Outstanding specialist Numeracy Recovery teacher
Supportive and committed LA
Wide range of social issues in catchment area (Olympics
infrastructure effect, diverse ethnicity)
 Language issues as big a challenge as Maths
THE NUMERACY RECOVERY SESSIONS WERE
A VERY POWERFUL DEMONSTRATION OF
WHAT IS POSSIBLE, BUT………
Economics – some possible
consequences:
 Kingsmead : 240 children, £1.3 million budget i.e. ca £5.5K per
child
 Numeracy Recovery costs ca £60K per annum
 Current Numeracy Recovery cohort ca 20 children i.e. an
additional £3K per child
 Extrapolate nationally to ECC target of 30,000 children implies
annual costs of approaching £100 million!
AND MANY CHILDREN IN NUMERACY RECOVERY ARE ALSO IN,
OR HAVE BEEN IN, LITERACY RECOVERY PROGRAMME
The Challenge…….
 Can we afford this? Depends on Government priorities.
 Can we afford NOT to intervene?
THE COST BENEFIT TO THE ECONOMY OF INTERVENTION OVER
THE LIFETIME OF AN INDIVIDUAL CHILD IMPLIES THAT
INTERVENTION MAY BE SELF FINANCING
•
The review will attempt to quantify these economic arguments,
and it is hoped that KPMG Foundation will model the NPV of
cost benefits
Further early thoughts………

Is there a parallel to phonics?

The importance of teachers’ CPD and subject knowledge

The importance of Early Years

The role of technology

The importance of social and family issues

The importance of transition (including from FS-KS1 and from KS2-KS3)
How to reach us - DCSF Secretariat
PARAG VAGHJIANI G7
Head of Secretariat
Responsible for all functions of team
SARAH AMER
Consultation / Call for Evidence
Research and Analysis
Communications Plan
JOANNA WEST (Virtual Team Member)
Consultation / Call for Evidence – EYFS interests
Research and Analysis – EYFS interests
Communications Plan – EYFS interests
JEANNINE BECKFORD
Programme of Visits
Workshops and seminars
Briefing and Correspondence
Website Management
Website: www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/primary/mathematicsre
Email: WilliamsMaths.Review@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk