Abstract
The seminal work of Michael Fullan and his University of Toronto colleagues (e.g. Fullan, Journal of Educational Change 1(1), 5–27, 2000, The New Meaning of Educational Change, 2001; Leithwood et al., Large-Scale Reform: What Works?, 1999) gave rise to a body of research looking into the reform of curriculum and teaching methods, in particular trying to identify the ingredients for successful reform. This chapter reflects on key features of reform in mathematics education by examining the effectiveness of a major system-wide attempt to change curriculum and teaching in English elementary schools, the National Numeracy Strategy. This is then contrasted with a more local intervention, Primary CAME. Process and outcomes in these different cases are considered, and some lessons suggested which can be drawn from them. In particular the notions of superficial change and deep change are used to analyse development in teachers’ behaviours and beliefs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Adey, P. S., & Shayer, M. (2002). Cognitive acceleration comes of age. In M. Shayer & P. S. Adey (Eds.), Learning intelligence: cognitive acceleration across the curriculum, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Adhami, M. (2002). Cognitive acceleration in mathematics education in years 5 and 6: problems and challenges. In M. Shayer & P. S. Adey (Eds.), Learning intelligence: cognitive acceleration across the curriculum from 5 to 15 years (pp. 98–117). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Adhami, M., Johnson, D. C., & Shayer, M. (1995). Cognitive acceleration through mathematics education: an analysis of the cognitive demands of the national curriculum and associated commercial schemes for secondary mathematics. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics (BSRLM) and the Association of Mathematics Education Tutors (AMET), 19 & 20 May, 1995, Loughborough.
Anghileri, J. (Ed.) (2001). Principles and practices in arithmetic teaching: innovative approaches for the primary classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcomes). New York: Academic Press.
Brown, M. (2010). Are we getting better at educating? King’s College London Annual Education Lecture.
Brown, M., Askew, M., Baker, D., Denvir, H., & Millett, A. (1998). Is the national numeracy strategy research-based? British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(4), 362–385.
Brown, M., Millett, A., Bibby, T., & Johnson, D. C. (2000). Turning our attention from the what to the how: the national numeracy strategy. British Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 457–471.
Brown, M., Askew, M., Millett, A., & Rhodes, V. (2003). The key role of educational research in the development and evaluation of the national numeracy strategy. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 655–672.
Brown, M., Askew, M., Hodgen, J., Rhodes, V., Millett, A., Denvir, H., & Wiliam, D. (2008). Individual and cohort progression in learning numeracy ages 5–11: results from the Leverhulme 5-year longitudinal study. In A. Dowker (Ed.), Children’s mathematical difficulties: psychology, neuroscience and education (pp. 85–108). Oxford: Elsevier.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: constancy and change in American classrooms 1880–1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., Leithwood, K., Fullan, M., Torrance, N., & Volante, L. (2003). Watching and learning 3: OISE/UT (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto) final report of the external evaluation of England’s national literacy and numeracy strategies. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998). The implementation of the national numeracy strategy: the final report of the numeracy task force. London: DfEE.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999). The national numeracy strategy: framework for teaching mathematics from reception to year 6. London: DfEE.
Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office; Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools (1982). Mathematics counts (‘The Cockcroft report’). London: HMSO.
Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 5–27.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hart, K., Brown, M. L., Küchemann, D. E., Kerslake, D., Ruddock, G., & McCartney, M. (Eds.) (1981). Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16. London: John Murray.
Hodgen, J., & Johnson, D. C. (2004). Teacher reflection, identity and belief change in the context of primary CAME. In A. Millett, M. Brown, & M. Askew (Eds.), Primary mathematics and the developing professional (pp. 219–244). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Mascall, B. (1999). Large-scale reform: what works? Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto.
Millett, A., Askew, M., & Brown, M. (2004a). The impact of the national numeracy strategy in year 4: (II). Teaching. Research in Mathematics Education, 6, 191–205.
Millett, A., Brown, M., & Askew, M. (Eds.) (2004b). Primary mathematics and the developing professional. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems eep getting better. London: McKinsey & Company.
OECD (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: first results from the OECD programme for international student assessment (PISA) 2000. Paris: OECD (Online at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/53/33691596.pdf)
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: what students know and can do—student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I) (Online at doi:10.1787/9789264091450-en).
Ofsted (2002). The national numeracy strategy: the first three years 1999–2002. London: Office for Standards in Education.
Ofsted (2011). Good practice in primary mathematics. London: Office for Standards in Education.
Reynolds, D., & Farrell, S. (1996). Worlds apart? A review of international surveys of educational achievement involving England. Ofsted reviews of research series. London: HMSO.
Shayer, M., & Adhami, M. (2007). Fostering cognitive development through the context of mathematics: results of the CAME project. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(3), 265–291.
Shayer, M., & Adhami, M. (2010). Realizing the cognitive potential of children 5–7 with a mathematics focus: post-test and long-term effects of a 2-year intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 363–379.
Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: the mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175.
Sturman, L., Ruddock, G., Burge, B., Styles, B., Lin, Y., & Vappula, H. (2008). England’s achievements in TIMSS 2007: national report for England. Slough: NFER.
Tymms, P. (2004). Are standards rising in English primary schools? British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 477–494.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brown, M., Hodgen, J. (2014). Curriculum, Teachers and Teaching: Experiences from Systemic and Local Curriculum Change in England. In: Li, Y., Lappan, G. (eds) Mathematics Curriculum in School Education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7560-2_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7560-2_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7559-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7560-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)