Memorandum submitted by Professor Dame
Julia Higgins FRS, Chair, The Advisory Committee of Mathematics
Education
The Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (ACME)
is pleased to offer its evidence to the Education Select Committee's
inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. ACME is an independent
committee based at the Royal Society and operating under its auspices,
with a remit to provide advice on issues affecting 5-19 mathematics
education in England. Our submission is therefore limited to the
effect of Ofsted on mathematics in schools and colleges.
ACME would like to draw the Committee's attention
to the following points, which it feels are pertinent to this
inquiry and should be pursued further with Ofsted:
GENERIC VERSUS
SUBJECT-SPECIFIC
APPROACHES
1. In considering Ofsted's performance the Committee
should distinguish carefully between general inspections (Section
Five of the Education Act 2005) carried out by private contractors
and subject-specific surveys carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectors
(HMI). Section Five inspections are required to be generic and
encompass matters such as pupil welfare and atmosphere, with inspection
of teaching and learning focused on data analysis and moderation
of schools' own self-evaluation. Ofsted rightly supplements the
Section Five regime with a tailored survey of subject teaching
and produces reports on its overall findings.
2. Subject-specific reports such as Understanding
the Score[35]
provide unique and essential information on the state of mathematics
teaching in England which is not readily available from any other
source, and on the basis of which an agenda can be set for national
improvements. Understanding the Score was particularly
informative and echoed ACME's views of the current state of mathematics
education. Subject surveys in general highlight strengths as well
as areas for attention to ensure that best practice is built on
where it is found. Headteachers often report how the feedback
within one subject points them to similar areas for development
in other areas that were not the subject of the original survey
visit. The procedures for subject-specific surveys in schools
could usefully be mirrored in Ofsted's FE college subject inspections;
the current regime considers mathematics only within a group of
other sciences and psychology.
3. ACME's interactions with HMI on mathematics
matters are often positive and well-informed, creating an impression
that the natural pedagogical requirements of different subjects
are understood and well accounted for in Ofsted's processes. In
particular, ACME was pleased to contribute its thoughts to the
draft subject-specific guidance notes for the subject-specific
surveys[36]
and sees these as a valuable development which will promote improvements
in mathematics teaching in schools.
4. However, we are concerned that, in practice,
it is mainly the Section Five processes that have a lasting influence
on the way that children are taught in schools. We are becoming
increasingly concerned at an unfortunate gap developing between
the practices encouraged through the subject-specific reports
and those incentivised by the Section Five inspections[37].
This gap manifests itself in a mismatch between the assurances
that we are given through HMI and Ofsted leaders and the messages
we receive direct from teachers in schools.
NEGATIVE EFFECTS
OF SECTION
5 INSPECTIONS
5. In particular, we believe that Section Five
inspections are indirectly (and maybe inadvertently) encouraging
the growth of early entry into GCSE mathematics through a focus
on the number of qualifications that pupils achieve at grade C
or above, rather than the learning engendered through them or
how well prepared they are for the next stage. We are deeply concerned
about the rise in entering entire cohorts one or more years early
without regard to the effect it might have on their progression
in the subject post-GCSE or their long-term attitudes to and confidence
in mathematics. Blanket early entry can also depress grades, since
those who achieve a grade C or higher are unlikely to be re-entered
even if they might ultimately have been capable of achieving more
- it seems particularly perverse that an Ofsted inspection could
potentially prevent some pupils from reaching their full potential[38].
In contrast, Understanding the Score is clear on this issue
- this is a powerful example of the gap between what is incentivised
through Section Five inspection and the subject-specific messages
from HMI.
6. ACME is also concerned about the extent to
which Section Five inspectors are knowledgeable enough about mathematics
pedagogy to comment on mathematics teaching in schools, particularly
given the apparent wish to apply generic requirements to lesson
formats. It can seem as though more attention is paid to lesson
format than to the quality of student experience or of their learning.
Moreover, we are aware of instances where feedback given through
Ofsted inspections directly contradicts the training that mathematics
teachers have received through research-based subject-specific
CPD courses. We suggest that the Committee asks Ofsted how it
can be confident that these discrepancies are not increasing,
since the background of most inspectors is non-mathematics specialist.
7. Given the high stakes of Section Five inspection,
we believe that school Senior Management Teams have a tendency
to adopt Ofsted-style observational techniques for internal assessment
between inspections, and that there can be a greater gap in these
cases between the assessor's understanding of what constitutes
excellent subject-specific pedagogy and that of the teacher they
are assessing. These factors do not serve to improve the quality
of teaching of mathematics in schools and colleges.
8. Section Five inspections attempt to assess
pupil progress within a lesson through short observations, but
the study of mathematics does not always lend itself to instant
enlightenment. While some students assimilate new ideas very quickly,
others (including deep thinkers) may take longer to become confident
with the use of a new concept and develop a deeper understanding.
It is notable that the draft subject-specific criteria refer to
the 'development of conceptual understanding over time' and the
need to 'persevere when faced with challenges', which the Section
Five inspections cannot hope to provide rigorous evidence about
through a 20-minute observation.
OFSTED'S
FUTURE ROLE
9. As we indicate in paragraph one, Ofsted's
role is very broad. We believe that this has been a limiting factor
to Ofsted's performance, and we welcome the Government's intention
to relieve Ofsted of some of its 'peripheral' duties. A greater
focus on pedagogy (with suitable account taken for diversity between
subjects) and on educational progress (rather than on attainment
of particular qualifications) could serve to improve Ofsted's
effectiveness greatly.
10. Ofsted's role in reporting on the curriculum
being used should be reinforced, particularly in the context of
the increased freedoms being granted to schools in this area.
Michael Gove's recent letter to HM Chief Inspector[39]
suggests that there will be no scope for reporting on this, given
the proposed headings of "quality of teaching, effectiveness
of leadership, pupil behaviour and safety, and pupil achievement".
11. With the demise of the National Strategies
and the reduction in mathematics specialist support from Local
Authorities, there is a risk that participation in mathematics-specific
CPD may dwindle. We suggest that Ofsted could have a wider role
to play in improving teaching in schools by placing more emphasis
on reporting the extent to which teachers of mathematics have
access to subject-specific CPD, and on whether the existing training
days available in the year are used for anything other than generic
purposes.
12. Good use can be made of the expertise that
resides in Ofsted through using subject specialist HMIs to train
Section Five inspectors; this can go some way to addressing the
mixed messages being received.
13. HMI subject expertise should also be used
to inform the development and conduct of qualifications, given
the extent to which examinations can drive teaching. This could
be achieved by extending Ofsted's subject role to include HMI
attendance at subject awarding body meetings, complementing Ofqual's
role as an independent regulator.
October 2010
35 Available from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/Mathematics-understanding-the-score Back
36
ACME's response is available from http://acme-uk.org/news.asp?id=202
; Ofsted's draft guidance is at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/Generic-grade-descriptors-and-draft-supplementary-subject-specific-guidance-for-inspectors-on-making-judgements-during-subject-survey-visits-to-schools Back
37
Teachers can be left with the impression that Ofsted demands a
proliferation of written evidence, leading to the avoidance of
setting mathematical tasks that do not produce this. Back
38
The Mathematical Association (www.m-a.org.uk) has recently set
out its position on early entry at http://www.m-a.org.uk/jsp/index.jsp?lnk=700.
A focus on the number of qualifications achieved also has the
effect of reducing time available for teaching and in-depth study.
Back
39
Michael Gove's letter to Christine Gilbert (HM Chief Inspector),
22 September 2010: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/s/secretary%20of%20state%20to%20christine%20gilbert%2022%20sept.PDF Back
| 
