MATHEMATICS COUNTS FOR WHAT?

RETHINKING THE MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM IN ENGLAND Andrew Noyes

University of Nottingham, UK
<Andrew.Noyes(at)nottingham.ac.uk>

Abstract This a er draws on !uro ean and U" critica# (mathematics) education traditions to argue that the mathematics curricu#um in !ng#and is in urgent need of reconce tua#isation if a more engaging and socia##y $ust mathematics education is to %e offered to young eo #e in the future. Throughout the history of state schoo#ing in !ng#and there have %een com eting agendas for schoo# mathematics and its sacred osition as the gatekee er to many education, em #oyment and #ife o ortunities is now firm#y esta%#ished. A %rief history and criti&ue of the curricu#um #eads to consideration of the current and a#ternative curricu#um drivers. ' argue that more radica# traditions inc#uding critica#mathematica# #iteracy, mathematics for socia# $ustice, genera# (citi(enshi ) education or allgemeinbildung shou#d %e centra# to a thorough rethink of the mathematics curricu#um in !ng#and. Introduction: formatting mathematics )or many years, socio#ogists of mathematics education, a minority of scho#ars in this fie#d, have argued that mathematics acts as a gatekee er. The oft &uoted *o#mink (+,,-), for e.am #e, e. #ains that mathematics /more than any other su%$ect, has %een cast in the ro#e as an 0o%$ective1 $udge, in order to decide who in society 0can1 and who 0cannot1. 't therefore serves as the gatekee er to artici ation to the decision making rocesses in society2. 3e goes on to say that /to deny some the access to artici ation in mathematics is then a#so to determine, a priori, who wi## move ahead and who wi## stay %ehind2 ( .4+). This otentia# is one as ect of what is descri%ed %y "kovsmose (+,,5) as the /formatting ower of mathematics2, which has an invisi%#e ro#e in the structuration of society ( . +,,). "uch notions of societa# structuring are a centra# concern for many socio#ogists and 6ourdieu, who wrote e.tensive#y on the re roductive otentia# of educationa# systems (6ourdieu, +,5,7 6ourdieu 8 9asseron, +,::7 6ourdieu 8 "aint;<artin, +,:-), recognised the uni&ue ower of schoo# mathematics, articu#ar#y through the e.amination system= >ften with a sycho#ogica# %ruta#ity that nothing can attenuate, the schoo# institution #ays down its fina# $udgements and its verdicts, from which there is no a ea#, ranking a## students in a uni&ue hierarchy of a## forms of e.ce##ence, nowadays dominated %y a sing#e disci #ine, mathematics. (6ourdieu, +,,5, . ?5)
+

A#though his conte.t was not !ng#and, 6ourdieu descri%ed such %oundaries as the @enera# Aertificate of "econdary !ducation (@A"!) ABC %order#ine as a /magica# thresho#d2 where%y two students, se arated %y the narrowest of margins, have their future educationa# and #ife o ortunities differentiated in an instant. "uch educationa# magic divides the / rofane2 ;grade C and %e#ow; from the /sacred2 ;grades A and a%ove (to use Curkheim2s terms). This is one as ect of the ower of mathematics as current#y constructed in the curricu#um. The recent decision that mathematics and !ng#ish must %e attained at grade A or a%ove if a student is to re orted with those attaining a di #oma (4 or more AD;A grades) on#y serves to maintain the status of mathematics as the gatekee er. Eith an ar%itrari#y maintained #ower ro ortion of the cohort a%#e to achieve the re&uired grade in mathematics, a osition made ossi%#e %y the er etuated myth that mathematics is re#ative#y difficu#t, many more students wi## find mathematics to %e the stum%#ing %#ock for their future education and em #oyment #ans. To i##ustrate, consider data from the ?FF+ @A"! cohort. Achieved AD;A (G) 6oys A## su%$ects !ng#ish mathematics !ng#ish and maths !ng#ish not maths maths not !ng#ish H, -H -H I5 5 5 @ir#s :, H? -, -H +H I tota# :4-5 -? +? H

Fig 1: GCSE A*-C results from 2001 b gender These figures do not te## us a%out students attaining 4 or more AD;A inc#uding maths and !ng#ish %ut they do indicate what might ha en when they %ecome a necessary art of a di #oma system. !&ua# num%er of %oys wou#d not o%tain the di #oma due to not achieving the A grade in maths or in !ng#ish. )or the gir#s the icture is &uite different with mathematics %eing much more #ike#y to %e the stum%#ing %#ock. Ee might e. ect to see simi#ar ine&ua#ities if #ooking at c#ass or ethnic grou s. As a resu#t of dee #y em%edded cu#tura# %e#iefs a%out schoo# mathematics, generations of students have had a #ess than ositive e. erience of the su%$ect, #eading to ongoing discussion in the UK education ress, and %etween a very sma## num%er of scho#ars, a%out whether or not mathematics shou#d remain a com u#sory com onent of the curricu#um. 3owever, if we fo##ow
?

*o#mink2s argument then a##owing some students to not take a @A"! in mathematics wou#d guarantee their consignment to the ranks of the mathematica##y under&ua#ified. 6ut a%out ha#f of students wi## ro%a%#y not get a grade A. "o, the argument fo##ows that for those who are very un#ike#y to get the @A"! grade A the curricu#um is sim #y not a ro riate. This %egs the &uestion of whether the curricu#um is a ro riate for anyone, or is it sim #y a means of achieving the gradeJ >ne of these dee seated %e#iefs in the UK (as in many #aces in the wor#d) is that mathematics need necessari#y %e taught in a%i#ity grou s. These grou s are %ased u on unre#ia%#e notions of a%i#ity (@i##%orn 8 Koude##, ?FF+) which disguise initia# and ongoing ine&uita%#e access to the curricu#um, #arge#y on the grounds of students cu#tura# and #inguistic resources (6ernstein, +,::7 6ourdieu, +,5,). Leven%ergen (?FF+) has e. #ored how these theoretica# ideas work in the conte.t of mathematics a%i#ity grou ing to construct #earner dis ositions to mathematics #earning . A#though such streaming ractices have now fi#tered down into !ng#ish rimary c#assrooms (even to HB: year o#ds), the high oint of such grou ing ractices is their structuring into e.amination sy##a%i. "ince their introduction in the #ate +,5Fs, mathematics @A"! has %een e.amined at three #eve#s= higher, intermediate and foundation. !ach of these #eve#s a##ows students to achieve a grade within a articu#ar range. The foundation tier on#y a##ows for the ma.imum ossi%#e grade of C, so fa##ing short of the magica# A thresho#d. After many years of o#itica# de%ate and #o%%ying this has now changed with the introduction of a two tier @A"! that from ?FFH a##ows a## students to fo##ow a mathematics course which cou#d resu#t in a grade A. At the same time schoo#s in !ng#and are increasing#y working with modu#arised courses that make this argument semi;redundant as students can work their way u through #eve#s through their course. Ehi#st these are interesting deve#o ments they are essentia##y a%out organisationa# and assessment structures and carefu##y steer c#ear of a fundamenta# discussion a%out schoo# mathematics curricu#um and edagogy. <oreover they sti## do not dea# with the &uestion a%out curricu#um a ro riateness for the many students who wi## not achieve the grade. 'n order to e. #ore this issue a%out a ro riateness further we must consider whose interests are served %y the current curricu#um and edagogyJ 6oa#er2s (+,,:) study of two mathematics #earning cu#tures offers a cha##enge to the cham ions of the increasing#y forma#ised and atomised curricu#um form that seems reva#ent in !ng#ish maths c#assrooms %ut her ana#ysis is focused more on c#assroom cu#tures than curricu#um structure and ur ose. 3aving said that, the more o en, task oriented forms of #earning that 6oa#er descri%es rovide the kind of environment that wou#d %e conducive to a more socia##y $ust, democratic form of mathematics #earning. "uch teaching is not s#ave to what Cavis and "umara (?FFF) descri%e as an outdated !uc#idean form of curricu#um that atomises #earning to managea%#e arts. This is current#y seen in !ng#ish mathematics c#assrooms in an uncritica# o%session with stating #earning o%$ectives7 as if %y doing so there is some assurance of what wi## %e #earnt. Mather, /the art is not sim #y a fragment of the who#e, it is a fracta# out of which the who#e unfo#ds and in which the who#e is enfo#ded2 (Cavis and
I

"umara, ?FFF, . 5?5). This meta horic shift in conce tua#ising and understanding curricu#um has im #ications for disru ting the %road#y re roductive rocesses of education and ' wi## return to this #ater. 9ossi%#e answers to this &uestion a%out curricu#ar and edagogic ur ose are redicated on recognition that the formatting ower of mathematics runs dee er than summative assessment rocesses to inc#ude the grou ing ractices and edagogies of mathematics c#assrooms mentioned a%ove. As a teacher and teacher educator ' have seen #enty of evidence of #earner disaffection and often %een cha##enged %y the ve.ed &uestion= 0what2s the oint of doing thisJ1 The answers are not straightforward and must sure#y change in accordance with the changing nature of society and work. 'n the increasing#y techno#ogica# wor#d that Aaste##s (?FFF) refers to as 0the informationa# society1 it is the roduction, management and distri%ution of information that is understood to %e the core driver of the economy and the rime source of ower. <athematics is a critica# com onent of that wor#d. Unfortunate#y, whi#st society is changing, the mathematics curricu#um has remained #arge#y unchanged. A## !ng#ish schoo# students must study mathematics for e#even years and most finish with #itt#e that is of va#ue to them= around a ha#f wi## not have achieved a grade A. 3eymann2s (?FFI) thoughtfu# ana#ysis of mathematics education in @ermany is re#evant here, motivated as it is %y the recognition that 0a#most everything that goes %eyond the standard su%$ect matter of the first seven years of schoo#ing can %e forgotten without the ersons invo#ved suffering from any notica%#e disadvantages1 ( . 5-). Ces ite the differences %etween !ng#and and @ermany, the same cha##enge a%out secondary mathematics education can %e made here. 3eymann argues for a reorientation of schoo# mathematics towards a c#ear#y articu#ated notion of genera# education and ' wi## return to this idea %e#ow. 3is thesis right#y rovoked considera%#e discussion. The difficu#ty that many mathematics teachers have with such a notion is its dissonance with common onto#ogies and e istemo#ogica# views a%out the su%$ect. Teachers need to recognise that mathematics is not a%so#ute (!rnest, +,,+7 Nakoff 8 Nune(, ?FFF7 Nerman, +,,F) or va#ue free %ut a cu#tura# construct. The U" critica# mathematics educator, @utstein (?FFH), e. #ains that mathematics shou#d %e used to /read and write the wor#d2. 3e goes further than 3eymann2s notions of /critica# thinking2 and /understanding the wor#d2 to suggest that socia# $ustice shou#d %e a concern of the mathematics c#assroom. The cha##enge from @utstein and 3eymann is to %e more radica# in thinking a%out mathematics edagogy and curricu#um. 3owever, in order to do this effective#y it might %e he# fu# to understand something a%out how the current curricu#um has evo#ved to this oint. Any ana#ysis #ike this wi## of course %e necessari#y %rief %ut wi## he# to frame the ensuing discussion. A brief history of school mathematics The +FF years from +:4F to +54F saw a dramatic e. ansion in the need for ractica# a #ications and know#edge of science and mathematics (Mogers,
-

+,,5). Universities that had for so #ong %een the custodians of mathematics education for the e#ite few were gradua##y accom anied %y other organisations and institutions offering the more o en u%#ic education, often focused on the science and maths re&uired in the new industria# society. These a #ications were different from the historica# mathematica# tradition of !uc#id %ut the more uti#itarian and e. erimenta# a #ications of mathematics demanded %y industry. The traditiona# mathematics was sti## the reserve of the universities and those incorrect#y named u%#ic schoo#s that su #ied them. "o it was that the emerging demand for mathematics #earning he# ed to engrain a hierarchy that wou#d remain endemic to mathematics education= maths for the workers or mathematics for the e#ite. The de%ate has changed %ut the under#ying distinction is the same= the /go#d standard2 of A #eve# for university study, or the /functiona# mathematics2 for em #oya%i#ity. 6y the start of the ?F th century rimary education was avai#a%#e for a## chi#dren and focused on the I Ms= reading, writing and arithmetic. 3owever, in +,F? the then Aonservative government set u Noca# !ducationa# Authorities and the modern curricu#um %egan to take sha e. 'n the +,-Fs a tiered education system was mandated with students streamed into grammar, secondary modern and technica# schoo#s through the ++O e.amination. Ces ite some resistance to this tiered system it was not unti# the +,HFs that com rehensive education %ecame a rea#ity for most chi#dren in !ng#and. Throughout this deve#o ment the mathematics curricu#um was at the dis osa# of the schoo#s. Not that this was without its critics. The #andmark Aockcroft (+,5?) re ort cites many e.am #es through the #atter +, th and ?Fth century of critica# re orts on the state of mathematics instruction and chi#dren2s know#edge. 3owever it was not unti# the end of the +,5Fs that we first had a Nationa# Aurricu#um in !ng#and. 'nitia##y met with strong criticism (for e.am #e, Cow#ing 8 Noss, +,,F) it has remained as the com u#sory curricu#um, a#%eit with regu#ar modification, and now a generation of teachers are entering the rofession whose entire mathematics education was framed %y such a NA. 6ut concerns a%out the mathematics curricu#um and student attainment have not su%sided and with the increasing ressure arising from internationa# com arisons, emerging #a%our markets and shifts in internationa# trade atterns, the economic drivers of a uti#itarian curricu#um have strengthened. )o##owing c#ose#y %ehind the NA the Nationa# Numeracy "trategy and )ramework for Teaching <athematics (Cf!!, ?FF+) added edagogic direction to the curricu#um and a#though on#y descri%ed officia##y as /guidance2, the money s ent on the rimary and then secondary schoo# incarnations of the "trategy #eave no;one in any dou%t as to its status. )or e.am #e, re;service teachers have to %uy their own NA %ut get a co y of the )ramework for Teaching <athematics for freeP Why do we teach mathematics? !ven from that short account it is c#ear that mathematics is art of the o#itici(ed know#edge of schoo#ing. As such there is a need to make sense of whose interests are served %y the curricu#um as it stands and in what ways.
4

"ome of the many reasons that have %een given for teaching mathematics are #isted %y Cavis (+,,I)= we teach it for its own sake, %ecause it is %eautifu#7 %ecause it revea#s the divine7 %ecause it he# s us think #ogica##y7 %ecause it is the #anguage of science and it he# s us to understand and revea# the wor#d7 %ecause it he# s our students to get a $o%, either direct#y, in those areas of socia# or hysica# science that re&uire mathematics, or direct#y, insofar as mathematics, through testing, acts as a socia# fi#ter, admitting to certain rofessiona# ossi%i#ities those who can master the materia#. Ee teach it a#so to re roduce ourse#ves %y roducing future research mathematicians and mathematics teachers. ( . +,F) 6e#ow ' wi## e. #ore some of the guiding rinci #es that various grou s use for ositioning mathematics education. Aertain of these are current#y dominant and some, as ' wi## e. #ain, are in urgent need of greater attention. !ach of them wou#d %enefit from more s ace %ut here they are sim #y intended to o en u curricu#um and edagogic thinking s ace. 1. Mathematics education for the academy The academy and those rofessiona# mathematicians in science and industry have a#ways %een one of the dominant forces in sha ing the schoo# curricu#um. <uch of the concern a%out the state of schoo# mathematics surrounds the a arent oor &ua#ity of mathematica# understanding of science, techno#ogy, engineering and mathematics ("T!<) undergraduates7 the oor su #y of these graduates into science and industry7 the downturn in A #eve# u take of mathematics courses and the a##eged inade&uacy of current com u#sory schoo# mathematics courses to re are students for A #eve# study. That these are serious issues is not in &uestion as it is the wide#y he#d %e#ief that future economic ros erity does re#y u on the roduction of sufficient num%ers of ski##ed "T!< graduates (see Eo#f (?FF?) for a counterargument). As the UK chance##or @ordon 6rown has said, 0science is the %edrock of our economy1. Ehi#st this might %e the case a more critica# ers ective is needed here. As 6eck (+,,?) e. #ains, society cannot %e understood in a sim #e modernist sense as so#e#y a%out the distri%ution of /goods2. The economy (industry, %usiness, commerce, etc.) is not %enevo#ent and in the individua#ised /risk society2 in which we now #ive there is a concern for minimising /%ads2 or risks. Not on#y does mathematics offer us the too#s to assess such risks %ut it a#so is used to generate the /ref#e.ive modernity2 of which 6eck writes, in which the economy (and science) is not va#ue;free or necessari#y /good2. 2. Mathematics education for employment !m #oya%i#ity is a key o#icy driver for im rovements in schoo# mathematics standards. 3owever, the nature of em #oyment is a#so changing and the g#o%a# shift of economic markets is making for a different view of what it means to have a mathematica##y we## educated workforce in the ?+ st century. 'n the #atter art of the ?Fth century internationa# com arisons of mathematica# com etence (T'<"", 9'"A) contri%uted to a /%ack;to;%asics2
H

neo;conservative trend in many arts of the wor#d. 6rown2s (+,,5) ana#ysis of 0the tyranny of the internationa# horse race1 high#ights the considera%#e methodo#ogica# f#aws in these kinds of internationa# com arisons as we## as the fact that they have ro%a%#y had a more wide;ranging im act u on mathematics education than other su%$ects. 'f one retains a cu#ture;neutra# view of mathematics then such com arisons might %e considered more o%$ective#y %ut schoo# mathematics is dia#ectica##y re#ated to the cu#tura# and socia# conte.t in which it is taught. 6y com aring student mathematics #earning on an internationa# sca#e the way is o ened u for the owerfu# #ayers to determine what is deemed to %e the im ortant mathematica# know#edge for the ?+st century. This is a## high#y o#iticised and a#though some interesting com arisons of the nationa# differences have %een made (e.g. "tig#er 8 3ie%ert, +,,,) there is sti## the need to criti&ue these discourses of g#o%a#i(ation. A#though the g#o%a# know#edge economy is im ortant as we antici ate more internationa# migration of workers and work, #oca# know#edge is e&ua##y, if not more, im ortant. As %usiness and industry %ecome more s ecia#ised so too do the mathematica# ractices integrated into those work s aces. <oreover, u%i&uitous techno#ogica# su ort is changing the ty es of mathematics ractices yet further. "o the o#itica# argument for a mathematica##y com etent workforce is grounded in a uti#itarianism that su orts a curricu#um that is ina ro riate for the increasing#y diverse know#edges re&uired in modern society. 'n contrast, the schoo# mathematics curricu#um has changed #itt#e in structure, content and de#ivery. Admitted#y there have %een attem ts to reinvigorate curricu#um and edagogy in the #ast twenty years %ut this has argua%#y had #imited im act (consider for e.am #e 6rown et a#. (?FFI) ana#ysis of the Nationa# Numeracy "trategy). 'n some cases the im act has %een &uite the reverse. )or e.am #e, the "mith Me ort (?FF-) descri%es the /disastrous2 im act of the Aurricu#um ?FFF reforms u on artici ation in ost; com u#sory mathematics study. Ehi#st the academy2s demands and those of the em #oyers have so far %een a%out the we## &ua#ified graduate, there has %een a ara##e# concern a%out the %asic ski##s of the UK workforce. 6ynner and 9arson2s (+,,:) high#ighted the re#ationshi %etween oor #eve#s of numeracy and unem #oya%i#ity and that this corre#ation was stronger than %etween oor #eve#s of adu#t #iteracy and em #oya%i#ity. The Na%our government has s ent huge sums of money seeking to rectify this ski## shortfa## %ased on the %e#ief that these eo #e can %ecome more economica##y roductive if their mathematica# ski##s are im roved. That these initiatives have %een strong#y criticised is erha s unsur rising. To imagine that after ++ years of com u#sory schoo#ing those who #eft schoo# with #itt#e or no mathematics &ua#ification cou#d %e /u ski##ed2 so easi#y is naive. Ehat has ha ened through this time is the increased momentum of the ski##s agenda and this is at the heart of the Tom#inson recommendations on the future of the +-;+, curricu#um (Cf!", ?FF-). 'n this re ort the notion of numeracy has mor hed into something ca##ed /functiona# mathematics2. 'f numeracy was a s#i ery term then this notion of functiona#ity, rooted in the uti#itarian meta hor of mathematics %eing a too#set
:

for work and #ife, is erha s even more so. Ehat function does this maths erformJ The dou%#e meaning reinforces how mathematics is not on#y usefu# to the one who has it, %ut that schoo# mathematics does things to eo #e. "o are schoo# mathematics c#assrooms sim #y roduction #inesJ Are schoo#s $ust training em #oyees of the futureJ A#though this might %e the uns oken yet agreed ur ose of the curricu#um as it stands, ' suggest that schoo# mathematics teaching shou#d %e more de#i%erate in its aim to re are citi(ens for active artici ation in democratic society. "o whereas schoo# mathematics is c#ear#y im ortant to future em #oyees and the academy it shou#d have other e&ua##y im ortant riorities. The %roadening of curricu#ar and edagogic ur ose is key to reinvigorating interest and engagement in the #earning of mathematics. . Mathematics education for general education 3eyman2s e. #oration of the &uestion 0why teach mathematicsJ1 makes a strong case that it %e art of a genera# education. 3e e. #ains that= A great num%er of chi#dren, ado#escents, and adu#ts encounter enormous difficu#ties with mathematics. )or these eo #e, the difficu#ties are intrinsic in the distinctive characteristics of the su%$ect matter. 'n many cases, the mathematics which they are o%#iged to #earn in schoo#s on#y attains the status of know#edge re&uired for e.aminations ; #earned su erficia##y and, corres onding#y, &uick#y forgotten again. (3eymann, ?FFI, . +) <any teachers and students of mathematics in !ng#and wou#d share his view. 3e goes on to assert that 0conventiona# mathematics instruction in schoo#s does $ustice neither to foreseea%#e societa# demands nor to the individua# needs and &ua#ification interests of a ma$ority of ado#escents1 ( . ?). 3eymann is critica# of the way in which mathematics educators can %ecome so focused on the detai# of their own disci #ine that they fai# to take account of the #arger educationa# and socia# conte.t in which mathematics teaching is situated. Ehi#e 3eymann retains the notion of / re aration for #ater #ife2, understood more %road#y than $ust em #oya%i#ity, he a#so suggests that the / romotion of cu#tura# com etence2 shou#d %e a core theme of mathematics education %ased u on a mode# of genera# education. Third#y, mathematics is used to /deve#o an understanding of the wor#d2 that goes %eyond the fa%ricated conte.ts seen in so many c#assrooms and te.ts. )ourth#y, and more focused on c#assroom edagogy, he suggests that mathematics shou#d romote /understanding, cognitive ski##s and critica# thinking2 a#though ' think that use of the word critica# is not the same as that discussed %e#ow. )ina##y his #ist of five core themes moves on to consider the c#assroom environment and the im act that this has u on the #earner. 3e envisages a c#assroom in which the /wi##ingness to assume res onsi%i#ity, communication and coo eration, enhances the students2 se#f;esteem2. 3e oints out that none of these e#ements are new %ut that together they might offer something of a new rofi#e for mathematics education. As ects of this rofi#e have %een referred to a#ready and others
5

wi## %e icked u %e#ow. The notion of cu#tura# com etence is a theme of the Nationa# Aurricu#um %ut rare#y gets taken u %y mathematics teachers. !. Mathematics education for citi"enship Ehereas we are not used to ta#king a%out genera# education in !ng#and, other than in contrasting rimary schoo# genera#ism and secondary #eve# s ecia#isation, we do have a #oose#y re#ated notion of citi(enshi . 'n rea#ity the idea of citi(enshi education is a contested one. 'n the UK in recent years there has %een much concern a%out o#itica# engagement and fo##owing the Arick Me ort (+,,5) recommendations were made regarding the inc#usion of citi(enshi education in schoo#s. )or the two years schoo#s have had a mandatory o%#igation to /de#iver2 citi(enshi using the new#y introduced Nationa# Aurricu#um for Aiti(enshi . "choo#s ado ted one of a num%er of im #ementation mode#s, either em%edding the work across the curricu#um or more common#y as a stand a#one taught curricu#um. 3aving a#ready high#ighted the tendency of maths teachers to deny the va#ue;#aden nature of mathematics, it is erha s unsur rising that most mathematics teachers did not see education for citi(enshi (as constituted in this curricu#um) as their domain. This form of citi(enshi education is not what ' am descri%ing here. 9ovey (?FFI) has offered a criti&ue of this o#icy from a mathematics educator2s ers ective. "he argues that education for citi(enshi is c#ose#y re#ated to education for socia# $ustice and that as such c#assroom mathematics needs to %e more ref#e.ive. 'n this way we can %egin to see how mathematics is used %y, and on, various mem%ers of society and in c#assrooms. "he makes the im ortant oint that 0to harness mathematics #earning for socia# $ustice invo#ves rethinking and reframing mathematics c#assrooms so that %oth the re#ationshi %etween artici ants and the re#ationshi of artici ants to mathematics (as we## as the mathematics itse#f) is changed1 ( . 4H). "o a#though ' am arguing for a rethinking of curricu#um she reminds us that this cannot ha en a art from a reconce tua#isation of what such a c#assroom might #ook #ike and what kinds of edagogies are rivi#eged therein. A c#assroom where mathematics and citi(enshi education run in ara##e# is deve#o ing a more socia##y $ust ethos through its ractices as we## as in the content and de#ivery of the curricu#um. The same concerns were art of 3eymann2s core rinci #es. #. Mathematics $ducation for %ocial &ustice The conce t and ractice of critica# mathematics education ("kovsmose, +,,-) has much in common with education for citi(enshi . There is an e. #icit aim to make one of the foci of c#assroom mathematics activity the criti&ue of societa# ower re#ationshi s. 'n these c#assrooms mathematics is used to make sense of the socia# and scientific dimensions of the wor#d in ways that uncover in the va#ue;#aden nature of mathematics. !#sewhere, !rnest (?FF-, . I+H) inc#udes 0em owerment of the #earner as a high#y numerate critica# citi(en in society (em owerment of socia# $ustice concerns)1 as one of his si. aims for the mathematics curricu#um.

@utstein2s notion of /reading and writing the wor#d with mathematics2 is e. #icit#y re#ated to socia# $ustice education in the mathematics c#assroom. 3e descri%es from his own c#assroom ractice two interre#ated curricu#ar goa#s= teaching for socia# $ustice and teaching mathematics. Ehi#st there are certain tensions %etween these goa#s, @utstein sees considera%#e va#ue in ho#ding them together. At the same time he recognises that in his work with disadvantaged students he is not on#y to ena%#e them to /read and write2 with mathematics in order to criti&ue what might %e termed /g#oca#2 socia# conditions of in$ustice, %ut a#so they must accrue mathematica# ower. "uch mathematica# ower is what is needed to secure traditiona# success in high; stakes testing. 3owever, schoo# systems tend to infer such ower on those who arrive a#ready having it (for e.am #e, 6ourdieu 8 9asseron, +,::), which is not the case for re#ative#y socio;economica##y disadvantaged students. Understanding societa# ower re#ationshi s means that the ro#e of mathematics and of schoo#s more genera##y must %e made e. #icit and the /ru#es of the game2 honed, articu#ar#y for those students who have not ac&uired this sense of the game from their fami#y conte.ts. 't has %een suggested that the #ack of mathematics graduates may have a negative im act on future economic ros erity. Though we cannot deny the im ortance of mathematics in the fa%ric of modern society we must %e c#ear a%out the fact that the socia# advancement is not $ust a%out economic growth. The economy and mathematica# know#edge uti#ised within it does not a#ways #ead to %etter #ife circumstances for the mem%ers of that society or other societies. Through various a #ications of mathematics (science, techno#ogy and engineering) we have im roved trans ort, the design of #ife saving drugs and emai# rivacy. >n the other hand there is a g#o%a# arms trade, digita# fraud, increasing income divides, etc. @utstein offers com e##ing ethnogra hic accounts of the transformative im act of socia# $ustice mathematics tasks u on students. '. Mathematics $ducation for the Information Age This %rief overview of some of the main ur oses for mathematics education has moved from the very we## documented and current, taken;for;granted em #oya%i#ity and ski##s rationa#e to the more ro%#ematic (for a neo; conservative administration) one of critica# thinking and teaching for socia# $ustice. >n the %asis of the future wor#d scenarios of the >!AC, the Ce artment for !ducation and "ki##s has %een considering what schoo#s might %e #ike in the year ?F?F. Ee are in a eriod of sustained and considera%#e change in the education system in which !very Ahi#d <atters (Cf!", ?FFI) #egis#ation and the move to more schoo# autonomy suggest that further change is $ust around the corner. Ehat does a## of this mean for mathematics education in the know#edge or information societyJ Ehat kinds of mathematica# know#edge ski##s and understanding wi## %e desira%#e in ten or twenty yearsJ To what degree and in what ways wi## increasing#y owerfu# techno#ogies im act u on schoo#s, #earning and in articu#ar mathematicsJ These &uestions need to %e a art of the de%ate a%out curricu#um and edagogy and though this is ha ening to an
+F

e.tent amongst the research community it is evident from time in schoo#s that the rea#ities for students of mathematics are often very different. These various inf#uences out#ined a%ove are not new. !rnest2s (+,,?) ana#ysis of the origins of the <athematics NA showed a simi#ar set of inf#uences. 3e e. #ained how the /o#d humanists2 (those in the academy) and /industria# trainers2 (the em #oyers) dominated the new curricu#um, margina#ising the chi#d;centred / rogressive educators2. >ne grou ; the / u%#ic educators2 ; were not given a say whatsoever. These u%#ic educators Qre resent a radica# reforming tradition, concerned with democracy and socia# e&uity...to em ower the working c#asses to artici ate in the democratic institutions of society, and to share more fu##y in the ros erity of modern industria# societyQ Qre resent radica# reformers who see mathematics as a means to em ower students= mathematics is to give them the confidence to ose ro%#ems, initiate investigations and autonomous ro$ects7 to critica##y e.amine and &uestion the use of mathematics and statistics in our increasing#y mathemati(ed society, com%ating the mathematica# mystification reva#ent in the treatment of socia# and o#itica# issues. ( .IH) These are the critica# educators7 teachers who are interested in a more radica# citi(enshi education and education for socia# $ustice in the mathematics c#assroom. An aside: numeracy and functional mathematics 3aving considered these curricu#um drivers ' want to consider %rief#y the terms numeracy and functiona# mathematics. A#though ' have used them fair#y #oose#y so far their introduction and evo#ution in curricu#um and o#icy discourse is im ortant for understanding the ur oses for schoo# mathematics. Nike many terms in everyday use they can have a wide range of meanings and numeracy is no e.ce tion. The Arowther Me ort of +,4, gave an introductory definition of numeracy as An understanding of the scientific a roach to the study of henomena R o%servation, hy othesis, e. eriment, verificationQthe need in the modern wor#d to think &uantitative#y, to rea#ise how far our ro%#ems are ro%#ems of degree even when they a ear as ro%#ems of kind. ( . ?:F cited in Noss, ?FF?, . II) )rom a review of su%missions to the Aockcroft committee the conc#usion was made that 0the words SnumeracyBnumerateT have changed their meaning considera%#y in the #ast twenty years1 to denote #itt#e more than an a%i#ity to 0 erform %asic arithmetica# o erations1 (Aockcroft, +,5?, . ++). The committee e. ressed the view that %eing numerate shou#d mean the ossession of two attri%utes= The first of these is an /at;homeness2 with num%ers and an a%i#ity to make use of mathematica# ski##s which ena%#es an individua# to co e with the ractica# mathematica# demands of everyday #ife. The second is an a%i#ity to have some a reciation and understanding of information which is resented in mathematica# terms, for instance in gra hs, charts
++

or ta%#es or %y reference to ++)

ercentage increase or decrease. (o

cit.,

The first attri%ute is grounded in the notion of uti#ity where%y maths is usefu# in everyday #ife. This dimension of Aockcroft2s numeracy is now at the heart of the functiona# mathematics that was introduced in the Tom#inson re ort and reinforced in the su%se&uent white a er . The second attri%ute of the numerate seems articu#ar#y re#evant in an era where information %om%ards us dai#y and we are ca##ed u on to make some critica# sense of this. Unfortunate#y, the osition of data hand#ing in the curricu#um, articu#ar#y in the +-;+, hase, seems to %e at risk. The "mith re ort (?FF-) /<aking <athematics Aount1 recommended a radica# rethink of the #ocation of statistics and data hand#ing which wou#d 0%e %etter removed from the mathematics timeta%#e and integrated with the teaching and #earning of other disci #ines (for e.am #e, %io#ogy or geogra hy). The time restored to the mathematics timeta%#e shou#d %e used for ac&uiring greater mastery of core mathematica# conce ts and o eration1 ( .:). This wou#d %e very concerning for a num%er of reasons. )irst#y the agenda here is that of higher education, in articu#ar "T!< su%$ects, rather than on what might %e %eneficia# in a genera# education for future citi(ens. "econd#y, the kinds of data;awareness necessary might not %e %est served in these c#assrooms a#though generating %etter cross;curricu#ar mathematics work is high#y desira%#e. (e)eloping a more socially *ust mathematics curriculum 'n this a er ' advocate a shift from a redominant#y academy and em #oyer; driven curricu#um which direct#y %enefits a minority, to something that wi## engage a## students in deve#o ing not $ust mathematica# ower %ut what )rankenstein (?FF4) terms /critica#mathematica# #iteracy2. This form of #iteracy has four goa#s ( .+,)= understanding the mathematics understanding the mathematics of o#itica# know#edge understanding the o#itics of mathematica# know#edge understanding the o#itics of know#edge

9ut in a different way @utstein (?FFH) descri%es what it means to read and write the wor#d with mathematics as= To use mathematics to understand re#ations of ower, resource ine&uities, and dis arate o ortunities %etween different socia# grou s and to understand e. #icit discrimination %ased on race, c#ass, gender, #anguage and other differences. )urther, it means to dissect and deconstruct media and other forms of re resentation. 't means to use mathematics to e.amine these various henomena %oth in one2s immediate #ife and in the %roader socia# wor#d and to identify re#ationshi s and make connections %etween them. ( . ?4) Noddings (?FF-) tries to address the same ro%#ems a%out the need for a more $ust curricu#um %y suggesting three routes of mathematica# study #inked to a) the humanities %) the socia# sciences and c) the natura# sciences. )or a##
+?

of these there wou#d need to %e /cu#tura##y rich2 andBor /connected to current socia#B o#itica# ro%#ems2. Ehi#st ' am not suggesting that this is a current#y imagina%#e way forward in the !ng#ish conte.t such an a roach does offer interesting ossi%i#ities. )or Noddings (as with 3eymann, 9ovey and @utstein) the who#e of this curricu#um design shou#d %e redicated on democratic rinci #es of c#assroom artici ation (Noddings, +,,I), which wou#d resent a considera%#e cha##enge for mathematics education in genera#. 'f it is not ossi%#e to devise more socia##y $ust Nationa# Aurricu#um given the o#itica# nature of schoo#ing, cou #ed with the common dissociation of o#itics and mathematics, then erha s it is he# fu# to think of the twin edagogies of access and dissent (<orre##, ?FF4, cited in @utstein ?FFH, . ?FF). 'f edagogies of access strive to o en u future educationa# and em #oyment athways then edagogies of dissent seek to disru t the hidden structuring rocess of schoo# and society %y e&ui ing students with critica# know#edge and strategies for socia# agency. The &uestion remains then how these might %e incor orated into mathematics teaching. 't is some of these concerns for o#itica# engagement that were the motivations for the inc#usion of Aiti(enshi education in the curricu#um a#though one sus ects that critica# thinking and socia# activism might not %e the referred outcomes in a schoo# system that genera##y su resses such activity (from %oth teachers and students) 'n considering the nature of citi(enshi and the #ace of mathematics education in re aring a future citi(enry the notion of allgemeinbildung offers an a#ternative to the U" critica# edagogies. !#mose and Moth (?FF4) deve#o this idea, which rough#y trans#ates to genera# citi(enry or genera# #iteracy, as invo#ving 2com etence for se#f;determination, constructive artici ation in society, and so#idarity towards ersons #imited in the com etence of se#f; determination and artici ation2 ( . ?+). They see three ways for education to deve#o (fundamenta#ist, retraditiona#ising or democratic) and argue that modern risk society re&uires greater invo#vement in co##ective decision making. As such allgemeinbildung !inc#udes not on#y so#idarity in s irit, i.e. knowing that others are oor, knowing that there are greenhouse gases, %ut a#so so#idarity in action, i.e. knowing for2 ( . I+). There is considera%#e common ground %etween the ideas of those from a critica# edagogy tradition and the socio#ogists of risk society. Again the &uestion remains as to how this is %ui#t into future mathematics curricu#um design. @utstein conc#udes that there is considera%#e work to %e done in such a curricu#um design (and that is in the very different U" conte.t). A#though there are #enty of e.isting materia#s and tried edagogic a roaches it is a very different matter to e. and this to a com #ete curricu#ar a roach and this wou#d re&uire significant wi## and effort. +inal comments Aonc#uding his ana#ysis of the UK mathematics Nationa# Aurricu#um, @i## (?FF-) writes that the current curricu#um for mathematics fai#s to meet the c#aims made for it in mathematica# terms and a#so fai#s to contri%ute to the overa## ethos of the Nationa# Aurricu#um contained in the Aims and "alues.
+I

Nothing #ess than a com #ete overhau# is necessary if it is to serve our u i#s and the society they, and we, #ive in. ( . ++4) Ehat ' am advocating here is such an overhau#. Ehi#st ma$or changes to mathematics education are %eing discussed amongst owerfu# grou s (academics, o#iticians and civi# servants) they do not rea##y get anywhere near what is %eing considered here. " eaking of U" reforms of mathematics education Ki# atrick and "tanic (+,,4) remarked that /true reform, unfortunate#y, may re&uire doing something not %etter %ut different2 ( .+4). "uch a different way of thinking is what is needed in !ng#and if the mathematics education of future generations is to %e more worthwhi#e. 3owever, much of the considera%#e amount of time and money current#y %eing invested in mathematics teaching in !ng#and is driven %y standards agendas and not those that foster the deve#o ment of critica# ref#e.ivity through the curricu#um. The #andsca e of mathematics education is not easy to change (Noyes, ?FF-) and so it wou#d re&uire a concerted effort to effect meaningfu# change in the direction suggested here. 'n fact, such a change might not %e ossi%#e, for it wou#d re&uire those with the ower to make decisions regarding the form of the curricu#um which might not %e in their interests. As @utstein oints out, /deve#o ing socio; o#itica# consciousness is anathema to those with ower who wou#d have those without maintain their ignorance, si#ence and assivity2 (@utstein, ?FFH, . H-). 9erha s it is more rea#istic to think a#ong the same #ines as 3eymann who considered that the ath to instruction oriented more strong#y toward genera# education cannot %e enforced from e.terna# sources...%ut can on#y consist of sma## ste s invo#ving many artici ants for whom these ste s make good sense. (3eymann, ?FFI, . 5-) 't seems that whi#st the tradition of critica# education is visi%#e e#sewhere there is otentia# for deve#o ing curricu#um and edagogy that wou#d su ort a %roader mathematics education that inc#udes critica#mathematica# #iteracy and education for socia# $ustice as we## as traditiona# mathematics instruction. Again @utstein (?FFH) is he# fu# here when he descri%es three ty es of know#edge that need to form art of students mathematics #earning= community, critica# and c#assica#. 6etween the continenta# and U" critica# traditions there are considera%#e theoretica# resources for deve#o ing a radica##y different mathematics education in !ng#and, one that wou#d %e more engaging, re#ate to issues of rea# concern to students, deve#o active artici ation as citi(ens and deve#o mathematica# ower. Ehether or not this cou#d ever %e organised on a nationa# sca#e or for a #arge num%er of students is a moot oint. 3owever, considering the oor image of mathematics, difficu#ties in recruitment to ost; com u#sory mathematics courses, the genera# #ack of o#itica# engagement in the o u#ace and amongst young eo #e, and so on, it seems time#y to consider how a different mathematics curricu#um might make a contri%ution to addressing some of these issues. ,eferences

+-

6eck, U. (+,,?). #is$ So%iet : to&ards a ne& modernit . Nondon= "age 9u%#ications. 6ernstein, 6. (+,::). Class, Codes and Control: "olume '( )o&ards a theor of edu%ational transmissions (?nd ed.). Nondon= Mout#edge 8 Kegan 9au#. 6oa#er, U. (+,,:). E*perien%ing S%hool +athemati%s: tea%hing st les se* and setting. 6uckingham= > en University 9ress. 6ourdieu, 9. (+,5,). 3ow "choo#s he# Me roduce the "ocia# >rder. Current Contents, So%ial and -eha.ioural S%ien%e, 21 (5), +H. 6ourdieu, 9. (+,,5). /ra%ti%al #eason. Aam%ridge= 9o#ity 9ress. 6ourdieu, 9., 8 9asseron, A. (+,::). #eprodu%tion in Edu%ation, So%iet and Culture. Nondon= "age 9u%#ications Ntd. 6ourdieu, 9., 8 "aint;<artin, <. d. (+,:-). "cho#astic e.ce##ence and the va#ues of the educationa# system. 'n U. !gg#estone (!d.), Contemporar resear%h in the so%iolog of edu%ation ( . II5;IH,). Nondon= <ethuen 8 Ao Ntd. 6rown, <. (+,,5). The Tyranny of the 'nternationa# 3orse Mace. 'n M. "#ee, @. Eeiner 8 ". Tom#inson (!ds.), S%hool Effe%ti.eness for 0hom1 Challenges to the S%hool Effe%ti.eness and S%hool 2mpro.ement +o.ements ( . II;-:). Nondon= )a#mer 9ress. 6rown, <., Askew, <., <i##et, A., 8 Mhodes, *. (?FFI). The key ro#e of educationa# research in the deve#o ment and eva#uation of the Nationa# Numeracy "trategy. -ritish Edu%ational #esear%h 3ournal, 24(4), H44; H:?. 6ynner, U., 8 9arsons, ". (+,,:). 5oes 6umera% +atter1 E.iden%e from the 6ational Child 5e.elopment Stud on the 2mpa%t of /oor 6umera% on Adult 7ife, Nondon= 6asic "ki##s Agency. Aaste##s, <. (?FFF). )he #ise of the 6et&or$ So%iet . >.ford= 6#ackwe##s. Aockcroft, E. 3. (+,5?). +athemati%s Counts. Nondon= 3<">. Arick, 6. (+,,5). Edu%ation for Citi8enship and the )ea%hing of 5emo%ra% in S%hools. Nondon= VAA. Cavis, 6., 8 "umara, C. (?FFF). Aurricu#um )orms= on the assumed sha es of knowing and know#edge. 3ournal of Curri%ulum Studies, '2(H), 5?+;5-4. Cavis, 9. (+,,I). A #ied <athematics as "ocia# Aontract. 'n ". Mestivo, U. 9. *. 6endegum 8 M. )ischer (!ds.), +ath 0orlds: /hilosophi%al and So%ial Studies of +athemati%s and +athemati%s Edu%ation ( . +5?;+,-). New Kork= "tate University of New Kork 9ress. Cf!!. (?FF+). 9e Stage ' 6ational Strateg : frame&or$ for tea%hing mathemati%s, Nondon= Ce artment for !ducation and !m #oyment. Cf!". (?FFI). E.er Child +atters. Nondon= 3<">. Cf!". (?FF-). 1:-14 #eform Final #eport. Nondon= Ce artment for !ducation and "ki##s. Cow#ing, 9., 8 Noss, M. (!ds.). (+,,F). +athemati%s .ersus the 6ational Curri%ulum. Nondon= The )a#mer 9ress. !#mose, "., 8 Moth, E.;<. (?FF4). Allgemeinbildung= readiness for #iving in risk;society. 3ournal of Curri%ulum Studies, ';(+), ++;I-. !rnest, 9. (+,,+). )he /hilosoph of +athemati%s Edu%ation. 6asingstoke= The )a#mer 9ress.
+4

!rnest, 9. (+,,?). The Nationa# Aurricu#um in <athematics= 9o#itica# 9ers ectives and 'm #ications. 'n ". N. a. <. Nickson (!d.), )he So%ial Conte*t of +athemati%s Edu%ation: )heor and /ra%ti%e ( . II;H+). Nondon= "outh 6ank 9ress. !rnest, 9. (?FF-). Me#evance versus Uti#ity= some ideas on what it means to know mathematics. 'n C. A. 6. A#arke, @. !manue#ssonet a# (!d.), /erspe%ti.es on 7earning and )ea%hing +athemati%s ( . I+I;I?:). @ote%org= Nationa# Aentre for <athematics !ducation. )rankenstein, <. (?FF4). Meading the Eor#d with <ath= goa#s for a critica#mathematica# #iteracy curricu#um. 'n !. @utstein 8 6. 9eterson. (!ds.), #ethin$ing +athemati%s: tea%hing so%ial <usti%e b the numbers ( . +,;?5). <i#waukee= Methinking "choo#s Ntd. @i##, 9. (?FF-). <athematics. 'n U. Ehite (!d.), #ethin$ing the S%hool Curri%ulum: .alues, aims and purposes ( . +F-;++H). Nondon= Mout#ege)a#mer. @i##%orn, C., 8 Koude##, C. (?FF+). The New 'Vism='nte##igence, WA%i#ityW and the Mationing of !ducation. 'n U. Cemaine (!d.), So%iolog of Edu%ation )oda ( . H4;,,). 6asingstoke= 9a#grave. @utstein, !. (?FFH). #eading and 0riting the 0orld &ith +athemati%s: )o&ard a /edagog for So%ial 3usti%e. New Kork= Mout#edge. 3eymann, 3. E. (?FFI). 0h )ea%h +athemati%s: a fo%us on general edu%ation. Cordrecht= K#uwer Academic 9u%#ishers. Ki# atrick, U., 8 "tanic, @. <. A. (+,,4). 9aths to the resent. 'n '. <. Aar# (!d.), Se.ent -fi.e ears of progress: prospe%ts for s%hool mathemati%s (*o#. I;?F). Meston, *irginia= The Nationa# Aounci# of Teachers of <athematics. Nakoff, @., 8 Nune(, M. (?FFF). 0here +athemati%s Comes From. New Kork= 6asic 6ooks. Nerman, ". (+,,F). A#ternative 9ers ectives of the Nature of <athematics and their 'nf#uence on the Teaching of <athematics. -ritish Edu%ational #esear%h 3ournal, 1=(+), 4I;H+. Noddings, N. (+,,I). 9o#itici(ing the <athematics A#assroom. 'n "a# Mestivo, U. 9. *. 6endegum 8 M. )ischer (!ds.), +ath 0orlds: /hilosophi%al and So%ial Studies of +athemati%s and +athemati%s Edu%ation ( . +4F; +H+). A#%any, NK= "UNK. Noddings, N. (?FF-). +athemati%s, %ulture and e>uit , 9a er resented at the American !ducation Mesearch Assocation, "an Ciego. Noss, M. (?FF?). <athematics in the Cigita# Techno#ogy Age. 'n N. 3aggarty (!d.), )ea%hing +athemati%s in Se%ondar S%hool ( . II;-H). Nondon= Mout#edge)a#mer. Noyes, A. (?FF-). Nearning Nandsca es. -ritish Edu%ational #esear%h 3ournal, '0(+), ?:;-+. 9ovey, 3. (?FFI). Teaching and Nearning <athematics= can the conce t of citi(enshi %e rec#aimed for socia# $usticeJ 'n N. 6urton (!d.), 2nternational /erspe%ti.es on +athemati%s Edu%ation ( . 4+;H-). Eest ort AT= 9raeger 9u%#ishers. 9restage, "., 8 9erks, 9. (?FF+). Adapting and E*tending Se%ondar +athemati%s A%ti.ities: ne& tas$s for old. Nondon= Cavid )u#ton.
+H

Mogers, N. (+,,5). So%iet , +athemati%s and the Cultural 5i.ide: ideologies of poli% and pra%ti%e 1;?0-1400, 9a er resented at the <athematics !ducation and "ociety +, Nottingham. "kovsmose, >. (+,,-). )o&ards a philosoph of %riti%al mathemati%s edu%ation. Cordrecht= K#uwer Academic 9u%#ishers. "kovsmose, >. (+,,5). Ninking <athematics !ducation and Cemocracy= Aiti(enshi , <athematica# Archeo#ogy, <athemacy and Ce#i%erative Action. @entralblatt fAr 5ida$ti% der +athemati$B2nternational #e.ie&s on +athemati%s Edu%ation, '0(H), +,4;?FI. "mith, A. (?FF-). +a$ing +athemati%s Count. Nondon= The "tationary >ffice. "tig#er, U., 8 3ie%ert, U. (+,,,). )he )ea%hing Gap. New Kork= The )ree 9ress. *o#mink, U. (+,,-). <athematics 6y A##. 'n ". Nerman (!d.), Cultural /erspe%ti.es on the +athemati%s Classroom (*o#ume +- ed.). Cortrecht= K#uwer Academic 9u%#ishers. Eo#f, A. (?FF?). 5oes Edu%ation +atter1 + ths about edu%ation and e%onomi% gro&th. Nondon= 9enguin. Leven%ergen, M. (?FF+). Nanguage, socia# c#ass and underachievement in schoo# mathematics. 'n 9. @ates (!d.), 2ssues in +athemati%s )ea%hing ( . I5;4F). Nondon= Mout#edge)a#mer.

+: