Links to Organisations
Featured Website:
Personal Finance Education Group
Do you have a favourite numeracy or maths site to recommend to colleagues?
EMPOWERING TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS – A PAPER FOR DISCUSSION
Background
There is a range of professional membership associations for mathematicians, five of which have missions to support and improve the teaching and learning of mathematics in schools and FE. They are the Association of Mathematics Education Teachers (AMET), the Association of Teachers of Mathematics (ATM), the Mathematical Association (MA), the National Association of Mathematics Advisers (NAMA), and the National Association for Numeracy and Mathematics in Colleges (NANAMIC) (see Annex A for brief descriptions of each).
The five Associations already co-operate in a range of ways to increase the benefit to their members and, with some support from NCETM, have established a periodic Meeting of Mathematics Subject Associations (MMSA). The question has been raised whether closer links, and possibly organisational merging, might (1) strengthen the capacity to achieve shared goals on behalf of current members, numbers of whom already belong to more than one Association, and (2) through rationalising membership, increase attractiveness to the large majority of teachers of mathematics and other practitioners who do not currently belong to any Association and are unimpressed or confused by current distinctions between them.
Purpose of this paper
Any significant changes to the way that the five Associations combine their efforts and organisation would affect their current members. This paper, which is intended for discussion by the membership of each Association, summarises the main issues and arguments and has been agreed by the Chairs and Secretaries of the Associations collaborating through the MMSA. Its purpose is not to make recommendations and it does not do so.
The environment for teaching and learning mathematics
The landscape within which members and potential members of the Associations work is not static. Curricula have always developed and changed, and they continue to do so: nothing new here. What have changed, and changed out of recognition, are the modalities for communication. One cause is the development of the Internet and other telecommunications. The other is the way that central and local governments now work.
The impact of the Internet is well known and does not require much illustration here. To take one obvious example, 20 years ago, if mathematics teachers were to interact with their peers or undertake significant CPD, it would almost certainly need to involve physical meetings. Whilst there unquestionably remains something unique about face-to-face contact that people value and that the Associations offer through their conferences and other events, 90% of the benefit of a meeting can often be achieved on-line, with considerable savings in time and expense and greater convenience because you can choose when you log on to suit yourself.
The Associations have responded to the opportunities of the Internet and their own websites contain a wealth of valuable material for mathematics teachers, much of which is available to non-members. There are also many other sites, not to mention Google, which enable a teacher to answer almost any query they may have. It is the way that most professional people now expect to do business in all areas of their lives and it is here to stay.
Governments of all political colours have long recognised the importance to the country of a well-educated population and of mathematics in particular. What has changed is the determination of Ministers to intervene actively. A clutch of influential agencies has been created (STEMNET, NCETM, ACME, the National Strategies and SSAT, to name but some) all with remits that involve ‘teaching and learning mathematics’, and all overlapping with some of the traditional activities of the Associations. Ministers like one-stop-shops so, for instance, to get input from the mathematics community about a proposed change in the way teachers are trained, it is likely they will talk to ACME and NCETM, which they will expect to have authoritative and balanced views. It is less likely that they will talk directly, either individually or as a group, to the five Associations.
Reasons for exploring whether there are more effective ways for the Associations to work
It might be argued, based on the preceding paragraphs, that there is little value in maintaining and running membership associations for teachers of mathematics because virtually all their potential functions can be performed by others. The flaw in this argument stems from the fact that each of the agencies listed is a creature of ‘the system’. There is nothing shameful in this, but it means that there is no certainty that any them will still exist ten years from now because their funding is ‘soft’ on this timescale. Further, and crucially, none of them belongs to practitioners or has the particular role of representing and building on practitioners’ views and insights. These are the Associations’ strengths – they can offer a way for individual members to influence the direction of mathematics education.
However, the Associations in their current configurations are not strong. Although each Association has its own, unique raison d’être, the existence of several organisations is seen as confusing by Government (‘the mathematics community can never speak with a single authoritative voice’): this may be unfair but it is the view. Membership numbers are not healthy and the average age of active members is probably rising: large numbers of individual practitioners (lecturers, teachers, advisers, teaching assistants) are not queuing up to pay their subscriptions and join. Something needs to change if the Associations are to avoid being regarded as a minority interest, outside the mainstream where they should be.
Are there lessons from the ways other subject associations do things?
No two subjects are identical and so what works for one subject association does not necessarily work for another. However, the following points probably have some general validity.
· A large membership size brings influence. For instance, ASE has a seat – by right – on SCORE (which is the rough counterpart of ACME for science education).
· Most subjects now have a single recognised association or are working towards it. For example, afPE was formed a few years ago from two predecessor associations for PE and appears to be thriving.
· Subject associations that are able (by their size) and choose to employ a ‘chief executive’ tend to be the most effective in dealing with external stakeholders, and in responding rapidly to external events and challenges.
· Most subject associations see increasing opportunities for fruitful collaboration with each other, across subject boundaries (for example, in attracting primary teacher members). Such activity is complicated and probably inhibited if a subject has more than one voice.
None of these examples prove that the current arrangements for mathematics are sub-optimal, and there are potential downsides to each of them. But they may also suggest ways forward.
What are the options?
Something has to change if the overall decline in Association membership is to be reversed, but it does not necessarily have to be organisation. Continuing with the status quo, with five independent but collaborating Associations, each taking appropriate new steps to attract members to itself, is clearly one option. It can be implemented immediately without additional cost.
There are, in principle, two other approaches to consider. The first is for the Associations to remain independent of each other, but to form an additional legal entity – a Federation – capable of acting for them collectively when they agree it should do so. The second is for the current Associations to merge fully and cease to have an independent existence. Different interests could be catered for in sub-groups of the merged Association. Some such groups could directly reflect the interests of an existing Association (such as ITT/AMET). Others might meet an emerging demand (from teaching assistants with a particular involvement in mathematics, for example).
So there are three categories of option, explored in greater detail in Annex B:
1. Voluntary co-operation and collaboration between independent Associations, each of which has its own strategy and remit.
2. Co-operation and collaboration channelled through a jointly owned and directed Federation, with an agreed remit to operate on behalf of all Associations in certain areas.
3. The existing Associations wound up and merged into a single organisation with a range of ‘chapters’ for members with particular shared interests.
Deciding what to do
It is for the members of each Association to decide, in accordance with its extant rules, what option (of those suggested above or some other one) they want for their Association. No final decision, other than for the status quo, can be made simply on the basis of discussing this paper because further work is needed to develop any proposal for change into a viable, costed plan, which can then be put to all affected Associations for a binding decision. The requirement now is for agreement about which new avenue(s), if any, to explore. It is possible that some Associations will wish to adopt either the second or third option whilst another or others prefer the status quo for themselves. This divergence is probably undesirable, but it is neither inconceivable nor impossible in practice.
There will never be complete unanimity of all members of all Associations and so compromises will need to be reached in some areas. If, as stated in the first paragraph of this paper, the purpose of any new arrangement is to support and improve the teaching and learning of mathematics in schools and FE as effectively as possible, each Association, in making its decision, needs to weigh up the interests of four groups:
1. its own existing members and staff;
2. mathematics lecturers, teachers, advisers and other practitioners who do not currently belong to any association but who ought to stand to benefit from membership;
3. other organisations and individuals with a stake in mathematics education that the Associations need to influence and with which they need to work; and, pre-eminently,
4. the learners – of today and of the future.
Annex A
Mathematics Associations Missions and Current Coverage
Association of Mathematics Education Teachers (AMET)
AMET supports and represents the interests of all those engaged in mathematics education in higher education institutions or those institutions working in partnership with higher education institutions. It promotes mathematics education and the good teaching of the subject at all levels, with special reference to the training of teachers of mathematics and research and development in mathematics education. Ordinary membership of the Association is open to all academic staff in institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom engaged in teaching, research or development in mathematics education and those institutions working in partnership with higher education institutions (and includes school-based mentors).
The Association of Teachers of Mathematics (ATM)
ATM encourages the development of mathematics education such that it is more closely related to the needs of the learner. It produces resources and software to support the teaching and learning of mathematics and provides highly regarded CPD courses and conferences across the country. It operates a very effective national network of mathematics teachers.
The ATM shares with the Universities a common aim, to further the subject and professional knowledge of the wider teaching workforce, through:
· The development of high quality teaching and professional development resources through journals, publications and e-Learning resources;
· A range of teacher development opportunities, to include conferences, one-day courses and accredited routes;
· CPD initiatives in partnership with the DCSF, TDA and Becta;
· Consultancy and support for local networks, education partners and providers.
The Mathematical Association (MA)
The MA’s mission is to promote improvement of teaching and learning in mathematics – throughout the entire educational spectrum. As part of this mission, the MA produces a range of journals and periodicals for teachers. These include The Mathematical Gazette, Mathematics in Schools aimed at the secondary school sector, Primary Mathematics aimed at Primary schools and Equals enabling teachers to realise potential in mathematics for all. The MA also produces two periodicals for pupils, Pi which challenges pupils with engaging puzzles and Symmetry + which adds materials and resources to extend and enrich the basic curriculum. Alongside these is a publishing unit that produces an innovative and authoritative range of books and, increasingly, software resources.
The MA also develops and hosts a programme of CPD courses, such as Gifted and Talented, Assessment for Learning and Embedding ICT In Mathematics Teaching. It organises a national conference each year. At its core is an extensive and effective national network of mathematics teachers at all levels and in all sectors.
The MA aims to further the subject and professional knowledge of the wider teaching workforce, through:
· The development of high quality teaching and professional development resources through journals, publications and e-Learning resources;
· A range of teacher development opportunities, to include conferences, one-day courses and accredited routes;
· CPD initiatives in partnership with the DCSF, TDA and Becta;
· Consultancy and support for local networks, education partners and providers.
National Association of Mathematics Advisors (NAMA)
The National Association of Mathematics Advisers is dedicated to promoting and developing high quality mathematical education. Members of the Association (who include ASTs as well as advisers) provide advice, support and inspection services to all individuals or organisations that seek to make an effective contribution to the teaching and learning of mathematics. This the Association does by:
· ensuring the maintenance of a forum for disseminating information and ideas on all matters relating to mathematics education;
· being an effective organisation in provision for professional development of its members and others;
· representing the views of members in order to become an authoritative and influential body on mathematics education.
· promoting specific policies on mathematics education as agreed by a General Meeting of the Association.
National Association for Numeracy and Mathematics in Colleges (NANAMIC)
NANAMIC is an association of further education, tertiary and sixth form colleges, with the aim of assisting colleges nationally in developing quality in all aspects of their work in mathematics and numeracy. Organisational membership is open to Learning Providers eligible for LSC or its successor funding. Individual membership is open to those who are involved in the teaching and learning of mathematics and numeracy working in a range of provision such as colleges, work based learning, adult learning services and prisons as teachers, trainers and learning support.
The association represents the sector at a national level and liaises with other associations concerned with these subject areas and wider areas of further education. It responds to academic and vocational initiatives in mathematics and numeracy and works to improve the accreditation of achievement and the coherence and continuity of mathematics across all education sectors. On behalf of its members, the association monitors and provides information on such matters as curriculum developments, effective organisational structures and resources. It attempts to be a focus for good practice. Working groups are formed as necessary to review particular issues and produce position papers, and conferences and staff development activities are organised on a regular basis. These provide the latest information and ideas on the latest developments and in particular give hands-on experience of resources. There is a regular newsletter for members and the website provides a bulletin board, useful links and updates.
Current coverage
Currently the Associations cover, between them, improvement in the learning and teaching of mathematics in schools and FE settings through:
· Responses – representing their membership and responding to enquiries in order to become an authoritative and influential body on mathematics education.
· Continuing Professional Development (CPD) – providing a range of advisor, teacher trainer and teacher development opportunities, including conferences, one-day courses and accredited routes in partnership with other organisations; showcasing good practice.
· Resources – developing high quality teaching and professional development resources including journals, publications, newsletters and e-Learning materials aimed at advisors, teacher trainers, teachers and students.
· Research – being involved in research and development in mathematics education.
· Forums – maintaining and supporting forums for disseminating and discussing information and ideas on all matters related to mathematics education.
· Support – offering encouragement and support for members, local networks, education partners and providers.
Annex B
The options
None of the options outlined below has been worked out in detail. This is an essential task once a favoured approach has been agreed. Reaching such an agreement is the immediate task to hand.
The options are not mutually exclusive. It would be possible to start with the status quo, Option 1, and expand the range of areas of collaboration, even to the point of offering combined memberships, and move to Option 2 when and if it became clear that this was the more efficient and cost-effective way to work together in specific areas where the interests of individual Associations coincided. If Option 2 is implemented, it might be that after a period it was clear that the Federation could do almost everything that the individual associations could and more, so that Option 3 became an obvious next step.
A cautious, step-by-step approach such as this has its attractions but will almost inevitably take several years before a strong impact is felt. An important question to consider is whether the Associations can afford this timescale. How urgent is it to increase membership and clout in dealings with the government and other stakeholders? Is the real need for a leap, rather than a sequence of steps?
Option 1 – Five independent, collaborating Associations
Option 1 is the status quo organisationally. It is simple, quick and has no immediate up-front costs. It fully maintains the autonomy of each Association. It does not have to be the status quo operationally, and it would be damaging if it were. The major question-mark against it, therefore, is whether it can ensure that the Associations, individually and severally, develop and change fast enough to solve their current difficulties and convert themselves into organisations that attract and are valued by increasing numbers of teachers of mathematics and other practitioners, and are respected – indeed courted – by ministers and officials. Whilst there is unquestionably a wish, demonstrated by the existence of MMSA, to collaborate, there is a serious risk that in practice no one has sufficient time for it. Collaborating has its price.
Option 2 – Federation of independent Associations to create an entity with remit to act on behalf of all in agreed areas
Option 2 involves the creation of a new legal entity, a Federation of Associations, capable of performing functions and delivering projects and programmes on behalf of the existing Associations that own and direct it (or whose members own and direct it). Setting up a new, sixth organisation as a response to the problems of having, already, a multiplicity of mathematics subject associations verges on the perverse. Nevertheless it may be the simplest way to implement a range of possible collaborative ventures or to provide common services and a common portal. If it were dynamically led, a Federation could be a significant agent for change in support of the Associations. However, it would have to be paid for. If it successfully stimulated new activity and increases in the membership of individual Associations, it could possibly be ‘profitable’ so far as they are concerned. But, at the very least, it will need a subsidy – from somewhere or someone if not from the Associations themselves – to start with.
Option 3 – A single new association formed by merging existing Associations (which cease to have an independent existence)
This is the most radical option. It flies in the face of history. It would cause significant upheaval and might lead to a loss of identification with current Associations that some existing members value. It would certainly have an initial cost. Its main advantages are (1) that it would send a clear message to potential members, the government and other stakeholders that it is a ‘player’ to be reckoned with, indeed the player so far as practitioners are concerned; (2) that its potential size would enable it to become more pro-active than the present Associations and to employ a chief executive (if this were deemed a good idea); and (3) that even though it would no doubt contain within it a range of ‘interest groups’, it would be clear to all teachers and others involved with mathematics in schools and FE that it is the place for them.
A few words from the NANAMIC Committee
As you consider the different options questions may arise worthy of further consideration by the NANAMIC Committee. Here are some the NANAMIC committee have begun to consider. We welcome further questions and comments that help to clarify the best way forward.
Whatever option we favour what might be the impact on
i) membership costs,
ii) membership recruitment and retention,
iii) the identity of members within the larger mathematics community
iv) the strength of voice of FE and the Post 16 community with its particular emphasis and insights and a single voice for the ‘pupil facing’ mathematics community
v) the ability to shape the work of the resulting organisation by FE and the Post 16 community
vi) ‘fine tuned’ relevant training, meetings and conference speakers for which NANAMIC is an approved professional development (CPD) provider meeting the standards set by the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) .
vii) membership of umbrella organisations such as Joint Mathematical Council for the UK and Council for Subject Associations
viii) administration.
Please complete the response questionnaire to help the NANAMIC Committee in its deliberations so that we can present findings back to members and develop a motion at our next AGM to move us forward in an appropriate direction.