Labour was right to identify early mathematics as one of the focus areas to improve educational standards. The change Bridget Phillipson conceives of has been appropriately described as ‘phonics for maths’, but what does that really mean?
The terms of reference for the curriculum and assessment review include delivering “an excellent foundation in core subjects of reading, writing, and maths” and ensuring that the assessment system accurately “captures the strength of every child and young person.”
But the reality is that matching the phenomenal success of phonics under Nick Gibb will be very challenging. It will require significant changes across curriculum content, pedagogical implementation, and a culture of ambivalence about maths that impacts children’s enjoyment of and progress in the subject.
Nevertheless, there is a real buzz about these important changes. So here is what I hope the Francis review will consider as it enters its second phase.
Curriculum content
There is an undeniable problem with the current ambition of the early years and key stage 1 curriculum, and to a greater extent, the primary curriculum altogether.
The main issue relates to the narrowness of early years maths. A focus on numbers, numerical patterns and spatial reasoning is not sufficiently equipping children with strong number sense, which allows them to flexibly explore relationships between number and quantity.
Shape, space and measure are not specifically covered in the assessment targets. As a result, these key components are often missing from children’s experience and development of wider mathematical thinking, which is detrimental far beyond their immediate outcomes.
Curriculum scope
But at the same time as areas of the curriculum need to be enriched, the primary curriculum as a whole needs to be reduced to allow greater focus on quality and depth of learning in respect of the foundational components of knowledge.
It is clear to everyone, including parents, that maths is not given enough curriculum time in school when compared with reading. This means children are not securing the necessary foundational knowledge in the early years before moving on.
For example, children do not have enough playful learning opportunities, and teachers are sometimes moving quickly across the concrete-pictorial-abstract continuum.
In part, this is because some teachers lack the requisite skills to provide rich experiences when exploring numbers to deepen spatial reasoning in early years.
And in part, it is due to the curriculum’s focus on contextual maths. Use of ‘real-life’ problems actually tends to distract from learning necessary mathematical concepts.
Learning to love maths
This is not the place to re-arbitrate the debate about ‘anti-maths mindset’. However, maths does suffer from an intergenerational reputational problem, as well as gender stereotyping, both of which can lead to ‘maths anxiety’.
Any change to the curriculum must therefore ensure that children have regular opportunities to enjoy the subject. By extension, the curriculum must also engage parents so that they can support children at home.
OECD research in 2020 reported that children whose parents engage in frequent maths-related activities at home have stronger outcomes, even when controlling for variables such as socio-economic status.
What about assessment?
Having said that, the role of early years teachers in children’s conceptual development cannot be overlooked. Teachers need support to understand new pedagogy in enacting any new curriculum so that instead of focussing on cardinality and counting, there is greater emphasis on exploring patterns and rich play-based learning that explores concepts.
What will aid that beyond doubt is the replacement of the early years profile with more effective assessments. The current model is far too general and does not fully capture children’s mathematical competence.
In short, if we are going to have an effective ‘phonics for maths’, then we will need a maths screening check.
Delivering this will require a collective effort from schools and parents, so any theory of change around the curriculum review will need to carefully consider workload implications.
But while developing an excellent foundation for all children in maths is a big challenge, doing so could foster the love and enjoyment the subject deserves.
And that’s a huge prize for our schools, our society and our economy.
This article is the latest in our series of sector-led, experience-informed recommendations for the Francis review of curriculum and assessment. Read them all here
Your thoughts