|
|
| 6.1 |
Whilst supporting strongly the need for a national support infrastructure
for the teaching and learning of mathematics, many respondents have been
concerned to point out that such a structure should work with, build on and,
wherever appropriate, incorporate existing provision, networks and initiatives.
In addition, respondents have drawn attention to the need to promote and
encourage greater involvement of key stakeholders who have hitherto not played
a central role in supporting teachers of mathematics. Much of this echoes
the key requirements laid down by the Secretary of State in March, 2003 (see
paragraph 5.56). |
| 6.2 |
In reviewing existing provision and initiatives and in considering possible
models for a national support infrastructure, we have had to consider whether
and to what extent we should recommend that existing provision and initiatives
should be formally incorporated within a national centre or regional centres.
On the one hand, we clearly need greater strategic coordination of certain
key established activities, but on the other hand we are aware of the need
to allow – and indeed encourage – creative, experimental initiatives.
We are also aware that the latter often depend on the energies of committed
individuals or groups who typically value their independence, often underwritten
initially by charity funding. In what follows, in considering options for
the remit of the national and regional centres we shall therefore adopt two
different kinds of recommendation, corresponding to two different kinds of
role for the national and regional centres in relation to existing or emerging
provision and initiatives. |
| 6.3 |
The first kind of recommendation will identify certain areas as definitely
needing to come directly under the auspices of the national or regional centres
as a prerequisite for overall coherent strategy and coordination of support
for teachers of mathematics. The second will identify areas where, in our
view, the centre should have a more indirect role, not seeking any immediate
direct control but having the role of a provider of development funding and
a monitor and evaluator of the outcomes of initiatives. The aim here should
be to identify activities that might eventually be sustained and rolled out
across the wider school and college sector under the auspices of the centre. |
|
|
| 6.4 |
We consider first the Secretary of State’s requirement that the
new infrastructure work to support the National Numeracy Strategy in primary
schools and the mathematics strand of the Key Stage 3 Strategy in secondary
schools. |
| 6.5 |
For primary teachers in England, professional development opportunities
in mathematics have been provided by the National Numeracy Strategy. This
has addressed key areas of the mathematics curriculum and teaching practices
and has produced a wealth of materials and guidance for numeracy consultants
and teachers. These are widely acknowledged to have strengthened subject
knowledge, curriculum provision, planning and teaching. The Strategy supports
some 400 numeracy consultants and much of the support and training the Strategy
provided to schools is delivered through consultants working in LEAs. The
consultants mediate centrally produced training, which is accredited by some
HE Institutions by acknowledging the successful completion of this training
within their award structures. |
| 6.6 |
The NNS consultants in each LEA run both nationally provided and locally
developed courses. The key core component is a five-day course, which includes
both subject content and pedagogy. These have provided at least 5 days of
out of school training plus a series of personal classroom visits to more
than 100,000 primary teachers. In each LEA, there are further courses targeted
at selected schools deemed by the LEA to be most likely to benefit from further
support. In addition, there are short courses run specifically for head teachers
and school mathematics coordinators. Evidence to the Inquiry, suggests that
around 20,000 primary head teachers and a similar number of mathematics
coordinators have had opportunities out of school to consider the management
of mathematics and the professional support they give their teachers. |
| 6.7 |
For teachers of mathematics to 11-14 year olds in secondary schools in
England, professional development opportunities in mathematics have been
provided by the mathematics strand of the KS3 Strategy. This, too, has produced
a wealth of material and guidance for Key Stage 3 consultants and teachers.
The KS3 consultants in each LEA run both nationally prescribed and locally
developed courses that have been delivered to around 4000 teachers of mathematics
in secondary schools. A key core component is a four-day course for less
experienced teachers of mathematics, which includes both subject content
and pedagogy. Another key course is that for heads of mathematics departments
in secondary schools, which includes developing skills in leading departments.
This has been delivered to around 4,000 secondary heads of department. Recent
developments include providing courses on how to organize and stimulate
discussion on content and pedagogy in the within-school context of departmental
meetings. All schools have been offered training and classroom resource materials
to support the development of innovative pedagogic strategies to engage pupils
in handling data, ratio and proportion and geometric reasoning. In addition,
all schools have received resources and training to improve the teaching
of pupils working below expected levels. |
| 6.8 |
Evidence to the Inquiry suggests that, notwithstanding some reservations,
the training provided by the NN and KS3 strategies has generally been well
received and has had positive effects on professional development for many
teachers of mathematics. The Inquiry has also noted that the KS3 Strategy
is currently developing a range of whole-school support initiatives, which
are intended to complement subject specific work. The Inquiry is not competent
to judge whether such whole-school initiatives will contribute to improvements
in mathematics teaching. However, we would be seriously concerned were there
to be any move away from at least current levels of resources for mathematics
CPD for primary teachers and KS3 teachers of mathematics. Respondents from
Northern Ireland have reported that decisions about future work plans, funding
and staffing for the NINS have yet to be taken. |
| 6.9 |
Although these issues are formally outside the remit of the Inquiry,
respondents have made clear their obvious concern that ongoing improvements
to pre-14 mathematics education are a pre-requisite for future developments
and improvements post-14. Also, whilst respondents have acknowledged the
very real positive impact of the strategies, there is a clear view that much
still remains to be done. For example, respondents have noted that in a survey
in 2001 of teachers of mathematics in the Key Stage 3 pilot schools, it was
found that nearly 50 percent of KS3 mathematics classes were being taught
by non-specialists. The Inquiry also notes that the total of 4000 teachers
thus far involved in the KS3 strategy represents an average of less than
one mathematics teacher per secondary school. We shall discuss the issue
of taking forward the work of the strategies later in this chapter. Meanwhile,
we make the following clear recommendation. |
|
Recommendation 6.1
The Inquiry recommends that the work of the National Numeracy Strategy and
the mathematics strand of the KS3 Strategy be continued and built upon, and
that resources for mathematics are ring-fenced for any future form of successor
to these strategies for KS1-3. |
| 6.10 |
Many with experience of the strategies in England have pointed out to
the Inquiry that the network of local consultants in place to support the
strategies itself already provides an important existing infrastructure for
the future support of primary and KS3 initiatives or their successors. There
is a strong consensus that this should be further strengthened and exploited
in developing the national infrastructure. Respondents to the Inquiry on
behalf of the strategies have themselves also indicated a desire for close
working with any new national infrastructure. The Inquiry has therefore
considered carefully how best this might be done. |
| 6.11 |
As indicated in Recommendation 6.1, the Inquiry believes it to be essential
that there be ring-fenced funding for the numeracy and mathematics components
of the primary and Key Stage 3 strategies. Assuming the continuation of funding,
one option would be to continue with the current stand-alone managerial and
organizational arrangements for the strategies. These seem to have worked
well in delivering the strategies to date. However, a number of respondents
have argued that this would be a mistake and a missed opportunity to begin
to get a coherent overall strategy for CPD, linking mathematics education
across all ages. |
| 6.12 |
We note first that respondents have stressed the need in any case for
the existing strategies themselves to be reviewed and refreshed in the near
future and that it would be timely to undertake such a review in the light
of the post-14 Inquiry report. In particular, it has been pointed out that
within a few years there will almost certainly be significant curriculum
changes post- 14 and that these will necessarily have a significant impact
on KS3 CPD needs. Incorporating the KS3 strategy into the new infrastructure
is therefore seen as a prerequisite for developing a coherent approach to
providing teachers with mathematics CPD throughout the secondary school. |
| 6.13 |
More fundamentally, respondents to the Inquiry have overwhelmingly drawn
attention to what they perceive to be a current lack of a forum for joined
up thinking about school mathematical teaching and learning across the entire
age spectrum – from primary schools through to higher education. Although
outside the formal remit of this Inquiry, we have been very surprised to
learn how little historical local contact and joint working there has been
in relation to mathematics teaching and learning at the primary/secondary
interface and at the secondary/FE/HE interface. Most of the initiatives we
have encountered have only been undertaken in the past couple of years. The
Inquiry is convinced that incorporating the existing strategies into the
new infrastructure would greatly facilitate coherent thinking in relation
to transitions between stages within schools and colleges and from schools
and colleges to higher education. |
| 6.14 |
Also, in relation to CPD provision for teachers in secondary schools,
respondents have drawn attention to the fact that within schools there is
for the most part no sharp divide between KS3 and post-14 teaching at the
individual teacher level. Indeed, some respondents to the Inquiry have indicated
that changes to teaching and learning in KS3 promoted by the Strategy have
already begun to permeate KS4 and college teaching. Coherent provision of
ongoing CPD for the individual teacher therefore clearly requires there to
be no unnecessary demarcation in the planning and delivery of “preand
post-14” CPD. |
| 6.15 |
The Inquiry believes that, providing care is taken to preserve the good
local working relationships that currently exist, there would be considerable
advantages in incorporating both the existing strategies into the new national
support infrastructure. In the case of the KS3 Strategy, we believe the case
to be overwhelming. For there to be coherent planning and delivery of CPD
for mathematics teachers within secondary schools and colleges, we believe
it to be essential that the mathematics strand of the KS3 Strategy be
incorporated into the national support infrastructure. |
|
Recommendation 6.2
The Inquiry recommends that the existing mathematics strand of the KS3 Strategy
be incorporated into the national support infrastructure and that the existing
funding for this strategy be brought under the auspices of the infrastructure.
The Inquiry also recommends that serious consideration be given to similarly
incorporating the National Numeracy Strategy. The Inquiry further recommends
that, on incorporation, a review of the content and delivery of the strategies
be carried out under the auspices of the new infrastructure. |
| 6.16 |
With respect to Northern Ireland, the Inquiry notes that were there to
be a local component of the national support infrastructure, the relationship
with CASS and the NINS (or any successor strategy) would have to be worked
out locally in Northern Ireland. |
|
|
| 6.17 |
The acknowledged problem of professional isolation amongst teachers is
also seen as a key issue that must be addressed. An important function of
the constituent consortia is therefore seen to be that of bringing together
into local networks practitioners from different areas of the profession
of mathematics. In particular, respondents from both the schools and FE sectors
have drawn attention to the need to stimulate greater interaction between
HE mathematics and school and college mathematics, in part at least to encourage
students at schools and colleges to become the next generation of mathematics
teachers, graduate students and academics. We therefore next consider the
Secretary of State’s requirement (paragraph 5.56) that the new
infrastructure link schools, colleges and universities to create strong subject
specialist networks. |
| 6.18 |
Schools of Education in HEIs do, of course, work closely with schools.
However, the Inquiry notes with concern that – with some notable exceptions
– there is relatively little current, systematic interaction between
mathematics departments in HEIs and schools and colleges. There also appears
to be little interaction in some instances between mathematics departments
and schools of education within individual HEIs. |
| 6.19 |
This state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. The Inquiry
believes that there should be closer working between all HE mathematics
departments, schools of education and their local schools and colleges. The
Inquiry believes that this would open up a number of opportunities for higher
education to provide significant new and sustainable support for local teachers
of mathematics by:
-
enhancing pupils’ and teachers’ mathematical attainment, through
individual mentoring;
-
increasing pupils’ and teachers’ awareness of the extraordinary
range of applications of mathematics and the many career opportunities opened
up by the study of mathematics;
-
encouraging pupils to consider the possibility of a mathematics teaching
career.
|
| 6.20 |
Within their own institutions, staff in university mathematics departments,
and in other disciplines with a high mathematical content, are well placed
to contribute by:
-
encouraging school student participation in mathematics enhancement –
eg by providing master classes;
-
encouraging undergraduates to consider teaching as a valued and rewarding
career, including practical opportunities to obtain some classroom teaching
experience – eg through Ambassadors, Student Associate and other mentoring
schemes (see Chapter 2);
-
where appropriate, supporting ITT in partnership with Schools of Education;
-
supporting teachers through mentoring and supervising advanced degrees;
-
ensuring that teachers are well-informed about developments in mathematics
research and applications.
|
| 6.21 |
In addition to the Ambassadors, Student Associate and other mentoring
schemes for those contemplating a teaching career, the Inquiry believes that
the general population of HE students in disciplines with a high mathematical
content provides a potential pool of skilled teaching assistants to support
teachers of mathematics in schools and colleges. The Inquiry would wish therefore
to add support to Recommendation 2.8 of the SET for Success report. |
|
Recommendation 6.3
The Inquiry recommends that a programme be established to pay selected volunteer
undergraduate and postgraduate students in disciplines with high mathematical
content to support teachers of mathematics in schools and colleges. Payment
should be on a competitive basis with other sources of employment open to
such students. The precise nature of the support role should be for schools,
colleges and universities to decide locally. (See also Recommendation 6.14,
ninth bullet point.) It will be important to ensure that those participating
have the appropriate skills and training. |
| 6.22 |
The Inquiry has also noted the potential for greater involvement of the
HE Mathematics, Statistics and Operations Research Network, part of the HE
Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN). The primary focus of the LTSN
is teaching innovation and quality in Higher Education throughout the UK,
and the LTSN is currently in the process of being incorporated into The Higher
Education Academy, a new body committed to the enhancement of the quality
and status of teaching in HE. University departments involved in both the
Mathematics, Statistics and Operations Research and the Engineering LTSNs
seek to develop effective approaches to mathematics teaching for mathematics
students and students of mathematics in other disciplines, and to share best
practice. |
| 6.23 |
The work of the LTSNs is primarily directed to teaching and learning
within higher education. However, the Inquiry has noted with considerable
interest that the network also provides significant support materials at
the school/university interface. Current outreach activities of the network
at the school/university interface include involvement with A-level students
through the MEI Further Mathematics Project (see later paragraph 6.44) and
involvement with school-based statistics activities through the Royal Statistical
Society’s Centre for Statistical Education. Through this latter
organization, the network has, for example, created Key Stage 2, Key Stage
4 and A-level resources for pupils, produced teacher CPD training material
and delivered training through short courses. |
| 6.24 |
In Scotland, the Network’s Assessment Consultant has played a leading
role in SCHOLAR, an initiative that provides online educational materials
and experiences in the form of a “virtual college” with a strong
mathematics component. Materials include simulations, animations, interactive
tutorials and online discussion groups. SCHOLAR aims to ease the transition
from secondary school to further and higher education and to assist more
self-directed learning. |
|
The role of ICT in support of the teaching and learning of mathematics
|
| 6.25 |
The Inquiry has noted with great interest that members of the LTSN
Mathematics, Statistics and Operation Research Network also have considerable
experience in the electronic delivery of materials aimed at enhancing learning
and teaching in mathematics and statistics. This is an area requiring much
more detailed consideration in the school and college context. The Inquiry
has not been able to identify any clear audit of the current availability
and use of ICT delivered learning and teaching resources in support of
mathematics teaching. |
| 6.26 |
However, many respondents to the Inquiry have impressed on us that not
all mathematics classrooms in secondary schools and FE colleges in England
have even the basic resources for handling a significantly greater expansion
of the use of ICT. In particular, we have been informed that many mathematics
departments in secondary schools do not have an interactive whiteboard, or
sufficient access to rooms with sufficient computers and software for whole
class lessons, or an up to date, functioning set of graphical calculators
for the whole class. |
| 6.27 |
The Inquiry believes that there are important tasks here for the new
national infrastructure. First, there is a need to understand the current
position with regard to the availability of ICT resources for mathematics
teaching. Secondly, there is a need to encourage appropriate use of currently
available ICT resources, ranging from better exploitation of videoconferencing
facilities, through to newer developments with the web and interactive and
hand-held technologies. Thirdly, there is a need to identify high quality
software. |
| 6.28 |
In Northern Ireland, there are significant ICT investments being undertaken
under the auspices of the C2K (Classroom 2000) initiative. In relation to
Recommendation 6.4, we therefore note that any local component of the national
support infrastructure in Northern Ireland would need to liaise closely with
existing or future C2K developments. |
|
Recommendation 6.4
The Inquiry recommends that the remit of the new national support infrastructure
include responsibility for auditing existing ICT provision for mathematics
in schools and colleges, assessing the need and potential for future ICT
provision in support of the teaching and learning of mathematics and advising
the DfES and the LSC on ICT investment requirements for mathematics in schools
and colleges. |
| 6.29 |
Within the higher education sector in the UK, there is already considerable
specialist expertise in the LSTNs in relation to videoconferencing activities
and the use of ICT tools for mathematics communication and teaching and learning.
The Inquiry believes that ways should be found of extending and sharing this
expertise, through greater involvement of the LTSN with schools and colleges.
The LTSN Mathematics, Statistics and Operation Research Network have indicated
that they would very much welcome this opportunity, provided that appropriate
resources were made available. |
| 6.30 |
More generally, the Inquiry believes it to be vital that universities
should be more actively engaged in interacting with and supporting mathematics
teachers in schools and colleges. In particular, they should be actively
engaged with consortia at national and local levels. The national infrastructure
should encourage this and provide pump-priming resources to underpin the
development of cooperative working between schools, colleges and HE throughout
the system. |
|
Recommendation 6.5
The Inquiry recommends that the national support infrastructure provide
appropriate resources to enable the Committee of Heads of Departments of
Mathematical Sciences in HEIs in the UK (HoDoMS) to work together with the
LTSN Mathematics, Statistics and Operations Research Network to seek ways
to promote sustainable closer links between HEI mathematics (and other relevant)
departments and mathematics teachers in their local schools and colleges. |
|
The potential role of the Open University (OU)
|
| 6.31 |
Many universities already play a significant role in the provision of
CPD, networking and other forms of reach-out to schools and the wider community
and we greatly welcome this. However, we have not been able to undertake
a survey of all such initiatives and it would therefore be invidious for
the Inquiry to single out specific institutions for special mention. However,
we feel it appropriate to draw attention to the particular role and track
record of the OU as evidence that elements of the structure and roles envisaged
for the national support infrastructure can be made to work effectively.
The OU has the organizational experience of being both a national education
provider and also running its own significant regional and local support
infrastructure. The latter works closely with the local delivery of the NN
and KS3 strategies and with a wide range of schools networks and other partners. |
| 6.32 |
One of the Secretary of State’s requirements for the new infrastructure
is that it should cover all ages from pre-school, through universities and
adult learning. The Inquiry notes that the OU has experience of provision
of mathematics education across all ages from pre-school, through universities
to adult learning, including specialist postgraduate courses for mathematics
teachers. It has a national presence in the early learning years area through
its Faculty of Education and Language Studies (FELS) and a national presence
throughout the schools curriculum via FELS and its Centre for Mathematics
Education (CME). In addition, it has a considerable track record of mathematics
teaching at a distance for mature undergraduates and adults who study part-time.
Over the past 25 years, some 70,000 students have passed through the equivalent
of a foundation course in mathematics at the OU and many practising teachers
of mathematics have studied for Masters Degrees. |
|
Recommendation 6.6
The Inquiry recommends that in the detailed planning of the national support
infrastructure for the teaching and learning of mathematics particular attention
should be given to involving the relevant experience and expertise of the
Open University. |
|
|
| 6.33 |
A recent development in England relating directly to subject matter support
and networking in the school system is the government’s specialist schools
initiative. As part of its general strategy for providing subject matter
support in schools, the Government is committed to creating ‘a new
specialist system where every school has its own specialist ethos and works
with others to spread best practice and raise standards’ (Secretary
of State for Education and Skills, A New Specialist System, 2003). One of
the Secretary of State’s requirements for the new infrastructure for
the support of teachers of mathematics is that it link with specialist schools
and through them, with their local partner schools, and universities to create
strong subject specialist networks. |
| 6.34 |
There are currently around 80 Mathematics and Computing specialist schools.
Each school applying for specialist status produces a four-year development
plan that addresses the needs of the school, its family of schools and its
community. The plan is framed around objectives which focus on:
-
improving standards of attainment in the specialist subjects and on using
the specialism as a lever to achieve whole school improvement;
-
enriching pupils’ learning experiences and provision in the specialist
subjects, through enhanced links with business; supporting curriculum development
and provision of appropriate courses;
-
encouraging increased take up in the specialist subjects, especially post-16.
|
| 6.35 |
A school’s community development plan is based on work with at least
five partner schools (primary and secondary) and the wider local community.
This will include activities planned across the transition from KS2 to KS3
and from KS4 to post-16 education, for example with Colleges of FE and Sixth
Form Colleges in discussion with the local Learning and Skills Council. A
key feature of specialist schools is their commitment to developing and sharing
best practice through continuing professional development of their own staff
and local colleagues. Developments arising from this initiative are being
taken forward through a network provided by the Specialist Schools Trust.
In support of this network, the Trust runs a programme of conferences, seminars,
workshops and individual visits as part of its core function. |
| 6.36 |
Many specialist schools have written into their plans the creation of
an AST post in mathematics to support effective teaching and learning strategies.
The Specialist Schools Trust is seeking to coordinate and develop the subject
and subject pedagogy leadership potential of ASTs and Leading Teachers, by
setting up lead practitioner networks to support subject and regional teams. |
| 6.37 |
The DfES has provided some funding to enable the Trust to establish a
series of regional lead practitioner networks in subject specialisms, including
mathematics. In Spring 2003, the Specialist Schools Trust organised and ran
16 regional workshops for teachers of mathematics in the Trust’s affiliated
schools. Building on the experience of these regional events, the Trust is
establishing a CPD programme for teachers via a network of regional and local
centres, based around a taskforce of lead practitioners and a network of
ASTs in mathematics. |
| 6.38 |
The Secretary of State referred explicitly to the need for the national
support infrastructure for teachers of mathematics to link with networks
arising from this initiative. The Inquiry has therefore considered carefully
how the Special Schools Trust’s emerging CPD programme and networks
should relate to the national support infrastructure. |
| 6.39 |
On the one hand, we are aware that this is a very recent initiative,
most of whose activities are at a very preliminary stage of implementation
and trialling. We are also mindful of the clear view of respondents that
the support infrastructure should be a consortia-based network, rather than
based on a single body or around a single initiative. The Inquiry is therefore
clear that it would be inappropriate at this stage to assign too central
a role to these developments. On the other hand, it would clearly be perverse
for the development of the work of the mathematics support strand of the
specialist schools to proceed outside the national infrastructure framework.
The Inquiry believes that the emerging special schools mathematics networks
and the other work of the Specialist Schools Trust have the potential to
provide a valuable resource and focus for supporting teachers of mathematics
in both secondary schools and colleges. |
| 6.40 |
We believe therefore that, where appropriate, those involved in the piloting
and development of specific aspects of these initiatives – as with other
initiatives undertaken by other stakeholders – should be able to bid
for support from the national and regional centres (see Recommendation 6.7).
However, given the key role the Government intends the specialist schools
to play in relation to specific subject matter support, the Inquiry is clear
that those aspects of CPD and other developments which are intended to provide
an ongoing core element of the support of teachers of mathematics must be
brought under the overall strategic direction and coordination of the national
and regional centres, and be subject to inputs and guidance from a wide range
of stakeholders. |
|
Recommendation 6.7
The Inquiry recommends that overall strategy for and coordination of the
networking and other CPD developments relating to the mathematics elements
of specialist schools be brought under the auspices of the national support
infrastructure for the teaching and learning of mathematics. |
|
|
| 6.41 |
Outside the framework of large-scale developments imposed across the
school and college system, the UK has a tradition of independent small-scale
voluntary initiatives to support particular aspects of the teaching and learning
of mathematics. The Inquiry has not attempted a survey of all such initiatives
and is certainly not able to judge their relative contributions and impact.
However, in order to indicate how we think their relation with the national
and regional centres might typically be handled, we shall briefly describe
six such initiatives, selected to illustrate six rather different aims and
approaches to improving and enhancing the teaching and learning of mathematics. |
| 6.42 |
The UK Mathematics Trust (UKMT) is an independent body established, in
its own words, “to advance the education of children and young people
in mathematics and in particular by organising and running mathematical
competitions.” It runs annual Mathematics Challenges at junior, intermediate
and senior levels and organises the British Mathematical Olympiad, including
selective training and mentoring activities. The UKMT is responsible for
selecting and training the British team for the International Mathematical
Olympiad. Currently, over half a million secondary pupils and most secondary
schools in the UK participate in the Trust’s range of competitions and
related activities. |
| 6.43 |
The Millennium Mathematics Project (MMP) was set up in 1999 as a joint
project between the Faculties of Mathematics and Education at the University
of Cambridge, bringing together a number of existing outreach activities,
which have since been developed and extended, supported by short-term funding
from a number of sponsors.
The broad aim of the project is to help people of all ages and abilities
share in the excitement of mathematics and understand the enormous range
and importance of its applications. This it attempts to do mainly through
a programme of enrichment of the standard curriculum. The MMP is active in
a number of locations across the UK, both through its web resources and
video-conferencing programme and through school visits and face-to-face teacher
training and mentoring. The project has worked directly with hundreds of
schools all over the UK and its web-based resources are used by thousands
more teachers, pupils and parents across the world, with around 25% of users
located in the US and significant numbers in Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Hong Kong and Singapore. |
| 6.44 |
The Mathematics in Education and Industry (MEI) project ‘Enabling
Access to Further Mathematics’ aims to make it possible for all sixth
form students to have access to studying Further Mathematics A-level through
distance learning, where this is unavailable to them through more traditional
means because of lack of resources in their local school or college. The
project is in a pilot phase that began in September, 2000, and is funded
by the Gatsby Charitable Trust. Students are allocated to an experienced
distance tutor who monitors progress and gives individual tutorial support
via a combination of e-mail, fax, telephone, visits and where possible on-line
video conferencing, which is being developed to enable students to have distance
tutorials with tutors at their lead centre. When not tutoring students, the
tutors spend some of their time developing web resources. Module ‘study
days’ take place at lead centres, enabling students to meet each other
and the project staff. In one university involved in the project, second
year mathematics undergraduates act as mentors to local sixth formers studying
for Further Mathematics qualifications through the project. |
|
6.45 MEI is currently embarking on another project,
“Upgrading Mathematics Teachers”. The target group is the very
substantial number of non-specialist mathematics teachers teaching mathematics,
who are experienced good teachers, committed to the profession, but with
rather limited knowledge of the subject. The project – run jointly by
MEI and the University of Warwick with funding from the Gatsby Charitable
Trust – will provide teachers with a structured course at the end of
which the expectation is that they will have the mathematical knowledge and
confidence to be able to teach mathematics up to AS and A Level. |
| 6.46 |
On-line web-based mathematics courses have been pioneered by the Thomas
Telford School as a response to the shortage of specialist mathematics teachers
in many schools and with the particular aim of raising achievement in mathematics
at GCSE. The project is currently funded by the HSBC Education Trust. The
GCSE course is designed in a way that enables it to be taught by non-specialist
mathematics teachers. The course aims to present mathematics at Key Stage
4 level in a way that motivates and stimulates the learner, by including
a number of different categories, such as sport, travel and careers, which
give students a context to their study of mathematics. To date, 200 schools
have used the Thomas Telford on-line programmes. |
| 6.47 |
The National Education and Business Partnerships Network is the umbrella
organisation and national voice for 138 Education Business Partnerships working
in the UK. Within this framework, Number Partners have developed a training
scheme and operational practice for bringing cohorts of business volunteers,
HE students and community volunteers to work in schools supporting selected
students having difficulties with mathematics. This currently works through
activities such as board games at KS3. The organisers believe the scheme
could easily be extended to encompass activities suitable for students at
KS4 level and above. At present, the scheme operates in 38 locations nationwide,
with 140 schools hosting 1036 volunteers supporting 2244 pupils. |
| 6.48 |
It is not within the competence of the Inquiry to provide a serious
evaluation of the quality or impact of the particular initiatives described
above, or of others we have encountered. However, the Inquiry believes –
along with many respondents to the Inquiry – that, prima facie, these
and other initiatives do have the potential for significantly enhancing the
teaching and learning of mathematics in schools and colleges. Some respondents
have argued that we suffer from having too many, small scale, uncoordinated,
independent initiatives, each competing for limited funding, not systematically
evaluated and rarely leading to any sustained embedding of new practice
throughout the system. It is argued that it would be better if all these
initiatives were now brought together under the auspices of the national
and regional centres, in order to provide coordination and, where appropriate,
sustainability. We do not support this option. We believe there to be an
important role for independent initiatives and believe there to be a danger
of stifling creativity and individual energy by insisting on central bureaucratic
control of all developments, right from the beginning. |
| 6.49 |
However, we recognise the point that has been made about embedding and
sustainability. We believe, therefore, that we should continue to encourage
and welcome independent initiatives but that a way needs to be found to
systematically evaluate their impact and subsequently to embed and sustain
successful practice throughout the system. Here, we see a natural role for
the national and regional centres. The centres should be given responsibility
for keeping a watching brief on such initiatives in order to identify those
with potential for larger scale implementation. Subsequently, in response
to bids for funding from those initiatives seeking to proceed beyond the
pilot stage, the national and regional centres should have the remit to undertake
formal evaluation, with a view to supporting the systematic roll out of
successful initiatives across the school and college system. Large-scale
implementation of successful initiatives will, of course, require the commitment
of sustained funding and appropriate ongoing management and accountability.
Again, we see this as part of the remit of the national and regional centres. |
|
Recommendation 6.8
The Inquiry recommends that the remit of the national infrastructure include
responsibility for encouraging and evaluating independent initiatives in
the teaching and learning of mathematics and for funding and managing
dissemination of successful initiatives more widely across the school and
college system. The Inquiry recommends that the overall resources provided
for the national and regional centres include specific funding for this purpose. |
| 6.50 |
The Inquiry has some specific concerns about an existing initiative relating
to subject enhancement. SETNET, the Science Engineering and Technology
Mathematics Network, is a high-profile existing initiative involving 86 member
organisations representing Government, industry, the engineering professional
institutions, education and education charities. SETNET aims to stimulate
a flow of well-motivated, high quality students from schools who have an
interest in, and an understanding of, engineering related subjects. The report
SET for Success identified SETNET as the Government’s preferred route
for presenting a coherent message to teachers and industry about the schemes
and initiatives available to enhance and extend the key curriculum subjects
of science, technology and mathematics. |
| 6.51 |
The Inquiry supports SETNET’s mission to enrich and support the
curriculum in schools. However, we are very concerned about the paucity of
provision of enrichment resources relevant to mathematics that are currently
available nationally through SETNET and the regional delivery SETPOINTS outlets.
There is extremely limited provision in mathematics, particularly at secondary
level, and we believe that this gap should be filled as soon as possible.
The Inquiry also notes that exactly the same problem exists in relation to
the provision of material to inform careers teachers and advisers in schools
and colleges about the all-pervasive applicability of mathematics and the
career opportunities opened up by the study of mathematics. The Inquiry has
received a great deal of worrying comment from respondents about the lack
of availability of informed careers advice in schools and colleges about
mathematics and the study of mathematics. We believe that this issue should
be given high priority. |
|
Recommendation 6.9
The Inquiry recommends that the national infrastructure work with SETNET
to improve the provision of mathematics enrichment and careers advice resources
provided through SETNET and that appropriate funding be made available either
through SETNET or the national infrastructure to support this development. |
|
|
| 6.52 |
Among the Secretary of State’s requirements for the new infrastructure
is that it should support adult learning. In this connection, respondents
to the Inquiry have indicated that, in the context of the Government’s
Skills for Life strategy, teachers of adult numeracy in adult education
institutes and in the workplace and non-specialist teachers of mathematics
and numeracy to adults in further education would particularly welcome support
from the new infrastructure. |
| 6.53 |
The Inquiry believes that, in order to understand how best to provide
this support, the new infrastructure will need to collaborate with researchers
and practitioners with special experience and expertise in the area of adult
education. The Inquiry believes that the key body will be the DfES funded
National Research and Development Centre for adult literacy and numeracy
(NRDC), which is a consortium of partners led by the University of London
Institute of Education. Adult numeracy is a particular focus of the NRDC’s
work and, in November 2003, it published its first major report, Adult
Numeracy: review of research and related literature. |
|
Recommendation 6.10
The national infrastructure for the support of the teaching and learning
of mathematics should set up formal collaborative links with the NRDC, with
a view to exploring how best to support teachers of adult numeracy. |
|
|
| 6.54 |
There is currently considerable research activity in the field of mathematics
education, but there is no national forum charged with systematic evaluation
and dissemination of national and international research findings in order
to provide an appropriate evidence base for policy and practice. The Inquiry
believes that such a forum is required. |
| 6.55 |
One option would be for this to be a stand-alone entity. However, the
Inquiry has noted the views of respondents that it is essential that the
development of CPD and other support activities for teachers of mathematics
should be appropriately informed by relevant research findings. We therefore
see great merit in including in the remit of the new infrastructure
responsibility for systematic reviews of research and development findings
and materials and ensuring that these inform mathematics CPD and other support
developments. The British Society for Research in the Learning of Mathematics
provides one possible partner for the national centre in taking this forward.
The Inquiry has also noted the recent significant investment by the Economic
and Social Research Council in mathematics projects within its Teaching and
Learning Research Programme. The Inquiry believes that the new infrastructure
will wish to work closely with these and other partners in developing a research
and development evaluation and dissemination capacity. |
|
Recommendation 6.11
The Inquiry recommends that the remit of the national infrastructure for
the support of the teaching and learning of mathematics include the
responsibility and resource for providing a national forum for the evaluation,
synthesis and dissemination of research and development findings in the field
of mathematics education in order to provide an evidence base to inform policy
and practice. |
|
|
| 6.56 |
The Inquiry has considered the option of only establishing a single national
centre, directly working with schools through the LEAs, thus obviating the
need for regional centres. We have rejected this option on two broad grounds.
First, the breadth and depth of the post-16 curriculum far exceed those of
the KS1-3 curricula and we do not believe that a local consultant based CPD
delivery model similar to those of the Numeracy and KS3 strategies would
be appropriate or feasible, given the very wide-ranging CPD needs post-16.
Secondly, we have received overwhelming endorsement from respondents to the
Inquiry of the need to build and sustain local communities and networks.
These should not just be concerned with CPD delivery, but should also serve
to bring together a wide range of stakeholders in support of all aspects
of the teaching and learning of mathematics and also wider issues of profile
raising, awareness and career advice. This led us to Recommendation 5.4,
which we now follow up in more detail. |
|
Recommendation 6.12
The Inquiry recommends that the national infrastructure for the support of
the teaching and learning of mathematics consist of:
-
a National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) to
provide expert advice, resources and information in support of the teaching
of mathematics, and to oversee the funding for the development and dissemination
of mathematics CPD provision at a strategic level and to coordinate its operation
nationally;
-
a network of Regional Mathematics Centres (RMCs) to encourage the formation
of local communities of teachers of mathematics and relevant stakeholders
across all phases and to oversee and coordinate local delivery of CPD.
|
|
Recommendation 6.13
The Inquiry recommends that the NCETM should:
-
provide a forum to bring together all major groups and agencies involved
in mathematics education, including from England the DfES, National Strategies,
QCA, Ofsted, LEAs, HEIs, LSC, SSCs, ACME, ITT providers, together with equivalent
groups and agencies from those territories which choose to be part of the
NCETM;
-
work with the GTC, TTA and other appropriate groups, including the relevant
groups from those territories which choose to be part of the NCETM, to ensure
national cohesion in mathematics CPD provision and accreditation;
-
incorporate the current CPD work and funding of the NN and KS3 Strategies;
-
work closely with the RMCs to provide a centre of expertise for research
and development and the commissioning and dissemination of CPD and learning
and teaching materials, including distance learning materials and materials
to enhance the teaching of mathematics through the use of ICT;
-
work closely with the RMCs to ensure an adequate supply of “expert
teachers” to provide mentoring and support to local schools and colleges;
-
coordinate and monitor CPD delivery provided by the RMCs;
-
provide a national forum for the evaluation, synthesis and dissemination
of research and development findings in the field of mathematics education;
-
provide a database and act as an archive for exemplary teaching and learning
and CPD resources and research and development findings;
-
support and encourage the further development and dissemination of existing
mathematics enhancement and distance-learning initiatives;
-
foster international links and collaborative exchanges in relation to research
and development in mathematics education.
|
|
Recommendation 6.14
The Inquiry recommends that the RMCs should:
-
be located one in each of the 9 English regions as defined by RDAs, with
possible additional national centres in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland;
-
have formal close working relationships in England with local LEAs and Numeracy
and KS3 Strategy regional directors, and with equivalent bodies and individuals
from those territories which choose to establish a RMC;
-
provide a forum for school, college, FE and HE local links and joint working;
-
provide a forum for links and joint working among education providers and
teachers, and employers, including RDAs, local LSCs, SETNET, Education and
Business Partnerships and equivalent territorial agencies;
-
provide support for local networks within the regional networks, building
on existing local networks, including mathematics teacher associations,
mathematics specialist schools networks, the LTSN for Mathematics, the regional
and local activities of the mathematics professional and learned societies,
the OU and other HEIs;
-
work with the NCETM to deliver CPD regionally/locally for teachers of mathematics
(including those teaching other disciplines or vocational subjects) and those
who support mathematics teaching across all age groups;
-
work with the NCETM to provide a regional/local CPD research and development
and dissemination capability in mathematics education;
-
provide a regional/local source of expert advice and information on all aspects
of the teaching of mathematics;
-
provide infrastructure support for quality assured schemes for bringing HE
students into the classroom (see, also, Recommendation 6.3);
-
together with the NCETM, develop and promulgate programmes and projects aimed
at raising the profile of mathematics with pupils, teachers, careers advisers,
parents, employers and the public.
|
|
|
| 6.57 |
The Inquiry has been asked by the Secretary of State to give an indication
of the scale of funding required for the national support infrastructure
in England. In terms of the proposed NCETM and RMCs, we shall approach this
by comparison with related existing activities. Throughout, we assume that
if the existing strategies in England are incorporated into the new
infrastructure, existing funding will be made available to the NCETM and
RMCs. The discussion that follows therefore refers only to additional funding
relating to the new (ie not existing strategy) roles of the NCETM and RMCs
in England. |
| 6.58 |
We note, for example, that as part of the National Network of Science
Learning Centres, the proposed National Science Learning Centre (funded by
the Wellcome Trust) has a ten year funding horizon, with a total capital
contribution of £10M over the first three and a recurrent contribution
of £15M over the period. The focus is directed primarily towards subject
leaders. |
| 6.59 |
The proposed 9 Regional Science Learning Centres (funded by the DfES)
have a five year funding horizon, with a capital total of £11M over
the first three years and a recurrent contribution of £15M over the
period. |
| 6.60 |
The National Numeracy Strategy (for primary school teachers) has been
funded at the level of around £100M per annum for each of the past four
years. Of this, around £21M has supported consultants and associated
administration costs; £10M has funded a leadership programme; and most
of the rest has funded training and direct school interventions. The current
costing for delivery (not including central costs) is £175 per training
day per teacher. In addition, there is a central team responsible for writing
training materials, briefing the LEA consultants on the materials and overseeing
the local delivery. |
| 6.61 |
The KS3 Strategy (consisting of 5 subject strands and aimed at teachers
of 11-14 year olds) has been funded at the level of £220M per annum.
Of this, as direct expenditure on mathematics one can identify about £14M
for subject specific expert consultants employed by LEAs; about £14M
to schools to access training; and out of the £20M spent on the central
management of the strategy (including development of teaching and learning
materials and monitoring of the delivery) around £3–4M. |
| 6.62 |
If currently small-scale pilot projects like the Millenium Mathematics
Project, the MEI Further Mathematics project and the Thomas Telford online
mathematics course developments are to achieve significant penetration of
the school population, they would need significant scaling-up (perhaps by
factors of 20). The scaling up of funding would not necessarily be linear,
but, for example, we note that the MEI project has been funded at the level
of £360K over 3 years by the Gatsby Educational Trust and the cost of
producing the on-line GCSE courses by Telford school has been £700K,
funded thus far by the HSBC Education Trust. |
| 6.63 |
The relevant aspects of these comparisons for the envisaged remit of
the NCETM are those pertaining to initial set-up (refurbishment and ICT
provision), the costs of a central team and overheads and the costs of the
production and dissemination of materials for CPD. In what follows, we assume
throughout that the funding for actual CPD delivery, teacher release, etc,
will be assigned to the budget for the RMCs. |
|
6.64 For the NCETM, in addition to the incorporation of
staff from the existing strategies, we envisage the appointment of a (high
profile) director, together with an executive core of around 8 senior and
4 support staff (comparable in full time equivalent staff numbers to the
Numeracy and KS3 central directing teams). We further envisage that the scale
of operation for new post-14 provision over an initial five-year horizon
(with a front loading to the first three years) will be at least as great
as that of the KS3 operation. This takes into account the greater complexity
and diversity of post-14 qualifications and the developing and disseminating
of materials to cover all the needs both for CPD aimed at non-specialists
and at specialists. It also recognises the potential need for more emphasis
on distance delivery to overcome the recognised problem of releasing mathematics
teachers from schools and FE Colleges. |
| 6.65 |
These comparisons suggest that the start-up funding requirements for
the NCETM (refurbishment of offices, archive/library, meeting and seminar
rooms, ICT, including broad-band and video-conferencing facilities) over
and above requirements arising from the incorporation of the existing strategies
are likely to be similar to those of the regional science centres, but with
an additional premium in recognition of providing a national library/archive;
ie around £2.5M for the first year. |
| 6.66 |
These comparisons also suggest that the recurrent funding required to
achieve initial comprehensive coverage of the development and dissemination
needs for CPD and the other elements listed above for the remit of the NCETM
over a five year time horizon is likely to be of the order of £4.5M
recurrent for each of the first three years. Thereafter, recurrent funding
of £2M might suffice to sustain a steady-state operation. |
| 6.67 |
Clearly, these recurrent funding needs can be reduced by extending the
time horizon over which it is aimed to achieve complete coverage of initial
CPD needs and/or by scaling down the remit of the NCETM. However, the Inquiry
believes that this would be unwise. There is considerable urgency in tackling
the teaching skills deficit and we are mindful that the Secretary of State
has indicated that the centre should serve the needs of teachers of mathematics
across the whole spectrum. |
|
Recommendation 6.15
The Inquiry recommends that, in addition to the transfer of funding from
the existing strategies, the funding provision for the first five years of
the NCETM should be of the order of £7M in year 1, £4.5M in years
2, 3 and £2M in years 4, 5, giving a total of £20M over 5 years. |
| 6.68 |
For the RMCs, in addition to the staff funded by the existing NN and
KS3 strategies, we envisage that each of the nine English RMCs would have
a core full time equivalent staff of the order of 2.5 senior and 4 support
staff. This suggests something of the order of £400K start-up funding
(refurbishment of offices, meeting and seminar rooms, ICT, including broadband
and video-conferencing facilities), and 300K annual direct running costs
for each RMC. |
| 6.69 |
The major expenditure in the RMCs will be on CPD delivery. There are
currently around 25,000 teachers of mathematics in secondary schools. We
have found it impossible to quantify properly the number of teachers of
mathematics in FE because mathematics pervades so many aspects of the post-16
curriculum. However, respondents have felt that 10–15,000 teachers of
mathematics in FE Colleges is probably a reasonable estimate. In addition,
there is some need for mathematics CPD for those teaching mathematics in
other disciplines and in vocational courses. |
| 6.70 |
Suppose, therefore, for the purpose of a baseline calculation, we were
to take 25,000 as the (conservative) target population for new CPD provision
(assuming that a fraction in secondary schools will continue to receive CPD
under the KS3 strategy funding and that CPD funding currently related to
the current Key Skills agenda will be available for many in FE – although
we understand that currently this funding is not accessed by the majority
of mathematics teachers in FE). Suppose further that we were to aim –
inadequately in the view of many respondents to the Inquiry – to provide
everyone in the cohort with the equivalent of an average of 6 days CPD per
annum (not necessarily provided in out-of-school “6 day course”
form and probably varying from 0 to 12 days in actual individual CPD need). |
| 6.71 |
Using the guideline figure of £175 per teacher per day provided
by the Numeracy Strategy, this suggests, based on a 6 day per annum assumption,
an annual recurrent cost for training of £26.25M (pro rata, just under
£3 M per RMC). There will also be an element of RMC recurrent cost for
support of other activities within the remit of the RMCs. This is likely
to be of the order of £100K per RMC. |
|
Recommendation 6.16
The Inquiry recommends that, in addition to the transfer of funding from
the existing strategies, the funding provision for the first five years of
the RMCs should be at least of the order of £27M in year 1 and £26.6M
in years 2, 3, 4, 5, giving a total of some £133.4M over 5 years. |
|
|
| 6.72 |
The Inquiry has sought opinions on appropriate governance arrangements
for the NCETM and the RMCs. We have received the clear message that the
composition of the governing body should reflect the wide range of stakeholders
identified during the Inquiry, but should also have a majority of members
drawn from bodies representing the mathematics and mathematics teaching
communities. |
| 6.73 |
The Inquiry has identified the following government department and agency
key stakeholders in England (these would need to be augmented by equivalent
bodies for any territories that choose to be part of the NCETM and choose
to establish a RMC):
-
the DfES will clearly play a key role in funding the new infrastructure and
will necessarily have a role in overseeing the set up process and subsequent
governance of the national and regional centres;
-
the LSC plays a key role in overseeing mathematics teaching in Sixth Form
and FE colleges;
-
the QCA currently has the remit to write, develop and keep under review the
national curriculum; its role in assessment, curriculum and qualifications
development also make its work of key interest to mathematics teachers; QCA
has established stakeholder networks and contacts and has pioneered joint
working between schools, colleges and HE in developing materials in algebra
and geometry;
-
Ofsted is charged with inspection and evaluation of the quality of delivery
of teaching in schools and colleges and of ITT provision;
-
the GTC has specific responsibility for providing advice to the Secretary
of State for Education and Skills on the training, career development and
performance measurement of teachers;
-
the TTA is responsible for the recruitment and retention of teachers, funds
ITT and uses inspection outcomes to determine which ITT courses are allowed
to continue;
-
LEAs, through mathematics specialists, play key roles in relation to local
networks and delivery;
-
the NN and KS3 strategies play key roles and we have already made clear
(Recommendation 6.2) the Inquiry’s view that the existing strategies
should be incorporated into the new infrastructure;
-
relevant departments of HEIs must also become key stakeholders.
|
| 6.74 |
In addition, there are a number of subject associations in mathematics,
whose members include many of the most active and innovative members of the
teaching and advisory profession in mathematics. These associations are also
key stakeholders. The two main associations for school and college teachers
are the Mathematics Association (MA) and the Association of Teachers of
Mathematics (ATM). The MA individual membership consists almost entirely
of secondary school or college teachers of mathematics. The ATM has a larger
primary membership, but there are still many more secondary members in ATM
than primary teachers. There are also three other associations with
teacher/adviser members: the National Association of Mathematics Advisers
(NAMA), whose members typically work at LEA level as inspectors, advisers
or as consultants for the NN or KS3 strategies; the National Association
for Numeracy and Mathematics in Colleges (NANAMIC) and the Association of
Mathematics Education Teachers (AMET); these associations also have some
members in HEIs. |
| 6.75 |
There are also key stakeholders among the professional and learned societies
representing the various sub-areas of the discipline of mathematics: the
London Mathematical Society (LMS), the Institute of Mathematics and its
Applications (IMA) and the Royal Statistical Society (RSS). These bodies
operate on a UK-wide basis and the IMA has strong links with representatives
of engineering interests in HE and national professional bodies. The Presidents
of the four learned and professional bodies together form the Council for
Mathematical Sciences, which serves as a policy discussion forum for issues
of common concern. In addition, Scotland has the Edinburgh Mathematical Society
and the Scottish Mathematics Council. Also, the Education Committee of the
Royal Society (RS) has within its UK-wide remit an interest in mathematics
education. |
| 6.76 |
These associations are brought together under the umbrella of the Joint
Mathematics Council of the UK (JMC). The Advisory Committee for Mathematics
Education (ACME) is a more recently formed body empowered by the constituent
bodies of the JMC to speak with authority on behalf of the mathematics community
on matters pertaining to mathematics education. Respondents to the Inquiry
have argued strongly that ACME should be closely involved in the governance
of the national support infrastructure. The Inquiry supports this view and
we shall return to this in the context of our detailed recommendation concerning
the national infrastructure and its governance (Recommendation 6.17). |
| 6.77 |
Employers are clearly key stakeholders in the new infrastructure. Recently,
it has been decided that the new sector skills council for science, engineering
and manufacturing technologies, SEMTA, is to lead on mathematics on behalf
of the sector skills councils. SEMTA is currently in the process of establishing
a new Mathematics Forum, which will include representatives of relevant awarding
bodies, regulatory authorities and government. The role of the Forum will
be to provide a means through which employers can help shape future developments
of all aspects of the mathematics curriculum, assessment, standards,
qualifications and quality assurance. In addition to the national role to
be played by SEMTA and the Mathematics Forum in representing employers, at
a local level the interests of employers will increasingly be reflected in
the work of the RDAs. |
|
Recommendation 6.17
The Inquiry recommends that, following an appropriate process of consultation,
as the first step towards the establishment of the centres for England the
DfES appoint and provide a secretariat for a council, to be responsible for
overall policy and priorities for the NCETM and RMCs within the remit identified
in the Inquiry’s Recommendations 6.13 and 6.14. The Inquiry further
recommends that the DfES channel funding for the NCETM and the RMCs through
the council, which should be accountable to the DfES for its use. The council
should represent the wide range of stakeholders we have identified and the
Inquiry recommends that over half of the membership should be appointed on
the advice of ACME. |
|
|
| 6.78 |
The Inquiry has considered carefully the options for selecting the locations
and managements of the centres. As we have indicated on several occasions,
respondents to the Inquiry overwhelmingly favour consortia-based models for
the management of the NCETM and the RMCs. The Inquiry fully supports this
view and believes that the selection of locations and managements of the
centres should be made on the basis of an open bidding process |
|
Recommendation 6.18
The Inquiry recommends that the locations and managements of the NCETM and
the RMCs in England be selected by a process which invites consortia bids
to deliver the agendas set out in Recommendations 6.13 and 6.14 and to provide
appropriate management and administrative infrastructure for the running
of the centres. Consortia will need to incorporate an appropriate range of
national and local stakeholders. This bidding process should be overseen
by the DfES, advised by the appointed governing council for the NCETM and
the RMCs. |