红桃影视

Maths education in English schools is “broadly” more positive than it was a decade ago, but recruitment is impacting provision, Ofsted has said.

The findings are included within a new looking at the strengths and weaknesses of how maths is taught in school.

The maths document draws on Ofsted’s 2021 maths and finds leaders prioritise adopting high-quality curriculums in the subject.

Findings come from 50 research visits to schools between September 2021 and November 2022.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman said “the picture for maths education in England has continued to improve”. But the report added there are still some areas in need of improvement.

1. ‘Resounding’ shift in primary maths …

Ofsted noted a “resounding, positive shift” in maths education at primary level over the last few years.

It said the curriculum was “at the heart” of leaders’ decisions and actions, with greater collaborative support for teachers and a focus on the teaching of the subject.

But there were “some deficiencies” in the quality and quantity of practice that pupils undertake, with gaps often centred around addition facts.

The watchdog added that such early gaps in knowledge may not become obvious “until a significant amount of time has elapsed”, leading to issues with their ability to access the curriculum “later”.

Leaders also tended to allocate additional resources to year 6, due to accountability measures and “wide spreads of attainment”. But this meant fewer resources to invest in pupils’ earlier education.

2. … and ‘notable’ improvements at secondary

In its 2012 report, Ofsted identified “widespread” weaknesses at secondary including deficiencies in curriculum guidance and ongoing professional development for staff.

These were now “much less likely to be evident” in schools, but other weaknesses identified 11 years ago continued to “limit pupils’ learning”.

This included a lack of curriculum planning to ensure pupils had practice solving mathematical problems, which was an area of weakness “across many schools”.

Curriculum planning around the teaching of facts and methods was “usually strong”, but was weaker where it took less account of what pupils had learned previously and what they will study later.

3. But schools struggle with recruitment

The report acknowledges a 鈥渃hallenge鈥� for many schools in recruiting and retaining specialist maths teachers. 

All schools had some classes split between two or more teachers, either due to timetabling constraints or to make sure no classes were taught entirely by non-specialists. 

But some schools did not 鈥渢ake steps to develop the subject knowledge and subject specific pedagogical knowledge鈥� of less experienced and non-expert teachers. This led to 鈥渁 weaker mathematics education鈥� for pupils. 

Meanwhile, Ofsted also witnessed 鈥渕isconceptions being introduced by teachers鈥�. Errors usually occurred in lessons taught by less experienced or non-specialist teachers, who lacked subject knowledge when responding to pupils鈥� questions. 

Ofsted recommends non-specialists receive the 鈥渘ecessary鈥� professional development 鈥渢o teach maths effectively鈥�. 

4. ‘Strong’ exam results don’t always reflect ‘high quality’ maths

The watchdog found that strong exam outcomes did not 鈥渘ecessarily鈥� indicate a 鈥渉igh-quality鈥� maths education because in some schools, 鈥減upils are taught a narrowed curriculum鈥�.

This 鈥渁llows them to be successful in exams without securing the mathematical knowledge they need to be successful later鈥�. 

It also noted that some schools鈥� focuses shifted from identifying pupil needs to exam preparation towards the end of primary and secondary phases. 

鈥淭he need for significant 鈥榣ast-minute鈥� intervention in some schools suggests deficiencies in the curriculum, teaching or rehearsal earlier on in pupils鈥� mathematical education,鈥� it said. 

5. Schools make ‘good use’ of maths hubs

Leaders were said to 鈥渕ake good use of support and resources鈥� from government-funded maths hubs, the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) and commercial providers. 

Many teachers 鈥渞eceive high quality, subject-specific鈥� continual development, while the training could reduce schools鈥� 鈥渧ulnerability to quick-fix approaches or unevidenced 鈥榝ads鈥�,鈥� said Ofsted.

Ofsted said professional development, alongside high-quality curriculums, 鈥渁ppeared to be the key driver鈥� of improvements to maths education. 

6. Teaching assistants should understand curriculum

Schools where maths provision was the 鈥渟trongest鈥� ensured that other adults working with pupils, such as teaching assistants and tutors, 鈥渦nderstand the curriculum and its implementation鈥�. 

TAs who worked directly with pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) were 鈥渕ost successful鈥� in supporting their development where they had a 鈥渟ecure鈥� knowledge of the maths curriculum and pedagogical approaches being used by the teacher. 

Ofsted recommended all schools should provide continuing professional development (CPD) for teaching assistants, and other adults working with pupils. 

7. More ‘appropriate’ to set tiers in year 11

The watchdog found most schools made decisions about GCSE entry tiers based on levels of attainment at the end of year 9 rather than 鈥渕ore appropriately in year 11鈥�.

It said early decisions, which determine the curriculum pathway for key stage 4 pupils, 鈥渓imits the mathematics that some pupils learn鈥�. 

Ofsted encouraged the Department for Education (DfE), Ofqual and awarding bodies to 鈥渆xplore鈥� if the current design of the maths GCSE, including tiers of entry, contributed to 鈥減ractices in schools that are not in pupils鈥� best interests鈥�. 

8. Teaching moving too quickly

In all schools visited by Ofsted, leaders said teachers routinely made sure pupils had 鈥渟ecurely鈥� learned conceptual knowledge before starting new learning that built on it. 

鈥淗owever, this assertion was consistently accurate in very few of the schools visited,鈥� the report said. 

It added that in just under half of schools visited, teachers鈥� focus was on covering the curriculum, rather than on securing learning. 

This was despite the maths national curriculum underlining that decisions about progression should be based on 鈥渢he security of pupils鈥� understanding鈥�. 

鈥淢oving on when pupils are not mathematically ready gives the illusion of progress but creates ever greater gaps that will take more time to address in the future,鈥� said Ofsted. 

9. Tutors sometimes have ‘limited success’

Among secondaries, several schools said external tutors had 鈥渓imited success鈥� with their pupils.

This was because the tutors鈥� work 鈥渨as not always aligned with the school鈥檚 curriculum thinking鈥�. 

Schools had instead been more successful through employing tutors directly or 鈥渟pending time鈥� to ensure external tutors understood and applied their maths curriculum.