CMTP: Changes in Mathematics Teaching Project

Home / Department organisation / Coping with school management issues and policy details

Coping with school management issues and policy: details

Whole school policies are very important in providing a frame of general expectations.
For example, in one school poor attendance seemed to be associated with poor behaviour and this may express a need for careful reintegration of students who have been away for a while. In another school, a whole school 'listening' initiative was seen to have a positive effect in maths lessons because the strategy of using 'listening triads' to get reluctant speakers engaged was common in all subjects.

In FH there did not seem to be major clashes with school policy, nor were there obvious policy initiatives which impacted on their teaching and planning. Towards the end of the project, FH adopted a whole-school policy that students should be able to say what NC level they were working towards. One member of FH SMT was heard to report that no student he had talked to knew their target NC level in mathematics, and this was a deliberate decision by the maths team as they felt 'levelisation' was demotivating and mechanistic.

At LS whole-school initiatives included Assessment for Learning (qca.org.uk/afl), Building Learning Power (buildinglearningpower.co.uk), Dialogue for Learning, and Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (bandapilot.org.uk/primary/seal). In all these, the mathematics department's practice fitted with whole school ideals. In fact, members were ahead of the whole school in using words such as 'resilience' and 'resourcefulness' as criteria for choices about tasks and pedagogy.

At SP there were some clashes. The mathematics department had started this project to improve attainment in 2005. The following year they were expected to alter what they did to fit with whole school initiatives for improvement. Shortly after this they were inspected and, although maths teachers and the department came out very well they had to alter their practices again to fit in with school initiatives following a 'notice to improve'. This process included the use of inappropriate observation schedules by non-specialist observers, some of whom also made insensitive remarks which were contrary to what the Ofsted inspectors had said. This was demoralising for individuals and the team, but the HoD took her role to be to develop interpretations of school policy which were true to the department's holistic focus on the development of mathematical thinking. For example:

• the requirement for regular statements about NC sublevels was translated into the use of extended tasks.
• the requirement for learning objectives to be written on the board was interpreted to mean that at some point during the lesson learners should be made aware of how what they are doing fits with the aim of deep progress, i.e. to learn more maths or to learn more maths or to feel better about maths
• the requirement to 'deliver' particular generic thinking skills in mathematics lessons (imposed during the second year of the project) was interpreted to mean that they could continue to focus on mathematical thinking.
• furthermore, the mathematics department had previously chosen not to administer optional national tests, but used national year 9 tests with year 8 students as a spot check for progress with no preparation for these - only to use the results formatively for their teaching.

The mathematics department was strongly praised at the following inspection.

Also at SP, SMT decided to create larger curriculum units, such as combining English and Mathematics. The HoD, who was asked to run this new unit, was only interested in mathematics teaching and therefore left. Before she left, the school's re-inspection report was fulsome in its praise of her work and the achievements of her team.