The Steps Taken under the Primary National Strategy in Education - Research Paper Example

Role of Coordinators & Mathematics Specialists Introduction Education is considered to be the backbone of any modern society. Primary education in particular effectively lays down the platform upon which the pliant mind of students is moulded and prepared for advanced studies. Some of the basic challenges teachers and educators face while imparting education to pupils at primary level include accurate brain mapping of children aged between 4-6 years, suitable methodologies for interaction, preparation of customised teaching modules and so on. In recent years though, primary education sectors worldwide have undergone a flurry of changes in terms of pedagogical system developments and their effectual implementations. Assessment metrics for evaluating learning outcomes for tender aged pupils have turned out to be far more reliable than ever in the history of education. It may be mentioned that system of education at all grades, with the advent of new technologies in the past few decades, has been regulated by an exhaustive set of parameters catering to all aspects of a student’s development – capacitive, cognitive, cerebral and collaborative. Considering all these constraints and possibilities of education, the Primary National Strategy adopted by the UK Secretary of State for Education in 2003 rendered a paradigmatic model for overall improvement of learning within the domain of primary education. The primary framework under the Strategy is divided into three basic formats, namely, Literacy Framework, Mathematics Framework and CPD (Crown 1997-2010). Thesis Topic This paper is going to focus exclusively on the role and responsibilities of mathematics coordinators for developing mathematics in elementary schools. The Mathematics Framework under the Primary National Strategy will be the main frame of reference. The essay will also critique the role of mathematics subject teachers in view of comprehensive development of the existing curricula and learning modules. Hertfordshire Case Study: Subject Coordinators Development, planning and teaching of mathematics are the primary areas of concern in the context of UK education. Even the government has taken initiatives to seek professional assistance from mathematics coordinators for nullifying the impact of market-oriented educational model which is generally believed to be lacking in expertise. Hence, the need to use specific evaluative measures for specific disciplines is difficult to undermine particularly in the context of effective classroom management (Craft 1996: 193). The position of mathematics coordinators in the context of primary education is a notch higher than that of mathematics teachers. They are generally entrusted with leadership roles for managing a number of important tasks arraying from organising staff courses to time management in small institutes. Moreover, they also shoulder the responsibility of allocating resources to their subordinates. It was as early as in the 1970s and 1980s when the idea of a coordinator’s role in elementary curriculum began to take shape, which eventually manifested itself through a recognisable pattern (Bell and Ritchie 1999: 8; Day et al. 1998: 1). Hertfordshire is a medium-sized county located in the eastern part of England. There are 177 small schools in the county, with 101 to 200 pupils enrolled in each school. According to the directive set by the Primary National Strategy, it is mandatory for all staffs in these schools to be subject leaders (Hertfordshire County Council 1998-2010). They orchestrate not just teaching and learning assignments, but also take strategic decisions with regard to deployment of staffs and coordinating with them (Bell and Ritchie 1999). The basic duty of a subject coordinator is to raise the criteria of education. It can be accomplished by conducting staff courses in schools having inadequate number of staffs to properly look into all subjects. What happens in such a situation is that one teacher has to lead more than one subject. It results in poor standard of education as teachers are not well conversant with subjects beyond their areas of specialisation. The role of subject coordinators becomes all-important in this regard especially as they can instill confidence in their colleagues. Subject leaders in Hertfordshire elementary schools also carry out tasks such as subject auditing, lesson planning, student interviews, data handling and strategic planning. Moreover, they conduct staff meetings as part of routine updates on the ongoing developmental proceedings. Even administrative responsibilities such as monitoring walkabouts and staff activities are shouldered by subject coordinators (Hertfordshire County Council 1998-2010). Subject leaders are essentially the ones who lay the foundation for overall improvement in teaching and learning environment in primary schools (Bell and Ritchie 1999: 7). Primary National Strategy: Mathematics Framework Before analysing empirical data and relevant literature findings, it is imperative to look into the Mathematics Framework in detail. The Mathematics Framework in the proposed Strategy provides a set of integrated tools for meeting the learning objectives as laid down by professional educators and theorists. A total number of six Blocks starting from year 1 to year 6 have been incorporated in the teaching methodologies facilitating systematic progression of knowledge accumulation. It may be mentioned that each Block is integral to the final learning outcome in that students successfully completing the primary level will be prepared to take up the onus of mid-school and secondary education. Moreover, these Blocks are made in accordance with the pupils’ cognitive standards so that the process of acquiring education does not become a burden for young learners. It has been noticed time and again that once children step beyond their preschool years, they feel out of place with classroom learning. Sudden change in familiar environment is one of the main reasons for such discontinuity. Initially it becomes very difficult for a young learner to understand the working principles of collaborative learning. The problem manifolds when non-specific subject instructors are assigned to teach a class of pupil who have very little idea about the basics of a given discipline. Given below is a tabular representation of the six Blocks and their sub-categories: Blocks Lesson Plans Year 1 Block A Counting, partitioning and calculating Block B Securing number facts, understanding shape Block C Handling data and measures Block D Calculating, measuring and understanding shape Block E Securing number facts, relationships and calculating Year 2 Block A Counting, partitioning and calculating Block B Securing number facts, understanding shape Block C Handling data and measures Block D Calculating, measuring and understanding shape Block E Securing number facts, relationships and calculating Year 3 Block A Counting, partitioning and calculating Block B Securing number facts, understanding shape Block C Handling data and measures Block D Calculating, measuring and understanding shape Block E Securing number facts, relationships and calculating Year 4 Block A Counting, partitioning and calculating Block B Securing number facts, understanding shape Block C Handling data and measures Block D Calculating, measuring and understanding shape Block E Securing number facts, relationships and calculating Year 5 Block A Counting, partitioning and calculating Block B Securing number facts, understanding shape Block C Handling data and measures Block D Calculating, measuring and understanding shape Block E Securing number facts, relationships and calculating Year 6 Block A Counting, partitioning and calculating Block B Securing number facts, understanding shape Block C Handling data and measures Block D Calculating, measuring and understanding shape Block E Securing number facts, relationships and calculating Table 1. Mathematics Framework (Crown 1997-2010) What is clear from the above table is that any given sub-category presents a data range similar to its preceding and succeeding ones. It implies that the purpose of the Framework is to assess the developmental aspects of pupils with the help of a set of standard metrics. In other words, growth of mathematical acumen is measured using a uniform system covering preset areas of focus. The pertinent point to observe in this context is how the role of subject coordinators comes into contention. Role of Local Authorities: The Cambridgeshire Case Study The approach undertaken in the Primary National Strategy is analogous more to a qualitative evaluation of primary education than to a bulk scale rating of the same. Once again the importance of subject leadership comes to the fore as local education authorities are often needed to be guided in their shifting roles. Maintaining a steady curriculum across both temporal and regional spaces at par with national regulations is also a major challenge subject coordinators encounter (Bell and Ritchie 1999: 7). Now when it comes to developing specific curricula, it may be mentioned that instead of promoting generic grading systems based on a student’s overall performance in a group of scientific disciplines, special emphasis is given on developing substantive grip in that particular discipline. In case of mathematics, unit studies are also encouraged in such a system to generate interest in the students. It is strengthened by an engaging framework of education where subject teachers have a pervasive role to play. Empirical evidences obtained from the Cambridgeshire County Council web portal show that the objectives of the Primary National Strategy have been met successfully in the 2008 session through ISP (Improving Schools Programme). The Local Authority (LA) will carry on using ISP as one of the basic policies for addressing the chief areas of concern in the County. These include contemporary issues like inclusion, fostering leadership attributes in students, expanding educational networks using web-based and other techniques, behavioural developments, and attendance. Moreover, the ISP also includes certain operative tools that are integral to its own nourishment. Proper and timely execution of these elements can raise the standard of primary education across the country and can hold up continuity of development in the long run. Special education for the needy has been given additional emphasis in the programme. Likewise, attendance and behavioural aspects are also addressed as part of the Council’s policy to promote a healthy and coordinated educational environment that would go a long way in bridging the communicational gap between various offshoots of the system. Social and emotional aspects of learning are also dealt with in the module for furthering the process of social and emotional skill development for all parties concerned. In addition to the intangible aspects of pedagogy, the Local Authority has also taken up programmes implicit to learning and teaching. The basic goal is to introduce definitive curricula that would optimise the inherent potential of every student in the community (Cambridgeshire County Council 2010). Responsibilities of Maths Subject Teachers Theoretically speaking, mathematics subject teachers are an organic extension of coordinators and subject leaders only with the difference that the former group has a limited area of operation whereas the latter one has to steer the entire system. In view of the findings from the Cambridgeshire case study, it is worth reinforcing the fact that subject teachers of mathematics at primary levels have the all important role to perform for creating an acquired disposition of mathematics in small children. According to Murphy (2005): Trainee teachers in England require at least a Grade C in GCSE mathematics before they are accepted on an initial teacher training course but this may not guarantee that the trainee teachers have sufficient subject knowledge for the teaching of primary mathematics (113). Underscoring Murphy’s statement, Simmons (1993) holds that the primacy of having a commanding grasp over the subject matter cannot be downplayed under any circumstances whatsoever. If one considers the working methodologies behind the fulfillment of targeted objectives of the Cambridgeshire Council, it would be clear that the onus of clarifying fundamental mathematical concepts to young children rests solely on teachers who have a sound ‘substantive knowledge’, as termed by Baturo and Nason (1996). But how can substantive knowledge be useful for primary education? Ma (1999) suggests that substantive knowledge entails ‘correctness, meaning, and connectedness’ (xxiv). If this proposition is related to the present purview of study in the context of primary education, it would only be logical to infer that substantive knowledge is not a process builder for effective classroom management. It is rather aligned with a conceptual understanding of the subject matter across all vertices. Bishop (2003) makes a clear distinction between a knowledgeable teacher and an effective teacher by showing that content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge can be classified into two separate categories (844). But this should not deter us from acknowledging the primacy of having a proper, well-equipped subject teacher. Even if standard teaching aptitude is based on a conceptual framework, it still lends procedural direction to some extent, thus exercising a positive impact on the understanding of learners. The aforementioned literature review may be evidenced and exemplified by Gowar’s (1979) illustration of how a teacher needs to guide his/her pupils by conceptual clarity just as much as by systematic or procedural lucidness. The author cites the example of area in a rectangle and shows how closely mathematical discourse is related to developing a clear understanding of the same. What is understood by mathematical discourse is explicated by Rowland et al. (2000) in the context of numeracy teaching in the UK. A selected team of experts carried out research on trainee teachers to gauge their subject knowledge in mathematics. The findings were alarming to say the least. Trainee teachers showed an inclination to make generic conclusions about a number of key theoretical areas of the subject, including Pythagoras’ theorem, algebra, area measurement, scale factors, mathematical reasoning and percentage. The result reflected lack of procedural as well as conceptual weaknesses on teachers’ part. Data Analysis Qualitative data obtained from the case study of Cambridgeshire County Council will now be analysed in the light of lesson plans enlisted in the Mathematics Framework (refer to Table 1). Firstly, a teacher’s approach will be rated on the basis of lesson plans drafted in each of the five blocks. Secondly, the first outcome will be merged with quantitative analysis of his/her command over both conceptual and pedagogical knowledge. The performance criteria will be graded on a scale of 1 to 3. 1. The teacher describes the task using relevant examples from real life scenarios; elicits questions and responses from pupils; gives due explanations 2. The teacher ponders over the conceptual understanding of the task 3. The teacher gives ready-to-hand directions without provoking logical reasoning in students Conclusion In essence, the steps taken under the Primary National Strategy validate the need to appoint subject teachers to fill in specialised positions at primary schools. While the subject leaders and coordinators provide additional underpinnings in the contexts of broader curriculum development and fulfillment of statutory requirements, subject teachers ultimately need to take charge of the basic duties related to pedagogy. The state-controlled education system has realised the importance of imparting effective and lasting education to young pupils and it is mandatory to this effect that a balanced methodology consisting of both content-oriented and construal approaches is established sooner or later. As of now, student-teacher relationship at primary schools in the UK follows a standard which is at par with ingenious thinking and correlational to a strong content-based framework. List of References Baturo, A., and Nason, R. (1996) ‘Student teachers’ subject matter of knowledge within the domain of area measurement.’ Educational Studies in Mathematics 31, 235-268 Bell, D., and Ritchie, R. (1999) Towards Effective Subject Leadership in the Primary School. Florence, Kentucky: Taylor & Francis Bishop, A. J. (2003) Second international handbook of mathematics education, Volume 1. London: Springer Cambridgeshire County Council (2010) Key Elements within the Primary National Strategy [online] available from [8 January 2010] Craft, A. (1996) Primary education: assessing and planning learning. London: Routledge Crown (1997-2010) Sections in Primary Framework [online] available from [8 January 2010] Day, C., Hall, C., and Whitaker, P. (1998) Developing leadership in primary schools. London: SAGE Gowar, N. (1979) An Invitation to Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press Hertfordshire County Council (1998-2010) Subject Leadership in the small Primary School, making the role manageable [online] available from [11 January 2010] Ma, L. (1999) Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. London: Routledge Murphy, C. (2005) ‘The role of subject knowledge in primary trainee teachers’ approaches to teaching in the topic of area’, in Hewitt D., and Noyes A. (ed) Proceedings of the sixth British Congress of Mathematics Education. Held at the University of Warwick. 113-119 Rowland, T., Martyn, S., Barber, P., and Heal, C. (2000) ‘Primary teacher trainees’ mathematics subject knowledge and classroom performance’, in Rowland T., and Morgan C. (eds) Research in Mathematics Education, Volume 2, Papers of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics. London: BSRLM Simmons, M. (1993) The Effective Teaching of Mathematics. New York: Longman Read More