__Introduction__
The story of the history of mathematics education in England
is also the story of a country moving from a largely laissez-faire position to
a dictatorial one. Since the 1858 Newcastle
report, mathematics education has changed from a system of great diversity to a
highly uniform system controlled from the centre. It is also the story of a battle: a long and
far reaching fight for dominance between a mathematics education that focusses
on the procedural and one that focusses on the conceptual.

It seems almost inconceivable today to imagine Cambridge and
Oxford universities taking no particular interest in mathematics, but until
very recently this was the case. Schools
had existed in England for many hundreds of years, but they were almost
exclusively provided by religious bodies and focused largely on readying their
students to understand and spread their religion. It was not until 1540, when Henry VIII
dissolved the monasteries and friaries, that the way was paved for different
types of schools. Henry and his son,
Edward VI, established new types of schools: Grammar Schools, moving education
away from the Church and into the hands of the State and wealthy merchants,
trade guilds and philanthropists, who all continued the movement, opening new
Grammar Schools for centuries to come.

Yet these schools paid almost no attention to mathematics,
instead focusing on a humanist education.
The study of mathematics in England remained one of pupilage, with a
network of mathematical practitioners providing tutoring to those who could
afford it.

The only two universities of the day, Cambridge and Oxford,
placed no pressure on schools to teach mathematics, even during the period of
superstar mathematics professors such as Newton. The application of mathematics played an
increasingly important role in farming, industry, society and government, but
still the Grammar Schools ignored the subject.

It was only in the seaport towns in the seventeenth century
that real change started to be seen.
Driven by their need to fill increasing demand for seaman who could
navigate, many of these schools began to introduce mathematics beyond the basic
arithmetic that had been taught to date.

But it was not until much later, at the beginning of the
nineteenth century, that mathematics would become more widespread. Many continental countries had been making
advances in their education system and became the envy of influential merchants,
professionals and the emerging industrialists.
Although considerable pressure was beginning to be put on politicians to
act, the government retained its stance of not wanting to interfere with
education, preferring to leave schooling to other, established organisations
and associations.

In 1811, The Church of England used this position to
establish the National Society, an umbrella for the schools in its care, much
to the umbrage of the nonconformists, who later set up their own organisation,
the British and Foreign School Society.

Pressure mounted for government to play a role, but the
memory of the French Revolution was still strong and many in government worried
that educating the working classes would lead to them becoming dissatisfied
with their lot. Despite these very vocal
concerns, in 1833, government did make a new grant to both the National Society
and the British and Foreign School Society to extend their work to the working
classes. There was much protest about
this, particularly with regards to value for money – should the grant really be
given?

These financial concerns led to the establishment of the
school inspectorate in 1839, which would ensure that the grant was being well
spent.

By this time, mathematics still had no significant place in
schools and remained, at best, simple arithmetic.

Those working-class children who did attend school, stayed
in schooling on average 1-2 years.

The 1830s also saw the establishment of the first teacher training colleges, moving the system away from one where the norm had been for pupils to progress to becoming teachers through experience alone. In 1842, the first teacher training college specifically for women was opened.

__The Newcastle Report__
The first moves towards a mathematics education becoming
commonplace in schools came in 1858 when the government established a public
commission into elementary education.
Chaired by the Duke of Newcastle, the report gave the first informed
overview of the state of mathematics teaching and learning. At this time, 1824 public schools operated
across England, of which only 69% taught any arithmetic, 0.8% Euclid, 0.8%
algebra and 0.6% mechanics.
Interestingly, the picture was arguably worse in the private schools,
with 33% teaching arithmetic, 1.2% Euclid, 1.4% algebra and 1.3%
mechanics. In the small proportion of
schools where arithmetic was taught, it was completely inadequate in almost all
cases.

Newcastle took a bold approach to his response. Rather than suggesting reform of the system,
he instead focused, just like the inspectorate, on value for money. Newcastle recommended that the grants given
to the public schools should take on a new format, with awards based on pupil
attainment, what followed truly was a payment by results system. This required the establishment of national
standards, which could be examined, and led to the introduction of the first
common curriculum for those schools wishing to receive grant funding.

In mathematics, the first curriculum included only
arithmetic, with six standards covering only the four operations and exercises
on money, weights and common measures.
In 1871, a new standard, Standard VI – Proportion and Vulgar and Decimal
Fractions, was introduced.

In many cases, this was a retrograde step as schools chased
the funding and removed other areas of mathematics to concentrate on training
students to pass the exams. The
mathematics education for many had become solely concerned with the passing of
tests, so much so that the respected school inspector Malcolm Arnold remarked
that the system of jumping through hoops must be ‘trying to the intellectual
life of the school’.

Even with such a basic and bland mathematics curriculum, by
1873, only 15% of pupils were passing the examinations. It was widely accepted that the payment by
results approach had helped to raise the attainment in the worst schools, but
that the cost had been a race-to-the-middle, with excellent schools becoming
less innovative and high attaining students being held back. Teachers in the best schools were angered by
the lack of autonomy they now felt and their inability to stretch bright
children to true excellence. After much
debate, the system was abolished in 1897.

__State Education__
Meanwhile, following Malcolm Arnold’s presentation of data
on illiteracy in the English army, calls for the State to begin providing its
own schools grew. Compared to the armies
of France, with 27% illiteracy and Prussia, with just 2% illiteracy, the
English army fell way behind with 57% of all personnel being functionally
illiterate. The outcry led to the 1870 Education Act, which created school
boards across the country tasked with building schools where denominational
schools did not already exist.
Crucially, these new schools were also required to provide education up
to the age of 13 and ten years after the act was passed, attendance became
compulsory for all children. At this
time, most denominational schools still charged for attendance, but the move
towards universal free education for all continued apace until, in 1918, all
elementary education was free of charge.

Secondary education, for students wishing to continue
studying after the elementary phase had settled into a system of three types by
1800. The nine great public schools
provided education to the upper class; the endowed grammar schools that emerged
after Henry VIII were widespread and accessed by the middle classes and some of
the working class; and a wider range of private schools for both boys and girls
existed across the country for children who had not been able to get into
grammar school.

The nine great public schools and the endowed grammar
schools largely ignored mathematics, instead pursuing their tradition of a
humanist curriculum. However, Winchester
and Eton took the lead and appointed their first mathematics masters in 1834. But it was not until 1840 that these schools
were finally given freedom to provide any curriculum that they wished. It was by including a large element of Euclid
on the curriculum that real change could come about. Euclid was viewed as classical and therefore
justifiable in a humanist curriculum.

As pressure continued to mount to provide a more
mathematically literate workforce for the armed forces, upper-middle class
parents became frustrated by the provision of the endowed grammar schools and,
as a result, founded their own new schools.
These new proprietary schools provided a more modern education and the
schools began to compete with the nine great public schools, leading to a
commission in 1861, which led to wide ranging changes in the mathematics
curriculum in these schools.

Given the importance and standing of the nine public
schools, they very quickly established a reputation for excellence in the provision
of a more modern mathematics education, with their masters authoring many
textbooks and guidance on how to teach.
The impact on the other schools was enormous, with the grammar schools,
proprietary schools and other private schools moving to emulate what they were
achieving.

At this stage, secondary schools were largely self-organised
and run. Government played little role
in determining what should be happening in these schools or how they should be
arranged. But in 1864, the Taunton
Commission, led to the reorganisation of the system along three clearly defined
lines. Schools would be established for
one of each of the three social classes.

The curriculum was also beginning to be much more clearly
defined across the country. In 1856,
Cambridge and Oxford published new examinations for entry to their mathematics
courses, which potential students would now have to pass, rather than simply
entering a college based on a family recommendation. These papers, copied by the newer
universities too, laid the foundations for a national view of what should be
included on the mathematics curriculum in schools. Euclid, logarithms, algebra to simple
equations, sequences, trigonometry, mensuration, and some mechanics, statics
and dynamics now appeared in most schools.

In 1871, a group of progressive educators established the
Association for the Improvement of Geometrical Teaching (AIGT), the world’s
first subject association, as a body to challenge the emphasis on Euclid, which
it felt was no longer the most relevant approach to teaching geometry. The association published its own schemes for
schools to follow, but had very little success.
The group continued to campaign and broadened its interests to other
areas of mathematics and in 1894, it published its first Mathematics
Gazette. Three years later, the AIGT changed
its name to The Mathematical Association (MA).

Another alternative available to schools was a curriculum
designed by the Department of Science and Art (DSA), which was established
following the 1851 Great Exhibition. The
DSA offered grants to schools to follow a more scientific and technical
curriculum. Many endowed schools,
struggling financially, adopted the scheme.
By 1900, its impact was the inclusion on many schools’ mathematics
curriculum of topics such as Cartesian and polar coordinates, scalars and
vectors and differentiation.

In 1899, an auditor noticed that there had never actually been
an Act of Parliament to allow for the funding of secondary schools and put a
stop to the grants being paid, causing considerable chaos for some time and a
long running legal battle, which the government lost and forced the passing of
the 1902 Education Act. This Act
abolished the many, varied school boards and replaced them with a national
structure of Local Education Authorities (LEAs), which could establish new
secondary and technical schools, and brought about a long period of stability
in education.

The level of education and training of teachers increased,
as did their pay, and the view was that teachers were to be trusted to provide
a high-quality education and given carte blanche to go about it how they saw
fit. The guidance for teachers even
included the line:

*“The only uniformity of practice in public elementary schools is that each teacher shall think for himself, and work out for himself such methods of teaching as may use his powers to advantage and be best suited to the particular needs and conditions of the school”*
It would be almost a century until this expected diversity
in practice would change.

The freedoms afforded to teachers were, however, largely
quashed by the entrenched system of payment by results on the national
standards, with teachers teaching to the test.

The 1902 Act created many free places at the grammar schools
for pupils who could pass the scholarship examination at aged 11, so again
teaching became focused on training students to pass these tests, with a heavy
focus on arithmetic.

The establishment of state secondary education immediately
raised the question of what form it should take. The answer was to base the new
grammar school curriculum ﬁrmly on that of the old public and proprietary
schools. The mathematics curriculum was still effectively determined by
university entrance requirements and by the syllabuses of the various
university examining boards. This meant that the differential calculus came to
be taught in most grammar schools and high standards were expected of students.

The 1926 Hadow Report suggested that some form of
post-primary education should be provided for all children and that three types
of secondary schools were needed: grammar, ‘modern’ and technical (Trade)
schools. Some local authorities attempted to put this plan into practice, but
little was done to make such a scheme universal for the resources needed to put
the proposals into practice were non-existent.

The 1938 Spens Report 1938 suggested ‘The content of school
mathematics should be reduced’, its teaching suffered ‘from the tendency to
stress secondary rather than primary aims’, it concentrated too much on ‘tricky
problem solving’ rather than giving a ‘broad view’, the type and ‘rigour’ of
the logic it presented had ‘not been properly adjusted to the natural growth of
young minds’

The Norwood Committee of 1943 supported Hadow’s view of a
tripartite system, but already signs were emerging that the system was not
universally supported. One critic, S. J. Curtis, wrote, according to Norwood
the Almighty had benevolently created three types of children in just those
proportions which would gratify educational administrators and, moreover, which
class a child belonged to was clearly to be observed by the age of 11.

The 1944 Act suggested the school leaving age should be
raised to 15 and when possible to 16, but this took until 1972.

The Act also ensured that entry to state grammar schools was
now to be solely on merit. Previously parents could purchase a state grammar
school education for their children at a relatively small cost, provided the
school would accept them. Now, middle-class parents of children who failed the
‘11+’ and who could not afford to send their children to a non-state school
were often dissatisﬁed by the education provided by, and the status of, the new
secondary modern schools. They were to play a part in replacing the tripartite
system, in the 1970s, by local comprehensive schools: as was, more importantly,
the growing belief that valid decisions concerning a child’s future could not
be taken at the age of 11.

The percentages of children who attended a grammar school
varied from 10% to 30% depending on their local authority, but in 1961, according
to ofﬁcial ﬁgures, only 22.1% of pupils in England and Wales were in maintained
(state) grammar schools. The technical schools, which were intended to supply
pupils with a specialist form of practical education, had only 3.1% of pupils,
and 10.4% were in independent or ‘direct grant’ schools (the latter occupying a
middle position between state and independent schools: a position that ceased
to exist when, later, such schools had to choose between becoming comprehensive
or independent – the vast majority choosing to go private). This left the
majority of pupils to attend the secondary modern schools created following the
1944 Education Act.

In 1938, increasing concern about the practice of teaching
to the test, rather than teaching for understanding, led the MA to establish a
new committee, which would take a broad look at mathematics teaching. The
Second World War disrupted the work and the committee did not restart until
1946. By then, the psychological impact
of the war, particularly on the upper classes, had led to the Education Act of
1944. For the first time, a clear line
between elementary and post elementary education was drawn. A new system of primary (5-11) and secondary
(post-11) education was established.

The MA member, Caleb Gattegno greatly influenced the
association in dealing with mathematics and not just arithmetic. He wrote:

*Practice without the power of mathematical thinking leads nowhere; the power of mathematical thinking without practice is like knowing what to do but not having the skill of tools to do it; but the power of mathematical thinking supported by practice and rote learning will give the best opportunity for all children to enjoy and pursue mathematics as far as their individual abilities allow.*
The 1950s saw a significant movement in mathematics education,
which changed practices in primary schools and had great effect on the content
of teacher training courses. The MA
claimed this was a result of the committee report, but in reality, more impact
came from the many courses for teachers based on it. These changes saw the introduction of new
materials into schools, including Cuisenaire rods, Dienes’ Multibase
Arithmetical Blocks (and later his logic blocks), amongst others.

Gattegno would go on to found the Association for Teaching
Aids in Mathematics (ATAM 1952). Its journal Mathematics Teaching ﬁrst appeared
in 1955 and the name was changed to the Association of the Teachers Mathematics
(ATM) in 1962

Far more important than the work of the subject associations
was the Nufﬁeld Primary Mathematics Project, established in 1964, and the
publication in 1965 by the newly established Schools Council for the Curriculum
and Examinations of Mathematics in Primary Schools, written by the renowned
schools inspector, Edith Biggs. So tireless
was Biggs that it is estimated she personally trained more than 15% of all
maths teachers in England.

Course design was still left to teachers, but in practice,
teachers followed the courses presented by textbook authors who supplied series
‘based on’ the advice and guidance offered. Later a scheme based on individual
learning was produced for pupils aged 7–13 by the School Mathematics Project,
but these left the teacher with too little to contribute to lesson planning as
well as providing students with too unvaried a diet.

Great improvements in the professional development of
teachers came with the establishment by the Nufﬁeld Project of Teachers’
Centres, which led to the LEA local centres. Unfortunately, these, along with
many mathematics adviser posts, were to disappear in the late 1980s as LEA
responsibilities and funds were cut.

The effects of these initiatives on the actual curriculum
were varied. Sets and multibase
arithmetic came into many schools, but then gradually disappeared. Data gathering and display came in and stayed.
More emphasis came to be placed on
geometry and on number patterns in the hope that the latter would facilitate
the later learning of algebra. This
naturally meant that less time was spent on the learning of arithmetic with the
expected results and public reaction. Often,
and particularly after the National Curriculum was established following the
1988 Education Act, primary school children in England tended to be introduced
to concepts far earlier than were children in other countries.

Throughout the 1960s dissatisfaction grew both with the
curriculum that had not changed signiﬁcantly for many years and the way that
mathematics was being taught. An MA
report, published in 1959, was criticised by Cyril Hope, a leading ﬁgure in the
ATM, for the backward-looking nature of the mathematical content, leading to
the beginnings of frosty relationships between MA and ATM, which last to this
day.

In 1962, the School Mathematics Project (SMP) (ages 11–18),
Mathematics in Education and Industry (MEI) (ages 16–18) and the Midland
Mathematics Experiment (MME) (ages 11–16) emerged.

MME differed from SMP and MEI in that, from its initiation,
it directed its work to secondary modern schools in addition to grammar schools.
It failed to make a lasting impact, not on mathematical grounds but because it
lacked the money that SMP and MEI were able to attract and because the schools
attached to it did not have the prestige and status of those connected with
those two projects.

These reforms led to much new material such as co-ordinate
geometry, probability and statistics entering the 11–16 curriculum.

These curricular innovations were made possible because of
the freedom given to schools, or groups of schools, to create their own
syllabus, provided that an examination board would agree to set examinations on
it. In the 1970s, it was estimated that
about a third of secondary schools were still following a traditional-style
syllabus, a third modern ones, and the remaining third hybrids.

Government did not like the muddled picture of mathematics
curricula across the country and responded by creating bodies to over-see
examinations. This led to the drawing up
of lists of ‘core’ items that had to be present in all types of curricula. Such restrictions made innovation increasingly
difﬁcult. Moreover, differences began to
grow in what was taught, and how, to more able pupils in the better
independent, fee-paying schools compared to those in state comprehensive ones.

Tirades about the ‘new’ mathematics were common, but it was
the perceived lack of numeracy of young employee, highlighted in a speech by
Prime Minister James Callaghan at Ruskin College in 1976, which was used to justify
a significant change in government policy towards exerting tighter control over
the curriculum.

However, the Labour government did not want to upset LEA
allies and started by asking them to produce local guidelines.

In 1978, Callaghan commissioned Wilfred Cockcroft and a
small team of respected experts, including Hilary Shuard and Elizabeth
Williams, to carry out an enquiry. Over
the years of the enquiry, this team of progressive educators found an adult
population fearful of maths and incapable of applying mathematics.

The Cockcroft Report was published in 1982. This set out many ideas for improving the
teaching of mathematics at all levels, but, like so many other reports of its
type did little to solve any problems. More signiﬁcant were the projects for
low attainers that were established in its wake: the Low Attainers Mathematics
Project (LAMP), Raising Achievement in Mathematics Project (RAMP) and the SMP
Graduated Achievement Project. Most LEAs
appointed ‘Cockcroft Missionaries’ to disseminate the recommendations of the
report and train teachers in specific pedagogical approaches.

__The End of Diversity__
In 1985, the government published a new white paper, ‘Better
Schools’, which called for wide ranging reforms, including the introduction of
a nationally set curriculum and new national examinations, GCSEs. Ken Baker became Secretary of State for
Education and Science in May 1986 and was tasked with moving the white paper recommendations
through parliament to Royal Ascent into an Act.
The intention was clearly that all schools should have the same goals
and that the freedoms and diversity that had existed for almost a century
should cease. After progressing through
both Houses, the Education Act was passed in 1988, which established a National
Curriculum in Mathematics for students aged 5–16 to be followed in all
state-funded schools (but not necessarily in independent ones).

The hastily assembled curriculum was designed to ﬁt into a
controversial and untried scheme for testing students at various attainment
levels at ages 7, 11, 14 and 16. The
years since then have seen continuous attempts to solve the problems created by
the poorly designed curriculum, the testing proposals (used in incompatible
ways reminiscent of ‘payment by results’, i.e. to assess pupils’ progress and
to rank schools for accountability) and more general social changes.

Year groups were now labeled 1 – 11 and broken in to Key
Stages. The National Curriculum set out
in detail what mathematics would be taught to tall pupils. This content has remained fairly constant
since, though the order has changed in 1991, 1995, 2000 and 2010 national
curriculum

A Task Group on Assessment and Testing (TGAT) was
established by Ken Baker to plot out a journey through levels of
mathematics. Initially, a child centred,
progressive journey through 20 levels of mathematical ideas was proposed. These levels were not linked to age groups or
years, rather they attempted to describe the journey through mathematics as a
progressive building of understanding and knowledge.

As the work progressed, Baker left the Department and was
replaced by a new Secretary of State, Kenneth Clarke (note: John MacGregor
served briefly and without consequence, between the two Kens). Clarke did not like the child centred proposals
and, after some wrangling, the TGAT was forced to produce a rationalised set of
10 National Curriculum levels, linked to the new Key Stages. Level 2 described the mathematical content
that should be secure by the average pupil at age 7, L3 by age 9, L4 by age 11,
L5 by age 13 and L6 by age 16.

The DES had taken a further step towards central control by
now requiring tests in each core

subject at each key stage with as far as possible a full
coverage of the curriculum. This was much
closer to the original concept of Margaret Thatcher, which was of a national
curriculum as a list of basic skills in literacy and numeracy and corresponding
tests.

A national teacher boycott of all national assessment in
1993–94 had ensured that there was no longer any requirement for continuous assessment,
and the tasks had become externally marked class tests. Although this brought teachers gains in terms
of workload, the fury that the boycott caused the Conservative Government would
lead to even greater central control and a deep mistrust of teachers.

National assessment was finally introduced at Key Stage 2 in 1995.

National assessment was finally introduced at Key Stage 2 in 1995.

League Tables of performance were introduced and published to
show results in the externally marked tests.
It is likely, had the boycott not happened, teacher assessment would
have continued and league tables would have never come about.

Teachers were still required to submit their judgement of
pupil attainment, but government distrust led to these being largely
ignored. The reality, in many primary
schools, became one of teachers not bothering to make the judgements and
instead simply waiting for the external results to be published and copying
them.

Year 2 and Year 6 quickly became about passing the tests,
with the curriculum being driven by the assessments rather than a considered
view of learning mathematics.

In 1995, a leaked set of TIMMS results showed primary number
skills standards were worsening. The
blame was directed at teaching methods.
As a response, in 1996, mental arithmetic tests and non-calculator
papers were added to all the end of key stage national tests.

Problems about pupil autonomy and progressive methods more
generally were featured in research studies in Leicester, Inner London
and Leeds; a report commissioned by the Secretary of State (known as the Three
Wise Men report) (Alexander et al. 1992), brought these together, proposing
more whole-class teaching in primary schools.

Gillian Shephard, the new Secretary of State, announced the
launch of parallel National Numeracy and Literacy Projects involving schools in
poorly performing LEAs.

The aim was to raise standards in basic skills by a
prescribed programme for each year, reducing differentiation and including a
high proportion of whole-class teaching.
The project launched in autumn 1996, with Anita Straker leading the
mathematics strand, working through a large team of ‘numeracy’ consultants
(many of whom had been Cockcroft Missionaries in the 80s).

Numeracy was redefined; where previously it had referred to
the ability to apply number ideas and skills in employment and everyday life,
it now was taken to mean mainly abstract number skills, both written and
mental, together with solving routine artificial word problems. The National Numeracy
Project relegated those parts of mathematics which dealt with anything other
than pure number work, that is, measurement, space and shape, and data
handling, introduced into most schools in the 1960s, to the margins, by
producing, as well as new teaching methods for number, a framework specifying
in detail a number curriculum which was to occupy most of the teaching time
available.

Labour swept to power in 1997. They had been following the NNP closely and
continued to expand the project across the country, becoming the National
Numeracy Strategy in 1999. The Labour
government went faster and further in centralising control over all aspects of
mathematics education. They set targets
for the number of pupils who would reach the ‘age expectations’ in the national
tests, in particular within five years 75 per cent should reach Level 4 of the
national curriculum at the end of Key Stage 2 (age 11).

What had started as a set of levels devised in order to
report each child’s attainment, with Level 4 defined as what could reasonably
be attained by the broad average group of children at age 11, had now become
the definition of a requirement that almost all children should reach.

Differentiated progress and differentiated teaching would no
longer be tolerated as they were at odds with social justice and human rights;
schools were now under pressure to meet externally set norms in national tests,
whatever the nature of their intakes. If schools could not meet these norms,
then they were not likely to be judged by Ofsted inspectors as delivering a
satisfactory education, and would be threatened first with shame, having their
names publicly listed as a ‘failing school’, and finally, if insufficient
improvement was made, with closure.

The National Strategies contract was first delivered by
CfBT, but passed to Capita in the early 2000s.
Attainment in primary maths appeared to rise and, in particular, the
mathematics education being delivered in primary schools became highly standardised,
with all pupils across England being taught precisely the same maths in much
the same way. This level of prescription
increased enormously under the Capita contract, with many teachers effectively
following a scripted lesson.

In 2004, Professor Adrian Smith published a report
suggesting that the CPD of maths teachers needed to improve. This report led the government to issue a
tender for a new national centre, the NCETM.
The contract was won by Tribal Group.
My job was to operationalise the centre and ensure that all teachers in
England had knowledge of and access to high quality CPD.

In 2010, the hugely costly Strategies contracts were
abolished, with over 400 numeracy consultants made redundant. The landscape of mathematics teacher CPD
became fragmented and confused. The
NCETM contract continued, but on a much reduced basis. This coincided with a reduced role for local
authorities (which had been receiving significant funding from the National
Strategies), leaving mathematics teachers without regional or national
coordination. The rise of Multi-Academy
Trusts accelerated, with some of the larger trusts able to recruit former
numeracy consultants to provide strategic leadership of mathematics, but the vast
majority choosing instead to appoint amateurs to the roles. This confusion allowed the government to,
once again, increase the level of centralisation, with guidance on mathematics
teaching being disseminated through their new Maths Hubs contract.

In a very short space of time, the National Numeracy
Strategy content, which cost hundreds of millions of pounds to develop, was
largely pushed out of schools to be replaced by inferior – yet DfE recommended –
schemes and approaches.

From a progressive system which valued autonomy in teachers
and pupils, which had remained largely unchallenged for 100 years, we have
moved to a public education emphasis with very tight control from a small group
of people in central government.

I am very thankful to all your team for sharing such inspirational information. Dissertation Writing Services

ReplyDeletegreat

ReplyDelete