The letter from the DES is an important one, representing the most complete available formulation of the Department’s rationale for introducing Project Maths – the syllabi themselves provide a more guarded construction, but the powerful agents behind the reform come into focus in the letter. It is tempting to suggest that the DES here lets down its guard and commits itself precisely because it does not consider its interlocutors to be important. It may be examined in three sections. In the first section the letter sets out the rationale for the development of a new curriculum. As will be seen, this rationale has its genetic code in industry. The second section advances the ‘reasons’ for the simultaneous introduction of the programme at both junior and senior levels. This is a direct response to the IMTA’s objection. The letter suggests that industry is, once again, a significant driver of this strategy. The third section places the teacher firmly in the area of policy implementation, decisively excluding the IMTA and its members from policy production, while simultaneously inviting them to provide feedback to inform the review and evaluation of the pilot phase.
The letter is as remarkable for its summary of the economic rationale which led to Project Maths as it is for its complete disregard for the teachers opinion of what is best for the student (the ‘learner’) who is supposedly ‘the main focus of the educational experience’ (DES/NCCA 2008, 2). The language of the industry-education partnership, The Project Maths Implementation
Support Group, established to oversee the implementation of Project Maths is very much in
evidence here. The letter came from the Principal Officer at the Qualifications Curriculum and Assessment Policy Unit of the Department of Education and Science, Ms Kelly, the Principle Officer, was also a member of the industry-education partnership. There is a remarkable
concurrence between the language of the letter and the report of the industry-education partnership’s Implementation Support Group – to the extent that whole phrases and one whole paragraph are virtually identical. In the following quotation the words in square brackets represent the variation:
A high level of mathematical achievement is vital for Ireland’s future competitiveness in the knowledge economy. Mathematics [letter: Maths] is an essential skill for disciplines such as science, technology, engineering and finance, but it also promotes the ability to think rationally, analyse and solve problems, and process data effectively [letter: clearly and accurately]. Proficiency in mathematics is a strong asset in any employment. (DES 2010a, 1; 2010b, 30)
Given this concurrence we may safely assume that the letter to the IMTA explaining the department’s rationale for implementing Project Maths at both first and fifth year represents the views of the industry-education support group. Put another way, the Department of Education appears at best to concur with industry in the matter and at worst to be acting merely as a channel for the industry-education group.
In its own right, the letter could serve as a summary of one track of my thesis – that curriculum development in mathematics education in Ireland has been driven by economic forces. We see in the response what Apple called the ‘seemingly commonsense assumptions’ (Apple 2004, 12) that form the foundations of many curricular innovations. The decision is upheld, according to the DES, ‘[i]n view of the circumstances and the need for urgent reform in mathematics’ (DES 2010a, 3). (Note: For the purposes of this chapter, I am placing quotations from the letter in italics in order to distinguish them clearly.) When we interrogate these circumstances and the need for urgent reform we see confirmation of pressure from ‘legitimate’ voices of the discourse – with all of whom we are already well-acquainted in this thesis: from advocates of the Smart and Knowledge economies, from OECD/PISA, from higher education personnel, from the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs, the National Competitiveness Council, the Innovation Task Force, Engineers Ireland, and from employers and the employers’ organisation IBEC – all cited in the letter. We become aware of the attention paid by the DES to the demand for near instant results and how this resulted in the sidelining of what the IMTA proposed as the best interests of the student. The voices of students, teachers, schools and parents are conspicuous by their absence in the department’s understanding of why there is a ‘need for urgent reform’.
In passing it is worth noting that the word ‘urgent’ appears five times in the three page document – suggesting that the department implicitly accepts the ‘crisis’ discourse. If we track the word throughout the letter we can construct the following narrative: according to the EGFSN, IEI, and the Innovation Task Force, urgent action is needed to improve attainment and increase numbers; students are urgently required in the labour market; the urgency has been impressed on us by the EGFSN, the National Competitiveness Council, and The Innovation Task Force; the DES has accepted this urgency and that is why ‘the planned model of implementation…should proceed simultaneously’ (DES 2010a).
In explaining why the model of implementation was adopted, the author[s] state that ‘[f]or a
considerable time there have been concerns regarding the low participation of students in Higher Level maths in the Leaving Certificate’ (DES 2010a) and that reports from EGFSN, Engineers Ireland and
the Innovation Task Force ‘all stressed the importance of urgent action to improve attainment levels in
mathematics and to increase the proportion of students sitting Higher Level mathematics’ (DES 2010a). I
have argued in my thesis that these concerns were economic in nature rather than student centred, and that they emanate from the perceived prerequisites of the developing Knowledge Economy and the perceived needs of Engineers Ireland (among others) who played a prominent role in their construction. While interrogating the engineers’ ‘numbers problem’ (6.4 and again in 3.5) I analysed the role of Engineers Ireland in problematising the uptake of Higher Level maths at Leaving Certificate. Their action, together with the Forfás/ICSTI aspiration to develop ‘a national science and technology infrastructure’ (Forfás/ICSTI 1999a, 9) contributed to a refocusing of the purpose of maths education and a powerful shift in educational policy discourse. The engineers argued that Ireland’s future economic growth and competitiveness depended on an adequate supply of students skilled in the field of mathematics that could support the high-value knowledge-based industries of the proposed Knowledge Society/Economy and later the Smart Economy (Carbery 2010; DES 2010b, 8; EGFSN 2003, iv; McCall 2001; Purcell 2001). While Forfás/ICSTI argued that the development of ‘effective, modern and meaningful STM provision in schools’ was essential for the country to develop ‘a world-class capability to innovate’ (Forfás/ICSTI 1999a, 9). Such a transformation of education policies and practices is inherently political. It is affected by many interested parties; in particular, in this case the IEI and the ICSTI, whose early attempts to influence the definition
and social purposes of education (Bowe et al. 1992) triggered the creation and construction of the initial discourses. (see 2.2)
The economic discourse is clearly visible in the explanations given by the DES for its decision to implement their chosen model of reform. In language redolent of the documents we have examined in previous chapters emanating from industry and business sources, the letter to the IMTA, asserts that the production of human capital to meet the ‘ever rising skill levels in the move
to higher value jobs in the Smart Economy’ (DES 2010a) is a priority. Increasing the number of
students taking Higher Level maths at Leaving Certificate is seen as ‘vital for Ireland’s future
competitiveness in the knowledge economy’ (DES 2010a) but these students need to have a ‘high level of mathematical achievement’ (DES 2010a). The belief that ‘[m]aths is an essential skill for disciplines such as science, technology, engineering and finance’ (DES 2010a) and an acceptance, based on the
OECD/PISA assessment, that the present mathematics syllabus was failing to provide the necessary skills put pressure on policy makers to affect change and to implement Project Maths ‘at optimum speed as planned’ (DES 2010b, 16). The coincidence of this discourse with that of industry and business commentaries is remarkable.
One of the key issues in the 1999 ICSTI/Forfás Benchmarking report was that ‘the pace of and procedures for consultation should not prevent timely policy decisions and implementation’ (Forfás/ICSTI 1999a, 3). I believe that this stricture, a tacit delegitimation of consultation with teachers, is reflected in the determination shown by the DES not to alter its Project Maths implementation timetable and in the haste with which the programme was rolled out to all schools allowing little or no time for the pilot phase to be fully assessed. The DES claimed that ‘the model of development sought to balance the need for urgent reform with the need to ensure that changes
would be made in a manner commensurate with the system’s capacity to cope with change’ (DES 2010a).
It does not discuss its measurement of such capacity.
The second section of the letter presents the reasons for the simultaneous introduction of the programme at both junior and senior levels. It does not engage with the IMTA’s arguments regarding ‘the most educationally sound way to rollout Project Maths’ which would allow ‘[a]ll problems, adjustments and clarifications in relation to the Senior Cycle syllabus’ (IMTA 2010) to be dealt with before it is introduced in fifth year. What it does is to attempt to justify the decision on the basis of advice from its partners in industry whose expertise in education research is not in evidence, and also on grounds of consistency within the system. Introducing
Project Maths at fifth year would satisfy ‘the urgent need for reform which would impact quickly on the
outflow of students into higher education and ultimately the labour market’ (DES 2010a). It also
defended its decision on the basis of the welcome it had received from ‘the Expert Group on Future
Skills Needs, the National Competitiveness Council, and the Innovation Task Force’ (DES 2010a) all of
whom had advised that ‘urgent reform in Mathematics is essential to support a competitive economy in
the knowledge society’ (DES 2010a). The NCCA decision-making structures – representing both
industry and education – had also approved the decision. The disciplinary deployment of these groups as simple authorities with which to overrule the IMTA’s objections effectively consigns that organisation to a relatively subordinate position in the discourse.
It is necessary to understand that, at this time, the syllabus was still in a state of flux. What was clear was that Project Maths would remain a terminal-exam-orientated programme with the Junior Certificate examination at the end of junior cycle and the ‘high stakes’ Leaving Certificate as the terminal exam of senior cycle. However, the syllabus for Strands 1 and 2 had not yet been finalised for the national rollout. Neither had these strands been tested at Leaving Certificate. The trialling of strands 3 and 4 had just begun and Strand 5 was still in its initial construction phase. Strand 5 would not be introduced to the pilot schools until September 2010 at the same time as the national rollout of Strands 1 and 2. So it was still possible to make changes.
‘The key aim of the new approaches is to enhance student’s (sic) understanding’ (DES 2010a), the letter argues, and it is therefore necessary to provide this enhanced method of teaching at both junior and senior levels. The argument here seems to be one of fairness: one cannot in fairness deprive the seniors of this opportunity to learn in the new methodology. However, it disregards the very real problems faced by students and teachers in relation to the vast amount of background learning in Strand 1 (Probability) – three or four years of classes – that is taken as read for Project Maths at senior cycle. It also ignores the problems associated with combining a newly- encountered ‘mathematical attitude’ (we recall Freudenthal’s remark that ‘14 years is much too late…’ (Freudenthal 1991, 122)’) with the quite different approach that students have hitherto known during their secondary schooling. It is important to remember that those fifth year students who are given the ‘opportunity to engage in the new approaches’, must also continue to engage in the old approaches. Problem solving and discursive questions will be in for Paper 2 and out for Paper 1 etc. The methodologies, style and marking systems of the two methods are
mutually exclusive. As a teacher in the field at the time I can attest to the confusion and hostility that the interface between these two quite different systems provoked, as students with three or four years of standard curriculum learning and practice not only changed gears but changed vehicles for part (only part) of their mathematics learning. This confusion and hostility is more likely to disadvantage them rather than help them, and is unlikely to leave them with a positive attitude to mathematics. This is the central argument made by the IMTA and is not addressed in the letter.
Finally, this section of the letter argues for the creation of in-school teams, led by the more ‘expert’ teachers, the purpose of which is to change teaching practice throughout the school. This is a standard neoliberal industrial practice couched in the language of ‘leadership’ and ‘expertise’: ‘[T]he more highly qualified and “expert” teachers in the school, who are generally deployed
to teach the senior classes, should be in a position to lead change within the school’ (DES 2010a). This
argument tacitly acknowledges the problem of under-qualified maths teachers, especially at junior level, which should have been addressed when the problem was first raised in the late nineties. The department’s solution, is a kind of apprenticeship system where in-school teams of good practice take the place of a proper centrally-funded advanced education for teachers who have inadequate knowledge of the mathematics they are about to teach or the new methodology. In this context, it effectively outsources part of teacher training to schools and the ‘more expert’ teachers, though no argument is advanced to suggest that these teachers, whose careers will have taken place entirely within the ‘new maths’ ethos, will be more flexible, more open or more expert in the new methodologies. Furthermore, it seems to be balanced against the needs of the student as advanced in the previous argument. In this case, the development of school teams of good practice and the danger of ‘dilution of the project’ (DES 2010a) outweigh the objections that the simultaneous introduction will make life harder, not easier or better, for senior students.
The final section of the letter clearly limits the function of the teacher to the implementation of the policy. Having placed the IMTA in opposition to the EGFSN, IEI and the Task Force on Future Skills Needs, having dismissed the IMTA’s concerns without properly engaging with them, the letter then proceeds, without a trace of irony, to ask for the IMTA’s ‘view on the extent
to which (a) teachers and (b) students are adequately prepared for the new content and methodologies at senior cycle without having undertaken them at junior cycle’ (DES 2010a). Which brings the wheel
full circle. The IMTA might well have resubmitted their statement at this point and reminded the DES of their belief that:
because the very nature of Project Maths involves a different approach and mindset from the cohort of students and teachers, the new syllabus should be introduced in first year only in September 2010, and its introduction to Senior cycle should be delayed until the students involved have completed the programme at Junior Cycle. (IMTA 2010)
Notable in this letter is the fact that the DES counterbalances the approval of organisations such as Engineers Ireland, EGFSN and Forfás as part of their argument for introducing Project Maths simultaneously at both levels against that of the professional opinion of mathematics teachers. The DES letter accepts the judgement of OECD/PISA as an indicator of the preparedness of the Irish student population to serve the needs of the economy. It regards as true ‘that being “average”
at Mathematics in OECD PISA studies will not enable Ireland to keep pace with changing needs’ (DES
2010a, 1). Those needs include the ‘ever rising skill levels in the move to higher value jobs in the Smart
Economy’ (DES 2010a, 1). The OECD is thus an extra-national source of policy pressure. The
DES position can be summarised as the belief that in order to be confident that we have human capital with the skills necessary for the development of a Smart Economy we must be above average at PISA mathematics. In this case PISA mathematics will not only be the assessor of the mid-cycle second level mathematics skills deemed necessary to achieve future economic success, but, as discussed in Chapter 6, it both determines and measures those skills. This is Foucault’s examination as a disciplinary mechanism par excellence.
The introduction of PISA is risible in the context of a discussion about introducing Project Maths at fifth year since the students concerned will have already passed the age limit for the assessment. Why should concerns about being ‘average’ in the OECD/PISA assessment be of interest here unless the revised syllabus at that level is in some way connected to OECD/PISA? When we consider that PISA is an assessment of 15-year-olds at the end of compulsory schooling (OECD 1999a, 8) it becomes clear that introducing the new syllabus at senior cycle will not significantly improve the country’s placement at the next PISA assessment. However PISA was constructed as a change support instrument which would provide ‘a new basis for policy dialogue’ (OECD 1999b, 3) and by supporting ‘a shift in policy focus from the inputs used in education systems and institutions to learning outcomes’ (OECD 1999b, 3) the OECD
believes that PISA assists countries to ‘bring about improvements in schooling and better preparation for young people as they enter…adult life’ (OECD 1999b, 4). Hence, in Ireland, the PISA assessment can be viewed both as an evaluation of the outputs of compulsory schooling and as a mid-cycle indicator. It passes judgement on how well the education system is equipping its students with ‘the set of skills and competencies which are suited to the knowledge economies’ (OECD 2009a, 5) and for the ‘ever rising skill levels in the move to higher value jobs in the Smart Economy’ (DES 2010a, 1). Thus, by providing ‘insights into curriculum strengths and weaknesses’ (OECD 1999b, 3), the assessment will also provide ‘direction for schools’ instructional efforts’ (OECD 1999b, 3) which can subsequently be addressed at senior cycle. I contend that OECD/PISA exercises power over the construction and enactment of mathematics education policy at all levels of secondary education in Ireland to the extent of substantially determining the outcomes, the skills and the competencies.
7.4 Conclusion
The DES response involved a manipulation of relations of forces within the apparatus intended to define the IMTA’s position relative to that of others. That position is one of implementation and practice rather than policy-making. In the process the letter revealed significant elements of