A research review published by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) warns that “many schools deploy highly qualified teachers to high-stakes classes, sometimes leaving younger pupils and low attainers without specialist teachers”.
The Secondary Maths Practice Review (Boylan et al, 2024) has been undertaken by Sheffield Hallam Institute of Education and is based on reviews of 54 academic studies in this area, surveys of 335 secondary maths leads, and nine focus group workshops.
It says that the teaching recruitment and retention crisis has hit maths hard and has resulted in a “less experienced workforce that has been teaching maths for fewer years”.
It states: “Almost half of all 2016 maths teaching (43%) was by those with six or fewer years of experience. This is of concern given that teacher subject knowledge, including pedagogic content knowledge, is a key factor in high-quality teaching and raising attainment of students.”
The recruitment crisis has seen teacher training targets missed at secondary level year-on-year for some time.
For maths, the latest figures for 2023/24, show that 1,852 trainees have been recruited against a target of 2,960 – just 63%. In 2022/23, 1,844 were recruited against a target of 2,040 (90%).
It also comes as poor teacher retention means that we have lost more than 87,000 teachers in the last two years – only around 7,000 of whom left due to retirement.
The result is that schools are often focusing their most qualified staff on GCSE and A level classes as well as on students who are resitting their maths GCSE.
The study adds: “This means that key stage 3 classes, low-attaining sets, and schools in disadvantaged areas are less likely to be taught by an experienced maths teacher with advanced qualifications. Year 7 and low-attaining sets are also more likely to be taught by more than one teacher so that no classes are taught entirely by non-specialist teachers.
“There may be long-term effects of leaving younger pupils and low-attainers without a specialist maths teacher.”
The review finds that school leaders often seek to mitigate the impact of these decisions by supplying non-specialist teachers with plans and resources developed by others, including commercial schemes.
It also finds that general learning CPD is often prioritised by school leaders over specific priorities like subject-specific coaching. Indeed, it identifies a need for schools to provide better CPD, including subject-specific support focused on “pedagogical principles or technical professional development” as opposed to CPD focused on using specific curriculum materials.
The review adds: “Professional development on teaching techniques and problem-solving was the highest specific general priority while the use of representations was the highest priority for teaching lower attaining students likely to enter Foundation GCSE; and collaborative forms of professional development with departmental collaboration is a priority.”
Elsewhere, the review highlights that half of the teachers surveyed thought mathematical learning is best consolidated through homework. However, it warns: “This could present a challenge for students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds who may struggle to fully access homework, particularly if access to online platforms is required.”
Mark Boylan, professor of education at Sheffield Hallam University, and lead author of the review, said: “Although there is a lot of similarities in how schools teach maths, there is also a lot of variation when it comes to details, including on key issues around when and how pupils are taught important parts of the curriculum. So the practice review’s findings could support reflection on the best approaches for teachers to use for their pupils.”
The EEF has said it will be launching new research projects in secondary maths this coming autumn.
- Boylan et al: Secondary maths : Practice review, EEF, 2024: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews/secondary-maths-practice-review