Search

This paper explores how the twin processes of neoliberalism and neoconservatism work together on, and through, curricula and their associated pedagogies. It bridges the gap between policy and classroom practice, focusing on the particular example of the school subject of mathematics and the notion of mastery, operationalised in the English education system as Teaching for Mastery (TfM). From this context, it develops a theoretical argument using Dean's analytics of government as part of a broader Foucauldian frame, to analyse how TfM is constructed as a particular policy truth. It then shifts the analysis from a wide, social one to the individual classroom level using a psychological argument to critique TfM in its own terms, examining the onto‐epistemological nature of mathematics as a subject. In doing so, it explores ways in which mastery might be problematic in classrooms, even whilst appearing to offer a solution at policy level to long‐standing problems in English schooling. The aim is not to suggest that TfM has nothing to offer, but to point to ways in which it draws on the psychology of teaching and learning in a very particular manner, inscribing pupils with very specific mathematical subjectivities. By providing this insight into how neoliberal policy positions play out at practitioner level via curricula and pedagogies, the paper raises questions which are philosophical, political, and ethical, regarding the potential effect of TfM on teachers' and pupils' experiences of mathematics in schools, including implications for equity of this experience amongst the latter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mathematics education is rarely out of the policy spotlight in England. Over the last 10 years, considerable attention has been given to improving 14–19 mathematics curriculum pathways. In this paper we consider some of the challenges of enacting curriculum change by drawing upon evidence from our evaluation of the Mathematics Pathways Project (MPP). From 2004 to 2010 this project, which was directed by England's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, aimed to improve the engagement, attainment and participation rates of 14- to 19-year-old learners of mathematics. Our particular focus is upon the temporal problems of piloting new curriculum and assessment and we draw on Lemke's discussion of timescales, heterochrony and the adiabatic principle to consider the interlocking and interference of various change processes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]