England’s move to a marketised, new public management schooling model has impacted heavily on primary schools (DfE, 2010).  The ongoing changes have created a fragmented and constantly shifting school system which even a decade ago was described by Stephen Ball as “messy, patchy and diverse” (Ball, 2012). Over one third of schools have moved from local government oversight under a policy of ‘academisation’, although numbers vary between regions.   

The academisation policy (HMSO, 2010) has also altered arrangements for teacher Continuing Professional Development and Learning (CPDL). Some of the previous mechanisms for accessing CPDL provision having been lost, adapted or replaced (Greany, 2020). Subject leaders in England’s primary schools have oversight of curriculum, pedagogy and attainment, as well as subject CPDL, meaning changes to CPDL provision have impacted their work in ensuring access to high quality CPDL provision for colleagues. This paper reports on findings from a Wellcome-funded project exploring local learning landscapes for CPDL (Greany et al., 2023), focusing on the case of mathematics in primary schools, and particularly on the challenges facing mathematics subject leaders.  

CPDL for primary mathematics is almost unrecognisable from that of twenty years ago (ACME, 2016). Previously Local Authorities (LAs) were the key CPDL coordinators and providers for mathematics, often mediating national programmes at local level (e.g. National Numeracy Strategy, DfEE, 1999). The previous LA role has been replaced by a patchwork of regional Maths Hubs that implement national development priorities and have much larger footprints. In addition, the creation of legally-constituted groups of school academies (Multi-Academy Trusts or MATs) has enabled schools to pool resources, share expertise, create CPDL programmes, and appoint Trust subject leaders. MATs can use their collective buying power to secure preferred providers of CPDL (Greany & Higham, 2018) and might mandate particular schemes/textbooks. Where education businesses and in-house CPDL once supplemented the core LA offer, these have increased significantly as part of a self-improving, school-led system.    

The fragmentation and diversification of the CPDL nexus has created a professional learning landscape that is complex to access, understand and navigate. With growing numbers of increasingly strong MATs, weakened LAs, national patchworks of curriculum hubs, expanding edu-business and the continued option for in-house CPDL, mathematics leaders in primary schools no longer have access to the entire CPDL offer in their locality. They are often isolated (if not part of a MAT) and there is no longer any well-established map of that local CPDL offer.  

Drawing on interview data from 19 primary schools in three localities in England, we demonstrate how the role of the mathematics lead has fundamentally changed and is now significantly more variable between schools. These key staff are typically responsible for orchestrating much of the CPDL in their schools, yet the evidence points to widely differing levels of autonomy and training. Support for subject leaders is patchy; some are accessing professional networks of mathematics leaders, but many are not. Given the ongoing prioritisation of improvements in mathematics teaching and impact of CPDL on pupil attainment (Cordingley et al., 2015), greater support is needed for these mathematics leads. This should include consistent access to leader networks, knowledge exchange and sources of innovation. Evidence suggests that establishing more aligned, simplified, coordinated and collaborative local CPDL offers would increase coherence (Burns & Koster, 2016), reducing the workload burden on mathematics leads to provide so much of the CPDL themselves. It would also enable greater balance within a system where the knowledge of the subject leader is in danger of becoming a single point of failure for schools. This would in turn increase the quality and equity of mathematics CPDL across England’s primary schools. 

Following literature review and ethical approval from the University of Nottingham School of Education Research Ethics Committee, we selected three distinct localities in the south, midlands and north of England. These were an area of a city, a town and a Shire (mix of rural villages and more densely populated centres). Localities City: A relatively dense school landscape where just over 50% of primary schools are academies, mostly based within one of the nine MATs that operate in the area: four small (≤ 5 schools), four medium-sized (6-15 schools) and one large (16+ schools). Town: Around two thirds of Town’s primary schools are academies. Most of these are members of the fifteen MATs which operate in the locality: six small (≤ 5 schools), five medium-sized (6-15 schools) and four large (16+ schools). The four large MATs run approximately one fifth of the town’s primary schools and all have headquarters outside of the locality. Shire: Approximately half of Shire’s primary schools are academies with most operating as part of the area’s eleven MATs: seven small (≤ 5 schools), three medium-sized (6-15 schools) and one large (16+ schools). Schools For each locality, we sampled six or seven primary schools (~10% of the total) to reflect a representative range of schools (including size, type, age-range, disadvantage, attainment outcomes). In each, a consenting senior leader, Mathematics Leader and class teacher were interviewed about the teacher CPDL in their school. Data analysis Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and coded using Nvivo with a three-tier code book developed from the project’s conceptual framework (devised during literature review). Two members of the research team coded the data, with multiple, iterative sessions involving the project team of five researchers ensuring coding was checked with emerging themes and findings validated. Codes pertaining to primary subject leadership were extracted and summaries written describing each of the case study schools’ approaches to CPDL and subject leadership for mathematics. These were condensed and collated into a table for each locality summarising the responsibilities of the Mathematics Lead, the modes and tools for CPDL and the support provided for the subject leader (including access to their own CPDL, professional networks and senior leadership support).

Mathematics leads in primary schools now have substantial responsibility for the CPDL of their colleagues, predominantly through informal coaching and guidance. This is made more challenging by the range of modes of CPDL offered in schools, and by the conflation of support, monitoring and accountability activities. The individuals that we spoke with were fully committed and hard-working, but only had partial understanding of the complex schooling system within which they operate, and little sense of how subject lead roles vary between schools. Mathematics leads have differing levels of autonomy; from operating within tight MAT-defined parameters, to complete freedom to access or create CPDL with little oversight or restriction. There are risks in both extremes. More restrictive contexts constrain professional judgement and reduce subject leaders’ ability to respond to teachers’ CPDL needs. Leaders with greater freedom have full responsibility for making effective and coherent choices, which requires high-level subject and CPDL knowledge as well as effective networks. Support for mathematics leads is inconsistent. Some access CPDL for themselves, whilst some belong to strong subject leader networks in their MAT. Many, however, do not have access to these types of peer networks. Leaders’ access to Maths Hubs was varied but the Hubs did provide some innovative and effective support to subject leaders when accessed. Better external support is needed in all our localities - and probably nationally – and should include access to subject leader networks and mathematics leadership CPDL.  Finally, greater collaboration and coherence across the schooling landscape would support these primary mathematics leaders. Coordination of the local CPDL offer would aid navigation of the complex multi-source provision and support access to external opportunities to supplement those offered ‘in-house’. This would also facilitate subject leader networks across, as well as within, MATs and afford opportunities for shared sense-making.

Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education [ACME] (2016). Professional learning for all teachers of mathematics: Principles for teachers, senior leaders and those who commission and provide professional learning’. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2016/professional-learning-for-all-teachers-of-mathematics-final-12-2016.pdf Ball, S.J. (2012). The reluctant state and the beginning of the end of state education. Journal of educational administration and history, 44(2), 89-103. Burns, T. & Koster, F., (eds) (2016). Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., Saunders, L. & Coe, R. (2015) Developing great teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. London: Teacher Development Trust. Department for Education and Employment [DfEE] (1999). The National Numeracy Strategy: Framework for teaching mathematics from Reception to Year 6. London: Department for Education and Employment. Department for Education [DfE] (2010). The importance of teaching. London: HMSO. Greany, T. (2020). Place-based Governance and Leadership in Decentralised School Systems: Evidence from England, Journal of Education Policy, 37(2), 247-268. Greany, T. & Higham, R. (2018). Hierarchy, Markets and Networks. London: UCL Institute of Education Press. Greany, T., Noyes, A., Gripton, C., Cowhitt, T. & Hudson, G. (2023). Local learning landscapes: exploring coherence, equity and quality in teacher professional development in England. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. HMSO (2010). The Academies Act 2010. London: HMSO.