: A Pedagogy For Equity – What can we learn from Teaching for Mastery in Mathematics? A Pedagogy For Equity – What can we learn from Teaching for Mastery in Mathematics?

A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to get to hear Lee Elliot Major and Debbie Morgan speak at the NCETM Maths Hubs Forum. I left the conference lit up, re-energised, and with a renewed sense of purpose by what they said. I wanted to share my experience with you. I can’t promise I can achieve quite the same outcome – but I’ll give it a go.

In the first session, Lee spoke about the unconscious biases that influence our behaviours. He shared the findings of a piece of research that, whilst it rings true to me, still seems unbelievable:

This quote leaves me reeling every time I read it. How is it that we can behave in such a way that is so clearly at odds with the facts and the motivations and aspirations that (many of us think) drive us? How do we even start to address this challenge? Over the last few months, I have found myself regularly repeating the phrase: ​“It’s not more work that we need to do, but more intentional work”. This phrase helps remind me that we do have some ideas about where we might start.

By ​‘more intentional work’ I’m not suggesting that all teachers should develop some superhuman-like single-mindedness. What I mean is that we must change how we work to guarantee that our good intentions cannot be sabotaged by our unconscious biases. We need to incorporate and codify equitable practices into our pedagogy and daily activities. We need to implement practices that leave nothing to chance, that, as Lee describes in his principles of equitable education, emphasise

So how might we do this? In the second session of the day, Debbie Morgan spoke about how teaching for mastery (TfM) is designed in just this way – as a pedagogy for equity. Equitable practices run deep throughout TfM. Those of you who are familiar with the EEF’s ​‘5 a day principles’ based on their guidance report, ​‘Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools,’ will readily recognise strategies to engineer success for all such as:

• Considering the cognitive load we place on pupils.
• Building understanding of concepts up in small steps.
• Providing instruction and modelling that makes explicit the implicit concepts and structures in mathematics.
• Extending pupils’ schemas by making connections between different parts of the mathematics curriculum.
• Making use of cognitive strategies such as physical gestures and representations to support learning.
• Having a strong focus on disciplinary literacy (the specific ways of reading, writing, and thinking used in mathematics), vocabulary, and focused talk.

What impressed me most was hearing how TfM doesn’t just incorporate these practices but the way that they are woven expertly throughout its whole approach and philosophy.

Importantly, these strategies are supported by the underpinning principle:

This is a profound principle that goes right to the heart of what is meant by an equitable pedagogy. It is not about some children racing ahead and others catching up. It’s about everyone being on the same bus and the destination of the bus is success for all through:

• A focus on building self confidence in all children’s ability to do mathematics
• Whole class teaching.
• Everyone keeping up.
• Exploring concepts in depth and allowing sufficient time for understanding.

Unfortunately, I think that this is a principle that we as school leaders and mathematics teachers can struggle to live up to. We’re somewhat happier with this idea in every other subject. However, despite the evidence, our talk around mathematics is often informed by negative and limiting narratives. Too often I still hear leaders and teachers exclaim ​“I was never any good at maths at school”. In mathematics classrooms, we still regularly set pupils from Year 7 onwards, sometimes even earlier.

This takes us right back to the research that Lee shared. If we systematically underestimate the potential of the most disadvantaged pupils in our schools, who is inevitably going to end up in those ​‘bottom sets’ we are creating?