Maths Teachers and Subject AssociationsAuthor(s): Linda HaggartySource: Mathematics in School, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 28-29Published by: The Mathematical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30216430 .

Accessed: 09/04/2014 15:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Mathematical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toMathematics in School.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 68.49.213.126 on Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:23:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

O

O

teac

ers and

and

s0

*

ass~o by Linda Haggarty

Faculty of Education, University of Reading

I am one of a number of mathematics educators who are persuaded by the arguments for one single body rep- resenting mathematics education. In a letter published in

Mathematics Teaching (134), I wrote that one reason, for me, why it is important for us to consider one body is '... that it might encourage those involved in mathematics education who are not members of any of the bodies to become involved'.

Reflecting on this statement later, I realised that I had very little idea just how many teachers were not members of the associations, nor was I aware of any available information on this.

This article describes a very small scale survey I conduc- ted in some schools in the south of England to discover for myself just what the situation might be. I surveyed an opportunity sample of secondary schools to find out what the scale of involvement in the mathematics associations is amongst mathematics teachers. I do not claim to be doing any more than scratching the surface, nor am I going to attempt to generalise from the results. However, if the results are more generally true, I think they raise some serious issues.

In all, ten mathematics departments were approached and questionnaires were given to all mathematics teachers in those departments. Of the 60 or so teachers who could have responded, 51 actually returned their questionnaires. In some schools I had the opportunity to speak to teachers and I encouraged them to reply even if their answers were negative! When I was able to do this, the response rate was higher. (What does this suggest about those who did not reply?)

Of the 51 teachers, 35 were full time in their schools and 16 were part time. [My first surprise was just how many part time teachers there were.]

The average number of years of teaching experience was 15.5 years. [My second surprise was just how few had been teaching less than 5 years: just 7 of them.] From then on, question by question:

Question 1 Please tick the appropriate columns:

Personal membership? yes no

(a) ATM (Association of Teachers of Mathematics) 7 44

(b) MA (Mathematical Association) 4 47 (c) BSRLM (British Society for Research

into Learning Mathematics) 0 51 (d) GAMMA (Gender and Mathematics

Association) 0 51 (e) IMA (Institute of Mathematics and its

Applications) 1 50 Please comment if you would like to.

I think these figures speak for themselves, and I do not want to generalise from this sample, but two points worthy of comment are:

9 only 1 of the 51 teachers was a member of both the ATM and the MA, and this teacher (a probationer) was also the member of the IMA so that of the sample of 51 teachers, just 10 were members of an association. e many teachers said they had never heard of BSRLM, GAMMA and IMA so would I send them details. ... In addition, one claimed not to have heard of the MA.

I also asked a similar question to this about departmental membership but this time included a 'don't know' category. From this, I found that four schools were members of the ATM and three of the MA. Other associations had no members. However, what I found of particular interest here was that there was always confusion between teachers in each department. I assumed an answer of 'yes' from anyone in the department implied membership yet for

28 Mathematics in School, January 1992

This content downloaded from 68.49.213.126 on Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:23:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

every 'yes' in a department there were likely to be several 'no' or 'don't know' responses. In addition, it was not always the head of department who was saying 'yes'. It was not unusual for the head of department to be answering 'no' and someone else in the department answering 'yes'. One teacher wrote that she had been teaching for 22 years but until she had tried to answer this question, she had not realised that the department was a member of the MA.

In another school, the head of department wrote that they had belonged to MA in the past but 'lack of money means it is not now possible'.

Question 2 How often do you read these association journals?

Almost Usually Rarely Never always

Mathematics Teaching (from ATM) 2 4 18 27 Mathematics in Schools (from MA) 3 4 15 29 Please comment if you would like to.

Many teachers mentioned lack of time here and one suggested that even though he was ticking 'usually', he was interpreting 'read' as 'turn the pages of'. So it would seem that well over half the respondents claim never to read either journal, and that even 'read' has to be questioned.

Question 3 Both associations run conferences at Easter

yes no

Have you ever been to a conference run by the MA? 1 50 Have you ever been to a conference run by the ATM? 1 50 Please comment if you would like to.

The conference attender was different for the two associ- ations and the one ATM conference was a weekend one which the teacher described as 'excellent ... plenty of ideas and ... chances to discuss with other teachers'. This did not seem to encourage either this teacher to attend any more or her colleagues to attend any.

Question 4

yes no

Have you ever been to any branch meetings run by the MA? 3 48 Have you ever been to any branch meetings run by the ATM? 9 42 Please comment if you would like to.

Lack of time was again mentioned by many teachers and one wrote that 'ATM do a good job informing us, but my perception is that it is mostly applicable to primary maths'.

Four of the schools appeared to be staffed entirely by teachers who never or only rarely read either journal, never attended either conference and never attended any branch meeting of either association.

Question 5

Other subjects are represented by a single association e.g. Science by ASE, English by NATE, history by HA, Geogra- phy by GA, whereas in mathematics, we do not have a single association. Some would argue that within mathematics, it is important to have different groups for different interests. Others say we would have a stronger and more representative voice if we had one association. What is your view?

Rather than try to classify the responses, I have included the comments which were written in answer to this:

* '... just general administration these days precludes any "light" reading'

e 'one association would be more convenient for member- ship ... but it is often better to hear different opinions from different associations'

0 'it might be difficult' 0 'different ones' 0 'I'm apathetic'

Fourteen of those commenting (out of 19 who completed this part) favoured one association. Some gave no reasons but others added further points:

* 'it would mean we had one central place to contact for enquiries/resources'

" 'but ATM does some very good work and I shouldn't like to see that lost'

" 'I would not feel quite so overwhelmed' " 'we must all share the same problems' " C... with subcommittees' " 'the best of each would be ideal. Difficult to imagine it

happening though ...'

So what should we make of all this? One could argue that the sample is so small that the

results can be ignored. One could argue that the sample is unrepresentative of

the total population of mathematics teachers ... Well, possibly!

... But suppose it is a representative sample ... Does that mean that roughly 40% of our secondary

schools are staffed entirely by teachers who never or only rarely read either journal, never attend either conference and never attend any branch meeting of either association? Clearly, those departments could be at the forefront of thinking in mathematics education, providing exciting learning opportunities in their classrooms. But they may not be-and with cuts in spending it is unlikely that such departments will be supported significantly in other ways.

It might also be the case that only about 20% of our secondary mathematics teachers are members of a math- ematics education association. Again, the other 80% might be full of ideas, continually reflecting on their teaching. But they may not be ...

It seems to me that if these results are anything to go by, there are a significant number of mathematics teachers who are not members of the associations. This is a poten- tially serious issue which needs to be explored further and addressed by those who are already members. After all, as well as developing our own thinking through membership of the associations, should we not also take a professional and shared responsibility for reaching out and representing what might be a substantial majority of mathematics teachers.

Mathematics in School, January 1992 29

This content downloaded from 68.49.213.126 on Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:23:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions