Learning from the Past: Case Studies of Past ‘Local’ Curriculum Reforms

Abstract

The major reform movements (e.g. RME, New Maths) discussed in Chap. 4 have also served to inspire reform efforts at a national level. In this chapter, the authors consider local reform efforts in three countries. In order to gather data in relation to local curriculum reform, the authors created a survey which was distributed to six mathematics educators, reputed by having worked on curriculum issues in different countries. The authors sought to investigate how local curriculum reform efforts evolved and to extend the empirical analysis beyond the countries represented at the ICMI Study. Data was gathered from a range of different countries, including Brazil, Japan, Ireland, Italy, Serbia and South Africa, and three of these are considered in this chapter. The countries selected were Ireland, Serbia and South Africa. These were selected for consideration due to the commonalities in some aspects of the curriculum reform efforts as well as unique differences. Despite these differing contexts, many of the same lessons have emerged from each of the reform movements.

Introduction

This chapter presents some results of a survey designed by some of the theme A participants to gain an insight into curriculum reform efforts in different countries internationally. The survey sought to gather information in relation to:

• how and why the reform movement came about;

• the ideologies underpinning the reform movement;

• the aim of the reform movement;

• the agents or stakeholders involved in the reform movement;

• the impact of the reform on mathematical content, mathematical teaching and mathematical assessment;

• the lessons learnt from the reform movement.

In total, six research colleagues from different countries (Brazil, Japan, Ireland, Italy, Serbia and South Africa) responded to the survey, ensuring a geographical spread across four continents. Three survey responses were analysed in detail for the purpose of this chapter. The countries selected were Ireland, Serbia and South Africa. These were selected for consideration due to the commonalities in some aspects of the curriculum reform efforts as well as quite unique differences. Many of the responses from these countries also reflected, in part, the reactions from the other respondents, and so the authors believed a comprehensive overview could be achieved with this limited sample.

Case Study A: Ireland

The Irish secondary school mathematics curriculum experienced reform over the past ten years. The revised curriculum, which was piloted between 2008 and 2010, was implemented on a national basis in 2010. This reform movement was initiated for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there was a need for improved alignment between primary and secondary mathematics education. In 1999, the primary school mathematics curriculum was reformed in Ireland while the previous reform at secondary level was conducted in the 1970s. As such, the alignment between the two curricula was tenuous, and so it appeared logical to reform the secondary school mathematics curriculum to modernise a dated mathematics curriculum and to improve the alignment between the primary and secondary curriculum. Ireland’s poor performance in international assessments such as TIMSS and PISA was another reason for the introduction of a revised curriculum.

At the time the curriculum was first conceptualised in 2005, Irish students were classified as ‘average’ performers in these international assessments in mathematics. Many believed that this deficiency in students’ mathematical capabilities stemmed from an over-reliance on rote learning in the Irish mathematics classroom (State Examinations Commission, 2003, 2005) and the declining attitudes towards mathematics among secondary school students (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2005). This led to calls from employer groups, such as the Irish Business and Employers Confederation [IBEC], as well as groups such as the Project Maths Implementation Support Group [PMISG] for a better-qualified workforce equipped with the mathematical skills necessary to ensure “Ireland’s future economic growth and competitiveness” (PMISG, 2010, p. 4). A combination of these reasons resulted in the reform of secondary mathematics education in Ireland, a reform known locally as Project Maths.

The Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) movement inspired Project Maths, as it was seen as the “most fashionable approach among mathematics educators” (NCCA, 2005, p. 6) at the time. However, Project Maths was not solely based on this international reform movement. The rationale behind this decision to not align the new Irish mathematics curriculum entirely with the broader RME movement was as a result of the lessons learned from previous curriculum reform efforts. The previous mathematics curriculum reform in Ireland, which took place in the 1970s, was based on the ideologies proposed by the New Maths movement and the curriculum was entirely modelled on this broader movement. This was deemed to be a naive approach to local curriculum reform. As a result, it was strongly advised by all stakeholders that Project Maths should not come from one single ideological standpoint but instead be inspired by appropriate aspects of the RME movement and aligned with international best practice and the needs of the Irish economy.

This standpoint led to the PMISG (2010) outlining that the principal aim of Project Maths was to “teach mathematics in a way which promotes real understanding, where students can appreciate the relevance of what they are learning and its application to everyday life, and how mathematics can be used to solve problems” (p. 12). The reform effort also aimed to place a much stronger emphasis on active learning and teaching for understanding. Hence, Project Maths not only sought to change the content being taught but also the manner in which mathematics was taught, learned and assessed (Cosgrove et al., 2012). This aim to change the focus to problem-based, student-centred mathematics education was in line with the teaching and learning of mathematics internationally (Eurydice Network, 2011), as well as many of the principles proposed in the RME movement.

The three most influential agents/stakeholders involved in this local reform movement were international agencies, as the results from international assessments acted as key points of reference when revising the curriculum, government agencies and partners in industry. For the reform effort to be successful, there had to be a convergence of national Government agencies so that they could withstand any resistance from other stakeholders. Government agencies, most notably the Department of Education and Skills [DES], are considered to have played the most significant role in the instigation, development and implementation of the new curriculum. The DES initiated the reform movement and the responsibility of developing the new curriculum, based on a consultation with all stakeholders and advice from a steering group,¹ lay with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment [NCCA] (NCCA, 2012).

During the implementation phase, the NCCA worked closely with the DES and the State Examinations Commission, the state body responsible for designing the summative assessment for each curricular subject. This unified approach from a multitude of government agencies allowed for an alignment between the goals of the curriculum reform and the mathematical content and assessment structures. Industry and employer groups, as well as international agencies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), via TIMSS and PISA, also played a significant role in instigating the reform movement (OECD, 2004; NCCA, 2006). Pressure came on the Government from employer groups to review the mathematics curriculum and improve students’ proficiency in mathematics, due to Irish students’ ‘average’ performance in international tests such as PISA and TIMSS (NCCA, 2005). As a result, the nature of the PISA assessment strongly influenced the curriculum reform in many ways.

Finally, prior to the reform effort, the NCCA released a discussion paper as well as a document outlining international trends in mathematics education (Conway & Sloane, 2005). Upon the release of these documents a consultation process commenced and allowed “those with an interest in the issues raised to respond to these and to raise any other concerns which they considered should be addressed under the review” (NCCA, 2006, p. 2). This provided other stakeholders including teacher unions, mathematicians, teachers, parents, textbook publishers, students as well as universities and other higher education institutes with the opportunity to contribute in some way to the reform efforts.

An on-line questionnaire was made available to all stakeholders on the NCCA website, while postal responses were also welcomed. The questionnaire sought respondents’ opinions in relation to the role of mathematics education; concerns regarding the teaching and learning of mathematics; current trends in mathematics education; the provision and uptake of mathematics; attitudes towards mathematics; the mathematics syllabus and assessment and student achievement in mathematics.

The NCCA also held focus group discussions as part of the consultation process. These discussions were held with parent associations; mathematics teacher associations; the Irish Union of students and mathematics teachers. One of the most prominent messages to emerge from this consultation process and one which was echoed by the majority of stakeholders was that any reform effort had to “make mathematics more related to the lives of students” (NCCA, 2006, p. 44). This recommendation, along with many others outlined in the consultation report, were acknowledged and resulted in meaningful change across mathematics content, pedagogy and assessment.

The reform movement which followed the publication of the consultation findings simultaneously affected the mathematical content taught; the pedagogical approaches employed and the structure of the assessment used. However, the reform did not, in any way, alter the discipline structure, as mathematics was a stand-alone, all-encompassing curricular subject before and after the reform. The main changes across each of the three aforementioned areas are documented in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Changes to content, pedagogy and assessment as a result of Project Maths

With such substantial changes recommended another key aspect of the Irish curriculum reform related to teacher training. In order to equip teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to deliver a very different mathematics curriculum, continuous professional development for practising teachers was deemed essential. Professional development workshops were developed and delivered by the Project Maths Development Team to all teachers involved in piloting the new curriculum, while the National Centre for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching and Learning were tasked with delivering three summer schools to teachers during the pilot phase (NCCA, 2012). Additionally, when the new curriculum was introduced nationally, a series of ten compulsory workshops were made available to all teachers.

To conclude, Project Maths appears to have promoted a fundamental shift in the teaching and learning of mathematics in Ireland. The emphasis changed from examination-driven, procedural teaching that promoted rote learning to student-centred teaching that promoted conceptual understanding. While there was initially some resistance to aspects of the reform movement, as reported by Cosgrove and colleagues (2012), other researchers have found that the reform effort has resulted in positive changes in the teaching styles used in the mathematics classroom and in students’ attitudes towards mathematics (Jeffes et al., 2013). Furthermore, while Jeffes and colleagues found that, “the revised mathematics syllabuses taken as a whole does not appear to be associated with any overall deterioration or improvements” (p. 71), they did conclude that improvements were noted across individual strands, most notably in the area of Statistics and Probability.

Despite these perceived successes, numerous challenges were encountered but it is from these challenges that lessons can be learnt. Firstly, teachers have deemed the time allocated to the revised curriculum insufficient (Prendergast & O’Meara, 2017). In the study carried out by Prendergast and O’Meara (2017), teachers stated that the new curriculum required significantly more time than was the case previously, but the vast majority of these teachers reported that no additional time was afforded to the subject in the aftermath of the reform. As such, O’Meara and Prendergast (2019) state that one lesson that can be taken from the Irish reform effort is that those responsible for instigating and implementing reform must “work with curriculum developers to specify a time allocation that is feasible and aligned with the curriculum” (p. 509).

Another outstanding issue is in relation to the transition from primary to post-primary mathematics education. Project Maths sought to better align the primary and post-primary curriculum. However, this alignment of curricula has not led to improvements in the transition as documented by Prendergast et al. (2019) and O’Meara et al. (2018, 2020), indicating a mismatch between the actual reform movement and one of the motivating factors which led to its conceptualisation. These authors found that the main reason for the issues around transition was a lack of ‘horizon knowledge’ (Ball et al., 2008) on the part of teachers at either side of the transition. As such, it is recommended that when curriculum reform occurs at one educational level, it is critical that teachers at other levels (in this case primary and tertiary level) are fully informed about these developments so they too can be prepared for any possible positive or negative implications.

Case Study B: Serbia

The case in Serbia is somewhat different to that reported in Ireland. According to Milinkovic (2018), there have been numerous changes made to the mathematics curriculum in Serbia since the 1960s. Many of these have been regarded as minor changes; however, the particular reform that will be discussed in this chapter is a significant change and is the most recent of all reform efforts. This reform of the mathematics curriculum was conceptualised in 2015 and the implementation process began in 2018.

There were two primary motives for the instigation of this reform. Firstly, many people in the Serbian education community, and among the wider public, believed that the previous curriculum was overcrowded and needed to be updated. They purported that the curriculum was too demanding and time-consuming. Hence, it was proposed that a new curriculum be introduced that relaxed “curriculum demands and the number of math lessons per week” (p. 145). The second reason for recent curriculum reform in Serbia was because of pressure from public opinion, as well as from Government authorities who were dissatisfied with Serbian students’ performance in international tests such as PISA and TIMSS.

When the 2012 PISA results were analysed, mathematical literacy among Serbian students was found to be below average, with Serbia’s score 45 points below the OECD average (Pavlović-Babić & Baucal, 2013). While analysis of the results from the 2015 TIMSS study yielded more positive findings, with Serbian students’ scoring higher than many European countries, Serbia remained a hundred points lower than many of the most successful countries. These findings, combined with a desire for Serbian students to excel in the area of mathematics, led to a call from authorities for a reformed curriculum that reflected the content assessed in both the PISA and TIMSS studies.

The overarching goal of this reform was to enhance the mathematical literacy levels of students across the entire educational system. In order to achieve this goal, there were a number of objectives associated with the new curriculum, namely:

• (1) to connect conceptual and procedural knowledge so that students develop a deep, connected and meaningful understanding of mathematical concepts as proposed by Skemp (1976);

• (2) to highlight the inter-related nature of mathematics by connecting different mathematical fields and concepts;

• (3) to use multiple representations in the teaching and learning of mathematics as proposed by Wagner & Kieran (1989).

These aims all point to the fact that RME is central to the latest reform efforts in Serbia. In addition to this, the ideas of Skemp, Bruner and Freudenthal are reflected in the reform movement, particularly in the pedagogical approaches advocated by the new curriculum. By adopting aspects from the work of leading mathematics educators and psychologists, and framing the curriculum around RME, it was anticipated that the latest mathematics curriculum offered to Serbian students would be current, relevant and achieve the desired outcome of improved mathematical performance.

As with all curriculum reform movements, in order for the revised Serbian curriculum to be conceptualised and implemented, contributions were required from a number of different stakeholders. The main stakeholders in Serbia were teacher unions, local and international mathematicians, teachers, parents, textbook publishers, students and institutes. However, in Serbia, international organisations such as the OECD were instrumental in instigating curriculum reform and helping curriculum developers identify what aspects of the old curriculum needed to be changed.

As mentioned previously, it was the results of PISA in 2012 and TIMSS in 2015 that resulted in calls for change to the Serbian curriculum, but these international assessments also played a significant role in determining the content that would be added, altered, or removed under the reform. As such, the revised curriculum in Serbia now reflects many aspects of the TIMSS and PISA assessments. The second most influential stakeholder in the reform was two Government agencies, namely The Bureau for Improvement of Education and Upbringing and The National Council for Education. These agencies were primarily responsible for defining reform policy and making decisions in relation to how content, pedagogy and assessment structures would change.

In addition to this, teacher training is seen as a key component of any curriculum reform in Serbia. All primary and post-primary mathematics teachers received formal teacher training as part of this reform effort, and Government agencies were responsible for assigning expert groups to organise, coordinate and deliver this in-service training. Teacher unions also played a role in the upskilling of teachers. They provided professional development opportunities to teachers to prepare them for the new content they were expected to teach and the new teaching methodologies they were expected to employ. As a result, they too were seen as a very influential stakeholder.

In addition to their work on teacher professional development, these teacher unions played a key role in facilitating changes in teaching practices so that teachers were better positioned to adopt the pedagogical practices and principals advocated in the curriculum documentation. This was facilitated through semi-annual meetings of the teacher unions and through workshops and seminars, accredited by the Government Bureau.

The Serbian curriculum reform resulted in simultaneous changes to the mathematics proposed to be taught and the way it was taught and assessed. It also resulted in a change in the structure of the discipline of mathematics within schools, with a new mathematical discipline called informatics introduced as a specialist subject, distinct from the subject of mathematics (Milinkovic, 2018). This new subject sought to equip students with the skills necessary to manage information, communicate securely in a digital environment and develop computer programmes for solving various problems in a rapidly changing digital society.

This subject was offered at elementary and high school levels. As mentioned previously, many of the changes made to mathematical content under this reform were influenced by PISA and TIMSS assessments. For example, according to Milinkovic (2015) many topics that featured on the TIMSS 2015 assessment, including addition and subtraction of simple fractions; decimal numbers; axial symmetry and three-dimensional shapes, had been removed from the primary school mathematics curriculum in the 1970s. Under the reform effort, many of these topics were reintroduced.

At the post-primary level many of the topics that featured on the previous curriculum were preserved, with some explored in more detail. Other aspects of the previous curriculum were removed or undermined. For example, at the primary school level, prior to the introduction of the revised curriculum, the topic of ‘sets’ was a core component of the arithmetic section of the course. However, the emphasis on this particular concept has been diminished significantly in the revised curriculum.

On the other hand, topics in the areas of data analysis and financial mathematics were included for the first time in the revised curriculum. There was also a fundamental change to how mathematics content was structured. Prior to the reform, it was generally the case that different topics were taught at different grade levels. However, under this reform it was proposed that the curriculum be organised in a ‘spiral’ manner, meaning that the same topics were taught across different grades with the scope and depth of the topic increasing as students progress.

In addition to these significant changes to mathematical content, pedagogical changes were also detailed in the new curriculum. In line with the RME movement, Serbian teachers were now encouraged to utilise more problem-based learning strategies using real-world contexts. Milinkovic (2018) states that the topics being reintroduced to the primary curriculum will now be taught in a less formal or procedural manner and, instead, “the emphasis is on understanding in context and […] problem solving” (p. 6). In addition to the increased focus on problem solving, teachers were also encouraged to utilise more resources in the mathematics classroom to improve students’ understanding. In particular, the use of technology and digital resources was encouraged.

Finally, for smooth curriculum reform, it was necessary for the way in which the students were assessed to be altered in line with the changes to content and pedagogy. Under this reform, it was advocated for assessment to be viewed as a source of information for planning instruction and evaluating individual progress along the individual’s line of development. As a result of this, continuous assessment feature much more heavily in the new curriculum and teachers are expected to use multiple sources of evidence throughout the school year.

The Serbian curriculum reform is still very much in its infancy. While the ideals underpinning the curriculum are in line with many of the ideals promoted in the RME movement, it is too early to determine if such ideals have been realised. It is also too early to determine if the revised curriculum has had the desired effect on Serbian students’ mathematical performance. It is believed that the long-term effects of this reform will only be evident in 2027, when the curriculum has been in place for an entire twelve-year cycle, hence highlighting one of the issues that often arise with the evaluation of curriculum reform – time. A lesson one must take from the Serbian curriculum reform effort is that it is critical, with any curriculum reform, that a sufficient amount of time is allowed for implementation and rollout before conclusions are drawn on the perceived success or failure of the movement.

Case Study C: South Africa

To date in this chapter, the authors have discussed curriculum reform in two European countries, both of which have been largely driven by students’ performance in international comparison tests and a desire to improve students’ mathematical capabilities. However, the reasons for mathematics curriculum reform in South Africa are quite different and much more political. While many in South Africa acknowledge that TIMSS did play some role in the curriculum reform, Parker (2006) determined that, “radical school curriculum changes implemented since 1997 […] are explicitly aimed at overturning the unjust distribution of power and control relations characterising South African society” (p. 59).

In essence, reform movements across all curriculum subjects, including mathematics, were instigated to address the challenges presented by the post-apartheid era and those presented by the need for South Africa to be seen as a competitor in the global market (Vithal & Volmink, 2005). The reform efforts sought to move away from all aspects of apartheid education to a new curriculum that could serve the vast majority of South African people. Associated with the issues of inequality that arose from the apartheid era were high drop out and failure rates in the area of mathematics and assessment structures that placed a strong emphasis on rote learning and “unimaginative teaching methods” (Botha, 2002, p. 361).

These were also issues that the revised mathematics curriculum sought to address. In this chapter, the authors will discuss the initial reform from the mathematics curriculum that was in place pre-apartheid to the short-lived outcomes-based education (OBE) movement. However, this OBE paradigm was also the underlying philosophy behind the subsequent reform effort known as ‘Curriculum 2005’ or C2005 (Botha, 2002), which will also be discussed. de Waal (2004) clearly differentiated between these two key movements by stating that OBE is the framework through which the aims of a curriculum can be realised while C2005 is the actual curriculum that has been derived from the framework. Pudi (2006) described this series of curriculum reforms using the following analogy:

This can be likened to a car that starts to move from first gear through to higher gears. Once the car has been engaged in first gear (likened to OBE) to start the car moving, the need exists to change to second gear (likened to C2005) (p. 104)

When the South African mathematics curriculum was first changed in 1997, the ideas or theories underpinning the new curriculum came from a multitude of sources. The new South African curriculum did not specifically align with one of the major reform movements previously discussed but instead took inspiration from a mixture of educational positions including:

• socio-constructivism;

• ethnomathematics;

• critical mathematics education.

Adopting this stance resulted in the new curriculum promoting the idea that mathematics is a cultural product. Furthermore, with the principles of the aforementioned educational positions in mind, the revised curriculum aimed to ensure equal educational opportunities for all students (DoE, 2003) and “to construct new pedagogic identities in teachers and learners” (Bernstein, 2000; cited in Parker, 2006, p. 59). The discourse in which the curriculum policy was expressed allowed for different theoretical orientation and approaches to be used in the mathematics classroom.

In addition to this, the curriculum reform post-apartheid sought to change what was regarded as valuable mathematical knowledge, hence resulting in a significant change in the way the subject of mathematics was structured and in the content being taught. In essence, the reform sought to radically change the way mathematics was taught and assessed with much more emphasis being placed on student-centred learning (De Waal, 2004).

Historically, there has been a large number of stakeholders involved in curriculum reform efforts in South Africa (Vithal & Volmink, 2005). Chisholm (2005) ascertained that this too was the situation when OBE and C2005 were being developed. A consultation process was held prior to the re-design of the curriculum, and this allowed input from a vast number of stakeholders including Government agencies; teacher unions; local mathematicians and textbook publishers. Following this consultation process, several committees were formed by the Minister for Education. These committees were broadly representative of all aforementioned stakeholders, and they worked to derive a revised curriculum that would be both educationally and politically acceptable.

Once they had developed a draft version of a revised curriculum, there was much public commentary before it was approved. For example, in 2001, there were public hearings in relation to the proposals put forward by committee members and presentations were also made by Government officials. This allowed all key stakeholders and members of the public to have further input into the revised curriculum, and based on these public processes, there was a further refinement of curriculum documents. This approach to curriculum reform in South Africa meant that many stakeholders felt that they had some ownership over the new curriculum and the curriculum was the product of the efforts of an entire nation.

Once the refined mathematics curriculum was implemented, many changes to mathematics education in South Africa occurred. First and foremost, there was a change in the way the subject of mathematics was structured. Under OBE and C2005, all students were required to complete the same mathematics curriculum between grade 1 and grade 9,² but once they reached grade 10 they got the option to select either mathematics or mathematical literacy. The introduction of a specific mathematical literacy programme indicated a much stronger focus on mathematical literacy in South Africa. This was a significant change to the way mathematics was structured, and the choice students made in this regard determined their “right of access to jobs and further education” (Vithal & Volmink, 2005, p. 17).

In addition to this fundamental change in the structure of the subject, there was also changes to the mathematical content to be taught, however, this change in content was not as drastic as that reported in the previous two case studies. Under the subject of mathematics, new topics including statistics, probability and modelling were introduced. However, what many consider the most notable change in relation to content was the fundamental shift from a very prescribed curriculum in the pre-apartheid era to a curriculum where teachers have much more autonomy over the content being taught. According to de Waal (2004), C2005 also resulted in a significant shift in the pedagogical approaches advocated in South Africa.

Under the C2005 movement, the learner was placed at the centre of learning, and the teacher was seen as a facilitator. Furthermore, much more emphasis was placed on co-operative learning and the use of relevant and contextualised problems in the mathematics classroom (De Waal, 2004). This was a stark change from the previous curriculum, which promoted rote learning, teacher-led approaches and the accumulation of isolated facts and knowledge (Killen & Vandeyar, 2003; Pudi, 2006).

Finally, in addition to a change in structure, content and pedagogical approaches, changes in the assessment were also a core component of the revised curriculum. According to Killen & Vandeyar (2003), “The most obvious change in assessment was in its general focus – away from a fixed body of content that was to be remembered towards a set of outcomes that were to be demonstrated” (p. 125). Teachers were also encouraged to employ more continuous assessment in their teaching and incorporate assessment strategies that were cross-disciplinary in nature.

OBE and C2005 resulted in major changes to the teaching and learning of mathematics. This reform movement was initiated when the apartheid regime was abolished in 1994, and so there has been a substantial amount of time for the revised curriculum to be implemented and lessons to emerge. Firstly, many teachers resisted both OBE and C2005 in the early years. One of the primary reasons for this was that teachers felt ill-prepared to deliver this new curriculum (Killen & Vandeyar, 2003). Without adequate professional support, teachers were overwhelmed by the radical changes proposed and so while many were in favour of the ideologies underpinning the reform, many resisted the reform itself. This led to many problems during the implementation stage, with many teachers continuing to rely on direct instruction and overlooking the new pedagogical approaches (De Waal, 2004).

As such, it is critical that teacher professional development is seen as a core component of any curriculum reform movement. Reform efforts that are not accompanied by teacher training have little hope of succeeding as one of the key agents, namely teachers, will not have the skills, knowledge or confidence to deliver the revised curriculum in the manner envisaged.

Secondly, key stakeholders in the education system in South Africa struggled to differentiate between OBE and C2005 and this too led to some issues at the inception and implementation phase. According to the C2005 Review Report (2000), the distinction between C2005 and OBE was often blurred with many stakeholders, particularly teachers, struggling to recognise the difference between the two movements. De Waal (2004) determined that this was one of the factors that led to “misinterpretations concerning teachers understanding and practice of C2005” (p. 44). This finding shows that it is important to ensure that all reform movements are unambiguous, and there are clear distinctions between one reform effort and subsequent efforts. Only then will teachers, students and other key stakeholders fully appreciate the aims and objectives of the curriculum reform and truly understand what is expected of them.

The final lesson to be discussed here is one that has arisen in the Irish case study and relates to time. De Waal reported that the revised South African curriculum placed a lot of time pressures on teachers, and this was not considered by policymakers. He declared that the main issue relating to time, particularly among primary school teachers, was that with so much new content and expectations outlined in C2005, teachers were required to put a lot more time and effort into planning to incorporate all the new aspects of the curriculum and this affected the time available for them to teach core concepts in reading, writing, mathematics and science.

The South African case highlights the fact that curriculum developers need to be cognisant of the fact that additional time needs to be allocated to support teachers in the planning and preparation of units of learning and lesson plans during the initial stages of reform. In conclusion, while the reasons for driving this particular curriculum reform were quite different to the driving factors behind the previously discussed reform movements, there are still many lessons that can be learnt from this reform movement. Some lessons echo the lessons that emerged from the other case studies, while some are unique to South Africa and stem from the waves of reform that occurred post-apartheid.

Conclusion

We briefly reflect on the six research questions addressed in this chapter. Starting from the question “how and why did the reform movement come about?”, we presented evidence that international comparisons and unsatisfactory achievements fostered reforms (in Ireland and Serbia). Political context and changes in ideology sometimes effectively influence reforms in mathematics education as it happened in South Africa. We found out that although the proclaimed aim of three reform movements discussed in the chapter differed, the resulting curriculums have had shared characteristics, like the adoption of an RME approach and the effort for gaining applicable knowledge.

As the three cases suggest, the agents or stakeholders involved (besides mathematicians) in the reform movement significantly influenced not only the direction of the reform but also its results. The involvement of teachers and the support from government agencies seemed to improve the reform implementation but, in some cases, it also undermined the achievement. The impact of the reform on mathematical content was more or less prominent, depending on the main reform agenda. Apparently, in the case of South Africa, it was not in the focus of the reform. In all cases, the support and professional development of in-service teachers were of critical importance. The impact of the reform was dominantly directed to mathematical teaching, but also to mathematical content and assessment. The ongoing assessment was recognised as an important indicator, but only long-term assessment actually provided valid evidence of the results of reform.

To conclude, many lessons have emerged across each of the three individual case studies presented in this chapter. However, the authors now summarise what they perceive as the five main lessons to emerge across all three reform movements.

Lesson 1: The Influence of International Assessments

The case studies presented in this chapter outline the process of curriculum reform in three different contexts. However, despite the different geographical locations, different political landscapes and different educational structures, the manner in which curriculum reform was initiated and implemented across the three countries draws many parallels. Firstly, one of the most striking similarities across the reform movement in each of the three countries was the influence of TIMSS and PISA in instigating curriculum reform efforts. Both in Ireland and in Serbia, students’ performance in TIMSS and PISA led to employment groups and government agencies calling for change, while this was also cited as a factor in initiating curriculum reform in South Africa, albeit not the most influential factor. This suggests that TIMSS and PISA may be used to call for change to education systems and to justify reform efforts among the wider public. As such, if countries intend to continue to act upon the results of international comparison tests to instigate reform movements, it is critical that these tests offer a precise and accurate representation of the mathematical competencies of young people internationally.

In addition to the role of TIMSS and PISA in instigating curriculum reform, these international assessments also impacted upon the change to mathematical content reported in the three countries. Many of the test items and categories that appear in TIMSS and PISA test instruments are now reflected in the revised curricula. For example, the five strands introduced in the revised Irish curriculum closely align with the PISA mathematical content categories as depicted in Fig. 5.1.

Fig. 5.1

Alignment between PISA categories and revised Irish curriculum

In addition to this alignment, the authors firmly believe that the increased focus on financial literacy reported across all three curriculum reform movements is reflective of international assessments. In 2012, PISA first introduced its financial literacy assessment instrument. This move indicated that the OECD recognised the importance of this strand of mathematics in the Twenty-First Century and so too have curriculum developers across the three countries. Similarly, it has been recognised internationally that statistical literacy is a critical skill in the twenty-first century due to the increased presence of numbers and quantitative data in our everyday lives (Watson, 2006; Ben-Zvi & Garfield, 2008). Hence, it was not surprising to see that all three case studies reported that this was another topic on which more emphasis was placed as a result of the reform movement.

Lesson 2: The Influence of RME and Importance of Consultation

In addition to the important role of TIMSS and PISA, the RME mathematics movement also appeared to be influential in curriculum reform efforts in South Africa, Serbia and Ireland. This was reflected in the fact that all three case studies reported a shift from didactical teaching to more student-centred teaching, with a greater emphasis on developing conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills. Furthermore, the aims and objectives of curriculum reform in Serbia clearly aligned with the aims of RME while curriculum developers in Ireland clearly specified that RME had an influence on the changes made to the mathematics curriculum.

The RME movement was mainly led by mathematicians and groups of mathematics teachers but there was a much wider range of stakeholders involved in each of the local reform movements outlined here. While mathematicians still had some input into curriculum reform in the three countries, many more stakeholders including Government agencies, teacher unions, employer groups, industry partners and textbook publishers also played significant roles. Involvement of such a diverse mix of stakeholders was facilitated in two of the case studies through the inclusion of a consultation process. In South Africa, this consultation process allowed input from a variety of sources and many people, whose voices had not been listened to before, got the opportunity to advise on the future direction of mathematics education.

In Ireland, a similar situation was reported, and the authors have previously described how the voices and opinions of the Irish public were listened to when shaping the new curriculum. This meant that the local reform effort could accommodate and incorporate recommendations from different groups in society, thus developing a revised curriculum that was reflective of societal needs and acknowledged and valued the opinions of those who would be central in the successful implementation of the new curriculum. The authors propose that meaningful consultation of this nature should be a key feature of all future reform efforts.

Lesson 3: Time

Time manifested itself as a key lesson across all three case studies. The case of Serbia highlighted that time must be allowed to elapse before judgement is passed on the success of a reform movement. South African research pointed to the need to allow time for teachers to plan for the new content to be taught and for curriculum developers to be cognisant of the additional time pressures new curricula place on teachers (De Waal, 2004). In Ireland, the misalignment between the recommended time in syllabus documents and the actual time needed to achieve the objectives of the new curriculum was described by O’Meara and Prendergast (2017). They found that the revised curriculum required the allocation of more instructional time but very few Irish teachers reported an increase in the time available to them since the new curriculum was introduced. Hence, these case studies show that multiple manifestations of time need to be considered when engaging with curriculum reform if the goals of the reform movement are to be realised.

Lesson 4: Teacher Professional Development

In any reform movement teachers are key agents in the effective delivery of the new curriculum, and so the potential success of the reform is heavily dependent on them. The South African case study highlighted how teacher resistance can lead to reform efforts being compromised. Such strong resistance to revised curricula among teachers did not feature as prominently in either of the other two case studies and one potential reason for this was the provision of teacher training. Killen and Vandeyar (2003) argued that South African teachers opposed many of the changes because they felt ill-prepared to teach the new curriculum.

Despite the new curriculum advocating for significant changes to the way mathematics was taught and the content to be taught, South African teachers did not receive adequate guidance in this regard. This contrasted with the situation in both Ireland and Serbia where teacher training was seen as an integral part of the reform movement. Hence, a lesson emanating from the case studies is the importance of teacher training during the implementation of a new curriculum. Only when such support is made available will teachers have the opportunity to develop the knowledge, skills and confidence necessary to deliver the new curriculum.

Lesson 5: The Need for Continuous Research

The Irish case study highlighted the importance of research in relation to curriculum reform. Much research was conducted in Ireland before the reform movement was initiated (e.g. Conway & Sloane, 2005; NCCA, 2005). However, the research did not stop there. Since the inception of the revised curriculum many researchers have continued to investigate key curriculum issues in an attempt to determine how successful the reform movement was and how certain aspects could be modified and improved (PMISG, 2010; Cosgrove et al. 2012; Jeffes et al., 2013; O’Meara & Prendergast 2017; O’Meara et al., 2020a, b; Prendergast et al., 2019).

Much of this research focused on teachers’ perspectives and was another way to facilitate the teacher’s voice being heard throughout the reform movement. In addition to this, such research allows evidence to be gathered that enables all stakeholders to evaluate the impact of the curriculum and to determine the new challenges facing mathematics education. As the Serbian curriculum reform efforts continue in earnest this is one lesson that they and others could take from the Irish case study. Research is key to evaluating the reform efforts and needs to take place on a continuous basis so that mathematics curricula evolve regularly in response to the needs of society.

Despite the valuable lessons to emerge from these case studies, the authors firmly believe that many more lessons could be learned if more reform efforts were critically analysed and evaluated. However, such an endeavour presents many challenges. For example, what methodological strategy is best suited to such an undertaking? How can reliable and valid data be collected? How can we obtain accurate insights into the thought processes behind the instigation of curriculum reform? How do we, as researchers, distance ourselves from the discourse to accurately analyse the impact of curriculum reform? However, if researchers can overcome these challenges there is potential for an array of research projects to be conducted to analyse mathematics curriculum reform efforts across many countries. Such projects would yield rich data and insights that would undoubtedly inform future reform movements.