1
Mobility of mathematics teachers across England, France and Germany:
any problems?
by Birgit Pepin
Paper presented at the European Conference for Educational Research, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia September 17th to 20th 1998
The Open University
School of Education
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
e-mail address:
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the question of mobility which involves considering the likely problems for mathematics teachers at secondary level in England, France and Germany to teach in one of the other countries. It is argued that there are cultural traditions and systemic features which necessitate a period of ‘enculturation’ before teachers can expect to become effective. The research is based on an ethnographic study of twelve mathematics teachers in the three countries (Pepin 1997). The study explored the context in which teachers were working and their pedagogies in the classroom.
Mobility of mathematics teachers across England, France and Germany: any problems?
This paper is divided into six parts. The first and second part give an introduction to the problem of teacher mobility in Europe and set the background in terms of existing literature with respect to mathematics education across countries. The third part describes the national cultural traditions of England, France and Germany in terms of underpinning philosophies. The fourth part explains teacher pedagogies (principles and practices) in terms of those cultural traditions, whereas the fifth part presents systemic features that influence teachers’ work in the three countries. The sixth part draws a conclusion from the previously presented findings and addresses the main question of the paper, the question of mobility of mathematics teachers across England, France and Germany, by highlighting the main problems and issues involved in moving from one country to another as a teacher, before suggesting a ‘solution’ to the problems.
1. Introduction
The Single European Act, introduced in each European Community country in 1987, attempts to remove all existing barriers to the objectives of the Treaty of Rome. This important treaty originates from 1957 and was based on the principle of freedom of movement of goods and services, capital, and labour. The broad educational consequences of the economic unification can be foreseen: workers, seeking scarce jobs in countries other than their own, will raise their families in foreign countries and will need international job qualifications. Teachers will also become migrant workers, since a directive of the Council of the European Community of 1988 requires that professional qualifications, including teaching, are mutually recognized and that civil servant status is no longer used to exclude teaching from the terms of the Treaty of Rome (Bulletin of the European Communities 1988, cited in McLean 1990). This law is intended to enable professionals such as teachers to accept jobs in any EU country with a minimum of bureaucratic interference. However, between 1988 and 1994 only 5000 EU teachers had their qualifications recognised in another member state, and the majority of them in the UK (TES 1998).
Yet, recently it has become known that the European Union is threatening to take legal action against France and Germany over their refusal to recognise educational qualifications gained in other member states (TES 1998). France is refusing to implement the directive for primary teachers who are, in their view, beyond the scope of the directive because they are French civil servants (and thus have passed a competitive entrance examination). The German case involves the refusal of Bonn to recognise teaching qualifications gained after less than three years of study (which includes certificates of education granted in the UK before teaching became a graduate profession). The commission claims that this contravenes Directive 92/51/EEC which enjoins the mutual recognition of (teaching) qualifications across the EU.
Beside those administrative constraints, teachers, and associated professionals, still know very little about their colleagues' work in other countries and how they conceive of and carry out their tasks. They need to be informed about the working conditions in the different countries; teachers' pedagogies and what underpins teachers' classroom practices in terms of underlying beliefs and knowledge traditions.
Thus, steps to promote greater professional mobility for teachers include not only the mutual recognition of their qualifications, but also an awareness of how teachers work in different countries, and an understanding of how teachers conceive of and carry out their tasks in any particular country. The ethnographic study on which this paper is based attempted to do just that: to develop an understanding of mathematics teachers’ work at secondary level in three European countries (England, France and Germany) in terms of teachers’ pedagogies; and the context in which they were working. Twelve mathematics teachers were ‘shadowed’ in secondary schools in England, France and Germany, in order to find out whether they could teach in a country other than their own.
2. Background
In terms of existing comparative research literature with respect to mathematics teaching, Moon (1986) investigated the way in which different educational systems, amongst them the English, French and German, had promoted and responded to the 'new maths' curriculum innovations since the early 1960s. There have also been several international comparisons of attainment in mathematics, the most recent being the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)(reported, for example, by The National Foundation for Educational Research NFER 1997). Interestingly, whilst comparative work has been carried out by Broadfoot and Osborn (1993) in France and England in primary education, relatively little has been undertaken at secondary level in relation to mathematics teaching except for that by Burghes et al as part of the Kassel Project (1996). Their research is based on a longitudinal study of representative samples of pupils in participating countries by using regular testing of pupils. The emphasis is on pupils and their achievement. Prais (1995) compared Swiss and English classrooms and Bierhoff (1996) undertook a comparison of primary school textbooks in Britain, Germany and Switzerland, supported by observations of classroom practice. In a very recent study of national cultural values and their role in learning in state primary schooling in England and France Planel (1997) emphasised how culture influences pupils in the classrooms in their aspirations and expectations. However, there has been little sustained analysis and understanding of the nature of cultural and structural differences, and how these influence mathematics teachers’ work in English, French and German secondary schools.
England, France and Germany have long-standing national traditions and institutions which are the result of traditions and historical developments, and there are substantial differences in the national educational traditions of the three countries. These can be seen in the history of the education systems and historical developments in teacher education in the three countries (Pepin 1997). Broadfoot et al. (1993) have shown that French and English educational values can be traced back to teachers’ perceptions of their work. These cultural backgrounds permeate through to schools, and, as this study has shown, influence teachers’ work together with the institutional provisions.
Findings from the study on which this paper is based suggest, and the literature seem to support this, that there are two main strands that influence teachers’ work, and in that sense influence mobility: cultural traditions; and systemic features (which are in turn underpinned by cultural traditions). One of these theoretical conclusions was that national cultural traditions underpin teachers’ pedagogies (Pepin 1998), which include principles and practice of mathematics teaching. Another insight was that there were systemic features in the three countries which are in turn underpinned by cultural traditions and which influence teachers’ work in England, France and Germany (Pepin 1999). These are discussed in turn, after delineating the underpinning educational philosophies in each country, in order to provide for the main argument of this paper, that mobility of mathematics teachers across England, France and Germany necessitates a period of enculturation.
3. Underpinning cultural traditions
England, France and Germany are generally considered to have different cultural traditions which permeate through to schools. McLean (1990) proposes three main European school knowledge traditions: encyclopedism, humanism and naturalism.
The main underpinning philosophy of the English education system is humanism, with its associated principles of individualism and morality, amongst others. English education is said to be child-centred and individualistic, and the interaction between teacher and pupil is greatly emphasised. With respect to morality, there was (and is) the belief that education (originally only for the elite) should develop qualities such as fairness and integrity, and teachers have traditionally had a pastoral as well as an academic function. The teacher has traditionally been responsible not only for the academic but also for the moral development of the child. Thus, individualism and moral purpose of education are two of the traditional signposts for the philosophical underpinning of the English education system. One of the claims about (English) humanism is that it is anti-rational, and traditionally mathematics and science were not as highly regarded as literature and the classics.
There are two features in the philosophy of French education which help to understand the system and the practices of those who work within it. Firstly, France is seen as one of the heartlands of encyclopaedism, with its main principles of rationality and universality, and the associated principle of égalité, transforming society in the interests of the majority of its members. The principle of rationality encourages the teaching of subjects which are perceived to encourage the development of rational faculties (for example, mathematics). The egalitarian views aspire to remove social inequalities through education and promote equal opportunities for all pupils. Secondly, the principle of laïcité traditionally leaves the social and moral education for the home environment, whereas intellectual and academic work is expected to be placed in school. Thus, traditionally teachers have been responsible for the academic development of the child, the parents and the church for their moral development. However, this has been changing in the sense that changes in the social role of families have transferred a socialising function to schools.
Germany espouses mainly humanistic views, based on Humboldt’s ideal of humanism, combined with naturalistic tendencies. Humboldt’s concept of Bildung searches for ‘rational understanding’ of the order of the natural world. It incorporates encyclopaedic rationalism as well as humanist moralism, and basically promotes the unity of academic knowledge and moral education. Therefore, teachers have traditionally held the two functions, that of academic specialist and, possibly to a lesser extent, that of moral educator. The naturalistic view, in the German sense, combines the child-centred approaches with the work-orientated. The ‘wholeness’ of education emphasised the belief that educative experiences are not necessarily intellectual. In Germany there is the cultural view that every occupation has dignity and that work of every occupation should be carried out with maximum commitment and thoroughness.
4. Teacher pedagogies
In the literature (for example, Hanks et al 1986), pedagogy is referred to as ‘principles, practice or profession of teaching’. In this part findings on teachers’ classroom practices and principles of mathematics teaching are discussed in the light of underpinning national cultural traditions of the three countries.
Classroom practices
Teachers in all three countries used whole-class teaching to some extent, but there were also important differences. English teachers spent relatively little time on explaining concepts to the whole class, whereas French, and in particular German, teachers devoted a substantial proportion of the school day to whole-class teaching.
When English teachers used whole-class teaching, they explained a concept from the front in a relatively didactic way. Unless the lesson took the form of an ‘investigation’, most English teachers introduced and explained a concept or skill to students, gave examples on the board and then expected pupils to practice on their own in small groups while they saw their duty to attend to individual pupils. This can be understood in the light of traditions of individualism, one of the humanistic ideals. In England there was the espoused view that teachers had to attend to the need of the individual child.
French teachers, reflecting egalitarian views, expected the whole class to move forward together. They tried to pose thought-provoking problems, expected students to struggle with them, and then drew together ideas from the class and the whole class discussed solutions. Therefore, whole-class teaching in France can be understood from efforts to keep the whole class together.
German teachers used a more conversational style where they tried to involve the whole class in a discussion. The emphasis was on understanding, part of Humboldt’s humanistic ideals, and often pupils’ mistakes in homework or class exercises were used to check and deepen pupil understanding. Typically, a teacher brought pupils to the board and discussed their mistakes and understanding with the whole class. The tradition of the country encouraged teachers to teach the class as a whole, and they were expected to move pupils (possibly the whole class) to a different level of cognition.
Principles of teaching
In England, situations where pupils discovered multiple solutions or investigated new solutions which required reasoning were rare and usually reserved for ‘investigation’ lessons. In English classrooms the major aim was to convey a mathematical concept and let pupils get as much practice as possible. The emphasis was on the skill side of mathematics and results- all approaches that can be traced back to (English) humanistic philosophies which do not emphasise the rational training of the mind.
French teachers focused on developing mathematical thinking which included exploring, developing and understanding concepts, and mathematical reasoning. They tried to forge links between skills and ‘cognitive activities’ (small investigations) on the one hand, and concepts on the other. Relatively little time was spent on routine procedures. Pupils had to reason (sometimes with rigorous proof) their results and they were given cognitive activities to discover notions of mathematics for themselves. The emphasis was on process and not the result. These approaches reflect the ideal of rationality (in encyclopaedism) embodied in the notion of formation d’esprit.
In Germany, the view of mathematics which teachers revealed was relatively formal and included logic and proof. The teacher’s role was that of the explainer who taught the structure of mathematics through an ‘exciting’ delivery and by adapting the structured textbook approach meaningfully. In particular in the Gymnasium (grammar school) where expectations were higher, topics were discussed in great depth. Logical thinking, the core of German humanist tradition, was regarded as important. The invention of new solutions or procedures was not encouraged, and lessons appeared relatively formal and traditional in terms of their mathematical content.
To summarise, it can be argued that different cultural traditions were a large determinant and influence on teachers' pedagogies in the three countries. This was shown by examining the ways teachers employed whole-class teaching; and teachers’ underlying principles for mathematics teaching. This has implications for the potential transferral of teaching across countries. The findings suggest that pedagogy needs to be understood in terms of national cultural traditions, and that national cultural traditions could impede the mobility of teachers across countries.
5. Systemic features
In this part, firstly, general working conditions which influence teachers’ work are presented, before, secondly, exploring findings on different ranges of teachers’ responsibilities in the light of cultural traditions. Thirdly, some features of the education system are discussed in relation to national cultural traditions.
General working conditions
In terms of working hours, teachers in France were expected to work between 16 (agrégé) and 18 (certifié) obligatory weekly periods of 55 minutes or the equivalent in terms of hours, whereas the German teachers taught between 24 (Gymnasium) and 27 (Hauptschule) weekly periods of 45 minutes. English (classroom) teachers on average taught about 22 one-hourly periods per week. Considering the number of weeks in a school year (which was different in the three countries) and the number of teaching periods, French teachers worked the least obligatory hours, followed by the German and then the English teachers. This was in itself interesting, but the important point was that in France and Germany, the teachers knew what they were supposed to be doing in terms of contractual periods and they did not do any more without extra remuneration, whereas in England there was a notion of what the teacher was supposed to be doing per year ('1265 hour rule') and this was a nominal figure, neither aggregated by teachers nor considered to be realistic in terms of contractual hours.