WHO COMMISSIONED THIS REPORT? AND WHY?

Mathematicians in higher education have responsibilities of many kinds. They must ensure the welfare of their discipline, in part by preparing new generations of teachers and researchers. They are extensively involved in providing the requisite mathematical knowledge, skills and understanding for students of science, technology, economics and a host of other subjects which are increasingly dependent on quantitative methods. They have been heavily involved during recent years in unprecedented changes in the scope and organisation of higher education. Their specialist knowledge and experience gives them unique authority to comment on broad issues affecting the mathematical life of the nation, and obliges them to take some responsibility for school mathematics in this country.

During the last two to three decades, there have been many radical changes in school mathematics. These include, for example, the rise and fall of `modern maths'; the raising of the school leaving age and the growth of comprehensive education; the Cockcroft Report (1982)[3] and the recognition of the need for a curriculum serving `the lower half'; the introduction of GCSE in 1986/88; the Education Reform Act (1988); the introduction of national testing at 7, 11, and 14, and of the National Curriculum with several hastily revised versions of the Mathematics Orders; and the vast expansion in the proportions of the age cohort remaining in full-time education beyond the ages of 16 and 18.

Unfortunately, despite the evident interdependence of primary, secondary and higher education, these changes have increasingly proceeded without sufficiently serious, mutual consultation and planning. This lack of genuine consultation has had numerous negative consequences. It has led many mathematicians in higher education to feel released from their responsibilities at school level and, in particular, has led them to give lower priority to their key role in helping to improve the supply of suitably qualified teachers. Moreover, their exclusion from real involvement in decision making has led to school curricula which are, in important ways, inconsistent with mathematics as specialists understand it: in short, which misrepresent what to many is ``the essence of the discipline''. This has caused severe problems for those teaching or using mathematics in higher education and has had the regrettable consequence that many in higher education have lost confidence in the manner in which school mathematics is organised and decisions regarding it are taken.

In the light of the unprecedented level of concern, in January 1995 the Council of the London Mathematical Society established a working group to identify the problems more clearly, and to suggest steps that might be taken to improve matters.

The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and the Royal Statistical Society accepted invitations to participate directly in the group's work. Moreover, in view of the extent of concern among colleagues in other disciplines, the group sought at all stages to consult other interested bodies with a view to presenting a report which might reflect the concerns of as wide a community as possible.