Mathematics education in the English and French contexts and the implications for New Zealand of a “Europeanised” curriculum

Field: Social Sciences (Social Sciences)

Abstract Though they are geographically close, England and France's underlying philosophies regarding education and, for the focus of this paper, mathematics education, exhibit differences worth considering. The English system, influenced by the humanism school of thought, can be characterised by its desire to treat each student as an individual--and to guide the students in their social, emotional, as well as cognitive developments. In contrast, the French system places less emphasis on affective concerns, but rather focuses on the rational and functional aspects of educationfor all its citizens--areflection of the encyclopaedic roots of French education. The results of these distinctive philosophical orientations can be seen in the practice of mathematics education in the two countries. For example, differences exist in their views on setting, the availability and use of textbooks, and in the day-to-day school culture. An examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the two European systems suggests potential changes could be made in New Zealand. These changes include: making mathematics an explicit, rather than implicit, gatekeeper; addressing the roles of the teacher; and changing the structure of the school day. Introduction Every country is unique--defined by its history, its values, and its people--but that is not to say it does not share similarities with other nations. England and France are two countries that share an intermingled history and geographical proximity, yet that are philosophically quite different when it comes to the principles governing education, and in this instance, mathematics education. I believe it is these differences that should be explored further in our consideration of the New Zealand curriculum and its development. Such international comparisons enable us to get a better appreciation of where New Zealand is from a global perspective, and provide an avenue for assessing what we are doing well, and what lessons can be learnt. The initial inquiry into the similarities and differences of education in an Anglo-Saxon context, in comparison with a French one, stemmed from a personal visit to France in the summer of 2004/2005. I discovered that, despite having a poor level of French, I was generally able to understand the mathematics studied in the classroom. It soon became evident that the linguistic differences were not the problem; the challenges were adapting to the socio-mathematical norms established in the class. While the mathematics itself appeared to be much the same, there are nevertheless pedagogical differences between the French and Anglo-Saxon cultures, which I aim to address in this article. First, some contributing influences to the philosophy and practice of education in both countries today are examined. Second, examples of differences in classroom realities within these countries, including the manner in which the mathematics is taught, the use of teaching resources like textbooks, and the implications surrounding homework activities are considered. These cultural differences, however, are simply examples of political, social, or philosophical influences which manifest themselves in each of the countries. Moreover, there have been significant political, philosophical, and pragmatic shifts in the course of each country's educational and social history--which can have profound effects on the educational practices we see in today's classrooms. Therefore, it is not intended to suggest that these differences are generalisable for the whole of England, France, and New Zealand. In today's context, it is first and foremost interesting to analyse the French and the English approach to mathematics education, given the blurring of geographical boundaries, and the prevalence of educational comparisons between European countries, in addition to the Europeanisation that is allowing for much greater mobility of teachers (Broadfoot, Osborn, Planel, & Sharpe, 2000; McLean, 1990; Pepin, 1998, 1999c; Planel, 1997; Ravn, 2002; Robertson, 2000). …