The Social Change Ideology of the Public Educators

The Public Educators

1. The ideology of Relativistic Fallibilism
The Relativistic Fallibilist ideology is that of the public educators, their aim is
‘education for all’. For education, this aim means to develop the faculties of independent
critical thought, enabling students to question received knowledge with confidence,
whatever the authority of its source, and to accept only that which can be rationally
justified. Example: 1+2=6 (Students can think critically when they know the statement is
wrong and question it according to what they have learned).
The primary elements of The Relativistic Fallibilist ideology:
a. Philosophy of mathematics
The philosophy of mathematics of this ideology is social constructivism. The process
of forming knowledge not from the individual but by the community. As we have
seen, this entails a view of mathematical knowledge as corrigible and quasiempirical;
the dissolution of strong subject boundaries; and the admission of social values and a
socio-historical view of the subject, with mathematics seen as culturebound and
valueladen. It is a conceptual change view of knowledge.
b. Epistemology
Consistent with the philosophy of mathematics. Thus the epistemology recognizes
that all knowledge is culture-bound, value-laden, interconnected and based on human
activity and enquiry.
c. Set of moral values
The moral values of this position are perspective comes a respect for each individual’s
rights, feelings and sense-making, and a concern that all might live in society as in an
ideal extended family.
d. Theory of the child
The theory of childhood is that of individuals who are born equal, with equal rights
and in general, equal gifts and potential. Children are ‘clay to be moulded’ by the
powerful impact of social forces and cultures. Social interaction and language play a
central role in the acquisition and creation of knowledge in childhood.
e. Theory of society
This view sees the masses as dis-empowered, without the knowledge to assert their
rights as citizens in a democratic society, and without the skills to win a good place in
the employment market.
 f. Educational aims
The aim is the empowerment and liberation of the individual through education to
play an active role in making his or her own destiny, and to initiate and participate in
social growth and change.

2. The Public Educators as Relativistic Fallibilists

The Relativistic Fallibilist ideology is that of the public educators, their aim is
‘education for all’. For education, this aim means to develop the faculties of independent
critical thought, enabling students to question received knowledge with confidence,
whatever the authority of its source, and to accept only that which can be rationally
justified.

3. The Public Educator Group in Mathematics Education

The purpose of mathematics education should be to enable students to realize,
understand, judge, utilize and sometimes also perform the application of mathematics in
society, in particular to situations which are of significance to their private, social and
professional lives. In order to empower learners and give them greater control over their
lives, mathematics teaching should encourage student autonomy and student choice of
problem areas for study.

4. The Public Educator Ideology of Mathematics Education

Aims of mathematics education
The aims stem from a desire to see mathematics education contribute to the furtherance of
social justice for all in society. This involves empowering individuals to be confident
solvers and posers of mathematical problems embedded in social contexts. So, the aims of
the public educator perspective are the development of democratic citizenship through
critical thinking in mathematics.
Theory of school mathematical knowledge
School mathematical knowledge must reflect the nature of mathematics as a social
construction, by means mathematics is a new knowledge that can be accepted by society
so that it helps students in making decisions, connecting one knowledge with other
knowledge, making mathematics a critical thinking tool in social life.
Theory of learning mathematics
This theory sees children as needing to actively engage with mathematics, solving
problems, discussing the mathematics embedded in their own lives and environments as
well as broader social contexts.
 Critical Review of Cockroft and the National Curriculum
Curriculum Theories and Methodological Considerations
1. Curriculum Theories
Theoretical approach to the mathematics curriculum and the identification of its aims.
It is multidisciplinary, resting on philosophy, sociology and history. There are three types
of approach can be distinguished, depending on which of these disciplines is the
foundation.
a. Philosophical approach. This uses the philosophy of mathematics, and in particular,
contrasting positions such as absolutism and fallibilism as a basis for identifying the
philosophy underlying the mathematics curriculum.
b. Sociological approach. The underlying sociological model are competing social groups
and neo-marxists. Firstly, competing social groups, with the existence of competing
social groups, different ideas are born. Although with different thoughts but will form a
temporary alliance to achieve curriculum goals. Secondly, neo-marxists, curriculum is
developed to equalize all students.
c. Historical approach, use the history of experiences and thoughts of competent people to
achieve curriculum goals.
2. Methodological Considerations
The methodology used is statement analysis by constructing the old curriculum into
the new curriculum to further clarify the boundaries of the curriculum.

The Aims of Official Reports on Mathematics Education

Identifying an increase in knowledge through two test considerations, namely pre
and post-test.
‘Mathematics 5–11’ (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, 1979)
The treatment of the mathematics curriculum during compulsory schooling for ages 5-
11 years. The target is elementary school level children who aim to pay attention to
broader interests, cultural aspects and mind training.
‘Mathematics Counts’ (Cockcroft, 1982)
Aims to prepare primary and secondary school children for mathematical purposes,
mathematics needs and for adult, work and educational needs.
‘Mathematics from 5 to 16’ (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, 1985)
The purpose of curriculum development focuses on children aged 5-16 years, namely
elementary and secondary school children whose aim is to prepare for pragmatic
technology giving, especially computers and calculators.

The National Curriculum in Mathematics

The national curriculum referred to here is a curriculum developed by the
government which aims to provide criticism of the ideological and conflicts that
underlie the mathematics component of the National curriculum.
1. The General Context
The Industrial Trainer Ideology and Interests
Curriculum development presupposes that all individuals have a wealth income
appropriate to their social environment. This means that the results of curriculum
development obtained are placing the own interests of groups with power and wealth in
their favor.
The Market Place and Social Policy
Curriculum development presupposes that the curriculum must be evenly distributed. The
results obtained from the development of this curriculum are those that will achieve the
curriculum goals of those who have an intellectual level and illustrate that competition
ensures that only the strongest survive.
2. The National Curriculum
Imposition of Central Control
There is a difference between private and public education. Where private education is
trusted to regulate itself. Meanwhile, state education is strictly regulated by central
regulations. A teacher is strictly regulated by the ministry, such as a teacher must
implement a curriculum made by the government even though the situation is not possible.
Where a teacher must have the creativity and ability as much as possible to achieve
curriculum goals.
Constraints on Mathematics in the National Curriculum
In this context, the National Curriculum for mathematics is limited, by the imposition of
severe constraints
 Traditional subject boundaries, contrary to modern curriculum thinking and primary
school practice
 A single fixed assessment model presupposing a unique hierarchical structure for
subjects. (This carries with it assumptions about the fixity of social stratification,
individual ability, as well as a disregard for cultural differences and needs.)
 An assessment-driven curriculum, requiring the greatest degree of definition for core
subjects (mathematics, English and science) in terms of a hierarchy of objectives
specified as discrete items of knowledge and skill.
 A very short timescale for development and implementation.
 Severely limited terms of reference for the National Curriculum Working Groups
restricting them to formulating clearly specified objectives and programmes of study.