A promising approach still needs the right conditions to succeed.
Schools make daily decisions about how to support pupils with mathematics. These decisions are not only about what to teach. They are also about who will deliver an approach, how it will fit into the school day, and what staff need to put it into practice well.
Two EEF-funded trials offer some useful, but different, insights.
- One Step Ahead tested a teacher choice: short, small-group maths pre-teaching that schools could use without buying a programme or completing additional training with pupils in Year 1 and 2. The trial aimed to compare outcomes for pupils who received ‘pre-teaching’ before lessons and those who had lessons as normal.
- It found no evidence that pupils allocated to pre-teaching made additional progress in mathematical reasoning, on average, or experienced reduced maths-related anxiety.
- Mathematical Reasoning is a programme for Year 2 pupils focused on quantitative reasoning, number sense, and mathematical discussion.
- It replaced a maths lesson, with teachers explaining mathematical reasoning concepts followed by small group work and computer games. Pupils in programme schools made an estimated one additional month of progress in maths, on average.
For pupils eligible for Free School Meals, the best estimate was two additional months of progress, on average. This is an encouraging finding for pupils facing socio-economic disadvantage, although it is less secure than the overall result because it is based on fewer pupils.
The trials tested different approaches with substantial differences in content, dosage and delivery, so their results and the reasons for those results should not be compared directly. Instead, they highlight that schools need to consider not only evidence of impact, but also what an approach requires to be well implemented.
Plan for the full commitment
Implementation time is more than the minutes spent with pupils. Leaders need to consider the full commitment an approach requires, including timetabling, preparation, training, and resources.
In One Step Ahead, pre-teaching sessions were intended to last 10 to 15 minutes, at least twice a week. Even so, nearly three-quarters of teachers responding to the final survey found it challenging to make time before the main maths lesson. Sessions were sometimes delayed, cancelled, or rushed.
Mathematical Reasoning replaced an existing maths lesson, and most teachers were able to complete the intended number of sessions. However, schools still needed to plan for training, preparation, manipulativesobjects that educators and children can move and interact with to represent mathematical ideas (including fingers, everyday objects, such as buttons or pine cones, and mathematical resources such as Numicon, Cuisenaire rods)., and technology. More than half of surveyed teachers reported that preparation initially took longer than for their usual maths lessons.
Considering the full commitment at the outset can help schools judge whether an approach is feasible for their school.
Define roles carefully
Teaching assistants played important roles in both trials. In One Step Ahead, they could lead sessions when teachers were unavailable. Some staff said this helped manage pressures on teacher time. However, some also felt that sessions could be more challenging when teaching assistants were less confident with the content or less familiar with the lesson that followed.
Mathematical Reasoning specified complementary roles. Both teachers and teaching assistants received the online training for this programme. Teachers led discussion and focused teaching, while teaching assistants supported pupils during classroom activities and facilitated computer-based group work. Teachers and programme trainers agreed this support was important for delivery.
These examples reflect the EEF’s guidance that teaching assistants should supplement, rather than replace, the teacher. The key question is not simply whether a teaching assistant is available, but whether roles are clearly defined and supported.
Make teamwork possible
Strong teacher and teaching assistant partnerships require time and preparation. In One Step Ahead, teachers and teaching assistants shared plans and discussed intended learning before sessions. The evaluation could not establish how consistently this happened across schools. In Mathematical Reasoning, staff valued opportunities to complete training together and develop a shared understanding of the programme, although participation varied, particularly among teaching assistants.
Across both evaluations, a common message emerges. Schools may need to protect time for teachers and teaching assistants to understand an approach, clarify responsibilities, discuss pupil learning, and anticipate practical barriers.
Three questions for school leaders
When considering a new approach, school leaders may find it useful to ask:
- Is this feasible in our context? Consider the full demand on staff, not only the scheduled activity.
- How will teachers and teaching assistants work together? Define complementary roles and protect time for preparation and feedback.
- How will we monitor delivery and outcomes? Check whether the approach is being delivered as intended, while remaining open to evidence about whether it is benefiting pupils.
Read More
- Explore the EEF’s guidance on the deployment of teaching assistants
- Explore EEF’s A School’s Guide to Implementation
- Explore the Mathematical Reasoning evaluation findings