Syllabuses

Despite the wide range of syllabuses, there was evidence of considerable common ground. The emphasis was on mathematical modelling, and mathematical analysis. The stated aim was to develop a sense of coherence and progression in mathematics. The statistical syllabuses, however, did not generally reflect this aim. For most of these, the content was illogically ordered. There were inappropriate emphases on theoretical/algebraic aspects, under-estimation of the intellectual demands in more applied, conceptual aspects and over-emphasis on ‘more techniques’ being synonymous with ‘more advanced’. Project work, where required (or optional), is hampered by lack of preparatory teaching in the necessary applied skills, e.g. experimental design.

In general, the contents of the syllabuses were very similar. MEI and London included some extra (applied) subject matter, but not necessarily in the right place, nor in an integrated fashion. The Cambridge AS Statistics tried for a more applied, more ‘statistical’ syllabus, but the result was rather mundane, with too little support for teachers.

The NEAB proved to be an exception. Its statistics syllabuses were accompanied by a completely separate set of aims and objectives, confirming the Review Group’s view that the ‘standard’ aims and objectives of the mathematics syllabuses are inadequate and inappropriate for the purposes of statistical education. The content and approach of the NEAB syllabuses were clearly oriented towards the development of more applied skills and understanding, not merely the accumulation of analytical techniques. There was more support for teachers in interpreting the requirements of the syllabus. It was felt that the NEAB’s AS- and A-level Statistics syllabuses were more promising as support for students’ other disciplines or preparation for further study in statistics than those of the other Boards.