1. The Future of HoDoMS Jeremy Levesley Chair of HoDoMS

2. What has HoDoMS been good at?  Organising this meeting – providing discussion about high level issues effecting the sector, and support in doing what is becoming a more difficult job.  Attending various meetings to represent the views of HE Mathematics e.g. Nuffield Meeting for A level Mathematics, ACME annual conference, which discussed the future of A level mathematics.

3. What HoDoMS has been good at  Responding to various consultations – this year we have provided nominations for the REF panel, commented on the role of the Further Mathematics Support Programme, the role of ACME, support for the appropriate implementation of the A-level Uses of Mathematics, the structure of the HEA, and in particular, the position of the MSOR subject centre, the measurement of impact in mathematics for REF.  Responding to various issues arising in the press for instance supported a joint statement with CMS related to employability of mathematicians.

4. What is HoDoMs getting better at?  Communicating with other interested organisations –we now have formal representation of Teaching and Research Committees of LMS and IMA. There will be an LMS Education Day in which we have had a large input. – I have also had a number of conversations with Frank Kelly, Chair of CMS where we are starting to establish some understanding.  Organising cross sector bids – HESTEM.

5. What is HoDoMS not good at?  Being proactive – developing strategy for the sector. Should we –have had a much bigger part to play in deciding the REF panel? –be trying to influence the balance of what is valued by the REF panel? –play a larger part in deciding the HE involvement in A level? –be thinking about how mathematics is going to flourish as a subject in the new fee world? –be engaging much more with the world of work, for the benefit of students and our research activities?

6. Should we  Decide how we want lecturers to be trained and tell the HEA this?  Decide how we want degrees to be organised, and tell QAA this?  Tell EPSRC how we would like the funding of mathematics to be organised.

7. HE Mathematics needs to speak with one voice  My main preoccupation has been to bring the community together.  Policy makers decide based on consultation (we hope) – it is better if we argue between ourselves and give out a consistent message.  There needs to be a single place other organisations come to to consult our community.  HoDoMS has the members who have executive control over HE Mathematics – if we don’t want to do it, then it will not get done.

8. One voice  Our community is fractured.  We are not optimising our impact because we do not speak with one voice.  What we share is much more important than what divides us.  HoDoMS could provide a focus for bring together opinion in the sector – it is the executive arm of HE Mathematics.

9. HoDoMS  Has sector wide representation.  Good relationships with other interested parties.  A good consensus within the committee.  Trust within the HE Mathematics community??  The potential to lead.

10. HoDoMS has not  An identifiable leader for a significant period of time – other organisations have no time t develop trust with the Chair. We will propose a longer term for the Chair.  Adminisitrative support – HoDoMS is poor, so some sort of funding would be necessary for effective activity (I have personally dropped a number of balls).  Chair needs to have time – so we need to find a way of buying the Chair’s time.

11. Proposals 1.To increase the term of office for the Chair to 3 years (at least). This would give time for the Chair to become known to the other stakeholders in the sector. We should seek funding to support a person who can devote more time to the activity, as acting HoDs do not have time for this important task, this might also include finance of admin support; 2.To maintain a set of key strategic aims, which reflect the broad aims for mathematical education and research. These should be translated into a set of strategic goals which reflect the local political and funding climate; 3.To adopt the MSOR network as the Learning and Teaching Committee of the sector. This group contains a significant part of the learning and teaching expertise of our sector. We should then discourage other parts of the community from speaking about education. We would encourage the HEA, ACME, NCETM etc to communicate with this group;

12. Proposals 4.To adopt CMS as the Research Committee of the sector. This is a collection of the experts in research, and we would expect this group to negotiate with EPSRC for instance; 5.To develop a new Industrial Committee for the community – perhaps with a strong linkage to the Smith Institute. This committee should seek membership from IMA, RSS, and ORSoc who already have strong industrial links. We will need to engage much more with the world of work in the future, and this might facilitate that exchange; 6.To encourage the setting up of a UK Council for Mathematics with representation from e.g. the new HoDoMS, ACME, NCETM, and trainers of teachers of mathematics. This new body should develop a pedagogically based development programme for mathematics, and present this to the government. At the moment each part of the education of our mathematicians is viewed separately, and this creates a host of problems.