to think that the new national curriculum proposals seem to have passed people by when actually the consequences could be terrible?

(83 Posts)
soverylucky Sat 09-Feb-13 12:52:31

Yesterday the new proposed National Curriculum was revealed. It is a draft document that is open to consultation. I am horrified at some of the changes that are proposed and it would seem on some teaching forums others are too. Yet the story doesn't seem to be covered elsewhere. Why is this?

Tee2072 Sat 09-Feb-13 12:53:57

Details? Link? Is it a secret?

soverylucky Sat 09-Feb-13 13:06:07
scrappydappydoo Sat 09-Feb-13 13:08:49

Ok - help me out - that document is over 200 pages long and I'm not a teacher - broadly what are the big issues?

Tee2072 Sat 09-Feb-13 13:09:20

Okay, the reason no one is commenting is because it is 221 pages. Also, it's for England.

Not everyone lives in England.

Can you sum up what worries you?

aamia Sat 09-Feb-13 13:14:05

Will read it but it might take a while lol. What I want to know is WHY, when we're a country so in need of saving money, more of that money is being spent on overhauling something like this? Surely the one we had was good enough for now??!!!

soverylucky Sat 09-Feb-13 13:17:43

Yes - you have a point. I guess it is too long and perhaps it is just my subject that has been affected.
Will read through the other subjects to see if IABU or if I am just looking at this in too narrow a perspective.

Eebahgum Sat 09-Feb-13 13:19:50

I reckon they made it that long on purpose so no one can feasibly read it & it will get passed without opposition. Without even reading it i can imagine the kind of crap Gove is going to force us to deliver in schools. What are the issues that concern you? X

WhichIsBest Sat 09-Feb-13 13:21:54

I was linked to it before but at 200 odd pages didn't have time to go through it.

kim147 Sat 09-Feb-13 13:47:40

Why change it?

Because it's education. Politicians always have to fiddle in education. I have lost count of the initiatives and changes I have seen in education since I qualified in 2001.

And so many of them have gone. Been found to be pointless. But they were introduced with a fanfare and then lots of consultants did INSET training to tell us what the changes were.

It seems to be more fact based than skills based. Which I don't think is a good thing. Skills are essential - as well as facts and understanding.

gordyslovesheep Sat 09-Feb-13 13:56:15

OP please tell us why - even if it's just your subject - if people don't know YOU need to explain

MadamFolly Sat 09-Feb-13 14:08:56

There is a big big emphasis on England in KS3 History which will make us neglect some other stuff, thank God my subject is not included in the NC and is planned on a regional basis.

LivingInAPinkBauble Sat 09-Feb-13 16:25:57

Read primary curriculum, seems to change us to a knowledge based curriculum which is what we were asked to move away from! Much more chalk and talk. To me it feels like Gove wants his own school days back. It is much more prescriptive in terms of topics for Science, Hist etc as to what must be taught each year. Not a fan but then anyone who changes schools into academies and says you don't need to be a teacher to teach is an ass!

mrsbunnylove Sat 09-Feb-13 16:32:31

a quick glance suggests my subject is still in there, even if we don't have a section of our own, so i'm happy. still got a job, until monday at least.

soverylucky Sat 09-Feb-13 16:54:42

This is the KS2 History curriculum

early Britons and settlers, including:
the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages
Celtic culture and patterns of settlement
Roman conquest and rule, including:
Caesar, Augustus, and Claudius
Britain as part of the Roman Empire
the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire
Anglo-Saxon and Viking settlement, including:
the Heptarchy
the spread of Christianity
key developments in the reigns of Alfred, Athelstan, Cnut and Edward the Confessor
the Norman Conquest and Norman rule, including:
the Domesday Book
Norman culture
the Crusades
Plantagenet rule in the 12th and 13th centuries, including:
key developments in the reign of Henry II, including the murder of Thomas Becket
Magna Carta
de Montfort's Parliament
relations between England, Wales, Scotland and France, including:
William Wallace
Robert the Bruce
Llywelyn and Dafydd ap Gruffydd
the Hundred Years War

life in 14th-century England, including:
the Black Death
the Peasants’ Revolt
the later Middle Ages and the early modern period, including:
Chaucer and the revival of learning
Wycliffe’s Bible
Caxton and the introduction of the printing press
the Wars of the Roses
Warwick the Kingmaker
the Tudor period, including religious strife and Reformation in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Mary
Elizabeth I's reign and English expansion, including:
colonisation of the New World
plantation of Ireland
conflict with Spain
the Renaissance in England, including the lives and works of individuals such as Shakespeare and Marlowe
the Stuart period, including:
the Union of the Crowns
King versus Parliament
Cromwell's commonwealth, the Levellers and the Diggers
the restoration of the monarchy
the Great Plague and the Great Fire of London
Samuel Pepys and the establishment of the Royal Navy
the Glorious Revolution, constitutional monarchy and the Union of the Parliaments.

How do you cover all that content? Where are the skills? How do you make that relevant to primary school children?

kim147 Sat 09-Feb-13 16:59:37

That's a bit bigger than the current one.

Nanny0gg Sat 09-Feb-13 17:04:26

How do you make it relevant?

The little begger's will love all the death and plague and wars 'n' stuff.

I'd love it, myself.

Catsnotrats Sat 09-Feb-13 17:09:12

Soverylucky I was about to post the same - it's completely bonkers. I'd also point out that I went to a private prep school and we didn't cover a fraction of this (and nor do any private schools that I have come across recently).

Some topics could be quite interesting if taught well, e.g. Normans and the Civil War which aren't on the curriculum at the moment. However I really don't fancy having to interest 9 year olds in de Montfort's parliament.

What is also missing is the lives of everyday people, which is what children find most fascinating as they are able to compare and contrast with their own (particularly any gross/disgusting facts ala horrible histories).

It's also going to mean dropping ww2 which I find interests children the most as it is touchable - the people who were alive then are still here or only a generation away making it so much more interesting.

orangeandlemons Sat 09-Feb-13 17:12:45

I loathe this government more than the words can say. ....But I teach dt, and I'm quite looking forward to teaching horticulture...I love gardening!

I utterly loathe and despise everything else this government and Gove have done.

HollyBerryBush Sat 09-Feb-13 17:13:32

We managed to cover all that when I was at primary school and more.

Mind you what was a 2 year O level syllabus (industrial revolution) is now just a 6 week module for GCSE

Things evolve.

NTitled Sat 09-Feb-13 17:15:10

Interesting. The History list seems v smilar to what my children are being taught in prep schools. Though their schools seem more interested in teaching stuff, rather than making it "fun", "interactive" etc. I know that all the fun stuff has its place, but my DC are at least well informed.

kim147 Sat 09-Feb-13 17:15:40

I think they'd be better off watching Horrible Histories through KS2.

Crikey - that's a lot of history to cover in KS2 shock Some fabulous history, but some quite boring fact based stuff that will not interest the average 10 year old at all. How to put off children at a young age IMHO.

Sounds interesting to me. The only history we did in primary was WW2

LeeCoakley Sat 09-Feb-13 17:18:07

I read the History Curriculum as Greek and Roman history compulsory at KS2 and the rest should follow chronologically through KS2 and KS3.

Catsnotrats Sat 09-Feb-13 17:19:33

Ntitled can I ask if your child's prep school goes up to 13? And is it selective?

NTitled Sat 09-Feb-13 17:22:54

Yes, up to 13. Not selective as such (they do assessment days etc, but no formal entrance exam), though I am sure there is a good degree of other subtle selection involved.

kim147 Sat 09-Feb-13 17:25:07

That's a hell of a lot for KS2 considering the teaching hours available. It's going to be very superficial.

Also - how many primary teachers know all that history and can explain the basic contexts? I think I'm quite good at history but there's things there I'll have to research.

Haven't even looked at the science and geography bit yet.

NTitled Sat 09-Feb-13 17:30:59

That's another point - prep schools tend to be taught History (etc) by subject specialists. Maybe that should be the case in all schools.

Catsnotrats Sat 09-Feb-13 17:41:18

That's the problem ntitiled - Gove wants us to all aim to this standard, but actually your children are achieving it because they have so many advantages and opportunities outside of school. I'm sure you have taken your dc to places where these events actually happened (plus expensive school trips), have discussed it with them, bought interesting books etc etc. Plus they probably have a loving, stable home, had high quality language from babyhood, are well nourished etc. And they obviously academically able.

A few of the children I teach in my east London state school also have had all of this, and I think could probably cope with this curriculum, I can think of another couple who haven't but are very academically able and are interested in history who would be fine.

However the majority haven't had all of this. Many never leave their local area and don't go on educational day trips other than what we can provide for minimal cost. Many have parents with little English who weren't particularly well educated in their own countries. Some have parents who have been failed by our educational system and have no interest in learning whatsoever. Many have poor diets and live in overcrowded, damp housing. Many don't have their own books because of cost or lack of parental desire to own books. Our local libraries are seriously under-resourced. Some of our children have SEN, and this list represents knowledge that is far removed from their educational needs.

I would love for all my children to be capable of learning all of this, but it isn't going to happen for so many of them. Aspiring to be like prep schools is all very well but there are so many barriers that make it practically impossible.

EcoLady Sat 09-Feb-13 17:55:38

The primary history does strike me as bonkers. No 20th century at all until secondary school, all because Gove wants history taught in chronological order!

I teach yr4 and am just starting to look through it during half term sad

soverylucky Sat 09-Feb-13 18:00:10

When you factor in that a language must also be taught at KS2 I just don't see how you would get through all that content - well you would if you went back to the old days and just dictated every lesson. There is no allowance for years of research into different learning styles.
Many primary teachers will have not studied history since they were in year 9. They will not have the subject knowledge for this. At secondary school students will not study these topics again. They will follow a broadly British History curriculum that begins in about 1800. I would say that about 90% of the resources that high schools have will now be of no use at all to the teachers. The language in them is designed for older pupils and will not suit the new age group that they are designed for.
As a pp said - there is virtually no social history at all. My 15 years of teaching experience tells me what students do and do not find interesting. Yes the proposals will be exciting for some and yes some pupils will not find it too hard but as a teacher I have to think of all of my pupils and their interests. The current curriculum is not perfect but it is many times better than what is being proposed.

Catsnotrats Sat 09-Feb-13 18:05:58

We also have the same problem with resources in primary schools, Victorians, WWII and post-war Britain are all current popular topics which will become obsolete. There is also currently very little out there aimed at primary pupils for many eras (especially medieval) as they are currently not on the curriculum and so there is no demand. Will we be given funding for training and new resources? I somehow doubt it.

corblimeymadam Sat 09-Feb-13 18:08:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

theluckiest Sat 09-Feb-13 18:10:04

I am a year 4 teacher and the history content has actually made me bloody cross. I adore teaching history....loved it as a child and love getting my kids to be excited and inspired about it.

Yes, there are some cracking bits of history included in there but teaching it chronologically through KS2/3 seems utterly bonkers to me. What person in their right mind thinks that children leaving primary school should know the dates of the 100 years war but not have a clue who Winston Churchill or indeed, Adolf Hitler were? Or Queen Victoria for that matter.

Looks like a guaranteed way to turn a whole generation off history for life.

FWIW Gove is a dick. That is all.

kim147 Sat 09-Feb-13 18:14:08

No doubt the Daily Mail will complain pupils don't know about Churchill.
And what about all these attractions geared up for primary visits - adapt or die?

LeeCoakley Sat 09-Feb-13 18:24:33

Recent (ish) history is the most interesting at a young age because it's 'living'. Many children have gps or ggps who can add actual details or who have artefacts. Parents can pass down verbal knowledge from their parents and feel involved. It sets the stage for a more 'dry' style of learning later. Some of those topics would bore me silly and most children will be put off History long before GCSE choices.
Maybe Gove was only interested in children rote-learning the dates. I'm sure that's all there'll be time for!

The only possible way to cover this in the time available (effectively <1 hour a week, 40 weeks a year), would be to dictate it while children take notes in their history books. Certainly no time for any other method, such as all the interactive, varied, adapted-to-different-learning-styles, catering-for-SEN teaching which we have been practicing for the last few years. Back to chalk and talk with a vengeance. sad

And what about mixed-age classes? I am planning to instruct year 5 to cover their ears while I talk to year 6 about de Montfort or Wallace ... otherwise it would spoil the chronology. (And I bet they'll be so fascinated that they will beg year 6 to tell them all about it in the playground.)

jamdonut Sat 09-Feb-13 19:53:56

I love History, and I did A level History - Medieval World History, and the Tudors and Stuarts.(Back in the days when you sat a final exam - no coursework)

When I was in Junior school (Oooh way back in the early 70's) we learned History following a time line starting at the Romans and following roughly what is set out earlier in the thread.I loved all that. (I know this because I pestered my mum to buy me the same set of books about Roman,Anglo-Saxon and Medieval history that we were using in school ,because they were interesting and had lovely pictures of life in those times!)
I don't see why it can't be taught in that way. I didn't learn about the 2nd World War till I was in Secondary school (what would be year 8 now,I think).

kim147 Sat 09-Feb-13 19:57:51

I'd love to know where the resources are going to come from for all this. Where are the textbooks etc?

Seeing as how the Government has no money. confused

cakebar Sat 09-Feb-13 20:23:21

I support a chronological based approach, you have no frame of reference for anything without it. It doesn't matter what you leave primary school knowing or not knowing, it matters what you know when you leave education.

There is plenty of social history in there for the person who says there wasn't any! Introduction of the printing press, colonisation of the new world, the peasant's revolt, feudalism.......... I support the changes to the history curriculum.

Wellthen Sat 09-Feb-13 20:58:43

I find it interesting that the OP is very concerned and yet only talks about History. Its not even a core subject. 1 subject not being to my liking wouldnt make me want to chuck out the whole proposal.

Also they dont have to be taught every era. They simply have to understand the chronology.

soverylucky Sat 09-Feb-13 21:15:35

wellthen you are correct. I did state earlier in the thread that I was probably BU as I was concentrating too much on my subject. I should have been specific in my title.

I don't have a problem with a chronological approach as that is how I teach at the moment. What bothers me is the amount of content at primary school. I do not see how all this can be done and when the students reach secondary school they can not go back to it. Primary school teachers have often not studied History since year 9 and I worry about the nature of the content not being taught by specialists. I am also concerned about the resources that will be required and those resources that are no longer needed.

I also have concerns about some of the content but it would appear that is a point of personal preference.

lazybastard Sat 09-Feb-13 21:32:27

What age range is KS2?

kim147 Sat 09-Feb-13 21:33:25

Year 3 to year 6

So 7yrs old to 11 years old.

Andro Sat 09-Feb-13 22:18:01

I think that list looks really interesting - we studied a lot of it when I was in KS2 (missed some bits and studied others instead). I still remember the projects we did charting the progress through the ages, the roman/anglo saxon/viking/ norman invasions and the ancient Greek and Roman history that started a life long love of these periods.

I suppose it does seem a lot though - but I have no idea what our list would have looked like written out so it's tough to judge.

Laradaclara Sat 09-Feb-13 22:28:50

Looks like its aimed at producing a nation of people good at pub quizzes.

2kidsintow Sat 09-Feb-13 23:07:50

Yet another reason I am grateful that I live and work in Wales.
Our curriculum was changed in 2008. To a skills-based one that specified all the skills in each subject, then suggested a range that the skills could be taught through.

We are facing new literacy and numeracy strategy changes, but not this overhaul.

shewhowines Sat 09-Feb-13 23:14:50

if they want it chronological, then wouldn't it make more sense to start with recent history and work backwards?

BatmanLovesVodkaAndCherryade Sat 09-Feb-13 23:49:57

It misses out Ancient Egypt, one of our favourite topics sad

Kim147, you have a very good point - all primary schools will have to buy new books for the nf library. I wonder if our brand-new selection of books about the Victorians, Ancient Egypt and WW2 would fetch anything on ebay?

Cakebar, I have always added the chronology myself, by putting up a big class time line which we consult frequently during the various topics, and also use when we meet events on the news, in reading books, etc. At the beginning of the year we also walk down to the bottom of the school field to find the relative position of the Ice Ages (since the recent films) and look on maps to see where our time line would reach if we included dinosaurs.

Teachers can do chronology without prescriptive rules laid down by the government. Contrary to popular opinion in government and on MN, we are not all idle and stupid.

No matter how diligent I may be, though, there is no way the sheer mass of detail laid down in the consultation document can be covered. Has anyone worked out just how many hours of teaching time are available for history between y3 and y6?

Just reading through the 200 pages now (it's raining, after all).

Actually, some of it is quite funny: I really like the bit where y3 start learning about genetics and inheritance, looking for family likeness among the Hapsburgs (I thought we were to stick to English history?), where it also helpfully points out that children are not yet expected to know how chromosomes work. I see hours of fun in the playground when they manage to work out that Amy's mum and dad both have blue eyes so there is no way Amy's dad really is Amy's dad ....

Just got to geography - where has Africa gone? And our study of Pakistan? With all the carefully nurtured cross-curricular links with RE and Islam, the partner schools with which our classes exchange letters, our fund raising projects supporting the school in Nigeria ...

From an RE point of view, not being allowed to study a country where Islam is the main or even a major religion is a big step backwards.

I am quite sure that South America is fascinating, but far further away with far fewer family and community links for the children, WHY???????

corblimeymadam Sun 10-Feb-13 08:18:05

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

kim147 Sun 10-Feb-13 08:20:45

This is from 2 years ago:

"He said he wanted to reduce "unnecessary prescription" and that the curriculum would be slimmed down so that it reflected the "essential knowledge" that children should learn.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Gove said it would be for the panel leading the review to determine what content should be specified in the new curriculum.

"I'm not going to be coming up with any prescriptive lists, I just think there should be facts," he said.

"One of the problems that we have at the moment is that in the history curriculum we only have two names [of historical figures], in the geography curriculum the only country we mention is the UK - we don't mention a single other country, continent, river or city."

The education secretary has in the past been vocal about the lack of a "connected narrative" in the teaching of British history"

No prescriptive lists, a slimmed down curriculum confused

corblimeymadam Sun 10-Feb-13 08:23:59

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Believeitornot Sun 10-Feb-13 08:31:34

Surely this prescriptive list tells us that you cannot teach children everything in schools. Surely the aiming a curriculum is to teach a core, to spark interest in whatever subject, then as children grow up they can follow that interest. Not cram as many facts in as possible - facts are relatively easy to learn, it's the analysis etc that's harder.

Exactly. Facts can be looked up in books or on google. Attitudes, skills and enthusiasm need to be developed, so that the children actually want to discover the facts and know how to find and evaluate them.

Lists of facts are relatively easy to teach, though, while being uninspiring to learn. Lots of lists, drilling, memorising, mnemonics, chanting, rhymes to remember dates, flash cards ..... It'll be just like the 50's ... lovely.

(How old is Michael Gove?)

Catsnotrats Sun 10-Feb-13 08:41:31

I can't understand either why North and South America have been designated as ks2 and Asia and Africa as Ks3. Is there something far more challenging in these continents which means they aren't suitable for 7-11 year olds?

I've also just noticed that we are supposed to teach about the Industrial Revolution in ks2 DT. How does that fit with the idea of chronological teaching?

SuiGeneris Sun 10-Feb-13 08:45:15

Have not read the consultation doc, but it sounds eminently sensible and quite similar to how we were taught history 30 years ago (in another country): chronological order from pre-history to ww2 between 7 and 11. The difference is we did it again in more detail between 11 and 14 and then in much more detail between 15 and 19. End result is I know much more about history (including UK history) than DH, who was state educated in England until 10 and then went on to a reasonably well-known school.
Don't really understand the moaning about making things "relevant": we are all human and history is about the evolution of man, so Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Charles V etc have affected all of our backgrounds, regardless of whether we are English, German, Indian or Chinese.

The fact that current teachers may not have studied much history after their teenage years is more concerning, but good textbooks and training courses should help? Yes, they do cost money, but education is very important and IMHO is one of the best things on which to spend money...

IAmLouisWalsh Sun 10-Feb-13 09:13:00

I asked DH who Clive of India was last night (because I genuinely don't know, other than something to do with colonialism)

He replied 'some mate of Derek of Pakistan'.

Well, it made me laugh....

(I have an A level in History, he has a joint honours degree in Politics and History)

But there will be NO resources and training. We know that; almost all training in schools has been cut. SuiGeneris - what an interesting name! - have you read the list that is to be covered in a little over 100 hours teaching time? Even if they don't have any time to find pencils, do school plays, change after PE etc?

cazzybabs Sun 10-Feb-13 09:22:58

what we want, Gove you are reading, is not a definative all you need to know list of facts but a list of skills to engage and eqiup for life in the 21st century. Let us teach children how to find facts, ask questions, solve problems, think and let us as teachers decide which topics are best to engage our children with to achieve these aims.

I hate what he is doing to teaching.

Wellthen Sun 10-Feb-13 10:04:11

I agree with the poster that said it would make more sense to go backwards and ultimately be more interesting for the children. IME primary children just dont get ancient history, its too far removed.

Didn't notice the Geography as much, will have to go back and have another read. But I guess I would say remember that this is what you have to teach but its not the ONLY thing you teach. Surely you can cover children's home counties in PSHE or RE as well?

Dont know why I'm supporting Gove really as I'm definitely not Tory! Its not as bad as I thought it would be I spose.

kim147 Sun 10-Feb-13 10:06:19

I dread to think what the assessment will be look. What will a level 3 or 4 look like? Will it be the ability to name dates?

<Thnks back to NC in early 90s and the amount of crap that came with that>

lljkk Sun 10-Feb-13 10:36:05

there's no way they'll cover all that history. There will be a selection element to it: "Choose one of these six choices from the same era to cover in year 5" kind of thing.

soverylucky Sun 10-Feb-13 11:35:20

suigeneris - I think the way History is taught now is not too different to how you studied. Certainly at the school I teach in we follow a chronological approach from the Romans in Britain to virtually the present day. Primary schools do seem to adopt the dip in and dip out approach. I understand people's concerns with this and I am not totally against change. However the proposal means that pupils will be studying topics in primary school at a very young age when little time will be given to the subject matter, their comprehension will be limited, the teaching will not be from a specialist and it will not be repeated at high school. If the government kept the idea of a chronogical approach for primaries but slashed the content that would be an improvement on what they have proposed. Secondary schools could use that framework to build on and develop the subject further. What they are suggesting seems totally unworkable.

lljkk makes a relevant point. They will not cover all the content and important topics will be left out. High schools will not be able to "fill the gaps".

Wellthen, we can add our own content; it's just a time thing. If we have to fit in all the facts required, there is absolutely no time for extra. And if teaching about Africa and Pakistan or India has worked well up to now, why change it just for the sake of it?
If there is a choice of units, that would be more sensible, but still, to lose the whole sense of our geography! sad

soverylucky Sun 10-Feb-13 11:36:56

It is also true to say that there will be no extra funding for training and resources. All the major educational publishers will have to start from scratch. The books that they have just released are now of no use.

dayshiftdoris Sun 10-Feb-13 11:52:34

PE mentions team sports with football heading the list and includes every team sport you can think of except Rugby shock

Why is rugby missing? Tag / touch rugby is played until 9yrs and the RFU have changed their rules this year so that contact is brought into the game in a much slower manner...
In my experience its a much more inclusive sport than football...

Swimming is still on there too with all children having to have swimming lessons regardless of their prior skills!

Oh what a shame about rugby! It is really popular in my school and so much more accessible to girls and the less sporty.

Let's hope that the RFU get onto it right now!

Swimming is fine ... just costs more to take everyone. We already have to charge for the coach to the pool (30 mins each way, so a whole afternoon out of teaching), so presumably that will just be expanded to include everyone, not just the non-swimmers who were mainly missing their lunch break. Maybe we could chant lists of kings on the coach!

I think there just will not be books in schools, since there will be no possibility of replacing whole sections of the library (thinking of my lovely new box of Pakistan books) and teachers will use the internet and download/make worksheets.

However, I am really trying not to be negative .... I am very pleased to see fossils and dinosaurs making a come back in year 3/4. Children tend to be fascinated by them and I could never understand why they didn't feature in a big way, especially to catch boys' interest.

dayshiftdoris Sun 10-Feb-13 13:15:47

Exactly LaBelle... not against swimming - just the blanket 'You need to go' - much better to concentrate the spend on children who are not water safe.

My son is proficient swimmer but he can't bloody spell be much more useful if he spent that time relearning his phonics!

As for rugby - can't understand it at all. It's considered a much more technical game with respect for elders, manners built into the ethos of clubs... it's played at very high level in the private sector (our club is in area with some prominent public schools and we have a number of players who are purely here to learn school ready for senior selection).

State run education seems to favour the football... they seem scared of the 'risk' but tag can be played across the ages and is no more risky than football.

Lovecat Sun 10-Feb-13 13:28:11

I haven't read the document but can someone who has please confirm that Mary Seacole is still on the curriculum? I don't know if she'd be under History or Health/Science type stuff.

The reason I ask is because Gove said he was going to remove her from the NC (I get the impression he'd like our children to learn about dead white men and little else) and I signed a petition against this, I was under the impression that he'd done a u-turn, but if she's not on the History list then where is she?

<declares personal interest, my cousin is on the board of the Mary Seacole Trust and it took long enough to get MS recognised along with Flo Nightingale, I'm aghast that Gove wants her gone>

dayshiftdoris Sun 10-Feb-13 14:56:33

Follow the link - it's a PDF so you can search it...

I didnt notice but then I wasnt looking for it

notnowImreading Sun 10-Feb-13 15:14:57

Mary Seacole is on the list (History). I read it yesterday.

I am interested in the ways the English curriculum will change now that 'Grammar and Vocabulary' seemingly has equal weight with (all the rest of) 'Reading' and (all the rest of) 'Writing' and (all the rest of) 'Spoken Language'. I particularly enjoyed reading that the subjunctive is now part of the prescribed curriculum for Year 6. Hands up how many of us can/need to use the subjunctive (and didn't learn it through learning a modern foreign or classical language)?

Almost the whole of the proposed KS4 curriculum for 'Reading' is literature-based, with minimal reference to any skills relating to multimodal communication and non-fiction texts. There's almost no creative writing; instead a big emphasis on accurate, formal essay writing.

kim147 Sun 10-Feb-13 15:48:49

Well - had a look at it properly now.
Maths looks similar - high expectations and a mention of Roman numbers to 1000 by year 6 confused

Science - no obvious difference.

Geography - Looks interesting and doable in KS2

But history - there's just so much of it. It's going to be superficial. An hour on an area, next one, next one - no depth to it. And just so much to be expected to be covered. I can see some of it will be interesting and might grab the attention but I think it's overwhelming.

Looking back at my primary school days, I can hardly remember any of the history we did. Apart from the Romans and Vikings.

Lovecat Sun 10-Feb-13 17:43:48

Thanks notnow

I agree it seems an awful lot to get through. DD has only just started roman numerals (Y3) and only up to 10.

kim147 Sun 10-Feb-13 18:14:02

This is an extract from Gove's speech.


And that is why in reforming our curriculum and examination system we have sought to incorporate the lessons we have learnt from the most advanced cognitive science.

So our new curriculum affirms - at every point - the critical importance of knowledge acquisition.

We have stripped out the rhetorical afflatus, the prolix explanatory notes, the ethereal assessment guidance, the inexplicable level criteria, the managerial jargon and the piously vapid happy-talk and instead simply laid out the knowledge that every child is entitled to expect they be taught.

There is new and detailed content on the mathematical processes every child should master - including early memorisation of tables, written methods of long division and calculations with fractions - which was either absent or obscure before.

There is clarity on the scientific principles and laws which drive proper understanding of the natural world.

There is detail on grammar and punctuation, clarity on the essentials of clear composition and a requirement for proper knowledge of pre-twentieth century literature.

In history, rather than a disconnected set of themes and topics there is a clear narrative which encompasses British and world history, with space for study of the heroes and heroines whose example is truly inspirational.

In geography, proper locational knowledge with an understanding of how to use maps and locate rivers and oceans, cities and continents.

And in foreign languages, there is a clear emphasis on the importance of translation - including the study of literature of proven merit."

The speech is here:

So much of what he says is false - tables and methods were clearly included. Science hasn't changed much. And I bet he won't make assessment easier. We need data, don't we grin

SuiGeneris Sun 10-Feb-13 22:15:28

NotnowIamreading: raised hand here, twice over as DH is reading over my shoulder. We both us the subjunctive daily or thereabouts. Don't many people? I realise sentences such as "I ask that the papers be sent" are not very common but "if I were you..." occurs quite often in speech...

I think the history curriculum looks great. Much better than the endless repetition of WW2 that I got in the 80s. My only concern is that teachers will be too unfamiliar with the syllabus to teach it well.

I learned much of my early history from Ladybird books, now out of print. They were great. Frankly, (and I know most will disagree with me here) I'm not at all keen on the Horrible History series. I think the best way to put a child off a subject is to try and jazz it up: it gives the impression that the subject is not interesting in itself.

Toad, I agree that there is far too much Horrible Histories. It probably started off as a really good idea; a drop of irreverent humour to make children feel daring and shocking. Now history for children consists of practically nothing but. 1066 And All That was far funnier (in small doses).

VioletStar Mon 11-Feb-13 21:57:11

Speaking as a secondary school teacher I'm trying to get my head around the sheer weight of content which I have to teach in 2 years due to a shortened KS3 in my school. 3 hours a fortnight (not including coming to lesson late - get this: today a kid said he was late as he had to go to Tesco to buy biscuits!). Aaaarrrrgggghhhh! And how on earth will we resource it? I am a history specialist and so are my 4 colleagues but time and money is not on our side. How to teach content, keep it interesting and teach the vital skills necessary?
I've been teaching 20 years and I can honestly say no two years have ever been the same. I wish politicians would stop tinkering and let us get on with it.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now