to think that the new national curriculum proposals seem to have passed people by when actually the consequences could be terrible?(83 Posts)
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.
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).
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.
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 agree it seems an awful lot to get through. DD has only just started roman numerals (Y3) and only up to 10.
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.
Follow the link - it's a PDF so you can search it...
I didnt notice but then I wasnt looking for it
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>
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.
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.
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.
PE mentions team sports with football heading the list and includes every team sport you can think of except Rugby
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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...
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?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.