Michael Give and the curriculum review

[Alwaysworthchecking]

Am I right to feel wound up by this man and his ideas? On the news this morning it said that education has concentrated too much on theories of learning and not enough on facts. Surely if you are an educator and understand your theories, you can give children the skills to think and thus create life-long learners. Give them a diet of facts and all you have are parrots who lack the skills to critically evaluate those facts.

Grrr!

Is he for real?

Art and music would be preferred choices but she is also interested in psychology. Unfortunately, she is only allowed one choice

Paul Willis wrote a book 'learning to labour' is it still relevant?

just skimmed over what has been written and had a few points to make...

someone said LP's children do less well at school? i am pretty sure that some other social disadvantage is at play here-not that LP's dont get time to do homework! could it be they are much more likely to be poorer and lack resourses for example???

as reagrds a public school Vs state school teachers, i understand that state school teachers were deemed to be better at the job than those in public schools-i think it was ofsted or some results from a test or something. so, once again, maybe other factors at play here [like only 15 children in your class who also get private home tuition on top of school]?

as for curriculum changes that Gove is proposing, it will end with little choice for pupils and with some subjects not being taught at all. i think it will mean a bigger divide between the 'academic' children and the not so able children [in those areas of the curriculum at any rate] and only turn more children off education. it will mean a lack of creativity surely? it will mean more testing for the children, more stress, more pressure. if there is such a focus in secondary schools, then it will trickle down to primary and then to the early years with a narrower focus for small children too.

Finland is sighted with a good education system. it has less social inequality in the country. it has virtually no private schools. they also dont start formal education until children are older; instead being more "progressive" and letting children learn through play-the best way children learn. oh yes, and i dont think they test children [waste time] for weeks and weeks at a time in a school year like we do!

As a former primary school teacher I feel that the change in the primary curriculum would be welcomed. In the past I have spent far too much time teaching 5 year olds about ridiculous and irrelevant subjects. Why do they need to know about the diaries of Samuel Peypes, or the relevance of the life of Florence Nightingale when most of them havn't yet grasped the concept of last week, year, month yet?

The focus should be on the basics of reading, writing, number and exploring their environment.

Only when children have a good grasp and understanding of their own world and high standards of literacy and numeracy are they ready to move on to learning detailed facts and understanding the sciences, and humanities to a high level.

If more of this was left until late primary or secondary school, then primary teachers could concentrate on teaching children what they need to learn to be successful in further studies.

You are right.

BunnyWunny - that makes perfect sense.

Why on earth doesnt it happen?

I stopped by and saw that Lego had typed just what I wanted to say. Thank you, Lego.

Much of the 'faddy' teaching has come about because of frequently changing gov't initiatives. I think that's been the same, whoever's been in power. It's very frustrating to have to try and work like that, I can tell you. Mind you, some changes have been for the better. I do think the EYFS is a good way of working.

Legstuckinmyhoover. There is a lone parent were I live, she is not poor does not lack 'resources', but when she has to pop out for a pint of milk she has to take her children with her age 5 and 3. In my case my husband can go, and I can do the homework. It is obvious that if you have two 'responsible' parents at home it is a lot easier that just having one.

Another parent in my DS class has now divorced. The woman has now is doing all the caring herself, husband having taken car, and most 'resources', she has now gone in her words 'to having support' in many areas to having 'none'.

However you look at it being a LP with or without money is not easy, and does effect the future prospects for 'some' children.

Gove's change in the curriculum cannot come soon enough. This country is on its feet educationally. We used to be 7th in world in the education of our children , now we are 28th. That is totally unacceptable.

Bunnywunny. No 5 year olds have to learn about Florence nightingale or Samuel Pepys. I think your view of education is outdated and what you are advocating is what primary schools currently do.

5 years olds follow the eyfs.For other primary children it is the national curriculum. There is no requirement to learn about either Samuel Pepys or Florence nightingale.

Some of the original qcda units which were always optional may have resulted in some schools teaching in this way but this largely went out several years ago. Starting almost 10 years and developed extensively in the last 5 most schools have developed creative/integrated curriculums which are largely skill based for younger children with knowledge bases increasing with age.

I agree that the Florence Nightingale, Samuel Pepys stuff is nonsense. But I feared that it may have been even worse, that 5 year olds might have to learn about and look up to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown under progressive citizenship lessons.

Professor Bernard Crick, an influence on Blunkett, seemed to have wanted something like that for 5 year olds. Blunkett also wanted some kind of database for nursery children in order to spot future criminals.

www.independent.co.uk/news/citizenship-lessons-for-5yearolds-1199966.html

Hopefully, Gove will abolish all of this, if it was indeed ever implemented.

The National curriculum starts at age 5 in year 1, and my dds school is still using QCA units, and my 5.5 year old dd was learning all about Florence Nightingale last 1/2 trm. I suspect they can't be the only school still doing this... lets hope they get the message soon that more creativity in lessons is allowed now (they have just got a new head so maybe things will change soon..)

The main problem is that schools are expected to solve all the ills of society, there is little time left for academic education.

I agree with the OP and also lego. I work in early years and I am scared that that all the recent research into how children learn is going to be ignored and oushed to one side to make way for a formal curriculum for three year olds and more testing of pupils.
When there is plenty of evidence that supports the idea that formal teaching shoudn't take place until children are much older, say 6 or 7.
Teaching to the test, i.e just the facts, is not the way forward.

regarding LP's...are people saying all two parent families religiously do sit down with their children and do homeowrk? are you saying the sole reason for LP children not doing so well is only down to Lp's not helping children with homework?????

with regard to us comparing educationally to other countries. it is not as straightforward as it seems on the surface.

i wonder by what fraction of a percentage are we behind from the countries above. what does that percentage point represent-part of a question, a fraction of a set of pupils? are all the children exactly the same age to the day, are tests set on what all the children in all the countries have already learned or will there be some questions that a syllabus does not require the children to know later. are the children from the same socio-economic groups etc. do the children in all the countries get the same hours of time in school etc etc.

Gove at one point looked to china for answers. i read that in china children are put under much pressure to perform, that there is no let up and i understand it has the highest rate of suicide amongst young people in the world. they work longer hours at school, through holidays, learn things parrot fashion [as i have read] and are tested and streamed from a young age.

Gove wants 'tech colleges' for children to 'decide' at 14 if they want to do more vocational courses. in reality this will mean that as soon as our children from year6 step into their secondary school a judgement will be made for them on their test results [a snapshot of a child who may be having a bad day/bad time at home, been ill, etc etc] and their fate will be sealed for them by the schools/academies, as they will only want the best. schools won't try to push those kids, they will stream them into two groups from the off and it will hard to leave the bottom group and move up. those in that group with will pushed/encouraged into tech colleges. thats what happens with 'competition'.

Always, the trouble is mosdt of them are just that-theories-with sod all to back them up.

Gove is doing a fabulous job.

theories and research is based on research-that is collecting data from real humans and situations and analytically examining the results. of course they are backed up!

this is quite different to Goves ideas which have NO PROOF/ EVIDENCE that they will work at all.

'theories and research is based on research-that is collecting data from real humans and situations and analytically examining the results. of course they are backed up!'

Bollocks.

Nothing quite as bad as Education for formulating theories without back-up of research.

Hence immense fuck up that is 'child centred learning'

Wake up and smell the cawffeee.

hmm, nice, thanks

It's not about your bruised ego.
It's about the systematic ruining of countless children's life chances.

so instead of learning being centred around the needs of individual children, we should centre it where and upon whom exactly? and there has been no research on 'child centered learning' as an approach?????

Give me a resume of what you know and I'll tell you exactly why you have got the wrong end of the stick.

He made me cross when he compared the role of the curriculum review committee to his job when he was a researcher on the Today programme. Apparently I need 'briefing notes' about the subject in which I have a degree (and PhD) so that I am equipped with the 'facts' I can teach my pupils. Hmm. And his reveiw committee apparently has no ordinary comprehensive school heads on it. Only academy heads, who of course won;t have to implement what they recommend.

I like the EBacc for able students. I have always strongly encouraged the more able of my tutor group to choose the same range of subjects. It is irrelevant to others though. Back in the halcyon days of the 11+, most children received a less academic education. My dad left school at 15, with no qualifications, to join the gas board as an apprentice. He would not have passed O levels in, well, anything really according to him and my grandparents. Possibly maths. He's a pretty fab technician though.

Nowt wrong with technical skills for those who don't tend naturally to academic ones.
At least they are usefu, unlike the wishy washy touchy feely crap that kids spend hours wasting their time on these days.

If my kid comes home with yet anothe sticker/wristband/bookmark/fridge magnet from some overweight PC on 'PR' duties or some smug leftie going on about 'saving the planet', I shall ram it up the nearest person's arse.
This is the best book I have ever read about the tragic consequences of 'child centred' learning.

'Give me a resume of what you know and I'll tell you exactly why you have got the wrong end of the stick.'

Nice one, Moondog. If I were LegoStuckinmyhoover I wouldn't bother. Not when you've put it like that. Still, I get the impression that you were rather hoping she wouldn't, so job done maybe.

Why on earth would we want anything other than 'child-centred learning' for, y'know, children?

Purepurple, if that happens I will cry.