What is a skills based curriculum?

[skewiff]

Our primary school says one of its aims is to make the curriculum more skills based?

What does this mean?

Magdelene,

Again, I don't want to patronise you, but would it perhaps be useful to look at what the teachers amongst us mean when we say 'skills'?

If you look at any of the subjects in the National Curriculum, you will see that for each key stage there is a section entitled 'Knowledge, Skills and Understanding'. Within that there is often an explicit statement of skills. As Mrz has already given the example of History, here's the relevant bit for KS2 geography:

"Geographical enquiry and skills

1. In undertaking geographical enquiry, pupils should be taught to:

a. ask geographical questions [for example, 'What is this landscape like?', 'What do I think about it?'] b. collect and record evidence [for example, by carrying out a survey of shop functions and showing them on a graph] c. analyse evidence and draw conclusions [for example, by comparing population data for two localities] d. identify and explain different views that people, including themselves, hold about topical geographical issues [for example, views about plans to build an hotel in an overseas locality] e. communicate in ways appropriate to the task and audience [for example, by writing to a newspaper about a local issue, using email to exchange information about the locality with another school].

1. In developing geographical skills, pupils should be taught:

a. to use appropriate geographical vocabulary [for example, temperature, transport, industry] b. to use appropriate fieldwork techniques [for example, labelled field sketches] and instruments [for example, a rain gauge, a camera] c. to use atlases and globes, and maps and plans at a range of scales [for example, using contents, keys, grids] d. to use secondary sources of information, including aerial photographs [for example, stories, information texts, the internet, satellite images, photographs, videos] e. to draw plans and maps at a range of scales [for example, a sketch map of a locality] f. to use ICT to help in geographical investigations [for example, creating a data file to analyse fieldwork data] g. decision-making skills [for example, deciding what measures are needed to improve safety in a local street]."

It's not possible to teach those skills to an appropriate level through what you describe as 'cutting and sticking', which is why we do very little of that except perhaps when learning to shape and join different materials in ways appropriate to the purpose of the object we are making in Design Technology.

In fact, I have most often seen cutting and sticking 'makework' in classrooms with a very didactic teaching style, as a closed 'Have you listened properly to me today? Then cut out these pictures and match them to the right words' timefilling task.

teacherwithtwokids - I am not saying that knowledge has to be taught merely as 'chalk and talk'. Let me say it AGAIN - I believe knowledge and skills are both important. Your idea that knowledge is taught by just reeling off facts is just absurd. You need the theory in science to understand the experiments and you need experiments to understand the theory. How many teachers out there are merely using 'chalk and talk'?? I am just saying that there are teachers who are frightened of making children listen for just a bit for fear of the children becoming bored. I would argue that if teachers know their subject really well and have a passion for it, they'll be able to make evn the most mundane tasks interesting. Although it has to be said that some things taught will not be 'all singing and dancing'.

Young adults are choosing not to do science courses for a number of reasons. In fact many young people are choosing to do softer subjects instead of maths and science which is why many maths and science university departments are closing down. Perhaps children are not being inspired by teachers with enough subject knowledge, perhaps they are swayed by more lucrative careers, perhaps some children are not being encouraged to take Science (which hopefully the Ebac is now addressing!) etc etc.

The old education system gave my father (from a working class family) a chance to aim higher and apply to Cambridge. That isn't happening now. The old education system was NOT perfect but it provided more social mobility than we have now. Are we leading in science? no Maths? No what are we leading in?

The majority of Oxford?s UK undergraduates come from state schools. Latest figures (entry 2010) show that, for UK students attending schools or colleges in the UK, 55.4% of places on undergraduate courses went to applicants from the state sector, and 44.6% went to applicants from the independent sector.

www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html

Admissions statistics for October 2010, published today, show that successful applicants from the state sector made up 59.3 per cent of all home students who gained a place, an increase of 0.8 of a percentage point on the previous year.
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=416062

Magdelene,

We are, it appears, arguing about 'straw men' again. Basically, you and I agree. We are just using different words to describe it. We also agree that there are good and bad teachers. Whether they think 'content first' or 'skills first', there are teachers who inspire children and teachers who do not. I also agree that the reasons behind recruitment of hosptial staff from abroad are not solely, or even primarily, due to how the primary curriculum in England is delivered - it is an example that could perhaps be used on both sides of this debate or neither.

Whether our current education system is better than one at a previous point (you are talking about your father's generation at primary vs the current primary curriculum, so perhaps we are debating about two systems c 60 years apart or so?) is an interesting one, because it depends on what you measure.

Is the aim of education to produce a few outstanding individuals to 'lead the world' in particular areas? Or is the aim to make certain that every child achieves a certain minimum standard? Or to make certain that EVERY child makes all the progress they possibly can, so that those future world leaders can fly but also that none of my current pupils follow their parents and grandparents into an illiterate adulthood?

I think that the aim should be the latter - but sadly that makes personal examples such as your father (or my mother - her father left school at 14 unable to read, she won a scholarship to Oxford) statistically only part of the picture because we ALSO have to look at whether all other children in that era made all the progress in school and achieved all the qualifications they possibly could. I don't think that was the case - do you? It is a genuinely tricky thing to achieve, maximum progress for all - I don't think that we achieve it now either, btw. I just don't think that the success of a mass education system is always best measured by the achievements of the elite few. It also has to plan for, strive for, the success of the many.

In the old education system there were grammar schools, secondary moderns and 'special schools' (for want of a better word- institutions I suppose). I agree that grammar schools provided life chances for those children who were able to pass the 11+. Now, however, there is a 'one size fits all' system where every teacher has a huge range of needs to cater for in their classrooms. Is imposing a grammar school style curriculum on to that context really appropriate? It was never designed to be for all children.

Remember Gove is also proposing the 'nobody moves on until everybody has got it' policy. It doesn't make sense in the current educational climate. High achieving 'academic' children will be held back and other children will not be able to have the focus on basic skills (and by this I mean reading, writing and numeracy) that they deserve. He actually openly says he has no idea what to do with plan as yet for children at each end of the academic bell curve or those with SEN.

Of course if he's planning to open a grammar school in every district and to provide lots of specialist provision for children with SEN and differentiate the curriculum accordingly for each setting then I'm right there with him.

I'm old enough to have been educated in the tripartite school system grammar, secondary technical and secondary modern schools but society and the economy would not support such a system today.

I would agree with Mrz that the world of work which the old system prepared children for just doesn't exist any more - see my earlier post about my primary school, which fed into the local just-turned-comprehensive-from-secondary-modern, which specialised in training local children for the local industrial jobs available at that time. What is such a school preparing children for now??

[Apologies, last sentence not clear - What WOULD a secondary modern of that type be preparing children for now?']

call centres

What is needed now is for teachers to be allowed to differentiate within a solid curriculum in order for each child to develop the skills and aquired the knowledge that will allow them to achieve their own maximum potential and become useful members of society.

In my setting that does require a highly specialised and adapted environment, but it should also be possible and encouraged in mainstream. I don't think that's where were headed.

sorry 'aquire'

and we're

Not all children are academic and some children will want to go on to do vocational courses. Why is it so evil to say that? There has to a system where all children are given the opportunities to fulfil their potential whatever that may be.

EBD teacher - I am not expecting all schools to adopt a grammar school style curriculum - I don't even know what that is! But you must admit that 'one size fits all' policy doesn't do the children at the top end or bottom end justice.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9078438/Pupils-leaving-primary-school-with-maths-ability-of-seven

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9062467/Bright-state-school-pupils-less-likely-to-get-into-Oxford

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/12/will-hutton-education-schools-reform

because there aren't any jobs out there for them
because everyone has been led to believe they can go to university regardless of academic ability hence the rise of some of the courses ... hospitality ... retail education ... that would previously have been "apprenticeships" learning the trade
because www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/15258386

I thought you were part of the brigade who wanted more children to go on to university mrz.

Have you read my links?

No I don't believe that university is the best option for every child/adult but I do believe every child should be supported in achieving their full potential.
No I haven't read your links but I have read your post on another thread enquiring about my son ... in case you missed my reply he is doing very well after his failed suicide attempt so we are all very relieved.

One size does not fit all, that is why I said I would be in support of more of a range of provision. It's one of the reasons for my being a special needs teacher. I was very frustrated in mainstream by not being able to meet everyone's needs sufficiently enough of the time (by my standards).

But as mrz says such a system would be extremely expensive and just isn't going to happen so the best has to be done with the system as it is.

So we all agree knowledge is important and skills don't exist in a vacuum - good!
However, although I have no doubt that my children would have a great learning experience in the classrooms of many dedicated teachers who have posted on this thread (good teachers will ensure their students learn whatever the method) there is a real problem with the assumptions behind the new fad for skills based education.
It is often interpreted as meaning there is no place for rote learning or teacher talk.
Although teachers are trained to think children learn better when they investigate for themselves there is plenty of research evidence to the contrary, suggesting that concepts are poorly learned or not learned efficiently or properly when using this approach. It certainly takes longer, which is very relevant. It is not the only way of ensuring a child understands what they learn but it is sold as being.
It is sold as being more motivating than other methods, but this is also not proven.
However the argument for skills is not just based on the idea that children understand concepts better if they use their own investigative skills. The main argument I have heard is that in the twenty first century we won't know what knowledge we may need so it is more important to have skills so one can adapt. This argument downgrades knowledge entirely and is b**cks as far as I can see. The skills taught, if not grounded in relevant conceptual knowledge are empty. As we on this thread were all schooled in the twentieth century we are all stuffed apparently.

I strongly value nurturing independence of thinking in children. I think it is essential for children to engage with and understand what they learn but a lot that is done at primary schools (and secondary) to teach skills is based on superficially beguiling but UNPROVEN theories.
I have seen the harm it can cause at my dd1's first primary school (which was nothing like yours mrz...) and also in the changes to GCSE and A levels.

camicaze as far as I can see not one person on this thread has argued against there being a place for rote learning what does concern some is the idea that the whole class will be prevented from moving on if one child in the class fails to master that knowledge

Not allowing a class to move on is clearly an issue but one that has hardlly been mentioned before on this thread.
The thread is about skills based learning. Very many primary schools don't teach times tables by heart (among other things) as they think rote learning is bad. Hence my comments. But the point about rote learning is just one small part of what I said.

I don't think that any primary schools think that learning some things by rote is bad. I don't think you could find a single teacher who would say that knowing times tables by heart isn't a good idea.

You know that multiplication facts in a vacuum are useless knowledge though, don't you?

Say you present a child with a problem, maybe 'I have three bags with four apples in and you have two bags with four apples in, how many apples do we have?' A child who knows the answer to 5x4 by heart will not neccessarily know that this is the piece of maths they need to use- unless they have also been taught the problem solving skills they need to interpret the question eg 'what is relevant information, how do I organise the information, what operation will I need to use' etc.

A child who has the problem solving skills will still be able to arrive at the answer, albeit more slowly than if they had know their tables by rote. The child who only knows the tables but has not been taught skills to apply them will remain stumped. Obviously having both is the best case scenario but I personally can't think of many pieces of knowledge that are useful without the skills to apply them.

Also, teaching a whole mixed ability class anything by roe is also logistically difficult. In one class you are likely to have a group of children who already know all their times tables. There may well be another group who are consolidating counting 20 objects reliably and have not yet encountered multiplication. Which times table do you devote time to learning? Or do you stick with the twos on the basis that the bottom group haven't got it yet? This goes for rote learning any peice of information.

I am still not arguing against imparting knowledge- such as times tables and many other things. I do however think children need to know why they know something, what they can use the knowledge for and how they can use it. These are the transferable bits that children can then apply to other bits of knowledge they aquire throughout their lives.

Different people are good at different things, but we haven't done anything to create an economy in which all types of people have a role to play and get a fair share of the pie in return for their labours. There is therefore a constant battle between developing all people to the best of their particular abilities and forcing people to focus on knowledge and ways of thinking/skills that do not suit them. What we seem to be doing at the moment is creating an economy which only needs a narrow range of ability types and everyone else is regarded as useless, inefficient and surplus to requirements, rather than inefficiently utilised and a tragic waste of a resource.

(inefficient OR surplus to requirements...).

"You know that multiplication facts in a vacuum are useless knowledge though, don't you?"

YES - Entirely

EBD teacher. I agree entirely with all your comments (I've agreed with everything you have said on this thread - lots has been very interesting) - except the assumption that all schools want children to learn tables by heart.
While I think there will no teachers that think it is bad that children have picked up times table knowledge 'naturally' there are many primary schools that don't think it is necessary. Children are given tables they may need in a 'fact box' at the side of the problem. This is very common practice. Loads of primary schools don't teach times tables by heart. If asked they say that understanding is more important and learning by rote is meaningless.

I have said repeatedly that I think understanding is essential. The point I am making is that some schools don't think much knowledge is essential. Having sent my daughter to one I am just a bit scarred from the experience. Her school is not that unusual.

I am beginning to sound like Im obsessed with times tables - Im not- its just a useful example. Its perfectly possibly to teach pretty nearly all children their times tables despite different abilities in the class (mrz manages it in Yr2!) just as its possible to teach the understanding of them despite a class being mixed ability. Both the knowledge and understanding are clearly essential.