Thoughts on the draft of the new primary curriculum?

[hockeyforjockeys]

The draft documents for the new primary curriculum are now here.

Had a quick look at them (mainly the year 6 stuff as that's what I teach) and it doesn't look too bad in terms of what we wold actually be expected to teach. Bit more challenging than what is currently expected for level 4, but not a massive jump (all my 4a children and above would cope fine with it). Major question is what happens for those who aren't ready (for whatever reason) for the programme for their year?

Don't particularly like being dictated too, but it saves me having devise spelling lists and science unit plans at least I suppose!

What are others thoughts?

I'm a secondary teacher but am very interested in the ideas underpinning this curriculum. You need to go on the government website nd read the 'framework for the National Curriculum'.
When you read it it is very persuasive, I think, about assessing whether children are ready to progress, rather than getting a level. It argues that in high performing school systems there is a much stronger emphasis on putting in resources to get as many kids as possible to the point where they are ready to progress.
What does it mean in practice? I think just that your top priority is to get most kids to a certain level but that doesn't mean you can't teach the more able more. In fact in the English KS1 curriculum it reiterates the need to move kids onto the next years phonics when ready, not wait.
I really like the curricum. Although there is specific stuff mentioned rather than chosen by the school the actual guidance looks beautifully simple.
And no level descriptors - just - are they ready to progress?!

I have read it, but seeing as one of the authors heavily criticised the draft curriculum www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jun/12/michael-gove-curriculum-attacked-adviser I'm really not sure it does underpin it. Based on previous experience, I'm sure many will interpret it literally and wont move the more able on. And it still doesn't answer the question of what happens for those unable to access their year groups objectives.

NB
It only applies to LEA schools
not academies or free schools

I think the word recognition for Yr/Y1/Y2 are absolutely crazy.
(letters and sounds phase 3 by end YR, phase 5 by end Y1):

Word Reading
Pupils should be taught to:
 respond speedily with the correct sound to graphemes (letters or groups of
letters) for all 40+ phonemes, including, where applicable, alternative sounds
for graphemes [1]
 read accurately by blending sounds in unfamiliar words containing GPCs that
have been taught [2]
 read words containing taught GPCs and ?s?, ?es?, ?ing?, ?ed?, ?er? and ?est?
endings [3]
 read other words of more than one syllable that contain taught GPCs [4]
 read words quickly and accurately when they have been frequently
encountered without overt sounding and blending [5]
 read words with contractions, e.g. I?m, I?ll, we?ll, and understand that the
apostrophe represents the omitted letter(s) [6]
 read aloud accurately books which closely match their growing word-reading
knowledge [7]
 re-read books to build up their fluency and confidence in word reading. [8]

That means all sounds, bar 4, by the end of Y1. Understanding apostrophes. Suffixes. And I bet we'll have to use all the right terminology.

Where did all those theories about play in the early years go? YR will be one looooooooooong phonics lesson! Seeing that a twelfth of our YRs came in without knowing their colours this year, I would imagine that this will be an uphill struggle, and as for those of you who have multilingual children.....good luck!

That quote was for the Y1 expectations BTW.

Just out of interest when will this come into use?

2014 if it is adopted (remember the last planned curriculum never became law).

Out of interest flexybex do your reception children not come up with good phonics?
Ours certainly would be ready for the proposed Y1 curriculum (with 15 -30 mins phonics )

Assuming all goes well - 2014.

Ours too - again just 20-30 minutes per day.

Much preferred Sir Jim's. Poor Sir Jim. He must be gutted.

Am I right in thinking that pupils would no longer be given a level of 3c or 5a for example? Would schools be assessed on how many children attained the learning targets set for that year rather than the progress made by individauls?

I'd like to know what level SATS would be at if there are no level descriptions. And how a national standard can be maintained.

I also think it's very prescriptive and dull! The whole point of the review was to make it less prescriptive, more flexible and shorter (apparently). This is the opposite.

The result of the last primary curriculum review in 2008/9 was infinitely better, and underpinned by solid research and educational knowledge and understanding. The person who managed this is a researcher and has no background in teaching at all.

No, the majority of ours wouldn't be at L&S 3 by end of YR, and, quite honestly a minority are at the equivalent of phase 5 by the end of Y1. About 70% or so of Y1 have been introduced to 40+ graphemes at this point of the year, but the majority aren't secure with them.

(Saying that, we get about 40% L3 readers at the end of Y2.)

Watching with interest, I have read the maths so far. It looks ok but I worry that children's individual needs/varying rates of progression just won't be allowed for with the new curriculum.

marking my place. going back to work next year and have no idea about the new curriculum.

Interesting flexybex. We don't follow L&S but our reception children (except 3) are working at the equivalent to phase 5 at the moment.

I don't think there is any room for different rates of development either.

I totally wish teachers didn't expect different rates of development but instead taught all kids the basics :(

Telling me not to worry that DD is behind, all kids develop differently, is no use at all.

The only thing that is of use is teaching her. And there has not been nearly enough pressure on school to teach her. They could and would have done a lot more for her if they'd been expected to.

And I would very willingly sacrifice 'stretching' DS if it meant DD had been taught properly.

I thought that at the moment all children were supposed to show a reasonable level of progression regardless of their assesment grade. ie one level every 2 years?

I can see that if a child is struggling, more could and should be done to help them. However, for a child who already knows the basics, what is the point in them going to school if all they are doing is treading water until the other catch up?

Or you could easily argue at the moment kids are rushed through as soon as they 'get it' and don't spend enough time doing the basics. (In some schools)

I certainly think my DCs, haven't spent nearly enough time on handwriting, spelling, and times tables.

DS is apparently a L5 or 6 at maths - but he doesn't know his times tables as well as me.

I agree with Indy. What is so radical about this curriculum is the way it expects teachers to get students to a certain level. So my dd was weak at maths and within the teaching time available at her school was moving towards getting a 2c at the end of KS1. There was NOTHING inately 2C about her or any other child. With more practice she could get 2a or level 3 as I proved by doing extra at home with her myself. And she shouldnt have been moved onto do more difficult maths until the previous stuff was really secure. A strongly developmentalist approach to childrens learnignis really dangerous as it assumes theyc an't do better rather than they just need more practice.
Last night a friend was chatting about how her dd who is in year 2 doesnt seem to really understand that 12 is a ten and a 2. There is no reason why virtually all children can't 'get' place value properly by the end of year 2 (let alone her bright little girl in a middle class village school). I agree that the focus should be on ensuring the resources are in place so virtually the whole cohort reached a certain standard. That is what happens in Finland, Singapore and other high performing countries so it is possible, we need to find out more about how they operate rather than just say its not possible (and of course MRZ manages!!). It is just a seismic change in mentality.
BTW it is very firmly based on reasearch - good research too.
The presciption in the curriculum has a deeper rationale than the obvious 'Gove loves facts' one. Currently because often level descriptors are generalisations, what is actually taught becomes defined by the SATS and teachers have to teach to the test. My understanding is that the rationale is that a curriculum is wanted which clear defines what children need to know rather than test writers driving what is taught.
Also agree that I would sacrifice stretching my kids for the knowledge that at eachs tage they were rock solid in what they did know. Then they have the potential to progress later. Doesn't mean tehy have to be bored in class - just resources are best used to get the whole cohort up to a decent standard - however long it takes.
Finally I dont get the prescriptive and dull comment. The curriculum just defines what the kids should be able to do-its a list of basic content. Its up to the teahcer to work out how they wish to teach the material and make it interesting. Unless you mean that its dull to learn and there should be less learning.

There's nothing radical about learning your 12x table - I learnt mine at school in the 70s.

The new curriculum cites that certain things are in line with high-performing jurisdictions in other countries. That doesn't necessarily mean that it works in other settings or out of the context of that jurisdiction. THere's a good argument about this that I read yesterday - will dig out the link and post.

I also have question marks over the standard. If there are no level descriptions, then what is the standard? And how will a national standard be ensured? SATS are remaining, so what standard will children be expected to be attaining? I'd like to see what they come up with instead.

Here's the link: ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-multiplication-of-massachusetts-and-the-chemistry-of-canada/

It's a comment on a blog by one of the original members of the expert panel who were appointed to look at the curriculum. He resigned his post, and gives very eloquent and convincing reasons as to why.

As long as they don't dictate how we teach it (as the literacy/numeracy strategies tried to do) then I don't think it will make a huge difference to what we do.

I'm watching with interest for my two kids (yrR and yr2) but also as a KS3 co-ordinator. This is clearly going to dictate how we assess at KS3 in the future.