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 agree - there's nothing radical about tables. However, it is very radical change from a very strongly developmentalist approach to instead emphasise cohort progression at a certain standard.
I do know exactly what you mean about being able to use evidence from highly performing countries to prove whatever you want. In fact the chair of the curriculum review, Tim Oates wrote a really long (and fascinating) article on that very issue in 2010.
What I meant was that the cohort approach is perfectly possible and used by lots of countries. It is of added interest that it is used by high performing countries. It doesnt prove anything but as this approach has been endorsed by a panel that claim they are taking each country's context into account and are world experts in the field it does lend a bit more weight to their conclusions and mean they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
I guess that what really makes me supportive is personal experience of what can be achieved when something becomes a priority.
Sorry MissM reading a previous post I made it sound like I thought you don't support kids learning. It was a bit aggressive and could have been better phrased.

Flexybex there is an argument that if children arrive at school not even knowing their colours etc that the most urgent thing they need is to be given the chance to catch up as fast as possible. For every year of progress even an average child makes, a weaker student, from a lower starting point will make less with the same amount of teaching time. the very best thing we can do to help them is try very hard to actually accelerate their progress as their more fortunate peers are making more progress year on year. At the risk of sounding terrible the best thing you could do for these kids is give them lots more teaching or what hope do they have? Given that we know children all improve with practice isn't it our moral responsibility to help these kids while they still have some hope of catching up their peers by - putting it crudely- working them harder?

Absolutely, well said.

Exactly! These kids need more teaching not different teaching and the results speak for themselves.

beezmum ?? Are you implying we don't do anything to help these children who don't know their colours, or have high expectations of them? My point was that children who don't know their colours are unlikely to immediately take to the symbolisation of words.

Phase 5 by end of YR. Well, mrz, your L3 results must be high.

Perhaps you could explain why children who don't know colours can't be expected to read

Thanks Beezmum, apology appreciated!

'this approach has been endorsed by a panel that claim they are taking each country's context into account and are world experts in the field it does lend a bit more weight to their conclusions and mean they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand'

Unfortunately though, two of the three members of the expert panel resigned and Tim Oates steered this through himself (well, not entirely on his own obviously, but not with the other experts). I don't dismiss the importance of research evidence, but I also don't think that a curriculum should be put together based on the results of research, without actual practitioners. I'd like to know a lot more about how much teachers and other educationalists were involved in the thinking behind the drafts, and what's going to evolve in respect to the foundation subjects.

www.education.gov.uk/consultations/
you can take part in the public consultation but you need to be quick as it only runs for a month

sorry ignore that the consultation is closed and the next step is open for consultation
www.education.gov.uk/consultations/

Because, mrz, their vocabulary was so poor that they were speaking like toddlers; they had no social skills, so that was the priority (not phonics); they had no idea that their name could be written in letters, or what letters are; they had never held a pencil, and could not make marks on paper; they didn't know what a 'book' is, or what it has in it.

Many of our children fit that description exactly, but phonics, and therefore reading, is still a priority. It's the most empowering thing you can do for a child, despite their social and emotional problems.

I'm not disputing that, but I doubt (despite our high expectations) that they will reach the dizzy heights of phase 5 equivalent (or even phase 3 equivalent, being completely realistic) by the end of YR.

So it isn't that they don't know their colours it is their general language development that is the issue?
Many of our children arrive literally grunting or pointing to communicate, few speak in sentences so speaking and listening is a priority. Most don't have the physical skills needed to write so we work on developing gross and fine motor skills and books certainly aren't a huge feature of most homes so we have a 5 a day policy.

And they all reach phase 5 equivalent, with a-e, ai, aw, ou, etc, etc, by the end of YR?

All but the children with diagnosed SEN and since we don't follow L&S we don't teach phase 6 separately as an add on but when we need to which for some children will be in reception.

So, assuming you concentrate on comprehension in Y1/2 (as you won't need to do intensive phonics) what percentage of L3 do you get in Y2?

No we concentrate on comprehension in reception

and can I just make it clear I don't regard phase 5 as dizzy heights but firm foundations

40-50% depending on number of SEN (and issues) and pupil movement (this year I lost three good readers and gained one complete non reader)

40-50% depending on number of SEN (and issues) and pupil movement (this year I lost three good readers and gained one complete non reader)

mrz-are you in an infant school or a primary?

Primary

we get 50% level 5s in KS2

So, about the same as us. Maybe that implies that it doesn't matter if you take phonic teaching that little bit slower through YR and KS1? (44% L3 in KS1, 54% L5 in Y6 last year)

It might make life a little easier for the poor Y2 teacher