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?

As the Y2 teacher, I don't feel phonics or reading a pressure at all. So many children naturally 'get' reading in Y2, it generally falls into place.

Writing is a different kettle of fish. That, I do lose sleep over.

^read words quickly and accurately when they have been frequently
encountered without overt sounding and blending ^

This suggests at least some appreciation of what learning to read really comes down to, despite the emphasis on phonics.

But that is phonics masha

We regard reading and writing as two sides of the same coin flexybex and good phonic skills as essential to both. As the Y2 teacher writing can be my prime focus in literacy it works well for us it might not for others

I've had a look at the institute of education blog by one of he curriculum advisors. While he is happy to endorse the framework document written by the panel he is pretty critical of the final outcome. The framework document, by getting rid of levels and other statements does support that change in mentality I so much like.
The one odd thing I found reading the critical blog by Andrew Pollard was his quite rational suggestion that high performing countries are quite diverse in curriculum characteristics. The reason I found that statement odd is because the framework document he supports struck me as being quite guilty of referencing high performing jurisdictions as models really quite uncritically. Whereas Tim Oates, vilified byPollard as guilty of this, wrote a really intelligent and developed paper in 2010 on how far and in what ways we can use the evidence of these countries - and it was this paper that served as the starting point for the review.
Who knows what unpleasant politics went on behind the scenes. It doesn't inspire confidence when the expert panel leave but I think we need to look at the documents themselves.
This all said I think the new curriculum is great and in many ways it clearrly does reflect the ideas of the panel's framework document. When you look at the new curriculum next to the old one a lot of the criticisms of the new one don't seem true or over blown.

This is probably an obvious question (but as a secondary teacher I have no idea about primary ed)...will the changes be phased in from yrR in two years time?

In other words, will all the other year groups be levelled still? (trying to work out the shelf life for levelling at kS3!!)

Flexy - your results sound amazing. You are clearly doing a lot of things right.

Migrating - I so hope they come in overnight for all of primary. Imagine if my primary with average results is suddenly expected to teach all kids!

They will apply to all year groups from Y1 to 6 from 2014 if they become law not phased.
b

usually changes come in on a rolling programme at secondary, but that only takes changes to be put in place within 2-3 years as KS3 is so distinct from KS4 and KS5.

This is because it is hard (or impossible) on kids (espcially at KS4 and 5) if the changes come mid GCSE or GCE course.

(however, that's not stopped Gove but that's another thread )

right (thanks mrz) so levelling has a possible life span of two years for all of us then...

In primary we are used to things changing overnight and the unfairness of it all.
The original plan was for a phased subject change of curriculum with core subjects being introduced in 2013 followed by other subjects in 2014.

What a big huge waste of glossy paper that turned out to be!

If the changes only apply to LEA schools, not free schools or academies, then it must be the government's cunning ploy to encourage all schools to become free schools or academies!...

I'm waiting to see if this proposal has better luck

If this government will be in power for long enough for the changes to be phased in (and they've vowed not to have an election for a while, whatever happens...), then I would have thought it would have some luck, wouldn't it?

The whole thing strikes me as very much back to basics. Back in the bad old days, when primaries taught virtually nothing but the basics, overall standards were appalling.

The repeated emphasis on handwriting, at a time when in the real world fewer and fewer people still write by hand, seems especially retrograde. I think the people who speculate that this may be Gove's ploy to encourage more people to opt out of his control by becoming academies or free schools are probably right. But their freedoms are bound to be curtailed before long too.

The programmes of study for English make me think mainly that English spelling is in dire need of modernisation. Its irregularities ensure that children have to spend far too long on learning the mechanics of writing (i.e. learning to spell according to dictionaries), leaving them too short of time for other crucial learning.

The programmes of study for English make me think mainly that English spelling is in dire need of modernisation

Gosh - do you think we need some kind of.....ooh, I don't know.....um......spelling reform, perhaps, Masha?

But why does every teacher believe its best to reinvent the wheel?

What's wrong with being told 'teach this in Y4'?

My literacy coordinator has just been granted time to work out exactly that. From the KS2 curriculum, what the school will teach in each year.

What a waste for each school to do this. Why not do it once centrally.

Teachers complain how overworked they are (and I believe they are) - yet resist all attempts at reducing their workload by using ready made lessons or being told what to teach

Because one size invariably does not fit all - am referring to ready made lessons, here. It's actually quite difficult to make someone else's lesson fit your class.

The standards expected may be being raised considerably for the lowest achieving in the population, but they are being lowered immensely for the highest achieving, who are already complaining that their needs are not being catered for, anyway.

It can't always be difficult to re-use ready made lessons.

Surely some ready made lesson plans must suit your class.

What about art or PE or RE?

What about in secondary school where you have streams. Is one set of 30 kids working at a level 6b really that different to another set of 30 kids all working at a 6b?

I really think a large part of it is cultural. Ie it is frowned upon so nobody admits to does it?

No, Indigo, would have to disagree. In PE, there are differing abilities which no generic lesson plan would fit, and PE, Art and RE specialists would be cross with you for suggesting that it's actually as simple as that. It isn't, or anyone could teach any class anything with one click of their fingers and a book of crappy generic lesson plans.

Think about Ofsted - surely every teacher then could achieve a decent grade for every lesson with a book of sure fire winners? Nope - because teaching and children aren't anything like that. You must know this from teaching your own lovely dd - you used tailored materials, but must have to adjust to suit her pace, style of learning, etc, etc. We adjust like that for 30 different children, all the time, in every subject. Because that's what it takes for children to learn effectively.

Not wishing to use ready-made plans isn't cultural - it's lazy teaching and it rarely works.

It seems if all children are to be taught the same things in each year, the only differentiation there will be for the more able will be whether or not their parents can afford to send them to private school. Or is it such a good idea that private schools too will be striving for average?

totally agree from a secondary point of view. Two science classes working on average at 6b are never exactly the same. The same group of kids can be different at different times of the day or week, let alone from one year to the next!!!

I find it impossible to follow other people's planning. To be honest I change and adapt my own plans as I go to meet the children's needs