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?

You mean a DTTMIB tiara?
Acronyms woman, what are you thinking of not using one whenever possible.

It?s the incoherence that gets me. The curriculum document sets down national minimum standards, and suggests in its rationale that higher achievers should consolidate and extend the range of applications for their skills rather than learn new skills. OFSTED briefings, on the other hand, demand all pupils move at appropriate pace through the entire school curriculum (inc. into KS3 for the best at Yr6) according to their abilities or they will not be progressing, just doing more of the same. We need a national minimum standard for schools because parents demand it, and a series of new schools exempt from national standards because parents demand them. The only coherence seems to be that any individual policy will be designed to present the maximum opportunity for Gove to show that teachers are failing.

But I don?t really see it changing my teaching, except potentially for holding secure higher ability pupils back. The question all teachers ask of any lesson is ?Did all pupils learn what they are capable of?. This means those who are behind catch up to national standards if capable, as well as those at the top moving on. And I?m not going to stop teaching spelling through segmenting and through sound groups just because another arbitrary word list has been produced, or start teaching column addition before pupils can partition and estimate the sum of 2 and 3-digit numbers mentally just because the emphasis is now on the written method. Not out of ideological stubbornness, but just because I don?t think narrowly defined spelling tests or non-understood procedures will actually work as a way of getting pupils to spell those words or do column addition. I don?t care that the ends have changed, the means and sequence have to remain similar to meet them.

www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/NCR-Expert%20Panel%20Report.pdf

The reality will NOT be that schools teach at the pace of the brightest in their cohort - in reality, the poor schools will teach at the pace of the slowest and use the new guidelines as an excuse for this. And even if the good schools do teach at the pace of the brightest, this will still result in the middle class parents ensuring their children don't mix with children they expect to be entering school at a lower academic level, because they will want their child to be aspiring to the level of children brighter and more advanced than them, not those starting at a lower base and possibly destined to remain at that lower base. These deeply middle class schools (even more so than now, where some middle class parents currently don't make an unseemly dash for the outstandingly middle class schools) will of course have a more interesting curriculum, too, because they won't be bogged down by spending all day on the basics, since the children in their schools will already have an excellent grasp of the basics, so freeing them up to do the extra frills offered by private schools and much desired by middle class parents.

If my child was not really reading in year two what in heavens name are you doing teaching them an 'interesting curriculum' at the expense of time spent getting them reading? Why do so many children come out of primary school unable to read at a level that means they can access secondary schooling?Apparently its becuse they needed an 'interesting curriculum.' What they needed more than anything else in the world educationally was to learn to read! One thing that's for sure is that a primary school indulgence has led to those children having a miserable time at secondary school. That said I'm sure teachers will continue to teach the basics in a way that is interesting anyway.
There is no way these guidelines could be viewed as a justification to teach at the pace of the slowest. There is time that could be found to help the worker catch up.
It is a draft curriculum and needs more clarification but the basic premise is good news and as this approach is used all over the world and in countries that are highly successful it's worth finding out how they do it.

Weakest - not worker...

Yes, what on earth are children who don't know the basics being taught a more "interesting curriculum" for? And what on earth are children who DO know the basics being taught nothing but the basics they already know for? Hence the logical conclusion that children who can already read before starting school should go to a different school to the one where the children can't...

Never met a 6yo who has tried to harm anyone who came near them, or if that was unsuccessful then themselves, rather than do a standard phonics lesson then beezmum? No? You are not alone, Gove hasn't either.

In the countries where this method is highly successful, is there so much of an emphasis on supposed "choice" of schools and the same degree of class divide? Because if the countries where it works are more meritocratic in their education systems and children generally go to the nearest school, then you can guarantee it won't work over here.

Ooh. I just read an article about the Singapore education system which Michael Gove so admires and there is much mention of meritocracy... oops.

Mind you, the middle class and the elite tend to assume they are more able, so ensuring they send their offspring to schools full of other middle class people, or other members of the elite, could be viewed, therefore, as meritocratic, even at primary level before you've actually tested your child's ability...

EBD teacher. Hey thats just not a fair interpretation of my meaning. You teach children with enormous issues. I'm sure teaching them anything is real struggle but does that mean you shouldn't try? you do as much as you can and I fully appreciate that there are limits for those sort of kids. Doing all you can is all you can do...
Rabbit stew that problem is just as prevalent now as it could be in future- you are speculating. You don't answer my point about why you are giving kids an 'interesting curriculum' rather than ensuring they get the basics. You say I am advocating bright children be held back and not get taught more broadly (I don't advocate that or think it will happen) I say conversely that you are arguing for weak kids having curriculums stuffed full with extras when their most important needs aren't being addressed. I really don't want kids losing out on a broader education but I think there is false choice being presented anyway. In the school day there is time that can be found for extra work on the basics without fully sacrificing that child's chance to study a broader curriculum.
Btw if other countries have schools that take a genuine cross section of the populatiion it means thy will be much more mixed in ability than ours, making getting all kids up to a shared standard more challenging, not less. I think I read in Singapore that schools teach the weakest kids separately and more intensively at the start of their schooling to get them to a point where they can be taught with their more fortunate peers.

I'm not a teacher, beezmum, so I'm not teaching anyone. I do think schools will need to reintroduce remedial classes, though, where the children who are struggling with the basics will go whilst the others cover a wider range of skills and subjects - or stream the brightest and move them right away from the rest. The alternative, surely, is what we already have? It works fine for the children who don't struggle - they still leave primary school perfectly capable of reading, writing and adding up. You seem to be talking as though the majority of children leave primary school unable to read, which is a load of rubbish - it is an unacceptably large minority, but the minority nonetheless. My children certainly already seem to get plenty of practice at reading, writing, handwriting and times tables, etc, for them to have acquired these skills and they still have several years of primary school left to go.

ps I have nothing against a remedial class for children who can't read or write, or keep up properly in the classroom. I just haven't noticed it being mentioned that there will be any extra funding, space or teaching staff for it.

I too think there will be streaming, rabbit.

In many schools at the moment, many 'low achieving' (for want of better words) groups are led by a teaching assistant. The teacher teaches the majority of the children, whilst the TA takes an intervention group, or provides support in class.

If Gove is so keen on addressing the education of the 'strugglers', he must provide sufficient funding to provide this group with trained teachers. We can't expect TAs, who are paid a pittance, to be accountable for these children's progress.

Beezmum - you are absolutely right. DD has just finished Y4 and can't read or write. I have begged and begged and begged school to spend more time teaching her to read, but they won't. They insist she has to do French (!) and RE and PSHE and god knows what else.

Needless to say she hasn't learnt anything in those subjects either.

Rabbit stew - its about 20% of kids who leave school without enough skills to access secondary school. That's a huge amount. Far, far, far too many.

EBDteacher - I don't think there's any reason to assume these proposals will apply to special schools.

How I interpret these documents is what DD would get is age appropriate teaching for maths and English in the morning, then in the afternoon extra teaching of English instead of French etc.

I would be very, very, very happy with this. And I don't see why any child who is quick to learn will be disadvantaged by having DD in their class.

This could be done now. The only reason it isn't is because school value a 'broad and balanced' curriculum above teaching her to read.

As for TAs teaching the struggling kids, a Sutton report was very critical of it and OFSTED are now very critical of it, so certainly at my school we don't allow it to happen anymore.

Gove is asking for a cultural change. You good teachers will still be good. But instead of expecting all kids to make 2 sublevels, you will have to get all kids to a 2b and all kids to make 2 sublevels.

But to do that you will be able to sacrifice afternoon subjects only for the kids who are behind.

I'm not sure if any of you have a child who is being failed as badly as my DD. it's no good teachers being happy that 80% of their class made expected progress. No good at all for my DD. yet I know that the teachers at my school are all very happy with what they achieve.

Even when DD makes no progress nothing happens. Nobody cares. Her interventions don't change. The teacher doesn't care. The SENCO doesn't care. The HT doesn't care.

In fact after I complained to the SENCO that DD had made no progress the HT told me if I was unhappy with the level of support she was getting I could move school

The school system for the bottom 20% is appalling. And Gove is right to address it.

You who think 'my kids fine' are being very short sighted. What do you think happens to those kids who are failed by school? I'll give you a clue, 50% of prison inmates can't read.

beezmum I don't think I'm alone in believing that it is quite possible to teach the basics well, within an interesting curriculum (and I don't see that the draft in it's present form will prevent teachers doing that).

Mrz - exactly. Teachers like you who already teach all your children to read wont have to change anything.

But schools like mine will have to change the way they do things.

It doesn't mean you have to teach literacy in a boring way. It jus means that DD would miss out on French and do extra literacy instead.

How school can justify teaching DD French I don't know. But they justify OT like Beezmum says, as her being entitled to an interesting curriculum.

I know in the original report the authors highlighted the fact that countries where there was an expectation that all children would be reaching a certain standard provided specialist teaching for those who were behind (from specialist teachers of sen/eal rather than TAs).

It would be brilliant If that actually happened here, but I really can't see the funding be provided. If it was I can't see why all children couldn't have a broad curriculum as all their individual needs would be met.

I'm sceptical that children would benefit from only doing the basics. In my experience what is needed is higher quality teaching focused on individuals needs. I think if you were seriously struggling and witnessed your peers having far more variety in what they got to do each day, then you'd probably get disheartened pretty quickly.

Indigo, you seem to be lurching from one argument to another. First you say there is nothing the school could do to help your dd as it is a medical issue (and that in the main they are doing a good job), then you say the school doesn't care and they are failing her. I'm not really sure what you want to happen? This isn't meant as an attack, I'm just struggling a bit understanding you.

We have done that this year hockeyforjockeys (not specialist teachers but very experienced teachers) to pull up those children we felt were in danger of falling behind.

We are starting this as well mrz, for both those in danger and older ones who are behind (and I'm bloody delighted about it!). However for very specific reasons we have a very healthy and increased budget, which I know isn't the case for all schools. We have cut back on TAs which helps, but we still need the extra money to fund teachers. I just worry that many schools won't be able to do this. How are you school managing it?

Oops that should be is, not are!

We only have 1 TA and 1 specialist SEN HLTA and did discuss employing more but felt that we should employ teachers for these children. (we have employed a business manager to look at ways to reduce costs and generate income that we can use for extras )

I get the impression that many parents on MN are seduced by the idea of lots of TAs

Hockey - I want school to do everything they can for DD. which they most certainly haven't.

There is loads more they could have done.

But I'm trying very hard not to just blame school, because that won't help
DD.

I don't like the model that if a child hasn't learnt something we'll just teach it to her again. And again. With no thought about why the child hasn't learnt it the first time round.

So I certainly blame school for not trying hard enough. For not prioritising literacy enough. For all their interventions to be based around over learning.

But I appreciate every staff member is trapped in the system and can't break out of it. That the problem doesn't lie with an individual. That the problem isn't to do with the quality of their teaching.

MRZ I agree and think it is possible to do both. At the moment lack of time seems to be the reason often given though for not giving the weaker kids extra teaching time in the basics. If you really do have to choose then getting kids reading has to be a top priority - but lots of schools like yours MRZ seem to manage without making those choices.
Yes, money for more skilled teachers may be necessary and i can understand concerns that it wont be forthcoming but the fact schools like MRZs can manage suggests it is also about a change in mentality and assumptions and my own experiences for my dds back up that assumption.