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?

Ok I understand a bit better now. What things do you think they could try that they haven't? Is it just to do with changing teaching methods and prioritising, or are there other things they could do?

I'm glad you say about being trapped in a system. I have had children that have left me where I know they aren't doing as well as they could, but as an individual it was impossible for me to make individual changes. Now I am a bit more experienced and senior, I am able to influence whole-school approaches a bit more which I certainly feel is improving outcomes for my less-able. It isn't perfect yet, and I have one child leaving me (year 6) who is still only able to read at a very basic level, but her needs are complex and I don't have the knowledge to provide the solution. Hopefully as my experience and expertise builds I will have less and less of these cases.

We do have an overcrowded curriculum (and adding a compulsory MFL will make it more crowded IMHO) so teacher's need to be creative to fit it all in ... teach the basic skills in literacy and apply what they've learnt in science, history, geography, RE ...... I combine subjects where there is a natural crossover as do many teachers and sometimes I just don't have time for macramé or Peruvian nose flute practise this week

Off the top of my head here are some of the things that school should have done differently:

• they cheated on her optional SATS. She had a TA read her the questions in the reading paper. Then when they got a good mark they believed it.

• the blamed DD being unable to read on lack of confidence / stress / me. And refused to acknowledge that actually she just couldn't read.

• when I tested her auditory something (I forgot what now - but basically she couldn't tell you what word ended in 'ee' - 'day', 'tree' or 'cow') and she scored in the lowest 1 percentile they didn't use that information to change her interventions. They didn't discuss it with me at all

• when I told them she had a serious eye tracking problem again they didn't change her interventions ar discuss it with me.

• they promised me she'd get 1:1 with a TA every day,and it would happen for a few weeks and then they'd be too busy

• they promised me she'd get said 1:1 instead of French. Again happened for a few weeks and then stopped.

• when she failed her IEP they just rolled it over without changing the goals or the interventions.

• she only gets an IEP if I ask for one.

• the teacher keeps taking advice from the SENCO - but I know way more than she does about both dyslexia and DDs problems. And they know I do.

• they're happy with her progress.

• they tried to get her to use a laptop despite the fact she finds typing harder than writing.

• they keep using wordshark despite it not having worked for the last 4 years.

• last year she was withdrawn from literacy and had to do RWI instead of literacy. Despite the fact she'd already been on RWI for 2 years and it hadn't worked.

• there has been no focus on 'closing the gap'

• they keep giving her a scribe when she doesn't want one and is quite happy to write. (her problem is her spelling, not her writing)

• all her 1:1 has been by an inexperienced TA.

• the SENCO told me RWI was wonderful when it turns out privately she doesn't like RWI.

• they haven't worked with me because I'm an over anxious parent and they're the professionals.

• they miss literacy loads and loads and loads to do 'more intersting things'

Indigobell - I would be quite happy for your child to do more literacy whilst my children were learning French. I entirely agree it is silly to plough on teaching a bit of everything to children who can't even read, yet, and let them leave primary school still unable to read rather than prioritising their reading skills. I also agree with Mrz that some variety can be maintained by good teachers being creative in the way they teach and making connections between subjects, rather than going from "literacy" to "science" to "maths" to "music" to "history" in blocks of specified time (I thought almost all state primary teachers did this, already??); but not all of it can be dealt with in that way and some children can cope with learning a wider variety of things than others. You can't have 20% of children doing something completely different to the other 80% for half the day without extra teachers, though.

In other words, if 20% of the school were needing a greater focus on reading and basic maths, it would either require quite a bit of extra space and properly trained teachers to cater for their needs, or 80% of the school also spending less time on things they actually do have time and capacity for so as to ensure everyone had understood the basics; or the government allowing schools of any hue to set up and have parents decide what they think will best suit their child, only to find there isn't space in the school they want and children still not receiving the teaching they need, because it isn't actually matched to need, just to who managed to get their child in - and a lot of parents attempting to opt out of state education altogether, because a big problem with state education in this country is that the middle classes are looking to what is on offer in private schools and asking why they can't have that (and private schools do MFL and lots of sport and extra music, etc, etc). The needs and wants of different members of society are stretching state education to breaking point.

I think the 20% figure is a bit of a red herring lots of schools teach all/most of their pupils well but there a few who fail

Rabbit - I think that's still a simplistic view.

Instead of more money you could argue different proprieties for the money you do have. You could either have 1 TA or 1 teacher in the afternoons.

AFAIK all the evidence points to teachers being a better use of money than TAs.

My school has in fact decided to do exactly that, hire a part time teacher to help with reading, rather than always using TAs (I doubt DD will get any time with the new teacher though)

With a bit of extra support early most kids will catch up and not need extra interventions for ever. This is exactly the model mrz and feenies school use. And it is exactly the model Gove is proposing.

It's the complacency in the infants which lead us to the point where we have 20% of kids behind.

Incidentally in her old school DD was the only child who did t learn to read by the end of Y2. Ie 96% of kids got a 2 or above in KS1. And it was a terrible school - that used an effective phonics program (RWI) to teach reading.

Lots and lots and lots of schoops do teach all kids to read. And the question really is why don't most?

But one teacher costs more than one ta. And if one teacher has 30 children, however hard you work, you cannot do the best for every child all the time, so someone gets left out/ left behind/ unstretched.

Depending on how much you pay your TAs and your teachers, teachers cost about twice a TA. So you can replace 1 TA with a part time teacher - which is what you need in this model.

Mrz doesn't have a TA. Lots of teachers don't.

If you don't have half your class behind I'm sure it's much easier to do without a TA.....

That's right- criticising individual teachers - or an emphasis on weeding out weak ones- is red herring. Good teachers often work very hard but using quite inefficient methods and it's hard to realise that (I have found myself in my own teaching!) The phonics issue is classic and explains dramatic differences in reading success between schools. Also if reading is taught using the most effective methods less time is needed and over fewer years.
At secondary level I can be faced with the fact that kids have done less well in my subject than others at GCSE or A Level. Although I can think of lots of very valid excuses it still forces me to examine my approach and rethink.
That's why I can see why the primary curriculum wants to get rid of levels as there is too little emphasis on searching for ways to get all kids up to a certain standard and so methods that are inefficient continue to be used.

A really terrible example of this was dds reception teacher. She was new and really struggling without decent support. Finally, after pressure from vocal middle class parents (not me actually) the head agreed to put in extra support. It transpired that the support was to help the teacher get her end of year assessments right- not to help her get progress from the kids. Help measuring that years failed teaching!

My head is very proud of the fact that the secondary schools we feed to say non of our pupils will need support with literacy or numeracy in Y7

Mrz, you sound like an excellent and v committed teacher, but does that mean that you have no children with v severe developmental delay? Is there a good special school system near you? I am just thinking of one or two children I have come across whose needs were so great they were unlikely to ever read, and yet were somehow still in mainstream primary.

No that doesn't mean that I don't have any children with v severe developmental delay.
Next year I will be teaching a child who is currently at the 18 months stage in a mainstream class with 1-1 and I have to accept that, as my head has told me, I can't fix everyone

I know I'm resurrecting an old thread but for those that are interested... There is a really interesting if lengthy set of exchanges between Michael Rosen and the chair of the new draft primary curriculum panel, Tim Oates. Its on Michael Rosens web site. Personally I find Rosen a rather irrational old wind bag but the set of exchanges between the two are very interesting if you want more of an idea of the rationale behind the new primary curriculum.