Free school head without any teaching qualifications plans to ignore curriculum

[mrz]

m.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/mar/10/free-school-head-no-qualification

The fact is they are going to need to employ someone to tell her how to run a school while she learns - good use of money?

I agree that it is not a good use of money, unless her funding comes from Future because her role is not that usual to a head - but that seems unlikely.
There is much work done on curriculum development by academics and much research in the field of cognitive psychology that could be made applicable to school curriculums and it is a rare teacher that has that expertise. The role of the Curriculum Centre is pretty much specifically to develop curriculums informed by knowledge of these fields. I think it is great that a group of people want to look at what is known through research and work with teachers who have the knowledge to apply those principles. Nothing will ever happen with the academic research on education unless those with that expertise work with teachers. The whole point of the centre is to try and bridge the gap.
If I get the impression that the Curriculum Centre is bulldozing through their ideas rather than working with teachers on development then I am not interested. However, that does not appear to be the case at all. They seem to be admirable in their appreciation that a curriculum has to be developed. I particularly admire Daisy Christodoulou in this respect. The anti Gove mania not only means all his works are automatically evil but anyone that he consults or professes any support for any aspect of his policies must be devil's spawn.

Unfortunately theory in curriculum doesn't always translate into practice because real children don't always respond/ behave how psychologists and academics believe they will/should.

beezmum they have completely ignored the recommendations from the government's own advisors who resigned because of the direction the curriculum was taking against all evidence.

Here is a link to the website of the cognitive psychologist, Daniel Willillingham, cited in the 'core beliefs ' of the Curriculum Centre.

Daniel Willingham learning styles

I can't find any empirical research to back his ideas.

MRZ - exactly. It is because theory does not always translate to practice that one should use theory collaboratively with teachers to teat ideas and see what works.
Ipad you need to look a bit harder. Dan Willingham only does the sort of research one would call empirical. It is learning styles that have no empirical research behind them.

Test ideas...
Really really ipad you couldn't be more wrong. Look at Willingham's blog for starters and if I get a chance I'll find some links.

they aren't interested in what experienced teachers can add to the curriculum

'Against all evidence'... Not really. The battle is ideological - evidence is not lacking for the Curriculum Centre's approach - just look at Massachussetts...

Mrz where on earth do you get the assertion from that Curriculum Centre is not interested in what experienced teachers can add to the curriculum? Are you once more confusing things and assuming they are Gove and he is them?

Re Willingham and learning styles just type learning styles/evidence into Google. The literature is so vast it is hard to know where to start but try this one:

www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/learning-styles-debunked-there-is-no-evidence-supporting-auditory-and-visual-learning-psychologists-say.html

beezmum they make a statement on their site "With combined experience of teaching, academia, school leadership, training, research, policy development and publishing, our team spans the educational world." and then you read the sum total of that teaching experience is a Daisy Christodoulou who completed a Teach First programme and Annaliese Briggs who "taught" at the Sun's Saturday school project both young ladies are obviously very intelligent and committed.

Beezmum are you working for the Curriculum Centre by any chance?

I think what the education system needs are good and committed teachers who are allowed to do their jobs and get a reasonable wage given their working hours.

At the moment, lots of teachers are either leaving or want to leave. They work long hours for relatively low pay, have little status (politically, socially), are often unsupported by the parents in their dealings with the kids, etc. etc. Not a good place to be.

Clearly, there will also be teachers who don't care, who are not good at their job, sure. There are quite a few GPs who don't care, who are not good at their job. However, GPs have a lot of status and a stonking salary, teachers have neither.

What is going on now seems another stab in the back of the teaching profession.

I find it an utter disgrace and really, you are fooling yourself, if you think that this is going to help children.

Lovebee - a few posts up I said I agreed with those that felt 'disgusted' by the appointment of Miss Brigg...
This is a good article regards Massachussetts - views are the writer's, not mine - or Hirsch's!

www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_hirsch.html

MRZ your comment on the lack of experience of those at the curriculum centre totally ignores the point I made about what the purpose of it is. How many teachers do you know who are experts on what happened in Massachusetts, or understand the latest developments in cognitive psychology or have reviewed all the research on the factors at play in the performance of successful education jurisdictions? This is not a small field I know because I have dipped into it.
If you want to argue that we don't need to look at research you can carry on believing in learning styles and all the other clap trap teachers fall prey to because their job is to teach, not be research scientists.

beezmum do you think teachers don't keep up to date with current educational research around the world, do you think we exist in a vacuum, do you think that we aren't involved in research, professional and personal development or that many teachers study for additional qualifications in our own time? If that is what you genuinely believe there is no wonder you are seduced by the claims of the Curriculum Centre

Part of my job remit is to keep up to date with current research and ideas.

Exactly, Willingham's blogs, etc, seem to learning styles - the lack of coherent research, and lack of evidence to support the models.

Quite honestly, I can't quite put his ideas into words. Isn't it something like - the child with more knowledge will learn better? (Perhaps those children with more interactive parents? Those who can retain information?)

In a maths lesson, a teacher imparts knowledge, following from one stage to another (in much the same way as being suggested at the curriculum centre). Some children pick it up straight away: some don't and need to go over the same concept time and time again. All of them have been given the same 'knowledge base'.
I'm not sure how this ties in with the knowledge base curriculum, as I have seen nothing about how to deal with differentiation and the children who are, inevitably, left behind.

I'm very

I did a psychology degree way back in the wild blue yonder. The number of theories and practices that have changed since then due to another psychologist bringing out the 'correct' model, is immeasurable! Willingham is yet another person jumping on the educational theory bandwagon.

Teachers work with children. I daresay most of us bring in different learning styles to our practice daily, but we don't make it a religion! Most of our teaching these days is based on the learning the child has done previously through assessment for learning. I would say that is building on the knowledge (and skills) already learnt.

I have a sneaking feeling that the model followed by the CC is one specific to the USA, which has no national curriculum and an incredibly diverse population scattered over a huge geographical area, with a vast range of social and economic differences. The USA needs coherence in its education system, and this is offered by the Hirsch model.

All this is much different to the UK. We already have a national curriculum, and, through assessment for learning, we do build on knowledge.

Ipad the ideas are new to you but they are not 'Willingham's ideas.' They are as near to a consensus as there can be in science on how knowledge and skills are related. This is exactly what I mean. One field cognitive psychology knows perfectly well ,not just that the idea of learning styles is clap trap but also how knowledge and skills are interrelated. Yet, the teaching profession knows nothing about it- that is exactly why the Curriculum Centre exists.

There isn't a consensus beezmum. The previous government carried out it's own curriculum review, Robin Alexander carried out an independent curriculum review and the current government carried out yet another (extremely hurried) review and guess what they all have different ideas of what the curriculum should look like.

Ipad, Willingham does this ' For Dummies' style youtube clip on the role of knowledge as it relates specifically to comprehension. It is at least a nice clear starting point. I can't seem to make my ipad work but it is really easy to find if you google Willingham/comprehension/ youtube.
Willingham's latest book is written for teachers as a guide as to how they should approach educational research. I almost choked that he was being accused of not using research given the reasons he is well known.

Daisy Christodoulou's blog a young lady of strong opinion

thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/pupil-selection-and-curriculum-content/

thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/battle-of-ideas-in-defence-of-subjects/

thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/e-d-hirsch-is-no-right-winger/

Teachers in the UK don't concentrate their teaching on individual learning styles. They teach using assessment for learning, which (surely?) means basing your next step on the child's existing knowledge. I think it goes without saying that you learn about something more easily if you already know about it!

Looking at it, I think we're already following this model of teaching in the UK in maths, english and science (perhaps we're ahead of the USA?) Maybe I'm misunderstanding again?

I do not, however, understand how the idea of a 'continuous' knowledge based curriculum in the humanities will work in a class with very different abilities.

This is exactly the sort of argument that Free Schools will solve. After a while it will become obvious which teaching and learning methods produce the best results. And parents will flock to those schools causing them to expand, and the failing ones to close. Its a common sense approach.

If the new Free Schools are going to be so c**p then in a few years they will all have failed. Imho state schools (and teachers) are running scared that Free Schools will produce better outcomes, forcing those state schools to work harder. It began with Blair and hopefully Gove will complete the revolution our children deserve.