Curriculum changes

[Jinsei]

DD's new teacher has implied that there will be significant changes to the curriculum next year, and that a more traditional approach to education is likely. However, she also said that they didn't really know yet what they were going to be doing and that it was therefore hard to shed much light on this for us. I presume that a lot of work will need to be done over the summer for them to get their heads around the new requirements, but can any teachers give me an idea of how things might change?

I love my dd's school at the moment, and the broad, creative curriculum. I am really worried about losing some of the positive stuff that they do. How prescriptive is it likely to be?

The new curriculum sets out the content (what must be taught) but not how it has to be taught so schools do have quite a lot of freedom to deliver an exciting curriculum.

Hi Jinsei:

Programmes of study (content of what should be covered during the school year) are available here: www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum - just scroll down and select subject you are interested in - they are laid out by year in school.

I think a good school will adopt the higher standards (so maybe learning multiplication tables before Y5 - as opposed to our school having about half of pupils not secure with times tables in Y6 and set for a fall come senior school).

This is where I have issues with teachers & professionalism. There is no way a University educated (and I fear I probably do mean Russell Group) person would have issue with learning multiplication/ division in primary school - to us that is totally a normal expectation. Yet at St. Mediocre where from what I gather most staff are the product of what was then known as Colleges/ Polytechnics - and to them this is like climbing Everest.

The fact is strong multiplication/ division skills (especially with whole numbers - i.e ye olde x12 times tables) are central to all further maths: www.greatmathsteachingideas.com/2014/01/05/youve-never-seen-the-gcse-maths-curriculum-like-this-before/

The New National Curriculum has been well signalled and these programmes of study are not largely changed from what was proposed loosely in 2012. It also is more than possible to teach comprehension/ writing skills through subjects such as geography/ history/ PSHE/ RE/ ICT. You can work that muscle in other subjects and because you're designing a poster or a powerpoint slide, the child may not realise they're learning to plan, to write Titles or Headlines, to make lucid arguments, to use Wow! words or strong Openers, etc....

HTH

Ah, so if you haven't been to an RG university you haven't been to university at all?
I really have heard it all on MN, now. :(

Have you looked at the league tables for education degrees? Yes, Cambridge is top, followed by Huddersfield!! Teacher training was traditionally taught in colleges of education, these are still some of the best providers in the country.

God I hate WOW words.

The current National Curriculum expects pupils to know multiplication tables up to 10X 10 by Y4 so I'm afraid what PSBD has written is incorrect. The new curriculum adds 11X and 12X tables that's all and many, many schools do that already even though it isn't a statutory requirement to do so.

Research suggesting that children should not start formal schooling until seven, written by someone from Cambridge.

Is that an RG university, PastSellBy? I forget. As I went to art school, I am incapable of retaining any information at all

My dd school is an academy, I don't know if they need to follow the curriculum, or they can teach something else

Sorry posted too soon

Current Y4

Derive and recall multiplication facts up to 10 × 10, the corresponding division facts and multiples of numbers to 10 up to the tenth multiple.

New Y4

^recall multiplication and division facts for multiplication tables up to
12 × 12^

Jinsei if your child is currently in Y1 or Y5 they will continue to follow the current curriculum next year otherwise they will follow the new curriculum

Spanish - academies do not need to follow the national curriculum (interesting piece of Govian double think there - the new national curriculum is so important that schools of his preferred type can ignore it). BUT - the pupils will be tested against the national curriculum at the end of years 2 and 6. Which means that in effect all schools need to follow at least parts of it.

My take on the new curriculum is that there is a lot more Maths & English content to cram in (especially in KS2) but the foundation subjects allow for much more flexibility. So the only way to fit it all in is to be far more creative in what you put into your lessons in the foundation subjects ie squeeze Maths & English in where possible.

No lljkk:

I know you're a teacher but have no idea what your background is - as far as I'm concerned I TOTALLY object to the attitude that multiplication/ division is best left for secondary school (I've been engaged in a prolonged battle with our school over this for 5 years - finally new curriculum is requiring they do this - although I feel it was a feature of 1999 David Blunket curriculum). I even possess a long e-mail from the Deputy HT about how division is best left to secondary schools and inappropriate in the primary environment.

That attitude is coming from poly educated teachers - and not teachers I know at other schools (through outside clubs my children go to) who've come through a University undergraduate degree and done the University-based PGCE course.

It may be unfair to draw the link - but just stepping back lljkk - this is a school educating medical/ university staff children - don't you think it is a bit concerning that the teaching staff at the school are forever lecturing us that our expectations are 'too high' and we're forever having to show them best practice documents/ curriculum statements from DofE or OFSTED to demonstrate what is possible. Parents are pushing hard for the school to do better. In the meantime parents are doing more at home/ through language schools at weekends/ through tutors to ensure their children are where they notionally feel a relatively bright child should be.

Do you tell parents regularly that you are only required to teach to NC L4. Because we get that all the time.

Do you tell parents asking (quite naturally) what times table is next after x2, x5, x10 that this is all you are prepared to teach in Y2? We've met with absolute resistance to teach any more times tables at this point.

lljkk - perhaps I'm unfair to equate their attitude to their educational background - but

if you're constantly being told L4 is a 'high standard' when it isn't, (or get entangled in discussion about what 'a good outcome' means - when NC L4 is in fact 'below average' attainment - if >85% of pupils nationally are attaining NC L4+ - it's not a particularly high target now is it.

if you're constantly being told 'homework' is of no value - when you can see for yourself doing more at home is making huge differences to pupils (11+ system here is state funded - pupils preparing for it (DIY/ tutors) tend to be the high flyers whether they pass or not) or your own child

if you're constantly being told multiplication/ division - especially division with remainders - is senior school level stuff when both the old national curriculum <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202100434/curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/uploads/Mathematics%201999%20programme%20of%20study_tcm8-12059.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202100434/curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/uploads/Mathematics%201999%20programme%20of%20study_tcm8-12059.pdf - see 3a/3b page 25 and new national curriculum include this....

You can forgive me for equating generally low educational achievement of my child's teachers with low teaching standards.

However, I take your point that some teachers with this background can be exceptionally good - my negative attitude is solely a result of my experiences, which on the whole haven't given me a positive impression of teachers who are products of teaching colleges/ in service training. But this is Birmingham - things may be very different elsewhere.

Thanks all for the responses. DD will be starting year 5.

It's reassuring to hear from mrz that schools will still have freedom in terms of how they teach, as I would be really sad to lose the creative approach that dd has enjoyed thus far. Our school has always been particularly good at cross-curricular work, and dd has really enjoyed seeing the links between different subjects. Is that something that they'll be able to do as much of in the future?

I'm not really worried about the focus on times tables and so on, as dd's school has always been very keen on these, and (fortunately!) I don't recognise the attitudes that PSBD describes at all. However, I do worry that the expansion of content in English and maths may potentially squeeze time out of the curriculum for other subjects, as toomuch has suggested, and I would be very sad about that.

I've absolutely no idea where our teachers were educated themselves - I doubt they all went to RG universities, but what's important to me is that they can teach, and that they can inspire the children to reach their full potential. I haven't come across the low aspirations that PSBD describes. On the contrary, I feel that dd's teachers have been very ambitious for the children in their classes, and I wish that there was less government interference so that they could just get on with doing their jobs in the way that they think is best.

Am not a teacher. I dislike snobbery (including or maybe especially about RG universities).

lljkk I'm not a teacher either, but I'm with you on that.

You might be interested in comparing maths and English ... what's been added and what's been removed

curriculum2014.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/comparing-new-pos-to-2006-framework-for-literacy/.

curriculum2014.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/comparing-new-pos-to-2006-framework-for-maths/

Thanks mrz, those links look really informative.

mrz: thanks for posting comparisons I'll have a look. I wasn't talking about learning tables to x12 (just mentined that's the new target later when talking about Great Teaching ideas word cloud for importance of multiplying/ dividing whole numbers to GCSE maths topics).

I get that what I'm saying is 'snobby' - but there is a clear link between mother's educational attainment and a child's educational success and research is also there to show that effective teacher's make a huge difference to pupil's attainments: www.suttontrust.com/public/documents/1teachers-impact-report-final.pdf

The fact that the Sutton Trust recommended a new fast-track for graduates:

QUOTE: A new fast-track graduate entry route into teaching should be piloted in disadvantaged schools with aspiring teachers assessed in a classroom - either in newly created summer schools for children at the most disadvantaged schools, or in the new cadre of teaching schools. Fast track teachers would receive extra pa y incentives - perhaps £5k more than current starting salaries - after completing a year at school to gain Qualified Teaching Status and provided they continue to teach in a disadvantaged school.

• which does rather appear to be code for the fact that those who entered teaching via sixth form college + teacher training college aren't performing (as a whole) as well as desired/ higher educational attainment makes a difference.

Just stepping back - and taking the point that degrees (BA/ MA/ PhD) don't necessarily make a good teacher - Is it wrong to want the best educated teaching the next generation?

Perhaps it isn't a balanced equation: the better educated the teacher = the better educated the child.

Certainly Sutton Trust's study suggests excellent teachers (often highly educated) improve results for pupils.

I also think the government rolling out the skills check for new teachers (www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/apply-for-teacher-training/skills-tests) - also is saying something about teacher's past educational attainment.

I've posted before about DD1's school and that it's clear existing teachers (including Head of English) didn't score 100% of the guardian's little SPAG test www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/apply-for-teacher-training/skills-tests- the question is should they have?

That's a complex answer and depends on what as a society we want for our children - and I suppose there will be a majority out there that say grammar/ spelling/ punctuation is irrelevant....

it's very individual in terms of what we hope for our children's education...

...for my part I do want well educated teachers in primary who are capable of delivering curriculum to the highest possible standard and giving every child in the class (not just mine) a great head start.

I think it's a little naive to assume that RG necessarily produces the best educators ... something politicians should consider. I disappointed my family by rejecting an offer from a RG university because I didn't consider the courses offered the best route into teaching

I don't think anyone would dispute the idea that excellent teachers can make a huge difference to the educational attainment of pupils. I guess the difference of opinion arises in terms of how "excellent teachers" are made.

Obviously, we want our teachers to be well educated, and we need to ensure that we make teaching attractive enough as a profession to ensure that a high calibre of people are attracted into it. However, I don't buy into the idea that RG graduates are necessarily likely to make better teachers. Teaching involves a different skill set.

In any case, I think the current focus on RG as the pinnacle of academic success is somewhat misplaced. There are other universities that offer excellent educational opportunities, yet some people barely consider these because they aren't RG. It strikes me as a very simplistic view.

PSBD,

I have read what you have posted about your children's initial school on many occasions. I agree with you that it, as an instituion, is unambitious and, as you correctly identify, mediocre.

However, I do wonder whether you generalise too far (I know that this is possible if you have been scarred by an experience - after DS's first school experience, had we stayed there, i might have been drawn to make similar generalisations).

In an excellent school, you may well find that the teachers have graduarted from a really wide range of institions. I - Oxbridge PhD- have been awed by the teaching of colleagues who have been educated all over the place. Equally, in less good schools, I have been appalled by the teaching of very well-educated colleagues. The difference is in the school, and the individuals, not in the original place of qualification.

(I should also say that my initial teacher training (as opposed to my original degree and postgraduate study, done when I was much younger) was done in a university that used to be purely a teacher training college. Its development of me AS A TEACHER was second to none)