Will the new National Curriculum, in effect, prohibit teaching from the next key stage and if so ...

[diamondage]

do you think that is good or bad (or irrelevant)?

In the performance indicators (and in the Ofsted advice) it states:

The performance descriptors do not include any aspects of performance from the programme of study for the following key stage. Any pupils considered to have attained the ‘Mastery standard’ are expected to explore the curriculum in greater depth and build on the breadth of their knowledge and skills within that key stage.

As far as I'm aware the National Curriculum does not expressly prohibit teaching from above a child's current KS. However will the focus outlined above, along with the raising of the bar, drive schools to ensure as many pupils as possible achieve National, Above National, and Mastery standards effectively ending the teaching of KS2 and 3 topics to children before they reach that KS?

Is my question moot because so much has been drawn down from the next KSs Mastery effectively means L3 at KS1 and L5 at KS2?

Or will even more parents put their children through tutoring for the 11+ because being taught L5 / L6 content fades out all together (am I right that L5 and L6 still exist in KS3)?

How about natural mathematicians in KS1, will they just be given different problems to solve using only the methods and numbers "allowed" in KS1?

[diamondage]

Thank you for confirming the levels Mastery at KS2 is equivalent to - however are these narrow elements of L6 or the same breadth that was previously taught to children taking the L6 maths paper?

[LoveWillTearUsApart]

Our county (in the West) has taken it as not teaching from other Key Stages and focusing on depth once Mastery has been achieved.

Looks like the Govt needs to tighten up the wording and make it explicit one way or the other.

[mrz]

The previous curriculum was much more rigid in its content the new gives schools the freedom to offer more

[JustRichmal]

I think the problem is with the idea of building on breath and depth. On the surface these sound like great ideals, but in practice it means a child being taught things with the rest of the class which they learnt years ago, then being given a work sheet with more difficult questions to get on with by themselves. The emphasis has shifted from the child being taught at their level; so it no longer requires anything new to be taught them as it is easy to ague they are being given breath and depth in the subject.

[JustRichmal]

Just hypothetically, what would happen to a child who was at level 8 maths in year 6? Would they be required to do KS2 problems? Would there be any requirement or incentive for the school to cover GCSE topics with them?

[diamondage]

LoveWill I think that this is the most likely outcome. However if it really does contain elements of L6 then perhaps this will not be a significant problem.

mrz I thought the old National Curriculum was brought in because, when schools had much greater freedom, many taught a poor curriculum. If the bar has been raised significantly then for many schools, especially those struggling to achieve the appropriate standard within the old curriculum the focus will very much be on trying to ensure as many children as possible reach the expected standard (of what you say is a narrower curriculum) rather than on providing a broad curriculum for those capable of achieving Mastery and beyond.
I hope, however, I am proved wrong!

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

Looks like the Govt needs to tighten up the wording and make it explicit one way or the other.

Which is somewhat ironic given the fuss some of the unions have been making over the past few years about teachers being the experts and how they shouldn't be dictated to by government officials who aren't teachers. At the moment there seems to be a lot of schools and LAs making a right pig's ear of implementing a minimal curriculum which allows schools to make a lot of decisions for themselves and add stuff to it. I can't help wondering if some of these schools are going to be in trouble come inspection time when their most able children haven't made enough progress.

It's not that easy to make a direct comparison between the new curriculum and levels, diamondage. The skills progression is slightly different to the old curriculum so while some level 6 and 7 stuff is covered in KS2, there are also some things from lower levels that have been moved the other way. Generally speaking the standard expected at the end of year 6 is higher than under the old curriculum though.

[diamondage]

JustRichmal I believe there is neither the requirement nor an external incentive. The steer in the guidance and from Ofsted is about depth and breadth, with the draft performance descriptors stating teaching is to occur within the current key stage.

If a pupil were to be disruptive due to being bored, maybe that would be an incentive? And of course some (many?) teachers will always strive to meet a child's individual needs. However if, as mentioned up thread, counties and schools are stating that teaching must only occur within a key stage then won't that be hard for any teacher to go against even with a gifted pupil or two in their class?

[diamondage]

Rafa I accept that the bar has been raised, however not enough for gifted mathematicians.

My DD is in the top set for maths, she is bright, but in no way a gifted mathematician. There are only a smattering (i.e. less than 10) of the Mastery PDs that she has not achieved at this point in yr 2 and a range of skills that are not covered that she has already mastered.

I have no concern with greater depth being offered first; to ensure fluency and flexibility. However, I can't see the benefit of effectively inhibiting teaching from the next key stage. This is far less of an issue with say writing and reading, where depths can be plumbed almost ad infinitum. Maths is, however, progressive. I can only think that a truly gifted natural mathematician will be bored beyond belief if constrained in such a way. And to what end? It's almost as if the ability to capture the truly outstanding performance of some children has been capped. If you were working at L7 at the end of KS2 you could be teacher assessed as such. Not any more.

[JustRichmal]

I think the answer for those very advanced in maths to be offered online learning within the classroom. The child could then learn at their own pace and the teacher would not be required to carry out the impossible task of giving two completely different lessons at the same time. However this would require the government to realise online learning is coming in apace and no matter how many ceilings they try to put in place in state schools good education is becoming more accessible to all.

[mrz]

A child at level 8 has just achieved a very Good GCSE pass

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

I disagree, diamonage. My niece is a gifted mathematician. There is more than enough in a mastery based curriculum that stretches sideways to keep her challenged and engaged without necessarily having to push her very far upwards. Whether that's being taught well at the moment is a different question.

Possibly the problem here is more that some schools are switching from a spiral to a more mastery based curriculum without teachers having the knowledge of how best to teach it.

[JustRichmal]

mrz, so how would such a child be taught in the new primary curriculum?

[mrz]

The same as they were taught under the old curriculum. Some schools will meet individual needs unfortunately others won't! But that has nothing to do with the performance descriptors or new curriculum.

[JustRichmal]

mrz, I may be taking this thread off at a slight tangent, but I'm interested to know what good differentiation could be achieved in primary. To ask for a child to be given an individual lesson while the teacher is simultaneously giving a lesson to the rest of the class seems unreasonable, if not impossible. If you had such a child in your class, how could they be taught?

[mrz]

In exactly the same way as you would a child who is far behind. They are entitled to be taught so I would spend some time introducing the next step/higher order skill/knowledge with the child. Personally I don't sit at a table with a group so work my way around the class supporting where necessary.

[diamondage]

Rafa how do you know?

By which I mean is your niece profoundly gifted and has she already experienced this new Mastery curriculum until the end of a key stage? Things can change a lot from one year / teacher to the next so I'm genuinely interested in how you can be so sure?

[mrz]

There is nothing in the "mandatory" curriculum that compels the school to change their current excellent practice diamondage.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

I would have said she was working somewhere within level 2 when she started reception. The EP assessed her as working at or above the 98th centile in maths but I'm not sure what assessment he was using to get that.

I used to do quite a lot of maths with her up until she was about 9 because she was always asking me to 'play maths' with her. Occasionally I'd do something open ended to see what she could do then teach her the 'next step'. Mostly though I'd do more complex problems where the subject knowledge was well within her knowledge (and the KS1 curriculum) but she needed to use that creatively to find an answer or do 3-4 steps to solve a problem. IME maths that got her to think was often more challenging than just teaching her the next step because she gets numbers. It's rare that you have to explain a maths concept to her more than once.

Mastery curriculum/spiral curriculum that stretches upwards/mixture of both, I don't know how much that matters. Probably much less than ensuring whichever method you choose is taught well and work is well matched to the needs of the children. I just don't think it's true that able mathematicians can't be challenged by a mastery curriculum that only stretches outwards.