Can't teach a Y1 child any Y2 work - True???

[lottytheladybird]

My DS1 is in Y1 and I've been told by his teacher that he can't be taught any work that's for Y2s according to the new curriculum. So for example, in Y1, they're only meant to work with numbers from 0-20 and that he won't be allowed to do any work with higher numbers, as that's Y2 work. My DS1 is in a combined Y1 & Y2 class. Please can anyone tell me if this is true? It seems crazy to me!

I'm pretty sure that's rubbish. My DD's reception class have been doing number stuff and the info given was that they are working on 1-5, 1-20 or 1-50 depending on prior knowledge. So they aren't stopping at 20 even in reception.

No, it's not true. The new curriculum has been rushed in, with inadequate training for teachers and headteachers who then find themselves believing this nonsense rather than really understanding what a mastery curriculum means. Your year one child should certainly be extended more broadly and in depth before addressing further content, but suggesting they can't encounter numbers over 20 is ridiculous. On the other hand, there's an awful lot of exciting maths that can be done with numbers below 20!

Well, the statutory requirement bit of the NC says the Y1 curriculum covers numbers to and across 100, so she's talking piffle ;)

The shift towards 'mastery' means that the government want children to learn in depth, rather than just rushing through the 'levels' at a superficial level.

Apparently, children will be judged on their confidence within their year, so rather than being deemed to be working 'ahead of age' they would be judged 'extremely confident'.

It's true, according to the new government curriculum. Loads of stuff can be done before moving on, though. You can do 0-2- with money, with word problems, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, with shapes ...the idea is to widen knowledge, if a child has grasped a concept, not just rush through the concepts.
I disagree with much nearly all of the new curriculum, but like this idea.

Obviously, 0-20, not to 2 .. that really would be a bit limited. I teach KS2, so not up on the exact numbers involved at y1, but the principle is right.

Not true but already repeated as "fact"

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335158/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Mathematics_220714.pdf page 4 School Curriculum

I've just posted a photo of the Y1 number bit of the new NC-you can see it's not true!

LaBelle, just out of interest what do you dislike and why? and are you teacher/parent etc?

just curious

No, not true. They can work outside they're age group if thats what's suitable.

LaBelle How do you know it's true? Where can I get info saying it's true?

Not true at all.

Technically , rollonthesummer that isn't statutory for year 1. The curriculum has organised the objectives for maths and English into year groups, but it isn't statutory for those objectives to be taught in the year groups they appear in. Only by the end of the key stage they appear in.

The school could choose to only teach numbers to 20 in year 1 and refuse to go higher, but I don't think that you could blame the new curriculum for that.

The statutory PoS doc page 4 states

School curriculum
The programmes of study for mathematics are set out year-by- year for key stages 1 and 2.
Schools are, however, only required to teach the relevant programme of study by the end of the key stage. Within each key stage, schools therefore have the flexibility to introduce content earlier or later than set out in the programme of study. In addition, schools can introduce key stage content during an earlier key stage, if appropriate . All schools are also required to set out their school curriculum for mathematics on a year - by - year basis and make this information available online

The expectation is that the majority of pupils will move through the programmes of study at broadly the same pace. However, decisions about when to progress should always be based on the security of pupils’ understanding and their readiness to progress to the next stage. Pupils who grasp concepts rapidly should be challenged through being offered rich and sophisticated problems before any acceleration through new content.

From pg 3 of the maths PoS.

Taken with the paragraph mrz has quoted I would say it is clear that the new curriculum does expect that the most able children to be stretched by moving onto objectives from the next year group. It certainly doesn't say that you can't or shouldn't

Our training on the new curriculum stated that children MUST NOT be taught objectives from the year above in order to extend their learning. Apparently they should be extended bye aching a more broad, problem solving approach to the years objectives. Basically it seems you need to review the same concept in many different ways and from different angles if that makes sense.

I actually don't know how this works in practice as I am now in the FS so (after doing the training) I don't teach the new curriculum.

Do you mind me asking who did your training? Was it your LA (no need to give me the specific LA) or was it a private provider?

I'm interested in where this myth seems to have started or at least taken hold. It started quite slowly last year, but seems to have snowballed. If teachers are being give the wrong information in training sessions, that would explain a lot.

I'm struggling to think what the logic in starting the myth is. Forgetting the obvious, that it's clearly ridiculous for more able children, I can't see it's anything but disadvantageous to the majority. Progress is rarely linear, so all rigidly sticking to a certain level does is prevent teachers taking advantage of a learning curve.

It was our LA (who are renowned for being rather shit) in a short in house training session. I'm absolutely no surprised we've been given the wrong info tbh but if subject leaders are attending LA training and LA training in house is like saying the same thing it isn't surprising teachers are getting the wrong end of the stick.

I imagine the teacher in the op has been given similar (obviously inaccurate) information. I hate how ridiculously rushed this new curriculum has been, I'm actually grateful to be in FS now (although I've heard rumours of a new curriculum for us soon)

mrz & Rafals That's really useful, thanks. Do you think I could use those paragraphs to challenge my son's teacher?