Nick Gibb calls for a teacher-led return to textbooks

[noblegiraffe]

Nick Gibb, Schools Minister said a couple of days ago at a panel discussion led by think tank Policy Exchange that 'The teacher-led move back to textbooks will be integral to ensuring that the national curriculum is as effective as we’d hoped.'

Nick Gibb needs to explain where the money for these textbooks will be coming from, because my department certainly hasn't got any.

Nick Gibb also needs to explain how schools can be certain that any textbooks published won't be a waste of money because they will be obsolete within a year due to another set of curriculum changes.

In addition, Nick Gibb needs to explain how we can purchase quality textbooks when all the textbook currently available are crap because they have been rushed out to the timeline of incredibly rapid curriculum change.

Nick Gibb finally needs to explain why we've been told for years by organisations such as Ofsted that textbooks are lazy teaching, have no place in the classroom and so on.

But sure, it's down to teachers to make textbooks a thing again.

I thought it was good too, kesstrel (posted two posts before yours! )

I was thinking about how I use textbooks in my lesson, and I basically use them as a worksheet replacement, a source of questions for the kids to work through. They do have explanations in them, but obviously I teach the kids how to do stuff so they don't use the explanations. We also, for some year groups, have a set of homework textbooks that they leave at home. These don't have explanations but just pages of exercises so I can set homework easily: 'do page 72 Ex 3'.

Except that's the wrong way around, isn't it? They don't need the explanations at school, just the exercises, because I'm there, and at home they do need the explanations because I'm not, but they don't have them!

Except that's the wrong way around, isn't it? They don't need the explanations at school, just the exercises, because I'm there, and at home they do need the explanations because I'm not, but they don't have them!

^This exactly.

Children come home, attempt homework get frustrated, ask mum or dad for help, then get more frustrated because we can't remember or were taught a different method back in the dark ages. Being able to flick to the explanation page would be a God-send.

Being able to flick to the explanation page would be a God-send.

Absolutely agree. I take it for granted, as not needing to be stated, that the best way to use textbooks is to be able to take them home as well as them being used in class at the teacher's discretion. I was educated in such a system (and that same system exists today in many other parts of the world).

It provides the advantages of multiple sources of explanation (teacher and book); gives children an opportunity to develop a more independent approach to academic work, so they know what to do when they get to university; and provides a model of the language and conventions of the kind of academic writing they will need to use in their essays, as I suggested in an earlier post.

My sixth formers have a textbook that they are allowed to take home and are expected to bring to lessons. The amount of lessons where I've said 'turn to page 67 and do Ex3' and they've barely had enough textbooks between them for one between 3 or 4 is really irritating. They just can't be arsed. It's not even a big textbook!

As a parent, I'd vote for textbooks. Relying on blummin bits of paper - that you are expected to glue into an exercise book is a bit daft.

As a parent, I'd vote for textbooks. Relying on blummin bits of paper - that you are expected to glue into an exercise book is a bit daft.

Yep, same here. Scrappy worksheets should be severely limited to where they're really required. They're usually hard to read, either because they've been reduced in size to fit 2 A4 sheets on a single side, or they're printed faintly which makes trying to understand shaded diagrams impossible. Or the best was a b&w print of a colour chart - completely useless. The time spent in creating and standing over a copier, and the costs of the copier, must make them more expensive than text books in the first place. What's the point in buying exercise books if most of the pages are used up by gluing in scrappy worksheets? I think if they're going to insist on worksheets, then they need to be digitised and put on the schools SMH or VLE system - having papers floating around is antiquated considering the worksheet will have been created by computer, then printed and copied - why not just put the original computer version on a system which the pupils can see online - would also be more helpful when someone misses lessons due to schools trips, illness, etc., rather than waiting until a later lesson to pick up the worksheets missed.

worksheet will have been created by computer, then printed and copied

Not always! I've got filing cabinets full of worksheets I don't have digital versions of. Demanding that they also be uploaded would mean scanning, emailing the scan from the photocopier, saving then uploading, which is a pain in the arse.

I sense that there is a consensus about the value of a good textbook.

I've been following this debate with interest, having dropped out of a PGCE maths some 20 years ago. I definitely was made to feel that using a text book was a crime then, so had to spend hours making up worksheets, which at best would only duplicate what could be found in a good textbook, and would usually be worse, because by definition, I lacked the experience to know what worked and what didn't.

One thing glossed over, Nick Gibb talks about the national curriculum not being as effective as they had hoped. No mention of their push towards Academy schools, who don't need to teach the NC or even to employ qualified teachers! It's part of a wider debate, so sorry if I derail a little here.

We don't have textbooks.
Instead we are photocopying for hours on end and spending untold sums on reams of paper, ink, toner and paying two photocopying staff.
It would work out much cheaper to have a textbook.

That's true, Peregrina if they want all schools to become academies then what's the point of the national curriculum at all? Basically it's ignored in favour of 'what's on the exam syllabus' tracking back to Y7.

I don't think I used at textbook at all on my PGCE, but that's not just down to the university side of things (where it was all about card sorts and kinaesthetic activities) but also the teachers whose classes I covered. They checked my planning, observed my lessons and at no point did they say 'here are the textbooks that are available in my classroom, why not use this exercise and save yourself a bit of time?'. It wasn't till I got to my NQT year in a different school when they said 'here are the classes you'll be teaching, and here are the textbooks for those groups' that I actually started making use of them.

Instead we are photocopying for hours on end and spending untold sums on reams of paper, ink, toner and paying two photocopying staff.

The leasing cost and servicing charges are also usually extortionate and often based on number of copies!

yep - honestly with all the photocopying done in our dept so far this year, we could have bought every single child studying our subject a very good textbook each......

students doing the research online is shite. they can be looking at anything, and most of it is not peer reviewed.
good textbooks give students a good point of reference.

I’d add that it might have been a bit more effective if they hadn’t made such a fuck up of introducing it, Peregrina

Your point about the HW textbooks is something that’s come up on Primary Ed a couple of times before, noble. Often from parents who were educated in different systems and want to help their child who’s struggling with something.

I know it was something a friend of mine found difficult a couple of years ago when she was trying to support her y10 DD. She didn’t want to teach her child methods she’d been taught outside the UK and might conflict with what the school were doing. But she had no idea exactly what was being taught.

How can you have a general history book, or geography book?
They do this in most countries that have textbooks, believe it or not.

They are able to do it because in these countries, there is a specific, detailed curriculum which states exactly what is to be studied at each level. So, "Year 2/Term 1, children will learn about Ancient Egypt, which will involve a) locating Egypt on the map b) locating and naming the main river c) learning about the origins of farming in Egypt and the role of inundation...." etc. etc.

As opposed to the kind of curriculum which have had in England which has generally been incredibly vague: "Pupils should be taught about: changes within living memory. Where appropriate, these should be used to reveal aspects of change in national life; events beyond living memory that are significant nationally or globally [for example, the Great Fire of London, the first aeroplane flight or events commemorated through festivals or anniversaries...." meaning that pupils in different schools end up learning completely different things, in completely different orders.

I live in a country which has textbooks for every subject and they come home every day . There are things I would change about the education system here, but I really really appreciate the fact that proper textbooks are used.

1/ It massively reduces the lesson-plannign workload for teachers, which in turn means that teachers can spend more time working with struggling students one-on-one, or in very small groups. This in turn makes it easier to teach the classes to a single level.

2/ It means I can see what she is actually studying. You have no idea how much easier this makes things. I have a record of what she has done, I can look ahead and see what will be coming up next, I can pre-teach stuff during the holidays to prepare her. I can go over things if she is not sure about something she did in the lesson. I can see what techniques she has been taught.

3/ It supports children with language issues. My daughter was a little behind in the national language when she started. It was helpful to be able to take out the textbook and go over stuff with her, if she missed something in the classroom. Some of my friends whose literacyin the national language is not great have found this esp helpful, because it helps them learn along with their child.

4/ It is a simple structured way to create a standardized detailed scheme-of-work curriculum which ensures that all kids cover the same material in the same schools.

My friends back in England send their kids to various schools. Because I am a nosy cow, I've looked at the curricula/SOW for their various schools. They are all over the place. One school will do history as a series of ages/periods, another does history in "themes" (chocolate, pirates, whatever), another does combined history/geog type thing, another does NO discrete subjects apart from English, maths and PE etc.--everything else is collapsed into "topics."

I am trying to imagine the flipping mess that the Key Stage 3 teachers must be faced with when they have all these 11yos from different schools who have all studied these completely different random collections of bits and pieces. How can you teach any class in KS3 history when for any topic, 1/3 of the kids will have done it already (= bored), 1/3 of the kids won't have enough background knowledge to be able to make sense of what you are talking about (= also bored)..... No wonder KS3 tends to be such a mess and is often openly described as the "lost years" when education in England is under discussion.

Needless to say, kids in "nice" state schools get to study the more rigorous history curricula. Kids in the less desirable primary schools get dumbed-down "fun" history that is heavy on the chocolate and the pirates etc..

5/ Fewer random shitty worksheets coming home. Amen to that.

As opposed to the kind of curriculum which have had in England which has generally been incredibly vague:

I thought the national curriculum was introduced to standardise what is taught?

It was. And there have always been designated periods that children must study during KS2 and 3.

The objective that Kartoshka is talking about there is from KS1 where it is deliberately vague because of the age of the children.

The topics in the new curriculum are different to the old one but it is possible to teach either using a cross-curricular approach.

"I thought the national curriculum was introduced to standardise what is taught?"

Well, it certainly standardized things compared to pre-National Curriculum, when schools only had a statutory requirement to teach RE (I think?)--everything else was up for them to decide.

However, I don't think England has ever had a really detailed content-based curriculum supported by standardized textbooks, like France, Finland, Japan and many other countries. If you live in one of these countries, England's curriculum and its lack of specificity looks extremely odd, quite honestly. (I do think that England's education system gets many other important things right, however, so I'm not just slagging it off.)

I think that the reason why England has never had a specific and detailed curriculum is because England resisted central control of education for a long time, and then by the time central control was eventually permitted, the Plowden report had already happened and education had started to develop along very progressive lines, meaning that content was played down and there was an emphasis on teaching "skills," doing topic work and so on.

Even KS2 looks really vague compared with the kind of detailed, item-by-item descriptions which you tend to get for the curriculum in many other countries, believe me.

You'll struggle to produce a centralised History book for KS2, not least because of a devolved Education system between England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland, all of which would have different and valid perspectives!
Topic teaching is a good way of dealing with it and I think that's why the books you've seen are pretty general. It asks a lot of the teacher but it enables them to teach the skills in a country that is far more diverse (not just immigration, think Celtic nations too) than Finland or Japan.
By the way, I don't recall a topic on Chocolate with my children but it is an absolutely brilliant one to do, for geography, history and current affairs. It has appeal to the age group and contemporary relevance!

We did a topic on chocolate back in my junior school in the 1950s.

Just to add though I hate worksheets stuck into KS3 and KS4 books more than I can say!
And a really good maths textbook for each child would be very welcome, too!

Chocolate is a fairly popular topic in ks2 because it links easily to lots of areas of the curriculum - literacy, history, geography, science, DT and there’s the contemporary relevance too.

Worksheets stuck into books is a total waste of paper. Not only the worksheet but also the page of the exercise book you’ve stuck it onto.

You could have a ks2 history text book. It doesn’t matter that the curriculum isn’t specified in minute detail. The problem is that like most textbooks, it’s only going to last until the next curriculum change. The periods of history studied in ks2 now aren’t necessarily the same ones that will be studied when the next government get in.

The big mistake you are making gruach is blithely assuming the textbooks are written by experts.

But surely a text book written by a team, including editors, proof-readers, etc., is more likely to be more complete & correct than loads of home made worksheets created by hundreds of random teachers - of course, some will be wonderful, but many will also include errors, omissions, etc.

kazzy I did mention above that maths textbooks, in particular , have recently been found to be riddled with errors and the I have found many mistakes in the GCSE Film textbook!