1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

National Curriculum Review

Discussion in 'Mathematics' started by siddons_sara, Dec 17, 2011.

  1. Easy to say, harder in some circumstances to follow. I remember a former HoD of mine describing how despite having results that were well above every measure going, he still got a roasting from OFSTED for not implementing the National Numeracy Strategy, it was there in black and white in the report. It caused no end of problems for him with SLT.

    What on earth is 'NMP'?

    A 'former' manager at QCA, sounds a bit rich to be critical of anyone in officialdom, and quite amazing how these people never actually seem to go away, just they magically find jobs in some other quango.

    Yes, I agree totally, maths is maths and the basic skills required don't change. The point is that anyone looking to develop their scheme of work is now faced with a dilemma of starting it now and possibly having to re-organise a couple of years down the line.

    If your school/SLT allow you to simply ignore all official guidance then I'm ever so happy for you, sadly we don't all have that kind of luxury.
  2. September

    September New commenter

    I for one was waiting for the report initial report in January. I smelt a rat in September when the preview report was delayed.
    NMP - Is this the National Mathematics Partnership?
  3. DM

    DM New commenter

    I was told yesterday that "The Framework for the National Curriculum: a report by the Expert Panel" will be buried over Christmas as ministers were underwhelmed.
    Andrew Pollard has set up a twitter account that might be worth a follow.
  4. Thanks for the Twitter link DM. Seems the 'Expert Panel' were not so expert in telling ministers what they wanted to hear! The 'years' notion would certainly have put the cat amongst the pigeons, few outside of education have much of a feel for levels but I suspect all would understand being told their child was several years behind 'where they should be'.

    I wonder where exactly the review will turn now? If they give me a year off then I'll volunteer to have a go!
  5. I say we start a campaign for Sara (and others volunteers from this forum) to be appointed for this. I'm out as I couldn't cope with the flak I'd receive on this forum [​IMG]
  6. googolplex

    googolplex Occasional commenter

    I'll volunteer (must be a darn sight easier than teaching kids) to take a year out to produce another 'expert' report which the know-it-all politicians quietly shelve in another 12 month's time. Another stunning waste of tax revenue.... But anything that delays further unnecessary change can't be a bad thing...
  7. It's important to have a good oversight with these things and for them not to be too clouded by personal experience. It is hard to see though how people who have been out of teaching for over 20 years can really be in touch with the realities of the classroom. Funny too how some of the great and good completely change their tune. Whilst I admire some of the work of Dylan William, it's a bit rich of him to be on the expert panel when levels were pretty much his invention and he now admits he was wrong all along!

    I initially thought the NC review might be a bit of a damp squib but I'm not so sure any more.
  8. DM

    DM New commenter

  9. Thanks for the reference DM. I wonder what proportion of time in the curriculum is devoted to mathematics in these high performing countries? Does anyone know? Is it higher than in the UK?

    Certainly seems like some significant changes are about to be brewed.
  10. weggster

    weggster New commenter

    Just trying to say that the people with years of experience are saying don't get too worked up about the changes. I suppose I'm lucky to be in a school that shouldn't be visited for 4 or 5 years due to its last OFSTED.
    Trust in yourselves folks, you do know what you are doing.
    That's very unfortunate for your ex-HoD. If his results were above all of the measures why would OFSTED be critical? Sounds very harsh.
    I've been HoD in 4 inspections now and OFSTED have pretty much said(each time) if your results are good and the T&L they see is good then the report will reflect that.
    Your ex-HoD sounds very unlucky. Life isn't always fair.
  11. weggster

    weggster New commenter

    NMP is National Mathematics Partnership.
    I'm not easily impressed (being a miserable old Yorkshireman) but I thought Lynn spoke a lot of sense, she does have a good track record too so it seems a bit harsh to dismiss what she says out of hand just because she worked for QCA.
    I still think if you improve your SoW now then whatever you do can be squared with the new NC later on. We've re-jigged our Y7 and will be working on our Y8 next year (Y9 the year after). If someone is worried then wait.
    However, each to their own!
  12. Thanks for the link DM, some interesting points in the review, though it does smack a little of 'fiddling whilst Rome burns'.

    I was very mistaken in that I thought there were going to be more details pertaining to the maths curriculum itself, rather than the broad brush strokes presented here.

    On the topic of Finland, my understanding is that teachers there teach about a half load timetable, something that staff in the UK could only dream of. Just imagine the creativity that would be unleashed by that amount of time in school to plan and work with colleagues.

    Extending KS4 by a year, I think that already happens in many schools now that Year 9 NC tests are no longer compulsory.I'm not sure that's such a stunning statement. Their two years per Key Stage approach (other than KS4) does seem to be based on some sound judgements.

    To a degree I'm all for letting schools make of it what they will and to be given greater 'freedom', but what is required needs to be made clearer, or there is the potential for all the fuss and upset that APP generated.
  13. DM

    DM New commenter

  14. DM

    DM New commenter

  15. pencho

    pencho New commenter

    Thanks DM for the links to all these documents.
    Not too sure if I can be bothered reading and completely understand what they are saying. The report seems to pick out some very specific things (e.g. volume). Quadratics in Y9. Nothing wrong with that for the higher students.
    To be honest, I'm struggling to see what this report is actually telling us in terms of mathematics.

  16. The message seems to be that in this country we try to do too much too early.
    We move kids on before they have a good conceptual understanding of the foundations early on.
    I hope that the government pick up on this aspect and ensure that children are given the time to become confident in skills before they move onto the next stage rather than just deciding to introduce stuff like quadratic equations earlier.
  17. DM

    DM New commenter

    It's as clear as mud.
    Helpfully, Pollard and James have produced an unofficial one page summary.
    Unfortunately, that's as clear as mud too.
    I did like the bit on page 40/41 that recognised how hard The Mathematical Association and ACME fought to prevent a prescriptive year-by-year mathematics curriculum. Sadly, they seem to have only managed to persuade the Panel to adopt a biannual curriculum (and they still favour year-by-year in Primary).
    I was amused by the way Gove used the publication of the Report as an opportunity to restate his prejudices.
  18. pencho

    pencho New commenter

    Reportonapage doc, I just start reading it and switch off!!!!
    Just having a read of the main documen now.
    A few things I am working out (I think) are
    (a) Make KS4 3 years instead of 2, but study a greater breadth of subjects.
    (b) They want to split KS2 in two (upper and lower) and proivde attainment targets at the end of each 2 year block.
    (c) Levels will disappear in all subjects except maths, english and science.
  19. pencho

    pencho New commenter

    Looking at the other document that contains maths specific, I can't see how we differ to other countries that much. I know there might be odd topic here and there that they do earlier, but there are topics we do earlier too. There are also lots of topics that it doesn't talk about. We have no comparison of these.
    I can't help but feel this has been a waste of time.
    What happened to the porkess report!!!!
  20. DM

    DM New commenter

    Where did you see this? I just skim read again and can't find anything that suggests levels will be retained for these subjects.

Share This Page