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

New Draft Curriculum for September 2014 - well?

Discussion in 'Primary' started by Yogs, Feb 7, 2013.

  1. zugthebug

    zugthebug New commenter

    Spent all morning but sent my consultation doc in and emailled my MP.
    General feelings are no one happy but why are unions so quiet on the matter?
     
  2. tafkam

    tafkam Occasional commenter

    Representative of a problem we have in the profession - unions are there to protect our working conditions and rights as employees. We need proper professional organisations for things like this - a Royal College of Teaching would be good!
     
  3. becktonboy

    becktonboy New commenter

    no, seriously, don't.
    does anyone really think any government will take even the slightest. infintessimal bit of notice of their contribution or indeed of a huge number of generally disapproving contributions?? why would they? what evidence is there that any government ever has? these 'consulatations' are a distraction, designed to delay/stop us getting involved in 'politics' ......
     
  4. tafkam

    tafkam Occasional commenter

    Argh! Really? Is that your standpoint?

    The recent pensions contribution consultation received 28 responses from individual teachers. With that sort of response all the union action and campaigning in the world will fall flat. We have to show that we are prepared to stand up for things. If thousands of teachers respond that they simply cannot ignore. And even if they do, it makes it easier to hold them to account. We have to participate.
     
  5. lardylegs

    lardylegs Occasional commenter

    I'm with Bectonboy, sad to say....
     
  6. tafkam

    tafkam Occasional commenter

    Very sad to hear.

    Does the recent change of heart about EBCs not persuade you to at least try?
     
  7. cally1980

    cally1980 Established commenter

    The apathy makes me sad. Even if I was convinced nothing would change I would still take the opportunity to make myself and my opinions heard. I have sent a lengthy email to my (tory) MP and am as yet waiting a reply (it has been over a week...)
     
  8. letsbe

    letsbe New commenter

    [​IMG]
    I will mourn the loss of the Ancient Egyptians....I will get them in there somewhere...historical fiction, dt, science (body parts - mummification through knowledge of the body's systems anyone?), were there any great artists who painted Egyptian scenes? ...Howard Carter was English wasn't he... wasn't the Rossetta stone also written on in Ancient Greek...lol. Ooooh we could have an ancient Egyptian feast in dt for food tech...
    Now that's plotting.
    My love of history as an adult has come from finding ways of bringing to life the topics I teach to year 3 and 4. Some of the current topics will remain BUT I am worried about having time to fit it in in an interesting way. Plus I echo the problem of teaching a 2 year cycle due to mixed year classes! That would be interesting.
    One email and a response form being filled in.
     
  9. brighton56

    brighton56 Occasional commenter

    There is a massive response already from unhappy educators, teachers, academics and parents. All I can say is your input is valuable and is not a waste of time.
    If you don't bother to respond to the draft curriculum then don't moan when you are forced to teach it.
    If EVERY SINGLE teacher responded then the government would have no choice but to make changes. We need to stand united and fight.
     
  10. zugthebug

    zugthebug New commenter

    Email your MP too. I received a reply from the PA stating he had already made his concerns regarding the history curriculum known but would use the concerns regarding other subjects that I raised. If you receive no reply continue to email until you do, even an automated reply shows your email was received. If we bung up the in boxes of MPs it will at least show the feelings of our profession. Complacency isnt going to work, responding to the consultation might not but at least you have tried. UNIONS sort your selves out
     
  11. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I don't wish to comment on history as it's not "my thing" but I do feel I would have benefitted from the chronological approach as a poster above suggests.
    I do think that if a lot of teachers respond to this consultation in the way that they have responded on a lot of these threads, an objective outsider reading the responses two decades from now would read through and think "change was most certainly needed .... but maybe not so much in the National Curriculum itself".... perhaps in teacher training and development?
    I can't think, for example, that saying that "speaking and listening" should be a strand in itself is a particularly constructive comment. Surely good teachers will still adopt the sort of successful strategies they have done in the past even if it is not specifically labelled as a strand in the NC or its assessment. Developing a child's speaking and listening skills is integral to teaching any subject at any level. Likewise problem-solving in maths. Where does it say that you shouldn't problem solve in maths? How can you learn to teach maths and think that the draft NC chucks problem-solving out of the window?
    I've not had the chance to read it all properly, but bits I have read on KS1 literacy make good sense to me and don't look impossible to deliver. It looks a way load better than concentrating on writing a load of things in different genres as per the old literacy strategy units which some school still seem to cling dear to. The maths doesn't look too way out, and science not bad either.
    We might not like everything about the new, but there was a lot of stuff produced in the past which wasn't great which many teachers still cling to. e.g. I know several teachers at my children's school and elsewhere who stick rigidly to the old archived literacy and numeracy units. e.g. My children's maths is still being messed up by teachers who cling to the old numeracy units - maybe to give the units credit they don't deliver them in full or make links - but it all seems very bitty. e.g. They seem to learn to divide bigger numbers by chunking and short division one year and then not do it again for another year. Maybe if the teacher did have clear yearly objectives for maths she'd work towards them, and the next teacher would build on them? Maybe they'd realise that children need to regularly practice everything they've done so far in maths regularly, rather than learn to divide last year or last term and then drop it for weeks and months at a time.
    I can only think that there's something good in having a change as so many teachers that I come across are still stuck in the past on things that weren't that great. For example, the strategies and units are based on the current NC. If the NC is changed, at least people will have to dump those dreadful units and think for themselves how best to teach it.
    Maybe there are a lot of schools that are already delivering something a lot better than the current national curriculum - well hopefully if this is desribed well in a consulation response it will get taken on board - but comments about speaking and listening and problem-solving make the feedback sound a bit petty to me. I trained in the 1980s before the NC - I remember teaching and learning being all about problem-solving, speaking and listening. It still is, and always will be. Why the feeling that this new curriculum precludes or excludes these things?

     
  12. tafkam

    tafkam Occasional commenter

    Why? I have never seen any evidence that shows that teaching something in order helps students to relate things to any structured chronology. Surely the whole point of the study of history is to be able to relate things in both directions?
    What is the point of a National Curriculum containing statutory minima if it doesn't contain the most essential elements? There is considerable evidence from the DfE itself that the best countries in the world have clear strand of S&L in their curricula. The Expert Panel clearly said it was essential. Why miss it out?
    The fact is, if the National Curriculum does require it, and the assessments therefore don't assess it, why would any teacher address it? And actually, I am more concerned about the lack of reasoning. Problem-solving is usually fairly well covered. Reasoning should be at the very centre of Maths, and yet again the DfE have omitted it. Surely it should be part of the statutory minimum?
    The Numeracy strategy did contains clear yearly objectives. You seem to think that that approach doesn't work, though. Perhaps the overly-restrictive requirements are part of the problem rather than the solution?
    They may sound petty to you, but perhaps that represents your poor understanding of the ways in which children learn and the essential skills, Research and evidence is certainly on the side of those stating those issues.
    It isn't that it precludes them, but that in a jam-packed list of criteria it omits the most essential elements. That, surely, is a heinous error in any document which attempts to outline the minimum entitlement for students.
     
  13. zugthebug

    zugthebug New commenter

    The problem is teaching chronologically doesn't necessary infer that links will be developed. The curriculum for history especially isn't invested in skills where those links would take place. Besides KS2 will now teach about industrial designers and engineers and scientists from 18th century in DT with no context of the history they were working within. CHRONOLOGICALLY that will the taught by KS3. So we can learn about Brunel building bridges and transport links but not the time period he was working within and how this might have influenced events and developments
     
  14. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    Why would a curriculum necessarily have to use the word "reasoning" or problem solving or speaking and listening? And why would it all have to be assessed? I was taught in infant and junior school before any national curriculum, school developed my reasoning, thinking, problem solving, speaking and listening, and there was no national assessment. I would argue that my skills were better developed in those areas than my children under the current system.

    Is the new curriculum that jam packed? If you jettison a lot of the genre writing you'll free up quite a bit of time each day for learning about other stuff e.g. History!

    So much depends on the resources a teacher has at their disposal whether there is enough time for this stuff for a lot of this stuff or not. I was working with a lower ks2 child today on some comprehension they had to do at school - some inane cartoon about a mother shopping with the dog and a toddler. There was very little to read or understand - th e twenty minutes we spent on it could have been much more worthwhile with some better resources.

    I'm certainly not saying the new curriculum is the best thing since sliced bread in all areas, but that if you're hoping to have some influence with a consultation response picking on the absence o f overt strands like speaking and listening, reasoning etc is maybe not the best answer. To be honest, surely when those things were spelt out so overtly in assessments and national strategies and nc docs, didn't it feel like teaching grandmother to suck eggs? Surely any uk trained primary school teacher would take those things as read?
     
  15. tafkam

    tafkam Occasional commenter

    You're missing the point entirely, mystery10. You can argue all you like about the failings of your kids' school, or the failings of the classteacher you're covering, or the wonders of the pre-NC days, but the fact remains that the National Curriculum is meant to represent a basic minimum entitlement for all students.

    By its omissions it automatically implies that, for example, the teaching of Clive of India, is more important than mathematical reasoning. You might not agree, and you might think that "any uk trained primary school teacher" would recognise otherwise, but that's academic. The point is that this document is set down in law to dictate the minimum.

    The argument being made is that the wrong choices have been made: that oracy and reasoning are essential minimums, but that the heptarchy is not. By indicating that you think they are so essential that they are "taken as read" implies that you agree. What nonsense then that we can all agree how important they are, but fail to recognise that in statute.

    I strongly recommend you read the expert panel report, and the other DfE-commissioned research to really see what matters in a curriculum before suggesting that out comments are problematic.
     
  16. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I am sure that the servants who drafted the document intended us to infer that Clive of India is more important than mathematical reasoning; )
     
  17. zugthebug

    zugthebug New commenter

    By not including the important areas it gives the impression that they can be forgotten, left out, glossed over with no depth. The 'national' curriculum should be just that. The statutory entitlement for every child, no matter what type of school they go to. The essentials for learning, the rest to be decided by each school. The fact that free schools and academies wont have to follow it is ridiculous. If my child attended an primary school academy that taught victorians, Africa and Portuguese, then went to a state secondary, what would be the point of the proposed national curriculum? I understand there cant be compete freedom, but we are about to have to work in a system that will be rigid for some, and completely ignorable for others
     
  18. greenpeony

    greenpeony New commenter

    If anyone is interested, here is Mr G's e mail...

    ministers@education.gsi.gov.uk
     
  19. ERU

    ERU New commenter

    I'm sure I saw a PowerPoint on here (under resources?) that had all the major changes laid out in simple term? Does anyone still have the link? I can't find it now ...
     
  20. Lara mfl 05

    Lara mfl 05 Star commenter

Share This Page