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 Primary curriculum dropped

Discussion in 'Primary' started by WolfPaul, Apr 7, 2010.

  1. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    The NC sets out what you have to teach not HOW you teach. It is perfectly possible to use the existing curriculum to teach creatively we've been working that way for years.
  2. No need to be sad! Cross curricular/thematic approach is , as you say, a good way to teach children, especially at Foundation and KS 1 and 2 . This doesn't have to stop though. As long as you can demonstrate that you are covering all that is required in the programmes of study you can deliver it in whichever way works best for you and your class.
  3. Oh, I HAVE read it and looked at how it compares to our own curriculum. Our own curriculum has never followed the QCA interpretation of National Curriculum. Nor has it ever used the Lit or Num hour. It is an intergrated curriculum that goes beyond the given subjects that are legally required in the National Curriculum. We use the NC objectives and ensure they are all taught. They are just not always taught descreetly but monitored by individual co-ordinators who work in teams. Those objectives are not in conflict with our intergrated curriculum because of how we have set it up. When we compare the NPC, it is what we are doing.

  4. That is WHAT I said.
  5. WolfPaul

    WolfPaul Occasional commenter

    Yes, I thought that too. This thread is confusing me now!
  6. Hmm. Current or "new" NC does not specify objectives, as you state. That is for teachers to derive from NC statements.

  7. LOL.... Yes, I can understand that. I think what has come out of this is that the NPC is the way forward and people are upset that it doesn't seem to be going that way. However, there is no reason that the basis of it cannot go ahead in schools. Many schools have already been doing it for years and have been successful at it. This is the reason that there was the Rose Review in the first place. They wanted to see what good schools were doing right. It is not always a set formula. Schools have to look at how children learn and how to make the curriculum relevant for them.. If anything, it should make schools reflect on their practice and, maybe, make some changes that are for the best of the children.
  8. O my god! Where will this messing around stop. We should be campaigning for an 'National Independent Education Service" - rooted in practice and research. Bank of England style.
  9. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    sorry I missed a sentence in the previous quote somehow
    what I meant to say was that it is untrue that the present curriculum prevents teachers from teaching creatively and that it is also untrue that the proposed new curriculum looked at HOW to teach it
    but with the missing quote it didn't make sense.
  10. Curriculum/strategy documents come and go but the children still need a creative stimulating education that we, the teachers, strive to deliver. I have started work on a complete overhaul of the curriculum in our school and it's been met with enthusiasm by both staff and children and you know, I'm going to carry on and do it anyway because being at the core of any change we have to believe in what we are doing and that we have a good understanding of what is best for our children!!

  11. spot on. the "new" NC is not radically that different, just slimmed down a bit but it is curious how many schools were seizing the opportunity to review their curriculum around it, hailing it as offering much more freedom etc, when they have always had that freedom anyway since the introduction of the original NC!
    It is disappointing that the NPC was thrown out last week by the politicians for the moment as constant tinkering with the system is part of the problem!
  12. WolfPaul

    WolfPaul Occasional commenter

    Yes, but there is a difference; the NC has statutory force, whereas the strategies don't.
  13. Indeed, and the overall issue is that they shouldn't "come and go" with such frequency and such weak reasons. At least the NC is only reviewed every 10 years or so.
  14. Absolutely. It has seemed however at times that with all the tinkering and introduction of new documents that what has been statutory requirement and what has been guidance has become rather blurry.
  15. A cynic would say deliberately so.
    Many LEAs did nothing to disabuse schools of this, in fact, wanted them to believe it for their own agendas.
    Yet in fact, what is statutory and what is guidance has always actually been made perfectly clear by DCSF.
  16. Good for you.
    I'm in the process of re-developing ours (about time) and we've just decided to go with it. We started it last year and it's going great so we'll just continue.
  17. Why scrap children being creative???? I cant believe that politics can have such an impact on education??? I love the new primary curriculum and for children appreciating the arts!!!! About time!!!! So many parents today do not teach their children about the Arts and really are more interested in which designer outfit they should wear on the school run! I am so annoyed at the Tories for blocking it !!!!!!!!! who are they really putting first !!!
  18. besides the huge generalisation, where do you think fashion designs, as worn by "such" parents, come from? !
  19. WolfPaul

    WolfPaul Occasional commenter

    No-one has done this.
  20. Another reason not to vote tory.

Share This Page