Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Primary' started by Msz, Dec 19, 2011.
I think many schools already operate a lower/upper KS2 system
Oh, I'm sure. And in my favoured three-tier areas those two stages are in separate schools. But would schools support a move to national curriculum programmes of study being divided up. It might mean schools which have for years taught one theme in Y5, for example, having to move it to Y3/4 to keep in line with the NC
Would certainly help those who believe in the Middle School system fight those who want to close those systems down because they don't 'neatly fit the NC testing criteria.
Too late for my area!
Would suit my middle school area well - but we are under real threat at the moment
Funnily enough, in my own area where middle schools are Y4-Y7 it only exacerbates the problem - each middle school will cover 3 key stages (or parts thereof) instead of two!
But then, ours was always the poorer of the two main models, IMO.
But what about juniors and primaries - do people there care either way? Will it be a problem? A help?
I know a great many year 5 and 6 teachers (not just in middle schools) who would love some kind of external assessment/accountability for year 4 results.
But I'm not sure splitting up the NC is sensible. I am hoping for more freedom under the new one, not less.
The report seemed to imply that it was part of a move encouraging schools - or at least freeing schools up - to use more specialists in Y5/6. That can only be a good move in my opinion. But then, I hold rather unpopular views about the quality of teaching in those year groups!
Yes forgot about the 8-12 model. Didn't realise there were any still in existence & I'd agree the 9-12 option fits the 'adolescent phase' better.
Strangely enough a few years ago, an advisor on an INSET was saying "You watch it, in a few years time it will be payment by results" and we certainly seem to be heading that way?
do you have a link tafkam?
I'm in a primary but Y5 & 6 are taught by specialist subject teachers for Maths English Science & MFL so I agree it is a good move
Yes, sorry, should have included a link:
On the 8-12 vs 9-13 models, we are one of only 27 left of the 8-12 model, with more than half of them due to close at the end of next academic year. With only 13 of us left in the country, you can't really expect them to bear us in mind when designing a national curriculum. I let them off
As a small school we have had to teach y3/4 together and y5/6 together anyway so have had to adapt the curriculum. Now we have all of KS2 in one class ..........more adaptations required. So what ever way they do it there will always be some who have to adapt.
Thanks for posting that link tafkam. Have only skimmed it, but notice they're also suggesting extending GCSE to 3 yrs, which might give hope to those 9-13 Middle schools?
Too late for my middle school are we are all gone this year But I really like the sound of it. Put some accountability further down KS2 and stop leaving Yr 5 and 6 teachers to take the flack.
In the report on the consultation doc. https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/NCR%20-%20Call%20for%20Evidence%20Summary%20Report.pdf
"The review was also remitted to consider:
The extent to which the content of the National Curriculum should be set out on a year-on-year basis, to ensure that knowledge is built systematically and consistently;
• what, if anything, should replace existing attainment targets and level descriptors to better define the standards of attainment that children should reach, and be assessed against, at various points throughout their education; . . . . .
In the parents replies Currently schools use eight National Curriculum "levels" to identify the
level at which children are working in each subject (e.g. "Your child is at level 4 in English and level 5 in mathematics"). Does this kind of reporting help you to understand how well your child is doing at school?
234 respondents to this question (23%) thought that the levels were not widely understood by parents and were confusing and unwieldy, especially the ‘sub-levels’.
Views expressed included that they were meaningless numbers which did not relate to what children could do, and potentially labelled and segregated children in the early years of their education. Some respondents also believed the levels must be simplified and more freedom given to teachers to be creative in their teaching.
Parents suggested the following approaches to reporting on their children’s progress,
which they believed would be more useful to them:
• the use of letters instead of numbers (A, B, C, D);
• age-related expectations;
• using levels only to show a child’s progress against developmental criteria;
• revising the levels to reflect the year groups (i.e. level 3 expected at end of year 3, level 7 expected at end of year 7); and
• a re-think of the use of ‘sub-levels’. "
Wow now might actually make sense!