If it ain't broke - why fix it?

On the 20th January 2011 the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, announced a review of the National Curriculum in England. He has plans for changing the education system... only, not necessarily in a good way! It was bad enough to hear the emphasis being placed on returning to more academic routes in Secondary and a preferential leaning towards Grammar School principles, without the recent addition of including a shake-up in Primary.

Having read the documents available online, it has to be said that some of the ideas have merit. However, where it lacks substance is in the area of what should be included within the core curriculum subjects and what form assessment should take.

There is still concern among many, that children who struggle with some of the more "academic" methods of teaching may lose out on a broader curriculum that produces good results through continual assessment. Furthermore, in an electronic age where technological advances have made it possible to access more current information than ever before, do we really want to fill our children with static facts just so that exams can be passed to feed league tables?

With the majority of the Coalition Government now having been educated at the most exclusive schools and colleges in the country, it is hardly surprising that they want to ensure more people like themselves reach and maintain positions of power and control, whilst the rest of the young become the future proletariat - working in fast-food outlets, supermarkets shelf-stacking and a plethora of service-related "industries" to support the wealthy.

The majority of examples of "good practice" continually come from places like Tower Hamlets and other famously deprived areas, where huge injections of Government-directed cash have been thrown at some of the most difficult and challenging educational situations - together with employment of some of the best teachers they can find to turn things around. It now seems that the children who receive the best educational support are those at the top and those at the bottom of the social spectrum - leaving the silent majority in the middle to fend for themselves in what has sadly become a Secondary / High School mediocrity.

The move against Primary
Having seen the quality of work, knowledge, and enthusiam of many Primary School children over the past few years, one thing that seems apparent is how far ahead of the game these kids are compared to those going through the Secondary process. I believe that there are a few reasons for this but, one of them can certainly be attributed to the two fundamental differences of curriculum approach: Primary is project-led; Secondary is subject-led.

Project-led versus Subject-led
Put simply, a project can contain many areas of the curriculum and these can be visited as and when the project requires. A subject is, by and large, taught exclusively to any other input from another subject area. The benefit of the first approach is that learning can be constantly adapted to the learners on a moment to moment basis and extended beyond a designated lesson period. In the second approach, learners have to focus exclusively on a set task or tasks relating specifically to one component of the subject specialism. If learners need extra time in their understanding, this cannot be afforded due to a timetable that dictates movement to another specialist subject area - often completely unrelated.

When I taught in Primary, I often found that a concept I had tried most of a lesson to impart, was starting to gain understanding ten minutes before the end of the lesson. Because the learners were my class, whether it was a break or a move to another subject, I had the option to continue for a little longer. I quickly realised that the ability to do this often saved time in the long run and meant that learners held information without having to start again the next time we discussed the subject. Therefore, by extending a 40 minute lesson by another 15 mintes, I saved going over the same things to reach the same point in another 40 minute lesson a few days or a week later. Put simply, if you are on the verge of understanding fractions, why distract the learner with a move to a lesson in Art.

One thing you see with Primary children is joy and enthusiasm. This is less often witnessed among Secondary children. Learning should be many things: enjoyable, engaging, stretching, questioning, rewarding, developing, etc. The last thing I would want to see is Primary children reduced to stressed-out dullards crying over their inability to recall the facts of the Great British Empire to reach an attainment target that determines their future place in Secondary School.

National Curriculum Review - Call for Evidence
In the National Curriculum Review - Call for Evidence, it is stated that:

"The Government believes that the current National Curriculum has, over the past few years, moved away from its original purpose - to set out what all children should be taught in key subjects. The Government believes that recent changes to the National Curriculum, such as the inclusion of skills development and the promotion of generic dispositions, have distorted the core function of the National Curriculum and diluted the importance of subject knowledge. Over the same period, England's standing in respected international comparisons of educational achievement has declined."

The Government periodically encourages consultation responses and the current ones can be viewed and completed online at:

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations

Another view of educational expansion
Walter de Brouwer (who I met in Belgium when I joined his Starlab project for a short time) has an interesting take on the future of education. For many teachers, in UK schools, this will be a step too far. However, give it some thought: www.walterdebrouwer.com