The Broader Context
In February 2013 the Government published its National Curriculum Proposals for England which have led to widespread criticism and concern. Although our campaign is focused on the early years this needs to also be put in the context of what is happening within the wider educational system.
Responses to the Government's National Curriculum Proposals for England
See Rebecca Hanson's evaluation of the Primary Math Curriculum
See the Review Advisory Body
See member Andrew Pollard's subsequent criticism - 'What about the Pupils?'
See the March 2013 Letter to the Telegraph
See the CBI's First Steps Report
Cambridge Primary Review
"We find the proposals in many respects educationally unsound and evidentially questionable. They are based
on a flawed critique of existing arrangements and an overly selective response to international data. Their lack of serious educational rationale is confirmed by the decision to add an essentially cosmetic statement of aims after the priorities and content have been determined. They perpetuate some of the most damaging aspects of current and past arrangements, notably a curriculum which is divided not only in time but also as to quality and seriousness of purpose, especially where the arts and humanities are concerned.
The proposals rightly prioritise knowledge but wrongly reduce it to unchallengeable proposition. They disregard both research evidence and expert opinion on matters such as spoken language and the teaching of reading, history and citizenship. They belittle or ignore aspects of cultural life and human development - such as drama, dance and the exploration of faith and belief - which ought to feature in any national curriculum. While claiming modernity they fail adequately to reflect the profound social and educational implications of the digital revolution ... We cannot disguise our sense of the immense gulf that exists between what, in terms of the quality of consultation, evidence and vision, the Government has effected and what the Cambridge Primary Review aspired to and achieved."
Read the full Consultation Response
Read the Letter sent to the DfE - Neither National nor a Curriculum
Dominic Wyse at the Institute of Education:
If public consultation on national curricula and assessment is to be genuinely meaningful then the following need to be in place:
• Analysis of consultation responses should be carried out by an organisation independent of government and the civil service, for example a research organisation.
• A transparent methodology for analysis is needed, for example to account fairly (including through statistical weighting) for the views of organisations versus individual respondents; to clearly explain the approach to analysis of qualitative answers; and more generally to be an account that would satisfy researchers of the rigor of the analysis.
• Consultation should include a question on the overall desirability of proposed changes in addition to any questions about the fine detail of proposals.
• Clear majority views should be acted on in line with the opinion expressed. A principled way to deal with less clear-cut answers should be established.
• Responses, analyses, and government actions should be available online in order to ensure public trust, and to demonstrate democracy at work.
See the full blog response - What are consultations for?
See the NUT Response
See Rebecca Hanson's evaluation of the Primary Math Curriculum
See the Review Advisory Body
See member Andrew Pollard's subsequent criticism - 'What about the Pupils?'
See the March 2013 Letter to the Telegraph
See the CBI's First Steps Report
Cambridge Primary Review
"We find the proposals in many respects educationally unsound and evidentially questionable. They are based
on a flawed critique of existing arrangements and an overly selective response to international data. Their lack of serious educational rationale is confirmed by the decision to add an essentially cosmetic statement of aims after the priorities and content have been determined. They perpetuate some of the most damaging aspects of current and past arrangements, notably a curriculum which is divided not only in time but also as to quality and seriousness of purpose, especially where the arts and humanities are concerned.
The proposals rightly prioritise knowledge but wrongly reduce it to unchallengeable proposition. They disregard both research evidence and expert opinion on matters such as spoken language and the teaching of reading, history and citizenship. They belittle or ignore aspects of cultural life and human development - such as drama, dance and the exploration of faith and belief - which ought to feature in any national curriculum. While claiming modernity they fail adequately to reflect the profound social and educational implications of the digital revolution ... We cannot disguise our sense of the immense gulf that exists between what, in terms of the quality of consultation, evidence and vision, the Government has effected and what the Cambridge Primary Review aspired to and achieved."
Read the full Consultation Response
Read the Letter sent to the DfE - Neither National nor a Curriculum
Dominic Wyse at the Institute of Education:
If public consultation on national curricula and assessment is to be genuinely meaningful then the following need to be in place:
• Analysis of consultation responses should be carried out by an organisation independent of government and the civil service, for example a research organisation.
• A transparent methodology for analysis is needed, for example to account fairly (including through statistical weighting) for the views of organisations versus individual respondents; to clearly explain the approach to analysis of qualitative answers; and more generally to be an account that would satisfy researchers of the rigor of the analysis.
• Consultation should include a question on the overall desirability of proposed changes in addition to any questions about the fine detail of proposals.
• Clear majority views should be acted on in line with the opinion expressed. A principled way to deal with less clear-cut answers should be established.
• Responses, analyses, and government actions should be available online in order to ensure public trust, and to demonstrate democracy at work.
See the full blog response - What are consultations for?
See the NUT Response