Written By: - Date published: 7:30 am, February 21st, 2009 - 59 comments
Categories: education, uk politics -
Tags:
Last year we saw how unpopular National’s “national testing” policy was going to be. Now a major study in the UK is highly critical of what appears to be a similar policy. The Guardian says:
Children’s lives are being impoverished by the government’s insistence that schools focus on literacy and numeracy at the expense of creative teaching, the biggest review of the primary school curriculum in 40 years finds today.
Labour has failed to tackle decades of over-prescription in the curriculum and added to it with its own strategies in literacy and numeracy, which take up nearly half the school week, the Cambridge University review of the primary curriculum found.
Children are leaving school lacking knowledge about the arts and humanities having spent too many years “tied to a desk” learning times tables, the head of the review, Robin Alexander, said.
“Our argument is that their education, and to some degree their lives, are impoverished if they have received an education that is so fundamentally deficient,” he said.
The report says schools should be freed of Sats and league tables to allow them to make more decisions about what and how they teach.
The compulsory daily act of worship should be reviewed and a curriculum that values knowledge and understanding as well as basic skills should be brought in, it says.
Independent of the government and funded through charitable donations, the review is based on three years of academic research, 29 research papers and dozens of public meetings around the country. It marks 40 years since the last wholesale review of primary education and presents a blueprint for a curriculum that would give teachers control of 30% of their time to teach what they want.
Teaching unions, headteachers and major educational bodies all backed the plans, setting the government on a collision course with schools if it fails to consider the proposals.
The review finds:
• Children are losing out on a broad, balanced and rich curriculum with art, music, drama, history and geography the biggest casualties.
• The curriculum, and crucially English and maths, have been “politicised”.
• The focus on literacy and numeracy in the run-up to national tests has “squeezed out” other areas of learning.
• The Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which sets the curriculum, have been excessively prescriptive, “micro-managing” schools.
The review accuses the government of attempting to control what happens in every classroom in England, leading to an excessive focus on literacy and numeracy in an “overt politicisation” of children’s lives. Despite this too many children still leave primary school having failed to master the 3Rs.
Sats have also narrowed the scope of what is taught in schools, it claims, concluding: “The problem of the curriculum is inseparable from the problem of assessment and testing.”
Christine Blower, acting general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said the proposals “have depth, credibility and, above all, respond to the realities of the primary classroom”.
Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: “Rather than continue to tinker around the edges of primary education we would like the government to heed the proposals and reopen the debate about the purposes of primary education.”
The DCSF said the report would be considered by Sir Jim Rose, who has been commissioned to review the curriculum concentrating on “workable recommendations for change … in order to give teachers more freedom and flexibility”.
“Ed Balls [schools secretary] has made it clear that he wants it to be the most fundamental review of the primary curriculum for a decade,” the DCSF added. “Sir Jim will publish his findings later this year.”
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
I have Ag and a degree in common sense.This Godless Nation deserves what’s coming!
Ask people if they believe in God, you will be very surprised on how many kiwi’s say they do.
Hey school teacher where is your BIBLE? Oh that’ s right Darwin said that the book should be in the Zoo.Poor kids. I have faith there is a better way for our children.
[lprent: The only people who can impose and enforce bans around here are the moderators and me. I'm jealous about the right. Please read about the BOFH and refleact that you are not even a PFY. ]
Jeez, get a life. It was an attempt to be facetious. How the hell could I ban anyone??
Ag, you’re another retard who cannot tell the difference between one and four. Of course I know why you do such things. You’re too frightened to put up one idea and argue solely about that because you know it would make you subject to scrutiny you couldn’t withstand.
The difficulty most people have with science and religion is that they tend to confuse the two. Both are forms of knowledge, but about different aspects of reality.
Science based knowledge (as practised by Universities) is based on methods that demands evidence as an essential component of the process. As put above, mere faith, or the assertion of faith, is not sufficient in this environment.
By complete contrast in my view the full, true and essential nature of the Divine is completely beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend. And while the individual may well treasure miraculous evidence that is personal to their life and experience, such experiences are generally of little import to others. People believe in a God, not because they can produce or point to concrete evidence of such, but solely because their inner capacity for abstract reasoning can only be satisfied by such an entity. (I’m not arguing for or against a God here, just the basis on why people believe.)
Another way of looking at this, science is about the provably knowable, religion is about the Unknowable. Moreover the boundary is not fixed; science having steadily whittled it’s way into ignorance for centuries. No longer, for instance, do we attribute thunder and lightening to angry bickerings of a pantheon of gods. But neither does the knowledge that science brings us, necessarily exclude faith. For many, the more we learn about the world via science, the more we see the fingerprints of God over everything. In my view, true religion and true science would ultimately be in harmony with each other.
The difficulties arise when people think they should be the SAME as each other. The people who most often commit this error are fundamentalists, who insist that religion must be the only source of truth and authority, which forces them into misapplying scripture. All the ancient texts contain narratives that convey symbolic and spiritual truths; while at the same time are a nonsense in literal scientific terms. The world was not for instance, created in 7 literal days about 10,000 years ago.
Equally it is a mistake to insist that materialistic science is also the only source of knowledge. Such an outlook closes the door on the notions upon which human dignity is based, having little to say about abstract virtues such as justice, compassion, grace, trustworthiness or modesty. Yet it is these very qualities, upon which society is founded, and about which religion has the most to say.
These fundamentalists of whatever stripe or persuasion… are the enemy of progress and civility. These people exploit the respect others have for both religion or science to create authoritarian hierarchies. Ironically they often even attempt to do this in the name of freedom and liberty…. but that I guess is the topic of another sermon.
I believe the children should be taught both religion and science. That way the children can make up their own minds in adulthood. Surely kids need balance and diversity in the all important nurturing childhood years.At the moment science is supreme in education systems. How do you possibly hope to achieve a passive community with the present tunnel vision approach which sadly exists ? Open your eyes. I cannot understand the intense hatred by academics of the God concept? I smell a big rat and I am NOT a fundamentalist, whatever that means and I don’t want to know thank you.
RB: ‘What exactly is the “status quo’.’
QED my orginal point RB bro.
But to give your response more attention than it deserves, the staus quo consevatives seek to maintain usually pertains to the preservation of existing power relations and ownership of capital.
When conservative agendas for anything else are pitched in terms of ‘restoring’ things to the past (“back to basics”, “restoring traditional values”, etc), to justify conservative plans that aren’t actually conservative but actually aimed to change things to further increase thier capital and power, they’re usually based on a selective and romantic construction of the past constructed to advance whatever political interests conservatives favour at the time.
But of course you’re right RB, unless it relates to power and capital, conservatives are usually aiming to conserve whichever convenient fiction suits them. Not a habit that’s usually conducive to a sophisticated or particularly rigorous political ontology.
Yes I am right. Are they for “restoring”, or are they for the “status quo”. Can’t be both. So that’s one proposed “stupid and illogical Conservative idea” dealt with.
That way the children can make up their own minds in adulthood.
Or perhaps more usefully you could say that they could draw upon both in order to form a worldview in adulthood. Suggesting that there is some kind of binary choice between the two is a false dichotomy, and those religious fundamentalists or materialists who do, are both wrong.
I cannot understand the intense hatred by academics of the God concept?
In part I agree with you, but the answer is likely a little more complex than you have implied. Academics are not all of one mind about the ‘God concept’ at all.
Some of course are out and out materialists, and I personally no more accept that position than you. Equally there are many, many academics who do hold an belief in the Divine, whether they express that openly or not.
But several things should be bourne in mind here. For one, as I explained above, the assertion of faith alone is NOT an appropriate tool in the environment in which they work. You may well be perfectly free to believe in God, just do it in your own time.
More importantly academia as a whole has been engaged in a defensive battle against religious fundamentalists for thousands of years; Gallileo being only the most well known example. It is only understandable that when confronted with someone talking about God, many academics’ first instinct is to assume they are dealing with one of the enemy until proven otherwise.
Redlogix
Are you saying, that schools that don’t fit philosophically with the lefty introduced integrated school system must teach lala-land God science?
How many ex Labour Prime Ministers believed in God mickysausage?
Not at all. Try looking at the Rudolph Steiner inspired schools for instance. They definitely teach a sound evidence based science, but from a unique perspective that still allows plenty of space for a belief in God. The Catholic Independent schools manage a similar balance, albeit more conventionally.
At the same time I have little respect for those small Christian schools (I used to live right next door to one and as each year passed I was increasingly disenchanted with what I saw) that teach a narrow Bible based creationism and a world-view wholly derived from literal interpretations of the Bible.
lefty introduced integrated school system
Are you sure you are not a fundamentalist?
Norm Kirk introduced it redlogix, that is a fundamental fact.The “special character” of my old Catholic School is well gone.No wonder society is such a dangerous place as many children don’t get taught respect at school. As Charles Darwit said, it’s only the survival of the fittest. But teacher, kids cannot swim and we live on an Island? Oh well who cares eh?
Now that’s an interesting assertion. What do you mean by it?
I distinctly recall going to a state primary school well before Norman Kirk, so I have to assume you mean something more nuanced than the length of your statement above could support.
Did teachers teach you boundaries at school redlogix?
The “special character’ of my old Catholic School is well gone.
While the state schools in my area have quite active religious programmes of one sort or another. Sure none of them are mandatory, but it’s wrong to think that they get no exposure to religion whatsoever.
The problem of course is that as soon as you make any form of religious material mandatory at state schools, you immediately raise the question of ‘which religion’ and ‘what material’. Modern New Zealand has an exceedingly diverse range of active religions, and within each one a whole range of churches or schisms promoting specific dogma, from the openly symbolic and liberal, to the most closed and literal.
No state school could impose any meaningful religious programme that would even remotely achieve universal support.
But redlogix, we are a Christian Country or has the left distorted history again? You know the Hebrew word for covenant is formed , providing the basis for the word British. Got ya lad. In a nut shell, basically the left are liars.
Did teachers teach you boundaries at school redlogix?
Not really. All teachers ever did in those days was thrash or humiliate kids who made problems for them. Respect I learnt at home, from Scouting, tramping trips, from other adults who took the time to show boys how to be men.
But teacher, kids cannot swim and we live on an Island?
Still you have to remember that Darwinian evolution, for all it’s moral and scientific limitations has been an exceedingly successful idea because it was so much more useful than that which preceded it… ie dogmatic superstition.
And of course people care. Even to this day the debate still rages within academia as to how or when science will move to a new paradigm beyond Darwin.
we are a Christian Country or has the left distorted history again?
Not at all. New Zealand, most certainly has a Christian colonial heritage, but the Dept of Statistics authoratitively informs that most of us are no longer practising members of Christian Churches.
Besides you may want to recall that New Zealand has many hundreds of years of a non-Christian heritage that very much predates the colonial era.
Must go redlogix. Unfortunately a very intense debate about similar matters is happening at the Richard Dawkins blog.I drive that man even madder than he already is.
Must go, tally ho old chap.
I’ve already given you serial hidings in the past. You were an easybeat then, and by all evidence you haven’t changed a bit.
All you have is bluster and invective, because you really know nothing of what you speak.
Herbert
Are you redbaiter? You seem to be answering questions posed to him and also using the same sort of phrases that he uses.
“How many ex Labour Prime Ministers believed in God mickysausage?”
At least some of them. Savage, Fraser and Lange spring to mind. There is something about the christian belief in help for the poor and the socialist desire to help the most needy that means both sets of values are very similar. It is not a requirement however. And they never let a doctrinal belief in the old testament get in the way of trying to improve circumstances for ordinary people.
Redlogix, great comments about spirituality, science, and education. A sane and reasonable perspective! Education cannot help but impart a set of values, the question is whose? A “social justice” perspective is FAR preferable to the “law of the jungle” capitalist indoctrination that lurks behind the right-wing rhetoric. A relevant quote from Derrick Jensen, “Endgame”:
(micky, I suspect Herbert is one “dad4justice”, a bizarre character who aspires to be Redbaiter)
“(micky, I suspect Herbert is one “dad4justice’, a bizarre character who aspires to be Redbaiter)”
ropata – do you know dad4justice or is the insinuation that he is the “bizarre character” just your wayward opinion? I will let him know about your strange comment about him.
What an odd thing to say about somebody. Obviously you are a week end Christian.
I don’t know about Jesus, but personally I fucking wept reading this garbage.
i stand by my previous comment re: d4j.
ps: cheer up Murray
Interesting comments Redbaiter,
Charles Murray had an interesting series of articles a while back in WSJ about a lack of reality with the No Child Left Behind Act:
“Our ability to improve the academic accomplishment of students in the lower half of the distribution of intelligence is severely limited. It is a matter of ceilings. Suppose a girl in the 99th percentile of intelligence, corresponding to an IQ of 135, is getting a C in English. She is underachieving, and someone who sets out to raise her performance might be able to get a spectacular result. Now suppose the boy sitting behind her is getting a D, but his IQ is a bit below 100, at the 49th percentile.
We can hope to raise his grade. But teaching him more vocabulary words or drilling him on the parts of speech will not open up new vistas for him. It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity, any more than it is within my power to follow a proof in the American Journal of Mathematics. In both cases, the problem is not that we have not been taught enough, but that we are not smart enough.
Now take the girl sitting across the aisle who is getting an F. She is at the 20th percentile of intelligence, which means she has an IQ of 88. If the grading is honest, it may not be possible to do more than give her an E for effort. Even if she is taught to read every bit as well as her intelligence permits, she still will be able to comprehend only simple written material. It is a good thing that she becomes functionally literate, and it will have an effect on the range of jobs she can hold. But still she will be confined to jobs that require minimal reading skills. She is just not smart enough to do more than that.
How about raising intelligence? It would be nice if we knew how, but we do not. It has been shown that some intensive interventions temporarily raise IQ scores by amounts ranging up to seven or eight points. Investigated psychometrically, these increases are a mix of test effects and increases in the underlying general factor of intellectual ability–”g.” In any case, the increases fade to insignificance within a few years after the intervention….
There is no reason to believe that raising intelligence significantly and permanently is a current policy option, no matter how much money we are willing to spend. Nor can we look for much help from the Flynn Effect, the rise in IQ scores that has been observed internationally for several decades. Only a portion of that rise represents an increase in g, and recent studies indicate that the rise has stopped in advanced nations.
Some say that the public schools are so awful that there is huge room for improvement in academic performance just by improving education. There are two problems with that position. The first is that the numbers used to indict the public schools are missing a crucial component. For example, in the 2005 round of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 36% of all fourth-graders were below the NAEP’s “basic achievement” score in reading. It sounds like a terrible record. But we know from the mathematics of the normal distribution that 36% of fourth-graders also have IQs lower than 95.
What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP’s basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question. We only know for sure that if the bar for basic achievement is meaningfully defined, some substantial proportion of students will be unable to meet it no matter how well they are taught. As it happens, the NAEP’s definition of basic achievement is said to be on the tough side. That substantial proportion of fourth-graders who cannot reasonably be expected to meet it could well be close to 36%.
The second problem with the argument that education can be vastly improved is the false assumption that educators already know how to educate everyone and that they just need to try harder–the assumption that prompted No Child Left Behind. We have never known how to educate everyone. The widely held image of a golden age of American education when teachers brooked no nonsense and all the children learned their three Rs is a myth. If we confine the discussion to children in the lower half of the intelligence distribution (education of the gifted is another story), the overall trend of the 20th century was one of slow, hard-won improvement.”
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25452/pub_detail.asp