Today’s
impromptu
release of the new plans for the primary school curriculum, drawn up by
former Ofsted chief Sir Jim Rose, have been met with a mixture of concern and
bemusement. The ‘stripping down’ of the
curriculum in terms of specific content that teachers are forced to deliver
will be welcomed by many in the teaching profession. However, the same cannot be said for some of the
other proposals.
While
there is a clear argument for introducing an element of web-based learning and
technological skills, it appears that this will come at the expense of literacy
and numeracy. As discussed in an
upcoming report by Policy Exchange, the reality of literacy and numeracy
standards in primary schools is truly horrifying. Just 56% of the boys and 66% of the girls who
left primary school in 2008 could read, write and count to the minimum standard.
In fact, 50,000 pupils left primary school last year without reaching the
minimum standard in any of the core
subjects – English, maths and science. Sir
Jim’s proposals to combine individual subjects into six ‘learning areas’ (which
amounts to little more than shuffling the educational deck chairs) and the
greater emphasis on addressing “societal concerns” about health and well-being
(which recent pilot studies showed to have no positive effect on children
according to parents) are unlikely to have any tangible impact.
Furthermore,
there seems to be remarkably little interest in whether these changes will
improve literacy and numeracy standards.
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has previously stated that the
changes being put forward by Sir Jim are ‘supported by research’. However, this
research merely consists of “listening to and summarising the views of
thousands of primary children and parents”, “seeking the views of thousands of
practitioners”, visiting schools and attending seminars. This is a typical way
of evaluating pilots but it fails to answer the fundamental question of whether
any of the above proposals will help more children to read, write and count
properly. This suggests that the
upcoming (and substantial) changes to the curriculum will go down as yet
another hugely expensive yet ultimately unsuccessful and unnecessary set of
reforms.
Tom Richmond is a Research Fellow in Policy Exchange's Education Unit.
