I agree with nearly everything in this but I think it slightly plays down how prescriptive the English and Maths primary curriculum is. Most maths schemes of learning end up looking very similar simply because of what is the in the NC. Indeed, if I were looking at curriculum reform, the mismatch in detail between English and Maths and other subjects would be something I would focus on. (Particularly the excessive level of grammar details required in primary which is then largely ignored in secondary)
I agree primary maths and English are different - but that’s because they are assessed! I would love to see the average amount of time spent on GPS in Year 6 compared to the amount of time spend on science or history.
Interesting post, and I agree with you about assessment. This is the hidden and unglamourous engine room of the system. But I also think we get into problems when we write a curriculum backwards, using the form of the assessment that we prefer as a structuring principle, and particularly when we do so generically. I think we need to begin rather with the form of knowledge or skill that we judge to be educational valuable and then work forward from this to decide on what form of assessment best fits. Looking at the five versions of the National Curriculum Versions One and Five stick out. Version One because it put assessment first, leading to some deeply confusing and unworkable Subject Orders, and more broadly there was an attempt to fit everything into one generic model of assessment, which was itself a rather confusing one, and which led to some very silly proposed forms of assessment (like those for music, which was reduced to music appreciation (which is important of course, but not really the full shilling in terms of music education, as one must play, and one must compose!)). Version Five then got rid of levels (which were a sort of rough guide to assessment in the prior versions of the NCfE). I kinda think that was ok, and I guess it was motivated by a desire to stop teachers limiting themselves or students, but perhaps it was a step too far in terms of completely decoupling assessment from the curriculum. It notably that Labour wants to run these two things together again, and that they have now introduced a bill that will require that all schools following the NCfE. Such is their right as the elected government, although I have my doubts the new curriculum that appears to be emerging. The Gove curriculum was country mile better than the prior Labour version, and whilst there was also much that was wrong with it, especially at primary level, I think the broad principles of it need to be defended today.
I agree with nearly everything in this but I think it slightly plays down how prescriptive the English and Maths primary curriculum is. Most maths schemes of learning end up looking very similar simply because of what is the in the NC. Indeed, if I were looking at curriculum reform, the mismatch in detail between English and Maths and other subjects would be something I would focus on. (Particularly the excessive level of grammar details required in primary which is then largely ignored in secondary)
I agree primary maths and English are different - but that’s because they are assessed! I would love to see the average amount of time spent on GPS in Year 6 compared to the amount of time spend on science or history.
I've just found your Substack. This was a great read, I'm looking forward to reading more! :) From a fellow UK Teacher.
Interesting post, and I agree with you about assessment. This is the hidden and unglamourous engine room of the system. But I also think we get into problems when we write a curriculum backwards, using the form of the assessment that we prefer as a structuring principle, and particularly when we do so generically. I think we need to begin rather with the form of knowledge or skill that we judge to be educational valuable and then work forward from this to decide on what form of assessment best fits. Looking at the five versions of the National Curriculum Versions One and Five stick out. Version One because it put assessment first, leading to some deeply confusing and unworkable Subject Orders, and more broadly there was an attempt to fit everything into one generic model of assessment, which was itself a rather confusing one, and which led to some very silly proposed forms of assessment (like those for music, which was reduced to music appreciation (which is important of course, but not really the full shilling in terms of music education, as one must play, and one must compose!)). Version Five then got rid of levels (which were a sort of rough guide to assessment in the prior versions of the NCfE). I kinda think that was ok, and I guess it was motivated by a desire to stop teachers limiting themselves or students, but perhaps it was a step too far in terms of completely decoupling assessment from the curriculum. It notably that Labour wants to run these two things together again, and that they have now introduced a bill that will require that all schools following the NCfE. Such is their right as the elected government, although I have my doubts the new curriculum that appears to be emerging. The Gove curriculum was country mile better than the prior Labour version, and whilst there was also much that was wrong with it, especially at primary level, I think the broad principles of it need to be defended today.