Cambridge Review
Wednesday, 02 December 2009
It is interesting and sadly not surprising that a three year review of Education carried out by 3000 researchers can so quickly be dismissed by the Government as somehow irrelevant. One would not need to look much beyond the Cambridge review’s view extolled in the opening that ‘Ours is a public system of Education which belongs to the people and is not the personal fiefdom of ministers’ to understand why the Government were not enamoured by Professor Robin Alexander’s inquiry. This was further compounded by the reports accurate analysis that central government has taken over micromanaging everything from the content of a Literacy hour to the type of food on a child’s plate.
NPH welcome the review and would want to work on fleshing out it’s key principles of a revised curriculum, a reconsideration of the starting age of a more structured curriculum for our youngest pupils and the scrapping of Sats and league tables. To take the last point first there is no longer any really good reason to continue with Sats; doubts over the quality of marking and organization of the test are well documented and NPH are active in wanting them replaced with moderated teacher assessment.
The reports creation of 12 aims and eight domains is an interesting approach and more relevant than the National Curriculum but would need to be considered alongside the simpler Rose review with it’s areas of learning.
With regard to the headline grabbing issue of whether a starting age of 6 is relevant is typical of the trivialisation of important research by this Government. The report was not advocating an age to start but rather exploring the appropriateness of many young children’s first experience of school. Clearly some children are ready to start school at four whilst others are not ready at seven. The current obsession with number crunching, structured assessments and the Early Years Foundation Stage profile with it’s 117 assessable points needs reconsidering. The Early Years curriculum within the Foundation stage is good but how real the assessments? These children believe in Father Christmas. One man flying round the World on one night going down chimneys delivering presents? What score their knowledge and understanding of the World? Sadly the Government seem intent on making this complicated profile the starting point for value added and as such many resources and much time will be diverted, as with KS 2 tests , in order to tick the boxes. How will the experience and input of the practitioners be utilised fully if they are solely focusing on this? The Cambridge Review pointed to a broader more meaningful experience which cannot so easily be reduced to a number, that seems sadly why the Government were instantly opposed.
NPH remain committed as advocates for the primary child’s voice and as such we welcome this review and the opportunity it gives to consider the experiences and opportunities we provide for our pupils. When the current obsession with numbers has long been consigned to the dustbin of history our Country’s success will be decided by creative problem solvers who bring new solutions to old and new problems. This report points the way to a different future in our primary schools and is worthy of a more considered response by Government than it has currently been given.
George Muirhead (Vice Chair)
NPH welcome the review and would want to work on fleshing out it’s key principles of a revised curriculum, a reconsideration of the starting age of a more structured curriculum for our youngest pupils and the scrapping of Sats and league tables. To take the last point first there is no longer any really good reason to continue with Sats; doubts over the quality of marking and organization of the test are well documented and NPH are active in wanting them replaced with moderated teacher assessment.
The reports creation of 12 aims and eight domains is an interesting approach and more relevant than the National Curriculum but would need to be considered alongside the simpler Rose review with it’s areas of learning.
With regard to the headline grabbing issue of whether a starting age of 6 is relevant is typical of the trivialisation of important research by this Government. The report was not advocating an age to start but rather exploring the appropriateness of many young children’s first experience of school. Clearly some children are ready to start school at four whilst others are not ready at seven. The current obsession with number crunching, structured assessments and the Early Years Foundation Stage profile with it’s 117 assessable points needs reconsidering. The Early Years curriculum within the Foundation stage is good but how real the assessments? These children believe in Father Christmas. One man flying round the World on one night going down chimneys delivering presents? What score their knowledge and understanding of the World? Sadly the Government seem intent on making this complicated profile the starting point for value added and as such many resources and much time will be diverted, as with KS 2 tests , in order to tick the boxes. How will the experience and input of the practitioners be utilised fully if they are solely focusing on this? The Cambridge Review pointed to a broader more meaningful experience which cannot so easily be reduced to a number, that seems sadly why the Government were instantly opposed.
NPH remain committed as advocates for the primary child’s voice and as such we welcome this review and the opportunity it gives to consider the experiences and opportunities we provide for our pupils. When the current obsession with numbers has long been consigned to the dustbin of history our Country’s success will be decided by creative problem solvers who bring new solutions to old and new problems. This report points the way to a different future in our primary schools and is worthy of a more considered response by Government than it has currently been given.
George Muirhead (Vice Chair)