Consider What Constitues a Meaningful, Balanced Primary Curriculum

The Primary Curriculum has undergone many changes in the past 2 decades and is now in wait of another major change. The new curriculum is now expected to be implemented in September of 2014 (DfE, 2012).

The changes happening in education are vast, for the purposes of this essay I will discuss general change but highlight key changes in strategies for literacy.

In any educational system there is a need for consistency. Before the National Strategy in 1989-1990 this was not the case. The National Curriculum bought standardisation for the first time as everyone would follow a common framework of subjects and learning. The 1995 version slimmed down the original curriculum and focused on the key components. Here came the criticism that ‘Guided Reading’ became too much the focus as a teaching strategy. The 3rd version in 2000 focused more on the key aspects of skills and teaching in a cross-curricular way, but why all these changes? These changes have come about because of informed educational research and review over the years that have driven key changes forward. The main driving researches in my view are the ‘Rose Report’, ‘Cambridge Primary Review’ and most recently the ‘Tickell Review’ which has bought further changes in EYFS learning areas.

Under the Labour Government in 2008, Sir Jim Rose led the Rose Review and recommended 6 areas of learning. These areas of learning will be influential in the forthcoming curriculum changes, where a major overhaul is expected. The EYFS initially replaced the Birth to 3/Foundation Stage and streamlined the early years so that all childcare settings were following one curriculum. As a previous child-minder I agree this to be a positive move. The new improved EYFS has been published to be rolled out in schools from September 2012 (DfE 2012). It aims to be a strategy that is less bureaucratic and caters for ‘today’s child and society’.

The Evidence paper into Phonics (DfE) found that children in England are falling behind in reading. To tackle this there will be an introduction to phonics screening expected to start June this year (DfE, 2012). The children who have not reached a standard need to be given extra support. This is a means to measure attainment and benchmark progress.

However, the introduction of Phonics screening somewhat contradicts the DfE claims (White Paper: The importance of teaching) that teachers and schools would be given more freedom to set clear expectations of what children should know. The recent 2007 overhaul was described as a backwards step as ‘concepts were replaced by vague generic statements of little value’ (Oates, Cambridge assessment). I would have to agree as my experience tells me that most schools still used the ‘Old National Strategy’. This shows me that although teachers like the idea of a more creative approach, they still like the security and structure the 1998 strategy provides; as agreed in other research and review (Pollard A., et al, 1994, P.104), (Alexander R., 2010, ch 14).

Furthermore, the Cambridge Review discusses that there is a fear of a ‘downward pressure’ on KS1 and the Early Years in respect of Literacy and Phonics (Alexander, ed, 2010, p.239). This alongside changes as a result of the Rose Report has put more pressure on literacy in the Early Years. Although there is pressure, I would have to agree that it is necessary. Problems need to be picked up early, if ignored then children struggle through the remainder of their school life because they cannot access reading, writing and speaking.

Michael Gove said in a press notice (DfE, 2011) ‘The pace of economic and technological change is accelerating and our children are being left behind’. Society is rapidly changing with technological advances and the curriculum needs to keep up with it. An article in the Guardian (Polly Curtis, 2009) suggests there are rightly many favoured views as the new curriculum would support a new generation of student. He went on to say ‘We have sunk in international league tables and the National Curriculum is substandard when compared against other countries.’ Many schools have started to adopt the ‘International Primary Curriculum’ as it allows them to follow a more creative, thematic approach for teaching and learning.

The Plowden Report of (1967) suggested ‘child at the heart of education’, the National Strategy when introduced put the curriculum at the heart. Although criticised, there seems to be a shift towards the recommendations of the Plowden Report again. The report focused on flexibility, centricity of play and learning by discovery; all very creative. When looking at creativity with teaching and learning strategies most texts refer to ‘teachers as performers, motivational and inspirational, (Woods, 1995). However, research suggests that some teachers feel they are unable to be spontaneous, and that the most creative and confident teachers were the ones that ‘felt less constraint from the National Curriculum’ (Woods, 1995, p.5), (Pollard A., et al, 1994, p.115-121). Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson (TED, 2006) argues that it is because we have been educated to become good workers, rather than creative thinkers….’if you are not prepared to be wrong you will never come up with anything original’.

I believe through my personal experiences in schools that there is more emphasis on the social and emotional aspects of the children. We are living in a society where children need to learn life skills alongside the core subjects at school. I have seen a greater emphasis on the SEAL/PATHS type strategies and programmes in schools where children are taught how to be good citizens. Through my own experience and recall this was not taught 10 or 20 years ago. In the 2009 curriculum these areas are still not statutory, they are encouraged but not required to be taught by law. I feel that this will change in the future as the government pushes to make tomorrow’s generation better citizens too.

Attainment and progression
Research suggests that a big change in a teacher’s priorities on the introduction of the primary curriculum was attainment targets (Pollard A., et al, 1994, p.107). In 1991 the first full SATS tests and LEA tables were published, Pollard discusses the major inconsistencies in the initial delivery (et al, 1994, p.212) which added to manageability issues. There has been an on-going debate regarding SATS since they were introduced.

The Primary educational system has gone through numerous changes over the years in respect of progress and attainment. ‘Raise on line’ is looking at progress and starting points with much more emphasis on the leadership and management. All these strategies ultimately try to close the gaps where the gaps are ‘unacceptably wide’. Schools no longer use a ‘SEF’ but a summary of school’s evaluation of itself instead.

Progress is measured by sub levels in the primary curriculum and assessment is at transitional stages (end of KS1, KS2), here the attainment is measured. Raw data and results can give misleading impressions of a school’s effectiveness in isolation (Strand 2006)…’there was a marked difference between the raw and the value added KS1 results of significant minority schools’. This has also been a key focus in ‘The importance of teaching’ recently published white paper. The new National Curriculum will aim to reduce prescription and allow schools to decide how to teach, while refocusing on the core subjects. ‘Academic attainment is only one facet of educational success’ (Duckworth K, 2007), this educational research shows that prior attainment of students measured by KS1 tests is the most important predictor of performance in Key Stage 2 assessments.

Progression is key in schools. Ofsted has a new inspection framework, they say (2012) ‘It is true that more weight is now given to attainment, but achievement – not attainment remains the prime focus for inspections.’ Progress can be compared on many levels (E.g. girls/boys, free school meals). In my view the attainments are important as benchmarks for success but you cannot put ‘all your eggs in one basket’. The system needs to recognise that ‘progress’ is just as important, this is because some children (e.g. SEN) may not ever reach the attainment levels but still progress. There is also the question of time in lessons (Pollard A, et al, 1994 p.85), Woods (1995) goes on to discuss in his research how teachers feel there is less time for quality and creative teaching due to an overload in assessments and observations.

The National Strategy dictates structure but this does not take away creative learning/teaching. On observation I believe that teachers can still make their mark and be creative teachers/learners.

I also see that the introduction of academies somewhat contradict consistency and standardisation. Similarly, many schools are opting for the International Curriculum which makes the Primary sector fragmented again. A view supported in an article by Graeme Paton (The Telegraph, 2011).

There is a very apparent push in oracy, writing and reading over the years and I would have to agree that these changes are necessary. Children cannot access other areas/subjects effectively if these skills are not learnt. I am in favour of teaching strategies for phonics, if this is done effectively then other areas of the curriculum can be accessed in a cross curricular, thematic approach.

I believe that the new curriculum will focus more on issues of the current day, for example, physical fitness, social skills and literacy. Having seen these have positive effects in schools I can only see the forthcoming changes being a benefit to children in our society today.