Proof that Gove by-passed his own Expert Panel to push through idiotic curriculum changes

Francis Gilbert's picture
 88
The British Educational Association has just published the major correspondence about their President's (Mary James) involvement with the National Curriculum Review. The documentation details in depth exactly what Mary James and her colleague, primary school expert, Andrew Pollard, objected to in the National Curriculum Review. We already had some information about this from Andrew Pollard's blog on The Institute of Education's website. Together with Mary James, Pollard tried to resign after having some real problems with the curriculum changes being pushed through; it was too prescriptive, it was unworkable, it was too narrow and unrealistic. But it's now come to light that Gove basically ignored quite a bit of their advice using his "henchman" Tim Oates to push through the changes he wanted. James and Pollard wrote in their letter to Gove, dated 10th October, 2011: "Consultation with subject experts in English, Maths and Science took place during the spring and early summer, leading to the production of draft programmes of study. They have now been replaced by text produced by Tim Oates and nominees of the Minister for Schools. This process has by-passed the Expert Panel as a whole and we are therefore not a position to endorse the outcomes." Quite how Gove managed to persuade these two to stay after they sent the letter is a bit of mystery because there's no indication that their views were taken into account; they were simply allowed to distance themselves from the changes to the primary curriculum. Their silence was bought but not won; well, until now...

The letter highlights seven areas of "particular concern" which James and Pollard clearly still have otherwise they wouldn't be publishing the letter. These include: the lack of curriculum breadth with little room for the Arts in the new Programmes of Study (POS); the curricular constraints placed on teachers with the changes being far too "prescriptive"; the lack of emphasis on the oral development of children; the lack of provision for helping children to make the transition between the different stages of the curriculum; the lack of detailed aims for the curriculum as a whole, indicating that the curriculum has no sound philosophical or theoretical basis; the pace with which the new curriculum has been pushed through with little regard for involving the relevant stakeholders or taking into account a diversity of views and evidence.

In other words, the letter is a devastating attack on Gove's WHOLE APPROACH!! James and Pollard put politely what I would like to say loud and clear: Gove and Gibb are idiots who know nothing about education and are now pushing through curriculum changes that have NO legitimacy, will inevitably NOT work, and will mean miserable children learning a redundant curriculum, teachers who are COMPLETELY STRIPPED OF AUTONOMY, and COMPLETE SHAMBLES all round!! God, how are these people in charge? The mind boggles! They don't listen even to their own experts. They have their own petty political agenda which does not take into account the needs of our children. Read  the letter and judge for yourself.

 
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 14:33

Dylan William is the DfE's favourite maths teaching guru, isn't he? He was on the expert panel.


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 16:42

Ricky I've been checking round the maths education networks - which are extremely active and livid today.

It seems Dylan had no involvement in this. A few credible people did make some contributions but are absolutely horrified at what has come out which bears only tenuous and twisted connections to anything they said.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 17:36

The really obvious giveaway in the maths curriculum that it has been created by someone with no experience in maths education against the advice of anyone who has is the introduction of prescription by year.

Everyone with any credible experience in maths education who has been part of any professional body would have recommended against that because the voluntary framework (which was never intended for the schools with excellent maths teaching) has has been so counterproductive.

To be honest I would struggle to believe that anyone with a teaching qualification in maths could have overseen it because this is such an obvious howler. Whoever has overseen has a ludicrous degree of arrogance because by the sound of it they have overriden the direct advice of some of the most credible people in maths education around despite having no experience themselves.

There are other giveaways but they're not quite as blindingly obvious as that one.

Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 13:01

In Finland, there is a national curriculum, but it is a core curriculum. It is not prescriptive neither does it lay down teaching methods.

Gove, on the other hand, says he wants schools to embrace “freedom” but makes it absolutely clear what this “freedom” means. It is the “freedom” to choose the curriculum as prescribed by Gove. Those schools that don’t will be labelled “enemies of promise, happy with failure” and if that doesn’t work, then there’s always Ofsted to judge schools on how well they meet the laid down criteria (which, of course, schools are "free" to ignore if they so wish).

Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 13:05

In Mary James’s letter (10 /9/2010) to Nick Gibb, Schools Minister, she said, among other things, that all previous NC reviews and reports agree that a framework for NC is required (note the word framework). The “prime task” of the review would be to advise on the framework. James believed there was a “social consensus that the NC framework should identify essential content with domains in terms of the big ideas (concepts and essential knowledge), key processes (developed skills and competences, methods of enquiry and validations, modes of discourse (language and literacies) and, possibly, the narratives of subjects.”

She added that the framework should not be prescriptive about how the curriculum was taught – ie separate subjects or integrated courses – or specify teaching methods. These were best left to professional judgement. Teachers should be able to access evidence of effective practices, informed by sound research, in order to decide the most appropriate teaching methods and to encourage innovation.

Note the words "sound research". That does not mean the prejudices of the Secretary of State for Schools upheld by sycophants.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 13:28

“social consensus that the NC framework should identify essential content with domains in terms of the big ideas (concepts and essential knowledge), key processes (developed skills and competences, methods of enquiry and validations, modes of discourse (language and literacies) and, possibly, the narratives of subjects.”

Priceless. Identify essential content with domains, indeed. Can I have this for my comedy script too?

Allan Beavis's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 13:35

I'd start your script with the procession of public school twits lining up to paper over the cracks at the Leveson Inquiry. You might like to end Act 1 with Michael Gove frothing at mouth in delight as Jeremy Hunt dances the lambada


Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 14:50

“My fellow animals. Forgive me if I cannot speak but I am overcome with mirth. When I hear words like concepts, key learning areas (also known as domains), learning processes and content…” Squealer paused to allow the laughter to swell and then continued, “Or competencies and, ha, ha, holistic, then, my fellow animals, I sneer in the face of these so-called experts, researchers and educationalists.”

The cawing, guffawing and snorts had grown so loud that Squealer had to stop. But Boxer was puzzled. He thought he remembered that Napoleon had uttered these words when describing teaching reform in Hong Kong, a country which Napoleon admired. But perhaps Boxer was wrong, Perhaps Hong Kong was rejecting, not accepting, these ideas. It must be so, he thought, or why would Squealer mock them?

http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=4042

Fiona Millar's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 15:06

One thing is for sure - Gove's curriculum review is turning into a bit of a fiasco - along with his madcap interventions in the future of press regulation.


Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 10:17

Slightly O/T - but since you mentioned it -

Do you really think Gove's intervention on Leveson was 'madcap'?

Essentially he was in accord with Ian Hislop and David Cameron. I'd say being on-message with Private Eye and the PM simultaneously wasn't a bad place for any ambitious politician to be.

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 13:11

The sort of things that thwart a journalist with integrity include "the concentration of the Press in the hands of a few rich men." So said Orwell writing in 1945/6*. He went on to say "the controversy over freedom of speech and of the Press is at bottom a controversy over the desirability, or otherwise of telling lies."

The reason I began to post comments on LSN was because of deliberate misinformation published when the 2009 PISA results were released. This misinformation was broadcast widely and was based on a DfE announcement which ignored the warning by the OECD not to use the UK PISA 2000 results for comparison. FullFact followed up my concerns:

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/school_standards_oecd_pisa_data_media_con...

And my first LSN post dealt with distorted media coverage.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2010/12/state-education-suffers-fr...

Free speech is the freedom to speak the truth, to say that "Two plus Two equals Four". It is not the freedom to distort the truth and spread lies.

*The Prevention of Literature.

Fiona Millar's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 11:34

If I were a politician I would rather be with the broad mass of the British public who appear fairly disgusted by what they have learned about press behaviour via Leveson.

I write as a practising journalist who spent over 10 years working for the tabloid press - the idea that this group of people are responsible for 'free speech' is laughable. In the 1987 election campaign when I worked for the Daily Express, we used to have lunch with Norman Tebbit at Central Office so we could be told what to write. I doubt much has changed, and the way the right wing papers ( the majority) lap up Gove's ludicrous mis representation of 'facts' and 'evidence' suggest if anything things have got worse. One of the reasons we set up this site was because there were so few places where parents, teachers and others with an interest in education could read and contribute to alternative arguments and express their views freely.

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 12:16

It was madcap not so much because the cackhanded attempt to defend press freedom was a disguised way of diluting the litany of moral and criminal infringements ruthlessly exercised by the Murdoch empire in the name of power and profits but because Leveson himself - and the wider public - was treated to a series of eccentric, rather delusional orations that diverted away from questions about his relationship with his ex-employer and the empire that still employs Mrs. Blurt. That arrogant and blinkered sermon sheds much light on how Gove is capable of surrounding himself with experts yet listens only to the handpicked brownosers.


Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 13:46

This is what the panel said about compulsory subjects at Key Stage 4: “Specifically we recommend that, in addition to existing arrangements, curricular provision in the following subjects should be made statutory at Key Stage 4: geography, history, modern foreign languages (all foundation subjects within the National Curriculum), design and technology and ‘the arts’. ” Ricky missed the reference to design/technology and art/music which remain compulsory in 10 of the 14 jurisdictions which the panel compared.

And this is why they said it: The panel found that international evidence showed that high-performing countries retained a broad curriculum for longer.

However, there is a difference between laying down which subjects should be mandatory (something many high-performing jurisdictions do) and then prescribing detailed subject matter and how it should be taught.

It would have been helpful if Ricky had provided the link to the Expert Panel Report. It is here: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/NCR-Expert%2...

andy's picture
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 14:10

For me there is a huge difference between a broad curriculum and an overburden stress factory for students and teachers alike. E.g.: MFL was withdrawn in the late 90s for verey good reasons. A return will simply cause horrendous recruitment and budgetary issues alongside recreating the truly awful situation that led to its withdrawal from statutory status. I welcome, if not applaud its statutory status in KS1-2 but thereafter unless the school has language specialism or there is an established tradition and demand for it MFL causes far more disaffection and problems than it solves. It is recognised that the earlier a child starts to learn languages the easier it is. Additionally, if you look at the world of work, many companies may seek employees with some level of language skills but by and large the remuneration is laughable, which is no incentive for young people to learn a language. Reading between the lines, and yes, this going to sound like an unevidenced consipracy theory, what is outlined above by Janet sounds like a concretising of the EBacc+ by the backdoor of the curriculum review.

I can only ernestly hope that in making all the additional foundation subjects covered by Janet statutory they are caveated as statutory to offer but not compulsory for all students to sit. That would at least enable students to choose between then in their option blocks. However, and based on what has happened thus far, the wriggle room for student choice will evaporate and an academic straightjacket take its place.

andy's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 20:43

Good grief, 36hrs after I posted this it turns up - I'd given up on waiting for it. Perhaps this site isn't as light touch as it professes ...


Janet Downs's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 06:05

andy - you're correct, studying a subject shouldn't imply being examined in it. In Finland, for example, the core curriculum comprises 15+ subjects (see link) but the matriculation exam, taken at age 18, comprises a maximum of five: mother tongue (compulsory), and four chosen from second national language; a foreign language test; mathematics; and one from the general studies battery of tests (sciences and humanities). A candidate may include one or more optional tests.

So, a broader curriculum but fewer exams.

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR178a.pdf

Fiona Millar's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 09:11

I am afraid this had gone into our spam filter. Sorry.


Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 08:08

Schools minister, Nick Gibb, told Parliament on 12 March 2012 that the contracts of three members of the Expert Panel, Mary James, Andrew Pollard and Dylan William initially ran from 29 November 2010 to 30 September 2011 but were extended to end on 5 December 2011. Tim Oates was seconded from the DfE from 1 September 2010 to chair the expert panel. His secondment has been extended until 31 August 2012 “to enable him to continue to advise the Department as the review progresses.”

So the expert panel’s work concluded on 5 December and its report was published on 19 December shortly before Christmas when everyone’s attention (except Francis at LSN and TES) was elsewhere (obviously a good time to bury bad news for Gove as many of the recommendations didn’t chime with his well-known views). However, Tim Oates remains as chair of a panel whose work has officially finished “to continue to advise the Department”.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120312/text...

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 08:49

I'm just looking at the July edition of 'What we think in the Westminster Bubble' aka Total Politics' p18.

Here we have a profile of Nick Gibb.
It explains how he cites rote learning as being the most effective way of teaching children and states the he is reviewing how maths is taught in schools.

So there we have it - someone who is happy to admit that they think maths should be taught a series of memorised disconnected facts. We knew there must be someone who thinks that somewhere because the evidence is in the way the new curriculum is written. This curriculum has been written or overseen by Nick Gibb in direct contradiction to all known wisdom about education.

Nick Gibb seems to be a recognised expert on state education because he went to a comprehensive school. Looking at his wiki I wonder if that means that some of the years below him in his boys grammar schools had a mixed entry?

Is this another case of a politician who looks like a PGCE students with a god complex to anyone in the real world appearing to be a master genius to his colleagues within the bubble because those colleagues are so absolutely and completely clueless about the real world? Or are those colleagues still in the zone where they actually believe that any one with experience is an ignorant socialist idealogue? I don't know - this is is just madness.

Looking at page 10 of the same edition of this magazine I see Liz Truss is occupied elsewhere - trying to deregulate childcare. At least this time there seems to be someone else in this bubble who can point out her ignorance competently in this article. Why is there nobody at all there who has a clue about education? Because Gove has cleared them all out and replaced them with people who are clueless.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 12:58

Andrew Pollard writes in his blog:
http://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/proposed-primary-curriculu...

"When I first met Nick Gibb, Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Sequence was open on his desk, heavily stickered with Post-It notes."

Mary Pardoe's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 15:02

I wonder what Nick Gibb's Post-it notes were 'high-lighting' in 'Hirsch's Core Knowledge Sequence'? I notice that, under 'Mathematics: Grade 5' in the CKSequence that I've just downloaded, children should '• Know how to move the decimal point when dividing by 10, 100, or 1,000.' !!!!!


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 21:34

Hello Mary - lovely to see you here. I'm feeling rather out of my depth trying comment on this curriculum on my own.

This appears to be the link to the Hirsch:
http://books.coreknowledge.org/home.php?cat=314

Like our proposed curriculum it mentions column addition and multiplication in year 2. Only that's US year 2. Which is the equivalent of our year 3.......

I can't find any mention of number bonds to 20. Any hints on that one would be very welcome.

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 10:14

In his critique of the Expert Panel Review document, Nick Seaton of the Campaign for Real Education criticised the experts on the panel as being too “progressive”. He said that DfE officials had “certainly recommended” the experts and were, therefore, guilty of disobeying the civil service code which requires impartiality because the experts allegedly held views of which Seaton disapproves. Seaton recommends disciplinary action against any DfE official guilty of “perceived subversion” (note the word “perceived” – Seaton is suggesting that perception should trump actuality). After saying, rightly, that teachers, not politicians, should decide on teaching methods, he contradicts this in his conclusion: “If the current [national curriculum] reforms are to succeed, it must be clear who is dictating the policy and in which direction it is intended to travel.”

I think we’re all clear on who is “dictating the policy”.

http://www.cre.org.uk/docs/ep-critique.pdf

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 10:41

Re member of the expert panel, Professor Dylan William. The Observer, in its article about the revolt by the expert panel, wrote:

"Professor Dylan Wiliam said he believed the principle of learning from the best education systems in the world had been "lost" during the creation of the proposed programmes of study."

So three of the four experts have expressed concerns about the draft programmes of study. That only leaves the chair, Tim Oates, who is still contracted to work on the review. He is also the only member of the panel who has never taught.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/17/michael-gove-national-cur...

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 14:37

Nick Gibb explains the draft PoS: "On 11 June, we published draft national curriculum programmes of study for primary English, science and mathematics. The draft curriculum for English demonstrates our commitment to improving standards of literacy. Pupils will be taught to read fluently and develop a strong command of the written and spoken word. There will be a greater focus on the fundamentals of phonics, grammar and spelling, and a much stronger emphasis on reading widely for pleasure."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120618/debt...

It's good that he should recognise the importance of reading for pleasure. However, he still doesn't recognise that teachers in England already teach phonics. What's needed is more work on comprehension. Decoding isn't enough. And he's forgotten the DfE report which said, “Phonics is a prerequisite for children to become effective readers, but it is not an end in itself. Children should always be taught phonics as part of a language rich curriculum, so that they develop their wider reading skills at the same time.” The DfE report also said, “phonics should be accompanied by innovative teaching practices that engage pupils in exciting lessons… or co-operative learning methods where pupils work in groups.”

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/y/year%201%20phonics%20sc...

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/02/minister-is-right-to-promo...

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 14:46

In the same Commons session, Mr Ruffley, MP for Bury St Edmonds (Con) asked if Mr Gove's promise that “Dryden and Pope, Byron, Shelley and Keats, Austen, Dickens and Hardy" would be at the heart of a school and be enforced.

Gibb replied: “As part of the consultation, we are asking people to consider how we can set out those poems, books and literature that we think students should be reading at given stages of their education. I do not think it would necessarily be right for a Government Department to prescribe the detail, but there may be a way that we can do so through other organisations or by asking the public what they think.”

Note: he doesn’t think it’s right for the DfE to “prescribe in detail” but Mr Gove has made it clear what he thinks and some MPs want this “enforced”. And the Government's going to ask what literature should be prescribed. So much for teacher autonomy.

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 19/06/2012 - 14:54

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD) asked Nick Gibb what a a statutory grammar test for 11-year-olds could achieve that could not be achieved by relying on effective assessment by teachers.

Gibb didn't answer the question "I think that a focus on grammar, punctuation and spelling is important. The evidence from around the world shows that the education jurisdictions that perform best have three things in common: autonomy for teachers, trusting the professionals and regular external assessment in their schools."

In England teacher autonomy is increasingly undermined despite all the rhetoric about "freedom". The Government doesn't trust professionals - it rubbishes them. And the evidence wasn't just about "regular external assessment" but included formative assessment which is used to inform teaching and not just summative assessment which tests outcomes.

Instead of spewing out the same stock phrases about "international evidence" it would be better if Nick Gibb actually read it in full and comprehended what it really says. Perhaps he's only decoding the words.

Janet Downs's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 06:14

Rebecca makes an important point above (no reply button) about the danger of thinking that Year 2 in one country equals Year 2 in another. For example, The Government cites countries like Singapore for teaching some content at primary level which English students don't cover until secondary school. However, in Singapore primary education ends a year later at ae 12 rather than 11. It's quite possible that 12 year-olds in both England and Singapore are covering the same content but because 12 year-olds in Singapore are still in primary, this gives the Government the chance to trumpet that primary pupils in Singapore are expected to tackle more demanding content than English ones.

It's important, therefore, to look at the ages of the pupils, not just what Year or Grade they are in because Years and Grades don't correspond across countries.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 11:52

It’s important, therefore, to look at the ages of the pupils, not just what Year or Grade they are in because Years and Grades don’t correspond across countries.

One would hope that had occurred to the 'expert' panel.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 12:08

Have you read the posts Ricky? The expert panel was shut down last year. It's had nothing to do with what's been published.

Doubtless Gove will try to blame this mess on teachers though. It'll be interesting to see how much the press will cover up for him since Leveson. It'll be quite hard for them to do it as anyone related to education will know that nobody with real experience in education would be capable of making a mistake like that.

Janet Downs's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 15:11

Ricky - if you had read my post carefully you would have noticed that I said "the Government cites countries like Singapore..." I didn't mention the Expert Panel. The Panel didn't make the comparison. It was Mr Gove in his Ministerial Statement timed to correspond with the publication of the Expert Panel's Review. It was Mr Gove who misled readers by comparing year groups across countries. And it was Mr Gove who repeated that England's standing in international league tables had "deteriorated significantly" in ten years although he knows that the data underpinning this statements is flawed.

I deal with Gove's statement here:

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/12/%e2%80%9cyes-minister-2011...

And FullFact's investigation into Mr Gove's misuse of data is here (just in case you missed my post above giving the link)

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/school_standards_oecd_pisa_data_media_con...

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 12:26

The international comparison stuff all came from the period when the expert panel were still driving the process.

The Year by Year stuff in the PoSs isn't supposed to be Holy Writ, just there because from next year schools will be encouraged (required?) to let parents see a clear programme of what their children will be learning in each year on their websites.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 12:44

"The international comparison stuff all came from the period when the expert panel were still driving the process."
The stuff in the maths curriculum won't have come from anyone with significant experience in maths teaching.

"The Year by Year stuff in the PoSs isn’t supposed to be Holy Writ, just there because from next year schools will be encouraged (required?) to let parents see a clear programme of what their children will be learning in each year on their websites."

Are Gove and Gibb confused as to the dramatically different functions and status of a National Curriculum and a scheme for teaching? That would explain why this draft curriculum appears to be a muddle between the two different things.

A National Curriculum defines the entitlement of the child. Up until now it's been prescribed by key stage.

Schools have to define their own schemes for teaching/learning. We do have a national framework which offers a program for teaching which was created to 'bring up the bottom end' - so that schools which were not confident to devise their own syllabuses had something sensible to fall back on. It has advantages and disadvantages of existing but it has never been compulsory for very sensible reasons, most obviously that inflicting it on the best schools would substantially compromise the quality of what they do.

It looks like Gove and Gibb have confused the national curriculum and this framework and have tried to write a framework as a national curriculum and therefore to dictate to all schools precisely what should be taught year by year. This is and extremely significant change from previous policy and will be seen as a seriously retrograde step by anybody who actually understands the reality of the effects such a move will have on the ground.

We've recently been putting a lot of primary teachers through MaST training to make them capable and confident of leading curriculums and teaching in their schools which is far in advance of this kind of thing - forcing them to follow a year by year framework would seriously challenge the quality of what they can do in their schools, especially if it is one which seems not to understand the problems created by forcing students to focus on processes rather then fundamental structures too soon.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 12:48

It may not be supposed to be holy writ but schools actually want to have a decent national curriculum which they can build from/adapt.

They nearly had one which was very popular and well consulted but Michael Gove shut it down. Many schools basically 'did it anyway' but now it seems they're going to have something which is absolute dross inflicted on them instead.

Will state schools be able to just ignore it and carry on with what they are currently doing? If you tell them they will many won't believe it as they will be terrified that unless they follow it they won't be Ofstedproof.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Wed, 20/06/2012 - 14:53

Will state schools be able to just ignore it and carry on with what they are currently doing?

If they really don't like it, they can convert to academies and enjoy the freedom to write their own curriculum.

Cue Allan B alleging the whole thing is a cunning ruse to accelerate the academies conversion process :-)

Allan Beavis's picture
Thu, 21/06/2012 - 08:31

Nothing this discredited and disgraceful government does is "cunning". Their hidden agenda to divide and line their own pockets and those of their mates has been laid bare.


Paul Reeve's picture
Mon, 25/06/2012 - 08:45

"The year-by-year central specification, backed by “punitive inspections” and the testing regime, would mean that “the constraining effects on the primary curriculum as a whole are likely to be profound and the preservation of breadth, balance and quality of experience will test even the most committed of teachers”. says Warwick Mansell in his blog.

http://tinyurl.com/8xqjqkr

Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.