The Cambridge Primary Review Trust

by

The power of talk: good for politicians but not for children?

One aspect of the programmes of study on which Robin Alexander does comment is the handling of spoken language (‘speaking and listening’ in the current national curriculum). Rather than raise the profile of spoken language as was urgently needed (and as CPR’s final report recommended), ministers have effectively downgraded it, thus rejecting an unassailable body of evidence that demonstrates the essential place of talk in children’s development, thinking and learning across the board as well as, self-evidently, in their literacy and those vital skills of communication whose inadequacy among school leavers the nation’s employers regularly deplore.

Today’s politicians understand only too well the persuasive power of talk. Could it be that they don’t wish to share that power with tomorrow’s voters?

Read Robin Alexander’s response to the Secretary of State’s letter outlining the government’s national curriculum proposals:
2012_06_29NC_Review_SoS_letter.pdf

Read Robin Alexander’s paper for DfE on spoken language in the national curriculum:
2012_02_20DfE_oracy_Alexander

Read reports on the DfE consultations with teachers hosted by CPR on 20 and 29 June:
2012_06_20DfE_CPR_NC_WMidlands_consultation.pdf
2012_06_29DfE_CPR_NC_Herts_consultation.pdf

by Robin Alexander

National Curriculum: The Plot Thickens

Following our alert of 10 June about the Secretary of State’s proposals for England’s (primary) national curriculum, we now draw colleaguesʼ attention to evidence of serious differences both within the governmentʼs National Curriculum Review Expert Panel and between some members of that panel and ministers. Andrew Pollardʼs blog and published correspondence between Pollard, Mary James and the Secretary of State reveal considerable tensions behind the scenes, and for some readers this will raise questions about the validity of the entire review exercise. It certainly prompts a necessary question about accountability. Who exactly are the hitherto anonymous ʻexpertsʼ behind the proposed English, maths and science programmes of study?

These revelations, moreover, are not the whole story, as we and other organisations involved in the review can confirm. 
Having said that, it is important to retain a sense of historical perspective.
 CPR’s final report showed that educational decision-making under the previous government was no less problematic, and CPR itself was at the receiving end of what looked like government-led wrecking tactics where its findings on curriculum and assessment were concerned. The problem now, as then, is the probity and efficiency of England’s educational policy process as a whole, and the questions people are raising today about the current national curriculum review apply with no less force to the period 1997-2010. (Readers may care to look again at the analysis of all this in Children, their World, their Education, chapters 3 and 23).

In any event, during the period between now and late July when consultation on the new proposals remains open, professional eyes should stay wide open too.

www.robinalexander.org.uk

 

by

Neither national nor a curriculum?

Since 11 June, when the Secretary of State’s latest national curriculum proposals were published, we’ve been going through a curious phase of what DfE calls ‘pre-consultation’. Alongside a lengthy letter from the Secretary of State, DfE published draft programmes of study for KS1/2 English, maths and science, and these have provoked widespread and often critical comment even though the formal consultation doesn’t begin until the autumn. Yet DfE has actively sought reaction to the proposals, inviting CPR to host sessions with heads, teachers and teacher trainers on 20th and 29th June, and it has told us that these ‘pre-consultations’ matter as much as any government consultation ever does (which cynics would say is not a lot). CPR is certainly taking the process seriously, and we urge you to do likewise; we understand that DfE’s deadline for comment on the proposals is early August.

Being both detailed and controversial, the programmes of study have attracted most attention. The response from Robin Alexander, CPR’s director, concentrates instead on the Secretary of State’s letter, for this is the closest we get to a government view of the national curriculum as a whole … which is not very close at all, for what the government has proposed seems to be neither truly national nor a curriculum.

by Robin Alexander

More international comparisons: Benchmark the Arts too

Just when we are being urged to ʻbenchmarkʼ our childrenʼs schooling against  systems like Singapore and Hong Kong which do well in the PISA tests of ʻkey  competenciesʼ in reading, maths and science, we have a major report from the  United States that reminds us that while these three areas of learning are crucial and  non-negotiable, ʻkey competenciesʼ for a 21st century education system need to be  more broadly defined.

to continue reading, download the pdf of the full article

by

Summer Born Children: The Forgotten Disadvantage?

The Cambridge Primary Review welcomes the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, Does When You Are Born Matter? The impact of month of birth on childrenʼs cognitive and non- cognitive skills in England. This report highlights a long-standing concern which will be familiar to many teachers, parents and children, not least from the controversy generated by the Rose Reviewʼs proposals about school starting age in 2008, but as the Cambridge Primary Review evidence indicates, understanding and responding to the problem requires looking beyond the simple fact of a childʼs date of birth. The CPR Final Report stressed the need for policymakers and practitioners to work to ensure that gaps in the learning and achievement of many different groups – including summer born children – are significantly reduced, and in 2010 we placed ʻnarrowing the gapsʼ and ʻconsolidating the EYFSʼ high on our list of post-election policy priorities.

to continue reading, download the pdf of the full article

by Robin Alexander

International comparisons: A World Class Review

Our politicians and their advisers tell us we must emulate those countries whose students outperform ours in international achievement surveys like PISA and TIMSS. That is, we must copy their policies (well, those policies that fit, or can be bent to fit,
our own) in the expectation that standards will thereby rise. Meanwhile, other countries no less exercised by standards are prepared to be more discriminating when in turn they seek to learn from the UK.

to continue reading, download the pdf of the full article

 

Contact

Cambridge Primary Review Trust - Email: administrator@cprtrust.org.uk