National Curriculum Changes Delayed

First Posted: 17/12/11 14:51 GMT Updated: 17/12/11 14:51 GMT   PA

School

A shake-up of the national curriculum has been delayed for a year amid warnings from unions that the original timetable was a "recipe for disaster".

Changes to the teaching framework for England are now not expected to be in place until 2014, a spokesman for the Department for Education said.

Officials were concerned that extra time was needed to avoid a rushed reform that failed to produce a curriculum "on a par with the best in the world", the Daily Telegraph was told.

The conclusions of an independent review are published next week, and is reported to include a new target for times tables to be learned by the age of nine, rather than 11.

Education Secretary Michael Gove signalled earlier this year that he wanted a more intensive focus on maths at a younger age to prepare pupils for advanced study.

However, the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) said setting targets for times tables could skew teaching by providing "perverse incentives" to focus on one area.

General secretary Brian Lightman said: "ASCL has said all along that trying to put in place a new National Curriculum by 2013 was a recipe for disaster.

"We are pleased that it appears the government has listened to advice and is allowing a proper consultation and implementation phase, with introduction in 2014."

"It is encouraging to hear the DfE recognise that rushed and poorly debated curriculum change creates chaos for schools by allowing them too little time to prepare.

"However this is exactly what they have done with the change to terminal GCSE exams. We hope in 2012 the DfE will heed its own advice more often."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK UNIVERSITIES & EDUCATION

A shake-up of the national curriculum has been delayed for a year amid warnings from unions that the original timetable was a "recipe for disaster". Changes to the teaching framework for England...
A shake-up of the national curriculum has been delayed for a year amid warnings from unions that the original timetable was a "recipe for disaster". Changes to the teaching framework for England...
Filed by Dina Rickman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
05:12 PM on 12/17/2011
What is a curriculum?

1. A list of aims and objectives.
2. Plus course descriptions.
3. Plus detailed syllabuses.
4. Plus course books with all tasks specified.
5. Plus teacher books.
6. Plus pre-test, progress test and final test materials.
7. Plus audio-visual enrichment as desired by providers

Conservative and Labour Governments thinks it stops at 3.

Then the free market, and councils and teachers and NGO's enter producing books, etc. and teachers have to devise lesson plans again and again - the same blooming lessons around the country. What a waste of time. That is what Labour and Conservatives appear to want.

If there is to be a nationally prescribed curriculum then ALL elements as listed above should be nationally produced.

If you do not want a national curriculum, then completely decentralize and keep central government out of the picture altogether. One or the other. This half-way house does not work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cat-Lover
Cats=Independence
02:27 AM on 12/18/2011
Just a point of contention: I really don't think books are necessary. A dynamic teacher, knowledgeable, enthusiastic, working to make students learn, analyzing and measuring change, adjusting and reteaching when necessary will show desired results for any society.

Books just bore students. Vicarious experiences stimulate and educate.
12:26 PM on 12/18/2011
That's right But to direct at exams, to establish consistency to help weaker teachers, and to capture curriculum so that it is public body of knowledge, it's needed.

But best teachers transcend the need.