The Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study) (England)

/ THE NUT’S RESPONSE
TO THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT
JULY 2013

Introduction

1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has carefully examined each subject’s Programmes of Study as outlined in the framework document. Its response to the revised draft National Curriculum has also been informed by comments received on the proposals from its members, a number of which are used below to illustrate or exemplify specific concerns.

1. Whilst the decision to revise its proposals in light of comments made during the initial consultation exercise in February is very welcome, it is extremely disappointing that the Government chose to launch this important consultation at the end of the school year and that, by limiting the consultation period to one month, many of those who will be responsible for its successful implementation will be unable to engage with the consultation fully.

The Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study) (England) Order 2013

1. The consultation document asks for views on the draft Order, which would revoke existing arrangements and establish the revised National Curriculum as a statutory requirement. Although the draft Order is clear and unambiguously phrased, there are several omissions within it which should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

1. Although it is called the ‘National’ Curriculum, it is not an entitlement for all pupils. Under the draft Order, a substantial proportion of children, including those who attend academies, would be outside of its statutory requirements. This means that the majority of secondary schools will not be obliged to use the National Curriculum at all, denying their pupils equality of opportunity in terms of a right to be taught a broad and balanced curriculum. The Order should be amended to ensure that all schools which are publically funded are required to follow the National Curriculum.

1. Although the Order makes specific reference to pupils with special educational needs, the draft framework is still not fit for purpose with regard to SEND and EAL pupils. It is expected that all children should achieve the ‘expected’ levels, regardless of any additional needs. This is a one size fits all approach which the NUT believes is a backward step. As one NUT member commented:

“As the new curriculum is not fit for purpose in mainstream, what chance have those pupils with Statements? Or are we heading back to the days of SEN pupils being deemed uneducable?”

(Special Needs Teacher: July 2013)

1. Similar views were expressed in the previous consultation exercise, according to the DfE report on it[1]. Although no statistics were given, the report said that “some respondents felt that the content proposed was, in some cases, beyond the ability of pupils with SEN and disabilities”. There was also concern that the emphasis on phonics could hinder SEND pupils from learning to read and that insufficient consideration had been given to pupils whose development was delayed. In addition, 36 per cent felt that there would be a negative impact on EAL pupils, citing the ‘British’ nature of the curriculum as well as the over-emphasis on spelling and grammar.

1. The assertion that good teaching and high expectations are sufficient to enable every child to achieve the acceptable levels of progress is an insufficient way to address the complex issues surrounding what appropriate progress should look like for different pupils. It is likely that this will actually increase the number of pupils labelled as SEN. A clear statement is needed in the Order itself, as well as in the framework, which sets out a statutory entitlement for all pupils with additional learning needs to the full National Curriculum offer, adapted to meet individual need.

1. The Order should also make specific reference to implementation, in particular, the timetable for implementation, which is unrealistic and impractical currently as the proposals will have major implications for teachers’ work and workforce development. It should also set out minimum standards of support for schools, including but not limited to professional development opportunities, additional resources for new equipment, text books etc. and time needed for preparation of new schemes of work.

1. It is not good enough for the Government to limit its support to schools to: “we will encourage schools to work with publishers, education suppliers … to develop materials that respond to genuine need.”[2] It is not “top down spoon feeding” for centrally produced exemplar materials to be made available for schools to use if they wish – it is responsible governmental support which will produce savings to the public purse.

1. The approach which the Government is adopting, “an increasing number of products are emerging on the marketplace to help teachers, including MyMaths and Ruth Miskin’s phonics materials. These are particularly suitable for primary schools” will drain money from school budgets and transform them into profits for a few favoured education publishers. It is of particular concern that the two products Lord Nash chose to highlight in his statement are both published by the same company, Oxford University Press, suggesting some sort of ‘officially approved’ commercial materials list, which could have a virtual monopoly on the market created by the Government’s endorsements.

1. This kind of statement reveals how little the Government understands about how much work is needed to turn its framework into reality in the classroom, such as the lesson plans, schemes of work and resources which will have to be prepared. It also ignores the challenge of teaching the new National Curriculum in small schools, which might have two or three year groups in each class. It is unrealistic for the Government to expect all of these practical difficulties to be addressed by ‘schools’, by which the Government means teaching schools, as these are not yet fully developed and functioning. In addition, a number of teaching schools are also academies, where the National Curriculum does not apply.

1. The Government is obviously not basing its views on the evidence of those who took time to respond to its February consultation. According to the DfE report on this, 64 per cent of respondents said there was a need for additional funding to purchase new materials and resources, 59 per cent wanted additional time for schools to plan for implementation and a further 59 per cent felt there was a need for additional staff training or CPD. If the Government is genuine about wanting to enable schools to offer the best curriculum for their students, it must provide all schools with the means to achieve this, otherwise the quality of the curriculum pupils experience will vary according to the financial state of their own school.

Programmes of Study

1. The NUT acknowledges that there have been some welcome revisions to content within some of theProgrammes of Study. The substantive andstructural problems with the Programmes of Study remain, however, in particular, over-emphasis on knowledge, rather than a balance with the development of broader skills; a very narrow set of aims, which do not appear to consider children as individuals or the importance of creatingactive learners; and the interpretation of ‘rigour’equating to introducing subject matter at an earlier stage, regardless of whether it is age appropriate. Concerns relating to the ability of the new National Curriculum to equip pupils with the skills, knowledge and qualities necessary for the 21stCentury also remain. As the CBI noted in its press release on the current consultation[3]:

“It’s right to focus on rigorous academic knowledge but that isn’t enough on its own. Businesses want a system where young people are equipped with the broader skills they need to be rounded, grounded and ready for work.”

1. The ‘new’ version of the National Curriculum therefore still comprises the same 12 subject areas and is still much more prescriptive for primary than secondary. Almost three quarters of the framework document is concerned with Key Stages 1 and 2. 71 pages are devoted to Key Stage 1 and 2 English, compared to three pages for Key Stage 3. Similarly, 41 pages are devoted to primary mathematics compared to just six at Key Stage 3. This also raises real concerns about how much time will be left for the other National Curriculum subjects, let alone primary schools’ own curricula.

1. It is unclear why Government chose to listen to some subject specific concerns and ignore views on these over-arching issues following the February consultation. Because of the limited information supplied in the DfE report on the consultation, it is not always possible to know exact proportions of responses for any one question. At least 36 per cent, however, felt that the National Curriculum aims were too focused on knowledge; 52 per cent said that the wording of the attainment targets was unclear and confusing; and 61 per cent said that the Programmes of Study did not provide for effective progression between key stages. These are serious issues which the DfE must consider and resolve, rather than ploughing on regardless.

1. Respondents did have some concerns about individual Programmes of Study which have not only been ignored, but have been exacerbated by the second consultation draft. In relation to the mathematics and science Programmes of Study, an unspecified number of respondents were concerned that they would have to rush pupils through the specified content before pupils’ understanding of the material was secure, whilst for English, the key concern was the over-emphasis on phonics, punctuation, spelling and grammar. In all three of these areas, the concerns of teachers and subject specialists have not only been disregarded, but appear to have been made much worse in the latest version of the document.

“Our government is mistaken in believing that education can be improved by giving younger children more advanced concepts. The converse is true. Successful education systems ensure that simple concepts, such as number bonds, are fully established well before any other concepts are introduced. This new curriculum and the inevitable end of year testing forces teachers to cram far too many concepts into a child’s early education, dramatically reducing the invaluable consolidation time that is essential for early learners.”

(Primary Teacher: July 2013)

1. In addition, the tension between the Government’s stated policy of curricular freedom and the detailed, prescriptive content of the draft statutory core subjects’ Programmes of Study, especially at Key Stages 1 and 2, has not been successfully addressed in the revision process. There remains a contradiction between the detail of the core Programmes of Study and the looseness of some, but not all, of those for the foundation subjects. The insistence on particular methods of teaching and learning in two of the core subjects is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Education Reform Act (1988) which specifically forbids governments from prescribing particular pedagogical approaches.

1. The draft framework has still not been linked formally to assessment and, despite the consultation on primary assessment and accountability which is also underway currently, it remains unclear what appropriate assessment forms should be used to measure progress and achievement, or to the use or value of teacher assessment. In both instances, this is a wasted opportunity to develop national assessment policies holistically, especially for the foundation subjects.

1. The Government’s use of international ‘evidence’ to support its additional revisions to the National Curriculum Programmes of Study, in particular the increased ‘rigour’ or demand at an earlier age, do not stand up to scrutiny. The Secretary of State said “those countries that have successfully managed to reduce educational inequality… have maintained high expectations for all students, and that is what this curriculum embodies.”[4]

1. Yet the OECD report on equity and quality in education[5], to which the Secretary of State appeared to be referring, said that although curriculum was a consideration, a range of system level policies were needed to achieve this objective such as managing school choice to avoid segregation and increased inequalities; avoiding early tracking; and making funding strategies responsive to students’ and schools’ needs. The validity of the Secretary of State’s comment must be called into question when his Government continues to pursue policies such as academies and free schools which are the very antithesis of the OECD’s recommendations.

1. In addition, the Secretary of State said that the new National Curriculum “combines the best elements of the most successful school systems”, another assertion which appears not to be the case on closer examination. Dylan Wiliam, who advised the Government on revising the National Curriculum, has pointed out for instance that none of the highest performing systems specify word lists in such great detail[6].

1. There is virtually no international evidence to support the proposals to expect children to cope with greater academic demands in maths and science at an earlier age. In Finland, for instance, children start to study simple fractions at age seven, not five as proposed here: calculation using fractions starts at age nine rather than seven. Similarly, in Singapore children do not begin to study science until age nine, whilst in Finland science studies begin at age seven. In both countries, science is approached in an integrated or cross-curricular way rather than as a discrete subject. The emphasis for this age group in both Finland and Singapore is on investigation and problem solving rather than on memorisation and rote learning without understanding.

1. The DfE has responded to these facts by claiming “expectations are higher than in other nations because officials believe children are able to be taught the concepts”[7]‘Believing’ is not the same as ‘knowing’ and ‘being taught’ is not the same as ‘understanding’, so it is clear that there is no real evidence or genuine learning from other countries which has underpinned this aspect of the proposals and that less able learners will be doubly disadvantaged by the increased demand of the new Programmes of Study.

1. The NUT will not repeat all of the detailed comments it submitted on the contents of the individual revised Programmes of Study as part of the February 2013 consultation exercise. It will focus here on new content proposed in the current consultation, as well as any over-arching subject specific issues which have still to be addressed.

Key Stage 1 and 2 English

1. The inclusion of a new discrete section on primary speaking and listening, which uses a broad framework approach to developing skills over time, is extremely welcome. Compared to the amount of pages devoted to reading and writing, however, it is unlikely to be given the same level of attention in schools, as the implicit message is clearly that speaking and listening is less important than other strands within the Key Stage 1 and 2 Programmes of Study.

1. In addition, there are still no references to augmented or alternative communication in the framework. Such an approach will necessarily exclude children who do not communicate using standard methods of communication/language due to disabilities or learning difficulties and may also disadvantage children learning English as an additional language.

1. The new references to drama and the use of libraries in the Key Stage 1 and 2 Programmes of Study are useful; the former addresses a gap in the new speaking and listening section, as it does focus heavily on formal speech, e.g. debate, presentations, rather than a variety of talk, while the latter should help support the emphasis given to reading for pleasure. Reference still needs to be made, however, to the useof a diverse range of texts, including graphic novels and picture books, multicultural and digital texts.

1. The addition of more grammatical terminology and more demanding grammatical content for Years 2 and 4 is a matter of concern. The draft framework is unclear whether pupils will be expected to learn these terms and / or simply apply them in their work. In addition, whilst welcoming explicit references to vocabulary building throughout Key Stages 1 and 2, these do not always appear to be appropriate for particular age groups, for example, the words “interrelated”, “admission” and “adoration” would not necessarily be suitable for the full range of Year 3 pupils.

1. Despite these revisions, the Programmes of Study still represent a very prescriptive primary English curriculum, exacerbated by the statutory appendices of grammatical terms, phonetic knowledge and spellings. They set out what is to be taught, how it is to be taught and when to teach it. These attracted a lot of critical comments from NUT members, the following example is typical:

“The expectations for phonics applied to reading and spelling at Year 1 and 2 are too demanding and unrealistic. There is no scope built into the curriculum for the much needed consolidation at year 3/4.”