MARCH 2013
INTRODUCTION
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) conducted a survey of its members’ attitudes to the proposed reform of the National Curriculum in February and March 2013. Over 2,000 responses were received from teachers and school leadership group members. Sixty nine per cent of responses came from members working in the primary sector and 27 per cent from the secondary sector. The remainder worked in other settings, including pupil referral units (PRUs) and special schools.
Seventeen per cent of respondents were members of school leadership groups, including head teachers and deputy or assistant head teachers. The remainder were classroom teachers, including heads of departments or faculties in secondary schools and subject co-ordinators in primary schools.
MAIN FINDINGS
The outcomes of the survey overall indicate that professionals in schools do not agree with the proposals for the National Curriculum set out by the Secretary of State for Education. Some proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by NUT members, for example, two thirds (65 per cent) of respondents disagreed or disagreed strongly with the emphasis on ‘facts’ rather than ‘skills’ within the proposed National Curriculum. Just 3.5 per cent agreed or agreed strongly with the emphasis on facts, with the remainder holding mixed views.
- The element I object to most strongly is the shift from skills to knowledge. The government's own review supported a skills based curriculum so this seems incomprehensible.
- Too 'fact' driven with no flexibility for pupils’ social circumstances - the detail in Key Stage 1 is too demanding for those from low social backgrounds and no prior knowledge of the wider world or computer programming.
- Learning facts and figures is a very small part of the learning journey. Lifelong learning encompasses vast amount of skills, all of which are necessary in a society. A society full of academics, just as a society full of labourers, will fail. We need a full skill set to exist in a meaningful way and to enable all participants to feel proud of the skill they are providing.
- We live in a digital era. Children do not need to be carriers of information anymore. Everything is available on the internet at the click of a button. Teachers don't need to teach all these facts... it's out of date and desperately needs dragging into the 21st century.
- This must not be the future for the children of England. I do not want to create a society like Singapore and Hong Kong where children learn facts by rote. I want to create a society of critical thinkers who can interpret the world around them and innovate it to make life better. I do not want to create a society of robots who just know stuff!
Seventy two per cent did not agree that the proposals would ensure that students’ entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum would be met by the proposals, with a further 24.7 per cent unsure.
- I am concerned that current changes in education are driven by comparison with other "jurisdictions" which may have very different social and cultural conditions from ours. I fear that schools will be put under enormous pressure to reach ambitious targets, at the expense of teacher and pupil welfare.
- I think it is important that a broad range of subjects are taught.
- If the National Curriculum takes up all timetabled teaching time, there would be no nativity plays or end of year plays, no enrichment or broadening of children's experiences.
Eighty per cent did not agree that academies and free schools should be able to opt out of the National Curriculum. Only 10 per cent of respondents believed that this should be allowed to continue. Significantly, two thirds (66 per cent) of respondents who indicated that they taught in academies and free schools believed that such schools should not be allowed to opt out.
- If the National Curriculum is designed as an entitlement then it should be compulsory in ALL schools, with no opt out.
- Equality and flexibility is key. The concept that academies and Free Schools have got a greater ability to decide what is best for their children is laughable at best and deeply offensive at worst.
- There is a paradox in the document whereby the DFE is proposing major changes that it believes are essential for improved educational performance while at the same time promoting Academy conversion and Free School establishment, thereby expanding a sector in which these strictures need not apply.
Almost three quarters of respondents (74.1 per cent) working in primary schools did not agree that the proposals would redress the balance between tested and non-tested subjects in the primary curriculum, with only 1.9 per cent agreeing with the Government on this issue.
- Until they abolish league tables schools will continue to teach a limited/narrow curriculum no matter what the curriculum is supposed to be.
- It seems overloaded and unworkable and sets expected standards far too high in numeracy and literacy which will lead to the curriculum in primary schools lacking even more breadth and bereft of opportunities to teach the attributes of compassion, consideration of others, open mindedness, care for the environment and key social skills such as learning to listen, communicate and cooperate with one another.
For a number of other proposals, respondents either held mixed views or disagreed/disagreed strongly. Written comments revealed that this was often due to a lack of specific information within the Government’s proposals or because they felt it was a “curate’s egg”, that is, there was some merit but also some concern about what was being proposed. What is most notable, however, is that few respondents supported specific proposals completely.
Sixty four per cent of respondents did not agree that the proposals gave them confidence toadapt the curriculum to meet their students’ needs, with a further 28 per cent unsure. Just eight per cent agreed with this central tenet of the Government’s proposals.
- Fed up as a teacher - as are many of my colleagues. I want to be able to feel like I can do (within reason!) what is right for the needs of my class – when and how I feel is best. Instead I feel like I have to do things in the way that someone else has decided is best - and that does not always suit my class. I then feel like a worse teacher as I am trying to do what I am asked – even when I know it is not the best way for my class to learn.
Fifty one per cent felt that the proposals imposed more prescription on schools, with a further 40.6 per cent having mixed views. Just over eight per cent felt that the proposals gave schools more freedom.
- The proposed National Curriculum shows great inconsistency between the Secretary of State's aim to allow teachers greater freedom to exercise professionalism, and the incredible level of prescription within the proposed National Curriculum. Where teachers would perhaps welcome greater prescription (i.e., in the ambiguous assessment levels) it remains silent.
- Schools need the freedom to adapt the curriculum to the needs of their pupils and to relate it to their own location but this needs time and the proposed curriculum will take longer than we currently have.
- These proposals are unrealistically prescriptive and totally unworkable to teachers. As somebody who is currently in my 3rd year of teaching, should these proposals be implemented without adaptation I will most probably leave the profession. I came into teaching to enhance the lives of our children, not to blindly inculcate them with mindless facts.
- I feel that the breadth of learning will be narrowed and far more prescribedthan it is now. I cannot see in any way how the Government thinks that this newcurriculum is giving teachers MORE freedom.
Seventy one per cent of respondents did not agree that the proposals would meet the needs of pupils with English as an additional language, special educational needs or disabilities, with a further 26.5 per cent unsure.
- Mostly I'm concerned that the new curriculum does not sufficiently consider the needs of SEN pupils.
- I think SEN and EAL pupils will be at a disadvantage under the new curriculum. Yet children with severe SEN are still being placed in mainstream schools without the infrastructure or adequate adult support in place within them.
- I am concerned that children with additional needs will struggle with so many elements of the proposed curriculum due to the high demand for them to learn and recall so much information. I can see so many children becoming isolated away from learning.
- It is evident that these proposals were written by people who had privileged upbringings and to whom learning came easily and naturally. I really fear for children who find learning challenging and schools an intimidating place. These children are being alienated from the system when previously they were able to access vocational skills that enabled them to go into employment.
SUBJECT-SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
This mixed picture is also apparent in NUT members’ responses to particular Programmes of Study (PoS). At secondary level, for example, approximately one third (32.3 per cent) supported some parts of the PoS which they taught, with a similar proportion (32.2 per cent) not supporting it at all and a quarter (25 per cent) unsure due to lack of information.
- The foundation subjects do allow for more freedom. The core subjects do not.
- Not enough info has been published for teachers to comment on. It appears to have very traditional roots. It has not grown from where the national curriculum is, but thrown it out, and started again. Typical example = archiving the National Strategy resources and as a teacher not being able to access some tried and tested good resources!
- I have very mixed views on it. Totally disagree with the proposals for History and Geography. It seems very prescriptive.
- I found some of the detail for English, particularly in primary schools, to be laughable and at times patronising. We know how to teach English and it was far too prescriptive. There were also errors in the English glossaries and some grammatical errors in the main body of the document. This sums up the Government's abilities ironically.
Less than a quarter of respondents (24 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed with the change of emphasis from the current ICT (information and communication technology) curriculum to an emphasis on studyingcomputer programming and computational thinking. Thirty seven per cent had mixed views and a further 39 per cent disagreed or disagreed strongly.
- ICT at KS2 should be about a range of skills, not just programming.
- I have serious concerns about the computing element.
- Computing - another glossary needed please! Again, completely unrealistic expectations of primary children.
- 95% of primary school teachers will require in-depth training on computer programming....how much will this cost?
Almost two thirds of primary respondents (65.6 per cent) agreed that foreign languages should be part of the Key Stage 2 National Curriculum but only a third (32.8 per cent) agreed with the selection of foreign languages (French, German, Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, Latin and Ancient Greek) prescribed by Government.
- Languages at KS2 should not be prescribed and should not include ancient languages.
- I believe only currently spoken languages such as French, Spanish, German etc. should be compulsory, Latin and Ancient Greek should be extra to this.
PURPOSE OF THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM
When asked what the single most important reason for having a National Curriculum was, 45 per cent stated that it set out a minimum curriculum entitlement for every student. Other responses included ‘it sets out a body of knowledge, skills and understanding that society wishes to pass on to students’ (27 per cent) and ‘it prepares students for the world of work and adult life’ (12 per cent)
It is clear that teachers feel that the current model of the National Curriculumcould be improved upon. When asked whether they found the detailed content of the National Curriculum helpful, only 46.6 per cent agreed that it was, with 32.6 per cent disagreeing and 20.6 per cent having mixed views.
- The present system although not wholly perfect is tried and tested with improving statistics year on year. If meddled with as Gove wishes it will be detrimental to future student performance as teachers will be pressurised to instantly create success.
It is noteworthy that the Secretary of State has only invited views on his proposals for the detailed subject Programmes of Study. He has not invited a wider discussion or consultation on the purposes, aims and values of the National Curriculum, either with the teaching profession or with the general public. Nor do his proposals for the National Curriculum set out a detailed rationale and purpose for the curriculum. Its purpose and aims are unclear beyond a statement that ‘the National Curriculum provides pupils with an introduction to the core knowledge that they need to be educated citizens. It introduces pupils to the best that has been thought and said; and helps engender an appreciation of human creativity and achievement.’
This lack of consultation, together with an unclear educational underpinning of the Government’s proposals, led many respondents to comment on their frustrations at the highly political way in which the National Curriculum proposals, and education initiatives in general, were now developed. Respondents from all school phases and sectors believed strongly that politicians did not listen to those who taught on a daily basis and that constant changes were driven by political expediency rather than to be of real benefit to students.
- Another example of pointless politicians using education to try and score political points. Reshuffling the national curriculum is a bit like an inventor producing something round, then claiming that they invented the resulting wheel all by themselves!
- Having taught for nearly 20 years I am sick of all the changes and fiddling and every new government making changes that cost ridiculous amounts of money when in fact if they put that money into more teachers and TAs they would see far more improvement. The schools are full of highly professional, skilled people who can take a curriculum and create something wonderful for their schools, we do not need to be endlessly told what to do at an insulting level.
- It is laughable that a person such as Michael Gove who has never been a teacher, or taught in any role, should be responsible for such sweeping changes. He does not take into account the changing cohorts and general abilities of the children as they come into school. Many primary teachers now have to teach much more than subjects to children.
- I feel annoyed by ministers suggesting there is only one way to do it and that teachers have been doing it wrongly so far.
- Once again Education is being used as a political tool and these changes are one person's idea of what education for our children should entail. I am sick to death of change for change's sake. These are children's lives and education that is being played with.
- I believe a national curriculum should just be a framework of general ideas otherwise it becomes the teaching of what an older politician liked or sees as being something good to learn and not what society may view as the case. It also puts far too much power over the next generation in the hands of the politicians to get them to learn that politicians views and ideals above all else which I feel is totally detrimental to a healthy society and democracy.
- Mr Gove is clearly using education as a tool to further his own career aspirations. He cares nothing about what is important to the education of young people that will need skills and certain subject materials to be able to take an effective place in today's society.
NUT SURVEY ON 2013 REVIEW OF NC_KDR105 December 2018
Created: 26 March 2013/KDR&SA