/ NUT BRIEFING ON THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM REVISED PROPOSALS
July 2013

The purpose of this document is to provide the NUT’s initial reactions to the revised version of the new National Curriculum, first consulted upon by Government in February 2013. The NUT will produce a full response to these proposals in due course.

The NUT welcomes:

  • The launch of an additional consultation on the proposals, which provides further opportunities for teachers and others to contribute to the development of the National Curriculum revisions.
  • The revisions made by Government in response to the views expressed during the first consultation on specific aspects of the Programmes of Study, including by the subject associations, such as:

English:

-The inclusion of a discrete section on primary speaking and listening, which uses a broad framework approach to developing skills over time.

-New references to drama and the use of libraries.

Maths:

-The addition of guidance on pupil progression.

Science:

-The reorganisation of subject content into more coherent topics in primary science.

Art:

-Greater emphasis on pupils’ own creative contribution and, at Key Stage 3, more choice in techniques used.

Citizenship:

-The inclusion of human rights and international law at Key Stage 4.

-Greater reference to participation in community volunteering.

Computing:

-More emphasis given to e-safety throughout KS1 - 4.

Design and Technology:

-Almost completely re-written to place within industrial rather than domestic contexts and to recognise the impact of developments in D & T relating to society and the environment.

-New discrete “cooking and nutrition” sections.

Geography:

-Strengthening references to climate change and environment at Key Stage 3.

History:

-Reduced content demands, especially for UK history.

-Omission of prescribed historical figures to be studied at KS3.

-Addition of local history study and world history.

-Strengthening of development of historical enquiry skills.

Languages:

-Prescribed list of primary languages removed.

Music:

-Strengthened to include more reference to pupils as musicians.

-Inclusion of use of appropriate new technologies and improvisation at Key Stage 3.

PE:

-Inclusion of more performance and dance styles at Key Stage 3.

-Self-evaluation of pupil performance at Key Stage 4.

The NUT remains concerned, however, that the following Programmes of Study are still not fit for purpose:

English:

-More grammatical terminology has been included and more demanding grammatical content has been added for Years 2 and 4: the draft framework is unclear whether pupils will be expected to learn these terms or simply apply them in their work.

-It isstill a very prescriptive primary curriculum, with additional statutory appendices of grammatical terms, phonetic knowledge and spellings.

-More reference needs to be made about the useof a diverse range of texts, including multicultural and digital.

Maths:

-Increased demand for Year 3 (number and place value), Year 5 (geometry) and Year 6 (ratio and proportion). More preparation for KS3 algebra in Years 5 and 6.

Science:

-There is still too much focus on scientific knowledgerather than scientific skills.

Art:

-There is still too much focus on fine art rather than contemporary, globalor digital technologies. There is not enough emphasis on art, craft and design.

-Little development of how the creative, design and media industries contribute to the subject.

Computing:

-Increased content at Key Stage 1.

-Digital literacy and ITreferences sketchy and will need to be developed and expanded on by schools.

Design and Technology:

-There needs to be more about how pupils become critical consumers of effective products and systems.

Geography:

-No significant change in Key Stage 1 and 2 other than inclusion of topic subheadings.

History:

-Still prescribes a chronological approach to teaching and is too content heavy given amount of curriculum time primary schools may spend on it.

Languages:

-MFL must not become the preserve of those who attend independent schools or selective state schools. The only way to ensure wider take up at Key Stage 4 curriculum entitlement is through the inclusion of MFL as part of the NC expectation for everyyoung person at this level.

Music:

-The PoS is extremely short, which could be interpreted as a manifestation of its lack of status as a subject, rather than as freedom for teachers to adapt it.

PE:

-One of the least coherent of the draft PoS which seems to be little more than a list of activities.

Other important issues which have not yet been addressed:

  • Although it is called the “National” Curriculum, it is not an entitlement for all pupils. A substantial proportion of children, including those who attend academies, are outside of its statutory requirements.
  • A very narrow set of aims has been proposed, which do not appear to consider children in their own right. There is no place for them to be active learners.
  • There is an over-emphasis on knowledge, rather than a balance with the development of broader skills.
  • There is a clear 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.
  • 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. The assertion that good teaching and high expectations are sufficient to enable every child to achieve the acceptable levels of progress is unacceptable. It is likely that this will actually increase the number of pupils labelled as SEN.
  • There is a sharp distinction between the detail of the core Programmes of Study and the looseness of some, but not all, of those for the foundation subjects.
  • The draft framework has not yet been linked to assessment or accountability. There is still no guidance on what appropriate assessment forms should be used to measure progress and achievement, or to the use or value of teacher assessment.
  • The proposed timetable for implementation, from September2014, is unrealistic and impractical. The recommendations and proposed areas for further work have major implications for teachers.
  • There is still no provision for professional development opportunities, additional resources for new equipment, text books etc. and time needed for successful implementation.

For further information about the NUT’s concerns, on individual Programmes of Study and the National Curriculum framework as a whole, please see the NUT’s February 2013 response which is available to download here.

1