Hooray for getting rid of levels!  This means GOODBYE to APP grids! 

 

 

Hurrah indeed!

(But what if the replacement is something even worse?) 

Grandsire

what if the replacement is something even worse?) 

It looks that it will be:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-government-introduces-tougher--curriculum-to-boost-standards-7836479.html

Many children have trouble learning to spell, because too many English words are spelt unpredictably (seek, speak, shriek; blizzard, wizard; pollen villain). They can't really be taught. Those with a good visual memory imprint them on their minds through reading. Those who have trouble doing so, keep being defeated by them, but Gove will insist that teachers must spend more time teaching them to all children.

Imagine kids who have no musical ability being forced to practice scales over and over again, in the hope of turning them into competent piano players.  It's insane!

mashabell

many English words are spelt unpredictably (seek, speak, shriek; blizzard, wizard; pollen villain)

Funny, I thought they were always spelt like that.

http://whelk-stall.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/dead-end-of-spelling-reform.html

hump3

mashabell

many English words are spelt unpredictably (seek, speak, shriek; blizzard, wizard; pollen villain)

Funny, I thought they were always spelt like that.

They have been listed with those spellings in dictionaries since 1755, but children cannot apply any consistent sound-to-grapheme rule for spelling them. They have to memorise word by word how to spell the stressed /ee/ sound in each of the 452 words in which it occurs,

or when to double a consonant after a short vowel (annual) and when not to (animal),

or when to spell the unstressed <-en> ending with <-en> (pollen)

and when to spell it differently (villain, abandon, urban)

as shown at www.EnglishSpellingProblems.co.uk     

 

 The Independent article isn't very well researched unless some janitor at the ministry provided the information.

 "The new science curriculum calls for pupils to be taught topics such as static electricity, magnetism and the basic parts of a simple electrical circuit."

erm.. so does the present one Einstein.

 "The solar system..., which are not in the current curriculum for primary schools, are also included"

eh?

Presumably levels will be replaced with average point scores which are already very much used by Ofsted...hardly any simpler!

 

impulce

Presumably levels will be replaced with average point scores which are already very much used by Ofsted...hardly any simpler!

"What will replace levels?

As set out in the Secretary of State’s letter to Tim Oates, we are removing the current system of levels and level descriptors as recommended by the Expert Panel. Instead, the focus in the new draft curriculum Programmes of Study for English, mathematics and science is on describing content that makes clear both what should be taught and what pupils should know and be able to do as a result. We will not be replacing the system of levels, but will consult further on how attainment should be graded as part of the statutory assessment arrangements."

 

lardylegs

Hooray for getting rid of levels!  This means GOODBYE to APP grids! 

 

 

but they will never in a million years just get rid of them, will they? They need something quantifiable to beat us with!!

I can't get the link for the letter from Gove to work!

I think the DfE page is actually fairly reasonable as it makes the differences between current NC and new one quite explicit-

All the newspaper reports put a whole other spin on it, as if it was introducing a  whole load of new- fairly basic stuff- that in fact we already do.

A few things that made my mind boggle: 

lines like "A spokesman for Education Secretary Michael Gove said that children had been "let down on the basics" by the current curriculum"

Year 1 children "becoming very familiar with key stories, fairy stories and traditional tales". What do they think we are reading them at the moment??

Incidentally does anyone wiser than me know what they are using as a basis for "the UK falling behind other nations."

I've been told that the reason we appear to be slipping down the international league tables is that they are including more and more countries on them and actually if you compare UK only to the other countries that were on the table 10 years ago, our position hasn't dropped.

Also assuming we can borrow simple objectives from top performing countries- e.g. teach children the 12 times table instead of the 10 times table- and all our problems will be solved is so stupid I want to scream.

 

Sorry just an endless rant. I will try and hang onto the positives in there...

I am a teecher. I must be reely stoopid. I have worked in education for 20-odd years and I have seen sooooo many changes in curriculum/testing/lesson formats/objectives/success criteria/recipes for how to be an outstanding teacher. Like the good teacher I am (and most of us are..) I have listened to the critiscism, followed instructions to change my practice to match that which is 'right', been Ofsteded... stood between so many changing goalposts that I am getting dizzy. And yet we are STILL not getting it right... What is the problem? Is it that we as teachers are getting worse? Or the children? Or.... is it that the powers that be keep changing how they measure us? SURELY someone soon will notice that although subsequent governments have been in power and have pumped shed-loads of cash into telling us what/how to do our jobs, they are still saying we are not good enough - in fact according to Mr. Willshire we have got worse!! But we are all doing what you told us to do!!! Isn't it about time that someone noticed there may be a little problem here... with how the profession is being guided and judged....  

Jeangenie

I have listened to the critiscism, followed instructions to change my practice to match that which is 'right', been Ofsteded... stood between so many changing goalposts that I am getting dizzy. And yet we are STILL not getting it right... What is the problem? Is it that we as teachers are getting worse? Or the children? Or..

The educational hurdle which all English-speaking countries are battling against are the inconsistencies of English spelling

http://englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com .

They have been thwarting efforts to improve literacy standards in all Anglophone countries for the past century.

Because Samuel Johnson declared in 1755 that nothing can be done about them

“...spots of barbarity impressed so deep in the English language, that criticism can never wash them away: these, therefore, must be permitted to remain untouched.  Every language has its anomalies, which, though inconvenient, and in themselves once unnecessary, must be tolerated among the imperfections of human things... being once incorporated, can never be afterward dismissed or reformed”. 

they keep being ignored.

Failure to reaise literacy standards keeps being blamed on poor teaching instead.

Sadly, many teachers do so too.

 Oh I dunno.  Is teaching long division and multiplication that bad for example?  You can still teach all the other methods as well,  and develop understanding, and do maths investigations etc.  No-one's telling you that you can't do that are they?  And under the current system don't you teach long division and multiplication, at least to the top group anyhow?

As a parent who can never find a calculator that works, I'm very glad I can still remember long division and multiplication from when I was at school ....... or can estimate it if necessary in my head (long division) or multiply it accurately in my head if the numbers are not too massive.  These things are not all mutually exclusive are they?

Isn't a middle line possible with both exploration, investigation, alongside the "traditional" neat methods of doing written arithmetic?

dagnabit

 The Independent article isn't very well researched unless some janitor at the ministry provided the information.

 "The new science curriculum calls for pupils to be taught topics such as static electricity, magnetism and the basic parts of a simple electrical circuit."

erm.. so does the present one Einstein.

 "The solar system..., which are not in the current curriculum for primary schools, are also included"

eh?

I didn't think the Solar System was on the current curriculum.

[edited by: Milgod at 12:58 (GMT 0) on 13-6-2012]

The problem is overloading. This proposed curriculum is giant full of lots of learning the names of things (obtuse angles, acute angles, polygon, non-polygon, polyhedron) it is even worse in the science curriculum which seems to be just learning names (types of birds, names of light sources etc.). It also introduces a lot of subjects that a either now essential or normally introduced at secondary school (compared to Singapore curriculum);

Roman numerals up to 1million

Recognise binary number up to 15 and convert between binary and decimal numbers.

Negative numbers including addition and subtraction.

Mean, median, mode

Probability

Translation and reflection of shapes on coordinate grid

Plotting and describing position using full coordinate grid

Counting in different multiples

Counting backwards

Lots of language related to time; quicker, slower, earlier, later, before and after, next, first , today, yesterday, tomorrow, morning, afternoon, evening, days of the week, weeks, months, years, number of day in leap year, days in each month (mentioned explicitly in the curriculum, how prescriptive can you get?)

Positional language (there's lot of this)

Conversions between metric and imperial units

Perform mental calculations, including with mixed operations and large numbers

Division facts

Drawing circles using compasses.

Lots of topics introduced from 11-12 in Singapore curriculum (in primary curriculum): algebra, pie charts, nets of solids, finding angles in geometrical shapes, different types of triangle, naming parts of a circle, area and perimeter of composite shapes, using formula for speed to find speed, distance and time (science curriculum).

This means there will be little time left for anything not on the curriculum (I don't think Gove will skimp on the History dates etc.). There is plenty of mention of solving word problems but nothing more investigative/modelling. Furthermore I think this part shows there attitude to problems very well:

"Ensure pupils regularly practise how to interpret word problems to ensure addition and subtraction is firmly understood."

So word problems are treated in an algorithmic manner, just a matter of interpreting them properly so you plug the right thing into you algorithm.

Contrast this with the attitude to problem solving in the Singapore curriculum. In the framework it is in the centre. There is a diagram which is printed at the front of every textbook with problem solving in the centre and attitudes, metacognation, skills, progress and concepts around the edges which is the mathematical framework.

"Mathematical problem solving is central to mathematics learning. It involves the acquisition and application of mathematics concepts and skills in a wide range of situations, including non-routine, open-ended and real-world problems."

In also goes into a lot of detail about heuristics and modelling. Singapore is also famous for it use of bar modelling. These heuristics and models appear to be about understanding the relationships between things in the problem and visualisation (looking at the textbooks as well). This is a very non algorithmic way of thinking and would be better and developing mathematical thinking.

I'm sure you will try your best to give problem solving its due importance but this will be in-spite of this curriculum.

Many of the areas you have listed are currently covered in  primary,eg.  pie charts, nets of solids though I know others are not eg binary. It would appear that over the years areas of the curriculum have migrated down to younger years and from secondary to primary.

PetMonkey

The problem is overloading. This proposed curriculum is giant full of lots of learning the names of things (obtuse angles, acute angles, polygon, non-polygon, polyhedron) it is even worse in the science curriculum which seems to be just learning names (types of birds, names of light sources etc.). It also introduces a lot of subjects that a either now essential or normally introduced at secondary school (compared to Singapore curriculum);

Roman numerals up to 1million

Recognise binary number up to 15 and convert between binary and decimal numbers.

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.

Milgod

I didn't think the Solar System was on the current curriculum.

 

 

Earth sun and moon is, but it's daft to stop there. Our Year 5s learn about the planets etc.

 Why are people so thrilled about levels going? I have no problem with assessing pupils against NC levels - I am opposed to them being used to make a judgement on schools.

Mr Gove's idea is to use the mastering system (similar to Singapore) where the plan is to ensure that children master the material through detailed instruction. Until the class have ALL mastered that programme of study nobody moves on.No personalised targets - just teach it, assess it, if they haven't got it teach it again. Those that have got it can presumably sleep in the corner.