I have just been reading a report about The Primary Education Review, and the proposed revision of the primary curriculum. (feeling good as have done some course related reading, got smug grin). However, it was all worded in a quite complicated way, so I have spent the first half hour working out what it says in normal language, which I think I have just about done, and now I can't really remember what I thought about the points raised, and need to read it again! I can see this is going to be a long and difficult process with my aging brain.
The changes to the curriculum seemed to have been called for because other countries are doing better than us, ie Finland. However, Finland is not a very comparable country (not entirely sure why, but could re-read or research Finland later.) The government apparently want to roll out in schools, what Finland do in their schools, but there is opposition to following their model in schools, because there are conflicting opinions as to the actual reasons why Finland performs better than the UK. It would appear that the their whole ethos is different to ours. They have invested time and money over many years, in equality. In trying to bridge the gap between the country's rich and poor, and research shows that it is this improvement in society as a whole which has had the greatest impact on raising the outcomes for children in education. Our government is reluctant to acknowledge this. Employing their education model alone, to a system where the standards of schools varies greatly as it does in the UK, where we have introduced academies and variation to provide parents with 'choice', will not necessarily improve outcomes for our children, or raise standards for every child. Does that make sense? Now I must formulate in my mind what I personally think they should do. I do have an answer, but I don't think I could construct it sensibly yet! I would really welcome some comments and views about what is good about the primary education in the UK, and what is wrong with it. There are lots of parents amongst you who must have a view. Please raise some points, either by sending me comments or sending me a PM. Thanks xxx

After reading some more......

Michael Gove seems to interpret the findings of research in a very strange way. As politicians tend to do, he has cherry picked certain ideas that 'please' him, or suit current political agendas, and disregarded key aspects of what has been put forward in a truly fundamental way. I've just read his letter to Tim Oates, the chair of the expert committee, which contains his proposals for the primary curriculum. I have also read his preliminary outline for English, Maths and Science. The content of what should be taught, (which was supposed to be slimmed down considerably, leaving much to the integrity of individual schools and teachers), is by and large acceptable, I am not a teacher yet so I can't really comment competently on how it differs from the previous curriculum content. However, as I understand it, he proposes doing away with assessing development in stages, in favour of stating explicitly what MUST be learned by certain ages, and at the end of specific school class years, not by the majority of children, but by ALL class members. He also states that the teacher and class may not 'move on' with learning, until EVERY child has acquired specific skills and knowledge. Well even I, with limited classroom experience, can say that this is totally flawed and unachievable. Children are all individuals. They do not learn at the same pace. They do not all develop at the same rate, or in a linear way. That is not to say that a child, who at any particular stage, who develops more slowly than another, will achieve less in the long term. There is no mention of what extra measures or resources will be in place, to ensure this happens. None, no doubt.