9486 in the collection  

Schoolchildren's lives 'are being impoverished'

Too much testing and too
little learning in primary schools has let down
a generation, says major inquiry.

This provides a very good summary of the
horrors we are inflicting on our children in
the name of standards, rigor, and the global
economy. It is on target--except for the last
recommendation: Why devote 70% of school time
to an inappropriate curriculum that harms
children?

By Richard Garner

A generation of schoolchildren have had their
lives "impoverished" by rigid testing and an
over-emphasis on the "three Rs", the most
authoritative investigation into primary
education for more than 40 years has concluded.

The Cambridge Primary Review warns today that
Britain's schools are in "severely utilitarian
and philistine times". As a result, primary
pupils are missing out on the kind of broad
education promised when the national curriculum
was first introduced 20 years ago – with
potentially disastrous results and fewer
opportunities later on in their lives.

Instead, they face a rigid testing regime, with
more than half of all class

room time spent on the core subjects of maths
and English, with virtually all other topics
squeezed out.

"The most conspicuous casualties are the arts,
the humanities and those kinds of learning in
all subjects which require time for talking,
problem- solving and the extended exploration
of ideas," the report concludes. "Memorisation
and recall have come to be valued over
understanding and enquiry – and transmission of
information over the pursuit of knowledge in
its fuller sense."

The conclusions of the researchers, led by
Professor Robin Alexander, are a damaging blow
for the Government, which trumpeted its
achievements in primary schools as one of the
successes of Tony Blair's administration. The
report warns: "The initial promise – and
achievement – of entitlement to a broad,
balanced and rich curriculum (through the
national curriculum) has been sacrificed in
pursuit of a narrowly conceived 'standards'
agenda.

"Our argument is that [children's] education
and their lives are impoverished if they have
received an education that is so fundamentally
deficient."

In an attempt to drive up standards, creative
lessons have been replaced by numeracy tuition
and "literacy hours". These were expected to
take up half of all classroom time but, because
they ignore such crucial elements of English as
speaking and listening, even more time has to
be devoted to them outside literacy hour. Such
strategies, argues Professor Alexander, must be
brought back into the national curriculum to
free up more time for other subjects.

He also criticises the Government's official
review of primary education, due out next
month, arguing that its author – the former
head of Ofsted, Sir Jim Rose – had a remit that
was too narrow, had avoided issuing a verdict
on testing and had accepted that most of the
Government's reforms were right.

The Cambridge team, who received submissions
from 800 organisations during their two-year
study, said primary education was not a simple
choice between raising standards or a broad
curriculum. Attainment could be improved only
if pupils were given wide-ranging, stimulating
and enjoyable lessons, they said.

Some children questioned by the panel accepted
that they needed to learn reading, writing and
arithmetic, but stressed that this was not
enough. Professor Alexander added: "They said
'we get really excited by the arts and history
and science, and by being encouraged to be
creative'. Their parents agree with them.
Science, art, geography and history – we are
saying these things should be [in the
curriculum]. To argue that they should be
removed is pure folly. Standards, breadth and
entitlement have to go hand in hand. It is not
good enough to say that because the basics are
important, that's all that matters."

He cited two reports by Ofsted, the education
standards watchdog, on high-achieving schools.
"They appear to be saying you must concentrate
on standards in the basics but, if you do so at
the exclusion of other things, you actually
shoot yourself in the foot."

At present, Professor Alexander reports, the
national curriculum is seen by teachers as
"overcrowded, unmanageable and, in certain
respects, inappropriately conceived".

A review of testing at the age of 11 is needed,
he adds, because "breadth competes with the
much narrower scope of what is to be tested" in
the last year of primary school. He says: "In
these severely utilitarian and philistine
times, it has become necessary to argue the
case for creativity and the imagination on the
grounds of their contribution to the economy
alone ... We assert the need to emphasise the
intrinsic value of exciting children's
imaginations."

Professor Alexander recommends that only 70 per
cent of lessons should be devoted solely to the
core curriculum, with the remaining 30 per cent
set aside for other topics such as local
history.

Teachers' leaders and Opposition MPs welcomed
the findings. Michael Gove, the shadow
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families, said: "I share the review's concerns
about a narrow curriculum damaging standards.
One in five pupils failed to get even one GCSE
last year because they never got a proper start
in primary school."

John Bangs, of the National Union of Teachers,
said underachievement in schools would not be
tackled as long as teachers felt "inhibited"
about being more creative with their lessons.

A spokeswoman for the Government said Sir Jim
would "no doubt" read the Cambridge Primary
Review before making his own recommendations.

Curriculum report: Must do better

Key areas of concern:

* Long-term educational goals have been
replaced by short-term targets.

* Curriculum overload – many teachers believe
far too much is prescribed for the time
available.

* Loss of children's entitlement to a broad,
balanced and rich curriculum – with arts, the
humanities and science under threat.

* Tests have led to memorisation and recall
replacing understanding and inquiry as the key
goal in the classroom.

* "Politicisation" of the curriculum with
accompanying rhetoric of "standards".

* Pressure at start of primary school to begin
formal lessons too early with tests for four
and five-year-olds.

* Excessive prescription has led to loss of
flexibility and autonomy for schools.

* Historic split between the "basics" and the
rest of the timetable has led to "unacceptable"
difference in the quality of provision between
the two.

* Mistaken assumption that high standards in
"the basics" can be achieved only by
marginalising the rest.

What needs to be done:

* Scrap singling out time for literacy and
numeracy strategies and reintegrate them into
the national curriculum. At present they count
for half of the timetable and elements of
English (such as speaking and listening) have
to be taught outside them.

* Restore aim of original national curriculum
that children are entitled to a broad and
balanced education (giving equal weight to core
subjects and elements like the arts and
humanities).

* Review assessment and testing arrangements –
dubbed "the elephant in the room" – which
overshadows the entire curriculum.

* Devote just 70 per cent of time to national
curriculum – with 30 per cent to a locally
agreed curriculum (such as learning about local
history).

— Richard Garner
The Independent
2009-02-20
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/schoolchildrens-lives-are-being-impoverished-1627047.html

---

INDEX OF OUTRAGES

Pages: 380   
[1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next >>    Last >>