Scrap National Curriculum, shrink Ofsted, create stable standards

The National Curriculum has been disastrous for primary education and should go.

Ofsted has driven  more teachers insane than even the worst pupils from hell. It should be shrunk to the size needed to turn the screws on the worst state schools (worst defined by examination results, more later), and leave the rest of the schools to take care of themselves.

Desperately needed is an independent body that will establish stable educational standards, from 10-year-olds to A-levels.

Why is this idea important?

The National Curriculum has been disastrous for primary education and should go.

Ofsted has driven  more teachers insane than even the worst pupils from hell. It should be shrunk to the size needed to turn the screws on the worst state schools (worst defined by examination results, more later), and leave the rest of the schools to take care of themselves.

Desperately needed is an independent body that will establish stable educational standards, from 10-year-olds to A-levels.

SSCO scheme: A waste of money??

The SSCO scheme has spent hundreds of millions of government money to improve PE at primary level since 2000. Has there been a substantial improvement??

As a current SSCO there was a lot of improvement in the early years but recently figures have stagnated and new initiatives have been introduced (5 hour offer) to keep people in their jobs. You are not going to get every pupil loving PE and taking part in sport outside of school. FACT.

Has confidence in primary teachers improved or are they still scared of teaching PE? This money could have been spent on full time PE teachers in primaries or shared teachers amongst smaller schools.

There are a lot of meaningless jobs in the 450 partnerships. PDMs on £35k+, assistant PDMs on £25k, competition managers on £20k, administrative staff, county PDM managers and full time coaches. Is this money justified for the output received?

Why is this idea important?

The SSCO scheme has spent hundreds of millions of government money to improve PE at primary level since 2000. Has there been a substantial improvement??

As a current SSCO there was a lot of improvement in the early years but recently figures have stagnated and new initiatives have been introduced (5 hour offer) to keep people in their jobs. You are not going to get every pupil loving PE and taking part in sport outside of school. FACT.

Has confidence in primary teachers improved or are they still scared of teaching PE? This money could have been spent on full time PE teachers in primaries or shared teachers amongst smaller schools.

There are a lot of meaningless jobs in the 450 partnerships. PDMs on £35k+, assistant PDMs on £25k, competition managers on £20k, administrative staff, county PDM managers and full time coaches. Is this money justified for the output received?

Scrap the law that forces all schools to hold an act of (broadly Christian) collective worship every day

Scrap the law that says that all schools must hold an act of (broadly Christian) collective worship every day.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the law that says that all schools must hold an act of (broadly Christian) collective worship every day.

National Curriculum History

I understand that the National Curriculum has lacked a methodology towards the science of History. The United Kingdom presently has a weak program in History for state schools, particularly in the primary schools. The History sections covered in a program of a year normally concentrate on the Great Wars, some reigns at the discretion of the teacher or the program and whatever Horrible History books can offer. There is an absent inquiry of how about this nation became important in the maritime history, in the management theory, and in the science (to name just few achievements); how UK produced the best scientists from the past. Welllington is confused with Nelson, and from Adam Smith to Sir Keynes it is mistery of economic history, it might be that they are taken as foreigners so unknown they are for children. The whole study in History is data based ( 1775 such and such happened). Children have no idea how the English colonies affected their lifes through the past international trade. For instance, why New Zealand has a treaty of peace and Australia does not; how abacus became an instrument for English Maths to be used at school; how Victorian society was the last step on the English kingdom, and finally how that these facts affected the English society as such. Children are taught data, but not to relate data with facts and historical-political impact for England as a society. In consequence of that situation, English children are lost in the next decade. History allows one to recognize errors from the past and judge better the future decisions to be made. There is a lack of interest around teachers to challenge and to shape up thinkers for the future. That independent thinking one could find in the independent system (private and selective schools or the few grammar schools). Nonetheless, all tax payers should be entitled to give the best education to their children, Without paying an extra penny.

Why is this idea important?

I understand that the National Curriculum has lacked a methodology towards the science of History. The United Kingdom presently has a weak program in History for state schools, particularly in the primary schools. The History sections covered in a program of a year normally concentrate on the Great Wars, some reigns at the discretion of the teacher or the program and whatever Horrible History books can offer. There is an absent inquiry of how about this nation became important in the maritime history, in the management theory, and in the science (to name just few achievements); how UK produced the best scientists from the past. Welllington is confused with Nelson, and from Adam Smith to Sir Keynes it is mistery of economic history, it might be that they are taken as foreigners so unknown they are for children. The whole study in History is data based ( 1775 such and such happened). Children have no idea how the English colonies affected their lifes through the past international trade. For instance, why New Zealand has a treaty of peace and Australia does not; how abacus became an instrument for English Maths to be used at school; how Victorian society was the last step on the English kingdom, and finally how that these facts affected the English society as such. Children are taught data, but not to relate data with facts and historical-political impact for England as a society. In consequence of that situation, English children are lost in the next decade. History allows one to recognize errors from the past and judge better the future decisions to be made. There is a lack of interest around teachers to challenge and to shape up thinkers for the future. That independent thinking one could find in the independent system (private and selective schools or the few grammar schools). Nonetheless, all tax payers should be entitled to give the best education to their children, Without paying an extra penny.

New Primary National Curriculum

I would like to see the Primary Curriculum divided broadly as follows:

  • The 3 R's (Reading, Writing & Arithmetic)
  • General Knowledge
  • Science
  • History
  • Geography
  • Art
  • PE

The curriculum should be KNOWLEDGE (NOT skills) based. Children should learn and discover through meaningful/relevant topics. The skills will  come naturally and should be left to the discretion of the teacher. Reading & writing run through the topic/subject areas but should also include work on grammar for example (again, left to the teachers discretion).

I would like to see PE allow for modern sports such as skateboarding and cycling.

The framework needs to be kept to the minimum and allow teachers freedom to teach and inspire.

Teachers should be able to plan in their own way. If an experienced teacher knows what they are doing, say for example in a maths lesson, planning should reflect this and may only be in the form of a bullet point or simple objective.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the Primary Curriculum divided broadly as follows:

  • The 3 R's (Reading, Writing & Arithmetic)
  • General Knowledge
  • Science
  • History
  • Geography
  • Art
  • PE

The curriculum should be KNOWLEDGE (NOT skills) based. Children should learn and discover through meaningful/relevant topics. The skills will  come naturally and should be left to the discretion of the teacher. Reading & writing run through the topic/subject areas but should also include work on grammar for example (again, left to the teachers discretion).

I would like to see PE allow for modern sports such as skateboarding and cycling.

The framework needs to be kept to the minimum and allow teachers freedom to teach and inspire.

Teachers should be able to plan in their own way. If an experienced teacher knows what they are doing, say for example in a maths lesson, planning should reflect this and may only be in the form of a bullet point or simple objective.

Slim down the National Curriculum for teachers!

I trained up originally as a primary school teacher in the 1990s, and was very good at my job. I left because of the sheer volume of paperwork required to manage the National Curriculum.

Most of my time was devoted to "benchmarking" and assessing my pupils against various level descriptors. Not only this, but the Literacy and Numeracy hours (the principles of which which I agree with) were intensely prescriptive: we were told how to structure classes, for example, which involved me having to allocate different *topics* (not just differentiated tasks) to different groups of children in their Numeracy lesson, when commnon sense told me they should at least have the same focus, albeit at different levels.

I have since moved on to sixth form teaching, via FE and a stint doing VSO, but I still hear various horror stories about primary teachers having to submit detailed lesson plans and evaluations (including portfolios of photographs) for *every lesson* they teach! I notice that the teachers in the school oppposite where I live,one with a very good reputation, are often at work before 7a.m.

Why is this idea important?

I trained up originally as a primary school teacher in the 1990s, and was very good at my job. I left because of the sheer volume of paperwork required to manage the National Curriculum.

Most of my time was devoted to "benchmarking" and assessing my pupils against various level descriptors. Not only this, but the Literacy and Numeracy hours (the principles of which which I agree with) were intensely prescriptive: we were told how to structure classes, for example, which involved me having to allocate different *topics* (not just differentiated tasks) to different groups of children in their Numeracy lesson, when commnon sense told me they should at least have the same focus, albeit at different levels.

I have since moved on to sixth form teaching, via FE and a stint doing VSO, but I still hear various horror stories about primary teachers having to submit detailed lesson plans and evaluations (including portfolios of photographs) for *every lesson* they teach! I notice that the teachers in the school oppposite where I live,one with a very good reputation, are often at work before 7a.m.

Individualised nal curriculum for special schools

To introduce a National curriculum for special schools.  To introduce a curriculum that embraces expertise and understanding of the needs of students with special needs.  The curriculum should embrace functional academic teaching, sensory therapy, speech therapy and communication, physical, art and music therapy.  Understanding and expertise of the students special needs/disability/learning difficulty should be at the centre of all curriculum planning.

Why is this idea important?

To introduce a National curriculum for special schools.  To introduce a curriculum that embraces expertise and understanding of the needs of students with special needs.  The curriculum should embrace functional academic teaching, sensory therapy, speech therapy and communication, physical, art and music therapy.  Understanding and expertise of the students special needs/disability/learning difficulty should be at the centre of all curriculum planning.

Scrap the National Curriculum.

Skilled teachers can work out for themselves what their students need to learn – they shouldn't have to dance to the tune of a bunch of bureaucrats in Whitehall. The National Curriculum has become a bloated, expensive, bureaucratic nightmare – the boxes get ticked, but the children remain uneducated.

Why is this idea important?

Skilled teachers can work out for themselves what their students need to learn – they shouldn't have to dance to the tune of a bunch of bureaucrats in Whitehall. The National Curriculum has become a bloated, expensive, bureaucratic nightmare – the boxes get ticked, but the children remain uneducated.

Scrap religious education advisory councils etc

Scrap the laws requiring local authorities to have Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education and Agreed Syllabus Conferences (again for RE), and scrap also the law requiring religious education for all pupils (put RE in the national curriculum instead).

And of course scrap the law requiring daily acts of religious worship in all schools – but there is already a separate suggestion for that – http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/scrap-law-that-says-school-must-hold-collective-worship.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the laws requiring local authorities to have Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education and Agreed Syllabus Conferences (again for RE), and scrap also the law requiring religious education for all pupils (put RE in the national curriculum instead).

And of course scrap the law requiring daily acts of religious worship in all schools – but there is already a separate suggestion for that – http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/scrap-law-that-says-school-must-hold-collective-worship.