Memorandum submitted by Jolly Learning
Ltd
SUMMARY
The National Curriculum has sadly not raised
standards. This submission looks at the fundamental basis under
which it was conceived and recommends changes.
INTRODUCTION TO
THE SUBMITTER
Christopher Jolly is the publisher of the Jolly
Phonics programme, the leading synthetic phonics programme, which
is used in the majority of primary schools.
SUBMISSION
1. It is now 18 years since the National
Curriculum was launched in 1990, which make it possible to see
the effects on children who have been through it. The same is
true in the primary years for the National Literacy and Numeracy
Strategies which were launched 10 years ago in 1998.
2. Professor Peter Tymms of the University
of Durham, the leading authority on standards in education, using
a wide range of measures, sees little improvement in reading standards
of 11 year olds over this period.
3. In international tests the ranking of
England has fallen in recent years. In the PIRLS study of 10 year
olds reading ability, England fell from 3rd in 2001 to 19th in
2006. Similarly in the PISA study of 15 year olds reading ability
the UK fell from 7th to 17th.
4. A characteristic of government curriculum
advice is not just its launch, but its huge and inexorable growth.
Whereas the National Curriculum of 1995 had 62 pages (for literacy
and numeracy) the requirement today includes Letters and Sounds
(236 pages), the Primary Framework (135 pages) and the Early Years
Foundation Stage (168 pages) an over 8-fold increase.
5. Why has all this effort (and expense)
apparently had no effect on achievement? It is possible to make
specific criticisms, for instance that the literacy strategy rejected
synthetic phonics for far too long (now largely rectified with
Letters and Sounds) or that it is over-complex (teachers do find
it remarkably difficult to follow). However, the main concern
in this submission is more fundamental.
6. The underlying policy is one of ministers
being relentless in driving up standards and in developing the
policies to do so. This has had two effects.
7. The first effect is that teachers have
had their focus diverted from the achievement of their children
to the delivery of a prescription. Time and again one hears of
teachers who suspend their judgement and instead follow what the
various curricula tell them to do because then they "can't
be blamed". Local Authority advisors have a record of taking
government policy literally and gold-plating it. Fear of Ofsted
also runs high.
8. The second effect is on the non-contact
educational establishment who have been adept at taking over the
agenda. Effectively the producer interest has prevailed. Each
new published curriculum has been weaker than the rhetoric had
suggested. It has been driven by the need to achieve consensus,
rather than to seek excellence. Each one is developed by a new
group, and so conflicts with previous curricula are commonplace.
Government ministers are not able to exert the editorial control
needed. Moreover the curricula are directed at schools. Largely
unscathed are the teacher training colleges, academic researchers
and remedial education providers, some of whom perform well, but
others less so.
9. Missing from all this is the sense of
a pull from the consumer or beneficiary. Teachers are well aware
of the collective view of the parents but they have not been encouraged
or enabled to use that as their driving force. The role of teachers
in meeting the needs of parents has effectively been reversed
to one of meeting the requirements of the state.
10. It is not just teachers to whom this
applies. In my role as publisher I am often asked if our material
complies with the latest curriculum document. If I explain that
it is not exactly the same I am asked "why not?", and
"when will it?". Such conformity stifles innovation
and could have prevented the recent adoption of synthetic phonics.
11. The claim that strong central guidance
is a guarantee of standards is not supported by our experience.
In a survey carried out in 2005 for my company by IPSOS-RSL, a
research company, 68% of teachers said they used Jolly Phonics,
our synthetic phonics programme, and only 40% said they used the
government's Progression in Phonics, the phonics element of the
National Literacy Strategy. It meant that most teachers had decided
to use a synthetic phonics programme when the government advice
at that time was for analytic phonics. Even if their use of synthetic
phonics was not as effective as it could be, they had already
decided to make that change on the balance of the evidence available.
Their choice was vindicated by the Literacy Strategy's subsequent
conversion to synthetic phonics.
12. The experience of my company in publishing
a synthetic phonics programme suggests that it is indeed possible
to make substantial productivity gains in educational achievement.
Such gains are not dependent on increased funding but do require
a change of practice. Any assertion that educational achievement
cannot be constantly improved is not supported by our experience.
13. An over-emphasis on the curriculum may
have masked many other issues in school organisation that could
raise achievement through good information and the delegation
of responsibility to teachers and the school. Examples would be:
setting, split intake (when some children are obliged to start
school in January, and even April), and remedial teaching.
14. It is the recommendation of this submission
that government should bring to an end the programme of National
Curricula and National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. In its
place should come a programme of informative and research documents
aimed at giving teachers the information to make such decisions
for themselves. As a key part of such documents it is recommended
that they carry a named author.
15. Such a policy would mean that the recent
report on the teaching of reading by Jim Rose would be primarily
to inform teachers, with a summary sent to each of them, rather
than to inform government.
16. As part of such a policy it is recommended
that the role of the teacher is seen as one which is focused on
meeting the expectations of parents. The role of government, of
teacher training colleges, of Ofsted, publishers and others will
be to enable teachers to meet that expectation as fully as possible.
March 2008
| 
