National Curriculum - Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-145)

JOHN BANGS, MICK BROOKES, MARTIN JOHNSON AND DARREN NORTHCOTT

11 JUNE 2008

  Q140  Paul Holmes: We have some universities, especially maths and science departments, for example, saying that the children coming out of the school system now and going to university do not have the depth of knowledge that is needed. If, with a new national curriculum from September, we are now moving to a greater emphasis on skills, a thematic approach, teaching children to work in groups, and all the rest of it, are the universities not going to scream even louder? What do we do about that?

  Martin Johnson: What I take the universities' complaints to be, putting it very briefly, is that students do not come equipped with the propensity to do independent research. Instead, they expect their lecturers to put the answers on a plate for them, if you like, because that is what they have become accustomed to throughout their schooling career. The reason that teaching has become a matter of "put the answers on the plate for the students" is the demands of the accountability system.

  Q141  Paul Holmes: Before anybody else picks up on that, because that was going to be my next question, are there not two contradictory things that universities say? One is that they do not get 18 or 19-year-olds coming in with that propensity for self-motivated learning and all the rest of it; but, on the other hand, they say quite explicitly that, certainly in maths and science, students are not coming with the body of factual knowledge that they need, and the universities have to spend part of the first year getting them up to the standard of the knowledge base that A-level students used to have. That is a bit contradictory. If you spend more time on skills, group work and thematic and individual learning, which is what the new curriculum is about, does that not mean that you are going to do a bit less of the sheer factual content?

  Darren Northcott: That shows perhaps the disconnect in our education system between what happens at school and what happens in higher education. The fact that you have two distinct sets of values and notions of what constitutes an effective education. I think that on the point that you raise, you have a difference of view. Schools would argue that how they are preparing their young people is effective, but perhaps there is a conflict there in terms of the perceptions of student attainment. What that highlights is that, if we differ on what constitutes an effective education, we need to work harder—this has to start at national level—at drawing more coherent links between school and what happens in higher education. There is a distinct and serious gulf between them. The context of the machinery of government changes has to be thought through too. How do we make sure that there is an almost seamless educational journey, as it were, from school into higher education, if that is what a young person wants to do. You still have a divide there in terms of perceptions and notions of education and attainment.

  Q142  Chairman: On that point, should not the schools be looking both ways? For example, talking about things being seamless, what do you think of the early years foundation stage?

  Darren Northcott: There are so many issues around transition in our system as well. We can see a recent example of it. We have just seen—and praised—a review of the secondary national curriculum. We are now, a year later, having a review of the primary national curriculum, done almost separately. One of the histories of our National Curriculum is that it is being done in a disjointed way—different bits of it have been revised at different times. There is a range of evidence, but one of the things that our feedback from members tells us is that trying to make that learning journey between Key Stages 2 and 3 coherent is difficult, because they are both constituted in different ways. The classic question, which is raised time and again, is whether a Level 4 at Key Stage 2 equates to a Level 4 at Key Stage 3. It is asserted that it does, but because both those programmes of study and the level descriptors attached to them have been developed separately, practice tells you that it does not. That makes the transition between different phases and from compulsory education on to further and higher education difficult. What we need to do is take a step back and think about how we can move our curriculum forward from birth to 90, effectively looking at that learning journey of children, young people and adults. We look at it in a far too segmented way.

  Q143  Chairman: Martin, you had a reaction to what I said about the early years foundation stage.

  Martin Johnson: I am not sure whether we have time to go into that.

  Chairman: We started this inquiry by looking at that, and they are the young children who will come into schools and your members will teach.

  Martin Johnson: In short, ATL's view is, to underline what Darren has said, that you should start with what you want at your foundation stage, and then move progressively through. We would like to see much more continuity, certainly between the primary curriculum and—

  Q144  Chairman: So it means you like the early years foundation stage proposals.

  Martin Johnson: Yes and no.

  Mick Brookes: Perhaps I can help. We do like the early years foundation stage proposals, and my colleagues are saying there are some very good ideas in that stage, but throughout this whole thing, from early years to higher education, you come straight up against the assessment and accountability systems. If the assessment and accountability systems are prescribing one thing in an aura of fear, if I can put it that way, that will distort the curriculums being taught; and if assessment and accountability systems at the end of the secondary phase are about narrow and closed subjects and answers, that is what the schools will teach. Until we change those accountability systems, we are not going to be meeting the needs of all of those things about independent and open thinking, which is exactly what both employers and higher education want.

  John Bangs: I know you have done a preliminary inquiry into the early years foundation stage, and we think that a forum is needed to examine where it is going and what its relationship is with Key Stage 1, but broadly I agree with Mick. The issue is not so much what is in the curriculum, but its relationship with Key Stage 1 and what happens in reception.

  Q145  Paul Holmes: Mick encapsulated the point I made in the original question: employers and universities and people in general say they want 16 and 18 year-olds who can think, research, learn for themselves, be flexible, move on through different careers and all those sorts of things. If the new curriculum with the focus on skills and thematic learning is what we are aiming for, can we still deliver the same factual content that certain university courses have required in the past? Should the education of all of our children be dictated by the minority who are going to go to a three-year specialist course in maths, physics or chemistry?

  Mick Brookes: In a sense, we need to decide the direction in which we are going. Is it possible to do it all? It should be. There should be a body of knowledge that young people should know, but those flexible thinking skills are something else that we want. The other interesting aspect of this is if we have a prescribed curriculum, how does personalisation work within that? That is the big buzzword at the moment. It is very difficult to see.

  Chairman: This has been a really good session. I am sorry that it has been rapid fire; you have been very patient with us and we have learnt a lot. As you know, we can write a good report if we listen to what is out there. As you said, we wrote a rather good report on testing and assessment, and we hope to do the same on the curriculum. Will you stay in touch with us. If you think there are great gaps that we missed, fill them in later. Thank you very much.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 2 April 2009