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.
|
