Memorandum submitted by Dr Dominic Wyse,
University of Cambridge
The points made in this statement are built
on my research and publications about the primary and early years
curriculum over an approximately ten year period. These publications
include peer-reviewed research journal articles and books, publications
aimed at practitioners, and work with the media. I continue to
hope that this mix of publications enables me to offer a view
that is both appropriately informed by research evidence and relevant
to educators. I have listed some of the key publications that
have informed this statement (in particular the article for the
NUT journal Education Review which explains in more detail
most of the views I express in this statement). There are many
other people whose work I have drawn on who are cited in my publications
but not in this statement for reasons of succinctness.
Problem 1: Although there have been some benefits
emerging as a result of the implementation of England's National
Curriculum, for example for teachers' professional understanding
of curriculum planning, the national curriculum has created a
series of problems, particularly as a result of the lack of control
over the curriculum that teachers and pupils have.
Recommendations: Government should initiate
an extensive project to address the pros and cons of different
models for a national curriculum over a minimum time-scale of
two years. The starting point should be whether a national curriculum
is a desirable feature at all. The goal of the project should
be to develop a more appropriate national curriculum if evidence
indicates that the benefits are likely to outweigh the disadvantages.
An explicit strategy to gather a range of evidence should be developed
for the project and its dissemination, which should include consideration
of how to reduce innovation overload. The work should be led by
someone with experience in educational research with a focus on
curriculum, and if possible with experience of teaching and teacher
education/training.
The aims of the curriculum should be carefully
considered in relation to the kinds of citizens it is hoped such
a curriculum might help to develop. The merits of an entirely
optional national curriculum should be considered. The idea of
a 50/50 division between state-mandated curricula and user-owned
curricula should also be part of this investigation. Ways to explicitly
build on the individual primary teacher's enthusiasms and knowledge
so that pupils experience a more varied curriculum should be considered.
The extent to which pupils might be motivated by a particular
curriculum should also be central to the work of the project.
Problem 2: The negative aspects of the statutory
testing system have outweighed the positive aspects. In particular
there is worrying evidence of a narrowing of the curriculum in
favour of mathematics and literacy at the expense of other areas
of the curriculum.
Recommendations: The current national statutory
testing system at key stages one and two should be replaced by
a system of national sampling to monitor changes in standards
over time.
Problem 3: Although there are positive aspects
to the National Literacy and National Numeracy strategies, and
their successors that are part of the Primary National Strategy,
the strategies were not sufficiently informed by research evidence,
consequently they did not enable the highest possible standards
to be met. Of particular concern is the move to adopt synthetic
phonics as a result of the report by Sir Jim Rose.
Recommendations: Government should initiate
a national reading and national writing panel modelled on the
US's National Reading Panel (NRP) but with an explicit aim to
extend the work of the NRP methodologically. Experimental trails
should not be the only kind of research evidence considered by
such a panel although they should form an important part of the
evidence. A methodology to synthesise experimental research and
qualitative research should be part of this work.
Problem 4: The government commissioned review
of the primary curriculum will have to resolve two apparently
contradictory positions in relation to teaching methods for maths
and science which appeared in two previous government reports:
There are already some signs that these historical
differences between the pedagogy of maths and English are set
to continue. For example the recent interim report for the review
of mathematics says, "The review believes that it is not
possible to define a single `most effective' approach, and instead,
focuses on the essential aspects which, taken together, constitute
best practice." (p. 62) This is in sharp contrast to the
Rose Report on the teaching of early reading which said, "51.
Having considered a wide range of evidence, the review has concluded
that the case for systematic phonic work is overwhelming and much
strengthened by a synthetic approach." (Rose, 2006, p. 20).
This tension will need to be resolved by the government's review
of primary education. It would be untenable to have a report on
the primary curriculum which offered contradictory ideas about
one method vs. more than one method. In my view the maths conclusion
concerning effective teaching approaches is the one which more
accurately reflects research on primary pedagogy and could usefully,
although belatedly, be applied to the teaching of reading, and
the wider curriculum. (Wyse, 2008)
Recommendations: The idea that there is one
best way to teach is not supported by research evidence so this
should not be a guiding idea for the development of a new curriculum
or as the basis for the delivery of the existing curriculum.
Problem 5: Since 1997 effective teaching has
been assumed to be that which is informed by a short-term teaching
objective. The practice of teachers writing objectives on the
board and pupils writing objectives in their books has become
common place. This has been extended into the practice of micro-managing
pupils' progress through target-setting (typically linked to statutory
text and national curriculum level progress), a process which
has also been linked to teachers' career advancement.
Recommendations: Research evidence points to
the use of a range of ways to plan and deliver teaching, including
objective-led lessons, as being effective. The idea of effective
teaching needs to be understood as something more complex
than the idea that has previously guided curriculum policy. There
is a need for research to investigate the impact of pupil target-setting
on pupils' learning particularly if linked to high-stakes processes.
It appears that one promising way to improve
teaching is a focus on teacher-pupil interaction, in particular
to extend the use of open, consultative, and respectful dialogue
with pupils which seeks to acknowledge and build on their understanding
and extend it.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Wyse, D, Andrews, R, & Hoffman, J. (Eds.). (Forthcoming).
The international handbook of English, language, and literacy
teaching. London: Routledge.
Wyse, D, & Goswami, U. (In-press). Synthetic
phonics and the teaching of reading. British Educational Research
Journal.
Wyse, D. (2008). Primary education: Who's in control?
Education Review, 21(1), 76-82.
Wyse, D, McCreery, E, & Torrance, H. (2008).
The trajectory and impact of national reform: Curriculum and
assessment in English primary schools (primary review research
survey 3/2). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of
Education.
Wyse, D, & Jones, R. (2008). Teaching English,
language and literacy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Wyse, D, & Styles, M. (2007). Synthetic phonics
and the teaching of reading: The debate surrounding England's
"Rose Report". Literacy, 47(1), 35-42.
Wyse, D. (2007). How to help your child read and
write. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Wyse, D. (2007). How to help your child succeed
at school. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Wyse, D. (2006 and 2nd Edition forthcoming). Conceptions
of the school curriculum. In J. Arthur, T. Grainger & D. Wray
(Eds.), Teaching and learning in the primary school. London:
Routledge.
Wyse, D. (2006). Pupils' word choices and the teaching
of grammar. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1), 31-47.
Wyse, D. (2005, June 3). Is synthetic phonics really
the holy grail of reading? Times Educational Supplement,
p. 22.
Wyse, D. (2003). The national literacy strategy:
A critical review of empirical evidence. British Educational
Research Journal, 29 (6), 903-916.
Wyse, D. (2001). Grammar. For writing?: A critical
review of empirical evidence. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 49 (4), 411-427.
Wyse, D. (2000). Phonics—the whole story?:
A critical review of empirical evidence. Educational Studies,
26 (3), 355-364.
November 2008
| 
