Examination of Witnesses (Questions 308-319)
SIR JIM
ROSE AND
COLIN SEAL
20 OCTOBER 2008
Q308 Chairman: We welcome Sir
Jim Rose and Colin Seal. Sorry that we have been delayed in getting
starting, but I hope that you enjoyed the five expert witnesses
that we listened to. I hope that it helped in your inquiry.
Sir Jim Rose: It did indeed.
Chairman: We will probably send you a
bill then. The Committee is running short of money.
Sir Jim Rose: It will not get
paid. You have given me a personality crisis, Chairman. I do not
know whether I am a Polo mint or a doughnut, but you are quite
right that I am addressing the hole in the middle. That is what
the curriculum review is about.
Q309 Chairman: Thank you for that.
You have heard the accusations regarding yourself and Ed Balls'
three-page letter. Bearing in mind what has been said by the first
set of witnesses, would you like to start by saying where you
think you are in terms of your inquiry?
Sir Jim Rose: Can I start off
by saying that primary education is not in crisis? I am concerned
that we are getting a picture that every primary school is under
some kind of cosh and cannot move away from the testing regime
by an inch. That is quite wrong. Since we started this survey
and since starting the reading survey four years ago, we have
seen many schools where the standards of teaching are excellent
and where children are learning in an enormously effective way.
We should be careful to get the balance right about what it is
out there that is causing the problems. There are some problems
that we can address and which we ought to address urgently. However,
it is not by any means all gloom and doom.
Chairman: I think that the Committee
would agree on that.
Sir Jim Rose: Can the primary
curriculum, including the national curriculum, be improved? Yes
it can. What are the problems that the national curriculum needed
to fix in the first place? We have heard it rehearsed that there
was no guarantee of entitlement. I think that entitlement, like
it or not, is a very important concept. I would not want my grandchildren,
one of whom is now four years and two months and the other seven,
going through their primary education without someone seriously
addressing an entitlement to reading, writing, mathematics and
so forth. That is what the national curriculum was about and it
still is. For a very long time, we have had what may be called
a long-tail effect. Attainment between the leading edge and the
training edge was far too wide. We have addressed that and are
continuing to address it, but it is a very difficult position
to shift. I would be very surprised if the gains made by the literacy
and numeracy strategies, despite all the changes that have been
made to them, were not yielding something. Even if they were yielding
half of the percentage that Pete Dudley gave it would be quite
interesting. Living in the land of reality, there is probably
a better picture than we allow. We should think back to 1978.
I joined Her Majesty's inspectorate in 1975. In 1978, we published
probably the biggest survey of primary education ever undertaken.
Q310 Chairman: In which year?
Sir Jim Rose: I think that I joined
because inspectors were needed to work on the survey, so it was
published in 1978. We found that schools were making markedly
idiosyncratic and different decisions about what should be taught.
There is no doubt that that was a much more tenuous system than
we have had since. Typically, we found topic work and project
work with pupils plateauing all over the place and no distinct
direction regarding progression. When thinking about what has
hampered progress, we should remind ourselves of things like that.
The picture has improved enormously since then, in that things
have become much more systematised. That is where I shall draw
breath.
Colin Seal: I would say only,
in relation to the remit letter, that some of the issues that
were raised in the earlier session are recognised. There is a
desire to consider reducing prescription and giving schools more
flexibility to meet individual pupils' needs and strengths. There
is greater emphasis on personal development and on not just looking
at academic attainment, but it recognises that a continued focus
on reading, writing and numeracy is wanted. Getting the balance
between that focus and encouraging a broad and balanced curriculum
is difficult to pull off.
Q311 Chairman: Thank you, Colin.
Sir Jim, your opening remarks were very interesting, but I think
that we all agree that there is not a great crisis. We simply
want to perform better and to give every child in the land a good
crack at their education. Are you doing much international comparison?
I do not think that the issue is about whether there is and should
be an entitlement to become literate and numerate; it is about
how much time you spend on that. Were you worried, in the earlier
session, by the evidence that 50% of time in primary schools is
spent on literacy and numeracy, and that 10% is spent on science,
making up 60% of the curriculum? Will you be looking at balance?
How does our system compare with those in other parts of the world?
Sir Jim Rose: I absolutely agree
that too much time is spent rehearsing tests. That is almost inevitable
in a high-tariff system such as ours, but we must try to shake
that off somehow. Percentages are difficult because you will be
using aspects of English, such as speaking, listening, reading
and writing, throughout the whole curriculum, if it is a good
one. If you added up every percentage moment spent on English,
it would look very high. The same would be true, in a decent curriculum,
if you were giving children lots of opportunities to use and apply
mathematics. Ofsted came up with a very interesting finding in
its maths report of a few weeks ago. It said that we spend a lot
of time teaching children knowledge and skills in mathematics,
but that when we present them with a problem, they do not understand
which knowledge and skills to use to solve that problem. If we
are to get the curriculum anywhere close to where it needs to
be, having taught the knowledge and skills thoroughly and well,
using and applying them to win understanding is crucial. Irrespective
of the subject, that is the pattern that we should try to establish
in primary schools. We can do that with a lighter-touch curriculum
than the one we have now, and by giving teachers much more opportunity
to localise from national principles in that curriculum. Certainly,
our discussions with learned societies—the Royal Society
in particular—and those who are responsible for subject
associations tell us that they believe that that can be done and
that they are happy to help us. The key point is whether we can
help teachers to come to a view about how to map progression.
You cannot talk about progression unless you ask, "Progression
to what?" If we allow any subject to become overly burdensome
in terms of amount, we will get what we expect. Teachers will
take a "never mind the quality, feel the width" approach.
They will think, "You have offered us far too much."
We must try to pull off the trick of coming up with big ideas
in the areas that we think are important. Just as you have said,
Chairman, it is a culturally determined curriculum; it is what
we determine is best for our children. It is dynamic, not static,
and it has to change according to global, national and other pressures.
We should certainly try to ensure that that change is strategically
managed and properly focused on progression, and we should bring
the best brains in the country to bear on that. One thing that
I would like to measure in primary children's progress is whether
we have managed to instil in them a love of learning for its own
sake. That is where our testing system, I am afraid—
Q312 Chairman: Will you look at
international comparators?
Sir Jim Rose: Yes. We have commissioned
the National Foundation for Educational Research and have actually
received one serious, quite interesting piece of work from it
on international studies. However, we will do much more on that
side of things. That would be interesting.
Chairman: The Select Committee recently
looked at the Ontario experience and had a very interesting session
on the curriculum.
Q313 Paul Holmes: Could we hear
the end of the sentence? You were talking about instilling a love
of learning.
Sir Jim Rose: I was going to quote
Einstein, but I cannot remember it.
Q314 Chairman: So I saved you
from your embarrassment. Have another go.
Sir Jim Rose: He said that not
everything that can be measured is worth measuring and that not
everything that is worth measuring can be measured. What I would
like measured, but for which we do not have a measure, is whether
we can instil a love of learning. As I just said, that is primary.
It is the foundation that we must put down. We should instil a
love of learning.
Q315 Chairman: Is that similar
to what the previous professor was talking about in terms of deep
learning?
Sir Jim Rose: I am sure it is
very close.
Q316 Mr Stuart: I want to ask
you about the Cambridge review.
Sir Jim Rose: The report by Robin
Alexander?
Q317 Mr Stuart: Yes. You have
been asked to report at the same time as the Cambridge review.
Do you feel used?
Sir Jim Rose: I do not think that
they coincide to quite that degree. However, I do not feel that
way; I have a much more limited landscape, if you like. I am looking
at the curriculum—full stop. Robin has got the whole of
primary education plus the cross-cultural work that he has been
doing for many years, and he is bringing that to bear. We talk
to each other. Obviously, I keep him in touch with where we are
and what we are doing, and he certainly sends me reports from
his study where they are germane to the curriculum. That has been
very helpful.
Q318 Mr Stuart: You said that
you were dealing with the curriculum—full stop. You are
not dealing with it in an unlimited way, are you?
Sir Jim Rose: It is as unlimited
as I think it is possible to be within that curriculum framework.
Q319 Mr Stuart: You mean this
three-page framework set out by the Secretary of State?
Sir Jim Rose: Yes.
| 
