The moment of truth approaches
A summary of the Cambridge Primary Reviews findings is being sent to every school and the (UK)
Government has the full report. But will it leads to real improvements? Asks Warwik Mansell
It’s the most exhaustive inquiry into primary education for more than 40 years. It took evidence from
more than 4,000 research sources, 1,000 written submissions and 237 meetings involving teachers,
parents, pupils and many others. It earned blanket media coverage and has a good news story to tell
about teachers’ work. But how much impact will the Cambridge Primary Review really have in
schools?
The moment of truth approaches
A summary of the Cambridge Primary Reviews findings is being sent to every school and the (UK)
Government has the full report. But will it leads to real improvements? Asks Warwik Mansell
As the review team embarked on a series of conferences around England to disseminate its findings, this
question has been first on the lips of attendees. How it is answered may say a lot about the degree to
which heads feel they have the freedom to innovate, and whether the review will have been successful
in questioning and challenging what it sees as 20 years of seemingly ever-increasing centralised
demands on primaries from government.
The review, which was three years in the planning and then spent a further three years building up its
evidence base, has earned headlines for a variety of eye-catching findings in a succession of reports,
including criticism of the effects of Sats and league tables, its questioning of the impact of setting in
primaries, calls for a broad and balanced curriculum and a recommendation that formal learning be
delayed until the age of six.
Funded by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, a charity, and directed by Professor Robin Alexander, a
fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge, who led 100 academics, writers and consultants, it is genuinely
independent. Its final report, published in October, runs to a staggering 586 pages, but a smaller 42page summary is being sent to every UK school. To its supporters – who appear to include many
teachers, but not ministers, who dismissed the findings – the report is a tribute to the power of
evidence-based investigation and a vote of confidence in professional expertise.
And, although the headlines have centered on conclusions that will have annoyed ministers, its central
finding is remarkably upbeat. Schools, it finds, are basically doing a good job, despite the many hallenges
they face.
The report says: “What we must emphatically report is that primary schools appear to be under intense
pressure but in good heart. They are highly valued by children and parents.” >
It adds: “Indeed, as was noted by many witnesses, primary schools may be the one point of stability and
positive values in a world where everything else is changing and uncertain. For many, schools are the
centre that holds when things fall apart.”
Happy childhood
The report also questions the often-expressed notion that childhood is in ‘crisis’, remarking that children
were the review’s most upbeat witnesses. It cites evidence from the Children’s Society’s recent Good
Childhood inquiry, which found only 9 per cent of the adults interviewed, believed children were
happier than during their own childhood.
Among the concerns raised by that survey were family breakdown, peer pressure, bullying, celebrity
culture and computer technology. But the Cambridge Review said that research has found that
children’s views often diverged from their parents. Some people were certainly worried about issues
such as local safety, global warming and poverty. However, the report adds: “It was noticeable that
when schools had taken account of pupils’ concerns and chosen to address them through
curricular and non-curricular activities, children had a more positive outlook.” The biggest problem
facing childhood is inequality, says the review. Eliminating child poverty should be the Government’s
‘highest priority’, and ministers should continue to focus on reducing underachievement.
But much of the review challenges current ministerial thinking. It is concerned that a narrow learning
diet is being encouraged which prioritises the ‘basics’ of the 3Rs ahead of other aspects of education in
a style it sees as reminiscent of Victorian times. It therefore advocates replacing SATs and league tables
with a system in which all aspects of the curriculum would be assessed by teachers, through an
‘unobtrusive’ structure of ‘enhanced’ teacher assessment.
It proposes introducing some specialist subject teachers alongside class teachers. These specialists and
‘semi-specialists’ might be deployed mainly in the last years of primary, or throughout a school to
supplement the work of class teachers. >
« Primary schools may be the one point of stability and positive values in a world where everything else
is changing and uncertain »
The review has also been widely misreported as recommending that pupils should start school at six.
Instead, the review advocated that the Early Years Foundation Stage be extended to age six, with the
rest of primary then covered by a single phase. There should be a debate as to when schooling itself
begins, says the review’s final report. It also challenges the notion of a ‘state theory of learning’, or the
Government’s right to dictate not just what should be in a national curriculum, but how it should be
taught.
Its 75 recommendations embrace every aspect of primary education, meaning, paradoxically perhaps,
that their full implementation could only come with ministerial support. Perhaps the biggest
groundswell of backing from teachers at the two dissemination conferences in Cambridge and London
attended by Leadership
Focus concerned its overall approach. The review’s idea of starting from first principles – laying down
general goals for primary education and then seeking to base teaching and learning on the findings of
the best research on how pupils move forward – was very well-received.
Daphne Babour is, an early years teacher at Colleges nursery and family centre in Cambridge, said: “They
have listened to the professionals, to children, parents and local authorities. As someone who wants to
deepen my understanding, I am a huge advocate of the Cambridge Primary Review.”
By contrast, the reaction from ministers was not appreciated. Vernon Coaker, the schools minister,
described the review on the day the final report was published as “not up to speed” with initiatives
being introduced by the Government, including the new report card documenting schools’ performance,
the review of special educational needs and the Government’s own review of the curriculum, by Sir Jim
Rose. Robin told the Cambridge conference that ministers had clearly not read the report. The final
report also adds that, during meetings with officials around the time of the publication of the review’s
interim reports, “it became apparent that the full reports were rarely opened and even the briefings
were unlikely to have been read”.
For all that this approach from Government will annoy many teachers –or at least that seemed the
overwhelming view at the conferences – it does go to the heart of the debate on the review’s impact.
Will it be ignored by the profession in favour of other approaches which are officially endorsed? Or will
teachers try to embrace the Cambridge viewpoint?
The Rose review of the curriculum, the outcome of which will be introduced in law through the Children,
Schools and Families bill currently going through Parliament, and which sets out a curriculum to be
taught from 2011, will clearly be a highly influential counterpoint. >
It does differ from the Cambridge Review. While Jim sets out six compulsory ‘areas of learning’, and then
seeks to promote some flexibility, Cambridge is more explicit about the aims of the curriculum, listing 12
of them, and says that 30 per cent of teaching time should be spent on a locally-determined ‘community
curriculum’, with only the remaining 70 per cent allocated at national level.
While Jim seems to have had a good hearing in many schools, there has also been unhappiness that
ministers did not allow him to consider the effects of testing, which Jim himself described as “the
elephant in the room” in the curriculum debate. The Cambridge Review is also far broader: the
curriculum is only part of one of its 10 themes. The Cambridge team clearly takes the review’s legacy
very seriously. There are 14 regional dissemination conferences in all, culminating in a final session in
Cambridge in February which will aim to come up with a suggested ‘succinct list of priorities’ for the next
Government. This will be sent to all political parties in the run-up to the general election.
The Conservatives may also be well-disposed to it. Professor Mary James, of Cambridge University, told
the Cambridge conference that sources within the party were viewing it more favourably than the Rose
review. However, Michael Gove, the party’s shadow schools secretary, appears only cautiously
enthusiastic, welcoming its emphasis on, for example, subject specialist teachers, but attacking its
proposals on accountability as ‘fuzzy’.
Other effects of the review may follow. Robin said that a handful of local authorities had wanted to talk
to his team about exploring the ‘community curriculum’ idea. The review is also keen to work with one
or two schools featured in the report about developing innovative approaches to teaching and learning.
And there were signs at the conferences that the review might have other effects: a teacher educator
from Homerton College, Cambridge, said the final report would go on her PGCE students’ reading lists
from next year, while Robin said the review was influencing. √
Selected recommendations of the Cambridge Review
® Adopt UN Convention on Rights of the Child
® Prioritise eliminating child poverty
® Carry out full review of special educational needs
® Extend foundation stage to age six
® Establish new curriculum, 70 per cent nationally developed
® Scrap primary national strategy
® Stop Government/quangos/local authorities telling teachers how to teach
® Replace Sats with teacher assessment across the curriculum
® Scrap league tables
® Reform teacher education
® Reform inspection
® Deploy specialist subject teachers;
® Replace top-down control with ‘professional empowerment’
® Eliminate primary/secondary funding gap
This article has been publish before in NAHT’s Leadership Focus
Learn more?