THE NUT’S RESPONSE TO
THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM
CONSULTATION
MARCH 2013
INTRODUCTION
1.
The National Union of Teachers’ (NUT) response to the draft National Curriculum
framework and associated consultation document has been informed by
consultation via a survey, which received over 2,000 responses and focus groups,
with members currently teaching Key Stages 1 to 4, who will be responsible for its
successful implementation in schools. It is disappointing that the Government did
not take the same approach and involve the profession directly in the formulation
of its National Curriculum proposals.
2.
The proposals entirely ignore the recommendations on curriculum models
proposed in recent comprehensive studies of both primary and secondary
education. The final report of the University of Cambridge Primary Review1, for
instance, has much to offer in shaping policy on the direction of the primary
curriculum. Its recommendation for ‘a 30 per cent Community Curriculum’ is
reflected in the debate at the centre of this review: who should be responsible for
making the curriculum a living reality for children – schools or the Government?
The Cambridge Primary Review’s recommendations that the primary curriculum
should be reconceptualised into aims and domains and that there are genuine
alternatives to a traditional subject based curriculum deserve equal
acknowledgement by the Government.
3.
Similarly the Tomlinson Review of 14-19 Education in 2004, the independent
review by the Nuffield Foundation of 14-19 education led by Professor Richard
Pring and the review led by QCA of the secondary curriculum, introduced in 2008,
should inform these draft proposals.
4.
It is very telling that many advisers from the Government’s own Expert Panel have
distanced themselves from these proposals.
5.
It is also disappointing that although it is called the ‘National’ Curriculum, it is not
an entitlement for all pupils. A substantial proportion of children, including those
who attend academies, free schools and independent schools, are outside of its
statutory requirements. The National Curriculum was introduced for the benefit of
pupils, to facilitate transfer between schools as well as to set out what all English
school children should know and be able to do. If large numbers of children are
exempt from it, it can no longer be said to fulfil these purposes.
1
Alexander, R. et al, Children, Their World, Their Education: Final Report of the Cambridge Primary
Review, University of Cambridge/Esmee Fairbairn, 2009.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
1
16 February 2016
6.
A considerable majority of NUT members who responded to its survey agreed
with this view. Overall, 80 per cent believed that academies and free schools
should not be allowed to opt out. Significantly, two thirds (66 per cent) of
respondents who indicated that they taught in academies and free schools
believed that such schools should not be allowed to opt out.
It is
incomprehensible that a National Curriculum enshrined in law should only be
applicable to maintained schools.
7.
Teachers successfully teach the National Curriculum and will do so again. This is
a curriculum, however, that teachers believe is educationally unsound.
AIMS
8.
Legislation requires that the National Curriculum “promotes the spiritual, moral,
cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society”
and “prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and
experiences of later life”. The NUT would argue that the draft framework fails to
meet those requirements. As it will expand on in more detail later in this
response, particularly when commenting on the individual Programmes of Study.
It is too skewed towards the core subjects; contains little or no Sex and
Relationships Education; lacks any cross-curricular dimension; fails to take into
account the diverse and globalised world people live in; and ignores the
importance of skills development, whether subject-specific or generic learning
skills.
9.
The current broad set of aims relating to the development of positive attitudes to
learning, and to the positive role or contribution students should make later on in
society as an adult, has been replaced with the single aim of introducing pupils to
“core knowledge they need to be educated citizens”.
10.
In such circumstances, the statement on the importance of a broad and balanced
curriculum at the start of the draft framework looks tokenistic. Instead, a very
narrow set of aims has been proposed, which do not appear to consider children
in their own right. They are to be provided with “core knowledge” and introduced
to “the best that has been thought and said”. There is no place for them to be
active learners – their role is to accept and internalise what they are told rather
than learn to think for themselves. In addition, it is not explained who has decided
what is ‘the best’ or ‘core’ or why. It also does not include ‘the best that has been
done’, which seems an odd omission for a curriculum which aims to achieve
tangible results.
11.
This makes a rather poor contrast with the curriculum aims in Singapore, which is
often cited by Government as an education system worthy of emulation.
Singapore’s curriculum aims demonstrate a breadth of expectation for pupils
which is lacking in these proposals. Pupils should learn, for example, to
‘appreciate the beauty of the world’, have a ‘zest for life’, be ‘confident’, ‘think
independently and critically’, ‘communicate effectively’, ‘ask questions’, ‘use
initiative’, ‘take calculated risks’ and develop into a ‘concerned citizen’.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
2
16 February 2016
12.
There is no discussion or consideration in the English document of what is
needed for the well-being of the individual as well as for the public good. All
pupils should be able to develop the ability to think critically and to be a positive
contributor to society as in the above example. Similarly, there is no sense of
optimism about the future generation, unlike in the curriculum document from
Singapore.
13.
In addition, the aims included in the individual subject Programmes of Study are
more of a summary list of contents than a broader rationale for what pupils will be
expected to study, which is what is usually understood by the term ‘educational
aims’.
14.
The NUT believes that the following core principles should be included in the
proposals:

the curriculum should prepare all pupils to live in a diverse society and a
globalised, interdependent world;

the curriculum should first and foremost be underpinned by a human rights
framework; and

the school curriculum should encourage cross-curricular learning.
15.
To support this aspect of policy, the National Curriculum framework should
exemplify, but not prescribe, new approaches to cross-curricular learning, such as
thinking skills, environmental learning, the impact of religious and secular beliefs
on society and learning about the world of industry and business. It could also
contain precise references to aspects of the statutory Programmes of Study which
could be used to teach or apply specific content or skills and denote links with
other subject content and skills, in the same way that the revised Welsh National
Curriculum documents do. This would help strike the right balance between
flagging up cross-curricular opportunities and giving teachers permission to
interpret these potential links for their particular classroom context. Indeed, there
needs to be a far more overtly permissive tone in the revised National Curriculum
documents if teachers are to feel confident that they can adapt the curriculum to
meet the needs of their pupils in more than superficial ways.
16.
Such an approach should also facilitate schools’ teaching of broader learning,
personal and social skills, which fulfil the dual role of empowering children and
young people to become independent learners and rounded citizens who can
contribute to society both nationally and internationally. The NUT would disagree
that the inclusion of skills development and the promotion of generic dispositions
in the National Curriculum have diluted the importance of subject knowledge. It
could be argued that these elements are just as important and may certainly be a
key priority for individual children in order to move their learning forward.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
3
16 February 2016
17.
The NUT is not alone in believing that the curriculum on offer should strike a
balance between subject knowledge and skills development. In its recent
publication ‘First Steps – A New Approach for Our Schools’ (2012), the CBI also
called for a school curriculum which fosters learning in the widest sense:
“The curriculum has encouraged teachers to focus narrowly, with
memorisation and recall being valued over understanding and
enquiry, and transmission of information over the pursuit of
knowledge in its fullest sense.”
PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY AND FREEDOM
18.
There is a clear tension between the Coalition Government’s stated policy of
curricular freedom and the detailed, prescriptive content of the draft statutory core
subjects’ Programmes of Study at all Key Stages. In this ‘slimmed down’ version
of the framework, 184 pages have been devoted to Key Stages 1 – 3
Programmes of Study. Of the 153 pages which concern Key Stages 1 and 2 only,
139 pages are given over to primary English, Maths and Science. Only 15 pages
are devoted to all of the other nine curriculum subjects in primary. This gives a
very clear message to schools about which subjects the Government considers to
be most important and on which they should spend the majority of curriculum
time.
19.
This is completely at odds with the new, explicit statements within the draft
statutory document that the National Curriculum is not the whole school
curriculum and that schools are free to develop own local curriculum in addition to
it, to meet the needs of pupils. Whilst such statements are extremely welcome,
schools and teachers can be forgiven for viewing them as tokenistic, not only
because of the level of content contained in the Programmes of Study, but also
because of the on-going assessment and accountability regimes to which all
schools, including academies and free schools, are subject.
20.
The NUT member survey found that 64 per cent of respondents did not agree that
the proposals gave them confidence to adapt the curriculum to meet students’
needs, with a further 28.5 per cent being unsure. Similarly, 60 per cent did not
agree that their school would have such confidence, with an additional 32 per cent
being unsure.
21.
However much schools are committed to offering a broad and balanced
curriculum, this will be incredibly difficult to achieve in practice. There will be very
little time left over from studying the three core subjects which are tested and
used as proxy school quality and performance indicators. There has always been
a two tier primary curriculum but these proposals will make that division even
more marked.
22.
The consultation document’s claims that teachers will be able to use their
professional judgement more than currently are absurd. The proposals reduce
substantially the ways in which teachers can exercise their professional
judgement in terms of pedagogy and interpreting the Government’s words. There
are also claims in the consultation document that the proposals will encourage
innovation and creativity in teaching, which are equally ridiculous. The draft
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
4
16 February 2016
framework contains no recognition of a creative dimension in teaching and is
closer to the Gradgrindian model of teaching to instil in children “the facts, only the
facts”.
23.
The statement that teachers will be free to “develop exciting and stimulating
lessons” is disingenuous. Throughout the draft framework, a traditional view of
teaching as the transmission of knowledge is apparent and there is no
recognition, let alone encouragement, for teachers to vary their pedagogy to
include co-construction of meaning, which pupils’ deeper learning requires.
24.
The level of prescriptive detail for Key Stages 1 and 2 core subjects in particular is
far higher than in the current National Curriculum Programmes of Study.
Examples include the minute specification of the teaching of phonics in Key Stage
1 English; the spelling and grammar appendices, which are statutory, in Key
Stage 2 English; and the ‘correct’ forms of solving mathematical problems, such
as only one way to do long division and multiplication, in Key Stages 1 and 2
mathematics.
25.
The primary core subjects’ Programmes of Study have also been divided up by
year group for the first time. Although a footnote says that the statutory
requirement is to complete all content by the end of the Key Stage, this is likely to
act as further prescription for teachers and schools and an inhibitor of creativity
and innovation, particularly if there is an expectation by Ofsted or any other
accountability measure that this method of organisation of curriculum content
should be used by schools.
26.
The 1988 Education Reform Act enshrined in law the principle that the Secretary
of State should not prescribe pedagogy, yet the draft Programmes of Study are
full of prescribed teaching methodologies. The Government argues that phonics,
long division etc. are content, which is blatantly untrue. This is yet another
example which applies to the primary Programmes of Study only, although there
is no explanation about why the levels of prescription between the two phases
should be so different.
27.
These proposals suggest that primary teaching is of such poor quality that
teachers need to be told what to do and when. There is no understanding of how
complex or demanding an activity teaching primary pupils on a daily basis is. If
primary teachers are not trusted or valued by Government, they should at least be
told why.
INCLUSION AND EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
28.
The current section within the National Curriculum on inclusion issues covers the
whole range of additional needs, supported by supplementary non-statutory
guidance. The intention of this section was to demonstrate that the National
Curriculum could be adapted, indeed ‘differentiated’, to meet the needs of all
children in mainstream schools. If the National Curriculum was to be fit for
purpose, then it was necessary that it recognised and reflected the range of
children for whom it was designed.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
5
16 February 2016
29.
In the draft framework, this section has been replaced by a single page which
stresses high expectations and ‘stretching’ for all children. It is explicit in saying
that all children should achieve the ‘expected’ levels, regardless of any special
educational needs. This is a one size fits all approach which the NUT believes is
a backward step.
30.
Teachers use mechanisms such as differentiation and the P scales to consider
the National Curriculum in the context of children with SEN in mainstream
schools. Without reference to these mechanisms, it is difficult to imagine how the
draft framework could be considered fit for purpose with regard to this group of
pupils.
31.
Similarly, the consultation document’s assertion that the proposals will “allow(ing)
the National Curriculum to be taught in ways that enable all pupils to have an
equal opportunity to succeed” misses the point. The proposed curriculum is
overly focussed on content and the excessive emphasis on committing
information to memory and accumulating knowledge, at the expense of the
development of skills and creativity, will make the curriculum significantly harder
for many disabled children and children with SEN to access. This may conversely
depress standards, as pupils who feel that a subject is too hard for them may
simply give up. Similarly, levels of interest are key to achievement. A teacher can
try a range of strategies to engage pupils in their learning but this can be
extremely difficult if a topic is perceived as uninteresting and unrelated to pupils’
lives.
32.
The draft framework document implies that good teaching and high expectations
are sufficient to enable every child to achieve the acceptable levels of progress
and that it is teachers’ fault if such pupils do not meet expectations. This
denigrates the efforts and expertise of teachers and the achievements and
progress of a significant minority of pupils. The NUT is concerned that the
National Curriculum will be a long list of things that pupils have not learned,
instead of a framework through which all children’s achievements can be
recognised.
33.
The NUT survey of members on the proposals indicated that only 7.7 per cent of
teachers felt that the proposals gave them the confidence to adapt the curriculum
to meet the needs of all students. Seventy-one per cent said that the draft
National Curriculum framework would not meet the needs of pupils with SEN, EAL
or disabilities.
34.
The understanding of equalities practice in education in the consultation is
extremely narrow and mechanistic. As well as ensuring pupils are not held back
because of a ‘protected characteristic’, the Department for Education (DfE) should
consider how it can support schools in using the curriculum to:

promote positive attitudes about BME people, LGBT people, disabled
people and to challenge racism, sexism and homophobia;

widen pupils’ thinking and understanding about what causes prejudice,
discrimination and disadvantage for different groups in different subjects;
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
6
16 February 2016

reduce social inequalities, such as discussing the equal pay gap between
men and women in careers discussion or money management sessions;
and

address negative and harmful attitudes about women which lead to
harassment of girls, anorexia and self-harm, pressure to sex text, sexual
exploitation and which limits girls’ aspirations.
35.
The National Curriculum proposals appear to be based on the notion that all
children and young people compete on a level playing field with the same
opportunities to succeed in schools regardless of gender, race, disability, sexual
orientation and background. They do not, and the responsibility to recognise and
address this lies partly, although not wholly, with schools. The school curriculum
needs to contain encouragement to teachers to educate about the positive nature
of difference within society, as well as teaching about universal human rights.
36.
Although the content of the curriculum is excluded from the Equality Act 2010, it is
the NUT’s view that a school cannot comply with the spirit of the Equality Act
without considering how the curriculum can be used to educate children and
young people in a way which will promote equality of opportunity. The Equality
Act expects schools to think proactively about how they can eliminate
discrimination and promote equality of opportunity for groups of people. Schools
are fairly confident about discussions about special educational needs (SEN) and
inclusion and building an ethos which includes learners with different strengths
and abilities, but are less confident about how to promote race equality, gender
equality and LGBT equality.
37.
There is no clear guidance about how and when it is appropriate to use the
curriculum to contribute to equal opportunities and to reduce issues schools may
face, such as homophobic bullying or racist bullying or bullying of pupils with
learning difficulties. For example, if gay and lesbian people and families with
same sex partners are never mentioned in a primary school, this can lead to
negative attitudes about LGB people. Most homophobic hate crime is carried out
by school-aged teenagers.
38.
The curriculum is one way through which teachers can challenge stereotypes
about race, gender, sexual orientation, class and disability. Schools do this
because these stereotypes limit learning and can impact on pupil progress, but
also because education and learning can empower all children and young people
to ask questions, and to make the world fairer and less unequal for the next
generation. Stereotypes about gender, for example, affect every girl and boy in
every class. They affect what subjects students choose, what careers they
pursue, what they earn and whether mothers or fathers choose to alter working
patterns to stay at home with their children.
39.
The NUT is currently running a project called ‘Breaking the Mould’, which supports
early years and primary teachers to use reading, art and drama activities to break
down gender stereotypes for the benefit of both girls and boys. It has found that
schools want support, advice and resources about how to use the curriculum to
give children the widest possible opportunities, especially where attitudes in the
home may be putting girls and boys under pressure to behave in certain ways.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
7
16 February 2016
40.
All children and young people are entitled to quality sex and relationship
education (SRE) which upholds and reflects children’s and young people’s rights
to accurate information, safety, health and well-being and anti-discriminatory
practice. As a part of the National Curriculum review, the Government must
reconsider the need for statutory SRE within the broader framework of Personal,
Social, Health and Economic Education (PSHE) across all four Key Stages.
41.
There is an overriding concern that the draft section on ‘Inclusion’ and the
curriculum in relation to pupils with SEN is limited in its scope. Whilst
emphasising the school’s responsibility to, “ensure that there are no barriers to
every pupil achieving”, the need of these pupils are not taken into account in the
body of the proposals. The curriculum should be an endorsement of social equity.
These proposals, with little guidance on inclusion or barely a reference to how the
curriculum incorporates equality issues such as gender, ethnicity, disability and
sexual orientation, do not do so.
LANGUAGE, LITERACY AND NUMERACY
42.
The NUT believes that, whilst pupils’ spoken languages and reading and writing
are an integral aspect of the teaching of every subject, it is important that a holistic
curriculum is put in place that focuses on both academic and non-academic
achievement. The heavy focus on Standard English, grammar, punctuation and
spelling throughout the Programmes of Study drastically limits the opportunities
young people will have to develop the skills they will need for life or, indeed, help
to develop their individual talents.
43.
Language forms an individual’s personal, national and cultural identity. It can be a
very emotive subject and value laden. There are many varieties of English, but
the draft framework states that Standard English is the ‘best’ form of English and
the only one worthy of study. By omitting any other forms for study, or even
taking them into account, it will be clear to both teachers and pupils which is
deemed most important, reinforcing the social class stereotypes which are
inextricably linked with the use of language in this country.
44.
Politicians are successful learners who are able to use language to great effect.
They will perhaps remember how they learned to be literate and have translated
these memories into National Curriculum requirements, even though most of them
came from a very narrow section of our society and have had a very privileged
education. Any difficulties they may have experienced as learners will have been
forgotten for the most part, so it is not surprising that they are not reflected here.
Similarly, the learning environment in which their literacy development took place,
particularly the small class sizes which characterise private education, will have
been taken for granted and the teacher perspective excluded from the draft
proposals. These now need ‘reality-checking’ by teachers currently serving in the
classroom on a daily basis.
45.
It is important that the proposals recognise language and communication in all
its forms. The recognition of British Sign Language as an official language should
be included in this section of the statutory guidance. Many children and young
people communicate in an effective and lively way using signing. There is no
consideration given to the many other ways in which pupils who do not ‘speak’
communicate. Language, in all its forms and modes, must be included.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
8
16 February 2016
GENERAL COMMENTS ON KEY STAGES 1 AND 2 PROGRAMMES OF STUDY
46.
The proposals for the primary Programmes of Study are generally more
demanding, with content currently appearing in the National Curriculum moved
down to younger age groups. For example, some aspects of studying fractions,
decimals and percentages have been moved down to Year 2 and apostrophes of
omission have been included in Year 1, moved down from Key Stage 2.
Understanding algorithms has been introduced as a new aspect of study in Key
Stage 1. This has led to some far less age appropriate content in Key Stage 1,
especially for summer born children, who represent approximately one third of all
children. This must be given further consideration as a matter of urgency. The
Better Communications research programme2, for example, has identified that
“birth season effects are strong for SLCN” (Speech, Language and
Communication Needs) and that misidentification within schools may result from
lack of understanding of this effect. The authors of the draft framework document
show a complete disregard for the effect.
47.
The deliberate exaggeration of what children can be expected to do at a particular
age, under the rhetoric and guise of ‘high standards’, will result in a sense of
failure both for pupils and schools. The NUT agrees strongly that there should be
high expectations in the sense that ability is not fixed, but this is absolutely
dependent on pitching learning at the right level, otherwise the curriculum may
reinforce pupils’ sense of failure, especially the less able.
48.
As has been mentioned above, there is far less flexibility in the core subjects’
Programmes of Study to vary content and pedagogy to meet the needs of pupils
than currently. Skill development is also far less explicit than in the current
version of the National Curriculum, especially in the core subjects. It appears that
the new framework has been designed to prepare pupils for secondary school,
rather than seeing primary as a discrete educational phase in its own right.
49.
There is a sharp distinction between the detail of the core Programmes of Study
and the looseness of some, but not all, of those for the foundation subjects. The
draft framework says that teachers will have “greater flexibility” and “more space
and flexibility to design their lessons”, but this is not strictly true for two different
reasons.
50.
Firstly, the level of content to be covered in the foundation subjects Programmes
of Study varies considerably – one page for Key Stage 1 and 2 music, computing
and art and design, compared to two pages for Key Stage 1 and 2 geography and
three pages for history. Secondly, there is limited space in the primary timetable
for the foundation subjects generally. Teachers will therefore have little flexibility
in being able to give as much time as they might wish to all the foundation
subjects. Those Programmes of Study with most content are more likely to be
prioritised to ensure that all content has been covered by the end of the Key
Stage.
2
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR247-BCRP1.pdf
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
9
16 February 2016
51.
A key concern is that the Programmes of Study have been written with very little
knowledge of or reference to how children learn at different stages of their
development. There is little or no differentiation of approach between Key Stages
1 and 2. While it is very easy to assess and test pupils’ regurgitation of facts and
rote learning compared to more analytical work, this is unlikely to lead to deep
learning and the kind of higher order thinking skills we want for our children and
that the best performing education systems achieve.
52.
No evidence has been produced to show that the proposed curriculum model of
cumulatively accruing knowledge and information throughout one’s school career
would work. It is highly unlikely that Key Stage 1 and 2 children will be able to
remember the details of any of the factual content of the Programmes of Study, let
alone their significance, when they reach secondary school, university or later in
life. It is well established that effective learning is a product of revisiting material
and re-using knowledge and applying it to different contexts otherwise most of it
fades away from the mind, yet the revised National Curriculum encourages the
exact opposite.
53.
There is not always straightforward progression or coherence between the Early
Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) seven areas of learning and the Key Stage 1
Programmes of Study, particularly those for English and mathematics, despite the
consultation document stating that such coherence was a priority aim (paragraph
7.8). This is likely to have a ‘wash down’ effect on EYFS practice and will create
pressure to prepare children for school rather than adherence to the EYFS
pedagogic principles and valuing the EYFS as an education phase in its own right.
54.
The other areas of learning, which are usually approached in a broad, crosscurricular way in the EYFS, are poorly reflected in Key Stage 1. It will be an
extremely harsh transition for many young children. Summer-borns in particular
would benefit from a Key Stage 1 curriculum which was much closer in both
content and organisation to the EYFS.
55.
Primary teachers tend to be generalist rather than specialist, therefore they will
have to prepare to teach all of these new Programmes of Study, not just one as in
secondary. They will need time and support to do this yet nothing has been
proposed in the consultation exercise. Primary schools and teachers will need to
be extremely brave and continue to use their professional judgement to make the
latest Government proposals workable. They may be told what knowledge to
teach but how it is taught and how deep learning is nurtured will still take place in
the classroom and will therefore still be in their hands.
56.
Given all these concerns, especially the difference in approach between the
primary and secondary National Curriculum requirements, it could be argued that
the proposals have been designed deliberately to encourage primary schools to
become academies, which would free them from such prescription. However, as
explored later on in this response, the same accountability requirements will apply
to all state funded schools, so even academy status will not protect primary
schools from the damaging influence these proposals may have.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
10
16 February 2016
NATIONAL CURRICULUM SUBJECTS’ PROGRAMMES OF STUDY
Key Stage 1 and 2 English
57.
The primary English Programmes of Study are some of the most prescribed in the
draft framework. They set out the kind of language to be taught, the methodology
or means by which to teach it, when to teach it and even advocate the kinds of
literature to be used, although it does not go as far, thankfully, as prescribing lists
of authors suitable for primary study. Politicians will say that this has been
devised for the best possible motives, such as raising standards for all or
improving PISA rankings, but this does not necessarily coincide with what is best
for children.
58.
The NUT member survey shows a high level of uncertainty about the English
Programme of Study, with 45.6 per cent supporting some parts of it, 9.8 per cent
supporting most of it and 20.8 per cent not supporting it at all. Only 1.5 per cent
supported the proposals fully.
59.
There is much more emphasis on the use of Standard English, both written and
spoken, whilst the study of dialect, register and audience have been removed. It
is essential that pupils know what Standard English is and how to use it, but the
ability to use appropriate language in any given content is also a vital skill.
60.
The current Programmes of Study for speaking and listening have been removed
completely and subsumed within the new Programmes of Study for ‘Reading’ and
‘Writing’. The existing content that does remain focuses heavily on formal speech,
e.g. debate, presentations, rather than a variety of talk, role play and drama as
currently. It is extremely disappointing that lessons from recent history have not
been learned: speaking and listening was not included in its own right in the
original National Literacy Strategy but soon became such a glaring omission that
the Strategy had to be re-written to include it, wasting both teachers’ time and
taxpayers’ money.
61.
Augmented or alternative communication is not mentioned in the framework - it
does not recognise that children have a diversity of needs. Such an approach will
necessarily exclude children who do not communicate using standard methods of
communication/language due to disabilities or learning difficulties and may also
disadvantage children learning English as an additional language.
62.
The ‘Reading’ Programmes of Study are now divided into ‘word reading’ and
‘comprehension’ only, although the former virtually disappears in Key Stage 2.
There is a rather old fashioned view of reading implicit within it, as there are no
longer any references to the use of technology, multi model texts, screen reading
or even graphic novels and picture books.
63.
There is, however, a new emphasis on reading for pleasure and becoming a lifelong reader which is to be welcomed. The reading of whole books rather than
studying extracts will be welcomed by many primary teachers, who have in the
past felt they have had to smuggle this into their teaching, as it was not valued by
the previous government as important to developing children’s reading habits.
Reading for Pleasure has been a key educational campaign for the NUT for the
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
11
16 February 2016
past two years and it is pleased that the Government has listened to its
recommendations regarding its place in the English curriculum.
64.
Synthetic phonics is now the statutory method for teaching reading, with even
reading books specified in the Key Stage 1 Programme of Study as children must
be phonetically able to decode them without other strategies. No-one disputes
the importance of phonics in the teaching of reading but it is not the only thing
young children need to learn about reading – it is so much more than just looking
at letters and sounds on the page. This emphasis on one skill through one
pedagogical method comes across as pedantic insistence rather than genuinely
useful to schools. It is certainly not based on any credible evidence.
65.
This is reflected by its lack of understanding about language acquisition. If
children experience difficulty in learning to read they must be given more of the
same – synthetic phonics – rather than the teacher being allowed to try alternative
strategies to find out what works with that individual child. It is unclear what the
position will be for children who fail to learn to read adequately by Year 6. Will
they, for example, be expected to read only those phonic books appropriate for a
Key Stage 1 level of development?
66.
The importance of early intervention with regard to children’s spoken language
acquisition is also missing. In considering an increased emphasis on language
and communication in all its forms, the Government cannot ignore the demise of
speech and language therapy services in local authorities and the difficulties
schools and parents have in accessing these services for their children.
67.
In the ‘Writing’ Programmes of Study there is a new emphasis on transcription
skills (spelling, handwriting and presentation) and composition (grammar and
punctuation). This has been reinforced by the statutory appendices added on
grammar, punctuation, spelling and morphology, which are in danger of
unbalancing the curriculum offer in this area. There is a risk that this will reduce
what should be an enriching curriculum to a mechanistic approach to teaching
and learning, a ‘one size fits all’ approach to teaching English which is clearly not
appropriate for every child.
68.
The only reference to modern technology is included in the Year 6 handwriting
requirement that pupils should be able to hand write an email address without
using joined up writing. There are unfortunately no references to keyboard skills
or use of ICT for drafting and editing purposes at any level of the Programmes of
Study.
69.
There is, however, a welcome new encouragement for pupils to write over time,
rather than only one-off pieces. This is something which teachers have tried to do
with their pupils for many years, but have been hindered by the time constraints
imposed by a primary National Curriculum skewed towards the core, tested
subjects. It is uncertain whether those constraints have been removed sufficiently
in this iteration of the National Curriculum.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
12
16 February 2016
Key Stage 3 English
70.
Whilst the NUT believes that the development of language, in all its different
mediums, should be valued and enshrined in a National Curriculum, it is important
that this aspect of the curriculum is not mainly defined as the ‘spoken word’, as it
is in the draft proposals.
71.
The term ‘spoken language’ in the current proposals is a somewhat archaic
description of what happens in the development of language skills in the
curriculum. The skill of ‘listening’, for example, is not featured in the draft
proposals. There is a demand for ‘oracy’ instead, or pupils ‘debating’ and
‘presenting’.
72.
Whilst the NUT believes that all pupils should be able to use Standard English
confidently in a range of informal and formal contexts, the range of communication
skills must be extended to include the diverse languages that young people bring
into the classroom, including a variety of regional dialects and accents.
73.
The NUT has concerns about the way in which pupils with English as an
additional language will fare in the new curriculum. For these pupils, progress is
also better achieved when they are integrated into mainstream classroom
teaching rather than withdrawn from their peers.
74.
In the writing section of the Programmes of Study at Key Stage 3, there is an
emphasis on the use of non-fiction texts and formal writing, such as “wellstructured formal expository and narrative essays”. There is very little reference
to the diverse multi-modal texts that young people might find engaging and
relevant to their lives.
Drama in the Key Stage 3 Curriculum
75.
There is very little reference to the teaching of drama in this Programme of Study.
Whilst there is emphasis on the formal use of English, more attention must be
given here to the importance of drama in the curriculum.
76.
Drama has an important role to play in the personal development of students.
The skills and qualities developed by drama, such as teamwork, creativity,
leadership and risk-taking are assets in all subjects and all areas of life. Drama
stimulates the imagination and allows students to explore issues and experiences
in a safe and supportive environment. Qualified teachers of drama are crucial to
developing this area of the curriculum.
77.
Creative subjects should not be seen as second class options or only for those
students who are not able to cope with traditional academic subjects. Creative
employment provides around two million jobs in the creative sector itself and
creative roles in other sectors. Exports of services by the creative industries
account for 10.6 per cent of all the UK’s export of services 3.
3
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2012)
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
13
16 February 2016
Key Stage 1 and 2 Mathematics
78.
The introduction to the Programmes of Study contains some welcome statements
about the purpose of studying maths and the aims of the maths curriculum, in
particular, conceptual understanding, reasoning, problem solving and enjoyment.
Unfortunately, the contents of the Programmes of Study do not reflect these aims,
as they are not followed through with any real applications; ignore the
development of mathematical reasoning; and instead focus overly on the mastery
of basic mathematical routines.
79.
Teachers must use the statutory requirements of the Programmes of Study to
plan their teaching but these are so full of practice that there would be little time
left for providing pupils with experiences that would contribute to all the stated
purposes of studying maths. While there is certainly value in some rote learning
within mathematics, such as multiplication tables, this is the antithesis of learning
to support the development of mathematical reasoning or the understanding of
abstract mathematical concepts.
80.
There are some genuine oddities in the maths Programmes of Study. Why, for
example, is learning and recognising Roman numerals included in mathematics
rather than part of history?
81.
As stated in the introduction to this section of the NUT’s response, a significant
proportion of existing National Curriculum content has been moved to earlier in a
Key Stage or even down a whole Stage. This is certainly the case in
mathematics, for example, co-ordinates in four quadrants and compound
measures, and may lead to some children not being able to achieve what would
now be expected of them. It is nonsense to suggest that standards can be raised
simply by bringing forward content to an earlier year group or that practice alone
will lead to mathematical fluency.
82.
This is reflected in the highest proportion of NUT members (21.7 per cent) stating
that they did not support these Programmes of Study at all, with 43.1 per cent
supporting some parts of it only.
Key Stage 3 Mathematics
83.
There seems to be an imbalance between what is required in the primary and
secondary Programmes of Study.
The primary Programme of Study for
mathematics has 33 pages, compared to only three pages at Key Stage 3. There
needs to be a stronger correlation between these two Programmes of Study.
Key Stage 1 and 2 Science
84.
The Programmes of Study are very specific, especially in Key Stage 1 and contain
much more scientific knowledge and language, more core scientific concepts and
mathematical aspects are more prominent than in the current National Curriculum.
Evolution and inheritance have also been added for the first time to Key Stage 2.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
14
16 February 2016
85.
Despite these additions, there is not enough emphasis on exploration and
investigation in the primary science curriculum; it is too content-led. For example,
the phrase ‘working scientifically’ appears in the Key Stage 1 Programme of Study
but ‘thinking scientifically’ does not appear until Years 5 and 6. Pupils should
become accustomed to thinking and using inquiry methods from the earliest years
in school. This could be done in part through pupil talk and questioning, but these
are far less prominent than in the current Programme of Study. This is a
retrograde step, as exploration was one of the key areas in the existing National
Curriculum.
86.
There is also a disconnect in progression between year groups. Some material is
introduced earlier and then not seen again until the end of Key Stage 2. The Year
3 Programme of Study, for instance, contains a substantial section on magnets,
yet the study of ‘like’ and ‘unlike’ magnetic poles is only introduced in the Year 6
Programme of Study. Similarly, there is little sense of progression or connection
between the Key Stage 2 and 3 Programmes of Study.
87.
Good primary science is engaging, investigative, experimental and driven by pupil
talk and questioning, but this seems to have been supplanted by learning
scientific facts, especially in the latter part of Key Stage 2. Likewise, the rich
potential for cross-curricular study have been ignored. There was again no
overwhelming support for the primary Science Programme of Study proposals.
39.1 per cent of NUT respondents supported some parts, 11.6 per cent supported
most parts but 19.6 per cent did not support it at all.
88.
The increased content in the science Programmes of Study also have practical
implications for primary schools. There will be significant cost implications for
primary schools in terms of purchasing the models and equipment necessary to
meet the demands of the proposed curriculum. Few primary schools have
adequate facilities for science currently – the new Programmes of Study will
exacerbate this situation.
Key Stage 3 Science
89.
The science Programme of Study is much more prescriptive and detailed than the
current National Curriculum and the content is far more overloaded. In general,
the whole proposed Programme of Study is heavily framed on ‘scientific
knowledge’ rather than scientific skills. A body of core scientific knowledge should
be clearly defined, but not over-prescribed as it is in these proposals. There is no
clear progression from the Key Stage 2 Programme of Study.
Key Stage 3 Citizenship
90.
The Programmes of Study for citizenship at Key Stage 3, although slimmer,
appears to be more prescriptive and less concerned with active citizenship.
For example, pupils are expected to be taught about “the previous liberties
enjoyed by citizens of the United Kingdom”, but there is less focus on pupils’
active expectations and understanding of concepts, such as rights,
responsibilities, fairness, diversity and identity, community cohesion and the
changing nature of democracy.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
15
16 February 2016
91.
Current sections of the citizenship National Curriculum include important areas
such as ‘critical thinking and enquiry’, ‘advocacy and representation’ and ‘taking
informed and responsible action’. These should be retained in the proposals, as
should the teaching of human rights and the relationship between the UK and the
wider world. The teaching of ‘active citizenship’ is notable by its absence.
Key Stage 1 and 2 Art
92.
The much looser approach taken to the art Programmes of Study is welcome and
appears to more closely reflect the Government’s messages elsewhere in the
consultation about the use of teachers’ professional judgment and autonomy in
curriculum planning and design. The problem is that it is very short compared to
the other Programmes of Study, especially but not exclusively those for the core
subjects, so the implicit message is that Art is unimportant as a National
Curriculum subject, although we know that it can be a very inclusive and valuable
area of study.
93.
There is no mention of developing artistic talent in children within the Key Stage 1
and 2 Programmes of Study, although this is a common educational objective and
is at the heart of the National Curriculum’s responsibility to provide an entitlement
to a curriculum which encourages pupils’ abilities in whichever subject(s) in which
they excel naturally. This Programme of Study fails to acknowledge the
importance of subject specific skills that incorporate the range and breadth of the
art curriculum.
Key Stage 3 Art and Design
94.
The Programme of Study is very brief. There needs to be included in this a
statement about how the subject should develop the talents of children in this area
of the curriculum.
Key Stage 1 and 2 Computing
95.
To some extent, consultation on this aspect of the curriculum is meaningless, as
the Government has already disapplied the current ICT Programmes of Study.
96.
The NUT has some serious concerns about the content of the new computing
Programmes of Study.
It does not dispute the importance of learning
programming skills but believes that this alone is not relevant for younger children,
particularly those who might have no or limited computer access at home. Study
of and practice in using common applications is therefore a significant gap in the
primary computing Programmes of Study.
97.
A second key concern is about the preparedness of staff to teach the new
computing Programmes of Study, as very few primary teachers will have had
experience or training on programming. Professional development has in the past
focused exclusively on the use of ICT, including the large scale New Opportunities
Fund (NOF) programme which aimed to up-skill the profession when ICT was
introduced as a cross-curricular subject as well as one in its own right. There will
definitely be a need for training in this area although, unlike NOF, it seems
unlikely that any central funding will be made available to support this.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
16
16 February 2016
Key Stage 3 Computing
98.
There is a resourcing issue that needs to be addressed in the proposals regarding
the introduction of computing at Key Stage 3. Most teachers will have experience
of information communication technology teaching but no experience of
computing. If computing is to start at Key Stage 1, it will take a few years before
pupils will gain the skills they need to undertake computing studies at Key Stage
4. There is a training and professional development need here that must be
addressed for both primary and secondary school teachers.
Key Stage 1 and 2 Design and Technology
99.
There are some significant problems with the proposed Programmes of Study. In
terms of content, “appreciating designers” does not seem particularly appropriate
as a key objective for Key Stages 1 and 2 and there is no consideration of health
and safety issues in Key Stage 2. Looked at as a whole, the Programmes of
Study appear to be less concerned with design and technology and more with
simply ‘making and doing’, although the importance of ‘completion’ of such
activities has not been included. There is no real discussion of the design
process and ‘evaluation’ is only mentioned in Key Stage 1.
100.
This Programme of Study lacks any reference to the creative element of the
Design and Technology curriculum. There is an absence of technical and
intellectual challenges in these proposals.
101.
It appears as if the author of the Programmes of Study has limited understanding
about schools or teaching and learning. There is, for instance, no real sense of
development or progression in the Programmes of Study and few links with
children’s practical experiences, so that they can make connections with how
design and technology relates to their own lives out of school and thus find
greater interest in the subject.
102.
There are also practical implications for schools. Few primaries have access to
kitchens for instance, yet some of the activities would require whole classes to
prepare food. It is not enough to say that “schools without access to a teaching
kitchen …may have to adapt the dishes and techniques they teach according to
the facilities available” if the National Curriculum is supposed to represent an
entitlement for every child regardless of their school’s facilities. Similarly, a
significant number of urban primary schools have restricted outdoor space, with
roof-top playgrounds not uncommon. How could such schools “cultivate plants for
practical purposes” unless this requirement could be satisfied by growing cress on
a window sill?
Key Stage 3 Design and Technology
103.
This draft Programme of Study will not challenge, improve or equip talented young
people to pursue careers in design, manufacturing, engineering, fashion or many
of the developing sectors for which design and technology learning has previously
prepared students. The draft Programme of Study focuses on basic craft and
maintenance skills at the expense of creative thinking, technical design skills and
an understanding of design as a process.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
17
16 February 2016
Key Stage 1 and 2 Geography
104.
The NUT condemns the Government’s omission learning about climate change in
these Programmes of Study. The Programmes of Study in Key Stages 1-3 make
no mention of it in the geography proposals. All references to sustainable
development have also been dropped in a way that can only be interpreted as
political interference. The issue of climate change is important. The danger is
that it will now not be taught at all. Without knowledge and understanding of the
social, economic and environmental impacts of climate change, young people will
not be ready to deal with the impact of this phenomenon or help find the solution
to the problem. This issue must be included so that young people can influence
what happens to them and their environment.
105.
The primary geography Programmes of Study are much more physical orientated
and factual, for example, naming capital cities or rivers and locating them on a
map, rather than reflect the current mix of physical, human and social geography
and the associated skills of enquiry and investigation. The removal of key
concepts, such as place, space, and environment, which form the foundations of
more advanced geographical study, is a retrograde step.
106.
A further concern is that the primary geography Programmes of Study focus on
the British Isles to a large degree. There is no mention of Africa, the Caribbean or
Indian sub-continent, for instance, although many pupils will have family
connections with these areas which could increase their motivation to learn in this
subject. In addition, the existing curriculum has encouraged many primary
schools to establish links with schools globally under the auspices of the British
Council. The failure to include Africa, the Caribbean or Asia seriously jeopardise
these important links.
107.
Progression between the Key Stages also seems illogical. This is in part due to
the disconnected nature of the Programmes of Study, which appear more like a
list of ‘important things to know about geography’ than a considered, incremental
educational programme.
Key Stage 3 Geography
108.
The Programme of Study indicates that as pupils progress through the Key
Stages, they should learn more places, areas and land forms. There is far too
much focus on retaining facts, including key areas in the UK and the world.
109.
A geography curriculum, that narrowly focuses on a set of given facts and expects
children to passively absorb them, is educationally unsound. The geography
curriculum should be free enough to allow it to be relevant to children whether
they live in cities or rural areas. An invaluable resource is the pupil’s own
knowledge and experience, not least of cultures and countries outside the UK.
This area of the curriculum should focus on learning about the world and its
people, rather than an emphasis on accumulating facts.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
18
16 February 2016
Key Stage 1 and 2 History
110.
The primary history Programmes of Study have a much higher level of
prescription than currently. The Key Stage 2 Programme of Study, for instance,
sets out the period of history to be taught, in chronological order, rather than
allowing schools to choose some of the periods to be studied. There is some
overlap with current requirements, for example, the Romans, but mostly the
Programmes of Studies’ content is new and will require considerable planning and
preparation by teachers.
111.
Key Stage 1 will still require children to learn about important people in history, but
the new version of the Programme of Study is more prescriptive about who these
should be. A comparison with the history curriculum of Finland is instructive here,
as it focuses on educational aims and pedagogical processes instead of listing
detailed content, yet is still considered the highest performing education system in
the world.
112.
Only three of the history Programmes of Study aims are concerned with critical
thinking about history and we agree with them:

“understand historical concepts such as continuity and change, cause and
consequence, similarity, difference and significance, and use them to make
connections, draw contrasts, analyse trends, frame historically-valid
questions and create their own structured accounts, including written
narratives and analyses;

understand how evidence is used rigorously to make historical claims, and
discern how and why contrasting arguments and interpretations of the past
have been constructed;

gain historical perspective by placing their growing knowledge into
different contexts, understanding the connections between local, regional,
national and international history; between cultural, economic, military,
political, religious and social history; and between short- and long-term
timescales.“
but none of these apply to primary history, where children are only required to
learn historical facts and chronology.
113.
During Key Stage 1, pupils are expected to develop an understanding of concepts
such as nationality, civilisation, monarchy, democracy and war. These are very
difficult constructs which intellectually challenge some adults, so it is doubtful
whether small children will grasp them easily.
114.
Key Stage 1 pupils are also expected to learn about the scientific contributions of
people such as Michael Faraday, Florence Nightingale, Isaac Newton and William
Harvey, despite not yet having any knowledge of historical chronology, or science,
which demonstrates how overly-ambitious these proposals are. In addition,
Wilberforce is included in this Programme of Study but there is no mention of
slavery anywhere else in the National Curriculum, so a valuable opportunity to
consolidate prior learning has been lost.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
19
16 February 2016
115.
In Key Stage 2, pupils are expected to grasp a huge swathe of the history of
Britain, including the Roman occupation, although there is no mention of the
Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese or Indus Valley peoples and their
contribution to the world. The Programme of Study is more like a race through the
history of Britain, from Stonehenge to the Glorious Revolution, via all the headline
history that a 1950s textbook might include. This produces some rather
unfortunate outcomes, the most obvious being that no child will study ancient
civilizations after the age of seven, unless they take GCSE History. Due to the
British Isles’ insularity during the Middle Ages, it seems the rest of the world
almost vanishes entirely, including anything to do with the Islamic contribution to
science and learning. The NUT would not disagree that children should have a
good knowledge of the history of Britain, but this curriculum does not adequately
prepare them to be either citizens of a multicultural society or of a globalised
world.
116.
There is no suggestion or encouragement in the Programmes of Study to make
links across time, to revisit periods or to create ‘big pictures’ across the past,
which are really the only ways to help students understand the long-term
significance of individual events. This is the historical equivalent of teaching
children the letters of the alphabet individually but never teaching them to read.
117.
The sheer amount of content to be covered will limit any type of creative
approaches to teaching history which could develop critical enquiry skills, which
would be more highly valued by employers as transferrable skills than the ability
to recite dates or names of kings and queens in chronological order. Didactic
teaching, or the transmission of knowledge from teacher to pupil, does not lead to
deep learning. The inclusion of the phrase ‘such as’ appears to have been
included to indicate that teachers have the freedom to choose the people or
historical concepts their pupils study, but this will have limited effect overall.
118.
The pressure to cover so much content, with no time to go back to revisit and
reinforce, as well as some of the actual content (e.g. Wycliffe’s Bible for 8-9 year
olds) will be likely to turn off some pupils from the subject and lead to less interest
in historical study at later stages of education, as they will believe it is not relevant
to them and their lives and communities. A much better approach to teaching
history to young children is to start with the familiar and lead onto the unfamiliar.
119.
As history is not a ‘core’ subject which is tested and part of school accountability
measures, it is unlikely that schools will be able to devote much time to the
statutory Programmes of Study, let alone develop a local history curriculum which
could address the omissions in the statutory requirements. It has been estimated
by Colin Richards, former HMI, that only 12 per cent of curriculum time will be left
over to study all of the other, non-tested primary subjects – as currently drafted,
the history Programmes of Study alone could easily account for all of this time.
120.
The draft history Programmes of Study have been perhaps the most controversial
aspect of the revised National Curriculum and have been written and talked about
extensively in the media. The NUT would simply point out that expert historians
are not teachers, they do not have the pedagogical expertise or the same
perspective as a primary teacher so their contributions to this debate are not as
valid as has been portrayed in some quarters.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
20
16 February 2016
121.
No rationale has been given for replacing the current exciting National Curriculum
primary history units, such as those on the Victorian world and evacuees, which
Ofsted has highlighted as good practice previously. Advice both from teaching
experts and from decades of developments in history teaching have been ignored
– these proposals are based purely on dogma and the Secretary of State’s
personal preferences.
Key Stage 3 History
122.
The narrow curricular programme at Key Stage 3 encourages teachers to stress
facts and dates over real understanding. The current Programmes of Study at
Key Stage 3 show an interest in parts of the world beyond the UK and introduces
young people to critical thinking.
These proposals are heavily Anglo-centric,
focusing on ‘our island story’. At age 14, young people will be expected to
consider, “Britain’s relationship with Europe, the Commonwealth and the wide
world”. Other parts of the world feature, but only as they relate to the British
experience.
123.
In this Programme of Study young people will be expected to learn about, for
example, Clive of India, ‘General Wolfe’s conquest of Canada’, Nelson, Wellington
and Pitt. The NUT agrees that young people should have a good knowledge of
British history but as future citizens of a multicultural society and an open
economy in a globalised world, they will be seriously short changed by these
ideologically driven reforms.
124.
Consideration is needed about ‘whose history’ will be covered – from the
comments made by the Secretary of State, this would not necessarily include or
be reflective of the ethnically and socially diverse localities schools serve.
125.
Schools and teachers need the freedom to tailor the teaching of history to their
local communities. History teaching and learning should not just be about the
memorisation of dates and facts, which is suggested, if not explicit, in the
Secretary of State’s and Ministers’ speeches and media comments, but rather
about the development of skills such as enquiry, investigation, analysis and
evaluation.
126.
Teachers should have the freedom to inspire children through the curriculum.
Children should be enabled to learn the skills associated with the subject, such as
learning how to be a historian.
127.
A substantial proportion of NUT members used the survey to comment on the
History Programmes of Study. Below is a small selection of comments.

“Very worried about the proposals for History in Key Stages 1&2. Children
need to develop skills to equip them for life and not merely parrot facts.”

“The proposed History curriculum at Key Stage 2 is wildly content driven
and suggests an approach guided by non-educationalists who do not
understand how children learn.”
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
21
16 February 2016

“I think that the history curriculum should include more world history to
reflect the diversity of pupils living in England.”

“The new history KS3 is awful and far too prescriptive and fact-driven. Lots
of British history, not much world history.”
Key Stage 2 Foreign Languages
128.
The study of at least one foreign language is a new and welcome addition to the
Key Stage 2 National Curriculum statutory requirements: previously it was viewed
as discretionary but ‘encouraged’ as a good use of primary curriculum time. Less
welcome is the prescribed list of seven languages for primary schools to choose
from (French, Spanish, Italian, German, Mandarin, Latin and Ancient Greek)
rather than the ability to provide an introduction to language families or teach
community languages as is current practice in some primaries.
129.
This view is supported by NUT members: 65.7 per cent agreed in the survey that
foreign languages should be a statutory requirement in Key Stage 2 but 52.5 per
cent did not support the prescribed list, with a further 14.5 per cent being unsure.
Those who did support the list did so mainly because the language their school
was already offering had been included on the list.
130.
Only a third of respondents to the DfE consultation on primary foreign languages
in 2012 supported the seven chosen languages, with most respondents feeling
that schools should be free to choose, whether to reflect the local community’s
language(s), the available expertise at individual school level or on principle, out
of respect of schools’ autonomy. There was also concern expressed by some
respondents, which is shared by the NUT, that the list of seven implies that these
languages are somehow intrinsically more important than any others, although
there is no clear rationale for this: for example, if the languages were chosen on
the basis of competing in a globalised economy, Japanese, Hindi and Urdu,
Russian and Brazilian Portuguese could all have higher claims than many of
those languages which made the prescribed list.
131.
It is not good enough to say that schools are able to teach an additional language
which is not on the list if they wish: the primary timetable will be so full that it
would be virtually impossible to teach another language in a meaningful way.
132.
It is curious that ancient Greek has been chosen as important enough for
inclusion in the foreign languages list, yet ancient Greek history has been
removed from the relevant Programme of Study. There may be merit in using the
teaching of Latin or ancient Greek as an introduction to the conventions of modern
foreign language families, such as the Romance languages, yet if this is the case,
why has the Government prevented schools which are already offering broad
introductory courses to learning about languages and communication from
continuing to teach these?
133.
The NUT understands that the inclusion of a prescribed list was intended to
facilitate transition between Key Stages 2 and 3, but the problematic nature of the
interface between primary and secondary school languages has not been
resolved here. It will still require complex co-ordination for all of a secondary
school’s feeder primaries to offer the same foreign language and will be virtually
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
22
16 February 2016
impossible to achieve in large urban conurbations where primary pupils go on to
attend a multitude of different secondary institutions, including schools situated in
neighbouring local authorities or which are part of academy chains.
134.
As language rules and conventions vary so much, knowledge from the study of
one language on the list may not be transferrable to another. The only option
would be for secondary schools to dictate to primary schools which language they
wished to be offered, which would compromise the Government’s commitment to
school autonomy.
135.
The Key Stage 2 draft Programme of Study rightly focuses on practical
communication, which is age appropriate, yet Latin and Ancient Greek do not fit
this model and much of its content has been asterisked to denote that it is not
applicable to these two languages.
136.
There is some concern that the inclusion of foreign languages at Key Stage 2
could become tokenistic if investment in training is not made. There is a crucial
need for skilled teachers, who can not only ‘deliver’ the Programme of Study but
make it fun and relevant to children, and thus more likely that they will continue to
study languages at secondary school and beyond.
137.
Schools began to develop modern languages provision in advance of the previous
government’s proposals to make it a statutory requirement and hired or developed
staff to take on this new role. There was no prescription to which language(s)
could be taught, however, so the expertise and provision offered in some schools
will now be irrelevant. A major programme of support for existing Key Stage 2
teachers, separate to any proposals for developing capacity through Initial
Teacher Education, must be developed as a matter of urgency. It is worth
contrasting this with the situation in Wales, where up-skilling the profession to
undertake bilingual teaching is moving slowly and costing a lot of time and money,
but is beginning to become embedded and high quality.
Key Stage 3 Modern Foreign Languages
138.
It is important that this proposal uses the term ‘modern foreign languages’, which
does not apply to the Key Stage 2 Programme of Study. By using this term, the
Key Stage 3 Programme of Study is able to include the study of community
languages. These are vital to the cultural understanding of young people’s lives.
139.
It is vital that the drastic decline in modern foreign languages in secondary
schools is reversed. With dramatically decreasing numbers of young people
studying languages to GCSE or equivalent level, the number studying languages
at advanced level and in universities is in significant decline also, with the effect
that there will be fewer specialists in languages to draw on to become expert
language teachers in the future. Language learning has entered a spiral of
decline which will be both complex and costly to rectify. The NUT believes that
action must be taken to reverse the trend now.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
23
16 February 2016
140.
MFL learning beyond Key Stage 3 must not become the preserve of those who
attend independent schools or selective state schools. The only way to ensure
wider take up at Key Stage 4 curriculum entitlement is through the inclusion of
modern foreign languages as part of the National Curriculum expectation for every
young person at this level.
Key Stage 1 and 2 Music
141.
As with the other ‘creative’ primary Programmes of Study, this is extremely short,
which could be interpreted as a manifestation of its lack of status as a subject,
rather than as freedom for teachers to adapt it. There should certainly be an
emphasis on enjoying music and having fun, especially at Key Stage 1, and
references to the inclusion of different cultures and traditions in music. The NUT
would argue that these are more relevant and would contribute more to the
Programme of Study’s aims than learning about the history of music in Key Stage
2.
142.
Whilst the NUT agrees that all pupils should have the opportunity to learn a
musical instrument, this part of the Programme of Study has resource implications
for schools, especially as local authority music support services, which previously
provided both loan instruments and expert music teachers, have been severely
reduced because of budgetary constraints and have completely disappeared in
some areas of the country. Primary schools will again need additional support if
they are to be able to implement this Programme of Study effectively.
Key Stage 1 and 2 Physical Education
143.
This is one of the least coherent of the draft Programmes of Study and seems to
be little more than a list of activities, with scant reference to inclusion or
encouragement of enjoying and achieving in PE. This lack of content will permit,
however, teachers to work flexibly within it and pick their own sports and activities
for pupils.
Key Stage 3 Physical Education
144.
The Secretary of State has focused particularly in recent times on the importance
of ‘competitive’ school sport. Whilst the NUT recognises the value of competitive
school sport, it is worth noting that the aim of school pupils having a minimum
entitlement to two hours of PE and school sport per week has largely been
achieved in an era where pupil choice in PE and school sport was increasingly
promoted.
145.
Such choice recognises that many children and young people are not motivated
by competitive sport, including team sports, but can be encouraged to take part in
a range of activities which contribute to learning about and developing a healthy
lifestyle through a range of activities which may not be competitive. Evidence
suggests that flexible approaches to PE and sport help to tackle obesity and
eating disorders and can also contribute positively to young people’s self-esteem.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
24
16 February 2016
ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
146.
The draft National Curriculum framework is not intrinsically linked to curriculum
assessment. Little thought appears to have been given to what appropriate
assessment forms should be used to measure progress and achievement, with
proposals for secondary school accountability being issued in a separate
consultation and primary assessment and accountability measures to be
consulted upon at some future, but unspecified, date.
147.
As it is unknown what will replace the current primary accountability arrangements
and how primary pupils’ achievements will be assessed and recognised,
comments will necessarily be general in this section. The Government should
have published a separate consultation as it did for secondary, as these matters
are an integral part of determining how the curriculum proposals will work in
practice in primary schools. If, for instance, the arrangements of the core subjects
by year group heralded a corresponding assessment and testing regime, there
would be a severe risk of damaging curriculum breadth and of over-concentration
on those parts of the curriculum specifications which were to be tested.
148.
The move towards a more fact-based curriculum could lead to a primary testing
system which emphasised recall and recitation over other forms of learning. Such
assessments would be fairly straightforward to devise, but are unlikely to assess
the deeper learning that schools and teachers want for their pupils. The format of
national testing arrangements will be key to how the curriculum develops in
primary schools, as we can already begin to see the distorting effect the new
grammar, punctuation and spelling test is having on the teaching of English.
149.
There is little reference to the use or value of teacher assessment in the
proposals; the kind of assessment that informs students, parents and teachers of
young people’s progress and achievement. There is certainly no correlation with
the Assessing Pupil Progress (APP) programme or with any other Assessment for
Learning (AfL) strategies currently used by many schools.
150.
The current individual attainment targets for each subject have been replaced by
the same attainment target for each subject “by the end of each key stage, pupils
are expected to know, apply and understand the matters, skills and processes
specified in the relevant programme of study”. This is such a blunt definition that
it is difficult to understand how this is intended to be useful to either parents or
teachers and impossible to envisage its use in supporting pupils’ understanding of
the next steps required in their learning to progress. It is only concerned with
subject content and coverage and does not guarantee that this has been
internalised or that the pupil is able to apply it in another context.
151.
The consultation document says “we believe that the focus of teaching should be
on subject content as set out in the Programmes of Study, rather than on a series
of abstract level descriptions”. Although the system of National Curriculum levels
was subverted from its original purpose because of the need for more
accountability measures, including the creation of sub-levels, this did at least give
parents and subsequent teachers an idea of what an individual child could do and
what they needed to work on next. They also enabled teachers to exercise their
professional judgement to describe pupils’ progression.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
25
16 February 2016
152.
A recent DfE press release on new Key Stage 2 floor targets, however, also
contained the information that the current Level Descriptors will be retained until
2016, although they will not necessarily match up with new Programmes of Study
which become statutory in September 2014. This has particularly worrying
implications for teachers’ appraisal, career progression and performance related
pay, if they are used as proxy indicators of individual teachers’ performance. This
illustrates perfectly the Government’s lack of a coherent approach to educational
reform, with important aspects of teaching and assessment practice omitted until
a need for accountability is identified, when this takes precedence over everything
else, however disconnected and unhelpful it is.
153.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with the proposed National Curriculum
framework at Key Stages 1 and 2 being structured on the basis of year groups for
the core subjects, such an approach is inevitably compromised by the ease with
which it could be adapted and used for future high stakes testing arrangements.
154.
Assessment of children’s learning and development should always focus on
individual children over a period of time and avoid making comparisons between
children. Even where there are pathways of increasing knowledge or skill,
children’s responses and behaviour will be subject to variations in development
according to a number of factors, including the people they are with and how they
are feeling.
155.
The pressures of primary school assessment and accountability currently have led
to an impoverished view of what constitutes achievement, not least because it
does not attempt to evaluate any other subjects but the core. These proposals
will do nothing to change that, as they encourage all schools to focus on ‘good’
achievement only in what Ofsted is interested in. This view is supported by NUT
members working in the sector. 73.8 per cent did not agree that the proposals
would help redress the balance between tested and non-tested subjects in the
primary curriculum and a further 24.3 per cent being unsure.
156.
The influence of statutory assessment and accountability mechanisms on practice
in schools should not be underestimated. Even schools which have ‘freedom’ not
to use the National Curriculum or which are currently exempt from Ofsted
inspection by virtue of their previous inspection grade are likely to have their
curricular practice determined by national assessment and accountability
demands.
IMPLEMENTATION
157.
The proposed timetable for the introduction of the new Programmes of Study in
schools, from September 2014, is unreasonable. 86 per cent of NUT survey
respondents described the implementation timetable as ‘rushed’ or ‘very rushed’,
with only 12.2 per cent feeling it was ‘about right’. The recommendations and
proposed areas for further work have major implications for teachers, who have
implemented a plethora of educational initiatives in recent years.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
26
16 February 2016
158.
The final version of the National Curriculum framework must be accompanied by
recommendations which set out clearly, in practical terms, how schools and
teachers will be supported to achieve successful implementation without a
concomitant increase in their workload, which is a major concern of NUT
members. 93.2 per cent of respondents believed that their workload would
increase significantly or somewhat as a result of these proposals.
159.
Changes to the National Curriculum cannot be achieved in two years. If this
happens, the Government will fail to convince teachers that the changes have
been thoroughly consulted on and reflect the needs of their pupils. There must be
sufficient lead-in time for teachers to absorb such profound changes. In Hong
Kong, for example, a curriculum review extended over a decade.
160.
If teachers are to be heavily reliant on using new Programmes of Study on which
to construct programmes which meets the needs of the pupils, then professional
development for staff must run alongside these proposals. The review should
use, as its starting point, the model provided by the introduction of the secondary
curriculum in 2008, in particular, the provision of additional in-service training
days. Additionally, the support needs of primary teachers are likely to be greater
than those of their secondary colleagues because of their responsibility for the
whole curriculum.
161.
The Government should also consider the implication for initial teacher education
of the introduction of a revised National Curriculum, especially in heavily
knowledge-based subjects, such as history and the sciences and new areas such
as computing and Key Stage 2 foreign languages.
162.
Currently, centrally produced web-based support materials are available for all
National Curriculum subjects, including exemplar schemes of work, additional
guidance on assessment, inclusion, cross-curricular links, skills developments etc.
These are considered as valuable resources by teachers and schools, as they
provide customisable templates which can be adapted to meet individual
circumstances, new ideas for pedagogical approach and assessment and save
teachers’ valuable time by not having to ‘reinvent the wheel’. The new National
Curriculum will not be supported by any of these resources, according to the
consultation document; it will be up to schools working together and ‘the market’
to develop these.
163.
Whilst agreeing that schools should have autonomy in choose exactly what kinds
of support they need, some needs will be common to all or most schools, such as
guidance on the statutory requirements, exemplar schemes of work and
assessment sample materials. These should be provided as central and free
resources to schools which are statutorily required to deliver the National
Curriculum. Having to navigate through the ‘market’ to find what the school
needs, at a reasonable price and of sufficient quality, would be an unnecessary
distraction from schools’ core work, diverting both time and money away from
where it is needed most.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
27
16 February 2016
164.
There is also a role for local authorities to play in supporting the introduction of the
new National Curriculum, as part of their responsibilities for promoting high
standards. They could usefully co-ordinate local networks, encourage local
collaboration to share best practice in curriculum design and use any existing
advisory expertise to provide bespoke support for those schools which require it,
although the decimation of LA curriculum support services due to budget cuts will
limit the amount of such support that can be offered, however much it is needed.
165.
The NUT’s member survey asked respondents to specify what the implementation
needs of themselves and their schools would be. ‘Time’ appeared in over 90 per
cent of responses, including time for planning and developing schemes of work;
time for liaison and collaboration with other schools or other colleagues within
their own school; time to undertake meaningful professional development; time to
identity and select appropriate resources for new areas of the curriculum; and
time for reflection and evaluation, once the new Programmes of Study were
introduced. This is an important finding, as without official acknowledgement of
the demands being placed on schools and steps taken to mitigate those
demands, such as the provision of additional non-teaching time, many schools will
struggle to be able to keep up teaching standards whilst at the same time
preparing to introduce the new curriculum.
166.
Other important messages which emerged from NUT members’ responses to this
survey question included concerns about the cost of new resources and
equipment which the new Programmes of Study would require; the need for high
quality professional development, particularly for history and computing; how to
embed social skills within the new Programmes of Study; and the lack of
awareness in schools currently about what the Government had proposed – a
number of respondents in both primary and secondary phases wrote that the
survey was the first information they had received on the National Curriculum
proposals.
This suggests that the Government will have to improve its
communications with schools considerably, and quickly.
167.
Respondents to the NUT’s survey on the National Curriculum proposals also
suggested that any new arrangements could be introduced according to a phased
or rolling programme of implementation rather than burdening schools and their
staff with substantial changes in every year group and Key Stage taught within the
school simultaneously. Comments included the following:

“Too rushed…. Impossible task to implement [each year] of a changed
curriculum in one go. No resources to support lots of the changes.”
DISAPPLICATION
168.
The phased introduction of the new National Curriculum, which the Government
originally proposed when it launched its review in 2011, would have been
preferable to the disapplication which has now been put forward in the
consultation document. This approach would have spread out the preparatory
work that schools and teachers needed to do in advance of its introduction, giving
up to a year to prepare to teach the core subjects before turning to the rest of the
curriculum, aspects of which some teachers may have less expertise in.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
28
16 February 2016
169.
This is a particular concern for primary schools, where teachers will have to
prepare to teach all of the new Programmes of Study simultaneously. Some
primaries are very small and/or have mixed age classes, which bring with them
their own specific issues. The capacity of such schools to be ready to introduce a
totally new curriculum in a year will be very different when compared to larger
schools, and disapplication in 2013 – 14 will not be helpful at all. A comment from
an NUT member illustrates these practical difficulties - and her frustration with
them - very well:

“As usual mixed age classes are ignored. It will be particularly difficult to
teach the history sequentially. What about schools where years 3-6 are in
the same class? The poor teacher can't be expected to deliver lessons
covering each year group's history requirements. And as usual no help will
be provided for the majority of schools that will have to try and organise the
curriculum to cover mixed age classes.”
170.
It will be important to ensure that schools, and Ofsted, do not misunderstand what
disapplication of the relevant Key Stage 1 – 3 Programmes of Study means.
There is a danger that many will misinterpret this as a requirement to begin
teaching the new Programmes of Study from September 2013, rather than
treating the year as a transitional period where schools can undertake a
curriculum audit to assess what they can retain from their current curriculum offer,
what is new and what needs radical transformation, including an audit of resource
and professional development requirements.
171.
This danger is increased by the section in paragraph 12.3 of the consultation
document which says “for primary schools, this would mean that from September
2013 we would disapply the Programmes of Study, attainment targets and
statutory assessment arrangements for English, mathematics and science for
pupils in Year 3 and Year 4 to give teachers greater freedom to prepare pupils for
National Curriculum tests in these subjects when they reach Year 6.”
172.
Not only does this clearly indicate that schools should start to use the new
Programmes of Study a year in advance of the statutory requirement, it also
contradicts everything which has been said officially about preparation for the end
of Key Stage 2 tests. Rather than beginning preparation a term or so ahead of
the tests in Year 6, this document is unequivocal that test preparation should
begin three years before pupils are due to take the tests. This is unacceptable
and should be removed from any final guidance to primary schools. Parents
would be horrified to know that the Government’s view of primary education
appears to be that it is for little more than sitting tests.
CONCLUSION
173.
The National Curriculum proposals form part of a package which will radically
transform primary education for the worse, in the view of the NUT. Not only is
there an excessively detailed curriculum, overly-focused on two subjects, English
and mathematics, there is also an inspection system which is narrowly focused on
the same two subjects and yet to be devised ways of assessing progress in the
same two subjects. Even schools which have the freedom not to use the National
Curriculum are likely to have their practice determined by national accountability
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
29
16 February 2016
and assessment demands, making a mockery of the Government’s so-called
commitment to school autonomy.
174.
The new Key Stage 3 National Curriculum may be difficult to achieve because of
the time needed to integrate knowledge and expertise on subjects, teaching,
learning and assessment. This integrated approach is absent in the current
proposals. It should not be assumed also that the condensed Programmes of
Study for non-core subjects at Key Stage 3 will require less time than for core
subjects. They may require more time due to the need to ensure a proper
understanding of the subject.
175.
Schools work in different circumstances, some of which are extremely
challenging. Education can help compensate for disadvantage but only partly,
with immense struggle and with resources targeted at those most in need. Not
only do we need a curriculum that is relevant and useful to all schools, within a
national framework, but we also need humane and purposeful assessment, where
pupils are not labelled as failures early on in their school career; genuine respect
for the professional judgement of teachers; collaboration without competition
between schools; and the re-establishment of education as a public service for the
benefit of all, not just the few.
106739755
Created: 6 March 2012/CA/NMT
Revised: 25 March 2013/CS
30
16 February 2016