Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

Gove on Newsnight in a mo ... That should please the VT masses

[StefanAVFC]

 

A member of the group that has been advising the government on how to implement the new "national" curriculum for English state schoolsoffers a scathing verdict: "The whole process has had a very chaotic feel. It's typical of government policy at the moment: they don't think things through very carefully, they don't listen to anyone and then just go ahead and rush into major changes."

Since January, Education Guardian can reveal, groups of experts in 11 subjects – many of them working teachers – have been meeting to try to help the government provide support to schools for the launch of the new curriculum for five- to 14-year-olds from September next year.

These "expert groups" have been advising the Department for Education on the training implications for student teachers, who must be taught from September this year how to teach it, and also on any new resources that might be needed.

But the progress of the groups, set up by the Teaching Agency – now the National College for Teaching and Leadership, which is part of the DfE – has been problematic. Documents submitted to the DfE in late May and now passed to this newspaper show that several groups have raised fundamental concerns about key aspects of the new curriculum, which is still in draft form, with only three months to go.

A consultation was held on the draft curriculum from February to April. Ministers are expected to react next month to the thousands of responses before the documents get the final government sign-off in mid-September.

For primary history, the group, chaired by Hilary Morris, of Brighton University, says: "We are unanimous … that this syllabus must receive significant changes if it is to meet the objective of raising the standard of history teaching in schools."

The DfE group's submission says: "The degree of prescription in the draft is lacking in consistency and academic rigour. Whereas some periods have extensive structure, others do not. There are no clear guidelines on how schools improve the teaching of history."

As the Guardian revealed over the weekend, the government is now circulating a revised history draft – although it has yet to be published – which may be more positively received by history teachers and will allow schools more freedom over teaching. However, teachers from several other subjects also raised serious concerns.

In English, the expert group criticises the draft, saying "an over-emphasis on synthetic phonics in the early years excludes other strategies and is likely to lower standards of reading". The group, chaired by the former Cambridge University academic Eve Bearne, adds that there is an over-emphasis on technical aspects of writing, at the expense of creativity.

In art and design, the draft is criticised for having "substantially weakened content" and for lacking "breadth, depth or cohesion". It has a "regrettably narrow" view of the subject, with a focus only on the history of western art produced by "white European men", "thereby ignoring the realities of the contemporary world".

In music, the group mentions a shift towards a focus on "acquiring knowledge of music rather than learning through doing", worries about an over-emphasis on "the western classical tradition" and the new primary curriculum not mentioning use of technology, while warning of "concern that class teachers will feel even less able to teach music" as a result of the new curriculum.

In the new subject of computing, there is an "over-emphasis on computer science", says the expert group, and "a danger in primary schools that most teachers will not feel capable" of teaching it.

The languages group – languages will be compulsory in primary schools for the first time – says some trainee primary teachers may not be exposed to any language teaching during 2013-14, while "many primaries" will find the new curriculum "challenging". Group reports on maths, geography and PE are more neutral. Education Guardian has not seen the responses on science or design and technology.

The development of the new curriculum, which will apply to most English primary schools and up to 40% of secondaries, with the remainder – academies – not having to follow it, has been dogged by widespread claims of secrecy. The government's "terms of reference" for the groups project say that "all discussion and documentation" supplied by the DfE will "remain confidential unless otherwise stated"; and that minutes of meetings between chairs of the subject groups will also be confidential.

Education publishers' representatives, including a member of an assessment company – GL Assessment – have attended the group chairs' meetings, as have the charities the Teacher Development Trust and the Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

The government is expected to go public on the groups' recommendations on training resources by the time of the final curriculum publication in September.

At a recent appearance at the Commons select committee, Michael Gove, the education secretary, said the history and design and technology draft curricula would be revised, but gave no indications about other subjects.

Minutes of the latest meeting at the DfE of the chairs group say: "Until the curriculum is finalised, it is impossible for the groups to clearly establish any next steps."

Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, says: "These reports are the end result of massive hubris by the secretary of state, in his belief that curriculum reform is easy, and that it can be redesigned according to Tory principles without too many problems. Michael Gove is finding out to his cost that it's not like that. These curriculum reforms are a mess."

A DfE spokesman says: "These expert groups were not set up to advise on the curriculum. They are looking at how best to support new entrants to teacher training who will be teaching the new curriculum when they finish their courses. They do not work for the department.

"We have consulted on the draft curriculum and will be publishing revised versions in due course."

However, the groups have also been working on resources for schools, rather than only supporting teacher education, and were described as "national curriculum Expert Subject Advisory Groups" in a document drafted by the chair of the group last week.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jun/24/national-curriculum-experts-criticise-government

 

heh

[bickster]

It's more the sheep who are easily led by that snake oil salesman Nigel Farage that we should be worried about.

Baaaaaaa.

 

If you have anything like an open mind I really don't see what is "loony" about a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership. It would replace the rhetoric of both sides with some cold, hard facts.

 

If the country is going to have a vote on membership (and I believe that is the correct course to take) then having that evidence in the public domain should be welcomed and not feared - by either side.

A cost benefit analysis of EU membership is only relevant if your reason for wanting in or out is financially based, otherwise it means squat

[Awol]

 

 

It's more the sheep who are easily led by that snake oil salesman Nigel Farage that we should be worried about.

Baaaaaaa.

 

If you have anything like an open mind I really don't see what is "loony" about a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership. It would replace the rhetoric of both sides with some cold, hard facts.

 

If the country is going to have a vote on membership (and I believe that is the correct course to take) then having that evidence in the public domain should be welcomed and not feared - by either side.

 

A cost benefit analysis of EU membership is only relevant if your reason for wanting in or out is financially based, otherwise it means squat

 

Well the financial implications are a major factor, after all we joined a common market, not a common political union.

[bickster]

It's more the sheep who are easily led by that snake oil salesman Nigel Farage that we should be worried about.

Baaaaaaa.

 

If you have anything like an open mind I really don't see what is "loony" about a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership. It would replace the rhetoric of both sides with some cold, hard facts.

 

If the country is going to have a vote on membership (and I believe that is the correct course to take) then having that evidence in the public domain should be welcomed and not feared - by either side.

A cost benefit analysis of EU membership is only relevant if your reason for wanting in or out is financially based, otherwise it means squat

Well the financial implications are a major factor, after all we joined a common market, not a common political union.

That was 3 decades ago, time changes everything unless of course if you go to bed dreaming of rose covered cottages around the village green and chirpy postmen delivering the mail whilst mother bakes some scones for afternoon tea at the cricket on Sunday

[villaajax]

 

 

 

 

It's more the sheep who are easily led by that snake oil salesman Nigel Farage that we should be worried about.

Baaaaaaa.

 

If you have anything like an open mind I really don't see what is "loony" about a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership. It would replace the rhetoric of both sides with some cold, hard facts.

 

If the country is going to have a vote on membership (and I believe that is the correct course to take) then having that evidence in the public domain should be welcomed and not feared - by either side.

 

A cost benefit analysis of EU membership is only relevant if your reason for wanting in or out is financially based, otherwise it means squat

 

Well the financial implications are a major factor, after all we joined a common market, not a common political union.

 

That was 3 decades ago, time changes everything unless of course if you go to bed dreaming of rose covered cottages around the village green and chirpy postmen delivering the mail whilst mother bakes some scones for afternoon tea at the cricket on Sunday

 

 

But Bickster, if we all vote UKIP, those days will return!

[snowychap]

Going back to the spending round, I'm not sure what the point of the social security AME cap is (other than as a battle ground for the 2015 election and an arbitrary bind on the subsequently elected government) or whether they're clear on how it would actually work.

It would appear that pensions and JSA (which surely won't exist by 2015 if Universal Credit happens) are excluded, so what is left in? Disability benefits, child benefit, tax credits, housing benefit? What do they plan to do - get to February and tell everyone that payments stop until April?

[peterms]

Foolish tory issues foolish tweet, now deleted.

 

 

 

[Awol]

 

 

 

 

 

It's more the sheep who are easily led by that snake oil salesman Nigel Farage that we should be worried about.

Baaaaaaa.

 

If you have anything like an open mind I really don't see what is "loony" about a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership. It would replace the rhetoric of both sides with some cold, hard facts.

 

If the country is going to have a vote on membership (and I believe that is the correct course to take) then having that evidence in the public domain should be welcomed and not feared - by either side.

 

A cost benefit analysis of EU membership is only relevant if your reason for wanting in or out is financially based, otherwise it means squat

 

Well the financial implications are a major factor, after all we joined a common market, not a common political union.

 

That was 3 decades ago, time changes everything unless of course if you go to bed dreaming of rose covered cottages around the village green and chirpy postmen delivering the mail whilst mother bakes some scones for afternoon tea at the cricket on Sunday

 

 

But Bickster, if we all vote UKIP, those days will return!

 

Surely the two of you can manage a more intelligent response than that, can't you?

 

The main argument for membership advanced by pro EU people is the associated trade benefits of the single market. That claim would therefore be tested by a thorough cost benefit analysis. If the intention of membership is instead overtly political i.e. towards a United States of Europe, then that has never been voted on (previous General Elections don't count as apparent benefit of UK membership is invariably advanced in primarily economic terms).

 

If as you seem to suggest the economic argument is 'so 20 years ago' then what is the argument for membership?

[markavfc40]

Going back to the spending round, I'm not sure what the point of the social security AME cap is (other than as a battle ground for the 2015 election and an arbitrary bind on the subsequently elected government) or whether they're clear on how it would actually work.

It would appear that pensions and JSA (which surely won't exist by 2015 if Universal Credit happens) are excluded, so what is left in? Disability benefits, child benefit, tax credits, housing benefit? What do they plan to do - get to February and tell everyone that payments stop until April?

 

 

Like most of this Governments policies it hasn't been thought through has it. They are already running at 12 billion above the cap they propose. Gove on Newsnight last night was asked how they plan to slash that 12 bill in 2015. He went round the houses a little but didn't answer. He was then asked what would be the penalty for going above the cap and it was that the minister would have to make a statement to the house. Paxman then said "and then what he goes to sit on the naughty step"

 

To sum up it is just a load of hot air. They won't be in power come 2015 and I guess they are introducing it as a stick to then beat Labour with further down the line

[Risso]

Gove on Newsnight in a mo ... That should please the VT masses

 

Thought he did quite well.  Paxman was doing his irritating "ask everything in an incredibly sarcastic tone of voice" thing, but Gove just played it all with a straight bat.  I bet it infuriates Paxman no end when his style doesn't reduce an interviewee to the desired state of gibbering wreck.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Risso

[drat01]

 

Gove on Newsnight in a mo ... That should please the VT masses

 

Thought he did quite well.  Paxman was doing his irritating "ask everything in an incredibly sarcastic tone of voice" thing, but Gove just played it all with a straight bat.  I bet it infuriates Paxman no end when his style doesn't reduce an interviewee to the desired state of gibbering wreck.

 

Mart - as others have said, he really did struggle TBH. He wibbled and wobbled throughout it. Basically his straight bat was OK but he held it sideways and completely missed the shot

[Jon]

 

 

Gove on Newsnight in a mo ... That should please the VT masses

 

Thought he did quite well.  Paxman was doing his irritating "ask everything in an incredibly sarcastic tone of voice" thing, but Gove just played it all with a straight bat.  I bet it infuriates Paxman no end when his style doesn't reduce an interviewee to the desired state of gibbering wreck.

 

Mart - as others have said, he really did struggle TBH. He wibbled and wobbled throughout it. Basically his straight bat was OK but he held it sideways and completely missed the shot

 

Caught at slip, LBW, or clean bowled?

[peterms]

Gove was looking flustered at points.  He normally relies on his fluency and articulacy to get him through to the end of an interview, but his verbal dexterity was struggling to carry the overload of old bollocks.

 

He's putting on weight, and is more and more jowly and triple-chinned.  As the interview progressed, the combination of this and him talking shite left me with the impression of a bespectacled pair of flabby, wobbling buttocks emitting a stream of sounds.  Most disturbing.  I can see why it's after the watershed.

[tonyh29]

 

Gove on Newsnight in a mo ... That should please the VT masses

 

Thought he did quite well.  Paxman was doing his irritating "ask everything in an incredibly sarcastic tone of voice" thing, but Gove just played it all with a straight bat.  I bet it infuriates Paxman no end when his style doesn't reduce an interviewee to the desired state of gibbering wreck.

 

 

must admit I thought Paxman struggled by his usual standards  but that as you say was probably down to Gove who clearly knows his way around a TV interview  , even if he may not know his way around a school reform ...

 

I've no doubt the Labour side of VT will be along shortly to say he was dreadful , worse thing ever seen on TV etc etc  ... but they are deluding themselves if they don't acknowledge that whatever his flaws he comes across well when interviewed ....  Interesting choice for the Tory party at some stage  ... Boris and his buffoon act or Gove and his intelligence 

[Risso]

Gove was looking flustered at points.  He normally relies on his fluency and articulacy to get him through to the end of an interview, but his verbal dexterity was struggling to carry the overload of old bollocks.

 

He's putting on weight, and is more and more jowly and triple-chinned.  As the interview progressed, the combination of this and him talking shite left me with the impression of a bespectacled pair of flabby, wobbling buttocks emitting a stream of sounds.  Most disturbing.  I can see why it's after the watershed.

 

I think he's the spitting image of TV chef Jeremy Lee.

[peterms]

"...and so if you cut spending when the private sector is flat, it can only result in a decline in overall economic activity, or a fall in aggregate income Y, as in this graph.  That in turn causes reduced government income and increased government expenditure, which you then try to cut again.  Do you see, George?"

 

[bickster]

Surely the two of you can manage a more intelligent response than that, can't you?

 

The main argument for membership advanced by pro EU people is the associated trade benefits of the single market. That claim would therefore be tested by a thorough cost benefit analysis. If the intention of membership is instead overtly political i.e. towards a United States of Europe, then that has never been voted on (previous General Elections don't count as apparent benefit of UK membership is invariably advanced in primarily economic terms).

 

If as you seem to suggest the economic argument is 'so 20 years ago' then what is the argument for membership?

Trouble is any cost benefit analysis will be flawed and biased in favour of whichever argument the analyser wishes to support. Unless someone has a set of 100% guarantee crystal balls. The whole idea that CBA can prove anything is silly. The argument is always going to be a philosophical and ideological one not a financial one

[colhint]

I don't think thats the best argument against having one. If I understand correctly you think it will be flawed based on the authors support. Well aren't all government statistics like that? Surely its better than having to rely on either the Mail or Guardian for our information

[bickster]

I don't think thats the best argument against having one. If I understand correctly you think it will be flawed based on the authors support. Well aren't all government statistics like that? Surely its better than having to rely on either the Mail or Guardian for our information

You seem to have missed the point entirely.