If you?ve been wanting to catch up on the hotly contested, recently proposed changes to the national curriculum but are perhaps too overwhelmed to know where to begin, you?ve come to the right place.
?
In a nutshell: Michael Gove MP has proposed new changes to the national curriculum that supposedly will:
?
1. give teachers greater flexibility and control in their classrooms and
2. raise the bar so that students are no longer being ?dumbed down? by the curriculum (Gove, 2013).
?
The problem with these proposed changes?according to academics, students, and many others?is that the new curriculum is too packed with details in too few subjects. Essentially, the classroom will likely become dominated by rote-learning (memorisation) in a few core subjects, significantly compromising the time and attention teachers can give to other subjects, such as climate control.
?
Indeed, one of the most contentious changes in the new curriculum proposal is the removal of climate change from the national geography curriculum: ?The latest draft guidelines for children in key stages 1 to 3 have no mention of climate change under geography teaching and a single reference to how carbon dioxide produced by humans impacts on the climate in the chemistry section. There is also no reference to sustainable development, only to the ?efficacy of recycling?, again as a chemistry subject? (The Guardian, 18 March 2013)
?
While proponents of the changes insist that there is nothing to stop teachers from discussing climate change (Hickman, 2013), many worry that the newly overloaded curriculum will likely monopolise the teacher?s efforts so that issues as pressing and relevant to students? lives as climate change will fall by the wayside (Letter from 100 Education academics, 2013; Miles Goland, 2013).
?
A detailed comparison of the old curriculum and the proposed changes can be found here.
?
Michael Gove?s defence of his proposal can be found here.
?
Below you can find some of the many varied voices currently sounding off on the removal of climate change from the national curriculum and its worrying implications. Every quote has a link to its original source, and every category features viewpoints that seek to address both sides of the debate. Why? Because knowledge is power, and full knowledge trumps selective, limited knowledge every time. So get stuck in as much as you like. The point is to get informed?a point on which both sides thankfully can agree.
??????????????-
Is the Curriculum Too Broad or Too Narrow?
?
?The new curriculum is extremely narrow. The mountains of detail for English, maths and science leave little space for other learning.? -100 Education academics? letter
?
?In the GA?s earlier response to the government consultation it indicated that a broad and balanced curriculum would be more appropriate and the GA is pleased to note this new outcome.? -The Geographical Association
???????????????
Is Rote-Learning Really the Way Forward?
?
?Expectations in science have been so dumbed down that children could be asked if grilled fish is healthier than battered sausages in their GCSEs. But who is responsible for this failure? Who are the guilty men ?and women who have deprived a generation of the knowledge they need? Who are the modern Enemies Of Promise? Well, helpfully, 100 of them put their name to a letter to The Independent newspaper this week. They are all academics who have helped run the university departments of education responsible for developing curricula and teacher training courses. You would expect such people to value learning, revere knowledge and dedicate themselves ?to fighting ignorance. Sadly, they seem more interested in valuing Marxism, revering jargon and fighting excellence.? -Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove MP, in response to the letter from 100 academics
?
?The proposed curriculum consists of endless lists of spellings, facts and rules. This mountain of data will not develop children?s ability to think, including problem-solving, critical understanding and creativity.? -A letter from 100 academics, warning against the new curriculum proposals and its promotion of ?rote-learning?
???????????????
Changes for Teachers: Will They Have More Control or Will It Be Curriculum Overload?
?
?The real question is, do we want governments to dictate the curriculum content in specific detail? Topical world issues will always be at the heart of geography. Teachers must recognise, prioritise and present such issues in a challenging way appropriate to the age of the children. Today?s young will live in a world of increasing stormy weather, that is increasingly urban, in a world of significant food shortage and food excess, and where energy demand is growing and scientists are searching for supplies that do not harm the planet. We need a national curriculum that enables but does not prescribe. Teachers have to take ownership and responsibility for what they teach, to whom and when.? - Ron Rooney,University of Durham
?Our legally binding commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 will transform our economy, creating very different lifestyles for our children. Surely we have a duty to educate them about why these changes are necessary, how it will impact upon their lives and the skills they will need to flourish in a different economy? Cutting climate change from the curriculum is short-sighted and educationally detrimental. Global Action Plan?s experience shows that teaching students about sustainability and climate change can provide high-quality learning and helps schools save money on energy bills. We strongly urge the government not to take this backwards step.? -Trewin Restorick, CEO, Global Action Plan
?
?A truly modern geography curriculum would recognise and idenitfy climate change at every key stage and probably present it as an overarching theme. I fear that without explicit mention of climate change teachers will simply not teach it, meaning students who give up on geography in year 9 could leave school without ever having studied it academically.? ? Miles Goland, head of geography at Godolphin and Latymer School, Hammersmith
?
?On first reading the draft national curriculum, my initial reaction was relief and excitement. My advice to those complaining that climate change has been dropped from the syllabus is to look a little more closely, because it is still there. Teachers need to wrestle back control of the curriculum from government and Ofsted, subverting and twisting it to fit their own context. No curriculum will ever be fully comprehensive, creative or innovative. Teachers are the curriculum makers. Teachers are the professionals that decide what is being taught.? ? David Rogers, curriculum leader for geography at Priory School in Portsmouth
???????????????
What?s Really Best for the Students?
?
?Climate change is the most pressing and threatening issue to modern-day society. Through lack of understanding from generations before us, we are having to fix it. And how can we do this without education?? -Esha Marwaha, a 15-year-old UKYCC Local Catalyst whose petition to keep climate change in the national curriculum has received thousands of signatures.
?
?The new curriculum is based on careful analysis of the world?s most successful school system. We are giving schools more freedom over the curriculum and teaching, not less. We are reforming the exam system to test deeper cognitive skills such as mathematical problem-solving and extended writing, which are neglected now, but these skills? depend on solid foundations.? ? A spokeswoman for the Department of Education
?
?As teachers, we have the responsibility to inform our pupils about all major current affairs and surely the inclusion of climate change in the syllabus is justified on this basis alone. Apart from that, climate change gives us the opportunity to work with children exploring the nature of scientific inquiry, even at a very basic level, and to explain the way the planet works. It also introduces concepts of sustainability and global citizenship when looking at the effects our actions have on others. There are important lessons here that will be missed at a time when we need to look at reconnecting children with nature and the inherent mental and physical health benefits this brings. And, finally, on an economic level, one of the biggest growth industries of the next 20 years will be in green technologies and, with the loss of this important area of study, we will simply closing off the opportunities available and we shall not be preparing our children for the world they are going to be living in.? ? John Rutter, deputy headteacher, North Berwick High School
?
???????????????
Why the Big Fuss?
?
?It?s [. . .] important to note that the proposals do not necessarily exclude climate change. However, the fact that climate change and the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development are not explicitly included is a matter of real concern in a national curriculum for the 21st century? -Richard Baker, head of education and youth at Oxfam and former secondary head of geography
?I hope that at my school, whether climate change is removed from the curriculum or not, we?ll still be educating the students and teachers about climate change and living sustainably. Let?s hope that the consultation on the draft national curriculum will be positive for our future as leaving it out will be a crime against all of us.? ? Louise George, head of geography at St. Andrews High School for Boys, Worthing
?Climate change remains one of the single most urgent and important issues facing us, and it sends worrying signals about their priorities if politicians remove it from the curriculum. It is a complex issue and there is a lot of information in the media and from those with vested interests presenting themselves as experts, so it?s important it is increasingly embedded throughout the curriculum rather than being quietly pushed out.? -Toni Pearce, deputy president of the National Union of Students
alicia silverstone park slope food coop anchorman sequel safety not guaranteed lifehouse al gore la dodgers
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.