One of my responsibilities in my new role as Deputy Headteacher is to take a fresh look at our primary curriculum. Ever since I began I have had numerous conversations about the process we are going to go through over the course of the next year.
We are seeking to build upon the successes of what we already do and make our curriculum more relevant and connected to the community it serves.
When the Rose Review was dashed on the rocks of the parliamentary washup, and then the UK coalition government put a large red line through the proposed changes, many primary teachers were disappointed. Much of what it outlined made a great deal of sense. Despite that we are continuing with our own curriculum redevelopment.
Next week we have our second staff meeting about curriculum development and I am keen to share one of three films with the staff to provoke some discussion about education change. I am unsure about which to use and I would appreciate your thoughts on which might be most effective. I will, no doubt, share all of them in time but for now I am looking for one which resonates the most with teachers about how we should better connect our curriculum with our pupils.
An entertaining talk from Sir Ken Robinson, the follow up to his “Killing Creativity” piece. I liked the way that he described the system of education conforming, as he says:
…we have sold ourselves into a fast food model of education. And it’s impoverishing our spirit and our energies as much as fast food is depleting our physical bodies.
We should build learning establishments that are more like Michelin starred restaurants than fast food chains – providing children with a locally grown curriculum that meets the needs of those it serves and not and all for one menu.
I enjoyed listening to this from Charles Leadbeater and appreciated how he outlined the need for more learning that starts with questions and not just going through the motions of filling children with knowledge. We feel that this will be central to how our curriculum may be designed. This has led me to explore Project and Challenge Based Learning and would appreciate any thoughts from those that have experienced this approach in the classroom.
Interestingly he touches upon the food outlet idea that Robinson also used. Leadbeater perhaps refines the idea somewhat in the sense that there are thousands of schools and yes they are all have the same purpose but they should be locally unique.
A small remark that was important to me was that schools,
…often hit the target but miss the point.
Crucially we need to reposition the primary curriculum so that it has a clear and unfettered purpose and that the children understand that more than anyone else.
Dan was (very recently) a classroom teacher like me. That very fact is important. His perspective was from within the classroom and not from the outside looking in. Although Dan speaks about the changes he sees vital for the maths curriculum, what he says is relevant to the whole curriculum.
He takes apart the mundane questions presented in maths textbooks and cuts to the chase. His approach is about developing patient problem solvers in our pupils. This could be applied to how we approach topics within a curriculum. We can extract a much more general theory from what Dan puts forward and once again it boils down to children being faced with problems, challenges or questions.
_
In a way the three different perspectives are clear. Meyer speaks from within the classroom, Leadbeater after seeing learning in different circumstances and Robinson from a wider more systematic stance. Arguably they are at different distances from the point of learning.
Each has their strengths, but which do you think would be the most relevant to busy teachers at this early stage of primary curriculum development?
