Letter: Primary complaints on the subject
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your leading article about the latest proposed changes to primary teaching (19 January) overlooks the problems raised for primary schools if we continue along present paths.
The national curriculum for primary schools is overloaded. At present the assumption that a secondary school-style subject curriculum is right for primary schools means that primary-class teachers must 'deliver' more than 500 statements of attainment. Add to this the call to place children into sets by ability for subjects and the teacher has to organise 500-odd statements of attainment for three ability groups. This must be managed seven times in the school to include each year group, with each child's records kept, and reporting to parents maintained.
If the national curriculum is to be made manageable in its present 10-subject form, primary schools must escape their Cinderella funding status in relation to secondary schools. A secondary school-style subject curriculum with specialist teachers will cost more.
The problem is made bigger when it is remembered that rural counties are often served by small schools staffed by an average of three to four teachers. Add to this the fact that the present devolved funding to primary schools is insufficient to pay existing staff salary bills, never mind paying for extra subject expertise, and the nature of the present crisis becomes evident.
There are alternatives. These have been developed out of the many educational traditions that inform primary teaching. These alternatives take account of traditional subjects without making an ideological fetish of them, or promising what cannot be done, or forgetting what is really important in education: the development of the person through subjects rather than the subjugation of the young to the impossible, which is what present proposals threaten to do.
The Government has chosen to sweep these traditions aside by caricaturing them as 'progressive'; it should instead remove the distorting ideological beam from its own eye and curb the excesses of this grotesque mismanagement of the education of our children.
Yours faithfully,
ROD MACKENZIE
Senior Lecturer in Education
University of Plymouth
Exmouth
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments