Commenting on the Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review, Dame Alison Peacock, CEO of the Chartered College of Teaching said:
“As we set out in our ‘Priorities for the new government’ this review must start from the professionalism of teachers. We know that supporting professionalism improves teachers’ job satisfaction, keeping excellent teachers in the profession and attracting the best people to train.
“Previous reviews have resulted in a packed curriculum, with too little time for pupils to learn in depth, and an all-or-nothing assessment system that piles on the pressure. While teachers are clear that both the curriculum and the assessment system need to change, they are understandably wary of change that can add unnecessarily to their workload.
“It’s important that this review will be led by evidence, not ideology, and that it will build on the strengths of what’s happening in the classroom. It needs both a short term focus to address the most significant issues, and to develop a vision for long term renewal. It must also have a clear focus on teacher, leader and student wellbeing.
“I look forward to sharing the expertise of our members, along with evidence from the projects we run at the Chartered College, with the review.”
Further reading: Our prioirities for government
2 Comments
Gary John Lewis
July 24, 2024 at 5:01 pm -There is a lot more for us to say to government about teacher professionalism. The last Labour government had an ambition for teaching to be a masters’ level profession. They also founded the late lamented NCTL. The Chartered College is well placed to support a new government pick up where they left off in 2010.
Kevin morris
July 24, 2024 at 10:06 pm -All evidence is ideological and not free of bias so to claim so would be naive. The very fact that it is being led by the CEO of EEF demonstrates that point: as the EEF has a particular view of the world.
The review will have numerous stakeholder audiences and to satisfy all will be impossible.
Neither the current focus on Cognitive Science nor a return to ‘Every child matters’ would be acceptable and rather than tinkering around the edges, we need a much more radical and bold solution to provide a curriculum for all recognising that whatever is designed will be inherently ideological and contestable.
Perhaps the starting point should look to the seminal essay by Basil Bernstein that
‘Education cannot compensate for Society’