Curriculum for Excellence
Introducing a new, streamlined summary of Curriculum for Excellence, designed to support teachers as they implement the new curriculum.
Here David Cameron (no, not that one, this one is the former president of the Association of Directors of Education Scotland) explains the aims of the new summarised materials and what they mean for you.
The Education Secretary committed to providing more support for teachers though his 10 point plan. Prepared by David Cameron and Keir Bloomer – another former director of education and council chief executive – these new materials will help to do just that, by summarising the key ideas in two of the Building the Curriculum resources. One is focused on delivering learning and teaching and the other on assessment.
You can view these materials here: Learning and Assessment
Submit your ideas below:
What a refreshing and forward thinking attitude you have actual teacher. Is the earth flat? Do you have any kids in the education system? Do you have a real name? I have no idea what you are like as a teacher but I think the ‘change must be bad’ approach to change is unfortunately endemic in some sections of the Secondary sector. My child is being failed by this system and you can sit upon your high horse and decry something that isn’t even in place yet. As I have already said there are some uncertainties and I suppose some teachers will be against being held responsible for their total lack of teaching ability but they will be weeded out when CfE kicks in. Perhaps if we had a system in place that only needed minor tinkering we could have muddled through but we do not. The staff at my local Secondary are not unanimous in their opinion of CfE but they are promising to do their best for the kids in their charge. I see no difficulty in other schools accepting the challenge in the same way.
Aspects of the current system have been problematic eg in some cases dubious primary literacy / numeracy grades BUT to say that CfE ‘certainly cannot make things worse’ is on a par with saying that an individual is suffering from food poisoning so a diet of rancid prawns can’t make them any worse!
Elements like active learning are to be welcomed, but did not require a poorly thought out and executed disaster like CfE. As for cautious optimism from teaching unions a word with the membership, especially secondary staff, might draw a different response.
It should also be noted that the most recent survey of teaching staff drew responses that were ignored at the highest level and it’s not because the response number was statistically invalid.
I am angry that their is no simple breakdown to reassure parents what lies ahead for our children.
How can I as a parent prepare my Daughter for these changes when I have no idea what they are.
With so many unanswered questions is it any wonder parents and teachers are concerned that this Educational reform is going ahead.
Given the recent cutbacks where is the funding to ensure all schools/Teachers are working towards the same standards.
Parents want simple answers not 10 point plans.
Mrs Weldon,
I am a teacher and my daughter is P6 going into P7 next session and so she will experience the full panoply of ACE. I am not worried sick as somehow we will all muddle through due to commitment and concern and 10 years from now we will all re-write history to tell how successful the Curriculum for Excellence is……until the next change when the defects become unassailable.
In many ways, ACE is just about good learning but your concern about S3/4 is 100% correct – we don’t know either! Still, I’m sure we will get even simpler guidelines soon from L and T!
John Rice – chill out man!
How can there be no doubt the current system has failed when all we get told by our politicians, headteachers and inspectors is ‘how good our schools are’? ACE will work in the primary environment as it is based on a primary ethos. You will all get told of how well it works in secondary but structurally we are no able to comply and so we will subvert and adapt it to our circumstances.
You’ll probably have a long wait Sheila. It seems increasingly clear that CfE is being used in part to reduce the number of qualified teachers delivering subject specialisms at the secondary level. Many teachers are being ‘encouraged’ to deliver all subjects that fall within their ‘curriculum area’. This meets the unsubstantiated assertion by HMIe that S1 students will benefit from a reduction in the number of teachers they ‘experience’
This is hard enough for History, Geography and Modern Studies for example (Social Studies); it’s a nightmare for Drama, Art and Music (Expressive Arts). Result, non-specialist teaching or complicated rotas that disincentivise students. “O brave new world that has such people in it!”
I am Chair of the Parent Council at our local Secondary School. At the recent In service days at the school each of our Departments were tasked with outlining their first year courses in conjunction with the Curriculum for Excellence remit. These have been placed on display boards for our First Year Parents Information Evening and others to see. I was treated to a tour of the display boards by our Head Teacher, and very impressed with the information which has been made easy for Parents to understand. I must also praise the Staff in our school for their hard work in implementing this first step in Curriculum for Excellence.
I know there are some concerns, however once the full details of the new National Qualifications are made known I would hope things would start to settle. I can only hope that Scottish Government will keep Teaching Staff and Parents informed as things are happening.
An interesting comment and must admit I had not considered CfE in terms of a Marxist dialectic- could you amplify on your idea?
I’m particularly pleased to see that the number one priority identified from BtC5 is that “learner engagement in assessment is crucial”. I too identified this both as a priority from the documents, and as an omission from my practice and set about addressing this as a result.
It has been difficult to pick out this sort of detail from the original documents and I hope that these summaries will help direct teachers’ precious time and energy in the most important developments.
I like the idea of freedom but am realistic enough to know that many of my colleagues will opt to stay in the service of their old master, even when their shackles are gone.
1 Subject disciplines will remain and specialist teaching will be of the greatest importance. We shall not work in boxes, though, but we shall see how the disciplines can co-operate.
2 Curriculum for Excellence should not be described as ‘it’ and something to be ‘implemented’. That sounds to a general audience as though we are talking about a syllabus. We all recognise in the teaching profession that in this instance ‘curriculum’ means ‘total educational experience’. Probably it is not the best title for this reform, but we cannot change it now. But whatever we say, we should emphasise that we are talking about new approaches to teaching and learning.
3 We must speak in ordinary language, intelligible to all. A special jargon has grown up around Curriculum for Excellence, and it has produced far too many words.
4 We need to understand that we have embarked on a period of educational reform which will take a considerable time to have an impact. It means a journey for each school, which sits very well with HMIe’s approach of a Journey to Excellence. I think that the message of inspectors working collaboratively with schools to find the best way forward in the unique circumstances and traditions of each is a very positive one.
5 I hope that our universities will engage fully in this reform of school education, as they are centres of higher learning and they have much to contribute, in every discipline. The signs are that our University Principals are ready to work together with school leaders to find new ways of approaching educational issues.
In the spirit of ‘busting myths’ the reality in at least two authorities is:
1) subject disciplines in secondary schools are being eroded and staff are being ‘persuaded’ to teach subjects they are not recognised as being qualified to teach in by the GTCS. This trend has resulted in the EIS for one having to provide strong support and advice against such ‘persuasion’.
2) If the worst you have heard CfE described as is ‘it’ you’ve missed out on some very creative wordplay from a lot of teachers!
3) Ordinary language would be a welcome change, even the handbook sent to teachers telling them how to propagandise CfE to parents is riddled with jargon.
4) HMIe in a more supportive role would also be welcome. What has not been welcome from HMIe have been assertions such as reducing the numbers of teachers that S1 pupils come into contact with would benefit the students. When pressed, through email and in person, HMIe has failed to provide any research to support / justify this statement, and yet it has been used by education administrators to justify such changes.
5) Let’s hope universities in particular and employers in general do engage, because without any clear idea of how the final assessment process from SQA look, and only two years until it REALLY matters the future is not bright. As students will have to take a breadth of subjects every year there will be a lot of disappointed Scottish applicants in years to come, in medicine for example, where a single qualification in a science and others in social studies, health & well being etc is going to lose out to students from England and Wales with top grades in three distinct A2 sciences and an A2 in maths!
Unfortunately schools up and down the country are spending more time fitting the schemes of work they already have into it than embracing the spirit of C for E.
Heineman, Collins, Nelson ect. will map all their existing workbooks, rebrand them with C for E on the cover (charging extra of course) and add a few token active learning tasks.
In short, very little will change.
You are absolutely right that educational publishers are having a bit of a field day repackaging pretty much the same materials and putting CfE on the cover. However, this reflects problems with time and sufficient, detailed, understandable support materials available for staff, particularly at the secondary level. I have spent considerably more time over the last year and a half preparing materials for S1 classes arriving in August 2010 than ever before: significantly above school agreed time and the time I always freely give outside of school. Many teachers are having to do the same because they want students to have a good learning experience. If I didn’t use the best of the material in the present schemes of work then the incoming S1’s experience would poor as there would genuinely not be the time.
Yes! The old skeptic in me believes that after an arduous probationary year in a predominantly 5-14 school having been trained primarily in CfE, we are facing a massive uphill battle. Probationers have been given a raw deal in so many ways. We are told by some on the one hand that we do not meet the standards or know what we’re talking about after a one-year PGDE, whilst by LTS and others to go out and be the ‘change agents’ for CfE. Yet how can we when we’ve been trained to do ‘carpentry’ and asked to do ‘plumbing’ instead – a far more functional life indeed! As a very disillusioned, sub-standard and departing probationer . . . I implore all schools clinging to 5-14, LAs and the government to remove the obsessive planning, administrative-oriented, assessment, target-driven, prescriptive shackles and let us be who we are, ready to give of our life experiences and ideas, to facilitate and engage children’s infinite creativity and ideas. Today I taught nets and making 3D in 2 minutes through an active learning, cross-curricular, child-centred, practical CfE ttype approach, whereas through 5-14 or the old prescriptive, target-driven, ‘Heinemann’ approach it would have meant several days keeping my forward planner, planning grids, WALT/WILF, textbook references, AifL, task boards, marking, etc, etc, all up to date for a small part of one lesson and left me exhausted. Would the latter have made all the difference to the children? I think not. Please tell bureaucrats and Heads to give us free reign. Then, if the children are not engaged and learning and we’re not up to scratch then kick us into touch. If Scotland is to produce the entrpreneurs and leaders of the future, change is vital NOW! But don’t expect us probationers to go in and do the government or LTS’ dirty work. Help us please!