I have been exploring the QCA website, further to the suggestion by the DCSF that parents would find easy to download curricula there. Actually, some of this stuff for primary pupils is not that bad and could probably be adapted fairly easily by parents, should they wish to do so. First, one must pass the portal of the National Curriculum site though, which begins with the exhortation;
The curriculum should be treasured. There should be real pride in our curriculum: the learning that the nation has decided to set before its young. Teachers, parents, employers, the media and the public should all see the curriculum as something to embrace, support and celebrate. Most of all, young people should relish the opportunity for discovery and achievement that the curriculum offers.
This is a bit creepy! Who are they to be instructing the media what they should embrace and celebrate? It puts me in mind of Star Wars and embracing the dark side. However, some of the actual content is OK. For instance in Key Stage 1 science, there is stuff like this;
Life processes
1 Pupils should be taught:
a the differences between things that are living and things that have never
been alive
b that animals, including humans, move, feed, grow, use their senses and
reproduce
c to relate life processes to animals and plants found in the local environment.
Humans and other animals
2 Pupils should be taught:
a to recognise and compare the main external parts of the bodies of humans
and other animals
b that humans and other animals need food and water to stay alive
c that taking exercise and eating the right types and amounts of food help
humans to keep healthy
d about the role of drugs as medicines
e how to treat animals with care and sensitivity
f that humans and other animals can produce offspring and that these
offspring grow into adults
g about the senses that enable humans and other animals to be aware
of the world around them.
This is the kind of thing that children should probably be knowing at that age and it is no bad idea to have a plan to work to, even if it is not rigidly adhered to. Anybody working with a young child could do a lot worse than to use this section of the National Curriculum as a rough guide. I am not so sure about religion; this is an entirely personal matter. Similarly music and PE. As long as a child is getting exercise and being exposed to different styles of music, I would think that enough. But to teach according to a general framework in science, history and mathematics seems to me a sound scheme.
Of course, the National Curriculum is not the only curriculum that parents could use, but the basic idea of having some notion of what the child will cover over the next year or so is a pretty sensible one. The only problem might come if this curriculum became a type of strait-jacket, preventing one from being spontaneous and going off in unexpected directions. This has of course nothing at all to do with examinations or testing. It is good for children to think about life and what it means to be alive, purely for the sake of it. A curriculum really acts as an aide-memoire, reminding one of what needs to be covered.
I cannot make out when I see people denouncing the National Curriculum, whether they are dissatisfied with this particular curriculum or if there is some deep seated objection to all curricula. If the former, then I can sympathise. The National Curriculum needs drastic pruning and revision. But if the objection is a more general one against any sort of curriculum or plan of study, then I confess myself puzzled. A curriculum is a bit like a map, which shows the broad territory one hopes to traverse. It should not tell you precisely which route you will take, only the area that you will be travelling. As such, it is quite invaluable for those teaching their own child. I hope that the DCSF will issue more detailed instructions regarding curricula, including some which are not connected with the National Curriculum.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"But if the objection is a more general one against any sort of curriculum or plan of study, then I confess myself puzzled. A curriculum is a bit like a map, which shows the broad territory one hopes to traverse."
ReplyDeleteHere we go again... A curriculum, decided on by the parent or others in advance, is the antithesis of autonomous education. Fine, if you or others like curricula, then go for it and enjoy, I can understand the attraction and have no objection to others taking that route. But is it so difficult to understand why others might want to take a different approach to education, and that for some approaches, curricula are not welcome (though some autonomously educated children do choose themselves to follow a curriculum at some point)?
Saying, "My child is autonomously educated." does not negate the need for a curriculum; you are simply expressing your personal preference for raising your child. This does not tell us whether you are right or whether a curriculum really is needed for a good education. Children have certain physical needs. For example they must have regualrly in their diet protein, carbohydrate, lipids, water, fibre, trace minerals and vitamins. If a parent tells me that she does not believe in vitamins, this says nothing about what her child actually needs. All it tells me is that this mother is following a certain belief system. The child's need for vitamins remains unchanged, no matter what the mother and father believe. This is not a question which can be decided by agreeing that we all have the right to raise our children as we wish. It is a matter of objective fact. In the same way, children have intellectual needs which can probably only be fulfilled by certain things. I do not say that a curriculum is one of these, although it may be. What I am saying is that to say, "We don't use curricula because we educate autonomously." does not tell us anything except that a parent has certain beliefs and prejudices.
ReplyDeleteI taught my children none of the things listed in that key stage one science section on life processes. That is to say that we had no formal lessons, specific activities or reading/writing tasks. However, they learned about all these things - probably during those 'key stage one' years but also before and since. They are hardly challenging stuff, are they? I can't imagine that a chatty child and an engaged parent could get through a walk in the woods, or a session pond dipping, without covering most of this. So, has it been a disadvantage (for my children) that we never thought about this as a science curriculum? I can't see how.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one of my son's most intense interests at the age of four and five was dinosaurs. This led us to looking at fossils and a week long holiday in Lyme Regis. This led to an interest in Mary Anning and a trip to the Natural History Museum to see the ichthyosaur fossil she found as a child. We didn't plan this stuff - we didn't think of it as part of a science curriculum. We went where we needed to go to keep pursuing his interest. I think it was a better use of our time to do this than to worry about curriculum. It was more fun too :-)
I am planning on my daughter learning autonomously but I am also planning on using a loose plan/curiculum.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that these are necessarily opposite plans. I'd just use it a a kind of checklist, your child will do most things by themselves, if they don't then it can just go on the next years plan.
You don't have to TEACH your child these things, just give them the oppurtunity to learn about them.
For me, looking at a curiculum would give me ideas, for example, if I saw the above bit of curiculum, it would prompt me to ask my daughter if she'd like to go to a natural history museum. I think most of the above would be covered just by what we'd see and the conversations we'd have.
It would still be autonomous learning as she'd have the oppurtunity to look at the exhibits she wanted to and let her curiosity lead the conversation/questions. Based on those, I'd get ideas about what she would like to be introduced to next.
I think a curiculum is just a starting point, just ideas of what you can offer your child. It's something you can go to if you're a bit stuck for ideas.
If you are a very well educated and cultured person then you might not need a curiculum.
I, the product of a basic state education and fairly sheltered life, find that there are lots of things I don't know about. There are probably lots of interesting things that my child would never get the chance to learn about as we wouldn't know they were out there, they would never come up in conversation.
For me, that is the main use for a curiculum, just to show me topics that I might not know about or have forgotten about.
I think, Anonymous, that that is exactly how many people would view a curriculum, particularly for a younger child. Just a way of reminding yourself of stuff that you might not have covered. It's certainly how I used it, more as a guide to general areas that we might look at, rather than a detailed, step by step plan.
ReplyDeleteI think my main objection to the National Curriculum is that it becomes so, so boring, after you've seen its contents expounded more than twice. And you can't even escape it at the local library - it lurks on the shelves to spring out at the unsuspecting reader.
ReplyDelete"Saying, "My child is autonomously educated." does not negate the need for a curriculum; you are simply expressing your personal preference for raising your child."
ReplyDeleteBut you stating that there is a need for an externally imposed curriculum (which is what most people mean when the talk about curricula) doesn't prove that there really is a need. Just one child successfully educated without a curriculum disproves that theory.
No, we are talking about probabilities and percentages. Is it in general better for children educationally to work according to a curriculum or to choose their own plan of study? Obviously some will benefit from a curriculum, just as others might get by without one. We are thinking about what is most likely to work best with the majority of children. If for instance 90% of children got better results with a curriculum and only 10% of children made good progress with an autonomous approach, that would give us a clue as to what was, in general, the best method.
ReplyDeleteWell duhhh... Except, that some people think that autonomous education is the only moral approach *for their family*.
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, we have no idea of the success rates or even how to measure success.
ReplyDeleteI can't see the moral dimension at all. It is a practical matter. When choosing between synthetic phonics and Look and say, morality does not come into it. It is solely a question of which method is most likely to work. When methods are used that prove useless, such as using the Initial teaching Alphabet to teach children to read, the decision to abandon it is not one of morality, but a purely pragmatic one. It is a question of what works.
ReplyDeleteImposing your plans on a child when you believe it will harm the child is morally wrong. If the only thing that matters is that it works, why not try tying them to a chair, or starving them if they don't work? It has worked for some in the past, I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all sure what harm would come to a child from teaching her? More reasearch needed here, I think.
ReplyDeleteIt's an educational theory (though the reasoning and evidence seems sound to at least some researchers, see quotes at the end), but wouldn't it be immoral to do something to your child that you believe is harmful even it it later turns out not to be?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-WBL-09-04.pdf
"The optimal conditions for developing self regulation occur when children and young people have an opportunity to pursue goals that they themselves find meaningful; they will also be invited to develop their skills by selecting their own activities, taking initiative, engaging in challenging and collaborative learning experiences and making their own decisions(Boekaerts and Corno, 2005; Fredricks et al.,2004)."
"Autonomy is an important dimension of self regulation. Students who own their goals –because they enjoy the activity or because it fits with their values - devote more time to their tasks, show greater concentration, process information more deeply, and show greater levels of persistence (Ryan and Deci, 2002)."
"On the other hand, when individuals feel coerced to achieve a goal they do less well, scoring lower on a number of academic outcome measures(Lemos, 2002; Nolen, 2003)."
"There is little doubt that self-regulation has a positive effect on academic attainment, whilst also making a positive contribution to student behaviour, discipline and self belief. Although the effect is often small by comparison with the impact of socio-demographic characteristics, self regulation is amenable to support and intervention. Current policy already provides a number of opportunities for such support to take place, but there remain a number of issues. Schools and other institutions need to be encouraged to take up these opportunities. And there needs to be greater clarity in the terminology and messages used by policy makers and other national stakeholders to describe the skills of self regulation and the means by which they are developed. Even the term ‘self regulation’ has limited appeal. There may be alternatives - ‘self-management’, for example –that more effectively convey messages about self regulation to policy and practice communities."
"I'm not at all sure what harm would come to a child from teaching her? More reasearch needed here, I think."
ReplyDeleteBTW, the harm is not caused by teaching her, it's caused by teaching her when she has not chosen the subject and approach herself.
I'm still puzzled, Anonymous. What sort of harm could result for a child by teaching her about photosynthesis if she has not expressed a desire to learn about it?
ReplyDeleteYou suggest that it would be immoral to do something to your child that you believe to be harmful, even if it turns out not to be the case. One cannot generalise about this; it must be examined on a case by case basis. For example, suppose I believe that vitamins are harmful to my child and do my best to eliminate them from her diet. The result will be extreme ill health and then death. You are surely not suggesting that this would be a morally correct course of action?
ReplyDeleteA lot of the research on self-motivation and autonomy was done with teenagers and adults. The degree of autonomy that we grant to an eighteen year old is bound to be greater than that which we give to a five year old. Most teenagers are sexually autonomous; they will do as they please in that respect and quite rightly so. We would not probably apply this principle to two six year olds that we found fooling around in the sack! It is the same with education. The degree of autonomy that might be appropriate to a sixteen year old would not necessarily be that which was best for a four or five year old.
Simon said: Most teenagers are sexually autonomous; they will do as they please in that respect and quite rightly so. We would not probably apply this principle to two six year olds that we found fooling around in the sack!
ReplyDeleteAre you sure? 6 year olds who have not been sexually abused or over-sexualised in any other way are very unlikely to have sexual intercourse, in my experience. They do, however, play doctors and nurses. How would you deal with that?
My way was to deal with it exactly as I do with my teenagers: to bring them up to respect themselves and others, and to try and make sure that they were not making the other person do anything s/he didn't want to do, or being persuaded to do anything they didn't want to do themselves. I think it can be more difficult with young pubescent teenagers, but again in my experience if they have self-respect and empathy, are confident enough in their autonomy not to be talked into doing anything they don't want to do, and don't feel the need to rebel against over-authoritarian parents, they are unlikely to go further than is appropriate for them.
>What sort of harm could result for a child by teaching her about photosynthesis if she has not expressed a desire to learn about it?
If it was just photosynthesis, it would probably do no harm at all; she might even be interested. At worst, it would put her off learning about photosynthesis, which would be a shame.
However, if a child is constantly being taught things she has not chosen to learn, it can put her off education altogether. I see this all the time in my children's schooled friends, and I'm sure you've said the same about your other daughter who went to school. It can result in the child resisting all attempts to teach her, and learning very little. It can also destroy her self-motivation and ability to learn independently. And it takes the joy of discovery out of learning.
As a child, I was given a stamp album and a small collection of stamps. I was delighted and fascinated, until my father got involved. After a couple of weeks of him searching the loft for Penny Blacks, dragging me off to the stamp shop at every opportunity and lecturing me about the history of stamps and the postal service, I was put off completely. I no longer felt that stamps were my thing; I felt that he had taken them from me, and my interest evaporated. I can still remember my feelings of profound disappointment, loss and resentment, and I never recaptured that initial thrill.
Later in life I did a short course in homeopathic first aid (no sarky comments please; I already know what you think of homeopathy!). The subject fascinated me, but I found that before I could get anything out of the course I had to overcome my huge resistance to the didactic teaching methods used. I found myself behaving like a disruptive schoolchild, and had to give myself a stern talking to!
Well, I know exactly what you mean here, Erica. The anecdote about stamp collecting puts me in mind of similar incidents from my own childhood. Perhaps the answer is that raising children and educating them is more an art than a science and that it is all but impossible to lay down hard and fast rules for the business that cannot be broken. There were certainly times when I was teaching my daughter when I was aware that if I pushed to hard, it would be counter-productive. There were on the other hand occasions when I knew that unless I applied maximum force at a particular point, she would not learn something. (By force, I do not mean beating her round the head with a sawn-off pool cue; rather emotional pressure, which I used shamelessly as need arose). I can see your point about resistance to formal teaching developing, but I see it from quite another perspective. To my way of thinking it is like developing a muscle. The more that a child overcomes her inclinations and works at something that she would rather not, the easier it becomes. In the end, she will have the ability to force herself to do these things. I believe that self discipline grows from the habit of submitting to external discipline.
ReplyDelete"To my way of thinking it is like developing a muscle. The more that a child overcomes her inclinations and works at something that she would rather not, the easier it becomes."
ReplyDeleteNot necessary in my experience. My child has applied themselves to work they don't particularly enjoy very well since attending college and gained the top marks in her class last year as a result. She has been autonomously educated all her life and freely chose to follow the course. She really enjoys most aspects of her courses but inevitably there are sections she doesn't like, but she understands that it's necessary to complete all parts of the course to gain the grades she wants. So she does the work with no outside pressure necessary.
One cannot argue from the particular to the universal; I was talking about a broad possibility rather than an individual case.
ReplyDeleteOne cannot educate from the particular to the universal! Every family - every child - is different. To insist that successfully autonomous families be made to follow a preplanned curriculum of any sort, just because some families might need to, is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that anybody is insisting that home educating parents are made to follow a pre-planned curriculum. The proposal is rather that the local authority will be;
ReplyDelete"requiring an application for registration of a child’s details to
include a statement giving prescribed information about the
child’s prospective education;"
I think they will just be wanting a general idea of the approach to be used and what it is hope will be coverd in the next year or so. This a long way indeed from a curriculum!
"A statement giving prescribed information about the child’s prospective education" sounds like a curriculum to me.
ReplyDelete"I think they will just be wanting a general idea of the approach to be used and what it is hope will be coverd in the next year or so. This a long way indeed from a curriculum!"
ReplyDeleteOne accepted definition of curriculum is: 'Learning is planned and guided. We have to specify in advance what we are seeking to achieve and how we are to go about it.'
How is this different from your description above, especially when you consider that registration can be revoked if we fail to follow the submitted plan, suggesting that 'guidance' may well be necessary?
I visited multiple web sites except the audio quality for audio songs
ReplyDeleteexisting at this web page is actually marvelous.
Here is my weblog: http://musclecorexreview.net