A Bridge too Far or a Differentiated Curriculum

Debbie Clinton, Principal of Nunthorpe Academy, offers a worthwhile defence of the now abandoned English Baccalaureate.  We need, she argues, a curriculum that challenges and educates young people according to ability; and this challenge should include the most able.  Sadly, it would seem that British Education is once more the victim of a political will that lacks backbone.

Educational Ideology is not Rocket Science

Suzanne Moore offers a delightfully vitriolic attack on Michael Gove.  What attracts my attention at first, however, is her criticism of him as an ideologue; it seems a long time since we heard ideology used as a dirty word.  Personally I have no problem with ideology; it can be useful to know what a politician's views are, especially if they are developed into a system of thought.  I have some sympathy for Suzanne Moore, nonetheless; it is wrong to measure all students by an academic ebacc.  We need to recognise that academic abilities can, and should be developed; but other abilities need to be recognised and developed as well.  What's more, if we are going to have an educational system, one underpinned by a system of thought, we need one that will educate all students.  I suggest then that we stick with ideology.  We battle out educational principles; they are too patent to be long discussed.  Education is not rocket-science.

An Anarchist Education

I won't pretend that it would work on a national scale, but then the exponents are hardly campaigning to have anarchy institutionalised.  Regardless, Matthew Jenkin has something to offer as he considers the links between the Free Schools of the early 1900s and those being developed in contemporary Britain.  Of particular relevance for the enthusiast is allowing young people to grow up as self-thinking, self-thought, other-aware individuals.

National Curriculum or Chameleon Curriculum

I arrived in British education in 1991, with the National Curriculum close on my heels.  By the time our Head of Faculty had convinced us to take note, the curriculum was gone; and all the work that we might have done was wasted.  This all-change approach to British education has continued since that time; and it is no surprise that the current government is up to the same thing.  I have no problem with a thinner National Curriculum; and I take issue with a Labour opposition who seem to imagine that criticising plans is the same thing as providing challenge to government. (It is not.  Give them ideas, support or silence.)  I hope once more, however, that the latest all-change, chameleon curriculum will be allowed to stay.  Then teachers might get on and teach it.