In a letter to The Independent and The Daily Telegraph this week, a hundred education academics criticised Michael Gove’s controversial new curriculum proposals as an “endless list of spelling, facts and rules” that will prove “miserable for children". Left Foot Forward has looked at some of the changes to the school curriculum proposed by Michael Gove and the criticism they’ve received.
In a letter to The Independent and The Daily Telegraph this week, a hundred education academics criticised Michael Gove’s controversial new curriculum proposals as an “endless list of spelling, facts and rules” that will prove “miserable for children”.
But what was it they were actually criticising?
Left Foot Forward has looked at some of the changes to the school curriculum proposed by Michael Gove and the panning they’ve been subjected to by academics.
MATHS
By the age of seven the education secretary wants pupils to be able interpret simple graphs and know their two, five and ten time’s tables.
At nine students should be able to read years in Roman numerals as well as know their twelve times tables, and by the time pupils leave primary school they should be comfortable with fractions, decimals, multiplication and division.
Criticism
The policy has been criticised for its emphasis on rote learning which, according to leading academics, demands “too much, too soon” of pupils.
ENGLISH
Gove wants more emphasis on spelling, grammar and punctuation which he argues are the “solid foundations” of cognitive skills. From the age of nine he wants children to be able to recite poetry out loud.
Criticism
This “narrow” approach has been attacked by the hundred rebel academics because are worried it will “leave little space for other learning” such as “speaking, listening, drama and modern media”.
SCIENCE
By eleven the curriculum proposes children should fully understand the effects of drugs and gauge the importance of diet and exercise – something at present deemed appropriate only for secondary school pupils.
HISTORY
The teaching of history in the curriculum has been met with almost universal dubiety by academics. Gove wants history to taught as “our islands story” and founded on “how the British people shaped this nation and how Britain influenced the world”.
Pupils would learn the chronology of British history from the stone age right through to the study of influential enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith and John Locke (but it would exclude thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau) all the way through the two world wars and the modern era ending with Margaret Thatcher’s election victory in 1979.
Criticism
The idea has been slammed by academics as an Anglo-centric “patriotic stocking filler” that will result in “the dumbing down of teaching”.
LANGUAGES
Gove is reintroducing compulsory languages in schools after the Labour government ditched the policy in 2004. From the age of seven children will begin learning a language, selecting either French, German, Spanish, Mandarin, Greek or Latin.
Criticism
There is broad consensus on reintroducing the learning of languages at a young age. Stephen Twigg, the Labour shadow education secretary, has recently backed the initiative.
What do you think? Are the academics right, or is Gove?
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
50 Responses to “The meaning of Gove”
Ermie
so no political agenda there then…. 😉
OldWycombensian
History section is ludicrous. I intentionally left the UK to do my Bachelors at a university which is focusing on the Pacific Basin relations precisely because it an increasingly important region of the world — politically and economically. Gove has his head lodged in a narrow gap of British history which extolls empire and Queen Victoria. I can bet my bottom dollar too, that his curriculum deals little with the damaging and brutal acts of colonialism.
Science section, kinda pointless. I think most kids are well aware about drugs a lot earlier than high school anyway — don’t see what the fuss is about.
English, my preference is to learn through literature. Grammar and punctuation are important, I can’t deny that; and rote memorization has positive as well as negative effects. Simply put though, we need to foster in our young an engaged and critical mind that can actively meet and engage with an ever-faster changing world.
Maths, I kind of agree. Our maths standard in the UK is on average pretty low compared to the other leading economies of the EU and the rest of the world.
Languages, I definitely agree – brilliant! Latin and Greek are kind of pretentious though. I’m not sure they’re worth the effort it takes to learn them.
Alexander Johnson
I don’t want to live in this country anymore.
🙁
Ed
Serious non-aggressive question: if you want to do history because it’s ‘relevant’, then why not study politics? Why are you studying history in the first place?
Mick
364 economists who weren’t exactly right? They would have taken such a battering under Labour that they’d probably have just wanted to play it safe. Which would have been understandable.
Google TELEGRAPH HOW 364 ECONOMISTS GOT IT TOTALLY WRONG.
Margaret Thatcher saw the dead wood as a taxpayer-draining, over-unionised collection of nationalised industries, which took more than they gave and were being eclipsed by overseas producers anyway.
Labour now like to speak of globalised economies and the free market but they opposed tooth and nail the reforms which restored us as a central financial ‘power’. New industry was supposed to make a comeback up North all the same but market forces proved otherwise, alas.