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?
50 Responses to “The meaning of Gove”
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.
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.
Mick
Maybe you should. Let us all learn.
moonlit
I completely agree with the critics. Coming from a different country where history is the least liked subject- and quite rightly so because of the way it is taught-, I have, in a way envied, my children who have come to love history as a subject in this country. I always admired the importance given to other influences and the analytical approach to understanding historical sources. Isn’t it this analytical thinking embedded in history education which gives history students a head start? It would be a shame to lose this by adopting a more Anglo-centric approach which would definitely have a negative impact on the number of history lovers and analytical thinkers. If not careful, it looks like it has the potential to be a step towards creating an official history which would be a shame…
OldWycombensian
I’m actually studying liberal arts with a major in comparative politics and a minor in Spanish. The nature of the liberal arts degree, though, has allowed me to study history too, though always through a multidisciplinary and integrative lens. The university has a general focus on pacific basin states, emphasizing a holistic study of the region, politics, history, economics, culture, language, etc, whereas most UK unis reproduce the traditional Eurocentric frame for academic inquiry — unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly less important. Not unimportant, just relatively less so.