Cambridge Primary Review - Coursework Example

Critical analysis report: Cambridge Primary Review Executive Summary 1 The review 2 'Eight new domains' 2 Positive Aspects of the Review 3 Problem Areas 4 Conclusion 5 References: 6 Introduction: The Cambridge Primary Review is a broad investigation that seeks to study the state and future outlook of the primary education scenario in England. Supported by Esmée Fairba Foundation the review is conducted by the Faculty of Education at the Cambridge University. The process of the review started on October 1, 2006; the final report is due in 2010. A report of the findings was however published October 2009, wherein the review made public its many recommendations- a program of national and regional dissemination conferences has been organized in association with Teachers First and can be viewed and booked online. Executive Summary The following is a discussion with a personal perspective on the nature of the review with respect to its positives and the areas where even now the recommendations fail to solve the problems that characterize the English primary education system. Before one goes into a discussion of the many merits and problems of the review, it would be interesting that one outlines the recommendations that have been made by the review. The review The Cambridge Primary Review is to be understood primarily in the context of it being a contributor to the debate on primary curriculum within the English education system vis-à-vis the government Rose Review. The review however needs to be thought of, not as a knee jerk response to the Rose Review but a long-drawn, well thought out process that seeks to be an answer where primary curricula is concerned for the next forty years. The review draws on evidences that it has found for it self and uses this evidence in drawing its own conclusion, the solutions it proposes are original and more than anything else, the review has been able to work in context of the basic question on the requirement of and the expectations from primary education. Where the Rose review is clear on the root of the problem being the education system’s ‘quarts-into-pint-pots’: finding ways to cram 14 subjects into a finite week or year, the Cambridge Review opines that the need to learn a selected amount within a selected amount of time should be a problem only in cases where there is no clarity about need of the learning, that we must continue to teach, albeit repackaged, the un-argued accretion of decades without genuine reform. The report's authors suggest learning in primary schools is skewed towards subjects which are formally tested in the national tests, used to draw up league tables. It calls testing "the elephant in the curriculum", noting that in Year 6 especially, the final year of primary school, "breadth competes with the much narrower scope of what is to be tested." Professor Robin Alexander, director of the Cambridge Primary Review, said: "Our argument is that their [children's] education, and to some degree their lives, are impoverished if they have received an education that is so fundamentally deficient." 'Eight new domains' The review suggests the primary curriculum should be “re-conceived” with 12 specific aims, which it arranges in three groups: 1. The first category could be earmarked as student personality development and encompasses fulfillment of character needs and abilities of the child in terms of the development of variables such as wellbeing; engagement, empowerment and autonomy 2. The second aspect of the development aims could be termed the nurturing of a social mind in terms of the development of traits related to the manner in which the individual perceives and deals with the world. Here the review recommends the encouragement for respect and reciprocity, promoting interdependence and sustainability, empowering local, national and global citizenship; celebrating culture and community 3. Learning, knowing and doing: knowing, understanding, exploring and making sense; fostering skill; exciting the imagination; enacting dialogue. These aims would be achieved through eight "domains", rather than a small number of subjects. The domains would be: arts and creativity; citizenship and ethics; faith and belief; language, oracy and literacy; mathematics; physical and emotional health; place and time (geography and history); science and technology. Positive Aspects of the Review There are certain areas that one can earmark as being positive aspects of the review. The review is innately comprehensive in terms of it coming up with suggestions for a standardized national curriculum, with assurances of privilege which it embodies. The fact that a national curriculum has had its advantages since its adoption in 1989 is well known specifically in areas of science and citizenship which have reflections in the manner in which the child value development is managed in line with personality growth factors. The other aspects of the review that would have positive ramifications are the national primary, literacy and numeric study based approach. Support for these is already visible in terms of support from the younger more pragmatic teachers that have welcomed the structure and guidance which they provide. One of the main reasons that the review could be seen as a positive development is because of the challenge identification aspects of the report it has presented, given the fact that an illness can only be justifiably treated once it has been correctly diagnosed. Problem Areas The review however is also an embodiment of a overstatement that is ultimately a multifaceted embodiment of numerous inconsistencies. These would include widening of curriculum span but with a reduction in the privileges in spite of the fact that there is a proposed introduction of a modern language in Key Stage 2. The review lays stress on the concept of personalized learning and yet there is a lasting focus on the preservation of significant aspects of the curriculum prescription-the biggest anamoly is the focus on the growth of a well-rounded individual child but with inordinate emphasis even now on the retention of the conservative basic aspects of the learning process. In the middle of this idiom one finds specie for the two key non-negotiables- 1. First, a primary focus of the review is the need to bestow upon scools the capability of strengthening attention paid on improvements in standards in the context of reading and writing –this is interesting because the review states need for well spoken individuals with good listening capabilities; and 2. Second, a negative reminder that the review is focused on the curriculum and is not considering changes to the current assessment and testing regime. This would then essentially signify that there is a none too delicate discouragement of the very option of elementary modification which the review supposedly wholeheartedly tries to advocate. In other words, the review is faulty because of the fact that the debate on curriculum management and practice loses its sheen due to the fact that there is a confused and to a large extent reductive dialogue about subjects, knowledge and skills. The very essece of what constitutes knowledge and skills is as projected by the review is debatable and it is tough to fathom whether the review seeks to promote knowledge or literacy. Debate on the position of subjects is polarized with just cause-it could in fact be stated that the review essentially reduces knowledge to the level of it becoming a gross caricature as in terms of a manifestation of facts and beliefs that are now obsolete. A mere renaming of the various elements of the existing system such as ‘skills’, ‘themes’ or ‘areas of learning’ does not qualify as recommendation for change or for improvement. Finally, one area where the review falls way short of the mark is with respect to children with disabilities in terms of the fact that the review does not even make marked mention of the fact that there is a category of children with special needs. The streamlining of these children is an issue that needs urgent policy decisions, in terms of their integration in to the mainstream of life. Ironically, the review with so much focus on the process of skill and knowledge development, ignores a section whose very education should be centered around these factors and with the continuing emphasis on the models of traditional learning that have characterized the English education system for the past 100 years, the review just furthers the alienation of kids with disabilities to the point where it integration looks like a far fetched if not impossible concept. There is no mention of the kind of government support and integration that should happen with respect to the practices of the curriculum implementation-especially in the light of the fact that there is a perception that furthers a skewed belief furthering notion on the uselessness of investing time and money on children with special needs, given the fact that in most cases the returns on these investments are negligible. Conclusion In conclusion one might reiterate at the risk of sounding harsh that the review, is much like the many others that have happened in the past with no real contribution in terms of pragmatism and no real advocacy for tangible change. In its present from it is much like a mirror of preservationist tendencies, a hyperbole of contradictions with no focus on issues that are in desperate need of government aid and help. References: The primary curriculum review will solve nothing, retrieved April 19, 2010, < http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/jan/25/schools.uk> Primary Review calls for radical curriculum change. Retrieved April 19, 2010, < http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6008956> What is primary education for?. Retrieved April 19, 2010, < http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6008992> BBC Report, (2009). Primary education 'too narrow'. Retrieved April 19, 2010, < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7896751.stm> Read More