2014 Primary Mathematics Curriculum is Not Fit for Purpose

Following the writing of my first report on the 2014 Primary National Curriculum in December I have been corresponding with the key people involved in its development.

As a results of their comments I have written a second report which calls for the immediate suspension of the implementation of the 2014 Primary National Curriculum for Mathematics. This new report dated 6 Jan 2014 can be downloaded here: Fundamental Problems with the 2014 Primary National Curriculum for Mathematics.

The press release which accompanies this report can be downladed here:
Call for Suspension of New Primary Mathematics Curriculum.

6 JAN FAULT: If you experience problems downloading the report an alternative version (without hyperlinks) can be downloaded from the Times Educational Supplement site.

Please use the contact form if you would like a copy of the press release.

One Reply to “2014 Primary Mathematics Curriculum is Not Fit for Purpose”

  1. Rebecca
    I completely agree with you on the point that the new curriculum is quite different from what they are doing in Singapore. However, even if it closely followed the Singapore one, there would still be some questions to ask.

    First, the Singapore curriculum might not be perfect either.

    Second, and more important, the curriculum in Singapore is supported by textbooks that are written by experts and used extensively in classrooms. Teachers and children using a textbook have a well-structured text with numerous illustrations which provide a consistent foundation for learning procedural skills and grasping abstract concepts. Among other positive things related to using textbooks, they are another reason why Singapore curriculum is fundamentally stronger than English National Curriculum. Any significant change of the curriculum in Singapore would require a lot of hard work of rewriting the textbooks which in turn would help to get rid of possible inconsistencies and mistakes in the future curriculum. This means that the changes to be implemented are rooted in the classroom practice. In contrast, English curriculum is a few dozen pages of text that may be as arbitrary and impractical as the authors like, and after it’s published the practitioners (i.e. teachers) are left to find ways of implementing it however inadequate it may be, which is an absurd upside-down approach.

Comments are closed.