Is Cross-Curricular an End in Itself?

Being a subject in a National Curriculum offers science a great deal in that teachers, even reluctant ones have to teach science (though this very little about its quality!).  Its inclusion guaranteed science a time allocation and systematic coverage. At the time, pre 2005,  when Year Six pupils were subject to Science SATs testing some found themselves on an increasing diet of cramming, of past papers and virtual practical work. Since the removal of the science SAT science has slipped in terms of the priority given to in schools but the cramming appears to be a thing of the past.

It is important to make the distinction between science itself and science education which occurs in schools and other places. They are not mutually exclusive but there is a difference, it is often assumed that we want children to do science as part of their science education. Science itself is cross-curricular (Popper). Will a meteorologist draw on different aspects of science as well as usiing a great deal of mathematics when dealing with data and English when communicating findings to his or her peers?  Does this mean that science education has to be cross-curricular? Surely yes? Would be possible to teach about cross-curricular science within discrete science subject lessons? Clearly it would so do we need any other approach?  What some schools and teachers adopt is a overtly inter-disciplinary approach to planning the curriculum with the intention that different subjects make, utilise and benefit from links? It is perhaps worth considering whether the curriculum itself will guarantee links are recognised and used? Or is it still down to how it is presented and utilised in the classroom?

Which is most important? The cross-curricular approach? What does it guarentee? Perhaps more valuable is the committed teacher looking for ways to improve learning who utilises a cross-curricular approach in his her search for more effective approaches?

New Assessment Arrangements or Not?

With a new National Curriculum comes new assessment arrangements. The present arrangement of 8 levels against which pupils achievement is compared forms the basis of the present arrangements. The government claims that these create a glass ceiling, but yet the design of the level system avoids this. When a pupil achieves a level the teacher is already preparing to move them to the next level. Thus we could have a child working twards level 4 in Year 4 because they have achieved level 3. This surely can only be percieved as a glass celieng by those who don't understand it? The TGAT team who devised the levels were very well aware of this possibility. Appointed by the then Conservative government I suspect they were much better qualified than some of those extolling the virtues of  the proposal. So the proposal to avoid a glass ceiling, is to introduce age ralated targets. Did I mis read that? Would these be sets of educational objectives or targets linked to a particular age range? This appears to be the plan. So a Year 4 pupil would work towards the targets, perhaps achieve them in May and then....  ooops  they've hit a ceiling.  Or would the child move to a Year 5 class? this system is used in parts of north America and other contries. Alternatively the teacher could be asked to teach towards the Year 5 targets? very sensible and frankly not so different to the system of levels we have now so ....   ....we spend a lot of money to change a system from one we have to one we have?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/03/england-curriculum-review-debate-controversy

A New National Curriculum

So there is a proposal for a slimmed down National Curriculum here in England? So how slim is slim and what do you remove? We are I suspect all in favour of simplicity and ease of access but less so of dumbing down? What will be the basis of the changes? We could, for example, remove much of the content and focus very much on what we have come to call Science One - Exploration and Investigation of Science. If primary science is about enthusing and engaging young people in the fascinating world around them, what better way? I understand this has been the approach in countries around the world without diasterous results. Perhaps all of this is dependent on what you aims are? Do you want engaged citizens? or studnets who can pass an exam? Do we want informed consumers and other inspired to make a contribution to science and the world? or compliant individuals who don't appreciate the need to question?
We need to look at any curriculum with the same challenging eyes of the pupil who asks why? but why? The last National Curriculum was a product of those who wrote it and their ideas of what was a world view, the next no doubt will be the same. As ever we need those professional challenging eyes to take it and form it into a digestable whole. Lets hope the years of increasing control from the centre are over and that teachers are given some real space to teach.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/03/england-curriculum-review-debate-controversy

primary