I struggle to get a sense of whether primary education is getting any better, and if so whether any improvement that has happened is anything to do with government policies.
John Clare, in the Telegraph (linked to admiringly by Melanie Phillips), doesn't really explain why things have turned out as they have, but at least he says what the story is:
… For the past three years, the proportion of 11-year-olds reaching the expected levels in English and maths has stalled. Not only does that leave one in four ill-equipped to cope with secondary school, but it offends our national expectation that standards will continue to rise as relentlessly in the future as in the past.Almost worse than that in the Government's eyes, there's now not the slightest prospect of primary schools reaching the literacy and numeracy targets it originally set for them next year and subsequently shifted to 2006.
So, an improvement, but then a disappointing levelling off in that improvement. Things have got as good as they are soon going to. That's what's happening. That's the picture, as painted by Clare.
But why? Clare attacks progressive-creative education, and lauds chalk-and-talk. But that doesn't explain anything about the pattern of (a) improvement and then (b) slackening off in the improvement. Melanie Phillips echoes Clare in trashing progressive-creative, but the same complaint applies to her. (They both join in denouncing Ofsted's interpretation of its own findings.)
I mean, if the government's policies (which are not necessarily the same as Ofsted's) are so bad, how come there was any improvement at all?
Suppose that primary school doctrine can indeed be classified into either progressive-creative or chalk-and-talk, either/or. Crude, but maybe that'll do. And suppose that our present government has switched from neutrality and trusting the teachers and the educrats and the teacher trainers and basically worrying about other things (my take on the attitude of the previous government towards ) to being semi-strongly inclined towards chalk-and-talk, and semi-hostile to progressive-creative. Maths hours, literacy hours, a semi-serious move towards phonetics, etc. An effort, but still quite a bit of confusion. Again, that's a simplification, but there has been something of a shift, some way towards chalk-and-talk, but not the whole way.
Suppose further, as I do, that Clare and Phillips are right that chalk-and-talk works better than progressive-creative. What I see is an educational world in which whatever good the shift (such as it has been) in government policy has now done pretty much all it can. Those teachers and educrats and teacher trainers who are willing to change their ways have now changed them. Those who aren't willing to change their ways aren't going to, unless they are subjected to a whole lot more pressure than this current regime is willing to put on them. Hence the levelling out in the improvement.
Well, that's my story and … I'd be very happy to change it in the light of further evidence.
Hi Brian
I though the magic of the blogosphere have found your page in England - I live in Canada.
I wonder if the issue is the school no matter what the teaching process. In Canada we have been looking at the effects of the withdrawal of attachment in parenting and its affect on learning and behaviour and hence on the ability of children to cope in school. There is a huge sea change going on here with at least 30% of kids arriving at school aged 6 already unable to cope and to learn. No amount of support from the school has bene able to turn these kids around. They in turn are very disruptive and make school very hard for everyone else.
We have found a remarkable link between a 2 year old's ability to understand words and their life time trajectory for learning. Children at 2 who can understand 150 words are on a track of poor attainment now matter what happens at school. At best they reach a grade 5 level at grade 10 (Grade 10 = 16 year olds here so they are stuck at 16 at the level of a smart 11 year old) Children who can understand 300 words at 2 are on a track to be able to read and comprehend at 16 at the level of a 21 year old!
There are two levers that drive these tracks. The first is the sheer number of words heard and the context for the words. At 4 the kids at the upper end have heard on average 40 million words. Those at the lower end only 10 million words. As we learn by patterning, you can see that by 4 the game is largely over. The 10 million word child can never catch up no matter who teaches them and how at school. The context for the words is also important. The kids at the lower end have mainly been experiencing an instrumental and authoritarian context. "Shut Up Johnny" " You're a bad boy" "Pick that up" " Don't do that" etc. The 40 million word child has been in effect having a series of increasingly complex conversations with his mother. "This is your shoe - can you say shoe?' "That's a bad thing to do Johnny - when you throw the food on the floor, Mummy has to clean it up" etc
The other track is touch. Children who do well usually have had a lot more touch and eye contact. Snuggli versus stroller. Dunbar's theory about the acquisition of language as an extention of primate groomoing is an interesting link to this pathway.
So in a long winded way I am suggesting that we have to look more carefully at what is happening to children via their parents in the first 6 years of life as the driver for how well they do at school.
I enjoy your site
Best wishes Rob
