Expensive primary review that is only stating the obvious?

27th February 2009 at 00:00

The curriculum proposals put forward by the Cambridge Review are independent, far-reaching and beneficial - unlike those in the supposedly independent Rose review. They are being published after almost two decades of increasingly close governmental prescription. This has impeded initiative and risk-taking at local level and has reduced initial teacher training and continuing professional development to transmission - or, at best, mediation - of government directives.

The Cambridge proposals are challenging conceptually, politically and logistically. They raise a host of questions, including some related to professional development.

Unless these questions can be tackled by all those concerned to reprofessionalise primary teaching, English primary education may settle - as it has too often had to do - for second best. And the Rose proposals are just that.

Professor Colin Richards, Spark Bridge, Cumbria.

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar, Buyagift.com, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today