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.

Subscribe to get access to the content on this page.

If you are already a Tes/ Tes Scotland subscriber please log in with your username or email address to get full access to our back issues, CPD library and membership plus page.

Not a subscriber? Find out more about our subscription offers.
Subscribe now
Existing subscriber?
Enter subscription number

Comments

The guide by your side – ensuring you are always up to date with the latest in education.

Get Tes magazine online and delivered to your door. Stay up to date with the latest research, teacher innovation and insight, plus classroom tips and techniques with a Tes magazine subscription.
With a Tes magazine subscription you get exclusive access to our CPD library. Including our New Teachers’ special for NQTS, Ed Tech, How to Get a Job, Trip Planner, Ed Biz Special and all Tes back issues.

Subscribe now