Facts are only part of the story on the curriculum
Claire Fox is right to criticise the debate on the new curriculum being conducted around a dualism between skills and knowledge. The shock when one takes the time to read the draft is how poor the curriculum is.
Significant elements of the core subjects - for example, mathematics for children aged 5-8 - lack any sign of ambition and would in the case of that subject lead to a drop in standards. In other areas the incoherence is breathtaking: William Harvey, who described the circulatory system, is in history for children aged 5-7 and in science for children aged 9-10. We are left with paper-thin programmes for the creative arts, and a design and technology curriculum cobbled together with no advice from outside the mysterious Department for Education curriculum group. And, to cap it all, we have the sequential history curriculum, unteachable in any school with mixed-age classes.
The current curriculum has been in place for 13 years. Is the 2014 curriculum good enough for the generations of children these shoddy programmes of study will impact on between now and 2027? I and my school will not be distracted by such an inadequate piece of government work. We will look elsewhere in our ambition to create a world-class curriculum.
Jon Barr, Headteacher, Meadowbrook Primary School, Bristol.