 |
The UK's Leading Education 'Do-Tank' |
Search |
|
The National Education Trust is an independent charitable foundation dedicated to the promotion and sharing of excellent practice and innovation in education. |
| THE CAMBRIDGE REVIEW Colin Richards Click here for a print version of this article. 2009 saw the publication of two major reports/reviews, each with important implications for policy and practice in curriculum and assessment in English primary education. The first was a so-called 'independent' review of the primary curriculum set up by the government and conducted on its behalf by Jim Rose. The second was the Cambridge Review of English primary education as a whole. While not containing the words 'independent' in its title the Cambridge Review can make a good claim to that epithet. It was commissioned and funded by an independent foundation, it was directed by an academic with no public political allegiances, and none of its authors works for the government or one of its agencies. Its brief was wide and unconstrained by government policies, past or present. It provides a reappraisal of primary education as a whole, not just curriculum and assessment. Its findings are underpinned by wide-ranging academic research, though this varies considerably in quality and relevance, a fact not fully acknowledged in the otherwise well-written research surveys the Cambridge Review commissioned . Perhaps some commentators might be tempted to question its objectivity given the fact that its principal author has publicly disagreed with, and made allegations about, the DCSF’s handling of its own review and the Cambridge primary review. Others may feel that in too many places it reads like thinly-veiled footnotes to the three wise men's conclusions of 1992. Despite the inevitable hyperbole surrounding its launch the Review's report itself does not claim the status of a second Plowden Report. Yet it is a very important, reasoned and informed appraisal which merits both short-term and long-term political and educational consideration. Messrs. Balls, Gove and Lawes would benefit from considering its sophisticated analysis and its reasoned recommendations before committing themselves to any further transformation of English primary schools which, as the report details and acknowledges, appear to be "in good heart" and "in general are doing a good job". The Report could and should make a very important contribution to the re-professionalisation of primary education and primary policy-making . References Alexander R (ed.) (2009) Children, their World, their Education London: Routledge Department of Children, Families and Schools (2009) Report of the Expert Group on Assessment London : DCSF Richards C (2009) 'A rose by any other name is still... a government document' Education Journal 115 p.11 Rose J (2009) The Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum Final Report London: DCSF |
| Phone (44) (0)207 702 0707 |
Follow us on  |
Support NET
|
Join our mailing list |
Buy NET products online |
| Copyright © National Education Trust 2012 The National Education Trust asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this web site. Unless otherwise specified, all material on this website may be used for non-commercial purposes, on condition that the source is acknowledged. The National Education Trust is not responsible for the content of external websites. |
|||