The Curriculum for Excellence is part of the SNP's Smarter Scotland strategy but it seems to be getting the opposition parties in a bit of a lather as they continue to attack the SNP on what some perceive as its main weakness, education.
Per the body's own website:
Curriculum for Excellence aims to achieve a transformation in education in Scotland by providing a coherent, more flexible and enriched curriculum from 3 to 18.
The curriculum includes the totality of experiences which are planned for children and young people through their education, wherever they are being educated.
It is underpinned by the values inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament - wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity.
The purpose of Curriculum for Excellence is encapsulated in the four capacities – to enable each child or young person to be a successful learner, a confident individual, a responsible citizen and an effective contributor.
In The Times today there have been complaints that the SNP did not give clear guidance to teachers and have "underfunded the curriculum".
However, just last month, there were what now appears to be contradictory complaints from Rhona Brankin (Labour Education Spokesperson) and Liz Smith (Tory Education spokesperson) that the SNP were sending out too much information to teachers as part of the same Curriculum for Excellence strategy. The perfectly reasonable move of sending individual brochures to each teacher in Scotland was derided as a waste of money.
So the Curriculum for Excellence is wasting money and information-heavy in June and then it is under-funded and information-light in July.
Not for the first time, I do wish Labour would pick a position and stick with it...
Carla in bronze
3 minutes ago
7 comments:
CFE started off under Labour.
To a large extent it copies the English National Curriculum, but nobody in the Scottish establishment likes hearing that.
The criticism on "information" is that they are sending out way too many thick glossy folders, but said folders do not actually say very much specific.
There are some good ideas in CFE, but too much emphasis on new buzz-words like "cross-curricular", "relevance" and "cizienship" and too little on "imparting worthwhile knowledge".
Teachers are there to teach, not do social engineering to make up for the failures of politicians and parents.
"Teachers are there to teach, not do social engineering to make up for the failures of politicians and parents."
I'm not sure that's entirely correct Smee,
The focus today is on developing children to want to learn for themselves. No amount of knowledge cramming will change the prospects of the majority.
In that respect the CFE is well focused, looking at the 'relevance' 'citizenship' and 'cross curricular" aspects of education.
For too long, children have simply went through the motions of book learning. which has led to generations coming to University starved of initiative and the will to learn and push the boundaries of knowledge.
I can't help but think that Labour & the Liberals are out of touch with their misguided criticism. I noted that the Times paper edition yesterday was criticising the 'SNP Government' for not doing enough since 2004. when the CFE was ready.
Yes, 2004, three years before the SNP was elected.
Jeff, well done for exposing the mixed up thinking coming from Rhona Brankin, her hatred of the EssEnnPee is palatable, you should see some of the faces she pulls at FMQ's.....
CFE was an initiative of the previous administration which carried cross-party support (as do many things in Scottish politics).
It was created to improve the Scottish learning experience. It has absolutely no connection to the National Curriculum in England, does not copy it to any extent whatsoever and has different intent.
CFE you can find here - http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/
English National Curriculum you can find here - http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/
The differences and contrasts are striking.
Muttley
You would carry more credibility if you had not come out with:
"For too long, children have simply went through the motions of book learning."
No similarities, Calum?
"The purpose of Curriculum for Excellence is encapsulated in the four capacities – to enable each child or young person to be a successful learner, a confident individual, a responsible citizen and an effective contributor."
http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/aims/index.aspx
"The curriculum should enable all young people to become:
* successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve
* confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives
* responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society."
Apart from adding "effective contributor", it looks like a cut-and-paste job to me.
Not that I'm a big fan of the NC - I'm with Chris Woodhead on that one.
Possibly the main advantage of CFE or NC is that, by being less prescriptive, it will enable teachers to make sure that common sense prevails, elevating good teaching and the transmission of knowledge to the top of the priority scale.
"transmission of knowledge "
You really don't get it do you Smee.
That's exactly what they are moving away from, going through the motions of 'book leanring' and then spit it out at an exam and forget it is dead.
Technology and knowledge is moving at a phenomenal rate, kids need to know how to source information, analyse facts and leanr to love leanring.
The days of simply "transmitting knowledge "are over, I'd have thought a man/woman like you would have know that.
The truth is the Curriculum for Excellence is pretty much the same as the Sassenach one, i.e. lots of wordy blether and abstract nonsense with little of substance. Indeed it is pure New Labour.
Even the the words 'Curriculum for Excellence' are typical of the bureaucratic language that dominates our contemporary politics, you can talk all the shite you like about "underpinned by the values inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament - wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity", several generations of illiterates and Scotland's declining standards in Science and Mathematics tell another story.
Muttley
Good grief, this is like dynamiting anaesthetised fish in an infinitely small barrel.
"'book leanring'"
"leanr to love leanring."
Sorry, who "doesn't get it"? There seem to be a few basics you failed to "get" at school and after.
"The days of simply "transmitting knowledge "are over"
No, they're not "over", they never were. There is nothing "simple" about transmitting knowledge well.
I'm all for learning-centred teaching and assessment. I'm in favour of an appropriate degree of relevance and cross-curricular working. I like the idea of new, broader courses which widen the appeal of "difficult" subjects, as long as the availability and rigour of the courses for those who wish to excel at the subjects are not compromised.
Sorry, Muttley, this is something else I happen to know a lot about. But it isn't (for once) a party-political issue; all your beloved Nats are doing is heading down a course charted by Labour.
Bon voyage. The problem with education policy is that it takes 10-15 years to make any major changes.
Post a Comment