Professor Andrew Pollard, (pictured), from the Institute of Education was a member of the advisory panel set up by Michael Gove to review the curriculum.
Following yesterday’s publication of the draft programmes of study for English, Maths and Science, Professor Pollard has now revealed that the expert panel of four clashed with the education secretary because he ignored their recommendations.
Writing on the Institute of Education blog, Professor Pollard says that the plans are ‘fatally flawed’ because they do not allow for the individual needs of children.
He reveals that in its report published last December the panel recommended that the programmes of study should be organised in two-year blocks to give teachers scope to use their professional judgement and take account of the different rates that children develop.
However, the new primary curriculum, he says, will give ‘extremely detailed year-on-year specifications in mathematics, science and most of English.’
Professor Pollard says that the education secretary dismissed the panel’s views in favour of American academic E D Hirsch, who wrote a prescriptive year-on-year curriculum - a Core Knowledge Sequence - for each subject from pre-school to Grade 8.
The book was apparently on the desk of schools minister Nick Gibb.
Professor Pollard writes, ‘Michael Gove’s instructions to Tim Oates, chair of the expert panel, were to trawl the curricula of the world’s high performing countries, to collect core knowledge, and put it in the right order. Then, he believed, we’d have a national curriculum to restore our economic fortunes and provide new opportunities for all.’
Professor Pollard and his colleagues on the panel, Mary James and Dylan Wiliam, opposed the detailed year-on-year model and recommended the organisation of programmes of study on a two-year basis.
Professor Pollard adds, ‘It is Hirsch’s very detailed year-on-year model that has prevailed. This was one of the main issues which caused the expert panel as a whole to withdraw from the development of programmes of study, leaving only Tim Oates to work with ministers and the DfE teams. In the interests of transparency, DfE should identify those who have been particularly influential in preparing the draft programmes of study.’
Professor Pollard says that the new curriculum is too detailed, when teachers need to be able to use their own professional judgement, and does not cater for children who find learning particularly difficult.
‘Expectations should be high, but if targets are unreasonable they will simply generate a widespread sense of failure. It is essential therefore that the draft programmes of study are now subjected to scrutiny, moderation and refinement by teachers, researchers and others so that expectations are appropriately pitched,’ he says.
