Sunday 5 April 2009

That Ed Balls I, he was dead wrong

I am usually a large critic of the Schools Secretary Ed Balls, but I do support his latest comments about history lessons and that children should study major events in British history, like the World Wars, the Industrial Revolution, the War of the Roses and the like.

As I am also studying for a history degree, I also agree that it is nonsense that pupils should ever learn about Twitter and other social networking websites at the expense of understanding the past in the curriculum for under-11’s. This begs the question, where did this crazy idea come from? Well it appears that it is from a review which was carried out by Sir Jim Rose, former head of inspections at Ofsted and it suggested that schools would be able to drop the Victorians and the Second World War (which I consider is some of this nation’s finest history) so they could have more freedom to decide what periods of history were taught.

But even worst, the plans would allow geography and history to be grouped together under 'human, social and environmental understanding' the latter sounds a bit too much like 'Green Propaganda' for my liking. It would also allow more time to be available to look at new technology and using websites like Wikipedia, I could not think of a worst website to carry out research with!

However even though Ed Balls has said "The idea that primary school children will learn how to use Twitter and about social networking instead of learning about the Victorians and the Tudors is just complete nonsense," it still seems that he has said that one of the school lessons will now be called 'historical, geographical and social understanding' and that teachers will be given the liberty to study two areas in depth. He also said "In addition they will study a minimum of two periods of history in depth as well as learning about the movement and settlement of people in different periods of British history and the effects of economic, technological and scientific developments on the UK and the worldwide overtime."

Sir Jim’s plans will be submitted as part of a final report over the coming weeks and traditional subjects will be grouped under six headings which include understanding English, communication and languages; mathematical understanding; scientific and technological understanding; understanding physical health and wellbeing; and understanding arts and design.

I disagree with these changes as they seem to be making the under 11 curriculum more complex then it needs to be or ought to be. It is good to hear that the Conservative shadow schools minister Nick Gibb is not in favour of this report, saying "We have already questioned the Rose review because it is an approach to education that parents don't want for their children. They want them to have a good introduction to reading, writing, maths and science - just as they want British history and the geography of the world to be taught in full. That is not what Sir Jim was proposing. The comments by Ed Balls blow a hole in the entire review." I hope so.

No comments:

Post a Comment