The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has commissioned an Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum – led by Sir Jim Rose. This is an 'out-sourced' consultation, asking respondents to submit evidence via the DCSF.
In announcing the consultation, Secretary of State Ed Balls said: "A strong, coherent primary curriculum is central to achieving the ambitions of the Children's Plan and delivering the outcomes of the Every Child Matters agenda. It follows that our central purpose is to make the curriculum as good as it can be for all primary children, taking fully into account the importance of providing continuity with the early years foundation stage and the secondary stage curriculum". Respondents may therefore want to look at the aims edxpressed in those two documents.
A good source of information is the Cambridge University-based Primary Review, which recently found "a decrease in the overall quality of primary education experienced by pupils because of the narrowing of the curriculum and the intensity of test preparation". This was because of "a curriculum dominated by literacy and numeracy".
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) website also provides some useful perspectives: from a resolution passed by their 2000 conference which states that "Primary teachers are being forced to teach following a prescribed methodology regardless of their professional judgement, the circumstances of the school or the needs of pupils"; to the NUT response to the aforementioned Primary Review.
Similar themes of narrow curriculum and over-testing also emerge from the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT). You can download the 20 page NAHT submission to the Primary Review, which states: "there needs to be continued rationalisation of, and flexibility within, the National Curriculum at primary level, and of the assessment process" and that "there is a good case for arguing that today's primary children, particularly towards the upper end of Key Stage 2, are placed under too much pressure to perform well, which can lead to concerns about their emotional well-being". It also looks at some of the inherent contradictions between a wider curriculum and testing: "primary schools . . . recognise the value to children's learning of music, drama, poetry and creative subjects, while the inspection system still focuses on standards in maths and English".
The leader of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) recently made headlines by stating that: "Our national curriculum should be far more focussed on the development of life skills and ways of working than whether or not we teach the Battle of Hastings . . . too much learning that goes on in primary and secondary school is rote learning and that's not learning for the 21st Century".
And so it appears that educational professionals feel there is not only enough space in the curriculum for creative subjects, but also for life skills too (aside from literacy and numeracy) and that testing causes this.
It's interesting that since devolution Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all abolished SATS for seven year olds. Should England follow suit?
Full details of the consultation can be downloaded from the DCSF website. The deadline for consultation responses is 30th April 2008.
Monday, 24 March 2008
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Aviation's duty to climate change
In the 2007 Budget, the Government announced a consultation on replacing Air Passenger with Aviation Duty. The Treasury document Aviation duty: a consultation sets out the options for implementing Aviation Duty.
The consultation looks at how the duty can be switched from passengers to planes. In early March, the story of an American Airlines flight which flew from Chicago to London with just five passengers illustrated the case for taxing planes over passengers – and caused outrage in the press.
It is proposed that Aviation Duty will be based on flight distance and the 'Maximum Take-Off Weight' of the plane as the most effective measure. The consultation essentially asks for responses on the detail of implementation - though, as ever, there is scope for more general responses.
The move to Aviation Duty is welcomed by Friends of the Earth, which states it "could be a major step in the right direction".
The Campaign for Better Transport has also welcomed the transfer to Aviation Duty, stating, "the aviation industry currently pays no fuel tax or VAT so it's right they contribute something to the economy. But we need to see investment in sustainable alternatives to short-distance air travel, such as rail links". Perhaps respondents to the consultation should ask for revenue from Aviation Duty to be ringfenced for such schemes.
Such ringfencing would surely be supported by the RMT (the rail, maritime and transport workers' union) which makes the environmental case for shifting freight transport from air to rail and inland waterway in its recent submission to the Transport Select Committee. The RMT and environmental campaigners will be pleased to know that Aviation Duty, unlike Air Passenger Duty is also proposed to apply to freight as well as passenger flights.
For a good background on the environmental case for reducing air travel see AirportWatch or Greenpeace. However, the consultation document states that "the Government remains committed to supporting the sustainable growth of the aviation industry", yet also admits that while currently accounting for 6.3% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, aviation is projected to increase to 21% by 2050. So much for joined-up government!
The deadline for responses to the consultation on Aviation Duty closes on 24th April 2008 – and it's proposed that Aviation Duty will replace Air Passenger Duty from 1st November 2009.
The consultation looks at how the duty can be switched from passengers to planes. In early March, the story of an American Airlines flight which flew from Chicago to London with just five passengers illustrated the case for taxing planes over passengers – and caused outrage in the press.
It is proposed that Aviation Duty will be based on flight distance and the 'Maximum Take-Off Weight' of the plane as the most effective measure. The consultation essentially asks for responses on the detail of implementation - though, as ever, there is scope for more general responses.
The move to Aviation Duty is welcomed by Friends of the Earth, which states it "could be a major step in the right direction".
The Campaign for Better Transport has also welcomed the transfer to Aviation Duty, stating, "the aviation industry currently pays no fuel tax or VAT so it's right they contribute something to the economy. But we need to see investment in sustainable alternatives to short-distance air travel, such as rail links". Perhaps respondents to the consultation should ask for revenue from Aviation Duty to be ringfenced for such schemes.
Such ringfencing would surely be supported by the RMT (the rail, maritime and transport workers' union) which makes the environmental case for shifting freight transport from air to rail and inland waterway in its recent submission to the Transport Select Committee. The RMT and environmental campaigners will be pleased to know that Aviation Duty, unlike Air Passenger Duty is also proposed to apply to freight as well as passenger flights.
For a good background on the environmental case for reducing air travel see AirportWatch or Greenpeace. However, the consultation document states that "the Government remains committed to supporting the sustainable growth of the aviation industry", yet also admits that while currently accounting for 6.3% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, aviation is projected to increase to 21% by 2050. So much for joined-up government!
The deadline for responses to the consultation on Aviation Duty closes on 24th April 2008 – and it's proposed that Aviation Duty will replace Air Passenger Duty from 1st November 2009.
Saturday, 8 March 2008
On the Buses
You wait for a consultation on buses, and then two come along at once! The Department for Transport has a consultation on 'Options for strengthening bus passenger representation' for which the deadline is Monday 17th March – if you hurry you might just catch it!
The consultation seeks views on how to "provide a more high profile, recognised point to which passengers could address their concerns about punctuality and reliability of their local bus services".
So anyone who catches a bus regularly should be interested – especially if you have a disability.
The Campaign for Better Transport is looking forward to a watchdog for bus passengers, and has a template response for those replying to the consultation.
The other consultation is on Bus construction regulations – which may sound as if it is only of interest to bus manufacturers, but is actually about the regulation and safety standards of buses. It should therefore be of interest to road safety campaigners, bus drivers and the unions that represent them, and other road users. The deadline for responses to this consultation is Thursday 20th March.
The consultation seeks views on how to "provide a more high profile, recognised point to which passengers could address their concerns about punctuality and reliability of their local bus services".
So anyone who catches a bus regularly should be interested – especially if you have a disability.
The Campaign for Better Transport is looking forward to a watchdog for bus passengers, and has a template response for those replying to the consultation.
The other consultation is on Bus construction regulations – which may sound as if it is only of interest to bus manufacturers, but is actually about the regulation and safety standards of buses. It should therefore be of interest to road safety campaigners, bus drivers and the unions that represent them, and other road users. The deadline for responses to this consultation is Thursday 20th March.
Saturday, 1 March 2008
Direct democracy or petition sham?
As part of the Governance of Britain green paper, the Department for Communities and Local Government is now consulting on Local petitions and Calls for Action.
Since November 2006 members of the public have been able to start or sign online petitions at the 10 Downing Street website, which can run for up to 12 months and receive a Government response if signed by 200 or more people.
The Governance of Britain green paper committed the Government to considering means of petitioning Parliament and devising a mechanism which could lead to a debate in the House of Commons – but strangely this is not included within this consultation, with no explanation of why not or whether it will be in the future. To find out you may want to email Hazel Blears (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)
Instead, another issue, not even mentioned in the green paper is being consulted upon: petitions to local government.
The consultation document proposes that local authorities would have a duty to respond to petitions in much the same way as the 10 Downing Street system, if they relate to an issue in local government jurisdiction; are organised by a local person; and have a sufficient level of support.
However, as the consultation document admits, "many local authorities already deal with petitions systematically, scrupulously and fairly" – so it is not clear what difference this proposal would make – except for the minority of councils who perhaps do not respond formally to petitions (no examples are cited in the consultation document).
However, the document does mention examples of countries where petitions are a "trigger leading to electoral action, typically in the form of a referendum". One such example of this is Switzerland whereby any change to Swiss law can be subjected to a referendum if 50,000 people sign a petition opposing it within 100 days. Additionally, a referendum on a constitutional change can be initiated by 100,000 people signing a petition within 18 months.
Campaigning organisations such as charities, trade unions and other NGOs may therefore wish to reply to this consultation suggesting the Swiss model.
The deadline for responses is 20th March 2008.
Since November 2006 members of the public have been able to start or sign online petitions at the 10 Downing Street website, which can run for up to 12 months and receive a Government response if signed by 200 or more people.
The Governance of Britain green paper committed the Government to considering means of petitioning Parliament and devising a mechanism which could lead to a debate in the House of Commons – but strangely this is not included within this consultation, with no explanation of why not or whether it will be in the future. To find out you may want to email Hazel Blears (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)
Instead, another issue, not even mentioned in the green paper is being consulted upon: petitions to local government.
The consultation document proposes that local authorities would have a duty to respond to petitions in much the same way as the 10 Downing Street system, if they relate to an issue in local government jurisdiction; are organised by a local person; and have a sufficient level of support.
However, as the consultation document admits, "many local authorities already deal with petitions systematically, scrupulously and fairly" – so it is not clear what difference this proposal would make – except for the minority of councils who perhaps do not respond formally to petitions (no examples are cited in the consultation document).
However, the document does mention examples of countries where petitions are a "trigger leading to electoral action, typically in the form of a referendum". One such example of this is Switzerland whereby any change to Swiss law can be subjected to a referendum if 50,000 people sign a petition opposing it within 100 days. Additionally, a referendum on a constitutional change can be initiated by 100,000 people signing a petition within 18 months.
Campaigning organisations such as charities, trade unions and other NGOs may therefore wish to reply to this consultation suggesting the Swiss model.
The deadline for responses is 20th March 2008.
Helping the disabled back into work?
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is currently consulting on 'Improving specialist disability employment services'. According to the consultation document, "the overall employment rate for disabled people has improved significantly over the past decade – from just 38% in 1998 to around 47% today".
As the Shaw Trust highlights "only about half of disabled people of working age are in work, compared with 80% of non disabled people of working age". Their website also contains comparative employment statistics by disability.
The consultation looks at the nature of provision that the DWP offers to disabled people seeking work, and asks how this provision can be improved. But both the Citizens Advice Bureau and the PCS union (representing staff who work in Jobcentre Plus) question whether improvements can be made at a time when the DWP is cutting a further 12,000 staff – having cut 30,000 over the past three years.
Improving this specialist provision to these services is part of the DWP's proposed reforms of Incapacity Benefit, which aims to remove one million people from Incapacity Benefit. These proposals have been criticised by unions, and disability charities.
The consultation document Improving specialist disability employment services can be downloaded from the DWP website. The deadline for responses is Monday 10th March 2008.
As the Shaw Trust highlights "only about half of disabled people of working age are in work, compared with 80% of non disabled people of working age". Their website also contains comparative employment statistics by disability.
The consultation looks at the nature of provision that the DWP offers to disabled people seeking work, and asks how this provision can be improved. But both the Citizens Advice Bureau and the PCS union (representing staff who work in Jobcentre Plus) question whether improvements can be made at a time when the DWP is cutting a further 12,000 staff – having cut 30,000 over the past three years.
Improving this specialist provision to these services is part of the DWP's proposed reforms of Incapacity Benefit, which aims to remove one million people from Incapacity Benefit. These proposals have been criticised by unions, and disability charities.
The consultation document Improving specialist disability employment services can be downloaded from the DWP website. The deadline for responses is Monday 10th March 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)