Pie Corbett on the draft curriculum

There is good stuff within the draft curriculum for English, says Pie Corbett. But considerable holes remain to be filled.

Is the first draft of the new National Curriculum for English a ‘gold standard’ vision of English in the 21st century? Well, let’s start with some of the real strengths. It specifies:

• English as ‘a subject in its own right’;
• an appreciation and love of reading;
• a strong focus on vocabulary; familiarity with key stories, traditional tales, etc;
• having ‘conversations about books’;
• discrete teaching of handwriting;
• oral rehearsal of ideas and sentences prior to writing;
• ‘showing the skills and processes essential to writing’;
• explicit grammar teaching, applying this to ‘real-language examples such as their own writing or books they have read’.

In the draft, spelling and grammar are highly detailed whilst the main body is less specific. A systematic programme for spelling/phonics is essential. The spelling focuses on knowledge (rules and guidelines) rather than strategies (dictionaries don’t appear till year 5/6). There are spelling lists that exemplify patterns that have been taught and I think a useful addition would be to specify that every child should learn the 300 most common words needed for 75% of writing.

Grammar is similarly detailed. The programme contains the basics but some aspects that are unnecessary. There are omissions, e.g. no ‘imperative’ (taught for instructions) or ‘rhetorical questions’ (useful to hook a reader). Speech does not appear till Y3 (usually introduced in Y1). Year 1 is unambitious, e.g. in writing only using ‘and’ to write short narratives (a dire habit)! Apostrophe for ownership appears in Y3/4 when it is too difficult conceptually for most children. Verbs and adverbs are taught in different key stages. In order to raise standards, do primary children need to know about – possessive pronouns, relative clauses, modal verbs, parenthesis, determiners, cohesion, active/passive, subject/object, fronted adverbials, verb inflexions, the subjunctive and the perfect form of verbs?

No future

Apparently, the future tense has disappeared (an important concept when learning other languages). Whilst I understand that English has no future tense comparable with the present and past tenses, we can refer to future time by using a present tense verb (I will visit tomorrow). Surely, there is a difference between laying down basic grammatical understanding that will help young children and the finer points of linguistics?

For instance, the informal term ‘connective’ suits primary age children. However, to drop it in favour of distinguishing between conjunctions, prepositions and adverbs (all can be used as connectives) is a recipe for confusion. Year 1 children can be taught ‘connectives’ and use them in writing. There is a point in grammar teaching when abstract definitions become overly complex. For instance, ‘down the lane, the man ran’ starts with a prepositional phrase that performs an adverbial function. The draft points out that genuine understanding of grammar is developed in relation to reading and writing (rather than by exercises). Crucially, the wording about what has to be learned must be clarified. Will the detailed programme and testing of grammar lead to an improvement in writing standards?

The focus on decoding/ transcription is not matched by a detailed progression in composition and comprehension. This would be a really helpful addition. There are some useful pointers about narrative but not poetry. Nonfiction is rather too skimpy, e.g. no mention of ‘topic sentences’, skimming and scanning or the ability to generalise. The specific commitment to children experiencing language to instruct, explain, discuss, persuade, inform or recount has been dropped. This is strange because to prepare for key stage 3, children need to be able to write in different forms to enable success across the curriculum.

Most teachers believe that understanding assists decoding. In Y1, it states, ‘ensure that pupils practise their reading with books that are consistent with their developing phonic knowledge and that do not require them to use other strategies to work out words’. This should not hinder Y1 children who read fluently, using a variety of strategies to devour a rich range of books.

Where’s the ICT?

As a National Curriculum, the document has some gaps. ‘Speaking and listening’ lacks breadth. The focus on learning poems, performing plays, making formal presentations, discussions, debates and explaining ideas is helpful. However, a great chance to grab teachers’ imagination and raise standards has been missed by not including ‘story-telling’, let alone linking reading to writing and speaking. ‘Talking like a book’ helps children internalise vocabulary and sentence structure, developing an elegant turn of phrase. Oral learning of written texts stretches back as far as Aristotle.

Drama is virtually nonexistent and there is no mention of ICT – either as a tool for writing or in reading. In the 21st century, children should be taught how to read screen-based material in an effective and discriminating manner as well as using a computer to communicate. If we are to develop the skills children need to be effective in the world marketplace, ICT has to be central to English teaching.

No doubt a second draft will be an opportunity to tighten up on loose ends. For instance, the commitment to using texts as ‘models’ for writing at KS2 is specified but not so obviously at KS1. Pleasure in reading is highlighted but not in writing. There is a commitment to an ambitious read-aloud programme and this might benefit from exemplification. The appendices could provide a few models from successful schools. A commitment to literature from ‘other cultures’ only gets mentioned in Y5/6.

Needs work

I do wonder if education benefits from continual shifts? Doesn’t a country need a professional body that oversees the development of teaching, curriculum and assessment linked to research and practice, informed by inspection evidence? Compared to the original national curriculum (a broad and rich entitlement), the original strategy (a termly framework) and the revised framework (detailed end of year objectives), the draft seems uncertain of its purpose. Personally, I would prefer a developmental programme that leads from assessment into what needs to be taught next.

Flexibility within the programme is encouraged so maintained schools will need to devise their own versions of the final document. Independent schools, academies and free schools are not obliged to follow the new curriculum. Writing a national programme is a thankless task as you can never please everybody and I would not wish to criticise anyone for ‘having a go’. Perhaps during the consultations, we can help to sharpen and shape this first draft. As a teacher of mine wrote in a report, many years ago, ‘rather erratic – flashes of excellence but plenty of work to be done’.