News & Views
ICT in the Primary Curriculum: The Cambridge Review
By Terry Freedman
Fri, 20 Feb 2009, 10:40

Back in December 2008, I published the recommendations of the Rose Review in regard to the role of ICT in the curriculum (see ICT in the primary curriculum, and the 21st century school). Today, The Cambridge Review is published. It has a somewhat different outlook.

In my opinion, it should be rejected by the educational ICT community.

Although the Cambridge Review acknowledges the success of the current arrangements for education, such as the fact that the National Curriculum embodies the notion of entitlement, it is rather damning on certain aspects of them. For example:

"... children’s statutory entitlement to a broad and balanced primary curriculum compromised by the national tests and strategies; particular pressures at the start (reception) and end (year 6) of primary schooling; acute anxiety about the fate of the arts and humanities and, increasingly, science in primary schools;

erosion of both entitlement overall and standards in ‘the basics’ by a policy-led belief that breadth and standards are incompatible, when the evidence consistently shows the opposite – that one requires the other and the best schools achieve both; ..."

The new curriculum is:

"conceived as a matrix of 12 educational aims and 8 domains of knowledge, skill, enquiry and disposition, with the aims locked firmly into the framework from the outset;

dispenses with the notion of the curriculum core as a small number of subjects and places all eight domains within the curriculum on the principle that although teaching time will continue to be
differentially allocated, all the domains are essential to young children’s education and all must be taught to the highest standards..."

In addition, the national curriculum would have a mandatory community element which would take up 30% of the time allocation.

Now, I have only had time to skim-read the four documents published (press release, summary report, and two separate reports), so my views may change, but for now they are as follows.

Firstly, although I agree with some of the rationale behind the review, I always shudder when I read phrases like "12 educational aims and 8 domains". In my experience, such talk always leads to someone drawing up a matrix, which in this case would consist of 96 boxes.

Then someone else comes along and produces "guidance" which results in further rubrics for each of the boxes in the original matrix.

Next, someone has the bright idea that what needs to happen is ensure that all the boxes are ticked by insisting on lesson plan pro formas that require the teacher to indicate which of the 96 boxes are to be addressed in that lesson, and so on and so forth.

Secondly, and more specifically, I am not much impressed by the place afforded to ICT:

One of the 15 areas of a "properly-conceived primary education" (where did they come from? What did I just tell you?) is:

"the electronic handling of communication and information through ICT"

That doesn't sound very creative to me. The Review discusses the need for financial literacy, but seems to draw back from talking about ICT literacy. I think it is kind of implied, but not stated. Indeed, the Review states:

"If this [the list of domains] is compared with the recommendations of the Rose Review interim report two
apparent omissions will immediately be noted: ICT and personal development. Both are extremely important, but neither, in our view, is best conceived as a separate domain."

It goes on to say:

"... those aspects of ICT which are essential to a modern concept of literacy and to effective communication are within language, oracy and literacy. The many other applications of ICT are developed through the other domains."

One of the interesting things about having been in an educational career for >30 years is that you see the same ideas being trotted out every 10 or so years. One of these ideas is that ICT should be a cross-curricular area, not a subject in its own right. I see the thinking behind such visions, but in practice it never works. No, let me correct that: it can work, with a lot of effort, commitment and all sorts of conditions being satisfied, which I don't have the time to go into now.

In fact, even if you disagree with me on this, turn to the description of the Language, oracy and literacy domain. It includes the statement mentioned earlier:

"the electronic handling of information through ICT."

In what sense is that an expression of ICT literacy, except in the narrowest, skill-oriented one?

The Cambridge Review is interesting, thought-provoking and challenging, but in my opinion it has let the educational ICT community down.

Reference

http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/ 

© Terry Freedman Fri, 20 Feb 2009