Talk:National Curriculum (England and Wales)

Change links in subjects of the NC?

I've just been looking through the list of subjects in the NC and following the links to articles for each one.

While some are great an tell you what that part of the NC is supposed to each, others (such as maths, science, citizenship and to a lesser extent ICT) go to articles which are no help whatsoever in understanding what the subject taught in schools is like (particularly in the UK)

I mean, the maths article is very in formative, but not very accessible to school age people and not very informative as to what is taught in school and how maths is taught in schools. I feel the science and citizenship articles are even worse than the maths one in this respect.

Would it be possible to have articles linked to there which are maybe called Maths in schools or Science in schools or Maths teaching or Citizenship lessons. These pages themselves could have 'see also' links to the main articles on their subjects. Evil Eye 15:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

sure that would be good, but you're the one with the maths degree and PGCE. You might be the best qualified here to do it. Sjjb 17:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Need to change the list of compulsory subjects at KS3

20 Dec 2006 I think you need to add 'a modern foreign language'. Dick Hudson dick@ling.ucl.ac.uk

Agreed. Have done so. Tafkam 18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

These are both quite short articles so there is no need to split. Further, there is a big overlap that can be eliminated between Areas tested in national curriculum assessments and Compulsory Subjects. Much better to have one article so the reader finds everything they want in one place. TerriersFan 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - seems to make sense to me Tafkam 10:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Split

I have overhauled the listings of statutory subjects in the main article here. However, it has a natural bias towards the English national curriculum. I have tried to make comments where appropriate for difference in Wales, but since the two systems seem to be constantly diverging now, I wonder if a separate article might be more appropriate. In which case, is there someone with better knowledge out there who might write it? Tafkam (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This actually needs a disambiguation page anyway, since other countries such as Australia also have a National Curriculum - see National Curriculum (Australia). At very least this page should be migrated to National Curriculum (UK) even if it is not split, and National Curriculum become a disambiguation page. I propose to make these changes soon, since the discussion of the splitting / merging of various topics here occurred well over a year ago and no conclusive action was taken at the time. -- Ishel99 (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed the suggested split notification since it was 12 months since it was suggested and there had been neither discussion nor action taken to implement a split. -- Ishel99 (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism / Neutrality

Obviously the criticism section should be critical, but at the moment it is directly critical, rather than reporting verifiable criticisms. I'm not convinced that the statements are even of the sort that could be verified. Certainly there would be a need to support the claim that IGCSEs are "tougher" than standard courses, and the claim that therefore the NC is a fault is something of a non sequitur. I think some more serious work is needed here. Tafkam (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope I have addressed your issues. The first paragraph is merely the statement that for subjects in the NC the GCSE syllabus is the National Curriculum, therefore criticism of one applies to the other also--but this fact was not made clear anywhere else on Wikipedia to my knowledge. The second point is that the IGCSEs are considered tougher (by many including the current gvmt opposition) but cannot be used in state schools because they do not fulfil the NC requirements. I trust the extra references support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortsy (talk • contribs) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the extra references. However, there are still a couple of statements which I consider to be unverified - and perhaps unverifiable:

• since the implementation of the National Curriculum the syllabus is already determined by law. - This is not quite true. While the outline of the syllabus is set by the NC, syllabuses are far more detailed, and vary between boards. For example, while the KS4 NC for Maths stretches to a couple of pages, just the Higher Tier section of the Edexcel syllabus is some 20+ pages.
• the allowing of state school pupils to take exams unrelated to the National Curriculum would signal admission that the system (National Curriculum, GCSEs, League Tables) does not suit the most gifted students. - This is purely speculation. It may be widely-used speculation, in which case a couple of references and a slight re-wording to indicate that would be appropriate, but it is certainly not verifiable in its current form. Tafkam (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that digging further I have realised I was confused by the last argument because corresponding GCSE grades and IGCSE grades are considered equivalent, so why would a pupil want to take a harder exam to achieve the same grade? There is a lot more to this, but most of that would be more relevant to the IGCSE page, not being directly relevant to the NC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.33.133 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation from other countries required

I have started an article National Curriculum (Australia). Like the UK versions (okay, I know it doesn't include Scotland) it is simply called the 'National Curriculum', not 'Australian National Curriculum' or the like; and so I would propose a disambiguation page under 'National Curriculum' which would then allow for the national curriuclum moves of various countries to be included. -- Ishel99 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now created the disambiguation page required since there was no discussion and no objections, and fixed the links in numerous articles. -- Ishel99 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

History/Latest Revisions

I think this page could do with more on the history of the National Curriculum and the changes it has been through since its inception. There is one line that refers to how it has expanded in scope but with no real detail and there is no mention at all of the latest revision even though it represents a major shift in attitude (in favour of skills and personalisation and away from increased coverage and prescription), which will take a long time to filter into the curricular provision that is actually seen in schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.120.14 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Now KS 3, 4, 5 and 6 students taking Open University Courses too

In their efforts to stand out from the crowd at UCAS time, to widen horizons or from personal interest, an increasing number of school age students are studying with the Open University, either through its Young Applicants in Schools and Colleges Scheme (YASS) or independently. Most of these students fall into the category of "Gifted & Talented kids" and commence study with the O.U. at KS 4, 5 and 6 and some as early as KS 3. Study is funded through the LSC (changing to local LEAs late 2010). See http://www.open.ac.uk/yass/index.php.for more information Ou-yass (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reason for removal of paragraph

I removed the paragraph "Failure and adverse effects of the ‘free market’ objective" for the following reason.

The paragraph contained some valid comments on the effects of education policy, but was not relevant to the National Curriculum. The writer had confused the National Curriculum with school league tables.

The purpose of the National Curriculum was not "to enable league tables and inform parental choice". The purpose was to ensure that a uniform curriculum was taught in every state school across the country. The government of the time came to feel that subjects such as 'Peace Studies', which had grown up in some local education authorities, were not valid areas for study. It wanted to prevent such subjects being taught.

There are plenty of reasons for criticising the National Curriculum, but those reasons do not include the ones stated in this paragraph.

League tables were a subsequent development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrall22 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a reason, rather than just deleting, but having looked at both the content and the references I feel that this needs more discussion to obtain consensus before being deleted. --Bob Re-born (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hope that happens quickly, because the article as it stands is just plain wrong.Thrall22 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So, does anyone object to me removing the paragraph?Thrall22 (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see the material has been removed. The article is better now.Thrall22 (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What's with the table with the green ticks?

I have no idea what the ticks are supposed to represent. Every cell in the table has a green tick, except that none of the cells in the row for maths have ticks. What information is it meant to convey? 86.146.28.229 (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see that User:94.185.244.122 vandalised this article repeatedly on the 10th December, and nobody involved in warning or blocking them thought to check and undo their other contribs. Undone now. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)