 SCHOOLS would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum. Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop “secure values and beliefs”.
| It's all relative, you know, 'secure' values. |
The draft also purges references to promoting leadership skills and deletes the requirement to teach children about BritainÂ’s cultural heritage.
| No need to teach the Magna Carta, Cromwell, the Restoration, Shakespeare, Dickens, Orwell, how the tommies won the wars, or how British beliefs and langauge circled the world ... |
Ministers have asked for the curriculumÂ’s aims to be slimmed down to give schools more flexibility in the way they teach pupils aged 11 to 14.
The present aims for Stage 3 pupils state: “The school curriculum should pass on enduring values. It should develop principles for distinguishing between right and wrong.” The QCA’s proposals will see these phrases replaced to simply say that pupils should “have secure values and beliefs”.
| Because absolute values for right and wrong make people uncomfortable, and we'd never want to do that. |
The existing aims state that the curriculum should develop children’s “ability to relate to others and work for the common good”. The proposed changes would remove all references to “the common good”.
| Because the 'common good' sometimes requires that you defend the common good, and that leads to icky things like defense. |
The requirement to teach Britain’s “cultural heritage” will also be removed. The present version states: “The school curriculum should contribute to the development of pupils’ sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain’s diverse society.”
| Because wimmins studies and transgendered relationships are more important to the curriculum than Chaucer or Thomas Hardy. |
The proposals say that individuals should be helped to “understand different cultures and traditions and have a strong sense of their own place in the world”.
| Except their own, of course. |
References to developing leadership in pupils have also been removed. One of the present aims is to give pupils “the opportunity to become creative, innovative, enterprising and capable of leadership”. This is due to be replaced by the aim of ensuring that pupils “are enterprising”.
| Because the new British man or womyn need not be a leader, they just need to do as they're told. |
Professor Alan Smithers, of the University of Buckingham’s centre for education and employment research, said: “The idea that they think it is appropriate to dispense with right and wrong is a bit alarming.”
Teachers’ leaders said that they did not need to be told to teach children to distinguish between right and wrong. A spokeswoman for the National Union of Teachers said: “Teachers always resented being told that one of the aims of the school was to teach the difference between right and wrong. That is inherent in the way teachers operate. Removing it from the National Curriculum will make no difference.”
| Then why remove it? Seems to me that having it in the curriculum would buttress teacher attempts to teach right versus wrong, and serve as a basis of support should unhappy parents complain. By removing it you send a signal -- make it optional and implicit to teach right versus wrong rather than mandatory and explicit, and sure enough, some proportion of teachers will go light on the issue, if not abandon it alltogether. After all, that's the signal being sent. |
But she insisted that it was important for children to understand about their cultural heritage. “To remove that requirement can undermine children’s feelings of security in the country where they are living,” she said.
A spokesman for the QCA said: “The proposed new wording of the curriculum aims is a draft which will be consulted on formally next year as part of the ongoing review of Key Stage 3. One aim of the review is that there should be more flexibility and personalisation that focuses on practical advice for teachers. “The new wording states clearly that young people should become ‘responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society’. It also identifies the need for young people who challenge injustice, are committed to human rights and strive to live peaceably with others.”
Yes, responsible citizens who do as they're told taught. |
|