´óÏó´«Ã½

I am not sure how honest people will be in this open forum? but here is my tuppence worth. Curriculum for Excellence is a fantastic venture (on the surface) The outcomes are relevant and the experiential approach should be fantastic for the next generation of workers and academics; but why is every school in Scotland being left to make their own interpretation of the outcomes? The work has only been half done by the powers that be and we are all left to re-invent the wheel. My fear is that the "I can" statements will take away from the importance of raw knowledge and while pupils will become the best presenters in the world will they have the substance to back it up? DISCUSS! I look forward to seeing your ideas in poster format or maybe you would prefer to put on a little puppet show (GROAN!)

Thanks for redressing the balance a little here Claire. For sure there are lots of teachers who are 'worried', but unfortunately too often these are the only ones we hear from in the media. This is particularly true when CfE is reported across the UK by the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Everything tends to be reduced to the most simplistic view possible.

There are many teachers/parents/pupils out there who are stuggling with the change - but not everyone. Comments such as the one above are often a system of the way the change has been managed, rather than the change itself. I would like to know how media outlets can get away with using the word 'controversial' in relation to CfE when it has been supported from the outset by every Scottish Education organistion. This was true of the Curriculum Review Group, and is even more true of the CfE Management Board.

I meet many teachers who are enthused by the new curriculum and are looking forward to it. Of course, most are a little apprehensive; but would it really be change if this was not the case. I count myself as one of these teachers and do my best to get my point of view out there as you demonstrate by the link to my tweet in your article. I also try to do this with my blog:


Unfortunately, opinions such as mine just don't make for such interesting news I suppose.

Like Fearghal, I was a bit disappointed by the rather predictable and shallow nature of today's coverage of this story (I heard R4's 6pm news). My heart sank as soon as I realised the battered old "raising standards" cliché had been called into service, like one of those little rubber hammers doctors use, to check that the audience's knee-jerk responses are working.

This is a much bigger story than that. Of course it's a hard thing to do, for all the usual reasons (from money to resources to inertia), but the real news here is that Scotland's schools are at least engaging with these difficulties and making steady progress in modernising our education system.

Hi, I'm an ordinary classroom science teacher and I am honestly undecided about CfE.

Some parts seem like common sense, more formative assessments, more positive experiences for pupils, more active learning, giving teachers more control over direction of topics, but surely this is just good teaching? Did we really need what seems like a huge overhaul to reach this standard?

Today I received an inservice on the assessment and reporting side of CfE and to be blunt, nobody had a clue. The material was provided by our region so it wasn't in-house fumbling. Now admittedly I probably could have been paying more attention but I was getting a bit confused between the 4 pillars, 8 contexts, 10 principles, and several others things, that we are to be striving for, whilst continually assessing so many areas and recording a folio of evidence for each pupil that will then be collated across school as we are all responsible for Literacy, numeracy, and Health+WB - I doubt I've got time left to teach.

Now I'm not denying the responsibility of each teacher in these areas, but I do think that this is what good teachers do anyway. Trying to record evidence for every aspect and then collating across school is a massive task and I don't see how it can be practically done. Especially when the authority is suggesting it is done using a computer system (SEEMIS- if you are familiar) which would reduce your assessments to mere grades which to me seems counterintuitive to CfE which is suppossed to be giving more formative feedback so that pupils can actually improve.

My other worry is maintaining consistant standards. Within our outcomes and experiences there is vast wiggle room in which to decide what direction you want to take. One school might decide to take one route, whilst another school looks at another aspect. Now I don't doubt that the basic knowledge will be covered by all, but what about the expansion for the more able? That could take several routes and seeing as we don't yet know what format or anything about the final exams for National 4+5 how are we preparing the pupils? Yes the old debate, knowledge or exam, but we can't deny that both parts have an equal share in schools. Yes the overall experience is very important, but what is an employer going to ask? Did you enjoy school? or What did you get for your exams?

I like the idea of CfE, I think it promotes good practice. I am worried about assessments and reporting of information. I think it has been stylised and pimped by too many politicians and committees and they have forgotten about the actual teaching and managing of it. Until the end goal has been visualised I don't think the journey can begin.

I truely feel sorry for this years first years, the teachers will do their best but the curriculum is going to be one sorry mish-mash of confusion.

Hi Shorty_10,

I liked your comment and really wanted to reply...

Firstly, I'm really pleased to see such a thoughtful and intricate critique of CfE. I'm not 100% happy with everything that has happened with its implementation and yet I'm still in favour of CfE. It's important to be able to separate the two.

What I really wanted to do was try to address your some of your specific concerns if that's ok? These are just my own thoughts, but I have been lucky enough to go to many many events/seminars/courses etc this year regarding CfE and I do feel that my finger is quite well on the pulse.

"Some parts seem like common sense...Did we really need what seems like a huge overhaul to reach this standard?"
A lot of it is 'common sense'. Or, in other words, effective practice in many classrooms across the country already. What CfE is attempting to do is take these pockets of effective practice and embed in them into the system and widen their use. I personally think we should be applauding the politicians and civil servants for working to achieve this. I love the fact that the Scottish Government is serious about embedding formative assessment into the Scottish Education system and I can't quite get my head around why they would be criticised for that.

"I was getting a bit confused between the 4 pillars, 8 contexts, 10 principles"
After a year out of the classroom, I still get confused by much of this too. A lot of that is the high level policy stuff which we need to cut through and get to the 'what does this look like in my classroom?' type questions/discussions. This is where we can really get to grips with it all.

"whilst continually assessing so many areas and recording a folio of evidence for each pupil that will then be collated across school as we are all responsible for Literacy, numeracy, and Health+WB"
Two things here. Firstly, over and over again in BtC5 references are made to 'proportionality', 'latest and best' and 'at key points of transition'. Whilst we should be continually assessing, this does not necessarily mean that we should be continually gathering evidence. I can make an assessment of learning with my pupils through questioning and discussion in the course of a lesson. I might want a more robust form of assessment at the end of a course. This is ok. Secondly, in the most recent update from the CfE Management Board, Literacy & Numeracy qualifications are to be embedded within English & Maths qualifications. In the new BtC5 Reporting document it states that secondary teachers would not be expected to report on progress in Literacy & Numeracy. Whilst you're right that it is still everyone's responsibility to develop learners' skills in these key areas, there is no longer a requirement to evidence/report on this progress.

"a computer system (SEEMIS- if you are familiar) which would reduce your assessments to mere grades which to me seems counterintuitive to CfE which is suppossed to be giving more formative feedback so that pupils can actually improve."
Agreed. Many folk are missing the point here, and some Local Authorities are struggling with the idea that they're going to loose the 5-14 data and are desperate for a replacement without stopping to think of the implications of this. The new BtC5 Reporting document is fairly clear on these issues.

"My other worry is maintaining consistant standards. Within our outcomes and experiences there is vast wiggle room in which to decide what direction you want to take."
This is a really common one. I'm a secondary science teacher too. Where are our consistent standards at the moment? Remember we're talking about S1/2 here (at the moment - S3 to come). Who laid down what we should be covering in S1/2 up to now? Where have the National Assessments for S1/2 Science been? The consistency comes from us all working from the E&Os, which is as much as there's ever been realistically, and in the future more moderation.

"we don't yet know what format or anything about the final exams for National 4+5 how are we preparing the pupils"
We know a lot about the format of National 4 & 5 already. The design principles have been published. The suites of courses have been decided. And in Sciences, the Qualification Design Teams have begun meeting. I'm in the QDT for Biology and I can tell you that we have very strict instructions that what we develop must articulate with the E&Os. If you're working with the E&Os as your planning tool, you'll be fine.

"Until the end goal has been visualised I don't think the journey can begin. "
I feel very strongly, and more so after this year, that the end goal has been visualised but they forgot to communicate it with us in a very effective way. We needed a series of workshops/events/seminars across the country 2/3 years ago which shared the vision in an inspiring and involving way and made a strong case for change. I thought this in 2008 ( but they've missed the boat now. So I'm afraid that I think you're right. For most, it's going to involve working towards a goal they can't quite see.

I hope this contributes to the discussion a little...?

The only people I hear complaing about CfE are teachers, especially older teachers. This is because implementing the new curriculum is slightly harder for them to do and causes an inconvenience to them. (They might not say it as bluntly as this) but this can be the only reason as the intention behind the curriculum is that eveyone learns differently, but equally. There is no set formula for teaching there are only methods that may prove more successful than others. There is no definitive way of acheiving understanding. Anything else is just a memory excersize. While storing facts might allow a pupil to pass an exam it doesn't mean they are fully aware what they are learning. There is a huge different by being able to answer "what is" and being able to answer "why/ how is". While no longer teaching to pass exams is harder the value for future generations, in my opinion, will be invaluable.