Publication of the Curriculum and assessment review may have been lauded, but is predicted to achieve little; yet another report that will end up on the proverbial "digital shelf to gather dust". There were some content that caught interest. Recognition that comprehension in the sciences is in gradual decline (conveniently "beyond scope" and thus no recommendation to arrest such decline). Primary school science curriculum is not taught with equity between the three main sciences disciplines. This should not surprise; chemistry is too abstract. It may even be better to pause introduction to chemistry until gcse, because the subject matter is too difficult for most. It was a concern that so many sciences teachers do not want to teach 'Earth resources', and electrochemistry, when these are highly relevant to modern life. From the perspective of citc electrochemistry include both electrolysis and electromagnetism. As for the teacher survey that indicated a preference for astronomical space and "climate change" to be included in the curriculum, this suggests superficial desires by teacher to "engage" pupils. Those two aforementioned subjects cannot be taught with rigour, unless the underlying chemistry is understood. A proposed statutory requirement for pupils to be "entitled" to enrol onto a single science course is a laughable recommendation. Just because a delusional pupil (probably supported by similarly "aspirational" parents) thinks (s)he should be enrolled to study single sciences, does not equate to capability. Equally laughable is the concern about use of practical activities within the sciences. The prime reason that such activities are of questionable value is that teachers often use a "practical" as a very superficial behaviour management tool: " if you behave well, we will do a practical and you can play learn some science, with various apparatus (under the guise that you are doing a scientific experiment)". Soon after the introduction of T Levels (don't forget the trademark!), similar V Level qualification is imminent; no idea of the chemistry content so shall ignore for now.
School inspections are due to resume this month, with new guidance. Again, what caught attention was the plan to inspect p-16 provision separately to the remainder of the school. Good to see safeguard inspection separated into a simple boolean criterion. The criteria: achievement; attendance and behaviour; personal development and well-being, are likely to concentrate minds. The common nonsense of keeping teenagers on unsuitable courses no longer seems viable. As for "attendance"...
Personal preference is to veer away from video, so yet another suggestion to use video within pedagogical plan, is met with scepticism. In a public realm where every Tom, Dick and Harriet is staring at a screen (usually some video content), the thought of encouragement at even more passive consumption, in not agreed.
