Headlining in the Herald today:
Architect? Bloomer was just a member of the review group which wrote Curriculum for Excellence. He was Director of Education in Clackmannanshire. His last ‘pamphlet’ on education was 20 years ago. He chairs a think-tank, Reform Scotland, also light on research or educational credibility, and, as often before, loves to be in the media presenting himself as some kind of guru. As with that old bacteria guy the BBC love to use in NHS Scotland attacks, Bloomer is an always-willing helper when the Herald or the Telegraph want some clickbait.
‘Urgent halt?’ Why is no contemporary professor of education or director of education saying this? Might it be a daft idea?
Here is some recent informed commentary, from the Times Education Supplement, that we’d all do better to consider:
‘It’s guff that Scottish education is terrible’ Scottish education directors publish dossier in bid to challenge the narrative of failure in Scottish education
https://www.tes.com/news/its-guff-scottish-education-terrible
What does data really say about Scotland’s curriculum? Some analysis of Scotland’s curriculum is ‘meaningless’ – there isn’t enough evidence to gauge impact, say researchers
https://www.tes.com/news/what-does-data-really-say-about-scotlands-curriculum-0
And, from me, admittedly partisan:
Finally see this:
It is, therefore, important that I should state at the outset that there have nevertheless been significant successes. Scottish school education has benefitted greatly from Curriculum for Excellence. Some of these successes, such as an increased emphasis on the continuity of young people’s experience across the full period of schooling, were intended from the outset and built into the structure of the reforms. Others such as a greater attention to pupil voice and the involvement of young people in managing their learning have emerged as the programme has progressed.
https://www.iwa.wales/click/2019/02/plenty-of-lessons-to-learn/
Who said that? Dr Keir Bloomer speaking to a Welsh think tank earlier this year. He didn’t seem to see the need for any urgent stop then but did warn that he wasn’t for ‘tolerating the dilatoriness of laggards.’ Me neither Dr Bloomer. Do more reading and less spouting!
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
He wasn’t much good as the head honcho of the EIS either!
LikeLike
Heard him this morning , same old stuff he keeps pedalling, but again our pathetic BBC oblige with giving him a stage
Same with head of the BMA in Scotland , he was on before Bloomer doing his normal “overworked , not enough doctors guff , although he did admit before moving swiftly on that the need for doctors was infiate . He also said the Scottish government would also need to have a conversation with the public and let them know they cannot have everything they want ! .
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reduction, if reduction there is, in the number of subjects pupils are taking at each stage in S3 through to S5/6 may have little to do with CofEx per se but more to do with the reduction in the number of hours in the school week because of Local Councils cutting hours. There is a limit in how much can be squeezed in to a reduced number of hours. Some research has suggested that the cutback in hours in secondary schools in some Councils will, over the course of a public’s career have the effect of reducing their schooling by a year compared to pupils in other areas..
Then there is the fact that exams have been extended by half an hour because teachers wanted rid of the unit assessments – workload don’t ya know. Therefore sitting 8 exams adds 4 hours to the overall total. This has been phased in and this year will see the last of the exams changed to this new system.
Therefore maybe little if anything to do with CofE as such.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agree with all the comments above. However, one thing that seems to be getting missed is that CfE is a major change in Scottish education. For one thing it steps away – at long last – from the view of the pupil as a sponge who would soak up the “education” (facts) that teacher spouted from the front of the class. The change to “active learner” is long overdue, and while my own kids are long out of the school system, I suspect has further to go. By diluting the absolute centrality of teachers, though, there are many teachers who will not welcome this, and I suspect a lot of the grumbling originates from this sort of source.
The other thing is that there are few large scale changes in any organization that work 100% as intended from day 1. There will almost always be a need for tweeks, temporary patches and so on. In OD they talk of the “Valley of Despair” – the fall off in performance when the organization first makes the change, before climbing back out as the errors are corrected and, most importantly people become comfortable with what they are doing. But in the interim there will always be siren voices that “this isn’t working – why did we do this – why did we listen to these people”. Usually it will be those who feel they have lost out! I suspect this is where we are now.
The one thing that does concern me a wee bit, is the reference to smaller schools unable to give their pupils the same breadth of education that larger schools are able to do with their exploitation of scale economies. I actually think big schools are not a great idea, but I do acknowledge the scale economies they enjoy. However, my old man was a peripatetic Primary School PE teacher, teaching at 3 different schools in a week. For “minority”, or more specialised subjects, how difficult would peripatetic staffing be?
LikeLiked by 1 person