영국 교육정보

영국의 최신 교육정보를 확인해 보세요.

영국 초등학교 교육과정 개정 방향 - Jim Rose's Report

Author
주영한국교육원
Date
02:01 10 Dec 2008
Views
5733
영국 초등학교 교육과정 개정 방향
- The Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum -

□ Sir Jim Rose's Interim Report
- 초등학교 교육과정 전반에 관한 변경 및 개정 목표로 보고서를 작성하고 있는 Sir Jim Rose의 중간보고서 발표(08.12.08)
- 최종 보고서는 2009년 봄 발표 예정임
- 최종 보고서가 아니며 더구나 최종 보고서가 제출되어도 QCA의 검토가 진행되어야하며 제도로서 확정되는데는 2011년이 되어야 가능할 것임
- 중간보고서에 제시된 개정 방향이 상당히 혁신적이어서 상당한 논란이 예상되고 있음

- 중간보고서 전문 보기
http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=BLNK-01010-2008&

□ 15 Recommendations
- 교육과정 운영 및 개정시 참고할 4개 영역 15개 권고 항목 제시
- 4개 영역 : 국가교육과정 검토, 교육과정의 틀과 내용, 문해 수리 ICT, 개인의 발달, 단계별 원활한 연계

○ The National Curriculum and curriculum review
Recommendation 1 (국가교육과정의 유지): A National Curriculum should be retained as an entitlement for all children.

Recommendation 2 (교육과정의 주기적 계속적 검토) : The historically re-active response to curriculum review should become a pro-active strategy whereby the EYFS and the statutory curriculum are reviewed at agreed intervals as a whole, rather than as separate phases reviewed out of sequence. This would impose a discipline on the process of review such that schools could be assured of a period of stability in which to achieve agreed curricular goals.

○ Curriculum design and content
Recommendation 3 (의무교육의 가치와 목표에 근거한 교육과정 개정): The revised primary curriculum should be underpinned by a statement of aims and values which is fit for all stages of statutory education.

Recommendation 4 (과목별 교육과정 및 범교과 교육과정 병행) : Given the excellent examples of both witnessed by the Review, neither discrete subject teaching nor cross-curricular studies must disappear from primary schools. Schools should protect time when learning is best served by teaching subject content discretely and systematically, and give children ample opportunities to use and apply their developing subject knowledge, skills and understanding in cross-curricular studies.

Recommendation 5 (6개 학습 영역의 구체화): The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) should work with relevant leading authorities, such as, subject organisations, the Royal Society, heads and teachers to validate essential knowledge, skills, understanding and attitudes in each of the proposed six areas of learning, and organise them into manageable programmes of learning.

Recommendation 6 (새 교육과정의 3단계 도입 검토) : For the purposes of planning for continuity and progression, the QCA should investigate whether it would help schools if the new primary curriculum were set out in three, two-year phases.

○ Literacy, numeracy and ICT
Recommendation 7 (문해, 수리, 말하기, 어휘학습, 역할놀이, 드라마 강조): Primary schools must continue to give priority to literacy and numeracy, whilst making sure that serious attention is paid to developing spoken language intensively as an attribute in its own right and essential for the development of reading and writing. In so doing, attention should be given to building the vocabulary which is germane to each subject and area of learning, and realising the potential of the visual and performing arts, especially of role play and drama, for young children’s language development.

Recommendation 8 (ICT 교육 조기 시행 및 교육과정 전반에의 적용 검토) : The QCA, working with BECTA2 should: (i) Review whether aspects of the Key Stage 3 curriculum for ICT would be more appropriately taught in Key Stage 2. (ii) Make sure that by the end of Key Stage 2, children are able to select and apply ICT to advance their learning across the curriculum

○ Personal Development
Recommendation 9 (인성, 태도, 사회성, 건강 교육): To strengthen provision for personal development the QCA, in consultation with representative groups, should:
(i) Build a framework, based on the successful SEAL programme, for the personal skills and attitudes that all children should develop throughout their schooling. The framework should exemplify how these skills and attitudes can be fostered across the curriculum.

(ii) Set out the essential knowledge, skills, understanding and attitudes for personal, social and health education (PSHE) alongside physical education (PE) in an area of learning, provisionally entitled ‘Understanding physical health and well-being’.

○ Transition and Progress
Recommendation 10 (만 4세 아동의 준비반 입학):
(i) Entry into reception class in the September immediately following a child’s fourth birthday should become the norm. The Review will explore how this might be achieved without unduly restricting parental choice, for example, by allowing parents to choose a period of part-time attendance.
(ii) The DCSF should provide information for parents and local authorities about the optimum conditions and the benefits to children of entering reception class in the September immediately after their fourth birthday.
Recommendation 11 (놀이 중심 학습): The Review will consider how best to support teachers and practitioners to provide effective play-based learning.

Recommendation 12 (개인별 수준별 학습): The QCA and National Strategies should support schools to implement the principles of personalised learning and apply them effectively in practice, for example, so that the benefits of personalised learning in one-to-one teaching, group work and whole class teaching are fully realised.

Recommendation 13 (유치원 과정 학습 내용에 기반한 초등교육과정): The QCA should make sure that guidance on the revised primary National Curriculum builds on the learning that has taken place in the EYFS and includes advice about how best to support those children who need to continue to work toward the early learning goals.

Recommendation 14 (유치원 과정 평가에의 초등교사 참여): Key Stage 1 teachers should be involved in the moderation of Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) assessments within schools, to increase their understanding of the EYFSP and their confidence in the judgements of reception teachers.

Recommendation 15 (초등과 중등의 원활한 연계): When the National Strategies next review their materials they should look to further strengthen curricular continuity between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3.

□ 범교과적인 6개 학습 영역 제시
- 교육과정 편성시 교과중심(subject based), 학습영역 중심(areas of learning based), 기술중심(skills based), 주제중심(theme based)의 4가지 방법 중 학습영역 중심 교육과정 편성이 현재의 세계적인 추세임
- 어느 한가지 방법만을 사용할 수는 없으므로 현재의 과목별 교육과정 체제와 학습영역별 교육과정 체제의 적절한 혼합 운영을 권고
◦ Understanding English, communication and languages (영어, 의사소통, 언어의 이해)
◦ Mathematical Understanding (수학적 이해)
◦ Scientific and technological understanding (과학과 기술의 이해)
◦ Human, social and environmental understanding (인간, 사회, 환경의 이해)
◦ Understanding physical health and well-being (건강 복지의 이해)
◦ Understanding the arts and design (예술과 디자인의 이해)

- 역사, 지리, 종교교육과 같은 전통적인 과목들이 사라지고 대신 “인간 사회 환경의 이해”라는 과목으로 통합
- 보고서 내용대로 채택되어 추진되는 경우 국가교육과정이 도입된 이래 가장 혁신적인 변화가 될 것으로 보임
- 적은 수의 과목을 더 깊이 있게 공부할 수 있도록 하겠다는 취지

□ ICT 교육의 강조
- literacy, numeracy와 함께 ICT 기초교육 강조
- reading, writing, arithmetic + ICT : 4 R

□ 반응 및 평가
- DCSF 에서는 제시된 방향에 대하여 찬성 의사와 함께 적극적 의지 표명
DCSF 보도자료 보기
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2008_0277

- 일부교사들은 일선 교사들에게 더 많은 융통성(flexibility)을 부여하고 오랫동안 관행처럼 내려온 체제에서 탈피할 수 있는 기회라고 환영하기도 하지만, 또 다른 교사들은 전통적인 과목을 포기하는 것은 지식의 희석(dilution)을 야기할 것이라고 우려

- 언론에서는 관심을 표명하면서도 특정 교과(지리, 역사 등)가 없어지는 것으로 해석하고 이에 대한 우려 표명
- The Times 지는 사설에서 지식교육 대신 모호한 이해라는 용어로 교육을 바꾸려는 것에 대하여 Primary Error라는 제목으로 반대의견 표시

The Times 1면 머릿기사 (08.12.08)

Traditional subjects go in schools shake-up
Primary pupils switch to theme-based learning

Traditional subjects such as history, geography and religious studies will be removed from the primary school curriculum and merged into a “human, social and environmental” learning programme as part of a series of radical education reforms.
Under the plans, information technology classes would be given as much prominence as literacy and numeracy, and foreign languages would be taught in tandem with English.

The reforms are the most sweeping for 20 years and aim to slim down the curriculum so that younger children can be taught fewer subjects in greater depth.
Sir Jim Rose, author of the interim report to be published today by the Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, said that the changes were aimed at producing a curriculum for the 21st century. His proposals are to undergo further consultation but are understood to have the backing of the Government.

Sir Jim said that combining traditional subjects in themed “learning areas” and introducing more practical and applied teaching would help pupils to make use of their knowledge in real-life situations, such as in managing their own finances.
He said that traditional subjects needed to be taught in a different way to make lessons more relevant to children. “We are certainly not getting rid of subjects such as history and geography,” he told The Times. “We are trying to give primary schools flexibility to do less, but to do it better. The history they will be doing will be more in-depth.”

The six learning areas defined by Sir Jim are: understanding English, communication and languages; mathematical understanding; scientific and technological understanding; human, social and environmental understanding; understanding physical health and well-being; and understanding arts and design.
While some teachers will welcome the proposals as giving them more flexibility and a chance to move away from a system first imposed in 1904, others have said that abandoning traditional subjects could lead to a dilution of specialist knowledge.
History, geography and religious studies would come under the banner of human, social and environmental understanding. The advantage of not having them as distinct subjects would allow teachers to introduce them in other parts of the curriculum, Sir Jim said. “The starting point of a lesson could be a historical point of study, but it could lead to other elements too, such as geography or citizenship,” he said.

Similarly, an English lesson could include French through a comparison of English and French words with common roots.

Sir Jim is particularly keen that children learn more practical skills for everyday life. “In maths, we often teach children to do sums, but then when they are faced with a problem in real life they don’t know what sum to do. We should teach knowledge and skills as thoroughly as we can, and then we get in lots of applications and uses,” he said.

He will also recommend that children in the last two years of primary school – years five and six – should have more lessons from teachers with specialist subjects, who could be hired from neighbouring secondary schools or the private sector.
Although his review did not cover testing, he said that he hoped that the Government would continue to explore alternatives to the key stage 2 tests for 11-year-olds.


The Times (08.12.09) 사설 보기
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5309923.ece

Primary error

“Understanding” a babble of themes is no substitute for knowledge. Primary education needs more rigour, not less.

If the Government wants to improve primary education, Sir Jim Rose's report is not the answer. In fact it is not clear what question could possibly be answered by making the curriculum more jargon-laden, obscure and alienating for parents who should be holding schools to account. Some of the subject areas laid down half a century ago may be past their prime. But to throw them all out in favour of six “themes”, adding the redundant word “understanding” to each (as in “understanding physical health and well-being”), is a recipe for misunderstanding. Sir Jim praises rigour. But his initiative will be used to blur lines and lower standards.

At the heart of this report lies a belief that computer learning is the fourth “R”, as important as reading, writing and arithmetic. Technology is an enormously useful tool that can make learning much more vivid and enjoyable. But it makes no sense to argue that children should be learning more computer skills early, because they are already so competent. The report expresses concern that primary-age children have poor verbal communication skills. It seems unlikely that those will be solved by sitting at a keyboard.

Allied to the primacy of computers is the idea that discrete subject areas, and the memorisation of facts, should play a less central role. It is quite possible that some schools may be overdoing the rote learning. But the wonders of Google are no substitute for knowledge. The argument is that a generation that is used to jumping from one thing to another on the web needs a “cross-curricular” approach. But if that encourages even more distraction and even less focus, it will create pupils who know nothing except how to click.

The function of primary school is to teach children how to learn. That means knowing enough facts to develop a sensible hypothesis about the world. It means progressively mastering a series of tasks that build up to knowledge. It does not mean the kind of passive downloading that universities have become so concerned about. Sir Jim says that he is not proposing a return to the 1970s, when topics and themes left many pupils bereft of knowledge. But the enthusiastic welcome given to his proposals by certain parts of the teaching profession, which have delighted in proclaiming an end to teachers barking out facts, suggests that what he intends as a rigorous curriculum will end up as a watered-down muddle.

The chairman of the primary committee of the National Association of Head Teachers has told The Times that children “do not need to know how to recognise a Picasso or a Van Gogh. They need to be able to look at a painting and see what techniques are used and why.” So independently educated children will know how to recognise great painters, and state-educated ones will be deprived of that joy. Independent schools will continue to teach subject knowledge as early and in as much depth as possible, like schools in Asia that top the international rankings. State schools will make their pupils ever more dependent on individual teachers' decisions about what seems “relevant”.

Sir Jim is rightly concerned to make education more engaging for children who do not currently see the point. He is right to want teachers to explain, as much as possible, the practical application of lessons. But there is no need to pander to fads for wellbeing and technology. In Britain, most attempts to make education more “accessible” have resulted in making it easier. This Government has talked about raising standards: but changing standards is not raising them. With Britain slipping down international education league tables, there has never been a more dangerous time to espouse understanding at the expense of knowledge. Our children need both.