NLT policy

Cambridge Primary Review

5 Oct 2009

In October, the Cambridge Primary Review launched its final report. 640 pages long, the report is the culmination of six years work, follows 31 interim reports and announces itself as the most comprehensive review of primary education since the Plowden report in 1967.

The Cambridge review is the second major policy document this year focused on primary education, following the Jim Rose lead review of the primary curriculum released in June.[1] The Jim Rose review, which began after and ended before this review, was viewed by some commentators as the Government’s pre-emptive response to the Cambridge Review.

Whereas Jim Rose was asked to focus solely on the curriculum, the Cambridge Review is split into ten sections, each looking at a different aspect of the primary school system.

Key points

• Much of the media focus was on the recommendation that the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) should continue until age six. However, from a literacy perspective the review has other, more interesting, findings and recommendations.

• Through its extensive consultation process the Review established that primary schools in England are in ‘good heart’ and that they do not neglect the three Rs.

• The review recommends that the curriculum be reorganised into eight domains of learning; language, oracy and literacy would be one of these eight domains.

• The Cambridge review also recommends that ICT should remain part of the language, oracy and literacy domain of learning. This is a significant diversion from the Jim Rose review, which recommends that ICT should be its own cross curricula discipline.

• The review did find that claims that standards have improved are reasonably secure; however, testing and the National Strategies have narrowed the curriculum. It went on to suggest that the Literacy hour should be integrated back into the curriculum.

• To restore breadth and flexibility, the balance between local and national control of the curriculum needs to be redressed.

• To complement the proposed decentralisation of the education system, the review suggests that 30% of the curriculum be planned by community partnerships convened by local authorities.

Analysis

As the most comprehensive review of primary education for 40 years, the Cambridge Primary Review is clearly a significant document; the final report contains no fewer than 75 recommendations based on empirical evidence and extensive consultation.  Its unofficial and independent nature means that the impact of the report is likely to be more long term than the Rose review of the primary curriculum.

With regards to literacy, the review is very clear. Literacy is absolutely central to primary education. Language, oracy and literacy is one of the eight suggested domains of learning. The three strands of this domain ensure that literacy would be taught as a set of skills with reading, writing, speaking and listening all valued equally.

In pedagogical terms, the review recommends that every school should have a policy of literacy across the curriculum and that the Literacy hour should be dissolved back into the wider curriculum, as part of a wider process of ending the National Strategies. As the end of the National Strategies has already been announced, at least some of these recommendations will come to fruition.

When comparing the two recent reviews of primary education, perhaps the most interesting difference is that in the Cambridge review ICT is considered as part of language, oracy and literacy – a topic that has been discussed at previous National Literacy Trust events. Attendees at an NLT policy discussion talked about the unhelpful false divide between literacy and digital or media literacy.[2] Integrating ICT into literacy at the primary level should help to deconstruct this false divide and help bridge the gap between online and offline literacy, and this recommendation is welcomed by the NLT.

The Cambridge Review should be applauded for its comprehensive approach to assessing primary education in the UK. It should also be viewed as a hugely significant document that can help to lead discussion and thinking around primary education for many years. It is not a policy directive, and will not have the same short term impact as the Rose review, however its value will be seen as researchers and policy makers return to it for many years to come.  

George Dugdale, Policy Adviser

National Literacy Trust, [October 2009]

Downloadable version of this response: Cambridge Primary Review [pdf].

[1] DCSF (2009) The Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum

[2] NLT (2009) Literacy in the digital age

Tags: Policy, Schools & teaching, Social inclusion

Return to nlt policy