Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Laws (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 February 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Rose Report.


Rose Report

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on giving us, I think, the first opportunity to debate this subject since the original Rose proposals came out. Not only the final conclusions of the Rose process, but the Cambridge primary review will be published in the next few months. This is therefore a valuable opportunity for hon. Members to debate the subject and to hear the Minister's comments on the development of Government policy. I am not quite as convinced as the hon. Member for Norwich, North about the importance of the report; I will explain why in a moment. When we consider the challenges in the primary sector—the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) talked about the 20 to 30 per cent. of youngsters who leave primary education with poor basic skills—what Rose has to offer is relatively modest, is unclear in some areas, and may even deal with the least important challenge in primary education. When I visit schools, not only in my constituency but across the country, I find that most heads are not convinced that a major change in the primary curriculum is necessary. Most particularly, good schools already believe that they have the flexibility and freedom to do much of the cross-curricular work that is picked up in the Rose review. One of the things I want to challenge today is how important Rose will be and precisely what it will mean.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
487 c350WH 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Children Assessments Curriculum Languages Qualifications and Curriculum Authority National curriculum tests Primary education Standards Schools Teachers Special educational needs Science Speech and language therapy Communication skills Literacy Teaching methods Mathematics Numeracy Primary Curriculum Review
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk