---

Rose Report

And the Scottish kings and queens as well. I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that there is no clamour among primary teachers or head teachers for further changes to the primary curriculum, and that what is desperately sought in the primary sector is a period of stability. The interim report of the Rose review of primary education is both disappointing and confused. It is disappointing because it fails to refer to and therefore to address the fundamental problems in our education system that it was designed to tackle. There is no reference in the report to the fact that one in five 11-year-olds leave primary school still struggling with reading despite seven years of primary education; the fact that 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds leave primary school not having reached level 4 in reading, writing and maths combined; the fact that, in 2007, 37 per cent. of six-year-olds on free school meals failed to reach the national standard in their key stage 1 writing assessment, up from 28 per cent. in 2002; the fact that nearly 3,000 fewer six-year-olds from the most deprived communities achieved a level 2 or above in key stage 1 maths last year than in 2005-06; or the fact that the number of six-year-olds from the most disadvantaged communities achieving the national standard in writing has fallen by 18 per cent. since 1997. None of those key issues is addressed in the interim report. One of the main problems facing our education system is literacy, yet, despite using the word ““reading”” 35 times, there is not a single mention of the word ““phonics””, let alone the phrase ““synthetic phonics””, in the 68 pages of the report. There is not even a reference to Jim Rose's report on the teaching of reading, which recommended the early and systematic teaching of synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading. How can a review of the primary curriculum not refer to how reading is taught and how it should be taught? It was the Conservatives who initiated the debate on how reading is taught in primary schools. It led to the report of the then Education and Skills Committee and then to the previous Rose review, which was about reading, and the change in Government policy under Tony Blair and Lord Adonis. However, under the current Administration, there appears to be no understanding of the importance of the issue. Is it not odd that Jim Rose appears as the author of both reports? I believe that the Rose review on reading was actually written by Jim Rose himself, whereas the report we are debating today, while claiming to be independent, is actually written by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, as the remit letter instructs. It is therefore hardly what one would call independent. I take the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil made about mumbo-jumbo in paragraph 1.51, which contrasts starkly with the clear and simple language and direction of policy in the Rose review on reading. It would be hard to believe that the two reports were written by the same person. There is no reference in the report to how maths should be taught: for example, whether so-called reform maths—the multiple-strategy approach to the teaching of arithmetic—is actually working. The Conservatives have established an inquiry into maths teaching in our schools. It will be headed by Carol Vorderman and will consider whether children should learn their multiplication tables by heart, so that they instinctively know that eight sevens are 56, for example. Children need to know number bonds automatically, so that they can say that eight plus four is 12 without having to count on their fingers. That can be achieved only through practice and direct, whole-class teaching. Automaticity is as vital in arithmetic as it is in the playing of the piano, if one is to progress to more challenging maths or to more complex pieces of music. None of that is discussed in the report. What is discussed is a proposal to move to more cross-curriculum teaching using themes and projects—all the old 1950s and 1960s mantras that have failed whenever and wherever they have been tried. A 1992 analysis of primary education by the three wise men, including Sir Jim Rose, concluded:"““The resistance to subjects at the primary stage is no longer tenable…There is clear evidence that much topic work has led to fragmentary and superficial learning.””" Page 17 of the Rose review highlights a major survey published by Her Majesty's inspector of schools in 1978, noting that"““much so-called 'topic' and 'project' work in those days often failed to match children's developing abilities and militated against extending their understanding because it lacked progression and was too repetitive.””" The review goes on to state that it is"““certainly not advocating a return to the vagaries of old style topic and project work.””" No, it is advocating a return to a new style of topic and project work and cross-curricular teaching, but it is not how one implements the approach but the approach itself that is the problem. The report does not explain why continuing with the same '50s and '60s approach that failed so badly will succeed now, nor does it say how implementation today will differ from implementation in the '50s and '60s. I do not believe that the results will be any different if we go back to an approach that failed when it was tried in the '50s and '60s, in the '70s, and even in the '80s and '90s.