The Cambridge Primary Review.

The Cambridge Primary Review’s interim report published today has (not surprisingly) gained plenty of attention. I haven’t had time to read anything except the press coverage yet, but one thing has definitely struck me in view of my last posting. In order to produce their evidence, (and Professor Alexander was very careful this morning in a radio interview to stress it was “evidence” and not simply his view) the research team carried out the following. As well as official documents and other publications which are readily accessible, the report drew on the following evidence:

• Written submissions from 820 individuals and organisations, a large proportion of which referred to the curriculum.
• Reports on 87 sessions with teachers, heads, children, parents, school governors, local authority officials and members and a wide range of community representatives which made up our regional ‘community soundings’. These sessions took place during 2007 and all of them discussed, among other matters, the curriculum.
• Reports on 9 ‘national soundings’ with representatives of major national organisations, held in 2008.
• Reports on 28 specially-commissioned surveys of published research, seven of which dealt directly with the curriculum.
• Notes on 138 meetings with representatives of DCSF, QCA, teaching unions, professional organisations and other bodies which took place between 2006 and 2008.

The final report was edited by Robin Alexander, the Review’s director, and written collaboratively by a team of nineteen authors. The Review’s data were collected and analysed by the Review’s 70 research consultants with additional support with the submissions and soundings data from Alex James, Qais Almeqdad, Chang Yan- Shing, Calvin Dorion, Boris Jokić, Lin Hsing-Chiung and Sharlene Swartz.

Comments on report drafts were provided by Michael Armstrong, John Bangs, Sheila Dainton, Kate Frood, David Hargreaves, Wynne Harlen, Anna House, Pat Jefferson, Roger Luxton, Melody Moran, Gillian Pugh, David Reedy, Colin Richards, David Rosenthal, Sue Tite, Norman Thomas and John White. The authors also held discussions on the penultimate draft with Jim Rose, DCSF officials, members of all three main political parties, and, in private session, the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee.

Set against this kind of academic thoroughness, how anyone can call a few puerile online videos "research evidence" baffles me, and how anyone else can take them seriously just exposes how impoverished some parts of our education system have become.