Ok - here's a brilliant idea, writes Rebecca Smithers. Rip up the national curriculum - or, more specifically, burn the ring binders stuffed with the detailed subject-by-subject specifications that have piled up since 1988 - and start again.
Scrap the national tests taken by youngsters at seven, 11 and 14, but keep some sort of exam system for 16 and 18-year-olds. Then draw up a "shortlist" of skills that youngsters will need in the future, which should be negotiated locally and brought under the umbrella of a national agreement of entitlement.
This is the latest wheeze from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, which will be debated at its annual conference in Gateshead today.
Admittedly, prescription has gone mad and the curriculum has been subject to the whim of different ministers. Is it really right that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority should be allowed to dictate that youngsters study only three contemporary poets for GCSE English?
But what would the changes mean in practice? Do youngsters need skills in skateboarding, trampolining, crossing the road, listening to their parents while watching TV, eating with their mouths closed? What would happen in subjects like mathematics where it has to be taught through the acquisition of knowledge, building block by building block?
The Royal Society of Arts has tried something similar - the Opening Minds project - which it has trialled in a handful of schools. That scheme was comprehensively rubbished by the former chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead. Hey - it must make a lot of sense, then. The ATL's head of education, Martin Johnson, said yesterday that the explosion of data availability via the internet has meant "knowledge has become less and less important". Is that really the case? What should we be teaching our children in years to come? What is more important - skills or knowledge?
