Cookery lessons to become compulsory... for secondary pupils?!

The Daily Mail (Saturday 3rd Feb) reports:
'Compulsory cooking lessons could be put on the school curriculum in an attempt to tackle the obesity epidemic among children. All 11 to 14 year olds would be taught how to make healthy meals from basic ingredients to counter an obsession with junk food... Education Secretary Alan Johnson said that he hoped compulsory lessons would lead to a resurgence in home cooking. "I want kids rolling up their sleeves and getting to grips with simple healthy meals from scratch," he said.'

I think this is great news. One of the reasons that children get into junk food is because they just don't know how to cook properly.

However, I don't understand why this initiative doesn't include primary age children. Surely this is the age at which children begin to acquire their tastes and it is important to teach them the right way to develop a love of food at an early age.

Our school has introduced a small amount of cooking into the curriculum and the Year Threes visit the local high school to practice cooking some items of food. One local school has a teaching assistant who teaches all the children three times a year to cook a proper meal from scratch.

I applaud this idea from Alan Johnson, but I just wish they would extend it!

Changes to SATs Tests?

According to today's Daily Mail, there is due to be a shake up of the national tests. Education Secretary Alan Johnson is proposing shorter, but more frequent, exams to prevent pupils coasting or falling behind.

This seems to be the government's usual way to 'raise standards' - give more tests.

The thing that really gripes me is that the report says, 'All youngsters would be expected to reach level five by the time they are 14.' In our school, over 50% of the children leave with level 5. Nationally, around about 75% leave with Level 4. Now why are they suggesting that children only need to move up 1 level by the time they are 14? This doesn't seem right to me. If a child makes an improvement of 2/3 of a level each year (like they ought to in primary school), then surely the target must be Level 6, not Level 5.

Are they suggesting that there is a dip in progress at KS3? Any thoughts?