Consultation responses
Our responses to government consultations and inquiries
|
Response to the Department for Education consultation on reform of the National Curriculum in England, April 2013. We found both the process and the content of the national curriculum review difficult to engage with. The variability in style and level of detail, particularly for the mathematics programmes of study, were problematic. We would have liked to have seen a more coherent curriculum, with more connections between subjects. |
|
Response to Department for Education consultation on reforming Key Stage 4 qualifications, December 2012. We have not responded to the detailed consultation document, but make two general points. |
|
Response to Ofqual's consultation on A level reform, September 2012. Our response notes there is insufficient relevant evidence to enable the Foundation to comment in detail on the proposals for A level reform. |
|
Response to the Department for Education consultation on Study Programmes for 16-19 year olds, January 2012. Our response focuses on mathematics, where we believe there is a particular need for better 16-19 provision. |
|
Written evidence submitted to the International Development Committee Inquiry on Private Foundations, September 2011. We believe increased dialogue between foundations and DFID could benefit both parties’ knowledge and understanding of each others’ funded work and modus operandi. There is also potential for collaboration. |
|
Response to the Government’s Review of the National Curriculum, April 2011. The Foundation is committed to improving mathematics and science education for all. This includes fostering increased participation and achievement by supporting pathways appropriate for learners’ current and future needs. |
|
Response to the Giving Green Paper, March 2011 Our comments relate to the suggestion that foundations should take a minimum annual payout (pg 18). In our view a mandatory distribution rate:
|
Printer-friendly version
