A response to the Curriculum & Assessment Review's interim report
TL/DR: Nothing to see here
The announcement that the new Labour government would be reviewing curriculum and assessment provoked predictable reactions but, in the main, the appointment of the comittee chaired by Becky Francis was seen as at least cautiously optimisitc by most. The publication of the interim report is the first opportunity for most of us to get a sense of what they’ve been up and what shape the final review will take.
The headline is that although there are lots of positives in the current system, it is not working well for all students. This feels fair. Despite England’s respectable perfomance in international comparisons, the gap in attainment between the most and least fortunate children has stubbornly failed to close. The report states, “From the perspectives of both social justice and economics, it is vital that we take the necessary steps to drive up standards for young people who are presently underserved by our education system.” (p.18) I welcome the application of a “social justice lens” but am less convinced by economic arguments. The assumption that education promotes economic growth is dubious. It’s certainly true that more educated countries are more prosperous, but this might be to mistake cause and effect. It could be truer to say that more prosperous countries have better educated citizens. Maybe education is an effect of prosperity rather than a cause. This is certainly the view that Alison Wolf came to in Does Education Matter? Myths About Education and Economic Growth. Case by case, and in exhaustive detail, she shows that countries which have spent more on education have grown more slowly than those which have spent less. The idea that education causes economic growth is, in Wolf’s view, “a chimera”.
The report identifies six themes, or ‘ambitions for a refreshed national curriculum’. These are that it should:
support schools to provide a rigorous and knowledge-rich education, aiming for breadth across and depth within subjects.
remain relevant and up to date while embedding and recognising the importance of cultural knowledge stemming from the past.
empower teachers to foster a love of learning by enabling learning to be situated in a range of local, national and global contexts, to widen horizons, and to ensure that young people see e meaningful representations of themselves in what they learn, as well as encountering and recognising the perspectives of others.
allow schools to support the full development of their students and prepare them for their future life and work.
be coherently and logically sequenced and allow space for schools to support mastery of core concepts, effective transitions, and progression through each key stage of education.
enable students to master high-quality and aspirational learning, no matter what their individual needs or backgrounds. It should also support teachers to use their professional expertise in designing or selecting an engaging and stretching programme of learning that best suits their students’ needs.
These aims are so broad that there’s something for everyone here. Even those I feel more sceptical about are worded so that it’s hard to take issue.
A broad and balanced curriculum
I find the arguments about the ‘breadth and balance’ of the curriculum slightly confusing. There’s lots of welcome discussion about breadth at key stages 1 - 4 but nowhere, as far as I can see, is the word balance even defined and only rarely referred to. I suspect that ‘broad and balanced curriculum’ has become a portmanteau phrase which we trot out without really thinking about. What exactly is the balance schools are supposed to strike? It would, I think, be helpful to get some clarity on this.
A curriculum fit for the future
I always worry when I hear the phrase, ‘a curriculum fit for the future,’ redolent as it is with the excesses of the 21st Century skills bandwagon. However, the affirmation of the ‘knowledge turn’ is positive. That said, I'm a bit worried about this bit:
Rapid social, environmental and technological change necessitates that the curriculum keep pace; including a renewed focus on digital and media literacy, and a greater focus on sustainability and climate science. (p.26)
These are things all addressed in the current National Curriculum. Parents and children may say they want more time on “financial education, careers knowledge and politics and governance” but what would they like these things to replace? Many schools currently struggle to deliver a great PHSE curriculum because of the lack of specialist teachers and dedicated curriculum time. All too often this stuff is squeezed into a tutor programme delivered by non-specialists who have little knowledge of or enthusiasm for the topics they feel forced to teach. Without considering the constraints I fear the tendency to pack the curriculum with more and more stuff will backfire in predictable ways.
Mastery
It’s long been observed that the current National Curriculum is over-stuffed with so much content to learn in a subject like science that there isn’t enough time for many students to master the concepts they encounter, so it’s great to see this being explictly addressed.
The report also makes the following point:
While questions have been raised about the volume of content, we have also been made aware of challenges with under-prescription in subjects, with some programmes of study lacking specificity. Lack of specificity can, counter-intuitively, contribute to greater curriculum volume, as teachers try to cover all eventualities in demonstrating the quality of their curriculum; or repeat material due to a lack of clarity about what has previously been covered. (p.27-8)
This is definitely part of the issue with English Language. Currently there is no specified content to teach, so teachers end up simply teaching the structure of the GCSE exam ad nauseam.
Diversity
The report tell us. “the curriculum needs to do more in ensuring that all young people feel represented, and that it successfully delivers the equalities duties to support equality of opportunity and challenge discrimination.” (p.28) There’s no problem at all with the latter point but I worry about the idea of representation. Here’s an short extract from my book, Making Meaning in English
Alan Bennett says, “The best moments in reading are when you come across something – a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things – which you had thought special and particular to you. Now here it is, set down by someone else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out and taken yours.”
Reading the canon can – should – transcend barriers of gender, race, class, and hundreds of years. Maya Angelou describes the feeling of a hand extending from the past to take her own in reading the opening lines of Shakespeare’s ‘Sonnet 29’. She said, “That was me – absolutely me – wishing to be anything rather than be black and poor and a girl in the dirt roads of Arkansas.”
Claiming that students can only connect with writers they if they share an ‘identity’ is presumptuous. Maya Angelou’s connection to Shakespeare was so deep she assumed he was, “a Black American Girl in the South.” When her teachers told her the truth her reaction was disbelief: “no white man could know what I feel.” But, what if we place our shared humanity before our perceived differences? What if reading the canon builds bridges rather than erecting walls?
Arguing against students’ right to be taught the canon might be an act of social injustice. We don’t have to like the canon but in choosing not to teach it – or, rather, in refusing to critically engage with it – we disempower students. The Nigerian novelist and literary critic, Chinua Achebe provides a case in point. As a close reader of the canon he used his extensive knowledge to criticise the hidebound attitudes and casual racism he encountered there. For instance, through a thorough analysis of Heart of Darkness, Achebe is able to demonstrate that, “Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist.”
We should absolutely seek out opportunities to enrich and diversify the curriculum but we should also be concerned that if children ‘can’t see themselves’ in what we teach, we may be teaching it badly.
But, I think the report is mindful of the need to tread carefully, saying, “there is a need to appropriately balance the requirement to ensure coherence and efficacy in the curriculum with inclusivity; while also ensuring we do not detract from the importance and impact of what is currently taught.” (p.29)
Post 16 pathways
This is one of the main areads in which the system doesn’t work well for all. There’s broad agreement that A levels are useful preparation for university study but ‘vocational’ studies have always been something of a poor relation. The discussion of T Levels feels well considered and I welcome the desire to think critically about the need for students to repeatedly resit maths and English GCSEs.
Assessment
In primary, broadly, I think we’ll see the phonics check continuing and, hopefully, get some improvement in the SATs, particularly around writing and grammar.
In secondary, my guess is that despite the concerns around “the impact of an intensive, high-stakes assessment system on wellbeing” we’ll continue much as we are. There’s no doubt that ‘teaching to the test’ is the bane of some subjects but I’d suggest this is more about the way accountability measures are applied than an inherent problem with exams. Certainly, when I had to prepare students for coursework and controlled assessment there was far more of this than there is currently. My hope is that we’ll get some much needed tweaks rather than wholesale change. As the report points out, there is a need to be “mindful of school and college capacity and teacher workload”.
Overall and next steps
On balance, this is an even handed, sensible approach to reviewing the curriculum. Some may well feel disappointed that there are no fireworks but I think most of us will be relieved. The next steps are all about getting into the nitty gritty of the above and I’d be very surprised if there were any major changes of direction. The challenge will be to retain those things which are working but get the system working better for the children who are most marginalised. This is a worthy aim. I confess to feeling mildly satisfied with the report, which is probably as much as anyone could have hoped for.