Formal Minutes
Wednesday 11 March 2009
Members present:
Mr Barry Sheerman, in the Chair
| Annette Brooke
Mr Douglas Carswell
Mr John Heppell
Paul Holmes
Fiona Mactaggart
| | Mr Andy Slaughter
Mr Graham Stuart
Mr Edward Timpson
Derek Twigg
|
Draft Report (National Curriculum), proposed
by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Draft Report (National Curriculum), proposed
by Mr Graham Stuart, brought up and read, as follows:
Introduction
1. The National Curriculum, which is followed by
all maintained schools in England and, to a certain extent, by
Academies, is rooted in the Education Reform Act 1988. The key
principles in developing the National Curriculum were that:
- it would be underpinned by two aims—to
promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development
of pupils, and to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities
and experiences of adult life;
- it would be structured around 'Key Stages' and
be subject-based, covering the 'core' subjects of English, mathematics
and science, and the 'foundation' subjects of art, geography,
history, music, physical education and technology, with all subjects
studied up to age 16, modern foreign languages from age 11, and
- the syllabus for each subject at each Key Stage
would be set out in a 'Programme of Study', which would also include
a scale of attainment targets to guide teacher assessment.
Schools would also be required to teach religious
education and areas such as personal, social and health education,
though these subjects sat outside the National Curriculum. A number
of non-statutory 'cross-curricular' themes and generic—or
life—skills were added to this basic framework in the course
of implementing the National Curriculum.
2. Since its introduction, the National Curriculum
has been subject to frequent review and reform. Most recently,
a new secondary curriculum, placing greater emphasis on pupils'
understanding of the concepts, ideas and processes of subjects,
on cross-curricular themes and on pupils' development of life
skills, became statutory for Year 7 pupils from September 2008.
The Government has also commissioned a 'root and branch' review
of the primary curriculum, led by Sir Jim Rose, albeit excluding
testing and assessment. The Review team published its interim
report in December 2008; and it is due to publish its final report
and recommendations in Spring 2009.
3. National prescription in relation to the curriculum
has also gradually extended to early years provision, culminating
in the introduction in September 2008 of the Early Years Foundation
Stage (EYFS) as the new statutory framework for children from
birth to age 5. Although early years guidance has always sat outside
the National Curriculum, the stated purposes of the National Curriculum
and the EYFS broadly overlap.[99]
4. The Terms of Reference for our inquiry requested
views on whether there should be a national curriculum. A lot
of the evidence that we received, while it did not call for the
complete removal of a national framework for the curriculum, did
suggest that the level of prescription under the National Curriculum
has become excessive.[100]
5. Our overall impression of the National Curriculum
is that it has far outgrown the initial concept and has become
overly prescriptive. It has been interfered with and micro-managed
by central government which has reduced the scope for teachers
to innovate and take control of learning. The Department needs
to accept that it must move away from a culture of imposition
to a culture of trust and support, otherwise the National Curriculum,
for all its virtues, will continue to be perceived by many to
be an instrument of central control rather than a facilitator
of excellent learning.
6. We highlight below some of the chief faults of
the National Curriculum in its present form; and we conclude by
sketching out the characteristics of a national curriculum that,
we believe, can help revitalise curriculum development within
schools and which is protected from continuous change and overload.
Failure of the status quo
7. We regret that the National Curriculum and
related accountability arrangements have inhibited some schools
from taking forward curriculum and pedagogical innovation.
Schools can apply to the Secretary of State to have the National
Curriculum disapplied for a period "to enable curriculum
development or experimentation".[101]
Schools also have flexibility in how they develop their curriculum
from the statutory requirements without any need for disapplication.
They may decide on, for example, the time allocation for each
curriculum area and whether to teach subjects discretely or across
different structures. Such flexibilities have enabled quite different
interpretations of the National Curriculum.[102]
Nevertheless, there are clearly schools that feel less able to
take ownership of the National Curriculum. As the National Union
of Teachers (NUT) commented:
Some primary schools turn [the National Curriculum]
inside out, cherry-pick from it and use it as a creative and flexible
framework. Other schools use it for what we call post-hoc curriculum
mapping: they do the teaching, then go back to the curriculum
and tick off the attainment targets for the bit that they have
covered. That approach is entirely deadening and not the purpose
of a curriculum.[103]
8. We are concerned at the growth of centrally-produced
curriculum-related guidance, and we believe that the National
Strategies should be discontinued. In addition to the statutory
Programmes of Study for the National Curriculum, schools are encouraged
to have regard to a range of centrally-produced curriculum-related
frameworks and guidance, including the National Curriculum Schemes
of Work and overarching frameworks, most notably the Every Child
Matters outcomes.[104]
In addition there is Key Stage guidance and subject guidance,
much of which is published through the National Strategies. The
sheer volume and complexity of this documentation, particularly
the National Strategies guidance, was repeatedly noted across
the evidence that we received. As Jolly Learning Ltd noted:
A characteristic of government curriculum advice
is not just its launch, but its huge and inexorable growth. Whereas
the National Curriculum of 1995 had 62 pages (for literacy and
numeracy) the requirement today includes Letters and Sounds (236
pages), the Primary Framework (135 pages) and the Early Years
Foundation Stage (168 pages) an over 8-fold increase.[105]
In response, the National Strategies team and the
Department emphasised that the National Strategies guidance is
non-statutory.[106]
However, this ignores the widespread perception among teachers
that National Strategies guidance is mandatory, and that they
could be penalised by their local authority or school improvement
partner, or through Ofsted inspection, for not following that
guidance.[107]
This perception by teachers of the mandatory nature
of the National Strategies is hardly surprising when Initial Teacher
Training (ITT) guidance says that training must be given on the
use of the National Strategies and Ofsted has specifically investigated
how well ITT succeeds in preparing teachers to implement the strategies
in schools.
9. We suggest that the extent of top-down prescription
and direction has reduced teacher morale and commitment and de-skilled
the profession. The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)
commented:
There has been a danger that the guidance documents
and resources for the National Strategies have been seen as THE
way to deliver the curriculum and, where teachers have lacked
confidence or experience, there has been a tendency to view these
as "teaching by numbers", leading to a generation of
teachers who are curriculum deliverers rather than curriculum
developers. This leads to a detachment from the process and a
move towards "de-professionalisation".[108]
This is problematic in terms of reducing teachers'
confidence and skills in the classroom.[109]
Over the longer term it could result in a dearth of curriculum
design skills within the teaching profession.[110]
10. We suggest that having a national curriculum
will inevitably result in continued pressure from interest groups
to ensure that their field is covered by the national curriculum.
As the Minister of State for Schools and Learners, the Rt Hon
Jim Knight MP, himself noted:
There is pressure on us from a number of people
who tell me about this and that, and what should be compulsory
because it is their thing and they want it made compulsory. The
system becomes weightier and weightier as you accede to those
requests, and eventually, in the case of the secondary curriculum,
you must slim it down, because it becomes unmanageable for schools.[111]
We believe that the bloated nature of the current
National Curriculum also stems from excessive ad hoc changes,
which have often stemmed from the particular priorities of successive
Ministers.[112] As
Professor Hargreaves commented:
The mistake we have made in recent years is that
there has been a tendency for Ministers, when something comes
up, to think that we can impose new regulation through the national
curriculum. […] [the] commitment to a regular review has
disappeared and Ministers can now chip in and change it if it
is something to do with obesity, or something or other. […]
That is very confusing to schools. It is very difficult for them
to implement.
11. Children's development and learning in the
very early years are of crucial importance in terms of laying
strong foundations for their schooling and beyond. The Early Years
Foundation Stage (EYFS), however, is too prescriptive, bureaucratic
and damaging to innovation and diversity in provision. EYFS needs,
at the very least, to be drastically rethought and consideration
should be given to its abolition. Instead of fixed "Early
Learning Goals" the Department should facilitate enhanced
research to inform practitioners and help them develop and share
early years curriculum expertise.[113]
12. We are concerned that, despite having a national
curriculum, many pupils are still not able to access a curriculum
that equips them with the learning opportunities available to
others.
13. We welcome attempts to enhance vocational and
work placed learning. However, we have concerns about the design
and implementation of the new Diploma, in particular the proposed
inclusion of academic diplomas in science, humanities and language.
We consider that all development and future provision of these
academic diplomas should be discontinued.
Trusting teachers
14. We believe that there should be a national curriculum
in place, but that it should look and be managed very differently,
from the existing National Curriculum.
15. The National Curriculum should set out broad
goals to be reached by the age of 16, should set out a framework
of the core subjects and include no further instruction as to
what aspects of those subjects should be taught or how the subjects
should be taught. Teachers should be able to select from commercially
available schemes, text-books and examination syllabuses to augment
their own and their school's curriculum development. Additional
support, training and re-training will be required to equip teachers
with the curriculum design skills which have been lost due to
the over prescription of recent years.
16. Independent schools, free schools and Academies
should not be required to follow the National Curriculum. Other
schools must be able to opt out if their governing bodies vote
to do so and are supported by a majority of parents who vote in
a ballot. The relative ease with which schools could exempt
themselves from the national curriculum would serve as a valve
on the national curriculum to prevent it from becoming overloaded
through political interference. We also believe that a slimmed-down
and essentially optional national curriculum would enhance the
professional standing of teachers, improve the localisation and
relevance of lessons to pupils and make teaching more enjoyable
and more effective.
17. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(or its proposed successor) should be abolished or much reduced
in size and consideration given to the establishment of an independent
'National Curriculum Board' with representatives appointed by
universities and employers.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.—(The
Chairman).
Amendment proposed, to leave out "Chairman's
draft Report" and insert "draft Report proposed by Mr
Graham Stuart".—(Mr Graham Stuart).
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3
Mr Douglas Carswell
Mr Graham Stuart
Mr Edward Timpson
| | Noes, 5
Annette Brooke
Mr John Heppell
Paul Holmes
Fiona Mactaggart
Derek Twigg
|
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Chairman's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 9 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 12 to 20 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 21 and 22 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 23 to 55 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 56 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 57 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 58 and 59 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 60 and 61 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 62 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 63 and 64 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 65 and 66 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 67 to 92 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 93 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 94 to 100 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 101 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 102 to 110 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 111 read and postponed.
Paragraph 112 agreed to.
Postponed paragraph 111 again read.
Paragraph amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 113 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 114 to 116 read and agreed to.
Summary amended and agreed to.
Annexes agreed to.
Two Papers were appended to the Report as Appendices
1 and 2.
Resolved,
That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman
make the Report to the House.
Several Memoranda were ordered to be reported to
the House for printing with the Report, together with certain
Memoranda reported and ordered to be published on 21 May 2008
in the previous Session of Parliament.
Several Memoranda were ordered to be reported to
the House for placing in the Library and Parliamentary Archives.
Ordered, That embargoed
copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
******
[Adjourned till Monday 16 March at 3.30 pm
99 DCSF, Statutory Framework for the Early Years
Foundation Stage: setting the standards for learning, development
and care for children from birth to five, May 2008, p7. Related
EYFS guidance can be found at www.dcsf.gov.uk Back
100
E.g. Ev 250, paragraph 2 [Malcolm Ross] Back
101
DfES, Disapplication of the National Curriculum (Revised)
guidance, July 2006, section 2.1. Back
102
Qq 32 and 47 Back
103
Q 113 Back
104
Be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution,
achieve economic well-being. Back
105
Ev 256, paragraph 4 Back
106
Q 567 Back
107
Ev 256, paragraphs 6-7; Ev 285, paragraph 4. See also Ev 52, paragraphs
13, 16 Back
108
Ev 52, paragraph 15 Back
109
Ev 52, paragraph 15. See also Ev 257, paragraph 3; Ev 258, paragraph
7; Ev 289, paragraph 7.1 Back
110
Q 124 [Martin Johnson]. See also Ev 47, paragraph 44 Back
111
Q 201 Back
112
Q 531 Back
113
Evidence on the EYFS, HC 600-i, Session 2007-08, Ev 1-4, Ev 16-17;
Evidence on the EYFS, HC 600-i, Session 2007-08, Qq 44-45, 54
[Sylvie Sklan], 59, 61 Back
| 
