Memorandum submitted by the Geographical
Association
1. In principle there should be a national
curriculum. There are several reasons for this, but principally
all pupils as young citizens should be guaranteed access to a
broad and balanced curriculum which will equip them with useful
knowledge, understanding, skills and values for future active
citizenship.
2. The NC has moved in the right direction
since its initial introduction, at which time it was not fit for
purpose. Recent reviews have opened up the curriculum to greater
flexibility and the deployment of teacher professional expertise,
including the flexibility to adapt curriculum structure to individual
circumstance, which we support. Early versions of the National
Curriculum lacked clear aims and purpose and, even more importantly,
articulated too much detail. In effect, the early national curriculum
set out to do the local curriculum design job that is better done
by teachers in schools (essentially, selecting and arranging the
content of what is to be taught). A national curriculum is best
conceived as a broad enabling framework, working to broad educational
principles; in a democratic society, these principles need to
be articulated, open and defensible.
3. One significant pressure on the National
Curriculum since 1998 has been the National Strategies. Whereas
the National Curriculum provides the curricular framework, the
National Strategies seek to provide an underpinning pedagogy.
In practice, and despite some achievements, the Strategies have
not been effective in supporting the National Curriculum, especially
in the primary phase where curriculum planning skills are now
weaker and many younger teachers find it difficult to teach creatively
outside of the "core". They have distorted the notion
of "broad and balanced". They have reinforced curriculum
hierarchies and narrowed the curriculum. The National Strategies
have over-emphasised "pedagogical fixes" and taken teachers'
attention away from educational purposes. A classic example of
this has been the secondary national strategy encouragement to
schools to experiment with a two year Key Stage 3, chiefly on
the grounds on acceleration of learning in core subjects. In practice,
a two year Key Stage 3 weakens curriculum entitlement by reducing
the access to foundation subjects (less time is available). The
National Strategies are over centralised and heavy handed, despite
the rhetoric of "local ownership" since the award of
the Strategies contract to Capita in 2005.
4. Much the same can be said of current
testing and assessment arrangements, which have privileged attainment
in a small number of areas. Whilst we would readily accept the
importance of attainment in literacy and numeracy to pupils' long-term
life chances, we would argue that much can be gained in this respect
by encouraging the foundation subjects (eg geography)—in
which pupils learn to marshal complex arguments about difficult
questions. This encourages high level literacy skills, but also
helps prepare pupils for employment and for the wider responsibilities
of adult life. But it takes time and gives emphasis to aspects
that are not easily assessed. The priority given to assessment
arrangements over curriculum provision has seriously distorted
the management and delivery of curriculum.
The primary review reporting this year is an
important opportunity to consider the primary curriculum. We hope
to see a framework (or range of frameworks) that will encourage
disciplined innovation and high expectations in a broad and responsive
curriculum; we fear it may over-emphasise "skills" at
the expense of knowledge and understanding. The logic of the argument
here is a simple one: children will attain best when they are
engaged by a stimulating and varied curriculum, well-taught. Our
feedback suggests that primary colleagues would welcome a KS3-style
conceptual framework for the subject, so that ways can be devised
locally to incorporate appropriate subject knowledge and understanding
in to the curriculum.
5. Government is rightly concerned about
personalisation and new local curriculum flexibilities. Too often,
national policy and, indeed schools' own curriculum practices
have treated pupils as groups rather than as individuals. However,
the rhetoric of personalisation is too often accompanied by a
further erosion of the value we place on understanding and knowledge.
For this reason, we would argue that the best preparation for
the 14-19 Diplomas is a broad and balanced exposure to subject
disciplines, which in different ways shape our understandings
of the world in which we live. New curriculum flexibilities must
not be interpreted as an invitation to drop or reduce schools'
commitment to "humanities" subjects. Personalisation
should strive for the realisation of pupils' potential across
the full range of curriculum areas: this implies a greater emphasis
than at present on teachers' subject knowledge (especially in
primary), with implications for initial training and CPD programmes.
6. Policy developments over the last decade
have distorted the functioning of the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority. There is now a case for the creation of a national
curriculum institute. The national curriculum institute would
act as a research and development centre for the curriculum and
would articulate the relationships between centrally-directed
entitlement and local curriculum innovation and experimentation.
Currently, schools are experimenting with curriculum innovation—both
within and outside the national curriculum with almost no framework
for either evaluation or the transfer of successful and effective
practices.
7. The role of teachers in the future development
of the NC is crucial. Teachers need to be trusted far more and
provided with more "think time" so that intellectually
they are in a better position to take (back) more responsibility
for the curriculum. This chimes well with the PM's ambition for
an all Masters profession. Professional networks of all kinds,
including subject associations need support and encouragement
and teachers/schools need to be members. There are vibrant and
successful subject associations, though no obvious framework (yet)
within which they can collaborate. More critically, because of
the dominance of the national strategies and the assessment regime,
too little attention has been given to supporting teachers' engagement
with what to teach and other fundamental issues of curriculum.
8. Three aspects of debate are of particular
importance in the future; they are to do with the purposes of
the curriculum, with learners' entitlement, and with who should
decide what is in the school curriculum.
March 2008
| 
