Memorandum submitted by Mick Waters, Director
of Curriculum, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)
THE NATIONAL
CURRICULUM: A NATIONAL
TREASURE
The curriculum should be treasured. There should
be real pride in "our" curriculum: the learning that
the nation has decided it should set before its young. Teachers,
parents, the wider education community, the media and the public
at large should all see the curriculum as something that they
embrace, support and celebrate. Most of all, young people should
relish the opportunity for discovery and achievement that the
curriculum offers to them.
Context and background
The development of the national curriculum has
been a long process. From Callaghan's Ruskin speech in 1976 to
the introduction of the national curriculum in 1989 as part of
the Education Reform Act, argument ranged about the level of prescription
and central control. With the associated assessment arrangements
leading to teacher boycotts and continuing concern about levels
of demand and bureaucracy for teachers, there were attempts to
rationalise complexity through reforms in 1996 and again four
years later.
The pattern of "change through default"
has emphasised that the role, purpose and influence of the national
curriculum is open to debate, often critical. As our country engages
in discussion on values, beliefs, identity and history, the national
curriculum becomes more than the framework for what is taught
in schools. It is easy to focus upon the curriculum as the starting
point for addressing the ills of society. From obesity to climate
change, law and order to the performance of international sports
teams, the national curriculum becomes a simple focus for many.
Similarly, frustrated ambassadors for social change often blame
the perceived outdated curriculum for the lack of progress they
experience. Argument is often less than measured and invariably
at the extremes of the generalised and specific. Given the emphasis
on knowledge content, in the early national curriculum the focus
of critique is often about detail.
The principle of a national curriculum is not
often contested. Notions of entitlement and public scrutiny and
engagement accord with a plural democracy. However, detail of
the content is the subject of heated debate; Shakespeare, phonics,
authors and artists become iconic battlegrounds in the curriculum.
Many who comment most loudly and negatively about the curriculum
have not looked closely at it and instead choose to enjoy their
sport. The curriculum, therefore, can be a public scapegoat, though
its intent and endeavours are appreciated by the vast majority.
In England there is a tendency to criticise most of our national
institutions. How much easier might it be for young people to
feel affiliated and connected with their society if they felt
that their learning was commonly valued by the adult community?
It is widely accepted that the original national
curriculum was in effect "backwards looking", born of
an attempt to ensure that those elements of knowledge and understanding
necessary for success in a previous age were not lost. There emerged
possibly too much emphasis on summative assessment and not enough
emphasis on skills, values and personal development. The detailed
specification meant that the weakest teachers gained prescribed
content and clear expectations, but at the same time the strongest
teachers lost influence over planned learning and professional
intellectual curiosity.
Over time, there has been a gradual recognition
of the need to keep the best and adjust the rest.
Potential benefits and blocks
A national curriculum offers a benchmark for
a broad, balanced curriculum with a common entitlement. It should
provide equality of access to a high-quality learning experience.
While some schools build their curriculum confidently and conscious
of the needs of their pupils within a context of accountability,
others appear unable to do so. They appear unaware of the flexibility
available under the national curriculum and claim that the accountability
framework has had a restricting affect on their curriculum. The
arrival of the national strategies and the perceived requirements
of Ofsted are seen by some to limit flexibility. Yet other schools
have grasped opportunity in the curriculum, recognised the opportunities
for interpretation that exist and do not feel the need for permission
to shape learning to their own pupils' needs. Indeed, outstanding
curricula are recognised and acknowledged in Ofsted inspections
and there is evidence of the impact of good curriculum design
on school results, attendance, attitudes and relationships.
Successive reviews seek to reshape the curriculum.
The need for pupils to learn about the local, the national and
the international aspects of their lives has become more accepted.
The recognition that children learn through good explanation and
exposition, strong instruction, effective questions, fieldwork,
practical application, meeting influential people, going places
and taking part is voiced by most representative groups with a
wish to see their own agenda well represented. A minority see
the curriculum as sterile; to be endured while other experiences
elsewhere offer enjoyment.
Many of the current criticisms of the national
curriculum relate to misconceptions based on ongoing criticism
of earlier versions that are believed not to be adequately addressed,
such as the skills agenda. Other criticisms relate to aspects
of the education system that have grown from the national curriculum
but are in themselves not the curriculum: the accountability framework,
over-prescription within the national strategies, over-prescription
in non-statutory schemes of work and previous inspection models
based on compliance.
The curriculum, well designed and implemented,
has a significant and important part to play in stretching the
most able and talented, closing the gap in attainment, supporting
the respect agenda, building healthy lifestyles, promoting civic
participation and encouraging long-term involvement in education,
employment and training. The achievements of the curriculum are
not intended to be limited to any particular key stage but instead
seen as improving life chances: setting young people on a path
to lifelong learning and a successful, responsible and enjoyable
adult life. The curriculum achieves little if it does not motivate
the learner. This is the essential contribution the curriculum
can make to the Children's Plan.
Because so much of the education system has
a national curriculum and assessment levels as its cornerstone,
any proposed change has major implications. For example, if changes
in programmes of study can be recommended, changes in level descriptions
are harder to achieve because of knock-on effects upon targets,
tests and strategies. There is therefore a force for the status
quo and minimal change. This is one of the significant anchors
holding back the modernisation of learning and constraining flexibility.
The future
What can be done to create a better curriculum?
How can we move from periodic review to an evolving set of principles
that shape the conversation at all levels? The challenge is to
see the curriculum as a big picture of learning. Each school should
work to design its own curriculum within clear national parameters
so that entitlement can be married to local need, aspiration and
opportunity. Learning bodies, employers, teachers, governors,
parents and pupils themselves should be engaged in the curriculum
at national and at local levels. The consensus about what is best
for the nation's children should be established at national level;
locally, the challenge is to make the national vision a practicable
reality.
For too long the school timetable has been synonymous
with the school curriculum. This has led to the inflexible straightjacket
at one extreme with fairness assured for all subjects on the basis
of time allowed. At another extreme is the serendipity of valuable
experiences and events for miscellaneous groups of children in
an unstructured offer. The design of a school curriculum is far
more complex than coverage or delivery of content.
The curriculum is the entire planned learning
experience encountered by the pupil. The content, whether knowledge,
skills, attitudes or attributes, can be learned and consolidated
through lessons, events and the routines of the school as well
as beyond and outside the typical school day. This is not about
an extra curriculum offer, treats or recreational activity. It
is about making learning fit-for-purpose, planned and recognised
as important. It is also about recognising progress and giving
credit for the progress and development of a whole person.
It is within this context that a cultural offer
or an expected time allocation for physical education fit. An
emphasis on learning outside the classroom, or music, or cooking,
or singing or representative visits to Auschwitz are the response
of government to the intent of the curriculum at national level.
At local level enhanced work experience, real emphasis on lifestyle
choices or a focus upon work with older people give a context
for learning for individual schools as they set their goals for
their own pupils.
The challenge of making assessment fit-for-purpose
goes back to the very origins of the national curriculum itself.
Assessment that sheds light on progress, influencing learning
immediately, has a different purpose from that which proves progress
over time. The coming together of single level testing with concepts
of "when ready" and "on demand" assessment
will open up curriculum opportunity and truly personalise the
curriculum, tailoring planning to react to individual need, specialism,
choice and diversity. Aspects of choice, real options and decisions
about pathways become vital in sustaining the capacity and willingness
to continue to learn. Similarly, an emphasis on helping young
people to understand the essence of specialism is crucial to the
nation's need to develop the next generation of scientists or
geographers.
A search for status leads lobby groups to want
their agenda to be recognised as a subject. Being a subject does
not guarantee a good curriculum experience. There are many "Cinderella
subjects" trying to go to the school curriculum ball. There
are some already there who sometimes get little chance to take
part; music, drama, even dance itself are often neglected as schools
focus on their best bets for success in the accountability stakes.
There are currently concerns for example over subjects such as
languages, engineering or mathematics. As with all subjects these
need good teaching, resourcing and a strong qualification framework,
but they also need to address curriculum design to invigorate
those learners for whom particular subjects are not enticing.
Curriculum dimension, confronting changes in
society appeal to the young and offer a way of seeing learning
in context. The hierarchy of subjects is regularly brought into
question, often by subject communities. Indeed, a clear framework
for core knowledge and understanding, skills, attitudes and values
would give schools the opportunity to shape the learning experience
for their pupils in the context of local circumstances. This would
lead to learning opportunities in a range of subjects, lessons,
events and routines reinforcing each other, being repeated in
context, having relevance to young people's lives and achieving
a growth in performance. To help schools interpret this core guidance
should be offered, pointing schools to learning experience and
opportunity which would tailor and personalise.
The national curriculum has helped create a
focus upon education and is a potential source of national pride
and endeavour. It is open to public scrutiny, debate and participation.
It has built a shared language and established standards and expectations
that provide a means to discuss and debate quality and achievement.
These are real benefits but more remains to be done.
QCA's role
In recent years the QCA has sought to be more
proactive in developing new frameworks for the curriculum and
more supportive of schools in helping them to engage in "disciplined
innovation" in curriculum design. Developments such as the
inclusion of financial capability, citizenship and skills development
are applauded by some, while others detract and see the curriculum
as being watered down and focusing on the social rather than intellectual.
At the same time, there is wide recognition that individuals and
society have need of a range of outcomes from learning such as
further engagement in education, employment and training, making
healthy lifestyle choices and participating as responsible citizens.
In this context QCA has engaged more widely with stakeholders
about how best to develop a curriculum for the new century as
opposed to defining content. There has been engagement with schools
to develop design principles to promote a high-quality learning
experience rather than to ensure coverage and delivery of all
content. A wide-ranging skills framework has been developed, largely
welcomed by the employer and higher education communities. In
the review of the secondary curriculum the importance of subjects
is emphasised through the identification of key skills and processes
as well as the range and content to be studied. Across the national
curriculum age range, the publication of case studies of good
curriculum practice and the articulation of processes of curriculum
design have helped schools to move forward with confidence in
offering effective learning and measuring impact.
In the future this will develop greater innovation
in curriculum design and delivery; more flexible use of time;
the engagement of local businesses and the community to support
learning; more creative use of the locality; out of classroom
learning; and the use of technology to support learning partnerships.
The curriculum is nothing if it fails to engage and motivate the
learner and while many are committed to their own learning there
is evidence of school withdrawal for growing numbers. The curriculum
has to make learning worth it for the young.
School accountability can be better secured
by the development of a "balanced scorecard" approach
to curriculum effectiveness; valuing the wider outcomes of education
and learning; and recognising the endeavours of a school to build
goals suited to its locality within the context of national parameters.
A national organisation such as QCA is therefore
important in building consensus, helping to balance different
and competing influence, advising ministers and communicating
with schools. A curriculum body can help the drive towards a world
class education system. Engaging with the widest community, including
children and young people, their parents and carers, helps the
plurality of interests to be represented. A national body which
builds credibility with schools and the teaching profession and
is looked on as an authoritative resource will support the nation's
endeavours in raising the performance of school and the achievements
and successes of young people. This is entirely in keeping with
the spirit and intentions of the Children's Plan and especially
in the achievement of the five outcomes of the Every Child Matters
agenda.
We welcome this inquiry by the Committee, which
is taking place at a good time—shortly before the new secondary
curriculum starts being taught and at the same time that work
on the primary curriculum review gets underway.
March 2008
| 
