Memorandum submitted by the National Union
of Teachers (NUT)
A SUMMARY OF
THE NUT'S
PROPOSALS
1. A National Curriculum which is part of
an effective education system and which focuses on achieving equality
of opportunity for all children and young people has a positive,
indirect influence on standards and performance. The National
Curriculum should be recognised by teachers as supportive of their
work and supportive of school improvement.
2. Rather than provide a bench mark for
parental choice, the National Curriculum should provide a bench
mark for a common entitlement to a balanced and broadly based
curriculum for all children and young people. In this context
the Governments promotion of Academies' freedom from the National
Curriculum is puzzling. The purpose of any common National Curriculum
should be to encourage removal of covert and other forms of discrimination
against groups of pupils, including those who are socially and
economically disadvantaged.
3. The National Curriculum assessment and
testing arrangements are not an inevitable consequence of the
National Curriculum's current or future conceptualisation. The
NUT believes that the current assessment arrangements undermine
the intentions and effectiveness of the National Curriculum itself.
4. There should be an independent review
of the 5-14 curriculum which should focus on restructuring the
National Curriculum as a statutory framework. This would mean
that the content of the curriculum would have an advisory status
in relation to the statutory framework. Accompanying the framework
curriculum should be guidance on curriculum content to which schools
should be required to have regard.
5. The present distinction between the core
and foundation subjects should be replaced by a statutory framework
describing a common curriculum entitlement which would support
young people's learning.
6. The framework curriculum should provide
the scaffolding for the development of teachers' creativity and
enthusiasm both for their pupils' and their own learning. It should
describe a range of statutory entitlements for children and young
people including literacy, numeracy, science and technology, the
creative arts, the humanities including a knowledge of global
developments, information and communications technology and modern
foreign languages.
7. The framework should describe the essential
skills knowledge and experiences which children need. It should
identify to the stages of children's development.
8. The statutory framework should encourage
new approaches to cross-curriculum learning, such as thinking
skills, environmental learning, the impact of religious and secular
beliefs on society, learning about industry and manufacturing,
citizenship and personal and social education, including healthy
living and the importance of physical exercise.
9. Exemplifications of cross-curriculum
work should be included on a non-statutory advisory basis within
a National Curriculum framework. The curriculum framework should
be based on an approach which would put the professional judgement
of teachers at its centre. It should advise that it could be adapted
to the needs of pupils.
10. Integral to the new framework should
be specific references to the needs of young people from minority
ethnic backgrounds. The needs of children from socially and economically
deprived backgrounds alongside those with special educational
needs and disabilities would be integral to the new framework.
11. The new framework curriculum should
encourage teachers to adapt curriculum content to meet the specific
needs of pupils without teachers having to demonstrate artificially
through post-hoc curriculum mapping that they had covered the
content of the National Curriculum.
12. Such an approach should highlight the
need for school communities, with pupils from a diverse range
of backgrounds, to understand the history of their local communities
and the connection between that history and the local communities
as they are now. This would be particularly vital in areas which
have experienced significant demographic change and vital also
for indigenous as well as new communities.
13. The framework should contain advisory
signposts which would point to non-statutory curriculum advice
and to trigger the new ideas and projects. The signposting approach
should be a vital part of a new framework curriculum. It should
signpost opportunities to educate for equality and should encourage
the promotion of respect for cultural diversity.
14. It is essential that the primary and
secondary curriculum phases are part of a continuum and that the
signposts within the curriculum framework point to specific non-statutory
guidance and permissions which secure curriculum continuity between
Key Stages two and three.
15. A framework National Curriculum should
contain signposts which encourage personalised learning and tuition
through the publication of practical exemplars drawn from examples
provided by schools.
16. While there is nothing inherently wrong
with the framework being structured on the basis of National Curriculum
levels, such an approach is inevitably compromised by the ease
with which levels are co-opted by the current high stakes testing
arrangements.
17. There are now eleven specifications
which apply to the review or the Primary Curriculum. The Children's
Plan statement that the Primary Curriculum Review will raise standards
for all pupils according to those specifications, detracts from
the promise that there will be a root and branch review of the
Primary Curriculum. In contrast, Robin Alexander's review of primary
education appears to be opening up the necessary debate on the
review of the Primary Curriculum.
18. The specifications for the Primary Curriculum
Review, set out in paragraphs 3.86, 3.90 and 3.92 of the Children's
Plan, should be converted into key but not exclusive questions
to be asked within the Primary Curriculum Review.
19. A specific commitment should be made
by Sir Jim Rose and the QCA to evaluate the research studies and
emerging findings of Robin Alexander's review of primary education.
20. The successor body to the QCA should
remain an independent authority for the curriculum and not become
simply an agency. The power should remain in place for the successor
body to review regularly the curriculum without it necessary to
have a ministerial remit to do so.
21. Developments in pedagogy and the curriculum
are now so complex that a government department cannot be certain
that it knows what it wants in terms of advice.
22. The Government should provide funding
support for the development of a pedagogic bank to which teachers
can contribute, draw on and feel is their own.
23. The National Curriculum should outline
the entitlement of teachers to access and own high quality and
professional development.
THE INQUIRY
OF THE
CHILDREN, SCHOOLS
AND FAMILIES
COMMITTEE INTO
THE NATIONAL
CURRICULUM—A SUBMISSION
BY THE
NATIONAL UNION
OF TEACHERS
24. The National Union of Teachers welcomes
the decision by the Children, Schools and Families Committee to
undertake an inquiry into the National Curriculum. While the NUT
represents both teachers in England and Wales, this submission,
given devolved powers to Wales for education, will focus on the
National Curriculum in England.
25. Since the introduction of the National
Curriculum in 1988, the NUT has carried out consistent, in-depth
work on the curriculum. The NUT was the first teacher organisation
to respond to the original National Curriculum. Its policy document,
A Strategy for the Curriculum was published in 1990. It
contained a range of policy proposals and a section on the origins
of the National Curriculum which Committee members may find helpful
as a reference document.
26. It is 20 years since the passing of
the 1988 Education Act; the Education Reform Act. The introduction
of the National Curriculum created great debate across very many
sections of society. Inevitably, the debate was greatest amongst
teachers and their organisations. Prior to the 1988 Education
Reform Act, it is fair to say that the NUT was opposed to the
idea of any nationally prescribed curriculum but the intense debate
created by the 1988 Act hot-housed the Union's thinking about
what a curriculum should be for.
27. Between 1990, when the first pilot National
Curriculum Standard Assessment Tasks were introduced, and 1993
when the teacher organisations boycotted the then National Curriculum
testing arrangements, the teacher organisations and the National
Curriculum Council met almost weekly to thrash out a new settlement
for the curriculum. The template for discussions between the teacher
organisations and the National Curriculum Council was the National
Union of Teachers' A Strategy for the Curriculum. Although
the boycott focused on the tests, its effect on the National Curriculum
was as equally profound.
28. The results of the negotiations with
the NCC and Government on the curriculum led to a reduction in
the amount of paper within each of the infamous subject ring binders
which had been rightly and mercilessly satirized by Ted Wragg.
29. Since then, there have been a number
of further reforms to the National Curriculum. They include the
reforms to the National Curriculum in 1996 and further reforms
to the curriculum at all key stages in 2000. A new secondary National
Curriculum has recently been introduced. The Education Act 2002
extended the National Curriculum to include the newly established
Foundation Stage for three to five year olds, which was subsequently
reversed by the Childcare Act 2006.
30. The numerous changes to the National
Curriculum over the last 20 years show that its role, purpose
and influence remains very much at the centre of debate not least
because the National Curriculum not only provides a framework
for what is taught in schools but because it acts as a proxy for
a continuing public debate about the country's beliefs, values
and history.
The National Curriculum and its Fitness for Purpose
31. Most countries have forms of a National
Curriculum. They are either outlined as broad expectations or
are extremely detailed. Some have no National Curricula, partly
because of their federated nature. The fact that neither Canada
nor the United States have National Curricula seems not to have
had an impact on the overall outcomes for children and young people
in either country. According to the OECD's Programme for International
Student Assessment, Canada's individual states manage to achieve
high outcomes for practically all of their children and young
people and, in contrast, the United States has one of the longest
tails of pupil underachievement of any industrialised country
despite its very high levels of per pupil spending on education.
32. It could be argued, that each country
gets the National Curriculum it deserves (or not) since the National
Curriculum reflects national aspirations. It could be argued also
that a detailed National Curriculum is a direct driver for school
standards, particularly in countries where standards are considered
to be uneven (a view taken by Michael Barber, eg, TES, 13 April
2007). Such a view, however, is highly contested. There are countries
with highly detailed curricula, such as France, which do not perform
well relative to other industrialised countries. The PISA evidence
(2000, 2003 and 2006) also makes it clear that the devolution
of curriculum decision-making is a positive factor in achieving
high outcomes for all children and young people.
33. What is probably the case is that a
National Curriculum relevant to and part of an effective education
system focusing on achieving equality of opportunity for all children
and young people has a positive, indirect influence on standards
and performance. Just as high levels of funding are a vital and
positive background factor in achieving an effective education
system for all, so is a National Curriculum, which is relevant
to and supportive of teaching and learning.
34. In short, the foundations for a successful
education system are not found solely in the curriculum itself
but in the quality of each country's teachers and the background
factors which help and support teachers in their work. Those background
factors obviously include class sizes, sufficient resources, consistent
high quality professional development, a self teaching profession
and a National Curriculum which is of use to schools. There is
therefore a strong argument for a National Curriculum which is
recognised by teachers as supportive of their work and supportive
of school improvement. What that National Curriculum should look
like will obviously be the focus of the Select Committee's inquiry.
35. Teachers have a significant impact and
influence on the children with whom they work. Research has shown
that qualified teachers are among a school's most valuable resources.
The Programme for International Student Assessment[4]
asked school leaders to indicate the percentage of teachers with
a university-level qualification in their respective subject area.
Having more of these teachers was associated with better student
results. For example, in reading, a 25 percentage point increase
in the proportion of teachers with a university-level qualification
in the relevant subject was associated with an advantage of 9
points on the reading literacy scale, on average across OECD countries.
36. Teachers who are treated as professionals
and who have the confidence and skills to make professional judgements
based on research, evidence and experience are well placed to
manage and influence a flexible curriculum.
37. The DCSF and the Government must ensure
that teachers are given back this freedom and confidence in order
for the personalisation agenda to work effectively for all children
and young people.
38. The question of who should have responsibility
for differentiating the curriculum for pupils, particularly pupils
with special educational needs is a key one. The University of
Cambridge's study for the NUT, The Cost of Inclusion,[5]
contains some disturbing findings about the use of support staff
for the inclusion of children with special educational needs:
"It is widespread practice for teachers...
to give special needs pupils almost entirely into the care of
Teaching Assistants who are often regarded as the "experts",
although very few TAs have any qualification or background in
special needs ... Without expert support they lean more to a nurturing
than a learning role and find it difficult to extend challenge
and risk taking .... Differentiation of the curriculum is typically
left to the discretion of TAs. Their care and concern in assuming
these responsibilities (very often in their own time) is not matched
by the expertise needed to make a classroom lesson relevant or
accessible to a child with special needs."
39. A key recommendation from the report
is that teaching assistants should not carry responsibility for
differentiating the curriculum but work under the supervision
of teachers to plan whole class strategies for support.
40. The lessons of The Cost of Inclusion
apply across all areas of teaching and learning, as so often with
lessons that are learnt from the developments of special educational
provision. The danger of such an approach is that it can lead
to a hierarchy of provision, with those who have the greatest
needs being tutored by staff who are the least qualified to carry
out the task.
41. The NUT's A Strategy for the Curriculum
set out strong arguments for an entitlement curriculum. As the
NUT's section on the origins of the National Curriculum demonstrates
such an idea is not new but what was new in the NUT's document
was the view that the National Curriculum could combat educational
disadvantage. Rather than providing a benchmark for parental choice,
the National Curriculum should provide a benchmark for a common
entitlement to a balanced and broadly-based curriculum for all
children and young people. Implicit in all the NUT's thinking
since 1990 has been the argument that if the National Curriculum
is to do anything, it should enhance equality of access to high
quality teaching and learning for all children and young people.
42. This is why the NUT finds the Government's
promotion of Academies' freedom from the National Curriculum so
puzzling. Surely the purpose of any common National Curriculum
should be to remove covert and overt forms of discrimination against
groups of pupils, particularly those who are socially and economically
disadvantaged.
43. In arguing for an entitlement curriculum
in 1990, the NUT said the following:
"The Union favours a nationally agreed view
of the curriculum which gives considerable scope for local initiative
and decision making. It should provide all pupils with the knowledge,
skills and understanding to which they are entitled and encourage
and develop attitudes which will enable them to learn and take
a full part in society."
44. Just what the entitlement curriculum
would look like was fleshed out in subsequent submissions by the
NUT to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's and the
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's reviews of the curriculum
and refined within the NUT's policy documents, Bringing Down
the Barriers (2004) and A Good Local School for Every Child
and for Every Community (2007).
45. The National Curriculum's assessment
and testing arrangements are not an inevitable consequence of
the National Curriculum's current or future conceptualisation.
Along with practically every other organisation which submitted
evidence to the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee
for its review of testing and assessment, the NUT believes that
the National Curriculum's assessment arrangements have undermined
the intentions and effectiveness of the National Curriculum itself.
Evidence from the NUT's commissioned Cambridge University studies
of the lives of primary (2002), secondary (2004) and special education
(2006) teachers demonstrate, alongside a whole swathe of other
research evidence, that National Curriculum high stakes testing
is skewing and narrowing the curriculum offer to children and
young people, particularly at the ages of 11 and 14.
46. The other detrimental effect of the
current assessment arrangements have been that teachers' ownership
of assessment for learning has also been seriously undermined;
a fact demonstrated in the evidence received by the Select Committee.
Indeed, the NUT believes that the current "Making Good Progress"
pilot is also in danger of foundering because of the high stakes
outcomes of the tests.
The National Curriculum—Constraint and Innovation
47. The Department for Education and Skills
has conducted an investigation into the relationship of primary
schools to the National Curriculum. This Select Committee may
wish to ask the Department to provide them the results of that
investigation. The NUT received only an oral briefing at the time.
The investigation showed that there was a very great variation
between primary schools in the level of their adherence to National
Curriculum requirements. The least confident schools stuck assiduously
to the National Curriculum and continued to engage in the debilitating
activity of post-hoc curriculum mapping which consists of identifying
the programmes of study which have been covered during any lesson.
In contrast, other schools had the confidence to cherry pick the
Primary Curriculum and use it as a way of informing lesson planning
and projects.
48. It was clear to the NUT at the time
that many primary schools continued to see the National Curriculum
as an imposed requirement rather than as a stimulus to more effective
teaching.
49. The evidence that this sense of imposition
remains can be seen from the responses on the TES website to the
Government's otherwise positive proposals to introduce five hours
per week of cultural activities to schools. The argument made
by ministers that schools had the freedom to integrate the offer
is not something which many teachers have recognised.
50. Ten years ago, the Government introduced
the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies using a top down roll-out
model which alienated many head teachers and teachers alike. The
NUT sought and achieved Government agreement to suspend the requirement
for primary schools to implement the foundation subjects of the
National Curriculum through a temporary order which said that
schools need only "have regard" to teaching those subjects.
51. The NUT argued that, irrespective of
the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, this presented a golden
opportunity for primary schools to shape their own curricular
offer without the constraints of following every aspect of the
programmes of study. Perhaps unsurprisingly most schools did not
use the temporary flexibilities available to them. The accountability
structures had not changed and the imposed nature of the Literacy
and Numeracy Strategies contradicted any understanding that there
were increased flexibilities elsewhere in the system.
52. The NUT believes, however, that there
is a greater sense of freedom in a number of primary schools now
than there has been but that such a sense of freedom in relation
to the curriculum is not felt by all. Unpublished research for
the NUT by Cambridge University (2008) describes this mixture
of uncertainty and sense of freedom.
53. The revised National Curriculum that
will be introduced by secondary schools from September 2008 contains,
potentially, very many of the flexibilities that the NUT has argued
for. The exemplifications of those flexibilities currently being
published by QCA, such as the practical materials illustrating
the global dimension of the curriculum, have the capacity to give
to secondary schools the permissions to be creative which should
be the purpose of any National Curriculum.
54. The real challenge for secondary schools
is whether the curriculum innovations promised by the new Secondary
Curriculum will be evaluated in their own right by Ofsted and
local authority inspectors. Secondary school teachers may well
continue to ask themselves whether it is possible, in initiating
curriculum innovation, to make the inevitable mistakes which arise
from innovation, without being criticised by school inspection
reports.
55. Secondary schools may feel constrained
also from exploring and making best use of the flexibilities of
the new National Curriculum for secondary schools, and the opportunities
which are presented, as a consequence of the weight of reform
facing secondary schools from 2008 onwards, especially in relation
to the reform of 14-19 education.
56. Because the new 14-19 Diplomas are not
yet established in schools and colleges, it is too early to evaluate
the way in which they may impact upon the provisions of the National
Curriculum for young people aged 14-16 and how well they build
upon and provide continuity from the National Curriculum 5-14.
57. In contrast to the relatively open manner
in which QCA conducted the review of the Secondary Curriculum,
and in particular its involvement of teachers and their organisations
in the process, the 14-19 Diplomas were initially developed in
a way which excluded teachers and their representatives. With
the introduction of Diplomas, the concept of a common curricular
entitlement for all young people at least to 16 could become increasingly
blurred. The NUT believes that the establishment and maintenance
of links between the National Curriculum and the Diploma lines
of learning could be better identified and developed.
58. It is vital that the secondary National
Curriculum, particularly at Key Stage 4, continues to seek to
guarantee a minimum entitlement to the wider skills necessary
for full participation in adult life, family life, "citizenship"
and lifelong learning. Such an entitlement must apply regardless
of the learning routes post-14 if social justice and equality
of opportunity are to be achieved.
59. The NUT believes that, within a new,
more flexible Secondary Curriculum, a place could have been found
for a guaranteed entitlement for all pupils to humanities, creative
arts and modern foreign languages learning within Key Stage 4.
While there is a strong argument for ensuring that the National
Curriculum does not become overloaded at this, or any Key Stage,
a flexible approach to the curriculum which provides statutory
entitlements within a more flexible framework of areas of the
curriculum to which schools would be required to have regard could
facilitate an approach which did not mean the wholesale removal
of modern foreign languages from the statutory curriculum.
60. One problem with the new national Secondary
Curriculum is that it has not emerged as part of a review of the
whole statutory curriculum. It is commonly acknowledged that the
primary/secondary divide, particularly in terms of the curriculum
offer available between the two phases, undermines liaison in
securing a smooth transfer of children from primary to secondary
schools. The fact that two reviews have been conducted consequentially
and separately; one for secondary and then one for primary can
only serve to exacerbate the primary/secondary divide rather than
enhance a smooth continuum of education for children moving from
primary to secondary school.
61. In addition, it was disappointing that
the opportunity presented by the revision of the National Curriculum
was not used to ensure that the Primary Curriculum was built from
the Foundation Stage upwards rather than from the secondary stage
downwards. The ad hoc manner in which the curriculum appears to
evolve, rather than be subject to systematic review, is typified
by the DCSF's review of the Primary Curriculum, which will be
launched six months before the Early Years Foundation Stage is
due to become statutory in September 2008. In order to avoid the
curricular inconsistencies noted elsewhere in this submission,
an essential principle for curriculum development in the future
should be that the National Curriculum should be scrutinised as
a continuum, rather than as discrete `chunks' relating to the
various phases of education.
62. The Primary National Curriculum is overloaded.
It contains too much content, is still too prescriptive, remains
unmanageable and is not sufficiently matched to classroom realities.
The current primary National Curriculum particularly restricts
access to new areas of knowledge and the capacity to construct
imaginatively areas of teaching and learning which cross traditional
subject barriers. There is little in it which encourages an entitlement
to educational experiences outside school. Such views were expressed
frequently by respondents to an NUT survey on the future of the
Primary Curriculum in 2005. The survey report is attached for
the information of the Committee.[6]
63. The National Curriculum has limited
the ability of some small schools to provide locally relevant
curricula. Small age cohorts often necessitate the use of mixed
age classes. This places greater pressure on teachers in the planning
and delivery of teaching. Many small schools lack school halls
which can limit opportunities for PE, drama and dance and practical
activities in science and technology.
64. The problems of mixed age classes are
compounded by the fact that major initiatives such as the National
Literacy and National Numeracy strategies and QCA schemes of work
were designed for single age year groups. National initiatives
are also often tailored to an urban environment. The National
Literacy and Numeracy Strategies seemed to be designed to, for
example, be implemented in schools where the head teacher did
not have class teaching responsibilities. A number of initiatives
have assumed that schools can provide before and after school
activities or enable meetings with parents in relatively easily.
65. These factors above which affect small
schools need to be taken into account within the review of the
Primary Curriculum.
66. The arguments used by the DCSF in reply
to critics of the burden of the current Primary Curriculum are
revealing. It says that these arise due to schools misunderstanding
the status of the National Curriculum Schemes of Work. This "misunderstanding"
arises not from schools' inability to understand the National
Curriculum documentation, but rather typifies schools' anxieties
about accountability. In the same way that "optional"
tests are now used by over 90% of primary schools as a means of
demonstrating that they are focused on raising achievement and
meeting their targets, schools feel obliged to use the "optional"
schemes of work to demonstrate to Ofsted they are covering the
curriculum.
67. The subject-defined curriculum combined
with content overload presents barriers to flexibility and innovation
particularly for primary schools where classes are vertically
grouped. In light of such a cultural climate, therefore, the capacity
of schools to introduce curriculum innovation or to take advantage
of current flexibilities, particularly in relation to cross-curricular
working, within the curriculum must be called into question.
68. Personalised learning is not about a
"one size fits all" approach to learning and teaching.
Securing a balanced and broadly based framework curriculum and
assessment for learning which diagnoses children's needs would
provide the best form of creative scaffolding for responding to
each child's needs. The introduction of smaller class and group
size with more flexibility in the timetable for reflection and
adaptation of learning techniques, styles and methods is essential
for the appropriate introduction of an effective personalised
learning approach in schools.
69. Currently, with falling pupil numbers
in schools, the Government has the opportunity to both increase
the numbers of teachers in schools and reduce class sizes. For
the personalisation of teaching and learning for all children
to be effectively implemented this measure is essential and now
is the right time to do it. Falling pupil rolls should present
an opportunity not a threat. They represent the opportunity to
improve the ability of teachers to meet the individual learning
needs of children and young people.
70. For personalised learning to be effectively
implemented there are a number of factors which should be addressed,
one of which is the restructuring of the curriculum.
71. In order to meet the needs of all of
the pupils it serves, every school should enjoy greater freedom
to determine its curricular and pedagogical approaches.
72. There is an as yet unresolved tension
between the implicit assumption underpinning the concept of personalised
learning, that teachers have the freedom to decide how they teach
and to introduce curricular innovations and the desire by Government
to ensure that schools are properly accountable. This tension
could undermine any school-determined innovation designed to personalise
learning for its pupils. Innovation necessarily involves a degree
of risk and needs time for it to be refined and become embedded
in the school, in order to test out whether a particular strategy
would work for the individual school. With the current stringent
accountability mechanisms, in particular the Government's commitment
to intervention where standards are "at risk", it is
unlikely that many schools will feel able to be innovative in
approaches to personalised learning.
73. Indeed, the Innovation Unit is constrained
by the DCSF from recommending disapplication of end of Key Stage
tests and Government itself has not sought to disapply end of
Key Stage tests in the "Making Good Progress" pilot.
This has led to the absurd situation where schools in the pilot
have to conduct both sets of tests. Although the national bodies
such as QCA urge schools to become more creative in their curriculum
provision, schools feel unable to undertake experimentation without
punitive high stakes consequences if the experiment fails.
The Principles, Content and Structure of a New
National Curriculum
74. The NUT believes that there must be
an end to imposed curriculum and assessment change. If the curriculum
is to change, then it must be supported by teachers and school
communities. The processes involved in achieving the new Secondary
Curriculum provides something of a model for how curriculum change
should take place in future. What must not happen is that the
review of the Primary Curriculum is artificially constrained by
Government intervention during the consultation period.
75. There should be an independent review
of the 5-14 curriculum which should focus on re-structuring the
National Curriculum as a statutory framework. This would mean
that while the content of the new Secondary Curriculum would not
change, much of it would stand outside the statutory framework.
76. The present distinction between the
core and foundation subjects should be replaced by such a framework
which would describe a common curriculum entitlement, the purpose
of which would be to support young people's learning.
77. The framework curriculum should provide
a scaffolding for the development of teachers' creativity and
enthusiasm both for their pupils' and their own learning. It would
describe a range of statutory entitlements for children and young
people including literacy, numeracy, science and technology, the
creative arts, the humanities including a knowledge of global
developments, information and communications technology and modern
foreign languages.
78. It should also describe a core of essential
skills, knowledge and experiences which children need. The framework
should refer to the stages of children's development.
79. A statutory framework should encourage
new approaches to cross-curricular learning, such as thinking
skills, environmental learning, the impact of religious and secular
beliefs on society, learning about industry and manufacturing,
citizenship, and personal and social education, including healthy
living and the importance of exercise.
80. Such an approach, indeed, has been partially
reflected in the new secondary National Curriculum, which includes
"curriculum lenses", a personal learning and thinking
skills framework, and four "curriculum dimensions" (the
global dimension, enterprise, creativity, and cultural understanding
and diversity).
81. Exemplifications of cross-curricular
learning should be included on a non-statutory advisory basis
within a National Curriculum framework. The curriculum framework
would be based on an approach which should put the professional
judgement of teachers at its centre. It should emphasise that
it could be adapted to the needs of pupils.
82. Integral to the new framework should
be specific references to the needs of young people from minority
ethnic backgrounds. The needs of children from socially and economically
deprived backgrounds alongside those with special educational
needs and disabilities would be integral to the new framework.
83. The new framework curriculum should
encourage teachers to adapt the curriculum to meet the specific
needs of pupils without teachers having to demonstrate artificially
through post-hoc curriculum mapping that they had covered the
content of the National Curriculum.
84. Crucially, such an approach could highlight
the need for school communities, with pupils from a diverse range
of backgrounds, to understand the history of their local communities
and the connection between that history and the local communities
as they are now. This is particularly vital in areas which have
experienced significant demographic change and vital also for
indigenous as well as new communities.
85. The framework should contain advisory
"signposts" which would point to non-statutory curriculum
advice and to triggers for new ideas and projects. The signposting
approach should be a vital part of a new framework curriculum.
It should, signpost opportunities to educate for equality and
should encourage the promotion of respect for cultural diversity.
It could signpost opportunities for pupils to understand the nature
and consequences of racism; sexism; homophobia; disablist bullying;
discrimination on religious grounds, including anti-semitism and
Islamophobia; and other forms of discrimination.
86. The current structure of Key Stages
2 and 3 does not encourage curriculum continuity between primary
and secondary schools; neither is there a recognition in these
two key stages of the different ways primary and secondary schools
are organised. A curriculum should support flexibility in the
organisation of teaching such that primary schools are able to
introduce specialist teaching alongside class teaching and secondary
schools can provide specific support for pupils in Years 7 and
8 who are not ready for a full curriculum range. It is essential,
therefore, that the primary and Secondary Curriculum phases are
part of a continuum and that signposts within the curriculum point
to specific non-statutory guidance and "permissions"
which secure curriculum continuity between Key Stages 2 and 3.
87. Such an approach ties in with the promotion
of personalised learning. The NUT has consistently called for
practical approaches to the development of personalised learning.
It said within its 2004 document, Bringing Down the Barriers
that:
"Personalised learning has a long history
based in part on child centred learning and the need to differentiate
teaching according to needs. Meeting the individual needs of each
child and young person is an aspiration which all those involved
in education can sign up to. The NUT believes that two conditions
need to be established for personalised learning to succeed. A
fundamental review of the National Curriculum and its assessment
arrangements is essential to meeting the aspirations of personalised
learning. Young people need to be able to experience, and teachers
need to be able to provide much more one-to-one teaching."
88. In its latest policy document, A
Good Local School for Every Child and for Every Community,
the NUT said the following:
"The Prime Minister's recent announcement
that for every secondary school pupil, there will be a personal
tutor throughout their school years—starting with 600,000
pupils, small group tuition too, is a welcome development. If
such tuition is to make a real impact on children's confidence
and learning, then all tutors should be qualified teachers, as
they are in the `Making Good Progress' pilot. One-to-one tuition
should be available for all the young people who need a boost
in their confidence and learning."
89. A framework National Curriculum should
contain, therefore, signposts which encourage personalised learning
and tuition through the publication of practical exemplars drawn
from examples provided by schools.
90. Finally, while there is nothing inherently
wrong with the framework being structured on the basis of National
Curriculum levels, it must be recognised that such an approach
is inevitably compromised by the use to which levels are put within
the current high stakes testing arrangements.
91. The NUT believes, therefore, that the
National Curriculum should be structured on the following basis:
— The National Curriculum should be
explicitly described as an entitlement curriculum.
— It should contain core descriptions
of the knowledge, skills and understanding to which children and
young people are entitled and the attitudes which will enable
them to learn and take a full part in society.
— Accompanying the framework curriculum
should be guidance on curriculum content to which schools would
be required to have regard.
— The framework curriculum would contain
curriculum signposts which would encourage creative interpretation
of both the core statutory framework and the wider guidance. The
framework curriculum would provide a scaffolding for encouraging
teachers' creativity and enthusiasm both for their pupils' and
their own learning.
— Curriculum signposts would highlight
the need to tailor or personalise the curriculum for children
and young people, particularly for those with specific needs including
those from minority ethnic groups and those with special educational
needs.
THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE
NATIONAL CURRICULUM
The Impact of the Current Testing and Assessment
Regime on the National Curriculum
92. The NUT has argued consistently that
the current testing and assessment regime has narrowed the experience
of the National Curriculum, particularly for primary children
as they approach the end of Key Stage 2. The findings of A
Life in Teaching: The Impact of Change on Primary Teachers' Working
Lives; Cambridge University (2002) made it quite clear that:
"the amount of time available for teaching
each day does not allow for a broad and balanced Primary Curriculum|
art, drama, music and ICT are being squeezed and are only partially
covered by lunchtime and after school clubs... the decline in
curriculum time available for these creative subjects is matched
by the decline in teachers' own sense of creativity. ...The erosion
of the Education Reform Act's ideal of a broad and balanced curriculum
has taken place despite the fact that schools have managed to
maximise the amount of the school day devoted to teaching."
93. In secondary schools curriculum overload
and the impact of the Year 9 tests on pedagogy itself were an
issue with teachers. A Life in Secondary Teaching: Finding
Time for Learning by Cambridge University (2004) identified
more subtle impacts on the nature of pedagogy itself, particularly
at Key Stage 3.
"Where exploration precedes instruction,...
(it develops) deeper understanding so that pupils can adapt the
knowledge gained to new situations| (alternatively) pupils are
coached to deal with the specific demands of the test... this
requires a single lesson and a certain amount of revision and
practice nearer the time of the test. ...There is strong evidence
that pupils, particularly the more able, find the first approach
more to their liking."
94. Cambridge University's secondary study
found that, because of the impact of the tests and the demands
of the examination specifications, the time for exploration of
ideas and knowledge by pupils with teachers, rather than transmission
of knowledge by teachers to pupils, was limited. It found that:
"many of the participating teachers (in
the study) felt powerless to modify existing practice in the current
climate of testing, target setting and inspection."
95. In its evidence to the Select Committee
on testing and assessment and within its policy documents, Bringing
Down the Barriers and A Good Local School for Every Child
and for Every Community, the NUT has set out a strategy, which
it believes will remove the negative impact of high stakes testing
on a balanced and broadly based curriculum and on innovative teaching.
96. The NUT has welcomed the opportunities
provided by the introduction of the "Making Good Progress"
pilot. In particular, the NUT has welcomed the expansion of one-to-one
tuition for young people who need it as a real and positive step
in making personalised education a reality. If, however, the additional
support is simply aimed at pushing pupils to progress through
a too rigid National Curriculum testing regime in order to meet
government targets, any benefits will be negated.
97. The NUT has deep concerns about the
potential outcome of the single level tests. The initial, generally
positive, response of teachers involved in the pilot could change,
particularly if the single level tests are rolled out nationally,
with a rejection by teachers of a perceived increase in high stakes
testing.
98. The message from the NUT's early survey
of members in the "Making Good Progress" pilot is that,
despite the relative flexibility given to schools in applying
the tests, teacher assessment remains the preferred option for
assessing progress in the National Curriculum. The pilot raises
the question of whether continual adjustments will be made to
the position of schools within the performance tables.
99. The evidence from the NUT's research
is that, if school performance tables are retained and test results
remain a key trigger for an early Ofsted inspection, then the
distorting effects on the curriculum, identified by the Cambridge
University studies, will be increased exponentially. The ideal
of a balanced and broadly based curriculum delivered flexibly
and with creativity by teachers will be even less likely to be
achieved, if the current national accountability arrangements
remain.
100. In relation to the assessment of the
National Curriculum, the NUT urges the Select Committee to consider
also the potential benefits of the system of assessment devised
in Wales following the review conducted by Professor Richard Daugherty,
on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government, which resulted in
the discontinuation of statutory tests which were of the type
which continue in use in England. The system now established for
Wales is one more closely based on moderated teacher assessment.
101. The NUT has argued consistently for
a fundamental review of the Primary Curriculum as indicated earlier
in this submission. Yet what promised to be an inclusive review
and one which was open to debate, argument and evidence about
the Primary Curriculum in 21st century now seems constrained by
the criteria for the review set out in the Children's Plan. The
criteria include specifications relating to, "The Strong
Focus on Literacy, Numeracy, Scientific Understanding, and the
Effective Use of ICT" and to, "Examining How Best to
Introduce Languages as a Compulsory Subject in Key Stage 2 as
recommended by Lord Dearing".
102. In addition, the Children's Plan proposes
for the Primary Curriculum Review a "primary profile recording
a wider range of achievements" and "a review with Ofsted
of the scope for strengthening the extent to which the assessment
and accountability framework gives recognition to schools' performance
in the area of children's personal development".
103. In short, there are now 11 specifications
which apply to the Primary Curriculum Review. Although a number
of those specifications could be converted into the right questions
to ask of those who conduct the review and its consultation, the
Children's Plan's statement that the Primary Curriculum Review
will raise standards for all pupils according to those specifications
detracts from the promise that there will be a "root and
branch" review of the Primary Curriculum. In contrast, Robin
Alexander's review of primary education appears to be opening
up the necessary debate on the review of the Primary Curriculum.
104. The NUT, therefore, believes that the
Select Committee should propose:
— that the specifications for the Primary
Curriculum Review set out in paragraphs 3.86, 3.90 and 3.92 of
the Children's Plan should be converted into key, but not exclusive,
questions to be asked within the Primary Curriculum Review; and
— that a specific commitment should
be made by Sir Jim Rose and the QCA to evaluate the research studies
and emerging findings of Robin Alexander's review of primary education.
105. In addressing the issue of greater
continuity between the EYFS and Key Stage 1 the NUT believes that
the Primary Curriculum Review team should include in their proposals
the suggestions for smoother transition outlined in paragraphs
3.51, 3.52 and 3.53 of the Children's Plan. The proposal should
also include a recommendation that all Key Stage 1 staff receive
training on the play-based principles and practice of the EYFS.
106. The NUT believes that the implementation
of the suggestions outlined by the Secretary of State in his remit
for the Primary Curriculum Review sent to Sir Jim Rose, for a
widening of curriculum opportunities for child-initiated and play-based
activities would significantly improve the learning experience
of children in the early years bringing the model more in line
with that of successful Scandinavian countries such as Finland.
107. Currently, the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority is an independent authority for both qualifications
and the curriculum. The NUT believes that the successor body to
the QCA should remain an independent authority for the curriculum
and not become simply an agency. Of course, the new body should
be a source of expertise for ministers and its advice should be
confidential up until ministerial agreement to publish. The issue
is whether the power should remain in place for the successor
body to review regularly the curriculum without it necessarily
having to have a ministerial remit to do so.
108. The NUT believes that the successor
body should retain that power. The developments in pedagogy and
the interface between teaching, curriculum development, developments
in societal change, changes in skills and knowledge demands, cultural
and geographic changes, and advances in understanding how the
brain works, are so myriad and various that a government department
cannot be in an exclusive position to know what it wants in terms
of advice. A strong curriculum authority with the resources to
gather, with school communities, the latest intelligence on the
need for curriculum change and to advise Government on it, is
the best way of enabling schools to be at the edge of curriculum
development.
109. The two questions asked by the Select
Committee Inquiry on the effectiveness of National Strategies
in supporting the National Curriculum and on the role of teachers
in the future development of the National Curriculum are integral
to each other. There is every argument for consistent professional
development to be an entitlement for all teachers, particularly
in relation to any agreed National Curriculum. The history of
the National Strategies since 1997, has, however, been one of
rolling out national programmes irrespective of the views of teachers
and head teachers. NUT research evidence shows that while many
teachers have found aspects of the Literacy Strategy and, in particular,
the Numeracy Strategy helpful and useful to their teaching, the
full potential of the strategies and teachers' professional contribution
to their development has been limited by the erroneous message
that the strategies are a requirement.
110. Indeed, for many teachers, the Literacy
and Numeracy Strategies appear to be a complementary and much
more detailed curriculum to the current National Curriculum. In
many schools, the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies have
been adapted by teachers working together and developing them
to address the particular needs of their pupils. Many have welcomed
the content of the programmes, the work of literacy and numeracy
consultants and the additional resources the programmes have bought.
111. The NUT questions, however, the sustainability
of the strategies due to the "top-down" approach to
the implementation of the strategies. Teacher professional development
in Numeracy and Literacy has been heavily concentrated on the
strategies and has acted as an imposition upon teachers rather
than an entitlement.
112. Teachers have reported that the skills-based
nature of the National Literacy Strategy framework has prevented
them from addressing other, equally important aspects of children's
learning. Fostering enjoyment of reading or developing sustained
writing, providing opportunities to foster pupils' speaking and
listening skills or drama, are among such neglected aspects of
children's learning. As reported in the 2005 research conducted
by Ofsted, teachers' inflexibility in using the NLS framework
hinders improvements in teaching English.
113. When the strategies were introduced,
Ofsted notified schools that the strategies were not a requirement.
That message needs repeating. The strategies are not the National
Curriculum or, indeed, an alternative curriculum. They are professional
development programmes related to key points of the National Curriculum
subject orders and should be described as such.
114. Up until recently, teachers have had
a minor role in changes to the National Curriculum. They have
also had a minor role in contributing good practice and creative
ideas to the development of the National Strategies. Both, the
development of the National Strategies and the National Curriculum
have been very much "top down" rather than "bottom
up". The NUT's policy document, A Good Local School for
Every Child and for Every Community emphasises that teachers
at the edge of developments in their subjects and in their pedagogy
are likely to be good teachers. Teachers' enthusiasm about their
learning and development is an essential building block for encouraging
young people's enthusiasm for their own learning. Whatever the
merits or demerits of the National Strategies, few could say that
teachers have been in control of the development of pedagogy practice.
Teachers do not have a sense that their own innovations in pedagogy
can be valued or fed into a continuously evolving bank of national
practice.
115. The NUT's CPD programme and, in particular,
its TEACHER2TEACHER strand, has demonstrated that teachers are
keen to become involved in pedagogical and curriculum development
in their own schools and settings. Courses such as "Integrating
ICT Across the Primary Curriculum" and "Learning Through
Drama" have enabled teachers across the country to have more
autonomy in the classroom and to develop exciting and creative
approaches to teaching the curriculum.
116. For the reasons above, the NUT proposes
the following.
— The successor curriculum body to
the QCA should have a specific remit to draw on the experience,
knowledge and good practice of teachers and schools.
— The Government should provide funding
support for the development of a pedagogic bank to which teachers
can contribute, draw on and feel is their own.
— Professional development, including
the professional development provided by the strategies, should
be defined as an entitlement, not as a quasi requirement. The
National Curriculum should outline an entitlement to a balanced
and broadly based curriculum for all children and young people
and also the entitlement of teachers to access and own high quality
professional development.
4 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Knowledge and skills for life-First results from PISA 2000,
OECD, 2001. Back
5
Galton, M and MacBeath, J, The Cost of Inclusion, University
of Cambridge/NUT, 2006. Back
6
Not printed. Back
| 
