Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-239)
JIM KNIGHT
MP AND HELEN
WILLIAMS
7 JULY 2008
Q220 Chairman: But, Jim, we are worried
that we have just produced a report that told you that people
cannot be innovative—they cannot try new things and cannot
be experimental—if around them the system of public accountability
makes them timid and makes them teach to the test, and all those
other things. That is not surprising, given that Helen Williams
said that there is a way in which people can apply, which shows
that to be flexible and innovative is quite a dangerous thing—if
you have a system under which people have to apply to be able
to be flexible. Is that right?
Jim Knight: On that point, it
is interesting that the applications that we have had in respect
of variation from the National Curriculum for curriculum innovation
have not been refused because we do not want people to do the
innovation, but because they could already have done the things
that they wanted to do within the National Curriculum.
Q221 Chairman: That is right. That
is our whole point. They are all terrified to do it, because they
do not want staff to take their eyes off the fact that they have
got to teach to the test and have to reach those standards. In
such circumstances, who wants to play around with the curriculum
at a time when they might lose their jobs and their headships,
and all the rest?
Jim Knight: There are plenty of
head teachers and schools that are innovating and doing really
interesting work. We have examples if you want them. On the point
about teaching to the test, we will tell you later this week that
we will have a look at whether there is research that we can do
to bottom out the evidence on this. But there is a danger that
it can become a distraction. The more important piece of work
that we are doing is the Making good progress programme.
I am pleased with the progress of Making good progress,
in terms of being able to move us on from high stakes tests to
the better, more systematic use of assessment for learning and
assessing pupil progress (APPs) across the curriculum, which will
improve teaching, which is crucial, and the use of single-level
tests, which can improve this debate around testing considerably.
Chairman: We can come back to that. We
move on to the secondary curriculum. Paul and Linda will lead
us on that.
Q222 Paul Holmes: At secondary level,
what is the purpose of the National Curriculum?
Jim Knight: In some ways, you
have to go back to when it was first set up. The purpose, as I
see it, is to create some consistency nationally about what is
being taught, to ensure that some things are consistently part
of the educational experience of young people. For example, in
the secondary curriculum, we have retained Shakespeare, and the
holocaust, the slave trade and the Second World War in terms of
history, and algebra is there in maths. We need some consistency.
Also, as children move around with their families from place to
place, it means that they are not re-learning the same things
yet again and it means that there is some consistency about when
they learn things, up to a point. Therefore all of us—parents,
employers and universities, which see the product of the system
at the other end, and those awarding bodies that want to award
qualifications—have a consistent framework to work to.
Q223 Paul Holmes: Certainly, when
I was introduced to the National Curriculum, as head of a subject
department in 1988, that was the reason we were given for it.
What, then, is the point of all the diversity? You let Academies
ignore big chunks of the curriculum—independent schools
can do so anyway—and there is more and more talk of adopting
models such as the Swedish model, under which schools can ignore
chunks of the National Curriculum and apply to disallow bits of
it. Surely, if the whole point of the curriculum is to have a
common pattern across the country, why do you want so much change
and diversity, with people saying, for example, "If you want
to do well in languages, you go to that school over here and if
you want to do well in maths you go to a specialist school over
there"? How can you have diversity and the same standard
everywhere?
Jim Knight: There are a number
of points there. First, in passing, I think the Swedish models
are something that others, rather than this Government, are talking
about. That is more about structures than curriculum, as I understand
it, but you might have to ask them. On the more substantive point
about Academies and other variations from the National Curriculum,
by and large, what Academies tell us and what we observe they
are doing in terms of variation of the National Curriculum, shows
that it is not a problem for them when we say that they should
adhere to the National Curriculum in English, maths, science and
ICT because they are doing that anyway. Their use of curriculum
flexibility means that they can allow, at times, the teaching
to focus more on those core subjects and spend less time on the
other subjects. With a more flexible secondary curriculum there
would perhaps be less variation from that. Indeed, the head teacher
of the academy at Mossbourne in Hackney, which is often held up
as being one of the great schools in this country, has told us
that he basically adheres to the National Curriculum anyway. So,
it can be done. If the National Challenge schools come to me,
we will judge them on a case by case basis. However, if they come
to us and say, "We want some temporary ability to deviate
from the National Curriculum in order to focus on the core subjects
and be able to catch up on those," again, we will look at
that on a case by case basis. We would look sympathetically at
that argument, if it is properly made in terms of standards. The
question about specialist schools is slightly different. Specialist
schools have to adhere to the National Curriculum—unless
they are one of the none who have varied away from it. That is
simply about their specialist teaching and, as we increase the
amount of collaboration between schools, that specialist teaching
could be made available to networks of schools—not just
to those that have the specialism. That is a good thing.
Q224 Paul Holmes: I did not understand
that answer about specialist schools when a predecessor of yours
gave me the same one. How can you say that a specialist school
that specialises in this, that or the other subject will still
teach exactly the same as the other schools, so it will not matter
when a pupil moves from school A to school B because they will
have done the same National Curriculum? How can there be all this
variation and specialism? I just do not understand how you can
have both at the same time. What about a pupil who has attended
an Academy that has disallowed large chunks of the curriculum
and concentrated on other things who moves to another school?
The equivalent treatment that the curriculum is supposed to be
about has gone out the window completely.
Jim Knight: In those circumstances,
I guess we would have confidence in the fact that they had a good
grounding and competence in the core subjects. Those are the core
subjects because it is only with confidence in them that pupils
will prosper across the curriculum. On the basis of that foundation,
when pupils move schools, they can do so with some confidence.
Q225 Paul Holmes: So, if they have
not done the holocaust and World War Two in one school because
they were concentrating on certain things, it does not matter.
Jim Knight: Some catching up might
be required, but again, one of the joys of the new Key Stage 3
secondary curriculum is that the flexibility is there for one-to-one
catch-up or for groups to be able to catch up and stretch according
to the needs of individuals. There is much greater potential to
deliver the sorts of personalised learning that Christine Gilbert
talked about in her report a couple of years ago.
Q226 Paul Holmes: Last week, "More4
News" found 60 faith schools that are looking at the anniversary
of Darwin's Origin of Species that said, "We teach
creationism in science." Most of those were independent schools,
but five of them were taxpayer funded. Is that the sort of diversity
you want in the system? Do you want taxpayer-funded schools to
be able to say, "We're going to teach creationism in science"?
One head teacher on the programme said that he was quite happy
with the idea that his pupils would leave school never having
heard the word "evolution".
Jim Knight: Helen will give the
authoritative version on that, but creationism is not part of
the science curriculum. You can talk about creationism in the
context of RE and other parts of the curriculum, but not in a
science context.
Chairman: Helen, you are shaking your
head vigorously.
Helen Williams: In agreement.
What the Minister said sums up the line. The Department recently
gave some clear guidance to schools that creationism could not
be part of National Curriculum science because it is a belief
system; it is not based on scientific evidence. Schools may choose
to teach about creationism as part of their religious education
programme, but it has no part in National Curriculum science.
Jim Knight: We are looking forward
to the bicentenary celebrations of Darwin's birth next year. We
will be part of that, celebrating it in schools, alongside the
Natural History museum, which is leading the national celebrations.
Q227 Paul Holmes: What will you do
as a Department about the five taxpayer-funded faith schools that
were on the news last week saying, "We teach creationism
in science"?
Jim Knight: I guess, if someone
were to give me a list, we would get in touch with them and talk
to them about how they are applying the National Curriculum in
their schools.
Paul Holmes: We will make sure that happens.
Chairman: Whoever is watching this, wherever
they are, might help you.
Q228 Lynda Waltho: Jim, the planned
reforms to the secondary curriculum place a greater emphasis on
schools and the cross-curricular themes, rather than subject knowledge.
What do you say to critics who feel that this cross-curricular
approach is in danger of failing to challenge our pupils or to
equip them with a good grasp of what individual subjects could
offer?
Jim Knight: We have deliberately
tried to strip out quite a lot of prescription, to leave it flexible
and up to schools to make some of that judgment. We are not saying
that you should abandon subject learning and go for a skills-based
approach. We are saying, "Here are the programmes of study,
you should cover them, but it is up to you how you cover them."
There are some examples of schools that have gone with more of
a skills-based approach. We think, in broad terms, that if you
can use the opportunity to develop some skills alongside subject
knowledge, that is a good thing. In the end, we have to leave
that flexibility with schools.
Helen Williams: Following on from
what the Minister has said, any skills are actually intrinsic
to certain subjects. Science has skills of practical investigation,
scientific inquiry and critical evaluation of evidence. That is
okay as a subject, but it is also a transferable skill. Similarly,
in history or geography—this is in programmes of study—there
are key skills highlighted around gathering evidence and critical
interpretation of evidence from different sources. Skills and
subjects go together. They go hand in hand. It is false to suggest
that you can have a subject-based curriculum on the one hand and
a skills-based curriculum on the other.
Q229 Lynda Waltho: So you do not
think that subject knowledge would suffer?
Helen Williams: No. The programmes
of study still have a lot of content prescribed. If you look at
the particular programmes of study for science, geography or maths,
there is lots and lots of content. What the new programmes of
study are trying to do is to get that content taught in a more
practical way, so that you are not just feeding children lots
of facts, but showing them how to use those facts.
Jim Knight: We want to do things
such as encouraging more learning outside the classroom—some
of the things that I was talking to Fiona about a little earlier.
If schools—as they do—come and visit my constituency
in large numbers, principally they are coming to the joys of Dorset
for things such as the Jurassic coast and the classic geography
field trips. But, in doing so, if they do not then look at some
of the science, some of the natural environment, some of the history
and some of the literature around Dorset, they would be missing
out on some fantastic learning that they could do while they are
there and, possibly, do it in a more engaging way than if they
solely looked at the move from the Cretaceous to the Jurassic
to the Triassic, as they walk the miles along the Dorset coast.
Q230 Lynda Waltho: I can remember
that being done on my field trips. Research shows that getting
the balance of relevance and rigour is difficult from a cross-curricular
themed basis. Are you confident that the curriculum will not suffer
because of that approach?
Jim Knight: Yes.
Helen Williams: Nobody is saying
to schools that they ought to organise their curriculum on a thematic
basis or a skills basis. Some may choose to do that, but the organising
principle of a National Curriculum is still based on subjects.
Schools have flexibility. We are not saying at the Department
that a subject basis is better than a thematic basis or a skills
basis. It is really for schools to decide what sort of curriculum
organisation will work best for them, but, in making those decisions,
the key thing for them is what will help children to learn most
effectively.
Q231 Lynda Waltho: I come to my final
question. The teaching unions believe that the curriculum can
change only if targets, testing and inspection change or perhaps
are even removed. How confident are you that schools can take
up all those new flexibilities without significant change to that
regime?
Jim Knight: I just think that
they can. We are only testing prior to the age of 16 in English,
maths and science, so they have the whole of the rest of the curriculum
that they are currently teaching. It is possible to get a little
bogged down and obsessed by this. Our statistic is that no more
than 0.2% of the time is spent taking National Curriculum tests
during a school career. There is obviously other time in which
to prepare for that, but schools have a real problem and Ofsted
will find that problem in terms of providing a balanced curriculum
that delivers solely on teaching those tests.
Q232 Paul Holmes: I want to pick
up on something that Helen said about schools being allowed to
vary from the National Curriculum, and that they were not applying
for room to do it. One head in Northumberland applied to teach
religious education not as a separate subject one lesson a week,
but through personal, social and health education (PSHE), history,
civics and various other subjects. You refused to allow him to
do that, yet that is exactly the sort of cross-subject, cross-theme
approach that you are now advocating in the new National Curriculum
for September.
Helen Williams: I am sorry, I
did not hear you. What was it that he wanted to teach?
Paul Holmes: He did not want RE as a
separate subject, but to do it through things like PSHE, history
and so forth as a cross-curricular theme. The Department turned
him down and said no.
Jim Knight: I am just guessing;
Helen may guess, too. RE has a particular place in law, not only
in terms of the requirement for it to be part of the curriculum
but without its being in the National Curriculum, so that there
is no programme of study, but also in terms of parents' ability
to withdraw their children from RE lessons. I do not know the
details of that individual circumstance, but if a parent wanted
to withdraw their child from RE and that was integrated into a
whole bunch of other subjects, it might be deemed too difficult
to carry out that flexibility in a way that was consistent with
the interests of the child's learning.
Chairman: I want to move on to 14-19-year-olds.
John will lead us.
Q233 Mr Heppell: A recent report
by Civitas criticised the Government for denying pupils in the
maintained sector the ability to use international general certificates
of secondary education. At the time, you said something along
the lines that IGCSE does not major in English cultural or historical
concepts and achievements. If that is the case, why are 250 independent
schools using that?
Jim Knight: What independent schools
choose to study is up to them. Two examination boards offer IGCSE.
They can put it to the QCA for accreditation and, if they were
to accredit it, it would be up to the Secretary of State to decide
whether or not to fund it in schools. A fundamental problem for
the IGCSE as it stands—and one of the two awarding purposes
applied with something that looks a bit like an IGCSE, but is
not called one—is that it does not conform to the National
Curriculum. For example, in maths, there is no non-calculator
paper, and we think that it is important for people's mental arithmetic
and other maths skills that they can perform those without a calculator.
That is in the programme of study, but currently the IGCSE does
not conform to it. We also think it important for children to
study Shakespeare. However, the IGCSE does not necessarily reflect
what we think it important for children growing up in this country
to study, because it is an international qualification and therefore
does not always comply with the National Curriculum. If that is
resolved and then accredited by the QCA and Ofqual, it will come
to us for a decision on funding, after which we will consider
it in the context of the qualification structure.
Q234 Mr Heppell: In other countries,
typically they will prescribe either the curriculum or the test.
Why do we prescribe both?
Jim Knight: Our National Curriculum
tests are prescribed to have that focus on the core priority subjects,
simply to ensure that they are studied as a priority and because
they are the most important subjects to the rest of their education
and later life. We do not prescribe what they take in terms of
their public examinations at 16 and 18, unless I have woefully
misunderstood it.
Q235 Mr Heppell: I shall try and
put the two things together. Even though employers welcome the
fact that the Government have placed much emphasis on literacy
and numeracy, they still say that people continue to come to work
without those skills. On top of that, they say that the current
curriculum does not give people a good work ethic, confidence
or interpersonal skills. At the same time, universities are saying
that effectively the National Curriculum does not leave people
with knowledge or learning skills. What would you say in answer
to those criticisms to employers on the one hand, and universities
on the other?
Jim Knight: As I said in answer
to your questions, Barry, we listen carefully to those voices,
and they have been coming through. To an extent, they are consistent.
I have quotes going back 100 years, from either Unilever or Procter
and Gamble, containing exactly the same sort of complaints that
we hear now—not enough young people leaving school with
the desired competence in reading and writing. However, we take
those complaints seriously. Inevitably, I am drawn into talking
to them about our qualifications strategy and our desire to expand
the number of apprenticeships and to say to employers, "Please
work with us, as we improve the framework for apprenticeships
and seek to extend and deepen the range of different types of
apprenticeships." We want to talk to them about the ongoing
reforms to the A-level, and the longer, more stretching questions,
the extended project and so forth. We also want to talk to them
about the Diplomas, which employers are designing with us. According
to UCAS, more than 100 universities want to take on students with
those Diplomas. They welcome them. I think, therefore, that there
is a good story to tell to those employers about what we are doing
in order to address their concerns.
Mr Heppell: Jim has rather hogged the
answers, Helen. Do you have anything to add?
Helen Williams: There is quite
a bit of commonality between what employers and universities say
that they want. Both want young people with good functional skills,
who can use their maths, English and IT, who can communicate well,
who can write without spelling errors, who can look after themselves
and who are self-starting and self-confident, as well as those
who have good knowledge in whatever subjects they are going to
follow at university. Our view is, particularly in the new secondary
curriculum, that we have struck quite a clever balance between
subject knowledge and the more generic skills.
Q236 Ms Butler: I want to pick up
where John left off about employers and universities saying how
well-equipped young people are not only to learn but to apply
what they have learned. Jim, you said that Shakespeare is an international
qualification.
Jim Knight: It should be something
studied at schools, although it might not be an international
qualification.
Q237 Ms Butler: How would that prepare
young people in terms of going on to further study and finding
employment? Do you think that Shakespeare would help them to do
that?
Jim Knight: Studying Shakespeare
is fundamental to understanding our culture and language. If someone
can learn to love Shakespeare, want to study it and feel relaxed
and comfortable studying it, they will have the confidence to
study all sorts of other texts as well. Culturally, it gives you
something that is really important in terms of this country and,
in terms of skills and learning, it provides things that will
stand a person in good stead for a whole variety of activities
that they might want to go on and do.
Q238 Ms Butler: Do you think that
employers would agree with you?
Jim Knight: I have not had specific
conversations with employers about Shakespeare, but I think that
many of them would agree. In this announcement on Shakespeare,
one of the things that we said is about the need to engage with
it in performance and not simply as text. Employers would agree
that developing the confidence to perform—particularly things
that may not come that easily in terms of language—is really
important in helping to develop the communication skills, confidence
and teamworking which employers tell us all the time that they
want. I first performed Shakespeare when I was in my early teens—I
think it was "Macbeth". I went on to perform Shakespeare
in a number of different circumstances, and I certainly would
not be the same person without having gone through all of that,
even though I did not use it in my future employment.
Q239 Ms Butler: PSHE is a non-statutory
course. Is that right or do you believe that it should be statutory?
Jim Knight: It is a timely question,
and I cannot give you a clear answer—I know that that will
frustrate the Committee. When I spoke earlier about the clamour
for things to be in the curriculum, that was more about PSHE than
anything else. A position that we have held for some time says
that as we have just reviewed the secondary curriculum and slimmed
it down to give more flexibility, it would seem counter-suggestive
to then make something statutory and start to load it up again.
However, at the moment we are reviewing sexual relationship education—that
is something that I am chairing. Similarly, there is a review
on drugs and alcohol policy and it is fair to say that those involved
in that work are keen to see PSHE as a statutory subject. People
see the importance of the relationship side of sexual relationship
education as being something that does not come through strongly
enough in schools. We saw that most especially from the Youth
Parliament, which had a very strong position on that. The same
can be said about other lobbyists, and we must think very carefully
about that matter. I am not able to announce now what the outcome
of that thinking might be.
| 
