Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-307)
PROFESSOR BILL
BOYLE, PETER
DUDLEY, ROGER
SHIPPAM, PROFESSOR
ROSEMARY WEBB
AND DR
DOMINIC WYSE
20 OCTOBER 2008
Q300 Paul Holmes: We have certainly
had two written submissions saying that there is a lot of uncertainty,
lack of clarity and misleading stuff coming from advisers. The
National Association of Head Teachers has also presented evidence
to show that primary strategy teams are putting a huge amount
of pressure on schools for what they see as gold-plating, and
hitting the targets so that the local authority and school get
good league table performances.
Peter Dudley: One of the things
that often happens with local authorities is that they want to
customise and take ownership of national strategies materials.
Clearly, we have to be careful to ensure that people are not overstepping
the mark in that way. There are also differences between the universal
offer that is there for schools to draw down from and the more
targeted offer that local authorities provide and are encouraged
to provide to low-attaining schools. There is often more of an
impetus to work with those schools to improve the attainment of
children, which is unacceptably low in some cases.
Chairman: Time is pushing us on. Graham
will ask questions about Rose.
Q301 Mr Stuart: Do you think the
Rose review should have been able to consider abolishing the primary
curriculum or turning it into a light-touch curriculum?
Professor Webb: I certainly think
that it ought to be a light-touch curriculum. We have been talking
about assessment and its relationship to the curriculum, and I
think particularly of Finland, which has a light-touch curriculum
and does very well in the PISA studies. Originally, it had a very
tight national curriculum, which it threw out completely about
20 years ago. That was too much of a break with the past, so it
then introduced a light-touch framework for teachers to work within,
and that, plus an enormous amount of trust in teacher expertise,
has led to that country doing extremely well.
Q302 Mr Stuart: Could I interrupt,
Rosemary, to ask whether you believe that a light-touch curriculum
answer coming from Rose is possible, given the nearly three full
pages of prescription from the Secretary of State?
Professor Webb: I do not think
that the terms were couched in a manner to allow that to be the
case, but I am sure that the Rose review could advocate it. I
imagine that many people still believe that the national curriculum
is extremely important. Certainly, like me, many people were impressed
with the notion originally because it meant that children would
be entitled to a broad and balanced curriculum. I think that we
would really like to get that notion of entitlement back again,
but not an entitlement just to the basics, although they are extremely
important, but to all areas of experience. I am particularly thinking
of the arts. Schools should be encouraged to do more with them.
It would be perfectly possible for the Rose review, in addition
to addressing particular questions, at least to say—if,
indeed, it is the case—that the various comments and evidence
submitted indicate that we should use what we have already done
and what we know from what we have done to move from our overloaded
and unbalanced curriculum to trying to rethink what the important
areas are. I do not think that it is a good idea to chuck everything
out and try to start again, but we should consider social justice,
cultural diversity, environmental sustainability, the world of
work—the kind of preparation that we want for our children—and
what we have in our curriculum. We should try to provide some
principles and some key notions of knowledge, skills and attitudes—go
back a bit to the old Her Majesty's inspectorate areas of experience—to
draw out what we have, but reduce it and give teachers the opportunity
to devise what kind of content they would like to use in the curriculum
and to take account of individual children's needs so that they
can personalise the curriculum. Half the problem is that there
is not any space for them to do that. We must also allow schools
the opportunity to meet the needs of their communities, because
the challenges faced by schools working in poor and disadvantaged
areas are quite different from those faced by schools in middle-class,
professional areas. Both need to work hard, but both could adapt
a more light-touch curriculum which would be much more useful
and would promote pupils' learning. I wish that could happen.
Q303 Mr Stuart: This question
is for Bill. Do you think that it was peculiar and regrettable
that the Rose review was specifically told not to consider testing
and assessment while it was looking at the primary curriculum?
Professor Boyle: Yes indeed. I
do not think that it is irrelevant, but whatever model of curriculum,
certainly at primary level, emerges from the review, you are always
going to have issues while you have high-stakes summative testing,
whether or not that testing is ultimately replaced by single-level
testing with two windows. It was inevitable in 1988 and it is
inevitable in 2008 that the tested subjects will be prioritised.
Research evidence proves that conclusively. So, although those
two remits were diametrically opposed, there is no doubt whatsoever
that whatever curriculum model is used, no matter how ingenious—we
have been down the road of cross-curriculum models through areas
of learning—while you have teachers focused on high-stakes
testing, there will be a problem area.
Q304 Mr Stuart: Roger, following
up on that, do you think that it would have been better from Ofsted's
point of view to have seen testing assessed as part of the Rose
review, along with the curriculum? Is it as impossible as Bill
has just suggested to separate the two?
Roger Shippam: I am afraid that
I have to say that, as far as Ofsted is concerned, it would not
be proper for us to have a view about that matter, in terms of
the mandate that Jim Rose has been given.
Mr Stuart: I will take that as being
as clear an answer as you can give me. I appreciate it.
Chairman: Roger, carry on if you want.
Roger Shippam: I just wanted to
make the point that we have a view that one of the things that
we would very much like to see emerge from the Rose review would
address an area of weakness that we highlight in almost every
report that we write, in terms of longitudinal surveys. We hope
that the review will be able to address the transitions from the
early years foundation stage through to Key Stage 3. The point
has already been made about the loss of learning that can take
place at transitions that are not handled successfully. I think
that we have got to overcome that problem.
Q305 Mr Stuart: Regarding the
effectiveness of the primary curriculum, it is not strictly part
of the Rose review, but would we better taking the assessments
by secondary school teachers of the pupils who had come up to
them? Apart from sample testing, which is obviously desirable
in the view of Dominic and many of us, do you think that measuring
over time the assessment of secondary teachers would be a rather
more accurate picture of the progress in primary schools than
Key Stage 2 tests?
Roger Shippam: Our evidence suggests
that where secondary schools pick up detailed information from
primary schools and use that information as a point from which
to depart in terms of learning, it works very effectively. Secondary
schools do not need to retest youngsters in order to be able to
do that.
Q306 Mr Stuart: But secondary
schools very often feel that there is a discrepancy—we have
already touched on this issue—between the supposed level
that pupils have reached at Key Stage 2 and the level that they
actually present when they appear in their school. That is a bit
of a corrosive element at the base of the Government claim that
there has been this major improvement in standards, is it not?
Peter rattled out the figures earlier showing how we have got
a much better education system, and yet on international comparisons
we seem to be doing worse on NEETS, or those not in education,
employment or training. All the objective, external measures seem
to suggest that standards have not gone up, and that would appear
to be borne out by secondary teachers not being happy with the
levels of education that pupils present either.
Professor Boyle: You will have
even more of a dichotomy when single-level testing comes in, because
those tests purport to measure attainment from Levels 3 to 8.
So that will cut straight across the Key Stage 3 programme of
study to start with.
Q307 Chairman: Right. We will
draw the discussion to a halt, to give Jim Rose time to prepare.
I will give you a minute each. You have heard the question we
have asked; we want this not to be the end but the beginning of
a dialogue. If you go away from here and think, "Why on earth
did I not answer in this way, or why did they not ask me this
question?", please add to the quality of our eventual report
by keeping in touch with us. Quickly, how far do you think that
we should specify what teachers teach, or have we just gone so
far that it is too late even to think of going back to what someone
might call the good old days, when it was really up to the school
and the teacher to set a curriculum? Bill, we will start with
you.
Professor Boyle: That is a good
one to end with, is it not? It is really a poisoned chalice, because
when the national curriculum came out in 1988, it was accused
of being an old-style grammar curriculum, which was linear. It
served the purposes of the subject working parties. In 2008, we
are now looking at a model that could be anything and literally
could go towards a cross-curriculum model. It is very difficult
to respond to that question. For me, it goes back again to the
tight issue of whether teachers are going to polarise around an
assessment model if they feel they are being judged purely on
output. I think I would rest on that.
Dr Wyse: I hope that there will
be much more empowerment of teachers to control the curriculum
that is delivered, for lots of the reasons set out. Rosemary said
that different areas need different solutions. The idea of entitlements
is interesting. Entitlement does not mean the same curriculum
for all. It was a celebrated idea about the original national
curriculum, but it may not be the best entitlement if children
all get the same thing. Given the history, it will be very difficult
to re-empower teachers, but it would be an ideal thing to do.
It would not be easy, but we should still try to do it. It has
not been easy making all the developments that we have made since
1998, so I do not see why we cannot spend a longer period addressing
the key issue of how to empower teachers and how to empower pupils.
As for motivation, mention has been made of international studies.
Children's motivation to read for pleasure is showing signs of
declining in international studies. That is very worrying.
Professor Webb: I wish to add
that, when being re-empowered, teachers remember all the things
that they have been through and what they have learned. Over the
past 20 years, teachers have entered the profession at different
points, so they have had different experiences, but there is an
enormous amount knowledge out there from teachers who were teaching
before the Education Reform Act 1988 about what they considered
best practice then, and have done all the time. It is about pulling
together all the different versions of best practice. There was
no golden age. Teachers reflect on strategies and what they have
learned from them. Irrespective of what they thought was good
and bad in the strategies, they think that they have learned a
lot and that how they used to teach was not good enough. They
are very critical of what they did in the past. It is extremely
important to pull everything together and not only go off on another
tack. There is a lot of history, and a lot of teachers who have
been through so much work that they should be entitled to use
it.
Chairman: I like that a lot, Rosemary.
There was no golden age. Roger.
Roger Shippam: Ofsted has put
forward the view that teachers do need a set of principles and
an idea about the key skills that they need to be working with
and helping youngsters to master. That is much more important
than a detailed list of content in a curriculum. As for the innovations,
it has been said of Ofsted that it is a brake to innovation because
schools are worried about bringing in innovations when they are
about to be inspected. We produced a report this month about innovation
in schools, and I wish to read out briefly one of its first main
findings. It said, "In most of the 30 schools visited"—this
was a relative small-scale exercise for Ofsted—"the
innovations led to clear improvements in pupil achievements and
personal development. In two of the schools, although the modified
curriculum had increased pupils' interest and engagement, it was
not providing sufficient academic challenge." I just want
to add a word of "caution" to describe innovation. Innovation
of itself will not necessarily bring about improvements. Ofsted
does not stand in the way of innovation, but we look to see what
effect it has.
Chairman: It shows how nice we are to
the Department, giving Peter the last word.
Peter Dudley: It is about getting
the right balance. It is really important to be creative in the
ways in which we can assist children to get the big ideas. We
must motivate them, make the curriculum relevant and build on
their previous experience, but we also need to continue to be
scientific, particularly in relation to pedagogy. We cannot divorce
the curriculum from pedagogy and what works for particular kinds
of learning in relation to teacher learning. We know an important
amount about teacher learning. The new curriculum should make
progression very clear so that people know what counts as progress
across and between key stages in year groups as well as the end
of key stages.
Chairman: Thank you very much all of
you. Please keep in touch with us. We very much appreciate the
short time that we have had with you. We have stretched it to
the limit.
| 
