Appendix 2: National Curriculum:
Conclusions and Recommendations
Standpoints on the National Curriculum
1. The
evidence that we received revealed a consensus that the nature
and particularly the management of the National Curriculum is
in urgent need of significant reform. (Paragraph 43)
Limiting the reach of the National Curriculum
2. We
would like to see the National Curriculum underpinned by the principle
that it should seek to prescribe as little as possible and by
the principle of subsidiarity, with decisions made at the lowest
appropriate level. (Paragraph 53)
3. In
order to keep the amount of prescription through the National
Curriculum to an absolute minimum we recommend that a cap is placed
on the proportion of teaching time that it accounts for. Our view
is that it should be less than half of teaching time. (Paragraph
56)
4. Parents
should be provided with a copy of the National Curriculum for
their child's Key Stage so that they might be better informed
of the curriculum that their child should experience. (Paragraph
58)
Recent and ongoing reform of the primary and secondary
curriculum
5. The
very welcome Cambridge Primary Review report on the primary curriculum
contains extensive analysis of the problems but has not enough
to say about what might be done in practice to address them. The
Rose Review and the Cambridge Review both recognise that the primary
curriculum is overly full, but neither offers a practical basis
that appeals to us for reducing the load. As we have indicated,
we would see greater merit in stipulating a basic entitlement
for literacy and numeracy and offering general guidelines on breadth
and balance to be interpreted by schools and teachers themselves.
(Paragraph 59)
6. In
our view, the Programmes of Study for the new secondary curriculum
are overly complex and lack clear and concise statements on what
should be taught. We believe that there is much to be learned
from other countries in this regard. (Paragraph 61)
The Early Years—getting the entitlement
right
7. We
welcome the Department's decision to review two of the communication,
language and literacy Early Learning Goals within the Early Years
Foundation Stage. Nevertheless, we draw the Department's attention
to the near universal support for the reconsideration of the Early
Learning Goals directly concerned with reading, writing and punctuation.
(Paragraph 65)
8. We
recommend that the Early Learning Goals directly concerned with
reading, writing and punctuation be removed from the Early Years
Foundation Stage pending the review of the Early Years Foundation
Stage in 2010. (Paragraph 66)
9. We
recommend that, through its review of the Early Years Foundation
Stage in 2010, the Department takes the opportunity to evaluate
whether the statutory framework as set out in Setting the Standards
for Learning and Development and Care for Children from Birth
to Five is too prescriptive and too detailed. (Paragraph 67)
10. We
recommend that the Rose Review does not pursue its interim recommendation
that entry into reception class in the September immediately following
a child's fourth birthday should become the norm. (Paragraph 69)
Extending Academies' freedoms
11. We
recommend that the freedoms that Academies enjoy in relation to
the National Curriculum be immediately extended to all maintained
schools. (Paragraph 73)
12. We
note that the roll-out of extended schools will offer all maintained
schools more time in the school day in which to deliver the curriculum.
In the meantime, no reason has been brought to our attention for
the discrepancy between different categories of schools in terms
of the processes that they must follow if they wish to extend
the school day. We believe that the greater freedom that Foundation
and Voluntary-Aided schools and Academies enjoy in relation to
changing the length of the school day should be immediately granted
to all maintained schools. This would offer all maintained schools
maximum scope to shape their delivery of the National Curriculum
around the needs of their pupils. (Paragraph 75)
Promoting local ownership of the National Curriculum
13. Further
to our Testing and Assessment Report we again draw the
Department's attention to concerns that a system of Single Level
Tests linked to targets, and potentially to funding, could further
narrow the curriculum as experienced by all or some pupils. (Paragraph
79)
14. The
idea that there is one best way to teach is not supported by the
research evidence and so should not be the basis for the delivery
of the National Curriculum. (Paragraph 85)
15. The
Department must not place pressure on schools to follow certain
sets of non-statutory guidance, such as it has done in the case
of Letters and Sounds. We recommend that the Department
send a much stronger message to Ofsted, local authorities, school
improvement partners and schools as to the non-statutory nature
of National Strategies guidance. (Paragraph 86)
Central control and teacher professionalism
16. We
urge the Department to cease presenting the National Strategies
guidance as a prop for the teaching profession and to adopt a
more positive understanding of how schools and teachers might
be empowered in relation to the National Curriculum. (Paragraph
89)
Supporting teachers as researchers and reflective
practitioners
17. We
recommend that the Department diverts resources away from the
production of guidance to the funding and dissemination of research
findings to teachers in the spirit of informing local professional
decision-making. (Paragraph 91)
18. We
recommend that the Department and the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority develop facilities to disseminate research about teaching
and support teachers in sharing effective practice. (Paragraph
93)
Supporting local ownership of the National Curriculum
19. We
recommend that both the theory and practice of curriculum design
is given a much higher profile within the standards for Qualified
Teacher Status. (Paragraph 97)
20. We
expect the Department to set out how its role and that of its
relevant agencies will change in relation to the National Curriculum
over the next five to ten years in order to support the move to
a much less prescriptive curriculum and less centrally-directed
approach to its delivery. (Paragraph 101)
Curriculum coherence
21. Alongside
the extent of central control over the curriculum, our other main
concern to emerge from our inquiry was the poor level of continuity
and coherence in the current National Curriculum—and across
the National Curriculum, Early Years Foundation Stage and 14-19
arrangements. (Paragraph 102)
Transforming curriculum reform
22. Despite
the Department's emphasis on pupil voice in schools, nowhere in
the evidence submitted to us did we get a sense that the Department
particularly concerns itself with how the National Curriculum
is experienced by children and young people. If it had, we suggest,
it would have tackled the disjunction that children and young
people face in their learning as they move from one phase of education
to the next. While this matter forms a key strand of the ongoing
Rose Review of the primary curriculum, we are not convinced that
the Rose Review alone will be able to tackle this enduring problem
with the National Curriculum. (Paragraph 104)
23. We
recommend that the Department's highest priority be to review
the Early Years Foundation Stage, the National Curriculum and
14-19 arrangements as a whole in order to establish a coherent
national framework that offers children and young people a seamless
journey through their education from 0 to 19. (Paragraph 105)
24. In
order to reduce the number of ad hoc changes made to the National
Curriculum we recommend that the Department put in place a cycle,
of around five years, for curriculum review and reform and avoid
initiating additional change outside that cycle. Reviews should
scrutinise the Early Years Foundation Stage, National Curriculum
and 14-19 arrangements as a continuum, not as discrete 'chunks'.
(Paragraph 106)
25. If
the National Curriculum is to be managed more proactively and
strategically it is essential that the agency with main responsibility
for the development of the National Curriculum is truly independent
from the Department and carries authority. (Paragraph 107)
26. We
recommend that, as with the Office of the Qualifications and Examinations
Regulator, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency
is made independent of Ministers and instead required to report
to Parliament through the Select Committee. (Paragraph 109)
27. The
involvement of this Committee, albeit in an advisory role, in
holding pre-appointment hearings with the nominee for the post
of Chair of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency
will play an important part in maintaining the independence of
the Agency from the Government. (Paragraph 110)
Establishing an overarching structure for learning
0-19
28. We
strongly recommend that an overarching statement of aims for the
National Curriculum—encompassing the Early Years Foundation
Stage, National Curriculum and 14-19 learners—be introduced,
properly embedded in the content of the National Curriculum, in
order to provide it with a stronger sense of purpose, continuity
and coherence. (Paragraph 112)
29. In
addition, we recommend that a statement of provision for learners
from 0 to 19 is introduced, setting out the fundamental knowledge
and skills that young people should have acquired at the end of
compulsory education. (Paragraph 113)
30. We
recommend that the Early Years Foundation Stage is brought within
the National Curriculum—and run through the Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority rather than, as at present, the Department.
(Paragraph 114)
31. Bringing
14-19 provision under a shared set of aims for the National Curriculum
would have been easier under the Tomlinson proposals for the Diploma.
Our predecessor Committee, the Education and Skills Committee,
voiced its opinion on the Tomlinson proposals in its 2007 Report
14-19 Diplomas. We share the preference, outlined then,
for an overarching diploma that replaced all other qualifications
for learners aged 14 to 19. (Paragraph 115)
32. We
suggest that the review and reform of the Early Years Foundation
Stage, National Curriculum and 14-19 provision as a continuum
and the bringing together of these frameworks underneath an overarching
statement of aims represent necessary first steps to improving
the continuity and coherence of the learning opportunities presented
to children and young people. These changes must be accompanied
by improved communication and co-ordination between teachers and
practitioners across the different phases of education. (Paragraph
116)
| 
