Worrying imbalance
At first look, the principles laid out in the Terms of Reference for the new Curriculum and Assessment Review seem convincing.[1] The curriculum will be 'cutting edge, fit for purpose and meeting the needs of children and young people to support their future life and work.'
This is echoed a few lines later with the pledge to equip students with 'essential knowledge and skills which will enable them to adapt and thrive in the world and workplace of the future.' In its opening paragraphs, the words 'life' and 'work' appear five times each in relation to students, subtly framing the curriculum as a balancing act between the two.
Word choice is not a trivial thing; I don’t say that just as an English specialist but as an educationalist and a senior leader. I couldn’t resist running a frequency analysis on the curriculum document to see what themes lay hidden beneath its carefully chosen phrasing.
The findings were telling. It was not entirely surprising to see ‘curriculum’ appear 37 times and ‘assessment’ 25 times; this, after all, is the Terms of Reference and not the review itself. But the deeper linguistic imbalance in the document raises questions about what message we are sending to those responsible for designing the curriculum and, ultimately, to our students.
Where’s the joy and creativity?
The second most frequent word, 'work' (including references to the 'additional work' for educational staff), dominates the discourse, hinting at a strong utilitarian bias where employment-readiness is central. What this frequency tells us is that ‘work’ is more important than ‘learning’ (four mentions) and far more important than ‘reading’, ‘oracy’ (one mention each), ‘literacy’ (none), or ‘teaching’ (none).