Policy

Can We Transform The Curriculum?

In this introduction to the special edition, Graham Handscomb sets out the daunting challenges facing the government's Curriculum and Assessment Review and outlines an array of powerful, inspiring ways the curriculum can be transformed.
Curriculum Review logo
A hall of secondary school students sitting an exam.

Welcome to this special issue of Professional Development Today, which is entirely devoted to considering the nature and substance of what should constitute the school curriculum. The new Secretary of State at the Department for Education has commissioned a ‘thoroughgoing Curriculum and Assessment Review’[1] and PDT has asked 20 leading educationalists and practitioners to share their thinking, analysis and proposals for the curriculum.

The Curriculum and Assessment Review

The declared aim the Curriculum and Assessment Review is to develop a cutting-edge curriculum which is rich and broad, inclusive and innovative.[2] The review aims to develop a curriculum which builds the knowledge, skills and attributes young people need to thrive, including embedding digital, oracy and life skills in their learning.

In particular, the review is called upon to deliver:

  • An excellent foundation in the core subjects of reading, writing and maths;
  • A broader curriculum, so that children and young people do not miss out on subjects such as music, art, sport and drama, as well as vocational subjects;
  • A curriculum that ensures children and young people leave compulsory education ready for life and ready for work. This includes embedding digital, oracy and life skills in their learning.
  • A curriculum that reflects the issues and diversities of our society, ensuring all children and young people are represented.
  • An assessment system that captures the strengths of every child and young person and the breadth of curriculum, with the right balance of assessment methods whilst maintaining the important role of examinations.

Daunting task

Reviewing the curriculum and assessment arrangements is a somewhat daunting task facing the government and the Review Chair, Professor Becky Francis. In her Call for Evidence, she acknowledges that ‘debates continue about the breadth and depth of the curriculum, and whether it meets young people’s needs in terms of motivation and preparation for the future.‘ She adds that ‘this is particularly pressing in a world where social, technological, commercial and environmental conditions are rapidly changing.[3]

Certainly, there has never been a shortage of opinions and advice on the curriculum from a range of quarters.  Woodrow Wilson is reported as saying (although some attribute this to another US President, Calvin Coolidge): ‘It is easier to move a cemetery than to change a curriculum.

Some contributions from the past have been radically challenging. For instance, in the early 20th century, John Dewey felt anything was up for grabs in the pursuit of learning: ‘Since there is no single set of abilities running throughout human nature, there is no single curriculum which all should undergo. Rather, the schools should teach everything that anyone is interested in learning.’

In a similar vein, the great and recently deceased Sir Ken Robinson declared: ‘School systems should base their curriculum not on the idea of separate subjects, but on the much more fertile idea of disciplines… which makes possible a fluid and dynamic curriculum that is interdisciplinary.’

Others, like the leading educationalist Andy Hargreaves, caution that ‘we must never return to the Julie Andrews curriculum where we teach ‘a few of my favourite things’’!

Great minds of the recent and ancient past have emphasised that it is not so much the content of the curriculum that is salient but rather how it is delivered:

More important than the curriculum is the question of the methods of teaching and the spirit in which the teaching is given.’

Bertrand Russell

Let the questions be the curriculum.’

Socrates

Such thinking may seem out of kilter with what some would emphasise as the priority of the curriculum – preparing children as citizens, equipped for the world of work and to contribute effectively to the economy. However, there are also leading voices in business and management that argue for a more holistic approach:

‘Instead of a national curriculum for education, what is really needed is an individual curriculum for every child.’

Charles Handy

I imagine a school system that recognises learning is natural, that a love of learning is normal, and that real learning is passionate learning. A school curriculum that values questions above answers … creativity above fact regurgitation individuality above conformity and excellence above standardized performance And we must reject all notions of ‘reform’ that serve up more of the same: more testing, more ‘standards’, more uniformity, more conformity, more bureaucracy.’

Tom Peters

American education policy analyst Diane Ravitch similarly poses challenges for the assessment focus of the review: ‘Testing is not a substitute for curriculum and instruction. Good education cannot be achieved by a strategy of testing children, shaming educators, and closing schools.

Respect for children as persons

Primary school boys and girls smiling in a line outside their school.
At the core of the review is a consideration of children and their experiences.

It’s not the first time, of course, that the curriculum has been reviewed. There have been many reviews and one of the dangers is that yet another may come at the cost of even greater work and pressures placed on the lives of hard-pressed teachers, with all the accompanying fallout for their families. However, this particular review looks to be very thoughtfully framed and claims have been made that this may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically reshape and possibly even transform the curriculum.

I recall one of the first major curriculum stock takes when it felt that the curriculum and assessment cards were being shuffled or, as it perhaps felt at the time, thrown up into the air. It was during the 1970s – and what was distinctive and actually very valuable during the reflection on what should constitute the curriculum at that time was a fundamental debate about the precious use of children’s time.

Then, all the talk – and accompanying educational jargon – was around phrases like the ‘core curriculum‘ and even the ‘common core curriculum‘, but at the heart of all this was a real concern about what could be justified for inclusion in the curriculum. When John White wrote ‘Towards a Compulsory Curriculum[4], there was a genuine and fundamental ethical backdrop to curriculum discussion. Children are one of the few citizens, other than incarcerated prisoners, whose liberty we proscribe – to compel them to spend years in schooling.

This should concentrate the minds of educationalists and policymakers about the nature, quality and content of the curriculum experience that justifies such a curb to children’s freedom. So, back in the 70s, leading lights in the educational firmament like Richard Peters and Paul Hirst concentrated on delineating the a priori ‘Forms of Knowledge‘ which constituted what it was to be educated.[5]

I recall later in 1982 chatting to Paul Hirst over breakfast at a conference (we were also digesting breaking news about the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands). He spoke powerfully about the need for clarity about the curriculum, not least because of the importance of, in Peters’ words, the imperative to ‘respect children as persons.[6]

This focus on what a review of the curriculum can achieve – particularly in terms of children, their experiences and how they might flourish – is at the heart of the many contributions in this special issue of PDT.

The purpose of the curriculum

Among the array of expertise we have drawn together, some contributions have (in Lesley Saunders’ words) asked the fundamental question of ‘What is the curriculum for?’ This opens up the first principles problematic issues of ‘the relationship between curriculum and pedagogy, and between pedagogy and assessment.‘ Curriculum can be seen not as a matter of dictate but as a dynamic where ‘teacher and students between them create what is taught and what is learnt in every lesson within the physical and social space of a classroom.’[7]

Dylan Wiliam also stresses the vital importance of the curriculum review being built upon clear, robust principles, and says that it will inevitably entail facing up to curriculum trade-offs and pragmatically asking what the child needs… and whether they need it now!

Curriculum models and frameworks

For many of our commentators, curriculum review is less about its content and more a matter of how it is conceived and structured and how it operates.

David Lambert is optimistic about the prospects for the Curriculum and Assessment Review. He sees it as ‘an opportunity to open up schools and encourage the development of teaching that is creative, dynamic and transformative’ and to establish a model which promotes ‘powerful knowledge’.[8]

Similarly, David Hopkins maintains that any debate about the nature of the curriculum needs to be carried out in the wider context of its links to the fundamental nature of education and overall school improvement strategy. He argues for a personalised curriculum founded on the ‘instructional core’ comprising ‘the teacher, and the student in the presence of the content.’[9]

Teachers training for professional development in a staff room.
A broad range of education sector experts have contributed their insights to the review.

David Leat also focuses on the issue of the ownership of the curriculum and how it is generated, making the case for ‘community curriculum-making’.

Glynis Frater forcefully stresses that it is how you teach that matters and so the emphasis should be on system reform to ensure quality, staff skills, coherence and support.

Baumber and Garrick echo the thinking of many in stating that the key to curriculum review is a fundamental understanding of the nature of learning. They provide recommendations for each phase of schooling, building from early years education.

Inclusion, diversity and multiculturalism

Mel Ainscow, a lifetime advocate for inclusion, powerfully sets out an inspiring manifesto for curriculum development and change centred around learner diversity, inclusive policy and practice and local solutions.

Mary Myatt calls upon the curriculum review to be ambitious in its challenge to every young person. In particular, she demands a rich and challenging curriculum for special educational needs learners.  

Our contributors include those tackling divisions in society and the need to build social cohesion. Bennie Kara is forthright in her call for multicultural education and a diverse curriculum. She argues for a mandated curriculum that squarely addresses colonialism and forges an inclusive vision of national identity.

Likewise, Shammi Rahman says there needs to be confidence in talking about race in the curriculum and asks how prepared we are to have honest conversations about achieving a curriculum that factors in genuine inclusion and restores social justice. She provides a comprehensive list of recommendations to help achieve this.

Subjects and curriculum content

Whilst many of our contributors counsel against the temptation to overload on curriculum content, a number helpfully focus on what the curriculum might contain and what should determine this. Reflecting the common concern for promoting an inclusive approach to the curriculum, Haili Hughes highlights the need for a radical re-think of the English GCSE curriculum to bring about a more diverse literature canon.

Steve Berryman inveighs against the marginalisation of the arts in the curriculum and argues for making creative space for the special way of knowing that they can provide. Meanwhile, Gráinne Cassidy and colleagues forcefully make the case for classics and the breadth and coherence they can bring to the curriculum.

Steve Willshaw and colleagues set out the rationale for achieving a holistic approach to education through their vision for a National Baccalaureate model comprising three crucial elements: core learning. a research project and a personal development programme run over two years in any key stage.

By contrast, Vivienne Porritt warns of unintended consequences in such shaping of the curriculum. She gives a forensic critique of the fallout from the introduction of the current English Baccalaureate and powerfully draws on her own educational journey to argue for a more pluralistic and equitable curriculum.

Outcomes of the curriculum

So, what should be the outcomes of the curriculum? What, ultimately would we want any curriculum review to achieve?

David Didau powerfully advises against the pendulum swing experienced between varying approaches in previous curriculum reviews. Intriguingly, he creatively draws on Durkheim’s concepts of the sacred and profane to call for a curriculum which helps students transcend the ordinary for a genuine connection with something greater.

For Chris Brown, the curriculum should aim to contribute to creating an ideas-informed society, which he sees as crucial to securing democratic and personal wellbeing. This would be achieved through enabling learners to be dynamic enquirers, ideas-engaged, open to new perspectives and capable of critical thinking.

A number of others also envisage curriculum outcomes in terms of empowering critical life long learners. Certainly, Neil Thompson is uncompromising in challenging the view that the curriculum should be seen only in narrow utilitarian terms of preparing young people for the world of work. He argues that, with the advance of technology and the advent of artificial intelligence, there will be a growing need for adept, adaptable learners and an emphasis on ‘wonder and curiosity, not fear and competition.’[10]

This is also the thrust of teacher and school leader Melissa McCarthy’s concern when she asks what’s missing from the terms of reference of the review. She asks where the joy and creativity are and calls for an approach that prioritises enjoyment over utility. 

In like fashion, Sarah Seleznyov makes the case for increased status being given to social, emotional and physical development. Alongside other contributors, she says that much can be gained from insights in early years education where ‘knowledge is much more fluid and interconnected.’[11]

Perhaps this is the clarion call that unites all the voices expressed in this issue of PDT: the goal of nurturing curious, confident, creative and independent learners who are thus able to live fulfilled, flourishing lives and contribute most effectively to others’.

Graham Handscomb is Editor of Professional Development Today and Co-Editor of the international journal Quality Education for All. He is also an Honorary Professor with University College London (UCL) and Visiting Professor at the University of Bolton and Durham University. Previously, he was Professor of Education and Dean of The College of Teachers and was Professor in Residence with Young Epilepsy, with an extensive career of senior leadership of local authorities and schools and 20 years’ teaching experience. Graham has made a considerable contribution to the development of school-based practitioner enquiry and pioneered the concept of the Research-Engaged School.


References

  1. DfE (2024) Curriculum and Assessment Review. Review Aims, Terms of Reference and Working Principles. DfE.
  2. Ibid
  3. Francis, B (2024) Call for Evidence. Curriculum and Assessment Review. Department for Education.
  4. White, J. (1973) Towards a Compulsory Curriculum. Routledge.
  5. Hirst, P. (1975) Knowledge and the Curriculum: A collection of philosophical papers. Routledge.
  6. Peters, R. S. (1966) Ethics and Education. George Allen and Unwin.
  7. Saunders, L. (2024) What Is ‘The Curriculum’ For? Professional Development Today. Volume 24 Issue 1.
  8. Lambert D. (2024) Bringing ‘Powerful Knowledge’ Back To The Curriculum. Professional Development Today. Volume 24 Issue 1.
  9. Hopkins, D. (2024) Why The ‘Instructional Core’ Is Key To Curriculum Reform. Professional Development Today. Volume 24 Issue 1.
  10. Thompson, N. (2024) Towards A Curriculum That Goes Beyond The Work Ethic. Professional Development Today. Volume 24 Issue 1.
  11. Seleznyov, S. (2024) Evolving The Primary Curriculum. Professional Development Today. Volume 24 Issue 1.

Register for free

No Credit Card required

  • Register for free
  • Free TeachingTimes Report every month

Comments