Judging by the proliferation of courses on offer for school leaders, the curriculum has suddenly become a priority in schools, not that it should have ever been anything else. Unfortunately, its sudden rise to prominence in the minds of school leaders has been driven by fear. Fear in the form of Ofsted’s recent consultation on the certain introduction of yet another new framework in September 2019—other newbies emerged from the inspectorate in: 1992, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2009, 2012 and 2015 (please note that this does include several revisions of existing frameworks!).
Among many proposed changes, the quality of a curriculum, likely to be judged in terms of intent, implementation and impact, will be at its core. Amanda Spielman, Chief Inspector, in drawing on recent research by Ofsted, justified such emphasis because ‘there was a dearth of understanding about the curriculum in some schools. Too many teachers and leaders have not been trained to think deeply about what they want their pupils to learn and how they are going to teach it.’ I have two issues with these sentences, which are contained within her authored article of September 2018.
Firstly, any dearth of understanding in some schools—something I profoundly disagree with—is a veneer. On the surface, such schools are not allowed to demonstrate their understanding because they have accepted the role of being deliverers of high-stakes curricula in order to meet rigid accountability measures. I believe that below the surface, they are suppressed and frustrated curriculum creators. It is why most of us joined the profession. Secondly, she implies that it is for teachers to determine what they want students to learn. Undoubtedly, teachers have a very important role to play, but there is little suggestion of co-creation, reference to student agency or the role of other stakeholders.
In the same article, Spielman argues, without the slightest sense of irony, that there has been significant curriculum narrowing. This, she asserts, is particularly evident in the upper primary years, where lessons are focused on ‘intensive, even obsessive, test preparation for Key Stage 2 SATs, which, in some cases, started at Christmas in Year 6. While I have no quantitative evidence to support this, I can recall many conversations with Year 7 students eloquently describing their Year 6 experience as a long slog towards SATs, followed by ‘fun activities’ that occupied them until the end of the summer term. Many were overjoyed to be in Year 7 as a result.
A similar pattern exists in secondary schools. Spielman specifically honed in on secondary schools that were significantly shortening Key Stage 3 in order to start GCSEs, and those that were dropping certain subjects to emphasise ones that hit accountability measures and assessment objectives from GCSE specifications that were being tracked back to as early as Year 7.
To this she could have added: lengthening school days, shortening breaks, culling work experience, implementing excessive interventions, setting multiple mock exam periods, providing fewer educational visits, offering less in the way of extra-curricular activities and many, many others. All of these have narrowed the curriculum, formal and informal, and have contributed to the many unintended, yet dreadful, consequences that are now being reported in our media on a daily basis, including increasing mental health issues, childhood obesity, knife crime and drug misuse.