Tim Clark on the Becky Francis Curriculum Review: “The government has put the cart before the horse”

Former headmaster and revered education commentator Tim Clark reacts to the release this week of the new National Curriculum Review

The Positives

It is over ten years since the National Curriculum was seriously reviewed, so a new examination is certainly to be welcomed. The revolutionary developments in IT and AI alone are enough to warrant a review – the curriculum must evolve, but we must also keep what works well. We must also accept that the current NC is not a golden panacea – roughly one third of pupils fail each GCSE, a third leave primary school not being able to write at the expected standard, less than a half of 10-year-olds feel confident at reading and, most shocking, less than a third of 10-year-olds actually enjoy reading (PIRLS – the figures are far more positive in many similar OECD countries).

What is more, despite the previous government’s target that 90% of teenagers should follow the EBacc, the reality is more like only 40% of pupils: one size clearly does not fit all.

·      A new emphasis on oracy, alongside reading and writing – communication is key

·      Diagnostic testing in Year 8 – could be a powerful aid to teaching as long as it doesn’t add to teacher workload

·      A greater emphasis on the use and application of knowledge

·      The new, broader computing GCSE course will be far more useful, to far more youngsters, than the current, highly technical, computer science course

·      A new emphasis on food and nutrition – especially welcome considering latest obesity figures

·      Citizenship in primary schools – already happening in many

·      Greater emphasis on the performing arts and on a broader education

·      The inclusion of some life skills eg money, tax etc

The Negatives

This review has been rushed, totally unacceptable for something so important, especially if it is to apply to all schools, including academies. The consultation period was less than two months and resulted in only 7,000 responses, negligible considering there are half a million teachers, nine million sets of parents and countless employers. Furthermore, the “panel of experts” did not include a single practising classroom teacher, nor a representative from other stakeholder groups such as parents, governors and, crucially, employers.

·      The reduction in teaching time for GCSEs – if this leads to a broader education and less of an “exam factory” ethos, then it could be a positive, but how will standards be maintained with less teaching time?

·      Removal of the EBacc – although not for everyone, it is a good measure of a traditional academic education.

·      A danger that education will become “utilitarian” – true education is about the development of the mind, the body and character, not simply about preparing youngsters to adulthood, important though that is.

·      Trying to strengthen modern languages in primary schools without tackling the root problem – we don’t have enough language specialists in primary schools.

·      The moratorium on technical awards at Key Stage 4 (14-16): a major missed opportunity. A broader curriculum at Key Stage 4 (GCSE) offering more practical, technical and vocational courses could do much to improve behaviour, attendance, work ethic, and, most importantly, preparation for the world of work. Starting such courses at 16, very often when traditional GCSEs have been “failed”, does nothing for the status or popularity of vocational courses.

·      The constant repetition of the phrases “diversity” and “inclusion”. Of course, the curriculum must reflect a multi-faith and multi-racial society, as well as be responsive to specific educational needs, but one thing unites everyone – we all live in this country. Alongside British values, British culture, history and English literature should form the dominant (but definitely not the exclusive) basis of the curriculum, to empower all young people to understand the country and society in which they live. This is a matter of social cohesion – let’s concentrate on what unites rather than on what divides.

Lastly

The decision to make the NC compulsory in all schools, including academies and free schools, is an interesting one. The whole point of the NC was to ensure that all pupils had an entitlement to a common curriculum, but it is now only applicable in 18% of secondary schools. On the other hand, one of the “freedoms” enjoyed by academies is their freedom to experiment with the curriculum. Both Conservative policies: both aiming in different directions! Surely, a national curriculum should be the entitlement for all; equally, why should not all schools be able to experiment with their curriculum?

Lastly, and I make no apology for raising this yet again, the government has put the cart before the horse: who is going to teach the new curriculum? Until the current teacher recruitment and retention crisis is resolved, it is pointless discussing the curriculum. More than 50% of schools in England now state that teacher shortages are a key factor in holding back progress. (PISA) The government promised in its manifesto to provide an additional 6,500 teachers – it has failed. (In any case, a drop in the ocean considering that 40,000 teachers quit last year for reasons other than retirement.) When we have an adequate supply of highly trained, highly motivated and highly effective classroom teachers and school leaders, then, and only then, shall we see real school improvement.