Tim Clark on the government’s interim curriculum report: “the most important document in contemporary education”

Tim Clark

In July 2024, the government commissioned Professor Becky Francis to chair a review of the national curriculum and statutory assessment. Such a review has not been undertaken since 2011-13. Should, in future, the national curriculum apply to all schools, including academies and free schools, as is proposed in the current Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, such a report could have the most profound impact on the vast majority of our young people and on the very future of the country. It is essential that the review panel gets it right.

On Tuesday 18th March, the panel published its interim Report. Since this initial document does not make any specific recommendations, we shall have to wait a little longer before any concrete recommendations surface. Nevertheless, there are certain comments that need to be made following this interim publication.

There is no doubt that the current standing of the national curriculum is unsustainable. Introduced in 1988, it was intended to ensure that all youngsters received a broad and balanced education, albeit with a very traditional, academic slant. Following the explosion in the number of academies and free schools, however, we are now in the position where the national curriculum only applies to about 18% of secondary schools. This is an utterly ludicrous situation: the first school where I was Head would have been publicly slated by Ofsted for not following the national curriculum, simply because it was a Local Authority school; the second school where I was Head would not, simply because it was an academy.

Logically, the national curriculum should apply to all schools or to none. The argument against the former, is that one of the key arguments in favour of academies has always been that they should have curriculum freedom and, consequently, many have developed very effective alternative technical and vocational programmes of study. That said, curriculum freedom is still partly constrained by performance tables which highlight success in the EBacc [maths, English language and literature, science, an ancient or modern language, history or geography] and the EBacc-dominated Progress 8 and Attainment 8 measures.

A few observations

The timeframe

This is ridiculously short: the “call for evidence” lasted for less than two months, 25th September to 22nd November, 2024. In that time, the panel received only 7,000 responses, a drop in the ocean considering there are almost half a million teachers in England and roughly nine million pupils and sets of parents, not to mention employers and institutions of further and higher education. It is difficult to see how the findings will be “evidence led”, as is alleged. The final Review is due to be published later this year, a timeframe far too short to permit the necessary consultation, research and modelling necessary to make the Review a success. All too often in the past, education reform has been rushed: when GCSE’s were introduced in the later 1980’s, it took several years of tweaking before they were properly fit for purpose; when Curriculum 2000 [AS Levels] began, we had to start teaching the courses before books and resources were published. Education and this Review are too important to suffer from political posturing or grand standing.

The Panel

Professor Becky Francis is a recognised academic but has no school experience. Her area of specialism is “social equality” which shines through in much of the report. Of the other ten members of the panel [plus an observer from Ofsted], there is no representative from classroom teachers, employers, business, industry, providers of apprenticeships or from employability specialists. Furthermore, although there is some school representation at Principal and CEO level, the broad spectrum of schools in England – high performing/struggling, large/small, urban/rural, faith/secular, academy/local authority, MAT/stand-alone academy, selective/non-selective – is not represented. Despite claiming to be a “panel of experts”, their experience is far from comprehensive.

Standards

The Report comments that, currently, “high standards” often means “high standards for some” whereas the ambition of the review is for “high standards for all” – an ambition that everyone involved with education would share. Much is made of the socio-economic gap in educational attainment, although no mention is made of the much more subtle aptitude versus attainment issue nor of the fantastic outcomes achieved by some schools in very challenging circumstances. We must never assume that there is an automatic correlation between socio-economic background and achievement: our best schools consistently prove that that is definitely not the case.

The statement that youngsters with SEND [about 18% of pupils] often make less progress than their peers is a blatantly obvious truism, not least because many [but certainly not all] pupils who are designated as having special needs are identified as such because of learning difficulties, and this must certainly not lead to a watering down of expected standards for the majority. The curriculum must ensure that we level up, not down. It we do not, the biggest losers will be those from disadvantaged backgrounds for whom success at school is as, if not more, important than for anyone else.

We should never forget, however, that the real driver of educational standards is not the curriculum but motivating and inspirational classroom teachers. As argued numerous times before, until the current recruitment and retention crisis is resolved and we have a healthy supply of highly trained, effective and motivated classroom teachers, we shall achieve very little. The government promise of 6,500 new teachers is farcical – 40,000 teachers quit last year for reasons other than retirement (equating to almost two teachers from every school in England) and, in the same timeframe, only 50% of teacher training places were filled. If the government is genuinely interested about raising standards and in giving a world class education to all, the teacher recruitment and retention crisis should be their priority – nothing else.

Greater breadth at Level 2 [ GCSE, 16-year-olds]

One aim of the Review is to “develop strong occupational pathways at Level 2” and to prepare youngsters “for future life and work”. This is an area where the final Report could make a phenomenal difference to youngsters’ prospects and also take advantage of the innovative work undertaken by some academies; it would be a significant improvement to see a much greater offer of technical, practical and vocational courses at GCSE level. There is no doubt that in the past the national curriculum has had a traditional academic bent but a greater breadth of choice, from 14 onwards, could do much to improve behaviour, attendance, work ethic and attainment.

What is the point of eleven years of compulsory schooling – what is the point of working hard or of even attending – if a student leaves with nothing, or worse still, knows he will leave with nothing from Year 9 onwards? This is certainly not an argument for “prizes for all” – we must insist on the highest standards in all subjects, not solely in traditional academic subjects. As well as successful academics, our schools should also be producing high performing electricians, engineers, car mechanics and others, ready for further education, apprenticeships or employment, rather than churning out “failures” who lack the knowledge, skills or motivation to positively contribute to the economy. Since most youngsters take nine subjects at GCSE, there should be a wide offer of English, maths, the sciences, languages, humanities and performing arts as well as of high-quality practical, technical and vocational options.

The Report quotes the previous government’s ambition that 90% of pupils should be studying the EBacc by 2025. In reality, only about 40% of pupils currently study the EBacc and fewer than 15% of state-funded schools currently meet the earlier ambition of 75% of pupils studying the EBacc. Surely this proves that this “one size fits all” is simply not appropriate for many pupils and that a broader curriculum from the age of 14 can only be advantageous for all – pupils, teachers and society as a whole.

A knowledge rich curriculum

The Report, quite rightly, supports a “rigorous and knowledge-rich education”. Without knowledge, we are dealing with make believe, fantasy and fiction. But knowledge should not be the end result – far more important is the ability to use and to apply knowledge: knowing historical facts, for example, is one thing, but the skills to analyse, evaluate, assess and to apply that knowledge to argue and debate are what makes that knowledge useful and “powerful”. I can only hope that there is an end to the nonsensical knowledge versus skills debate and that there is a joint emphasis on both knowledge and on the skills required to use knowledge, not forgetting the softer skills such as being able to undertake independent research, to work in groups, to present findings and to understand the views of others.

An inclusive and diverse curriculum

The demand for a “relevant” and for an “inclusive and diverse curriculum”, in which, “all feel represented”, is probably the most sensitive and emotive of all issues raised by the Report. England is, of course, a multi-cultural and multi-faith country, but, as the Report says, we must always recognise, “the importance of cultural knowledge stemming from the past”.  Whatever our religious beliefs, for example, no-one can deny that the sixteenth century Reformation had a revolutionary impact on the country and its subsequent history; Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions affected this country more than any subsequent migrations. These are not xenophobic statements but an understanding of the context in which we live.

I am certainly not arguing that other cultures and traditions should not be represented, they definitely must be, but it would be a very dangerous development if we studied certain topics, people or ideas because of race, colour, gender or some other characteristic. We do not study Shakespeare because he was white nor Jane Austen because she was a woman: we study them because they have significantly contributed to the “cultural capital” of the nation. As the existing national curriculum states, cultural capital is the study of, “the best that has been thought and said”. Youngsters who are denied access to such an education will be put at serious disadvantage in later life; social cohesion will also suffer.

The current review of the national curriculum has the opportunity to help raise standards in our schools and to make a significant improvement to the education of our young people. We shall have to wait to see what the final report recommends but if the panel gets this wrong, the damage could be monumental.