Anyone who expects 2011 to be any less packed with changes to the education system than 2010 is living under an illusion, says Brian Lightman. Where the curriculum is concerned an increasingly polarised debate could have dire consequences for young people.

Curriculum focus

During the latter half of 2010 we saw an almost unprecedented amount of policy development as the coalition government prepared to set out its stall in the white paper The Importance of Teaching.

Amidst this vast agenda one particular issue stands out: the curriculum. This aspect of the White Paper has attracted the greatest volume of feedback from ASCL members and comprises by far the least popular chapter of the white paper. Why is this attracting such strength of feeling?

It seems that the debate about curriculum in recent months has become dangerously polarised and the profession has been marginalised from most of the discussion.

At one extreme there is a view that the current curriculum offer for the 11-18 age range is unfit for purpose, ‘dumbed down’ and superficial. Proponents of this view argue that subject knowledge has been replaced by an overemphasis on skills, that academic knowledge is seen by our profession as a bad thing which has been replaced by emotional literacy and so called soft subjects which lack rigour.

Because only 16 per cent of students met the narrow and restricted criteria for the English Bac it is automatically assumed that the remaining 84 per cent must have been taking ‘soft’ subjects. It is suggested that educationalists do not believe that the teaching of literacy and numeracy are important and that the way to reverse this is by reverting to a curriculum which is dominated by traditional academic subjects assessed by terminal examination at the age of 16.

Much of this is presented in the context of schools characterised by chaotic behaviour and low standards in a way which neither the profession nor indeed Ofsted recognise.

The most worrying aspect of some of the more extreme utterances in the press and the blogosphere is the large number which have been written by people with no firsthand experience in the classroom and that almost any aspect of current British research about teaching and learning – however firmly based in evidence – is summarily dismissed.

These commentators choose to forget the fact that the 1950s school system which they esteem was actually a feature of a highly stratified society in which most finished their compulsory education with few, if any qualifications. The kind of curriculum that is proposed was suited to the minority who were lucky enough to proceed to higher education.

Perfect world

The opposite view, that everything is perfect and needs no change at all, is largely a myth which is rolled out when our profession disagrees with the criticisms levelled at them. It is assumed that they must be on the defence.

Of course the reality is not like this. No successful school leader would survive with such an uncritical approach. We all know that, however successful our education system is, there is always room for improvement and development.

The problem with all polarised views is that the middle ground tends to be dismissed out of hand removing the opportunity for an informed debate about what curriculum for the 21st century should really look like.

We must be able to discuss these arguments and their counterarguments objectively, constructively and self critically and my fear is that this kind of balanced debate is being shouted down. I am still unconvinced that the forthcoming curriculum review will facilitate such discussion and ASCL is making the case for a measured, progressive debate centred around the best outcomes for young people.

At the time of writing we are still awaiting news of the Wolf review and the curriculum review has just started. ASCL will be drawing attention to all of the evidence, national and international, which needs to inform this debate.

We will be arguing for a lean national framework which allows school and college leaders the genuine autonomy to make those professional decisions which this government has consistently promised to leave to us.

The white paper says: “We will increase freedom and autonomy for all schools, removing unnecessary duties and burdens, and allowing all schools to choose for themselves how best to develop.” ASCL will be holding ministers to this statement throughout 2011.

• Brian Lightman is ASCL general secretary
  

ASCL is making the case to decision makers that the curriculum review must have at its core the following underlying points:

• This is a professional debate which needs to be steered by the profession. We cannot discuss parts of the curriculum without looking at it in its entirety and there is no point in spending energy on a review of a curriculum which could to cease to be a requirement for the majority of schools if the government’s academies policy succeeds. The coalition government has consistently pledged not to interfere in professional issues yet it is encouraging this crucially important debate to take place on the comment pages of newspapers.

• We need to discuss the content and reality of what goes on in classrooms now, the latest understanding about the learning process and in particular the massive developments in neuroscience. We must also be able to be able to look critically at what has not worked and change this.

• This debate then needs to address the completely artificial separations between knowledge and skills and between applied and academic learning which have become embedded in the vocabulary of educational policy. What is certain is that they are absolutely inseparable for all learners. If the balance has moved too far in one direction, it should be addressed but in the context of what will actually improve the life chances of our young people. The goal should be to build on the significant increases in participation and achievement that have taken place over recent years.

• We need to look holistically at the vast range of requirements which have been added to the curriculum over the last decade rather than picking away at individual parts.

• The examination and qualification systems also needs rethinking in order to ensure that all young people, wherever they live and whatever their background, have access to those qualifications that open doors and enable them to fulfil their aspirations. However that review needs to take place after we have examined the curriculum or the tail will continue to wag the dog. The same applies to the accountability framework, as evidenced by the way the arbitrary choice of subjects for the English Bac indicator has led some schools to consider precipitate and reactive changes to option systems, with all kinds of potential unintended consequences.

• Prior to the election an important debate was underway about the needs of learners in the 21st century. ASCL led much of the thinking with our 2020 Futures project which investigated the changes now affecting our economy, health, climate and many other aspects of society. Groups like the 21st Century Learning Alliance and the RSA led parallel debates building on the groundbreaking work of Karl Fisch. The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust facilitated innovative work in schools adapting the curriculum to our changing world, with spectacular results. Leading academics including Guy Claxton and David Hargreaves shared platforms to discuss these issues with ASCL and other organisations. At present it feels as if all of this has been set to one side and dismissed at a time when we can ill afford to do so. Technology does not get a mention in the white paper. Employers are acutely aware of these issues and are very articulate about the skills they need their employees to have.

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us