The National Curriculum Review’s expert panel report, published in December, concurred with ASCL’s view that it is pointless to change the curriculum until we’ve agreed what purpose the curriculum is expected to serve. This debate has not happened, says Brian Lightman.

Failing to plan...?

Last summer, when ASCL pointed out to the Department for Education (DfE) that the end of July might not be the most appropriate time to launch a raft of important consultations, one slightly tongue-in-cheek reply observed that it might be the one time of year when school leaders had time to read them. School holidays are certainly not on the DfE agenda.

I assume that the same thinking underpinned the publication in the Christmas holidays of the expert panel report on the National Curriculum review, the Ofqual report on errors in examinations, the raising of the participation age strategy and, last but far from least, draft guidance on exclusions procedures – which are certainly not going to make it any easier for schools to permanently exclude persistently disruptive pupils with the very real prospect, in many cases, of not one but two appeals hearings.

There is a really serious point here. 2012 will be dominated by some of the most far-reaching changes we have seen, even in the context of everything that has happened in the education world in recent years. And all of this is occurring within the most challenging economic period many of us have experienced. As school and college leaders are tasked with implementing these changes their engagement is of vital importance.

Wrong starting point

Of all of the challenges and opportunities for school and college leaders in 2012 I believe that the greatest lie in the realm of curriculum and assessment.

the 77-page expert panel report from the national curriculum review confirms what ascl has been saying since this review was first mooted: that it began with the wrong starting point. for me the opening sentence of chapter 2 says it all: “the first consideration, when designing a curriculum, is to be clear about the purposes the curriculum is expected to serve. this is essential as the best possible content needs to be selected.”

Our argument has been that the debate has not involved the profession and it needs to do so. So to me, this statement in the introduction is good news: “We have not been able to be entirely conclusive in all our recommendations, as our intention has only been to state a firm recommendation if it is based soundly on national and international evidence and has practical educational value.”

It is a welcome and timely challenge to school and college leaders to seize back control over what, after all, is the bread and butter of our work.

Massive distraction

I have always been a supporter of a National Curriculum, having started teaching – and, indeed, attended school – before one existed, so have first-hand experience of the limited curricular breadth to which many young people had access.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the need to tackle the fundamental questions raised in the report is far more important than the need to redraft the National Curriculum and create new programmes of study. All of that could be a massive distraction from the much more important task of ensuring that what we teach in schools and colleges actually prepares young people for the opportunities available to them, whether in terms of employment, lifelong learning or simply their capacity to lead fulfilling lives as effective citizens.

All of this, let us remember, is in a context where the requirement to follow the National Curriculum will not apply to more than half of secondary schools which will have become academies by the middle of 2012.

Options structure

What this report helpfully sets out is the absolute necessity of planning a curriculum holistically. It rightly emphasises the importance of breadth and balance and offers health warnings about the need to consider international evidence carefully and the dangers of adopting simplistic solutions.

Personally, I have significant concerns about the ways in which the report proposes that breadth at Key Stage 4 should be achieved. To me, they suggest more constraints without guaranteeing rigour.

A major key to success in many schools which have achieved spectacular improvements at KS4 has been the loosening up of the options structure in order to create a variety of pathways, while maintaining a core.

Nevertheless, all of that is the kind of debate we need and I commend this report to ASCL members. We have published a summary on the website (www.ascl.org.uk) and Council will be preparing our response. Please let our education specialist Sue Kirkham have your thoughts via sue.kirkham@ascl.org.uk

Growth in collaborative work

It is sometimes convenient for commentators to suggest that we do not believe in fundamental matters of principle like rigour, challenge, breadth and balance. The activities of ASCL members all over the country prove that to be wrong.

I have been fascinated to see the dramatic growth in interest in curriculum developments, such as the ‘whole education’ initiative which is spawning innovative and creative work all over the country. In many areas we are seeing a significant growth in collaborative curriculum and professional development work.

Assessment is a much greater challenge for the reasons set out eloquently by John Dunford, former ASCL general secretary and now chair of the Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors, in The Guardian on January 3. “An assessment-led curriculum, as we have had in this country for many years, does not make for good education,” he said.

The biggest problem our examination system faces is the constant government-imposed changes implemented to unrealistic timescales before the curriculum debate has taken place. Blaming awarding bodies who struggle to cope under this immense pressure is not the solution.

The restoration of spelling and grammar marks to existing specifications is not a principle one would argue against, if it is introduced properly in consultation with experts, but the rushed implementation of this has the potential to distort the validity and reliability of those assessments.

Similarly there is no evidence whatsoever that a move from modular to linear examinations, in itself, is the key to increasing the rigour of examinations.

Profound lack of trust

The underlying issue runs through all of this: we need to define the purpose of the curriculum first, establish its content and structure, and then incorporate fit-for-purpose assessment into its design.

In doing all of this we have to move on from the profound lack of trust in the teaching profession to assess its own students, which contrasts starkly with so many of the frequently quoted high-performing countries.

High quality assessment of attainment and progress cannot be achieved by simplistic approaches. It requires the highest order of skills which should be part of the armoury of every single teacher, introduced in initial teacher training and honed throughout their professional development. This is why ASCL has always supported the development of chartered assessors.

My hope for 2012 is that ASCL members will be able to convince policy makers that school and college leaders have the expertise and ability to achieve our shared goal of achieving the very best for every single learner in our schools and colleges.

• Brian Lightman is ASCL general secretary

Designed with IMPACT

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