There has been much talk about curriculum design, pedagogy and learning and how to build and implement an inclusive, diverse curriculum for all. We’ve certainly seen many changes to teaching and learning over the last couple of years in response to the pandemic. But these changes to the curriculum started back in September 2019, when a new ‘Education Inspection Framework’ (EIF) was implemented.
This framework set out Ofsted’ inspection aims and principles and the main judgements that inspectors would make (Guidance Education Inspection Framework , 2019). The changes made to this framework removed the ‘outcomes judgments’, so that inspections were no longer data driven, with schools having to prove their success, but rather, ‘teaching and learning and the curriculum would be the new emphasis. Under this new judgement of ‘The quality of education’ (which encompasses ‘teaching and learning’), schools would be assessed following the intent; implementation and impact of the curriculum and what knowledge and skills students are taught. The areas to be assessed are outlined below:
· Intent: Curriculum design, coverage appropriateness and delivery
· Implementation: Teaching and learning (pedagogy) and reading
. Impact: Attainment and progress (including national tests and assessments) and readiness for the next stage of education (Gov.uk, 2018)
This change in direction from Ofsted arose because for some time [they] felt (along with the Government) that the curriculum needed to reform and focus more on a ‘knowledge Curriculum’ as schools were prioritising tests and exam results. With a lack of real quality subject knowledge being taught and imparted to children. The ‘White Paper’ (2016) set out the intentions for this:
‘We will embed a knowledge-based curriculum as the cornerstone of an excellent, academically rigorous education…Given the curriculum’s increased stretch – especially at primary – we will monitor its implementation and increase support for teachers to help them deliver it effectively’.
Furthermore, inspectors found that when they reviewed schools’ curriculum, the coverage of the different subjects, in particular ‘foundation subjects’, lacked rigour and a ‘coherent rationale’ (Gov.uk, 2018). Ofsted carried out a study of schools in three phases. In the first phase they visited 40 schools, in the second phase they visited 23 schools and in the last phase, 64 schools. During the first phase, inspectors found that schools ‘were prioritising test and exams instead of thinking about the substance of education’ (Gov.uk, 2018, p. 3) The schools which were involved with this study fulfilled the following criteria:
· previous inspection judgements (outstanding, good and RI only)
· geographical location (Ofsted regions)
· school type (LA maintained/academies)
The schools were a mixture of Primary Schools, Infant and Junior Schools and secondary schools in both academies, free schools and state maintained.
In the schools reviewed, Inspectors found that:
'curriculum design was focused on delivering content, but with a lack of consideration for the ordering and structure of that content…there was also alack of subject knowledge among staff to develop an enriching offer for certain subjects and the planning was only at a surface level and the content being delivered was piecemeal, with the objective solely of ticking off a box on the national curriculum check-list.’(Gov.uk, 2018)
Ofsted also found that a large proportion of the primary schools investigated had ‘imbalanced curriculum offers’. This meant that Inspectors found that the curriculum was not as challenging as intended by the 2014 National Curriculum offer (Gov.uk, 2018). Foundation subjects were not embedded in daily teaching as well as the core subjects. At the same time that Ofsted carried out this review, the OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) ‘skills study’, (OECD, 2015) was published. This study highlighted certain benchmarks for positive social and emotional development in schools which affect children’s future outcomes. This study together with the release of the Department for Educations’ ‘Character Education’ non-statutory guidance (November:2019) led to the introduction of Ofsted’s new judgement ‘Personal Development’. The central premise of this new judgement was that the wellbeing of young people, their personal development and academic education all contribute to form well-rounded people.
The report from the OECD was important because it laid out what policy makers; educators and researchers could do to bridge gaps to better enhance children’s skills to reach positive lifetime outcomes. In the same way, the ‘Are you ready?’ research document (Ofsted, 2014), which outlined its commitment to ensuring young children in deprived areas had a successful start in life was also a precursor to the new EIF.
In response to all of these findings, Ofsted set out in their revised 2019 framework, in terms of importance, what was needed to ensure an inclusive curriculum for all: coherent, ambitious rationale, knowledge of curriculum concepts, leaders able to explain the purpose of their curriculum (Gov.uk, 2018). Leaders inferred from this new framework that all teachers and leaders working in schools needed to demonstrate a rationale for their curriculum design and be able to articulate what they are teaching and why. They also needed to reflect on their pedagogy and show clear curriculum progression across the year groups.
The above 'Circle of intent', which has been designed at TICK Hub, helps to illustrate the progression of what is taught from EYFS through to KS2 in particular subjects.
All of these changes are set against a back drop of much debate about what should be taught in schools: the great ‘skills’ vs ‘knowledge’ debate. This debate, about what children should be taught and whether skills or knowledge should be emphasised in the National Curriculum, has taken place for years. Education reform has been described as a ‘series of breaks and contrasts’ as successive governments debated the aims for their education system and how it should be organised (Jones, 2016). For example, post the Second World War, the Labour Government set out their aims and commitment to secondary education. This type of education, as outlined by the Labour Government, focused on practical skills, rather than universal knowledge. Knowledge had been dismissed as ‘rote learning’ which was contrasted with critical thinking skills (Hirsch, 2015). The forms of knowledge were seen as far less important than the development of individuals’ creativity (Jones, 2016). Others argued that education should be child-centred, not subject centred and this was further emphasised by the Plowden report (1967) which recommended more group work; projects, learning through play and creativity and claimed that ‘the child is the agent in his own learning’ (Plowden report 1967:194). It was during the 1960s, that a movement called ‘Progressive Education’ argued that rather than analysing how other nations organised their curriculum, England had looked too inwards. Research carried out by Archer and Green highlighted this point: ‘England processes tend to satisfy conflicting demands of lobby groups, rather than developing radical policy solutions’ . Oates (2011), in this article, argued that through ‘a critique and analysis’ policy- makers can use that to inform further reform and changes of the National Curriculum. This is what Oates believed was needed to move education forward in England.
This very question about whether schools should be teaching a predominately skills-based curriculum or, a more knowledge driven curriculum, has in part, spurred on this change in direction from Ofsted with their push to deliver more ‘knowledge rich’ subjects and teaching ‘powerful knowledge’ (Young and Miller, 2013). Fast forward to 2022 and the Skill and Post-16 Education Bill is due to be published soon. There is now more of an emphasis on apprenticeships; skills and colleges working in collaboration with local businesses to help hone skills needed for local labour markets. Will this have an impact on the curriculum in subsequent years? Only time will tell.
Comments