I am optimistic about the new Curriculum and Assessment Review, particularly given Becky Francis’s leadership. We know she follows the evidence and doesn’t promote change for change’s sake.
So, a couple of thoughts on the big issues that I look forward to seeing their ideas on.
Accountability shapes assessment, and assessment shapes curriculum. It shouldn’t be this way, but it is. So, it is great to see that assessment and curriculum are connected, but we can’t ignore accountability. As well as thinking about the formal content of the curriculum, we have to think about what schools are rewarded and punished for doing. How might this distort the intentions behind the curriculum?
The curriculum doesn’t have to do everything and solve every problem. It is not the only tool in our box. School culture and systems provide an education in themselves. We don’t need lessons in resilience and confidence, for example, we need schools run in ways which promote this. In addition, extra-curricular activities – the co-curriculum – are vital contributors. We need to have the confidence to say, ‘that is not the curriculum’s job’. Equally, let’s be wary of applying assessments to things which don’t need assessing
Breadth is important. We all have different strengths and weaknesses; it is easier to spend time on the things we find hard, if we know there are also opportunities for us to shine. This creates belonging and balance. It is important that schools prepare young people for their next phase of education and for work, but there is more to life than either
In conflict with the above point: there is not enough time to do everything we want to do. How will we prioritise? It is better to do fewer things better than many things badly. We need to look for the topics and concepts and subjects that have maximum reach and endurance. Holding this line will take courage: it is a hard pitch to make when some people tout the volume of content as a mark of ambition.
Creativity, innovation and problem solving are hugely valuable. It is well established that these develop from a strong knowledge base and flourish when mental space is freed up by the mastery of routine skills. How do we strike the right balance as a learner progresses from novice to expert, to gradually remove the scaffolding and increase their autonomy? And how do we ensure that we don’t wait too long? To use an analogy: footballers spend a lot of time on basic drills; they also play a full match most weekends.
Curriculum change is disruptive and expensive. We don’t want a curriculum frozen in time or immune to critique; nor do we want constant tinkering. What processes can we build for sensibly paced, incremental evaluation and review?
Examinations may not be right for every subject, but they are often the least bad way of conducting high stakes assessments. I am wary of the criticism of exams because the alternatives are often: hugely time consuming for teachers and student; and biased in favour of those with greater resources (like a parent who can help with the coursework, for example). The downsides have what we have are often very clear; the downsides of the alternatives are often neglected. That said, we spend too much time on exam preparation, including mocks, and the experience of exams is highly stressful for some. This brings us back to the point about accountability that we started with.
There are many tensions in the field of curriculum and assessment – between depth and breadth, between incentives and content, between drilling and purpose, between rigour and common sense. We can begin by owning the tension. It will be interesting to see what the review makes of them.
Note to self 