Page 13


NEWS • VIEWS • INFORMATION • ADVICE


National Curriculum Review

The Coalition Government has announced it is reviewing the primary and secondary curriculum in England. Below, Tim Oates, who is leading the review, sets out his rationale for further reform of the curriculum.

(Photo of Tim Oates)

Tim Oates

The evidence in favour of a review of the National Curriculum is, I believe, compelling.

The comparisons of different national systems in the last three OECD Programme for International Student Assessment studies (PISA, 2003, 2006 and 2009) show no catastrophic collapse in the scores that England has secured. But neither has there been any improvement. As a result, England has tumbled down the PISA rankings, as other countries lift their scores.

And there are signs of other problems. For example, more universities are increasingly finding that they need to provide remedial maths provision for students doing courses that require good number skills. And it’s alarming that teachers tell us that they increasingly feel that they have to focus on narrow drilling to prepare pupils for national tests and examinations, rather than focus on deep understanding.

In terms of our approach, we will ensure that the review is outward looking – for too long this country has been introspective in the way we have approached curriculum design. This review will, as well as taking the best from what we do in this country, take a considered look at the approaches that they take to curriculum design in the best-performing education jurisdictions. By taking such an approach we will ensure that we design a National Curriculum that is absolutely modern and can serve the needs of teachers.

We also need to be precise about what is to be covered in the National Curriculum, but what we know tells us that it needs to occupy a smaller, more manageable amount of total curriculum time, freeing up teachers’ time to help their pupils to fulfil their potential. There needs to be tighter definition of what is required, but what is required must not over-dominate the wider school curriculum.

And we will also ensure that the review is conducted in a way that is inclusive of a wide range of views and perspectives. The Call for Evidence, which closed on 14 April, has received over 4,000 responses, including many from individual teachers, and we are also talking to each of the major teaching unions, including the NASUWT, to see how we can engage their members as we take the review forward. We want to hear from as many people as possible throughout the review – and particularly from classroom teachers – and I hope that you will contribute to this process.

Tim Oates is Chair of the Expert Panel leading the review of the National Curriculum in England. For full details and the latest updates on the review, visit www.education.gov.uk/national curriculum

"We need to be precise about what is to be covered in the National Curriculum…"


NASUWT comment

The curriculum review is being sold as an opportunity to reduce prescription, bureaucracy and centralised control of the curriculum and free teachers up to better use their skills and knowledge. However, the NASUWT believes such laudable intentions ring hollow when the Coalition Government has already moved towards the introduction of a narrow, ‘classical’ curriculum that is based on little more than an elitist view of what education is for and should be.

The English Baccalaureate has already been put into the school league tables, exerting significant pressure on schools to focus their resources and curricular time on the narrow range of subjects it contains. This will deny students access to a broad and balanced curriculum and risks increasing pupil disaffection. The principle that all schools should provide access to learning opportunities that meet the needs of all students, regardless of background, will be undermined and inequality will flourish.

The outlook for teachers is just as bleak. The focus on a smaller number of subjects places the employment of many teachers in ‘non-core’ subjects at significant risk and raises the prospect of an increasingly casualised working environment where teachers are employed on a temporary basis to meet the fluctuating demands of the English Baccalaureate. Coupled with the plans to allow unqualified teachers to work in free schools, make teacher training increasingly school based and permit further education teachers to work in schools, it is clear the Coalition is intent on deprofessionalising and downgrading teaching, with the consequent implications for pay and working conditions.

The NASUWT expects that this curriculum review will do little more than validate the Coalition’s narrow and elitist view of what should be taught in schools. The Union has submitted evidence to the Review and will be continuing to work with Government to argue for the retention of a curriculum that supports teachers and pupils to make the most of their range of skills and talents.

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36