ET-APR22-PG20-25.qxp_Page 6 08/04/2022 14:30 Page 22


VIEWS & OPINION


A rising tide lifts all ships: the curriculum first philosophy


Comment by STEPHEN LONG, Customer Success Adviser and Customer Success Manager, Education Software Solutions


For many schools, Ofsted’s announcement that it is extending the transition period for developing curriculum plans will have been greeted favourably. That is not to say that schools have not been developing curricula. Rather, it is a reflection of the widespread frustration at not having been able to invest further time in curriculum development owing to the extraordinary challenges posed by the pandemic. After all, the keynote of the last two years has been keeping schools open and ensuring that, as pupils oscillate between face-to-face and remote working, no-one is left behind. As research from the London School of Economics found, the first year of the pandemic cost students a third of their learning time. That schools should welcome the additional time to refine curricula


is not solely a reflection of pandemic pressures, however. Instead, it is as much a reflection of a more fundamental shift in thinking: the rise of what might be termed a ‘curriculum first’ philosophy. Just as a rising tide lifts all ships, the right curriculum, honed to support and engage students, will drive pupil progression across the board. From the very beginning the Education Inspection Framework: Overview of Research document published by Ofsted in January 2019 made it clear why a school’s curriculum matters so much. Three years later, based on my experience at ESS working with


schools the length and breadth of the country, it seems leaders and teachers continue to support the thinking behind the EIF, especially that which underpins the Quality of Education judgement. Engagement with the research within schools has grown, supporting what many already believed to be the most effective strategy for school improvement having honed their own curricula for years. Others quickly took on board Ofsted’s thinking, not to find favour in inspections, but because the essence of the Quality of Education judgement made sense and had strong evidence to support its rationale. Professional dialogue I engaged in with leaders seemed re- invigorated and this was reflected in conversations with teachers about both educational research and pedagogy. As one leader stated to me in summer term 2019, “you know something is going on when you and other leaders are spending a fortune on books as part of their own CPD”. In addition, it is interesting to note how many school websites now have more pages dedicated to their overall curriculum vision as well as the intent, implementation and impact of subject curricula compared to spring 2019. What, if anything, has changed and why have schools adapted and


strengthened what they are doing to align with the Quality of Education judgement within the EIF so readily? Of course, part of the reason is that the overarching philosophy just makes sense; none of us would disagree that in order for pupils to make the best progress, every teacher needs to be as good as they can be in what and how they teach. Ultimately, what has changed is that it is a far more commonly held belief that the curriculum really is the progression model. Furthermore, we would agree that there will be no improvement in either of these without high-quality professional development that is supported by the best evidence from research. However, on reflection, what has changed for me working with


school leaders as well as operational staff is the quality and quantity of professional dialogue around curriculum design; the ‘what’ is taught rather than the ‘how’ it is taught. Big names in educational


22 www.education-today.co.uk


research, for example, Young, Rosenshine, Muijs and Reynolds are mentioned more frequently than they used to be. Of course, that is not to say that the ‘how’ is not important. Indeed, many educationalists as well as the Education Inspection Framework: Overview of Research remind us that effective pedagogy consists of both teaching, stimulating learning environments and clear routines. There appears to be the re-affirmation that the curriculum should be the best, and therefore most powerful, knowledge that we have, with leaders increasingly talking about it having a social purpose beyond the practical. Much more could be said here (and has been said elsewhere) about


how the EIF has been a catalyst for schools in terms of curriculum design. Two main areas though stand out where schools have developed their practice. Firstly, there is the importance of sequencing knowledge in a logical way that enables pupils to build upon what they have already learned in subsequent lessons. Leaders often use the language of component knowledge and composites when describing how both knowledge and skills build towards broader National Curriculum outcomes. Significant time has been spent not only on thinking about the


delivery of the curriculum, but also about how the latest research from learning sciences can be embedded to improve pupils’ long- term retention of knowledge. Subject leaders talk confidently about how they are enabling pupils to link knowledge and create meaning over time, creating increasingly detailed and complex schemata. Curriculum content in some schools clearly identifies connections not only within subjects, but between subjects. Secondly there has been a major shift towards more formative assessment, the use of low stakes testing and repeated planned opportunities for retrieval or recall activities in lessons. Both teachers and pupils state that such practice is helping to improve the retention of knowledge in long-term memory. Such is the belief in the effectiveness of retrieval activities that in some secondary schools there is an expectation that they are done every lesson in every subject. Of course, in an increasingly digital world, schools are ever-more


interested in the capture and use of data to support the implementation of carefully designed curricula. So how might a school’s management information system be used to best effect to support leaders with curriculum delivery? Let’s think about the three ‘I’s. First of all, Intent - are you making the best of the functionality available to identify the key knowledge pupils need to know? Are all subject areas able to do this consistently? How does this functionality enable logical sequencing of content or provide ways that adaptations can be made to meet the needs of SEND pupils? Implementation – does the same or additional functionality in your MIS allow teachers to check pupils’ understanding, to inform teaching and to identify gaps, especially as a result of the pandemic? Does additional functionality enable leaders to plan and monitor any interventions out in place due to the latter? Finally, does your MIS enable you to evaluate the impact of your curriculum by drilling down into the detail that supports the view that all pupils achieve well, particularly in reading and the application of mathematical knowledge? Furthermore, does conduct data captured in your MIS suggest that poorer behaviour is decreasing, particularly for key groups such as SEND and disadvantaged pupils, therefore suggesting that the curriculum delivery is meeting their needs? At its core, schooling is not just about imparting information to


students. Rather, it’s about equipping children with the tools needed to flourish as adults; it’s a case of supporting academic progress and personal development whilst also shaping the behaviour and attitudes of pupils. For all the uncertainty of the past two years, the one constant amongst schools seems to have been a belief that the curriculum first approach is the right one.


April 2022


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  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48