Everyone can agree on one thing regarding the government’s review of the school curriculum and exams in England: Becky Francis, its leader, faces a mammoth task. In many ways, schools are inspiring places. But mounting difficulties on several fronts, including the recruitment and retention of teachers, and an inadequate Send system (for children with special educational needs and disabilities), have put them under severe strain. The challenge for Prof Francis, and the government, is to find a way of improving teaching and learning that doesn’t involve huge expense or workloads.
Ministers know this will be a tricky circle to square. Evolution rather than revolution is what they have asked for. So what is to be hoped for?
A broadening of the curriculum ought to be painless. Last year, a House of Lords committee recommended scrapping the Ebacc, as the combination of GCSEs promoted under the Tories is known (English, maths, science, a foreign language and a humanities subject). Indeed, it is hard to see why ministers would wait until next year to take this up, given their already stated commitment to arts and sports. While breadth is an important principle in curriculum design, there is no reason for ministers to put off encouraging the wider take-up of arts subjects, to enhance young people’s creativity. In primary schools, phonics should be balanced with other forms of literacy learning.
A shift away from a relentlessly linear assessment model – where knowledge is tested at the end of a course – also seems inevitable, as well as desirable. There is too much emphasis on the memorisation of information. This does not mean an end to exams. Coping with deadlines and time limits are useful skills. But it would be surprising if Prof Francis did not come down on the side of variety. A consensus is also building around the importance of speaking skills.
While breadth and flexibility might sound uncontroversial, the reality is complex. When the consultation opens, partisans will lobby for the inclusion of whatever they believe children should know: media studies, food and nutrition, financial education, politics and civic education, health and fitness, nature, digital skills, and so on.
One possibility is that a richer curriculum becomes overstuffed. The alternative approach, of slimming the curriculum down to essentials and creating more scope for individual schools and teachers, could help tackle the problem of morale among staff who feel devalued and deprofessionalised. This is an attractive option in line with progressive educational values of imagination and creativity. But rejecting standardisation and the accountability it facilitates is not risk-free.
Prof Francis has dedicated her career to breaking the link between income and achievement. Bridget Phillipson appointed her because she and her colleagues want working-class children to do better. The curriculum and assessment can be made more inclusive so that they are better suited to a wider range of children and abilities, and schools become more welcoming places. This could help reduce high absence rates, and help children with special needs. Vocational alternatives to A-levels and a new focus on practical GCSEs should be prioritised. But however much ministers and teachers might wish it, schools cannot on their own counteract the effects of inadequate housing, diet, employment and household income. For Prof Francis and other educational reformers, poverty is the biggest pitfall of all.
