OPINION: Promise of evolution not revolution needs to be kept in Curriculum review

It’s not a formal consultation, instead the Government has been calling for views about what works and what doesn’t in the curriculum and assessment system.

In describing the need for it, The Government says the review will “address existing problems and ensure that these frameworks are fit for the future”. But While the Government says it is committed to “evolution rather than revolution” change of any form needs cautious consideration and careful calculation for several reasons: The backbone of teaching Let’s not underplay the importance of that one word.

The ‘curriculum’ is a teacher’s manual. It is what is taught day in, day out across schools. It is the structure which shapes and upon which hinges all teaching. So, any change, no matter how ‘evolutionary’ will make a huge difference to children's day-to-day experiences.

The systems for change also create a lot of work, in any field not just education, which means a lot of thought and analysis has to be put in to making sure the outcome is worth the input.

To do that, consideration must be given to the differences in structure between secondaries and primaries. For example, schools each appoint a member of staff to lead on a particular subject which means, when changes are made to the curriculum affecting that subject, there is someone in place to lead the implementation of the new structure.

That is tricky in primary schools because, unlike secondaries where teachers will usually have a degree in their subject and spend most their time teaching that one subject, in primaries teachers are generalists.

There are 11 statutory subjects and two non-statutory subjects meaning in some primaries there are more subjects than teachers! When you introduce an alteration to the backbone of teaching under those circumstances, it can be difficult to execute it effectively across all areas.

In Odyssey we have subject leader networks across the curriculum, so teachers leading a particular subject have support, but that is not the case everywhere. The risk of retrograde steps In the search for improvement, the focus often turns to what needs to change, rather than what is working and needs to stay. It’s crucial this review stays true to its remit of focussing on “supporting children and young people who are from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, those with a special educational need or disability (SEND) and those who are otherwise vulnerable.”

That’s because I believe there have been significant improvements within that domain in recent years which shouldn’t be lost. For example, cultural capital is now embedded in the curriculum in most schools and this is crucial in giving pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds a good start in life.

At Odyssey, we see the power of this as most of our schools serve high levels of disadvantage. If focusing on a change or ‘improvement’ in one area means a loss of focus on this area, it will be to the detriment of our children’s development.

A lot of work has also gone into ensuring the curriculum in each school is carefully structured - this wasn't always the case in the past and we need to ensure we don’t lose that structure.

Finally, the importance of knowledge in the curriculum is now firmly embedded. To non-educationalists this might seem odd – how can you have a curriculum without knowledge? But when I first started teaching, knowledge was not considered to be as important as skills – why should children learn facts when you can just look things up on the internet?

We now have a much better understanding of how children learn, the way in which knowledge and skills are intertwined and the importance therefore of providing learning with a careful balance of both. However, I worry about the risk of gradually reverting to the old approach.

Conclusion: Evolution not revolution is what the government has promised and that provides some hope that improvements will not be lost – that, combined with the fact some good people have been appointed to the review panel.

However, even with those best intentions, when we start looking to make changes, focus can inevitably be drawn away from what is already working.

I think it is crucial the review panel pays as much attention to the feedback on what is working well as it does suggestions of where improvements could be made and that any change is carefully considered for how it can be implemented and its repercussions to those elements which are currently serving our children well.