I wrote the other day about the latest DfE rebuttal of the idea that it should do anything to encourage a focus on sustainability in schools. However, I think this response seems to go beyond the usual answer which was all about slimming down the national curriculum in order to free up schools, etc. You know ...
For example, I have not seen before the assertion that 'the national curriculum is a benchmark’ for all schools to measure themselves by. Have you?
Two points seem to me to follow from this:
A. If we are to take the benchmark idea seriously, then this presumably means that all schools have to take the NC (or at least what it says) seriously. Thus there is no real difference between academies and maintained schools.
B. Looking at these two quotes:
1. “… we have significantly slimmed down national curriculum (sic) which focuses on the essential elements.”
2. “ If autonomous academies or multi trust academies (MATs) wish to deliver the national curriculum in their schools, they can do so confidently. However, we also want academies to use their freedoms to innovate and build more stretching and tailored curricula, to meet the particular needs of their pupils or their local area …”
It seems to me that the second passage implies that an academy cannot now just "deliver the national curriculum … confidently” as it only contains essential elements and is therefore not sufficiently stretching. If so, this must apply to all schools. As such, just teaching the national curriculum is not enough for anyone. So, in curriculum terms, there would seem to be little to differentiate maintained schools, academies and free schools (ie, non-fee-paying independent schools), and fee-paying independent schools any more: all are subject to the 2002 Education Act, and all have to teach well beyond the national curriculum.
Responses
An interesting reply. In reality, most schools I know are alrwady following the National Curriculum to some extent, including independents and academies.
In the case of primary schools, this is particularly true of its detailed prescriptions for English and Maths, where there is perhaps a fear of deviating too far from the prescription on those parts of the curriculum where there is a penalty for failure. There is more laxity around the arts and humanities, and indeed in some schools (and year groups) the quality of provision leaves a lot to be desired. So, for much of Y6 there is sometimes little other than English and Maths: 'teaching to the test.'
In the case of secondaries, the exam board specs in effect trump the NC.
In both instances, the assessment tail tends to wag the curriculum dog. It was perhaps ever thus, though when whole school performance is so tightly wedded to SATS and exam results, the consequence tends to be a severe narrowing around the measurables.
What current government policymakers seem to like is the idea of 'tight' outcomes, achieved via 'loosely'- defined processes (except when it comes to English and Maths, where the old command-and-control tendencies seem to come into play). This is true of health as well as education policy: it is, if you like, a managerial style. It tends to privilege data over the 'fluffy' stuff of people and processes.
Having decided to in effect abolish maintained schools, the Govt is faced with the problem of what to do with the National Curriculum. I am not minded to see the whole thing as a conspiracy, a curriculum so awful that people will choose to leave the maintained sector simply to escape it. (But I have certainly heard that suggestion!) On the strength of this letter, DfE's solution seems to be that old policymaker's trick: to give it the status of non-statutory guidance.
As we know from the old non-statutory QCA schemes and DCSF National Strategies, when the stakes are high and schools are under-confident, they will pretty well always stick to the non-statutory guidance. When the stakes are lower (as with the old non-statutory Sustainable Schools Framework), they will feel more free to ignore it.
In this, it will be interesting to see how Ofsted behave: if they start penalising schools for narrowing their curricula and deviating too far from the gist of the broad National Curriculum, then schools may well respond accordingly. To date, apart from occasions when curriculum-narrowing has been a result of alleged religious interference, they do not seem to have shown great interest.
When NC2014 was announced, it was always meant to be a minimum entitlement (though with primary English and Maths that minimum is pretty big!) So in that sense, Nick Gibb is only reiterating what has been said before. I know some primary schools, including maintained schools, who have chosen to add their own content in some subjects, but with the pressure on for the 'core' to be delivered to a high measurable standard (whatever that might be), then that tends to put the squeeze on time, resources and attention when it comes to the rest of the 'minimum' curriculum, let alone anything else. The EBacc is I think having a similar effect on secondary schools, especially when it comes to arts and vocational subjects: for example, I have met several Drama teachers who have recently been reassigned to English.
So where does this leave us? What hope for extra curriculum space for climate change, sustainability, global learning or the SDGs? I am not quite sure, except that such space will continue to be tightly squeezed by the 'basics' for some time to come, in all but the most confident and/or defiant schools. I think it does possibly mean that the National Curriculum, for all its flaws, is not quite yet on its way out - and that at least gives us a common point of reference for a while when talking with schools about curriculum, resources or CPD.
... And I think we need to keep an eye out for Ofsted, and what they get up to next ..
We are frequently told that academisation allows greater flexibility and freedom to innovate but Nick Gibb’s reply indicates that the slimmer national curriculum is still expected to provide a standard provision and will be used as a benchmark by DfE. It is clear that if an academy is not performing well (and questions are being asked in many), the routine position for DfE will be this benchmark. As a baseline expectation, it will provide them with a recognised fail-safe standard whilst offering wriggle-room opportunities to suit each situation. I suspect this was always going to be the case as the national curriculum has to be seen to have some role in the new school structure and openly getting rid now would be too controversial.
The suggestion that academies will be expected to develop a stretched and tailored curriculum does indeed seem to imply that delivering to benchmark standards will not be enough. It appears that academies should be actively seeking ways to extend their provision in additional areas. Forgive me if I think that this begins to ring bells back to the specialist schools programme of pre-Coalition Government days (and when schools could then access additional funds to aid development).
It is stated that these additional options will be developed by academies and will ensure that children receive a ‘rounded education’, whatever that may be. I have not seen a DfE approved description of ‘rounded education’ but the implication here is that the national curriculum does not do enough to provide one.
In a previous Department response to me, Nicky Morgan made it clear that DfE will not be coordinating the school focused programmes being supported in various ways by other Government Departments. This might have included programmes such as Global Learning Programme (DfID/ Pearson), Walk to School week (DOT), solar power initiatives (DECC) and Higher Lever Stewardship/ school access to farm visits (DEFRA). These might have been considered as part of this extra provision to help with a ‘rounded education’ but presumably this is not what is being hinted at here.
The letter mentions that some academies might choose to follow a more challenging maths curriculum and it would not be unreasonable to expect such an academy to have additional staff expertise in the subject and for different specialist topic areas to be clearly understood and explored.
If Nick Gibb is suggesting that climate change, sustainability and global issues could be considered as curriculum extension areas by academies, where does he think the expertise will be found? The benefits of sustainable procurement, zero waste management, carbon emissions reductions and access to nature can all be recognised but training is needed if they are to be assessed as a component in a quantitative assessment of school performance.
How are academies going to learn about the options for topics spanning such a huge number of issues linked to global concerns such as climate change and sustainable development? School leaders need to have the skills to assess the value of the resources and projects they are offered to ensure what is provided is appropriate and high quality. In this context, guidance from DfE still seems to be a reasonable request and a head start could be gained from the documentation already available in Scotland and Wales.
Chris Southwood
April 14th 2016