Teach Secondary 14.4

It’s not unduly cynical to observe that governments often set up major reviews of policy with a pretty clear idea of the outcome they’d like to see. Sometimes – as with the current Casey review into social care, which won’t report until 2028 – there’s justified suspicion that the government wants to kick an intractable (and expensive) issue into the long grass. Moderate reforms The ongoing Curriculum and Assessment review, however, has a much tighter timetable. Led by Professor Becky Francis, chief executive of the respected Education Endowment Foundation, it seems likely to propose a number of changes the Labour government has already indicated it would welcome. Sure enough, the interim report published by Professor Francis and her team inMarch this year (see tiny.cc/ ts144-MB1) hinted at some moderate reforms to an overstuffed curriculum that currently squeezes out the arts and effective vocational pathways. Clearly, she’s treading carefully, insisting that she’s largely interested in “ Evolution, not revolution.” And yet, the Review’s proposals are already being treated as highly controversial. In a recent New Statesman interview (see tiny.cc/ ts144-MB2), Michaela Community School headteacher Katherine Birbalsingh lambasted both Professor Francis and Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, declaring that, “ They’re going to destroy our schools ”. ShadowEducation Secretary Laura Trott, meanwhile, has described the interim report’s proposals as a ‘wrecking ball’ (see tiny.cc/ts144-MB3) . Such extreme reactions illustrate once again the continuing influence of a certain cohort of education leaders enabled and promoted by the Conservatives’ remaking of the educational landscape between 2010 and 2024. Sadly, their protests serve to drown out a necessary – and muchmore interesting – series of conversations regarding the best, and potentially deeper purposes of a contemporary curriculum. An‘aims-based’ curriculum In a presentation to the House of Commons last autumn, BrianMatthews of Kings College stressed the importance of a curriculum that could help pupils engage with democracy, arguing that its removal from the existing curriculum had resulted in “ A lack of critical awareness, alienation from education, individualism, and little acceptance of diversity and varied gender roles,” and concluding that “This has helped promote right-wing values. ” Professor JohnWhite, a distinguished philosopher of education, has also written extensively on the importance of an ‘aims-based curriculum’, highlighting the innovative work done towards the end of New Labour’s time in power – particularly the activities of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, before it was swept away in 2010 (see tiny.cc/ts144-MB4 ). Between 2007 and 2010, the English school curriculum sought to ensure that children could become successful learners capable of leading safe, healthy and fulfilling lives, and eventually responsible citizens willing and able to contribute to wider society. AsWhite points out, none of these aims exclude the study of specific subjects, be it maths, science or whatever else – but they do enable more interdisciplinary learning (climate change being one example) and allow more space for aesthetic appreciation. Extracurricular exclusion White’s proposals echo the work of those other notable education luminaries, TimBrighouse andMick Waters. In their 2022 book, About Our Schools , both argued for a fundamental redrawing of “ The entire learning experience that we (should) plan for our children during their school years ”. Brighouse andWaters were keenly aware of the thousands of children regularly excluded –mainly by poverty – from the kind of extracurricular experiences that are typically the birthright of their middle class peers. Many have become disengaged from school completely, thanks to the highly academic post-2014 curriculum and exams system. Professor Francis will, of course, be aware of these arguments and their origins inmainstreamLabour thinking. JohnWhite has since talked of his hope that her commitment to ‘evolution’ amounts to an implicit promise from the government and its allies to revisit the curriculum further down the line and perhaps imbue it with some new and fresh principles. At least for now, it seems that both Professor Francis and the government are acutely conscious of the Govian education establishment’s hostility to risk edging into bolder territory. It looks like we shouldn’t expect much in the way of radical change from Labour’s curriculum and assessment reforms – so what’s stopping them from going further? Melissa Benn Melissa Benn (@Melissa_Benn) is the author of Life Lessons: The Case for a National Education Service , and is a Visiting Professor at York St John university 16 teachwire.net/secondary