Teach Secondary Issue 14.3

A mandate to learn As the government readies its curriculum review, TobyMarshall looks back on the National Curriculum’s origins, how it’s changed, and where it’s likely to go from here... O n 11th June, 1987, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party secured its third successive General Election victory. The party’s manifesto spoke of a ‘British revival’, and of reversing our collective national decline. Thatcher opened the manifesto with the claim that the “ Conservative dream is at last becoming a reality. ” This and other messages that year won the party 42% of the popular vote and a 102-seat majority. The changes the Conservative Party made to state education after its 1987 election victory were arguably as significant as the reforms previously made by Winston Churchill’s Wartime Coalition in 1944 and HaroldWilson’s Labour government in 1965. It’s important to remember how the education changes that followed in the wake of the Conservatives’ 1987 electoral victory represented a radical break with the past – some of which, inmy view, were for the best, when it came to the National Curriculum. The post-war settlement For much of post-war period, there had been cross-party consensus where education was concerned, at least in terms of its content, with schools generally governed by the state, but at arm’s length. The overriding drive of government policy, above all else, was to increase access to education. From the 70s onwards, however, a growing coalition of cultural conservatives, liberal traditionalists and sections of the Conservative Party sought to shift the focus of education policy towards issues of content, quality and standards. Perhaps the most sympathetic reading of why the National Curriculum for England was introduced is that the government – and indeed much of the public, as well as many teachers and parents – wanted a clear statement of the knowledge and skills to which all young English people were educationally entitled. The idea of adopting a ‘National Curriculum’ had been discussed for many years, and enjoyed a broad base of support from both the political right and left. The roots of the idea can be traced back to the 1960s. Then Labour leader Harold Wilson’s introduction of comprehensive schooling had prompted lively debates between traditionalists – who tended to value academic knowledge, the canon and authority within education – and progressives, who typically prioritised pupils’ experiences, skills and dispositions. As these debates evolved, however, and the world turned a little darker, conservatives and liberal traditionalists began to actively challenge progressive assumptions with regards to education. A popular set of publications entitled ‘The Black Papers’ raised concerns over knowledge, educational standards and authority within education. Then, in 1974, a national scandal appeared to make their case for them. TheWilliamTyndale Affair At theWilliamTyndale Primary School in Islington, radical progressive teaching methods adopted by the headmaster had resulted in a collapse of school order. The teachers went on strike and a public enquiry was called. Tyndale was also useful to then Labour leader James Callaghan, who at the time was attempting to ideologically reposition The Labour Party. In his response to the Tyndale affair, Callaghan initiated what he called ‘The Great Debate’ over education. In a pivotal speech he gave at Ruskin College Oxford in 1976 (see tinyurl.com/ ts143-TP1), Callaghan addressed a great many educational issues with rare and admirable sophistication – touching on not just the National Curriculum, but also the problems he perceived with progressive education itself. Callaghan asked if a core National Curriculum of ‘basic knowledge’ was now needed, presenting this as a matter for further debate, while also stating that “ I am inclined to think there should be. ” Callaghan’s speech represented the first serious breach of post-war consensus on the curriculum. Around the same time, education came to be seen as not just an investment in the young, but as a potential solution to problems ailing the world’s adults. For Callaghan, getting the school curriculum right would be central to Britain’s economic recovery. TheNational Curriculumemerges In his political diaries, the one-time Conservative Education Secretary Kenneth Baker articulated a liberal, knowledge-centred and distinctly traditionalist view of education. In his view, it was impossible to argue for this type of education with teachers, noting that it took “ No time at all to discover that there was no way of getting a voluntary agreement. ” It was Baker who first ushered the National Curriculum into being. In a surprise move, he announced his plans to introduce it on breakfast TV, soon after which the new policy was included in the Conservatives’ pitch to the electorate. Baker, who has remained rightly proud of his work on the Curriculum, has since observed that the idea was “ Hailed as the flagship of the manifesto. ” Many teachers understandably opposed it on principle, since it represented an attack on “Education came to be seen as not just an investment in the young, but a potential solution to problems ailing the world’s adults” 12 teachwire.net/secondary