Teach Secondary Issue 14.3

their professional autonomy. It also soon became clear that it was something of a bureaucratic monstrosity, attracting internal criticism fromThatcher herself. She also felt it to be too progressivist for her tastes. I would argue that the 1988 Curriculum’s main flawwas the curious method of assessment it was organised around, which generated a structure so complex and unwieldy that the entire curriculumhad to be completely rewritten in 1995. Similar criticisms could be made of the National Curriculum launched in 2013 by then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, under which the core subject orders for primary were overly detailed. And yet, there was much to commend about the 1988 and 2013 versions – particularly their foregrounding of knowledge. It could be argued that what both curriculums sought to do was offer a grammar school education to all. And that’s something I’m all for. Young people need a liberal, knowledge-rich education. The alternative is what Gove rightly once called the “ Soft bigotry of low expectations. ” The new review Withmore than 10 years having passed since the National Curriculumwas last looked at, the curriculum review initiated by the current Labour administration and headed up by Professor Becky Francis marks a welcome development. However, I’d suggest that as well as considering the past mistakes of the Conservatives, the government should also examine those of the last Labour administration – particularly the National Curriculum reforms made between 2007 and 2010, under the auspices of the ‘Qualifications and Curriculum’ and latterly the ‘Qualifications and CurriculumDevelopment Authority. Those published versions of the primary and secondary curriculums amounted to a real retrograde step back, in terms of the position occupied by knowledge within the wider school curriculum. The latest review is yet to publish its final recommendations, but some of what’s been said so far sounds positive. I particularly welcome the proposed commitment to ‘ Evolution, not revolution ’, and the stated intention to maintain intellectual standards through a number of important qualifications. As a film studies teacher, I think placing a greater emphasis on the arts would be a great idea. Study of the arts is, of course, academic – but it’s practical too. At the same time, however, there’s talk of the review suggesting that the curriculum be made more ‘relevant’ to young people. My concern is that ‘relevance’ could be used as a criteria for narrowing the scope of our academic ambition for the young – especially when the very terms of reference state that the new curriculum should be “ Inclusive, reflecting the issues and diversities of our society and ensuring that all young people are represented.” Surely a key purpose of any school curriculum is to do precisely the opposite – to introduce the next generation to people and places they haven’t previously encountered, and whose lives and experiences are radically different to their own? At the time of writing, this latest curriculum review is in its consultation phase. Professor Francis has sought to clarify some issues, pointing towards its likely direction of travel, and for me, the signs been encouraging. At a recent education conference, she made clear that in her view, “ Subject-specific knowledge remains the best investment we have to secure the education young people need in a world of rapid technological and social change ” – a point reiterated in the review’s recently ABOUT THE AUTHOR Toby Marshall is an A Level film studies teacher IN BRIEF WHAT’S THE ISSUE? The need for a National Curriculum is now widely recognised across the profession – though the nature and content of the Curriculum schools follow has evolved significantly. And is about to change again. WHAT’S BEING SAID? Early indications seem to suggest that the revised curriculum currently being worked on may entail more incremental changes than we’ve seen before – but also that ‘relevance’ of curriculum content to students’ lives will be a key requirement. WHAT’S REALLY HAPPENING? Moves to lock in ‘relevance’ as a National Curriculum requirement risks going against a core tenet of the National Curriculum since its inception – to open up access to powerful knowledge by introducing students to hitherto unfamiliar material. THE TAKEAWAY History has shown that the National Curriculum is at its most effective when unencumbered by bureaucracy, and when the valuing of knowledge is placed front and centre. published interim report (see tinyurl.com/ts143-TP2) . Professor Francis said other things at that conference with which I disagree – but that statement, at least, really was catnip to this liberal traditionalist teacher. 13 teachwire.net/secondary H O T TO P I C