Teach Secondary -Issue 15.1

The opening statements of the Curriculum and Assessment Review’s recently published final report (see tinyurl.com/ts148-NL2 ) are a masterclass in the famous art of British diplomacy. Take this choice example from the foreword: “ The Review Panel recognises the hard-won successes and educational improvements of recent decades... ” And from the executive summary: “ We intend to maintain and build on the knowledge-rich approach and on the coherent structural architecture established by the last review. ” The telling termhere is ‘knowledge- rich’ – a useful shorthand for what the Conservatives believe they brought to state education, in part through the implementation of their own highly controversial curriculum and assessment review back in 2014. Substantive reform Inmany ways then, Professor Becky Francis’ review is a further indication of howwidely adopted the radical reforms pioneered byMichael Gove have become. It concedes the settled (and inmy opinion, wrong) view of many mainstream commentators on the centre-right, that education was the single greatest Conservative success in recent years; a victory of traditionalism over woolly progressivism. At the same time, however, the conciliatory language of the Francis review serves to mask what seems like more substantive reform. The report’s recommendations include: abolishing the English Baccalaureate; reducing the amount of time students spend in exams; restoring the academic status of the arts and other creative subjects; and strong arguments for the benefits of teaching oracy (once dismissed by former Schools Minister Nick Gibb as the encouragement of ‘idle chatter’ in classrooms). These changes have been sold as ‘ Evolution, not revolution ’ – but even within that messaging, there’s some covert political signalling at work. Range of concessions Firstly, Professor Francis will be acutely aware of the controversy – indeed, outrage – that accompanied the 2014 curriculum overhaul; how it triggered a national debate and resulted in widespread protest across the profession. It’s clear that she wants to adopt a ‘softly, softly’ approach, and she appears to have succeeded in that aim. Thus far, there’s been relatively little fuss, or indeed muchmainstream debate at all of the 2024/5 review. In her pointed comments about ‘evolution not revolution’, and publicly stated rejection of certain demands by some ‘campaigners’, Professor Francis shows a desire not to appear too radical or progressive. This is in line with the style and tone of the current Labour administration, which built its broad, yet shallow electoral majority in 2024 on an explicit rejection of so-called left-wing politics, and is currently moving rapidly to the right on other key social issues, notably immigration. Even so, in examining the Review’s proposed reforms, one can glimpse a range of concessions to myriad calls by campaigners, from both within and outside the profession, over the last 15 years. Many teachers and educationalists have, for example, long decried the overstuffing of the curriculum at every stage of a child’s life – from the bizarre requirement for 10-year-olds to grasp the use of ‘fronted adverbials’, to the insistence that secondary English and history students memorise great wads of ‘traditionalist’ knowledge. Consider also the sustained and well-evidenced protests by many groups opposing the dramatic drop-off in arts subjects, oracy skills and citizenship studies over the past decade. Or, indeed, the work of those who have justly argued that the intensification of exams since 2014 has placed greater stress on pupils, widened divides between social classes and sidelined more effective forms of pupil assessment. That the Review regularly emphasises the importance of fostering a ‘love of learning’ throughout its near 200-page length is surely down to the often marginalised work of educational progressives going back at least a decade, if not much longer. Apositive direction? For all the final report’s diplomatic language, and the Review panel’s apparent determination to not be seen as overly progressive, Professor Francis et al. are plainly trying to steer the system in a more positive direction. In many respects, they have come both to praise and bury Gove. It’s hard to know at this stage how successful the Reviewwill be in the long term. There are several factors well beyond its control – not least ongoing staff shortages and declining morale, plus the evermore fraught question of SEND funding and continuing lack of capital investment. To those challenges I would add the perennial problem of a hierarchical school structure sitting side-by-side with a nominal comprehensive system – but that, as they say, is another story... The recently published Curriculum and Assessment Review seems to call for a careful adjustment of the government’s education priorities – but its cautious language conceals what may yet prove to be some genuinely profound changes in the years ahead... 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 14 teachwire.net/secondary S C H O O L O F T H O U G H T