The National Curriculum Review has brought the perfect storm of pressures in the education sector front and center since it was announced in the summer.
Although Professor Francis, the Review Chair, has been at pains to stress that the scope of the review is limited to curriculum (and does not cover resources or enrichment), it inevitably raises the question at the heart of the debate: what do young people need to learn?
There are immediate practical concerns around changes to curriculum (resourcing, take-up of subjects, recruitment and retention of teachers, Ofsted priorities) and then there are the wider questions about what conceptually the curriculum should cover. Should you have to attain a certain level in core subjects before you are “rewarded” with creative, sport, or wider subjects? Should schools teach what employers will look for, or support wider life skills? Should there be minimum social and emotional skills curricula that take priority? Should teaching be vocational or aspirational – and when should young people be allowed to make this choice?
Evidence from the NEU (and their Arts & Minds campaign) has stressed the need to retain breadth in the curriculum – reminding us of the value of creative subjects, sports and languages in building workplace and life skills and in developing a love of learning in young people who struggle in the “core” subjects. Breadth in what school offers is also a crucial factor in addressing the skyrocketing rates of exclusion and self-exclusion in young people, with school staff reporting that many young people only attend
Khulisa, and many other organisations working with young people, have contributed evidence on the need for flexibility in the curriculum to allow young people to access foundational social and emotional support while still being able to keep up with their schoolwork – and the huge toll on lost learning from school absence. This must mean a less content-heavy curriculum with greater depth dedicated to fewer topics, giving pupils a less pressured, more skill-rich learning experience and allowing teachers to use their experience and knowledge to bring subjects alive. As a member of the Fair Education Alliance, we would also recommend you read their survey results here, outlining the key consensus positions on the review from their members.
The key problems of an over-full curriculum, narrowing subject choice and a lot of rote learning (according to the OECD, the UK is the 3rd highest for rote learning in mainstream education) mean that for the young people we work with who often miss chunks of classroom time it is extremely difficult to catch up. There is very little time for revision or review, and pupils often have little time to grasp key concepts – especially if they struggle with the rote learning model. This puts immense pressure on teachers and pupils alike, and the pupil absence rates and staff retention numbers speak loudly and clearly to the result.
Teachers are expected to cover not only excellent classroom teaching but also spot safeguarding concerns, deal with referrals to other support services and in some cases act as the main source of structure, continuity and support in young people’s lives. Couple this with a crammed curriculum, chronic teaching shortages and results-focused Ofsted priorities, and we create an environment in our schools that cannot sustain even basic wellbeing for a growing number of young people.
At Khulisa we seek to support school staff, parent/carers and young people dyregulated by this environment, but without fundamental change to examination and performance structures in schools from both the national curriculum and Ofsted, this can only ever be a stopgap. Delaying this approach will have serious consequences, not only for young people and those who work with them, but for the UK at large – it is estimated that each persistently absent child will cost the tax payer £170,000 over their lifetime (with 22/23‘s cohort costing an estimated £1.6 billion and losing 32 million learning days). As our Welfare bill is projected to escalate, what argument is there for not prioritising investment in this vital change?
We need a national curriculum for all that offers not punishment but opportunity – offering embedded enrichment, social and emotional support, and opportunities to develop and reflect on strengths, interests and pathways forward into a productive and purposeful adult life.
To make this possible, Khulisa supports calls for:
- A curriculum with less content but greater time for depth of learning, critical skills and self-direction
- A reduction in rote learning and greater space for social and emotional skill development
- Greater flexibility and breadth in the curriculum to allow young people to access support and interventions, and to learn through the subjects they love
- Greater agency for teachers within the curriculum to engage young people and refer them to interventions when needed