Massive changes to curriculum, is it too late to change this?

[nycortaki]

This is not just about stonehenge, it is massive changes to maths, science, history, literature - phrases such as moving of goal posts and rewriting history do not come close!

The pushback on page 1 was not as you say, I think you have misunderstood what they actually meant!

In the article I read about Becky Francis last year, she was quoted as saying that she wanted to radically change the curriculum and wanted extensive changes, and wanted changes which would reflect girls' needs.

The interim report refers to changes wanted but not specific about what exactly.

Extensive changes have been referred to in other sources - see also the article I linked upthread.

The posters here are aware of all this.Could anyone link a good source for the changes referred to in the article I linked, and the exact changes desired by Becky Francis and others? As they stand now, current state of play. Thanks

What you say about the current curriculum is interesting, though I think that the points raised by the think tank need to be taken on board and we have got to the point where we need a more exact curriculum rather than leaving it up to schools, as other countries have, as there is such a variance now in terms of content and quality across schools.

I watched the video. It’s deliberately misleading, with the strapline “Woke Stonehenge: Kids to be taught black people built site with no evidence”. There does exist a book that someone wrote independently, and it has been bought by some schools, and some are using it. The use of this book is not a recommendation of the curriculum review. It’s unrelated. It’s also not a designated school textbook. They also talk on about how “everyone is being taught we should be ashamed to be British”. This is also not a recommendation of the curriculum review, and the video doesn’t say that it is. It’s good we examine our history from all sides. My kids get taught about what happened, why, impacts of this, how do we know, what is the evidence.

The only actual reference to the review of curriculum is a comment that the review wants the curriculum to be “relevant” - this was taken as a terrible idea by the people in the video. Immediately scoffing that this would be anything other than a total denigration of Britishness. This is wholly their own assumption and there’s nothing in the interim review to say what this will mean. Certainly not that it means that everyone will have to teach from the book they’re referring to at the start.

They also say it was rushed through - there are plenty of references to the upcoming review and reports on teaching websites (eg TES). Government page inviting comments. And there will be follow-ups on individual curriculum areas. You’ve seen the interim report I think - nothing in there worries me. They’re examining the impact of the Ebacc - it’s been great at improving the take up of history and geography, but it’s made it much harder for pupils to take up art, design technology, etc - and that’s not good either. So hopefully they’ll take a balanced look at that. It’s not “dumbing down”.

I don’t think there is another place where the interim review suggestions are listed in more detail - they haven’t done it yet. The video hardly refers to the actual curriculum review and almost none of what the video is talking about refers to the curriculum review. The Policy Exchange report is a separate thing. There isn’t any more detail, and none of what was being talked about in the video relates to the outcomes from the interim curriculum review - only that the curriculum review mentions - amongst many other things - that it’s considering the relevance of content in some subject specific areas (not listed). The video makes massive assumptions, unfounded by anything in the report, about what that means.

This is about the curriculum review before it started: https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/11/what-is-the-national-curriculum-and-why-is-it-being-reviewed/

This is an article summarising the interim review in March https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/becky-francis-changes-in-curriculum-assessment-review

And this https://www.gov.uk/government/news/curriculum-and-assessment-review-publishes-interim-findings

Also to add - the taarifa article you linked to is an example of one group saying that things should be done in one particular way. There are loads of groups all talking about what they want the curriculum to look like. These discussions don’t actually reflect what will or won’t happen. They don’t reflect what the curriculum review is or isn’t going to suggest.

The TES article by Becky Francis that I linked above says:

As I have said from the outset, we are committed to an approach of “evolution not revolution”.
The responses to our call for evidence demonstrate that the sector is torn between wanting little change and wanting more significant change.
The latter is even more the case for non-educationalists, many of whom feel that this should be a moment of “revolution not evolution”.

These sorts of articles, union meetings, think tank proposals etc are what she’s talking about here, when she refers to the different degrees of change being called for. The review is trying to tread a deliberate and careful path, and not be swayed by all the shouting.

That was kind of my point about individual schools catching pupils up. There are some secondaries that will catch pupils up from their entry points and get 100% or near 100% pass in maths or English. But it’s assumed that it won’t happen at a population level. The setting of grade boundaries for papers is a bit more complicated than just 40% won’t get a 4 or above but it does work on KS2 results and an assumption that 1 cohort won’t be particularly different than the next. It isn’t even theoretically possible for 100% to pass.

Incidentally, this years year 11 are the first year not to have a ks2 test result due to Covid IIRC. This may well do all sorts of weird and wonderful things to grade boundaries on papers.

Actually, now I think about it. The Tories are always banging on about how much improvement British kids have made in international testing. I don’t seem to recall a similar jump in the GCSE pass rate. Although if there was we’d call that grade inflation.

No, the article I linked referred to changes which form part of the "extreme liberal" agenda.

Not just a lone group saying things should be done in one particular way.

Actually if you have a look at the gov uk page which I quoted from, you will find that the reasoning and method behind boundary setting is very clear, and nothing to do with "40 percent won't get a 4 or above".

You are right that covid affected things though.

If some secondaries are getting a near 100 pc pass then other schools can do it too. This is what we should be aiming for. A lot better than 60 percent, in any event.

@noblegiraffethe exec summary seems sensible to me

Sorry, I posted without editing. For "it is basically indoctrination" read "much of the new stuff being taught (ie from the extreme liberal agenda) is basically indoctrination".

Don't forget to "react" to the post near the beginning too, if you haven't already done so.

I appreciate you taking the time to link various things, but none of these are clear about what specific changes to subject content. It is all overview and wishywashy. What I wanted was the detail of what exact changes Becky Francis and her team wanted to make to subject content.

Why are exact details of subject content changes not being made available? I struggle to believe that nothing has yet been thought of, that all the magic is to take place in the next 6 months.

I don't agree with your analysis of the video. There was nothing deliberately misleading. It was a brief chat and both were clearly aware of the activism around these changes. I laughed when one mentioned rap being analysed instead of poetry ( actually the poetry bit is my addition, but it is all on the same lines). This is what some of us are facing in real life.

Much of the new stuff taken from the extreme liberal agenda is already being taught (ie from the extreme liberal agenda) and is unfortunately basically indoctrination.

In an earlier post you refer to children developing critical thinking skills. This is not possible when children are being taught things which are not evidenced and so I think glossing over schools buying books with questionable content is not appropriate - where this happens. Critical thinking skills is about children knowing facts, being able to distinguish between facts which are indisputable and those in relation to which different interpretations exist, and being able to make connections for themselves to produce cogent theories/ideas/argument. This is broadly one of the good and valid points being made in the video.

What I wanted was the detail of what exact changes Becky Francis and her team wanted to make to subject content.

And you think they can possibly come up with that within a few months? Are you wanting something shit and rushed?

No, the article I linked referred to changes which form part of the "extreme liberal" agenda.

One person's 'extreme liberal agenda' is another person's 'moving away from the stale, male and pale version'. Opinions are like that.

If some secondaries are getting a near 100 pc pass then other schools can do it too. This is what we should be aiming for.

This sounds suspiciously like 'all schools should be above average'. You do realise that pass percentages are calculated at a population level?

What you say about the current curriculum is interesting, though I think that the points raised by the think tank need to be taken on board and we have got to the point where we need a more exact curriculum rather than leaving it up to schools, as other countries have, as there is such a variance now in terms of content and quality across schools.

The problem with this is then it makes it very easy for whoever the government of the day is to suppress the bits of history they don’t like.

However history is taught it is going to have some selection bias; that is inherent with the subject. I prefer a situation where at a population level there are different viewpoints and biases rather than one State view.

I laughed when one mentioned rap being analysed instead of poetry

Why? What's your definition of what poetry is? That's a very narrow view of the arts, especially since the arts are in constant development. Setting the bar for 'what art is' and then keeping it there forever does everyone a disservice.

Much of the new stuff taken from the extreme liberal agenda is already being taught (ie from the extreme liberal agenda) and is unfortunately basically indoctrination.

Please provide some concrete examples of what is in the current curriculum that you consider extreme and liberal.

Critical thinking skills is about children knowing facts, being able to distinguish between facts which are indisputable and those in relation to which different interpretations exist, and being able to make connections for themselves to produce cogent theories/ideas/argument.

In a subject like History, there are a lot of things which are about different interpretations and actually not all that many which are about facts. I mean, the dates on which things happened are broadly indisputable in recent-ish history, but once you go back a few hundred years even that becomes murky. And actully, you don't need to stick exclusively to facts in order to teach your students to think critically, make connections and produce cogent theories and arguments. Analysing different interpretations does the same, as long as the student is taught to understand that sometimes, there are no certainties.

You seem to want a comfortable set-in-stone black/white curriculum in which answers are right or wrong. That kind of simplistic thinking is symptomatic of the typical GBeebies viewer.

Indeed. Thankfully we do!.

What I wanted was the detail of what exact changes Becky Francis and her team wanted to make to subject content.
Why are exact details of subject content changes not being made available? I struggle to believe that nothing has yet been thought of, that all the magic is to take place in the next 6 months.

It doesn’t exist yet. The consultation only closed a few months ago. None of the opinion pieces you’re linking to refer to the recommendations. Why do you think there are exact detailed recommendations yet? Also, the report says that there will be more to do after the final report is finished - there will be further phases.

Next steps for subject changes
To this end, our interim report sets out our next steps. As well as analysing these issues, we will recommend a phased programme of work on different subjects, some of which will be conducted under the auspices of the review and some of which will be commissioned for following phases. This will allow reforms to be made gradually in a way that ensures they can be implemented effectively and that does not destabilise the system.

You silly little goose.

This.

I can't believe this thread was started at all, never mind the unwillingness on the part of the OP to get up off their fundament and do their own research,

I blame the teachers.

I am not sure what you mean. The proposed changes are due to be put forward now - what are they?

And what sort of silly little goose are you?

I don't have simplistic thinking, and just for the record I think that what you are saying here is not correct at all. I am not sure you have any idea how important high levels of literacy, historical knowledge, maths competency is for individuals. I think you have seen some bandwagon which purports to support diversity and inclusivity (although in fact doesn't) and you have jumped on it without analysis or critical thought. Okay?

You say you have opinions- yes you do, and your opinions are valid, and my opinions are different from yours and also valid.

Just to be clear, the final report is due in Autumn 2025 - so we are getting very close which is worrying if you are saying that there are no concrete proposals yet.

"get up off their fundament and do their own research" - well, if you think there is any information at all on the web which is open source, which I have asked for here, please link.

Lots of seemingly clever remarks, but the reality, with all due respect, is that none of you seem to know what you are talking about.