Curriculum review and academies required to follow the state curriculum

[HooverIsAlwaysBroken]

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/07/19/what-is-the-national-curriculum-and-why-is-it-being-reviewed/

https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/becky-francis-leads-dfe-curriculum-review

I had missed this. So there will be a review of the curriculum (good), focus on ensuring access for diverse and SEND in mainstream schools (good if properly implemented), potentially less exams (not sure about this) and academies not allowed to go outside the curriculum. I thought that many academies did well, including the Micaela Community School?

what are people’s thoughts?

The trouble is that the status quo is not working for huge numbers of pupils. Between a third and a quarter don’t reach the expected standard by the end of year 6 in reading, writing and maths. The grammar content required for the GPS test is ludicrous and it actively contributes to disengagement with writing. The curriculum is narrowed in Y6 in almost all schools because the KS2 tests are high stakes for the school.

At secondary level, the volume of memorisation needed for GSCEs is so demanding, there is very little room to develop critical thinking or independent learning skills. There is a disconnect between the Ks2 and KS3 curriculums, especially in English, which adds to the stress of transition from primary to secondary.

Too much of the secondary maths curriculum is abstract and lacks the relevance that might engage struggling learners. There should absolutely be higher order mathematical content available to pupils, but requiring all children to pass or continue studying GSCE maths to age 18 is just bonkers.

And assessment drives teaching pretty well from age 10. Teachers have to teach to the assessment statement or the AO far too much of the time. They teach how to answer exam questions rather than teaching The disciplinary understanding needed to develop a love of a subject.

In 2010 the Tory government chucked out a newly developed curriculum before it was implemented. They brought in a pastiche of a 1950s private school curriculum in the belief that harder work would lead to higher achievement. In concert with Ofsted and ludicrous requirements to show ‘progress’ in every lesson, this has led to a draining of joy from school life. Of course there are lots and lots of brilliant teachers who work miracles with what we have, but there are lots who have voted with their feet. Yes, there is a higher level of SEND need now and less money, but some of the need, and a lot of behavioural issues, result from an inappropriate curriculum, unrealistic expectations and a failure to understand how children learn.

I agree. Morale is on the floor and the sector is broke so to expect teachers to get behind you (when all you're promising is a fresh workload) seems daft.

I hope they keep KS1 SATs as being optional - frankly I think they should be mandatory and untimed but also unreported. I.e. the DfE gets the data but the school's numbers aren't made public.

SEN has exploded since 2020 with all manner of expectations flooding in from parents and no money. SEN in general is a total money pit so I've no idea how they're going to manage that.

“but requiring all children to pass or continue studying GSCE maths to age 18 is just bonkers.”

I think the idea is that those who can only manage Foundation level Maths at GCSE level should continue to learn some more practical Maths? Or do you really think Foundation Level Maths sets people up well for life?

I think people lacking in Maths skills are probably also those who are lacking in financial awareness potentially later on pensions, insurance, mortgages, basic accounting, how PAYE works, basic statistics, taxation - these are all important skills most children should learn?
I would focus on 16-18 Maths being there to set them up to manage the financial aspects of life later on and so they are able to confidently eg create a business.

Let’s face it - succeeding in real life now requires the navigation of complex systems and understanding basic amounts of laws, rights, practical maths concepts.

I hope they keep KS1 SATs as being optional - frankly I think they should be mandatory and untimed but also unreported. I.e. the DfE gets the data but the school's numbers aren't made public.

That's how it was before. The tests were mandatory and untimed and the results weren't reported because they were just used to inform teacher judgement, which them was reported. I wouldn't object to going back to that system but just using the tests themselves wouldn't be effective because, frankly, the KS1 tests are too easy/simple. They don't provide an adequate enough level of challenge to inform the accountability model of assessment by themselves.

The trouble is that the status quo is not working for huge numbers of pupils. Between a third and a quarter don’t reach the expected standard by the end of year 6 in reading, writing and maths. The grammar content required for the GPS test is ludicrous and it actively contributes to disengagement with writing. The curriculum is narrowed in Y6 in almost all schools because the KS2 tests are high stakes for the school.

This, I think, is really interesting because the numbers reaching and not reaching are a bit of a red herring. The percentage "pass" levels are decided before the tests are even sat and grade boundaries changed to reflect the numbers that the DfE want to report. There's also a content/challenge level issue. If you actually sit down and compare the first tests of this new curriculum (the sample, 2016, 2017), they are nowhere near as complex as the ones now, particularly in Maths, which is just artificially keeping the "pass" levels down.

I'd also argue it's possible to still teach a broad and balanced curriculum in Y6 and still do well in the assessments but, yes, I know of a number of schools across a range of different areas (high deprivation through to leafy lane) that do narrow to various extents.

@Araminta1003 my mistake - functional maths is an option for post-16 and yes, vital life skills. But my point regarding the KS3 and 4 content that all pupils have to study remains. There is too much for many students, and by squeezing functional maths into a dense curriculum, some students just switch off altogether. They then have to give time post-16 to basics they could have mastered much earlier.

@Iamnotthe1 yes, the grade boundaries are subject to manipulation. And yes, the tests are somewhat harder to pass than a decade ago. But to have such a high proportion of children being deemed to have not met expectations at the end of primary is damaging and demoralising.

A review of curriculum and assessment that is informed by reality, rather than the inflated performance of ministers’ pet schools, and which aims to create something fit for purpose in the 21st century is to be welcomed. With properly supported implementation, the short-term workload pain should be more than compensated for in long-term, sustainable gain in outcomes and improved mental health of pupils and teachers.

yes, the grade boundaries are subject to manipulation. And yes, the tests are somewhat harder to pass than a decade ago. But to have such a high proportion of children being deemed to have not met expectations at the end of primary is damaging and demoralising

It's absolutely damaging and demoralising - totally agree. I'm also pointing that it's fake and forcefully manipulated. A child this year who, in Maths for example, gained a scaled score of between 97-99 would likely have "passed" in the tests from 2017 or 2018 because the actual exams (and how much the children were being asked to do) were easier. It's not that children aren't actually reaching the standard. It's that the DfE is choosing not to acknowledge where the children actually are by artificially fixing the percentage of children at the expected standard through manipulating the difficulty and complexity of the tests and the grade boundaries.

Year 1 definitely needs an overhaul. The pressure on some barely 5 year olds is way too much. I’ve just left my year 1 TA role because I don’t want to be part of the system that is so damaging and rigid (that could be down to the MAT to be fair)

@Iamnotthe1 I think we’re saying the same thing. Assessment is highly flawed and satisfies nobody,

@JT69 not sure if your former MAT was particularly extreme, but the expectations in Y1 are too high for many children, especially summer born, or challenged in some other way. Accusations fly round about dumbing down, and the bigotry of low expectations, but the timing of when content is introduced and the narrowness of the curriculum lead ultimately to lower outcomes because children and staff become so disaffected - as indeed you did.

It IS broke, and I’m glad the new government are going to try to fix it.

Maths is an abstract subject. I wouln't change the current maths GCSE which works well.