Our curriculums are too full, says Dylan Wiliam

[Piggywaspushed]

I love this article:

www.tes.com/news/dylan-wiliam-immoral-teach-too-full-curriculum

With all this concern (verging on panic), especially at year 10 end, about students missing out and needing to catch up when/if they return to school and dissatisfaction about remote learningand widening gaps, , and Amanda Spielman's frankly not that helpful comments yesterday , maybe it is time to think about the UK approach to learning and testing, and how much content we feel the need to stuff in to kids.

The bit that resonates is his comment about feedback.

Maybe there are some subjects which feel there is not an overload of GCSE content but the ones I teach have certainly overdone things to please Gove Ofqual.

We sometimes play fantasy curriculum for lower sets and it would be exactly that sort of thing- how to wire a plug, electrical safety, food hygiene , diseases and personal hygiene , contraception , simple machines- levers etc and how they work in real life, vaccines, environmental, recycling etc Basically anything that might possibly be if actual use in later life. Make it a single GCSE and make it enjoyable and relevant . It shouldn't be difficult .

My viewpoint isn't about setting as I wouldn't really like an Apartheid curriculum and am not a fan of setting : I just think the curriculum is too content heavy for everyone! I am actually really glad DS's GCSEs aren't happening as I have no idea how he would have crammed in all his revision of 'stuff'.

@Cathpot I agree with what you said about data analysis in science upthread. I think this is a really important skill, and it's worth teaching to students, and given enough time most students can grasp it. The problem is, as you say, it's teaching data analysis + other maths skills + science skills alongside a really content heavy curriculum, and there isn't enough time to do everything well (in my opinion).

I inherited a middle set Y11 class this year, who are lovely and mostly really hard working. Due to the amount of content, they have really had to rush through everything and there are lots of areas they just feel really shaky on, because they aren't secure in the knowledge- and that throws them when they are given a question about something unfamiliar- because they aren't sure whether they are meant to know about x,y,z or not.

We did a revision lesson on the heart/circulatory system not long before school shut. They have to know about 10 parts of the heart/named blood vessels, the 3 types of blood vessel, 4 components of the blood- that's 17 pieces of information before you even get into the structure/function/adaptations. And that might get them only one mark in a gcse paper (or none at all), but it might get them 10 marks, so they need to know it!

Higher science papers are testing comprehension, data analysis, application to new situations, evaluation skills and knowledge recall all on one paper, and it's a lot! I wonder if it would be better if paper 1 was all knowledge recall and then paper 2 was all skills based?

The really bright kids fly through without necessarily memorising all the facts, because they can do the skills based questions really well. But for the middle ability, hard working kids, these questions are more challenging, so they spend a lot of time struggling to learn masses and masses of content.

The primary maths curriculum is ridiculous. Focus on mastery and depth of understanding but with such a huge breadth of content that it is impossible for most pupils to achieve mastery. It needs to be totally pared down. I'm sure secondary teachers would prefer if pupils had genuinely mastered the fundamentals. We either manage to achieve mastery over a few areas of the curriculum or skim across all areas.

@DippyAvocado I have children in year 5 and year 6 at primary and the maths is ridiculous. Especially as one of them has Sen. My husband is very good at maths and he finds some of it really crazy.

sansa~ it’s so hard to do it all well, impossibly really. We are giving our KS3 curriculum a good shake to give some extra time to get on top of key skills because they have slipped there too when school bought some horrific unwieldy enormous KS3 scheme I’ve spent 2 years dissembling. I got given a year 11 in January last year who had had lots of cover , in the end I just planned the lessons I had left around the required practicals - and content that connected to those as at least I knew some of that would come up. Then describe and explain a graph and a format for evaluations.

I teach in FE, apprenticeships. Many of my learners are bright enough but complain bitterly about being so rushed in school they felt they were permanently floundering, especially when they spent Y10 and 11 being taught by and endless rotation of supply or sometimes unqualified (to teach eg Maths) staff.
Very many of them have suggested a curriculum like Cathpot’s fantasy curriculum would have been appreciated, if only as a jumping off point for more academic study.

an endless rotation

some of my lads are farmers. That's what they're going to do. Why are they doing 12 GCSEs they hate and will get low grades in
Why on Earth are kids doing 12 GCSEs? That’s a lot for even the brightest kids. At our selective they take 10; some elect to take 9 (dyslexia etc), super bright may tag on an 11th but rarely. The curriculum is too content heavy and demanding for 10 subjects (and I’m counting English as 2) let alone 12. Crazy!!

Eng, Eng Lit, maths. three sciences, possibly five options (although 4 is more common now), RS often done by al, IT as an equivalent. Easy to get to 12.

Two words; League tables.

I actually don't think that kind of breadth (I wouldn't lie kids to drop too many options) wouldn't be a problem if the overstuffed curriculum wasn't also an issue.

Do they really only do three options at your selective school? Because once you have triple science, maths, Eng and Eng Lit, that would be all that was left.

Apologies , misread. But even 4 is a bit lacking in breath imo at that age.

I never understand why English Lit is one of the compulsory GCSEs. I love books (see my user name) and in my mind at school I though I "loved English". I even wanted to do it at A level. But actually looking back I absolutely hated those lessons. Analyzing characters and plots - picking apart every bloody sentence. And studying plays (especially Shakespeare) - they are plays. To be watched on a stage. Sitting in a classroom taking turns to read lines is a terrible way to experience a play.
I like to read books. Sometimes I like to chat to someone about it or read reviews - but I don't want to pick it apart and all that.
Everyone needs to know how to read and communicate so English Language is important as a subject but English Lit - why? Why do they force this on teens?
Oh and I failed the A-level.

Oh, not this one again. English Language is so BORING by itself. It is actually probably the only GCSE that doesn't have two years' worth of content in it.

Books and the love of books gives young people cultural capital which is actually terrifically important. Literature teaches us to discuss ethical, moral and social issues in context rather than in a vacuum, and introduces students to voices from other lands and other cultures,as well as discussing historical changes in attitudes.

Back in the day, Eng Lang included literary elements (eg some Shakespeare) but now it doesn't and is just utilitarian comprehension. That said, one of the passages they analyse comes from a literary text so they still need the access to literary understanding to read inferences.

What you are criticising is the way it is TAUGHT, not the subject per se and that goes back to an over crammed curriculum.

Any school which takes Eng Lit out of its curriculum as compulsory often has a very narrow and utilitarian view of education and is usually up to something with its league tables and usually has that 'bottom sets don't need to read proper books' attitude that I find , frankly, repugnant.

Dismounts soap box...

I kind of agree Piggy. To be honest English language - ie how to read, write and communicate should be an educational basic that is done by age 14. If you can't do that at age 14 it should only be because you have learning difficulties or some other exceptional circumstances. Do you really need to get a GCSE in something so basic.
As for English Literature. Yes it's important but really it's one of those subjects you pretty much know if you are interested in at age 14. If you can 'drop' dance or geography or IT or art at age 14 why not English Literature? To be honest I do think having to do a range of subjects at 14 is good. It is important to still be learning a variety. It's just the having to sit an exam for everything. Why does it all have to be about those final dreaded exam papers. I think I said upthread about modular style exams. Maybe a system of having to do just a term of some subjects - get a grade at the end of those modules and at the end of the two years the grades are added up and you get an average. For subjects that you are really interested in and perhaps want to do in the next stage of education you do for the whole two years.

The primary maths curriculum is ridiculous. Focus on mastery and depth of understanding but with such a huge breadth of content that it is impossible for most pupils to achieve mastery. It needs to be totally pared down. I'm sure secondary teachers would prefer if pupils had genuinely mastered the fundamentals. We either manage to achieve mastery over a few areas of the curriculum or skim across all areas.

This!

And what piggy said. And others.

I was just musing on priorities for primary and send children going back and imo its reading, reading, reading (especially Being read to) and basic secure maths skills, mainly mental maths and understanding basic operations.

The geog and history curriculum is bonkers and too packed. Most of it can be done later. Science is important imo and art/ dt and Pe for enjoyment. I do think pshe and re is good for kids too and is about right but will need a new focus on coping and resilience.

I'm teaching some things in primary art yr 3 sen that I learnt in the first year at university. And it was taught to my son around y1.

We are going to have to disagree on that one book!

I also think all student should do RS and, ideally, another humanity, to understand their worlds better (also languages and the arts). Science is important but we don't value it without a knowledge of our worlds and great thinkers.

Breadth is good : just not then stuffing each subject full of too much.

The history curriculum is a very good case in point!

@Cathpot I covered pretty much all of that in secondary school in Ireland. A lot of it was covered in Home economics.

Piggy I do think it's important to learn a variety of subjects it's just the expectation of having to exams in everything.

Yes, that bit I agree with.

Disagree on the geography, it's the only bit I know....but most yr7 don't know capital cities, continents, where London is, what the countries ok the UK are.

@bookmum08 I’m not a fan of English literature but my dd has autism and for her it’s complicated and although she’s very bright. Because of the way her brain works a lot of the English literature stuff is confusing. I would like the option for her to drop it when it comes to that age.

Sauron I worry so much for my daughter. She is Year 7 and recently diagnosed with ASD and unless there are major changes to GCSEs in the next couple of years she really isn't going to cope. Of subjects I think she really needs to know for actual life English Literature isn't one. It can be interesting, it can be inspiring. But really (and as a book lover I hate to say this) it's just interesting trivia.

I agree, there is just too much breadth to allow all but the very brightest to achieve any kind of depth. I really feel for all those children who never really get the chance to shine (particularly at primary level) because their strengths lie in the arts which have been all but eliminated from some schools.
I think Eng Lit should be compulsory study but not compulsory exam. There are many kids who would probably enjoy the classics if they knew they weren't going to have to sit an exam in it. Imagine having the time to study something just for fun and interest rather than for a qualification?

To be honest, I am not quite sure that's what Dylan Wiliam meant. I think he has no issues with breadth of subjects chosen but with the amount of content in each one. It's not about ability, or about attaching value to certain subjects.

I'd be delighted if exam boards read his thoughts and reflected!