5th September 2016 1:00
By Blue Tutors
The National Curriculum has been in the spotlight in recent years following a series of major changes and the effects of the 2014 school curriculum changes now feeding through to testing results of the first cohort of students. Started in 1988, the National Curriculum standardised the content taught in state schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in order to ensure quality and consistency between schools and that all children has access to a broad education. The document sets out programmes of study across subjects and the level students should reach at a given age. In the time since its introduction, the number of school age students taking A-levels has doubled from 20 to 40% and GCSE results are up 30%.
One of the first criticisms of a national curriculum, promising the same educational standard for all, is that while all local-authority-maintained schools in England must adhere to the curriculum, there are many exceptions. In reality, one in four schools is not in fact required to teach to the curriculum; free schools, religious schools, academies and private schools are all free to deviate from the strict guidelines. In practice, however, many schools do follow very similar programmes, particularly in English and maths, as this curriculum is the basis of testing, which in turn measures a school’s performance and determines league tables. Primary school teachers claim the new testing of Key Stage 2 students is too narrow and prescriptive, mean creative and problem solving skills are being squeezed out. Equally, many doubt the relevance of such testing, which tests teachers’ ability to teach the curriculum more than students’ ability.
Over the years the curriculum has changed with successive government agendas, education trends and political pressure. With these changes has come a perpetual debate over both the fluctuating content and teaching guidelines imposed on teachers. The most recent changes come after several years of grade inflation contrasted with business leaders saying that young people are leaving school without the basic skills needed as an adult in the world of work. The Campaign for Real Education argues that the current system is not meeting the minimum requirement of producing numerate and literate individuals and suggests that while the recent changes to a more knowledge based prescriptive education style may raise the standard, there is a serious lack of teachers trained in how to deliver such lessons. Others argue that the fact oriented rote learning style does not result in sufficient understanding and context to make links between concepts and across disciplines, a more important skill than memorisation. What is more, there are those who question the relevance of an academically focussed curriculum. Some would reintroduce practical courses including first aid as well as more vocational training for less ‘academically able’ students. This has been addressed in the new curriculum with the introduction of the new citizenship programme covering a range of ‘life skills’ including financial literacy.
The National Curriculum has become a political football, with ministers intervening increasingly frequently and often unnecessarily with little appreciation of the repercussions for schools and teachers already at breaking point and students caught up in the chaos and uncertainty following every round of change. The shadow education secretary recently spoke out to condemn its use as a political tool. This type of “interference” epitomised Michael Gove’s period as education secretary, with not only the education minister personally writing sections of the curriculum, but all cabinet members able to promote their own interests. Conservatives defended the changes, stating that the new curriculum is less prescriptive than its predecessor and that significant change was necessary after years of dilution and slipping standards under the previous Labour government, which saw the UK’s international rankings steadily fall. Labour has suggested individual schools should have the power to determine their own curriculum, while others feel that a National Curriculum is necessary but its oversight should be given over to an independent body away from “ministerial meddling”.