‘There be dragons’: redrawing the curriculum map in Wales

Here is the text of my post on the Welsh curriculum, originally posted at https://curriculumforwales.gov.wales/

The 2015 publication of Successful Futures marked a watershed moment in the history of education in Wales. The proposed new curriculum is a radical departure from recent top-down, teacher proof policy. It moves schools away from prescriptive content-led approaches to teaching, and affords teachers and schools considerable autonomy in developing a school-based curriculum to meet local needs.

The new Curriculum for Wales is typical, in many ways, of recent worldwide ‘new curriculum’ policy. It emphases the centrality of the learner, and the importance of developing so-called 21st century skills, to equip young people to thrive in modern complex democratic societies and in the workplace. It recognises that subjects, the ubiquitous approach to segmenting the secondary curriculum, may not always be the best way of organising teaching to ensure that young people develop the knowledge required to thrive in the modern world.

Moreover, like other ‘new curricula’ in countries such as Scotland and New Zealand, the new curriculum is open to critique, and faces considerable challenges in its enactment in schools. These curricula have been attacked for downgrading knowledge, blurring the well-established boundaries between everyday knowledge and disciplinary knowledge. Critics have derided their alleged focus on fuzzy skills and child centred learning. They have often attracted the pejorative label ‘progressive’. Furthermore, curricula in Scotland and elsewhere have suffered implementation problems. Andreas Schleicher of the OECD stated in December 2016 that, while Scotland had developed a bold and visionary approach, it still needed to move from an intended to an implemented curriculum. Our research suggests that a major issue lies in a gap between teachers’ prevalent practices and beliefs about education, and the implicit aims of the new curriculum.

Despite these anxieties, I believe that Wales is different. First, Wales is heeding the lessons from other countries, and has solicited the advice of researchers in some of the countries already developing this type of curriculum. Second, the Welsh curriculum developers have actively sought to put in place principles and processes that address some of the criticisms. The importance of knowledge has been foregrounded in the curriculum guidance. An explicit process of developing the curriculum from purposes of education – articulated in the Four Purposes and the ‘What matters?’ statements for each AoLE – has been set out clearly. The role of Pioneer Teachers will prove to be significant – as writers of the AoLE statements, and as facilitators of school-based curriculum development as the curriculum is translated into practice over the coming years. A major source of tension ion many new curricula – the practice of defining the curriculum via thousands of learning outcomes – will not happen in Wales, where the What Matters? Framework is a far more constructive approach to developing practice in schools.

All of the above should not detract from the challenges faced as schools step into the uncharted terrain of the future. Nevertheless, a few principles should help guide this journey of exploration. First, the starting point for curriculum development is not the content (or subjects) to be taught, but instead should be the purposes of education set out in the curriculum. Sense-making – through extensive professional dialogue – is an essential part of this process; if teachers do not understand the new curriculum, then they will not develop practices that are fit-for-purpose. Knowledge and skills – powerful knowledge – need to be taught with these purposes in mind. Similarly, educational methods need to be fit-for-purpose. Powerful pedagogies are as important for developing intellectual capacity as is powerful knowledge. The role of the Pioneer teachers and the regional consortia will be vital in developing the infrastructure to support curriculum development. And significantly, Wales will need to develop approaches to accountability and qualifications that serve rather than drive school’s practices.

If the above issues are addressed – and I am confident that the will is there to address them – then the new Welsh curriculum may well herald successful futures. The new curriculum is different to what came before, and will require different approaches and working patterns. Because it offers greater local flexibility and autonomy, it will require active engagement by all teachers in Wales. Experience from Scotland suggests that those teachers and schools that engaged early in process, making sense of CfE and developing a vision for it, were the same schools and teachers that made the most of its potential. It is worth remembering the words of curriculum scholar Lawrence Stenhouse – that there can be no curriculum development without teacher development. Both will be required to maximise the opportunities afforded by Successful Futures.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development (London, Heinemann).


The school curriculum in the UK: divergence on the Celtic fringe

This is the original version of the article published today in The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/in-britains-battle-over-school-curriculum-celtic-nations-have-got-it-right-90277) – before all the editorial to-ing and fro-ing, and with its original title.

The National Curriculum introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s governments in the 1980s was a seminal development in UK education history. Applying to England, Northern Ireland and Wales (but not to Scotland, which has a tradition of educational independence from Westminster), the new curriculum was highly controversial. Content-rigid and overcrowded, this teacher-proof curriculum was widely decried by education experts as badly theorised and damaging to young people. These criticisms seemed to be borne out in practice, as the new curriculum was subject to review and revision throughout the 1990s. By the early years of the new millennium, new curricular forms were starting to emerge, first in Scotland and Northern Ireland in 2004.

These curricula were primarily characterised by a move away from the detailed specification of content to be taught, and involved a significant shift to school and teacher autonomy in terms of what should be taught. England, under New Labour, initially appeared to be heading in the same direction, following a major review of the National Curriculum (2007-2008). Following the election of the coalition government in 2010, however, New Labour’s reforms were ditched in favour of a more traditional approach to defining the curriculum, widely described as knowledge-rich and influenced by ideas about cultural literacy. Wales, on the other hand, has followed the other Celtic nations, announcing its own new curriculum in 2015.

The new curricula have been widely attacked. According to critics, they downgrade knowledge, effectively dumbing down learning, and over-emphasise skills, particularly those required for the workplace. They are derided as being progressive, an apparently pejorative term in today’s educational climate. They are criticised for blurring the boundaries between subjects, and thus undermining the foundations of all that is great and noble in British education.

While such criticisms invariably contain some truth, they have been unhelpful in defining and operationalising good education in British schools. They have created unhelpful dichotomies of traditional versus progressive, knowledge versus skills, and the teacher as a ‘sage on the stage’ versus the teacher as a ‘guide on the side’. A good – and balanced – education should attend to all of these dimensions.

The new Celtic curricula are in fact helpful for a number of reasons. They are all grounded in clearly specified purposes of education. In Scotland these are articulated as attributes and capabilities, set out under four headings known as the Four Capacities: Successful Learners, Responsible Citizens, Effective Contributors and Confident Individuals. In Northern Ireland, detailed learning objectives are set out under three headings, developing young people as: Individuals; Contributors to Society; and Contributors to the Economy and Environment. These statements of purpose seek to set out clearly what an educated young person should look like at the end of a stage of education, and are greatly preferable in my view to a curriculum apparently devoid of purposes, and framed solely as specification of content. Clear specification of purposes should enable schools to define content and methods that are fit-for-purpose, to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for successful lives as an adult – including active and critically engaged citizenship and successful career trajectories.

If this is progressive education, then I do not take issue with the term progressive. Indeed, the father of progressive education, the American philosopher John Dewey emphasised the importance of engaging with the accumulated wisdom of mankind.  I would further argue that it is the non-progressive elements of the new curricula that have been responsible for their patchy implementation and for some of the issues raised by critics. Foremost amongst these is the framing of the curricula as detailed learning outcomes – hundreds of statements arrayed into hierarchical levels. These are a throwback to the original National Curriculum in England, with its simplistic assumptions that learning is a neat linear progress, to be measured at every stage, rather than a messy and emergent developmental process that varies between individuals. In Scotland, the learning outcomes are, in my opinion, largely responsible for the rather patchy implementation of Curriculum for Excellence. As the OECD’s Andreas Schleicher stated on BBC news in 2016, Scotland needs to move from an intended curriculum to an implemented curriculum. Detailed learning outcomes have been linked to heavy duty accountability processes; they can encourage risk aversion and tick-box approaches to curriculum development in schools.

It is, therefore, really interesting to see the new iteration of this sort of curriculum emerging in Wales. The developers of a Curriculum for Wales seem to be cognisant of the problems afflicting these curricula elsewhere. Development materials have emphasised the importance of clearly identifying and making sense of educational purposes. They have highlighted the need for knowledge – as well as skills – to be prominent in the thinking of teachers, as they enact the curriculum in schools, while recognising that traditional subjects are only one way of articulating this knowledge; not handed down to Moses on tablets of stone, but nevertheless still a useful means of dividing the curricular cake along with more integrated approaches. And, crucially, the Welsh process acknowledges the importance of both teacher involvement in all stages of developing the new curriculum from policy to practice, and the need to reframe accountability processes that distort teacher decision-making. This highlights the vital role played by teacher sense-making, as well as the mechanisms and processes that support this.

The report launching a Curriculum for Wales was called Successful Futures. Time will tell whether this was prescient.

New breed of teachers; old breed of reaction

One of the big disappointments for me in the development of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence has been the lack of any perceptible system-wide development of the Broad General Education (BGE) phase in years one to three of the secondary school. To the casual observer, S1-3 in the secondary will look remarkably similar today to what it did pre-CfE, largely comprising a fragmented and disconnected set of subjects that mirror the subjects examined in the senior phase (S4-6), and indeed often seen as a dress-rehearsal for the serious business of passing the senior phase qualifications. Recent figures suggest that the typical school week of 30 periods (each of around 50 minutes) is experienced by pupils as between 15 and 20 separate subjects. In this context, I am reminded of Elliot Eisner’s (1992) observation that:

There is no occupation . .  in which the workers must change jobs every fifty minutes, move to another location, and work under the direction of another supervisor. Yet this is precisely what we ask of adolescents, hoping, at the same time, to provide them with a coherent educational program

Furthermore this is not a new phenomenon. John Dewey, writing as long ago as 1938, observed that:

Custom and convention conceal from most of us the extreme poverty of the traditional course of study, as well as its lack of intellectual organisation. It still consists, in large measure of a number of disconnected subjects made up of more or less independent items. An experienced adult may supply connections and see the different studies and lessons in perspective in logical relationships to one another and the world. To the pupil, they are likely to be curiously mysterious things which exist in school for some unknown purpose, and only in school

All of the above raises the question of why schooling is so stubbornly resistant to policy that seeks to change such practices, as CfE manifestly did. One could take the view, as is becoming fashionable with the new traditional turn in educational thinking, that the ‘traditional taxonomy’ of knowledge (to quote one teacher) has intrinsic value and/or that subjects are the best ways of dividing up the school week. I do not buy these arguments, while accepting that knowledge is fundamental to curriculum planning and that subjects may be an excellent means of dividing up the knowledge cake. First, knowledge is not the same as subjects. Subjects, as configured in schools, are not the end of education, but instead become a means (as applicable) of promoting the educational goal of educating young people. Thus, the question we should ask is not ‘what subjects do we teach?’, but instead ‘what does an educated person look like, what knowledge do they need to develop, and what means (including subjects-based provision) are best suited to achieving this?’ Going through this intellectual process of curriculum-making avoids subjects becoming set-in-stone entities – ends instead of means – as exemplified in Peddiwell’s curriculum parable ‘The Saber-Tooth Curriculum’ (see https://cse101.cse.msu.edu/visitors/saber.php). It will avoid, as I have argued previously on this blog, a situation where the curriculum becomes fragmented instead of holistic; incoherent and incomplete, with serious gaps in knowledge (e.g. little systematic exposure to political and sociological knowledge, or a History curriculum that focuses on the Nazis repeatedly).

Reasons for a lack of change in schooling are various, being primarily cultural and structural. A major issue lies in the familiarity of schooling to the wider population. Everyone has been to school, and thus everyone knows what schools are (should be) like. To suggest otherwise – to challenge the deeply ingrained grammar of schooling – is to challenge common-sense and to invite ridicule. Teachers too can be conservative in their thinking, and this is not pig-headed opposition to change, as some who advocate changing teachers’ mindsets may suggest, but due to deeply-held beliefs rooted in professional socialisation from their education and experience (and as Eisner also quipped, teacher professional socialisation begins at the age of five!). Research suggests that teachers who engage with research findings and new concepts about education as a part of a process of collaborative professional enquiry are likely to develop enhanced professional knowledge, and consequently become more readily able to envisage alternative educational futures (e.g. see http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JPCC-09-2015-0006). Structural reasons include the set-up of a system geared primarily to qualifications, which rewards schools and teachers achieving high attainment in subjects. The tendency for school systems to encourage performativity has, of course, been well-documented in the research literature. And the professional education of teachers reinforces such thinking: in Scotland, for example, teachers train to be primary specialists (generalists who teach children) or secondary specialists (experts in a subject). This has led over time to a sharp dichotomy between primary and secondary schools, which are effectively very different institutions with different cultures and different practices. The corollary of this is that many pupils experience the transition as a dislocation that is not conducive to a coherent programme of education from 3-18.

It was, therefore, with a sense of resignation that I have read some of the reactions on Twitter and elsewhere to the announcement this week of a new GTCS teaching accreditation for teachers to span primary and secondary (see https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/new-breed-teacher-will-work-across-primary-and-secondary). The criticisms invariably miss the point, in my view. This is not an attempt to fix a teacher shortage by widening the pool of teachers (as the article seems to suggest). Nor is it about diluting standards by putting non-specialists in front of classes (with unfortunate echoes of the hierarchical notion that secondary specialists are somehow superior to primary teachers). Instead it is about recognising that the BGE is about something different, and that a reconfigured curriculum needs reconfigured teachers. I am not here criticising either secondary or primary teachers, but simply acknowledging that the BGE is different, and therefore requires teachers with different skills; not complete generalists as has traditionally been the case in primary schools, or the more narrowly focused disciplinary specialists who will continue to be needed for senior teaching, but highly skilled teachers who can teach across a range of subjects at the crucial transition phase from P6 to S3. Such teachers will probably have a specialism as their central focus, but will be much more versatile than the current workforce at this level. I am reminded here that this would be far less controversial if such teaching were conducted in intermediate or middle schools, as used to be common in the UK, and is still the norm in other countries such as New Zealand.

For the above reasons, I very much welcome the new approach to accrediting teachers, and would indeed welcome the development of yet more varied routes, for example teachers educated and accredited to teach social studies and integrated science. I suspect that this is currently a challenge too far for the status quo in Scotland.

Regional Improvement Collaboratives: a new strengthened middle in Scottish education?

The recent and long-awaited publication of the Scottish Government’s review of governance (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0052/00521075.pdf) is, in many respects, a welcome development. The practical steps outlined in this review have the potential to transform the ongoing development of Curriculum for Excellence by explicitly addressing some of the weaknesses in the curriculum development process to date. In particular, the establishment of Regional Improvement Collaboratives provides a constructive response to the OECD’s call for Scotland to ‘strengthen the middle’; to establish a meso-level infrastructure that will (to quote the review) ‘mean that hands on advice, support and guidance can flow directly to schools to support improvement’ (p.7). This in turn will facilitate more meaningful engagement in schools with the core principles of CfE, to address, in the words of the OECD’s Andreas Schleicher, the need for Scotland to move from an ‘intended curriculum to an implemented curriculum’ ( BBC news on 6 December 2016).

In this context, the newly proposed Collaboratives look promising. According to the review:

New Regional Improvement Collaboratives […] will provide teams of professionals who have the singular focus of helping teachers to improve their practice. These teams will include sector and curriculum area specialists as well as additional support for learning experts such as educational psychologists (p.23).

This regional approach will involve decentralising some Education Scotland resources to support improvement closer to schools. It will also involve local authorities sharing resource at a regional level to ensure an enhanced improvement capability (p30).

This ‘national vision or framework to support collaboration’ (p.21) is supported by reference to the much cited McKinsey and co. report (https://tinyurl.com/ycl7jsdr), which states:

As the school systems we studied have progressed on their improvement journey, they seem to have increasingly come to rely on a “mediating layer” that acts between the centre and the schools. This mediating layer sustains improvement by providing three things of importance to the system: targeted hands-on support to schools, a buffer between the school and the centre, and a channel to share and integrate improvements across schools. (p. 6)

Readers of this blog will know that I have long argued for the development of a strong meso-level for supporting curriculum development (as opposed to meso-level structures that focus on audit and documentation; e.g. see https://tinyurl.com/y9eadhvy). I therefore very much welcome the general direction signalled by this review. Nevertheless, we should be aware of a number of potentially problematic issues as we take forward the recommendations of the review.

First, handing responsibility to teachers (both within the new Collaboratives and in schools) also means enhancing teachers’ agency (see https://tinyurl.com/y9vcccf4). This requires more than just rhetoric about autonomy. It requires establishing professional trust and developing contexts where teachers can exercise professional judgments, free from risk, and supported by access to cognitive, relational and material resources. A key issue here relates to the focus of the Collaboratives. Will they focus primarily on audit or on support? If they simply become beefed up local authorities focusing mainly on auditing performance against KPIs, rather than hands on leadership of curriculum development, then the new structures will not achieve their purpose.

Second, we need to take a nuanced look at how insights from other systems work in Scotland. International cherry-picking of other people’s policy is now a well-established international phenomenon. The governance review makes reference to how we might learn from other systems, for example: ‘countries such as Finland and Canada display strong overall performance and, equally important, show that a disadvantaged socioeconomic background does not necessarily result in poor performance at school’ (p.15). The important insight here is that we should be looking beyond copying the structures of these countries, and instead seek to emulate the processes that lead to improvement – in the case of Finland this includes a lack of inspections (which reduces the risk of performativity in the system), clear processes for sense-making in relation to changed policy, and leadership for reform/innovation. It can be argued that Finland’s social practices of curriculum-making shape its success as a system, as much as the ways in which its policies are framed.

Third, eyebrows will have been raised at the continued, and enhanced, role of Education Scotland in leading the development of the curriculum. The separation of the inspection and development functions of Education Scotland was widely predicted, and the fact that this has not happened will create some challenges for the system as it adapts to the new structures. I know, from my numerous conversations with teachers, that many will question putting the organisation responsible for the current state of affairs in CfE in charge of remedying its perceived ills. Of course views about the success (or otherwise) of CfE to date are contested, but regardless of where on stands on this question, it is clear that Education Scotland will face considerable challenges as it provides leadership within the new structures. A number of issues will need to be addressed, if the new structures are to be successful in the stated aim of developing improved practices across Scotland’s schools.

There is a need, in my view, to develop expertise – capacity – in curriculum development. We should be mindful of the observation by Lawrence Stenhouse (40 years ago) that there can be no curriculum development without teacher development – and that such insights apply to organisations leading curriculum development nationally/regionally as much as they apply to schools. We need to develop alternative methodologies for curriculum development. The evolution of CfE has been shaped to a large extent by the predominance of inspection/audit methodologies for curriculum development (in schools, in local authorities, and within Education Scotland). Such methodologies tend to focus on the evaluation of outputs, rather than considering the quality of inputs and processes; and I reiterate here that the success of Finland has been in a large part due to its focus on the latter. Linked to this is the issue of research literacy. A notable feature of organisations such as the SLO curriculum development agency in the Netherlands, or Ireland’s National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, is that their personnel are research literate: they engage with educational research in a way that often seems absent in Scotland; and in many cases they undertake their own research, for example through doctoral study. Engagement with research is essential if we are to break beyond the bounds of what is habitual and familiar, and to explore alternative repertoires for educational practice. Finally, we need a culture, in our new governance structures, that is focused on future improvement, rather than one that is wedded to maintaining the sacred cows presented by past structures, methods and guidance. As my colleague Walter Humes has pointed out in TESS this week, changing structures is, on its own, insufficient; we also need to address the cultures that frame educational practice in Scotland.


A Research Strategy for Scottish Education: a cautious welcome for a long overdue initiative

Here is a reblog of my post on the new Scottish Council of Deans of Education blog – http://www.scde.ac.uk/2017/05/15/a-research-strategy-for-scottish-education-a-cautious-welcome-for-a-long-overdue-initiative/

On 2 May, we saw the long awaited publication of ‘A Research Strategy for Scottish Education’ (see  http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512276.pdf). This is a welcome step forward in enhancing the capacity of Scotland’s educational community – researchers, policymakers and practitioners – and to draw more effectively on research when formulating policy and developing practice. The publication of this document follows a long period where policy has been made and implemented with little apparent cognisance of the value of educational research, and following strong criticism by academics and learned societies such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh of the apparent lack of independent research in Scottish education. Most recent, was the recommendation from the OECD that the Government should ‘Strengthen evaluation and research, including independent knowledge creation.’  (https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/improving-schools-in-scotland.htm).

This neglect of research has not always been the case. For example, Brown and Munn (1985) identified five main features of the 1982 Development Programme for secondary third and fourth year curriculum and assessment, including a research programme to support and inform development. It is good, therefore, to see a re-emergence of higher profile for research in policymaking and practice, and it is to the credit of the Scottish Government that they have not only acted quickly to remedy this situation, but have also actively involved the academic community, through focus groups, in developing the new strategy.

Specifically, I welcome the following in the new strategy.

  • Recognition of the importance of research to the education system in Scotland.
  • Recognition that practitioners need to engage with relevant research findings, and that there need to be accessible channels and mechanisms to achieve this.
  • Recognition of the importance of practitioners as enquirers/researchers into their own professional practices and settings – and that this is a collaborative professional imperative.
  • Recognition of the importance of collaboration across education stakeholders/sectors, for example bringing together academics and teachers.
  • An affirmation of the importance of independent research – particularly to offer challenge to the system. This is a welcome counter-balance to an oft-heard assertion that inspections provide research evidence about educational contexts – as has been well-documented, inspections, while having a place in modern education systems, are heavily associated with performativity and, as such, their reliability and validity is open to question. Welcome the formation of a Scottish academic reference group
  • A recognition that data literacy – as a wider attempt to build practitioner research capacity and infrastructure – is crucial, as all data are subject to interpretation. The suggestion of funding for sabbaticals and master’s/PhD level study for practitioners seems sensible.
  • The commitment to develop capacity in the academic research community for quantitative/secondary data analysis. This is currently under-developed and much needed.
  • Provision for funding, including a reference to compensating for the likely reduction or withdrawal of EU funding. The strategy makes reference to ‘Provision for self-directed research by academia and other nongovernmental institutions. This implies funding, either by non-specific grants or endowments. This could be provided through existing mechanisms (e.g. Scottish Funding Council, Research Councils) or by challenge funds whereby organisations are encouraged to bid for grants within broad parameters.’ (p8).
  • An interesting reference to promoting research into non-standard educational approaches. More detail would be helpful here.

While there is much to welcome here, the document rings one of two alarm bells for me. These are largely issues relating to language and tone, but will need careful attention as the strategy is developed into workable procedures and practices. First, the strategy appears, in places, to conflate of data and research – and also appears to reduce data to statistical data. Research is more than data; generation of data is only part of the research process, which also requires attention to analysis and interpretation, as well as ethical considerations.

Second, the language of ‘best practice’ and ‘what works’ is a little worrying, given the high profile of critique of these notions in recent years. Such language frames approaches which potentially neglect the importance of context. I am perhaps being pedantic here, as to be fair, the strategy also uses more nuanced language. For example, it states, ‘translating international lessons into the Scottish context and developing new Scottish research evidence’ (p4) and:

What has been shown to work in the past may no longer be true now or in the future. In addition, we need evidence from Scotland to understand if lessons from other countries are genuinely applicable in the Scottish education system where organisational assumptions may differ greatly. (p9).

Such nuance, which implies a cognitive resources (Hammersley, 2002) approach to research, sits uneasily with the harder ‘what works’ discourses and their more scientistic assumptions about the generalisation of research, which have been associated in the recent past with the development of ‘must-do’ techniques, rather than professional judgement and interpretation of research resources (e.g. as was evident in many schools with the roll of out of Assessment is for Learning (AifL) in Scotland, and in particular the uncritical implementation of what have come to be known as AifL techniques).

Third, the strategy seems too closely aligned to current policy, which is taken as given. The Government would benefit from engaging more explicitly with current research discourses around impact, and especially the ways in which pathways to impact might be created. This in turn would allow the benefits of research for policy and practice to be more fully exploited, potentially leading to significant shifts in policy and practice. The ESRC toolkit on research impact is a useful resource in this matter (see http://www.esrc.ac.uk/research/impact-toolkit/). The toolkit makes reference to different ways in which research might have impact:

  • Instrumental: influencing the development of policy, practice or service provision, shaping legislation, altering behaviour
  • Conceptual: contributing to the understanding of policy issues, reframing debates
  • Capacity building: through technical and personal skill development. The implication here is that research agendas might be driven by current policy imperatives, rather than informing them.

While many of the sentiments evident in the research strategy align with these impacts discourses, the overall message feels somewhat muted in the face of an apparent desire to see research unequivocally support current policy, rather than informing future policy development.

Despite these quibbles, I remain optimistic that the new Research Strategy is an important development with many positive implications for policy and practice in Scotland, and for the development of future productive and symbiotic relationships between researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders in Scottish education. I look forward to seeing it unfold.


Brown, S. & Munn, P. (eds.)(1985). The changing face of education 14 to 16 : curriculum and assessment. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Hammersley, M. (2002). Educational Research, Policymaking and Practice. London: PCP

The civic consequences of discipline and control in schooling

While out for a run on our local hills recently, two separate, and apparently unconnected occurrences got me thinking about how education should – and can – make a difference to people’s lives; and how it often doesn’t, or least does not in ways that are constructive. The first occurrence was a story – one that shocked me – told to my running partner earlier by one of her undergraduate students. The story was about school uniform practices in a high school in England, where female students are subject to specific gendered rules regarding uniform (e.g. no coloured bras), and enforcement procedures that left me astounded. In this school, female students are routinely stopped by teachers (including male staff), and asked to pull back blazers and jumpers to show that the bra is not coloured. There are rules about tight trousers for girls (incidentally, girls are not permitted to have pockets on their trousers, unlike boys). To enforce these rules, female students are subjected to the Ten Pence test. Here they are required to insert a coin down the waistband of their trousers; if it does not fall down the leg and land on the floor, the trousers are deemed to be too tight.

Quite apart from the obvious question as to how senior staff at this this school have the time to devise such procedures, the whole issue raises some profoundly troubling issues. First, the gendered nature of such practices is disturbing, although I suspect widely prevalent in schools in the UK. Linked to this are potential issues of voyeurism – [male] staff waiting to observe publicly whether a bra is coloured or a coin falls through a pair of trousers – which runs the risk of fetishising school uniform and objectifying its [female] wearers (also see https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/uniform-disapproval-back-to-school-back-to-sexualising-girls-9716476.html). Secondly, I wonder whether some schools have little sense of their educative mission, if this is what consumes them, becoming instead primarily places to discipline young people into accepting subordinate and passive places in society.

The second occurrence relates to a bag of dog excrement. As my running partner was telling me about the above, we spotted a dog poo bag close to the track – an increasingly common sight in the hills. This was full, and had been neatly tied off, then dumped on the hillside. I have no problem with people using these bags to collect their dogs’ excrement, and indeed dog waste is a major problem in many public areas. However, there are a number of issues to unpack here. First, the offending item was on an open hillside, around 2 miles from the nearest road; so why bother? Secondly, someone had clearly gone to the trouble of picking up their dog’s waste and bagging it; so presumably someone who cared about the issue – or alternatively someone deeply socialised into the notion that all dog poo needs to be bagged, regardless of context. Third, the bag had been unceremoniously slung off the track into the grass; so presumably also someone who did not understand the relative bio-degradability of dog poo and plastic, or someone who had not been similarly socialised by a rule about taking the bags back to a place of disposal. I speculate here, but the problem is sufficiently ubiquitous – hanging the bags in trees seems to be the other option for disposal – that one wonders why people can be so rule-bound that they do not question whether the rule is actually appropriate in any given situation, and also why they seem unable to take the longer term responsibility for disposal.

As I suggested in the opening paragraph, these are unconnected occurrences: the first is about control and discipline in schools, and the second about a distorted sense of civic responsibility. Nevertheless, education has effects, and I would argue that the latter is perhaps influenced by a tendency for schooling to discipline and control rather than educate. The dog poo bag seems to be a metaphor for a commonplace rule-bound and unreflexive way of living, and this takes us back to the first story, which is fundamentally about the school as a medium for a narrow socialisation of young people, rather than as a genuinely educative space. We see, in the UK at least, the continued emphasis on old-fashioned school uniforms, including fancy blazers (replete with coloured braid) that would seem more at home in an Enid Blyton novel than in a modern learning environment. This continued focus on how one looks and conforms (as opposed to how one is taught to think critically) seems to me to be the antithesis of education (for a critique of school uniforms, see https://mrpriestley.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/formal-school-uniform-and-school-ethos/). It combines with a modern focus in school on often purposeless activity, where what one learns and why one learns it have come to be less important than how one learns, and the skills that one develops from the process. As Jenny Reeves has recently written in a powerful article in Scottish Educational Review, we have thrown out ‘the baby of educational purpose along with the bathwater of curricular content’.

I am not arguing here for a return to traditional notions of subject-driven schooling, as exemplified by some current developments in England. I am, however, suggesting that schools need to become more focused on educating young people to be critical and reflexive adults, and this does require a knowledge-rich (as opposed to subject-driven) and balanced curriculum, with its roots in the big question of what education is for. Gert Biesta’s work on the purposes of education is entirely relevant here. Biesta has argued for an appropriate balance between three overlapping and sometimes competing functions of education: 1] qualification (development of skills and knowledge, not the piece of paper that accredits the process); 2] socialisation (into our present societies); and 3] subjectification (the growth of each person into the unique individual that they can become given the right nurturing). Such a view of education is about enabling individuals to become tolerant members of society, whilst developing the faculties required for critical engagement with that society, potentially leading to challenge of structural inequality and social change. The anecdotes that started this blog post suggest that we are a long way from this balanced view of schooling as education.

CfE and PISA: ‘holding our nerve’

The publication this week of the triennial PISA results has produced the usual phenomenon of the PISA shock in various countries. In the UK, England has maintained its position relative to other countries, and this is a source of disappointment to a government that staked its reputation on improving its performance. In Wales, indifferent performance and a disappointing set of results in science are a source for concern, but the political message is, in the words of one headteacher, to ‘hold our nerve’ and see through the current curricular reforms. In Scotland, a dip in performance relative to England is more difficult to stomach, and has raised inevitable questions about whether the decline is due to Curriculum for Excellence. According to Professor Lindsay Paterson, a long-time critic of CfE, the decline in Scotland’s relative and absolute performance on PISA is ‘shocking’ (see http://www.itv.com/news/border/2016-12-06/education-professor-calls-scotland-figures-shocking/). Professor Paterson states that the pupils tested in the current PISA round have been entirely educated under CfE, suggesting that CfE is the problem.

I have some sympathy with some of his well-known criticisms of CfE. I have consistently been on record as supporting the broad general direction represented by the curriculum – local flexibility, student-centred approaches and teacher autonomy – but would agree with him in his critique of the lack of attention to knowledge within CfE. To my mind, a progressive curriculum should not preclude, as stated by John Dewey, the learning of ‘the accumulated wisdom of the ages’; it should not mean that teachers should neglect issues of knowledge. I too regularly hear educators telling me that ‘we do not need to teach knowledge anymore because pupils can google what they need to know’, and that ‘education is all about skills now’. In my view, a curriculum should be knowledge-rich, and this entails teachers posing the right questions in their curriculum design about what knowledge is of most worth.

Nevertheless, I would disagree with the notion that CfE is to blame for the decline in PISA scores experienced in Scotland. This seems to be a simplistic explanation, which ignores the complexity of educational reform and of the multi-layered terrain of education in Scotland. Instead I would point to what the OECD’s Andreas Schleicher stated on BBC news on 6 December 2016 – that Scotland needs to move from an intended curriculum to an implemented curriculum. While I have warned for some years that the problem with CfE is not CfE per se, despite its weaknesses in the area of knowledge (see http://hdl.handle.net/1893/17866) and tensions within its structure (see http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054980903518951), I would argue that the original vision for the curriculum was sound, with its basis in a set of clear purposes – attributes and capabilities – to be developed by education. Indeed, CfE sought to provide in Scotland exactly the sort of rich educational experience that is evident in highly performing education systems such as Singapore and Finland, and is typical in many ways of curriculum policy in many such countries.

Instead, the problems lies in its enactment – its translation from policy to practice, as clearly indicated by the OECD in its 2015 review of CfE. There are various issues here, all of which add to a highly complex enactment of policy to practice. They include:

  • The specification of curricular content as detailed learning outcomes, which have encouraged audit approaches and strategic compliance with CfE, rather than full engagement with its principles. The new benchmarks offer more of the same, and will require a great deal of care in their implementation if we are to avoid a continuation of such approaches.
  • A lack of clarity in CfE guidance about processes for curriculum development (see http://hdl.handle.net/1893/22518) and the sheer volume of CfE documentation; the latter issue has contributed to a lack of clarity amongst schools and teachers, especially as the key messages have often been obscured, and in some cases changed over time. Again, the OECD identified this issue in their call for a simplified narrative.
  • The persistence of accountability mechanisms that have acted counter to the spirit of CfE, often encouraging performativity in schools (see http://hdl.handle.net/1893/20761) and its accompanying bureaucracy.
  • A teaching workforce that, while highly dedicated and technically skilled,  has often struggled to make sense of a new and different curriculum, in the absence of sustained programmes to engage them with its principles and develop theories of knowledge that are consonant with this approach. I continue to meet teachers who admit to being baffled by CfE. A further, and related issue is cultural; implicit teacher philosophies about education do not always sit easily with CfE, and the lack of adequate spaces for sense-making does not allow this issue to be readily addressed.
  • A paucity of craft knowledge around curriculum development across the system – what Michael Apple has described as a ‘lost art’.

The net result has been an incomplete (at best) enactment of CfE, and a tendency to address new curricular problems through existing practices and assumptions. This was evident in our research in 2011 and 2012 (e.g. http://hdl.handle.net/1893/11356), and I have seen little evidence since, in my extensive work with teachers, that the situation has improved. Thus the issue with declining scores in PISA is, in my opinion, likely to be due to a failure to enact CfE adequately, rather than being a problem with CfE as a curricular approach.

So how do we address this? A good starting point is the OECD review, which provides legitimation for a revision of CfE in its call to be bold. In all of this we need to remember that the curriculum should not be set in stone as a sabre tooth curriculum (see http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/OWK_1415/toetsing/thesabertoothcurriculumshor.pdf); instead it should be subject to regular review, and such a process should not be framed as a climb-down or u-turn by policy makers, but simply a part of the normal process of updating the curriculum to adapt to changing societal needs. This means a rationalisation of existing documentation, in my view, to provide the simplified narrative called for by the OECD. It requires the establishment of a strengthened middle – a mid-system leadership stratum that provides support and facilitation for curriculum development, using tried and tested methods of teacher/curriculum development such as collaborative professional enquiry (see http://hdl.handle.net/1893/24179). Above all, we should ‘hold our nerve’ with CfE, and enact it fully in the spirit of its original aspirations (avoiding the political temptation to ape the testing regimes so familiar in England). The CfE model is much admired around the world – but we need to make it a reality in our schools.