Should all children be entitled to learn how volcanoes are formed? Yes. Should all schools teach about Mount Fuji? No.
Should all children have the chance to learn about rhythms and create their own? Yes. Should all schools teach this via Baroque music? No.
Should all children be exposed to the concept of character in literature? Yes. Should all schools teach this through To Kill a Mockingbird? No.
I imagine most of you will agree with at least the second part of these statements. Schools benefit from curricular flexibility to meet the needs and interests of their pupils (and the passions of their teachers).
Teachers might think it best to teach about volcanoes by exploring Mount Vesuvius as part of their topic on the Romans, or to teach rhythm through jazz because one kid’s dad is a saxophonist.
Yet, some may disagree that all schools should teach about concepts such as volcanoes, rhythm and character. You might think the choice of subject-based concepts should be left up to individual schools and teachers.
That view is reflected in the national curricula of Wales, Scotland and New Zealand (the new curriculum in Wales was the focus of a recent talk I gave). But although this approach is intuitively appealing, I don’t think it gives schools and students the best chance to achieve the broad educational outcomes these systems want.
Curricula with ‘vague, high-level statements’
In a previous Tes article, I set out problems with curricula frameworks that include only vague, high-level statements.
These include little knowledge that all children are entitled to. Primary teachers have little guidance on what subject-specific concepts and skills are important, or how to develop an understanding of them over several years; secondary teachers are therefore often forced to start from scratch, due to variability in different schools’ approaches.
I set out four challenges that any new or updated curricula frameworks should meet:
- That there is enough commonality across different primary school curricula so that secondary teachers can build upon shared knowledge and not start from scratch.
- That curriculum statements include some knowledge all children are entitled to.
- That non-subject-specialist teachers are supported to identify and sequence the most important ideas and concepts within a broad range of subjects.
- That schools have enough autonomy in planning their own curricula to meet their own learners’ needs - and leave space for teacher agency.
But how to achieve all this?
There is an apparent tension between designing a framework that supports curriculum coherence across transitions, but still allows flexibility and relevance within school curricula.
Luckily, the structure of knowledge is such that, in most subjects, we can distinguish between conceptual, context-independent content - such as the formation of volcanoes, the tapping out of rhythm, the study of characterisation - and contextual knowledge of particular case studies, historical periods and works of art, music and literature. This distinction is highlighted by Tim Oates in the UK and Elizabeth Rata in New Zealand.
Tension in curriculum design between coherence and relevance
While curriculum decisions about both types of content are hugely important, it is still a useful distinction to make because it can help overcome the tension in curriculum design between coherence and relevance.
On one hand, coherence over time relies mainly on continuity in development of concepts and abstract ideas, and therefore curriculum decisions about these are best made above the level of the school.
On the other, curriculum relevance relies mainly on the choice of context - at school or classroom level - through which these ideas are taught. I’ve had the privilege of working with teachers in Wales and Scotland, putting this distinction to use to design progression frameworks locally; I think it could help solve the national curriculum problems identified in Scotland and New Zealand.
I live in South Wales, between Port Talbot, site of the UK’s largest steelworks, and the Mumbles, a seaside village and home of Joe’s Ice Cream. There is value in studying both these businesses, which might form part of a unit about “my local area”. What is taught - the school curriculum - could quite reasonably differ from one place to the next.
There is also knowledge, though, that is relevant to children in both places. If we believe that young people should have a basic understanding of science by the time they leave school, for example, a key part of that understanding is that everything is made of tiny particles, and that giving these particles more energy can lead to changes of state.
This key scientific understanding should be in a national curriculum framework, but the specific context through which this is taught should not: in Mumbles, I might use the example of what happens when an ice cream melts; in Port Talbot, my chosen context might be molten steel.
Striving for more equitable education systems
If governments in Wales, Scotland and New Zealand want more equitable education systems where important learning is not left up to chance, they should gather their best teachers and other experts to decide on:
- Core conceptual knowledge and related skills that will support all children to meet the purposes of their curricula.
- How these understandings can be built over time.
Teachers in individual schools should then be supported (by an eco-system of resource developers and subject associations) to do the important work of choosing appropriate contexts and case studies to make those ideas meaningful, interesting and useful for students in their own settings - wherever they are.
Lucy Crehan is an international education consultant, based in Wales, and the author of Cleverlands: The secrets behind the success of the world’s education superpowers. She tweets @lucy_crehan
For the latest Scottish education news, analysis and features delivered directly to your inbox, sign up to Tes magazine’s The Week in Scotland newsletter
