Changes to the national curriculum need to be occasional because most subjects require a degree of stability over time.

For one thing, in many subjects the field knowledge does not shift dramatically in short periods (though it can happen). Secondly, teacher workload is vulnerable to a rapidly shifting curriculum.

That said, some periodic review is sensible. It can help to ensure national curriculum aims are attuned to the changing knowledge of the subject and the dispositions of those within both it and the wider society government serves.

Labour’s commitment to undertaking a curriculum review, if elected, is arguably well timed given it is coming up for 10 years since the current iteration was launched and more than 12 years since the last significant review began.

Any government undertaking this work must remain mindful of the value of stability over time but a review feels like a legitimate desire of government - especially one that has been in opposition for a significant period.

It’s important to remember that the national curriculum is not a curriculum in the practical sense; it is a set of high-level objectives (and academies are not required to teach it). There remains a lot of flexibility in terms of how teachers translate it into an actual curriculum.

Acknowledging the political

So, how should a government carry out a review of the national curriculum?

A common call is that the curriculum should be “taken out of politics”. It’s an understandable idea that, especially in such politically charged times, something as important as the national curriculum should not be decided on the whim of a single minister.

But it does not follow that insulating the curriculum from personal ideologies is necessarily the same as taking the curriculum out of politics entirely.

For one thing, we live in a democracy and curriculum is inherently a political space. Arguably, as with much of society, it is right that governments with an elected mandate are able to influence - and be held accountable for - what happens in schools, including through the national curriculum.

Some suggest a curriculum body should be established, but this does not sidestep important issues of power, legitimacy and representation. Indeed, given the potential lack of democratic accountability in such a set-up, it may compound the problem.

More practically, there is a workload risk. A permanent standing curriculum body that occasionally reviews the national curriculum may be forced to justify its existence the rest of the time by generating curriculum-related content and guidance, all the while requiring teachers to keep on top of its output.

For these reasons, and a few more, I’m sceptical about the notion of a curriculum body. But the problem remains: who should carry out national curriculum reviews?

Who creates a new curriculum?

This is something the Confederation of School Trusts has been thinking about and we recently published a discussion paper describing one option.

We wonder if the solution resides in the next government - whichever it is - establishing a time-limited and occasionally enacted process rather than a body. We posit that establishing a clearer process for reviewing and setting the curriculum can mitigate fears some have about individual ministerial whims without undoing democratic accountability.

It was interesting to see ASCL call for a curriculum body akin to the STRB. I think there is some merit in this, as far as setting out a clear process is concerned. Indeed, the process we set out in our paper has some similarities with the STRB method.

But for the reasons above, there are risks in establishing a curriculum body. Plus, the STRB is expected to make recommendations on pay every year, and thus a standing body makes sense. But we wouldn’t want curriculum being reshaped with such frequency. So, for me, the value in drawing a parallel with the STRB is about establishing a process more than a body.

Three pillars for success

This process could be underpinned by three pillars: transparency, governance and engagement.

• A transparent process, perhaps like that of the STRB, has the benefit of adding public and parliamentary scrutiny at various stages of the review. Everyone should understand how and why decisions are made, dispelling (or at least exposing to scrutiny) inappropriately political or ideological motivations.
   
• In terms of governance, we propose a layer of curriculum governance in the process. This could see a small panel of experts entrusted with overseeing the review project on behalf of ministers. While these people wouldn’t undertake the detail of the review themselves, they would be responsible for assembling the subject experts who would.
  When combined with the principle of transparency, this could ensure a line of accountability to ministers but also insulation from individual ideologies.
   
• Lastly, meaningful engagement with teachers and disciplinary communities is key. This would include experts in their fields and experts in classrooms while ensuring that such groups are properly representative of the profession and wider society. This input is essential to ensure that the national curriculum resonates with their experience and expertise.

The process we suggest is deliberately tentative and intended to stimulate discussion. We don’t assume we’ve got it absolutely right.

But we do think there is an opportunity here for Labour, or any government undertaking a review, to go beyond setting what’s in the national curriculum and reimagine the process that underpins its creation.

If we establish the right national curriculum review process, we have a chance of maintaining over time a national curriculum that is well conceived, representative and that carries the support of the profession.

Steve Rollett is deputy chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts