The government should create a new review process to oversee changes to the national curriculum, a leading academy sector body has suggested.
The Confederation of School Trusts (CST) has put forward the proposal in a new discussion paper, which comes amid calls for an urgent review of the curriculum and for an independent body to be created to take decision making out of politics.
The CST paper suggests that rather than creating a new national organisation, ministers should create a review process to provide expertise when it is decided that a curriculum review is needed.
Steve Rollett, deputy chief executive of the CST and author of the paper, argues that this would address concerns about curriculum thinking being driven by individual ministerial whims, but “without undoing democratic accountability”.
The discussion paper says that creating a new separate national curriculum organisation would be a “retrograde step”, which would risk removing curriculum agency from schools and multi-academy trusts (MATs) and could also add to teacher workload.
The CST paper says it is “plausible that, from time to time, there may be need for government to evaluate existing national curriculum specifications and exemplification”.
It adds: “We do not believe the establishment of a curriculum body is the best way to undertake this work. It may be more helpful for the government to consider the process through which it enacts such work.”
How might this curriculum panel process happen?
The paper sets out a process in which the government would publish a remit for curriculum review work to be undertaken - for instance, to review the content of the curriculum for a particular subject.
This would be carried out by a curriculum governance panel selected by the government and whose membership would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
This curriculum governance panel would then appoint an expert curriculum group necessary to fulfil the remit.
The expert group’s work would include a call for evidence and consultation with stakeholders and result in recommendations being submitted to the curriculum governance panel.
The curriculum governance panel reviews the recommendations against the remit and publishes final recommendations to the government, which would then issue a public response.
Future of the national curriculum
The policy paper comes amid major discussion in the education sector about the future of the national curriculum.
In an education policy announcement last month, Labour pledged to set up an urgent review of curriculum and assessment focused on developing pupils’ knowledge and skills.
Earlier this month, Big Change and Institute for Public Policy Research produced a report examining the likely impacts and potential trade-offs involved in broadening the curriculum beyond just academic subjects for young people.
Writing for Tes, one of the report authors Loic Menzies said that, if elected, a future Labour education secretary should task “subject experts with making difficult but necessary decisions about content and sequencing”.
He said a revised curriculum should be an entitlement for all pupils, regardless of whether they are in a MAT or maintained school.
Currently, academies do not have to follow the national curriculum, although Ofsted’s inspections require these schools to teach a curriculum that matches the national curriculum “in its breadth and ambition”.
The Association of School and College Leaders’ Blueprint for a Fairer Education has proposed creating a body to oversee a review of the national curriculum for early years, primary and secondary on a cyclical basis, approximately every 10 years.
The review body would “comprise school leaders, governors, teachers, parents, researchers, industry representatives and politicians from all major parties”.
Writing for Tes, Mr Rollett said: “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 over a dozen years since the last significant review.
“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.”
He added: “I’m sceptical about the notion of a curriculum body. But the problem remains: who should carry out national curriculum reviews?
“This is something the CST 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.”
