“Are you on slide 8 yet?” | National Education Union

Executive summary

Project aims

In this report we seek to develop a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of teachers’ experience and use of standardised curricula. By standardised curricula we mean units/schemes of work, programmes or packages that are ready for teachers to follow in teaching. This includes a wide range of practices including materials self-generated in-house (in an individual school or across a group of schools) and content that is provided by external third parties (such as educational publishers). In some cases, materials are used by teachers in a loose and flexible manner, while in other contexts teachers are expected to adhere very closely to the standardised curriculum design. In the international literature the latter are sometimes referred to as ‘scripted curricula’.

Our aims in this study are to:

establish the extent of the use of standardised curricula across primary and secondary schools;
understand the ways in which teachers experience and evaluate standardised curricula;
understand the relationship between the use of standardised curricula and the quality of teachers’ working lives and in particular their perceptions of autonomy, self-efficacy and workload;
gain, within this broader framework, an understanding of teachers’ responses to the Oak National Academy. Oak National Academy provides a particular kind of standardised curriculum that has been developed with government support and significant public funding and so there is a public interest argument for focusing on this case.

The data is based on a survey completed by 1655 teachers, interviews with 40 teachers (conducted individually and in focus groups), and a documentary analysis of both policy papers and Oak curriculum resources.

Context

For much of the twentieth century teachers in England experienced relatively high levels of autonomy in relation to curriculum design and lesson planning. This was a situation that changed substantially when the 1988 Education Reform Act introduced the national curriculum, and then again in the early 2000s when a Labour government introduced national strategies for literacy and numeracy. In this report we suggest that the period since 2014 can be considered as a ‘third wave’ of central government intervention into the school curriculum, with publication of the most recent iteration of the national curriculum framework.

Alongside the new national curriculum, and its focus on ‘core knowledge,’ particular pedagogical approaches were promoted, linked to research in the cognitive sciences. Curriculum, test and exam specifications and new approaches to teacher education entailed a greater specification of both content knowledge and pedagogy. In this context there has been an increased use of standardised curricula in schools.

To date, despite these developments, there has been little research that looks at teachers’ experience of using these curricula. This research seeks to address that gap in current knowledge.

Summary of key findings

The summary below represents findings from the project survey, from individual and focus group interviews with teachers, and from an analysis of a range of documents including policy documents and curriculum materials.

Usage, autonomy, self-efficacy

Standardised curricula, broadly defined, are used in some form by 90 per cent of primary teachers and 54 per cent of secondary teachers. In the primary sector the most common usage is in Maths and English, but there is also significant usage in subjects such as languages and music.
There is a wide range of providers of standardised curricula. At secondary school level the most popular (76 per cent of respondents) are those produced ‘in- house’, either at the level of an individual school or across a group of schools, e.g. a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT). (This was also the third most common type of such curricula at primary level (27 per cent of respondents). Oak National Academy usage was identified as low (3 per cent) when compared to other third-party providers.
Teachers who use standardised curricula reported a reduced sense of professional autonomy. In the areas of teacher decision- making and exercising professional judgement both primary and secondary teachers reported reduced autonomy in relation to all the indicators provided in the survey, particularly in relation to control over ‘course content’ and ‘content of individual lessons. More than a third of primary school teachers (34 per cent) said that they had little or no influence on content of individual lessons. The influence of external assessments on lesson content was seen as significant in both secondary and primary sectors. 67 per cent of secondary and 52 per cent of primary teachers said that external assessment had a lot of influence on the content of their lessons.
Teachers in the primary sector reported that senior leaders were the principal influence on curriculum content (with significantly more influence than classroom teachers), while in the secondary sector middle leaders assumed this role (again, with significantly more influence than classroom teachers).
Across all survey respondents, teachers who did not use standardised curricula reported significantly higher levels of autonomy than those who did use standardised curricula.
Teachers of non-standardised curricula reported higher levels of self-efficacy in relation to both instructional and engagement self-efficacy, i.e. these teachers were more confident of their ability to both teach effectively and interest and motivate students.

Workload

A poor perception of workload was a common issue across all respondents, and was not determined by use, or non-use, of standardised curricula. There were no significant differences between the workload perceptions of non-standardised curriculum users and standardised curriculum users. This finding applied to both primary and secondary teachers, and to both full and part-time teachers.

Workload’ emerged from the study as a highly complex issue that cannot be reduced to a simplistic notion of ‘hours worked’. Curriculum design and lesson planning are clearly activities that require time. However, if these are activities that teachers value, then trying to remove these activities from teachers to tackle workload issues does not necessarily tackle the ‘work strain’ that teachers experience.
It may also be the case that standardised curricula have not reduced teacher workload, but have simply changed its nature. Instead of spending time researching material and selecting resources, teachers are spending time interpreting and adapting generic materials to meet the needs of their pupils.
The interviews suggested that teachers saw standardised curricula as having positive uses that were limited and precise: to cover for absence, to compensate for a lack of specialist knowledge, to reduce aspects of workload, and to mitigate the problems of high teacher turnover. Beyond discussion of these uses, respondents repeatedly expressed concerns about a range of issues related to autonomy, self- efficacy and workload:
- standardised curricula embodied a lack of trust in teacher expertise;
- teachers lacked the freedom to adapt standardised curricula to meet the particular needs of their pupils;
- standardised curricula functioned as a control mechanism to monitor teachers’ work;
- practices of collaborative and flexible planning were being replaced by standardised commercial or in-house curriculum packages ‘imposed from above’;
- standardised curricula posed risks to the quality of students’ school experiences. In particular they did not sufficiently engage or challenge students and did not work for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

The data leads us to conclude that there is a significant difference between, on the one hand, the justifications for standardised curricula offered by national policymakers and the managements of some MATs, and on the other, the experiences and perceptions of teachers. This is a gap which can only be closed by encouraging open professional discussion and independent research – and by making the views of teachers more central to curriculum policy-making.

Summary of issues relating to Oak National Academy:

Oak National Academy provided a case study of a standardised curriculum for this project. It was chosen because the initiative received considerable support from the previous government, including substantial public funding. In making the case to develop Oak National Academy the Department of Education (DfE) identified benefits in relation to quality of teaching and impacts on teacher workload.

Oak National Academy is currently being reviewed by the DfE. The review is led by the Chief Executive of LocatED, a ‘non- departmental public body’ which works with the DfE on the acquisition and management of its education estate. The review is concerned with questions of efficacy, governance, efficiency and accountability, without a strong curriculum focus.

A summary of our research indicated:

Teacher take-up of Oak National Academy is low. In the survey just over 3 per cent of respondents indicated they followed Oak as a curriculum plan. Most use was occasional and infrequent.
The most common uses were to provide material for cover lessons (when a teacher is absent), to support students with attendance issues and to support colleagues teaching outside of their subject area. In this sense, there is a limited claim that Oak contributes to building system resilience, as per the business case that was made to support Oak, and which was developed by the DfE under the last government.
Oak materials are not being used in the way that was presented in the DfE’s business case. The business case argued teachers needed a coherent, appropriately sequenced curriculum plan. However, our research demonstrates that where teachers use Oak materials at all, they do not use them in the way presented in the DfE’s business case, that is as a whole, sequenced curriculum plan. Our reading of Oak’s curriculum materials does not support the claims that they are of ‘high quality’ and represent ‘great design’ (Oak’s own claims).
Given the very limited number of Oak users that were revealed in the survey, our data does not allow us to make definitive claims about the benefits of using Oak on workload. Workload advantages were identified among some survey respondents, but it is not possible to claim these are specific to Oak. Workload benefits may pertain to other standardised curricula or more general benefits deriving from increased collaboration in relation to curriculum planning. We identified no evidence to support the substantial claims Oak makes in relation to workload gains, namely that using Oak materials reduces teachers’ working week by 4 hours.

Standardised curricula: emerging issues

As the findings from our research indicate, standardised curricula have become a common feature of the English school system – their use appears to be increasing.

Survey respondents, as well as the teachers we interviewed, recognised potential benefits that arise from the use of standardised curricula when they are adopted and applied in specific circumstances. For example, many teachers recognise the benefits of a level of consistency in curriculum planning, to improve transitions or to make it easier to cover for absences. Teachers also understood that there ought to be workload benefits from not having to generate one’s own materials.

However, both in the survey and in the interviews, teachers expressed a desire to retain meaningful control over their own work. Teachers value the benefits of working collegially and collaborating in the design of materials. However, teachers’ involvement in this process needs to be meaningful, and individual teachers want to be able to use and adapt such resources flexibly to be able to respond to the needs of the students in the classroom.

When devising and using standardised curricula, careful thought needs to be given to ensuring benefits are maximised and disadvantages are minimised. Where this is not the case, our research indicates the costs are substantial. Teachers believe they are not able to develop a curriculum which engages learners and matches their needs. Job satisfaction suffers as professional autonomy is restricted and self-efficacy is diminished.

As our research indicates, all of these problems can arise – without any discernible improvements in workload.

In its most acute form, we believe it is important to recognise a tendency towards the ‘taylorisation’ of teaching. Taylorism refers to a particular way of managing a work process, in which managers specify in detail on how any work task is to be performed, and the employee is required to follow this process without deviating from it. Teachers experience this when they are excluded from any meaningful involvement in curriculum design and even lesson planning, and are simply expected to deliver a pre-prepared plan. These developments are internalised by teachers as a form of de-skilling that denudes them of their ability to draw on the full repertoire of their professional expertise.

The approach stands at odds with international research evidence that highlights the need for a high skill, appropriately qualified teacher workforce. This study does not allow us to assess with precision to what extent these practices exist, but we can say with confidence that they are common, and our literature review suggests that there is good evidence that they may be increasing. Such trends have significant consequences for capacity in the school system, and the possibilities that may exist for education in the future.

Recommendations

Based on the research offered in this report we set out the following recommendations. All our recommendations are rooted in the conviction that teachers should possess the capacity for curriculum design, a skill that requires deep curriculum knowledge that should be valued and nurtured. Dismissing, diminishing, and sometimes denying such skills has a negative impact on teachers’ professional autonomy, it erodes their sense of self-efficacy and the quality of their working lives is worsened as a consequence.

Our recommendations are prefaced by a call for more open debate. Many of the developments described in this report arise from initiatives that are far removed from public discussion, whether within the education sector or beyond. A genuinely public education service requires much more open discussion about policy than is typically experienced in the English school system.

Recommendations to central government

Curriculum development has suffered from excessive political intervention and from being subject to the personal priorities of politicians. Curriculum responsibilities should be transferred to a public body that is independent from government, and that has broader representation from subject associations, university researchers and teachers’ organisations.
In this context, the review of Oak National Academy, as a DfE initiative associated with the 2019-24 Conservative governments, should be broadened to include a particular focus on the quality of its curriculum offer and its impact on teaching and learning. Set against the original business case, and its current levels of usage as the findings of our research suggest, Oak is a poor return on public funds invested.
Policy needs to be genuinely evidence- informed. This would involve engaging the teaching profession, its subject associations and trade unions and the whole research community in discussions about curriculum design and pedagogical approaches. Policy on something as fundamental as the national curriculumshould not be based on the selective use of favoured research findings.
The current Curriculum and Assessment Review should open the way to a thorough review and rethinking of curriculum practice drawing on a wide range of research, and undertaken by a diversity of researchers and organisations. The review should be seen as the first stage in a longer-term project. Change is required, and fear of further change in a system that has already experienced upheaval cannot be a justification for not making essential reforms.
Our research has identified significant problems with the use of standardised curricula when used as scripts for teachers to follow. They work against teacher autonomy and self-efficacy. In some cases, they do not effectively implement principles of inclusive education. In others, they do not engage and motivate students. In this light the Curriculum and Assessment Review should specifically consider the use, effects and value of standardised curricula.
Teacher education, and on-going professional development, need to help teachers develop their curriculum design and lesson planning skills as an essential element in teachers’ repertoire of professional skills. In this study several teachers questioned whether current approaches to teacher education adequately prepared new entrants for the complexity of their role. Against this background, recent reforms of teacher education should also be reviewed.
Performance-based accountability and greater external control of processes of teaching and learning have adverse effects on teacher well-being and motivation as well as on the engagement of learners. Reviewing accountability demands in schools, including the very considerable impact of Ofsted, should be a priority.
There should be a review of working arrangements to prioritise activities that add value to quality teaching and learning, and ensure such activities are not crowded out by low value activities, often driven by excessive accountability demands, that distract from teaching and planning teaching.

For consideration by Local Authorities, Multi-Academy Trusts and individual schools

Teachers who do not use standardised curricula feel more autonomous than standardised curricula users and have higher self-efficacy. Local authorities, schools and trusts must recognise this and treat teachers as curriculum makers. They should encourage meaningful collaborative and collegial approaches to curriculum design and planning at subject and department level, in which all relevant staff are confident that they have a stake. They should encourage teacher discretion over the use of curriculum materials.
Professional development should draw from teachers’ experience, professional knowledge and research perspectives. Teachers should be encouraged and funded to engage in professional development as a basis for enhanced professional autonomy and self-efficacy. Teacher- organised activity, school programmes, university courses and those run by training organisations all have the potential to develop teachers’ practice. All teachers need to be supported to engage with research from a range of traditions. Teachers need to act as critical participants in a research process, and not be treated as passive and uncritical recipients of research that others have decided as ‘what works’.

For consideration by the National Education Union

The Union should:

continue to raise issues of workload and task discretion at LA/MAT and individual school level, and support school representatives to develop the skills and confidence to bargain over these issues at the relevant organisational level.
campaign and negotiate for contractual changes that ensure teachers have adequate time to design and plan a high-quality curriculum and to engage with the research to support these activities.
identify, highlight and prioritise professional autonomy and task discretion as foundational elements that develop teacher self-efficacy and autonomy