The National Education Union commissioned Professor Ken Jones to conduct a research- based review of the problems of England’s system of curriculum and assessment and the resources that can be drawn on to change it.
In this executive summary Professor Jones summarises the arguments and findings of this review, which is based on more than 250 books, chapters and journal articles.
In several ways the review aligns with what is becoming a new common sense about what has gone wrong, especially over the last decade, and considers alternative approaches which could bring positive benefits.
Summary of key findings
There is common ground that under the influence of assessment and accountability, the curriculum that is ‘enacted’ in schools has become narrow and over-prescribed, with arts education particularly affected. It is becoming clear to many that the existing curriculum bears some responsibility for a growing tendency for students to become disengaged from their learning, and from the school itself. There is agreement that teachers are overworked, and that turnover is far too high.
Though these criticisms capture some of the problems of our current system, they tend to lack detail and depth. They do not connect the failings they identify to the logic of the system as a whole. Issues of student disengagement are not connected to those of curriculum design. Issues of teacher retention are seen as separate from those of a school culture in which ideas of teacher autonomy do not find a secure place.
These disconnections pose the risk that the reform of curriculum and assessment will be superficial, with the causes of the current crisis left unaddressed.
This is a problem that the NEU review tries to overcome. It makes use of literature that connects educational policy to its political inspirations and intellectual foundations. It returns to major and wrongly discarded traditions of educational thinking that policymakers set aside without serious engagement. It draws from research that considers curriculum change in the light of the great challenges of our time – notably climate change, economic insecurity and racism. It recognises the importance of research on teaching conceptualised as a process of curriculum-making, rather than curriculum delivery.
Within this general framework, the following arguments and conclusions arise from the review of evidence and research.
Rewriting a national curriculum means addressing questions of educational value and social purpose. It is, or should be, an ambitious design for a different future.
Between 2010 and 2024, education ministers claimed authoritative status for policies whose basis in research was at best highly contested or ambivalent, and at worst decidedly weak. They repeatedly dismissed policy initiatives and policy criticisms that stemmed from the experience and expertise of educators. Former ministers and many school leaderships have over-prioritised aspects of the curriculum that they considered to be academic, at the expense of its social, cultural and creative aspects.
There is often a conflict between the aspiration of students to see their experiences and interests reflected in the curriculum, and a curriculum which reflects these interests only very partially. The present curriculum does not provide room to build teaching on pupils’ individual interests, goals and priorities. It thus inhibits the creation of learning experiences that have personal significance for children and holds back their development as students and as citizens.
Standardised curricula, seen by previous governments as positive developments, are linked to a loss of teacher autonomy and self-efficacy. Both the Department for Education (DfE), in its sponsorship and subsequent taking in-house of the Oak National Academy, and some multi-academy trust (MAT) leaderships, in their development of standardised curricula at trust level, have jeopardised curriculum quality. The adoption of AI-assisted approaches to curriculum and lesson planning risks worsening the negative effects of standardisation.
Schools are microcosms of society and in a period fraught with social and cultural tensions, they must be enabled to respond productively to their contexts. The experience of schools, teachers and students during the Covid-19 pandemic and the post-2020 Black Lives Matter movement was rich and it remains a resource which can be drawn from.
The concern of successive governments with questions of ‘radicalisation’ has had a negative impact on the educational engagement of minoritised communities.
The shadow curriculum that has developed under the auspices of Prevent is simplistic and uncritical and must be reviewed.
A new national curriculum will not provide a means for learner engagement unless it has a new relationship to accountability and assessment. This requires the removal of government tests in primary schools and of some accountability instruments (primary league tables, English Baccalaureate (EBacc), Progress 8). It will require a reduction in national curriculum content, a change to GCSE and A-level syllabuses and the retention of applied general qualifications (AGQs) such as BTECs.
A curriculum policy is never simply ‘implemented’, it is a process enacted by teachers rather than a predetermined or fixed content to be delivered. Teachers should not be seen as agents of ‘deliverology’ but as subject interpreters and enactors of their subjects and their specialisms from day one of their careers. This emphasis on teacher expertise is not antithetical to the idea of a national curriculum. A national curriculum can provide impetus for teacher involvement in its enactment, provided teachers are supported in translating new policies into their local contexts.
Pressure to follow the ‘standards agenda’ – especially in the form of SATs – has affected teachers’ capacity to respond to the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). We have an education system which celebrates high achievement at the expense of valuing difference. This works against the development of inclusive practice.
The new government has pledged “a curriculum that ensures children and young people leave compulsory education ready for life and ready for work”. These are headline phrases that obscure complex issues. ‘Ready for life’ must involve a broad general education, relevant to lives that will be lived under the pressures of climate change. ‘Ready for work’ must not be taken to mean that schools are dominated by the need to prepare students for a divided and unequal labour market.
