World Class or Bottom of the Class? A Deep Dive into the Curriculum and Assessment Review

Country School- Everyday Life at Baldock County Council School, Baldock, Hertfordshire, England, UK, 1944. http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//43/media-43921/large.jpg

So, the Curriculum and Assessment Review Final Report is now out. I know that lots has already been published about it and its aims. I originally sat down to read it on Wednesday but there was so much to digest I had to keep dipping back in and out.  
 
Here I want to offer some of my reflections on whether or not the review achieves its aims of setting the groundwork for ‘building and world-class curriculum for all’. This is important as this document is likely to set directions which could impact young people and schools for the next decade.  
 
I will be posting this in parts over the next week or so, but if you just want to read it all now, I am going to put them all up straight away. I have divided it into the following sections. Some are broader, others are more History specific. As ever I would be very interested in your thoughts and feedback. You can find me over at @apf102.bsky.social.

1. How well does the Curriculum Review navigate breadth, depth and balance? LINK
2. Education for a planet in crisis: does the Curriculum Review get it right? LINK
3. An empowering History curriculum? What does the Curriculum Review mean for school History? LINK
4. Teacher autonomy: will the Curriculum Review restore our profession? LINK
5. Are we getting meaningful changes in assessment? LINK

If you want the very short version of all of this, here you go: 
 
I think this is a review which is riddled with contradictions. For every positive change suggested, or recognition of an issue, there is a set of detail which seems to pull in the opposite direction. Too many people I think are just seeing the headline positives: more teacher autonomy, removal of EBacc, more inclusive curriculum etc. What they are not seeing is how the continued adherence to the ‘knowledge-rich’ paradigm, as well as strong accountability measures, means that the realisation of these aims is often actively obstructed. So  we get greater autonomy through greater specification; removal of EBacc but the retention of the EBacc bucket in Progress 8; a more inclusive curriculum, but only optionally and without reference to bigger global challenges.  
 
I should say that I am grateful a review process has been undertaken. It was good to see that the authors recognised the diverse views of those who were involved in the research and the complexity of engaging in systemic reform. However, I would suggest that there was more than a touch of hubris in the claim that the methods adopted in the report allowed its authors to ‘navigate diverse and often conflicting views that stakeholders have expressed’ (p13) especially with no further qualification. 
 
I appreciate reviewing the curriculum and suggesting change is no small task in the current economic climate. The report notes that it has to be conscious of the impact of substantial changes. However, many of the struggles schools are facing are related to curriculum and assessment issues which the report chooses directly not to tackle. We need to be careful not to overload schools with change, but equally some changes are needed to relieve the pressures, and change the framings, which are causing issues in the first place.  
 
I have heard some describe this report as ‘minor improvement’ and others as ‘a missed opportunity’. For my money I think it is neither. For every positive change there seems to be a negative aspect. And every ‘missed opportunity’ seems to lead to reduced teacher autonomy and greater central control over teaching. The result is a report which is in fact another barrier raised for the young people seeking to understand their ever-changing world. Curriculum change is never going to lead to complete agreement, however I suspect this report is the victim of the narrowness of its core authorship, the paucity of its framings and the lack of imagination in its scope. It is a curriculum review for a stable world and not for one in flux.  
 


​
 
NB. I wanted to touch briefly on methodology. The report does discuss this to some extent and there are Annex documents to read also. However,  the coding methods and weighting of the responses in the final recommendations are not really explored here or in the Annex (unless I've missed it). I would love also to know if AI was used or a team of researchers.