The interim report from the Curriculum and Assessment Review Panel doesn’t give English teachers much to get their teeth into. As a document designed to cover all subject areas across all key stages, it’s perhaps unsurprising that it doesn’t give much in the way of subject-specific detail. That said, there are some clear pointers as to the direction of travel, some positive, others less so. Given the urgent need for reform in English, we thought it worthwhile looking at the document carefully in order to evaluate its possible implications for the subject based on the headlines so far and to draw attention to any aspects that we feel need addressing in the next phase.
First let’s look at some positive signs.
- The report is clearly written and, where it offers evidence, it doesn’t overclaim. This might seem obvious in a document of national importance, but the same cannot be said for some recent significant policy documents that have tried to move English teaching in particular directions by misusing research evidence.
- The report recognises and seems committed to addressing some key areas of concern, such as the underachievement of economically disadvantaged and SEND students. Given the importance of literacy as a gateway to learning in other subjects, this is particularly significant for English.
- The report recognises some problematic areas that need resolution, including the EBacc and GCSE resits at post-16. The EBacc has had adverse effects on subject choices and put added accountability pressure on some subjects, such as English. The GCSE resits at post-16 are a particular issue for English, given the huge number of students required to re-sit GCSEs, even when this is not the most appropriate option for many.
- There is a cautious commitment to investigating the possibility of reducing the assessment workload on students and of drawing on alternative forms of assessment, including forms of non-examined assessment. Given the limitations placed on English by the current GCSE exams, this is a much-needed area for further exploration.
- There is a strong commitment to recognising the need for a diverse and inclusive curriculum. There have been great strides to make curriculum content more inclusive since 2020, including opportunities to teach new texts at GCSE. However, take-up has been patchy, so a clearer mandate in this area would be very welcome.
- There is a commitment to drawing on the professional expertise of teachers, as well as listening to students and parents.
- There is a recognition of some of the complexities behind issues of teacher and student workload. For example, it recognises that ‘under-prescription in subjects, with some programmes of study lacking specificity … can, counter-intuitively, contribute to greater curriculum volume, as teachers try to cover all eventualities.’ This is certainly the case with the current programme of study as it informs the English Language GCSE.
There are, however, some major areas of concern too.
- The commitment to ‘evolution not revolution’ is a worthy one on the face of it. However, there needs to be a recognition that in some areas of curriculum (English being one of them) there are very serious concerns and problems (for example, in relation to the content of the English Language GCSE and its assessment). These may require more than minor tweaks and should be considered at the earliest possible opportunity, to address the issues that have been causing severe damage to the subject and have been shown to be of great concern to teachers, students and universities. There is a strong consensus around these concerns. (See further reading at end of blog.) A conceptual position paper, supplementary to the review, frames the evolution approach using ‘Joseph Schwab’s conception of ‘the Practical’’ from 1970. Schwab argued that significant changes to curriculum tended to be driven by theory rather than practice. Key to any effective reform, for him, was to draw on and adapt what was already happening and working on the ground. It’s a position with lots of merits, but in drawing on it, the review panel is framing any alternatives to the current curriculum model and what comes next as theoretical in nature and so not worthy of consideration. There are, of course, several practical, established alternatives to the current curriculum, particularly for English. Establishing this false dichotomy feels unnecessary.
- We are shocked to see the absence of any references to oracy and the development of a curriculum that foregrounds spoken language. Given that oracy has been flagged up as a government priority, and that there has been a highly significant body of work and report from the Oracy Education Commission drawing on a wide range of expertise, it seems a worrying omission.
- The review makes several references to mastery learning. Given that mastery is more a matter of pedagogy than curriculum, this seems curious, and its inclusion as a given is a major area of concern. The document seems overly directive from a pedagogical point of view in making statements such as:
A restriction of opportunities for mastery (the process of ensuring students understand a particular foundational concept before moving to the next one) has implications for progress: students need to be secure in core concepts and knowledge before moving forward to avoid gaps forming and growing (which are then hard to remedy). Moreover, mastery approaches are important from a social justice viewpoint as they have been shown to narrow the disadvantage gap when targeted support is given to students with gaps in understanding, as well as because they incorporate high expectations that all students can successfully be supported to reach mastery of high-level content with the right support. (27)
What of other approaches that have been shown to be effective from a social justice viewpoint? What of subjects, such as English, which do not lend themselves to being organised around threshold concepts and to the chunking and tight sequencing required of mastery approaches?
Our own view is that there are much better ways to teach an inclusive English curriculum than one structured around mastery. Mastery as a concept is at odds with some of the signature practices of the discipline of English and we have seen the emergence of versions of the subject that do not achieve the ‘rich’ knowledge that is so strongly advocated for in the report. Regardless of our standpoint, excessive references to mastery overstep the remit of the curriculum review and raise significant questions about the range of experiences and viewpoints of the panel members.
A National Curriculum outlines the content of what is to be taught in schools. Schools should be left to make their own decisions about how to teach this content and not be unduly influenced in ways as directive as seems to be the case in this preliminary review. To this end, we urge the chair of the review panel, Becky Francis, to ensure that those tasked with moving the review on to its next stage are drawn from wide and representative sections of subject communities, including English.
Further reading
We recognise that the interim report could not deal specifically with English. We also remain hopeful that once the process moves on to subject areas, the particular needs of English will be taken seriously. In the build up to the curriculum and assessment review, several excellent documents emerged from the subject community and elsewhere, which we hope will inform future developments.
Summit on the Reform of the English GCSEs: report and recommendations
Common English Forum: A Manifesto for English
We Need to Talk: Report of the Oracy Commission on the Future of Oracy Education in England
Striking the Balance: An OCR Review of 11=16 Curriculum and Assessment in England
The curriculum and assessment interim report is available here.
