I’m not afraid to admit it.
I was late to the curriculum party.
As a teacher of economics and business, I am very clear on why
I teach and I have consumed many delightful hours considering exactly how
I will teach, but I have dedicated very little time to deeply considering what
I teach or when I teach it. Teachers of history, English, art or various
other subjects, who must begin their planning by deciding which texts, which
eras, which artists or which ‘something else’s’ to study from a choice of many may
be quite confused on hearing this statement. I cannot emphasise enough though how
dominant I have found the content of the exam board specifications in
influencing my ideas on what I teach in particular, and also on when.
And I don’t think I’m alone.
Curriculum vs Specification
Mary Myatt (2018) is clear in her excellent book ‘The Curriculum:
Gallimaufry to Coherence’ about the relationship between the National Curriculum
and the actual curriculum you adopt and deliver. She spells out that ‘the
National Curriculum is not a scheme of work… it is the minimum content to be
covered and it needs to be translated into meaningful, demanding schemes to
bring the subject alive’. I was immediately struck on reading this and felt instantly
that the same comment could be made in relation to exam board specifications. How
had this not been obvious to me before?
I began to reflect on the journey my career has taken and
swiftly realised that I have been on a path towards achieving ‘optimum course
and qualification delivery’, rather than considered and rounded teaching of a
subject. I had become distracted with a tick box focus on progress, organisational
efficiency and exam success that had begun to cloud the subject out. How
foolish. I resolved in that moment to change my entire approach.
I had assumed initially that I was in a minority within the
profession, that I was part of a small, ill-informed group who had been ‘out of
the loop’ in terms of this deeper curriculum thinking. Maybe I was half-asleep
on the day they covered that in my PGCE (was it even covered then I wonder?),
or maybe the KS4+ focus of my subject was a factor (exam course teachers are
never really forced to address a question of what they will teach, there
is always the specification there to answer that). The further I read though,
the more I came across stories of others with the same sorts of tales and hints
that this was a much bigger issue than I had thought.
Jo Jukes (2019) arrived at similar conclusions about her
exam-focused teaching, but via a different route. She writes honestly in her
blog ‘How Daisy Christodoulou Changed my Life’ about how she ‘had stopped
teaching business and started teaching ‘how to pass an exam’’, before detailing
how she successfully overhauled her business curriculum. Amanda Spielman (2018)
writes of Ofsted’s research showing ‘that there was a dearth of understanding
about the curriculum in some schools. Too many teachers and leaders have not
been trained to think deeply about what they want their pupils to learn and how
they are going to teach it’. And early paragraphs in Clare Sealy’s (2020) introduction
to ‘The researchEd Guide to the Curriculum’ are so similar in tone and content
to the start of this blog (which I had already written by that point) that I
considering cutting my introduction as it looked like a breach of copyright!!
I decided to leave it in the end though, and reference this
account. I thought at the time of writing my introduction that this curriculum
‘blind spot’ was a particular issue for me because I taught an exam subject. I
assumed the primary teachers were streets ahead because they’d always had to
choose what to teach. But Clare’s account was interestingly similar to
my exam experiences, with her what to teach for some subjects being
‘dictated from on high, via the national curriculum, or, more importantly the
statutory tests that held us to account’, but also, fascinatingly, she reveals
that the what in the non-tested subjects ‘didn’t really concern’ her! Her
dissatisfaction with this situation, and subsequent discovery of ‘the wonderful
world of curriculum thinking’, mirrored Jukes’s experience in many ways and now
also my own.
And it’s not just the teachers who have taken a reflective,
somewhat confessional, stance. Spielman (2018) also acknowledges the part
Ofsted have played in this matter. ‘For our part, it is clear that as an
inspectorate we have not placed enough emphasis on the curriculum. For a long
time, our inspections have looked hardest at outcomes, placing too much weight
on test and exam results when we consider the overall effectiveness of schools.’
She also notes (Spielman, 2017) that ‘exams should exist in the service of the
curriculum rather than the other way around’.
What a superb situation now then for teachers and school
leaders. The teachers’ desires to overcome niggling dissatisfactions with what
they are teaching, the researchers’ findings with regards to what should be
taught, the writers’ persuasive calls to review practice and the requirements
of the inspectorate are all aligned! Everyone seems to agree that taking some
time to pause and properly consider the ‘what to teach’ and ‘when
to teach’ questions is a good idea.
So how, as subject leaders and classroom teachers, can we
actually do this?
Babies and Bathwater
Jukes’s (2019) approach is bold. She decides to ‘tear up
everything’ and ‘start all over again’. I thoroughly encourage you to read
about her journey as she clearly outlines the steps she took and this might be
a template you also wish to follow. I don’t feel I have been quite as radical
yet, and you need to weigh the best route for you, but her approach has clearly
delivered impact in her classroom and is well worth your consideration. I have
been very grateful for Jo’s kind contributions and collaboration in developing
my curriculum thinking and I am looking forward to further exploring numerous
aspects of her approach as I develop my offer over time.
In my approach thus far I have been most significantly influenced
by the writing of Myatt and Spielman, and have decided to start from a position
of existing knowledge and pragmatism and then to gradually shift my emphasis. I
haven’t started with a completely blank sheet of paper. The specification
content has, for me, provided a starting point and I am comfortable with that.
After all, the specification is meant to be a collection of content that relates
at least somewhat (!) to what should be known about the subject, so it does
have some use I feel! I have also arrived at my own position of understanding
of my subjects via a fairly traditional educational route, and therefore my schema
is somewhat aligned with this anyway, as that is how it has been formed.
Spielman does state that ‘there need be no tension between
success on these exams and tests and a good curriculum. Quite the opposite. A
good curriculum should lead to good results.’ Therefore, I would caution you
somewhat in too hastily dismissing what you currently have in place and would
advocate a deep and reflective temperature check before radical change, rather
than accidentally throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The difference in my current thinking and approach now is
that, whilst I am still using the specification, I am viewing the document
critically, rather than just swallowing it whole. I am thinking more deeply
about the purpose of each topic, about where to place emphasis, about internal
and external connections, about how to tell a story.
Taking things out of the specification content is not really
a sensible option. External exams do still matter and issues with specification
content really need to be dealt with at a macro level by the subject community
and the exam board in development of the subject and examinations over time,
not the micro level where I am operating.
Spending more time on some areas, less on others, adding
things that are not on the specification, changing the order and giving much more
careful consideration to sources, case studies and contexts used are all
options to consider though. This is currently where I am focusing my attention.
Story Starts Here
I am very aware that this is the beginning of the story and
I certainly don’t have all the answers yet. I am focused on reading widely,
thinking deeply and actively trying to make connections within the subject
community in order to find the best ideas out there. I am also working hard on designing
and sharing practical and creative ways in which subject leaders and teachers
can think about their curriculum. I intend to share my journey to support
others and I hope you will join me along the way as I would very much welcome
participation and support from anyone who would like to be involved!
This is part one in a series of curriculum blogs which I am writing
for teachers and school leaders. The aim is to:
- Support subject leaders as they develop
curriculum thinking and conduct discussions with all stakeholders
- Inform senior leaders (particularly those with
line management responsibility for business, economics and other KS4+ only
subjects) about the issues which might be pertinent to curriculum thinking in
those subjects
- Share and debate curriculum design ideas in the
business and economics subject domains
To be continued… next time: curriculum mapping - Why are curriculum maps not, well, maps?!
Jukes, J. (2019)
How Daisy Christodoulou Changed my Life. Available from: https://missregardless.wordpress.com/
Twitter:
@MissRegardless
Myatt, M.
(2018) The Curriculum: Gallimaufry to Coherence.
Twitter: @MaryMyatt
Sealy, C.
(2020) The researchEd Guide to the Curriculum.
Twitter: @ClareSealy
Spielman, A. (2017) HMCI's commentary: recent primary and
secondary curriculum research. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmcis-commentary-october-2017
Spielman, A.
(2018) HMCI commentary: curriculum and the new education inspection framework.
Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmci-commentary-curriculum-and-the-new-education-inspection-framework
Twitter: @amanda_spielman
Comments
Post a Comment