I made predictions for this review in my upcoming book Teacher Autonomy. Predictions that I hoped would be wrong but unfortunately seem spot on. I hoped for bold but we got hesitant, subtle and lacklustre. As they keep saying - 'evolution not revolution' (P.13). Yawn!
Becky Francis and team have taken the feedback from the profession, given it a shake and drawn out random words and phrases that they believe will keep us sweet - words like drama, dance, breadth and autonomy. Unfortunately, the mere existence of these words does not mean they are used with any substance or sincerity. Like an extremely measured dusting of sprinkles over your ice cream, they appear in the report like we are having our sugar intake monitored - zero chance of us over indulging on creativity.
There is a heavy and firm reminder that "we must maintain the strong academic core" (P.8) in order that it "supports life chances" and drives "expected standards" - a message that is already so dominant in our current curriculum it is not only pathing the way for pure, exclusive education but a continuation of our current SEND and attendance crises.
The panel reminds us that we already "have a reasonably broad and balanced curriculum" (P.8). Broad and balanced perhaps, but it is a curriculum so full that we have no time to deliver it effectively. We have a blinkered academic focus in response to being held to account through a constant stream of soulless maths and literacy testing and data. Meanwhile nobody could give two hoots as to how our children are utilising their expressive abilities (time to add in a bit of drama). Many teachers have understandably been elated for the mentions of drama and dance (we have been starved of creative nutrients for so long, who can blame them) but the mentions are really not groundbreaking.
The review highlights the curriculum "was not intended to take up an entire school day." (P.9) - a strong indication that this final piece was not put together by those working on the ground, for anyone currently working in the classroom knows that this statement is laughable. The idea that the curriculum could be treated as one part of the school day is utterly ludicrous. With the high-stakes accountability measures that teachers and staff teams are dealing with on a daily basis it is hardly surprising that making the decision to reduce the curriculum content time in favour or enrichment is rare. Instead what we see is a pressure to have it all, hence teacher burnout, a recruitment and retention crisis and a disengaged school community.
The mention of timetabling in this review is problematic - despite an acknowledgement that timetabling space is an issue they are specific with what they are adding in (oracy framework, citizenship (including elements of financial and media literacy, and climate change and sustainability) and drama) but not so specific with what they are removing. Again, lacking in specific detail as to how this is going to work - was this not the point of gathering experts to deliver this review in the first place? We already gave you this information for you to sort through right?
The consistent mentioning of, not only statutory but non-statutory assessment and testing is concerning. They reach such desperation to sell the idea they give us the excuse that exams are vital due to the risks of AI. Below are just some of the mentions on testing.
"The system must maintain the important role of exams, which are the fairest way of assessing students nationally and which mitigate the risks to assessment posed by generative AI." (P.12)
"Likewise, our national assessments and qualifications are broadly working well, including the Phonics Screening Check, the Multiplication Tables Check, national tests at the end of Key Stage 2, GCSEs and Key Stage 4 Technical Awards, A Levels and T Levels." (P.25)
Working well? Am I working on another planet?
"Replaces the current grammar, punctuation and spelling (GPS) test with an amended test, which retains some elements of the current GPS test but with new tasks to better assess composition and application of grammar and punctuation. (P.183)
"Introduces a diagnostic test in English, to be taken in Year 8, with the aim of supporting teachers to identify and address any areas of weakness before gaps widen further" (P.184)
"Ensures that the STA works with the DfE to find ways to encourage take-up of optional Key Stage 1 assessments." (P.191)
"Ensures that the STA works with DfE to explore approaches for assessing progress for the small minority of pupils with certain SEND needs that make the Phonics Screening Check inaccessible. This assessment should be administered in the school setting." (P.191)
"Ensures that the STA works with DfE to explore if access arrangements can be refined for pupils with certain SEND that make the Multiplication Tables Check inaccessible. This assessment should continue to be administered in a school setting." (P.191)
"Ensures that the Standards and Testing Agency (STA) works with DfE to refine the current non-statutory Maths test at Key Stage 1 to reflect any updates to the Maths curriculum. Alongside this, the DfE should consider ways in which it can encourage more schools to use it." (P.186)
Enough of testing. Let's move on (if only)...
The panel frequently refers to "clarity", "sequencing", "reducing repetition" and "mastery" - dropping words that falsely ease the profession, when the reality lacks specific ideas as to how these objectives might be achieved. Empty words - meaningless unless we have tangible ideas that are practical, strategic and impactful (I added these words in for the review team - might keep them happy).
So, we finally get onto autonomy - for those that know me I am obsessed with it and in particular dazed and confused by the lack of it in our profession. You can imagine my excitement when I found a whole section with the title Professional Autonomy.
"The national curriculum is intended as a baseline rather than imposing limits, and it is the expertise of our teachers that brings it to life in the classroom." Are we working with a system conducive to allowing the national curriculum to be a baseline? I believe not. Senior leaders are under too much pressure to allow teachers to use the curriculum as a "baseline". A review that suggests certain levels of autonomy should be "maintained" is one that is really out of touch with the current status of autonomy in the profession.
A few things to note that I did enjoy reading…
The reference to PE and enhancing "overall wellbeing" (P.187)
The removal of the EBacc - of course anything that continues to exacerbate the hierarchy of subjects within the curriculum I am happy to wave off!
The mention of "peer moderation between schools", (P.191) I really believe that working closely with local schools and boroughs could be a way to offer formative accountability measures and support and develop autonomy in a way that holds school communities with compassion.
This review is seeking a "world class" curriculum and assessment system - if this is true, it needs to do better than this, perhaps searching for a bit more creativity and vision. Nothing is more regrettable than a missed opportunity in education. The unfortunate reality is that such missed opportunities affect the children of the future, not the team that conducted the review.