Seven thoughts on Ofsted’s curriculum thinking

Without any sense of irony, the chief inspector criticises schools for “a weak theoretical understanding of the curriculum” - a shortcoming certainly illustrated by her own commentary and by the lack of any theoretical work on the school curriculum by Ofsted since its inception twenty-five years ago. This understanding could well come not from Ofsted itself but at least in part from those working in academies and independent schools untrammelled by the impoverished “national” curriculum. Who knows, that theoretical understanding could even be developed by those academics vilified by Michael Gove as “the Blob”.

Colin Richards

 

In 2018 Ofsted engaged in much-heralded curriculum research, leading to the Chief Inspector’s commentaries on that research and to the comments in her annual report published last month. Here are seven of my “thoughts” prompted by different phases of Ofsted’s curriculum research. It raises at least as many questions as answers to the question of how to inspect the school curriculum.

Thought 1: What is the curriculum?

The curriculum was once famously described as a ten-letter dirty word. One leading authority asserted that: “The curriculum matters but that is the extent of agreement about the curriculum.” Almost thirty years on from the Education Reform Act of 1988, which prescribed a curriculum for the first time since 1926, both statements remain true.  The curriculum is contested, problematic, and value-saturated, though Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector, fails to recognise this sufficiently . The curriculum is an educational minefield where angels and chief inspectors should fear to tread.  Angela Spielman has trod and, seemingly unwittingly, is taking Ofsted with her on a potentially very hazardous journey.

There are almost as many definitions of the curriculum as there are pundits to proclaim them. Let’s start with one about which there was a near- consensus prior to the government of the day intervening in what had been “a secret garden”; I stress “near-consensus” since unanimity in this value-laden area is an impossibility:

“A school’s curriculum consists of all those activities designed or encouraged within its organisational framework to promote the intellectual, personal, social and physical development of its pupils. It includes not only the formal programme of lessons, but also the ‘informal’ programme of so-called extra-curricular activities, as well as those features which produce the school’s ethos…” (HM Inspectorate 1986 The curriculum from 5 to 16 HMSO) 

I believe that view would achieve a wide degree of approval among education professionals thirty years on; it is certainly more wide-ranging than HMCI’s view of the curriculum as a “body of knowledge” and “a set of standards”. That earlier liberal view of the curriculum has been seriously weakened, and is still being undermined, by a politically-inspired narrow view embodied by Nick Gibb, the schools minister, and the Department for Education and not seriously questioned in the chief inspector’s commentary. Certainly, in its pronouncements thus far, Ofsted does not appear to be endorsing this liberal perspective when it comes to inspecting the curriculum. Perhaps, just perhaps, this will change in the new inspection framework which is due out for consultation next week, but I’m not holding my breath.

Then there is the so-called but misnamed “national” curriculum comprising a series of subjects little different from those listed in the secondary school regulations of more than a century ago. Of course, the curriculum isn’t “national”; it doesn’t exist in three quarters of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. In England it is restricted to local authority schools; academies and independent schools are not required to follow it. This should raise questions about its value.

As part of the research programme she is undertaking, the chief inspector is not proposing to investigate the profession’s’ perceptions of the value and relevance of the present “national” curriculum. Though supporting the notion of “a careful balance” in curriculum design, she doesn’t recognise the grossly imbalanced “national” curriculum, especially at primary level, which she wants “delivered”, with an emphasis on learners “receiving knowledge” rather than acquiring it and making it their own.   I suspect this view is far removed from those of the majority of professionals she is seeking to influence. But let’s be clear: the “national curriculum” as currently promulgated is being fully endorsed by the chief inspector without any substantial body of research or inspection evidence to support her claims of its value. It is true that in her role she can scarcely oppose government policy but she could, but doesn’t, intend to raise questions about its value and its effects. She should.

Thirdly there is the “tested” curriculum which in primary schools involves only two subjects. In critiquing this view of the curriculum, the chief inspector is on stronger ground. I strongly suspect, though we don’t know for certain, that the vast majority of primary teachers would accept her view that curriculum has been unduly narrowed by test anxiety and preparation. Probably, though we don’t know, many secondary teachers would accept her criticisms of the narrowing of Key Stage 3 but, like their primary colleagues, would blame having to meet the accountability requirements of Ofsted and the DfE for those problems. They would agree with her that the “tested “curriculum is an impoverished curriculum. But is her endorsed “national” curriculum much better?

Thought 2: Differing ways of inspecting the curriculum?

In the summer of 2018, Ofsted provided a working definition of the curriculum to guide its thinking and development work – none too clear in its tortured phraseology or obscure meaning:

• The curriculum is a framework for setting out the aims of a programme of education, including the knowledge and understanding to be gained at each stage;
• for translating that framework over time into a structure and narrative within an institutional context; and
• for evaluating what knowledge and skills pupils have gained against expectations.

This raises more questions than it answers.  What are meant by “structure”, “narrative” and “institutional context”? What is the relationship between curriculum and assessment or between evaluation and assessment? Why is there no reference to skills and attitudes? It is all very vague. When will the implications of this working definition, with its many weasel words, be spelled out in more detail? Will it encompass the wide variety of current interpretations of the curriculum or will it favour one version such as “deep learning” and/or “a deep body of knowledge” (whatever they are)?

That still leaves open the issue of how to inspect something as complex, value-laden and contentious as a school’s curriculum, however it is defined.