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.

Thought 3:   No curriculum model?

Speaking personally, I have considerable sympathy for the view of the curriculum put forward in the Chief Inspector’s commentary published early in the Autumn of 2018. I do believe that in both primary and secondary schools (but not in early years) learners do need to be initiated into recognised disciplinary domains (not necessarily equated with subjects) involving knowledge of facts, powerful generalisations, fertile concepts and both domain-specific and generalizable skills.But, very importantly, I would also contend that at times the insights of particular knowledge domains should be brought to bear on an understanding of complex inter-disciplinary issues or topics. Separate domain-specific teaching is very necessary, but not sufficient. The commentary does not recognise this.

It is based on enquiries (“research” seems an inappropriate term) in 23 schools judged to be good or outstanding and understood (by whom?) to be “particularly invested in curriculum design”. Three approaches are categorised – “knowledge-led approach”,” knowledge-engaged approach” and “skills-led curriculums”.  The chief inspector maintains that “We make no value judgements about these categories”.  But note that two of the three are described as knowledge-based –implying that the third has less cognitive content.  Though stating that “We observed strengths and weaknesses in each approach”, the “knowledge–led” one has fewer reservations, and more positive comments, expressed about it. Skills receive far less emphasis in the document compared with “knowledge”.

Ofsted maintains that it will have no curriculum model in mind when it inspects schools under the new framework.  Given the balance of comments in this commentary, that is somewhat disingenuous. Unless schools are simply inspected in terms of how their curriculum fulfils their stated intentions, inspection, like this commentary, will inevitably smuggle in its own value judgments. 

In my judgment, primary and secondary schools engaged on skills-based curricula need to be aware of Ofsted’s semi-explicit stance. They are in danger of being found wanting if the only partially- hidden agenda in this document influences the final inspection framework and handbook.

I have particular reservations about how, under the influence of this document, early years provision might be inspected. The recommendations of Bold Beginnings were very much in tune with the tenor of this commentary. This will not allay, but will fuel, the fears of those concerned with preserving the culture and philosophy of early years provision. 

But in the final analysis no one has the monopoly of wisdom about the curriculum – whether Ofsted, DfE or the Inspiration Trust – yet paradoxically it is through it that learners can develop at least the beginnings of wisdom

Thought 4: How reliable, valid and naïve is Ofsted’s approach?

There are numerous criticisms that can be levelled against the Chief Inspector’s commentary on phase 3 of Ofsted’s curriculum study published in December 2018. Here are just a few.

The most egregious one is the failure to report accurately: someone in Ofsted has not realised that the commentary does not match the numbers in Figure 2 – the text says that there were 8 scores of 1 or 2 out of 46 assessments, while Figure 2 says 9 out of 48 - and that the numbers in the first line of Figure 4  are not added up correctly: 2 plus 7 plus 7 plus 3 is 19, not 18. These are trivial mistakes in one sense, but unsettling nonetheless. If Ofsted cannot get that right, what else in their study is problematic?

To move from the trivial to the fundamental, there is a major problem with Ofsted using the scientific concepts of reliability and validity in relation to inspectors’ judgments, which are qualitative and inevitably subjective. Those concepts are suspect when applied to judgments of value. But here they are being applied as if they are unproblematic. Philosophers of social science would have a field debunking that assumption! The evidence presented in the commentary does not support the view that the research study itself meets its own criteria of reliability and validity.

Then there are a number of naïve statements, presented as somehow surprising. It is reported, for example, that the research “appears to suggest” that many primary schools are “doing well” with their curricula for English and mathematics. Why “appears”?  Did it take a curriculum study to uncover this revelation?

It goes on to point out that in primary schools “It is disappointing to see so few higher (curriculum-related) scores in technology subjects, humanities and arts”. “Disappointing” implies an expectation (on whose part?) that those areas would get the same or similar attention in terms of curriculum planning as the core subjects. No primary practitioner would find that finding surprising; regrettably many would not even find it disappointing given their anxiety over test-results and inspection grades.

It points out as a finding worthy of note, and presumably surprise, that some schools in need of improvement “may in fact have strong curricula”. But is that surprising given that the overall RI judgment would have been made largely on the basis of test-related outcomes, not on the basis of curriculum planning which would have been ignored in those very inspections? Similarly, as if it was unexpected (by whom?), the commentary reports what it sees as a noteworthy  conclusion that “there is no clear link between the deprivation levels of a school’s community and a school’s curriculum quality.” But why should there be such a link given that the two factors are so very different in nature? Again did it take a curriculum study to discover this?

Perhaps the most newsworthy comment raised in the commentary is that “only (my italics) 8 out of 33 primary schools (around a quarter) scored highly……whereas 16 out of 29 secondaries (over half) did.” Is that surprising  given the “secondary language” (and associated assumptions) built into the curriculum indicators used in the study : “curriculum delivery”, “knowledge progression” , “text books”, ”progression for every subject”, ”the delivered curriculum”? It’s not difficult to conclude that the indicators were drawn up largely by those with a secondary-subject background. It is possible, too, that more inspectors with a secondary background than primary were involved in the inspection visits, and probable that they were overrepresented in the group compiling, and advising on, the chief inspectors’ commentary. 

That is not to deny that some of the findings need to be taken seriously by those in the primary phase. But the commentary’s secondary, knowledge- rather than skill-centred, bias does need to be recognised. If this report does indeed inform the new framework, many primary schools will find their assumptions, policies and practice challenged. The chief inspector’s contention that the new framework represents evolution, not revolution, may be an understatement – unconscious or deliberate?

Thought 5: No “Ofsted curriculum”? Just Ofsted curricula?

It couldn’t be clearer, or could it?  In introducing her annual report in December 2018 Amanda Spielman is emphatic: “There is and will be no ‘Ofsted curriculum’. What we will be interested in is the coherence, the sequencing and construction, the implementation of the curriculum, how it is being taught and how well children and young people are progressing in it.”

For the moment let’s put aside the very real problems of gathering enough reliable evidence on these issues to back up judgments in short inspections lasting perhaps only one day or two.

Let’s assume that on the basis of evidence gathered inspectors judge that a school’s curriculum is incoherent or lacks coherence in certain respects. How valid would that be? Is there a consensus as to what constitutes “coherence”, or will Ofsted’s custom and practice generate that consensus? A judgment of incoherence would invite the charge “So how can it be made more coherent?” Would inspectors duck that challenge? Or, if they meet it, how can they avoid  disclosing Ofsted’s own position on this crucial aspect of curriculum thinking, which will affect curriculum policy and  practice in schools?

“Sequencing” involves ordering the series of principles and concepts to be taught so that they build on one another in some sort of meaningful, hopefully progressive, way. But, again, is there an evidence-based consensus as to what constitutes an appropriate and worthwhile sequence or sequences in all the subjects currently taught, especially in the creative arts and humanities?  Almost certainly not at the moment…but again will Ofsted’s policy and practice on inspections create one? A judgment of poor sequencing would invite the question: “What would constitute appropriate sequencing?” How would inspectors respond without declaring their own or Ofsted’s preferred model of sequencing? Or would inspectors simply walk away having delivered their summary judgment?

Although Ofsted’s own research has not yet provided detail on how schools construct their curricula, presumably they use one of a variety of models –perhaps even drawn from curriculum designs pre-National Curriculum. What constitutes a well-constructed curriculum? Are the criteria for curriculum design clear and where do they originate from?  Won’t criticisms of schools’  curriculum designs imply a model or models in inspectors’ minds against which the school is tested and found wanting? Again, won’t such models gain wider currency given schools’ predisposition to meet what they see as Ofsted’s requirements?

It is true that the new framework will not detail schools’ curricula for them; in that sense there will be no “Ofsted curriculum” However, the judgments inspectors make and their answers to questions raised by schools will substantially inform future curriculum policy and practice. In that more limited sense there will be at the very least “Ofsted curricula”. It would be naïve to think otherwise.

Thought 6: An Ofsted curriculum guessing game?

Phase 3 of Ofsted’s curriculum study, published just before Christmas along with a collection of explanatory slides, offers an indication of the criteria inspectors may use in judging curriculum quality from next September onwards. These are likely to be a refined and, thankfully, shorter version of the twenty-five (!) curriculum indicators used in the research model and reported in the Chief Inspector’s recent commentary. But they are a collective indication of what may ensue; they raise almost as many questions as they answer.

Extrapolating from the commentary and other recent statements from the Chief Inspector, what is a “good” or even “outstanding curriculum likely to look like as far as Ofsted is concerned?

It is likely to have “a clear and coherent rationale”. Fine.  But what constitutes a rationale and what criteria will be used by inspectors to decide on its quality and coherence? What if inspectors disagree with the content of that rationale? Would it matter?

It is likely be underpinned by “important concepts in curriculum design such as knowledge progression and sequencing of concepts”.  Yes.  But what constitutes knowledge progression and sequencing in each subject or area of the curriculum? Is there a consensus based on evidence-informed practice or on research? If not, are there a variety of sequences and progressions and how is their quality or appropriateness to be judged?

Inspections are very likely to involve assessing whether “Subject leaders at all levels have clear roles and responsibilities in curriculum design and delivery”.  But note: “subjects” are taken as given from year one onwards. Note, too, that the curriculum is to be “delivered”, not “taught” or “transacted or “co-constructed” with pupils.  Not all schools will accept the assumptions behind that requirement. But will inspectors be able to respect alternative views on their appropriateness?

Similarly, “The curriculum has sufficient depth and coverage of knowledge in the subjects”.  It sounds fine but how is “sufficiency” to be judged?  Why is there reference to ‘knowledge” to be covered and no reference (in this or any of the curriculum indicators) to skills, both general and domain-specific, to be acquired and practised?  It is clear that a particular interpretation of knowledge in the curriculum is being smuggled into that indicator; defensible it may be but alternative views are possible. But will inspections treat these alternatives with respect when it comes to assessing their quality?

Many other questions can be raised about the study’s curriculum indicators. Hopefully, not all of the indicators will be embodied in one form or another in the new inspection framework but those that are will raise issues and questions. Unless the new inspection framework and handbooks provide much more detailed clarification and justification for whatever curriculum elements are included in the new framework, a curriculum “guessing game” will ensue with schools guessing what their inspectors have in mind making judgements and with inspectors themselves guessing what the designers of the framework have in mind. 

But then the curriculum has always been contestable and will remain so.

Thought 7: A value-free curriculum?

There is a major and fundamental lacuna in Ofsted’s proposed model. None of the indicators relate to the worthwhileness of what is being designed, implemented and evaluated. The model is value-free as far as the content is concerned; hence the official view that there is, and will be, no “Ofsted curriculum”.

This is deeply problematic. The rationale, aims, concepts, content and progression all need to be worthwhile for a school’s curriculum to be good, and inspection criteria should have that value-dimension built in.

To illustrate the dangers of Ofsted’s approach to the curriculum, let us take an example – fictitious and flippant, but cautionary. It is an extreme case, illustrating that that some schools’ curricula may fully meet Ofsted’s criteria while not being worthwhile. (Other cases could have been quoted such as the Gradgrind Academy’s or the St Trinian’s Free School’s curriculum  to make the same point.)

The curriculum in question has been designed, implemented and evaluated by the Fagin All-Through Academy. As an academy it does not have to meet the requirements of the national curriculum but its curriculum has to be “broad and balanced” (whatever that means). Beyond that, it is legally free to devise its own curriculum. It is, of course, subject to national testing in English and mathematics at the end of Key Stage 2 and in GCSE but that provides no problem given its priorities include reading and writing and mathematical fluency and confidence in numeracy.

Imagine inspectors judging the quality of the Fagin curriculum against a sample of Ofsted’s criteria (in italics below). It has:

1. A clear rationale: to contribute to the nation’s and the proprietor’s, economy through promoting the black economy and other illicit but financially profitable enterprises
2. Agreed aims include: developing the intellectual., anti-social, immoral and counter-culture development of pupils, especially the most able, providing a knowledge-rich curriculum related to the effective pursuit of criminal purposes such as thieving, window-breaking and arson
3. Breadth:  phased introduction to a wide range of criminal activities from pickpocketing to insider trading
4. Balance: criminal activities to be provided with sufficient time for each to be suitably developed;
5. Understanding of key concepts related to curriculum design such as progression in knowledge of increasingly sophisticated criminal activities.
6. Curriculum coverage: all pupils to access the content and make progress in the understanding of crime in its legal, penal. scientific, immoral and anti-social aspects;
7. Ambition: as least as ambitious as the standards met by middle-ranking role-models in this field, such as MPs.

When judged against the Ofsted criteria the Fagin all-through curriculum would surely have to be judged “good”, perhaps even “outstanding”.    

But here’s the rub.

Is it a good curriculum?                            

Colin Richards is an emeritus professor of education and a former senior HMI with national responsibility for the school curriculum. He can be contacted at profcrichards@gmail com and he tweets at @colinsparkbridg