Building a World Class Curriculum for all: some reflections on CAR

From the outset, Professor Francis said the review would offer evolution, not revolution. The muted reception of CAR’s interim report was an early indicator that the work was on track for this outcome; the always insightful Nick Hillman suggesting it was like something written by one of the better generative AI tools. The final report may have the proportions of a novel, but in truth it has the ambition of a footnote and sadly that is where it will remain in the pantheon of educational reform.

At CAR’s heart is the view that England continues to show comparatively strong outcomes in international assessments (I wonder who is responsible for that?) and therefore that ‘the majority of the present framework arrangements and milestones for curriculum and assessment remain.’

It is also probably not a surprise that most of the commentary on the final review has been framed in terms of battles of the past rather than debate over a vision for the future. Govians and Gibbites will lament the demise of the EBacc or the Government’s decision not to accept buckets of EBacc subjects in Progress 8. Progressives will welcome lightening the burden of assessment at GCSE. Critics note this was already in the purview of Ofqual and the Exam Boards, and remains there, or that reducing the GCSE exam burden by 2.5 hours will be scant relief for anxious children already taking an average of 31.5 hours of GCSE exams [1].

Perhaps in the hope of achieving the odd headline, the review does battle with ‘fake news’ and seeks to establish a primary citizenship curriculum, even though most primary specialists I meet are aware of the challenges and have already adapted what and how they teach. If you believe that sixteen-year-olds will be better able to exercise their future civic responsibilities through a codified response at KS1 and 2, then I doubt you have spent much time in an infant and junior school.

The unions, of course, worry about funding, teacher recruitment and retention, and accountability measures (not unreasonably), but otherwise breathe a sigh of relief that CAR is unlikely actually to change anything. Most state sector colleagues I speak to at ASCL tell me that they already carry out diagnostic tests in English and Maths in Year 8, presumably something that Ofsted could recommend without the need for a review?

Admittedly as I get older, I must guard against grumpiness, but two trends worry me. The first is the frequency of the comment that the review is evidence-led as if there is a world in which educational (and other) policy should not be led by evidence. Too often, the evidence referred to is opinion and there is always plenty of that. But when it comes to innovative approaches to the curriculum and to assessment methods, a wealth of evidence and best practice exists around the UK and elsewhere that the report ignores or overlooks.

My second bugbear is the opportunity cost.

Education is a multi-billion-pound industry. If it were a business, how many of those billons would be spent on research and development? I suspect rather a lot. Yet as those entrusted with our future generations, we spend very little on this vital investment. We have brilliant educationalists and thinkers, but we tinker and focus almost all our energy and treasure on the operational rather than the strategic.

I do not know what the Francis Review cost, but I do wonder whether it was worth the money. The spotlight on the curriculum and assessment is welcome, but it is hard to see the review as other than a lost opportunity.

FED (the Foundation for Education Development) has been calling for some time for a longer-term and bolder vision for education. Rethinking Assessment, the Times Commission and the national Next Generation Assessment Conferences suggest there is no lack of interest in our future. Others are keen to preserve excellent aspects of the status quo. But the cause of our paralysis is the prevailing belief especially amongst those in government that we must have uniformity and that the only equitable way to assess is through exams. Countries with lower stakes and lower accountability systems can innovate and we must be careful that we do not get left behind.

So, in all honesty I can’t welcome the Francis Review. I don’t think it will do much harm and it may do some good. The importance of enrichment, of inculcating a love of learning and all the other ingredients of ‘motherhood and apple pie’ are well meaning. I recognise that any curriculum change will have benefits and disbenefits as far as subjects and skills are concerned. But I have a nagging doubt (regardless of recent PISA results) that we are preparing our children well enough for the future they will inherit. Can an assessment system and a curriculum designed in the last century really cut the mustard? I wonder.

[1] ASCL calls for GCSE exams to be spread over two years