Time and Space for the Curriculum

Barbara Cook

In his Schiller Lecture on 8 March 2021, Dr. Tony Eaude outlined a compelling argument that primary children need a broadly-based and balanced curriculum. I agree. This is especially so following more than a year of disrupted schooling and the social inequalities exposed by on-line cut-back learning, in particular access to any practical curriculum or first-hand experience. Now that schools are in session, it is important to acknowledge that all children have entitlement to the full curriculum.

Reflecting on the content of the talk I have been left with questions, not about why this is needed, but how will it be achieved. Did the lecture go far enough to be a catalyst to encourage primary schools to take a new look at the suitability of their curriculum offer, post pandemic? The National Curriculum (NC) (2013) lays out the 10/11 subjects and their subject content plus Religious Education (RE) and Relationships Education. In all Local Authority primary schools in England the programmes of study are to be followed, by law, in Key Stages 1/2. Every state funded school must offer this content, which aims to provide pupils with an introduction to the essential knowledge they need to become educated citizens who are compassionate and able to contribute to society. However, there is also an acknowledgement that this framework is just one element in the education of every child: There is time and space in the school day and in each week, term and year to range beyond the national curriculum specifications. (p 6). Furthermore, the framework goes on to tell teachers, schools and headteachers that they can transform this content into exciting and stimulating lessons. I would argue that lessons or series of lessons do not constitute a curriculum, even if all subjects are timetabled. Dr. Eaude referred to that fact that the law states that the primary curriculum should be broadly based – if there are eleven subject areas together with RE and Relationships Education, then surely the curriculum will be broad. However, a simple list of subject disciplines is not a curriculum. Adults wrote the framework and it needs to be translated by school leaders and teachers into meaningful learning suited to primary-aged children. I would argue that lessons, however stimulating and exciting, are not enough to make learning coherent or for children to begin to make sense of their place in the world and society. Children are capable of so much more than they are allowed to achieve in ‘lessons’ if one subject piles on top of another, fragmenting and constraining understanding. In addition, there is the NC reference to time and space, highlighted in para. 3 above. If there is this void, extra time, available beyond the framework requirements, why is there such concern amongst

teachers that they cannot fit everything in, that subjects are missed or squeezed out? Teachers know that the curriculum has become narrow and out of balance.

In October 2017, Amanda Spielman, Chief Inspector of Schools, published a commentary on research commissioned by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED) on the primary and secondary curriculum. In this she discussed that a curriculum makes a school and That a good school achieves a careful balance because Time is limited. (c.f. 2013 NC Framework reference to time in para. 3). The research programme she commissioned had three phases, with the intention of informing OFSTED’s understanding of how curricula were being implemented, before a new inspection framework was published. It was also to challenge their own organisation concerning whether the OFSTED inspection process had played a role in bending the curriculum out of shape. This referred to curriculum narrowing and imbalance between subjects observed during school inspections. Spielman’s whole commentary is essential reading and requires considerable reflection particularly regarding the themes of knowledge and expertise which are i mportant considerations and more aligned to valuing how children learn rather than subjects to be taught. Despite OFSTED confirmation that exams should exist in the service of the curriculum, the research concluded the opposite, in that there was too great a focus on preparing for Key Stage 2 tests. A narrowing of the primary curriculum was also found. Preparation for Standard Assessment Tests (SATs) begins in some school after Christmas and, whilst it is appropriate for children to be prepared and confident for SATs, much time is stolen by dull over rehearsal.

Curriculum imbalance might therefore be caused by focussing teaching on that which is tested, evidenced by the schools where English and mathematics become the dominant subjects across all primary year groups and commonly take up most of the morning, every day of the week. Imbalanced focus on these two subjects pushes out opportunities for reflective teaching methods. Drafting, re-drafting and word skills have become production-line processes; in mathematics children miss opportunities to explain methods, understand concepts or explore patterns and instead are taught pass-the-test tricks. Another factor that may be squeezing the curriculum out of shape, introduced through OFSTED inspections, is that school leaders may have abandoned curriculum development under a perceived pressure of school accountability. Recognition of this effect was acknowledged in the 2018 OFSTED Annual Report. In the speech by Amanda Spielman, in which she launched the report, English and mathematics were

A narrow curriculum, delivered in lessons that do not connect learning or ideas or recognise unique qualities, will not produce creative, caring, critical thinking adults and will no longer be acceptable to OFSTED.

described as the spine not the limit of children’s learning. However, she went on to strengthen the importance of a broader curriculum describing English and mathematics only as the gateway to a broad curriculum that includes the humanities, science, language and the creative subjects too. In the Annual Report a year later (2018/19) it was reported that some schools had lost sight of the real substance of education: the curriculum. The report also acknowledged, not only the role OFSTED had played in this demise, but also reflecting that OFSTED now had a role to play in reversing the trend. In 2019, the OFSTED Education Inspection Framework was updated and included a new statement of curriculum intent by which schools would be judged at inspection. This included: • Leaders take on or construct a curriculum that is ambitious and designed to give all learners, particularly the most disadvantaged …. the knowledge and cultural capital to succeed in life • The provider’s curriculum is coherently planned and sequenced towards cumulatively sufficient knowledge and skills for future learning … • Learners study the full curriculum OFSTED reacted to its own research findings by widening their scope for inspection to include the full curriculum, the coherence of its design, all learners, the disadvantaged and the degree of knowledge and skills the curriculum would provide for future learning. Is OFSTED to be both the cause and repair of a narrow primary curriculum?

Unfortunately, since the publication of the framework, school inspection schedules have been severely disrupted. However, OFSTED have clearly given the green light for curriculum reform. An OFSTED Blog post (2021) provides a post-pandemic update on key points to the 2019 Inspection Framework. These include a statement to the effect that despite the impact of COVID-19, future school inspections will expect to observe an ambitious curriculum that helps all pupils to study a full breadth of subjects. This gives schools clear instructions to offer a more ambitious and creative approach, to develop a curriculum to meet the needs of every child and it is an area to be inspected. A catch-up curriculum cannot be narrowly focussed but must offer children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, broadening experiences of the real world. Dr. Eaude encouraged us to make such a curriculum a reality, not because it will be inspected, but because it is each child’s entitlement to experiment, to paint, to sing and to explore. A narrow curriculum, delivered in lessons that do not connect learning or ideas or recognise unique qualities, will not produce creative, caring, critical thinking adults and will no longer be acceptable to OFSTED. Last year I had several conversations with a final year BA Hons student who was researching her dissertation. In coming to the end of her course, she felt she had struggled to learn enough about the broader curriculum either through her university course or during her school placements. As a young professional, she had experienced an imbalance in curriculum organisation and delivery in school practice and a bias towards mathematics and English with very little coverage of science, which is the third NC Curriculum Core subject. She had, for example, taught one fifty-minute lesson on magnets by the end of her final year. Her passions are music and dance, she believes that non-core subjects can spark learning and aid expression for children who might struggle to read or who fear mathematics. She longed to share her expertise in music and singing and knew the potential these subjects have for all children, beyond subject knowledge, to build confidence through performance, to develop self-awareness and to encourage compassion whatever their backgrounds. Her research into how schools were preparing and organising a balanced curriculum ready for the new inspection framework gave her confidence to accept a role as a Teaching Assistant

to gain more experience rather than entering the classroom underprepared as a teacher. This is an anecdotal comment but it carries a strong message. As schools complete the summer term, it remains important to discuss how they might seize upon the opportunity to take a reflective look at their curriculum offer. 2020-2021 has been a disrupted, extraordinary school year. Hopefully schools will be able to move to a new beginning, a whole school year from September. I hope there is the energy and the will and that curriculum for the whole child becomes a priority for school improvement. I am lucky enough to have worked in junior schools as a teacher, senior teacher, Deputy Headteacher and Headteacher holding a number of different curriculum responsibilities with learning at the forefront of my philosophy. I began my career in the period when there was no recognised curriculum and teachers made it up; through the period of the introduction of the National Curriculum, through National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies including training and implementation, into SATs and OFSTED Inspections, league tables and reform. As a young teacher I met influential educators who shaped my belief, including Christian Schiller, who led a staff meeting on mathematics at my school. I participated in Local Authority residential courses where the subject was Learning how to Learn and always worked in schools where curriculum discussion took priority. The curriculum is every experience a child has through school: everything you can hold in your hand. The OFSTED Phase 1 Research (2017) into curriculum found little evidence of debate or reflection taking place in the schools they visited and a lack of common curriculum-language for such important areas as progression or skills. They also found weak theoretical understanding of curriculum. In the ten years that I have been out of a school environment, has there been a de-skilling of school leaders and a gradual loss of those who were brought up immersed in curriculum? There was a time when how children learn, the pedagogy of primary education, was discussed in headteacher training and local area meetings with the local authority. Several key Local Authorities (Oxfordshire: John Coe; West Riding of Yorkshire: Sir Alec Clegg; Buckinghamshire: Peter Lerway; Hampshire: John Barrett, Jane Warwick and Nick Hind) were the strong drivers of curriculum theory, pedagogy and leadership that placed the child at the heart of the curriculum. Local Authorities no longer have such influence and perhaps neither the financial resources nor the advisory staff expertise to initiate or drive forward the debate. Is there an opportunity and need for professional development concerned with curriculum theory and if so who would be the providers? Does NAPE know? Colleges of Education, particularly Goldsmith College London and Bishop Grosseteste in Lincoln both led by Professor Len Marsh, ran courses for aspiring primary practitioners and future leaders. If current initial teacher training is over-focussed on teaching English and mathematics, if trainee teachers are not able to gain experience of other subjects whilst on school placement and if professional development opportunities in curriculum theory are unknown, then implementing a broadly-based learning experience for children, however compelling, looks to be unachievable. If schools are unable to recruit teachers with wider subject experience or knowledge of curriculum design, how will Dr. Eaude’s argument become a reality? In the very short space for questions following the lecture, one teacher, about to enter the profession,

If schools are unable to recruit teachers with wider subject experience or knowledge of curriculum design, how will Dr. Eaude’s argument become a reality?

asked how she could find a school which offered children a broad and balanced curriculum and if she didn’t, how could she start working in that way. The answer was that it would be “challenging”. At the start of my career it was easy for me to make up a curriculum for my Year 4 class, initially based upon what I had learnt at junior school, because no one was watching, there was no accountability. A young teacher at the beginning of their career today, without the leadership of a likeminded headteacher, may not find the teaching of a broad curriculum to be a priority. Curriculum leadership is vital. As a follow-up to the Schiller Lecture, Mark Taylor, Vice-Chair NAPE, subsequently hosted and produced a Facebook Question and Answer session and podcast with Dr. Eaude (2021). I asked where the best examples of curriculum design could be found at present. This can be taken in two avenues: where in the country, that is which schools lead the way, and where in the curriculum could good examples be found, for example in the humanities or the arts? There are no ready answers but an opportunity for further research and publication. I also asked whether Academy Trusts might have the advantage over Local Authority schools as they have more control over how they do things and can choose and design their own curriculum which must be broad and balanced and include English, Mathematics, science and religious education. They can adapt freely to suit the needs of cohorts. Speaking recently to a senior teacher who teaches in an Multi-Academy Trust with several primary schools, I learnt that they are in the process of curriculum re-design across the whole Trust. There is advantage to be gained when a group of schools and teachers work together, under strong leadership, around a priority focus. In this Trust’s new curriculum, children’s learning begins with an enquiry question and a local point of interest. Building character is as important an outcome as the knowledge and skills related to the subject of the moment. Metacognitive tools, for example, reflection, mind-mapping, cause and consequence, or evaluation have been identified and are taught and used alongside learning. If the subject area is history, then historical knowledge is learnt alongside relevant skills on being an historian. English is taught through the curriculum, where reading, writing and discussion are used for purposeful outcomes. The learning experience is designed to deepen knowledge and the focus on a single subject removes time (to fit everything in) pressure or the scattergun effect of a multi-subject week where little knowledge sticks. A progression in skills and knowledge has also been mapped out, so that those identified for a Year 2 child are different for a child in Year 5. There is no confusion from trying to teach lessons of each subject in a week, as each singlesubject study might be two or three weeks long. Such subject enquiry is organised for extended periods of time across a week, alongside subjects which need to be taught separately as standalone or continuous units, like mathematics, P.E. and aspects of English including grammar and spelling. This model puts children in the midst of the learning, actively involved in decision making and extends the limits of their own experience, allowing them to consider and reflect on new perspectives. The teacher commented that that a timetable of lessons is not a curriculum; timetabled hourlong lessons can easily be squeezed and time lost at either end by other classroom tasks so that children end up being taught some facts in thirty-five minutes rather than exploring a subject in depth. These ideas, in the first year of implementation, are worth further consideration. Design on paper might not work in practice, breadth alone is not enough and the real development of mastery is not about being busy. This is not a Primary First article looking back to a better time. I have outlined where some of the blocks to curriculum development lie and,

if you believe in the ideals and argument put forward by Dr. Eaude, these must be overcome. In the Q&A session, I also asked what role NAPE would play in moving the discussion forwards and contributing to this educational dialogue. How will NAPE help to bridge the gap for primary professionals who want to deliver a rich, active, balanced and inclusive curriculum but are unsure how to begin? There is surely a significant role here for the National Association of Primary Education and I hope the challenge is accepted, as this moment in time provides an excellent opportunity. To conclude, I return to the divergent statements discussed earlier about time: There is time and space in the school day and in each week, term and year to range beyond the national curriculum specifications’ (NC 2013) and Time is limited (OFSTED 2017). Christian Schiller (1979) spoke about time and space on a summer’s day in a talk to trainee teachers in 1951. It is a rather rambling series of ideas but the image of having time on a summer’s day as a teacher appeals to me. Giving children the time and space to lie on their back and gaze at the sky as he did is not to be missed out of any primary curriculum. It is a message about slowing down to learn more at greater depth; with children, and the things they like doing, at the heart of any curriculum.

I think of Schiller’s idea as a metaphor for the curriculum as a whole. The sky is vast, bright and full of opportunity and too much to take in all at once. There is a need to touch the earth at your fingertips to make sense of the space above. Could the weighty content of each subject be pared back to allow learning that is real and relevant to be organised around fewer subjects and their related skills at any one time, with breadth organised across the year or across several years? Children only have one chance at being 7 years and 5 days old so each day counts.

Barbara Cook is now retired but had a long career as a Hampshire Primary Headteacher at Guillemont Junior School in Farnborough. Child centred education led her vision and outdoor learning was a passion. Her wider experience included short-term voluntary work in Ghana and Namibia as a Primary Education Adviser and school visits with the British Council in Beijing and Pittsburgh. Part of her year is now spent in Brittany gardening.

References

Department for Education. (2013) The national curriculum in England Key stages 1 and 2 framework document. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425601/PRIMARY_national_ curriculum.pdf GOV.UK. Types of School – Academies. Available at: https://www. gov.uk/types-of-school/academies Hartford, Sean. (2021) OFSTED Blog. Our education inspection handbooks have changed. What’s New? What do you need to know? Available at: https://educationinspection. our-education-inspectionhandbooks-have-changed-whats-new-what-do-you-need-to-know/ NAPE. (2019) Position Paper NAPE and the Primary Sector Update. Available at: https://nape.org.uk/admin/UserFiles/34/file/19.%20 PositionPaperNAPEand%20Primary%20Sector%20%202019.pdf NAPE. (2021) Podcast NAPE 065. The Christian Schiller Lecture. Dr Tony Eaude. Available at: https://nape.org.uk/nape-podcast NAPE (2021) Podcast NAPE 066. A balanced and broadly based curriculum Q&A with Dr. Tony Eaude. Available at: https://nape.org. uk/nape-podcast OFSTED (2018) An investigation into how to assess the quality of education through curriculum intent, implementation and impact Phase 3 findings of curriculum research. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936097/Curriculum_ research_How_to_assess_intent_and_implementation_of_ curriculum_191218.pdf OFSTED (2019) Education inspection framework (EIF). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspectionframework/education-inspection-framework OFSTED (2019) Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 22018/19. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/859422/Annual_Report_ of_Her_Majesty_s_Chief_Inspector_of_Education__Children_s_ Services_and_Skills_201819.pdf Schiller, C. (1979) Ed. Christopher Griffin-Beale, Christian Schiller in his own words. London: A and C Black. Spielman, A. (2017) HMCI’s commentary: recent primary and secondary curriculum research. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ government/speeches/hmcis-commentary-october-2017 Speilman, A. (2018) Speech. Amanda Spielman launches Ofsted’s Annual Report 2017/18 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/amandaspielman-launches-ofsteds-annual-report-201718