The secret of great curriculum design in secondary school
Thinking about ‘what’, rather than ‘how’ we teach is a good thing, says Ben Newmark – but only if we’re prepared to start the conversation from scratch…
- by Ben Newmark
From Amanda Spielman to your SLT, all of a sudden everyone seems to be talking about curriculum. This is A Good Thing, but in a confetti of knowledge organisers and ‘knowledge rich’ badged textbooks we run the risk of turning the welcome shift from the ‘how’ to the ‘what’ of teaching into yet another fad.
It would be a great shame if this were to happen, because focusing on curriculum is the antithesis and antidote to the short-termist, myopic and reductive generic teaching initiatives that have plagued our schools for far too long.
A school’s curriculum is what it teaches its pupils. That we haven’t given much thought to this over recent years is bizarre but has a logical explanation.
High-stakes accountability measures and league tables have meant that exam results have come to drive everything that happens in some schools, which has led to the adoption of exam syllabuses as programs of study from Year 7.
Schools that do this have effectively outsourced curriculum to GCSE exam boards, which has meant there appeared to be very little point discussing what children should learn.
Generic skills
Because the content of many subjects cannot be the same in KS3 as it is in KS4, many schools have, whether explicitly or implicitly, developed skills based curricula.
While such schools may claim their programs of study are designed to develop generic, transferable competencies such as ‘explanation’ or ‘analysis’, in practice this often really means teaching children how to answer the styles of question set by the school’s examination boards.
This de-emphasises knowledge, because what is taught becomes just the vehicle by which supposed ‘skills’ are developed. After all, if your aim is to teach the generic skill of ‘description’, why does it matter whether children are learning about the Roman Testudo formation or a 19th-century city?
Genericism has taken a choke-hold on teacher development. In many schools meaningful, subject specific CPD has completely disappeared, with generic ‘pedagogy’ assuming total supremacy.
Even those wise enough to recognise the dangers have found themselves powerless in the onslaught of learning styles, brain gym, thinking hat and pyramids of various types; schools have only so much time – and total fixation on ‘how’ has meant there is just no bandwidth left for ‘what’.
In such a toxic environment, it is no wonder so little attention has been given to curriculum. In short we’ve all been too busy babbling nonsense at each other to think about what exactly we should be teaching our pupils and how to help them remember it.
The result has been patchy, incoherent curricula designed around the activities pupils are given, and the supposed skills they pick up by completing them, instead of what they are learning.
Knowledge matters
The recent work of cognitive psychologists, for schools most notably DT Willingham, has provided a convincing explanation for why de-emphasising knowledge is a big mistake.
A robust body of evidence suggests that extensive long term memory is the primary driver of high academic performance and that ‘skills’ are not separable from knowledge.
Furthermore, there is a growing recognition of ‘The Matthew Effect’, which explains why those with more knowledge find it easier to acquire more.
This, alongside concerns about the reductive narrowing of curriculum in the pursuit of improved exam results for their own sake seems to have nudged Ofsted into action and brought the ‘what’ in from the cold.
The reaction has been mixed. Some teachers and schools have been defensive, arguing that the they never deprioritised curriculum or knowledge and that the campaign for more of both in schools is part of a sinister right wing plot.
This argument is odd, given that proponents of a knowledge rich curriculum come from across the political spectrum and that debates over what exactly should be taught are as fierce as they have ever been.
Others are smugly complacent, feeling the fact their school (as of course all schools do), has knowledge in its curriculum means that all is well.
An increasing number of teachers, particularly those who’ve looked beyond the soundbites and actively engaged with the thinking behind them, have recognised the need for more focus on what it is their pupils learn.
Unfortunately, in a landscape in which curriculum design in its proper sense has become something of a lost art, this remains easier to commit to than do.
A tough task
Given the high profile and visibility of ‘Knowledge Organisers’, it is unsurprising that this is where many schools have begun.
While aiming to help pupils remember what they’ve been taught is of course a noble aim, starting with knowledge organisers is often a mistake because their quality cannot exceed that of the curriculum from which they are drawn; if curriculum is patchy and incoherent, then knowledge organisers will never be more than a list of random facts and will become just another failed fad.
(For an example of how to ‘do’ knowledge organisers properly, by the way, see Becky Sayers’ excellent article in this magazine, overleaf on pages 54 and 55).
Instead, the right place to begin is with the curriculum itself. This, inevitably, takes a while if it is to be done properly and it’s easier to do as part of a team than it is alone.
It means deciding what topics will be taught and then breaking them down to a granular level. It means deciding when taught items of knowledge will be revisited, reinforced and developed.
In history it might mean scrolling up through different terms or years to find the exact right spot to introduce the concept of ‘parliament’ or ‘franchise’ and then scrolling down to find the places in which these will be built upon. It means obsessing about the correct sequencing of the knowledge.
More important than anything else is that it means turning away from the seductive but wrongheaded and dangerous belief it doesn’t matter if children forget what they are taught; properly caring about curriculum means accepting that if children remember nothing they have learned nothing.
If all of this still feels intimidating it might be a relief to learn there is plenty of help for those who want it.
The Parents and Teachers for Excellence (PTE) campaign and the newly formed Midlands Knowledge Hub aim to provide practical and subject-specific support and advice for those serious about developing and delivering a meaningful and robust curriculum.
The benefits are obvious. First, it seems to be what Ofsted want to see. Secondly, and infinitely more importantly, for once the interests of government and our inspectorate are aligned with what is best for our pupils.
3 questions to ask yourself about your curriculum:
- Was it intentionally planned or did it just sort of happen?
- Is what pupils learn revisited and built upon? When? How?
- How do you know pupils have remembered what they have been taught?
Ben Newmark is vice principal at the Nuneaton Academy, which is part of the Midland Academies Trust and the Midland Knowledge Hub.
