Of all the issues the Francis review of curriculum and assessment needs to wrestle with, key stage four (KS4) might be the biggest.
We all want children to be literate and numerate, to have rich, rigorous and immersive experiences in a range of disciplines, to feel the joy of success and of being challenged, to understand the world around them, appreciate it and take their place in it.
However, we also need a system that provides them with qualifications that open doors to children’s best next steps.
Tight specifications, terminal assessments and performance measures dictate the weather in our classrooms. Accountability works in clear ways, and what we measure is what the system will attend to. All accountability distorts in some way, and we must accept that there is no perfect or holistic model devoid of an observer effect.
The question we must ask ourselves, and the question the Francis review is asking itself, is how much of which distortions we are willing to accept.
There are some distortions that we shouldn’t continue to accept. As an English teacher and chair of the English Association’s secondary and further education committee, I recognise the need for fundamental reform of the English language GCSE.
At present, it purports to tell us how functionally literate our children are. It does not, nor does it meaningfully assess a child’s understanding or appreciation of language. Reform is an easy win for the review, which would have all parties cheering from the sideline.
Two immediate changes would make a substantial difference.
First, changing the wording of exam questions. Rather than using the mystical ‘reader’, we could shift to the second person. So, rather than asking ‘How might the reader respond to X?’, we ask ‘How do you respond to X?’
At a stroke, this would shift classroom pedagogy to one that privileges personal response. It would also create space for purposeful speaking – speaking through the curriculum.
Art, drama, music and technology are not lesser subjects
Second, we could bring back a specific, weighted assessment for speaking and listening. But let’s think forward on this, not backward.
A move back to children having to deliver forced presentations is a not good idea. Instead, let’s look at ways children can respond to literary prompts. This would encourage structured talk and deepen students’ understanding and ability to communicate.
Any reform will bring its own distortions, and a priority must be to ensure this does not come at the expense of the most disadvantaged like the teacher-assessed grades of the pandemic did.
We don’t have to look far from England to see where good intentions go wrong either. For example, we can learn lessons from Wales and Scotland.
The English Baccalaureate (EBacc) is a collection of qualifications in disciplines with rich traditions and knowledge, each worthy of study and each helping children to understand and appreciate the world around them. As the government suggests too, they also keep young people’s options open.
But is it representative enough of children’s full entitlement?
Art, drama, music and technology are not lesser subjects, and certainly not for those less suited to an academic pathway. They are rigorous subjects with their own disciplinary roots. If we are to be aspirational for all children, we would do well to recognise this.
So let’s reform the EBacc to include opportunities for these subject areas. But let’s not base this on false arguments about more creativity, or pathways for ‘less able’ or ‘more disadvantaged’ children. The aim must be to create an EBacc that has more balance and flexibility for all.
At Astrea, we value a thorough education in religious studies. A new national curriculum and KS4 qualification would be well-placed in a reformed EBacc.
The subject is important in its own right. It also teaches children about appreciating each other and others in their communities in a way other subjects do not. Moreover, religious knowledge improves and underpins understanding in a range of other subjects.
There is much to debate and much to decide. But whatever decisions are made, we must hope that the distortions are worth the cost.
Your thoughts