I recently asked leaders and teachers in our trust why they chose the primary phase. The responses were arguably predictable, but also had the virtue of being deeply true: empowering young minds, making meaningful connections between subjects, making a difference in the formative years, building confidence, character and having the courage to dream big.
These are the hills we would die on as primary teachers. Everything else, including which year group we should teach the Vikings to (if at all), seems negotiable. And I say that as someone who loved teaching about the Vikings and gets the critical importance of a well-sequenced curriculum.
Which begs the question: what do we want from the government’s curriculum and assessment review?
Its published aims promote evolution over revolution. And quite rightly. I don’t think most people will lose much sleep about where in the curriculum the Vikings end up, nor do any of us want the hard work of the past decade completely undone.
The bigger priority is to get a grip on wider systemic issues that are going to impact the real-world effectiveness of any new approach.
Exit key stage right?
For example, now that we are not bound by statutory key stage 1 assessments, perhaps we should consider rethinking the current key stage system and look at alternative ways to organise the learning journey through primary. Year 3 children have a great deal more in common with year 2 than year 6.
There are challenges, such as separate infant and junior schools, but it’s a 19th-century structure and blindly sticking with it could be a case of putting the cart before the horse. Not least with the forecasted seismic impact of falling rolls.
Resourcing realities
Similarly, if we are to truly deliver a curriculum for the future, we need schools built and resourced for the future.
I was initially heartened by the pragmatism of the review aims in acknowledging “the context of an education system facing considerable challenges and staff shortages”. Perhaps less heartening is the extent to which we are seemingly resigned to this.
Even the most inspirational curriculum documentation won’t overcome the inequity of some schools with iPads for every child while others have to cancel assemblies when it rains due to leaking roofs.
Realistically, we can have anything we want, but we can’t have everything. So while the curriculum review can’t plunge money into schools, perhaps it can highlight not only what an effective curriculum looks like, but what is meaningfully required to deliver it on a national scale.
Because in the end, we are accountable for outcomes.
Assessment and accountability
And it’s absolutely right that we should be. But we shouldn’t be fearful of that. So let’s retain primary testing at the end of key stage 2, but let’s review its purpose and proportionality.
A child with a scaled score of 99 is unlikely to be much less cognitively capable than a child with a scaled score of 100. Yet, within the current system, one is labelled a pass and the other fail. We need a more nuanced perspective on what these results tell us.
Sharing the load
Led by clearer goals, we can then really think about reducing national curriculum content to what is essential for meeting those outcomes.
This would give schools more capacity to respond to local context. We are at risk of living a lie that we can fit everything in if we just work hard enough. We can’t.
What we can do is carefully craft and sequence the school curriculums our children and communities need, even as we all work towards shared ends.
Meeting the future
Remember why we came into primary education in the first place? To dream big!
This is a tremendous opportunity to give oracy a bigger role and to embed meaningful sustainability education. These are the things that get us up in the morning and keep us in the profession we love.
To quote one of my respected colleagues on their motivation for working in primary education: “we need to take time constructing our masterpieces”.
I’m sure Becky Francis and her panel will want to take their time on theirs.
This article is the third in a new series of sector-led, experience-informed recommendations for the Francis review of curriculum and assessment. Read them all here
Your thoughts