The 12-member panel appointed to review the curriculum and assessment for the new Labour government has been named.
Professor Becky Francis, the chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation, was appointed in July to lead the review, pledged by Labour ahead of its victory in this year’s general election.
Now Francis has named the remaining 11 members of the independent panel that will review both the curriculum taught in schools and the way it will be assessed.
The panel includes academy trust chief executives Cassie Buchanan and Dr Vanessa Ogden, SEND consultant Gary Aubin and exams expert Professor Jo-Anne Baird.
It also includes Reach Foundation curriculum director Jon Hutchinson and Funmilola Stewart, who leads on equality, diversity and inclusion across the Dixons trust and also teaches history at Dixons Trinity Academy in Bradford.
Sir Ian Bauckham, Ofqual’s chief regulator and a former academy trust CEO, will attend review meetings as an observer, contributing to discussions, but without a decision-making role.
‘Experience and expertise’
Francis said she was “excited to be working with this terrific group of professional experts”
The review panel will “draw on the experience and expertise of panel members with a detailed understanding of the curriculum in practice”.
“We have ensured that primary, secondary and post-16 sectors are represented to give due authority and respect to the expertise of education professionals in shaping the curriculum and outcomes they deliver.”
She added that, alongside its call for evidence, due to launch in September, the review would “engage and consult with crucial stakeholder groups”.
“We will work closely with education staff on the ground to produce a set of sensible, workable recommendations.
“We will consult young people and their parents to ensure that the views of children and young people are at the heart of the Review’s recommendations.
“And we will work closely with employers to ensure that children and young people leave education ready for life and work.”
The review will be “discerning about the issues it tackles.
“And whilst it won’t be able to address every issue linked to curriculum and assessment, I am confident that, by focusing on some key challenges, drawing on data and evidence, and listening to the views of the sector, we can develop an offer that works for young people and education professionals alike.”
The panel
Professor Becky Francis
Chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation
Former director of the UCL Institute of Education
Former professor at King’s College London
Former director of education, Royal Society of Arts
Former adviser to the Parliamentary education select committee
Gary Aubin
SEND consultant
Author of SENDMatters blog
Associate of the Education Endowment Foundation
Leader of a national SEND leadership network with Whole Education
Former SENDCo for a multi academy trust
Professor Jo-Anne Baird
Director of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Educational Assessment
Former head of the University of Oxford’s department of education
Held academic posts at the Institute of Education, University of London and the University of Bristol
Former head of research for the AQA exam board
Sir Ian Bauckham
Chief regulator of Ofqual
Chair of Oak National Academy
Former chair of Ofqual
Former CEO of Tenax Schools Trust
Led government reviews of teacher training and modern foreign languages
Nic Beech
Vice chancellor of the University of Salford
Chair of the Quality Council for UK Higher Education
Commissioner, International Higher Education Commission
Treasurer of Universities UK
Former vice-principal at the University of St Andrews
Former provost of Dundee University
Former vice-chancellor of Middlesex University
Cassie Buchanan
CEO of the Charter Schools Education Trust
Board member of Oak National Academy
National leader of education
Former head of Charles Dickens Primary School
Previous member of DfE advisory committees on early years, teacher wellbeing and workload reduction
Professor Zongyi Deng
Professor of curriculum and pedagogy at the Institute of Education Faculty of Education and Society, University College London
Leader of the Curriculum Subject Specialism Research Group (CSSRG)
Executive editor of the Journal of Curriculum Studies (JCS)
Has held faculty positions at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore) and the University of Hong Kong
Taught in the US and China
Jon Hutchinson
Director of curriculum and teacher development at the Reach Foundation
Former primary school teacher, A-level religious studies teacher and assistant head at Reach Academy Feltham
Former visiting fellow at the Ambition Institute
Regular expert advisor to the Department for Education
Member of the core group which developed the Early Career Framework
Party of the team that set up Oak National Academy
John Laramy
Principal and chief executive of Exeter College
Founding director of the Ted Wragg Multi-Academy Trust
Founding chair of the Exeter Specialist Mathematics School
Former director of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership
Former non-executive director of Pearson Education Limited
National leader of further education
Dr Vanessa Ogden
CEO of the Mulberry Schools Trust
Former headteacher of the Mulberry School for Girls
Honorary Academic at the UCL Institute of Education
Chair of the Fair Education Alliance and of the Unicorn Theatre
Founder of Global Girl Leading
Member of the DfE London regional board
Member of the Commission on Religious Education
National leader of education
Lisa O’Loughlin
Principal and CEO of the Nelson and Colne College Group after 30-year career working in large FE colleges
Former principal of The Manchester College
Former chair of the Greater Manchester College Group, which works with colleges and the combined authority to develop a ‘collaborative 16-18 curriculum’
Funmilola Stewart
Trust Leader for anti-racism and equality, diversity and inclusion across Dixons MAT
Leader of the anti-racism cross cutting team at Dixons
History teacher at Dixons Trinity Academy in Bradford
There is a reasonable range of people across areas here but there is a real bias in some directions (i) there are far more people post=primary than primary and cannot see any EYFS representation (ii) there are a lot of people with links to UCL/IoE (iii) a significant number have links to the Oak organisation – this has produced scripted, reductive and formulaic materials and has been much criticised and (iv) links to particular academy trusts.
I echo Paul’s thoughts above.
It’s great they are being transparent with who is involved with reviewing the curriculum and assessment, but the panel feel very intertwined – it’s starting to feel like an “old boys club”. There should also be current teachers from every phase involved, as well as career forecasters, educational phycologists, an expert in development and a range of SEND experts, not just one. It would be ideal (brave) to involve parents/children with lived experience too, at some stage of the review.
And employers – who after all are the people that have to take the output of the education system and make it into something that is useful for the economy. We do need “education for education’s sake” to improve the minds of students, but we also need to focus on knowledge and skills that will be useful to them for the rest of their lives.
You have taken the words right out of my mouth. The bias towards ‘academy thinking’ is a concern and where is the person who will remind everyone of the huge benefits of the arts ?
This is such an important task – The chance to transform our education focus. I agree with others and am disappointed by the bias towards Academies and Oak and lack of primary and EYFS practitioners. Also thought NCETM would be a great addition
I’m hoping that the panel engages early in the process, with the Council for Subject Associations. It is the umbrella organisation for subject associations.
Who here is representing vocational pathways?
If the curriculum needs reviewing surely it’s in support of pupils who do not want to go to university and to promote the vocational skills we need to secure our students future.
The system is set up to support the university debt pipeline. With many university’s on the brink of bankruptcy, we should be securing other pathways for young people like many countries already do in Europe. It’s fine to have a broad a general curriculum but we also need specialists and schools/universities are not developing them. The evidence is out there.
Do any of these good folk have any expertise in or experience of teaching any STEM subjects? I assume that they will seek advice from experts in the field.
I just wish that a group like this would write a fabulous fully resourced knowledge and skill rich curriculum, with researched implementation methods sign posted in, which we can all use, instead of teachers and heads of departments constantly writing and re-writing units, in the holidays and evenings, to achieve something better than has been in place. Would save time, money and morale – letting teachers focus and adapt to students in front of them. This would be far better than another ‘review’ and ‘findings’ exercise.
Hear Hear! The amount of hours spent writing subject curriculum (with no guidance other than one side of A4 – eg the Primary Art National Curriculum) that gets pulled to pieces is futile, demoralising and time-consuming.
Whilst I applaud the sensible inclusion of educational experts with management, SEND, inclusivity post 16 and early years backgrounds, there are a number of things that, as an experienced practitioner in an area often associated with vocational education (Design and Technology) I consider to be biased or missing.
My experience of MATs has been uniformly poor, and there a number of members with heavy experience in this area. Could a Labour government be rolling over and accepting a business based model for education.
Perhaps more importantly, what about the final consumers of our education ‘industry’, the employers?
Lastly a thought about curriculum management and teacher training. We have consistently missed targets in recruitment. The dubious contribution of Oak Academy has been referenced in the previous comment. Will this be the curriculum of the future? Well publicised but badly executed to be deliveredby non specialists resulting in ill prepared students?
So no teachers or headteachers then. High profile folk with very limited accountability. No rank and file. No one from the chalk face. Same old same old. Tory recycled nonsense. Hope no one is expecting change. The current knight of the realm recycles. Anyone shocked?
I agree with all the previous comments.
This is a real missed opportunity to broaden horizons on how best to create an education system that has equity at it heart. To design a curriculum that will meet future demands which needs to involve non-traditional education organisations that have a much clearer view of the type of skills and knowledge that will be needed in 20, 30, 50 years time. This doesn’t appear like a group who will be able to turn the education system around so that it doesn’t continue to fail many of our children who are currently going through our education system in England. Hopefully, I am wrong in this assumption and the group will be able to arrive at creative ideas that will meet the needs of all pupils are met encouraging them to be successful learners rather than opting out of school. We need to create an education system that provides a safe learning haven where they can all thrive through success rather than failure and then contribute positively to the well-being of our society.
Also such an error of judgement to include just the one token person of colour! It is like a throw back to the sixties.