Curriculum reform: is an urgent rethink needed?

In September 2024 the UK Government started a consultation on the school curriculum in England. It is called an “8-week conversation” and the closing date is 22 November 2024.

The conversation is not only for teachers and parents. There is a survey which anyone can respond to if identifying themselves in any of the following groups:

Students, pupils and learners.
Parents and carers.
Teachers, tutors and lecturers.
Headteachers and senior leaders.
The wider school, college or university workforce.
Researchers, academics and education experts.
Employers.
Local authority officers.
Anyone with an interest in the curriculum.

So this is an opportunity to make recommendations. Obviously, the more of us who state the obvious gaps and deficiencies in the current use of school time and resources, the more likely this expert group, chaired by Prof. Becky Francis, might take them up into their report and so send them forward for government implementation. The two gaps that this article will discuss are: citizenship education and disinformation.

What you need to know

First, before leaping into the fray with recommendations, it is important to ensure that you have knowledge about what is happening in English schools. Not just your local school, where your child goes to school, or where you teach – but the statistics for who studies what across all the schools in England. Governments have to make decisions and allocate resources after collecting data from all schools.

The consultation starts with what pupils should achieve in key stages 3 and 4 (secondary schooling), and will then work backwards to the younger ages. With the transparency of a working democracy, they have obligingly made available online the tables which count the proportion of students studying the various subjects at key stage 4 (year 10 and 11, when most pupils are aged 14-16). It begins with the following definition:

“The curriculum is our collective means of securing the knowledge and skills needed by the next generation to thrive individually while advancing our society.”

So, bearing that in mind, let’s see what is happening to citizenship education. Links to a table about the school workforce give teaching time per subject as a proportion of total teaching time in years 10 and 11. What this reveals is that 1% was devoted to citizenship up to 2013, and 0% thereafter. There was 0% for computer science until 2018 when it appeared as 1%. PSHE (personal, social, health and economic education – or “how to manage their lives”) got 3% in 2012 and 2% thereafter. Religious Education remained unchanged at 3%. There is also a mysterious “other” that fluctuates around 3%. This compares to the big subjects: Maths getting 16% and English 17%.

Bear in mind the statistic that in 2022 almost 30% of students did not achieve a grade 4 or higher in English (are many of them from multi-lingual families?) and almost one in 5 children left education at 18 without basic qualifications.

The importance of citizen education

Looking again at the percentages of teaching time, it seems most secondary schools are just ignoring citizenship education, although it is a required subject for key stages 3 and 4 in all ‘maintained schools’. But that excludes private fee-paying schools, faith schools, and Academy schools. 81.7% of secondary pupils in England are in academy schools these days.

The table above contains data from “state-funded schools”. Are most academies not obeying the law about citizenship education because they can claim not to be maintained schools? The proposed curriculum consultation covers all state-funded schools so the recommendations will apply to them.

It is likely that some citizen education is being taught under other subjects. A noteworthy debating point among those who want to change curriculum balance to include whatever topic they are passionate about is whether this is best achieved by creating a new subject or whether it is cross-cutting and best achieved by making it a theme in several subjects. In key stages 1 and 2, for primary teaching, this is the usual way forward as the curriculum works by themes; so for example, a theme of “water” can include science, geography, history, poetry and art.

From key stage 3 – where learning the basics and the methodology of each subject becomes important – the subject choices, time and staff allocation become more important. It is also important to get teachers trained for that subject, essential at the highest post-16 level, but desirable even at key stage 3 where teachers are often asked to take on subjects they did not initially train for. The disadvantage of not making a socially desirable topic like citizenship a separate subject is that then no teachers are trained for it, and there is no centre to develop the materials and keep up to date.

Personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE)

An AI search on PSHE reveals that citizenship (along with sex education and managing social lives) is on the list of topics covered. The PSHE Association (a charity with a membership of some 50,000) offers training courses. One of the core themes is “living in the wider world and relationships”. Under the title “teach about the importance of community and people’s responsibilities”, it offers a training course about diversity – “groups we belong to, diversity, discrimination, work and responsibilities”. Where is the teaching about democracy, how to vote, how to deal with, or become, a public representative? There are so many exciting topics in PSHE – which in the school corridor is known as ‘sex education’ – that I bet the public responsibility topics get squeezed out.

I noted in an earlier article on citizenship tests that the UK one is heavy in heritage and not so apt for the how-tos of managing life in the UK. It is compulsory for immigrants to the UK, but many born UK citizens would fail it. It might be good to use this consultation to recommend that basic online tests on citizenship are devised for all school leavers.

They should cover the how-tos that young people are likely to encounter. For example, first bank accounts, getting a passport, how to register for vote, or for an NHS surgery, fines, police procedures and your rights etc. It should be an assessment organised nationally so it is not a burden on teachers. There should be plenty of opportunity for re-takes. Results would show which schools are not giving citizenship enough resources of teachers or time.

Disinformation

PSHE is also taking on digital matters with “lessons to help you engage pupils and their parents in important e-safety lessons online”. One of the resources on the PSHE site is “Let’s watch a film: making choices about what to watch”. At a time when various countries and schools are starting to ban smartphones in schools for teenagers younger than 16, it is important for schools and teachers to keep up to date with the latest risks.

The main risks that PSHE seems to concentrate on (this is just from skimming their website) are sex, terrorism and gangs. That is understandable. But what about the more insidious risks of fake news that are increasingly destroying our media and democracies? This should not all be placed in media studies or computing because not every school student takes those subjects.

Being able to distinguish fact from opinion is quite an advanced skill. I have researched the maturation of language among secondary school students (their use of cohesive devices – the ands, buts, and signalling adjuncts like ‘luckily’). Skills for telling stories (narrative) and description are gained sooner than those needed for argument. Some students, especially those 30% who fail to get a level 4 in English, will not be able to handle arguments well by the time they leave school. No wonder so many of them will go through life trusting sensational headlines, deceptive advertisements and social media based on monetised attention grabs.

There is an urgent need to put this before the consultation so that more materials, training and teachers can be provided in English schools.

Religious education

I was rather surprised to note that 3% of teaching time is still devoted to religion. Since Victorian times, it has been compulsory. Most agreed syllabi require 5% of curriculum time (so some schools are shirking!). For at least 40 years in the UK, this has been multi-faith with the county advisor not necessarily a Christian.

In the Leicester education authority when my children were at school the advisor was a Muslim if I recall. In multi-cultural UK it is important that the different faiths are mutually understood, especially at the level of what festivals happen. I think this is mostly well handled in the curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. So I question whether as much as 5% of time should be utilised at key stages 3 and 4.

The faith groups themselves handle the upbringing of their children and the understanding of their sacred texts. I would not go as far to secularisation as France where since the Revolution of 1792 the principle of laicisation means that all state-funded schools teach compulsory philosophy and no religion. In the UK, some education to inculcate values – sometimes with a religious story – take place via compulsory assemblies.

One advantage of retaining religious studies as a separate subject is that the teachers are often very committed and well-trained. I am not sure if tossing its hours to PSHE would get the same quality. Maybe the hours could go there but the teaching would still be handled by the religious education (RE) specialists when that part of a revised curriculum, which includes values, comes up in the school year.

A similar argument could be made for the cross-cutting subject of disinformation. It needs more curriculum time. It could be put under PSHE, but then the specialists from media studies, computer science and English language should be invited in for those topics.