In 2002 the then Scottish Executive undertook the most extensive consultation ever of the people of Scotland on the state of school education through the National Debate on Education. In the debate, many people – pupils, parents, teachers, employers and others – said that they valued and wanted to keep many aspects of the current curriculum. Some also made compelling arguments for changes to ensure all our young people achieve successful outcomes and are equipped to contribute effectively to the Scottish economy and society, now and in the future.
Features of the curriculum which people valued were: the flexibility which already exists in the Scottish system – no one argued for a more prescriptive national system; the combination of breadth and depth offered by the curriculum; the quality of teaching; the quality of supporting material that helps teachers to deliver much of the current curriculum; and, the comprehensive principle
People argued for changes which would: reduce over-crowding in the curriculum and make learning more enjoyable; better connect the various stages of the curriculum from 3 to 18; achieve a better balance between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ subjects and include a wider range of experiences; equip young people with the skills they will need in tomorrow’s workforce; make sure that assessment and certification support learning; allow more choice to meet the needs of individual young people.
The above description of the genesis of a Curriculum for Excellence is taken from the Purposes and Principles of the Curriculum 3-18 (2004).
Here we are six years later in 2010 and it’s of interest to reflect on the progress that’s been made. I think two key points that are often missed by people when they set out to attack Curriculum for Excellence are contained within the two complementary sentences highlighted in the opening pargraph, i.e. it set out to keep many aspects of our existing curriculum, whilst recognising that there was also a need to better prepare children for a changing world.
On reflection perhaps the most remarkable thing about Curriculum for Excellence in 2010 is that it does does so closely match our aspirations identified from the 2002 National Debate on Education, informed – as it was – by unions, headteachers, local authorities, parents and academics. Yet so much of the criticism which seems to be now directed towards CfE appears to suffer from a form of collective amnesia, where the original imperative and drivers for change have been conveniently forgotten. Not only that but there are a range of myths which are continually perpetuated – without rebuttal – until they almost take hold in our collective conscousness. An example of such would be the claim that CfE is committed to the destruction of subject specialisms and subject specific content.
As someone who is currently conducting a series of seminars with East Lothian secondary school subject specialists, where I’ve been highlighting the importance of their subject expertise, I’ve been mystified by claims that subject specialisms are being watered down by CfE. I’d actually argue the other way – in that there is a much greater likelihood that young people can study subject areas in real depth instead of the “mile wide inch deep” approach that often characterised the previous curriculum.
What we now have is an opportunity to provide real scope to meet the needs of all learners. The other key dimension which I’m seeing in our schools is a growing intellectual ambition to stretch our children in a way that will give our economy a leading edge in the next 20 years.
Where implementation is at its most successful I see a capacity to build upon the traditional strengths of the Scottish system: hard work; a passion for learning; commitment to high standards; outstanding teaching; and one other which has not been in evidence over the last 30 years in our schools – innovation. This latter point is so ironic given Scotland’s international reputation for invention.
Certainly if we listen to observers from outwith Scotland we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to take a real lead in world education – yet it’s as if there exists some self destruct mechanism deep in the Scottish psyche which needs to undermine and attack anything which is vaguely aspirational.
These attacks appear to take on three different forms:
The first of these is characterised by those who select a singular aspect of Curriculum for Excellence for which there may be reasonable grounds for informed critique. However, that singular point is then extrapolated from the specific to the general and in the process an attack on everything under the banner of CfE – which covers the entire 3-18 programme.
The second form of attack is from those who seek to represent the silent majority. I would refer to these as those who claim to be courageous enough point out that “the emperor wears no clothes”. Yet in my experience its actually quite the reverse, in that the real majority are those who support the change.
The final category of attack comes from those who claim to be “agnostic”. This is probably even more corrosive that the previous two as it is based upon an assumption that we will judge the success of CfE once it has been completed. Yet the reality is that CfE is a dynamic development and needs to be continually developing if it is to truly meet the needs of children in a society that is in itself ever changing.
The bottom line here is that no one is suggesting that Curriculum for Excellence is a “fully formed” solution for Scotland’s education system. No one I speak to would suggest that there are not there are many things that need to improve. Yes – we need more clarity in some areas. Absolutely we need continuing support for implementation. But the reality is that I’d rather be where we are now, than where we were in 2000 faced with a moribund curriculum, disconected assessment systems, static levels of atttainment, disempowered teachers and, most importantly, disengaged learners. What we must constantly remind ourselves and others is that CfE – for the first time in our history – is tackling the entire curriculum for children and young people aged 3-18. The scale of the endeavour is mind numbing – which makes it all the more remarkable that such progrees has been made to date.
We stand on an exciting threshold but it needs more people to start to speak up for the positives – without the need to preface their comment with an apology or some qualifying statement. My greatest fear is for the children whom we teach. For the risk is not so much that Curriculum for Excellence is implemented , but rather that it isn’t implemented.
