Curriculum Clarity: What The Curriculum And Assessment Review Says About Articulating Your Curriculum Well

Recently (and actually, for a while now), I've been banging on about how clear your curriculum needs to be, particularly with regards to ensuring your curriculum statements (objectives, key facts/information) are explicit and clear.

And it's not just me who thinks this is important.

I've recently carried out some curriculum reviews for different schools and organisations, and one piece of feedback I've given regularly is along these lines:

• Provide more explicit guidance in unit overviews as to exactly what should be taught - a unit overview should be focused more on the exact content that you want teachers to cover and less on how they should teach it.

Just after I'd given that feedback to one school, their Ofsted report was published. Guess what it said?

"...in most other subjects the curriculum content is not defined or sequenced effectively. This means that teachers are not clear about the important knowledge they need to teach and when to teach it."

And I can bet you that isn't the only Ofsted report that says something similar. However, it is worth noting that the new Ofsted framework isn't explicit about this, although it does talk about "planning and sequencing the curriculum clearly".

But it's not just Ofsted.

Now we have the final report from the government-commissioned Curriculum and Assessment Review, and it's mentioned quite clearly there too:

"When the curriculum is designed thoughtfully, it can reduce unnecessary inequities and barriers to learning, provide clarity and coherence for teachers, and better support young people with diverse needs.”

"“We think every child is entitled to high standards, including a rich curriculum that articulates what they should learn, and reliable assessments that support their learning and capture their achievements.”

"...those with SEND and those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds... suffer disproportionately when the curriculum is poorly articulated, overloaded, badly organised or depends on experiences outside the classroom."

"In our chapter on curriculum principles, we therefore set out recommendations to improve the clarity, specificity and sequencing of the curriculum, ensuring space for mastery of core concepts (see curriculum principles)"

The report drops all these hints and then goes all-out in its currciulum principles section where the fifth principle is all about 'specificity':

Specificity

"Specificity and precise language are essential to securing curriculum continuity, curriculum coherence and aiding mastery of concepts. The Programmes of Study for some foundation subjects currently lack specificity, which can result in teachers feeling pressured to ‘cover all bases’ or repeat content across years and key stages. We are clear that greater specificity should not mean greater volume of content and should not unnecessarily impede schools’ or teachers’ autonomy. Foundation subjects’ Programmes of Study should be drafted with a minimalist approach to added detail, carefully balanced with the need to ensure the greater specificity which aids conceptual mastery, continuity and coherence."

Now, what you need to know and remember is that this report is directed at the government, and not at individual schools and school leaders. The above is not about what you need to do with your curriculum, but what the government need to do with the National Curriculum. Breathe a sight of relief.

However, the next curriculum principle is centred around 'professional autonomy':

Professional autonomy

"The national curriculum is only one part of a school’s overall curriculum, and it is important that teachers and leaders have space to exercise their professional judgement and innovate. Professional autonomy allows teachers, schools and multi-academy trusts to be creative, innovative and ensure that they can meet children and young people’s needs through a locally relevant curriculum.

As we stated in our conceptual position paper, a rich and well-specified national curriculum supports and empowers teachers’ professional practice. Teachers act as ‘curriculum makers’, interpreting and transforming the content in the national curriculum to ‘author’ instructional events with students in the classroom. At the core of curriculum making is the process of unpacking and interpreting content to unlock its educational potential. The Review supports the innovation and professionalism of teachers, enabling them to adapt how they teach the curriculum to reflect their students’ lives and experiences. The national curriculum is intended as a baseline rather than imposing limits, and it is the expertise of our teachers that brings it to life in the classroom."

The government response makes it clear that they intend to adopt the review's curriculum principles, including the two above, meaning that when they adapt the current National Curriculum to make it more specific, school teachers and leaders will still have the responsibility of curriculum making as they interpret and transform the "content in the national curriculum to ‘author’ instructional events with students in the classroom".

And if you're going to be doing that at Trust- or school-level, that specificity will still be important.

In fact, that same section about professional autonomy goes on to say:

"Ensuring the profession has the space to develop the curriculum is essential to enable the stretch and/or support learners need, enabling inclusive and adaptive teaching to happen for individual children and young people. This is particularly important in the context of greater numbers of them being identified as having SEND. To that end, the national curriculum should be teachable within the time available and should not be so specific that it restricts teachers’ autonomy."

The government response to the review's report is this:

"We will ensure that, where the curriculum contains greater specificity, it still allows flexibility to choose lesson content and how to teach it."

So, even though the refreshed National Curriculum will be more specific, it won't be so specific that your in-school autonomy is compromised. Again, this means that what you do with your school's own curriculum will still require you to articulate your curriculum well.

With the government promising a revised National Curriculum in 2027 for first teaching in 2028, there are over 3 academic years to go until we have anything to work off.

With this being the case, school leaders must ask themselves the extent to which their current curriculum is fit for purpose, and whether or not it is worth making changes to it for the sake of the next few years. The CAR report and the government's response certainly gives us enough to go on in terms of the direction we might take with further curriculum development work so that any changes made in the next 3 or so years are future-proof.

If you've been holding your breath for the curriculum review, but now know that you've got pressing curriculum work to be done, why not get on with doing what is right for your pupils right now? Together we can make the changes that your school, teachers and pupils need in the next few years. Here's you 3-step plan to taking the load off yourself and making that happen:

1. Drop me an email

2. Have a phone call with me to talk about your school

3. We'll work together to empower you and your staff to enhance teaching and to enrich your pupils' lives