The chair of the government’s curriculum review has said “if we’re putting things in, we also need to find things to take out”, acknowledging complaints that it is “overstuffed” in some areas.
Professor Becky Francis also revealed today that the review would look at relationships, sex and health education, casting doubts over whether the previous government’s proposals to update the content and set age limits on some topics will proceed as planned
Francis, the chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation, was appointed by new education secretary Bridget Phillipson in July to review the national curriculum and assessment system used in schools.
But news of the review has prompted warnings that stretched schools cannot cope with further change after years of reform, and that adding more content to the curriculum will stretch them further.
‘Overstuffed’
Speaking at a Westminster Education Forum webinar today, Francis said the review was conscious “that the system is under some strain”.
“There’s actually very limited capacity for a whole raft of different reasons, which, of course, partly explains why we’re very much focused on evolution, not revolution.”
She said “often, people complain that we already have a very overstuffed curriculum, particularly in some subject areas”, added that there was a “lot of campaigning about what needs to be put into the curriculum.
“I’m very clear that if we’re putting things in, we also need to find things to take out, and that’s often much more controversial, but that is a key principle there.”
Curriculum ‘myths’
Francis also warned there were “a lot of myths that circulate in the curriculum space and a lot of assumptions about different trends and so forth”.
“But when that, when you actually kick the tires, you find on the data, you find that actually maybe those claims are overstated.”
Asked for examples, she said “often people say that things aren’t in the curriculum, and actually, it turns out they are”. She said this included financial education, oracy and sustainability.
But she said there were “very serious questions about the extent to which they’re represented in in the curriculum”.
She added that there were “very prevalent views that, for example, art education has declined in the curriculum over time”.
“When you dig into the data, it’s really interesting to see art as a subject, it absolutely thrives at GCSE, but some other areas of the arts, for example, drama, has shown a decline.”
Review to look at sex education
Relationships, sex and health education has been compulsory in all schools since 2021, but that requirement is set out in separate statutory guidance, rather than forming part of the national curriculum.
But Francis said despite this, “given the government’s intention to following the recommendations of the review, ask all schools to teach the national curriculum, including academies, we feel that in that case, we do need to be looking at RSHE as well. So [RSHE and PSHE] are in our purview”.
It is not clear where this leaves proposals set out by the previous government for age limits on certain topics and updated content. The new administration has not said if it will continue with the plans or ditch them.
Francis ‘surprised’ by academies criticism
Francis also defended the make-up of the expert panel that will assist her in the review, following criticism that local authority maintained schools were not represented.
She said she had been “really surprised” by the criticism.
“I sort of thought we were kind of a bit beyond that. Many of the people who might be considered now to represent [a multi-academy trust] actually have been in local authority schools in the past.
“There’s certainly no intention that somehow people are being excluded. You’ll note that in terms of local authority representation, there are no, for example, regional schools commissioners on the panel.
“In terms of that representation, though, of course, we want to hear evidence from local authority officials who you’re absolutely right to say, have a wealth of expertise, and we’ll be looking forward to engaging that both through the road show and through the call for evidence as well.”
She added that she had “resisted the temptation to tokenistically place, say a parent or an employer or a young person on the panel”.
Silence on whether review will include Oak
This week, ministers were urged by the Publishers’ Association to review the make-up of its panel over the “close ties” three members share with Oak National Academy, the government’s curriculum body.
A DfE spokesperson said the panel have been “appointed on the basis of their personal expertise and experience. We have robust arrangements in place for managing any potential conflicts of interest.”
However the government refused to say whether the review will look directly at Oak or its work.
The Publishers’ Associations high court challenge over Oak is due to take place in November.
