Is it time for CFE 2.0?
It is alleged that when Richard Feynman was asked if he could explain to the average person, in 25 words or less, why he won the Nobel Prize for Physics he replied ‘’Listen, if I could explain it in less than 25 words, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize!’’ Curriculum for Excellence induces similar emotions in many Scottish teachers. This becomes more relevant as Wales embarks on a similar ‘Successful Futures’ journey using waymarks familiar to many Scottish teachers.
I have survived many initiatives designed to improve the educational outcomes of our Scottish children. The clarity, training and resources of Standard and Higher Grade engenders a sense of professional nostalgia and security that contrasts favourably with the modern progressive approach that delivers thousands of pages of advice in a green folder and in labyrinthine websites in the hope teachers can translate diffuse aspirations into positive educational experiences.
It is important to be reminded that the central outcomes sought by the CFE Review Group in 2004 included simplified assessment and qualifications, greater choice, more skills and space in the curriculum for work in depth and broader achievement. These outcomes were to be supported by decluttering the curriculum and by promising more teacher freedom and agency in curriculum development. I would advise my Celtic colleagues to be wary of their expectations in this area as the capacity for education to live up to these pledges is inconsistent.
Has CFE created the promised space and time to think deeper and have greater choice and opportunity? In recent months, the work of Professor Mark Priestley would suggest not and would worryingly point out that curricular restrictions apply more to deprived areas than our more salubrious enclaves.
Professors Walter Humes and Lindsay Paterson have both pointed out that CFE data has been arid rather than fecund. GTCS standards on engagement with research, enquiry and reflection exhorts teachers to question the efficacy of our practice yet this principle does not seem to apply to National Policy. In terms of academic progress, PISA seems to be the only continuous data thread during the CFE-olithic period, leading the OECD to describe Scotland as “average” but “declining” between 2006 and 2015. This period almost exactly coincides with the lifespan of CFE yet no official body seems to be questioning the philosophy of CFE.
Humes and Holligan in 2009 hypothesised that CFE is driven by the competencies and skills that research by suggest cannot be achieved without sufficient emphasis on the importance of knowledge. The OECD use a problem solving approach to gain data on national performance and yet, counter-intuitively, CFE seems to be diminishing the very skills and abilities that it promotes.
Indeed, the OECD confirms the views of Humes and Paterson by informing us that CFE is difficult to assess due to lack of data but that it can be saved by creating a ‘new narrative for CfE’ with simplified guidance, and a more coherent pathway from policy to practice. The Scottish Government is energetically try to strengthen ‘the middle’ via empowerment (without clear definition) and through Regional Improvement Collaboratives that seem to be mimicking pre-existing arrangements amongst local authorities.
Using international comparisons, it is problematic to make a positive case for the academic impact of CFE but one always doubts that the whole picture is easy to discern until we have more research. Scottish teachers are demonstrating individual and collective leadership by filling this vacuum by attending TeachMeets, Pedagoo, ResearchEd and most recently, EduMod CFE 2.0 discussions. To quote educational guru and DJ David Cameron “These people should be encouraged rather than challenged.”
Paul Cochrane
Based on a Pedagoo Crieff Professional Conversation
Background Research - The Holligan/Humes Article
The hidden politics of the Curriculum for Excellence Sept 2009 Herald
Chris Holligan is senior lecturer in education at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS). Walter Humes is research professor in education at UWS.
We are now at a critical point in its introduction, yet some of the key stakeholders – not least teachers themselves – are still less than fully convinced of its merits. One correspondent to the Herald described CfE as ‘the most ill-conceived, ill-thought out, ill-described ragbag of empty verbiage and feel-good platitudes that I have encountered in 27 years of teaching’.
Why should this be so? After all, the idea dates back to 2004 and there has been plenty of opportunity to promote the principles behind it. Most teachers can recite the mantra of the ‘four capacities’ at the centre of the proposals – successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens – but, beyond that, they struggle to articulate an underlying philosophy.
We would suggest that part of the reason is that the political basis of the reforms has been insufficiently explored.
A political vision lies buried beneath the surface of any school curriculum. Governments seek to ensure that education systems deliver the knowledge, skills and attitudes required to promote a particular interpretation of economic life and community wellbeing.
It is surprising that commentators on CfE have not enquired into or debated the political philosophy which it expresses. Nor have they questioned whether the society it seeks to create is desirable.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, has described CfE as “the biggest transformational development in Scottish education for decades”.
Critics take a different view. Professor Lindsay Paterson of Edinburgh University has attacked the ‘vacuousness’ of the reforms. Writing in the Times Educational Supplement for Scotland he has also suggested that their anti-intellectual bias may undermine many of the achievements of comprehensive education.
Another prominent critic has been Keir Bloomer, who was a member of the review group which produced the original proposals. He has bemoaned the reliance on well-rehearsed slogans when what is needed is vision and forward planning. By contrast, government ministers and officials regard CfE as a sound basis for educating the next generation of Scots.
So what is the political basis for CfE? Significantly, it shifts the focus from knowledge of academic disciplines to a programme which seeks to deliver work and life skills. During its development, employers argued for a new emphasis upon competences, not knowledge of traditional subjects.
This was linked to arguments about the importance of employee flexibility and the need to respond to global economic forces. Belief in the possibility and desirability of continuous economic growth is an unquestioned tenet in this interpretation. What is absent is any proper consideration of the basis of existing inequalities in society and the best means of redressing them.
This goes some way towards explaining the vagueness at the heart of CfE. Instead of exploring first-order questions about the kind of society we want to create, it concentrates on second-order questions of implementation.
Teachers are encouraged to ask ‘how?’ but not ‘why? Asking ‘why?’ would expose the contested nature of the political assumptions that underpin CfE, particularly at a time when public trust in financial and corporate leaders is at an all-time low.
People might begin to realize that the four capacities have the imprint of aims and values that serve the interests of the business sector rather than any broader conception of the public good. The focus has been on the ‘experiences’ and ‘outcomes’ which teachers are expected to ‘deliver’, rather than on the underlying rationale of the whole exercise.
That the capacities are merely sketched, and not incorporated into a deeper and more culturally nuanced vision of the good society, is a cause for concern, especially in a pluralist democracy.
CfE flies the flag of the free market and corporate values. Despite its claims to represent a revolution, it signals continuity of thinking with Tony Blair’s New Labour project and even with some aspects of Thatcherism. Moreover, it is in serious danger of neglecting established bodies of knowledge and the wisdom they contain.
It appropriates American trends by favouring a highly adaptable but compliant labour force, who will follow orders rather than reflect on the reasons behind them. It facilitates the growth of employees rather than citizens - employees who will lack the mental tools to evaluate critically the competitive culture into which they will be incorporated.
The four capacities may aggravate existing fissures in society. What is needed is a curriculum which helps youngsters to acquire the ideals and underlying dispositions upon which social solidarity and collective action depends.
CfE will not promote a more egalitarian society, nor will it undermine poverty cycles because of its commitment to shallow materialism and corporate expansionism.
The goal is to deliver a society that will generate wealth, but not necessarily in a fairer fashion or in a way that strengthens democracy.
Despite its rhetoric of opportunity and excellence, it is unlikely to reverse the legacy of social exclusion built up during the post-Thatcher era under New Labour. Deeper thinking about the nature and purpose of the curriculum is required if we genuinely believe that one of functions of education is to produce a healthy, diverse and just democratic society.
Also: Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopaedia of informal education,
Comments