Who Makes the Curriculum?
- Mr Dissent
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
The what?
Professor Mark Priestley in a GTCS article and blog in 2021 suggested the following definition of the curriculum.
“…View the curriculum as the multi-layered social practices, through which education is structured, enacted and evaluated.”
Furthermore, curriculum making can be layered as follows:
In a shallow fashion, as the difficulties of CFE arose, it could be argued that attempts to make better sense of the Scottish Curriculum originated from the Supra level and pushed recommendations down to the nanoists in schools and classrooms.
This led to many suggested improvements to CFE including, empowering headteachers, regional improvement collaboratives, lead teachers and a flurry of activity developing benchmarks. I leave the readers to judge the sustainability and success of each.
All of the above was only 9 years ago. Nearly ten years, which proves to be prescient, because we are now adopting a ten year Curriculum Improvement Cycle - again catalysed by an OECD report from 2021.
It could be argued that all of these developments originated from the Supra level after an invitation from the Scottish Government to the OECD to evaluate progress. That, in itself is worthy but there is one voice that seems to be ignore until the OECD get involved. Teachers, who are helpfully described as being Nano, have often been describing the challenges of the Scottish Curriculum but are ignored until someone more important comes along.
Hopefully, the Curriculum Improvement Cycle recognises and works on listening to teachers.
"Develop a systematic approach to curriculum review: Scotland could consider establishing a curriculum review cycle with a planned timeframe and specific review agenda, led by the specialist stand-alone agency."
A ten year cycle of continuous but planned reviews will replace the hand grenade approach adopted when leaders finally accept their model has failed and needs quickly replaced.
This blog is not going to judge the progress of the CIC, it is far too early. There are draft suggestions circulating in the educational ecosystem, it will take time to read, absorb, engage and understand what is going on.
My plea is to all who can - get involved.
Which brings me to the biggest challenge.
Here is an anonymised response from a teacher on their first day back.
“One inservice day and the workload demands are insane.
I’d gladly go on strike over it. It’s impossible to do my job.”
When another was asked, “What was said about the CIC?” Their reply was “The what?” When it was explained, the main issue was time and space to even consider engaging. One thing they did say was, “I have spent the last decade curriculum making, I need a break from it, not more.”
Yet here we are.
On a rolling programme:
If you are a small department, I pray for you.
I think it will be important that this development work is not dumped 100% on schools. After all, “curriculum making in classrooms and other learning spaces” is the most critical aspect of the learning journey for our young people. Teachers have more than full time jobs already. Support must be corporeal, have substance and be exemplified to allow confidence in the system and the possibility that it will succeed.
The decrease in the number of young people choosing secondary teaching as a career is depressing. Perhaps, as they are the most recent participants in schooling, it is a sign of their concern over workload, behaviour and the ability to gain job satisfaction from such a noble cause.
It is a message we should heed.
Oh, and the answer to the title? Some people and bodies suggest, others pass on, but in modern Scotland, we choose to put the burden of curriculum making on the over worked classroom teacher.
Comments