Curriculum Conversations (Episode 1): What you need to know now about the national curriculum changes

Hello, I'm Emma McCrea, Head of Curriculum Design at Oak, and welcome to our roundtable discussion. Today I'm joined by the brilliant Cassie Buchanan, CEO of The Charter Schools Educational Trust and member of the Curriculum and Assessment Review panel, and the incredible Bennie Kara, author and leading voice on inclusive curriculum leadership. Today, we want to give school and trust leaders three key things. Firstly, clarity on what the Curriculum and Assessment Review could mean in practice and what's still evolving. Secondly, insight into the big themes emerging from future readiness to inclusion across the curriculum. And finally, practical leadership guidance on next steps, including how to prioritise well and protect teacher workload. So let's start off with one question that I'm seeing, which is, lots of different types of schools in the sector, and they're asking, you know, basic question: who is the national curriculum for?

I guess it's difficult, right? If there's been this big national conversation about curriculum, you know, who actually is going to be implementing or required to implement a new national curriculum? But it's a fairly simple answer. It's all mainstream schools. So that will include schools that are currently maintained by their local authority, schools maintained in federations, as well as schools that are academies in single and multi-academy trusts. So, therefore, by definition, it's not alternative provisions. They are required to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, but not the national curriculum, and obviously also not other special schools who, again, need to teach the right broad and balanced curriculum for their students. And then by association, because it's government-maintained schools, it's therefore not the independent sector.

Yeah. Okay. And the change specifically here in terms of the recommendations of the review panel is that academies now have to follow the national curriculum, whereas to this point-

Most do.

Most do because you have to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.

Exactly.

But it wasn't necessarily statutory that they had to follow the national curriculum.

No, that's-

That is a slight kind of change in terms of this review.

A change, but also, you know, in my opinion, an improvement. If we are going to have this national entitlement that has been decided upon and based on a really evidence-informed approach, then it therefore follows it would be right that every child and young person gets to experience it.

Absolutely. Let's think about the Curriculum and Assessment Review. I'm gonna ask both of you, maybe start with you, Bennie, what most excites you about the potential for curriculum change based on the recommendations from the review?

So as a former English teacher who taught English Language GCSE for many years, quite often found myself banging my head against a wall without sense of what the qualification was for and how it was distinct from English Literature, I was so, so, so excited to see that there will be some reform of the English Language GCSE, simply because the current format of it is just so nebulous and there's so much potential with it. So the idea of reviewing that specific qualification absolutely filled me with delight. And of course, if we think about the language of the review itself, that mandate towards a more diverse curriculum was something that was a real relief to see. And of course, it's still to be seen how that manifests. But the idea that it has been taken on board, that teachers and students and parents and communities said, "This is what we want," and the review has acknowledged that. That to me was tremendously exciting.

Yeah. Yeah. And I think in conversation with many English teachers-

Yeah.

I've heard that frustration that they feel about the English Language GCSE. So I think there's probably a whole English teaching community, hopefully, who are excited, possibly apprehensive as well.

Yes.

Because, of course, change is workload and uncertainty, but optimistic-

Absolutely.

About that qualification better serving the pupils.

Absolutely. Well, I'm certainly waiting with bated breath. So let's see how it goes.

Watch this space.

Watch this space.

Cassie, what are you excited about?

Gosh, the bar is high. I would say, in a similar way to Bennie's point about clarity and purpose, I'm actually really excited about the primary citizenship.

Yes.

Not because I think primary schools haven't been doing citizenship, but actually, they've been doing lots of different things that perhaps together formed some sort of civic education. Whereas this is going to give real clarity to that. And at a time when, you know, the modern world is complicated, giving children in primary schools, all children in primary schools, doesn't matter where you're at school, the opportunity to learn about the things that make our country great and how to be a really responsible citizen in a modern society.

-Yeah.

I think that's exciting. And I think primary schools will really welcome that and welcome the clarity around how that fits together with perhaps other bits of the statutory and non-statutory aspects of what has previously gone into that pot.

Yeah. And I think what else it does is it shines a light on that knowledge being as important as the other subject domains that we teach in primary school, right? Because historically, to this point, as you say, primary schools have been doing it. There was non-statutory guidance, but now it says that this is important because the way you talk about it, you know, learning about how to be a good citizen, about what makes our country great, all of these things in today's society, hugely important. And so it also gives status to that knowledge as being, you know, as important as some of the other subjects.

Yeah.

Which I think is hugely exciting. And again, apprehension as well because it's new, but hopefully things won't change too much to what exists already, but excitement that all pupils will get that same entitlement in terms of this important domain.

Yeah, I think so. And I think, you know, to reassure primary headteachers, there may be that initial, as with any change, initial sort of effort into seeking to understand how this, you know, moves from what we have now into citizenship for primary, but moving forwards actually that clarity should mean that the work around pulling together all of those previous threads should really lessen. And the other thing we should say is that, you know, we have young people are gonna be voting at the age of 16.

Yes. Absolutely.

So this is going to give them the best possible chance.

Better grounding.

I think so, yes. Great.

Yeah. Exciting stuff. Anything else?

I am genuinely really excited about how the themes that we identified in the review, media literacy, digital literacy, climate education, how they are going to be threaded through, and I guess that's gonna be complicated. So I am genuinely, I mean, it's one line in the review, but this idea of a digitised curriculum and how that is going to give clarity, back to that word "clarity" again, but clarity to the coherence that we're going to achieve with the new curriculum and how, actually, over time that will really lessen workload and allow schools to understand the journey from primary all the way through into secondary. Because sometimes that has perhaps been a bit siloed in the past. To be able to see those threads of learning come through. That's exciting. No more PDFs. I mean, I'm sure there will be PDFs, but as well as the PDF, a fully digitized curriculum is a bit of a wow moment.

And it's one line in the report.

It's one line. Yeah.

But it carries a lot of weight. That's probably the thing that I'm most excited about as well. From a perspective of this idea, I talk a lot about curriculum content, what we teach and when, we have good, rich conversations about that in the sector. But then there's this: how do you communicate something that's so complex in simple ways that we can understand it? It's the bread and butter of teaching, if you like. And the way we do it at the moment, which is PDFs, that's not how you communicate complex information well, and you lose this coherence, vertical and horizontal richness. And so, you know, I'm really hopeful, like you, that this sentence transforms into some sort of medium that allows teachers to see all these links, see the transition between Key Stage 2 and 3 in a greater light. And just be able to engage with curriculum in ways that make sense in terms of their role or, you know, the themes that you mentioned as well. And I think you talked about three of them, the other ones being, of course, financial education and oracy. So it's gonna be really exciting to see what that looks like.

Yeah, definitely. Definitely.

Both of you obviously have wide networks, both in terms of schools and practitioners and leaders that you work with. I'm really interested to know, like, how is the sector responding to the review and, of course, the prospect of change. So I visit a lot of schools and talk particularly about curriculum. I meet a lot of curriculum leaders, and I think initially there was a real sense of trepidation around what the Curriculum and Assessment Review would throw up. And I think that trepidation still exists to a certain extent. Thinking about, well, how much is going to change? What are the timelines that we're working to? How much of a sea change will it be compared to what we already do? So there's that sense of anxiety, I think. But there's also a recognition that there is the inclusion of content that has been missing.

Yeah.

And a welcoming of stripping back of some content as well, because those time pressures that teachers face in the classroom are very, very real and really impact on the quality of what curriculum is delivered. So there's a bit of a mixed bag, I think. I still think there's work to be done in reassuring teachers and leaders of the curriculum that this is doable and that there will be support available. But certainly there's a sense of, we know this is going to be different; we just don't know in what way yet.

Yeah. And I think Becky Francis, who, of course, is the chair of the panel, described it as "evolution, not revolution." And I think that's probably been quite key in terms of reducing the anxiety a little bit because obviously once the report came out and the summary is that we have a great starting point, but we want to make, you know, these almost tweaks probably does it a disservice. Because there are some big ideas in there, but that we're not ripping it up and starting again. And I think, you know, maybe that has gone some way to quelling some of that apprehension, although of course it still exists because the programs of study haven't yet been published. Cassie?

Yeah, I was gonna say the other thing that I think Becky did beautifully, and obviously we all agreed with, because we were part of the panel, was to really state the purpose for change. And our schools are full of good people, people who really want the very best for children. And so to state, as we did in that interim report, the problem that we wanted to solve, which was, you're right, the curriculum that we have now is a really good curriculum, and internationally, the standards are high in this country, but we also know that it isn't performing well for everybody. So that idea of high standards for all and that being the driver, that's the reason why if the bar is high in terms of change, why would we destabilize or insist on changing our schools? The bar for that has to be really, really high. We have to have a really good reason. And for me, that is a really good reason. If we have this disadvantage gap, that means that not all children are served well by what we have in place now. And that children, particularly those children from disadvantaged backgrounds or children with special needs, just aren't progressing as well, then that speaks to teachers, I think. That's a reason. It talks to my core.

Yeah.

I want that change.

Yeah.

But I equally know that I need time to do it really well. And that timeline is built in because there's got to be enough time for teachers to understand not only why. I think people get the why, don't they now? We've been talking about it enough. But they need to understand the what now and then the how. And having enough time, you know, we have programs of study being published, people can have a look at those, get their heads round it, and think, actually, "Is this a huge amount of change?" as you say, or is it much lighter? In the case of something like English Language, it should be quite a significant change.

Yes.

So I think we've got to understand the what now, but there's enough time built in for those conversations.

And so in terms of how you feel the schools and leaders that you work with have responded, you think essentially that there's something in it that resonates with them-

There is.

In terms of our purpose.

We get it, right?

Yeah.

We get that these changes need to happen. We can see that the curriculum that we have now takes us so far, but we can also see that the world we are living in has changed. Our country is rich in history, but it's also a modern country. And we need a curriculum that reflects that and gives children, young people the skills that they need to thrive. So we all get it. The bit that we're all nervous about is that, oh, gosh, how are we gonna have time to do it?

What's it look like? Yeah.

And that sits within the hands of school leaders, trust leaders, and they, me included, have got to now make the time for people to seek to understand the what.

Yeah. So there's optimism clearly in the sector, and that apprehension around both the what and the how.

Change is always, always a challenge.

Yeah. Stressful.

It is. But we shall not make it stressful.

No. And it will be changed for the better.

It will. Absolutely will.

Lead to better outcomes in the long run, which is, you know, what we're all about.

Yeah, absolutely.

Perfect. I'm sure that listeners and viewers are thinking practically at this point. What advice would you give them in terms of what could leaders be doing this year to prepare even before the final outcomes of the review are implemented in terms of the new national curriculum?

I think this is a case of, in the absence of definites, is to really think about what is concrete at the moment. The subject guidance is concrete. If I was a school leader at the moment, I'd be very much going back to my teams and saying, let's have a look at this because this forms the spine of what the changes are going to be. How far are we away from it? How close are we to it? In which case, we don't need to worry too much about shifting the curriculum and to really get that sense of inquiry happening in the review recommendations, so that when we do have a draft of the curriculum, we've already had a head start in ascertaining how much workload there's going to be, how much time we're going to need. And that sense of inquiry, I think, is really useful because it really sets the stage for what's going to happen when the draft is released: that we will have to go through a process of evaluation. And if we've started that already, we've already got a really good sense of where we are and where we need to go, that's the really practical step, I think, that leaders could be taking almost immediately.

Yeah. And when you say "subject guidance," just to clarify, you mean in the CAR?

Yes.

Reports.

Yeah.

Obviously, it talks specifically by subject about what the recommendations are.

Yeah.

And so great idea that you would then sit down as a subject team, potentially, or as a set of leaders, and interrogate those recommendations. And almost sort of preempt what they might look like-

Yeah.

In terms of where you already are, yeah?

And it eliminates the shock factor, doesn't it? We're not waiting until there is a draft of the new curriculum. We're saying this is the direction that it's going in, and how prepared are we? And so that easing-in process, the small-step process towards change, is... Well, it's far more effective than saying, "Here you go, here's the new curriculum; you've not seen anything before, go ahead and change things." So yeah, it's empowering people as well, I think, to take responsibility for what's in their department and to really consider why they made the choices they made previously, how does that shift with the CAR subject guidance, and what might that look like in the future?

Yeah. I think it's also an opportunity to kind of reflect upon whether your subject curricula is doing the job that you want it to do.

Absolutely.

Like, are there bits that you've been thinking, "Oh, you know, it'd be great to change this or move that there," but maybe haven't had the opportunity or haven't had the time. It's a perfect opportunity to also take stock of where you are at in terms of just more general curriculum iteration, because obviously, you can implement that at the same time.

Absolutely. And one thing that occurs also is that where there are bought-in curriculums, those conversations with those providers is going to be absolutely vital. Because there will be shifts in resourcing, there will be shift in digital platforms. So what does that look like, according to the providers that you've gone with? Because we know there are lots of subjects where, particularly at primary and, in some cases in secondary, there are whole-scale curriculum offers by different providers. So ask the questions, you know? What are the shifts that you are anticipating?

And absolutely at Oak. Of course, you know, we are gonna go through that process of working out what do we need to change about our curricula in terms of aligning with the new national curriculum and also trying to communicate to teachers, what does that curriculum iteration look like? And more specifically, what have we changed? Because I think that's probably quite useful if they want to use that as inspiration in terms of making changes to what they already have.

Absolutely.

Cassie, anything to add on that?

I mean, I think what you said is brilliant, actually: that kind of understanding of what you've got now, and then hopefully that kind of understanding of what has changed. I think the what has changed. In order to answer that question, you really need to know what you've got now. I guess the only thing I would add is to take perhaps an even earlier step. It's set out in the review to really understand the themes that are driving... We use the word "theme" a lot, but let's just be super clear about what those themes are in the review, so that when you are making those decisions about curricular change, you know where they've come from, so that you've got the sort of underpinning underneath it. I would be clear about those. So that's the idea of high standards for all, understanding the curriculum shape and content, understanding around future skills. We've got the changes to post-16, and then we've got the assessment reform. So that's what I'm gonna be doing this summer, is presenting to my staff on those themes. Because I think that grounding will help them be ready for next year for those subject-level conversations. Obviously, the keen beans can go early.

Yeah. It feels like, actually, there is some certainty-

There is.

In this sort of sense of there's a sense of uncertainty because we haven't actually seen what the changes are yet. But actually, we're talking about very practical things that you can do here that are certain and actually will help kickstart that thinking early so that when we do see the changes, everyone's in a much stronger position.

We know why. We know why those changes have come about.

Yeah, absolutely. So, an exciting curriculum journey, I think, for the sector. For schools, there'll be lots of support along the way. You know, Bennie, you talked about organisations like Oak helping in terms of what does it look like implemented at a school curriculum level, and hopefully, you know, let's look forward two, three years, and we've got a much stronger curriculum in place for all our pupils where they have a sense of belonging, they can see themselves in it, but it's also, you know, ambition is there-

High standards for all.

And it's achievable in terms of the time we have to teach it. So it's an exciting time, I think, in the curriculum world.

It is.

Absolutely is. Brilliant. Thanks, both. It's been an absolute pleasure.

You're more than welcome.

Thanks for watching. If you've got any questions, please pop them in the comments. And of course, you can head to our website for more information.