Curriculum Conversations (Episode 3): Bennie Kara on inclusive curriculum leadership

Hello, I'm Emma McCrea. I'm head of curriculum design at Oak. And today, I'm joined by the incredible Bennie Kara, author, possibly the leading national voice on diversity, belonging, and curriculum inclusion. Today, we were discussing how to support inclusive curriculum design, what inclusive curriculum leadership looks like beyond individual classrooms, insights into how representation and belonging can shape pupil outcomes, and concrete ideas about what leaders should stop doing and start doing right now. Hi, Bennie.

Hi.

Thank you for coming. Really excited to have you here.

You're more than welcome. It's an absolute pleasure.

Okay, let's talk belonging to kick us off. When you think about curriculum, what does it mean for pupils to feel a sense of belonging in what they learn?

It's so important in a society that is increasingly fractured to build cohesion and that sense that you fit in somewhere. And the curriculum is an incredible vehicle to facilitate that. And to me, belonging looks like, particularly in a curriculum that values diversity, it looks like visibility, the idea that you exist in structures that are deemed important by society, that they are so important that you exist in them in school. You learn about who you are, where you've come from, and potentially the contribution your culture, your heritage has made to British society. So that visibility is such a great starting point, but it's not just about the idea of visibility; it's that sense that everybody has a story. And this ties in wonderfully with the idea of the curriculum as narrative. And when we think about stories that are beloved, we latch onto characters, we see ourselves, we see the world outside of ourselves. And to me, that belonging is fostered by understanding your place. And if a curriculum never shows you your place, that you are erased or marginalized in some way, then how can anyone ever expect to feel like that they truly belong in our society? And there's a responsibility there where belonging is something that is being eroded in certain communities by all sorts of external factors. There's a responsibility in schools to bring them back into that story and to have that sense of importance. We value you. This is who you are, this is who we are, and this is who we are collectively as a community, as an organisation, as a society.

Yeah, belonging is important to us as humans. We thrive in some ways on a sense of community and belonging. It conjures up quite a powerful sort of image of this idea that every pupil can see their story within the curriculum. That would be a beautiful thing.

It would be a beautiful thing, but I also think there's academic merit to it in that for so long we have told only part of the story in the curriculum. And the research shows that young people are really aware of their lack of place within the curriculum.

They can see it.

Absolutely. They can see it. They report it back.

They don't feel important and they don't feel seen.

Absolutely. And if we truly value something, we put it front and center. And if we're choosing content to go into the curriculum, we should be choosing in ways that we haven't done in the past. Our society has moved on and there's been such a sea change in the culture in schools in thinking about diversity in the curriculum, then it's certainly time I think to consider that in light of curriculum changes.

Yeah, absolutely. I want to talk about the idea of inclusion being woven through the whole curriculum rather than being sort of confined to certain topics, events, or subjects in a kind of a bit part, if you like. So what advice would you have for leaders to ensure that inclusion is genuinely woven through their curriculum?

I think it's incredibly important for schools to recognise that curriculum development in any form, and in particular with diversity and inclusion, cannot be done in silos. So where there is a mandate from leadership as a commitment to curriculum development, then of course with the right training and with the right research and reading, you start to realise that the ways to avoid tokenism absolutely sit in this concept of weaving diversity throughout the curriculum. And I always turn to the work of Sue Sanders, who co-founded LGBT History Month in the UK, Professor Emeritus of the Harvey Milk Institute. And she coined a phrase, coined a word, "usualising." And this concept is based on the idea that we don't place the presence of people into the curriculum as a token gesture. It's not about putting somebody on a pedestal. It's about saying, look, we are here. We exist. And that's not just about LGBT content; that's about every characteristic there is. And this concept of usual comes without judgment. So when you are usual, you are there because you are important to the story, as we've talked about. And certainly kind of sits very much in my philosophy of curriculum design. If we're only reducing diverse content to the days and the months, then the narrative sequence doesn't work. And actually that's where I find that curriculum design really falls down when it comes to diverse content because it does feel bolted on, it does feel tokenistic. It sits oddly in the flow. If you think about the question that's often asked about content, "Why this, why now?" If Black history is only ever taught in October, then how does that work in the sequence of the curriculum? How does it build on what's gone before and what's coming? It can feel quite artificial. So this idea of weaving through the curriculum, it's quite a skill and it really relies on detailed subject knowledge and how the story builds, but it's also the responsibility of leaders just to say, actually the thread has to make sense. And if we're talking about women and we're talking about global majority people, we're talking about religion and culture, that has to find a place that is natural within the curriculum and it can't be something that's just bolted on.

Yeah, agree completely. There's two things on a practical level that I hear there. First is time, because you talked at the beginning about time to research, to read, reflect, and we know that we have a time-poor profession on our hands, but leaders need to find ways to make space for that. And I think probably as well, in some instances, a professional development need as well because we know that this isn't always done well. And as you say, it's very hard to do. So we should do our best to try and support our teachers with that in terms of professional development and time.

Time is at a premium. I recognize that. And this is where the whole-school structures really play a part. When you think about your calendar time and you think about directed time and how meetings function, it's very easy for those meetings to be swallowed up by the admin. And yet I find that conversations about subject knowledge are the ones that make the biggest difference to the teaching and learning that happens in the classroom. It's very rare to find meeting time dedicated purely for subject content and subject knowledge development. And I wonder what the education profession would look like if that was the case.

Yeah, fair, fair. There probably is some time there, yeah.

If we look carefully.

Yes. And so you mentioned how important it is that this is woven through the curriculum. How can leaders get help if they're not sure either how to support this or what good looks like?

It's really tricky because quite often the time issue is compounded by budget issues. But fortunately there are organisations that serve to support teachers and leaders, and Oak is obviously one of them. The curriculum within the Oak program is suitably diverse. There's lots of great examples around the sequencing. But also if you look at organisations that have campaigned on diversity in the curriculum, such as The Black Curriculum or Facing History, now known as Teaching for Tomorrow, you'll start to see that people are already doing the work. There are some great books been published about diversity in the curriculum. So I think reaching outwards and building that network is important. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, particularly as there are some very passionate people working towards this goal. And so yes, mine what's out there. Subject associations are also moving in that direction as well to provide advice, guidance, exemplar material that allows schools to just wholesale lift the program of study. So it's a great idea to go out and have a look.

Yeah. And I think viewers and listeners will really appreciate that kind of really practical advice in terms of reaching out and getting the support and help when they need it. Let's think about curriculum impact now. What difference can an inclusive and representative curriculum make to outcomes, particularly when we think about disadvantaged or marginalised pupils?

I think there's a common misconception that you can take the concept of a diverse curriculum, you can have the most diverse curriculum in the world, and that will somehow translate into immediate academic outcomes. And quite honestly, it's a little bit more complicated than that. So if we think about the variables that exist when we are talking about what creates great outcomes in schools, it's the quality of the teaching.

Or not.

Yeah, absolutely. It's quality of teaching and learning. It's the quality of the curriculum. It's assessment design. It's profile. It's all of those things combined. And so when we think about all of those variables and you throw in the diverse curriculum, you don't immediately have a measurable metric to say that there is a direct connection. So what we need to do is think about the intermediate factors. What does a diverse curriculum bring? Well, it brings engagement. The research shows that motivation is increased when there's that reflection of self. It brings impact on attendance and behavior, mental health and wellbeing. And those intermediate factors will have impact on academic outcomes.

Absolutely. I mean, attendance and behavior are two of the most tricky problems that we're dealing with at the moment, right? So that's incredible to hear.

Yeah, so it's a bit of a... everybody's seeking the grail with the link between...

Not quite the holy grail.

It's not quite there. But if we consider those intermediate factors, then you are much more likely to see that correlation. There is a wealth of research out there, academic research that says those intermediate factors are the deciding factors when it comes to outcomes and diversity in the curriculum.

And it goes back to our question about belonging as well, doesn't it? That mirroring of self in the curriculum leads to belonging. We know belonging leads to motivation, feeling part of community leads to better outcomes.

Absolutely.

Yeah. Not the holy grail, but part of the puzzle.

Part of the puzzle.

A very complex puzzle. Bennie, you've recently shared an open letter that calls for greater diversity in the process of the drafting of the national curriculum. Would you like to share anything more on this topic with our audience and kind of unpick it a little bit for us?

Absolutely. So the context is that the DfE published a list of curriculum drafters, which included lots of people who I have tremendous respect for, who are absolute experts in subject knowledge. And it became increasingly apparent that visible diversity wasn't necessarily present. It's hard to tell obviously, and people aren't selected on the basis of their personal characteristics. However, we are at such a pivotal point in curriculum reform. We haven't done it in a long time. And so when we think about the opportunity we have to take the Curriculum and Assessment Review at its word and weave diversity as a thread throughout the drafting process and the content that comes out subsequently, it seems surprising that actually diversity and expertise in diversity and diverse content wasn't considered. Now, this is not about denigrating anyone, but it is important to note that the review itself placed emphasis on diversity throughout the curriculum. Social justice was mentioned, the idea of being reflected in society. And so I think it's incredibly important that we have a drafting team and a drafting process that enables the aims of the Curriculum and Assessment Review to be fulfilled. I do believe that there's some really incredibly important work going on and those drafters are consulting with people outside of their experience. But the open letter was to flag that and to say it is important to all of us. The profession has moved on. We are not in 1988 anymore. So how are we going to do this differently? That means our young people have a different future. Our young people have a different experience in school. And part of the conversation has to be about how diverse content cannot just be optional. When diverse content is optional, people opt out. And so part of the letter was very much about, well, how much of the diverse content that you are saying is important will be statutory, that will actually be encoded in the national curriculum, because without that we risk perpetuating the status quo even further and the mission of the CAR itself has been not fulfilled.

Yeah, definitely. And how would you like to see this addressed?

In terms of really practical ways forward, I think it's important that there is scrutiny and advice and guidance from those who have expertise in the field of diversity in the curriculum, the organisations that have been working for years towards ensuring that content is accessible for teachers. And that function is not about the drafting itself, but about being a sounding board potentially for those who are drafting. There's an accountability in that as well. It's not enough to say we're consulting; what's the formal function of those people who are being consulted and how are they acknowledged? One of the things that's really important is that the labor shouldn't be hidden behind a curtain. And if people are contributing to the conversation, it's really important that they are named, that they are thanked, that they are acknowledged in the final work as much as any curriculum can be final.

Yeah. And that's good for them, but also good for the community to see that and for that to be visible.

It shows commitment. It shows commitment to change. And the risk without it is, well, we will neither have evolution nor revolution. And as much as it was laid out that it was supposed to be evolution, well, evolution involves doing things differently. And so that's the challenge. That was the call to action and there are ongoing conversations about that.

Well, that's good to know and good to hear. Good luck.

Thank you.

Lastly, something really, really practical for our listeners and viewers. What's one thing that leaders should stop doing and one thing that they should start doing when it comes to inclusion in the curriculum? A tricky question to wrap us up.

It is a tricky question. Okay. If I had to distill it down, I would say we need to stop thinking about inclusion and an inclusive curriculum as being purely about SEND. When we think about inclusion in its broadest sense, it is so much more than just SEND. And SEND is incredibly important, of course. But if you think about the protected characteristics, socioeconomic class, how does the curriculum actually reflect those characteristics and cater for the needs of those students who've been marginalised? So that's the stop doing. What we need to start doing is really focusing in on how much our teachers are aware of what's out there to teach. Christine Counsell often talks about "what we teach is not all there is" and that we choose a path through the curriculum.

Absolutely.

And it's so much about defaults quite often. We teach what we were taught. We teach what we inherit. And if leaders could just look outside of that and think about the possibilities and how to weave that story together, I'm sure that we would have something incredibly exciting that is the evolution in our curriculum.

Yeah, that's a really interesting point because when you think about what we might have been taught, particularly maybe when you think about history, if we don't look outside that, then we perpetuate some quite damaging myths about our place in the world per se. And that is probably true in lots of aspects. It's not wrong to say that curriculum when we perhaps were at school was not diverse. And so I think that's a really key point, isn't it, that you... to have change over time, it needs each teacher or curriculum designer to look slightly outside of what they were taught and what they knew.

Absolutely. Absolutely. It's about dominant narratives as well. So recognising those dominant narratives around women's place in our society, the role of people with disabilities, the concepts around gender and sexuality, and think what are the dominant narratives that have been damaging over time and how do we think outside of those? How do we counter them in our curriculum? And that's about giving children not just one story, but multiple stories. And I often talk about this idea of multiperspectivity, which comes from the history community. And Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie talks about "The Danger of a Single Story." So how does our curriculum allow those multiple stories to exist, to coexist so that we're getting a much broader view of the universe?

Yeah. And then many pupils are seeing their story because you're seeing lots of different perspectives on the same thing.

Absolutely.

Interesting, really helpful. I think leaders will find that a really challenging but interesting kind of thing to think about in the run up to the curriculum reform.

Yes, absolutely.

Thanks, Bennie, for coming. Thank you for your time and for really sharing your expertise about something that is really important to all of us as educationalists in the sector, and obviously specifically highlighted in the CAR as well. So thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you for having me.

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.