When Michael Gove launched his curriculum reforms in 2011, he highlighted the country鈥檚 鈥減lummet鈥 down international league tables, and promised to 鈥渃atch up with the world鈥檚 top performers鈥.
Nearly 15 years on, England鈥檚 primary pupils are the best in the western world, according to those same attainment tables. And secondary pupils are, relatively speaking, doing markedly better. Does that mean the curriculum reforms have been a soaraway success? Schools Week investigates鈥
Build networks, stick around
While the previous iteration of the national curriculum in 2007 faced accusations of being 鈥渢rendy鈥 and 鈥渘ew age鈥, that is not an allegation Nick Gibb and Michael Gove needed to worry about in 2011.
Instead, the charge against their version was that it was Gradgrindian. In 2007, the goal had been 鈥減ersonalisation鈥, flexibility, and freeing up space for cross-curricula learning and teachers鈥 professional judgment. In 2011, it was about a common entitlement to 鈥渢he best that had been thought and said鈥.
鈥淕ibb and Gove had spent years in opposition, forming a set of quite distinctive ideas about what education should be like,鈥 says policy specialist Loic Menzies. 鈥淭hose views were explicitly at odds with the status quo.鈥
Tim Oates, who led the 2011 national curriculum review, explains the new approach: 鈥淭eacher-led, knowledge-rich, subject discipline-focused didactics and pedagogy were seen as a better-evidenced approach to securing high attainment and high equity.鈥
Most of the new national curriculum came into force in September 2014.
Ten years on, we all know the buzzwords: content-heavy, facts, rigour, high standards. Everything mostly assessed by a final exam (not coursework).
The curriculum drew heavily on some US academics, notably E.D. Hirsch and Daniel Willingham, and adopted principles from the world鈥檚 highest-performing countries.
When asked why he thinks the reforms were successful, former long-serving schools minister Gibb says: 鈥淭he arguments are very, very compelling. Knowledge builds knowledge. The more knowledge you have, the more you can acquire.鈥
Another key element was 鈥渂uilding up networks of people that were already thinking these things. That helped build a movement, and that’s how you change ideas.鈥
Menzies adds: 鈥淢inisters realised their case would be strengthened if they had back-up from allies in the teaching profession鈥 to make the argument for the reforms鈥 even if those individuals didn鈥檛 share ministers鈥 Conservative politics.鈥
There is also undoubtedly a lesson about longevity. Despite Gove leaving office in 2014, the 鈥渄irection of policy remained solidly in place, not least due to Gibb鈥檚 long tenure as 鈥榟eavy lifting鈥 schools minister鈥, Oates writes in an Institute for Government paper.
Academy autonomy clash
Jonathan Simons, a partner at Public First, says it鈥檚 鈥渦nder-appreciated鈥 how much curriculum was meant to be the single biggest thing that government wanted to do. 鈥淚t was what Gibb cared about. But structures overshadowed it.鈥
And the two clashed. Oates says academies not having to follow the national curriculum was 鈥渦ndermining its power as a universal policy instrument鈥.
He attributes the rise in international rankings to 鈥渧ery illiberal鈥 interventions, such as maths mastery and phonics.
But adds: 鈥淥n the one hand, there was a political impetus to shrink the state and increase autonomy of schools; on the other, a desire to see highly specific, evidence-driven practice. This is a fraught tension and remains entirely unreconciled.鈥
It is a tension across many other Conservative policies. So how does Gibb, who leaned more to the control side of the debate, square it all?
鈥淚f you just have structural reform, there鈥檚 a danger nothing changes: that the sector uses autonomy to do what it鈥檚 always done,鈥 he says.
鈥淵ou need both structural change and a standards agenda. You need ministers challenging orthodoxies when the evidence says the orthodoxies don’t work.
鈥淎nd when the evidence is so overwhelming for these things 鈥 knowledge-rich, maths mastery, phonics 鈥 politicians have a duty to engage in this debate, at the very least.鈥
Labour now says all academies will have to follow the national curriculum, which Matt Hood, the chief executive of the Oak National Academy, says is the right thing to do.
鈥淏ut we need to mitigate the risk to innovation. If everyone is doing the same thing, where are the next brilliant ideas coming from?鈥
The trusted few
And there are wider curriculum issues.
Dr Helen Drury, the founder of Ark Curriculum Plus and who was involved in the 2011 curriculum review, says: 鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of content that lacks a clear rationale. There was a temptation to borrow content from high-performing jurisdictions, rather than pursuing coherence.鈥
She suggests the lack of a 鈥渟hared vision鈥 was partly down to the government 鈥渃arrying out the whole review with just a trusted few [advisers]鈥 in a bid to be free of 鈥渋nterest groups hammering away at each other鈥.
鈥淏ut one of the strengths in this country is a brilliant national community of education experts with decades and decades of experience and expertise 鈥 and they didn鈥檛 want to use it.鈥
Liz Robinson, the chief executive of the Big Education academy trust, says this 鈥渃losed shop鈥 extended to the wider curriculum debate.
鈥淭he change was done really aggressively. If you disagreed, it was 鈥榦f course you would say that, you鈥檙e part of the Blob鈥. It made me want to opt out. It created division. Opposing views were vilified.
鈥淚f you argue against 鈥榢nowledge-rich鈥, the opposite is knowledge-poor. So, it was a clever argument [by government]. But it鈥檚 more about knowledge 鈥榓nd鈥. Other things matter too.鈥
Becks Boomer-Clark, the chief executive of Academies Enterprise Trust, adds: 鈥淎ll we did was hurl abuse from one side to the other.
鈥淔ixing the system 鈥 is much easier if it鈥檚 anchored by a really powerful and compelling shared vision of what we鈥檙e trying to build.鈥
But Gibb says Labour will be judged 鈥渙n how effective its policies are, not on whether 70 per cent of the people it consulted were in favour of it鈥.
The accountability problem
Sir Jon Coles, the chief executive of the United Learning trust, says curriculum also has an accountability problem.
鈥淚t should be the national curriculum that is driving what鈥檚 assessed 鈥 to give an accurate measure of how well children have learnt the curriculum. That鈥檚 the rational model.
鈥淏ut we鈥檝e got it backwards now. Accountability is driving everything. It鈥檚 increasingly having a backwards effect on [which] qualifications [schools choose], and a backward effect on curriculum.鈥
The EBacc is a prime example. Introduced in 2010 as an additional performance measure, it shows how many pupils take a core group of subjects deemed academic.
Peter Hyman
鈥淚t is the cheapest and most effective bit of policy-making I鈥檝e ever seen,鈥 Oates says. 鈥淚t wasn鈥檛 a legal requirement 鈥 but schools starting closing music departments the following Tuesday.鈥
More than 40 per cent of schools no longer enter any pupils for music GCSE or drama.
Peter Hyman, a former headteacher and ex-adviser to Sir Keir Starmer, says the EBacc just 鈥渃rowded out a lot of things we want every young person to be studying at school.鈥
For Coles, it 鈥渋llustrates how much control government has through these mechanisms, how over-responsive schools are to what government says, and how accountability is too dominant in driving what happens in schools.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not a stupid idea to look at how many children achieve well across the traditional basket of academic qualifications. But if it starts to hugely distort what qualifications people are put in for, that鈥檚 a mad system.鈥
Those international league tables aren鈥檛 all rosy either. They also show 15-year-olds in the UK now have the second lowest average life satisfaction across all countries who take part.
Meanwhile, the disadvantage gap 鈥 another of the Tory government鈥檚 KPIs 鈥 is widening again.
Enter the Spielman
When Ofsted picked up the curriculum baton in 2019, it didn鈥檛 just finish off the revolution, it put it on steroids.
鈥淚ntent, implementation and impact鈥 became the new buzzwords. Teachers took photographs of practical lessons to stick in books, just in case that subject got a new 鈥渄eep dive鈥 from an inspector. Most schools ditched three-year GCSEs.
Then chief inspector Amanda Spielman said inspections had placed 鈥渢oo much weight on exam results鈥. Most in the sector welcomed the shift towards looking more widely at what kids were being taught.
Michael Fordham, the headteacher of T hetford Academy in Norfolk, says it was the right focus and, 鈥渄espite all its flaws鈥, the 2019 Ofsted framework was 鈥渢he best we鈥檝e had鈥.
But he suggests it was 鈥渄oomed from the outset because Ofsted doesn鈥檛 have the capacity to send subject-specialist inspectors to schools鈥.
鈥淚t didn鈥檛 matter how well you trained inspectors 鈥 you can鈥檛 ask a maths specialist to, say, do a deep dive on music. It鈥檚 easy to get them to ask the right questions, but they don鈥檛 have enough knowledge about what the gold standard is.鈥
Spielman says the quality of inspector training has never been better, but she adds government funding constrains what the inspectorate can do.
Becky Allen, the co-founder of Teacher Tapp, believes this has led to what some felt was a disproportionate focus in inspections on safeguarding.
鈥淚nspectors might observe things they have disquiet about around the quality of education, but don鈥檛 feel capable of giving an unsatisfactory judgment 鈥 because they aren鈥檛 the right experts to do that.
鈥淏ut you can fail a school on safeguarding because it’s concrete, and you can observe a concrete thing.鈥
And history teacher Tom Rogers says the inspection 鈥渋njustice鈥 just shifted. While 鈥渃old hard data鈥 favoured schools with fewer poorer pupils, curriculum favoured those with 鈥渢he gift of the gab and who could present a ‘coherent and knowledge-rich curriculum’ in lovely mind maps and diagrams鈥.
This was a particular issue for primary and small schools, with fewer staff and subject specialists.
While intentions were good, Hood says Ofsted鈥檚 expectations on non-subject specialist staff in those schools, and non-specialist inspectors, was 鈥渢oo high. It鈥檚 really hard to create a rigorous carefully sequenced curriculum in all subjects 鈥 never mind inspect it. It鈥檚 even harder if you aren鈥檛 a subject specialist.鈥
Worth the millions of hours?
Former headteacher Michael Merrick, a diocesan schools commissioner for the Diocese of Lancaster, laments the 鈥渞esource and millions of hours of workload that has gone into the curriculum fad 鈥 for little measurable benefit.
鈥淐urriculum is important. But are the hours that have gone into admin, the CPD for deep dives, the fretting over minutiae, the endless revision and review and editing of paper plans, the anxiety (especially for smaller schools) about all this holding up in inspection? No.鈥
For many, it also comes back down to the wider issue of the wrong things driving behaviour.
鈥淲hy did it take the inspectorate to turn schools鈥 attention to curriculum?鈥 Drury asks. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 want people doing this because Ofsted is looking for it, or exams require it.
鈥淲e want them teaching it because they really understand how it鈥檚 going to change the life chances of young people.鈥
But Spielman says it 鈥渟et a better incentive through inspection that encourages people to do the right thing [teach a broad curriculum] 鈥 and the feedback we got was that people were happy to be incentivised to do the things they鈥檝e always wanted.鈥
Claire Stoneman, head of Four Dwellings Academy, adds the reforms have also 鈥渕ade teachers super engaged. It鈥檚 been a new age of curriculum evidence and research, and it鈥檚 liberated teachers.鈥
For Allen, the shift poses a bigger question for our inspection model 鈥 can it even work?
Ofsted had tried inspecting pedagogy and then outcomes, but both were 鈥渇ound wanting鈥.
Curriculum was the 鈥渓ast of the three-legged stool鈥, but it 鈥渆nded up being a bit of a monster that created this incredible frenzy of behaviour.
However she adds: 鈥淲e know that teachers love curriculum and lesson planning. So we could look back and say this has been a success because given all of the dysfunctional and impossible ways that Ofsted could judge schools, at least we did one that was kind of enjoyable for teachers.鈥
What next for the curriculum revolution?
Gibb describes his work as 鈥渂lowing up prevailing orthodoxies that were so cemented in our system鈥.
Knowledge-rich is the new concrete. But, this time, Labour has no plans to blow it up.
Despite pledging a curriculum review, any changes will 鈥渂uild on the hard work of teachers who have brought their subjects alive with knowledge-rich syllabuses鈥, the party says.
Tim Oates
Oates says other countries that moved towards 鈥渃ompetence-based鈥 curriculum are now 鈥渞e-examining the role of knowledge in the curriculum and looking with interest at Gove鈥檚 reforms鈥.
Fordham adds there is 鈥渁 lot of good in the English system. We don鈥檛 need to burn everything to the ground and start from scratch.鈥
It鈥檚 an approach Labour is taking. It has promised curriculum 鈥渆volution not revolution鈥, and to deliver 鈥減honics for maths鈥.
But it will ensure the curriculum is 鈥渞ich and broad, inclusive, and innovative鈥, and it plans to update Progress 8 so it includes 鈥渁t least one creative or vocational subject鈥.
Ben Gadsby, head of policy at Impetus, says Labour 鈥渘eeds a governing philosophy. That helps weigh up questions like 鈥榳hich skills are relevant?鈥 Just saying 鈥榯he current [curriculum] isn鈥檛 working鈥 won鈥檛 work.鈥
Drury adds: 鈥淲e need to be clearer about why we鈥檙e being ambitious, and which knowledge and skills in those subjects are important and why 鈥 rather than it鈥檚 just because it鈥檚 what鈥檚 on the test, or what Ofsted wants.鈥
Coles says the government should stop 鈥渂ehaving like a one-club golfer. Instead of changing the accountability system and changing the incentives, a much better model is to think through in curriculum and teaching learning terms: 鈥榃hat do we want to actually happen?鈥. 鈥榃hat is working, and what isn鈥檛 working?鈥. 鈥楬ow do we change that?鈥 鈥楢nd how do we get assessment to line up to that?鈥.鈥
Laura McInerney, a former Schools Week editor, suggests a curriculum review panel that could answer such questions 鈥 but in rolling blocks, with each new government restricted on how many experts it could sub in and out.
鈥淚t would mean the curriculum is constantly open to new ideas, but each year group鈥檚 curriculum is only updated once every 10 years or so.鈥
Oates says it is a better model to the 鈥渂ig bang鈥 review every ten years, which 鈥渞ips capacity out of the system. Teaching notes, practices, materials all become out of date.鈥
The idea was recommended to Gibb, but a source said he was worried about 鈥減olitical capture鈥 of the process.
Robinson wants a broader debate. 鈥淥bsessing about whether we should teach the Tudors in year 9 is a bit like rearranging the deckchairs.
鈥淭he deeper and more fundamental points are 鈥榳hat are these young people learning about themselves and the world by being in this school鈥.鈥
While it鈥檚 not the attention-grabbing headline politicians crave, Teacher Tapp data shows staff would actually like less content in the national curriculum.
Dylan Wiliam, an adviser on the 2014 curriculum, thinks it is 鈥渋mmoral鈥 there is too much content, as it damages the future learning capabilities of the least able.
Hyman says the Conservatives thought 鈥渃ramming more knowledge earlier in someone’s school life would be a better way of catching up with those countries. But it turned them off learning.
鈥淭here鈥檚 a problem of quantity over quality. That has been one of the downsides.鈥
Fordham adds wider issues are also hindering progress, pointing to the recruitment crisis and the 鈥渟ystematic dismantling鈥 of subject-specific training in a move to 鈥渉ighly generic models鈥.