
I was taught that a curriculum is a planned set of experiences towards meaningful educational outcomes, with assessment measuring whether students reached them. I was naive. As James Scott argues in ‘Seeing like a State’, a curriculum is really a government tool. And as governments want to measure and control as much as possible, they make things easy for themselves by turning the messy discipline of learning a subject like science into discrete units that can be easily assessed by reliable examinations.
Thus I was no longer surprised when on Tuesday, the government released its interim report for the Curriculum and Assessment Review, shrugged off widespread criticisms of an overcrowded curriculum, and unfit-for-purpose GCSE, and instead asserted that things are basically ‘working well’.
‘Seeing like a State’ also allows me to make sense of government speak. When the report applauds the ‘knowledge-rich approach’ for ‘driving up standards’, what it’s really doing is trying to silence opposition to its policy of overly specifying the curriculum and relying on standardised testing.
Does the report offer a glimmer of hope for reforming the science curriculum? Well, there is a vague promise that “the next phase will conduct closer analysis to diagnose each subject’s specific problems and explore and test a range of solutions.” But don’t get excited. Despite the statistic that 72% of science teachers find the curriculum overloaded, we’re only likely to see minor content changes.
In my previous post, I outlined how we can re-orient the science curriculum to serve students rather than the needs of government. The interim report confirms that the DIY approach is the only way we’ll get meaningful improvements in the short term, and so in following posts, I’ll explore how to do this in more detail.
Leave a comment