Next week, the OECD review on Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) is being launched by OECD and Scottish Government from Paris.
You can register here https://meetoecd1.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_y4cvTomITHWgYuKmuTgUEA
Its initial release date was delayed and postponed before the election thereby introducing a degree of political news management. In reviewing the curriculum contributions from a wider political perspective than the Education and Skills Committee was not welcomed. We can safely it’s nothing to do with us.
If asked, we would have highlighted our 5 Good 5 Bad about CfE.
5 Good things
1. Democratic making of a country’s curriculum
Back in the day the new Scottish Parliament set out aiming to involve Scottish civil society in its politics. Curriculum for Excellence was its great success in democratic policy-making. Thousands of Scots contributed to the National Debate. It identified an agenda for change for Scottish education. We believe democracy matters in our education system.
We do wonder if the OECD Review commissioned by the Scottish Government will be measuring the system’s success in implementing the aspirations of the Scottish people from 2002.
2. A common curriculum 3-18
A socialist curriculum should be one that permits a parity of participation across its plans for the learning of children and young people. CfE is a permissive curriculum defined as it is by a broad general education in which learners gain experiences throughout the experiences and outcome of the curricular framework. Experiential learning is a universal strand of all human development. It’s a curriculum for everyone.
3. The totality of all
The curriculum is not only about subjects or organised knowledge yet encompasses interdisciplinary learning, the life of the school as a community and chances for children and young people’s personal achievement. When being developed for all learners the curriculum was to be about knowledge plus achievement and softer elements of schooling and other experiences. Such an approach was supported by literacy numeracy and health and well being as being the responsibility of all. Post-COVID social emotional and mental wellbeing is a priority and safe to say the responsibility of all.
4. New principles of design
The flexible permissive nature of the curriculum was elaborated through a set of principles that extended the scope of a curriculum. However, schools and teachers have not yet fully utilised these principles. At the early stage relevant and challenging and enjoyable learning hasn’t always featured. While at the Senior Phase, learning designed through relevance personalisation and choice has not always been served by exam diet subjects in secondary schools.
5. The child at the centre
All those graphics from initial development onwards featured the learner at the centre surrounded by the curricular framework. The best developments in the curriculum have focused on children’s needs and personalised approaches whether play-based pedagogy at early stages or engaged beyond the school at senior phase.
5 Bad things
1. Built on a narrow set of values
Whoever inscribed four values on the Mace of the Scottish Parliament did not do Scottish education a favour. Wisdom, justice, integrity and compassion may be of benefit to our politicians. However, even the OECD recognised how limited they are in a recent document about an inclusive curriculum. Their six values linked to equity include cultural diversity, equity, equality, inclusion and fairness. Its one out of six for Scotland.
2. A missing capacity
The four capacities were gateways aspect for developing many schools’ curriculum and teachers’ classroom practice from the start. But critical thinking skills were missing. Their omission becomes more obvious in the early decades of the 21st century in dealing with social media and fake news. Learners need to be engaged in their learning with critical thinking leading to transformative action whether considering inequalities from the past, climate change or global citizenship and curricular injustices. The OECD (2020) has already identified the curricular injustice arising in experiences of intercultural learning between young people aged 15 from schools in adavantaged areas and those from disadvantaged areas. We doubt this will make Review report.
3. Embedding equality education
This actually became a recommendation in developing the young workforce, From the start CfE did not pay sufficient attention to curricular injustice either as a content issue in terms of decolonising past content or considerations to challenge social class barriers in curricular form. As a result of the TIE campaign a more inclusive curriculum was promoted through their work in challenging MSPs to promote change. But why only LGBTQI? .
4. Limited Senior Phase
A more socialist curriculum would engage in a balanced way with community and neighbourhood learning whether linked to work, community or wider achievement. The opportunity to challenge ideas of academic learning as the gold standard and moving away from “it’s only 5 Highers that count”. Models of neighbourhoods and schools linking together to offer learning have still not yet fully been implemented and supported. A 21st century curriculum needs to balance out learning locally/ and learning as a global citizen. More of Jimmy Reid’s education for life rather than education for work or career.
5. Digital learning nd technological change
The timing of the introduction of CfE at the start of 21st century was on the edge of more rapid developments in digital technology. Compared to developments in Wales, for example, digital learning didn’t extensively feature. After COVID the changes that online learning have begun will have a permanent impact on teaching and learning. While needing to support changes we can continue to ensure the curriculum definitely includes the ethos and life of the school as a community. Less pressure from high stakes exams and more about social and emotional wellbeing.