Reform can free teachers to do what they do best

There is lots to be positive about in the controversial Curriculum for Excellence, says Edinburgh headteacher Rod Grant, but details need to be ironed out and someone needs to get their finger out to make it work

CURRICULUM for Excellence is the most divisive debate in education in living memory. Its introduction has polarised opinion both in local communities and in education circles. It has regularly been vilified for its vagueness, for its lack of clarity and for its lack of prescribed content. But, for me, these criticisms miss the point entirely.

However, they have come about as a result of expectation: an expectation that teachers will have a prescribed curriculum to deliver. Without this, the security blanket of being told what to teach is removed and this makes even the most able practitioners uncomfortable. So, the biggest mistake of all is that it was named "Curriculum" for Excellence, as it is not a curriculum at all.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

As well as providing a refreshingly positive methodology, it is a series of outcomes and experiences that all pupils should gain throughout their school years with schools free to develop the content they feel best fits the desired outcome. Whilst that is actually highly desirable, it is also quite a complicated process to introduce, develop and evaluate.

To add further to the confusion, we still have only a limited idea of what the examination system will look like and this makes secondary school teachers extremely nervous. It is simply not good enough to introduce a curriculum, however worthy, if the assessment design is not in place. It is like playing football without goal nets. We still have a lack of quality information regarding syllabi, weighting of marks, length of courses, when pupils will sit examinations and so on and so forth.

Here is one example of the confusion that faces school management teams up and down the country: what is termed third and fourth stage is meant to provide a general and broad education until the end of S3. This being the case, the likely effect is that pupils will actually have a reduced number of examination subjects in S4 as a single year will simply not provide the amount of time required to be presented in eight subjects (currently the case in S3/S4). So, either schools will present candidates for fewer subjects (narrowing the curriculum) or schools will start preparing pupils from the beginning of S3 (the current situation).

Is it any wonder we are confused? Add in to the mix that the Scottish Qualifications Authority has significantly changed the science syllabi at Higher for the year after next, immediately prior to the changes Learning and Teaching Scotland will announce for the design of the new Higher, and this shows a lack of joined-up thinking.

In practice, then, primary schools will be doing fabulous work on the new curriculum whilst secondary schools twirl their fingers and await more detail. Parents need to know that teachers, therefore, are not just being dinosaurs resistant to change but that they are genuinely concerned about the lack of really important detail.

And yet, there are probably very few teachers indeed who do not believe in the underlying philosophy of CfE. So, all of the criticisms aside, why do I believe in what the new curriculum seeks to do?

Well, it continues to ensure our focus is primarily on helping youngsters to become articulate, literate and numerate but it attempts to go further so that children become better equipped with skills which will allow them to inquire, reflect, problem solve, strategise, analyse and create. It tries to make what children are learning relevant to the world in which they live.

It provides context and the opportunity to link learning across the curriculum in meaningful ways.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Further, we need to understand that a national curriculum (and the thinking behind it) is crucial to the development of our young people. These are children who will one day lead their nations and it is therefore essential that they learn in a secure environment, where discipline, self-belief and the value of our fellow human beings is central to the learning process. Without developing an ethos where caring for others or valuing differences in culture or religion is seen as worthy, we create citizens who are intolerant and incapable of perspective.

This would be the greatest failure of all. CfE seeks to meet this challenge head-on by creating, or at least encouraging, a strong, values-based ethos.

My fervent belief is that CfE provides us with the platform for a worthy 21st century education and each of us should be applauding it. It is unfortunate, but entirely understandable, that it has not yet galvanised or inspired the profession. Someone, somewhere, really needs to pull their proverbial finger out and engage the profession in a way in which they have thus far failed to do.

• Rod Grant is headmaster of Clifton Hall School