Over recent weeks, we have published a series of posts about the Francis Review of the national curriculum and assessment. In what follows, NAEE President Professor Justin Dillon reviews those posts and comments on the Francis review itself. As ever with NAEE blogs, the views Justin sets out are not necessarily those of the Association.
The Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review, launched in the summer, should, we were told, result in a “broader, richer, cutting-edge curriculum” that all state schools will be required by law to teach up to age 16. Academies, previously exempt from teaching the national curriculum, will now be compelled to teach it “giving parents certainty over their children’s education”. NAEE invited a number of environmental educators to respond to the review. Disappointingly, no teachers were among the contributors nor any young people. So, the views represented are from those who sit on the side watching the process of schooling through their own lenses. NAEE’s own position on what needs to be done to improve the education system to put the environment and sustainability at its core can be found in our Manifesto1.
Many of the contributors appeared to view the review with caution – they are all too wise to expect it to offer radical change. Several couched their feelings in analogies: the review is a ‘stepping stone’ (Phillips), ‘a much needed pendulum swing’ (Morgan); or ‘the cart before the horse’ (Dixon). Some saw the review as a signal that better times were ahead for education with more autonomy for teachers who would have permission (Ballin) to do something more than impart knowledge and teach to the test. While most contributions focused on responding to the review, a number looked back to the good old days of the 2006 Sustainable Schools Framework (Ballin). But, sadly, there is little generalisable evidence that the Framework made much difference to children’s sustainability behaviours so looking back will not convince the Panel members.
Underpinning most of the reviews is a recognition that the existing curriculum and assessment regime is failing children and thus society. Many overtly or implicitly suggest a vision of an education system for a better world (including Dixon, Greer, Glackin & King; Huckle, and Lee). This is all well and good, but I don’t think the review panel will spend much time on this type of thinking and wishing that they would will not help. We need to separate governments from the curriculum and assessment systems – as we did a number of years ago. We need a fully independent body in charge of both that might actually ask questions about the purpose of education from a planetary and societal point of view.
We are told that the Review will be ‘rigorously evidence and data informed’. There is rigorous evidence that parents, teachers and students want to see a curriculum that better informs current and future generations about climate change and sustainability. The Review must take that evidence into account and make wholesale changes, but it won’t, that’s not what it is actually designed to do. And, to digress, a Natural History GCSE is an educational red herring that, if it ever emerges, will be taken by a tiny minority of students probably from middle-class backgrounds reflecting the people who supported its creation.
The Review’s Working Principles acknowledge that “changes to the curriculum and assessment system cannot address every issue facing children and young people, or wider society”. OK, let’s assume that we identify the most important issues facing those people and use them to guide the review. How could anyone not put the climate and environment emergency as number one on the list? If we’re looking for a measure by which to judge the review’s outcomes then I’d argue that the Panel’s recognition of the importance of planetary sustainability would be my attainment measure – because the review is meant to improve attainment so measuring the panel’s attainment is fair game. Any “cutting-edge curriculum” that does not take account of the science, geography, technology, history, etc., of climate change is not cutting edge it’s denying young people what they need to know.
While I would like to agree with Paul Vare that ‘this review could be the most significant evolutionary moment in education this epoch’, I think we have to see the review as an opportunity for a wider discussion about education involving society in general rather than a panel of experts. Scott Sinclair rightly notes that ‘it is time for the third sector, NGOs, campaigning organisations and student movements’ to work together. We need to take the education system back into our hands out of the control of a minority. To quote James Taylor, the American singer and song-writer:
That we are bound together / In our desire to see the world become
A place in which our children / Can grow free and strong
We are bound together / By the task that stands before us
And the road that lies ahead / We are bound and we are bound
……………………………………………………..
Justin Dillon is professor of science and environmental education at University College London where he is a member of the Centre for Climate Change and Sustainability Education. He is also President of NAEE. Justin is writing here in a personal capacity.
The NAEE manifesto can be found at: https://naee.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/NAEE_MANIFESTO_2022.pdf
Hi Justin. A great overview. One small clarification regarding the Sustainable Schools Framework. I wrote “surely, we all need something that goes even further than a restoration of the 2006 Sustainable Schools Framework or the various Global Learning Programmes?” I hope this implies that harking back to (or restoring) the framework, even if it were possible, would be an inadequate response and indeed something of a trap. In that sense, I think we are in agreement about it.
Hi Justin.
Thank you for your overview. It has motivated me to write. Straight up, but also as one of those disappointments “who sit on the side watching the process of schooling through their own lenses”. That’s old age for you!
Your overview captures many key points, but it also seems to close-down the real potential. The way you refer to the NAEE manifesto, for example, may look like a suggestion that there is nothing new to debate.
Thank you for referring to my suggestion that “it is time for the third sector, NGOs, campaigning organisations and student movements’ – to work together.” A good idea however, what I actually said was that we need “ … to the ask the same question of ourselves”. The Francis Review, and all that happens around it, provides the opportunity to work together to take stock and to question – to consider whether, in a new context, there are things we could be doing regardless of what government does.
Best wishes Scott