Posted on by Dr James Shea · 3 Comments

A 21st century curriculum for the fourth Industrial Revolution

man with steel artificial arm sitting in front of white table
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

As the profession reacts to Starmer’s speech on curriculum reform, it is time to return to thinking about a long term curriculum for pupils rather than a short term curriculum for the school. A while ago we published a controversial blog asking if it would ever be possible to create a curriculum for the white working class. Most replies suggested that people very much hoped we would never create such a curriculum. They did miss the point that we have already got a curriculum for the white working class – the one that they currently study and in some places, reject. We asked, why is it that those in the UK, ourselves included, react uncomfortably when asked to design a separate curriculum for anyone, rather like the curriculum which we see in Germany?

It now seems that Germany have issues with the two sided curriculum they design. Joe Kaeser, who leads the Siemens group, said at the recent Goodwood Festival of Speed a thought he’s been having and saying for some time: the fourth industrial revolution is going to make a lot of people redundant. Anyone in a job where some of that work can be done by computers will see their sector shrink and this means large numbers of people will need to retrain for other careers. People will have to take the knowledge they have learned in one context and move to another working context. I suggest this gives us an opportunity to think about the knowledge we provide as part of the school curriculum as we, as a profession, are producing the 21st century generation of workers for this fourth industrial revolution.

Whilst I see many issues with Bourdieu’s work on habitus (a difficult to define body of knowledge which reproduces cultural and social hierarchies), I have found the notion of transposable habitus much more relevant to today’s society. This is the notion that when you arrive at a new context you use both your explicit and tacit knowledge to help you meet the challenges of the new context. My doctoral research found that pre-service teachers on arrival for their post graduate teaching course immediately set up private social networking groups through WhatsApp and closed Facebook pages, groups which excluded those in power: mentors, tutors and so forth. This tacit knowledge – the use of private social media interactions to subvert power lines, access & create knowledge, and resolve community & individual problems is both transposable and also seen in other areas of society. The European Research Group, run by Jacob Reese Mogg, used a WhatsApp group to function from within the Conservative party.

There exists, I suggest, knowledge which is more transposable. Knowledge which is better suited to being moved from context to context. Knowledge which is not rooted precisely in context, but which functions very well when moved from one context to another: how to collaborate successfully, how to problem solve, fundamental ideas from academic subjects which apply to a wide range of situations and so forth. A transposable curriculum of knowledge which would help those entering a workplace going through the fourth industrial revolution. A period of regular transition rather than a lifetime of working in one context.

When I look at the curriculum in schools for transposable knowledge I see a variable picture. We are doing well in some areas and not so well in others. Knowing explicit knowledge as part of learning has improved, but the debate over what should be known has somewhat stalled, caught in an intellectual vice of the debate between skills and knowledge. There is also a lack of tacit knowledge in many of these curriculums. Something which Spielman sees in her attack on the ‘PiXLfication of education’.. Being able to interact with others online and physically in fluid ways e.g. as a temporary community of practice, is patchily done. Efficient online interactions are clearly not being taught despite efforts from the DfE to push it into the PSHE curriculum. It’s no longer ‘programming in code’ that every child needs to know (AI will do that for them), it’s interacting with others online in a safe and productive way. Physical social interaction skills also need work. Being able to show up to a new context and be socially confident has to be part of a transposable habitus.

Imagine a GCSE in Physical and Online Social Interactions. Imagine Physical Education reformed as Physical and Mental Health Education. Can you? It’s that kind of contemporary and bold thinking I think we are missing from our curriculum planning as we move into this fourth industrial revolution. One that thinks hard about transposable knowledge and transposable tacit knowledge in a way that answers some of that question of how we as educators are ‘developing a curriculum for the 21st century’.

It looks like 2025-8 will see a new NC formed and then new GCSEs on tap first taught 2030. We should be thinking about what we will suggest for content in the inevitable consultations regardless of our political persuasions.

Posted on by Dr James Shea · 2 Comments

Off-rolling – is this just the tip of the ethical iceberg?

pexels-photo-164636.jpeg

At university, if we want to initiate some kind of intervention in schools as part of a research project we would be expected to review the British Educational Research Association’s (BERA) guidelines. This guideline is full of sensible advice such as:

Researchers should immediately reconsider any actions occurring during the research process that appear to cause emotional or other harm, in order to minimise such harm. The more vulnerable the participants, the greater the responsibilities of the researcher for their protection.  (BERA, 2018, p.19)

So the first thing we have to consider is the likelihood of the intervention causing harm to the pupil. And the second thing we need to consider is that a pupil’s ‘vulnerability’ amplifies our need to protect the child from harm.

Now let’s turn to schools. If a member of staff in a school or group of schools wishes to initiate some kind of intervention as part of an evidence informed project to increase outcomes for the pupils or schools what guidelines do they have to follow? Well, the answer is, quite simply, none. Yet, if they did the same project in their school as part of undertaking a PGCE or Master’s then it would have to go through the exact same ethical approval process as described above.

It is important and worthwhile at this stage to set out that I am not talking about low level interventions of the sort that schools and teachers do all of the time. I’m talking about practice which could cause harm. And to vulnerable pupils in particular.

Let’s take off-rolling as an example. Here we see that staff in a school or group of schools have decided to create an intervention. The intervention could possibly benefit the pupils in the school cohort through redistribution of resources. It could even hypothetically benefit those who leave the school through the process of off-rolling. As part of an ethical approval process you would evaluate the likelihood of harm falling to those who are being off-rolled and look at the outcomes for them after they leave mainstream schooling.  Well, it turns out the outcomes for those who leave mainstream schooling are poor: 1-6% get their 5 good GCSEs. That’s considerable harm. Then you evaluate who is being off-rolled. Well, it turns out it is SEND pupils amongst others. I think we can safely say that they meet the term ‘more vulnerable’. This intervention would have died at the proposal stage at the table of the ethics committee. Even internal off-rolling such as a grammar school preventing Year 12s from moving to Year 13 if they did not attain specific grades would most certainly fail the ethical test.

But here is the rub. These schools that are off-rolling pupils are ‘compliant’. They meet the requirements that are set out by the accountability framework. The DfE doesn’t approve, OFSTED doesn’t approve, the children’s commissioner for England doesn’t approve, parents struggle to get provision for the SEND children or a second year of A level education for their children and yet despite this, schools are ‘compliant’.

So is that the requirement? That schools have to be ‘compliant’ and that this does not take into account ethics? Should not all major decisions of this type have to go through an internal ethical panel which in itself is reviewed and checked by an external ethical body? If schools are to be more evidence informed does it not also follow they should be ethically sound? Should governors and trustees also be part of this ethical process and receive training?

Before you say this is unworkable, consider how it is done at university. If a student proposes an intervention they have to write a section on ethics setting out how it meets the ethical requirements. It is reviewed by a qualified tutor. There is an ethics board for more contentious interventions. At each stage, if there is any doubt about the intervention, it is passed up further through more senior boards, staffed by more experienced and qualified senior professionals. The bigger the proposal, the more scrutiny for ethics it attracts.

The government could legislate against off-rolling easily and the affected schools would all change their actions and become ‘compliant’ again. Until the next ethically challenging idea thought up to affect outcomes within the accountability framework. Wouldn’t it be better to also have a headteacher’s body draw up a code of ethics similar to that from BERA and for all teachers and schools to use this when considering evidence informed interventions for their pupils?

Posted on by Dr James Shea

Should you be hothousing your child for the new baseline entry test for 4-year olds?

boy child childhood happiness

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

I know the controversial base line testing is not due to start until 2020, but believe me, parents of children aged 0-4 years old and parents whose children will be in child care before the age of 4 will be thinking about this test already. The test will come in after the education secretary has said that parents are not preparing children for school properly. And I want to talk about some of the issues around teaching after and preparing for this test.

I love teaching.  At this late stage of the academic year I may be looking at the world through a rose-tinted prosecco glass, but I love the kids in my Key Stage 1 class. I love working with them, their enthusiasm and watching their progress.

I even like some of the parents and I don’t tend to grumble about pay or workload. However, some of the testing I do have issues with.

Phonics Screening check:

What has this test achieved?  It’s shown me that a 6-year-old child, with an assessed reading age of almost 10, can get five words wrong because they are desperate to make sense of nonsense words with strange alien pictures beside them.

nonsense

It has also shown me that an education system seemingly starved of money, has enough spare cash to finance a visit from an inspector to check your phonics materials are appropriately stored just in case you or the children in your class see the test prior to the launch date and memorize all 40 words.  Oddly, we are trusted to teach the nation’s youth but not to have enough integrity to store a test.

At the end of the day, this is a test that doesn’t tell me anything about a child’s reading ability that can’t be gleaned from hearing them read a book to me as a professionally qualified teacher.

KS1 SATS:

Those teachers lucky enough to teach a combined year 1 and 2 class get hit by the double whammy of phonics testing and the joy of SATS – another thing that parents pay attention to.  Not to mention another year of a narrowed curriculum (something OFSTED acknowledges), which focuses on maths and reading comprehension.

Should a child’s performance even hint at not reaching an expected standard then, in our school, TAs, HLTAs and even the Head Teacher are taking small groups right, left and centre to work on partitioning or reading inference.  Art, music, design and technology?  What year 2 child would want to do those when they can be trapped in a small, sweaty office with someone sequencing the events in a story about foxes and fishermen from 1 – 5?

Hopefully, the new shift in OFSTED’s focus will at least result in the rejuvenation of foundation subjects even if this does mean further change for teachers and an even shorter summer break while we work on the extra planning demands.

Reception Baseline Assessments:

For those of us in Key Stage 1 prepared to stick it out, 2022 – 2023 could see some light at the end of the long dark assessment tunnel.

Key Stage 1 SATS are (probably) being made non-statutory when those four-year olds unfortunate enough to have been subjected to the Reception baseline assessment start to filter through the system.  No matter how this initiative is dressed up, I haven’t spoken to one EYFS teacher yet who agrees with such a thing or even thinks it is necessary.

Surely it will result in those at the competitive end of the parental scale hothousing their toddlers and testing them on their knowledge of number recognition, shape and letters of the alphabet.  No playing in the garden making mud pies for you until you can repeat your alphabet three times! I can see why. Parents want their children to score highly in any assessment and are prepared to do whatever it takes to make that happen. However, just as in education, you can begin to see how an assessment could narrow the curriculum at home as everyone tries to prioritise learning the knowledge of the assessment.

If you think hothousing them is a good thing and can only help us teachers, you’re probably misguided.  For, in my experience, parents do not always approach education in a joined up way with the school. For example, they often tend to teach letter names not sounds. The result: many a Reception teacher will spend a year trying to get them out of this habit and learn their Letters and Sounds phases 1 – 3 instead.

Unfortunately, while primary and lower schools are fielding criticism for narrowing the curriculum to focus on statutory tests the very real danger is home could follow suit for pre-schoolers with this new baseline assessment. We have seen the impact of national assessment on curriculum at all stages of school – what will happen to the curriculum at home with this new national assessment? And if parents are thinking about this assessment that will happen in 2020 – perhaps right now they are also thinking about how they might hothouse their child to do well in this assessment.

I’m looking forward to September already, but in the meantime, I’ll refill my rose-tinted glass of prosecco and enjoy the sunshine …