How to manage the curriculum during times of uncertainty

We sail upon turbulent seas and it would be easy to allow our curriculum to list from side to side, take on water, and perhaps even sink. So, how can we steer the Good Ship Curriculum to calmer conditions? In this article, exclusive to our blog, Matt Bromley will offer his advice for remaining agile whilst setting long-term goals.

There are two main sources of uncertainty affecting schools’ curriculum thinking at the moment:

Firstly, we’ve got a new government.

Labour under Keir Starmer took power in July 2024 after 14 years of Conservative rule. The education secretary Bridget Phillipson has put inclusion at the top of her agenda. She immediately acknowledged the need to transform the education system so that young people get the opportunities they deserve. It’s too early to know if their actions will match their words and I have some doubts based on early performance (the refusal to scrap the two-child benefits limit, for example, and funding issues with the breakfast clubs pilot), but, in an open letter to the sector, Phillipson said that “background should be no barrier to getting on” and she committed to building a fairer society “that delivers the best life chances for every child”. Phillipson expressed the view that “life shouldn’t come down to luck” and yet, now, “too many people simply don’t have the opportunities to succeed”.

To ensure inclusion, she ordered a review of curriculum and assessment, led by Professor Becky Francis (on which more here). So, that’s the first source of uncertainty: a new government with a new agenda, and an ongoing review of curriculum and assessment practices.

Secondly, we’ve got a new head of Ofsted.

Sir Martyn Oliver replaced Amanda Spielman last year. He’s in the process of implementing a new inspection framework to replace the 2019 EIF. Gone are the 3Is of intent, implementation and impact, gone are deep dives, and gone are single word judgments.

Ofsted has promised a more nuanced, balanced report card system which explores between 9 and 11 criteria (depending on your context) and rates them using a 5-point scale.

So, there’s a lot of external change leading to uncertainty for schools. But the good news is: What works is what works. If your school has an effective curriculum which is ambitious, broad and balanced, and planned and sequenced, and if – broadly – you teach that same curriculum to all your pupils and they all do well, making good progress from their individual starting points and being well prepared for the next stage of their lives, then you have nothing to worry about!

So, please do not throw out your existing curriculum plans – audit them annually, of course, and make sure they are still fit for purpose and continue to meet the needs of your pupils, but do not start again! Curriculum development should be evolutionary not revolutionary.

In an earlier blog, I offered my advice for navigating the government’s curriculum and assessment review, so here I will focus on the proposed new Ofsted framework as an example of how we might remain agile and pragmatic whilst planning for the long-term to avoid becoming reactive…

A caveat: The new framework is currently out for consultation and will be finalised in the summer for first inspection in November (possibly!). I doubt there will be very many substantive changes to the criteria, although there may be changes to some of the terminology (we hear that the judgment ‘secure’ is not, well, very secure, for example) and some changes to inspection methodology. So I am confident in repeating my earlier statement that if your school has an effective curriculum which is ambitious, broad and balanced, and planned and sequenced, and if – broadly – you teach that same curriculum to all your pupils and they all do well, then you have nothing to worry about when it comes to Ofsted’s new framework!

In terms of your curriculum being ambitious, Ofsted says that they will be judging the extent to which leaders make sure that the curriculum is at least as ambitious in breadth and depth as the national curriculum, for all pupils. Under the old framework, they said something similar for Intent.

So, to remain agile and future-proof, I’d suggest schools ask themselves the following questions:

• Does our curriculum teach the knowledge and skills learners need to take advantage of the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life?
• Does our curriculum reflect our school’s local context? Does it address typical gaps in learners’ knowledge and skills?
• Does our curriculum bring the local community into school and take learners out into the community?
• Does our curriculum respond to our learners’ particular life experiences?
• Is our curriculum sufficiently broad to ensure learners are taught as many different subject disciplines as possible for as long as possible, and sufficiently balanced so that each subject discipline has a fair amount of space on the timetable to deliver both breadth and depth?
• Are learners able to study a strong academic core of subjects but also afforded a well-rounded education including in the arts?
• Do we ensure there are no inconsistencies or contradictions between what we explicitly teach in lessons and what we teach by way of the values, behaviours, and attitudes all our staff display daily?

In terms of breadth and balance, Ofsted say the curriculum should be expertly designed at each stage to enable pupils to develop secure, deep and fluent knowledge. This paves the way for future learning.

As such, I’d suggest schools ask themselves the following questions:

• Is it clear what curriculum content (knowledge, skills, and understanding) we are building towards as a school and in each subject discipline that we teach?
• Is it clear what our learners need to know and be able to do and understand at each stage to acquire this curriculum content?
• Will this curriculum content fully prepare learners for the next stage of their education, employment, and lives?
• Do we make explicit links between related content within and across subject disciplines?
• As well as subject-specific knowledge and skills, do we also identify the research and study skills – and indeed other cross-curricular skills – that our learners need to succeed? And are these skills explicitly taught and reinforced? Are they taught consistently across all subjects where applicable?
• Do we achieve curriculum continuity and are transitions between the various years, key stages and phases of education are as smooth as they can be?

Next, in terms of your curriculum being sequenced, Ofsted say they’ll look to see if subject/area curriculums are well designed to build pupils’ knowledge and skills sequentially and cumulatively. And they’ll look to see if leaders make sure that the curriculum allows enough time for teaching, practising and revisiting content, and for addressing any gaps in pupils’ knowledge as quickly as possible.

To remain agile, I’d suggest schools ask themselves the following questions:

• Does our planning ensure that new knowledge and skills build on what has been taught before and help learners acquire the curriculum content we’ve planned?
• Is there an appropriate pace that allows for sufficient breadth and depth? And is there an appropriate level of challenge for all?
• Is content taught in a logical progression, systematically and explicitly enough for all learners to acquire the intended knowledge and skills?
• Does our curriculum ensure higher-performing learners are sufficiently stretched and lower-performing learners are effectively supported, and yet no learner runs too far ahead or falls too far behind?
• Do we bake retrieval practice into our curriculum to ensure we activate prior knowledge as and when appropriate and keep that prior knowledge accessible to learners?

Finally, in terms of teaching the same curriculum to all pupils but making sure it is accessible to all, Ofsted say that the curriculum, whether designed, adapted or adopted, should be expertly developed over time to ensure its continued quality, effectiveness and, where relevant, subject-specific rigour. And they posit that the curriculum is an entitlement for every pupil. Any adaptations should therefore be made carefully to avoid limiting expectations for disadvantaged pupils or pupils with SEND. Leaders should take all reasonable steps to make sure that all pupils, including those attending alternative provision and those with SEND, can study an equally ambitious curriculum.

As such, I’d suggest schools ask themselves:

• Have we planned to teach the knowledge and cultural capital our learners need to access and understand our curriculum and go on to thrive in later life?
• Are there high academic ambitions for all learners, and do we offer disadvantaged learners and those with SEND the same curriculum experience as their peers rather than ‘dumb down’ or reduce the offer?
• Do we identify the barriers some learners face in school and within each subject discipline, including though not solely a potential vocabulary deficit, and do we plan effective support strategies to help overcome those barriers?
• Whenever we use additional intervention and support strategies to help disadvantaged learners and those with SEND, do we monitor their effectiveness as they’re happening rather than wait to evaluate their eventual success once they’ve ended?
• Do we use appropriate and well-judged adaptations to help pupils to overcome the most significant barriers to learning, particularly for those who are disadvantaged and/or who have SEND? Do these adaptations effectively enable pupils to learn the curriculum, so that they secure the knowledge and skills they need for future learning?

I’ll repeat – by way of summary – that this is not substantially different to what Ofsted said in the 2019 framework, although their focus on inclusion is stronger and now applies to a broader range of pupils, and thus you should not panic and throw the baby out with the bathwater! Do what do you in the best interests of your learners, not for Ofsted, and you’ll have nothing to worry about!