Every school has a curriculum. But how much thought, research and evaluation went into the creation of that curriculum (within the constraints of the national curriculum); how comfortable - and trained - teachers feel in making changes to, adapting or reimagining that curriculum; and how far it is understood what a curriculum actually is can all contrast greatly - not just between schools, but between individual practitioners.

The variations, blind spots and training gaps - as well as a huge number of other issues around curriculum development - are coming into sharp focus.

In England, Ofsted will shift to closely reviewing curriculum during its inspections from September. This follows increasing focus on curriculum as an agent of social mobility (with cultural capital at its heart), something that has been led from government and championed by teachers.

It also leads on from an uptick in the influence of academic research: if we are to take seriously the work on memory from the likes of Professors Robert and Elizabeth Bjork, then curriculum should look different to how it appears in many schools (whether we should let memory and other research influence our curriculum thinking - and to what level - is, I think, a debate worth having).

When it was announced that Ofsted would inspect curriculum, I had some doubts over how accurately this could be done. Having read the document provided by Ofsted detailing the proposed methodology (see bit.ly/Ofsted2019), I am still struggling to see how it translates into an inspection - some case studies would help enormously, as it is only fair schools fully understand the process by which they are to be inspected.

In Scotland, meanwhile, Curriculum for Excellence is a saga that is yet to be resolved. Now nearing its 10th anniversary of formal implementation, CfE promised more flexibility for teachers to tailor the curriculum to individual students’ needs. In practice, although there are advocates who say it has liberated their teaching, CfE has been plagued by claims of vagueness over its aims, and exams still drive much of the work of schools. Ironically, one of the most topical concerns in Scottish education is that students now have fewer subjects to choose from at exam level - although some argue that, with far better connections to employers, colleges and skills providers these days, there is actually more choice.

Internationally, similar debates rage - what we teach our children and in what order is a universal challenge.

So, for the next three issues of Tes, we will explore curriculum in depth. Our objective is to empower teachers to take ownership of what they do day in, day out, to be able to adapt theory to their own context, to feel comfortable in curriculum design. We will provide case studies, sign posts and insights to help teachers forge their own journey.

Because, as the theorists in part one this week make clear, the choices schools make are of huge importance. As Wayne Hugo explains: “Curriculum is … a part of a great enterprise that sits at the heart of how humanity currently functions.”

That’s an incredible responsibility to hand to teachers. It is a job that can influence, and be influenced by, so many different - and dissonant - factors; it is a job that is deeply political; it is a job that requires time and consideration and resources.

I have no doubt that teachers are up to that job, but I am also in no doubt that the time and money they need to do it properly are being shamefully denied them. This will need to change if the new focus on curriculum is to have the impact that its advocates believe it can.

@jon_severs

This article originally appeared in the 17 May 2019 issue under the headline “An excellent curriculum demands excellent resources for teachers”