The curriculum was once famously described as a 10-letter dirty word.

One leading authority asserted: “The curriculum matters, but that is the extent of agreement about the curriculum.” Almost 30 years after the Education Reform Act of 1988, which prescribed a curriculum for the first time since 1926, both statements remain true.

It is contested, problematic, and value-saturated. Amanda Speilman’s recent commentary fails to recognise this. It is an educational minefield in which angels and chief inspectors should fear to tread. Yet, the HCMI is, seemingly unwittingly, taking Ofsted with her on this potentially very hazardous journey.

Curriculum near-consensus

There are almost as many definitions as there are pundits to proclaim them.

Let’s start with one about a near-consensus prior to the government of the day intervening in what had been “a secret garden”. I stress “near-consensus”, since unanimity in this value-laden area is an impossibility:

“A school’s curriculum consists of all those activities designed or encouraged within its organisational framework to promote the intellectual, personal, social and physical development of its pupils. It includes not only the formal programme of lessons, but also the “informal” programme of so-called extra-curricular activities, as well as those features which produce the school’s ethos…” (HM Inspectorate 1986, “The curriculum from 5 to 16”, HMSO)

I believe that view would achieve a wide degree of approval among education professionals 30 years later. It is certainly more wide-ranging than HMCI’s view of the curriculum as a “body of knowledge” and “a set of standards”.

That earlier, liberal view of it has been seriously weakened. It is still being undermined by a politically-inspired narrow view, embodied by schools minister, Nick Gibb, and the Department of Education. A view that is not seriously questioned in the chief inspector’s commentary. In its pronouncements so far, Ofsted does not appear to be endorsing this liberal perspective when it comes to inspecting it. Perhaps this will change in the new inspection framework promised for 2019, but I’m not holding my breath.

‘National’ misnomer

Then there is the so-called, but misnamed, “national” curriculum, comprising a series of subjects little different from those listed in the secondary school regulations of a more than a century ago. Of course, the curriculum isn’t “national” - it doesn’t exist in three-quarters of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. In England it is restricted to local authority community schools - academies and independent schools are not required to follow it - which should raise questions about its value.

As part of the research programme she is undertaking, the chief inspector is not proposing to investigate the profession’s “perceptions of the value and relevance of the present ‘national’ curriculum”. Though supporting the notion of “a careful balance” in curriculum design, she doesn’t recognise the grossly imbalanced “national” curriculum, especially at primary level, which she wants “delivered”, with an emphasis on learners “receiving knowledge” rather than acquiring it and making it their own. 

I suspect this view is far removed from those of the majority of professionals she is seeking to influence.

But let’s be clear, the “national curriculum” as currently promulgated is being fully endorsed by the chief inspector without any substantial body of research or inspection evidence to support her claims of its value. It is true that in her role she can scarcely oppose what is government policy but she could, but doesn’t, raise questions about its value and its effects. She should.

Testing times

Third, there is the “tested” curriculum, which in primary schools involves only two subjects. In critiquing this, the chief inspector is on firmer ground. I strongly suspect, though we don’t know for certain, that the vast majority of primary teachers would accept her view that it has been unduly narrowed by test anxiety and preparation.

Probably, though we don’t know, many secondary teachers would accept her criticisms of the narrowing of key stage 3, but like their primary colleagues would blame having to meet the accountability requirements of Ofsted and the DfE for those problems. They would agree with her that the “tested curriculum” is an impoverished one, but is her endorsed “national” curriculum much better?

Without any sense of irony, the chief inspector criticises schools for “a weak theoretical understanding of the curriculum” - a shortcoming certainly illustrated by her own commentary and by the lack of any theoretical work on the school curriculum by Ofsted, since its inception 25 years ago.

This understanding could well come, not from Ofsted itself, but at least in part from those working in academies and independent schools untrammelled by the impoverished “national” curriculum. Who knows, that theoretical understanding could even be developed by those academics vilified by a previous education secretary - Michael Gove - as “the Blob”?

Professor Colin Richards was formerly staff inspector for the curriculum and editor of the Curriculum Matters series. 

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and Instagram, and like Tes on Facebook