Since the national curriculum was introduced into state schools in England in 1988, it has undergone periodic reviews. The latest one, recently carried out, produced an interim report.
What is clear is there is not going to be any radical overhaul. The review team say they “intend to retain the mainstay of existing arrangements”. Their approach will be “evolutionary” rather than “revolutionary” . The present set-up has had a positive impact on numeracy and literacy in comparison with other countries. However, improvements could be made, they believe, as the system does not work well for everyone.
They are not minded to propose changing the number of subjects taken by children at GCSE, for example - commonly nine - and they believe exams should remain the “primary means” of assessment.
Nevertheless, they do wonder whether the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) measure - which was designed to encourage the take-up of traditional academic subjects - has unnecessarily constrained the choice of subjects. For EBacc, children need to take English, maths, two sciences, a modern language and history or geography at GCSE.
EBacc also has influence on the Progress 8 score, which is used in school performance tables compiled by the Department for Education. Progress 8 takes into account English, maths, any three other EBacc subjects at GCSE, along with three non-EBacc options.
The previous government had wanted 75 per cent of students to attain EBacc, but the number has plateaued at around 40 per cent, the review noted.
What prompted their concern about the narrowing of choice has been a decline in drama and, to a lesser extent, music at GCSE.
They also promised to look further at whether there were opportunities “to reduce the volume of assessment… without compromising the reliability of results”.
What the report doesn’t say is whether any reform of the curriculum would benefit Jewish schools - but clearly more flexibility in the system would leave more time for Jewish education.
In the run-up to GCSEs, the curriculum is pretty crowded. Many children have also dropped Hebrew by the time they are preparing for exams.
The content of the religious studies GCSE is also dictated by external bodies, not determined by schools themselves. Children have to study at least one other religion, which may be good for their breadth of knowledge and civic awareness but reduces the amount of Jewish study. (They could opt for iGCSE religious studies, which allows an exclusive focus on Judaism, but iGCEs do not count towards school league tables.)
A more flexible curriculum would give Jewish schools greater manoeuvrability in offering a wider menu of Jewish subjects, such as biblical or modern Hebrew, whether or not this would result in a formal qualification or not. The breadth of Jewish civilisation, from Mishnah to modern literature, from antiquity to 20th century history, is such that one could create an entire weekly curriculum of Jewish topics.
Academy schools currently enjoy the latitude of not having to follow the national curriculum, enabling some Jewish schools to concentrate more of their time on Jewish studies. But they are likely to lose this freedom soon as the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill wants academies in future to conform to the same national curriculum requirements as other state schools.
The curriculum review also notes that parents would like to see more financial education and creative thinking that might help children in their future careers. So, there is a case for a less prescriptive curriculum conditioned by a traditional exam syllabus.
The review also alludes the need to prepare children for the challenges of AI and other digital developments, mentioning the imperative for “heightened media literacy and critical thinking”.
When children are often getting their knowledge of the Middle East conflict and other current affairs from TikTok and other social media platforms, this is an area that is certainly crying out to be addressed.
