The Interim Report of the School Curriculum and Assessment Review came out last week, to a muted chorus of approval. Muted, because the interim findings contain no controversial political or educational fireworks. Instead, Becky Francis has wisely adopted a cautious, incremental approach to the challenge of overhauling the national curriculum and her proposals amount to a careful rebalancing of key components, rather than a revolutionary upheaval. Few would argue that the lurch towards an old-fashioned Grammar school curriculum under Michael Gove’s tenure as Education Secretary has been - predictably - detrimental to pupils with an aptitude for creative arts subjects, those best suited to hands-on vocational learning, and those with special needs. Still, it’s good to see the evidence of this so clearly and objectively set out.
It’s also very encouraging to read the report’s several references to the critical importance of the 16-19 phase in preparing young people for adulthood. As it makes clear, this is not just about achieving qualifications or gaining mastery of specific subjects, or even about developing specific workplace skills, but about supporting learners “to develop into well-rounded individuals”. Interestingly, the next phase of the review will be very much focused on post-16 further education, tackling key issues around technical and vocational pathways for those young adults who are not suited to an A-Level or T-Level route.
And how refreshing to see an explicit recognition that Level 2 (GCSE equivalent) learning – so often thought of as no more than a preparation for Level 3 – has an intrinsic importance, not least because, as the report notes, over a million jobs of critical importance to the UK economy require work-related Level 2 qualifications, not higher level academic skills. We all rely on the shopworkers, cleaners, restaurant staff, hairdressers, bricklayers, and receptionists whose work underpins the quality of our daily lives.
The Lifelong Education Institute would urge the Francis Review to go further and look at the school curriculum through the lens of lifelong learning. From this perspective, the completion of the compulsory stage of education at age 19 is not an ending at all, but a milestone on a lifelong journey. Opportunities for further learning and progression up the ladder of qualifications shouldn’t finish when individuals get their first job; they should be abundant, attractive, and well-signposted throughout life. To achieve this vision, there needs to be a fundamental shift in how we conceptualise the formal education curriculum.
First and foremost, we need an attitudinal shift. The school curriculum should foster a positive attitude to continued learning beyond age 19, by emphasising the message that “wherever you’ve got to in your education now, you can always go further later”. This should be reinforced by ensuring that young people are introduced not only to vital employability and life skills, but also to the range of adult education opportunities available to them in the future, whether or not they are in employment. We need to move decisively away from a “one-shot” system where people move from education into work, to a multiple-stage system where people move fluidly between education and work throughout their lives, often doing both at once.
From this perspective, the policy of forcing young people to repeatedly re-sit school English and maths exams is counterproductive and risks turning students off lifelong learning. The fact that less than a third of re-sitters get the magic grade 4 pass by age 19 underlines how ineffective this approach is for the majority, and it’s encouraging to see the report highlighting this problem.
To make lifelong learning a success, we also need to increase the volume and availability of adult education and training. This is not just about funding but also the way in which courses are made accessible and affordable. The Lifelong Education Entitlement is a promising start, but we need a more universal system which doesn’t focus solely on higher level learning. We need far more short course provision, whether through Microcredentials or digital badging or other forms of “bite-size” learning. We need far more employers to embrace the idea that their workplace is also a learning environment and invest more in workforce training and development. And we need schools and colleges to acknowledge that the formal education they provide is part of a wider ecosystem of lifelong learning, and certainly not the only mechanism through which education takes place.
The Francis Review is rightly asking probing questions about how well the compulsory curriculum prepares young people for life and work. It should also be asking how well it prepares pupils for lifelong learning. School should be the start, not the end, of our learning journey.
Comments