Design flaws in Curriculum for Excellence were obvious from very beginning
I choked on my cornflakes when I read that Keir Bloomer, chairman of Reform Scotland’s Commission on School Reform, who was critical of the way Curriculum for Excellence was having the effect of cutting the number of subjects many youngsters take in S4, was the same Keir Bloomer who was largely the architect of Curriculum for Excellence and was often described as such a few years ago.
Moreover, the problems now becoming apparent are not “unintended consequences” but a design flaw that was obvious to many from the word go.
I sat on the Curriculum for Excellence Development Committee and from that position argued fiercely but in vain that, if youngsters had to follow a broad education for the first three years of their secondary education, there simply was not enough time to take more than five or at a push six exam subjects in S4.
Whilst I was making this argument from within, others like the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Mathematical Council were making the same argument from outside. We were all ignored because the focus was not to be on learning subjects but on developing rounded people to satisfy the four capacities – responsible citizens, successful learners, confident individuals and effective contributors – concepts so ephemeral you could move the adjectives and nouns around without seriously changing the meanings.
As for criticising the postcode lottery which determines the number of subjects youngsters do in S4, this, too, was a design feature. The idea was to hand teachers and schools the responsibility for what they taught which in turn was meant to suit the needs and interests of their pupils. There was to be no national course.
It is not surprising that large secondaries in middle class areas quickly decided that the “needs and interests” of their pupils were best met by teaching eight subjects and that these courses would, as with Standard Grade, start in S3. Meanwhile others, often small schools with more limited staffing, opted for teaching fewer courses.
Curriculum for Excellence problems were obvious from the start. It is good they are finally being acknowledged.
JUDITH GILLESPIE Findhorn Place, Edinburgh