Even we don’t know purpose of curriculum – SNP advisers
GOVERNMENT advisers have admitted they do not know the purpose of the SNP’s Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) – more than a decade after its launch.
Damning minutes show senior figures discussing the aim of CfE, which has been criticised for dumbing down education and creating a bureaucratic headache for teachers.
The experts warned the curriculum would be at risk ‘if there was not sufficient focus on roles and responsibilities’.
The minutes added: ‘Additionally, it was suggested that the curriculum is the heart of everything we do in education and there may be a danger of forgetting about key principles.’
The discussion included the suggestion ‘there is a need to be clear on what we mean – starting points for development, what curriculum is, and how we define it – it is something we do, not simply the written content’.
The minutes are from a recent meeting of the curriculum and assessment board published by the Scottish Government. The CfE was implemented in 2010 – suggesting experts still struggle to understand what it is.
The row comes after the Mail revealed last week that CfE could be re-named ‘Scotland’s Curriculum’ after years of criticism. Advisers discussed the idea of dropping the word ‘excellence’ amid growing concern that the CfE has failed thousands of children.
Critics say it has swept away key pillars of factual learning in favour of trendy educational ideas. Board chairman Graeme Logan, a civil servant, noted that ‘while there should always be a strong emphasis on health and wellbeing, literacy and numeracy, we mustn’t lose sight of the breadth of subjects’. The CFE has also been criticised for limiting the number of subjects on offer at secondary schools.
The board includes members of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, EIS teaching union, failing schools quango Education Scotland and higher education umbrella body Universities Scotland. An OECD review earlier this year found a ‘lack of clarity’ in the CfE about the importance of knowledge and some evidence that what pupils were being taught was ‘too limited to adequately prepare [them] for academic studies’.
The OECD also criticised the ‘constant production and recyGordon cling of documentation [which] was described as “overwhelming”, and the terminology used too technical and open to interpretation’.
This week an academic appointed to reform school qualifications said his inquiry had shattered his assumption Scottish education is better than that in England. Professor Stobart said he was taken aback by the complexity of the education system.
Scottish Tory education spokesman Oliver Mundell said: ‘The SNP Government’s advisers are hardly inspiring confidence when it comes to their flagship education policy.
‘It is little wonder Scotland’s education system is in decline under the stewardship of the SNP when their own experts can’t define what the Curriculum for Excellence is.’
Professor Lindsay Paterson, an education expert at Edinburgh University, said: ‘CfE is so vague that even teachers still wonder what it means.’
A Government spokesman said: ‘The OECD, in their independent report, have been crystal clear – Curriculum for Excellence is the right approach for Scotland and is viewed internationally as an inspiring example of curriculum practice.’
‘Hardly inspiring confidence’