Gove's Review gets it - broadly - right !!

I've been waiting for the outcome of the review of the National Curriculum with interest, and the first report, I must say, is encouraging. I support the extension of Key Stage 4 to three years. Although it will require large-scale revision to the GCSE, this is well overdue. That, I imagine, is why implementation is being delayed a year. The commitment to less specification is sensible, though, inevitably, schools will select what they teach based on examination syllabuses, as they used to do before the National Curriculum. The broadening of the Key Stage 4 curriculum is welcome, particularly in light of the Raising of the Age of Participation, a Labour policy enacted in the Education and Skills Act 2008 and supported by the Coalition Government. Specialisation can sensibly follow at the age of 16. And the proposals to redefine 'core', 'foundation' and 'basic' are welcome as well.

One area where I differ is the ending of the requirement to have work-related activity; while this has not always been well-delivered, at its best it is a powerful motivator for young people. 

Of course, and as always, there will be many devils in the detail and the implementation. There will be, for example, a huge pressure to expand the simplified curriculum. All the special interest groups - academics, subject associations and others - will lobby for their area to be expanded: "You just can't do XXX justice without covering YYY" will be the cry. Just to chose my own subject, there is no mention at all of the debate about single science, double science or three sciences. My own view is that everyone should do at least double science - but I've just fallen into my own trap of special case lobbying. I would argue that more people make a living out of science and technology than out of history. But again, I am drifting into lobbying!

There will be some real challenges in teacher supply; where will all the Key Stage 2 MFL teachers come from? And how will progression be assured from a primary school doing Spanish to a secondary academy doing French? And what about those schools that have spent huge effort in staffing to deliver 5 A*-C GCSE including English and maths but not some of the other subjects? Again that is a practical reason for delay.

My favourite paragraph is buried deep in the report, and it repays reading carefully, as it sums up so much of what has been wrong over many years. This is an area where we all need to keep a close watch:

4.21 In addition, we are concerned that an instrumental attitude, which values test and examination results and certificates as ends in themselves, has become increasingly evident in the English system. This diminishes the priority that should be given to ensuring that the underlying learning being accredited is deep and secure. In order to mitigate this narrow instrumentalism in learning, urgent attention will need to be given to relevant control factors, particularly assessment systems and accountability measures affecting all schools.66 If assessment and accountability systems are to be valid, they need to represent all valued learning outcomes not just a narrow subset of them. In this context, the role of Ofsted and school governors in ensuring that a school’s curriculum is broad, balanced and fit for purpose will be crucial.