CfW - Does a knowledge rich curriculum fit?

Guest Post from Damian Benney, a Deputy Headteacher at a compehensive school in South Wales This is another must read for all teachers and leaders regarding Curriculum for Wales.

Guest Post

Curriculum for Wales. Does a knowledge rich curriculum fit?

The new CfW will begin in September 2022 (Covid delays not withstanding). In this blog I want to explore what I think are the strengths of the new curriculum and what I consider to be the areas of concern. Ultimately, does a knowledge rich curriculum fit in CfW?

The curriculum has been deliberately designed to be a framework. The lack of prescription is deliberate and means that the school’s individual curriculum can be tailored to suit your school context. It could be argued that this is the curriculum’s greatest strength. I will return to this point later. But this lack of prescription is a double edged sword and it could be argued that this is the curriculum’s greatest weakness. There will be potentially 1600 different curriculum models in Wales. 1600 different ways to get it right. 1600 different ways to get it wrong. Do pupils in Swansea really need a totally different curriculum to pupils in Pembroke and Abertillery and Wrexham? The lack of specific content is a concern I have. Could some schools deliver a deficit model where they remove key cultural capital from their students because they aren’t relevant to “our pupils”? Let us hope not but it could happen. Whilst it is positive that Shakespeare gets a specific mention in the Languages, Literacy and Communication documentation, it is only as an example of illustrating depth, alongside 5 other writers and poets. The debate about what content should be delivered is a fierce, passionate and fascinating debate (and we will leave that for another day).

Perhaps my biggest area of concern about how the new curriculum will be realised is in the push for interdisciplinary learning, subject expertise is sacrificed. The new curriculum looks to make authentic links between subjects (absolutely) but just how far will this be taken? When the draft curriculum was launched there was much talk about breaking down the “false barriers” between different subjects. Talk of breaking apart the narrow silos that characterise other countries’ curricula. At what cost?

“Subjects are derived from the great traditions of knowledge construction in academic and artistic fields, each with its own rules of enquiry and evidence, its own traditions of arguments and debate or its own standards of performance and judgement. Each echoes a distinctive quest for truth and each carries accumulated wisdom that must be mastered if its wider ways are to be opened up.” Christine Counsell. This links beautifully to what Martin Robinson said at CymruED: that if we remove the borders between subjects it takes away choice, and it’s the borders that allow pupils to have freedom and preferences, i.e. I prefer History to Geography.  And then the borders again within each subject i.e. Irish History or Russian Revolution.

To my mind, the only way of making CfW  in schools truly successful would be to deliver a knowledge rich curriculum, full of powerful knowledge, rich in cultural capital and one that has been designed, sequenced and then delivered by subject experts. I believe this will be far more effective than a skills based curriculum or a thematic curriculum or a project based curriculum. Of course, there is a place for these approaches but we must consider the differences between how novices and experts learn first. This is also where the choice of the main pedagogical delivery is crucial.

And here is my case for the defence. In “What makes great teaching?” 2014 (and great teaching is defined as that which leads to improved student progress) Coe, Aloisi, Hiigins and Major review the underpinning research and set out 6 components of great teaching. Number 1 is pedagogical content knowledge. This means knowing your subject and knowing how students think in your subject.  Number 2 is quality of instruction. In a secondary school you would expect those to be bread and butter for the subject experts. The quest for interdisciplinary learning has many merits but we can’t deny that it comes at the expense of this subject expertise. You potentially lose the 2 most important aspects of great teaching by pursuing this route. Schools may choose to deliver humanities lessons where the content (a mix of the traditional content of History, Geography and RE) is delivered by 1 teacher. Of course, it is possible to make this successful. Some schools would argue that this more integrated approach leads to a more holistic, joined up understanding for the learners. Perhaps. I am yet to be convinced. But pursuing interdisciplinary learning comes at the expense of subject expertise. This cannot be argued. Only a science specialist will appreciate the misconceptions that can arise when the topics of cells is first taught. Pupils need to see photos of tissues made up of many cells before going on to label a single animal/plant cell. Failure to do this will lead to many pupils believing cells are single entities, floating around in the ether. Subject expertise matters.

What is wrong with teaching themes or projects that are delivered by subject experts in individual subject areas? I have seen many cross subject projects that have been designed to be delivered by subject experts. They are nearly always superbly well designed. On the surface they seem to get the balance right between interdisciplinary learning and subject expertise. The problem is that when you look beneath the surface, the topics taught in each subject area (each part of a wider topic) are placed in that moment in the curriculum to benefit the project but they may then be totally out of sequence with the narrative of the individual subject. For instance, if a Science & Technology project is on plastics and as part of that project, in science they will learn about polymers. To learn about polymers, pupils need to understand (and remember) atomic structure. To understand atomic structure they need to understand (and remember) kinetic theory. But they may well not have covered these (yet). And if not, the new knowledge about polymers will potentially be superficial and quickly forgotten.

Should CfW focus on Knowledge or skills?

A curriculum cannot truly focus on skills. Stephen Tierney states that knowledge and skills are 2 sides of the same DNA molecule. Research shows that you can’t be skilled at something unless you have the domain knowledge. You can’t learn to be good at the skill of analysis (other than learning a useful heuristic) and then go off and analyse a character in a Dickens book. Successful analysis will only come from knowledge of that character in the book. We can’t teach the generic skills of evaluation. We can’t teach critical thinking (though again, there is real merit in learning heuristics). The more knowledge someone has in their long term memory and the better that schema is organised, the more skilful that person should be on applying that knowledge as a skill. 

Is reading a skill? This excellent blog by Rob Randel talks about the importance of getting reading instruction right, particularly in the early years of schooling. Is reading a skill? If I asked you to read this:

Japan's Mamiko Higa has the clubhouse lead at the US Open after a weather-delayed second round, which included lightning striking a tree on the 18th hole.

Higa, 25, led after the first round and is one shot clear of American Jessica Korda after a birdie on the final hole.

France's Celine Boutier is tied for third on four under (alongside US amateur Gina Kim) with four holes left.

I dare say that you would have no problems in changing the graphemes into phonemes. You should easily decode every word. But can you truly read it? If you knew lots about golf then you would understand it completely. If you knew a little bit and had some knowledge of other sports then you may be able to make some inferences. But some people, despite being able to read and sound out every word would not be able to read it. The big five (as mentioned in Rob’s blog) elements of reading are phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. If you lack the vocabulary depth for terms such as 18^th hole, birdie, tied for third then you won’t comprehend the passage. If you can’t comprehend the text then you can’t truly read it. We think of inference as a skill but it is completely dependent on background knowledge (something to infer against) and so I am not convinced that we can teach the skill of inference.

Take this quote from the 2019 AQA English Language examiner’s report “The best responses are characterised by students engaging with the ‘big ideas’ (politics, economics, gender, aesthetics, class, morality, psychology and philosophy) and framed in their own perspectives in this larger context, which enhance the overall quality of their argument.”  When we teach knowledge we deepen our students’ vocabulary and make them better readers. As the examiner’s report also shows, we make them “cleverer”. This is surely what we want CfW to achieve?

If we want CfW to deliver equity and excellence for our learners, if we want to develop rich schema in the brains of our learners then we need to view curriculum design as a box set (to steal Clare Sealy’s phrase). Compare Black Mirror to Line of Duty. LOD is a serial. It has a clear narrative. The story is linked through time rather than a series of random “one offs” like Black Mirror. There is a clear narrative over time. There are sub plots (within episodes/lessons), main plots (over a scheme of learning/season) and a clear story arc (over the course of 5 years or the entire run of seasons). I have completely stolen that analogy from someone else. The point is, every lesson and sequence of lessons should have its place in a carefully sequenced curriculum, rather than a huge catalogue of (albeit) enjoyable episodes that are all about fun and engagement but not about building schema.

If a curriculum has no discernible narrative, with topics chosen with no rhyme or reason and no thought of teaching in a sequential way, then the gap will widen between the pupils lucky enough to be exposed to lots of background knowledge at home and those that are not. The Matthew effect in action. Knowledge is “sticky”. Knowledge begets knowledge. The more someone knows the easier future learning becomes. The gap between the “haves” and “have nots” will only get wider.

To quickly lean on the work of the Bjorks and the concept of desirable difficulties, learning that lacks a foundation of secure background knowledge will be forgotten quickly and will not easily be relearned. We want pupils to learn from the curriculum and not merely experience it.

Careful, thoughtful, planned structuring and sequencing of the curriculum will also mean that (with quality teaching) students build the types of schema that we want them to build. By using some of the best bets of research such as spacing and retrieval practice, we can make future learning easier by ensuring that our leaners have more prior knowledge accessible in their long term memories to knit their new learning onto. The new curriculum must be underpinned by findings from cognitive science. A common understanding of how we learn must be front and centre. This is why recent events such as ResearchEd Cymru have been so well attended by a profession that wants to be evidence informed.

And as far as I am concerned, this is where the good news kicks in. An evidence informed, knowledge rich, carefully structured and deliberately sequenced curriculum is not at all at odds with CfW. This is where the framework nature of the new curriculum can be viewed as a strength. We haven’t been given a prescriptive curriculum overladen with specified content that we may have taken exception to in terms of inclusion. We have not had a forced 21^st century skills curriculum dropped on us (though this may be the route that some choose to take). We have been given a framework, within which, a knowledge rich approach fits very comfortably

Take these statements directly from the Science and Technology AoLE:

“Progression of learning is not linear but cyclical with learners revisiting existing knowledge, linking this with their new learning, and adjusting schema in light of new discovery.” This is a great statement and comes closest to actually describing how we learn. The discovery statement does not refer to discovery learning; rather it describes new or extended knowledge being acquired.

“Schools should, where relevant, facilitate learning through active and practical experiences. Practical learning of a specific, thematic or multi-disciplinary nature should strengthen learning and conceptual understanding, not simply engage learners in engaging and enjoyable tasks”. This statement is excellent. It makes it clear that whether the current focus is specific, thematic or multi-disciplinary, practical work should enhance learning and have a clear focus rather than because it is fun. No engagement for engagement’s sake (at least not as a rule).

“The planned sequencing of science and technology learning and teaching should consider the development of the knowledge or skills learners’ need, in advance of engaging them in more practical activities or inquiry”. This puts to bed the idea that this AoLE is a discovery learning area (though there may be elements of guided “discovery”) and reemphasises the importance of a solid foundation knowledge.

“This is why the statements of what matters in this area have been designed with strong interdependencies, and should not be considered separately in school curriculum design and planning”. This statement is very important. This can be interpreted that designing a more joined up curriculum is key.

So what could this joined up curriculum look like (again, thanks to Clare Sealy for her ideas)? For me, the key is to explicitly map out the vertical, horizontal and diagonal links of the curriculum. The key here is that each department sequence their curriculum in a way that new knowledge builds on background knowledge in a carefully structured and sequenced way. Departments should be able to justify and explain the narrative of their curriculum. What does the progression of knowledge and skills look like? They should be planning and exploiting the vertical links that exist between the topics as pupils travel through the school (from year group to year group). There then needs to be a whole school overview so that the horizontal links (links between different subjects in the same year group) and vertical links (links between different subjects in different year groups) can be mapped and then exploited in class. So a teacher delivering the reformation in History will have the knowledge from the map about when pupils studied Catholicism and can build on this knowledge. Nothing has to be left to chance. This will be particularly important for subjects within AoLEs but also for subjects in different AoLEs. This map will stand alongside other whole school maps for coverage of the cross curricular responsibilities.

Cluster working is also going to be key. I was fortunate to spend some time in a whole cluster inset at Ysgol Bro Edern. They are a model on how a cluster should work together. I watched a presentation for the whole cluster by Ceri James. It referenced Hirsch, Wilingham and Wiliam (and the “magic” of Harry Potter). Influenced by Gareth Rein, they are mapping their whole cluster curriculum and looking at the golden threads that run through from nursery to Year 9. We should watch this cluster’s developments with genuine interest.

So in summary, a well thought out, structured, sequenced curriculum will build the schema we want in our pupils. By making links explicit (and this requires lots of work between department HoDs) we can make links between the schema that pupils have for different topics in different subject areas/AoLEs. This is our ambitious, capable learner. It is what our learners deserve.

Damian Benney

Further Reading:

Rob Randel’s blog on reading and CfW.

Christine Counsell’s blog: The Dignity of the Thing

David Didau blog on Novices and Experts.

Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work, 

Kirschner et al.

What Makes Great Teaching, Coe et al.

Stephen Tierney’s blog on Education for Wisdom.

Clare Sealy’s blog on the 3D Curriculum.

Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way by Robert and Elizabeth Bjork.

The Science of Learning by Deans for Impact.

Bro Edern blog on Cultural Capital (Ceri James)

Many thanks to Rob Randel and James Stanford for their help with editing and further suggestions, additions and tweaks.