Labour’s National Curriculum Review Repeats All the Usual Left-Wing Mistakes

While there is much to agree with in the final report of the review of the English national curriculum, titled ‘Building a world-class curriculum for all’, there is also much of concern.

Descriptions like “crucial knowledge”, “critical knowledge” and “knowledge-rich”, while clichéd, represent a welcome focus on content instead of vacuous inquiry-based, process and child-centred learning.

The report is correct when it argues, “In a world of rapid technological, environmental and social change, subject-specific knowledge remains the best investment.”

Similarly, the report’s suggestion that skills and capabilities “arise from and are situated within, a knowledge-rich Curriculum” is welcomed as cognitive research has long proven this is the most effective way to learn.

Instead of a narrow utilitarian view of education the report is also correct to argue what students are asked to learn should “promote their intellectual, social, cultural, spiritual and moral, emotional and physical development”.

The argument the national curriculum should not be the sum total of what schools seek to teach and that schools need a degree of curriculum autonomy and flexibility is also worthwhile. Arguing for an “evidence-led approach” should also be applauded.

In ‘Politics and the English Language’ George Orwell bemoans what he sees as a decline in the English language.  The inability to write succinctly, clearly and with precision leads to “bad habits” and “foolish thoughts”. The report’s authors have not read Orwell’s essay. 

In the foreword Professor Becky Francis writes:

We have sought to ensure the curriculum is fit for the future, addresses the rich knowledge and skills young people need to thrive in our fast-changing world, and encourages a love of learning.

Phrases like “fit for the future”, “fast-changing world” and “love of learning” are superficial. Even worse is that employing phrases like “most important knowledge” and “crucial knowledge” begs the question: what constitutes the purpose of education and what constitutes worthwhile knowledge?

In the Executive Summary education is said to be “inherently valuable and important of its own sake” but nowhere in the report is there a credible justification why this should be the case.

Arguing that a revised national curriculum will ensure young people will “flourish as informed and fulfilled individuals, as contributors to our democratic society, and as members of a better qualified workforce that builds economic prosperity” still begs the question: what best constitutes the purpose of education?

In addition to failing to answer the above question the report also repeats many of the mistakes characteristic of progressive, politically correct education. While it’s true some students will develop a “thirst for learning that will remain for them for life” not all have the ability, motivation or commitment to achieve such a goal.

While the report suggests education is important in building a “flourishing civil society, and in promoting social cohesion and democracy” such a commitment is undermined by emphasising “equity, access and inclusivity in subject areas”.

The report states the curriculum must reflect “the issues and diversities of our society (such as protected characteristics and socio-economic background), ensuring all young people are represented” as well as reflecting “our diverse society and the contributions of people of all backgrounds to our knowledge and culture”.

Given the impact of cultural relativism and postcolonial theory, where traditional British society is criticised as white supremacist, racist, classist and guilty of colonial exploitation, the danger is that what is taught will fragment society.

While the report states the commitment to diversity and difference (the new code for multiculturalism) should not weaken “foundational disciplinary knowledge”, it’s clear what will prevail.

There is an alternative to what the curriculum report recommends. Published in 1985 the ‘Ministerial Review of Postcompulsory Schooling Report Volume 1’ for Victoria, Australia argues any “discussion of curriculum must begin by asserting the primacy of essentially common and cultural purposes”.

What became known as the Blackburn Report goes on to argue students are “culturally deprived if they emerge from 12 years of schooling without even the most rudimentary knowledge of the history, art forms and philosophical underpinnings of their own society”.

Using the metaphor of a conversation Michael Oakeshott argues that to be educated is to be initiated “into the skill and partnership of this conversation in which we learn to recognise the voices, to distinguish the proper occasions of utterance, and in which we acquire the intellectual and moral habits appropriate to the conversation”.

To enable each succeeding generation to be involved in this conversation, Oakeshott argues schools must provide “a serious and orderly initiation into an intellectual, imaginative, moral and emotional; an initiation designed for children who are ready to embark on it”.

The purpose of education is enculturation; a process whereby each succeeding generation is introduced to and becomes familiar with Western civilisation’s cultural heritage. Such an education draws primarily on the established disciplines of knowledge and, while evolving, can be traced back over the centuries to ancient Greece and Rome.

Such an education, contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, requires patience, discipline, hard work and, generally speaking, it is not immediately relevant or useful. Instead of being subjective and relative, such an education is also based on the premise it is possible to better approximate the truth of things and that knowledge is not a social or cultural construct. 

Dr Kevin Donnelly is an Australian-based education author and commentator. In 2014 he co-chaired the review of the Australian national curriculum. Contact him here.