Joanna relaxing in the comfort of her debris hut . . .
If you have a child in state school you are probably familiar with some of the vagaries of the National Curriculum. I was a teacher for many years and loved my job. However, I heartily disliked the National Curriculum and as the strictures became more stringent, I reluctantly left formal education and began teaching outside instead. I believe it is imperative that we examine and challenge the assumptions on which the National Curriculum is based.
In the introduction of the Statutory Guidance on the National Curriculum framework for Key Stages 1 – 4 (2014) it states:
“The national curriculum provides pupils with an introduction to the essential knowledge they need to be educated citizens. It introduces pupils to the best that has been thought and said, and helps engender an appreciation of human creativity and achievement.”
My question is ‘who decided?’ Who decided what is ‘essential’ for children to learn? Which great minds agreed on what is and is not ‘essential knowledge’?
I imagine committees of academics, each one an expert in his or her field, sitting around highly polished tables, arguing over the non-negotiable content of skills and knowledge from their chosen specialised area.
The Introduction to the National Curriculum also states that every school must offer a curriculum which;
‘prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life.’
So now I ask, how did the authors of the ‘essential knowledge’ decide what would be necessary for the ‘experiences of later life’. What experiences of later life do they mean? What crystal ball are they using to predict what life will be like for our children in 10, 15 ,20 years from now? Do we trust their vision and foresight?
Personally, having taught the National Curriculum for many years I do not give their prescience much credence. Whist teaching the programmes of study I found much of the government sponsored curriculum psychologically, emotionally and spiritually damaging.
Also, given that I alternate between grief, fear and rage at the prospect of the future of a collapsing eco-system I find most of it inappropriate and irrelevant.
You may be less pessimistic than me and more like my young friend, Billie, who has a small child. She does not allow herself to contemplate the doomsday predictions for fear of slipping into a pit of despair. Even so, she acknowledges the potential unpredictability of the future and wants a curriculum that equips her child accordingly: a curriculum and an education system that is humble enough to admit that the knowledge and skills our children will need are going to be different from those we were given.
So when considering the ‘opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life’ I want to ask what skills and knowledge might be needed by a successful adult in the near future? What will be truly helpful for them to survive and thrive in the forthcoming upheaval and time of change? What will allow them to be connected to themselves, to others and to the Earth?
I contend that this is a vital question for anyone raising and educating a child. I believe that we no longer need a National Curriculum but instead we need an Essential Curriculum.
Joanna