Review of EDDG discusson on Curriculum for Excellence

Thanks to everyone who made it yesterday for our discussion on the Curriculum for Excellence. It was great to see so many staff attending. There was also a healthy mix of staff areas/roles represented: Student Support; Student Guild; Quality; Curriculum Planning; HE articulation; Scotlands’ Colleges; and, of course, teaching staff from a variety of areas.

The discussion was focused on the values, purposes, and implementation issues associated with the Curriculum for Excellence.

Our discussion was framed by the ideas explored by Mark Priestley in the abridged version of his article which I circulated prior to the meeting (and can be read in the post below. Mark has since sent me a more extended version of that article which I have also circulated by email).

Mark is a former secondary school teacher and currently a lecturer at the University of Stirling. He has a particular interest and research experience in the area of curricular change.

Mark himself attended the discussion and provided an overview of what he regarded as some of the challenges (and indeed possible solutions) regarding the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE). After this, we opened up into a more general discussion in which we drew upon Mark’s expertise in this area.

In his overview Mark discussed his experiences and ideas about the evolution of the CfE. In essence, he argued that the founding principles and purposes of CfE are sound and should be embraced. However, he perceives that problems have arisen in the perception and implementation of CfE.

One of the positive potentials of the CfE is, according to Mark, that it repositions teachers as professionals with autonomy over what and how they teach.

However, the reality, all too often, is that educational institutes have reacted to the CfE on a cosmetic level in order to be compliant with the myriad of curricular documents and outcomes associated with CfE.

Mark identified three issues which he regards stunt the healthy development of the CfE in educational institutions:

1. The widespread focus and preoccupation on outcomes and levels runs against the grain of the CfE principles. CfE principles focus on the process, as much as the product, of learning.
2. The perception that CfE is more concerned with skills than content. Mark points out that this is not the case, but the perception itself is damaging and prohibits meaningful engagement with CfE.
3. The fact that CfE is fundamentally about teaching methodology. This relates to the first point about the process. CfE is about how we teach as much as what we teach. This is not often recognized.

In order to avoid a situation where institutions merely comply with the language of CfE, Mark argues that institutions should take the opportunity to take control and develop the curriculum that is right for their learners and the values of their institution. This, of course, takes a degree of bravery and creativity at various levels within organizations – not least at the executive levels.

So, in suggesting a way forward, Mark finished his overview by proposing that the following points be explored by institutions that wish to engage meaningfully with the CfE:

1. There is a need to go back to basics and start with the big picture. Fundamental questions about the purpose of education, roles of staff and the college need to be addressed.
2. Institutions need to ask questions about the kind of content they want in their curriculum and how that content will be taught.
3. Institutions also need to look at the cultural and structural barriers to change.

Mark was positive about existing practice in colleges which, in many ways, allows for the meaningful implementation of the CfE.

After Mark’s overview a more general discussion ensued. A number of points were made:

The role of assessment came up. There were questions and concerns about how we could/would change as an institution when a lot of what we do is so (summative) assessment focused. Teaching practices that are in tune with CfE are often distorted by summative assessment. There was some discussion about the degree of control we have (or don’t) with regarding to assessment arrangements. This related to points about the role and impact of external bodies such as the SQA and HMIe. A lot of what we do is defined by the requirements of external bodies such as these and, so, how they respond to and absorb the value and principles of CfE is crucial. There was some concern about how closely such bodies are aligned to the core values of CfE.

Points were also made about the changing role of the teacher – a point was raised that teachers, increasingly, it was felt by some, play a social role in their learners’ lives. Of course, it could be argued that one of the principles of the CfE is to make learners more autonomous and more resilient, thus, over time, negating the need for teachers to play this social role.

Finally, it was generally agreed that change needs to be supported and planned and the role of strong, consultative and creative leadership is crucial in this.

If anyone would like to make any comments coming out of this, please use the comment function below. If you’re not quite sure how to do that, but would still like to make a contribution just email me and I’ll pop it up for you on the blog.

This is, as I see it, not the end but the beginning of our discussions on Curriculum for Excellence and its impact on the College.

Yesterday's discussion provided us with the opportunity to, at least, start to imagine the kind of questions we should be asking.


[Click here for more information on Mark’s background and research interests.]

Curriculum for Excellence – an opportunity to enhance practice?

(What follows is a summarised and adapted account of some of the issues raised in University of Stirling's Mark Priestley’s paper ‘Realist Social Theory and Curriculum Development’, presented at the Laboratory for Educational Theory, 26th January, 2010 , The Stirling Institute of Education)


Policies often represent opportunities to enhance practice, but more often they are forced into contexts where they do not easily fit; the result is a policy that does not work nor meet its original aspirations, becoming mutated as it translates into practice.


Curriculum for Excellence (CfE)


· May transform schools and colleges
· May disappear without a trace as its main concepts come into conflict with entrenched practices · Seamlessly assimilated into schools and colleges, with minor tweaks to existing practices and changes to terminology.

Anecdotal evidence suggest the latter scenario, as the standard approach to CfE is to audit existing practice against the new Outcomes and Experiences, making changes only where they are seen to conflict with the new guidance.

This is, thus, compliance with the new curriculum, rather than a serious engagement with its aspirational spirit.

An alternative view


CfE is a set of ideas or resources which come into contact with existing cultures and practices. It is inevitable that such ideas will mutate as they transmit through the education system and this should be seen as a potentially positive experience; teachers should be creatively mediating policy ideas as they work them to suit their immediate context. Change is brought about through the social interaction of individuals, who are influenced by the following:

· Their prior experiences, knowledge and motivations. The extent to which people can bring creative ideas into practice and share these with others.
· The opportunities and constraints provided by existing culture: the shared ideas, knowledge and values.
· The opportunities and constraints provided by social structures: the power relationships.
Developing capacity
· Empowered and engaged teachers and managers will respond to change creatively from a wide range of repertoires. Disempowered and/or uninformed individuals will respond narrowly, often to avoid risk.
· Cultural and structural barriers to change need to be indentified and addressed. Catalysts to change may be identified and enhanced.

Key ingredients

· Effective leadership
· Access to physical and cognitive resources, including good professional development
· Teacher autonomy and creativity and relationships based upon trust
· Processes for engagement

Key questions we should be asking

· What is the nature of the change initiative?
· What is meant by the four capacities?
· What are we trying to achieve in the light of this change initiative?
· What is the purpose of education?
· What are the values that are integral to colleges?

The Four capacities

· What should a [young] person leaving college be like?
· What skills and attributes should they possess: information literacy, decision-making capacities, the ability to think critically and creatively?


Biesta (2008) identifies 3 broad, overlapping purposes of education: qualification; socialisation; and subjectification (individual growth). In placing an emphasis on qualifications (HMIE, quality frameworks) have we lost sight of the other purposes of education? Should we be focussing more on the latter two dimensions?


Engaging methodologically with the new curriculum

Two dimensions: knowledge and pedagogy.

· What types of knowledge do [young] people need to meet the goals set out in the four capacities?
· What methods are best suited to achieve the four capacities?
· What sort of activities might foster decision-making capacity required of an active citizen?
· How might formative assessment be utilised to develop the sorts of meta-cognitive capacities required for successful learning ?
· How might dialogical learning promote a deep-seated understanding of relevant concepts and content?

Change

· What might impede change?
· What are the barriers to change?
· What are the factors which might facilitate change?
Culture: what existing notions of practice exist in this area, and how these complement and conflict with CfE
Structure: what relationships and systems exist internally and externally that may influence the enactment of new ideas ?
Agency: What new skills are required to engage with the change ? Which individuals are well placed to play major roles in engaging with the change?


Building Capacity

Once teachers are clear about the purposes of CfE and once the terrain for change has been mapped, we need to consider ‘what needs to be done to facilitate engagement with the innovation?'
· Timetabling arrangements
· Setting up work parties
· Designating key staff to take forward initiatives
· Allocating resources
· Providing additional CPD
· Creating networks and other spaces for dialogue
· Altering physical spaces (bringing together previously separate depts.)

At this stage attention should be given to accountability and the Outcomes and Experiences, but these should remain as slaves rather than masters of the main purposes of the change – not the drivers of change. Just doing nothing, or falling back on ‘best practice’ notions, prevents meaningful engagement with change.