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.]