Author Archives: Martin Robinson

About Martin Robinson

Author: Trivium 21c; Education consultant with an interest in the Liberal Arts (especially grammar, dialectic and rhetoric), Director Trivium 21c Ltd.

In Defence of the Graded Report Card


In a piece for the TES Bernard Trafford wrote that:

Assessment is linked, of course, to the whole question of reporting. Many parents still love nice, simple effort and attainment grades: they feel they know how their child is getting on. The message that such judgements are both arbitrary and unscientific is only now starting to filter through to them. I hope to see a day when no teacher at the end of November feels obliged (generally an internal, self-generated command) to set every class they teach a test: “otherwise, how can they write their end-of-term reports?

Though I am not sure that attainment and effort grades are entirely arbitrary they are most probably unscientific, though what is meant by ‘unscientific’ is open to a certain amount of interpretation. I take it to mean that the judgement that the teacher makes is rather more subjective than Bernard Trafford would like.

A completely arbitrary effort grade would be drawn out of a hat for each child, most teachers do not do this. They assign a grade through an ‘impression’ they have of what the effort a child might have made. It’s a guess, not arbitrary, but not necessarily accurate. In fact it can’t be accurate as no teacher can ever know the effort a child makes nor how that compares to other children. An attainment grade is also an impression and, though a teacher might have more evidence to base their attainment grade on it is also likely to bear a certain amount of subjectivity in its creation.

Yet, Trafford concedes, parents like them. Why? Well, simplicity is helpful, a report card full of As and 9s for attainment and 1s for effort is better than one that has Fs and 1s for attainment and 9s for effort. This can help, though the 1-9 grades at GCSE offer a certain challenge. If the effort was a top grade and the attainment very low it can also help give a quick impression of how your son or daughter is doing. Low effort, high attainment is a singular problem and could lead to other suggestions around how to challenge a child. So these grades have their uses.

What would you replace them with? Completely objective grades? In some subjects this is unachievable – the arts come to mind, and in others subjectivity will be present in varying degrees, but this might be no bad thing. A subjective grade shows how the child is seen by a certain teacher at a certain time and emphasises that this relationship is important. It puts an onus onto the teacher’s expertise, there should be some expectation that they know what they are doing as a teacher. If they value your child or not could make a difference to the effort being made.

Are written reports a better alternative? Often schools do both, but the day of the ‘honest’ written report is long gone. There are acceptable words and unacceptable words, platitudinous offerings are made and bizarre disconnected targets from word banks might be conjured up, again a pretence of objectivity might be sought but through a most subjective art form. This is certainly no more ‘scientific’ and due to it being a lot more work for a teacher – the information given might be no more or less helpful than the at a glance grades.

A comparative progress grade could be produced, how your child is doing compared to the rest of the class. The effort and the attainment could be put into context by the teacher by mapping out how everyone is doing in the class and assigning the grades accordingly. That this is unscientific could be emphasised on the report card and could be simplified by putting children into four categories for attainment: concern, pass, merit, distinction (rather than focusing the language on the performance of others) and three for effort: below or above expectations and expected. It might be useful to drop the effort grade as it might be too subjective but perhaps information on completion of work might take its place, if a lot of work isn’t completed that might be useful for a parent to know.

The desire to have end of term tests is not, necessarily, helpful. Beginning of term tests seem a much better idea as then the teacher knows more about how knowledge is being retained and can then do something about it, rather than rely on a test that might have been taken over eight weeks ago as a good gauge to where a class is now. The test might also be flawed; much better to give a grade based on a number of insights over a term and/or year.

The assessment that really matters is the day to day commentary that your child gets from her teachers, the report card should be a reflection of those relationships an easy insight into that sometimes difficult to fathom world.

An at a glance subjective graded report card has its place. It is unscientific but not necessarily the worse for that. Lots of parents like them because they are an easy glimpse into something far more complex – the day to day reality of schooling that they often hear about through the day to day reactions or grunts of their child.

If there were real concerns or huge congratulations due to their child one would hope that these would be communicated in other ways by a school at times when parental knowledge and involvement might help and/or be welcome. Again, in both cases not scientific, but, in both cases, welcomely human.

A graded report card as part of the communication between a school and a parent is a help as long as it is not the only communication a parent expects to get.


Creativity and Collaboration


“In the popular imagination,” writes Tim Blanning in his wonderful book ‘The Romantic Revolution’, “Beethoven was the romantic hero par excellence: the lonely, afflicted, uncompromising, utterly original genius, ‘a man who treated God as an equal’…” This vision of creative minds echoes down the centuries. The tortured artists in their garret, often poor, wearing black, maybe, ‘in mourning for their lives’…

The great artist, driven, mad eyed, wandering lonely as a cloud, the true artist rises, like poetry for Goethe: ‘like a hot air balloon… and gives us a bird’s eye view of the confused labyrinths of the world’…

But back on earth the ‘four Cs’ of the 21st Century ‘soft’ skills that are paraded before teachers as what is needed for children to succeed in the soon to come world are: communication, critical thinking, collaboration and creativity.

If we look at visions for the 21st century classroom we see primary colours, bean bags, formica topped tables with groups of children engaged with some screens and smiling and laughing as they work on some group activity. The assumption is collaboration = creativity.

The contrast with the tortured artist, alone in his garret, shouting at the falling plaster from the ceiling, couldn’t be more stark. Is ’19th century’ creativity, a joyless lonely affair, that accidentally produced great art…?

It was with little surprise that I read: “…there is substantial scientific evidence that collaboration, rather than sparking creativity, results in group think and mediocrity. What does result in creativity? Simple: solitude.”

The Washington Post reports that:

The more social interactions with close friends a person has, the greater their self-reported happiness. But there was one big exception. For more intelligent people, these correlations were diminished or even reversed. More intelligent individuals were actually less satisfied with life if they socialized with their friends more frequently. 

In an Inc article Geoffrey James reflects that:

being around other people keeps keep creative people from thinking new thoughts. Indeed, there are few experiences more mind-numbing for a creative person than being forced to interact with dullards on a daily basis. 

Even if your office is full of geniuses, they’ll be less creative en-masse than if they can work and think alone. In short, it’s difficult and maybe even impossible to “think out of the box” when you’re literally inside a box (i.e. an open plan office) that’s full of other people.

Isn’t this the problem with the four C’s approach to teaching and learning? It is not modelled on great creativity produced over centuries by our greatest geniuses, rather it is fashioned by a fifth c: the ‘Corporate’ vision and the schools that follow this approach rather than ‘unleashing creativity’ will find themselves producing conventional corporate types who won’t upset any apple carts but will fit into group think activities so beloved of the open plan, group work, trendies that inhabit the world as portrayed so deliciously in the comedy programme W1A.

If you want great creativity, nurture great artists and teach them how to express themselves, rather then flood their minds with group work overkill in every lesson.

Lenin and Rand: Why the Need to Disrupt Our Schools?


When I was growing up a significant number of people on the left were intent on destroying capitalism. They loathed its focus on the individual and extolled the virtue of the collective. They were suspicious of new technology, worried that it would take away jobs. They were protective of their own and were intent on battling the bosses. Some looked to Russia for inspiration.

It has fascinated me for sometime how a significant number of contemporary leftists far from wanting to destroy capitalism seem to want to reshape society in its image. Instead of capitalism making the proletariat who are ready to bring down the bourgeoisie the ‘nouveau leftist’ seems content to throw in their lot with global capitalism; they love the tech companies many of which originated in ‘silicon valley’. Instead of finding common collective ground to resist the Californian dream they want to alter our world to fit in with the silicon vision. For many this seems to begin in our schools, where the technophile leftist believes in individualisation, choice, preparing children for a world of uncertainty and having to follow an uberfication of the workforce, neatly summed up as jobs that haven’t been invented yet and twenty first century skills. The only thing that some of our nouveau technophile leftists have in common with their more luddite comrades from the past is that they still look fondly upon Russia.

How can this be?

The leftist technophile leader in a school who introduces iPads to every classroom or insists on a ‘google has changed everything approach’ might not know it but she has connections to Ayn Rand, Lenin, Julian Assange, Trump, Putin, Steve Bannon and others. Arguably she is the unwitting agent of unfettered capitalism and companies which sometimes seem to belong in the pages of 1984 and Brave New World. Far from wanting to bring down these ‘neo-liberal’ global conglomerates, she has been kite marked as an apple and pears educator, a micro-hard missionary or a googley grandee.

Our technophile seems full of contradictions yet if we go back a few years into pre-Russian revolution times we find the roots of this contradiction and how some leftists of today can extol the virtues of global capitalist brands and insist our entire education system should be disrupted to serve a techno capitalist future. Just like some of the old leftists our nouveau leftist is drawn to the works of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin but also, more surprisingly, it is the thinking of the controversial capitalist thinker Ayn Rand who has influenced many of those who argue for new ways of teaching and learning in our classrooms.

Inspired by the book: What Is to Be Done? by Nikolai Chernyshevsky, Lenin intended to destroy things as they were and to replace them with a Soviet ‘scientific utopia’ which was to be run by rational ‘technical experts’.

That Leninism was inspired by Chernyshevsky’s book is one thing, for it also to inspire Ayn Rand is another… the arch communist and arch selfish capitalist make, at first sight, a bizarre couple, but what united both, apart from their motherland, is Chernyshevsky’s main character, Rakhmetov a revolutionary who believed in ‘rational egoism’. According to Adam Weiner:

Rational egoism, though actually built on an immovable foundation of determinism, indulged its followers with the idea of endless personal freedom, depicting again and again an almost miraculous process of transformation by which socially inept people became like aristocrats, prostitutes became honest workers, hack writers became literary giants.

Dostoevsky wrote ‘Notes from the Underground’ as an attack on rational egoism:

“who was it who first proclaimed that man does nasty things only because he does not know his true interests, and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his true, normal interests, then man would immediately stop doing nasty things, would immediately become good and noble, because being enlightened and understanding where his true interest lies, he would see that his own interest lies in goodness, and it’s well known that there is not one man who can act knowingly against his own personal gain, ergo, so to speak, he would be compelled to do good deeds? O, the babe! O, the pure, innocent child!”

Lenin also named his first major publication “What is to be Done?” And Rand seemed to borrow from the same source, her heroes in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged share many traits with Rakhmetov and rational egoism had many features in common with her philosophy of ‘objectivism.’

In 1967 Herman Kahn, a foremost nuclear thinker from the Rand corporation, predicted a world in which ‘pocket phones’ and home computers were commonplace in which each user would have a private file space in a central computer and, according to Thomas Rid in his fascinating book the Rise of the Machines: ‘Computer access would be used to reduce crime, as police can check immediately the record of any person stopped for questioning’. He predicted a rise of bionic machines with creative capacities and ‘as the distinction between man and lesser creatures and machines begins to shade off, the uniqueness of man and the rights that are attributed to this uniqueness may begin to attenuate.’

The writer Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian about how Rand influenced the Silicon valley entrepreneurs:

Rand… might just be “the most influential figure in the industry”. When the CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, had to choose an avatar for his Twitter account in 2015, he opted for the cover of The Fountainhead. Peter Thiel, Facebook’s first major investor and a rare example of a man who straddles both Silicon Valley and Trumpworld, is a Randian. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs is said by his Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, to have regarded Atlas Shrugged as one of his “guides in life”

Among these new masters of the universe, the Rand influence is manifest less in party political libertarianism than in a single-minded determination to follow a personal vision, regardless of the impact. No wonder the tech companies don’t mind destroying, say, the taxi business or the traditional news media. Such concerns are beneath the young, powerful men at the top: even to listen to such concerns would be to betray the singularity of their own pure vision. It would be to break Rand’s golden rule, by which the visionary must never sacrifice himself to others.

Seemingly, we find the west coast libertarian children of Rand as the fellow travellers of those who seek to disrupt traditional education with a rational, technical utopia where children are educated by brand new machines.

According to Andrew G Kirk in his extremely interesting book ‘CounterCulture Green: The Whole Earth Catalog and American Environmentalism’, ‘Cyber-libertarianism’ as a philosophy is a hybrid fusion of left and right, it blends:

the individualism and liberal social values of the counterculture with a traditionally western distrust of big government and centralised authority… [it embraces the] technology unique to their generation while rejecting the national orientation and emphasised on collective achievement that characterised the Right and Left… [They value] individual agency over communal action and [champion] the free flow of information and access to tools as the best means of empowerment and change.

The great American technical companies: Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and others have managed to unite libertarian philosophy, green ideology, hippy idealism, into a utopian message of uniting the youth into a sub ‘brave new world’ utopianism where we all choose to indulge our egos in social media bubbles. That they are doing their best to shape schooling around this ego driven individualism should come as no surprise. Technology and schools is a huge market. This market intends to disrupt schools in the same way as UBER disrupt taxi firms.

Perhaps the best example of rational egoism we have today is Julian Assange, described by Hilary Clinton as a ‘kind of nihilistic opportunist’ he is, according to David Aaronovitch:

someone for whom the destruction of existing beliefs and institutions is more important than the question of what replaces them… one man’s disruptor is another man’s innovator…

Aaronovitch goes on to compare this tendency with that of Lenin who represents:

tearing the place up and putting something else there instead…

He adds that Steve Bannon described himself as a Leninist quoting him as having said that:

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all today’s establishment.”

Of course Assange, it transpires, tried to angle a job allied with the Trump administration. Yet he is also a hero of many leftists – Chomsky, Ken Loach, Michael Moore, Pilger and others have all supported him. Despite Assange’s rational egoism seemingly to know of no boundaries – he maintains support from the left because he is seen as a disruptor of the tradition.

That Russia is accused of being in cahoots with the spreading of misinformation, alternative facts, and various methods of disruption on social media, the leaking of emails, and having connections to Assange and Trump might come as no surprise to students of how modern politics, beyond left and right, is conducted.

But for others ‘progressive cyber libertarianism’ seems to confuse. In a world where dichotomies between left and right, liberal and conservative, progressive and traditional, no longer seemed to sum up our politics this ‘new’ politics is difficult to come to terms with.

It disrupts us.

Yet if we go back to ‘What is to be Done?’ we can see how some on the left and the right, have come together through a philosophy imbued with a ‘rational’ use of technology, rampant individualism and a Leninist disruption of much that many held dear. Trumpism and Brexit have been mentioned as symptoms of this desire to disrupt, as have new technologies and the global capitalists who make it all possible.

And it is this reach into the political world that has made some people edgy, yet, at the same time, it is this philosophy that reaches into our classrooms.

In today’s education landscape there are many echoes with the idea of rational egoism and disruption in the work of libertarian individualists and technophile lefties who seem to want to achieve many of the aims articulated in the book ‘What is to be Done?’

The rational argument is steeped in language of the workplace and twenty-first century skills. Personalisation of the curriculum is the lead in for the individual focused ‘egoism’ around which all else must be built. These two pursuits seem to require that the school as currently realised is disrupted. Instead of classrooms looking like they do (the (wrong) argument suggests they are based on a 19th century factory model) these classrooms should be replaced by children roaming in a much freer way – though harnessed to the ‘objective’ machine – wired for google… so rational, so technical… so egocentric… And, with it’s connections to the Californian ideology conversant with Randian objectivism and the countercultural thesis born from publications like the Whole Earth Catalog it is the thinking of technophile ex hippies that has become so mainstream for many who extol the uses of technology and regularly use it shape their world view.

At first sight it seemed  bizarre that Alison Peacock the CEO of the College of Teaching found herself talking to a leftist disruptor with an interest in technology, Graham Brown Martin, who works for technology company Pi Top, about the need to disrupt traditional western education models on a programme called ‘Are the Kids Alright?’ ,made by ‘Renegade Inc’. and broadcast on Russia Today, the programme asked:

‘Western education curriculums are still preparing pupils for a standardised world as rising inequality, an ageing population, exploding levels of individual and government debt begin to bite, how does a stagnating education system reinvent itself to equip students to solve these problems and prepare them for a workplace that doesn’t yet exist?’

Our ‘stagnating education system’ needs to be disrupted in the name of future oriented workplaces that don’t yet exist.

Renegade Inc describe themselves as:

…an independent knowledge platform for people who think differently. We find thinkers, writers, leaders and creators in search of the best new ideas, businesses and policies. Many more people are now questioning the conventional wisdom of modern life and asking a simple question: How do I live well during the age of uncertainty? Renegade Inc. was founded to answer some of those questions.

Renegade Inc was co-founded by Megan and Ross Ashcroft, award-winning film producers and co-founders of the advisory and investment business Motherlode.

Megan – was previously the Associate Director of UBS Investment Bank and consultant at Lloyds TSB. 

Ross is a strategic advisor to businesses in different sectors and currently advises Asymmetric Return Capital.

Renegade Inc broadcast their programmes on Russia Today.

This is the new politics, in which, in Marx’s well worn phrase: ‘All that is solid melts into air” takes centre stage. With the need to question the conventional wisdom of modern life    disruption is the order of the day, technical expertise is needed for the soon to come scientific, pragmatic, free individuals who will be connected to ‘the singular cloud’ in some sort of blissful utopia in which all will have their eyes opened to their true interests and man will ‘immediately stop doing nasty things, would immediately become good and noble, because being enlightened and understanding where his true interest lies, he would see that his own interest lies in goodness’ . That many try to propagate this technological individualism in our schools should come as no surprise, imbued with the ‘neutral’ ‘pragmatic’ language of ‘what our businesses need’ and ‘creativity’ allied to ‘whose knowledge?’ ‘who says what is truth?’ the attempt to disrupt the western education, tradition, is clearly within their remit.

Whether you approve of this political turn or not it is interesting to trace its roots back to Rational Egoism and a Russian book which enabled West to meet East and the ‘Leninist’ Left to find itself in cahoots with the Libertarian, ‘Randian’ Right.







A Knowledge Based Liberal Arts and Sciences Curriculum. Curriculum Series Number Seven.


A liberal education is focused on teaching knowledge ‘for its own sake’.

The two words ‘liberal’ and ‘arts’ might stand somewhat awkwardly in our current landscape, the phrase implies freeing the human being through a study of a curriculum exposing pupils to a wide range of influences, arts, ideas, opinions and facts so that they can acquire an understanding of the human condition and reach their own conclusions and judgements. An education for freedom.

Many ‘knowledge-based’ curriculum programmes claim to embrace the ‘liberal arts’ but fail to understand the enormity of teaching knowledge ‘for its own sake’. It has been said that the aims of a liberal education are to have ‘no aims’. And, on occasions when aims are proscribed for the liberal arts they are often wooly enough to encompass all sorts of interpretations, for example  the aim for the liberal arts that Daniel Denicola suggests is: ‘the activity of living as a human being and one’s life as a whole’. Or, in one word, ‘flourishing’.

In the title I have added the word ‘sciences’ as the ‘arts’ in their original meaning covered areas that were to later become ‘science’. However, it is useful in our understanding of knowledge for its own sake to see why the addition of ‘sciences’ to the liberal arts can be problematic. In The Closing of the American Mind,  Allan Bloom writes of the destructive nature of ‘modern’ (enlightenment) science. He paraphrases Jonathan Swift and his idea that modern science has lost the human perspective, and that science should ‘understand man as a man, and not as a geometric figure with flesh on it.’ A liberal arts and sciences education would restore, as Bloom puts it: the ‘self consciousness’ about science that is connected to ‘poetry’. This is echoed by Michael Oakeshott who makes the rather disparaging comment that ‘chemistry has never outgrown its character as a sophisticated kind of cookery.’ He makes this distinction: science that is liberal is science that is taught as ‘one of the great intellectual pursuits of mankind,’ rather than in fulfilling a utilitarian need for more ‘first class surgeons, engineers, chemists, psychologists, social scientists etc…’

This is what sets apart a liberal arts and sciences education. It is resistant to utilitarian, managerial, instrumental, vocational and simple ‘utopian’ arguments as to why we educate. Knowledge for its own sake is anti-utility and training. It is against the idea of knowledge as cultural ‘capital’ or ‘literacy’. It resists the ideas of knowledge for social justice or mobility. This impacts on the choices made for what is ‘in’ the curriculum.

Raymond Williams drew a distinction between the ‘industrial trainers’ who want to train the working classes for jobs, the ‘public educators’ who want a common curriculum for all and the ‘classical humanists’ who want to preserve high culture through a liberal arts education for the elite. These distinctions are salient, we still hear their echoes. The training for jobs that don’t yet exist – soft skills – vocational qualifications; the need for all to have a common core curriculum; and the threat of having to dumb down an education based on the finer things in order to make them accessible for the children of the majority – even a struggle for Matthew Arnold who wished to transform as many people as possible by providing them with access to ‘the best that has been thought and said’.

The liberal arts approach is anti-training because it refuses to leave children with the impression that there is only one way to think, rather it wishes young people to realise they are free to think and reason. The pupil becomes free. As William Deresiewicz describes it:

Creating a self, inventing a life, developing an independent mind…

An independent mind is not developed if your school has trained you in certain skills for the jobs market. An independent person free to ‘invent’ their life cannot do so if their curriculum has reduced their thinking due to a narrow range of subjects. One can’t create a self if one is subject to a daunting regime that wishes to stifle your individuality.

RS Peters identified three different strands in liberal education:

  1. Knowledge for its own sake.
  2. Broad and balanced.
  3. Non-dogmatic – because authoritarianism restricts the reasoning power of the individual.

Any approach to the curriculum that wishes to prepare children for the world of work cannot be described as a ‘liberal arts’ approach. Neither can one that intends to drive children towards certain outcomes such as being socially mobile, or in competing with the outcomes from other countries. An education driven by technological imperative or a diet of knowledge that is to enable school leavers to become high earners cannot said to be liberating. Any outcome which is to improve the lot of the nation economically or socially is not liberal because this reduces the self to a ‘geometric figure with flesh on it’.

Education as commodity, with qualifications as capital to be exchanged for certain vocations is anathema to a true education for its own sake which is a cornerstone of a liberal arts and sciences approach to curriculum. All acronyms such as STEM or STEAM are anathema as they are endowed with economic justifications. Culture as capital leads to children muttering: ‘Why am I doing this, is it in the exam? Why am I doing this it’s not relevant to the job I’m going to get? Will this make me more likely to get a top job?’ In answer to the question: ‘why do this rather than that?’ RS Peters suggests:

It is… the attitude of passionate concern about truth that informed Socrates’ saying that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’.

The focus should be on the curriculum they are being taught, not some far off abstract aim. Pupils are learning to engage fruitfully with knowledge to examine their life, our life, and the expression of those lives.

This is why, in the liberal arts, there is an emphasis on the pursuit of truth. This truth is to be found in ‘great’ books, authentic experiences and a discursive ‘dialectical’ method of teaching. Children learn important knowledge, they have great experiences – cultural, physical, thoughtful. They learn to debate, write, make speeches, play sport and make art, they learn other languages for the joy of having their minds expanded by different ways of seeing and interpreting the world. And they learn sciences to explore the wonder of the world. Through the breadth of curriculum experiences or, as Arnold called it, ‘the whole circle of knowledge,’ they are expected to learn the importance of truth – and that there are different ways to truth – some more objective and logical, and some more subjective, spiritual and emotional.

The central problem for a liberal arts curriculum is the charge that it is only for the leisured elite. James Burke recently suggested on the Radio 4 PM programme that most jobs will be taken by Artificial Intelligence within thirty years – algorithms networked and learning by themselves for themselves. What will education for humans be for if we are all part of the leisured class? He added that it is ‘our open ended self awareness that makes us sentient and creative humans.’ It is this ‘humanist’ echo that reverberates throughout a liberal education.

But I digress.

The liberal arts curriculum has a moral imperative behind its construction. It is taught through direct instruction, through dialogue, debate and discussion and through pupils creating their own responses to drive the conversations forward. The essay form is central as are other means of subject specific communication. The whole curriculum being subject based means there is also a need for ideas to be brought together through, what Christine Counsell refers to as, ‘intelligent inter-disciplinarity’ rather than ‘crazy cross curricularity’.

A liberal arts education is an aesthetic education. As Keats put it:

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

It is rooted in the realm of passing on beauty, on truth but not in a way that just admires the ruins of the past. It is a conversational education. What is included in the curriculum are not pieces of work – the ‘best’ as suggested by what might be talked about at a middle class dinner party or broadsheet newspaper – the best here is something that defines us, a pretence to the universal maybe – but it helps us work out who we are – what it is to be human. It is subjective in this sense but is given a moral imperative through its underlying pursuit of wisdom and truth.






Hirsch and Bruner: Two Knowledge-Based Curricula Models. Curriculum Series Number Six


Hirsch’s ‘Communal knowledge’ curriculum and aspects of Bruner’s ‘Spiral Curriculum’ are both predicated on the importance of teaching knowledge. Bruner’s might be a controversial choice as he is sometimes seen as quite a ‘progressive’ figure but, I argue here, there are important aspects of his work that warrant inclusion in the ‘knowledge-based’ category.

Hirsch’s work is currently to the fore in many educational discussions about curriculum in England and therefore I will begin with his work, what is often referred to as a ‘core knowledge’ curriculum. I have referred to it above as ‘communal knowledge’ as it is the term that Hirsch has begun to use himself to describe his approach to what knowledge to include. This term replaces his other description of this, that of ‘cultural literacy’.

Hirsch argues that it is the ‘shared knowledge’ that is essential for all to be able to communicate with each other successfully in a common culture. He sees that a decline in shared knowledge is closely related to a decline in literacy. He places an emphasis on the importance of national knowledge over that of local and that knowing people’s ‘unspoken systems of association’ greatly helps mutual understanding. It is these ‘internalised schemata’ that help one read, write, and by having enough information especially early on in one’s education the mind is not always struggling due to cognitive overload to work out what it is reading, hearing, seeing etc.

It is not problems of cognition that see pupils struggle it is problems of knowledge. A child might be struggling at school because they don’t know enough, and, crucially, though they might know a lot about certain things, it is their lack of access to the ‘shared’ knowledge that is keeping them back.

The breadth of the knowledge taught aids a pupil’s endeavours in acquiring cultural ‘literacy’. If one reads a national newspaper one needs a great deal of breadth in one’s knowledge to understand what is written within. Therefore it is not enough to teach a child to read and restrict their reading to functional books with a limited range of information, a child also needs a wide range of subjects and rich texts to be able to take their part in society. As explained in the Core Knowledge series of books from Civitas, (edited by Hirsch), in the context of teaching a child to read, they need: ‘the systematic teaching of the ‘nuts and bolts’ of written language: phonics and decoding skills… spelling, handwriting, punctuation, grammar… [and] a rich diet of poetry, fiction and non-fiction… and… that children be given frequent opportunities to use language in creative and expressive ways. A balance needs to be found between the nuts and bolts, and the ‘rich diet’ and ‘creative and expressive ways.’

Knowledge is ‘sequenced’ – new knowledge is built on what has already been learned. This sequence needs to be coherent. For example a teacher might teach about Ancient Rome after teaching about Ancient Greece, the sonnet form before looking at Shakespeare’s plays. The wide range of academic disciplines are covered from general knowledge to deeper knowledge.

The pupils need to acquire this carefully sequenced knowledge from a broad curriculum that is experienced right from the beginning of their schooling.


In his book ‘Why Knowledge Matters’ Hirsch refers to Jerome Bruner as the ’eminent research psychologist’ suggesting, based on his work, that teachers might abandon the phrase ‘developmentally inappropriate’ when it comes to deciding what to teach and when.

Bruner argued that:

any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development.

The idea that no content is inappropriate due to the age of the child might be considered controversial yet, as Daniel Willingham says of Bruner’s work:

If we accept that students’ failure to understand is not a matter of content, but either of presentation or a lack of back- ground knowledge, then the natural extension is that no content should be off limits for school-age children… Bruner goes on to suggest that children can get an intuitive grasp of a complex concept before they have the background and maturity to deal with the same topic in a formal manner… Without trivialising them, complex ideas can be introduced by making them concrete and through reference to children’s experience.

In his 1996 work ‘the Culture of Education,’ Bruner wrote:

culture shapes the mind… it provides us with the toolkit by which we construct not only our worlds but our very conception of our selves and our powers

This seems to agree with Hirsch’s ideas around cultural literacy. Culture is central to the educative process; it should, therefore, be essential to educate children about the cultural heritage in which they are born. But how to ensure children ‘learn’ this communal knowledge?

For Bruner it isn’t simply about the learning of knowledge in a logical sequence, he goes a step further:

The teaching and learning of structure, rather than simply the mastery of facts and techniques, is at the centre of the classic problem of transfer… If earlier learning is to render later learning easier, it must do so by providing a general picture in terms of which the relations between things encountered earlier and later are made as clear as possible

Bruner proposed a ‘spiral curriculum’. This curriculum focuses on the structure of knowledge, on key ideas and concepts, and the method of adding to that knowledge within the discipline. He proposed that children should first come across a concept or idea in a simple, concrete way and then later return and continue to revisit the concepts in ever more complex ways. He introduced the idea of ‘scaffolding’ to help children to understand the underlying principles and helping them to take the next steps. Sceptical of the mechanistic approach to cognitive psychology as a humanist he wanted to take into account how context matters and also how we can make ourselves. Bruner said:

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that the powers of mind reach their fullness not simply in accumulation – in what we come to know – but rather in what we can do with what we know, how we are enabled to frame possibilities beyond the conventions of the present, to forge possible worlds

Going back over the same concepts and methods in each subject area has knowledge build on knowledge. This knowledge is focused on concepts, ideas and skills, for Hirsch, it could be argued, that knowledge is more content and product based rather than looking at the underlying structure of that knowledge.

For Bruner one cannot just focus on product, process is vital. In this he moves into areas that for many on the ‘knowledge’ side of curriculum design might be controversial. For him children experiencing the ‘structure of disciplines’ was important. How knowledge is learnt is as important as what is learned. Here he ventures into the realm of doing – thinking and working like a mathematician, a historian, an actor etc. he suggested helps one absorb and learn the underlying concepts that go together to make up that discipline. Know how as well as know what.

Knowledge based curricula are not just of one ‘type’. In fact there are many discussions going on as to what a ‘knowledge-based’ education might look like and consist of that make it as fascinating an area to look at in itself. If a school has decided to focus on a knowledge based approach to curriculum design there is still much research to be done.

In my next post I will look at further knowledge based approaches, those ideas that are based firmly in the ‘liberal arts’ category.



What is a Knowledge-Based Curriculum? Curriculum Series Number Five.


In the fourth post of this series I suggested that all curricula teach knowledge and therefore some people think the idea of a ‘knowledge-based’ curriculum is no different as all curricula ‘teach knowledge’. But the term ‘knowledge-based’ does not mean merely the teaching of knowledge, there is much more to it than that.

The first thing to realise is that ‘what’ knowledge is extremely important. Not just ‘any’ knowledge will do. This is what leads people to attack this type of curriculum as elitist or obsessed with the works of ‘dead, male and pale’ people. This is a ‘canonical’ approach which favours some ‘great books’, ideas and artefacts over others, ‘the best that has been thought and said and done’ to paraphrase Arnold. The sequencing of this knowledge is vital – it is about building up an understanding of how different disciplines work. Domains are extremely important in a knowledge-based curriculum. The idea is to introduce children to the culture(s) to which they ostensibly ‘belong’ – locally, nationally and internationally. That these cultures don’t rub along seamlessly is part of what is taught. This is enculturation warts and all. A great history curriculum, for example, is not about brainwashing a child into thinking they belong to a master-race or class.

This approach requires the teacher to be an expert in their field. They are the sage on the stage and they stand on the shoulders of giants who have, over time, made each domain what it is today. It is also central to the knowledge based ideal that the subjects are academic. This can be controversial. In England this controversy is seen most starkly in the subjects that are deemed worthy enough to feature in the ‘EBacc’. Vocational subjects, Design and Technology, and Arts subjects are notable by their absence, as are more controversial ‘academic’ subjects like Film Studies and Sociology.

For me the Arts are central to any education worth its salt and a good liberal arts knowledge-based curriculum offer should recognise this. This is why I understand that the argument about ‘what knowledge?’ can be keenly felt.

‘What knowledge’ to teach is informed by the traditions, arguments and conversations in each domain. That this might be due to the arbitrary practices of time doesn’t matter but a good knowledge based curriculum will recognise these controversies at its heart. For example an economics curriculum ought to include both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, if it didn’t it wouldn’t be introducing students to the great controversies of the subject being studied and thus would disable their ability to take part in the conversations around that domain.

Yet it is the sheer need to leave out far more than to include that leads to problems. A progressive curriculum offer could easily say – follow the child’s interests’ an answer that could end up with the child having a distorted and prejudiced view as to what is really important – what they say is important might not be so.

In some areas the knowledge that is to be taught is less contested than in others. Arguably it is easier to put together a knowledge based subject curriculum in Maths and Science than it is in History and Literature. The recent efforts of English Literature professors at Cambridge University to ‘decolonise’ the curriculum is an example of the difficulties for institutions to justify curricula based on the ‘great tradition’ The question ‘why is my curriculum white?’ is so difficult to answer.

Another problem with a knowledge based curriculum is that human beings keep adding knowledge that could become part of any decent canon. Writers keep writing, painters keep painting and composers keep composing. At least with science new discoveries sometimes, obviously, wipe out older ideas; science tends towards a contemporary feel. (History of science would offer other challenges.) And though discoveries of the past still merit inclusion – think the works of Darwin and Newton as examples, it tends to be the latest iterations that matter. Though history can be revised, it still requires an understanding of the past – whose history? Kings and Queens or the common man? Or woman? In literature books can drop out of the canon but with all these things the perennial question must be ‘what have we lost?’

Along with a desire to create workers for an ever-evolving jobs market and the idea that not all pupils can muster an interest in the intricacies of Algebra, Newton and Beethoven some people think that this sort of curriculum belongs in the dustbin of history. Yet for a teacher wedded to a knowledge based approach this is an anathema – this important knowledge is for all, because it is about ensuring all have a stake in their society. People who argue for this approach are passionate advocates for the rights of the child to know, to understand and to be able to make a difference to themselves and their society.

For all the difficulties about what knowledge to include and why there are noble aims at the heart of this curriculum approach. The desire is to enable a child to grow into a ‘well-educated’ person. To experience the breadth of knowledge that our culture deems to be worthy and uplifting. As RH Tawney put it to ‘imagine the rivers of learning and purity in the world and bathe yourself in their living waters’. 

Maybe it is the image of the Goethe reading, Wagner appreciating, SS officer that did so much damage to the idea that education in the finer things, Matthew Arnold’s pursuit of perfection and ‘sweetness and light’, can make a human being a better person. A well educated person is not necessarily a better one.

Is a person more attuned to the works of Beethoven better educated than one who knows nothing of the composer of the Eroica but is well versed in the collected works of One Direction? Is someone who knows the plays of Shakespeare intimately better educated than one who knows nothing of the Bard and has spent a good deal of their lifetime watching Eastenders? Is someone who understands what the Hadron Collider is doing better educated than someone who knows nothing about the proton-smasher yet plays darts to a good level at their local pub every Saturday night?

Those who believe in a knowledge based approach will tend to say yes in answer to these questions and though this other knowledge is accessible in much of society it is introducing children to, sometimes, this more ‘difficult’ knowledge and, for some, much less accessible knowledge that is at the very heart of what a school must do.

In my next post I will be looking at some of the different types of knowledge based curricula.






The Progressive Curriculum. Curriculum Series Number Four.


All curricula involve the teaching of knowledge which is why some people baulk at the idea of a ‘knowledge-based curriculum’. ‘We all teach knowledge’ they point out, as if there is no difference between anyone teaching a progressive curriculum and those teaching a more traditional academic one.

As soon as one gets into the argument it is easy to find that there are important, ideological differences. “Whose knowledge?” might be the refrain or comments about the teacher as an authoritarian figure, these arguments get to the nub as to the differences offered by a more progressive curriculum.

In answer to the question ‘whose knowledge?’ a progressive curriculum might answer, the knowledge a pupil most wants to learn; a progressive curriculum will tend to be more child-centred than knowledge centred. I will explore this distinction in more detail in later posts, neither is ‘bad’, and though they are very different ideologically and practically both involve some overlap with the other. But a progressive curriculum is concerned with the child’s development, and the motivation of the child to learn, their needs and, importantly, their interests. If a child is not interested in learning something that is felt to be good for them then it must be made accessible to them in order to encourage them to learn it.

Like a knowledge based ‘liberal arts’ curriculum, progressive minded educators may wish to ‘free the person’ and this is often through the idea of something akin to self-actualisation. Maslow argued that:

[this] refers to the person’s desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially.

The specific form that these needs will take will of course vary greatly from person to person. In one individual it may take the form of the desire to be an ideal mother, in another it may be expressed athletically, and in still another it may be expressed in painting pictures or in inventions’ (Maslow, 1943, p. 382–383)

It is the variance in what we will become that entails a more individualistic approach to how we begin. Interestingly a more ‘knowledge centred’ curriculum theorist ED Hirsch believes that self-actualisation is an important goal for schooling though this would be the job of secondary rather than primary education, where, he argues, a significant absorption of culturally relevant and important knowledge is essential for social justice.

An enthusiast for progressive education once described it to me as letting a child free in a sweet shop. The curriculum is enticing the child in various directions encouraging them to try things out, to develop their taste in certain directions, and to be motivated to do so by the exciting discoveries on offer. The analogy soon fell apart when we explored the health benefits for later life. Maybe Howard Gardner’s description of his ideal curriculum being like a good interactive museum of life in which a child can make their own way is better, appealing to aspects of their intelligences and in which one that a teacher can encourage children towards intelligences that they might struggle with and use their skills to motivate them to do better in those areas. To have a growth mindset, if they find the going too tough.

There is not ‘one’ type of progressive curriculum offer, just as there is not one type of ‘knowledge-based’ approach either. So it is difficult to suggest an over-arching tick-list for a progressive offer, but there are some aspects that a progressive education leans towards.

The teacher is less of an authority figure and is seen not as an expert ‘sage on the stage’ but more of a ‘guide on the side’. The teacher listens to children encouraging them to take up the mantle of teacher, whilst the teacher becomes the pupil, eager to learn what the child wishes to share. The teacher creates the learning experiences and environment and, maybe like a child-friendly museum, children can explore and develop outlets for their curiosity. In the book ‘Nudge’ (not an education book) Thaler wrote that: “A choice architect has the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions.” This echoes what Dewey wrote years before: ” The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences.” The teacher is a ‘choice-architect’ encouraging children to make the right choices, not through coercion, but through soft persuasion ‘assisting’ the child in making the right choices.

This then is our narrative. Instead of a teacher teaching knowledge they might first cultivate an interest in a topic and then encourage exploration of that topic through means such as projects or motivating tasks based around performances, products, posters and presentations. Cross-curricular approaches are encouraged, the demarcation between subject areas can be quite fluid. Children are also encouraged to work in groups and, the argument is often made, that this is most like the real world and it is beneficial for children to collaborate creatively. Children are encouraged to discover new areas of learning for themselves and to construct their own models of understanding. They continually progress and it is their skills that are to the fore.

Children have fun in this environment, they are motivated to learn, and they learn skills and knowledge. They are free to learn what they want to, and though the teacher will be guiding their learning in certain directions, this is not done in an authoritarian manner. The knowledge content is secondary to the skills that a pupil is learning. By being encouraged to be lifelong learners, children taught a progressive curriculum will be used to being able to learn what they want to learn and when they want to learn it. They will be adept at using Google and other methods of research to find out what they need to know. They will be used to a more egalitarian classroom, be less respectful of authority and be likely to criticise those who try to take more authoritarian positions in the future. That is the hope.

Although some progressive classrooms veer more to the creating a better society narrative and some towards a more individualised or ‘personalised’ approach the progressive curriculum is very different to the more traditional one. It is also an approach that is being made more accessible through the advent of the internet and the proliferation of information at your fingertips.

The progressive curriculum is less likely to value a linear narrative in terms of knowledge, it is more unstructured, and can be unpredictable. The teacher needs to be highly responsive and foster deep, professional relationships with their pupils, being hyper aware of their needs and helping them to realise their potential. As Ken Robinson says:

The key… is not to standardize education, but to personalize it, to build achievement on discovering the individual talents of each child, to put students in an environment where they want to learn and where they can naturally discover their true passions.

Ken Robinson: “The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything”

Some schools mix the traditional and progressive approaches together. This might be due to various examination demands that tend to recognise domain based knowledge as essential. A primary school that does ‘project work and topic’ in the afternoon and more maths and english in the morning might be one; a secondary that has a freer ‘creative’ key stage three with cross curricular approaches and then a more rigid, subject based key stage four, might be another.


What is a Curriculum? Curriculum Series Number Three.


What is meant by the word curriculum?

The online OED definition is quite narrow:

The subjects comprising a course of study in a school or college.

Decide your course, list the subjects that are to be covered and off you go.

The word comes from the Latin ‘curriculum’ which meant a running, course, career, from ‘currere’ meaning ‘to run’. It is first associated with a school ‘curriculum’ in about 1909.

In the jargon heavy, agreement light world of education there is no absolute agreement as to what is meant by the word curriculum, definitions range from the narrow to the broad.

Geneva Gay thinks of the curriculum embracing the ‘entire culture of the school – not just the subject matter content’ (1990) this is a view I have much sympathy for but if everything is the curriculum then it ceases to have much currency as a term. From the narrow list of subjects to the all-embracing ‘entire-culture’ view whatever is meant by the word curriculum in your institution will obviously have very different ramifications when it comes to curriculum design.

Tim Oates talks of four different types of curriculum they are: the planned, the enacted, the assessed, and the learned. It is what is left in the pupil’s ‘reservoir of knowledge, understanding and experience – in the long term’ that forms, for Oates, the ‘learned curriculum’ and it is this that we ought to care about. What is planned, written down in curriculum documents is as nothing to what is actually taught, narrowly assessed and then remembered.

It is for this reason that I am drawn to a wider view of what the curriculum is rather than the narrow ‘subjects comprising a course of study’. For me curriculum is a narrative, it is the story a school tells of itself and what it thinks is valuable. This narrative, though comprised of lots of different stories, has to have an overarching principle that pulls the whole together. A school that leaves each department to do its own thing curriculum wise will lack this overall view, and though it’s a perfectly reasonable position to take, the unifying narrative of a school’s curriculum, and the rituals involved will shape what is remembered by pupils long after they have left the school.

It is the overarching idea of curriculum that has lead people to give names to different types of ‘curricula’, in order to differentiate them in a way that they hope will lead to making a lasting impression on their pupils. Diane Ravitch wrote about the knowledge-centred or academic curriculum thus:

…the term ‘academic curriculum’ does not refer to the formalistic methods, role recitations, and student passivity about which all reasonable educators and parents have justly complained. Nor does it refer only to teaching skills. It refers instead to the systematic study of language and literature, science and mathematics, history, the arts, and foreign languages; these studies, commonly described today as a ‘liberal education,’ convey important knowledge and skills, cultivate aesthetic imagination, and teach students to think critically and reflectively about the world in which they live.

Others talk of a skills based or competency based curriculum, for example, the RSA talk of their:

…Opening Minds curriculum [which] features five categories of competences: learning, citizenship, relating to people, managing situations and managing information. Focusing on competences means that Opening Minds teaching emphasises the ability to understand and to do, rather than just the transmission of knowledge.

These competences are broad areas of capability, developed in classrooms through a mixture of instruction and practical experience: children plan their work, organise their own time and explore their own ways of learning.

Both these approaches have a very different over-arching narrative. A unity of purpose is fostered by each narrative meaning that the curriculum in school will have certain ideas underpinning the entire approach that the school takes. A knowledge based approach is very different to a skill based approach. Whichever is more akin to your approach, you will notice the claims made by the other approach does not entirely debunk the approach you might wish to take. The RSA talk of ‘transmission of knowledge’ though suggest that they do not ‘just’ do that (implying that some do). Whereas Ravitch suggests the academic curriculum teaches skills, cultivates aesthetic imagination, and teaches students to think critically and reflectively. This could make one think that the differences between the two approaches are not very wide at all but if we go back to what Oates suggests is ‘remembered’ I expect the differences might be starker.

The curriculum is what is taught. Formally and informally but, importantly, explicitly. It is what we intentionally teach for pupils to learn something beyond the management of the institution. It comprises academic and other forms of learning. I hate the term ‘extra-curricular’, preferring the idea of co-curricular or ‘non-examined curriculum’, if one has to make any distinction at all. It is not the ‘entire-culture’ of a school but is certainly a large and important part of that culture. Whether one believes in a knowledge based or a child centred curriculum, or another approach altogether, the unity of purpose an institution gives to its curriculum ought to shape what is remembered by pupils for years to come.


Curriculum Series Number Two: Curriculum Aims, ‘The Why’…


The why of curriculum design is a hugely contested area, it is tied in to the ‘why’ of school itself and is driven by politics, values, ideology and what one feels is ‘right’. This is where there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ about the design of curriculum one chooses, however there are right and wrong ways of designing the curriculum once you have decided on what the values are behind it. For those looking for a ‘science’ of curriculum design you might be disappointed but I see it as more of an art. I suppose if everyone decided on a list of measurable outcomes, saw these things as a sufficient measure for all the approaches and tried various curricula out over years and in different contexts and saw how the measurable outcomes varied it might be possible to decide which one is best…

It’s just that I don’t think we ever will be able to do this and nor do I think that it would be right to try. This does not mean that any way is okay because that way ignorance and chaos lie. There needs to be a unity of purpose and delivery in your overall curriculum even if you believe that each subject area can design the curriculum that best delivers their subject area, because that implies a unity of purpose in itself. However, if your values mean chaos and that no values are a good thing then it is unlikely you would be involved in formal education at all except as some sort of fifth columnist. Throwing a spanner in the works of systems has a long and noble tradition of its own and, in itself, this anarchy might be an aim in itself.

Let us look at the sort of thing that might guide your curriculum:

  • Ensuring excellent academic achievement
  • Making children ready to enter the job market
  • Creating good citizens
  • Creating ‘happy’ people
  • Creating a better society for all
  • Ensuring a successful meritocracy
  • Creating an equal society
  • Ensuring people believe in a nation’s ideals and values
  • Making people more creative
  • Making people more critical, especially of those in authority
  • Ensuring people know the knowledge that is deemed important for them to know
  • Learning a range of important subject disciplines
  • Ensuring people are equipped to be life-long learners
  • Ensuring people know how to behave well
  • Helping people make the right choices for their own well-being and the well-being of others

I’m sure there are many more so, it might be helpful, if you wish, to add some others in the comments section below.

What order would you put the above in? What would you emphasise, what would you leave out? Do some aims contradict other aims? Are all these aims curriculum focused?I will return to these questions in the next post: ‘What do we mean by ‘Curriculum’?’

For me it is only once you have decided what your curriculum is for and the order of importance of the aims you have that you can then start to take a suitable approach to curriculum design. This is where science might help you in some of your choices but so will intuition and reason – learning and thinking about the arguments around curriculum design and what is/are the right choice/s for your school?



Curriculum Series Number One: Curriculum Chaos

Screen Shot 2017-10-23 at 17.43.32.png

A striking conclusion that we have drawn from the findings is that, despite the fact that the curriculum is what is taught, there is little debate or reflection about it… there is a lack of clarity around the language of the curriculum.

It is certainly possible that this ambiguity and lack of shared understanding expose competing notions of what curriculum means across the sector. However, the most likely explanation is that this arises from a weak theoretical understanding of curriculum. This was confirmed by school leaders, who said that there was a time (long ago) when teachers were taught the theory that underpins curriculum planning. Over time, this competence across the sector ebbed away.

Amanda Spielman HMCI’s Commentary 11 Oct 2017

If what Spielman suggests is true then English children are likely to be experiencing something approaching a chaotic curriculum. In this short series of posts I hope to go some way to help achieve a shared understanding as to what different approaches to curriculum might mean, the theoretical underpinning of these approaches, an understanding of the language involved and recommend certain approaches to curriculum planning that might add to the material that is helping curriculum design to once again become centre stage in education debates.

I believe that one of the signs of chaos around approaches to curriculum design is the idea that anything can work, that each teacher can take any approach that they believe matters and that as they know their learners better than anyone else that will suffice.

Curriculum design cannot countenance such a chaotic approach because in the first instance curriculum design and delivery is a ‘team game’. The design and delivery is inextricably linked and the teachers teaching must know why, what, how, when, where and to whom they are delivering the curriculum.

And I use the term ‘delivery’ advisedly because it is a word that might be contested by some who feel that a curriculum should not be delivered to a child but must, instead, be centred on what a child wishes to find out. Hence the possibility of chaos if we leave it up to individual teachers to do what they feel is best, because the experience the learner has is likely to be so inconsistent that the curriculum they experience seems to be undoing the work that they have previously experienced and not working towards what they might experience next.

The first concept I wish to agree on is therefore the ‘Joined-Up Curriculum‘ – this is self explanatory but it is a curriculum model in which every teacher knows the who, what, when, where, why and how of what they are teaching and that it is in harmony with the who, what, when, where, why and how of all the teachers teaching their subject/s in their school. They receive the baton and, later, they pass it on. They know what happens before, what happens next, how they fit in to this ‘relay’ – the common pursuit and purpose of the ‘way we do things here’.

Therefore these short pieces will accept the importance of the curriculum being ‘joined up’ and see the ‘chaotic curriculum’ as a common enemy to good curriculum design. However, I am conscious of the fact that people have a wide range of different approaches and values which can inform a range of different approaches to curriculum design and in order to help add to the ‘clarity around the language of the curriculum’ I will try to do justice to a number of these different ideas and methods.

This will involve me looking at the current debate at what might constitute a ‘knowledge-based’ curriculum, what might be a ‘competency-based’ one, as well as a look at whether ‘progressive’ and ‘traditional’ are helpful when describing different values behind curriculum design.

Much fun to be had then!