Leora Cruddas: Is it still helpful to think about Key Stages?
We invite Leora Cruddas,CEO of the Confederation of School Trusts, to write about the importance of Key Stages:
With the implementation of the new Education Inspection Framework comes a big and sometimes heated debate about the balance of Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4.
I wonder though if it is helpful to think of secondary education in terms of KS3 and a separate KS4? It feels to me like this isthinking from a previous era of curriculum thought. This thinking of a ‘break’between key stages mitigates against an understanding of what ChristineCounsell calls the curriculum as the progression model.
In her excellent blog on senior curriculum leadership,The indirect manifestation of knowledge: (B) final performance as deceiver andguide, she says “But the curriculum itself is the progression model. Itsmastery is progress. That is what it is for.When it comes to progress, the burden of proof is on thecurriculum. And that includes knowledgeitself for it is not just a setting in which to practise skills; it is acurricular property with an agency all of its own.”
The concept of the curriculum as a progression model is alsofound in Ofsted’s curriculumresearch report – not surprising, since Counsell sat on Ofsted’s curriculumadvisory group.
If we think in this way, then we free ourselves to look atthe breadth and depth of the curriculum framework across the whole of secondaryeducation and the translation of that framework into a structure and narrativewithin an institutional context.
There is the issue of the point of specialisation or subjectchoice. This is significant, because in England, we already ask pupils tospecialise or choose subjects earlier than most other countries.
There are different views on this within the sector. Someleaders believe that it is more helpful to pupils to create stronger, deeperdisciplinary knowledge earlier on. Others believe that it is important to retain curriculum breadth for as along as possible as pupils experience a widercurriculum that prepares them well for the next stage of learning. In thisargument, pupils’ increased maturity and knowledge help them to makewell-reasoned decisions about their future studies and provides a framework forthinking about the world and how it could be different.
I think whatever leaders decide, there are some principlesthat we need to hold dear – and for me, these principles do not include theprotection of an arcane notion of key stages. Rather, I think the principlesmay actually be those articulated in the curriculum research:
- The curriculum is ambitious
- Subject disciplines are understood as unique anddisciplinary knowledge is carefully sequenced
- The curriculum in each subject area isunderstood as the progression model
- There is equitable delivery and impact
It will never be good enough to simply teach to the test. AsCounsell says: “Teaching to the test can mean different things acrosssubjects. At its most extreme, it couldmean teaching the [GCSE] specification content for five years. Or it could just mean not taking seriouslyany content taught beyond the specification. Most commonly, it meansstructuring learning around the surface features of the test, rather than thelayers of knowledge or the smaller component skills that sit underneathsuccessful performance.”
The mindset of teaching to the qualification reverses theproper order of things. Curriculum does not follow from qualifications.Curriculum comes first. Then teaching. Then assessment which provides thefeedback loop. And finally qualifications.
Of course qualifications are important as the evaluation ofwhat knowledge and skills pupils have gained against such expectations. Andbecause they are for most pupils the stepping stones to further study. Butqualifications are the logical culmination of the curriculum progression model.
Written by Leora Cruddas, CEO of the Confederation of School Trusts.