As you are probably aware, in November Professor Becky Francis published the final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review.

Firstly, it is pleasing to note that this government actually drafted in an expert to review the curriculum. Unlike the last time this took place.

It was also pleasing to note that Francis Review did listen to the wide range of voices who responded.

Curriculum Review’s Comments on KS1-3

For KS1-3 The Review noted that although KS1-3 are broadly working well, there are still areas for improvement.

The document states the need, ‘to enhance students’ knowledge of how historians study the past, and how they construct historical claims, arguments and accounts.’

So, a clearer focus on our favourite concept of historical interpretations. And on disciplinary knowledge. This is a real positive.

Another area that The Review says needs clarifying is what is and what isn’t statutory. This refers to those statements in the present National Curriculum that say ‘what must be included’ and ‘what could be included.’

It also wants to make a clearer distinction between what should be studied in ‘depth’ and a ‘higher study’. I presume this means in overview.

Overall the suggestions here are evolutionary and sensible.

Curriculum Review’s Comments on KS4

This is where it gets interesting. The document states that GSCE needs, ‘significant review.’

GCSE History requires significant review.

Professor Becky Francis CBE, Chair of the Curriculum and Assessment Review

The document goes on to state that,

‘the Review understands that pressures to cover the current content at GCSE may be leading to a disproportionate focus on rote learning to pass exams rather than ensuring that students gain a comprehensive grounding in important disciplinary and subject skills.’

This is an understatement. The content is seriously overloaded and teachers are just delivering one damn thing after another. Radical critical pedagogue Paulo Freire would dismissively call this the banking model of teaching.

The Review also recommends, ‘the assessment objectives and approaches are revisited to ensure they better encourage the knowledge and application of disciplinary rigour.’

This is also very encouraging. History is a discipline and should be taught as such.

Now more than ever, pupils need to be taught that knowledge is created. And that it can be manipulated.

I don’t think there is any other subject in the curriculum that helps pupils to understand this as well as history.

The Recommendations

Here are all of the recommendations for History:

• Adjusts the History Programmes of Study to:
  • Improve the understanding and application of disciplinary knowledge and skills through additions and amendments to the disciplinary terms used.
  • Clarify the statutory and non-statutory content requirements to better support teachers in recognising and understanding the optionality that exists across Key Stages 1 to 3.
  • Support the wider teaching of History’s inherent diversity, including through the analysis of a wide range of sources and, where appropriate, local history.
• Reviews GCSE History subject content and assessment (including assessment objectives) to:
  • Ensure understanding of disciplinary knowledge is advanced and concerns about overload are tackled.
  • Ensure that assessment is fit for purpose and aligned with the aims of the GCSE.

The Government’s Response to the Review

The Government’s Response to the Review did cause me to raise an eyebrow.

Instead of completely agreeing to the highly sensible recommendations, The Response was more guarded.

Most importantly The Response did not overtly agree to reducing content at all at KS4. This, more than anything has negatively impacted on the quality of history teaching our pupils receive.

Presently, with the need to endlessly delivery content, teachers simply do not have enough time to teach it through a disciplinary lens.

The Government’s Response says this:

Maybe I am reading this the wrong way, but it didn’t feel me with confidence that the review’s recommendations for significant change to GCSE are going to be made.

Will content be reduced enough to allow teachers to teach meaningful history?

I also wonder, who actually wrote the government’s response for history?

Experts Shaping the Changes

The ‘experts’ have been chosen by the government to implement the changes. You can see who are they are here.

I know that many history teachers are hoping that they work in the interests of the wider history teaching community to implement recommendations made in the Francis Review in full.

Particularly to reduce the content at GCSE, increase diversity and ensure that history has more of a disciplinary feel.