Around one in three primary school teachers have warned that they have “little or no influence at all” over the content of individual lessons, research into the impact of standardised curriculum packages (SCPs) has found.
SCPs can be “imposed from above” and “lead to teachers leaving the profession”, according to a report published today by the NEU teaching union.
It defines SCPs as ready-to-go schemes of work, programmes or packages for teachers to follow. The report adds that teachers’ approaches to these materials vary from strict adherence to greater flexibility, depending on the circumstances.
The findings are based on responses from more than 1,650 teachers who are NEU members, with the vast majority (1,609) working as teachers in the state sector.
‘Not a factory’
Respondents raised concerns that SCPs function as a control to monitor their work and show a “lack of trust” in teachers’ expertise.
The survey findings show that 34 per cent of primary teachers said that they had “little or no influence at all” over the content of individual lessons, while 28 per cent of secondary teachers said the same.
One respondent quoted in the report said: “You [wrongly] don’t trust your teachers to be able to deliver and that means you want every classroom to teach exactly the same thing. This is not a factory.”
The report - titled ‘Are you on slide 8 yet?’ The impact of standardised curricula on teacher professionalism - has been released today ahead of the NEU’s annual conference in Harrogate, which starts on Monday.
It found that “taking curriculum design and lesson planning away from teachers can lead them to feel that the quality of their job has decreased…and can lead to teachers leaving the profession”.
Teachers are said to have “repeatedly expressed concerns” that SCPs don’t sufficiently engage or challenge students, constrain teachers’ ability to tailor content to specific pupil needs and don’t work well for children with special educational needs and disabilities, posing risks to the quality of school experience.
Co-authored by an independent consultant and academics at Goldsmiths, University of London and the University of Nottingham, the research demonstrates that teachers who use SCPs report having no better workload than those who don’t use them.
“In other words,” it argues, a tool designed to reduce teacher workload produces “no meaningful workload gains”.
Rather than reducing workload, SCPs may have simply changed the nature of teacher workload, with teachers committing more time to interpreting and adapting generalised materials instead of selecting resources and completing their own research.
Oak criticisms
Curriculum resources produced by the Oak National Academy are highlighted in the report.
It said that just 3.3 per cent of the more than 1,650 respondents followed a full curriculum plan from Oak, with teachers who do use Oak materials doing so “infrequently or occasionally”.
The report also said that 46 per cent of respondents said that Oak’s resources were “ill-adapted” to their specific teaching needs while 24 per cent said that they were “boring” and 16 per cent said they were “poor quality”.
A spokesperson for Oak National Academy said that the report “appears to entirely misunderstand the role of Oak in the education system”.
They added: “Oak provides high-quality models to inspire and support schools and teachers as they develop their own curriculum. They are designed as an optional, adaptable starting point that teachers can develop to reflect the needs of their pupils.
“The survey was conducted over a year ago, before any of our new full curriculum packages were available.
“We have since released the majority of our new teacher-created resources, and usage has risen by 200 per cent. One in three teachers now use Oak content.”
Oak also said that the most recent research has found that Oak users “work almost five fewer hours a week, with nearly 75 per cent reporting that our resources have a positive impact on their workload”.
Standardised packages used more in primary
The report for the NEU also found that the use of standardised curricula was significantly higher among primary teachers than secondary, with 90 per cent and 54 per cent, respectively, using them in some form.
Furthermore, it found that at secondary level, the most popular standardised materials were those produced in-house (76 per cent), either within an individual school or across a multi-academy trust.
Recommendations
Among the report’s recommendations for government are the transfer of curriculum responsibilities to an independent quango to remove “excessive political intervention”.
It also calls for the government review of Oak National Academy to be broadened to “include a particular focus on the quality of its curriculum offer and its impact on teaching and learning”.
Commenting on the report, Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the NEU, said: “It is exceptionally worrying to hear the evidence that teachers feel their roles are being undermined and diluted. Addressing this must be as essential to curriculum reform as the contents of the curriculum itself.
“No one size can ever fit all and it is the teachers on the ground, if properly empowered and given high-quality training and development, who are best placed to create and interpret an appropriate, relevant and engaging curriculum for the students in front of them.”
The Department for Education was approached for comment.
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
