There Is No Alternative’

Edinburgh Research Explorer 'There Is No Alternative’ Citation for published version: Convery, A 2017, ''There Is No Alternative’: Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence and Its Relationship with High Culture', Scottish Affairs, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 176-193. https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2017.0177 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.3366/scot.2017.0177 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Scottish Affairs Publisher Rights Statement: This article has been accepted for publication by Edinburgh University Press in the journal Scottish Affairs, http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/scot.2017.0177) General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 ‘There Is No Alternative’: Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence and Its Relationship with High Culture Alan Convery University of Edinburgh Abstract: This article uses the concept of high culture to assess the underlying assumptions and philosophy of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence (CfE). For the most part, these remain vague and unarticulated. This has two consequences. First, a consensus forms easily around CfE because it means different things to different stakeholders and is presented to teachers as a depoliticised and technocratic policy response. Second, because its core tenets are so hazy, it is extremely difficult to argue against. Although CfE is widely regarded to have at its heart some form of constructivism, the justification for such an approach is never articulated. By assessing CfE’s relationship with high culture, this article attempts to flush out its implicit core assumptions. Its central argument is that CfE cannot simultaneously please everyone. Perfectly justifiable alternative curricular paths have been abandoned. Far from being a technocratic and depoliticised policy response, CfE is in fact a much more controversial and ideological shift than the level of scrutiny it has thus far received would suggest. Key words: Scotland, education policy, curriculum, high culture, Curriculum for Excellence Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) enjoys widespread support not only from the four main Scottish political parties, but also from teachers’ unions, local authorities and official education bodies. This consensus also extends to university education departments: although there has been much criticism about the implementation of CfE, there is scarcely any dissent from the notion that it is a move in the right direction (but see Paterson, 2013). Indeed, it sometimes appears that there is not a single question in Scottish education to which CfE is not the answer. It will simultaneously: prepare students better for the world of work (Allan, 2014); help to close the attainment gap (Allan, 2015); improve literacy and numeracy (see, for instance, Scottish Government, 2008: 8); promote interdisciplinary learning (Scottish Government, 2008: 21); promote deep learning and subject disciplines (Education Scotland, 2015a); and make learning enjoyable (Education Scotland, 2015b). This article argues that it is possible for the Scottish political, professional and academic consensus to bear the weight of these disparate aims because the underlying assumptions of CfE remain open to interpretation. The ‘Four Capacities’, for instance, are so vague and banal that it is hardly possible for any reasonable person to disagree with them. Although the underlying philosophy for CfE has been identified as constructivism (Priestley and Humes, 2010), I argue that not all of its CfE’s supporters can possibly subscribe to such a position. Moreover, the practical consequences of such a radical stance are never fully articulated. This article aims therefore to sift through the confusion and flush out the core assumptions of CfE. It does so using the concept of high culture, which Matthew Arnold construes as ‘the best which has been thought and said in the world’ (Arnold, 1990[1869]: 6). It assesses how far CfE supports the transmission of a body of 1 knowledge that might be considered ‘canonical’ and considers whether it accepts any basis upon which one piece of art may be judged to be superior to another. In doing so, I hope to start the process of moving towards a concrete definition of CfE that will allow it to be debated and evaluated. This article proceeds in three stages. First, I briefly try to place CfE in the context of curricular reforms. It is presented as a technocratic and depoliticised policy response to the challenges of education in the twenty-first century. However, there is broad agreement that it has never been satisfactorily defined. Second, by examining its relationship with high culture, I derive six core CfE propositions. I argue that its uncontroversial packing conceals a radically relativist core. It also marks the decisive abandonment of the Scottish idea of the ‘democratic intellect’. Third, I discuss five possible justifications for a curriculum based on the six CfE principles I have identified. I conclude that it is logically impossible for CfE on its own to result in any improvement in attainment. Instead, it is just as likely that CfE will, at best, achieve nothing. There is also the danger that it will further entrench educational inequality. What is CfE? CfE reflects wider trends in international education policy. There has been a move away from the prescription of curricular content. Many countries now prefer to specify processes or experiences and give schools much more freedom to shape what is to be taught (Sinnema and Aitken, 2013). In Scotland, CfE emerged from a national debate about education. It was rooted in part in the idea that the curriculum was over- prescribed and dominated by the demands of assessment. There has been a long process of implementation, which began in primary schools in 2010 (for a detailed discussion of the evolution of CfE, see Humes, 2013). From the outset the exact philosophy and aims of CfE seem to have been confused (Gillies, 2006; Humes, 2013). Its dominant perspective, however, appears to be a form of constructivism (Priestley and Humes, 2010). Thus, although it is a mixture of different perspectives, it most closely resembles Muller and Young’s (2010) ‘Future 2’ curriculum ideal type. Future 1 describes a curriculum that is wedded to a traditional and conservative view of schooling, based on educating elites. It ignores modern innovations and its content becomes calcified and out-dated. A Future 3 scenario describes a curriculum that preserves the integrity of subject disciplines but is open to their continual refreshment and their being combined in order to introduce pupils to powerful knowledge and concepts. Finally, and most relevant for CfE, a Future 2 scenario is one in which there is a ‘steady weakening of boundaries, a de-differentiation of knowledge and institutions, a blurring of labour market sectors, and a greater emphasis on generic outcomes rather than inputs as instruments of equalisation and accountability (Muller and Young, 2010: 18). CfE most closely matches this description. Priestley and Biesta (2013) suggest that CfE embodies the values that they would associate with a ‘progressive’ approach to the curriculum. Thus, instead of the curriculum being a ‘selection from culture’ (Lawton, 1975), it is based on the ‘need for schools to develop approaches to active learning (although this concept is rarely explicitly spelled out) and emphasizes the role of teachers as co-learners, and as facilitators of student learning’ (Priestley and Biesta, 2013: 3). CfE is at the most basic level no more and no less than the removal of content from the curriculum and its replacement with a vague framework into which individual schools and teachers must reinsert knowledge of their choosing. It is important to keep this central fact in mind when assessing claims about improvements 2 in attainment as a result of CfE. We will consider below whether CfE also prescribes pedagogy in the absence of knowledge. CfE and High culture However, whilst it is possible to place CfE broadly in the context of wider curricular changes, it is much more difficult to arrive at a concise definition of what it is and what it is not. A recent OECD (2015: 38-45) report devoted five pages to discussing what CfE might be. It did not arrive at a firm conclusion.1 Instead, the OECD (2015: 38) cautions that: ‘Any simple capsule description will ignore its complex multi- dimensionality, and risks confounding the aspirational ideal with the variety of implementation on the ground.’ Thus, five years after the beginning of its implementation, ‘CfE’s scope still needs clarification’ (OECD, 2015: 11). This is a serious problem. Unless we pin down the boundaries of what is and what is not ‘CfE’, then it is impossible to assess it or discuss alternatives. As Gillies (2006: 30) argues, the values of a curriculum should be explicit: ‘This is essential to permit proper examination of the basis to the curriculum, for it to be open to democratic challenge, and to permit any future modification and change.’ If anything is permissible under CfE, then it is not strictly a curricular reform; it is the removal of any notion of a curriculum. Like John Griffith’s famous observation about the British Constitution, CfE would simply be ‘what happens’ (quoted in King, 2007: 4). Since it is unlikely that policy-makers had this in mind, we are left with the task of trying to work out where the last curriculum ended and CfE began.

Load more