Research Report DFE-RR178 Review of the National Curriculum in England What can we learn from the English, mathematics and science curricula of high- performing jurisdictions? The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education. Contents Executive Summary.........................................................................................1 Section 1 – Comparing achievement and the role of the curriculum................5 1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................5 1.2 Rationale ................................................................................................6 1.3 Methodology...........................................................................................8 Section 2 – Achievement in international comparison studies .......................15 2.1 Introduction...........................................................................................15 2.2 Key findings..........................................................................................16 2.3 Pupil attainment comparisons ..............................................................17 2.4 International comparisons in reading....................................................21 2.5 International comparisons in mathematics ...........................................23 2.6 International comparisons in science ...................................................25 Section 3 – Curriculum comparisons for English............................................31 3.1 Introduction...........................................................................................31 3.2 Key findings..........................................................................................31 3.3 Selecting comparator jurisdictions........................................................33 3.4 Curriculum analysis for English - an overview......................................34 3.5 Curriculum aims ...................................................................................39 3.6 Domains ...............................................................................................41 Section 4 – Curriculum comparisons for mathematics...................................61 4.1 Introduction...........................................................................................61 4.2 Key findings..........................................................................................61 4.3 Selecting comparator jurisdictions........................................................62 4.4 Curriculum analysis for mathematics – an overview.............................64 4.5 Curriculum aims ...................................................................................66 4.6 Mathematical processes.......................................................................67 4.7 Domains ...............................................................................................68 Section 5 – Curriculum comparisons for science ...........................................87 5.1 Introduction...........................................................................................87 5.2 Key findings..........................................................................................87 5.3 Selecting comparator jurisdictions........................................................88 5.4 Curriculum analysis for science – an overview.....................................89 5.5 Curriculum aims ...................................................................................94 5.6 Scientific processes and enquiry ..........................................................94 5.7 Domains .............................................................................................101 Appendix 1: Background on PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS studies ....................109 Appendix 2: Curriculum document references .............................................119 Appendix A: English curriculum comparison tables .....................................123 Appendix B: Mathematics curriculum comparison tables.............................144 Appendix C: Science curriculum comparison tables ....................................170 Executive Summary Introduction The Government is committed to ensuring that the new National Curriculum compares favourably with the curricula in the highest performing jurisdictions, and sets rigorous requirements for pupil attainment which measure up to the highest standards set internationally. The Government is also committed to slimming the National Curriculum so that it properly reflects the body of essential knowledge which all pupils should learn. The purpose of this report is to explore and present initial findings on what can be learned from the analysis of curricula of high-performing jurisdictions, in order to inform the development of the new National Curriculum for English, mathematics and science. In particular, issues of breadth, specificity and challenge within each subject are examined in detail to assess what this may tell us in devising a new National Curriculum which measures up to the highest international standards. This report forms part of a suite of evidence documents gathered as part of the National Curriculum review, including the Expert Panel report and summary report of responses to the call for evidence. Further analysis is underway to examine the education systems and cultural contexts of high- performing jurisdictions, in order to assess what other factors need to be taken into account when comparing the relative achievement of pupils from different jurisdictions. The first two sections of the report focus on the methodology and the achievement of pupils in England compared to other jurisdictions in reading, mathematics and science. The remaining three sections focus on English, mathematics and science respectively – including the analysis of breadth, specificity and challenge of the curricula in high-performing jurisdictions in comparison to the National Curriculum in England. Achievement in international comparisons An important perspective on England’s educational performance can be gained from analysis of the results from international comparative assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In the most recent waves of PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS, England’s performance was average, or higher than the average, at each age tested for reading, mathematics and science. However, to raise standards so that England is on a par with the highest-performing jurisdictions in the world, it is necessary to focus on areas for improvement. For this reason, the following findings concentrate exclusively on areas where there is the most scope to improve England’s performance in these international assessments. 1 • Reading: Areas of particular priority for improvement in England are making straightforward inferences from specific ideas in a text in primary; and retrieving information from a text, integrating and interpreting information to demonstrate understanding and in interpreting continuous texts in secondary. • Mathematics: Areas of particular priority for improvement in England are number in both primary and secondary and algebra in secondary, although attainment is relatively low in most areas of mathematics compared with high-performing jurisdictions, including in mathematical processes such as recalling facts and solving problems. • Science: Unlike in reading and mathematics, attainment in science is relatively high, although areas of improvement can be identified across all sciences in primary and secondary. Weaknesses can also be identified in scientific processes and enquiry such as using models and explanations and using scientific evidence. Curriculum comparisons For English, mathematics and science, five comparator jurisdictions were selected, based on a synthesis of results from the recent waves of PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS, alongside the findings of other studies. The jurisdictions were selected separately for each subject, although there are some jurisdictions that are examined for more than one subject. English Mathematics Science New South Wales, Australia Finland Victoria, Australia Alberta, Canada Flemish Belgium Alberta, Canada New Zealand Hong Kong Hong Kong Singapore Singapore Singapore Massachusetts, USA Massachusetts, USA Massachusetts, USA Curriculum aims are a key feature of high-performing jurisdictions, and there is also a degree of commonality in aims between jurisdictions for all three subjects. This indicates that curriculum aims aligned with those of high- performing jurisdictions should be considered for the new National Curriculum for each subject. There is a relatively high degree of commonality in the domains of knowledge for all three subjects, particularly with regard to mathematics and science. This indicates that the high-level content of the National Curriculum is broadly in line with those of high-performing jurisdictions. The curricula analysed maintain breadth within each subject, with little evidence that some jurisdictions define expectations around a narrow core of knowledge within any one subject or for any particular age group. This indicates that – in curricular terms at least – high-performing jurisdictions do not sacrifice breadth for depth or challenge within each of the subjects. 2 The main points