Curriculum and Assessment Review: Reflections and next steps
On 5 November, the Department for Education published ‘Building a world class curriculum for all’, the final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) led by Professor Becky Francis. The recommendations on climate change and sustainability are a cause for optimism, but much work remains to be done.
Climate change knowledge deemed “crucial”
In the months leading up to publication, Professor Francis and her panel heard directly from teachers, parents, young people, academics, campaigners, Ministers and the DfE. All will have shaped what has been put forward as ‘the most important knowledge that we expect children and young people to learn’ (p. 5) in the final report of the CAR. Thankfully, the importance of the climate and nature crisis appears to have been elevated.
The report acknowledges that ‘the climate crisis is already impacting our physical landscape and many connected aspects of our lives’ (p. 40), concedes that ‘there is currently minimal explicit inclusion of climate education in the national curriculum’ (p. 40) and states that:
'it is crucial that young people benefit from an understanding of the climate crisis’s causes, consequences and possible solutions and that they are empowered with the necessary knowledge and skills to thrive in tomorrow’s industries and tackle the serious challenges facing our planet.' (p. 40)
For those who have campaigned tirelessly over the last year and more, often in the face of increasing hostility, these statements will feel like progress, but not a resounding victory.
Knowledge-accumulation remains the goal
Building on this recognition of the importance of climate change and sustainability education, the report recommends steps the Government should take to increase climate change and sustainability’s presence in the national curriculum. Francis et. al., have developed their recommendations from a key assumption about the best way to address environmental change through education:
'In a world of rapid technological, environmental and social change, subject-specific knowledge remains the best investment.' (p. 10)
They do not provide evidence to support this statement, and seem to be ignoring the substantial research on, and evidence of, the knowledge-action gap. Helpfully though, they do acknowledge that skill development is important too:
'However, additional knowledge and skills will be needed if we are to maximise young people’s opportunities and equip them to meet challenges presented by our fast-changing world. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and trends in digital information demand heightened media literacy and critical thinking, as well as digital skills. Likewise, global challenges, both social and environmental, require attention to scientific and cultural knowledge and skills.' (p. 10)*
Direction without detail
Francis et. al. have decided that climate change and sustainability meet the criteria of ‘most important knowledge’ (p. 5). Exactly how important they are perceived to be begins to be revealed as the report sets out how, where, and when the national curriculum should explicitly reference climate change and sustainability. They do this by citing climate change and sustainability at various points throughout the report and by making numerous high-level statements as part of their recommendations to Government.
Under Geography, for example, the report recommends to the Government that it:
'Embeds climate change and sustainability more explicitly across different key stages, including across the physical geography, geographical applications and human geography sections of the curriculum, ensuring early, coherent, and more detailed engagement with climate education. This should be done without risking curriculum overload.' (p. 84)
Similar recommendations on climate change and sustainability can be found under Citizenship, RHE/RSHE and PSHE (p. 62), D&T (p.70) and Science (p. 117); but nowhere else.
Better, but not brilliant
The new national curriculum will be better than the current national curriculum vis-à-vis climate change and sustainability, and better than it would have been without the determined efforts of campaigners.
It won’t be anything close to what we want it to be, but as Matt Carmichael pointed out, it is what we expected it to be; there are very few pleasant, nor ugly, surprises. We can see it as a reasonably solid ‘stepping stone’, one that might help us get from where we were prior to the 2024 General Election to where we eventually need to be.
Focus now needs to turn to what happens next. Campaigners need to engage with the soon-to-be commissioned authors of the new/revised national curriculum, the organisations (Oak National Academy being a key one) who will write entire new suites of curriculum-linked resources and materials, and with schools and teachers themselves as they take on the task of interpreting and teaching the new national curriculum. Doing this will help ensure that the climate change and sustainability knowledge learners engage with is as accurate, up to date and appropriate as possible.
Going beyond knowledge
There is work to do beyond the national curriculum too, not least because ‘knowledge about’ is only one element of the Climate Change Sustainability Education (CCSE) our learners need.
We need to call for more teacher education and training on climate change and sustainability – there are levers DfE can pull, if they can be persuaded to pull them.
We need to ensure time for innovative practice, locally tailored content, and enrichment activities are all protected – this is where CCSE truly flourishes.
We need to emphasise the need to give young people the opportunity to not just be good citizens, but active citizens – the sort who change the world.
Global Action Plan will continue to innovate in the field of CCSE, champion it as a cause, and lead the calls for education system revolution. We thank Prof. Francis for the work she has done; we are keen now to work with partners to build on it.
* Note here that specific skills (critical thinking, digital) are named in relation to AI, but not in relation to social and environmental challenges. There is nothing whatsoever in the report about the need to develop ‘ecological thinking’ and the case for supporting young people to become ‘conscious agents of cultural evolution’.