Knowing more is not an end in itself

There seems to be a wilful obfuscation at the heart of the conversation around curriculum; one that can suit both traditionalists and radicals, and it remains the elephant in the room: what do we do with the time we spend together in school?

Advocates for the knowledge-based curriculum need to be honest and admit that ‘knowing more’ is not an end in itself, but should be intended to provide what is needed in order to go on and challenge the orthodoxy - a springboard for new thinking and bold action. Matthew Arnold - the Victorian poet to whom the phrase ‘the best which has been thought and said’ is attributed - was clear that this was necessary to enable those in receipt of this bank of information and facts to go on and ‘turn a fresh stream of thought onto our stock notions and habits’ i.e. challenge the current paradigm. Conversely, radicals need to be honest about what is actually required to do things differently: the hard choices about what’s in and what’s out in order to create space for deeper, extended learning. To acknowledge that ‘we can’t do it all’ is a start, but what this actually means in practice needs to be articulated. Influential people need to say that it’s okay to leave stuff out.

Thinking about the context of the original sentiment, honesty about the true aims of the ‘knowing more’ agenda would actually validate the dramatic changes pursued by rebel educators. Just imagine: schools explicitly mandated to create knowledgeable, articulate, empowered agents of change; thinking global and acting local; being the difference we need: knowing more so that they can properly do more that actually matters.

Traditionalists need to see the acquisition of ‘knowledge’ as the start of a process that leads to action: both need to be present to deliver powerful, purposeful learning. Those seeking a more radical transformation need to be confident that divergent thinking around curriculum - providing it is well planned, effectively delivered and evaluated for impact - will be recognised ‘favourably’ by Ofsted. Both must remember that not covering the national curriculum was a founding USP of academies. And with space for novel implementation baked into the original NC document, the wriggle room is there for the buccaneering.

With thanks to Phil Beadle and his illuminating piece for teachwire.net:  "The best which has been thought and said" - Who said it first, and what it really means.