ARTICLE: Decisions on ‘most important knowledge’ at the MICRO and NANO sites of curriculum making activity. (5/5)
This is the fifth in a series of articles in response to the recently published final report of the DfE Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR). Article 1 provides context, including a key explainer of ‘the sites of curriculum making activity’. Article 2 looks at what happened at the upper macro site. Article 3 looks at the lower macro site of curriculum making and how climate change and sustainability will be written into the national curriculum by DfE commissioned writers. Article 4 explored the meso site, paying particular attention to the influence of Oak National Academy. In this fifth and final article, the micro and nano sites of curriculum making activity are examined; how equipped are schools and teachers as curriculum makers, and implementers, of climate change and sustainability education?
Article 5: Decisions on ‘most important knowledge’ at the micro and nano sites of curriculum making activity
The government’s children’s wellbeing and schools bill proposes that all state schools, including all academy schools will be required to follow the national curriculum. Should this become law (it likely will) the national curriculum will become an entitlement for the vast majority of learners in England. Teachers will therefore have to teach it (and learners will have to learn it).
Academies, schools, and teachers will not, however, have to use teaching and learning and resources provided by Oak National Academy or any other publisher. Legally, they are free to interpret the national curriculum as they please. They can therefore – if they choose – decide for themselves what the ‘most important knowledge’ is about any aspect of, say, climate change and sustainability they are required to teach. They would*, for example, be able to their own spin on what the ‘social, cultural, religious, economic and political determinants of climate action in the local, national and global community’ are. The question here is how capable and confident they are about doing this?
The evidence suggests that not many Academy or School curriculum leads, or teachers in England would feel sufficiently climate and sustainability literate. Very few frontline staff, across all subjects – including science and geography – have had in depth professional training on climate change and sustainability education (CCSE). Up to a quarter of teachers have had no professional training on CCSE at all, and of those who have had training, their CCSE knowledge and skills are most commonly ‘self-taught’.
Initial and in-service teacher education on CCSE quite clearly needs to be a high priority, not just to aid curriculum making at the micro and nano sites, but to aid curriculum delivery too. Teacher education – e.g. though offers like UCL’s Teaching for Sustainable Futures programme – would enable MAT and schools staff to both critique resources they are recommended from meso site providers, and create their own resources (should they have the luxury of time to do so).
DfE can step in here, they have levers to pull. They could, for example, incorporate climate change and sustainability into the Teachers’ Standards guidance. Specifically, on page 10, under point 3 ‘Demonstrate good subject and curriculum knowledge’ they could add the following bullet point:
- if teaching Geography, Science, Design and Technology, or Citizenship, demonstrate clear understanding of climate change and sustainability and climate change and sustainability education.
They could indeed go further and made climate change and sustainability literacy a standalone standard of its own, e.g.:
9. Demonstrate good climate change and sustainability literacy
Furthermore, and to support such changes, DfE could ensure new teachers are supported to develop their climate change and sustainability literacy and CCSE skills and knowledge through an amendment to the Early Career Framework.
The above are calls CCSE campaigners in England could be making over the coming months and years to improve teacher education and thus climate change and sustainability curriculum making activity at the nano and micro sites.
The national curriculum is not the only game in town
One of these most heartening statements in ‘Building a World-class curriculum for all’, is this:
The statutory guidance for the current national curriculum says that it is ‘just one element in the education of every child’; it was not intended to take up an entire school day. It is important that the national curriculum maintains its position as an ambitious entitlement for all. However, schools must have space to go beyond it to provide innovative practice, locally tailored content, and enrichment activities that help to ensure young people thrive in education and later life. (p. 9)
This reminder is repeated numerous times in the report and – on enrichment at least – is strongly echoed in the Government’s response paper, which dedicates a five-page section to enrichment and states that it will [emphasis added]:
Provide an enrichment entitlement for every child, to ensure broad opportunities, within and beyond the curriculum, during and after the school day. We will set out a new core enrichment offer that every school and college should provide for every one of their pupils, which delivers access to civic engagement; arts and culture; nature, outdoor and adventure; sport and physical activities; and developing wider life skills. In line with their new inspection framework, Ofsted will consider how schools are meeting enrichment expectations when judging the personal development grade. (p. 11)
Given the CAR report’s recommendation that climate change and sustainability is dealt with primarily by geography and science in the national curriculum, and their assertion that ‘subject-specific knowledge remains the best investment.’ (p. 10), this stated Government commitment to enrichment is highly valuable. The ‘enrichment entitlement’ opens up the potential for all young people to encounter fuller, more holistic, and transformative CCSE in their education settings.
It is essential that we – as campaigners – ensure that the DfE, Ofsted, MATs, schools, and frontline staff deliver on this entitlement. The devil will be in the detail of the ‘new set of benchmarks’ (p. 39) the Government has promised. The question here will be what constitutes an ‘ambitious enrichment offer’ (p. 39) when it comes to access to ‘civic engagement… [and]… nature’ (p. 11)?
The Government response describes civic engagement as ‘including volunteering, school and college democracy and community engagement’ (p. 40) and Nature, outdoor and adventure as: ‘including time outdoors, climate education and sustainability projects, gardening, residentials and camps’ (p. 40).
The potential here is huge, DfE will need to work closely with civil society organisations to ensure schools are able to deliver high quality enrichment activities. As campaigners for CCSE, we can support Government to set quality standards on civic engagement, time outdoors, climate education and sustainability projects, and gardening, and we can call once again for teacher’s and other education professionals to receive the training they need to deliver the high-quality enrichment offers that are needed. We simply cannot allow this opportunity to be squandered.
Innovative practice and locally tailored content
Finally, and to wrap up this series of articles, we need to note the Government response in relation to the CAR report’s recommendations for schools and teachers to have space to go beyond the national curriculum to provide innovative practice and locally tailored content.
This is a question of how much autonomy the Government is willing to handover to MATs, schools, and teachers (and how much autonomy MATs give to schools, and schools to teachers). The words are there in the Government response (see pages 12 and 14) for example, but is the enthusiasm? This could become a campaign battleground.
To deliver CCSE well both within the national curriculum and beyond it, teachers need to be exposed to – and trained in – innovative practices (CCSE will feel innovative to many teachers and learners). And we know how important locally tailored content is to the teaching of climate change and sustainability issues, especially as the impacts of climate change and climate change policy become more evident in young people’s lives. To be effective, teachers absolutely have to be given the time and space to connect what they are teaching to young people’s lived experience.
A final word
Thank you for reading this series of articles, I hope it is useful. There is so much more to be said but I want to end by reiterating how vital it is to not leave learners of colour, learners with SEND, and SEND specialists behind in our campaigning. The final report of the CAR makes numerous helpful recommendations, which have been well received. The Government response has also been appreciated. There remains, however, much work to do to ensure there is follow through including in how CCSE provision develops and expands; it must be inclusive and representative if it is to be effective. We all have a responsibility to deliver on this, it is not solely the job of curriculum makers at the macro, meso, micro, and nano sites of curriculum making activity.
Read on…
If you enjoyed this series, you might also enjoy this essay collection that asks if we are on the cusp of a new education system? From January 1st 2026 I will be available for hire. Please get in touch.
Footnote
*There is an important nuance here and another upper vs lower split to deal with, this time at the micro site of curriculum making activity, especially in relation to multi-academy trusts (MATs). As a reminder, this is Rushton and Walshe’s description of the micro site:
The micro site is concerned with school-level curriculum making including lesson planning, schemes of work and programme design undertaken by teacher, middle and senior leaders in school.
In some MATs, head office has very tight control of what their schools do. When this is the case, there will be distinct upper micro and lower micro sites of curriculum making activity, with much of the activity happening at the upper micro site. Other MATs are more relaxed, handing more power to, for example, school subject leads at the lower micro site.
At MATs and Local Authority run schools that believe in devolution of power, activity at both the upper and lower micro sites will be more limited, with teachers given more autonomy to curriculum make at the nano site. So when I say ‘they would’, the ‘they’ could be sat in the head office of a MAT, a subject lead at school, or a fully empowered and autonomous teacher (a rarer and rarer breed these days).