30 Turning in their graves? A tale of two coalitions
December 2012 1200 words
29 Hobson's Choice: education policies in the 2010 general election
July 2010 3700 words
28 Short and Fraught: the history of primary education in England
June 2009 8600 words
27 Us and Them: a history of pupil grouping policies in England's schools
December 2008 19,000 words
26 Never Mind the Evidence: Blair's obsession with faith schools
May 2007 8500 words
25 Axes to Grind: the first five years of Blair's academies
April 2007 5100 words
24 The Hadow Reports: an introduction
September 2006 10,700 words
23 Tricks of the Trade: whatever happened to teacher professionalism?
May 2005 10,400 words
22 Food for Thought: child nutrition, the school dinner and the food industry
July 2003 7100 words
21 The Supply Teacher's Lot
March 2003 3000 words
20 Creationism: bad science, bad religion, bad education
April 2002 6200 words
19 Glass in their Snowballs: the faith schools debate
December 2001 7500 words
18 Time to Rethink Religious Education?
September 2000 1950 words
17 King's Manor School - an experiment in privatisation?
June 1999 3860 words
16 New Labour - New Values?
June 1997 3070 words
15 Children's needs and interests and the National Curriculum
June 1995 2280 words
14 Educational Philosophy: does it exist in the 1990s?
September 1992 1850 words
13 Facing the Problem of Bullying in Schools
January 1992 4350 words
12 Deconstructing the Bible: interpretive possibilities
August 1991 4030 words
11 The Multifaith Society: problem or opportunity?
August 1991 3230 words
10 Agreed Syllabuses 1944-1988: Changing aims - changing content?
January 1991 6640 words
9 On being beaten about the head
June 1989 1800 words
8 Some principles for school managers
March 1988 2000 words
7 The National Curriculum and the role of the primary teacher in curriculum development
March 1988 2230 words
6 Whatever happened to the integrated curriculum?
October 1987 1470 words
5 Is the core curriculum ideal valid and feasible?
April 1987 2060 words
4 Plowden and the Primary Curriculum: twenty years on
March 1987 2020 words
3 The Management of Selecting, Appraising and Developing Staff
September 1987 1630 words
2 School Governing Bodies: do they have a clear role?
June 1987 1680 words
1 The Chief Education Officer: the real master of local educational provision?
March 1987 2080 words

Is the core curriculum ideal valid and feasible?
Derek Gillard
April 1987

copyright Derek Gillard 2001
This article is my copyright. You are welcome to download it and print it for your own personal use, or for use in a school or other educational establishment, provided my name as the author is attached. But you may not publish it, upload it onto any other website, or sell it, without my permission.

You are welcome to cite this piece. If you do so, please acknowledge it thus:
Gillard D (1987) Is the core curriculum ideal valid and feasible?

In accordance with the conventions set out by the Society of Authors and the Publishers Association, you should seek my permission to reproduce

  • any extract of more than 400 words;
  • a series of extracts totalling more than 800 words, of which any one extract has more than 300 words; and
  • an extract or series of extracts constituting a quarter or more of the original work.
For shorter extracts you do not need my permission, provided the source is acknowledged as shown above.

In references in the text, the number after the colon is always the page number (even where a document has numbered paragraphs or sections).

Core, common, national, whole, framework: the terminology is almost as wide-ranging as the debate. Let us agree for our purposes here that a 'core' curriculum is that part of a 'whole' curriculum which is 'common' to all students.

Like so much of current educational debate, the discussion about core curriculum seems to date from Prime Minister Jim Callaghan's Ruskin speech of 18 October 1976, which set the 'Great debate' in motion. Like the tide, it has ebbed and flowed since, but now seems to be gathering force to send a great wave crashing on to the beach - probably after the general election. How did we get here?

In 1979 the Secretaries of State indicated that they believed 'they should seek to give a lead in the process of reaching a national consensus on a desirable framework for the curriculum' (Report on the Circular 14/77 Review). In their response to this a year later HMI said that

a common policy for the curriculum ... cannot be a prescription for uniformity. Enabling all pupils to achieve a comparable quality of education and potentially a comparable quality of adult life is a more subtle and skilled task than taking them all through identical syllabuses or teaching them all by the same methods. (HMI 1980:2)
They went on to argue for
a substantially larger compulsory element than now in terms of the range of studies pupils carry forward to the end of their fifth year [of secondary education], but with suitable differentiation in detailed content and presentation, and still with some provision for choice, to match different abilities, aspiration and need. (HMI 1980:23)
In 1981 the Secretaries of State seemed to draw back from what many saw as an increasing tendency to centralisation by pointing out the importance of the role of the LEAs: 'The Secretaries of State consider that curriculum policies should be developed and implemented on the basis of the existing statutory relationship between the partners' (DES 1981:2). 'Local authorities thus have a responsibility to formulate curricular policies and objectives which meet national policies and objectives' (DES 1981:2). Indeed, schools had a role to play, too: 'Neither the Government nor the Local Authorities should specify in detail what the schools should teach' (DES 1981:3). However, there had to be some sort of uniformity of provision: 'What each school teaches cannot be determined in isolation' (DES 1981:4).

Meanwhile, the Schools Council talked about an 'irreducible minimum to which every pupil should have a right of access' (Schools Council 1981:14).

In his Sheffield speech in January 1984 the Secretary of State said he intended to seek 'broad agreement about the objectives of the 5-16 curriculum' and the following year HMI spoke of the essential features of such a curriculum as being breadth, balance, relevance, differentiation and continuity (HMI 1985:7).

On 9 January 1987 the Secretary of State reiterated his determination to proceed with a 'national' curriculum and identified these three features of it:

  • it would need frequent revision, and flexibility to leave room for professional initiatives;
  • it would be worked out by a 'national process' - it 'cannot just reflect what the Government thinks best, or what the LEAs or teachers think best, or what the consumers think best';
  • it must not extend to the whole of the curriculum (ie it would represent a core curriculum).
The LEAs have already started working out a consultative procedure to put to Secretary of State Kenneth Baker. The wave is about to break, so teachers had better start thinking about the part they can play in the process before it crashes around their heads and sweeps them out to sea.


What, then, of the validity of the core curriculum ideal? Kelly (1982:222) suggests three arguments for it:

  • philosophical/epistomological arguments based on particular views about the nature of knowledge;
  • social/sociological arguments of what society and its culture are or ought to be;
  • political/economic arguments about meeting the demands of a technological society.
With regard to the first of these arguments, 'since certain kinds of knowledge have a status and value superior to others they have a prior claim for inclusion in any curriculum that is to be regarded as educational in the full sense' (Kelly 1982:222). But which kinds of knowledge, and who is to decide? As Kelly says, it is very difficult to claim any objective status for knowledge and even more difficult 'to demonstrate the superiority of certain kinds of knowledge and human activity over others' (Kelly 1982:226).

Proponents of the second argument would see the job of a schools as being 'to transmit the culture of the society ... to all pupils' (Kelly 1982:223). The problem here again is, who decides on this selection from the culture? The Secretary of State? Further:

to impose one culture, one set of values on all pupils regardless of their origins, their social class, race or creed is to risk at best offering them a curriculum that is irrelevant, meaningless and alienating and at worst using the education system as a means of effecting an inhibiting form of social control. (Kelly 1982:228)
Finally, the political/economic argument. To decree that all pupils shall have a larger scientific and/or technological curriculum component than at present is to go down the road followed by the USSR where 'prime consideration in establishing a central core to the curriculum is the economic needs of the society' (Kelly 1982:225). This argument has nothing to do with values or superiority, it is entirely utilitarian. Kelly is particularly opposed to it:
an opportunity to develop an educational provision for each pupil that might be meaningful to him in his own terms will be lost and at the same time his freedom to choose for himself will be infringed beyond any point that can be justified on educational grounds ... it is one thing to attempt to justify requiring pupils to engage in certain kinds of activity on the grounds that we believe this will be good for them, it is quite another to justify it as being good for society. (Kelly 1982:229-230)
Skilbeck, on the other hand, suggests that the core curriculum ideal is valid because, to a certain extent, it already exists. Even Kelly agrees with this, suggesting that the 'hidden constraints and influences' mean that the curricula of most schools in the UK demonstrate 'their similarities rather than their differences' (Kelly 1982:221).

Skilbeck further suggests that even the 'deschoolers' have a core curriculum of a sort - even if it is only some vague notion of the skills required for 'basic survival and social participation' (Skilbeck 1984:166).

Other arguments put forward for a core curriculum are

  • continuity for pupils moving from one school to another;
  • the need for all pupils to study a 'balanced' curriculum.
However, as Kelly points out, 'a balanced curriculum, like a balanced diet, must be suited to the needs of the individual' (Kelly 1982:242). 'We would rightly look with suspicion on a doctor who prescribed the same diet or medicines for all of his patients' (Kelly 1982:243). And again, if balance means balance of 'subjects', we should remember that 'education consists of learning through subjects rather than the learning of subjects' (Kelly 1982:242).

The questions to be addressed, then, are, what kind of core curriculum and who is to decide? Will there be a list of subjects, central syllabuses, laid down methods, hours per week, times of day, permitted text-books? 'To achieve a common curriculum ... it is not enough to specify which subjects it must contain' (Kelly 1982:231).

Kelly argues that a national curriculum should be no more than a framework of principles: 'broad procedural principles, then, are the only basis for curriculum planning' (Kelly 1982:243). There are already great pressures on schools to conform - the organisational structure of secondary schools and universities, the public exam system, the traditional views of parents and pupils, the nature of teacher training courses. Do we need more constraints?

Apart then, from the practical matter of pupils moving from school to school, I am only convinced of the validity of the core curriculum ideal if it is limited to a framework of principles.


What of the feasibility of a core curriculum? We have already noted some of the problems, in particular the questions as to what such a curriculum should include and who should decide.

Skilbeck suggests that decisions could be made in one of three ways: by central diktat, by individual schools autonomously, or by a participatory agreement.

He rightly dismisses the first as being inconsistent with an open, pluralist society. Central diktat would be 'likely to fail ... because of both the ideological resistance it generates and the severe difficulties of diffusion and implementation' (Skilbeck 1984:158). Kelly is even firmer about the consequences of any real attempt to impose a common curriculum:

the teacher's role would be reduced to that of a puppet, operated by remote control and able to exercise professional judgement only in the very limited sphere of immediate methodology, if it is possible even there ... if we do not accept that this is a proper role for teachers, we cannot accept the idea of a common curriculum. (Kelly 1982:232-233)
Skilbeck also dismisses the second idea (that schools should autonomously decide on a common curriculum). There would be too much variation between individual schools where lack of particular expertise or resources would limit the range of subjects or themes offered. It would lead to parochialism in an ever-shrinking world. It would exacerbate the problems encountered by pupils moving from school to school. It would make the transition from primary to secondary school more difficult. In essence, it would diminish equality of opportunity.
While it is necessary that schools play a major part in curriculum planning, design and development, their role is not sufficient to meet all the requirements ... the nature and limits of curriculum decisions as between the community and its representative agencies (central and local government, voluntary bodies) and the teachers and schools [needs] to be determined. This is precisely what is at issue in Britain in the 1980s. (Skilbeck 1984:153)
He goes on to argue that 'what the teachers have constructed - accepting that their constructions are constrained in many ways - are curricula which have met with well-merited criticism' (Skilbeck 1984:155).

So, having dismissed central diktat and school autonomy, Skilbeck is left with participatory agreement as the only viable way to arrive at a core curriculum. 'Core curriculum is that part of the whole curriculum which, in broad outline, is common to all schools and students, is defined by partnership by both central and local bodies, and is interpreted by schools' (Skilbeck 1984:155).

It is a pity that the Tory government, having abolished the Schools Council and abandoned the Central Advisory Councils, is now left with no obvious body to coordinate the necessary discussions by the partners in education and has therefore 'moved in to fill a vacuum' (Skilbeck 1984:158).

There is no doubt that something must be done - if only because central government has created a climate in which the public expects something to be done. It is a measure of the manipulation of public opinion which has been going on for ten years now, that something which was once regarded with great suspicion is now accepted by all the major political parties. 'The taboo has been lifted ... present patchiness is now thought worse than the risk of dull uniformity or political manipulation' (Leader TES 27 March 1987).

The big question then, is:

are we to leave everything in the hands of the teachers and risk the occasional disaster when they abuse the freedom this gives them? Or are we to remove this freedom and risk not only inefficiency of teaching and inadequacies of educational provision but also the charge of attempting either to indoctrinate children with a particular system of values or of using them to serve the ends of the state? (Kelly 1982:237)
Somewhere between these two extremes lies a happy medium and only if it can be found will a core curriculum prove valid and feasible.


DES (1981) The School Curriculum London: HMSO

HMI (1980) A View of the Curriculum HMI Series: Matters for Discussion No. 11 London: HMSO

HMI (1985) The Curriculum from 5 to 16 (Curriculum Matters 2) London: HMSO

Kelly AV (1982) The curriculum: theory and practice London: Harper and Row

Schools Council (1981) The practical curriculum (Working Paper No. 70) London: Methuen

Skilbeck M (1984) School-based curriculum development London: Harper and Row

  • This article is a modified version of an essay submitted in April 1987 as part of my Diploma in Education course at the University of London Institute of Education.