Ministers accused of subverting school curriculum
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A former senior government adviser yesterday accused ministers of subverting the national curriculum for political purposes.
In the latest and most powerful attack so far on political meddling in the curriculum, Duncan Graham, former head of the National Curriculum Council, suggests that ministers are guilty of 'wilful distortion for political ends'.
The allegations follow accusations from other former advisers that ministers are packing education advisory committees with right-wing ideologues.
Ann Taylor, Labour's education spokeswoman, has written to John Patten, Secretary of State for Education, asking for an assurance that he will 'refrain from similarly subverting the national curriculum for political purposes'.
Mr Graham, who resigned from his job last year, says in a book to be published next month that the worst ministerial offender was Kenneth Clarke, Mr Patten's predecessor, who interfered over the history curriculum and teaching methods in primary schools.
Mr Clarke decided history should end before the present day. 'The decision of when the end date should be was the result of a Dutch auction between Clarke and his officials. His opening bid was 1945.' He eventually settled for 20 years before the present. The curriculum council was not consulted. When Mr Clarke decided to cut back the national curriculum, he did so without asking the council's advice.
Mr Graham says that the curriculum council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council, set up by statute to offer the Government independent advice, eventually 'had no more status, than any other pressure groups, perhaps less'.
His words echo those of Peter Dines, former secretary of the examinations council, who said recently that the body was now so much under ministers' sway that it was close to breaking the law.
Professor Eric Bolton of London University's Institute of Education, who retired last year as senior chief inspector of schools, said: 'You could say the whole idea of a national curriculum is political interference. It is ministers' influence over testing which borders on the undesirable. If they say only three things will be tested in primary schools then you can be sure only three things will be taught in primary schools.'
Mr Graham says civil servants also meddled. He recalls protesting to Kenneth Baker, then Secretary of State for Education, about a letter he had signed curtailing some of the curriculum council's activities. Mr Baker 'looked at the letter and could not believe he had signed it. It was one of those magic moments'.
A Lesson for All - the Making of the National Curriculum, by Duncan Graham and David Tytler, will be published by Routledge; pounds 12.99.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments