The Curriculum Improvement Cycle (CIC) is a systematic review of the Scottish curriculum to ensure it remains up to date and relevant for children and young people. In the first of a two part article Ollie Bray, Strategic Director at Education Scotland, explains how we have gone about designing the model for Curriculum Review in Scotland.
One of the key recommendations in Curriculum for Excellence: Into the Future (OECD, 2021) was that Scotland should:
“Develop a systematic approach to curriculum review: Scotland could consider establishing a curriculum review cycle with a planned timeframe and specific review agenda, led by the specialist stand-alone agency.”
Following this, the Scottish Government further commissioned the OECD to carry out a rapid evidence review of a number of other countries that had developed and implemented a curriculum review cycle. While the comparative examples were useful it also – perhaps obviously – quickly became clear that every country and system is unique and carries out curriculum review in a slightly different way meaning that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach.
Out of the countries studied ten years is the most common timeframe used, but there are differing approaches with some countries like Japan having a top-down approach led by the ministry, while others are led by a dedicated Curriculum agency, for example in Ireland. Some countries take an integrated focus, looking at all education stages (3-18) at once, with others looking at different stages or subjects at different points. A broad and inclusive evidence gathering process, with stakeholder engagement, underpins most approaches. The most common output is some sort of new national curriculum framework.
The common features of review processes identified across countries are set out in the table below:
| Analysis | Re(design) | Implementation or “realisation” | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ongoing monitoring at all levels (schools, regional, national) Large surveys and other (large scale) public consultations In-depth curriculum analysis Exploration of student needs and curriculum gaps (informed by labor market developments etc.) Analysis of international trends and examples | Mixed development groups of (disciplinary or curriculum) experts and school practitioners Expert consultation and appraisal on drafts Co-creation workshops Feedback opportunities (online submissions and in person forums) Pilots/trials | Teaching professional learning workshops Continuous capacity building collaboratives (networks) between schools, teacher educators and researchers Collective reflective workshops Development of support material for teachers and school leaders Monitoring of experiences of teachers and students Q&A opportunities | Evaluation by external researchers Inspectorate reports School self-reports Analysis of national and international assessments Collection of feedback (surveys, open submissions, forums) |
Building on the OECD rapid evidence review, and considerations contained within a number of external reviews (inc: OECD, 2021; Stobart, 2021; Muir, 2022), the Scottish Government established a short-life dedicated co-design group, made up primarily of teachers, which met four times between December 2022 and May 2023. Practitioners from across all local authority areas, curriculum areas and settings were invited to join the group. The purpose of the group was to develop a draft model of curriculum review for Scotland. I will pick up what we mean by co-design in a separate article as it is a term that is increasingly used in policy making but – unfortunately – increasing misunderstood by those who increasingly use it!
As well as the co-design group, additional engagement around the emerging model for curriculum review took place within existing forums between March 2023 to June 2023 including the Scottish Government Teacher Panel, Association of Directors of Education in Scotland Curriculum and Qualifications Group, Building Our Curriculum Self Help (BOCSH) Group and the Curriculum and Assessment Board^.
Stakeholders were clear that outputs from a review process must be practical and not simply a ‘layering on’ to an already busy curriculum framework. To support this the co-design group developed a set of draft success criteria which notes the importance of streamlining.
The draft success criteria was tested with the Curriculum and Assessment Board (CAB) in June 2023. Its aim is to provide parameters for the development of the Curriculum Improvement Cycle to ensure that the work remains focused and realistic.
Draft Success Criteria for the Curriculum Improvement Cycle (CIC)
| Criteria heading | Detail |
|---|---|
| Collaborative and Coherent | The review process itself is broad and collaborative, involving all layers of the system and strengthening/consolidating cohesion between each part. The review process will take account of the initiatives being taken forward at local and regional level, as well as any structural reform work at a national level, supporting a strategic direction and vision at national level that is complementary rather than conflicting. |
| Ambitious | The review process itself is bold and able to be radical as needed, it celebrates what is working well, identifies what needs to be better as well as what specifically needs to be done to improve. |
| Realistic | The review will also need to be proportionate and realistic about what can be delivered by the system, creating changes which are sustainable and specifically consider the potential for streamlining. |
| Engagement | A bottom-up approach, where children and young people themselves are involved in curriculum review, in particular those who experience more challenges in the system – based on evidence – alongside teachers, lecturers, early years practitioners, employers and other key stakeholders in a manageable way and ensuring there is sufficient capacity to allow this to happen. |
| Clarity | The intention and purpose of the curriculum review process is well understood by those directly involved with it and impacted by it. |
| Scope | The review systematically tackles cross cutting themes and issues, individual curriculum and subject areas, as well as the four contexts for learning, transitions and takes account of geographical differences. |
| Approach | The review process is planned and will identify the key steps, but agile enough to be responsive and flexible to allow change if needed. |
| Implementation | Accountability for the output of every review cycle is well articulated and understood by all stakeholders across the education system including how it will be practically implemented. The support infrastructure is appropriate, and time is built into the process to allow the system to implement any improvements. |
| Evaluation | The implementation of the previous cycle is evaluated, ahead of the next cycle, to generate lessons learnt. |
The above success criteria has helped us shape the emerging model for The Curriculum Improvement Cycle in Scotland. As the work starts to gather pace into 2025 we are committed to revisiting and evaluating against the success criteria on a regular basis to ensure that we remain true to the original aspiration of curriculum review set out by the co-design group and endorsed by the Curriculum and Assessment Board (CAB).
In my next follow up article I will talk in more detail about the model for Curriculum Review in Scotland.
If you are keen to hear and learn more about the Curriculum Improvement Cycle (CIC) you might be interested to listen to the latest Education Scotland Learning Conversations Podcast with Education Scotland Chief Executive, Gillian Hamilton, and Ollie Bray on the CIC or read this recent article from TESS Scotland – CfE review: ‘Evolving Curriculum for Excellence, not ripping it up’.
You can also visit the CIC Web Portal / Glow Blog and from here sign up for the termly eNewsletter. We are also recruiting a number of Education Scotland Associates to support this work as well as looking for volunteers to join Curriculum Area Collaboration Groups.
Previous article: Why are we reviewing and evolving Scotland’s Curriculum?
^ Membership of the Curriculum and Assessment Board (CAB) includes: Association of Directors of Education, Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, College Development Network, Colleges Scotland, Community Learning and Development Manager Group, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Early Years Scotland, The Educational Institute of Scotland, Education Scotland, Professor Mark Priestley, University of Stirling, Professor Louise Hayward, University of Glasgow, National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, School Leaders Scotland, Scottish Council of Independent Schools, Scottish Funding Council, Scottish Government, Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, Scottish Qualifications Authority, Skills Development Scotland and Universities Scotland.
