Reforming the Curriculum Must Start with those Currently Excluded

When my daughter was smaller, our weekends were often taken up with an array of children’s activities – swimming, football, playball – as well as household chores, kids’ homework and the production of resources to support my daughter at school in the week ahead.  

My daughter has Down’s syndrome. As a result, for the curriculum to be accessible to her, we would spend hours undertaking curriculum related activities. This included fun activities such as helping her make a solar system mobile and a visit to the local planetarium during half term (so she was familiar with the planets before this topic was introduced in school), taking her to see Charlie & the Chocolate Factory at the theatre and choosing this as a bedtime story in the summer holidays (again before this was discussed in school) and producing books of key vocabulary with photos and pictures to help her learn key words before they would be discussed in the classroom. We would also buy ‘Early Reader’ versions of books that would be covered in school, such as Shakespeare, to ensure she had the greatest chance of being able to engage in conversations in the classroom. This required us to spend both time and money to ensure that she had the best chance of accessing the curriculum. She is now at college, and fortunately these days are well behind us.  

During the recent Curriculum Assessment Review, the Down’s Syndrome Association undertook a survey with parents about their experiences and opinions in relation to the curriculum. The feedback received was reminiscent of my own experiences. Likewise, in my recent PhD research undertaken with mothers of children who have Down’s syndrome, stories were told of mothers making resources to use at home and in school to support their child’s learning.  

If a curriculum requires significant time and resources from parents at home – over and above the usual demands of supporting a child with their homework – then this is not an accessible or inclusive curriculum. Parents of Disabled children should not be faced with additional burdens due to an inaccessible curriculum that can only be fully accessed if parents are providing additional learning opportunities, for instance to pre-learn topic vocabulary, and are having to make or purchase additional resources to allow their child to engage fully in the classroom alongside their peers.  

It is therefore necessary to ensure that any future curriculum can easily be adapted by class teachers to include all learners in the classroom, with multiple ways for learners to access the learning according to the level and pace that they are working at, with suitable resources being made available for them to do this. This is likely to entail a move away from a helicopter teaching assistant arrangement, which can limit opportunities for peer-to-peer engagement, to a future where classroom assistants are supporting learners with provision of resources and scaffolding, to help them work as independently as possible.  

Within my PhD research, parents also described the challenges schools faced in setting targets and describing progress. Again, this was in line with my own experiences as a parent. Faith* described how her son was repeating the same work every single year, because the school did not know how to move him on or how to include him in the main classroom lesson. She stated, “they’re not moving him on in terms of the work he’s doing, they’re just doing the same thing”. As a result of this, her son was becoming disengaged as he was bored.  

When it comes to assessment, it is important that the assessments are accessible and inclusive too. Within my research, George* described to me how her son was reading with support, demonstrating his understanding through the use of simple tests on an iPad, which allowed him to move up through the reading levels. The following year, a new teacher removed the support he was receiving, and he was no longer able to access the assessment she was using. As a result, George explains, “she took him off accelerated reader, she goes he can’t read, so we’re taking him off, we’re taking that away from him… but he enjoyed, because that was part of his confidence building”. As a result, her son no longer wanted to take part in English lessons, feeling that he could not be successful in the lesson. 

The language used when discussing progress is also important. Throughout my daughter’s primary school, her school reports would state at the top ‘working below expectations’. These expectations being, of course, for typically developing children. This was not a true reflection of the progress she was making, which was at or above expectations in relation to her individual starting point and the fact she has Down’s syndrome. No matter how hard she worked, she was not going to ‘close the gap’ and be working at the same level or above that of her peers. Once she reached secondary school, they simply removed the column reporting what level she was working at. This was because the progress of all pupils in the school was being reported as what level GCSE they were currently working at (from Year 7 onwards), together with an anticipated grade that they would achieve in Year 11. The school did not know how to fit my daughter within that way of tracking progress, so simply stopped reporting the progress she was making.  

Finally, it is important that children who have learning disabilities, including Down’s syndrome, can see themselves represented in a positive way within the curriculum. This does not mean leaning into superhero narratives, instead it is about the curriculum including disability and inclusion as a core part of what is taught, across all subjects.  

The curriculum also needs to be based on having high aspirations and providing pupils with opportunities to show what they can achieve, with tailored resources and support. Parents of children who have Down’s syndrome often describe education settings as having low aspirations for their children, for example Faith described to me how her son was just given painting to do, when the other children were working, and Emily* discussed how her son was given Twinkl worksheets instead of being included in the work that others in the classroom were doing.  

Reform to the curriculum and assessment processes is welcomed by parents I have spoken to, with the proviso that it needs to start with the needs and requirements of those who are currently excluded from the curriculum. Embracing a capacious approach to curriculum design and assessment/progress measurement will ensure that all children can have their needs met, rather than leaving it down to parents to fill the gaps. Not every family will be as able as we were to do this. This has broader implications too. In the recent Get Britain Working White Paper, the government presented an aspiration to find ways for carers to have greater opportunities to engage in meaningful employment. This will be impossible to achieve if the new curriculum continues to place additional demands on parents (especially mothers).  

Whilst SEND appears to be high on the agenda in meetings and communications related to the curriculum and assessment review, inclusion requires more than just words. The Easy Read version of the Curriculum & Assessment Review Call for Evidence was delayed by a few weeks and yet the deadline for response was not extended. The government and those leading their inquiries need to better demonstrate their purported commitment to inclusion, and this should start with a refusal to launch any consultations or calls for evidence if Easy Read and other versions are not yet available.  

* all names are pseudonyms