NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS SURVEY ON THE
2013 REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM
31 March 2013
INTRODUCTION
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) conducted a survey of its members’ attitudes to the
proposed reform of the National Curriculum in February and March 2013. 2,159 responses
were received from teachers and school leadership group members. 69 per cent of
responses came from members working in the primary sector and 27 per cent from the
secondary sector. The remainder worked in other settings, including pupil referral units
(PRUs) and special schools.
17 per cent of respondents were members of school leadership groups, including head
teachers and deputy or assistant head teachers. The remainder were classroom teachers,
including heads of departments or faculties in secondary schools and subject co-ordinators
in primary schools.
MAIN FINDINGS
The outcomes of the survey overall indicate that professionals in schools do not agree with
the proposals for the National Curriculum set out by the Secretary of State for Education.
Some proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by NUT members, for example, two thirds
(65 per cent) of respondents disagreed or disagreed strongly with the emphasis on ‘facts’
rather than ‘skills’ within the proposed National Curriculum. Just 3.5 per cent agreed or
agreed strongly with the emphasis on facts, with the remainder holding mixed views.





The element I object to most strongly is the shift from skills to knowledge. The
government's own review supported a skills based curriculum so this seems
incomprehensible.
Too 'fact' driven with no flexibility for pupils’ social circumstances - the detail in Key
Stage 1 is too demanding for those from low social backgrounds and no prior
knowledge of the wider world or computer programming.
Learning facts and figures is a very small part of the learning journey. Lifelong
learning encompasses vast amount of skills, all of which are necessary in a society.
A society full of academics, just as a society full of labourers, will fail. We need a full
skill set to exist in a meaningful way and to enable all participants to feel proud of the
skill they are providing.
We live in a digital era. Children do not need to be carriers of information any more.
Everything is available on the internet at the click of a button. Teachers don't need to
teach all these facts... it's out of date and desperately needs dragging into the 21st
century.
I want to create a society of critical thinkers who can interpret the world around them
and innovate it to make life better. I do not want to create a society of robots who just
know stuff!
72 per cent did not agree that the proposals would ensure that students’ entitlement to a
broad and balanced curriculum would be met by the proposals, with a further 24.7 per
cent unsure.
1



I am concerned that current changes in education are driven by comparison with
other "jurisdictions" which may have very different social and cultural conditions from
ours. I fear that schools will be put under enormous pressure to reach ambitious
targets, at the expense of teacher and pupil welfare.
I think it is important that a broad range of subjects are taught.
If the National Curriculum takes up all timetabled teaching time, there would be no
nativity plays or end of year plays, no enrichment or broadening of children's
experiences.
80 per cent did not agree that academies and free schools should be able to opt out of
the National Curriculum. Only 10 per cent of respondents believed that this should be
allowed to continue. Significantly, two thirds (66 per cent) of respondents who indicated that
they taught in academies and free schools believed that such schools should not be allowed
to opt out.



If the National Curriculum is designed as an entitlement then it should be compulsory
in ALL schools, with no opt out.
Equality and flexibility is key. The concept that academies and Free Schools have got
a greater ability to decide what is best for their children is laughable at best and
deeply offensive at worst.
There is a paradox in the document whereby the DFE is proposing major changes
that it believes are essential for improved educational performance while at the same
time promoting Academy conversion and Free School establishment, thereby
expanding a sector in which these strictures need not apply.
Almost three quarters of respondents (74.1 per cent) working in primary schools did not
agree that the proposals would redress the balance between tested and non-tested
subjects in the primary curriculum, with only 1.9 per cent agreeing with the Government on
this issue.


Until they abolish league tables schools will continue to teach a limited/narrow
curriculum no matter what the curriculum is supposed to be.
It seems overloaded and unworkable and sets expected standards far too high in
numeracy and literacy which will lead to the curriculum in primary schools lacking
even more breadth and bereft of opportunities to teach the attributes of compassion,
consideration of others, open mindedness, care for the environment and key social
skills such as learning to listen, communicate and cooperate with one another.
For a number of other proposals, respondents either held mixed views or disagreed /
disagreed strongly. Written comments revealed that this was often due to a lack of specific
information within the Government’s proposals or because they felt it was a “curate’s egg”,
that is, there was some merit but also some concern about what was being proposed. What
is most notable, however, is that few respondents supported specific proposals completely.
64 per cent of respondents did not agree that the proposals gave them confidence to adapt
the curriculum to meet their students’ needs, with a further 28 per cent unsure. Just eight
per cent agreed with this central tenet of the Government’s proposals.

Fed up as a teacher - as are many of my colleagues. I want to be able to feel like I
can do (within reason!) what is right for the needs of my class – when and how I feel
is best. Instead I feel like I have to do things in the way that someone else has
decided is best - and that does not always suit my class. I then feel like a worse
2
teacher as I am trying to do what I am asked – even when I know it is not the best
way for my class to learn.
51 per cent felt that the proposals imposed more prescription on schools, with a further
40.6 per cent having mixed views. Just over eight per cent felt that the proposals gave
schools more freedom.




The proposed National Curriculum shows great inconsistency between the Secretary
of State's aim to allow teachers greater freedom to exercise professionalism, and the
incredible level of prescription within the proposed National Curriculum. Where
teachers would perhaps welcome greater prescription (i.e. in the ambiguous
assessment levels) it remains silent.
Schools need the freedom to adapt the curriculum to the needs of their pupils and to
relate it to their own location but this needs time and the proposed curriculum will
take longer than we currently have.
These proposals are unrealistically prescriptive and totally unworkable to teachers.
As somebody who is currently in my 3rd year of teaching, should these proposals be
implemented without adaptation I will most probably leave the profession. I came into
teaching to enhance the lives of our children, not to blindly inculcate them with
mindless facts.
I feel that the breadth of learning will be narrowed and far more prescribed than it is
now. I cannot see in any way how the Government thinks that this new curriculum is
giving teachers MORE freedom.
71 per cent of respondents did not agree that the proposals would meet the needs of pupils
with English as an additional language, special educational needs or disabilities, with a
further 26.5 per cent unsure.




Mostly I'm concerned that the new curriculum does not sufficiently consider the
needs of SEN pupils.
I think SEN and EAL pupils will be at a disadvantage under the new curriculum. Yet
children with severe SEN are still being placed in mainstream schools without the
infrastructure or adequate adult support in place within them.
I am concerned that children with additional needs will struggle with so many
elements of the proposed curriculum due to the high demand for them to learn and
recall so much information. I can see so many children becoming isolated away from
learning.
It is evident that these proposals were written by people who had privileged
upbringings and to whom learning came easily and naturally. I really fear for children
who find learning challenging and schools an intimidating place. These children are
being alienated from the system when previously they were able to access vocational
skills that enabled them to go into employment.
Less than a quarter of respondents (24 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed with the change
of emphasis from the current ICT (information and communication technology) curriculum to
an emphasis on studying computer programming and computational thinking. Thirty seven
per cent had mixed views and a further 39 per cent disagreed or disagreed strongly.



ICT at KS2 should be about a range of skills, not just programming.
I have serious concerns about the computing element.
Computing - another glossary needed please! Again, completely unrealistic
expectations of primary children.
3

95% of primary school teachers will require in-depth training on computer
programming....how much will this cost?
Almost two thirds of primary respondents (65.6 per cent) agreed that foreign languages
should be part of the Key Stage 2 National Curriculum but only a third (32.8 per cent) agreed
with the selection of foreign languages (French, German, Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, Latin
and Ancient Greek) prescribed by Government.


Languages at KS2 should not be prescribed and should not include ancient
languages.
I believe only currently spoken languages such as French, Spanish, German etc.
should be compulsory, Latin and Ancient Greek should be extra to this.
PURPOSE OF THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM
When asked what the single most important reason for having a National Curriculum
was, 45 per cent stated that it set out a minimum curriculum entitlement for every student.
Other responses included ‘it sets out a body of knowledge, skills and understanding that
society wishes to pass on to students’ (27 per cent) and ‘it prepares students for the world of
work and adult life’ (12 per cent)
It is clear that teachers feel that the current model of the National Curriculum could be
improved upon. When asked whether they found the detailed content of the National
Curriculum helpful, only 46.6 per cent agreed that it was, with 32.6 per cent disagreeing and
20.6 per cent having mixed views.

The present system although not wholly perfect is tried and tested with improving
statistics year on year. If meddled with as Gove wishes it will be detrimental to future
student performance as teachers will be pressurised to instantly create success.
It is noteworthy that the Secretary of State has only invited views on his proposals for the
detailed subject Programmes of Study. He has not invited a wider discussion or
consultation on the purposes, aims and values of the National Curriculum, either with the
teaching profession or with the general public. Nor do his proposals for the National
Curriculum set out a detailed rationale and purpose for the curriculum. Its purpose and aims
are unclear beyond a statement that ‘the National Curriculum provides pupils with an
introduction to the core knowledge that they need to be educated citizens. It introduces
pupils to the best that has been thought and said; and helps engender an appreciation of
human creativity and achievement.’
This lack of consultation, together with an unclear educational underpinning of the
Government’s proposals, led many respondents to comment on their frustrations at the
highly political way in which the National Curriculum proposals, and education initiatives in
general, were now developed. Respondents from all school phases and sectors believed
strongly that politicians did not listen to those who taught on a daily basis and that constant
changes were driven by political expediency rather than to be of real benefit to students.


Another example of pointless politicians using education to try and score political
points. Reshuffling the national curriculum is a bit like an inventor producing
something round, then claiming that they invented the resulting wheel all by
themselves!
Having taught for nearly 20 years I am sick of all the changes and fiddling and every
new government making changes that cost ridiculous amounts of money when in fact
if they put that money into more teachers and TAs they would see far more
4





improvement. The schools are full of highly professional, skilled people who can take
a curriculum and create something wonderful for their schools, we do not need to be
endlessly told what to do at an insulting level.
It is laughable that a person such as Michael Gove who has never been a teacher, or
taught in any role, should be responsible for such sweeping changes. He does not
take into account the changing cohorts and general abilities of the children as they
come into school. Many primary teachers now have to teach much more than
subjects to children.
I feel annoyed by ministers suggesting there is only one way to do it and that
teachers have been doing it wrongly so far.
Once again Education is being used as a political tool and these changes are one
person's idea of what education for our children should entail. I am sick to death of
change for change's sake. These are children's lives and education that is being
played with.
I believe a national curriculum should just be a framework of general ideas otherwise
it becomes the teaching of what an older politician liked or sees as being something
good to learn and not what society may view as the case. It also puts far too much
power over the next generation in the hands of the politicians to get them to learn
that politicians views and ideals above all else which I feel is totally detrimental to a
healthy society and democracy.
Mr Gove is clearly using education as a tool to further his own career aspirations. He
cares nothing about what is important to the education of young people that will need
skills and certain subject materials to be able to take an effective place in today's
society.
5