Since the curriculum and assessment review in England began in 2024, the review panel has received numerous proposals advocating for radical and revolutionary changes. Invoking Keir Starmer’s metaphor about NHS reform, John White argues in his IOE Blog post that the national curriculum needs ‘major surgery, not sticking plasters’. He suggests replacing subject-based organisation with a structure built around three aims – successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens – as set out in the 2007 revised national curriculum under the previous Labour government. In the project Reimagining schooling for the end of what we know, artist Ruth Levene creates a powerful image of the world – food, water, health, infrastructure – foregrounding the urgency of climate change. She calls for a shift from the traditional, knowledge-based curriculum to one centred around practical life skills, nature-based learning and intrinsic motivation.

These are just two examples, among many, of what is called the ‘theory-instigated’ approach to reform – one that begins with a vision of individuals, the world or knowledge, and then calls for revolutionary changes. In this approach the complexities of the education system and challenges in curriculum and assessment are ‘swept away in the name of a single vision’ (Westbury, 2008, p. 49), with little regard for what works, what doesn’t, or the need to explore current problems and workable solutions in schools. A wealth of research consistently demonstrates that reforms based on this approach have little to no impact and, at worst, cause collateral damage to the system (see for example Fink, 2003; Cohen & Ball, 1999; Hogan, 2011; Westbury, 2008).

The ‘evolution not revolution’ approach

The review strongly opposes such an approach, believing that sustainable and responsible curriculum reform requires ‘evolution’, not ‘revolution’. As noted in the interim report, many aspects of the current system are working well – as indicated, for example, by a reasonably broad and balanced knowledge-based curriculum, the high performance of students in recent international comparative studies such as PISA, and the well-functioning national assessments and qualifications. While these aspects should be built upon, important obstacles remain, such as the persistently large socioeconomic gap in educational attainment and the slower progress of young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

Rather than beginning with grand visions or goals, the review starts with a comprehensive investigation and diagnosis of the key issues facing the system, informed by research evidence, data and a wide range of perspectives from experts, stakeholders and the public. To formulate recommendations for addressing these issues and overcoming barriers, the review team engages in a sensible, deliberative and evidence-based process that considers all available alternatives and assesses the risks and benefits of each in a balanced manner. It also strikes ‘a balance between key themes identified through our engagement with stakeholders and broader research and statistical evidence’ (p. 8).

The deliberation is also informed and guided by a set of principles outlined in the review’s terms of reference. For example:

• ‘The review will develop a cutting-edge curriculum, equipping children and young people with the essential knowledge and skills which will enable them to adapt and thrive in the world and workplace of the future.’
• ‘The review will build on the government’s commitment to high standards in the curriculum in England, whilst ensuring greater attention to breadth and flexibility and that no child or young person is left behind.’

As noted in the review’s conceptual position paper, this approach aligns well with the issue-driven, deliberative model of curriculum reform, articulated by American educationist Joseph Schwab in his 1970 groundbreaking paper (Schwab, 1970/2013), based on the premise that sustainable and effective curriculum reform is incremental and cumulative, not radical and revolutionary. It requires a deep understanding of the current state of the system, identifying curriculum and related issues, and deliberating alternative solutions to choose the most appropriate action. Moreover, the model is animated and informed by a vision of education that centres on developing students into fully formed individuals – those who possess an understanding of culture and the world, along with the capabilities needed to meet the challenges of their time.

The practical: Curriculum reform and pedagogy as a distinct discipline

Schwab’s (1970/2013) paper, along with his other ‘practical’ papers, contributes to the establishment of the paradigm of the ‘Practical’ rooted in the neo-Aristotelian tradition at the University of Chicago. This paradigm offers a radical alternative to theory- or vision-driven, often utopian, approaches to curriculum reform which have repeatedly shown little or limited impact. Schwab reconceives curriculum reform as a ‘practical’ undertaking, focused on the identification of problems and the search for solutions through thoughtful, deliberative reasoning within a specific school context. Through the ‘quasi-practical’, this endeavour can be extended to address more sophisticated, multifaceted curriculum and educational challenges faced by a cluster of schools or an entire education system within a country. Moreover, Schwab advocates for responsible and constructive uses of theory by articulating the ‘eclectic’ arts that help ‘to ready theory for practical use’ (p. 495). These arts enable curriculum reformers and developers to ‘discover and take practical account of the distortions and limited perspective which a theory imposes on its subject’ (p. 323) and to combine various theories to form a more appropriate ‘whole’.

‘The “Practical” paradigm offers a radical alternative to theory- or vision-driven, often utopian, approaches to curriculum reform which have repeatedly shown little or limited impact.’

As I have argued in a previous BERA Blog post and elsewhere, the Practical, together with Pädagogik in Germany, offers a promising way forward for the development of pedagogy, addressing a conundrum in educational studies in the UK: the absence of education as a distinct discipline. This conundrum was first deplored by Brian Simon (1981) and later lamented by Brian Davies (1994), David Hamilton (1999) and Robin Alexander (2004). As discussed in Deng (2024, 2025), pedagogy needs to be a ‘practical’ discipline that focuses on understanding and developing practice within the sociocultural, institutional and instructional contexts of schooling, directed towards the advancement of education. It employs an eclectic approach to studying practice, drawing on a wealth of theoretical sources from the foundation disciplines and other fields. This discipline is crucial for ensuring that educational theory and research are relevant and significant to both practice and the world of schooling. It can serve as the ‘crowning’ discipline, organising the foundational disciplines and related theoretical sources for the professional education of teachers and school leaders.

With this in mind, Schwab’s paper is far more than a mere ‘curriculum concept paper from 1969’ – as characterised by Dominic Wyse in his recent BERA Blog post critiquing the review’s conceptual position paper. It offers a vital paradigm for responsible and effective curriculum reform and for establishing pedagogy as a distinctive discipline of education in today’s context. In the position paper we also draw on Dewey’s (1902/1990) The Child and the Curriculum, which helps to extend the sociological insight of the concept of powerful knowledge within an educational and curricular context, rather than, in Wyse’s words, to support ‘maintaining the idea of “powerful knowledge”’. Contrary to his interpretation of what Dewey emphasises about education as ‘centring on the child and the experiences of life that they bring to the classroom’ – a common misreading also committed by a great many educationists – this text, along with The School and Society (Dewey, 1902/1990), sets out a remarkable vision of the curriculum in response to the unprecedented challenges posed by the Industrial Revolution at the turn of the twentieth century. Dewey views the school as ‘a miniature community, and embryonic society’ for practising collaboration and democracy, with a curriculum composed of specially formulated forms of human experience – represented by various school subjects – that progressively guide students towards mastery of diverse forms of scientific and disciplinary knowledge. There is much that Dewey and Schwab can still offer us today, not only in the context of the curriculum and assessment review but in informing, stimulating and challenging our thinking about a future where curriculum reform continues to be thoughtful, inclusive and adaptive to the ever-evolving needs of society. And they both deserve our serious engagement, with care and thoughtfulness.

References

Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. https://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/researchreport/783_rr43.pdf

Deng, Z. (2024). Practice, pedagogy and education as a discipline: Getting beyond close‐to‐practice research. British Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 772–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3951

Deng, Z. (2025). Educational studies, pedagogy and education as a discipline. British Journal of Educational Studies, 73(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2024.2418585

Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society & The child and the curriculum. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1902)

Fink, D. (2003). The law of unintended consequences: The ‘real ‘cost of top-down reform. Journal of Educational Change, 4(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024783324566

Hogan, D. (2012, May). Culture and pedagogy in Singapore: The fate of the Teach Less Learn More policy initiative, 2004–2010. Paper presented at the 4th Redesigning Pedagogy Conference, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Schwab, J. J. (2013). The practical: A language for curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.809152

Westbury, I. (2008). The making of formal curricula: Why do states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). Thousand Oaks.