Curriculum is often seen as a fixed ‘course of study’ – a neutral list of topics to be taught and assessed. Yet, it is anything but neutral (Apple, 2004). Pinar (2019) argues that curriculum is a sociopolitical construction embedded with assumptions about power, identity and the future. Every decision on what is included – or excluded – reflects contested values and worldviews (Young, 2007). 

The UK is undergoing significant curriculum reform from key stage 1 to key stage 5. Although education policy is devolved – resulting in different national curricula and reform trajectories in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – these systems continue to bear the imprint of colonial legacies. For example, in the English literature curriculum for schools in England, Shakespeare continues to dominate reading lists, while literature from the Global South or works by Black and Indigenous authors are often relegated to optional units or absent entirely. The curriculum is also increasingly shaped by market-driven logics that frame education around performance metrics, competition and the production of economically ‘useful’ learners (Ball, 2003). We should consider reimagining the curriculum through a decolonial lens. 

‘We should consider reimagining the curriculum through a decolonial lens.’ 

Colonial foundations of the curriculum 

In England, key stage 3 history emphasises topics such as the Tudors, World Wars and the British Empire, centring White British narratives while often overlooking critical views on colonisation and resistance. Science and maths are presented as culturally neutral, excluding significant contributions from Islamic, Chinese and African scholars (Tikly, 2019).  

Further and higher education both prioritise ‘employability’, reflecting a colonial-capitalist focus on workforce preparation rather than ethical or civic development (Mbembe, 2016; Gopal, 2021). This narrows education’s purpose to economic utility, marginalising humanistic goals such as democratic participation, ethical reflection and social justice, evident in the decline of critical pedagogy and the arts (Biesta, 2021).  

Accountability systems – Ofsted inspections, GCSE exams and university league tables – reinforce a performance-driven model, reducing learning to measurable outcomes and checklists. Despite reforms in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, UK educators still face pressure to meet standardised targets, often sacrificing deeper learning and critical engagement (Lingard, 2011). 

What is decoloniality? 

Decoloniality is not simply about adding diverse content to existing structures. Rooted in Quijano (2000) and expanded by Mignolo and Walsh (2018), it demands epistemic disobedience: questioning dominant knowledge hierarchies, their formation, and whose interests they serve. It challenges Western epistemic dominance and affirms historically marginalised ways of knowing. 

‘Decoloniality is not simply about adding diverse content to existing structures … it demands epistemic disobedience: questioning dominant knowledge hierarchies, their formation, and whose interests they serve.’ 

In education, decoloniality involves critically examining inherited assumptions and engaging with alternative traditions. Black feminist thought (hooks, 1994) and Indigenous methodologies (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2021) offer more than diverse perspectives – they propose radically different ethical orientations grounded in care, land and interdependence. 

Towards a reimagined curriculum 

What if curriculum design began not with rubrics or attainment targets but with public values – like justice, sustainability and care? What if we asked: 

• What does it mean to live well together? 

• How do we learn to respond to injustice? 

• What futures are worth imagining and building? 

• What is the true purpose of education? 

A values-led, decolonial curriculum reframes education as an ethical and relational practice prioritising inquiry over instruction and transformation over transmission. Biesta (2021) contrasts ‘learnification’ – education reduced to content delivery – with ‘subjectification’, which supports learners in becoming thoughtful, responsible agents. 

Curriculum, then, is not merely what we teach. It is who we are, what we value and the futures we seek to cocreate. As systems globally grapple with reform, we must not only revise content but reimagine education as a space for justice, plurality and hope. 

References

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). Routledge.  

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065 

Biesta, G. (2021). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge. 

Gopal, P. (2021). On decolonisation and the university. Textual Practice, 35(6), 873–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950236X.2021.1929561 

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge. 

Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/Counting for educational research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-011-0041-9 

Mbembe, A. (2016). Decolonizing the university: New directions. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022215618513 

Mignolo, W., & Walsh, C. (2018). On decoloniality. Duke University Press. 

Pinar, W. F. (2019). What is curriculum theory? (3rd ed.). Routledge. 

Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005  

Tikly, L. (2019). Education for sustainable development in the postcolonial world. Routledge. 

Tuhiwai-Smith, L. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies (3rd ed.). Zed Books.