Decoupling lower & upper secondary curricula
All systems exist in a constant co-adaptation with their environment. The upper secondary sections (KS4) of England’s schools are continually adapting to their communities, the government’s inspection body (e.g. Ofsted), and standardised exams (e.g. GCSEs).
The demands of the standardised exams determine much of the school’s organisation. A viable school in this environment achieves adequate grades. Those that don’t are forced to change their organisation by the inspection body.
On the other hand, lower secondary school in England (KS3) has no standardised exams at all. How must it adapt to remain viable? Unfortunately, the pressures of the standardised exams often couple lower secondary strongly with upper secondary. So tightly, in some cases, we could rename the phase pre-KS4, or foundation-KS4.
In the worst case, it could become a stifling five-year preparation for a single exam. Past-paper questions from standardised exams permeate the barrier to the detriment of lower secondary’s autonomy. Slowly, it becomes a vassal stage; equally accountable for the results of upper secondary, yet unable to fully adapt to its own needs.
What are these needs? The need to inspire our young students. The need to invite them into our subject-specific ways of seeing that increase their perspectives on the world.
Systems theory clarifies the problem and solution
Ross Ashby’s (1952) work on the adaptation of systems showed that systems can only adapt to their environment if there is sufficient decoupling. His model is highly useful for everyday thinking beyond school curricula.
Ashby built a machine of four interconnected systems of magnets in electric circuits. Each system would send an electrical current to the other. Once received, the electric current would change the position of the system’s magnets.
If the magnet moved too far, the system would change its circuit and send out a different electric current. This receiving–adapting–sending process would continue until an equilibrium was found; each system received and gave electrical currents that were acceptable to all. In other words, each system adapted to the other until they were sufficiently satisfied.
Ashby observed that all his systems, no matter what, would tend towards an equilibrium, but what made the difference was how long it would take to get there.
With just two systems, the time taken to adapt was very short, with four a bit longer. But soon, by just adding an extra system, the time taken to adapt became hyperastronomical. Think about a meeting with just two people in which an agreement must be achieved. Now think of one with twenty, or a hundred.
Loosely connected systems can adapt quickly
Ashby observed that systems can’t reach an equilibrium if too many things are changing. For example, a common complaint is that schools are constantly changing; there are new policies to adapt to or new exam specifications to enact. Sometimes, teachers are assigned new courses every year.
There are two solutions:
- Sequential adaptation
- Loose connections between systems
Sequential adaptation
A system can adapt quickly if the changes come one by one. This is intuitive enough. Teachers can adapt if new policies come bit by bit, and students can learn when presented with ideas step by step. It’s why teaching without powerpoint and by drawing diagrams in science is so effective.
Loose connections
Think of a school that continually enacts blanket policies across all departments. The departments have their own circumstances: their own subject priorities, assessment values, timetables, classrooms, teachers, and so on. But they struggle to adapt to these circumstances due to continual changes.
In adaptation, loose connections between departments often emerge as a viable solution. For example, the maths department can adapt in its own reality without affecting how the art department chooses to act.
The same can be said for lower and upper secondary. If we want to liberate KS3 from its vassal status, it needs to be decoupled. KS3 can’t adapt to its own circumstances as long as policies, ideas, cultures, and exam questions keep trickling down from the exam-based KS4.
Decoupling lower and upper secondary
Lower secondary must be connected to upper secondary. Teachers will likely have classes that span the divide, and one phase will naturally lead to the other. But we can cut many connections.
Firstly, we can stop the flow of exam-style questions trickling down to lower secondary. Many teachers like these questions because some can provoke rich thinking. But once they appear, the teaching of lower secondary begins to adapt to the circumstances of upper secondary.
So what must be done to avoid this? Rather than exam preparation, we can rethink the meaning of lower secondary as an exploration of a subject. Rather than just learning content, learning content within a subject’s metacontent: the ways of seeing and handling the content of a subject. Metacontent could include, for example, what understanding looks like in a subject-specific way, and how to enact it.
The exam questions of upper secondary focus on assessing students to assign a grade. Instead, we can orient questions towards those that provoke thought and reveal how students think with what we teach. For example, questions that allow students to make and show us their inferences.
This is because a principal end-goal of upper secondary is a grade. But the goal of lower secondary is the coordination of ways of seeing and doing a subject.
Learn more about metacontent and coordinating ways of doing a subject in my book, Teaching Meaning.
References
Ashby, W.R. 1952/1960. Design for a Brain. John Wiley & Sons