History Curriculum at KS4: Are all specifications equal?

When it comes to the curriculum at Key Stage 4 many departments feel that it is largely a question of choosing the right board and specification and then hoping that you have backed the right horse. This is a more important decision than it should be.  I have carried out detailed analyses of the GCSE results of each board over the last four years and have been alarmed by the disparity which seems to exist.  I always felt uneasy about recommending a particular specification as I regarded this as a very personal preserve of the departmental team.  However, when hauled in by headteachers who were anxious to see an immediate improvement in history results, I soon became convinced that choice of specification was turning out to be even more important than I had at first believed.

I will now describe working with four schools that had underperformed over the last three years. Each had stuck with the same specification for the previous twenty  years. Initially they chose it because THEY liked the topics.  Results for the first ten years seemed fine. They knew the specification inside out and were very well resourced. Numbers opting were not especially high, but neither were they declining. But in the late 90s, with increasingly sophisticated data and league tables it became clear that their results were declining in relation to other subjects in the school.

Against my initial wishes, I was reluctantly asked by the departments whether they should change board.  FIND OUT WHAT I SAY AND MORE BY SUBSCRIBING NOW. Could I make some recommendations?  As I presented the GCSE figures for each board for the last four years, I asked them to draw their own conclusions. They were staggered.  I obviously cautioned against making false assumptions e.g. that higher % of A*-C meant the exam was easier!  But it was when I showed them the league table for history results that I had created within my own Local Authority that 'the scales really came off their eyes'. This league table was arranged by CVA or 'residuals' as we called them. Why was it that 8 out of the 10 top performing schools all followed the same specification and all returned a strong positive residual?  The specification the schools were following first made an appearance in 12th spot and even then it was achieved only by an outstanding department.

It took less than five minutes to convince them that a change might help boost their results. In all cases it did. Even with relatively weak departments they all showed improvement. Now you might expect this when any change happens because there is a greater determination to make it work. But results in subsequent years have also been good.

I am reluctant to publish this data but am happy for you to contact me by email to discuss the findings. I think there needs to be a much more level playing field so that all boards and all subjects are equal. Until that time I will happily provide information that might help eradicate the inconsistencies for teachers and injustices for students.

£49.95 for 12 months unlimited access.