Background to the Research

• The NIC was introduced in 1990. This report presents the Inspectorate's findings of a survey of the implementation of the NIC within the schools in the secondary sector. In coming to a view about curricular provision, a range of factors were considered:
  • the schools' curriculum policies and how they were determined;
  • the curriculum as timetabled by schools, including its breadth and balance;
  • the inclusion of the requirements of the NIC;
  • any differences in the curriculum provided to take account of the pupils' abilities or gender;
  • the extent to which the educational themes were integrated within the curriculum;
  • the provision and uptake of extra-curricular activities.

Research Approach

• District Inspectors undertook planned direct visits to the 45 schools during the first term of the 1998/99 academic year. During the visits, inspectors held discussions with principals, members of the SMT, teachers and pupils; they also observed 241 lessons in a range of subjects and examined curriculum documentation and samples of pupils' work. The survey was also informed by a preliminary exercise in which curricular data from a sample of 48 schools was collected and analysed; of these schools, 39 were included in the direct visit survey.

Main Findings

• Nearly all schools had a written curriculum policy or other relevant documentation. A minority of policies were under, or in need of, review.
• In the majority of schools, the policies were largely determined by the principal or the senior management or curricular teams. In a significant minority of schools, there was widespread consultation with the teaching staff. The contribution of governors to the curriculum policies varied greatly, from an active role in a minority of schools, to little or no contribution in another minority.
• In a small number of schools, groups of pupils had been consulted about the curriculum. A minority of schools had been assisted by the Curriculum Advisory Support Services of the Education and Library Boards in drawing up their whole-school curriculum policies.
• All schools with KS3 pupils met the requirements of the NIC for KS3 pupils and nearly all schools did so for KS4 pupils.
• The residual timetabled time, beyond that which was allocated for the compulsory contributory subjects, was used in a variety of ways. In KS3, a number of areas featured strongly, such as, ICT courses, an additional modern language or a pastoral programme.
• In KS4, the time remaining after the timetabling of compulsory subjects and the pupils' optional subjects varied widely, from none or very little, to sufficient to cater for the more extensive enrichment programmes provided by a small number of schools. The majority of schools provided discrete elements of pastoral or guidance programmes.
• In nearly all schools, the breadth of the curriculum offered to the pupils covered, or went beyond, the minimum NIC requirements.
• The schools' timetabled provision for modern languages was particularly varied, from all or a minority of pupils having little or no choice in the modern language studied in eight schools, to pupils having a wide choice of languages in a small number of schools.
• A minority of schools reported that they needed, and were using, time beyond the timetabled day to teach the curriculum which they wanted to provide for their pupils, and a minority provided after-school or evening sessions for study, homework or revision.
• In a minority of the lessons observed, the quality of teaching and learning observed demonstrated significant or predominantly significant weaknesses. Commonly occurring weaknesses included a lack of suitable challenge in the work provided and an insufficient development of the pupils' thinking and reasoning skills.
• In specifically timetabled ICT classes, the computer was often used effectively as an aid to teaching and learning. In general however, insufficient use was made of ICT, including the use of the computer, in other subjects.
• In a majority of schools the SMT including the principal, drew up the strategies for monitoring and evaluation; in only a minority of these schools was the SMT subsequently involved in any implementation or development of the strategies, such as follow-up of any information gained from monitoring and evaluation.
• Most schools used, to varying degrees, CLASS, to monitor the standards being reached in public examinations. In a minority of schools, the range, depth and quality of information gathered, analysed and interpreted, including the use of CLASS for a range of purposes, notably staff development and involvement in learning was excellent.
• Apart from analysing examination results, the majority of schools made little or no use of CLASS or other arrangements to monitor systematically, evaluate and make any necessary adjustments to the implementation of the curriculum.
• A majority of schools stated that in addition to the changes required by the NIC, they had introduced other significant changes/additions whilst a minority of schools had removed significant features such as certain GCSE options.
• Only a minority of schools had most or all of the curricular priorities well matched to the spending priorities.
• Most schools stated that the major strengths of their provision were their ethos and the provision of a broad and a balanced curriculum.
• A majority of schools said that there was nothing additional that they would like to provide in their curriculum but were unable to do so. Most of the remaining schools said that they would like to have made additional provision, such as more ICT, extra GCSE subjects and so forth.
• Almost all schools viewed the NIC framework positively and said that its fundamental structure was sound and workable. They argued very strongly that there should be no major changes to it, either structurally or in overall content. The most commonly mentioned advantages were the breadth, balance and continuity provided by the overall framework and the programmes of study, and the equality of opportunity both for boys and girls and for pupils of different abilities.
• Other aspects of the curriculum, noted to widely varying degrees by the majority of schools as worthy of inclusion, but only if something else was removed, were: European awareness, environmental issues, citizenship, links with business, social, civic and political awareness, stronger emphases on a vocational component in KS4, personal and social education and the Key Skills.
• Most schools said there were no major deficiencies in the breadth and coverage of the various subjects as set out in the NIC programmes of study and a majority of schools identified that were no major gender issues in relation to their curriculums.
• A significant minority, mostly co-educational schools, showed awareness of gender issues, most often relating to stereotypical subject choice. A minority of schools expressed concern about the low achievement of boys or their predominance in lower-ability teaching groups in their school, and had taken remedial action.
• Principals and SMTs in the majority of schools were well aware of the implications of the recent initiatives on literacy, numeracy and ICT for teaching and learning in their schools. Most classroom teachers interviewed however, had a much narrower awareness of these initiatives and of the need for any consequent necessary changes in teaching and learning. The majority of schools were considering the action needed; a minority were beginning to act on the recent initiatives, as set out, for example, in the School Improvement Programme launched in February 1998.