Introduction
The curriculum – the knowledge, skills, and values students are expected to learn – lies at the heart of any education system. Decisions about what is taught, how it is taught, and who makes these decisions profoundly shape student experiences and societal outcomes. The United Kingdom and the United States offer contrasting models of curriculum control. The UK, particularly England, operates largely under a National Curriculum framework, albeit with increasing autonomy for certain school types. Conversely, the US system fiercely guards its tradition of state and local control over curriculum content, leading to significant variation across the nation. This article explores these differing approaches, examining their structures, justifications, and implications for students, teachers, and society.
The UK’s National Curriculum (Focus on England)
Introduced by the Education Reform Act of 1988, the National Curriculum in England aimed to standardize teaching and learning across state-funded schools, ensuring all pupils received a broad and balanced education, regardless of their location. It specifies subjects to be taught, outlines the knowledge and skills (‘programmes of study’) pupils should acquire at each Key Stage (from ages 5 to 16), and sets standards for attainment.
The National Curriculum mandates core subjects like English, Mathematics, and Science throughout compulsory schooling (Key Stages 1-4). Foundation subjects such as History, Geography, Modern Foreign Languages (at secondary level), Art & Design, Music, Physical Education, Computing, and Design & Technology are also included, though some become optional at Key Stage 4 (when students prepare for GCSEs). Religious Education is statutory in all state schools, but the syllabus is determined locally by Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education (SACREs), reflecting local demographics. Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) is also compulsory.
Who Controls the UK Curriculum?
The Department for Education (DfE) holds ultimate responsibility for the National Curriculum content in England. It develops and revises the curriculum framework, often advised by expert panels and subject associations, and following public consultations. However, the picture is nuanced:
-
Academies and Free Schools: These schools, which now constitute a majority of secondary and a large minority of primary schools, are not legally required to follow the entire National Curriculum. They must teach English, Maths, Science, and Religious Education, but have flexibility in other subjects, allowing them to innovate or specialize. In practice, many still broadly adhere to it, partly because national assessments (like GCSEs) are based on its content.
-
Devolved Nations: Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own distinct curriculum frameworks (e.g., Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence, Wales’ Curriculum for Wales) reflecting different educational philosophies and national priorities. These often emphasize skills and competencies alongside knowledge, with potentially more cross-curricular approaches than the English model.
-
Implementation: While the DfE sets the ‘what’, schools and teachers retain significant autonomy over the ‘how’ – the pedagogy, specific teaching resources, and lesson planning used to deliver the curriculum. The inspection body, Ofsted, assesses the quality of the curriculum’s intent, implementation, and impact within schools.
The rationale behind the National Curriculum includes ensuring equity (all students cover essential content), facilitating student mobility between schools, providing clear benchmarks for assessment, and defining a shared body of knowledge deemed important for national citizenship. Criticisms often focus on it being overly prescriptive, potentially stifling teacher creativity, being subject to political interference, and struggling to keep pace with rapidly changing societal needs.
State and Local Control: The US Curriculum Landscape
In stark contrast, the United States has no national curriculum. The US Constitution reserves powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states, and education has traditionally been considered a state and local responsibility.
Who Controls the US Curriculum?
-
State Governments: Each state’s Department of Education sets broad academic standards outlining what students should know and be able to do in core subjects at each grade level. These standards guide curriculum development but do not usually prescribe specific texts or teaching methods. States also determine high school graduation requirements (e.g., number of credits needed in English, Math, Science, etc.).
-
Local School Districts: These entities (governed by elected school boards) have significant power. They typically adopt or develop the specific curriculum materials, textbooks, and instructional programs used in their schools, ensuring alignment with state standards. District-level decisions heavily influence the day-to-day learning experience.
-
Schools and Teachers: While operating within state and district frameworks, individual schools and teachers often have considerable latitude in designing lessons, selecting supplementary materials, and employing pedagogical strategies.
This decentralized model leads to vast differences nationwide. Curriculum content, emphasis, and quality can vary dramatically not just between states, but often between neighboring districts within the same state. For example, approaches to teaching history (particularly sensitive topics like slavery or civil rights), science (evolution vs. creationism debates), and sex education differ enormously based on local political and cultural contexts.
Attempts at Standardization: Common Core
The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), launched in 2009, was a state-led effort (though encouraged by federal incentives) to establish consistent English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics standards across states. The goal was to ensure high school graduates were better prepared for college and careers. While initially adopted by over 40 states, Common Core became highly politicized. Critics argued it represented federal overreach, was developmentally inappropriate, led to excessive standardized testing, and usurped local control. Consequently, many states have since withdrawn, modified, or rebranded the standards, diluting the initial push for national consistency.
Philosophies and Implications
The US model reflects a deep-seated belief in localism and tailoring education to community values. Proponents argue it fosters innovation, allows flexibility to meet diverse student needs, and ensures democratic accountability through local school boards. However, critics point to the stark inequities it perpetuates – students in poorly funded districts or conservative areas may receive a less rigorous or more ideologically skewed education. The lack of common standards can also hinder student mobility and create confusion for higher education institutions evaluating applicants from diverse backgrounds.
The UK’s approach prioritizes national coherence and equity of entitlement, aiming for a common educational experience. While praised for setting clear expectations, it faces criticism for potentially being rigid and less responsive to local contexts or teacher professionalism. The increasing autonomy of academies complicates this picture, creating a hybrid system where national frameworks coexist with greater school-level freedom.
Conclusion
The question of “who decides what’s taught?” reveals fundamental differences between the UK and US education systems. The UK leans towards national guidelines (especially in England) to ensure consistency and equity, though devolution and academy freedoms introduce variations. The US fiercely defends state and local control, resulting in a highly diverse and often unequal curricular landscape. Both systems grapple with the tension between standardization and flexibility, national goals and local needs, political influence and pedagogical expertise. The ongoing debates surrounding curriculum content and control in both nations underscore the critical role these decisions play in shaping future generations and reflecting societal values.