Humanities, Non-Specialists and a Non-Negotiable Model
You are head of a 1,200-pupil secondary in a trust that mandates a “knowledge-rich” curriculum. History and geography were merged into “Humanities” three years ago with three lessons a fortnight, taught largely by non-specialists: 8 of 11 teachers teach at least one strand outside their degree. Year 10 combined humanities progress is −0.42, and option blocks have been squeezed so GCSE geography and history sit in the same block. Lesson visits show 68% teacher talk; assessment uses a four-point scale that departments interpret differently, and few SEND pupils are entered for higher tiers. Governors want a curriculum review by Easter and ask you to “rebalance the timetable”. The trust's regional director says the knowledge-rich model is non-negotiable.
1. Identify the three changes you would prioritise and justify why those and not others.
Read the worked answer
Diagnose before prescribing
The evidence points to three distinct causes, and conflating them is the trap. Progress at −0.42 is not caused by “knowledge-rich versus skills-based” - that argument is settled at trust level and I will not win it. The causes visible in the data are: (1) structural (two disciplines in one option block and three lessons a fortnight), (2) capacity (8 of 11 teachers outside specialism), (3) assessment incoherence (a four-point scale read five different ways, so we cannot even see the problem accurately).
Priority 1: separate the option block
Separating geography and history in the options is the cheapest, highest-leverage change: it restores subject choice and specialist teaching without extra staffing if hours are reallocated. It is also irreversible in the right direction - parents and pupils read option blocks as a statement of what the school values.
Priority 2: one assessment framework, moderated
Common end-of-unit tasks, shared mark schemes, and a termly moderation meeting. Until assessment is comparable, every other judgement - including tiering decisions for SEND pupils - rests on noise. I would explicitly review entry tiers and check whether low entry is a capability judgement or an assessment artefact.
Priority 3: reduce teacher talk through a coaching cycle
68% teacher talk in a three-lessons-a-fortnight subject is a symptom of non-specialists relying on narration to feel in control. The answer is subject-specific coaching and shared resources, not generic pedagogy training: give each non-specialist a specialist mentor, a common sequenced scheme with worked examples, and protected time.
Why not other things
I would not run a curriculum rewrite, a new observation rubric, or a vocabulary initiative this year. Each is plausible and each would consume the capacity that the three causes above actually need.
2. How do you handle the governors' Easter review and the trust's non-negotiable position simultaneously?
Read the worked answer
Do not fight the mandate; use its language
“Knowledge-rich” is not the problem - it is compatible with strong subject discipline. I would frame the review as how we deliver a knowledge-rich curriculum faithfully, which is a question the trust wants answered, rather than whether we should, which is a question I would lose. The regional director becomes a source of support (subject networks, specialist CPD) rather than a constraint to be resisted.
Give governors a decision, not a document
A review that ends in a 30-page paper is a review that changes nothing. I would present:
- The evidence: progress by subject and group, option uptake, lesson-visit patterns, moderation outcomes, staff deployment by specialism.
- The trade-offs: what each option costs in staffing, timetable hours, and impact on other subjects. Rebalancing the timetable is zero-sum; governors should see whose hours shrink.
- Three recommendations with a risk rating, timetabled to a decision date.
Manage the timetable politics explicitly
The two departments in dispute and the option-block squeeze mean any rebalancing creates winners and losers. I would set out the principles before the allocations - statutory entitlement, specialist teaching in examined subjects, minimum guided hours - so that the argument is about principles rather than about which head of department has more influence.
Sequence for credibility
Phase the change: option block and assessment framework from next September (both achievable), staffing model over two years (constrained by contracts and the deficit). Governors should be told which parts are within my gift and which require money they have not yet released.
3. What would convince you in twelve months that the change has worked, given you do not trust the current progress measures?
Read the worked answer
Distrust of the headline measure is itself an argument for leading indicators
A single progress figure at −0.42, produced by an assessment system departments interpret differently, cannot be my success criterion. In year one I would pre-register a basket of indicators and publish them to governors in advance, so I cannot retrofit the definition of success.
The basket
- Assessment comparability: percentage of end-of-unit tasks common across classes; moderation agreement rates; a sample of scripts double-marked.
- Curriculum delivery: percentage of planned units taught by a specialist; average guided hours in examined subjects; option uptake for history and geography at Year 9.
- Classroom practice: proportion of lesson visits showing teacher talk below 50%, sampled by the same observers using the same protocol across the year.
- Equity: entry-tier distribution for SEND and disadvantaged pupils; progress gap between SEND and non-SEND on common tasks.
- Pupil experience: a short pupil survey on challenge and clarity, and a book-sample review with governors.
What would make me change course
If option uptake does not rise and moderation shows persistent disagreement, the problem is not teacher talk but the assessment system or the timetable allocation, and I would reallocate again rather than redouble the coaching. I would say so in advance: a review whose conclusions are known before it starts is not a review.