Beyond the Straitjacket: A Psychologically Informed Future for The Education System?

By Kelly Hutton

Every so often, a politician will say something that makes you stop and listen for the right reasons. Over the years, I personally have mainly stopped, listened and then rolled my eyes, because, to be frank, it's been a bit of a sh*t show. Lucy Powell's piece in The Times last week did exactly that. Her description of schools trapped in a "straitjacket" of academic prioritisation didn't at all feel shocking, but it certainly felt familiar. After more than twenty years of working across early years, primary, secondary, and post-16, I've watched the system tighten around children and educators alike: more pressure, more content, more outcomes, and less understanding of how children really learn. The most consistent thing about the changes to the education system over the last 20 years in particular has been the lack of educational psychology in the reforms implemented. Powell's call for a "fresh look" at what we teach, and why, opens the door to a conversation that is well overdue. So today, I'm indulging in a little fantasy: what might education look like if we built it on Educational Psychology (how children actually learn) rather than performance metrics?

Curriculum Reform and Flexibility: Unstrapping The Straitjacket on the Education System

My first thoughts about the current education system go straight to the curriculum. It absolutely has its place, and I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, but it was always meant to be a guide, not the stick to beat teachers with. When a curriculum becomes a compliance tool rather than a framework for meaningful learning, as I have seen time and time again, professional judgement is sidelined, creativity stifled, and children's diverse cognitive needs are ignored. A large part of the problem is the sheer size of the curriculum. So much content is packed in that teachers are forced to race through topics whether or not they are developmentally appropiate or genuinely useful for most learners. Many areas of study are essential for some students, but unnecessarily in-depth for others (I see you here, algebra!), yet the current system requires everyone to cover everything in the same way. If the curriculum were a guide rather than a stick, teachers could use their professional judgement to introduce key concepts and then allocate deeper, timetabled learning only to the students who truly need it, such as those who will use it in further study or future careers.

While it's fair to say that children do need a basic level of knowledge to navigate the world, the real debate lies in deciding what that knowledge should be. Do all students truly need that literary analysis of Hamlet, or would they benefit more from critical thinking taught through modern media? Our current curriculum often prioritises tradition over relevance and breadth over depth.

In my fantasy education world, unpicking the national curriculum so schools could timetable learning children genuinely engage with would take far more work, of course. But educational Psychology is clear: our children thrive when their environments reduce cognitive load, strengthen executive function, build identity and belonging, and allow autonomy, curiosity, and relevance to drive learning. Creating that kind of system would naturally demand an overhaul of the exam system, a whole topic I could dedicate a whole other blog post to!

Teacher Autonomy and Professional Judgement in The Education System: Psychologically Binning The Straitjacket!

In my ideal education system, the educator's professional judgement would be trusted, rather than constrained. Learning could shift from rigid sequencing to purposeful, psychologically informed experiences. Instead of teaching to the test, educators could design learning that grows with the children's interests, fills genuine knowledge gaps, and connects naturally to the wider curriculum, the very opposite of the "straitjacket" Powell described. If we truly want to prepare children for their futures, then the next era of reform must place Educational Psychology at the centre and not just restore teachers' professional understanding as the starting point, but also as the central element.

If we truly grounded teaching in Educational Psychology, learning would look far more like the Project-Led approach which I am a big advocate of: child-led questions supported by teacher-led curriculum mapping, rich in executive function practice, and meaningful, real-world learning. The curriculum would be the guide, rather than the constraint, and teachers' professional judgement would be central. A child exploring "How do greenhouses help plants grow?" could naturally cover plant life cycles, pollination, habitats, materials, and scientific enquiry; learning would be delivered through curiosity, relevance, and cognitive science. It is a model of what education could be if we trusted teachers and designed learning around how children actually learn.

If Powell is right, and I believe she is, then the next era of education cannot simply be another reshuffle of exams, content lists, or accountability measures (although the latest on giving schools attendance targets does not bode well in the direction of attending to children's needs). There has to be a cultural shift, a move away from militant structures and curriculum compliance which isn't serving children well and towards psychologically informed, professionally led, and genuinely meaningful learning. Project-led learning shows us what this could look like: children exploring real questions, teachers mapping rich curriculum content around them and learning being driven by curiosity, relevance, and cognitive science, rather than fear of falling behind. The curriculum would guide, not punish. Teachers' expertise would lead, not follow, and children would learn in an environment that works with their brains, not against them. If we truly want to prepare young people for life, then Educational Psychology must become the foundation, and trust in teachers who understand HOW children learn must become the norm, not the exception.

Want to learn more about Project-Led learning and what that can look like in practice? Follow my socials to see, find NurturedTogether on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.

References

National Curriculum (England)

Department for Education. (2014). National curriculum in England: Framework for key stages 1 to 4. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4

Powell, L. (2025, January 31). Schools trapped in a straitjacket of academic prioritisation. The Times. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lucy-powell-michael-gove-schools-b3026199.htm (Independent cited, as The Times article is behind a paywall)