THE new curriculum for schools has been characterised by "confusion" over the underlying importance of subject knowledge, according to a new report.

Researchers from Stirling University found a lack of coherence in the way official documents explained the importance of knowledge as part of the roll-out of the new Curriculum for Excellence (CfE).

As a result, while the role of developing skills in pupils such as problem-solving and leadership is clear, inconsistencies in statements on knowledge were "undermining".

"These inconsistencies create a subtle, but pervasive sense of confusion about the purpose of curriculum..... views about what actually matters and, even more importantly given the time constraints and complexities of schools and classroom, what matters most become unlikely to be shared amongst curriculum users," the report states.

"We suggest that these mixed messages reduce the certainty, or at least the clarity, of expectation that teachers emphasise knowledge."

The report, co-authored by Professor Mark Priestley, from Stirling University's school of education, comes at a time when specialists have warned that subjects are being "dumbed down" and marginalised under the CfE reforms.

Mike Robinson, chief executive of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, recently said crucial scientific elements of geography had been "stripped out" of new courses.

He also warned many councils were now using non-specialists to teach geography alongside other subjects such as history and modern studies.

Larry Flanagan, general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland teaching union, welcomed the study.

He said: "This report raises an important issue which requires to be addressed as we move forward. Knowledge is important, including subject knowledge, but it can't be treated abstractly - it requires to have an application.

"CfE was designed to provide an appropriate balance between knowledge-based learning and the acquisition of skills and it is supported by an assessment system which aims to recognise both academic attainment and broader achievement.

"While the process of change on such a large scale is never straightforward, the continuing implementation of CfE is helping to deliver enhanced educational opportunities for young people."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "CfE is improving Scottish education and has received wide-ranging support since its inception over the last 10 years.

"Pupils now have more choices and opportunities under the new curriculum and..... schools are already making use of the flexibility that CfE offers to provide a much broader range of qualifications, awards and personal development opportunities, in partnership with colleges and employers."

The report, written in conjunction with academics from the University of Auckland, in New Zealand, said that, as a result of globalisation, education systems such as Scotland's were being developed as drivers of economic development, with a greater emphasis on the importance of individual pupils and with greater autonomy for teachers.

Critics have already argued these changes have the result of downgrading knowledge because of the greater emphasis on the development of generic skills which has led to a weakening of traditional subject boundaries.

The report states: "Disciplinary knowledge remains a purpose, and arguably one of the most important purposes..... and a key focus of the outcomes intended by curriculum policies.

"Nonetheless, the acquisition of knowledge remains only one of a variety of purposes of education within the new curriculum, rather than the key purpose.

"In such a context, one might therefore argue that in reducing the primacy of knowledge in the curriculum, governments are indeed downgrading knowledge."

The report notes that there is an explicit intention within CfE that content should be flexible and subject to local decisions by teachers with documentation on the issue expressing broad ideas which teachers should develop.

"School leaders and teachers are potentially left, given the design issues, uncertain about what is most important and whether they should or should not prioritise attention to developing their students' knowledge," it adds.

"Thus, in terms of curricular practice, there remain at least two risks. One is that schools might downgrade knowledge. The other is the risk of content being specified for the wrong reasons: purely to meet the demands of assessment, to fit with existing resources, or simply to follow tradition."