7 February 2013 Last updated at 05:22 ET

Changes to the national curriculum in England are likely to see pupils being taught a robust "core knowledge" of facts and information.

Details of planned changes to the national primary and secondary national curriculums will be announced by the Education Secretary Michael Gove in the House of Commons - alongside a formal announcement of the abandoning of plans to scrap GCSEs in key subjects.

Ahead of the announcement Mr Gove promised to rid the curriculum of "vapid happy talk" and ensure pupils have a structured "stock of knowledge".

The BBC News website has gathered a range of viewpoints on the national curriculum.

BBC School Reporters from Haberdashers' Aske's Crayford Academy in Bexley

Lisa, 12: I think the national curriculum is a good thing because it makes you learn maths, English, science and humanities which you'll need in any job. In my dream school I'd learn DT (design technology) because I am really good and making stuff and want to be a fashion designer. I wouldn't learn maths - I know it is useful but sometimes it is really hard and I don't enjoy it, so I wouldn't study it!

Millie, 13: The curriculum helps you in your future life but it can also be unhelpful - if you get stuck on one subject that you're not good at it could jeopardise all your learning and your whole future. I think the curriculum should cover maths and English because they help you with skills for your future life like money and speaking.

I'd also like to just learn drama and religion - drama because I love it, and religion because when you learn about other cultures and religions you are less likely to offend anyone. If I could, I would just learn all of the creative subjects like drama, music and photography because they are the subjects that I enjoy the most. I wouldn't learn geography because we don't need it any more, we can use GPS!

Seray, 12: The national curriculum isn't a good thing. If someone wants a job that doesn't use maths then it isn't relevant to learn maths at school. Drama is important because if you don't like someone it teaches you to act like you do, and if you are a doctor it teaches you how to not show that the news is really bad!

Nick Gibb, former Conservative schools minister

The government is publishing a new national curriculum. The English curriculum for primary schools emphasises the importance of the tried and tested phonics method of teaching children to read; the importance of spelling and grammar; and it promotes reading for pleasure, including children's classic literature and important poems, fables and plays.

The primary maths curriculum will ensure pupils become fluent in long multiplication and long division as well as calculation using fractions. Children will be expected to know the multiplication tables by heart, including the 12-times table by the time they are nine.

The new secondary curriculum will be a knowledge-rich curriculum, the type that is commonplace in the independent sector and in the successful emerging economies that Britain will compete with in the globalised marketplace of tomorrow.

Although the new curriculum will not be compulsory in academies, it will set the benchmark for what parents can expect their children to be taught and will drive what will be examined when pupils take their GCSEs or its replacement qualification. The new curriculum is a further step towards meeting the government's objective of closing the attainment gap between those from wealthier and poorer backgrounds.

Dr Simon Gibbons, National Association for the Teaching of English

If a curriculum is important its job should be to outline a 'minimum entitlement'. That is it should set out what all children (and their parents) can expect to have access to during their time in school. It should give a broad and balanced view of the subject.

I understand the current rhetoric suggests that a slimmed-down curriculum will give teachers more freedom, but my concern is that children's experience of English will be impoverished unless certain expectations are made clear in curriculum documents. Also, freedom has to come with proper support in the form of teacher education and professional development. Current changes to teacher education threaten this - and it is difficult to exercise freedom without proper knowledge.

The question of freedom is an interesting one. My view is that a well constructed, broad and balanced curriculum that sets out minimum entitlement but includes plenty of non-statutory guidance gives teachers the freedom to adapt whilst also providing a decent level of support - provided, too, that the curriculum does not stray into the area of pedagogy then teachers have freedom over the 'how'.

I would add a couple of other concerns. Primarily the lesson of the last 25 years is that - in a culture of high stakes testing and accountability - the assessment system has put a stranglehold on curriculum.

John White, emeritus professor of philosophy of education at London University's Institute of Education

I have found no convincing reason for taking traditional subjects as the starting point for curriculum planning. The obvious place to begin is with larger questions about what schools should be for. As it is, statements of curricular aims are no more than high-sounding mission statements.

Backed by their powerful subject associations, science, history, mathematics, languages and other subjects arrogate to themselves as much compulsory curricular time as they can manage, forcing everything else to the margins. Some teachers are happy with this; others are not. Whether this regime is good for every student is a question now increasingly under scrutiny.

I would like to see a revival of the post-2000 moves towards an aims-based national curriculum, curtailed in 2010. It is that you first work out a set of defensible overarching aims eg that schools should equip students for a fulfilling life, both personally and as citizens and workers.

From these, you derive more specific aims eg that as citizens, they will need to understand the society they live in, its economy, and the contribution of science, maths and technology to the latter. The more specific aims thus cover much of what we teach now in the conventional curriculum, but much else besides. The difference from what we have now is that every school activity, whether compulsory or optional, is specifically designed to help young people to lead a full and socially valuable life.

I would like the curriculum to be in the hands of a national commission at arms-length from meddling ministers. It would lay down the overarching and some of the more specific aims that all schools should follow. Beyond that point, it should leave schools free to work out how to realise these aims in the light of their own circumstances eg where to use subjects and where to rely on other learning vehicles like projects or whole school processes.

Prof Duncan Graham, first chairman and chief executive of the National Curriculum Council set up in 1989

In 1985, a White Paper entitled Better Schools published by Sir Keith Joseph recommended moving towards a nationally agreed curriculum which led in turn to a consultation two years later, instigated by his successor Kenneth Baker. The aims were: introducing an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum, setting measurable standards, ensuring greater accountability of schools and fostering a wider public involvement.

Evidence was overwhelming at that time that there were huge inequalities in standards and in the curricula offered by schools. Secondary education to the age of 16 was often grossly unbalanced in subject choice, in effect closing career doors before they were opened. There was need for change.

While the importance of the "3Rs" was recognised in the distinction between "core" subjects (English, science, and mathematics) and the "foundation subjects" (art, music, PE, geography, history etc) all had to be studied from five to 16 and modern languages from 11 to 16.

I should like to see a return to an entitlement and to a balanced rounded education. The evidence is that overconcentration on the "3Rs" is counter-productive and that too much of it unleavened by a wider cultural approach makes Jack a very dull boy and Jill a very dull girl. In the competition for jobs and college places now, competence in the basics is assumed, and what matters more are the rounded personality, character, and extracurricular achievements.