Curriculum theory, curriculum policy and the problem of ill‐disciplined thinking

Abstract

This paper examines the implications of policy fracture and arms length governance within the decision‐making processes currently shaping curriculum design within the English education system. In particular, it argues that an unresolved ‘ideological fracture’ at the government level has been passed down to school leaders whose response to the dilemma is distorted by the target‐driven agenda of arms length agencies. Drawing upon the findings of a large‐scale online survey of history teaching in English secondary schools, this paper illustrates the problems that occur when policy‐making is divorced from curriculum theory, and in particular from any consideration of the nature of knowledge. Drawing on the social realist theory of knowledge, we argue that the rapid spread of alternative curricular arrangements, implemented in the absence of an understanding of curriculum theory, undermines the value of disciplined thinking to the detriment of many young people, particularly those in areas of social and economic deprivation.

Keywords:

• curriculum policy
• curriculum theory
• history teaching

Notes

1. Key Stage 3 is traditionally a three‐year programme encompassing Years 7, 8 and 9 of secondary schooling (for students aged 11–14), although a number of schools are moving towards a two‐year Key Stage 3 programme. Key Stage 4 follows on from Key Stage 3 and covers the period to the end of compulsory schooling at age 16.

2. According to government statistics (DCSF 2010), only 31.05% of the cohort who completed Key Stage 4 in 2009 undertook GCSE examinations in history.

3. The proportion of students in a school achieving five grades A* to C is used by the government as a critical standard in determining the effectiveness of schools (schools with fewer than 30% of students achieving this level are deemed to be ‘failing’). The percentage figure for every school is published annually within national ‘league tables’.

4. A fifth change identified by Hodgson and Spours (2006) ‘devolution’ is less relevant here since we are dealing only with policy in England.

5. Versions of the Big Picture were being presented by QCA as early as 2006, but the document has been refined and adapted over time. The current QCA site provides links to two versions, a ‘working draft’ dated June 2008, and another updated in January 2010. It is the 2008 version that is analysed here.

6. The government (DCSF) describes academies as ‘all‐ability, state‐funded schools established and managed by sponsors from a wide range of backgrounds, including individual philanthropists, businesses, the voluntary sector and the faith communities’.

7. Much less experimentation was reported in the way that history is taught in the second year of secondary schools (Year 8). However, although only five of the schools that responded claimed to be teaching Year 8 history within some kind of ‘alternative’ curriculum programme, this may change as the revised version of National Curriculum (introduced in 2008) is implemented further up the school.