Curriculum changes–some reflections

Even through my short career, there has been constant change. It sometimes seems that the road ahead is sometimes more of a roundabout. Is the curriculum stuck in a continual cycle? This post will be of interest to teachers of geography, although the points could be applied to the profession as a whole. It promises to be a messy post this one!

Through involvement in the Geographical Association, I’ve come across the Standish proposals. (Download here as a PDF). Here are some of my own reflections on the changes:

1. Conversations about WHAT we teach are as important as HOW we teach.

I believe that we should always be talking about pedagogy and content. The National Curriculum for England and Wales has always allowed time for teaching addition topics (admittedly, the first incarnation had far too much content to allow this!). I’ve always engaged in the what and tried to encourage debate within the department around this. As a result, we have chosen which perspectives we teach from, which content we cover, for example. The current changes and consultations challenge us as a profession to engage in WHAT should be included and I believe that we should be engaged in that debate.

2. We must move beyond the ‘it’s boring’ argument.

To me, the Standish curriculum is morally wrong. It presents one viewpoint, that of Regional Geography, which in turn presents one version of the ‘truth.’ I believe that the curriculum should encourage young people to engage critically with their surroundings. To actively question, find problems, solve them and find out about the interactions between their environment and the people around them. This curriculum is based upon a US higher education system, not the one we have in the UK. We need to urge the UK academic community to engage with the debate. There is no personal geography in there and those that chose which countries to focus on will create the ‘truth.’

To me, the Standish curriculum is far too prescriptive and has far too much repetition. As a ‘part’ curriculum it would take far too much time to cover the content. It does not reflect current school geography, nor the time it would take to change things (having said that, neither do the alternatives…)

What it is not, is boring. A curriculum document will never be inspiring. To me, it’s not a valid argument to simple say ‘It would be boring to teach.’ It’s our interpretation of a curriculum that is creative, inspiring and imaginative for students. No GSCE or A’Level specification has ever set my world alight. Come to think of it, only the ‘Importance of Geography’ statement in the existing National Curriculum is that interesting. Does that mean that students find geography and geography teaching at our school boring?

3. It’s really hard to create a curriculum.

I wouldn’t have a clue where to start in deciding what every person in England should be learning about in geography. I’ll leave the politics to the politicians, but I will ensure that I engage in every opportunity to ‘have my say.’

Personally, I’m not in a position to decide what geography is needed, especially if it is to tie in to higher education. I can only provide part of the picture.

4. Head teachers need to put as much trust in the professionalism of their teachers as the coalition promise to do. (I know that promises can be broken.)

This comment is still in formation, and I admit that it is naive and idealistic Winking smile

I’ve always had a issue with the argument that a curriculum doesn’t mention X, Y and Z. I suppose, fieldwork may be an exception to the rule, but technology, for me is an issue. If we are striving toward a situation where the use of technology is not the main focus of learning (in geography) but a pervasive presence, then why does it need to be mentioned? Maybe this is putting too much faith in the argumentative talents of school middle leaders? I know that my argument is linked to learning, not the curriculum. The exception is fieldwork, which is justified by its inclusion in Exam Specifications and the National Curriculum.

5. There is always some positive

Standish is highly respected by the DfE. They asked him to produce the curriculum. It mentions a lot and clearly sets out earth sciences (physical geography) as a clear part of geography. Science’s curriculum gets agreed a long time before geography’s. Science also have a claim to earth sciences…..

Anyhow, if you’re a geography teacher, and even if you’re not. I would strongly urge you to engage with the debate.

High Impact, Low effort

This month is the start of the #29daysofwriting challenge. I enjoyed this last year and will be using my Staffrm account to post. I'll also be reporting here, both to give a little more detail and to keep a log of what I have written. The challenge developed a great sense of community last year, which is why I'm choosing to write on Staffrm. What I would say to those who are new to writing or don't want to run out of ideas is: Write for yourself. Clarify an idea, write something out loud. The process of distilling thoughts into writing is immensely beneficial to your practice. If other read, comment and respond, that's a bonus. Ignore the muppets who know nothing of your context, style or students. Mix it up - I like to read about real stuff from real classrooms and schools and also about other stuff. If we always write about school, how does that work for workload? If you've nothing nice to say, don't say it. So, the following has been

What makes a learning experience profound? Personal reflections and possible implications for classroom practice.

I have recently begun a Leadership Pathways journey. As part of the first core day, we were asked to reflect on a profound learning experience. This got me thinking about how many profound learning experiences I have both been involved in, and how many I have been able to give to others. Our group came up with a huge long list, but these are my five. Emotional Connected Demanding Reflective Collaborative As always, these are personal thoughts and quite mixed up. I put them here so that I can look back on them (plus they’d get lost inside my world-cup-free brain) 1. Emotional I can’t think of a time where deep learning hasn’t engaged my emotions. From being awe inspired to that tingle feeling when a student gets a light bulb moment. From this-is-the-happiest-day-ever, to I-think-I’m-about-to die. How often do we engage the emotions of those we teach? Here, I would argue that having a safe learning environment is not always conducive to profound

The danger of Teaching and Twitter conversations: poorly formed bipolar arguments.

Sometimes in life, there really are only two options. Get the wrong one and you can look like a muppet. Take this useful sign for the toilets in Morocco. I successfully navigated it, choosing the right option. The result? No egg on my face. As a mountain leader, there are many right or wrong decisions that I’ve faced, as there are all over life. It’s not a good idea to let inexperienced young people walk themselves down Snowdon. They may die or be seriously injured. If someone is showing the signs and symptoms of hyperthermia, you need to treat it fast in a specified way. There is no real arguing with this sign: Other options are less obvious. Take this sign recently spotted near to where I live: Now, I wouldn’t consider sleeping in a bin. However, faced with a sub-zero night, I could see the appeal. The danger? Being tipped into one of those huge lorries with a compactor. (by the way, I only really considered all of this thanks to questions from my four year old boy).

PhilipAnderson28 September 2011 at 20:37
interesting stuff alright.

i am no expert in reading curriculum but as a teacher of Geography I worry that this version seems to be a whole pile of stuff we have to get into the heads of our pupils.
There doesn't seem to be enough room for personal choice for the teacher or the students. There is also no mention of personal geography (though i think i could fit it in amongst the 'local geography' section)
I am old enough to remember my head of dept cutting up the 144(?) statements from the first version of the national curriculum. I can see her desperately trying to plan the curriculum so that all boxes could be ticked off. i worry there is more than a element of that in these 17 pages.
I agree with you that as a secondary geography teacher i only see part of the whole but i do not want my pupils experience at KS3 and 4 to be too determined by what universities say they should know.
Finally my "there is always some positive" would be that i have every faith in my own ability to put a #geographyriot tinge to whatever curriculum is put upon me. :)
David Rogers28 September 2011 at 20:46
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I agree that the lack of personal choice is wrong. I also agree that Gove isn't in my classroom! ;-)

I know that I deliberately focused on HE providing alternatives, but am aware and indeed champion other options. However, I feel that Geography is essentially and academic discipline past KS3, and healthy HE geography departments are needed to provide the future of the subject...

I agree about the length. If what I understand about what the DfE want (essentially 2-3 pages), both Standish and the GA's are too long. However, I'm not too familiar with the politics to say...

I too plan lots of #geographyriot s. :-)

David Rogers

Search This Blog