Geography and education III

I Introduction

This is my third and final progress report on geography education in England. The first report (Winter, 2009) presented a historical and political analysis of the health of school geography from the time of the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1991 to the most recent curriculum policy reform in 2007. The second report (Winter, 2012) looked at the impact of neoliberal discourses around competencies/skills, the ‘flexibilization’ of the curriculum and the decline in discrete subject teaching of geography in schools that accompanied curriculum reform in 2007 under New Labour. This third report highlights developments in school geography in England from 2008 to 2012. The report will proceed as follows. After a brief update about the changing political context, the focus moves to a selection of recent policy developments in education in England that impact on school geography education: international comparisons, core knowledge and the English baccalaureate (E-bac), teacher education and the A-level/HE interface. This progress report focuses on recent policy reforms in geography education in England. I would expect reforms in some countries beyond England to echo those described here, while in others reforms will take a different direction.

II The English school context

New Labour education policies came to an abrupt end with the election of a Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition in the English general election held in May 2010. Six months into its term, the new government published its first education White Paper ‘The Importance of Teaching’ (DfE, 2010) in which four general problems with school education relevant to this report, together with their solutions, were identified:

Problem 1: Educational standards in the English education system are falling behind those in other comparable countries (DfE, 2010: Foreword). Solution: Ensure students take part in international tests (DfE, 2010: 4.6) and review the National Curriculum in line with international analysis (Oates, 2011: 133).

III International comparisons

The White Paper (DfE, 2010) states: ‘what really matters is how we’re doing compared with our international competitors. That is what will define our economic growth and our country’s future’ (DfE, 2010: Foreword). ‘How we’re doing’, it is argued, will be identified through international comparisons of student attainment data such as that provided by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), spearheaded and promoted by the Organization for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD). International organizations like the OECD, World Bank, European Commission and UNESCO play different but pivotal roles in influencing the construction of global imperatives that steer national education policy-making in ways that normalize particular values over others (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010) and PISA results serve as a good example. PISA consists of three-yearly cycles of tests for 15-year-olds in compulsory education in 57 countries around the world. It is described by Grek (2009) and others as a form of ‘governing by numbers’ of European and global education policy space because comparison of statistics collected in different countries produces definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ education systems. In this sense, PISA institutionalizes policy priorities (Grek, 2010: 402). At the same time, the premises underpinning the nature of PISA data and the methods of collection remain unproblematized (Wilby, 2012), as do the subsequent policy solutions. For the purposes of this paper, a key emphasis in PISA tests is the ability of students to apply their skills in real-life contexts and to demonstrate core skills of numeracy and literacy, in line with the discourse of lifelong learning, to prepare them for the world of work. PISA tests do not focus on domains of knowledge that are more difficult to measure, like school subject knowledge.

Herein lies what may appear to be a quandary for the British Government – aiming for the highest rank in the PISA and other international league tables by copying the education systems in those nations currently achieving success involves a commitment to a competency view of knowledge as promoted through the lifelong learning discourse. But a competency-based school curriculum is unpalatable to a Coalition Government for which more traditional understandings of school/subject knowledge take priority. The quandary, then, is sidestepped by Tim Oates, Government adviser and chair of the expert panel for the National Curriculum Review, by his identification of a ‘key problem’ in using the results of international surveys such as ‘the problem of the time lag’, since survey results arise from education systems which students experienced preceding the time of the test (Oates, 2011: 135). Instead, the global, homogenizing force of international performance indicators is mediated and vernacularized at the national scale via an alternative, customized route into a homespun response, described by Oates as ‘using international comparisons to refine the National Curriculum in England’. Thus the current National Curriculum review in England is informed by transnational comparison of a selected sample of high performing systems, including Alberta, Finland, Hong Kong, Massachusetts and Singapore (Oates, 2011). Oates argues, on the basis of research by Schmidt and Prawat (2006), that two important curriculum principles operate within ‘high performing jurisdictions’ to make them successful. The first principle is ‘curriculum control’ which includes a complex interplay of 13 control factors. The first control factor is curriculum content, and in all these high performing systems ‘the fundamentals of subjects are strongly emphasized, have substantial time allocation and are the focus of considerable attention in learning programmes’ (Oates, 2011: 141). While the allocation of time and attention to geography as a curriculum subject in the English curriculum is clearly welcomed by geographers, the question remains: who decides on its ‘fundamentals’? Moreover, focusing on the essential core knowledge of subject domains is justified by the government because it removes the need for updating content, bringing stability for teachers and allowing textbooks to be used (p. 129). In the case of geography, however, this could indicate a trend towards teaching about a static world in which little changes. The second principle operating in high performing jurisdictions and advocated for the English context is ‘curriculum coherence’. A curriculum is regarded as coherent when the content, textbooks, pedagogy, assessment, teacher training, drivers and incentives are all in alignment and reinforce one another. But such an alignment suggests little space or scope for teachers to exercise their professional knowledge, experience and skills as creative curriculum makers.

IV Core knowledge and the English baccalaureate (E-bac)

Core knowledge is emphasized in the 2010 White Paper (DfE) as the conceptualization of knowledge appropriate for the reformed National Curriculum in England. It consists of the essential knowledge of subjects, namely students’ ‘cultural and scientific inheritance, the best that our past and present generations have to pass on to the next’ (DfE, 2010: 4.7). The source of the idea of core knowledge lies in the neoconservative Educational Foundation promoting Cultural Literacy in the USA, led by E.D. Hirsch (Hirsch, 1988, 2006; Hirsch et al., 2002). Core knowledge has been introduced into the curriculum in response to the growing emphasis on competency-based curricula introduced by New Labour, with their ‘how-to’ knowledge taking precedence over the subject-based ‘knowing what’. Although core knowledge and the E-bac are two different dimensions of the current Coalition Government curriculum reform, they are closely related and, when seen together, signal a slightly repackaged return to the traditional conservative discourses of subject knowledge that dominated the initial Geography National Curriculum introduced in England in 1991. Lambert (2011: 253–256), Kinder and Lambert (2011: 93–95) and Firth (2012: 88–89) provide critical analyses of the notion of core knowledge in geography as well as suggestions for more appropriate approaches to geographical knowledge for the school curriculum. The dangers accompanying a geography curriculum based on core knowledge are manifest in the curriculum proposed by Alex Standish, who was invited by the DfE in 2010 to contribute to the National Curriculum Review (Standish, no date). As well as lacking a rationale, his core knowledge geography curriculum proposal fails to identify the constituency for whom this knowledge forms ‘the core’. The relevance of the knowledge selection to the complex worlds of students’ cultural backgrounds, experiences and interests remains obscure. Furthermore, the scope for creative curriculum development and critical inquiry by teachers, including their opportunities for responding to topical geographical events, global change and alternative versions of geographical knowledge, is severely limited because Standish’s proposed curriculum engages a form of knowledge that is definitive, fixed, programmatic – not open to change, contestation or critique. There are no avenues evident by which students may engage and develop a critical political intelligence in their project of knowing and writing the world, through their own experiences, through the experiences of others or through perspectives presented in the media. Any consideration of the responsibilities of geography, in terms of the politics and ethics of its knowledge, is ignored.

The E-bac, a new indicator of school performance, forms the second prong of the Coalition Government’s recent curriculum reform policy introduced in the 2010 White Paper. Under the Labour government (1997–2010), a wide range of subjects and vocational awards (including BTECs and OCR Nationals ² ) was recognized as contributing to the success of schools as determined by performance tables. Inevitably, schools, and especially those with a non-selective student intake and located in economically disadvantaged areas, driven by the pressure of performance tables, seized the opportunity to improve their league position by taking up a diverse mix of academic and vocational awards. In the eyes of the current government, two associated problems resulted: qualifications were too easy and resulted in too many students with too many qualifications (DfE, 2010: 4.51). The E-bac forms the Coalition policy solution to these perceived problems. It consists of a clutch of five GCSE ³ subjects (English language, mathematics, two sciences, a foreign language and either history or geography) in which students are required to obtain a grade of A*–C in order to achieve the E-bac. Although it appears to be one, the E-bac is not an award or a qualification. The number of students securing this combination of subjects at top GCSE grades will be recorded in national performance league tables, thereby indicating its purpose as a measure of school performance.

The E-bac is a means of exerting political control over the school curriculum by designating a small number of specific subjects as high status and dictating their underpinning conceptualization of knowledge (core knowledge) and content. Geography educators were relieved to learn that their subject was included in the E-bac, but there are wider implications associated with the rapid imposition of this control measure. On the one hand, it provides what the government has decided is ‘breadth’ and ‘a properly rounded academic education’ (DfE, 2010: 4.22) while consolidating differences between high-achieving and low-achieving schools and obstructing school-based curriculum development. Differential valuing of school subjects in a way that favours high-achieving comprehensives, independent and selective schools (Grammar Schools) with well-established reputations and records of success in these E-bac subjects further consolidates the schools’ success and popularity. For schools serving students with less cultural capital (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977) where a diverse curriculum, which does not traditionally include all the E-bac subjects, is in place, rapid and drastic curriculum and staffing change are required to ward off a ‘failing school’ label. The government argues that a ‘common core’ curriculum confers equality of opportunity across all schools when, in practice, such a curriculum puts at a disadvantage those students who do not share its explicit and implicit cultural assumptions. Given the increase in university fees in England, achievement of the E-bac may well play an increasingly significant role in university admissions in the future, again favouring students from schools with an established and traditional curriculum.

V Teacher education

The 2010 White Paper (DfE) implies there are problems with teachers in England when it states ‘the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of a school system is the quality of its teachers’ (DfE, 2010: 2.1). ‘But we still have some way to go before the status of teaching here matches its status in the highest performing countries’ (para 2.3). According to the government, problems partly lie within teacher training courses which attract insufficient ‘top tier graduates’, but problems also lie with insufficient training time being spent in classrooms. New teachers are not considered to be well equipped in subject knowledge, academic preparation, literacy, numeracy, personal and interpersonal skills (para 2.8). The problems of teaching quality are compounded, in the government’s view, because head-teachers have little power to reward good performance or to tackle poor performance among teachers once appointed (paras 2.32–2.34, 2.6–2.8 and 5.8). The White Paper sets out to resolve these problems through four general policy reforms that are significant to the future quality of teacher education including geography teacher education, in schools.

The first reform involves helping schools to take a leading role in teacher training with ‘on-the job training’/‘apprenticeships’ (Teaching Agency, 2012). Currently, secondary geography initial teacher training students spend 24/36 weeks of the year learning their profession alongside geography teachers in schools through university/school partnerships. The remaining 12 weeks are spent in University Education Departments. The whole training curriculum is governed by Department for Education Teaching Agency requirements and inspected by Ofsted. McBeath (2011: 382) explains how significant the HE sector is to the success of the school/HEI partnership system in providing an educational research environment, access to library, ICT support and continuing professional development programmes through Masters to doctoral level. When teacher training becomes school-based, opportunities for geography education students to conduct theoretically informed, critical inquiries, to share critical reflection about school geography with peers and to develop professional skills across a range of school settings will be reduced. At the same time, expert geography teacher educators in HEIs may become redundant, education libraries may close and ‘the accumulated knowledge of education and pedagogical studies may become eroded’ (McGuire, 2011: 33). The National Union of Teachers (2010) has expressed concern regarding the capacity of schools to cope with increased training demands and regarding responsibility for quality assurance. Plans to promote school-based teacher training is surprising given the judgement by Ofsted (2010: para 156; UCET, 2010: 1) that university courses are better than those provided in schools.

Improving the quality of teacher supply is a second reform recommended by the 2010 White Paper. This will be achieved through increasing the level of difficulty of computer-based ‘basic skills’ tests for student teachers, making the tests an entry requirement and reducing the opportunities for retakes. Additional tests, of aptitude, personality and resilience, may be introduced and recruitment will be restricted to graduates with over a 2.2 degree class. Computer-based tests, currently completed during the training year, carry cost-cutting advantages but, at the same time, signal a reductive and technical approach to assessing the range of complex capabilities required by a future teacher and indicate a model of the teacher as a value-free technician. Many desirable personal and social teacher qualities defy technical measurement and require evaluation by a different means, particularly those qualities of creativity, critical reflexivity, empathy, a passion for geographical knowledge, learning and inquiry, a sense of humour and of justice and an ability to make sound and productive relationships with all kinds of young people, some presenting more challenging behaviour than others. A financial inducement, available only to those with a 2.1 or first-class degree, is proposed as an incentive to encourage top-flight geography graduates to join the teaching force, but monetary gain is arguably not the best reason for someone to commit to a career as a geography teacher. These plans for enhanced quality control of recruitment to teacher training appear to be undermined by the same Coalition Government that introduced them, with the announcement, on 27 August 2012, ⁴ that academy schools were joining free schools in the relaxation of the requirement to employ teachers with a teaching qualification.

VI The A-level/HE interface

The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) regulates school and college qualifications, examinations and assessments in England. A range of issues related to the school-based GCE A-level ⁵ examination system in England was identified by Ofqual in three recent research reports (Higton et al., 2012; Ofqual, 2012a, 2012b). These issues are likely to be of interest to PiHG readers because they relate directly to the structure of A-level geography examinations and, in particular, to the contribution geography departments in universities make to that structure. Dominating all the reports is the question of whether A-level examinations as they currently stand are ‘fit for purpose’ in preparing students for degree-level courses. The final report identifies four main problems with A-levels: lack of clarity regarding subject knowledge content; inadequate development of students’ research, problem-solving and critical reflection skills; modularization which fragments knowledge into ‘little boxes’ and creates a programme of study congested with examinations; and, finally, resits which mean that ‘students do not always treat exams seriously’ (Ofqual, 2012b: 18). These problems are not surprising – a competitive modular examination in a context wherein schools are judged on grade performance encourages strategic and instrumental approaches to the teaching and learning process, such as teaching ‘to the test’, rote learning, multiple resits, high levels of teacher support and schools opting to study less challenging modules.

At the heart of the proposed reform (and echoing the discreditation of current GCSE qualifications for 14–16-year-olds described earlier) is the government view that A-levels are ‘too easy’ (Gove, 2011). Policy reform is aimed, therefore, at increasing the level of difficulty of A-levels and restricting the number of top-grade awards (in other words, ‘grade deflation’). Ofqual proposes a series of solutions to the identified problems, but the question remains that in solving some of the problems the suggested reforms will create a new set of problems. According to Ofqual, lack of clarity of subject knowledge and lack of research, problem-solving and critical thinking skills can be solved by increasing the contribution to the content and skill development of A-levels by universities: ‘Universities should be at the centre of A-level reform. They should have a particular role in determining what should be taught and assessed in each subject (content)’ (Ofqual, 2012b: 23).

Michael Gove was quoted by the BBC as stating ‘university ownership of the exams must be real and committed, not a tick-box exercise’ (Gove, 2012) and for those universities to comprise ‘our best, research-intensive universities such as those represented by the Russell Group’ (Morgan, 2012). Whether university geography departments have the time, workforce skills and financial resources to meet such demands in the light of their own concerns about HE funding cuts, student recruitment under conditions of increased fees, accountability and employability pressures remains uncertain (Castree, 2011; Piatt, 2012). The diverse nature of HE geography is one of its key strengths and this fact, together with the knowledge that Russell Group universities specialize to varying extents within different geographical topics, at the same time as offering a limited number of places to study geography, make geography department involvement in determining the subject content of the A-level geography curriculum a complex task. If the A-level geography curriculum is determined by a small group of elite research departments, the appeal of A-level geography to students able and keen to study the subject, but not interested in an academic geography education post-16, may be reduced and A-level geography may become nothing more than a Russell Group university entrance examination. A-level geography is currently attractive to a wide range of school students who enjoy its diversity but have no plans to take their study to a further level.

Ofqual also suggests that examinations will be taken at the end of the course only (instead of throughout the year) and resits restricted to one, plus an end to modularization. Since 2011, cuts have been made in the Educational Maintenance Grant (EMG), a weekly government-funded payment that aims to encourage students from less financially advantaged backgrounds to continue with their education post-16. These reforms will, in the former case, increase the level of difficulty for students from a range of social backgrounds to achieve top grades, and in the latter case students from financially poor backgrounds will be deterred from undertaking A-level and similar courses in school sixth forms and Further Education Colleges. Both sets of reforms will contribute towards making A-level examinations less inclusive.

VII Conclusion

This progress report has looked at a limited range of education policy reforms signalled in the 2010 White Paper – some, such as A-level reform, are still in the consultation period, yet general implications may be drawn from the discussion above. The first point to note is the increasing contribution of international comparative research driving the direction of education policy reform in England. The complexities of international comparative studies are well-known to geographers in HE. Partnership between HE geographers, geography educators and colleagues in the field of comparative education carries the potential for fruitful research into international comparative studies informing education policy reform. ⁶ Second, the deployment of core knowledge as the dominant epistemology in KS1-3 curriculum policy reform ignores poststructuralism’s challenge to the authorization and legitimation of such metaphysical leanings. Core knowledge represents an acritical, apolitical curriculum epistemology. It forecloses on research indicating curriculum knowledge as a social, political and ethical construction that accords with some students’ cultural backgrounds and dispositions more readily than with others. The E-bac, as another measure of educational performance, is based on a set of specific selective-school subjects which reinforce the powerful influence of curriculum control over school students, teachers and parents.

Third, in the case of teacher training, government policy extends its control to teachers whose professional ‘education’ may no longer be undertaken in the setting of the academic freedom of universities, but whose professional ‘training’ will be undertaken ‘on the job’ in those schools implementing the regulations imposed by these and earlier reforms. Opportunities for innovative and radical teacher professional development and curriculum development in geography under these conditions appear limited, as do opportunities for teachers to recognize and engage critically with the ethics and politics of the world in their classrooms. Fourth, funding cuts and increased fee levels already impact on HE geography, resulting in department closures and staff redundancies or redeployment. The proposed reforms to A-levels described here are likely to reconfigure further the structure of HE geography and the constituency of undergraduate geographers by consolidating the already existing two-tier hierarchy of Russell Group and non-Russell Group universities. Increased academic differentiation between students makes a mockery of the HEI ‘widening participation’ agenda, leads to increased social stratification and an increasingly hierarchically structured and unequal society. Closing down opportunities to learn, to learn how to be critical about the world through geography and to learn how to access the freedom to question the ways in which they are governed through the education system is a right for all young people.

The constitution and implementation of national education policies affect the state of geography and of those who learn and teach the subject in schools and universities. Education policies are never neutral and objective, but are instead deeply political and ethical message systems with power to reproduce the social status quo or to transform it. As Scheurich (1994) points out, social policy solutions are selected from a restricted range of policy options that, in turn, are themselves responses to socially and politically constituted policy problems. The policy trajectory discussed through these three reports stretches from New Right neoliberalism to New Labour’s Third Way and back again to a reinvented Right-wing politics of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition. During this time, different education policies have been adopted, but one thing has remained constant – that is, an increasing level of control and regulation over education by those outside the professional realm of education and of geography, whether in schools or universities. Bringing critical policy scholarship to bear on education policy reform presents an opportunity to challenge those persistent and pervasive policies that are socially divisive, unjust and deprofessionalizing for geography teaching and learning in schools and universities.