systems dept

Teaching and learning geography

Teaching and learninggeography

Edited by Daniella Tilbury andMichael Williams

London and New York

First published 1997by Routledge11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003.

RoutledgeFalmer is an imprint if the Taylor & Francis Group Selection and editorial material 1997 Daniella Tilbury and Michael Williams;individual chapters the contributors

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted orreproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafterinvented, including photocopying and recording, or in anyinformation storage or retrieval system, without permission inwriting from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

Teaching and learning geography/edited by Daniella Tilbury andMichael Williams.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.1. GeographyStudy and teaching (Primary) 2. GeographyStudy and

teaching (Secondary) I. Tilbury, Daniella, Ph.D. II. Williams, Michael.G73. T415 1997910.71173dc20 9622402 ISBN 0-203-43905-8 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-74729-1 (Adobe eReader Format)ISBN 0-415-14244-X (Print Edition)

v

Contents

List of figures viiiList of tables xNotes on contributors xiList of abbreviations xv

1 IntroductionDaniella Tilbury and Michael Williams 1

Part I

2 The place of geography in the school curriculum: an historicaloverview 18861976 7

Bill Marsden

3 The great debate and 1988 15Rex Walford

4 Geographical education in the 1990s 25Norman Graves

Part II

5 Curriculum planning and course development: a matter ofprofessional judgement 35

Margaret Roberts

6 The scope of school geography: a medium for education 49Michael Naish

7 Progression and transition in a coherent geography curriculum 59Michael Williams

8 Differentiation in teaching and learning geography 69Jeff Battersby

vi Contents

9 Cross-curricular concerns in geography: Earth science andphysical geography 80

Duncan Hawley

10 Cross-curricular concerns in geography: citizenship and economicand industrial understanding 93

Daniella Tilbury

11 Environmental education and development education: teachinggeography for a sustainable world 105

Daniella Tilbury

12 Equal opportunity and the teaching of geography 117Brian Gonzalez and Elizabeth Gonzalez

Part III

13 Instructional design 133Michael Williams

14 Cognitive acceleration in geographical education 143David Leat

15 Language and learning in geography 154Graham Butt

16 Learning through maps 168Paul Weeden

17 Ethnocentric bias in geography textbooks: a framework forreconstruction 180

Christine Winter

18 Teaching and learning through fieldwork 189Nick Foskett

19 Using information technology and new technologies ingeography 202

Diana Freeman

20 Teaching about the local community: using first-handexperience 218

Rachel Bowles

21 The European dimension in primary education 231John Halocha

22 Towards a critical school geography 241John Huckle

Contents vii

Part IV

23 Principles of pupil assessment 255David Lambert

24 Assessment in the primary school 266Patrick Wiegand

25 Teacher assessment in the National Curriculum 275David Lambert

26 Geography and the GCSE 287Sheila King

27 Student assessment in geography post16 298Graham Butt

Index 310

viii

List of figures

3.1 Combining the attainment targets 195.1 Two models of curriculum planning in geography 376.1 A caricature of Advanced level geography (1974) 527.1 The curriculum staircase 617.2 Proposals for progression at each of Key Stages 1 to 3 637.3 Contrasts in curriculum culture between upper primary and

lower secondary schools 658.1 Differentiation strategies 739.1 The Earth science component of the Science National

Curriculum 849.2 Inductive and deductive routes to explanation 859.3 Cross-curricular co-ordination in science and geography 879.4 Science curriculum concepts that are useful in geography 89

12.1 Book evaluation matrix 12613.1 Instructional design as a system 13415.1 Two dimensions of questioning 15615.2 Analyses of questions 15715.3 Example of a sequencing DART: tea 16516.1 A simplified map communication system 16916.2 A map showing a range of symbols and information 17219.1 How IT supports enquiry learning in geography 20619.2 Informationand data-handling skills used for enquiry learning 20819.3 Data collected by an automatic data-logging weather station 20919.4 Satellite images 20919.5 Results of an environmental assessment survey 21019.6 World map indicating life expectancy 21019.7 Some contexts for introducing IT into geography activities 2121320.1 Regular journeys of children in their locality 222320.2 Questions to be asked about a locality 228923.1 Part of a marking policy which distinguishes purpose 26223.2 Records at the disposal of a teacher 263

Figures ix

25.1 Looking inside a level description 27925.2 Progression in knowledge and understanding of places and

themes 280125.3 Identifying progression in geographical skills 28325.4 Assessment in the Geography National Curriculum 28526.1 Comparable examination grades 28926.2 Aims of geography GCSE syllabuses 29126.3 Grade C grade description 29527.1 No golden age of A-levels 30027.2 National Qualifications Framework 30627.3 National targets for education and training by 2000 307

x

List of tables

12.1 Gender bias of KS3 textbooks published 1991/1992 12718.1 A spectrum of fieldwork locations for geography 19218.2 A continuum of teaching and learning strategies for fieldwork 19418.3 Outline planning checklist for fieldwork organization 19618.4 A geography fieldwork plan for a secondary school 19923.1 A glossary of the principal features of educational assessment 25625.1 Checklist of quality criteria in Teacher Assessment (TA) 27727.1 A/AS approved syllabuses (as of 30 June 1995) 30327.2 Comparisons between A/AS levels, GNVQs and NVQs 305

xi

Notes on contributors

Jeff Battersby has taught in secondary schools for over twenty-five years. Heis now a Lecturer in Geography and Environmental Education at theUniversity of East Anglia, where he is also responsible for the SecondaryPGCE course. He was a member of the SCAA Geography Advisory Groupand a consultant developing optional tasks for Key Stage 3 assessment. He isa consultative and coursework moderator for Avery Hill Geography. He is amember of The Geographical Associations Education Standing Committee.

Rachel Bowles lectures and tutors in education and environmental sciencesat the University of Greenwich and is an INSET consultant for geographyand environmental education. A regular contributor to GeographicalAssociation and other publications for primary teachers, she has recentlyproduced three locality studies and is now compiling a register on primarychildrens geographical perceptions.

Graham Butt is a Lecturer in Geography Education at the University ofBirmingham. He is a member of The Geographical Association and has beeninvolved with its Assessment and Examinations Working Group for manyyears. His research and writing has largely focused on different aspects ofboth the teaching and examining of geography courses.

Nick Foskett is Deputy Head of the School of Education, University ofSouthampton. He has taught geography in schools and 1619 colleges andhas been Head of Geography. His research interests are in the areas offieldwork practice and in the links between international/nationalenvironmental policy and the practice of geography teachers in schools andcolleges.

Diana Freeman is a founder and director of The Advisory Unit: Computersin Education. She has been closely involved in developing educationalsoftware and associated curriculum materials to support teaching andlearning geography with information technology. She is a member of the ITWorking Group of The Geographical Association, chairs the GIS

xii Contributors

subgroup, and is on the Education Sub-Committee of the RoyalGeographical Society.

Brian Gonzalez is head of Geography at Westside School for Girls inGibraltar. He is a graduate of the University of Aberdeen. His M.Ed, focusedon the changing role of the teacher. He is now carrying out doctoral researchon the problems of geographical education in Gibraltar.

Elizabeth Gonzalez is head of the sixth form at Bayside School, a boyscomprehensive school in Gibraltar. She was born and educated in Aberdeen,where she took a degree in geography. She has taught geography at CultsAcademy in Aberdeen and at Bayside since 1978. At present she is workingon an M.Ed, on the transition of students from the sixth form to university.

Norman Graves is Professor Emeritus of Geography Education at theInstitute of Education, University of London, formerly Director ofProfessional Studies and Holder of the Royal Geographical Societys VictoriaMedal for services to geographical education. He is the author of severalbooks and many articles on education generally, and on geographicaleducation in particular, and is working at the moment on a handbook fordoctoral students (to be published by Routledge).

John Halocha is Principal Lecturer in Geography Education and TeachingStudies and Co-ordinator of Professional Studies on the B.Ed, course atWestminster College, University of Oxford. He has taught in primary andmiddle schools and was Deputy Head Teacher of two schools. He is engagedin partnership work with schools in initial teacher education.

Duncan Hawley has taught geography and earth sciences in comprehensiveschools, field centres and a city technology college. He has worked as anAdvisory Teacher for geography and earth sciences in Gloucestershire, is co-tutor of the geography PGCE course at the University of Wales Swansea andchairman of the Earth Sciences Teachers Association.

John Huclde is a Principal Lecturer in Geographical and EnvironmentalEducation at De Montfort University Bedford. He is a consultant to theWorld Wide Fund for Natures education department and is the main authorof Reaching Out: Education for Sustainability, the departments programmeof professional development for teachers.

Sheila King taught geography in a variety of schools for seventeen years andwas Head of Humanities in one of the largest comprehensive schools in westLondon. She is now a geography lecturer in initial teacher training at theUniversity of London Institute of Education. She is also co-ordinator of thesouth-east region of The Geographical Association.

David Lambert is Senior Lecturer in Geography Education at the Universityof London Institute of Education where he is co-ordinating tutor for the

Contributors xiii

geography PGCE. He is also involved in the teaching of INSET, various shortcourses and the MA in Geography Education. His research interests includeassessment policy and practice, and the concept of prejudice in GeographyEducation. He also has an interest in textbooks and produced the CambridgeGeography Project which won the 1992 TES Schoolbook of the Year Award.

David Leat taught for twelve years, including four years at an LEA fieldcentre. He is now a geography PGCE tutor at the University of Newcastle,and his research interests lie in teachers thinking and professionaldevelopment. He works with a group of teachers on a project entitledThinking Through Geography, preparing a series of books on how to makegeography more challenging to pupils. He is engaged in two curriculumdevelopment projects in Northumberland (humanities) and Cleveland(science) focusing on the barriers to implementing thinking skills approaches,with a view to devising more powerful in-service education models.

Bill Marsden is Emeritus Professor of Education at the University ofLiverpool. He is the author of many publications in geographical educationand in the history of education, including Evaluating the GeographyCurriculum (Oliver and Boyd 1976) and Geography 1116; RekindlingGood Practice (David Fulton 1995). He edited Historical Perspectives onGeographical Education (IGU 1980) and Primary School Geography (DavidFulton 1994).

Michael Naish is Reader in Education at the Institute of Education, Universityof London. His main interests are curriculum development and teachereducation. He was director of the Geography 1619 Project and has writtenschool-books as well as works for teachers.

Margaret Roberts is Lecturer in Education at the University of SheffieldDivision of Education, where she has been centrally involved in thedevelopment of the Universitys partnership in teacher education withschools. She is responsible for co-ordinating the geography curriculumelement of the PGCE course. Her main research interest is the implementationof the Geography National Curriculum in secondary schools.

Daniella Tilbury is a Lecturer in Geography Education at the University ofWales Swansea, where she is responsible for the geography PGCE course.She has taught geography in English, Gibraltarian and Australian schoolsand has been involved with in-service teacher education in several Europeancountries. Her doctoral research focused on environmental education. Shehas been an environmental education consultant to a number oforganizations, including the European Educational Regional Partnership.

Rex Walford is University Lecturer in Geography and Education at theUniversity of Cambridge and a Fellow of Wolfson College. He was a memberof the National Curriculum Geography Working Group, is a past President

xiv Contributors

of The Geographical Association and is currently a Vice-President of theRoyal Geographical Society.

Paul Weeden is Lecturer in Education (Geography) at the University ofBristol. He previously taught in a Bristol comprehensive school and wasAdvisory Teacher in both Somerset and Avon. Current research interestsinclude Key Stage 3 assessment and assessing locational knowledge.

Patrick Wiegand is Senior Lecturer in Geography Education at the Universityof Leeds. His research interests are in educational cartography, includingelectronic atlases, and childrens understanding of distant places. He hasedited several atlases for schools.

Michael Williams is Professor of Education and Dean of the Faculty ofEducation and Health Studies at the University of Wales Swansea. He haswritten many articles and books on aspects of geographical education andhis special interests are in curriculum design and evaluation. His most recentbook is Understanding Geographical and Environmental Education: TheRole of Research (Cassell 1995).

Christine Winter is a lecturer at the University of Sheffield Division ofEducation. She teaches geography on the PGCE course and educationalstudies at Masters degree level. She is joint author of the National Curriculumtextbook series Enquiry Geography (Hodder and Stoughton 1991). From1991 to 1992 she was involved in an ESRC research project which exploredcognitive and social processes in secondary schools. She is at present carryingout research which focuses on changes in the humanities curriculum.

xv

List of abbreviations

ACAC Awdurdod Cwricwlwm ac Asesu CymruAT Attainment TargetCAAW Curriculum and Assessment Authority for WalesCASE Cognitive Acceleration in Science EducationCCTH Cross-curricular themeCCW Curriculum Council for WalesCoRT Cognitive Research TrustDARTS Directed Activities Related to TextsDES Department of Education and ScienceDFE Department for EducationEFC Education for CitizenshipEFS Education for SustainabilityEIU Economic and Industrial UnderstandingERA Education Reform ActGA The Geographical AssociationGCSE General Certificate of Secondary EducationGEON Geography and Equal Opportunities NetworkGIS Geographic Information SystemsGNC Geography National CurriculumGNVQ General National Vocational QualificationGSIP Geography Schools and Industry ProjectGWG Geography Working GroupHMI Her Majestys InspectorateHMSO Her Majestys Stationery OfficeIGU International Geographical UnionINSET In-Service Education and TrainingIT Information TechnologyIUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureKS Key StageLEA Local Education AuthorityLINC Language in the National Curriculum

xvi Abbreviations

NCC National Curriculum CouncilNCE National Commission on EducationNEAB Northern Examinations and Assessment BoardNFER National Foundation for Educational ResearchOFSTED Office for Standards in EducationOS Ordnance SurveyPGCE Post-Graduate Certificate in EducationPoS Programme of StudyRGS Royal Geographical SocietySCAA School Curriculum and Assessment AuthoritySEC Secondary Examination CouncilSoA Statement of AttainmentTA Teacher AssessmentTGAT Task Group on Assessment and TrainingTTG Thinking Through GeographyUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

OrganizationWCED World Commission on Environment and DevelopmentWJEC Welsh Joint Education CommitteeWOED Welsh Office Education Department

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Daniella Tilbury and Michael Williams

Unlike the core subjects of language, mathematics and science the place ofgeography in the curriculum of primary and secondary schools is relativelyuncertain. In some countries the separate identity of the subject is notrecognized while in others it is often squeezed into elective structures aspressures mount on the limited amount of curriculum time. In elementaryand primary schools geography is sometimes included as one component oftopics studied there while in secondary schools it may be integrated intocourses labelled humanities, social studies or environmental education.

The focus in this book is predominantly on geography identified as aseparate subject, largely within the context of schools in England and Wales.Our overall aim is to provide a clear and thorough overview of contemporaryconcerns in the teaching and learning of geography and to offer pointers forfuture developments in the subject. The National Curriculum introduced bylegislation in 1988 is the obvious backcloth for the chapters and we havesought to take into account any variations which have emerged in curriculumprovision between England and Wales. Even in the short period since 1988changes have been made in the statutory requirements for curriculum contentand pupil assessment. As part of a slimming-down process the status ofgeography has been modified, particularly for pupils aged 1416 in Key Stage4, and the amount of content in each of the four Key Stages has been reduced.Major alterations are also being implemented in the whole 1619 curriculumin response to the pressure to develop vocational courses and examinations.Despite the many changes taking place in geography teaching, however,central principles and practices in teaching and learning continue to berelevant. We have sought to concentrate on the continuities while placingthem within the context of the changing curriculum environment.

The historical context is the subject of the first three chapters. Initially, thefocus is upon the broad sweep of the changing nature of school geography inthe twentieth century. This takes into account the reorganization of stateschools and the legislation and official reports which have had a majorinfluence on geography teaching. The next chapter discusses the period since1976, which marked the start of the great debate about the curriculum, and

2 Daniella Tilbury and Michael Williams

emphasizes the significance of the 1988 Education Reform Act which madegeography a mandatory foundation subject for pupils aged 516 in stateschools. The tensions encountered in seeking to define the nature of thesubject and the achievements in implementing the Act are considered. Thefinal chapter in this section brings the history up to date. While, at one stage,it appeared that the Education Reform Act marked the end of adevelopmental process, it is now clear that further refinements are necessary.It is one thing to define mandatory subjects, but it is quite another toimplement centrally defined innovations in school classrooms. Further, itmust be acknowledged that the framework provided by legislation is only aframework and that there is scope for schools to design their own courseswhich take account of local circumstances and the special interests of pupilsand teachers. Contemporary trends in primary and secondary geographicaleducation are reviewed in the framework of aims, content, teaching methodsand modes of assessment, and suggestions are made for likely changes in thefuture.

In Part II the authors address issues of course planning and design. Thenature of school geography, distinct in many ways from geography in othersectors of education, is examined from the perspectives of its scope and ofthe way it is structured to take account of the developing pupil and student.It includes consideration of how courses can be designed to meet the needs ofpupils with different abilities and interests. That geography should not beconsidered in isolation from other subjects lies at the heart of the concept ofthe entire curriculum. The search for coherence and continuity both in thewhole curriculum and in the geography curriculum continues. A key to this iscross-curricularity. Geography teachers have been particularly active inseeking to identify the links between geography and other subjectsforexample, history and scienceand, indeed, there have been transfers incontent between these subjects. Cross-curricularity also embraces a numberof themes, dimensions and skills. These are explored in chapters aboutenvironmental and development education, economic and industrialunderstanding and citizenship (community understanding in Wales) andequal opportunities.

From a concern with course design, syllabuses and programmes of studywe move in Part III to classroom concerns. An attempt is made to strike abalance between emphases on learning and teaching. Learning theories andteaching theories are introduced and the centrality of language in facilitatingpupil learning is explored. School geography is especially concerned withmapwork, fieldwork and the use of new technologies. Each of these is givenseparate treatment. That geography can be studied at a number of differentlevels is self-evident to geographers and approaches to teaching about thelocal community, on the one hand, and the international community, on theother, are discussed. As contemporary political debates highlight, studyingother countries and, indeed, any environmental issues is laden with

Introduction 3

controversy. Bias and propaganda, stereotyping and misinformation, aredangers of which geography teachers need always to be aware. There is alsoa danger in promoting a bland and uncritical neutrality. Part III concludeswith an exploration of the implications of adopting a radical perspective fordefining course aims, content, teaching methods and pupil assessment.

Just as the content and teaching methods associated with geography willvary as pupils and students move through the stages of schooling so do thepurposes and modes of pupil assessment. Although there are certain keyprinciples underpinning assessment in general, it is important to distinguishbetween the way pupils are assessed in the topic-based courses characteristicin primary schools and the subject-specialist courses typical in secondaryschools and colleges. Similarly, there are fundamental distinctions between,for example, external examinations and teacher assessments and betweensummative and formative assessment. Recent years have witnessed the reformof assessment at all levelsstatutory standard attainment tests, GeneralCertificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), General Certificate of Education(GCE) Advanced (A) and Advanced Supplementary (AS) levels, and GeneralNational Vocational Qualifications (GNVQs)and these issues are reviewedin Part IV from the perspective of the geography teacher.

It is obvious from the chapters in this book that nothing in the schoolgeographical curriculum is stable. Indeed, there never has been a period ofstability in geographical education: reform and innovation are the buzz wordsrather than consolidation and entrenchment. Through all the changes,whether they are external or internal to the school in origin, theprofessionalism of individual teachers and groups of teachers in primary andsecondary schools is crucial if an appropriate blend between the continuingprinciples underpinning good geographical education and innovations is tobe achieved. It is our hope that this book will make a contribution tosustaining this professionalism and will offer some guidance to both new andexperienced teachers who are charged with the task of modernizing thesubject in the interest of future students and citizens.

Part I

7

Chapter 2

The place of geography in the schoolcurriculumAn historical overview 18861976

Bill Marsden

SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ROOTS

The 1880s were an important time in the development of geography as asecondary school and university subject. In 1886, the Royal GeographicalSociety (RGS) commissioned the Keltic Report, the Proceedings of the RoyalGeographical Society in Reference to the Improvement of GeographicalEducation. A second key publication was Halford Mackinders On the scopeand methods of geography (1887), published in the RGSs journal, in whichhe sought to resolve the great schism between geographys physical andpolitical components. Both publications made it clear that geography wouldnot establish itself in universities and secondary schools unless it acquired thestatus of a genuine academic discipline, which meant forsaking its previousimage as a mere repository of world knowledge.

Another major authority at this time was Archibald Geikie, a Scottishgeologist of commanding intellectual stature. He took a keen interest ingeography, especially as a school subject. His paper to the RGS in 1879 onGeographical evolution preceded and matched Mackinders in its grasp ofthe issues at stake. In his superb The Teaching of Geography (1887), Geikieinfused his methodology with the best principles of progressive primarypractice. Mackinder reviewed the book respectfully but was critical ofGeikies incorporation of a whole range of environmental sciences intogeography. More damaging for Geikies future influence with thegeographical establishment was his refusal publicly to support justificationsfor geography as a separate discipline in the universities.

A critical event of the 1890s was the establishment of the GeographicalAssociation (GA) (Balchin 1993) as a result of a group of secondary teachersjoining together to exchange lantern slides. The new organization in effecttook over the educational functions of the RGS, leaving the latter toconcentrate on its support for world exploration and empire building. TheGA was soon to produce a journal, The Geographical Teacher, which helpedto seal the success of geography in establishing a place in secondary schools,and to disseminate a knowledge and understanding of the subject. ThusMackinders pioneering endeavours in this quest were reinforced and

8 Bill Marsden

achieved ultimate success. Geikie was almost forgotten and it was aMackinder disciple, A.J. Herhertson, who was credited with establishing anew and important paradigm in geography, the regional principle. This wasoutlined in his famous paper of 1905 and transmitted into schools throughhis amazingly successful textbook Senior Geography, first appearing in 1907and still in print in the early 1950s.

This regional paradigm represented on the face of it a great leap forward,but it was not an uncontested innovation. Two major arguments were raisedagainst it, one academic and one pedagogic. First, it was recognized early onthat the systematization of the worlds natural regions and their climaticcharacteristics as they affected human occupance often led to blatantdeterminism. During the 1920s, for example, the geographical educationist,James Fairgrieve rejected the geographic control argument (Fairgrieve1936:67). The thesis also had racist undertones, for writers were widelyprone to accept the idea that climate served to determine not only humaneconomic activity, but also human energies, attitudes and intelligence.Second, educational experts pointed out that the abstractions of the regionalparadigm were unsuited to younger children, who required more vivid andsmaller-scale place-based study. Herbertson himself conceded that the bestlogical order is not necessarily the best pedagogical order (Herbertson1906:281).

Another outcome, regarded then positively rather than negatively, wasthat the regional paradigm emerged in the heyday of imperialism. It wasinstantly recognized by Newbigin (1914) and others of her generation thatone great advantage of the climatic regions approach was that there was abit of the British Empire in each major region. Thus in restricting the selectionof areas to be covered in order to avoid excessive pressure on the timetable,priority could be given to imperial places. Textbooks focusing on the BritishEmpire and, after World War II, on the Commonwealth, appeared in largenumbers. Many of the great names in British geography also, such asFreshfield (1886), Mackinder (1911) and Fairgrieve (1924), were unashamedimperialists, averring that it was not only the right but also the duty ofgeography, even at the cost of scientific distortion, to give priority to thestudy of Britain and its Empire.

EXTERNAL SUPPORT FOR GEOGRAPHY IN THE SCHOOLCURRICULUM

This section will draw on official reports and consultative documents, andon generic texts in educational methodology which, like geographicalsources, generally justified the subjects claims for a place in primary andsecondary curricula.

Let us begin with two key progressive figures in primary education. Onewas the former HMI Edmond Holmes, who, after his retirement, launched a

Geography in the school curriculum 18861976 9

contemptuous attack on mechanical teaching, as practised in subjects such aselementary geography. But the attack was not, as later progressive discipleswere to infer, on subject-teaching as such. Genuine knowledge, as heconceived it, was above all conceptual, something very different from factualrecall. The memorization of geographical information is easily convertedinto knowledge of these facts, but it is not easily converted into knowledge ofgeography (Holmes 1911:90).

John Dewey similarly stressed that the key issue in promoting a progressiveprimary education was not through the polarization of childand subject-centredness as incompatibles, but was much more to do with ensuring thatthe valuable and distinctive contributions of subjects such as geography andhistory were not polluted by didactic and mechanical teaching (Dewey1916:211).

In general, official reports on both primary and secondary curriculasubsequently supported the case for geography (see Williams 1976). TheHadow Reports, for example, made cogent pleas for a well-taught geography.Thus, The Education of the Adolescent (Board of Education 1926) urgedthat the case for geography in post-primary education needed little arguing.The subject should occupy no subsidiary or doubtful place, whether onutilitarian grounds, as an instrument of education, or as being appealing tochildren. The main objective should not be merely to accumulate information,but to develop an attitude of mind and a mode of thought characteristic ofthe subject (ibid. 2034).

The Primary School (Board of Education 1931) was subsequendy hijackedand misused by progressive ideologues, who claimed that in its support forprogressive methods it argued against the use of subject approaches in theprimary school. The essence of Hadows thesis, however, was that it was thetraditional, didactic, grammar school-type methods of teaching subjects thatwere not appropriate, rather than the subject inputs themselves. Whilesubjects as such should not be given priority, especially in the early years, andwhile the qualification was made that such work should not be merely apreparation for stages yet to come, Hadow included a threeanda-half-page section on geography which began, Work in the primary school ingeography, as in other subjects, must be thought of in terms of activity andexperience, rather than of knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored(ibid. 171).

The Spens Report of 1938 on Secondary Education would seem to haveaccepted as read the case for geography. It was more concerned with theactual nature of the offering, which it saw as giving:

a conception of the world and of its diverse environments and peoples,which should enable boys and girls to see social and political problems ina truer perspective, and give them sympathetic understanding of otherpeoples. For the older pupils a comprehensive scheme of world-study

10 Bill Marsden

can offer scope for the consideration of vital problems bearing on social,economic and political life.

(Board of Education 1938:174) The Norwood Report of 1943 on Curriculum and Examinations inSecondary Schools offered fuller and equally positive support for geographyin the secondary school, noting its potential as a cementing subject in thecurriculum, through studies of the environment. It stressed the pedagogicprinciple of starting with the familiar and proceeding out into the widerworld, the importance of fieldwork, the interdependence of the worldsregions, and geographys function as a foundation subject for enlightenedcitizenship. Without a firm basis in geography we cannot proceed withconfidence to the planning of the economic or the political design of thefuture world (Board of Education 1943:1024).

Post-war consultative documents and official statements were equallysupportive of the case for geography in both primary and secondary curricula.The Ministry of Education advice in The Primary School of 1959 included along rsum of what it saw as a suitable geography for use in that phase. Itssubheadings retain contemporary currency: the study of the locality, involvinga lively and intimate acquaintance with their own immediate environment;the study of other parts of the world usingin the case of more distantplacesillustrative material made alive with vivid detail and.in the caseof other parts of the country perhaps school journeys or holiday visits; storiesand travellers tales; the use of globe, maps and books; recording the resultsof observations; and the scheme of work and the outcomes of the course.Behind it all:

transcending national and geographical differences, is the idea of commonhumanity which has given rise to the various specialised agenciesFoodand Agriculture Organisation (FAO), United Nations Childrens Fund(UNICEF), World Health Organisation (WHO), etc.which exist to helpall who need it and which embody mans concern for man.

(Ministry of Education 1959:304) Discussion of the Plowden Report, Children and their Primary Schools(Ministry of Education 1967), is particularly significant and interestingbecause this is the source used above all by progressives as clinching theargument that subjects like geography are inappropriate in the primaryschool (see, for example, Kelly 1986). In turn, of course, the Plowden Reporthad been condemned by elitist commentators as mere ideology (see, forexample, Peters 1969). Following Hadow, the Plowden Report predictablysuggested that work in the primary school should lay emphasis on discoveryand first-hand experience. But while it made abundantly clear its view thatformal subject categories did not fit in with younger childrens learning styles,

Geography in the school curriculum 18861976 11

it accepted that a subject input was increasingly appropriate as progress wasmade through the junior department. The Report included a four-page sectionon geography in the primary school, and offered differentiated advice onhow it should be usedinformation that diehard progressives chose either toignore or suppress. Plowden supported not only local study but also the ideaof sample studies which carry much of the authenticity of local geographyand permit comparisons to be made with the home region (Ministry ofEducation 1967, 1:231). In content terms, there was not a great deal ofdifference between Plowdens conception of how geography was appropriatein the junior school and that of the National Curriculum (see Marsden1991:423).

The attack on geography as a subject was by no means confined toprogressive primary supporters. The move to comprehensive schoolingprovoked similar conflict. Perhaps understandably, subjects were associatedwith traditional teaching methods, but the assault was on subjects as such,not merely on the methods by which they were taught.

The reactions of geographical lobbies, and most notably that of the RGS(1950), to such early attempts at promoting curriculum integration as thepost-war social studies movement, were narrow-minded, rabble-rousing andeven chauvinist, citing, among other things, American experience as adubious parentage. In general, however, this resistance to the social studiesmovement of the 1950s achieved its goals, and the dream faded. After all, itwas not too difficult to pinpoint a lack of coherence and rigour, but thesedeficiencies were recognized and acted upon by the next generation, and thenew social studies movement of the 1960s and 1970s (Lawton and Dufour1973) was more carefully thought out. It was promoted, like other cross-curricular endeavours, under the label of inter-disciplinary enquiry, a tighterconcept than curriculum integration. Graves critique of interdisciplinaryenquiry (1968) concentrated on the complexities resulting from the tensionsbetween a wide-ranging conceptual offering, and the achievement ofcurriculum balance, sequence and focus, of building in progression, and notleast of coping with the logistics of organization. It concluded, however, withthe contradictory proposition that the more complex frameworks of socialstudies were more useful for less able children where traditional classteaching has failed (Graves 1968:394).

The later work of the Schools Councils Avery Hill Project also promotedthe idea that to motivate less able children the work should be issues-basedand related to everyday concerns within their own, mostly urban, localities.Drawing sustenance both from the increasing disenchantment withquantitative geography and from the promotion of welfare geography at theacademic frontiers, and conducting its dissemination procedures with greatskill, the Project was one of the most powerful forces in providing afoundation for the issues-based geography that was to come in the late 1970sand 1980s.

12 Bill Marsden

There were, however, a number of flaws in this reasoning. The first wasthat there has long been powerful psychological evidence that the attentionof less able and certainly less motivated children is not necessarily capturedby the immediacy and topicality of issues-based work. One of the mosttrenchant advocates of this view during the 1960s was Ausubel (Ausubel andRobinson 1969), arguing that the best way of motivating an unmotivatedpupil was to bypass the tactic of direct motivation, and to establish insteadmotivational beach-heads by ensuring the reinforcement of success.Motivation he saw as developing retroactively from successful educationalachievement. Wall (1968) and Marland (1973) also argued in their differentways that relying for motivation by drawing on perceived pupil interests wasof doubtful value in itself.

Issues-based work is also by definition interdisciplinary. It is difficult tothink of any major world issue, whether economic, political, social orenvironmental, that can successfully be addressed purely by distinctivegeographical methods. Issues-based work is demonstrably more effectivelyapproached through integrated schemes. Thus geographers should be clearabout their objectives in the broader sphere of social education. If they seetheir work as issues-based, or even as issues-dominated (see Marsden 1995),they can hardly at the same time deny that a more appropriate strategy isthrough an interdisciplinary approach in an integrated curriculum. That isnot, however, the preferred route for this writer, whose reasoning is heavilybased on the historical record. While subjects in the curriculum, likegeography, can and have been politicized (Marsden 1989), there is at least atthe same time an academic counter-culture in the foreground to remind usthat we are in the business of education and not of indoctrination (Marsden1992, 1993).

CONCLUSIONS

The political context of educational discussion has become one of increasingpolarization and confrontation, no longer one of differentiated intellectualdebate. The curricular interchanges of the 1980s and 1990s have beendisfigured by the overstated and often malicious cross-fire of the far rightand the far left. The cross-curricular productions of the National Curriculum,in principle contained by and large a stronger element of politicization thanall the subject areas of the National Curriculum, with the possible exceptionsof history and religion. This is in line with previous historical experience. Asan agent of social education, the subject must strive to ensure that in thedevelopment of geographical meanings and of social commitments, pupils,as partners in this endeavour, are equipped to recognize and resist what wereonce called the hidden persuaders. Such forces, thirty years on, haveemerged more tangibly and influentially in the form of self-appointedgatekeepers of official standards and as promoters of traditional instruction,

Geography in the school curriculum 18861976 13

whether in quangos and so-called think-tanks, in the often vindictive, ill-informed and Pavlovian effluent of the presstabloid or broadsheetor inofficial political pronouncement.

The historical record makes clear to us that instruction has exercised itscontrolling grip through inculcation (the process of impressing on the mindthrough frequent and intense repetition) and indoctrination (the content tobe studied, i.e. the associated doctrines or ideologies being inculcated). Fromwhatever source, it has perennially been designed to exercise thought controlover a docile and compliant population, offering a curriculum for passivefuture subjects rather than one for autonomous, independently thinking andconstructively active future citizens (see Machon 1991). While the evidenceis not watertight, curriculum history suggests that a permeation of issues intogeography and other subjects may be a safer bet for avoiding indoctrinationin an interventionist political climate than an integrated, issue-dominatedcurriculum into which subjects may (or may not) be permeated. It is perhapsa source of hope that the government does not see it this way round.

REFERENCES

Ausubel, D.P. and Robinson, F.G. (1969) School Learning: an Introduction toEducational Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Balchin, W.G. (1993) The Geographical Association: the First Hundred Years, 18931993, Sheffield: The Geographical Association.

Board of Education (1926) The Education of the Adolescent (Hadow Report),London: HMSO.

Board of Education (1931) The Primary School (Hadow Report), London: HMSO.Board of Education (1938) Secondary Education (Spens Report), London: HMSO.Board of Education (1943) Curriculum and Examinations in Secondary Schools

(Norwood Report), London: HMSO.Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education: an Introduction to the Philosophy of

Education, New York: The Free Press.Fairgrieve, J. (1924) Geography and World Power, London: University Tutorial Press.Fairgrieve, J. (1926) Geography in School, London: University of London Press.Fairgrieve, J. (1936) Can we teach geography better?, Geography 21:117.Freshfield, D.W. (1886) The place of geography in education, Proceedings of the

Royal Geographical Society, New Series 8:698718.Geikie, A. (1879) Geographical evolution, Proceedings of the Royal Geographical

Society, New Series 1:42244.Geikie, A. (1887) The Teaching of Geography, London: Macmillan.Graves, N.J. (1968) Geography, social science and inter-disciplinary enquiry,

Geographical Journal 134:3904.Herbertson, A.J. (1905) The major natural regions of the world, Geographical

Journal 25:30010.Herbertson, A.J. (1906) Recent regulations and syllabuses in geography affecting

schools, Geographical Journal 27:27988.Hirst, P.H. (1974) Knowledge and the Curriculum, London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul.

14 Bill Marsden

Holmes, E. (1911) What Is and What Might Be: a Study of Education in General andElementary Education in Particular, London: Constable.

Kelly, A.V. (1986) Knowledge and Curriculum Planning, London: Harper Row.Lawton, D. and Dufour, B. (1973) The New Social Studies, London: Heinemann.Machon, P. (1991) Subject or citizen?, Teaching Geography 16:128.Mackinder, H.J. (1887) On the scope and methods of geography, Proceedings of

the Royal Geographical Society, New Series 9:14173.Mackinder, H.J. (1911) The teaching of geography from the imperial point of view,

and the use which could and should be made of visual instruction, TheGeographical Teacher 6:7986.

Mackinder, H.J. (1921) Geography as a pivotal subject in education, GeographicalJournal 57:37684.

Marland, M. (1973) Preference Shares, Education Guardian, 11 September1973:18.

Marsden, W.E. (1986) The Royal Geographical Society and geography in secondaryeducation, in M.H. Price (ed.) The Development of the Secondary Curriculum,London: Groom Helm, 182213.

Marsden, W.E. (1989) All in a Good Cause: geography, history and thepoliticization of the curriculum in nineteenthand twentieth-century England,Journal of Curriculum Studies 21:50926.

Marsden, W.E. (1991) Primary geography and the National Curriculum, in B.T.Gorwood (ed.) Changing Primary Schools, University of Hull: Aspects ofEducation 45: 3854.

Marsden, W.E. (1992) W(h)ither international understanding?, in G.Hall (ed.)Themes and Dimensions of the National Curriculum, London: Kogan Page,10115.

Marsden, W.E. (1993) Recycling religious instruction?: historical perspectives oncontemporary cross-curricular issues, History of Education 22:32133.

Marsden, W.E. (1995) Geography 1116: Rekindling Good Practice, London: DavidFulton Publishers.

Ministry of Education (1959) Primary Education, London: HMSO.Ministry of Education (1967) Children and their Primary Schools, vol. 1 (Plowden

Report), London: HMSO.Newbigin, M. (1914) The British Empire Beyond the Sea: an Introduction to World

Geography, London: G.Bell and Sons.Peters, R. (ed.) (1969) Perspectives on Plowden, London: Roudedge and Kegan Paul.Royal Geographical Society (1886) Report in Reference to the Improvement of

Geographical Education (Keltie Report), London: John Murray.Royal Geographical Society (1950) Geography and Social Studies in schools,

Geographical Journal 116:1815.Wall, W.D. (1968) Adolescents in School and Society, Slough: National Foundation

for Educational Research.Williams, M. (ed.) (1976) Geography and the Integrated Curriculum: a Reader,

London: Heinemann.

15

Chapter 3

The great debate and 1988

Rex Walford

INTRODUCTION

The so-called great debate about education followed Prime MinisterCallaghans speech at Ruskin College, Oxford in 1976 which questioned thesuccess of the work which British schools were doing in meeting the needs ofa modern society. It was hardly a debate at all, since it involved a number ofpublic meetings around the country at which most contributors came fromestablished positions and reiterated their present point of view, but it didhave the effect of further opening the door to the secret garden of thecurriculum which had been in the hands of schoolteachers rather than ofadministrators for almost the whole of the century. The idea of a NationalCurriculum was born.

In the next few years, the Department of Education edged its way towardsimplementation of this idea with a series of discussion documents (DES 1980,1981). The position of geography within these publications was marginal. InA Framework for the Curriculum (1980) most of the text was about English,maths, science and modern languages. Geography merited a single mentionin the thirty-second paragraph of a 35paragraph document, along with abrief and glancing reference to a group of subjects named as also importantfor the preparation for adult life. A corresponding set of documents fromHer Majestys Inspectors (HMI 1977) had floated the idea of the curriculumbeing demarcated by areas of experience rather than by subjects, and for atime other more radical formulations (Hargreaves 1982), in which geographyfigured hardly at all, were the focus of discussion.

During this period the Geographical Association (GA) had to revive therole it had played in various campaigns to increase the status of the subject atthe start of the century. It became again a politically active body as well asone which offered professional support to schoolteachers. It learnt quicklyfrom events and experience and developed a variety of campaigns andstrategies to mobilize support for the subject and to emphasize its potentialcontribution to a general curriculum (Daugherty and Walford 1980; GA1981, 1982; Williams 1985). As a result the Secretary of State for Education,Sir Keith Joseph, was persuaded to make the first ever major ministerial

16 Rex Walford

speech about geographical education at a special conference organized bythe GA at Kings College London in 1985 (Joseph 1985). Joseph,demonstrating his characteristically deep reflection about curriculum matters,acknowledged the value of geography as a school subject, while making nocommitments about whether it should be studied by all pupils, and leftgeographers with a provocative list of seven questions. If this was arhetorical flourish, its bluff was soon called, since the GA quickly mobilizeda Task Force to provide an initial answer to the questions (Bailey and Binns1987a). Following conferences around the country in 1986, the GA produceda book called A Case for Geography, a more weighty and measured response(Bailey and Binns 1987b) which, with astute timing, was laid on the desk ofthe incoming Secretary of State after Sir Keith Joseph retired from officeearly in 1987.

THE BAKER INITIATIVE

Josephs successor, Kenneth Baker, favoured a more active and robustapproach to curriculum reform and quickly determined that there was nochance of a voluntary agreement. He first announced proposals in outlinefor a National Curriculum while being interviewed on a weekend televisionprogramme in December 1986 and then amplified this at the North ofEngland Education Conference a few weeks later. The matter was discussedin detail by the Government in the following spring. Prime Minister MargaretThatcher favoured a core of specified subjects restricted to English, mathsand science but in one of her rare Cabinet defeats, she was forced to backdown in the face of Bakers bold insistence on a broad and balancedcurriculum (Baker 1993:189).

Thus, when a GA delegation went to meet Baker in his Elizabeth Househeadquarters in June 1987, he greeted them with a broad smile and anassurance that geography would have a place in the proposals which hewould shortly put to Parliament. How far this was due to the GAscampaigning it is difficult to judge, though an appendix to A Case forGeography outlining expectations at various ages certainly foundfavour with him and was in tune with his plans for assessment at the end ofKey Stages. There were, however, other factors which came into thereckoning.

Baker, previously Minister for Technology and responsible for encouragingthe introduction of computers into schools, had been impressed by the usethat geographers were making of the new technology. As an Oxford historianby first degree, he was keen to ensure that teaching about Britains heritagewas a prominent part of the curriculum and he saw a structured body ofgeographical knowledge (1993:193) as complementary to that. He was alsodisturbed about the lack of rigour in integrated humanities, and theapparent political bias of such hybrids as peace studies and world studies

The great debate and 1988 17

then being developed in some schools, and wanted to return to the supposedsafety of traditional subjects. Thus, although many geography teachers andoffice-holders in the GA held views about the nature of the subject ratherdifferent to those of the Minister, they basked in the satisfaction of seeing itincluded in the proposed ten-subject National Curriculum when only a fewyears before they had been resigned to seeing it outside any proposed core. Itwould take the actual discussion of the detail of the proposed geographycurriculum to expose these differences.

The proposals for a National Curriculum to be composed of tentraditional subjects was disappointing to some educational philosophers(White 1988, Hirst 1993), who had been disseminating ideas of forms andfields of knowledge in the years previous, but commanded much moregeneral assent from the public and from most teachers. It is not clear howBaker arrived at his final list, but we know from his political memoirs that hewas given much help in developing the idea of the National Curriculum byEric Bolton, the Chief Inspector for Schools (Baker 1993:191). A format toreflect a conservative consensus was, in the circumstances, not surprising,though Bakers own views had been instrumental in providing a wider framethan expected. There was inevitably some skirmishing around the edges ofthe formulation by representatives of those who had been excluded (notablyclassics and home economics) but in the event only the powerful House ofLords lobby for religious education introduced any change to the originalplan. Religious education was added as an eleventh basic subject to thethree core subjects (English, maths, science) and the other seven foundationsubjects (technology, modern languages, history, geography, music, art andphysical education).

Agreement about the desirability of introducing a subject-based NationalCurriculum and its constituent parts stretched, somewhat surprisingly,across all parties in the House of Commons in the debates on the 1988Education Bill and it was in the House of Lords that the more discerning andindividual views were put forward. Geography survived one dangerouscorner when an amendment to the main Bill was put down suggesting thathistory should be made a core subject. A small group of peers sympathetic togeographys interests gathered anxiously to protect geographyscomparability with history, but their efforts were not needed. By the time theamendment was called, it was late at night and the peer due to speak to itfailed to rise, presumably having either fallen asleep somewhere or gonehome.

Thus by September 1988, the Education Act was on the statute bookand details of an eleven-subject 516 National Curriculum in whichgeography figured as statutory were due to be worked out. TheGovernment proposed to do this by the setting up of Subject WorkingGroups who were given about a twelve-month period (working in the timethat could be spared from their normal working lives) to come up with

18 Rex Walford

proposals. The composition of the groups was determined by the Secretaryof State, and in each case he took good care to ensure that there was stronglay representation to match that of the professionals drawn from variousparts of the education system. The Geography Working Group was set upin December 1988, with Sir Leslie Fielding, Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity of Sussex, but for much of his life a British diplomat in variouscountries around the world, being appointed Chairman. Five of the twelvemembers were lay people.

This was soon to be of some significance as it became clear that advisingDES civil servants, acting as the Groups secretariat, had no wish for it toendorse the status quo. The Group began by considering the nature ofgeography itself and its role in schools and it was soon clear that no easyconsensus was going to be reached. On the one hand there was a spectrum ofviews among the professionals concerning the balance and health of thesubject in relation to both content and pedagogy; on the other was sometrenchant criticism of the present state of geographical education from thosewho, as parents or employers, were the receivers of its fruits. Members of theGroup have offered their perceptions of what happened in the twelve months(Rawling 1993, Walford 1992), but there is little doubt that among the bloodspilt all over the floor (a phrase used by one of the secretariat to describe oneimportant late-night argument) there were some fundamental re-examinations of cherished beliefs and supposed basic principles on all sides.The document eventually produced by the Group (Fielding et al. 1990)attracted both praise and criticism, but it represented (almost) consensus onmajor curriculum issues hammered out in a very educating way. It is revealingto see how, five years on, despite numerous adjustments, revisions andreductions (the most significant of which were those wrought by a committeeset up by Sir Ron Dearing in 1994), many of the broad major principlesworked out by the Group have become the touchstone for future curriculumdevelopment.

The key image developed by the group to encapsulate the nature of schoolgeography was the cube (Fig. 3.1) of areas, themes and skills.

The three elements were seen as being of equal importance and asinteractive with each other. Such an apparently basic assertion served to beginthe restoration and rehabilitation of place and area studies which, in previousdecades, had fallen out of favour as organizing frameworks in many schools.A previous influential revolution in school geography in the 1960s and 1970shad helped to explore spatial patterns and to emphasize similarities ratherthan differences in geographical studies, but it had led almost to the dismissalof place as a significant factor.

Another important principle arrived at by the Group was the belief thatphysical geographical studies were as important as human ones and shouldbe given as much curriculum prominencea matter of moment in someschools where geography has become subsumed under a social studies or

The great debate and 1988 19

humanities umbrella, and where its scientific and landscape aspects wereplayed down as a result. Following on from this (and strongly supported byDES advice), the notion of environmental geography was developed (atautology in the strict sense, but necessary to avoid using the politicallydangerous term environmental issues). One of the five Attainment Targetsin the original Final Orders set before Parliament in 1991 was given thisname (the other four were Geographical Skills, the Knowledge andUnderstanding of Places, Human Geography, and Physical Geography) andthe key role of the subject recognized in the rising concern aboutenvironmental education. It also provided, importantly, a rationale for thesubject in terms of future citizenship, a suitable replacement for the oldImperial imperative which had enthused the pioneers of the subject in theperiod from 1870 to 1939.

Content was a much safer base on which to secure the distinctiveness ofthe subject in curriculum (and political) terms than the pedagogic thrust ofenquiry learning favoured by some. But the Group became divided andhung up on this and various other technical curriculum matters during itslife because a hidden (and sometimes not-so-hidden) agenda from the DESwas also playing its part in determining the shape of the new NationalCurriculum.

Figure 3.1 Combining the attainment targets

20 Rex Walford

By 1990, the approach being favoured by government was a curriculumwhich would be assessment-led and there emerged a plan to have thestatutory curriculum formulations subject to national tests which could beregularly administered and schools and teachers then held accountable.This overriding emphasis on assessment was not part of Kenneth Bakersoriginal plan (Taylor 1995) which probably accounted for the fact that heexcluded the task of considering assessment matters from the agendas ofthe Subject Working Groups. This latter action was well-intentioned in itscontext but, given the change of policy, was ultimately to provecatastrophic when the linkage of syllabus and testing came to be workedout in more detail.

There was, moreover, a fatal lack of guidance from the centre about therealities of school-curriculum time to which Subject Groups should tailortheir proposals. When pressed, the DES gave benignly optimistic figuresabout how many hours per year might be available for each subject, and allthe Groups (geography included), anxious to do their subject justice,overweighted the curriculum content in their desire not to leave basic orinteresting parts of the subject unstatutory. As well as this, another problemarose from the restricted time given to the Working Groups for their work,and the inability to institute any pilot trials. Bakers successors as Secretaryof State for Education (and there were quite a number in a short timeMacGregor, Clarke, Patten, Shephard) never quite emulated his full grasp ofthe National Curriculum plan despite their individual differences andinitiatives.

THE CLARKE INTERVENTION

The geography formulation, in particular, suffered from another fickle fingerof fate in December 1990. Just after the Draft Orders of the curriculum hadbeen published, a new Secretary of State came into office. Kenneth Clarke,while at the Ministry of Health, had just been involved in bruising battleswith the doctors, and seemed anxious to take up a similar stance atEducation. (It was widely believed that his predecessor, John MacGregor,had been moved on because in the Prime Ministers eye it seemed as if he wasgoing native and siding too much with the teachers lobby on educationalreforms.) The Draft Statutory Orders for both History and Geography wereat the top of the in-tray as the new Minister began his work and over theChristmas holiday, working with the aid only of his personal political adviser,he took a correcting pencil to the carefully balanced documents and workedthem over.

His justifications afterwards, in Parliament, in media interviews and in aspeech at the Royal Geographical Society (Clarke 1992), hinged around thevexed issue of attitudes and values. The Geography Subject Group hadsought to retain the possibility of handling issues of controversy (particularly

The great debate and 1988 21

in Key Stage 4, the 1416 age-range) by inserting them discreetly into someof the Statements of Attainment which formed the basis of the curriculum,and by agreeing that this would be balanced by a reassuring inclusion of abase of factual information. (The Group reached a surprising degree ofunanimity about this and was never as nervous as the History Working Groupabout specifying an overall basic framework of facts which everyone shouldlearn.) Clarke fastened on to this and commented:

The Secretary of State recognises that geography lessons will sometimesdeal with conflicting points of view on important geographical issues.However, he considers that the main emphasis in the statutoryrequirements should be on teaching a knowledge and understanding ofgeography rather than on the study of peoples attitudes and opinions.Some statements of attainment which appear to concentrate on attitudesand opinions rather than geographical knowledge and understanding havetherefore been removed.

(DBS 1991 Annexe B:2) Thus a Statement of Attainment such as Pupils should discuss how peoplesattitudes can affect the exploitation of natural resources (EnvironmentalGeography, Level 4) was struck out, along with nearly forty others. This wasbeneficial in reducing overload, but unfortunate in wrecking the carefullyconstructed web of strands in each Attainment Target as constructed by theGeography Working Group and in taking away some of the most interesting,relevant and topical issues which had been included in the proposedGeography Orders.

THE BEARING REFORMS

In the event it was a nugatory battle since, at a later stage, the whole ofgeography at Key Stage 4 was removed from the statutory requirement ofthe National Curriculum, and the possibility of studying issues of controversynow depends on whether or not pupils opt for the subject post14, and whichGCSE examination their schools choose to take.

Clarke did not stay long at the Ministry of Education, but moved onwardsand upwards to the Chancellorship. Geography teachers expected moresatisfaction from his successor, John Patten, who had been a don in the subjectat Oxford and had edited one of its major academic journals. Patten hadmany interesting and radical ideas, but ran into heavy storms in his inabilityto temporize either with teachers unions (who were complaining about thechronic overload of timetables and mounting National Curriculumbureaucracy) or with parents (whose representatives he unwisely accused ofholding Neanderthal views early in his ministry). Thus the possibility ofsuccessful compromise was soon exhausted and Patten had to call in an

22 Rex Walford

industrialist as a fixer before he relinquished office in 1994. The fixer wasSir Ron Dearing, who had formerly run the Post Office but whose knowledgeof education was avowedly as a layman.

Dearing appointed committees to reduce the perceived overload of thesubject curricula and also to try and bring order from the chaotic and fast-spreading jungle of the proposed assessment system. Geographys positionand status suffered on both accounts. The loss of geography and history asstatutory subjects in the 1416 age-group was pushed through relativelyeasily, both in the interests of lightening the load and as Dearing espousedand restored to prominence the Thatcherian view that the really importantNational Curriculum was a core of English, maths and science (Dearing1994).

The nature of the curriculum formulation was also changed, with leveldescriptors now replacing Statements of Attainment at different levels. Thisincidentally reduced the amount of material within each subject specification,though it has yet to be proved that it will be any easier to understand, unpackor assess. The number of Attainment Targets was reduced in most subjectsand geographys original five became one. The number of standard nationaltests was reduced, and these were now restricted to the core subjects. Thegeneral view has quickly emerged that those subjects (including geography)without a national testing programme are perceived to have less status thanthose which are annually examined in this way. This has been buttressed bya similar concentration of emphasis in the inspection and reportingprogrammes of OFSTED since 1994.

An additional Dearing proposal was to open up the possibility of separatepathways for academic, vocational and occupational education post14, aproposal which has startling echoes of the tripartite system of educationespoused in the 1944 Education Act and abandoned in the 1960s. Eric Bolton,Chief Inspector (and perhaps a key influence) when Kenneth Bakerintroduced the concept of the broad and balanced curriculum whichunderpinned the 1988 Act, remonstrated in vain (Bolton 1994).

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, at the end of a period of great curriculum turbulence, the position ofgeography in schools appears to have returned largely to what it was beforethe Education Act of 1988 was ever mooted.

But it is not quite the same. If there is again to be the familiar beautycontest of optional subjects from which pupils may choose at the end oftheir ninth year of study, there is now stiffer competition at the post14 stage.Whether GCSE numbers in geography will hold up under the competition ofother subjects and alternative pathways is an open question.

Conversely, however, the introduction of a National Curriculum at KeyStages 1 and 2 is providing a much-needed fillip for primary geography.

The great debate and 1988 23

Teachers are rediscovering the value of subject-focused study after decadesof experiment with amorphous topic work and the integrated day. Thereintroduction of such requirements as studies of a contrasting locality andof a basic framework of locational knowledge will eventually assist secondaryschool teachers to work from a higher and firmer baseline.

The turmoil in curriculum politics between 1976 and 1995 has, at least,helped geography begin to re-examine its own practice and principles. Ofnecessity there has been a thorough public debate about its purposes andnature in schools, and a structure and those key elements which commandcommon assent within and beyond the discipline have been identified. Abackwash of this has spread into post16 and higher education. In the periodof calm promised by Sir Ron Dearing, there may be a chance to take this onin more measured, reflective and, ultimately, discerning fashion.

REFERENCES

Bailey, P. and Binns, J.A. (1987a) A case for geography: a response to Sir KeithJoseph, Geography 72 (4):32731.

Bailey, P. and Binns, J.A. (1987b) A Case for Geography, Sheffield: The GeographicalAssociation.

Baker, K. (1993) The Turbulent Years: My Life in Politics, London: Faber and Faber.Bolton, E. (1994) Divided we fall, Times Educational Supplement, 21 January 1994:

17.Callaghan, J. (1987) Time and Chance, London: Collins.Clarke, K. (1992) Geography in the National Curriculum, The Geographical Journal

158 (1):758.Daugherty, R. and Walford, R. (1980) A framework for the school curriculum,

Geography 65 (3):2325.Dearing, R. (1994) The National Curriculum and its Assessment: A Final Report,

London: SCAADepartment of Education and Science (1980) A Framework for the National

Curriculum, London: HMSO.Department of Education and Science (1981) The School Curriculum, London:

HMSO.Department of Education and Science (1991) Geography in the National Curriculum:

Draft Orders (typescript), London: DES.Fielding, L. et al. (1990) Geography for Ages 5 to 16: Final Report of the Geography

Working Group, London: HMSO.Geographical Association (1981) Geography in the School Curriculum 516,

Sheffield: Geographical Association.Geographical Association (1982) Geography in the Curriculum 1619, Sheffield:

Geographical Association.Hargreaves, D.H. (1982) The Challenge of the Comprehensive School, London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.Her Majestys Inspectors (1977) Curriculum 1116, London: HMSO.Hirst, P. (1993) The foundations of the National Curriculum: why subjects?, in P.

OHear and J.White (eds) Assessing the National Curriculum, London: PaulChapman.

24 Rex Walford

Joseph, K. (1985) Geography and the school curriculum, Geography 70 (4):2907.Rawling, E. (1993) The making of a national curriculum, Geography 77 (4):292

309.Taylor, T. (1995) Movers and shakers: high politics and the origins of the National

Curriculum, The Curriculum Journal 6 (2):16184.Walford, R. (1992) Creating a National Curriculum: a view from the inside, in Hill,

D. (ed.) International Perspectives in Geographic Education, Boulder, USA:Centre for Geographic Education.

Walford, R. (1995) Geography in the National Curriculum of England and Wales:rise and fall? The Geographical Journal 161 (2):1928.

White, J. (1988) An unconstitutional National Curriculum, in Lawton, D. andChitty, C. (eds) The National Curriculum, Bedford Way Papers 33, London:Institute of Education.

Williams, M. (1985) The Geographical Association and the Great Debate,Geography 70 (2):12937.

25

Chapter 4

Geographical education In the 1990s

Norman Graves

INTRODUCTION

Geographical education in the state primary and secondary schools ofEngland and Wales in the 1990s is dominated by the contents of a series ofreports emanating from the Geography Working Group (GWG) set up underthe 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA). Each report has been modified eitherby the GWG itself, by the Secretaries of State for Education, or as a result ofthe Dearing Report. The Final Report (June 1990) proposed sevenAttainment Targets (ATs) while the wording of the Programmes of Study(PoS) was modified to show how these could contribute to geographicalenquiry, geographical skills, and places and themes, within each Key Stage.However, the National Curriculum Council decided to reduce the ATs to fiveby combining three area studies targets into one called Knowledge andUnderstanding of Places.

Meanwhile, the position of geography in the whole curriculum waschanging. Under the 1988 ERA, geography was part of a ten-subject (eleven-subject in Wales with the addition of Welsh) compulsory NationalCurriculum for all pupils from 5 to 16 years of age and would be tested ateach Key Stage (KS). In January 1990, the then Secretary of State (JohnMacGregor) announced that it would be permissible for schools to run half-size courses in geography for 14to 16year-olds. By February 1991, KennethClarke decreed that such pupils need not take both history and geography,but could choose either one or the other or a combined course taking up thesame time as a single subject.

Teachers found that teaching and testing the curriculum was provingincreasingly stressful. Consequently John Patten, the new Secretary of Statefollowing the 1992 General Election, appointed the chairman of the SchoolCurriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA), Sir Ron Dearing, to reviewthe National Curriculum and its assessment (April 1993).

26 Norman Graves

THE DEARING REPORT AND ITS SEQUEL

The Final Report of the Dearing enquiry (1994) broadly stipulated that: the total content required to be taught by law should be substantially

reduced; the Programmes of Study (PoS) should be simplified and allow teachers

more scope to exercise their professional judgement; the Orders in Parliament should be drafted in such a way that they offer as

much support as possible to classroom teachers (Battersby 1995). Since the Dearing Report suggested that some 20 per cent of teaching time beused in ways the schools saw as appropriate to their own situation, thisresulted in a reduced amount of teaching time being available to the subjectsof the National Curriculum. In the case of geography, this meant thatapproximately one hour per week would be available for KS1 and one and aquarter hours for KS2 and KS3. At KS4, the time allocation could varyaccording to the choices made of subjects studied for the General Certificateof Secondary Education (GCSE) or for the General National VocationalQualification (GNVQ), since the latter may be taken alongside GCSE. Thisstems from the recommendation of the Dearing Report that at KS4 thereshould be both an academic and a vocational pathway, each linking up at alater stage with courses for the 1619 age-group.

The Dearing Report was accepted .by the Government and, consequently,the SCAA set up a Geography Working Group that published its Final Reportin January 1995 (Department for Education 1995). It deals only with thegeography curriculum in KS1, 2 and 3 since geography is no longercompulsory in KS4. The detailed curriculum and assessment for KS4 becamethe responsibility of the various examining groups. The Statutory Orderswere published as Geography in the National Curriculum, the main featureof which is that at each Key Stage the Programme of Study is divided intothree sections: geographical skills; places; and thematic study.

The Attainment Targets (ATs) and Statements of Attainments (SoAs) havevirtually disappeared, having been replaced by a description of the kind ofperformance that might be expected from pupils at each of eight levels, and adescription of what might be an exceptional performance above Level 8. Theconcept that pupils performance might be classified as belonging to variouslevels is derived from the TGAT (Task Group on Assessment and Testing)Report (1987) that suggested, inter alia, that in order to ensure progressionin the National Curriculum from Year 1 to Year 11, it would be necessary toassess pupils performances as belonging to one of ten levels in each subjectarea.

Geographical education in the 1990s 27

WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO IN THE 1990s?

Geography in the National Curriculum is silent on the overall aims ofgeographical education, though clearly these can be inferred from theProgrammes of Study. Each Key Stage begins with statements of what pupilsshould be given an opportunity to learn. These may be summarized as: the investigation of places and themes at a variety of scales; the posing of such geographical questions as What is it? , What is it

like? , How did it get like this? , How and why is it changing? , Whatare the implications?;

The development of fieldwork skills and the ability to find out relevantinformation from documentary, map sources, and from data stored incomputer files and disks;

the understanding of and ability to explain physical and human processesand the interaction between them;

the consideration of issues arising from peoples interaction with theirenvironment;

the understanding of how places are set in a global context and howdifferent areas have become interdependent and are therefore affected byprocesses in other parts of the world.

While these give certain medium-term objectives for geography teachers,they do not explain why these objectives are considered worth pursuing.Here one enters the realm of values. One of the most significant shifts tohave occurred in the curriculum in the 1990s is the shift towards theinstrumental aims of education. This does not mean that the intrinsic aims,i.e. those that state that education is worthwhile because it broadens anddeepens the mind, are abandoned, but that these are no longer consideredsufficient. Thus, geographys position in the National Curriculum cannotbe justified solely because it is a discipline of knowledge; it must also bejustified because it has a function in contemporary society. What is thatfunction?

First, it is evident that geography, as part of the total curriculum, helps toreinforce all those communications skills which most curriculum subjectsattempt to get pupils to acquire and which are of growing importance in theevolving world economy. Geography puts a special emphasis on graphicalskills (ability to read and interpret maps, graphs and charts, photographsand tabular information). This is closely related to the development of anability to orient oneself, to develop mental maps of an environment and toplan routes, abilities which are at a premium in a world in which people areoften on the move. Second, most economic and social problems have a spatialaspectwhether one is dealing on the small scale with planning the layout ofones garden, or the medium scale with the location of a hypermarket or

28 Norman Graves

industrial works, or on the large scale with planning air-routes, it is importantto be aware of the way decisions are made and the factors that influencethose decisions. Third, geography, with its long tradition of examining themanner in which different influences play their part in giving a place itscharacter, is well placed to investigate the nature of an environmentalproblem and to suggest a solution, though as in all value-laden decisionsthere will probably be alternatives. This is one area in which geography hasto inculcate a substantive value: the need to care for the environment (Fienand Gerber 1986).

Thus, to answer the question which heads this section, in teachinggeography teachers could be said to be developing spatial skills in their pupils,to be getting them used to analysing the spatial aspects of economic andsocial problems and to be making them aware of the nature of environmentalissues and developing in their minds the concept of an environmental ethic.Each teacher, however, may also have his or her own agenda according to thecircumstances in which he or she is teaching.

TEACHINGLEARNING STRATEGIES AND MODES OFASSESSMENT

Most teachers continue to adopt an essentially pragmatic attitude to teachingmethods. A good teaching method is one that works in the circumstances inwhich one is teaching, i.e. one that enables pupils to learn what they aresupposed to learn. Since the main objective in any lesson or series of lessonsis to get the pupils to learn a skill, a concept or principle which they can laterapply, the proof that a particular teaching strategy has worked lies in thepupils ability to apply what they have learned in a new situation. Hence theimportance of assessment in the sense of monitoring pupils progress. Canone, therefore, say anything of general validity about teaching strategies?While one can point to research that has validated particular teachingstrategies, one can never be sure that with another teacher, with anothergroup of pupils, in other circumstances, the methods used will always yieldthe same results. Thus one can only point to the possibilities offered by certainteaching strategies, but never offer the guarantee that they will always besuccessful.

Perhaps the first thing that can be said about teaching strategies is thatthey must be in harmony with ones aims and objectives. If you as a teacheraim to produce pupils who can think things out for themselves, then theymust be given the opportunity to do so. This means that to feed themcontinually with information that they must learn to reproduce is notconducive to achieving this aim. Second, it is common experience that, if oneparticular strategy is repeated too often, then pupils get bored with it. So avariety of approaches and activities is necessary. Thus, whole-class teachingcan include question and answer oral work followed by worksheet

Geographical education in the 1990s 29

completion, or it can involve the class in attempting to solve a problem,documents having been provided to enable pupils to arrive at some solution.Group work may involve groups in attempting to answer a series ofquestions, for example, on environmental pollution, each groupconcentrating on one sort of pollution and bringing their knowledge to thewhole class at the end of the teaching unit. Much of the variety in pupilactivity comes not only from the tasks set, but also from the kind of teachingaids used: from textbooks through large-scale maps and tabulated statisticsto information technology, videos and satellite photographs. Later chaptersin this book (Chapters 13 to 22) deal in detail with various teaching-learningstrategies.

The formative monitoring of pupil progress needs to be done by individualteachers and should be based on decisions taken at departmental or schoollevel about the nature of the assessment to be undertaken. Because theexperience in the early stages of implementing the National Curriculumshowed that too much formal testing was unmanageable, it is likely thatmuch of this monitoring will be based on the informal assessment of pupilswork, though occasional formal tests may be given as appropriate. SCAA(1995a) has issued guidance on how to ensure consistency in teacherassessment. This suggests that teachers need to develop a commonunderstanding about standards of work and that that may be helped bycollecting together in a portfolio examples of pupils work in geography toillustrate a particular standard.

The summative aspect involves being able to classify the work of a pupilas belonging to one of the eight levels described in Geography in theNational Curriculum. Little experience is yet available on how this may bedone but some suggestions are contained in a helpful article by Digby andLambert (1996). Further, the Geographical Association has published abooklet entitled Assessment Works (Butt, Lambert and Telfer 1995) whichhelps teachers to understand the system of assessment based on leveldescriptions and indicates what teachers should look out for in pupils work.It usefully unpacks two level descriptions, to show what a pupils workshould reveal at a particular level. Essentially a judgement has to be made,given a range of a pupils work, as to the level to which the work should beassigned. In the case of GCSE work at Key Stage 4, SCAA (1995b) has alsopublished a document giving both general regulations for the GCSE andspecific criteria for each subject area, guidance on syllabus content, schemesof assessment and grade descriptions. To a large extent this repeats muchthat is in Geography in the National Curriculum, but it does specify that inany scheme of assessment: 1 The weightings for the assessment objectives must be in the following

range:

30 Norman Graves

(i) knowledge of places and themes at a range of scales: 3040 percent;

(ii) understanding of geographical ideas and the application ofknowledge and understanding in a variety of physical and humancontexts: 3040 per cent;

(iii) selection and use of skills appropriate to geographical enquiry: 3040 per cent.

2 Each scheme of assessment has to incorporate a terminal examinationwith a minimum weighting of 75 per cent in non-modular schemes and50 per cent in modular schemes.

3 The weighting allocated to coursework must be not less than 20 per centbut not more than 25 per cent. This coursework must include ageographical investigation supported by fieldwork.

4 Candidates must be given opportunities to demonstrate their graphicalability through practical work and their ability to write extended prose.

More detailed consideration of assessment will be given in Chapters 23 to27.

TOWARDS THE MILLENNIUM?

Given the educational turmoil of the past decade it is hazardous to predictwhat is likely to happen to school geography in the next ten years. However,following the promise of the Dealing Report that no substantial changeswould be made to the National Curriculum for at least five years, teacherscan expect a period of relative stability in geographical education which theycan put to good use by consolidating their work in schools. Consolidationdoes not mean stagnation, though, but being able to organize the smoothrunning of their teaching while at the same time having the professionalfreedom to undertake some experimentationwithin the limits set by theNational Curriculumwith content, teaching strategies and assessment, inorder to meet the particular needs of their pupils. More than ever, teachersneed to bear in mind that the curriculum is a means to an end and not an endin itself. The end is the development of those competencies and qualities ofmind that will produce a citizen able to earn his or her living as well as beingcapable of critical thought.

REFERENCES

Battersby, J. (1995) Rationale for the revised curriculum, Teaching Geography 20(2): 578.

Butt, G., Lambert, D. and Telfer, S. (eds) (1995) Assessment Works, Sheffield;Geographical Association.

Dearing, R. (1994) The National Curriculum and its Assessment: Final Report,London: HMSO.

Geographical education in the 1990s 31

Department for Education (1995) Geography in the National Curriculum, London:HMSO.

Department of Education and Science (1987) National Curriculum. Taskgroup onAssessment and Testing: A Report, London and Cardiff: DES and Welsh Office.

Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office (1990) Geography for Ages 5 to16, London: HMSO.

Digby, R. and Lambert, D. (1996) Using level descriptions in the classroom at KeyStage 3, Teaching Geography 21 (1):403.

Fien, J. and Gerber, R. (1986) Teaching Geography for a Better World, Sydney:Jacaranda.

SCAA (1995a) Consistency in Teacher Assessment, Guidance for Schools, Key Stages1 to 3, London: School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

SCAA (1995b) GCSE Regulations and Criteria, London: School Curriculum andAssessment Authority.

Part II

35

Chapter 5

Curriculum planning and coursedevelopmentA matter of professiona