1. Curriculum update GTE conference 26th Jan 2013
Explain that, in a sense, I’ll be talking about ‘our relationship’ with the curriculum – the national statutory curriculum in particular. I’ll suggest that our relationship with it needs to change.
Hoping that the audience have read the GA’s curriculum proposals and the Feedback report
GTE conference
26th Jan 2013

2. GA curriculum consultation
Pro-active response to the challenge of ‘The importance of teaching’
2011 consultation explored core knowledge in geography
Spring/summer 2012 – GA NCR group drafts ‘core curriculum’
Sept/Oct consultation – 195 responses
1. The proposals were the GA’s response to the 2010 White Paper (2011 Education Act) The Importance of Teaching, which stated that the national curriculum ‘should set out clearly the core knowledge and understanding that all children should be expected to acquire in the course of their schooling‘. The Association saw ONE of its responsibilities as engaging with government in order to represent the views of its members.
2. The 2011 consultation document defined
Core knowledge [Kn1]: the subject as it resides in the popular imagination: if geography is the “world subject” its core knowledge is gleaned and created from the information communicated in globes and atlases. Much of this amounts to geographical context
Content knowledge [Kn2]: concepts or generalizations, and the key to developing understanding
Procedural knowledge [Kn3]: thinking geographically is a distinctive procedure
It also set out a rationale for geography teaching, established a view of progression and presented draft outcomes for CYP at various points in their geographical education.
3. The purpose of undertaking further work was to:
establish a robust professional view of the geography curriculum 11-16;
test the validity of the Association’s ideas with its members and the wider public;
create a coherent set of documents for communicating ideas with third parties, particularly central government, during a period of curriculum reform.
Note that this period of curriculum reform has seen a swing back in the ‘balance of influence’ between politicians and professionals (noted by John Hopkin in Debates), meaning the GA has been forced onto its own resources.

3. Consultation feedback
93.6% agreed that “the aims and outcomes statements ... support planning and make the rationale for geography clear”;
79.5% agreed that “the content and guiding questions ... provide coverage appropriate for the core of a student's geographical education”;
84% agreed that “the level of detail ... is appropriate for a national curriculum”;
95.1% agreed that “'Thinking Geographically' shows how essential content can be used to develop students’ conceptual understanding”;
88.2% agreed that “the assessment descriptors ... provide appropriate standards and outcomes in a way which will support assessment”
Note that this was not research – it was an example of the community of practice in action. It illustrates the careful steps required to move from debating principles towards making decisions.

4. Food for thought
“The GA's curriculum appears to sample from geography ... and suggests a sensible core”
Enquiry questions provide steer and pitch
Place knowledge ‘jigsaw’
‘Boring’ curriculum
Prescribing places, themes etc.
Sterile subject versus young peoples’ geographies
‘boring curriculum ‘ – raises the question of what we expect from a national curriculum document
more sophisticated arguments that reject the idea that ‘the issues in front of us can be reduced to such mundane dimensions is to be avoided’ (Barnett, quoted by Firth) or even that ‘what is taught is partly determined by how educational transactions are conducted’ (Lambert/Jones)
But note that many inherently held the view that disciplinary knowledge is ‘obscure and strange and its possession difficult’ (Barnett, quoted in Firth)

5. Core and local curriculum
Local curriculum opportunities, preferences and priorities
This diagram represents the relationship between the essential core and the curriculum taught in two different schools. It helps to establish what the curriculum is not: a comprehensive account of the geography to be taught.
But there’s further work here: what are the ‘opportunities, preferences, priorities’ alluded to? More ‘core content’?
Core knowledge, understanding and skills all pupils should acquire

6. Curriculum making – not writing
subject
pedagogy
learners
This returns us perhaps to the notion of curriculum making (rather than curriculum writing), in which the subject discipline and the interests and experiences of pupils are both used as resources by the teacher, rather than being seen in conflict.
This concept has previously been used to help steer teachers away from a false debate in which the 'subject' is equated with sterile tradition and inert knowledge whilst 'pupil interests' are seen as the sole source of engagement, albeit transient and lacking in substance.
But there is much work to do to define the relationship or contribution of the national curriculum towards the process of curriculum making.

7. Meanwhile ...
DfE round table discussions for GNC (think places, processes, procedures)
The EBC announced Sept 2012
‘Reformed’ GCSEs bedding in?
‘Reformed’ A levels Sept 2015?
GA strategic plan !