EVALUACION DE LOS ASPECTOS TECNICOS (70%) FACTORES CRITICOS INDISPENSABLES

Many expressed views on the possible reasons for the changes to the National Curriculum with some also expressing opinions about the

Government and their attitude to teachers. Some commented that they tried to ignore these wider political issues and just wanted to get on with their job as they knew better than those in Government. For example, in an illustrative quotation on the reasons for the curriculum change, Penny felt that;

‘It’s a political act, it’s overtly politically…and it’s an act that’s about ideology and philosophy. It isn’t necessarily about learning so it’s our job to make that document be about learning, not about ideology’

Penny clearly felt the changes were political rather than pedagogical and that it was the job of teachers to make it successful in school. This echoes the comments made by Biddulph that a curriculum document must be brought to life by teachers (2013).

107 A common response was that the Government had intentionally tried to ‘raise standards’ in school by simply making the curriculum ‘harder’. Many felt that this was not necessarily for pedagogical reasons and was more likely to be connected to concerns over international comparisons, such as the PISA rankings. Comments of this type were made by both Heather and Louise in the Primary school with an illustrative quotation from Louise stating that;

‘I think the Government wants to be seen to be raising standards within PISA tables; it wants us to compete better at an international level’.

This comment shows an awareness of policy at a macro level and the apparent importance of international comparisons.

Heather made a similar comment, stating that:

‘It’s a Government thing isn’t it that they’ve decided that we weren’t teaching as complicated and as high order as we should have been, and this was the idea that they will overhaul education and make them look like they’re achieving. They do it all the time.’

The comment above reflects a common response that changes were being made to the curriculum for macro policy reasons, rather than pedagogical ones. It is also worth noting the use of the term ‘they’ in the comment above, echoing the concern made by many that curriculum change is something done to teachers, not with them. In fact, the use of the term ‘they’ was a common response from the teachers when commenting on curriculum changes and the broader political picture. This did tend to suggest a certain

108 attitude of ‘us’ and ‘them’ within education and that the subject leaders did not see themselves as part of a process, just the receivers of policy.

For example, in an illustrative quotation, Penny felt that:

‘I think we’ve got people who don’t really understand the nature of learning and education in charge of learning and education and they want everything in a straight line and that’s not how children progress’.

Penny expressed some dissatisfaction with those in charge of education and a disconnect with those in schools who actually do the job and ‘know’ what to do, having the correct ‘teacher knowledge’ (Ellis, 2007,448). This suggested a potential clash between the views of the ‘experts’ in school and those within the Government. For example, Penny went on to comment that;

‘They should trust the experts, because we’re experts and they’re not...(laughs)’.

The use of the word ‘they’ again was interesting, as has been noted above. Penny then commented further on the possible reasons for the curriculum changes;

‘You only have to look at the Key Stage SATS to see that there is an agenda and also you can see a pattern. Things get harder, the Government come out and go ‘no we’re not going to give teachers more money or we’re not going to do this because they’re a bit rubbish’

109 and it just seems a bit ‘Big Brothery’ to me so we try and ignore the politics’.

Penny suggested an agenda around the curriculum change and that there was a particular Governmental view of teachers. The reference to Orwell’s Big Brother is interesting and suggests some connotations for those at the

receiving end of policy. It also links to the ‘discourse of derision’ concept around teachers that many felt started to develop in the 1970s and has never really gone away (Ball, 1994; Maguire, 2014). However, Penny’s response was to just get on with her job and ‘ignore the politics’.

An interesting angle on the new National Curriculum were subject leader comments made about the ‘men’ involved in producing the new curriculum, and the fact that the document itself came across as very ‘male’. This was interesting, as clearly a policy document is not gendered. However, the language used in the document may give a certain impression and some noted that the document felt mechanical and structured.

This point is illustrated by a quotation from Juliana, who felt that;

‘It must be written by a man and I don’t mean that in any bad way but you know that pure…you sit, you teach like this; you need to do this, it’s very – quite a male – I see it as quite a male…it’s not creative in any way. It’s very specific, structured’.

110 These comments about the nature of the document and its perceived male, non-creative approach echo those from one other subject leader and throw an interesting light on teacher perceptions of the curriculum document.

A similar comment about the curriculum document was made by Penny, who felt that:

‘That’s a very antiseptic document – well they all are, and they’re bound to be, it’s very hard to make it not but it’s fairly, it’s very

cold…here it seems quite robotic, quite cold and children shouldn’t be der dum der dum der dum, its a bit Midwich Cuckoos or something’.

Penny used interesting terms to describe the document, such as antiseptic and cold, but also noted that this was perhaps to be expected in a policy document. Her reference to the John Wyndham novel of 1964 where village children all look and act the same is also interesting and gives some insight into her feelings about the way in which this curriculum might affect her pupils.

The comments about the ‘maleness’ of the document were not made by all teachers, but have been included here as they were unusual and were deemed of interest. Braun and Clarke note that this is one of the benefits of thematic analysis, where material of interest that does not necessarily generate its own broad theme may still be included for discussion (2006; 2013). A curriculum document itself is not gendered of course, but if there is a particular perception about its origins and structure, it may affect the way in which the document is viewed and mediated by subject leaders.

111 Although there were some comments on political aspects of the curriculum change, the subject leaders did not critique the curriculum in terms of the subjects involved or at any macro level outside the need to raise standards and compete internationally. While some appeared less than happy with the actual content for their subject in the new curriculum, many did not appear to be too concerned and were content to just deal with the new material. The main concern shared by some of the subject leaders was whether the level of the content was appropriate for their pupils. This lack of broader political awareness and a pragmatic desire just to ‘get on with it’ for their pupils reflects the findings of Priestley et al in Scotland, when researching teacher responses to a new curriculum (2013).