Los viajes por Europa

Throughout its history as a school subject geography re-formulated itself to justify a place within the curriculum and there were usually a number of diverse approaches co-existing at the same time. There was always a type 1 academic curriculum followed by the

majority of schools, if entries for different examination specifications are a guide, but elements of each type of curriculum can be found in geography teaching today as different traditions have competed for influence (Rawling 2001, p.32):

Geography – as a school subject – provides a way of helping young people in schools to learn about and reflect on aspects of the world. This engagement with the world means that geography is constantly changing as society changes although as we will see, this connection is not simple and straightforward. This is true of other school subjects such as history and English too, though of course they look at the world through different perspectives and with different methods. This is another way of saying that the school curriculum is a reflection of the culture of society. It is a selection from that culture and, as such, there are always arguments and discussions about how that selection should be made, and who gets to decide.

(Williams, 1961, quoted in Lambert and Morgan, 2010, p.3) Geography’s type 1 place in the curriculum at age 14-16 was partly established by its place within the examination system. Geography was one of the first school subjects examined by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge examination boards established in the late 1850s. It was taught in many elementary schools and was one of the subjects included in the first guidance from central government in 1904 (Annual Regulations for Schools). It was also included in the general and higher certificate examinations from 1917 and 1922 respectively (Walford, 2001, pp.83-85). During the 1920s and 30s it

51

being a subject suitable for first class brains’ (Walford, 2001, p.141). It was also not so popular in independent schools.

The original subject based examinations (GCE O-level, 1952) were limited to students in grammar schools (Walford, 2001). When CSE examinations were introduced in 1965 geography was one of the most popular subjects and there were opportunities for local curriculum development through consortia of schools or even by individual schools. It has been suggested the introduction of CSE examinations had two contradictory effects. One was to strengthen the divide between academic teaching (GCE O-level) and non-academic (CSE) and led to increased segregation in schools through the use of streamed classes. On the other hand it led to teachers asking questions about the most appropriate curriculum for different groups of students and the promotion of new approaches in geography (DES, 1973; Lambert and Morgan, 2010, p.11-12). This was supported in the 1970s by two Schools Council curriculum development projects which saw new approaches to geography teaching being developed and successfully implemented by many teachers (Walford, 2001, p175-178). These two projects covered the whole range of abilities with one curriculum project being originally targeted at ‘O’-level (Bristol 14-18 project) and the other at lower ability students (Geography for the Young School Leaver). However it has been suggested that these projects ‘had the potential to engage with a range of

economic, social and cultural changes’, but relied too much on academic geography and found it hard fully to address the question of ‘whose geography?’ which led to the subject being socially selective (Lambert and Morgan, 2010, pp. 19-20).

52

The development of comprehensive schools in the 1960s and 70s might have led to a common curriculum for all but tended to perpetuate diversity because there were curricula for different groups of children (Ball, 1981; Benn and Simon, 1970, quoted in Higham and Yeomans, 2007 pp.284-285). Students were channelled into ‘appropriate’ courses and there were descriptions of the subtle and not so subtle mechanisms used to differentiate students (Ball, 1981). At the subject level there tended to be less curriculum diversity within geography compared with other subjects such as mathematics, but not all students were given the opportunity to study the subject.

There were three criticisms of what was happening. Firstly the lack of central government control or knowledge of the curricula in schools was causing concern at a time of

economic uncertainty. Secondly the concepts of ‘breadth and balance’ were gaining ground as ways of judging curricula from the DES, the inspectorate and academic

curriculum theorists. Thirdly comprehensive schools themselves were beginning to expand their core curriculum, sometimes associated with a move to mixed ability teaching. These strands began to lead to a rethinking of the curriculum and demands for ‘a comprehensive (common or core) curriculum for comprehensive schools’ (Higham and Yeomans, 2007 p.286).

There were other more vocationally based (type 2) initiatives developed during the 1980s and 1990s with the development of a number of qualification and curriculum initiatives such as the Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education (CPVE), the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI), The Geography, Schools and Industry Project (GSIP) and

53

General National Vocational Qualifications (GNVQ) (Sutton, 1996). Some geographers played an active part in these initiatives but they were all relatively short lived and were of less direct importance for geography in the long term than the changes in the more academic GCSE qualifications.

The 1960s and 1970s saw the development of approaches to organising the curriculum that challenged the subject based curriculum. These led to humanities, social studies and environmental studies courses, developments that tried to link different subject areas (Goodson, 1993; Lambert and Morgan, 2010, p10). These initiatives were often locally based, for example there were strong humanities traditions developed in LEAs such as Leicestershire and Bristol. Sometimes they resulted in examinations but they were also formalised in schools by the creation of Humanities departments where subjects were linked. In recent years there have been type 3 challenges to subject based approaches through initiatives such as ‘Opening Minds’ (RSA, 2011) and ‘Learning to Learn’ where the emphasis is on pedagogy more than subject knowledge (Lambert, 2009).

The National Curriculum and GCSE discussed in sections 2.4.4 and 2.4.5 appeared to enshrine geography within the type 1 curriculum elite and to impose uniformity through the creation of a common curriculum framework. However there was still opportunities for diversity both within the management of the overall curriculum in schools SCAA (1995) and QCA (1998) and within subjects by the creation of different examination specifications. Diversity within the subject was developed further in 2004 when a pilot GCSE was introduced that incorporated both academic and vocational elements and an

54

innovative approach to assessment (GA, 2006). This pilot was short lived although some elements were incorporated into GCSE specifications introduced in 2009. Geography as a subject has therefore tended to fit more comfortably with the academic, type 1

curriculum although there have been attempts to broaden its appeal and even within this tradition there were many different approaches:

The new specifications offered by the A(warding) B(odie)s give the opportunity for geography teachers to choose from a number of contrasting perspectives on the subject. The subject content shows great variation and appears to allow teachers the chance to develop courses which will allow for personal interests and expertise to inform relevant and exciting geography.

(Johns and Wood, 2008, p.106)