Critical examination of National Curriculum

National Curriculum is a part of Education Reform Act 1988 which was introduced by Conservative government. A major feature of the act was the introduction of a ten subject national curriculum for all pupils aged 5-16, to be assessed at four key stages, KS4 being the GCSE examination. (Tomlinson, 2001) A National Curriculum Council and a School Examinations and Assessment Council were to oversee the development of three core and seven foundation subjects, but the Secretary of State was granted the powers to decide ultimately on actual curriculum content. However, as Tomlinson argued (2001), extensive political interference in the development of the National Curriculum created bitter conflicts and disputes; as a result, a review was done by Sir Ron Dearing, chairman of the SCAA (School and Curriculum Assessment Authority) which brought substantial amount of changes in the curriculum in 1993. In addition to that, in 2000, for the first time a clear set of goals was laid out as a revised national curriculum which is introduced by Labour government. Though the core subjects – English, maths and science remain, the other subjects now include design and technology, information and communication technology (ICT), history, geography, modern foreign languages, art and design, music, physical education (PE), citizenship and religious education (RE). (The Guardian 04/11/03)

The aims of national curriculum as published in the official website are to establish an entitlement which means it secures for all pupils, irrespective of social background, culture, race, gender, differences in ability and disabilities, an entitlement to a number of areas of learning and to develop knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary for their self-fulfilment and development as active and responsible citizens, to establish national standards for the performance of all pupils in the subjects it includes, to promote continuity and coherence and increases public understanding of, and confidence in, the work of schools and in the learning and achievements resulting from compulsory education. In order to critically examine the national curriculum, this essay will try to explain why the curriculum was thought necessary, go through different positive and negative consequences associated with implementation of this curriculum after 1988. Moreover, it will also try to explain the different aspects of national curriculum from different sociological perspectives such as Functionalist or Consensus view and Marxist or Conflict theory.

Though in Britain, from the middle of the 1970s there was concern on equality of opportunity which was to a great extent influenced by class, gender and ethnic inequalities at that time, governments paid less attention to developing policies concerned with these issues. During that period, Lawton’s long-standing advocacy (1975, 1983) of a common core curriculum is well known. His curriculum prescription has derived from a commitment, shared by many sociologists of education, to peruse ‘equal opportunities through schooling. (Halpin, 1990) However, instead the main focus of national policy making shifted elsewhere and concentrated on the needs of industry and the economy. The change in thinking began under the last labour Government of the 1970s when the Labour minister James Callaghan made a speech at Ruskin College calling for a ‘Great Debate’ on education. In a period of rising unemployment and the apparent decline of Britain’s economy, the concern was that education was failing to produce appropriately skilled and motivated young workers. (Haralambos & Holborn, 1995) As Britain’s manufacturing industry was gradually declining, a great demand of skilled and educated workers was rising in order to improve the economy. According to Green (1991), British education in England and Wales was widely regarded to be in a state of crisis. Since then the older progressive ideals of comprehensive education have been subject to substantial attack from various quarters. Conservative government, right-wing pressure groups and quasi-government agencies like the Manpower service Commission (MSC) have repeatedly argued that education system was failing with its allegedly poor performance in preparing children for the modern technology. (Green, 1991) As a result strong demand was felt to produce a national curriculum which can solve the problem to some extent.

Though at the beginning of the implementation of national curriculum, most of the teachers welcomed the new curriculum in principal, but were concerned at the amount of content and the effects, managing its implementation would have on their kind of teachings. Teachers were concerned about how to provide a broad and balanced curriculum and at the same time carry out their responsibility towards providing children with basic language, literacy and numeric skills. (Woods & Jeffrey, 1996) As Mckenzie (2001) argued, the introduction of national curriculum means that teachers must constantly update their knowledge of its amendments and assessment requirements. Teachers also need professional updating to keep them abreast of the continual changes in educational technology and teaching and assessment methods. Furthermore, as Lawton put it, the result is a system with demoralised teacher who have had to cope with too short a time. (Tomlinson, 2001) They have been required to implement an unworkable, overloaded national curriculum and employ time absorbing assessment strategies to which many object.

There were considerable pressures on teachers’ time, first, in terms of sheer amount of work. (Woods, 1996) Apart from the sheer load, there was a question of quantity. As Cockburn stated, “Teachers found it difficult to achieve ‘high quality teacher time working with their pupils’.” (1994) Teachers cannot spend more time with pupils; instead they have to spend a substantial amount of time in various other works. For example, Campbell (1993:220) has shown that nearly 10 per cent of teachers’ time is ‘evaporated time’, taken up by activities such as moving pupils around and supervision. (Woods & Jeffrey, 1996) Moreover, the new curriculum has added more subjects while allocating very little time for the new subjects such as ICT, music, citizenship etc. So as a result though new subjects are added, the timetable share of compulsory subjects means that, in practice, pupils have very few options especially in GCSE. ( Gillborn & Youdell, 2000)

In addition to the negative consequences, there exist Inconsistencies among the values embodied in the National curriculum. Among the foundation subjects, a notable absentee is social studies – a subject obviously well suited for their purpose of socialising pupils with common norms and values so that they can be able to establish themselves as good citizens. In its absence, history is one of the more helpful vehicles to promote an understanding of society. However, as White and O’Hear (1996) argue, apart from a one term module on the courses of the Second World War, students can leave school knowing nothing of the history of the 20th century. Moreover, structurally it is weak with its rigid subject structure and detailed statutory demands. “National curriculum could be the illusory strength of a blind Cyclops which cannot see which way it is going”. (White & O’Hear, 1996)

The curriculum is argued to be Eurocentric to some extent. According to Armstrong (1998), the National Curriculum in England and Wales, far from reflecting a belief that cultural production needs to reflect the nation’s cultural diversity and dynamisms, has asserted a particular strain of ‘heritage culture’ which ignores or devalues, other cultures and experiences. Teachers readily made links between the curriculum and ideology imposed by government and broader political states of play. When she interviewed a humanities teacher, the teacher argued that history has a very narrow Eurocentric approach that seems to sort of elevate things like the British Empire and values, thus the History curriculum being Eurocentric. Besides, in the curriculum there is more emphasis given on tradition and nationhood. According to Whitty (2002) , “Even though the ‘old order’ of national , class and gender identities may be being fractured in some respects through the ravages of neoliberalism , neoconservative policies are meanwhile encouraging schools to engage more explicitly than ever before in the promotion of tradition and nationhood.”

It also in practise of creating forms of national identity. Whitty (2002) argued that central regulation of the curriculum is not only geared toward standardising performance criteria in order to facilitate professional accountability and consumer choice within the education marketplace, it is also about creating or recreating, forms of national identity. For example, the formulation of the national curriculum in England has been underlain by a consistent requirement that schools concentrate on British history, British geography and ‘classic’ English literature. Far from reflecting a loosening of geographic boundaries, a reduction of the specificity of the nation state or the increasing interpenetration of cultures characteristic of globalisation, such curriculum reforms represent a conscious attempt to position subjects in ways which pull backwards to past rather than forwards into a new globalised times. (Whitty, 2002)

In terms of positive aspects of national curriculum, it can be argued that it has succeeded to some extent to eliminate gender-specific choices in compulsory subjects like before boys tend to choose science subjects and girls tend to skip science subjects and choose languages. However, now after the implementation of curriculum, everyone must take science subjects as they are now compulsory for all. Another positive aspect of national curriculum is New Labour has introduced a new subject, Citizenship which is believed to socialise students with different norms and values of liberal democratic nation state. This subject includes three inter-related components which are social and moral responsibilities, community involvement and political literacy. Since it has just appeared to put into practice in the curriculum, there remain very little space to argue about its effectiveness to indoctrinate the values the essay mentioned above.

The national curriculum can be linked to functionalist theory to some extent as well as to conflict theory for various reasons. Functionalist sociologists, such as Parsons, have argued that schools should be institutions that guarantee “equality of opportunity”. Each individual should be able to compete and prove themselves against others on the basis of merit. Therefore the idea of a meritocracy comes up which refers to what pupils achieve is conditioned by their personal abilities. During the 1990s both Conservative Prime Minister Major and New Labour leader Blair argued that their goal was a classless society, inequalities of wealth and income and of educational chances. (Tomlinson, 2001) So in a way, both governments tend to accept the functionalist view. In addition with that, since a common curriculum with its set of general norms and values can bring ‘social solidarity ‘as termed by key functionalist Durkheim, it suppose to be very practical for both governments. On the other hand, these views, especially the issue of “equality of opportunity” are disputed by Marxist theorists as they argue that equality of opportunity is not possible in a capitalist society as society is divided in different social classes, which echo the division of labour existed in capitalist society.

However, the core focus of conservative educational policy under Thatcher was an emphasis on the use of markets and free enterprise to produce and to distribute, with a minimum of regulation, the goods and services wanted by consumers. As Tomlinson (2001) argued, the vision underpinning the British Conservative government reforms was that of a nineteenth century liberal individualism, in which apparently free consumers embraced the laws of the market and the values of self-interest and personal and familial profit. It was closely related to Victorian values such as those who did not help themselves by making the right choices were unworthy of state help. So in a way, Individuals were expected to accept a hierarchical understanding of their class, gender and racial position which is almost in tune with Marxist argument of ruling class, the ‘bourgeoisie’ tend to dominate the working class by implementing a special type of curriculum so that the working class the ‘preliterate’ do not make any problem in a society dominated by few but powerful ruling authority.

Knowledge was by 1988, to be regulated and controlled by central government via a national curriculum, which in event was largely based on a version of the nineteenth century public school curriculum with distinct barriers between academic, practical and technical learning. In effect, education remained a preparation for a class-divided hierarchical society in which those destined to skilled work or places on the margins of the economy received a different and inferior education to those who destined to professional and managerial jobs and positions of power and influence. (Tomlinson, 2002) It can be argued that this process is quite similar to Marxist argument of ‘social stratification’. According to Marxist view, capitalist societies are highly class structured. The society is stratified into a number of different classes. Stratification is reflected in the nature of economic activity such as work, since different occupational levels correlate with different classes. Since education is seen correspond to the requirements of work, Marxists argue that the education system is stratified to reflect class differences. According to Livesey, it can also be argued that there also exists the stratification of subjects on the basis of their “strict” relationship to the world of work. For example: English, Maths and Science have a higher status in the curriculum than subjects such as Sociology, Psychology, Art and so forth, mainly because they appear to have greater relevance to the type of basic skills required by people in their adult lives. So it can be argued that the prioritising of certain subjects because of their closer relationship to the world of work is another illustration for this capitalist stratification.

The National Curriculum directs teachers to encourage their pupils to speak Standard English - a form of English that emphasises strict grammatical correctness. Again, this brings us back to the purpose of education - to prepare people for their adult lives or to prepare them for a work role in Capitalist society which is very similar to Marxist view of thought. A final example was identified by Vulliamy (1978) when he noted that in music lessons the type of music selected for approved teaching tends to be that of Classical (white) European composers. Other forms of music (American Blues, Country, Popular, Rock etc.) either do not feature on the curriculum or are downgraded in terms of their significance. As a result, it resembles the Marxist view that the content of the curriculum is totally in control of government, ruling class and teachers and pupils are not given any opportunity to create the content the way they prefer.

Though it has been argued that, the national curriculum has given teachers, pupils, parents, employers and their wider community a clear and shared understanding of the skills and knowledge, it still come up with substantial number of negative consequences. As the essay have argued, its implementation since 1988 has rather produced a considerable amount of problems especially for teachers in terms of pressure and workload in teaching, ‘demoralising their spirit to teach pupils’, very centralized control of education authority on subjects, its syllabus and even its content while reducing the greater autonomy of teachers to apply their rich insights and experience in teaching technique and so forth. Moreover, it also lacks consistencies in values and norms embodied in the curriculum and also lack structural strength. It has been argued to be rather Eurocentric in terms of subject contents and believed to be creating different forms of national identity which harms the process of globalisation to a great level. Besides, adding up new subjects but allocating lesser time to it has created difficulties for pupils to grasp the subjects effectively. Though some positive aspects of national curriculum has been mentioned, the curriculum need to be in constant review in order to minimise its negative consequences and provide a up-to-date and flexible curriculum which will benefit the whole community and the country as a whole. Halpin (1990) has emphasised on greater research and study of national curriculum especially by sociologists of curriculum which can meet the demands and challenges of the national curriculum both at the level of policy analysis and implementation. In this way, the government will be able to ensure a better, comprehensive national curriculum for its society