Loading
Loading

Home > Reflective Teaching in Primary Schools >  3. Teaching for learning > 9. Curriculum > Further reading > Principles for curriculum revision


  1. 1. Becoming a reflective professional
       1. Identity
       2. Learning
  2.    3. Reflection
  3.    4. Principles
  4.    Observing [supplementary chapter]
  5.    Enquiry [supplementary chapter]
  6.    Mentoring [supplementary chapter]
  7.    Techniques of enquiry
       [supplementary chapter]

  8. 2. Creating conditions for learning
  9.    5. Contexts
  10.    6. Relationships
  11.    7. Engagement
  12.    8. Spaces

  13. 3. Teaching for learning
  14.    9. Curriculum
  15.    10. Planning
  16.    11. Pedagogy
  17.    12. Communication
  18.    13. Assessment

  19. 4. Reflecting on consequences
  20.    14. Outcomes
  21.    15. Social justice
  22.    Judgement
       [supplementary chapter]

  23. 5. Deepening understanding
  24.    16. Teacher expertise
  25.    17. Professional learning
  26.    18. Professionalism
  27.    Starting out [supplementary
       chapter]
  28.    Improvement [supplementary
       chapter]

Principles for curriculum revision

In considering the two traditional alternative strategies for curricular planning within primary schools - by focusing on separate subjects or by planning forms of integration between subjects - a good place to start is with Sehgal Cuthbert and Standish or the Plowden report (Reading 9.4).

  • Sehgal Cuthbert, A., Standish, A. (Eds.), 2021. What Should Schools Teach?, Second ed. London: UCLPress.

A consideration of Plowden leads inevitably to thinking about appropriate aims, values and views of knowledge that might pertain to the curriculum. Bernstein provides a seminal analysis of curriculum structure, knowledge and power. Taylor points to some international concurrence on these issues, though Proctor notes that they are always the product of an enormous complexity of debate, interest and political activity both within and outside the teaching profession.

  •  Taylor, P. (1990) ‘The Aims of Primary Education in World Perspective’ in N. Proctor (ed) The Aims of Primary Education and the National Curriculum, London: Falmer.

  • Proctor, N. (ed) (1990) The Aims of Primary Education and the National Curriculum, London: Falmer.

For incisive reviews of the relationship between aims, values and structures in the National Curriculum for England, see Reiss & White; and (again) White.

  • Reiss, M. and White, J. (2013) An Aims-based Curriculum. The significance of human flourishing for schools. London: UCL IOE Press
  • White, J. (ed) (2004) Rethinking the School Curriculum: Values, Aims and Purposes, London: RoutledgeFalmer.

And for a detailed consideration of the key question, 'whose values?', that underlies the process of curriculum construction, see Cairns, Gardner & Lawton.

  • Cairns, J., Gardner, R. and Lawton, D. (eds) (2000) Values and the Curriculum, London: Woburn.

It is clear that curricula are informed by different cultural imperatives. Whilst Ross points out the 'pattern of international conformity' in national curricula, Galton et al. point out the problems of transfer of educational policies from one country to another.

  • Galton, M. (1998) ‘Comparative Education and Educational Reform: Beware of Prophets Returning from the Far East’, Education 3-13, 26 (2), 3-8.

Davies, Gregory & McGuin take a different perspective, focusing on the purpose of education, education policy and the contribution of education to society.

  • Davies, I., Gregory, I. and McGuin, N. Key Debates in Education, London: Continuum.

Underpinning the aims of any national curricula are a set of understandings about the nature of knowledge. If we look at views of knowledge, we find that there are four basic positions. First, there are those who argue from a `rationalist' perspective - see Blenkin & Kelly for an analysis, and Wilson (Reading 9.3) for an example.

  • Blenkin, G. M. and Kelly, A.V. (1981) The Primary Curriculum, London: Harper and Row

Second, there are those who are sometimes termed 'empiricists', such as Dewey and Piaget.

  • Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, Chicago: Henry Regnery.
  • Piaget, J. (1950) The Psychology of Intelligence, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Third, a more sociological view is termed 'interactionist', a view taken by Light & Littleton and that has some resonance with the work on learning of Bruner and Vygotsky (a useful guide to Vygotsky is written by Daniels).

  • Light, P. and Littleton, K. (1999) Social Processes in Children's Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bruner, J.S. (1966) Towards a Theory of Instruction, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Daniels, H. (2000) Vygotsky and Pedagogy, London: RoutledgeFalmer

Finally, knowledge can be seen as being influenced by powerful social groups who define certain types of knowledge as being important or of high status. We will call this view of school knowledge 'elitist' - see Young and Bernstein.

  • Young, M.F.D. (ed) (1971) Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education, London: Collier-Macmillan.
  • Young, M.F.D. (1998) The Curriculum of the Future: From the 'New Sociology of Education' to a Critical Theory of Learning, London: Falmer.

Views of knowledge have a direct influence on views as to the efficacy of subject-based and integrated curriculum approaches. Bernstein uses the term 'collection curriculum' to refer to a separate subject curriculum, which has a philosophical rationale outlined by Barrow and Woods.

  • Bernstein, B. (1971) ‘On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge’. In Young, M. F. D. (ed.) Knowledge and Control, London: Collier–Macmillan.
  • Barrow, R. and Woods, R. (1988) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, London: Routledge.

In terms of the primary curriculum as it is manifested in schools, a 'two curriculum syndrome' has, historically, been a consistent feature of practice.

  • Alexander, R.J. (1992) Policy and Practice in Primary Education, London: Routledge.
  • Pollard, A. et al. (1994) Changing English Primary Schools? The Impact of the Education Reform Act at Key Stage One, London: Cassell.
  • Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., and Pell, A. (1999) Inside the Primary Classroom: 20 Years On, London: Routledge.

The place of the arts in the modern primary school curriculum is considered by Robinson, whilst Craft considers the whole notion of creativity across the curriculum as do authors in Jones and Wyse:

  • Robinson, K. (1999) All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. London: HMSO.
  • Craft, A. (2004) Creativity in Schools: Tensions And Dilemmas, London: RoutledgeFalmer.
  • Jones, R. and Wyse, D. (eds.) (2013) Creativity in the Primary Curriculum. London: Routledge.

The development of national curricula in the UK has many antecedents. For a range of political perspectives, it is interesting to read the DES document 'Better Schools'; Lawlor; Hatcher, Jones, Regan and Fichards; Ashcroft & Palacio; Docking; Fielding; and party political documentation.

  • Ashcroft, K. and Palacio, D. (1995) The Primary Teacher's Guide to the New National Curriculum, London: Falmer.
  • DES (1985) Better Schools, London: HMSO.
  • Lawlor, S. (1988) Correct Core: Simple Curricula for English, Maths and Science, Policy Study No. 93. London: Centre for Policy Studies.
  • Hatcher, R., Jones, K., Regan, B. and Richards, C. (1996) Education After the Conservatives: A Response To The New Agendas Of Reform, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
  • Docking, J. (2000) New Labour's Policies for Schools: Raising the Standard? London: David Fulton
  • Fielding, M. (2001) Taking Education Really Seriously: Four Years Hard Labour London: RoutledgeFalmer

A range of perspectives on changes to the English education system appear in Richards, whilst Elliot critiques the currently fashionable school effectiveness and improvement movements in providing a framework for curriculum policy making and development. Goldstein et al., meanwhile, examine the educational standards debate that is an integral part of any discussion about national curricula.

  • Richards, C. (ed) (2001) Changing English Primary Education: Retrospect and Prospect, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
  • Richards, C. (1999) The Primary Curriculum: Past, Present and Future. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
  • Elliot, J. (1997) The Curriculum Experiment: Meeting the Challenge of Social Change, Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Goldstein, H., Heath, A.F. & British Academy (eds) (2000) Educational Standards, Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.

Further work on similar themes is provided by Matheson, whose book includes a brief history of state intervention in British schooling; Tomlinson, who provides a concise and critical overview of education policy that notes the changes that have occurred in the move to a society increasingly dominated by private enterprise and competition; and Coffey, who undertakes a systematic sociological analysis of contemporary educational change.

  • Matheson, D. (2004) An Introduction to the Study of Education, London: David Fulton
  • Tomlinson, S. (2001) Education in a Post-welfare Society, Maidenhead: OU/McGraw-Hill
  • Coffey, A. (2001) Education and Social Change, Maidenhead: OU/McGraw-Hill

More in this chapter