External Contexts National Government policy National Curriculum Personalisation ‘Core’ subjects KS4 Standards Accountability Choice Diversity Equality of Opportunity Opinion formers Media Employers Educationalists Politicians Subject Associations Local Parents, Peers, Community Local Authority
Whole School Contexts:
Aims, Type of School; School location; Student Intake; School Leadership; Policies and Practice Option Choice System
System Creation Advice Pathways Subject Departments Subject leaders, Teachers, Curriculum, Pedagogy, Marketing
Key Stage 4: Curriculum Examination Entries Compulsory Core Examined Non-examined Extended Core Options Academic Vocational Occupational Decision making process
Studentchooses subjects
Outcome Allocation to subjects Student Personality Motivations Aptitude Aspirations Perceptions
Push and pull factors Type 1: intrinsic incentives Type 2: extrinsic incentives
84
The story of what had happened in each school provided a unique interpretation of the conceptual model dependent on place, space and the ‘imagination’ of the actors (Stables, 2010). In this research it was the commonalities and diversity created by these complex interactions that were of particular interest.
2.10 AN OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This overview will revisit the main research questions in the light of the literature review. This research was studying the place of one subject, geography, in the curriculum for 14- 16 year olds in England. The subject was consistently one of the top ten GCSE subjects by entry (Walford, 2001, p230-1, Weeden, 2011) but numbers fell after 1996. The
overarching question was:
Why have the numbers of students choosing to study geography at age 14 changed over time?
The changes in the numbers taking GCSE geography took place within the wider context of the whole school system and government policy. Expectations of schools and the
curriculum have changed over time. The National Curriculum in England was only created in 1988 and implemented fully during the 1990s. Before the 1980s the curriculum was determined by schools with limited interference from central government (Pring et al, 2009; Gillard, 2011). Recognition that schools had become more accountable as the choice and diversity agenda was implemented in different ways by successive governments led to the question:
85
What evidence is there that changes in government policy have influenced entries for geography and other subjects?
Expectations of the sort of education appropriate for different groups of students changed over time but while the rhetoric of policy also changed, in practice the change from a hierarchical view of students based largely on social class was slow (Pring et al, p.3; Coldron et al. 2010). In terms of gender the curriculum for girls and boys was different until equal opportunities legislation in 1975 forced schools to change and provide common opportunities. Attitudes were more difficult to shift as there were still areas of the curriculum that were regarded more favourably by boys or girls when choices were provided (Davies et al., 2008). There were also observed differences in subject preferences between students linked to deprivation and ethnicity. These socio-economic factors were likely to influence decisions about subject choice in many institutions (Davies et al., 2008) and led to the question: Was the pattern of entries for geography influenced by social class, gender, deprivation or ethnicity?
Linked to changing attitudes about the outcomes of education was changing attitudes to secondary schools, with particular concern over schools that were ‘failing’ the students that attend them. Successive governments since the 1980s attempted to improve student performance through the use of ‘market’ forces and increased accountability. This
involved structural changes to school governance, increased information about the performance of schools (published in ‘league tables’) and more ‘open’ admission so parents could express a preference for the secondary school their child would attend. The
86
extent to which school outcomes were improved by market forces was disputed. School performance was strongly linked to geographical location. School mean student
performance was consistently lower in more deprived areas (Gorard, 2009a; Coldron et al., 2010) and the effect of school differences on student outcomes was contested. It has been argued that educational markets led to increased segregation and a hierarchical ‘pecking order’ of schools (Brighouse, 2003) as aspirant parents were more likely to seek to send their children to a school with better performance outcomes. The evidence for change was inconclusive but there was strong evidence of persistent segregation in schools (Allen and Vignoles, 2007; Gorard, 2009a; Coldron et al. 2010) so this research explored: Does the type of school and geographical location influence geography GCSE entries?
England did not have a common imposed national curriculum at age 14-16, although for a short time this seemed possible in the late 1980s (Daugherty, 1995). Instead there was a curriculum framework within which schools were able to decide on their own priorities (SCAA, 1995; QCA, 1998). Diversity was encouraged by successive governments which led to the question: What influence does the structure of the curriculum at KS4 have on geography entries?
Schools have changed the curriculum in a variety of ways specific to their context. These changes had differential effects that might be possible to identify which resulted in the question: Has curriculum change influenced geography entries?
87
Student’ interest in subjects and motivation for learning was strongly influenced by teachers and subject departments. Good teaching and subject leadership can be difficult to define but might be reflected in the numbers choosing to study geography because teachers make the subject interesting and relevant or dull and boring. This resulted in the research question: What impact do teachers and departments have on the numbers taking geography?
Ultimately entries for geography were dependent on students choosing to study the subject. Student interests, expectations and motivations have changed over time.
Changing lifestyles and work patterns have required changes in attitudes to education and qualifications (Pring et al. 2009) and there have been subject debates about the relevance of the geography curriculum to students in the 21st Century (Rawling, 2000; Lambert and Morgan, 2010) which led to the research question: Why do students choose to study geography?
88