Knowledge and the curricula

The input-output model noted by Winch (2010) shows itself in the everyday working of teachers. The notion of learning outcomes can be seen within lesson plan proforma and as such, serves to direct teacher thinking towards predicted consequences or results. In turn, the aims and objectives of a teaching session may become shaped by the learning outcomes rather than reflecting certain philosophies of education. The impact of an outcome- focused approach also shows itself when considering models of assessment and the location of knowledge within them. The nature of learner assessment is explored later (see: 2.4.1 Assessment, the teacher and the learner).

In exploring the concept of inputs and outputs, Winch recognises the associations with manufacturing and economics (2010:26). In doing so, the discussion contributes to an existing discussion concerning the operation of business models in education (Ball, 2003; 2010). Attached to this discourse are associated terms such as ‘value-added’, ‘standards’ and ‘good practice’

42

and the difficulties inherent within each when explored within an educational context (Winch, 2010:28). Young (2009; 2011) contributes to this debate in his discussion concerning the impact of neoliberalism on education. In exploring the consequences of such approaches, Young raises the issue of education in the marketplace. In making links between schools and the economy, Young (2009:11) refers to ‘…a kind of mass vocationalism’ in which schools are:

(t)reated as a type of delivery agency, required to concentrate on outcomes and pay little attention to the process and content of delivery.

(Young 2009:11)

In arguing the above, Young refers to the increasingly instrumentalist view of schooling. In an approach laden with targets and league tables, Young expresses little surprise at the impact, described in terms of learner boredom and teacher exhaustion.

In focusing his attention on the 14-19 curriculum and in particular, the current Coalition’s approach to it, Young (2011) raises a concern regarding the current focus on knowledge within school subjects without clear references to the 14-19 curriculum. The lack of coherence between the phases is problematic and returns the debate to that concerning access and social justice (Wheelahan, 2008a; 2008b; Rata, 2012). Whilst this concern is acknowledged as such, it could also be argued that notion of phases is becoming an increasingly outdated idea as the participation age continues to rise. Likewise, the notion of phases can be used to serve an argument promoting separation rather than continuation.

In developing his argument, Young refers to three different Futures (Young and Muller, 2009) for schooling. The three rest in assumptions about knowledge and the curricula. In considering these with respect to the 14-19 curriculum, Young highlights key themes which have relevance to this thesis. With respect to Future 1 where the intrinsic value of knowledge is

43

noted, Young (2011:267) comments on the potential for students and teachers to engage with knowledge constructed by ‘…specialist scholars… who work in and sometimes across the disciplines that school subjects draw on.’ The potential to extend or expand learner knowledge is recognised here. Hence, whilst Young is critical of the backward-looking focus of the Coalition’s current position regarding subject knowledge, there is an awareness that access to scholarly and interdisciplinary knowledge provides learners with an opportunity to go beyond everyday thinking, moving towards the more theoretical. In doing so, the perceived barriers between vocational and academic arenas become blurred. In responding to the question regarding the purpose of schools, Young replies that:

(s)chools enable or can enable young people to acquire the knowledge that for most of them cannot be acquired at home or in the community, or, for adults, in workplaces.

(Young, 2009:13)

In a later article, Young (2011) states that it is the:

(i)nterrelatedness of concepts in a subject or discipline that distinguishes them from the everyday concepts that pupils bring to school, and which offers them ways of going beyond their experience.

(Young, 2011: 269)

The term ‘powerful knowledge’ (Young, 2009:14) serves to highlight the potential noted in the comments above. As such, the aim or desire is for a curriculum enabling new ways of thinking which raises the debate above that of school or non-school knowledge or the academic or vocational. It is within this higher ambition that the role of the learners’ experiences is considered. The literature (Wheelahan, 2008a; 2008b; Rata, 2012) highlights tensions around this role. The tensions concern the emphasis given to learners’ experiences and its place within the curriculum. Learner experience, for example, can be seen as a source (Rata, 2012) or a resource

44

for trainee teachers to use as a basis for extending knowledge. Drawing on the learners’ concrete experiences may be seen as a tool to aid reflection, abstraction or transference from a ‘real’ context to a hypothetical one as part problem-solving activities. The crux of the argument however, concerns basing a curriculum on the learners’ experiences. Young explores this aspect as part of Future 2. Central to this exposition is the role of the teacher. In providing an example from the new Scottish curriculum (Young, 2011: 268) Young shows the teacher in the role of facilitator. In doing so, Young highlights firstly the difference in the pedagogical relationship between the teacher and the student and secondly, a reduction in the part played by the teacher’s specialist knowledge. The concept of ‘powerful knowledge’ is reflected in this position. If a teacher is seen as a professional and defined as one holding specialist knowledge, the position of the teacher or trainee teacher may be viewed differently if located in the role facilitator. The role of a facilitator is to organise or enable: it is not necessarily rooted in specialist knowledge. The issue of ‘…the subject specialist set against the learning facilitator’ (Avis, 1999:247) is considered in greater depth later (see: Part 3). The issue is also revisited when considering the data and arising implications (see Chapters 5 and 6).

In proposing Future 3, Young (2011:273) brings together notions of the curriculum and teacher pedagogy. In bringing these ideas together as part of a focus on the 14-19 curriculum he reiterates familiar debates concerning ‘two kinds of minds’ (p.273) - the practical and the academic - and considers employment or career routes often associated with them. Young moves the argument forward when considering the future and speculates on the ‘new knowledge’ required for tomorrow’s society. He considers where the craft-based ideas of today - whilst located in the past - fit with a future economy. Such a debate has an impact on the post-compulsory curriculum and of the teachers working within it. In recognising current and future models of practice, Winch (2010) argues for the engagement of employers as part of a wider sharing of aims in supporting student learning in the workplace. Conversely, Young (2009) speaks of the control of ‘much’ post- compulsory education placed into ‘…the hands of willing but often reluctant

45

private employers.’ The comment reflects the uncertainly surrounding employer engagement which in turn, affects future models of initial teacher training. Trainee teachers are also student learners in the workplace. How they are viewed as professionals, trained and supported throughout their teaching career is considered next.

2.3 Part 2: The professional self: an imposed ‘form of professionalism’