Subjects, Prioritisation, Classification and Framing

The organization of knowledge into subjects and subject groupings is what Bernstein (2000) refers to as “classification” and is an important consideration when examining how schools legitimize and transmit knowledge. Strong classification occurs in schools where there are strong distinctions between different subjects and they are instructed separately, each having its own discourse. Weaker classification results in subjects being grouped together with interconnectedness acknowledged or even emphasised. Bernstein points out the often-arbitrary nature of these classifications, and asks “in whose interest is the apartness of things and in whose interest is the new togetherness and new integration?” (Bernstein, 2000, p. 11). This is an important point to consider when analysing a curriculum document, as it can reveal the assumptions and traditions that lie behind what seem at first to be simply common-sense decisions. Closely connected to the concept of classification is that of “framing”, which is concerned with control over selection of material, its sequencing, pacing, and “the control over the social base which makes this transmission possible” (Bernstein, 2000, pp. 12-13). The “social base” referred to here can mean the whole of the education system, or individual schools or classes. Where strong framing exists the structure of education is rigid, but in such systems the power relations are explicit. For example, knowledge is transmitted from a high level of authority (e.g.

Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy) to the pupil (acquirer). Where

control” (Bernstein, 2000, p. 13). However, he also emphasizes that weak framing, like weak classification, is variable and may merely serve to camouflage the powers that govern pedagogical practice, creating an impression of progressiveness. This impression is created thanks to the level of autonomy granted to individual teachers and pupils in weakly classified systems, which is traditionally considered an indication of the “progressiveness” of a given educational system (Bernstein, 2000, p. 14).

Walford (1986) used an earlier version of Bernstein's model to look at the effects of classification and framing on the English education system. He points out that high levels of classification and framing are more often present in the prestigious public-school sector, whilst these are weakest for the vocational courses in state schools, which have the lowest prestige attached. These strongly framed and classified courses tend to be content focused, with a strong emphasis on transmitting a body of knowledge (Kelly, 1999). However, the non-timetabled activities at boarding schools are an example of weak classification and framing, which run alongside the official curriculum. Walford (1986) notes that in providing such activities for pupils, an invisible pedagogy remains at work. Pupils become aware of unspoken rules and values by which they might be judged. Although these are un-codified and ill- defined, they are pervasive and value laden, and shape not only the school culture, but the tier of society that emerges from these schools. Therefore, pupils at these schools are exposed to the formally transmitted and legitimized knowledge needed for success, as well as the opportunity to develop the most valued social mores. This opportunity is denied to those attending, for example, vocational courses where framing and classification is weaker and less focused on transmitting content. Although the modern Czech system has little in common with the English boarding school, the general principle can still be applied that weak framing and classification allows more scope for established cultural norms to influence educational practices (Bernstein, 2000).

The Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání [RVP] sets out its aims and objectives in the language of progressive education. It strives to find balance between providing guidance without dictating content, and ensuring standards whilst allowing for individual differences, stating:

“Učivo je v RVP ZV strukturováno do jednotlivých tematických okruhů (témat, činností) a je chápáno jako prostředek k dosažení očekávaných

výstupů. Pro svoji informativní a formativní funkci tvoří nezbytnou součást vzdělávacího obsahu. Učivo, vymezené v RVP ZV, je

doporučené školám k distribuci a k dalšímu rozpracování do

jednotlivých ročníků nebo delších časových úseků. Na úrovni ŠVP se stává učivo závazné” 94_{(MŠMT, 2007, p. 10).}

This implies progressiveness by relinquishing control over framing at the central or highest level, providing individual schools with the ultimate responsibility for their own curricula. However, in reality it does not alter the hierarchical structure or allow for control over what is taught to be meaningfully shifted to the receiver. Instead, it weakens the framing of criteria and pace, blurring the lines of authority that run from MŠMT to the individual schools, but not substantially altering them. By “recommending” material, pacing, etc. to all schools, a set of expectations and standards are communicated. Deviation from the norms established by these recommendations represents a risk for any schools doing so, as they may be seen to be “failing” or “falling behind” the schools that follow the “recommendations” set out by the MŠMT.

The classification of subjects outlined in the RVP is revealing, if we are to consider whose interests are served by the separation or integration of subject areas. The “traditional” subjects are categorized and grouped according to thematic areas. The thematic areas to be covered in Základní

škola, and the subjects they incorporate are as follows:

94 _{“The subject matter is structured within the education framework of basic education into}

thematic areas (themes, activities) and is supposed to be a means to achieve the expected outcomes. Due to its informative and formative function it is an integral part of the educational content. Curriculum defined within the education framework of basic education is recommended to schools for distribution and further detailing for the individual grades or longer time segments. At the level of the school educational programme the curriculum is binding” (MŠMT, 2007, p. 15).

Thematic Area Subjects included

Jazyk a jazyková komunikace (Language and Language Communication)

Český jazyk a literatura, Cizí jazyk (Czech Language and Literature, Foreign

Language) Matematika a její aplikace

(Mathematics and Its Applications)

Matematika a její aplikace (Mathematics and Its Applications) Informační a komunikační technologie

(Information and Communication Technologies)

Informační a komunikační technologie (Information and Communication

Technologies) Člověk a jeho svět*95

(Man and his World*)

Dějepis, Výchova k občanství (History, Civic Education) Člověk a společnost

(Man and Society)

Dějepis, Výchova k občanství (History, Civic Education) Člověk a příroda

(Man and Nature)

Fyzika, Chemie, Přírodopis, Zeměpis (Physics, Chemistry, Natural Sciences,

Geography) Umění a kultura

(Arts and Culture)

Hudební výchova, Výtvarná výchova (Music, Fine Art)

Člověk a zdraví (Man and Health)

Výchova ke zdraví, Tělesná výchova (Health Education, Physical Education) Člověk a svět práce

(Man and the World of Work)

Člověk a svět práce (Humans and The World of Work)

Table 5.1: Subject Groupings in the RVP

The Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání [RVP] also contains a requirement for cross-curricular study to take place across the following themes:

• Osobnostní a sociální výchova (Personal and Social Education) • Výchova demokratického občana (Democratic Citizenship)

• Výchova k myšlení v evropských a globálních souvislostech (Thinking within European and Global Contexts)

• Multikulturní výchova (Multicultural Education) • Environmentální výchova (Environmental Education) • Mediální výchova (Media Education)

The inclusion of cross-curricular subjects and the grouping together of subjects in this fashion represent a weakening of classification. Bernstein demonstrated that middle-class children fare better when classification and framing are weak, most likely due to the cultural capital they acquire at home (2000, pp. 19-20). In the Czech context, where class and race are interconnected, this could potentially impact on the reproduction of social and ethnic inequality. The perception of Roma as “benefit takers” persists (Obrovska, 2018, p. 31), while middle-class class pupils are more likely to be from the dominant national culture (Roma Education Fund, 2012). The weak

95_{This thematic area is specific to the lower stage of základní škola. It forms the foundation}

classification of these subjects and the “invisible pedagogy” that this involves, thanks to the disguised power dynamics, means that teachers have more leeway to teach these topics in accordance with their own views, which, as Jarkovská, et al. (2015) demonstrated, are often highly prejudicial against Roma.

Before examining the wider implications of this, it is worth looking at what these subject groupings suggest about the perceived links between the subjects. That the thematic area “Language and Language Communication” incorporates Czech language, Czech literature, and foreign language learning suggests that competence in a foreign language is seen as important (or almost as important) as competence in Czech. Whilst this supports an impression of education fitting pupils for life in an increasingly globalized world, it masks some important assumptions. The first of these assumptions is that pupils will speak Czech as a mother tongue (or at least as competently as if it were their mother tongue). The second is that, from the perspective of cultural capital, not all bilingualisms are equal (Gramling, 2014). The difference in value placed on different language competencies is illustrated by the early replacement of Russian in schools with Western European languages such as English, French, and German. It is also unclear whether the category of “Foreign Languages” extends to non-Czech pupils’ mother tongues. By failing to explicitly address this, this classification also potentially ignores (or smothers) the right of children from non-Czech backgrounds to be able to learn about and practice their own culture and language (article 30, UNCRC, 1989), particularly where these differ from those of the majority. This right is only fleetingly referred to in the section that deals with teaching pupils with special educational needs (MŠMT, 2007, p. 102). Whilst accommodating a wide range of languages and cultures raises a range of practical and pedagogical challenges, the fact that it is not an integral part of the prescribed content suggests that addressing this issue is a low priority.

Only Mathematics and Information and Communication Technologies remain strongly classified as subjects, distinct from others. The “practical” aspect of Mathematics is hinted at through including its “Applications” in its thematic title, although it remains distinct from other subjects where its principles may be applied such as ICT and Physics. It may be the case that the more “strongly classified” a subject is, the more academic – thus potentially

more prestigious - it is perceived to be. “Arts and Culture”, incorporating music and fine art also occupies a distinct category, emphasizing the distinctively creative nature of these subjects, and setting them somewhat apart from other subjects. All of the other thematic areas’ names begin with “Man and …”, suggesting a strongly pragmatic attitude to each of the subjects, and an approach that will be relevant to pupils’ experience of the “real world”. Physics, Chemistry, Natural Sciences, and Geography are linked, emphasizing their similarities as “hard sciences” that deal with objectively discoverable facts, as distinct from the “social sciences”. That History is bracketed under the same theme as Civic Education carries the implication that understanding of history is necessarily correlated to developing civic values. The implications of this depend heavily upon the content of the curriculum in each case but does indicate that an acceptance of (or at least familiarity with) an official historical discourse is associated with good citizenship. “Man and the World of Work” is a theme that is taught throughout basic school, and is perhaps the least well defined, incorporating handicrafts, plant cultivation, food preparation, and use of ICT. “Low status” subjects are subsumed under this heading, which is essentially preparation for manual or domestic work.

Bernstein suggests that in the context of change (in this case the reform of the education system), two central questions should be asked, namely whether the proposed change originates from a dominant or dominated group, and what values retain their prominence in the face of change (2000, p. 15). The weakening of classification between most subjects, whilst retaining strong classification between subject areas (i.e. mathematics, arts, sciences, and social sciences) in this case is undertaken by a dominant (or elite) sector of society, the Czech Ministry of Education [MŠMT]. Although the consultative nature of the ’s development is emphasized, the ultimate responsibility for its production lay with MŠMT. Therefore, the people determining the subject classifications were those with the education, cultural capital, and actual power to direct change. That weaker classification is associated with courses for less academically able pupils is supported by Walford’s (1986) observation that in the UK system, the strongest classification and framing exists in prestigious private schools, while weaker classification and framing exists in vocational colleges. By retaining strong classification and framing around subjects such as mathematics, information and communication technology, and subjects

associated with “high culture” (such as fine arts and literature in the titular language), the Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání [RVP] communicates the higher status of these subjects. The subjects around which framing and classification have been weakened (including cross-curricular subjects) that have the greatest potential for reproducing existing values are those intended to reach for as wide a range of pupils as possible.

In addition to the classification and framing at work, the time allotted to a subject is directly correlated to its perceived importance in the curriculum. The early years focus on developing literacy and numeracy where Czech language and literature dominates the curriculum in the early years (just over forty percent), followed by Mathematics and its Applications (around 20 percent). Social subjects (under the banner of Man and his World), Foreign Languages, Physical Education, and Arts occupy a fairly equal share of the remaining school week, which includes unallocated time for mandatory cross- curricular subjects. In the upper stage of základní škola, less time is devoted to Czech Language and Literature, with science subjects (under the banner of “Man and Nature”) occupying a prominent role, after not featuring as a compulsory element in the early years. The time devoted to History and Civic Education has only a very slight decrease between the early years and the upper stages of základní škola (a drop of only one percent, from fourteen percent to thirteen percent). This indicates that the development of “civic competencies” outlined above features high on the list of priorities of the Czech Ministry of Education, from which we can infer that the development of these competencies is considered important for successful participation in Czech society.

5.3.3 Člověk a jeho svět and Člověk a společnost: Contextualizing the Individual in