England's National Curriculum: The Illusion of Equality

Abstract

The main concept this paper will question is if England’s National Curriculum supported the development of equality or inequality. The introduction of England’s National Curriculum will be detailed, stating the changes and implications within a historical context. Sociology theory, particularly Michael Apple’s concepts of relational analysis and repositioning are then used to analyse the impact of the curriculum and how it can be viewed to not have cause ‘equality’ in education, but how it has contributed to hiding ‘inequalities’.

Introduction

There have been several monumental moments in England’s educational system, which includes the introduction of a compulsory National Curriculum in 1988. Still, today we are observing the impact of this decision in our schools and it can be seen to have guided many transformations in our educational system. This is inclusive of school inspections, assessment and pedagogical methods. Many have questioned the motives behind the introduction and the impact of the National Curriculum on society (Apple, 2014). Thus, this essay will reflect on core changes and development of England’s National Curriculum. To build a depth of understanding, it will be important to look wider than the realm of education, considering economic and political viewpoints, as education can be seen to exist as an institution in our society and interrelated to these concepts (Apple, 2014). Importantly this paper will also provide historical context to ensure the National Curriculum is placed contextually in its period of development. This will be achieved through discussing the development and review of England’s National curriculum, alongside the reasons for the changes (1). Then concepts within sociology will be used to analyse implications surrounding equality in England’s National Curriculum (2).

(1) History of England’s National Curriculum

Prior to 1988, England’s education system had ‘no statutory state control of the primary curriculum’ and ‘no national testing’ (Wyse and Torrance, 2009). Due to this, there was little government control, enabling schools to design and implement curricula that they purported to suit the needs of children in their school, providing large levels of teacher autonomy (White, 2006; Wyse and Torrance, 2009). Although White (2006), Wyse and Torrance (2009) portray this period in education to be one of professional flexibility, it is important to acknowledge government documentation evidences that ‘Local Education Authorities’ (LEA) exerted influences over curriculum development (DES, 1944). For example, LEA’s were given the responsibility of contributing towards ‘spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community’, with other requirements, such as religious education (DES, 1944).

White (2006) believes that the high levels of teacher autonomy caused children’s education to vary vastly, due to knowledge and learning opportunities differing across schools. The inconsistent levels of knowledge across the country can be claimed to have impacted negatively on children transitioning from primary to high school or changing schools (Wyse and Torrance, 2009). This is because children’s intelligence was judged from knowledge that had been covered in some schools and not others, demonstrating inequality in the education system.

The inconsistency of standards and knowledge taught, that White (2006) discusses, became problematic once education was made accessible to all children and the growing focus on ‘equality’ in society. Literature (Goodson, 1990; Wyse and Torrance, 2009) indicates the 1944 Education Act, that replaced all education policies published before this date entitled every child to free education (DES, 1944). Goodson (1990), who reflects on the development of England’s education system, implies that this change in human rights meant ‘equality’ developed importance. Due to the focus on providing ‘equal opportunities’, consistency became part of the success criteria for England’s education system (Wyse and Torrance, 2009). This could be seen to have reinforced the requirement for England to develop a National Curriculum to set standards, to enable the achievement of equal access in education. White (2006), Wyse and Torrance (2009) thus provide on justification and viewpoint for the requirement of a National Curriculum.

Whilst Goodson (1990) provides a strong argument for the changing human rights to have encouraged the requirement of a national curriculum in England, Crawford (1998), Wyse and Torrance (2009) highlight that the 1944 Education Act also provided a change of focus for education in England, by highlighting its importance to society: ‘education is of vital importance to the nation’ (DES, 1944, p. 5). James Callaghan, a former Prime Minster, supports Crawford (1998), through claiming that an effective education can create ‘economic security’. In the period before and during the introduction of the 1988 National Curriculum economic struggles existed in society. Political figures, such as Callaghan blamed the economic problems on schools: ‘schools failed to prepare children for work’ (Crawford, 1988). This enabled politicians to shift the blame of societies problems from themselves and onto schools. Importantly, this opened a gateway for political bodies to take more of an active role in reconstructing education. Crawford (1998) notes that by blaming schools for economic problems, enabled politicians to become a ‘voice of action’ within education.

Once the 1988 National Curriculum was introduced, Collins (2011) claimed that it established consistency in standards through setting compulsory subjects. These included English, Maths, Science, History, Geography, Technology, a Second Language, Art, Music and PE (Gibbs et al., 2000). Gibbs et al. (2000) supports Collins (2011), through evidencing that consistency could be maintained as each curriculum subject was embedded in ‘statutory orders’, ‘programmes of study’ (PoS) and ‘attainment targets’. As a result of England’s National Curriculum’s structure all children were taught the same content, meaning learning could became standardised (Crawford, 1998; Gibbs et al., 2000). Furthermore, the age group organisation, which consists of four ‘Key Stages’ (KS), added to the curriculum’s rigorousness (Gibbs et al., 2000; Collins, 2011).

These articles highlight that to some extent that England’s National Curriculum led to a more equal education system (Gibbs et al., 2000; Collins, 2011). This is claimed as England’s National Curriculum standardised the knowledge and skills taught to children. This literature has consisted of viewpoints taken from political documents published to the public and some educationalists that mainly review education without the consideration of political interests, sociology and economic factors.

(2) England’s National Curriculum and equality

Though using the realm of sociology, it enables education to be viewed as a social institute. Whilst there is evidence that England’s National Curriculum was introduced to improve England’s education system and increase equality, social theory can suggest wider motives and alternative viewpoints of the implications that followed the introduction of the National Curriculum.

A key figure in the field of education and sociology is Michael Apple. A former teacher himself, he has used critical theory to analyse the relationship between society and school (CEPS, 2017). His work was heavily influenced by sociologists, such as Gramsci. Michael Apple critically analysed schools and curricula, questioning its purposes and contents: who’s knowledge is taught; who benefits from the knowledge taught; what is the relationship between education and larger social ideological projects, and who win and lose in the education system?

Michael Apple (2004) claims that to understand education, we need to comprehend two concepts:

1. Relational analysis

2. Repositioning

The first concept, relational analysis, can be categorised as exploring relationships of identified concepts. Michael Apple (2004) claims that education can only be understood by its connections to dominance in the larger society, alongside our conscious and unconscious struggles against those relationships: “it is unrealistic to talk about education without understanding its interconnections with the three systems: culture, government and economic (CEPS, 2017). This makes it important not to isolate the analysis of England’s National Curriculum to its field of education. Thus, England’s National Curriculum should be considered within the context of social, economic, political and educational systems. This has been partly demonstrated as important in the discussion above surrounding the implementation of England’s National Curriculum. For example, it has been highlighted that some believe economical struggles in society influenced the need for a National Curriculum, demonstrating the value of relational analysis.

However, using relational analysis in not enough on its own to create a holistic understanding of England’s National Curriculum. Michael Apple’s (2003) second concept, repositioning, can also be considered as important. Repositioning is the notion of viewing the issue or situation though someone else’s eyes. For example, a teacher may have a different understanding when compared to the child, parent or politician. The relationship between economy and education, identified in the discussion above, is only viewed through the eyes of the government, where they have assumed that education is to blame for economic problems in society. Michael Apple suggests that by using repositioning, a different understanding may be built. Michael’s Apple’s concepts will now be used to create a different understanding of the impact England’s National Curriculum on equality.

Considering the interrelationship between education and society can enable a different understanding of equality in England’s National Curriculum to be created. The introduction of England’s National Curriculum lead to schools teaching the same things, meaning all children could ‘fairly’ compete. Political documents empathised this, claiming that it creates equality (Gibbs, 1998). Using repositioning highlights that people who believe and value distributive justice could come to the conclusion: that England’s National Curriculum contributed to equality. This is due to distributive implying that equality is created when everyone gets ‘a fair share’. For instance, in this case all children have equal access to the same state education. However, it can be noted that factors outside of education, such a child’s social-economical background, can have an impact on a child, meaning that some can see distributive justice to cause inequality. For example, studies prove that children from lower classes are not exposed to a wide range of vocabulary, whereas children from more privilege backgrounds are (Becker, 2011). This vocabulary can be found in exams that all children are judge on (Becker, 2011). Thus, this demonstrates that the high-class children have a better chance of success, highlighting inequality.

Michael Apple also highlights similar findings of curricula creating inequality in his work. One of his concepts consists of the belief that curricula can be a form of hegemonic control (Apple, 2003). Apple (2003) came to this conclusion through asserting that curricula is informed by ideology that is developed from the ‘powerful’ in society, such as the government. This implies that the government can control what becomes ‘legitimised knowledge’ in schools. Instead of suggesting that England’s National Curriculum was developed to improve education and equality, like Goodson (1990) indicates, Apple (2003, p. 43) offers the idea that the England’s National Curriculum could have been established ‘to act in accordance with specific values systems and meanings’. This means belief systems of the powerful can become accepted as natural in society. This enables the dominant group to have control of the skills and knowledge that children are assessed, which can be assumed to benefit higher class citizen and those with more control.

Accepting Apple’s concept of hegemony, means also assuming that the world is always unjust and unequal, as Apple’s (2003) theory accepts ideology is always present (Adarir, 2004). Furthermore, Adarir (2004) indicates that Apple (1986) ignores factors, such as gender and race, that can also have an impact on the oppressed and their opportunities, showing the curriculum may not be the only form of ideology present in the education system and not the only factor impacting on ‘inequality’. Similar to Adarir (2004), Whitty (2017) indicates other implications with Apple’s theory, such as it was developed in an American context, which differs from England, the current focus of this paper.

Conclusion

Through looking wider than the field of education, it has identified that England’s National Curriculum holds structures that create inequalities, rather than supporting equality. It has been identified that monumental changes, such as enabling access to education for all children in 1944 and the introduction of a national curriculum in 1988, that are claimed to support equality in society by some, can be having the opposite effect. It has been identified that England may have produced an ‘illusion’ of an educational system that appears to be fairer and more just on the surface to pre 1988. However, it can be claimed that it still maintains ‘inequality’. This is something that should be continued to be questioned, world-wide, as statistical data demonstrates that there is still little social mobility within our society (Becker, 2011). Could our proclaimed ‘equal’ educational systems through the implementation of National Curricula be blamed for maintaining inequality in education?

References:

Adair, J. (2004) ‘A review of Apple, Michael W. Ideology and Curriculum (3rd edition)’, Anthropology and Education Quarter, 36(1), pp. 234-236.

Apple, M. W. (2003) The state and the politics of knowledge. In The state and the politics of knowledge London: Routledge.

Apple, M. W. (2004) ‘Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform’, Educational policy, 18(1), 12-44.

Apple, M. W. (2005) ‘Education, markets, and an audit culture’, Critical Quarterly, 47(1‐2), pp.11-29.

Becker, B. (2011) ‘Social disparities in children's vocabulary in early childhood. Does pre‐school education help to close the gap?’, The British journal of sociology, 62(1), 69-88.

CEPS (2017) Michael W. Apple: Power, Policy and the realities of curriculum and teaching. Available at: wwww.youtube.com (Accessed: 4th April 2020).

Collins, N. (2011) How the National Curriculum has evolved. Available at: www.teleraph.co.uk (Accessed 23rd June 2018).

Crawford (1998) ‘The construction of the National Curriculum: an Ideological and political analysis’, Research papers in Education, 13 (3), pp. 261-276.

DfE (2016) Past Prime Ministers: James Callaghan. Available at: www.gov.uk (Accessed 21st August 2018).

Gibbs, T. J. and Howley, A. (2000) “World-class standards" and local pedagogies: can we do both?” London: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.

Goodson, F, I. (1990) ‘Nations at risk and national curriculum: ideology and identity’, Journal of Education Policies, 5(5), pp. 219-232.

White, D. (2006) ‘A conceptual analysis of the hidden curriculum of police training in England and Wales’, Policing & society, 16(4), pp.386-404.

Whitty, G. (2017) Sociology and school knowledge: Curriculum theory, research and politics. London: Routledge.

Wyse, D. and Torrance, H. (2009) ‘The development and consequences of national curriculum assessment for primary education in England’, Educational research, 51(2), pp.213-228.

Reference this paper: Murphy, R. (2020) England’s National Curriculum: The Illusion of Equality. Available at: www.wix.co.uk (Accessed: dd/mm/yyyy)