It is apparent from the survey that the nature and structure of school curricula are becoming increasingly varied as schools respond to the plethora of initiatives, seeking to juggle competing priorities while subject to pressure from a number of different levers. What is worrying ‘governance’ about this trend is a growing division and disparity within and particularly between schools regarding access to areas of the curriculum a pattern equally visible in Higham and Yeomans’ (2007) broader – analysis of trends within 14-19 provision. The introduction of pathways often serves to pupils ‘lock’ into given academic/vocational subject trajectories, while the trend among academies in particular, but evident too in significant numbers of state-maintained comprehensive to give less space to history in the curriculum is likely to lead to many students, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, losing their entitlement to learning about the past learning intended to inform and enrich – ‘their capacity to make sense of the world in which they live and their place within it’; to them ‘help their own identities’; and to them to participate in a democratic society’ (QCA ‘develop ‘equip 2007a). The need for disciplined thinking As the previous section has highlighted, recent curriculum revisions have had far-reaching consequences. Access to specialist history teaching over sufficient time to build meaningful understanding is being denied to large numbers of young people, especially those from less advantaged social backgrounds. This is not necessarily a deliberate attack on the teaching of history, but the subject in schools is suffering what Haydn and Harris (2009) describe as damage’. ‘collateral That this should be happening is the result, as Young (2008) has argued, of a lack of attention to questions of knowledge. With policy makers (in government, and we would argue the school – – leaders responding under arms length pressure to the options passed down to them) now so focused
It is apparent from the survey that the nature and structure of school curricula are becoming increasingly varied as schools respond to the plethora of initiatives, seeking to juggle competing priorities while subject to pressure from a number of different ‘governance’ levers. What is worrying about this trend is a growing division and disparity within and particularly between schools regarding access to areas of the curriculum – a pattern equally visible in Higham and Yeomans’ (2007) broader analysis of trends within 14-19 provision. The introduction of pathways often serves to ‘lock’ pupils into given academic/vocational subject trajectories, while the trend among academies in particular, but evident too in significant numbers of state-maintained comprehensive to give less space to history in the curriculum is likely to lead to many students, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, losing their entitlement to learning about the past – learning intended to inform and enrich ‘their capacity to make sense of the world in which they live and their place within it’; to ‘help them ‘develop their own identities’; and to ‘equip them to participate in a democratic society’ (QCA 2007a). The need for disciplined thinking As the previous section has highlighted, recent curriculum revisions have had far-reaching consequences. Access to specialist history teaching over sufficient time to build meaningful understanding is being denied to large numbers of young people, especially those from less advantaged social backgrounds. This is not necessarily a deliberate attack on the teaching of history, but the subject in schools is suffering what Haydn and Harris (2009) describe as ‘collateral damage’. That this should be happening is the result, as Young (2008) has argued, of a lack of attention to questions of knowledge. With policy makers (in government, and – we would argue – the school leaders responding under arms length pressure to the options passed down to them) now so focused