Geographical Association

Jeff Battersby

GA Member

15:12 - 05/08/11

Curriculum
In general am in agreement but ...
2.2.2 KS1 - need place context of locality (holidays, events, relatives) to include the construction of basic maps which appears to be omitted until KS2. Places studied need to be located on maps - remember the work packs on St Lucia which were a great hit in KS1, and obviously Barnaby Bear's travels need to be located. Equally would wish to see stories put in location context eg Katie Morag, etc

2.2.4 - quite traditional in the way it is presented. There is a need for inclusion of weather when studying my country and the wider world. In human geography would suggest we need to offer opportunities to study events - Olympics, the football/rugby/cricket world cup are an appropriate way of engaging pupils. These events would increase locational knowledge too. Think that reference to weathering and erosion is also appropriate in KS2, perhaps even some elementary stuff in KS1 shouldn't be dismissed. I am not trying to create a massive load for teachers, but feel that when appropriate then some reference should be made to processes, otherwise we diminish the rigour

2.2.6 the regional theme comes through strongly again which is probably appropriate that pupils study the UK, a European country and world places, but not sure what is suggested by an 'in depth knowledge' of significant places.
Would suggest 'living and working' is a good theme to hang these studies on, not just for Europe. Again provides greater flexibility for curriculum making and local community characteristics

Where are the opportunities for tackling some of the issues of 'fair trade', water shortages, famine, should we suggest the study of some topics such as shopping, fashion, as well as events - Olympics, football/rugby/cricket world cups which I know I suggested for KS2, but as they are momentous events they should be part of the geography curriculum experience and will be treated differently at different KS

How do we ensure that we enable pupils to consider, enquire speculate and wonder?

Core Knowledge
Core knowledge needs to be purposeful, have a context and give meaning to enable understanding of people, places, events, phenomena. I think it better to present a 'core knowledge' for each key stage to provide for greater flexibility for teachers as 'curriculum makers'. Having said that, I support the notion that it is possible to teach intellectually robust knowledge to children regardless of their ability. My feeling is that there are many non-specialist geographers in the primary sector who would appreciate some greater indication of the appropriate 'core knowledge' to be taught

Knowledge framework
I am sure this is helpful to the geography specialist (probably!), but less so to the non-specialist as there is little to direct them, especially as there is no sequencing of it for different key stages and what of which should be included at the different key stages. It might be counter-productive and appear at odds with the detail provided in 2.2.

Looking Ahead
There is a massive Inset need/opportunity here to enable the non-specialist to think geographically so that they can teach geographically, when many gave up the subject at 14. There is also a continued need to update colleagues and demonstrate 'best practice' to go from good to outstanding as a teacher and to provide outstanding and memorable learning opportunities for the pupils

Overall impression
A 'better' school geography will only be realised when we have teachers able to teach it as geographers. Each NC reform seems a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, using the same resource but arranging it in different patterns and shapes and with slightly different labels, banners and headlines. We need to convince the profession that there are some changes, hopefully greater clarity and identity of the subject. We need to ensure that the non-specialist understands this and is behind the proposals. Fundamentally we need to ensure that the profession, parents, pupils and the public at large agree that the subject is worthy of inclusion in every child's curriculum experience to enable them to think geographically, differently to other ways of thinking, as well as acquiring essential knowledge and understanding of the world they are citizens of

Open response
There is a need to ask specific questions when creating the geography curriculum: what knowledge is proposed? ie we need to ensure that pupils not only know what but also how, where and why.

In reference to section 1.4, care is needed not to be too dogmatic about content especially and some concepts as some young children are able to grasp ideas readily because they relate to their personal life experiences. Others are daunted and limited by their own limited imaginations or limited life experiences

Paula Strudwick

GA Member

13:28 - 08/08/11

While I agree with Jeff that some more could go into KS1 & 2 it is important that the essential thing that is learnt is that learning geography is fun. I would suggest that means focusing on the processes rather than more content. If that can be carried into KS3 then specialists can build on it rather than having to deal with the "I can't do geography it's hard" which can often come from Y7 students who have not had a great experience of geography in their primary school.

For KS3 we need to recognise that there is a very competitive market for KS4 (despite the E Bacc). We therefore make sure we teach the fun bits (essentially earthquakes & volcanoes) just before options time. I know this is not based on any educational reasoning but is the reality. If we value geography then we want more students studying it for longer. I would therefore like more explicit reference to E&V and maybe more physical geography (and economic as it is important rather than fun) at KS3 rather than just to be studying these in the context of locations.

Should we also be more explicit in relation to skills at KS3? Also, while study of countries at different levels of development is implied, shouldn't this be more explicit too?

Joseph Kerski

Guest

16:08 - 18/08/11

Thank you for your tireless efforts to promote geography. I think there could even be stronger language in "the case for geography"--all of the relevant issues of the 21st Century have a geographic component--energy, crime, biodiversity, climate, urbanization, food, health, water, natural hazards, and more. Therefore geography contributes to a general educated person but also is a core component of understanding and making decisions in our 21st Century world.

I see geography as a 3-legged stool--core content knowledge (river systems, trade systems, climate systems, etc), skills (critical thinking, databases, geotechnologies, dealing with scale, region, place), and a framework, a way of looking at the world (human environment interaction, spatial-temporal relationships, patterns, trends, linkages).

k polley

Guest

21:13 - 19/08/11

I would be particularly keen to see that students by the end of KS3 have had the opportunity to study a variety of geographical issues within the context of all the worlds continents/oceans.

Soraya Orrala Lopez

GA Member

16:26 - 13/09/11

The GA curriculum appears more condensed touching on the human and physical aspects of Geography (just as in the Natioanl curriculum), whilst giving the teacher an opportunity to connect both spectrums. This opportunity could serve well in a classromm setting because students can grasp the idea of 'living in a connected world'. However, there doesn't seem to be much scope for traditonal/basic knowledge Geography. For example, young students could benefit learning the names of places, highest mountains, longest rivers etc. This could be a frame work for a deeper complexity of undestanding for older age?
Soraya Orrala Lopez

Fred Martin

GA Member

13:48 - 16/09/11

I neither know nor understand, where the government is going with regard to developing the statements of ‘core knowledge’, perhaps alias ‘essential knowledge’, that will form the basis of the revised (yet again) NC subject Orders. I have seen nothing that clarifies what the government means, not even in the online consultation where a definition of ‘core knowledge’ appeared to include 'knowledge' of places, concepts, processes and everything else, or did it? Perhaps the government really does intend ‘core knowledge’ to have this wider meaning, or perhaps Bloom’s taxonomy is being taken as the guide with only the ‘bottom’ end of the knowledge and capability spectrum being included. My suspicion is that we are seeing an attempt to create a ‘slimmer’ document consisting only of ‘core knowledge’ with a more limited meaning in mind, i.e. one that involves knowing where places are, the names of some geographical features and perhaps, little else. This may be a manifestation of the ghost of ‘back to basics’ that tends to haunt us from time to time when simple solutions are sought to resolve complex questions. Perhaps the focus on ‘core knowledge’ is imagined to be easy to test and will a give a reliable guide to achievement in geography. It is, however, beyond contention that the study of geography must involve acquiring knowledge, including the names and locations of places and features, but surely NC Orders in geography should contain more than that.

I note the attempt by Dr. Alex Standish to create a NC document for geography. Since it appears to be initiated by government, it includes what I assume are intended to be statements of ‘core knowledge’. These are organised into a fourfold structure consisting of Mapping, Human, Physical and Regional geography, the latter appearing to refer to an area of any size from local to sub-continental. These headings are followed by a long and prescriptive list of topics that seem to owe their origins to the first NC Orders for geography, the ones that rapidly proved to be totally unworkable. With each topic, there is a set of statements of different types, the result being a mashed up muddle. Some are written as questions, such as to ask how water is transported (why, where, how and other questioning words are also used). Some are written as student activities, such as to study, identify, use, consider and others. There are also statements that are merely sub-headings of the man topic title. These statements indicate what the knowledge is about, but they don’t provide the knowledge itself. Apart from not providing clarity in ‘core’ or any other kind of knowledge, it would seem that nothing has been learnt from the last 20 years with regard to statutory Orders that have too much prescriptive detail that misses the bigger picture of what it means to understand the subject and to think geographically. So although this is a brave attempt to do what government seems to want, it will, or certainly should, head rapidly towards obvilion.

The GA’s proposal by contrast, begins with providing clarity over the meaning of different forms of knowledge, of which ‘core knowledge’ is one. This sets what the government may consider as ‘core knowledge’ into a wider and coherent framework within which to set out the subject’s content. It could even act as a much-needed framework against which to assess and record achievement and progression in geography, but for the moment, that is another matter. The statements included in the document clearly say that they are ‘about’ the topics listed, thus avoiding the confusion of the Standish attempt.

If the government has already fixed a view of what it means by ‘core knowledge’ or even if it has not, it would do well to read the GA’s proposal carefully. This might lead to the understanding that one can not sum up what is essential about a subject by listing a few choice core ‘facts’ that have been selected against unclear criteria,. It should raise questions about whether it is right that a revised set of Orders should restrict itself to only one kind of knowledge. It may even raise questions about how creating a list of what is ‘core’ can be done in a slimmed down document. Addressing the more complex question about how to ensure that statements of ‘core’ knowledge should testify to some kind of factual ‘truth’, seems a long way down the track, but will also have to be addressed at some stage.

Daryl Sinclair

Guest

14:36 - 16/09/11

I am in general agreement with the proposals in place although as with almost any proposals there are improvements which i feel could be made.

One of the greatest positives I saw was the reference to the 'holistic' approach to enquiries which is such a clear and near unique marker of good geography.

I was somewhat dissappointed in the lack of continued reference to this throughout the document and its absence from the summary table on page 11. As such an important 'capability' for use in life in this rapidly changing and dynamic world I feel this should be touched upon earlier as it is a skill which can be developed from a very young age.

My only criticism of the expectations at certain ages is for when the students are 11 years of age. As I have seen in many of the comments below, I feel that the expectations at this age are a little excessive in areas such as the final bullet point.

That aside I feel the document was very good in being general enough to be more of a guide that a final say and think development on this will reap many rewards. Especially the confirmation of the fact based side of geographical knowledge which has previously been our achiles heel and led to many negative stereotypes. This is now recognised as the building blocks of our work.

Overall I find the proposal very encouraging and definitely is a step in the right direction which can and should lead to a further confirmation of the importance of geography, its place in the curriculum and the true benefits of it as a tool in general life.

Ruth Plowman

GA Member

11:53 - 17/09/11

I think that the GA Geography Curriculum proposal will provide a valuable and informative framework for teachers to use. The proposal appears to have condensed the current curriculum into a clear framework whilst incorporating all of the geography. It particularly allows for interpretation and gives the teacher scope to include up-to-date issues within the changing nature of geography. This is key to making geography relevant, thus this scope is crucial to have within the new curriculum.

The three forms of geographical knowledge are clearly defined and are set out in a helpful and justifiable way. They set a good structure and foundation for teachers to engage with the curriculum.

Furthermore, this new curriculum allows teachers to be actively involved with the subject and the curriculum; this is something that Sachs (2003) deems to be vital for such an 'activist profession.' I believe this 'activist' notion is crucial for teachers today as we are the ones with the subject knowledge.

Overall, I agree with the GA Geography Curriculum proposal and believe that as teachers we will be able to fully engage with the subject and the curriculum whilst allowing us to further our own learning of geography.

Sachs, J. (2003) The Activist Teacher Profession. Buckingham: Open University Press

Gina Maxwell

GA Member

15:54 - 17/09/11

As a PGCE student I was both surprised and concerned when I read the current Key Stage 3 National Curriculum. Before now I had always imagined it would have had far stricter guidelines concerning the content. However, it does allow for freedom and indeed the idea of geography teachers as ‘curriculum makers’. I would feel more confident if this consultation document could accompany it as standard though.

I agree it is important to distinguish the three types of geographical knowledge. I must admit when reading section1.1 it seemed obvious that this is how geography should be split up but that doesn’t mean to say that these ideas do not get sidelined when planning lessons. The way in which ‘Core Knowledge’ is defined clarifies my (and I’m sure several people’s) misinterpretations of the term. I am positive now that Core Knowledge is essential at every level of the national curriculum. I also believe that Concept Knowledge and Procedural Knowledge should be taught from as young an age as possible. Some of the most renowned groups of people for being curious are the youngest. We should use this energy and curiosity to help them develop their knowledge and skills and not be afraid that it is too much for them to handle without extensive core knowledge.

I would like to suggest that in the later stages more emphasis should be placed on Content and Procedural Knowledge (that is not to say core knowledge is not taught at all). I would hope students by Key Stage 3 would have a good basis of knowledge to be creating their own geographic enquiry (with support from their teachers of course).

I should imagine most teachers after reading this document would feel newly motivated but for how long? It is important to keep teachers interested and inspiring. Sharing ideas with other teachers is one of the best ways to keep motivated, having new lesson ideas introduced and concepts revealed. Most key is for teachers to keep learning, keep their interest in the subject and this can be achieved by reading geography magazines for example.

Teachers are curriculum makers because of their freedom choice of pedagogy. Let the teachers be the judge of what methods to use for they know the students best. Let the teachers use their personal experiences to add insight to lessons. All this can still be achieved when based on a structured curriculum.

Paragraph 1.5.3 is possibly my favourite in the whole essay, Geography is vital because of its ability to create good human agents. We cannot tell students how to behave but we can teach them how their behaviour affects the world around them and allow them to make educated decisions for themselves. This sentence alone should be enough reason for geography to be on the national curriculum in my opinion.

Grace Okala

Guest

20:00 - 17/09/11

I think the GA National Curriculum proposal is more structured and very well descriptive, about how Geography should be taught to children aged 5-16. I especially like the emphasis laid on 'Enquiry learning', and the inclusion of Geographical enquiry 'tools', such as GIS, GPS, and Electronic Atlases. I think these will enable students to gain a variety of skills and to become and feel like real geographers themselves. I think encouraging pupils to understanding the interdependence and similarities across the world, helps broaden their geographical knowledge, and will give 'meaning' to geography, which cannot be gained only through core knowledge. I also think that the distinction between core knowledge, content knowledge and procedural knowledge is amazing, as it helps highlight that although core knowledge is vitally important, it is not the beginning and end of geography education, but rather it sets a platform for further development and enquiry in geographical knowledge.

Anum Irshad

GA Member

13:07 - 18/09/11

In a time when geography’s significance is increasing and its relevance could not be more prominent, I consider the GA’s Geography Curriculum proposal to be a much needed positive step in the right direction. Too often have geography teachers argued that the current geography curriculum has constrained them, and prevented them from incorporating their strengths in the discipline into their lessons. As a result of the current geography curriculum, geography teachers are forced to become curriculum deliverers rather than makers. The current geography curriculum fails to include essential factual core knowledge and restricts teachers to teaching certain case studies, some of which are not helpful or relevant to geography students.
In light of these matters, I feel the GA’s proposed curriculum can be viewed as a breath of fresh air, as the flexibility and scope it provides encourages teachers to use their “synoptic capacity” (Brooks, 2007 cited in Lambert and Morgan, 2010), which helps practically in the classroom and to plot a progressive national curriculum. The proposal also supports Sachs’ (2003) (cited in Lambert and Morgan, 2010) idea of an “activist profession”, where teachers can take responsibility for the curriculum and mobilise it in order to re-establish trust with students, communities, parents and various other groups. It ultimately provides teachers with the autonomy they have been longing for.
In particular, I support and welcome the distinction made between the three forms of geographical knowledge, as this separation shows how geographical knowledge will be developed and progressed in schools. If taught correctly, I believe the strong understanding of extensive core knowledge emphasised (Kn1) can act as the essential basis to Kn2 and Kn3. In addition, I like how the proposal outlines the progression students should make through the Key Stages and how it provides examples of what students should be studying. I believe this feeds in nicely with the table on what should be taught in school geography. I particularly like how vague and unrestrictive it is, yet how it manages to imply key concepts. I also value the strong links it makes between the human and physical worlds, as I feel the current geography curriculum reinforces the binary between the two, which fails to show students how geography connects the living and non-living environments together. In general, I believe the proposed curriculum provides an umbrella, which promotes creativity and put teachers in the driving seat by allowing them to choose what to teach.
My only few criticisms of the proposed national curriculum are that it fails to include key ideas and concepts such as cultural diversity and sustainability, which I feel underpin the discipline. I also feel that the section on geographical enquiry fails to include how students should be encouraged to be evaluative and have the capacity to ask geographical questions, which is essential to getting them to think independently and geographically.
Altogether, I welcome the GA’s proposed curriculum as it is a holistic approach to geography, which enables teachers to develop and teach a curriculum that is flexible and imbued by three forms of essential knowledge. As Lambert and Morgan (2010) argue, teachers make the curriculum, subjects alone don’t influence this. It is important to note this and by arguing for teachers as “curriculum makers”, I feel the GA encourages this view by highlighting that teachers need to balance a range of competing priorities, which in return will lead to successful geography teaching and learning.


Lambert, D. and J. Morgan (2010) Teaching Geography 11-18: A conceptual approach, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Rebecca Clarke

Guest

13:09 - 18/09/11

Overall, I am in general agreement with the proposals in place; however there are some improvements which I feel could be implemented. The section outlining what children should know at different ages I feel is somewhat unbalanced. Perhaps more could go into KS1 and 2; however at this stage the main learning objective should be that Geography is a fun and enjoyable subject to learn. The guidelines regarding what children should know by the age of 11, I believe is rather excessive.
Having said this, the three forms of geographical knowledge are well explained and can be utilised as a valuable resource and set of guidelines for teachers in planning and structuring lessons. In terms of core knowledge, I feel that a focus on basic/ traditional geography is absolutely paramount and feel that this has been somewhat neglected by the present curriculum. However this should be introduced in the earlier key stage phases.

The very idea that the proposed curriculum is organised into areas of learning will enable children to make links across the curriculum. It is important that the proposals have emphasised that these types of knowledge cannot be taught in isolation of each other. Whilst I agree the proposed curriculum will provide a valuable and informative framework for teachers. It is imperative that all teachers receive adequate training and indeed support in order to effectively design and complete the new curriculum.

Overall, I agree with the proposed curriculum and believe that it will allow teachers to not only engage with the subject but also to experiment and maintain a fresh and up to date approach.

G Ward

Guest

14:43 - 18/09/11

The GA national curriculum summary is broad and therefore leaves scope for autonomous teacher interpretation, an aspect which I consider to be positive. It gives teachers more ownership in curriculum making; however it also leaves room for students to engage in the curriculum making process. One of the three pillars of curriculum making is engaging with the energy and geographical ideas of pupils and the GA’s summary makes this collaboration possible.

The breadth of the proposals also leaves scope for geography to be taught holistically with a cross pollination of disciplines. Although the idea of flexible learning and knowledge as process could be seen to dilute geography, the proposals introduction of the term ‘core knowledge’ creates an anchoring of geography and the synoptic capacity of teachers can be encouraged. With some schools proposing to combine humanities at KS3, having grounded knowledge in geography could become even more essential.

Distinguishing the different forms of geographical knowledge is very useful and would aid structure in my lesson planning. Nevertheless, it is important that the proposals have emphasised that these types of knowledge cannot be taught in isolation of each other.

Lisa Conneally

Guest

15:26 - 18/09/11

I found that the GA curriculum proposal was encouraging and offered an improved curriculum for geography. I think that the introduction of the 3 different areas of knowledge; core, context and procedural, was important to mention, as it seems quite simple and obvious that they should be taught, but I think that ‘core’ knowledge is often not seen to be as important, or overshadowed by the other 2. Core knowledge is a vital part of geography, and although it may be thought of as too many facts, or too ‘pub quiz’, the idea of ‘rigour’ and traditional knowledge being injected back into the curriculum can only be a good thing, as long as we as teachers find a way to make it fun and relevant to young people.
While the curriculum proposal is slimmer and has allowed more freedom for schools to be individuals, I would hope that this program doesn’t allow too much flexibility that could leave teachers teaching the ‘old’ curriculum but putting it under the new headings. The idea is to implement a radical change to ensure that everyone sees that geography is worthy of a statutory place in the national curriculum. Although it could be seen as a negative that some concepts or context has been left out of the proposal, the obvious flexibility of it means that you have greater freedom in constructing or ‘making’ your own curriculum and so you could infer the inclusion of your chosen ‘lost’ area of geography into any of the proposed headings.
As an overall comment the introduction of specific ‘essential knowledge’ in the 3 knowledge areas would provide the perfect balance of structure for teachers in knowing what to focus on, whilst leaving space for them to implement their individuality and the freedom to construct their own area of study.

Balwinder Kaur

Guest

17:28 - 18/09/11

I feel the GA proposal is very promising. There are great benefits for teacher as it guides them with their choices on what to teach. The proposal is fairly broad, allowing individual schools and teachers to teach the subject in their style. It provides teachers with freedom to be more hands on and innovative with their planning and teaching of any topic within geography.

I particularly appreciated the three main forms of knowledge being incorporated - Core, Content and Prrocedural. This allows teachers to cover geography as a complete subject.

The pedagogic approach is a positive step as it allows teachers to become true 'curriculum makers'. This is important for the subject's survival in schools, as the geography teachers are, I believe, the best resource for helping create a curriculum that will have a maximum positive impact on schools across the nation.

Julia Fleet

Guest

16:26 - 19/09/11

To begin the GA curriculum proposals and rationale is an interesting read which sets the direction for the future of geography. However I find the foundation of the proposal which is based on the three forms of geographical knowledge to be oversimplified. Geography is a complex subject and I believe splitting it into three knowledge’s can in a way make geography into a tick box subject, whereby the three knowledge’s can be ticked off as the pupils learn them. I believe this knowledge should not be set out in isolation but rather become intangible and that is how it should be represented within the national curriculum, so that geography does not lose its complexity. However when looking at the three knowledge’s I agree that core knowledge should be clearly represented, not as low level trivial material, which it can become if taught badly. From experience as a student I feel teachers lack the creativity to make core knowledge anything more than trivial and so not taught in an effective way. I believe to overcome this; resources could be produced to provide intuitive ways to teach core knowledge so more pupils have the vital geographical foundations in order to develop subject knowledge.
A favourable outcome within the proposal is the allowance of creative freedom within the choice of pedagogies, allowing teachers to become the ‘curriculum makers’. Another positive aspect is the illumination of the important issue of ‘capabilities’ learnt from geography. From my work with the Geography Ambassadors scheme I have seen that many young people studying geography do not understand the benefits of studying the subject. It is vital that young people understand the benefits as there is so many to gain from studying geography. The rationale talks about the notion of ‘living geography’, which is very much, a concept which needs to be embedded into lessons. Pupils need to feel engaged in lessons, a way to do this is to make the lesson relevant to their ‘living geography’, and I believe this will lead to greater understanding of subject knowledge.
Overall I agree with the proposal and think it is effective in providing more information than the current national curriculum.

Brendan Doherty

Guest

18:50 - 19/09/11

I feel that the proposed curriculum covers all vital aspects of Geography in a clear and concise way. The layout of the new curriculum carefully places each theme of Geography into different sections and at the same time also manages to give a broad spectrum to the subject. It is a definite improvement on the current curriculum and will prove to be useful resource in future classrooms. One are which I feel and improvement may be warranted is perhaps under the heading 'Place'. I feel there should be more of an interest into the learning of other cultures and societies in the world. With the movement of people at an all time high, students need to be aware of the different ways of life other people have and to be tolerant of this. Perhaps such an issue may come under other subjects however I feel Geography certainly has a responsibility here.


As mentioned previously, the proposed curriculum has a blend of both organisation and broadness. The guidelines are there for teachers to follow, to give them an idea of what they have to teach. Yet at the same time, there is space for improvisation and freedom for the teacher. This is a vital element for any proposed curriculum as Geography is a constantly changing and topical subject. An overly defined and strict curriculum would have a negative effect on the teaching of the subject.

Overall I feel that the new curriculum gives teachers a useful layout and roadmap for which they can use to help teach Geography. It will allows teachers to fully connect and engage with a subject they clearly enjoy to teach and this will be picked up and transferred to the students.

GA Member

20:18 - 19/09/11

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute my thoughts. Initially I was reluctant to spend much time enaging with the documents but I'm glad I did. I'm very happy to support the GA's proposals which seem to me to build on the previous Orders.

I'm convinced that secondary school geography (I can only talk from this perspective) is in a better state than for many years. The Action Plan and associated CPD developments made a fantastic impact. I cannot accept that the Standish proposals have any place in the dialogue. Nobody doubts the importance of core knowledge, but to deliver a Standish curriculum would kill the subject stone dead in many schools. The author has no direct experience of a UK secondary classroom. His is a geography for the 1950's. We've been shaping the subject as a wide community under the auspices of the GA and the RGS very successfully. We have no need for a solitary individual to impose his frankly extreme views on our curiculum.

Dionne Laura Timony

GA Member

20:47 - 20/09/11

Personally I think that the problem with geography is that it covers such a large area of information that it is difficult to fit into the curriculum and for children to be able to define what geography actually is. In addition, geography has a number of stereotypes which might make it unappealing to chidren, including that it is boring - colouring in and labelling maps and high expectations such as that geography students should know where 'everywhere - capitals, rivers', etc are. In my opinion, with the the new curriculum being introduced in September 2012, geography teachers need to work with the GA manifesto positively and try and conquer the stereotypes and promote geography in schools to be more successful on a national basis.

In relation to the new curriculum and the proposals and rationale submitted by the GA, I like the idea of the three types of knowledge: Core, Content and Procedural as it makes sense - content and procedural knoweldge cannot be obtained without some core knowledge. The section on what the children should know by certain ages is also useful as it states in an easily understandable way what every child across the country should know in geography by a certain age. This is useful for all teachers but especially non-specialist teachers, as it ensures that all pupils are getting an equal geography education in terms of the knowledge, skills and understanding they gain from the subject.

Rachel King

GA Member

14:32 - 22/09/11

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Geographical Association’s consultation on what should be included in the revised geography curriculum. The following points summarise my views on this welcome document.

The three forms of geographical knowledge identified help to interpret what the proposed curriculum would aim to offer. It indicates clearly that there is a need to equip students with the right types of knowledge to enable them to consider issues, interpret information, answer questions or make decisions from a geographical point-of-view. Ultimately, if the curriculum empowers students to go beyond the classroom and use these competences in day-to-day life, then it should be considered a success.

The GA’s description of teachers as ‘curriculum makers’ is welcomed. This will ensure that the geography in the classroom shall be more than ‘text book learning’. Teachers will make the balance between pedagogic choices, the subject and the students themselves to ensure that the learning is relevant and current for those that they teach. As explained in Lambert and Morgan’s book ‘Teaching Geography 11-18 – A conceptual approach’, it is the interlinking of the teaching, the subject and the student experiences and the balance of these influences that can lead to effective teaching of subjects such as geography.

The proposed approach of identifying geography in all stages of the curriculum will provide a cumulative approach to the learning of the subject. Regardless of how far individuals decide to take geography within academic career, by including it at all stages they will have the opportunity to develop an understanding of the concepts which will be beneficial in later life. The consultation discusses geography in terms of ‘capabilities’ which the subject can bring to young people. This can start from a very early age and it is therefore imperative that geography is considered as core learning from the ‘early years’ of the curriculum. Without the ‘capabilities’ which the subject can provide, young people may not have the necessary means to understand, enquire and interpret the world that is changing around them.

Paul Baker

GA Member

10:10 - 25/09/11

Having filled in the more detailed survey this is just an additional comment.
Core knowledge needs to be purposeful, have a context and give meaning to enable understanding of people, places, events, phenomena. it is better to present a 'core knowledge' for each key stage to provide for greater flexibility for teachers as 'curriculum makers'. Knowledge framework will need more explanation for non specialists. Therefore there will be a massive need for CPD to enable the non-specialist to think geographically so that they can teach geographically, when many gave up the subject at 14. There is also a continued need to update colleagues and to allow 'quality' geography to be taught in the future.

Carmela

Guest

18:08 - 01/10/11

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have taken the GA document to be a minimum entitlement, with the scope for curriculum development coming from teachers. The Standish document harks back to the early 1990's, but I am sure that even then there was some requirement to teach Sustainable development/Environmental issues. I can see that Standish might appeal to a non-specialist because it reads like the contents page of a text-book. Should the Government adopt the GA proposals then I agree with Jeff Batttersby that non-specialists (especially at Primary level) will need lots of support.

Alex Standish

Guest

15:49 - 03/10/11

Wow! This is what it has come to: GA members arguing against the teaching of geography. Clearly, some members think that teaching about the surface of the world (climate, landscape, ecosystems, population, settlements, economies, political territories, culture etc.), the object of geographical enquiry, is not interesting or relevant for children today. Instead, we need to ‘engage’ them through sexy ‘issues’ and topics to which they can ‘relate’. One wonders why people call themselves geographers if they find geographical phenomena “boring”. Many geographers that I know find the surface of the world intriguing, complex, a puzzle. It is a challenge to unravel the different layers and explore the different processes that together have shaped our landscapes/cityscapes and those in different countries across the globe. Teaching geography means instilling in children the same kind of hunger to learn and inquisitiveness about the world. To satisfy this curiosity, pupils need to learn knowledge about the different physical and human geographical layers, such that one can begin to understand the different geographical processes at work. Or at least, this is what geography teaching should mean.
Those who want children to be critically engaged with contemporary issues facing humanity in different localities need to ask themselves, “What makes someone an independent critical thinker?” The answer is knowledge. Yes, learning about ‘issues’ is a part of geography, but in order to be able to engage with such issues in any meaningful way, you first need to learn some geography (and probably other subjects like history and science as well). This shortcoming was highlighted in this year’s OFSTED report Geography: Learning to Make a World of Difference:
Although pupils were often encouraged well to consider complex global issues such as migration and inequalities of wealth, their understanding was frequently unsatisfactory. This was because the learning was not set sufficiently within the context of real and recognizable places, so their understanding did not develop beyond an awareness that such issues existed.
It is knowledge, not issues, that develops human agency because knowledge is the path to understanding, from which we can interpret how to act.
“But education has changed. Academic geography has changed. Standish’s curriculum is so dated,” retort certain members. Indeed, education in the UK has changed enormously. But why do people assume that this change is positive? Many academics/universities no longer see their role as the expansion and dissemination of knowledge. Look around you at the sorry state of Western society (including state education). And, given that we know that the curriculum reflects social change, why would we not be sceptical of the direction education has taken. Come on folks. Where are your critical faculties? Get some historical perspective on the subject and then maybe it will be evident why geography, as a subject discipline, is fast disappearing in the UK. Don’t take my word for it. Read William Marsden, Richard Hartshorne, Phil Gersmehl and others who have a clearer sense of what geography is about. This is not to be blind to the historical conditions which contextualize a subject, but the process of geographical enquiry and the object of study remain the same.
Finally, my curriculum is just one contribution to the discussion of the geography children need to learn. The process of writing a national curriculum should involve a community of geographers collectively answering the question of what knowledge to study at which level. The GA’s submission is a part of this, but it does not go nearly far enough in specifying the essential geographical knowledge children need to learn. It is the responsibility of subject leaders and teachers to provide the answer to this question.

Ian Murray

Guest

19:25 - 03/10/11

In reply to Alex Standish:

Nobody is arguing that knowledge is unimportant and nobody is arguing against the teaching of geography. I don't know what experience you have of teaching geography in UK state schools but I suggest that you are less dismissive towards those commenting here. But knowledge alone is not enough. Learning facts for the sake of learning facts is not advancing education and is not equipping a person to use what they know in a meaningful way. What i note more than anything about your suggested geographical knowledge is how safe and orthodox it is. It is as though you have deliberately tried to appeal to the views currently held by UK politicians. And finally, listing what you or anybody considers important knowledge does not create a curriculum that can adapt and be alive. It is out of date as soon as it is written and soon becomes fossilised and dead. A meaningful curriculum needs to be alive, flexible and responsive.

Please do not jump to the conclusion that those criticising 'your' favoured knowledge are per se against children learning. That really is just too glib for words.

Mel Norman

GA Member

11:59 - 05/10/11

I have shown the Standish curriculum to my new cohort of PGCE students & they cannot believe what is being proposed. I have urged them all to respond to the NC consultation on the GA website, indeed I have made it compulsory to do so after all it is they who will be teaching it! I have also discussed it with my mentors at the mentor conference (not all my partner schools are in the GA!) but I have told them membership is not necessary to respond to the consultation.

A return to the now widely accepted false notion of ‘regions’ is more like a curriculum for 1911 not 2011. I remember all the haggling over the first revision of the GNC when it was agreed that the attainment target would be ‘geography’ and that the subject should not be divided into ‘regions’ nor into ‘human’ ‘physical’ & ‘environmental’ geography. That was a hard-won battle and to return to that notion 20 years on must be resisted. I cannot believe that anyone calling themselves ‘a geographer’ would omit any mention of fieldwork from a geography curriculum. Clearly the omission of the word does not mean that fieldwork cannot be undertaken, but if the word does not appear within the statutory curriculum senior managers will use it as an excuse not to allow any fieldwork activities in school time.

The Standish curriculum is “one of knowledge and skills”; what about understanding, critical evaluation, enquiry, independent learning etc; the process of learning involves all these and much more, learning is not about gaining a store of knowledge & the acquisition of skills. A very quick look at the KS3 & KS4 curriculum shows an emphasis on factual recall; the words what, where & how appear far more times (80 references) than the word why (11 references)? Would such a narrow curriculum develop pupils with an ability to think critically about the outcomes of decisions which impact on all aspects of ‘physical, human, environmental & regional geography’?

Last year I met with someone from New Zealand who questioned several GA members about the KS3 curriculum in geography. He was gaining evidence for curriculum reform in NZ where they had been following the same curriculum for 30 years; he took on board a lot of what was being done in England, particularly informed by the work of APG; the Standish curriculum would negate all the good work of the APG & other curriculum making projects which have been developing since the 2000 revision of the GNC & the subsequent 2008 revisions.

Kathryn Reynolds (NUNN)

Guest

20:52 - 18/10/11

I really liked the rationale for the changes and if read and taken on board could inspire/reinvigorate teaching for some depts. More careful consideration of how the NC interlinks with GCSE and A level syllabi will allow for layered learning through the key stages, whilst at the same time incorporating areas from outside of the syllabi will allow opportunities for genuine flair and interest, allowing pupils to explore new environments and empathise with communities far removed from their own.... please excuse the typos!

Grace Eminton

GA Member

23:13 - 23/10/11

I am somewhat troubled by the Government’s National Curriculum Review. On one hand, there is a strong validity to the outlining of core knowledge. Core geographical knowledge builds cultural literacy; it connects young people to democracy and the dynamism of a 21st Century world. It is also vital to creating the foundations for more intensive knowledge and understanding on which to develop educated young people. Core knowledge is therefore a single isolated sphere of geography. It is essential but in isolation it merely creates young people rich in facts but wanderers; lost in the blur of 21st Century life.

But isn’t that ok, as with a slimmed down National Curriculum, teachers will have greater ‘freedoms’ to teach within the other spheres of knowledge? Well no, not really. Instead, it sets alarms bells ringing. I am a PGCE student and currently grappling to work out my moral role as a geography teacher.

I see my role as passing on powerful geographical knowledge to my pupils. This knowledge encompasses the three broad spheres of knowledge which the GA articulates (1.1). It will radiate geographical enquiry, enabling my pupils to make sense of the world they see now and challenge them to imagine it in different futures. It will connect with pupils’ lived experiences; allowing them to analyse, critique and respect their worlds, especially their evolving cultural world. It will show geography as a real, dynamic and vibrant subject. It will embrace change.

Additionally, my vision of a powerful geographical knowledge fully embraces the GA’s realignment of place. Place is ultimately at the heart of geography; as the physical Earth and its human occupation is arranged in the human mind-set as a vast, dynamic and contrasting series of places. The organisation of the current curriculum by issues and themes paints a bleak view of the world. It mistakes places for ‘case studies’. Case studies are merely banks of largely factual knowledge. They promote places as lifeless, static illustrations. This loss of exploration of the uniqueness, vibrancy and natural ‘awe’ of places is a sad loss to geography. It is vital to reinforce the world as a complex mosaic rather than a static layer that responds only to newsworthy events. I fear a ‘core knowledge’ of fragmented issues and case studies.

Of course, my vision allows for the development of meta-cognitive and social skills; skills that will enable my pupils to succeed in the digital economy. But this will not be its primary purpose. The way I create powerful knowledge will therefore be aligned with the three strands of the GA’s curriculum making model (1.3). In fact, it mirrors the GA’s Curriculum Proposal, though it explicitly emphasises the need to connect every element of learning with pupils own experiences; geography must have a relevance, purpose and context or it is meaningless. A glacier for example is a magnificent, awe-inspiring landform. Taught solely within the realm of core ‘factual’ or process knowledge to an inner-city pupil who has never set foot beyond his/her local area, a glacier is void of meaning or life. Yet, when the same pupil is allowed to use his/her geographical imagination to experience the awe and fear of a glacier, the experience can be empowering.

This is what a better geography should be. This is the powerful knowledge that will mark my pupils as educated individuals, leading them onto University and the chance to be masters of their own fate. This knowledge will also profoundly shape the horizons of my pupils; showing them the possibilities that exist beyond their daily lives in an urban jungle. By being able instil powerful knowledge into my pupils; I feel I have the opportunity to help combat the moral outrage that exists in the UK. This injustice is fundamentally created by low expectations. The White Paper called this the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’. The Government’s definition of core knowledge is therefore crucial. If, as feared, the definition signals a return to geography as the coverage of content, the Government is indeed setting low expectations for mainstream pupils. It is preventing them from developing the powerful knowledge they need to make progress and succeed. Powerful knowledge will be retained where it has always been; with the privileged few. And so the gap will widen.

Therefore, I fully agree with the GA’s Proposal. It gives my pupils the right to develop skills, access world knowledge, think geographically and broaden their outlook on life. It enables them to compete, succeed and excel; hallmarks of a subject that is an indispensible part of my pupils’ education.

Dr Kevin Cook

Guest

21:11 - 28/10/11

The Geography Curriculum Proposals and Rationale certainly carry us forward and represent a marked improvement on existing practice. I am delighted to note that the global is still recognised as a crucial aspect of what geographers study. I would suggest that such global study needs to begin in KS1 however. Some of the best geography teaching about distant localities such as Tocuaro in Mexico is currently being carried out by 5 year olds in KS1.

There remains too much prescription in the proposals as they stand. If teachers are to become the 'curriculum makers' then the choice of what places to study should be left up to them. Also a balance needs to be established in the proposals by including more positive exemplars such as peace as well as conflict.

Finally I would like to see the development of communities of teachers of geography across the UK. Such small groups would help each other to develop a curriculum that covered the local to the global. Groups of schools could establish positive links with communities across the globe and could work to develop local resources.

Alan Kinder

GA Member

09:32 - 31/10/11

With the GA's consultation exercise closing very shortly, this is just a quick note to say 'thank you' to the very many members who have commented (above). The GA's Education Committee - as well as the phase committees and special interest groups that feed in to it - have been grappling with questions about geographical knowledge and its place in a revised national curriculum for quite a few months now! These committees - made up of volunteers from the GA's membership - do their best to represent the views and interests of all our members. We will continue to do this is the coming months. The level of participation we have seen here is enormously helpful, because it allows us to influence the GA's policies and responses towards these very complex questions. The GA is, after all, a membership organisation...
Alan Kinder
Education Committee (Chair)

Jo Arman

Guest

10:24 - 31/10/11

I think that the GA Geography Curiculum proposal will provide a useful, clear framework for teachers to use. It allows for both teacher interpretation and for the the changing nature of the subject - yet it gives a good guide for the inclusion of key subject elements. It is vital to keep a balance between knowledge of place and space and issues such as water shortage and fair trade.

Ian Cook

GA Member

14:52 - 31/10/11

I'm an academic geographer who was involved in the APG-funded 'Young People's Geographies' project - www.youngpeoplesgeographies.co.uk/ - with school geography teachers and their students. The APG was a joint GA/RGS(IBG) project, and part of its aim was to bring academic and school geographies closer together. Academic geographers had become distanced from school geography, and some curricula had become dated, both in terms of their content and concepts. School geography teachers were doing innovative work, however, and were often miles ahead of academic geographers in terms of their pedagogical approaches and use of IT. The creative student-centred learning and teacher guidance that was central to YPG produced enthusiastic, critical, engaged learning (which seemed also to widen participation in the subject). The content that Alex Standish is concerned about was there in abundance, because it had to be for students' work to be accurate as well as relevant. Teachers were able to engage students in the excitement of geographical enquiry because it mattered to them *and* because teachers 'delivered' content when necessary to make sense of what they were studying. The 'grammar and vocabulary' approach that the GA has adopted seems to provide a good balance between concepts and content, and leave room for teachers to be creative in the ways that they engage their students. What Alex is arguing for is *part* of that equation, not the whole thing.

George

Guest

10:46 - 16/02/12

Hi everybody.
Any idea how to introduce the term east to ks1?
thank you