Geographical Association

Matthew Wilson

GA Member

09:29 - 15/09/12

The Key Stage 3 proposal by is very clear on the requirement for pupils to learn key vocabulary of places and significant features, which I agree must be a key feature of the geography curriculum moving forward. This basic core knowledge forms the basis of all other geographical knowledge. For example, at the basic level, what is the point of learning about favelas if the children do not know where they exist?

In terms of areas to be covered, the curriculum only contains core requirements which puts the onus on the teacher to make the curriculum, by deciding what to teach and selecting appropriate pedagogy bearing in mind the requirements of their pupils which can only be positive.

Mary Coleman

GA Member

17:57 - 15/09/12

The new KS3 ‘geography curriculum’ proposals should ensure that all students leaving year 9 have a sufficient foundation in geography that will help them understand the world throughout their lives.
What should be in the new KS3 ‘geography curriculum’ is dependent on the pupils in a teacher’s classroom and the school in which they are taught it. The new proposals are good because they allow this flexibility between schools to choose topics relevant and interesting to their pupils, as well as allowing topics to be chosen according to student abilities. This curriculum being so broad means that schools can chose to teach different topics in KS3 than in KS4 so that topics are not repeated during secondary school but revisited. This could lead to more students taking geography at GCSE level, which can only be a good thing.

-

Guest

18:32 - 15/09/12

The inclusion of core knowledge within the curriculum is important, so as to ensure pupils have a strong grounding in the principle aspects of geography. This is particularly crucial for the lower end of key stage three, where pupils may have received various levels of geographical teaching in their primary education.

Due to the prescriptive nature of the document, 'Thinking Geographically', care must be taken so as not to stifle different teaching styles within geography lessons and not to disrupt the fluidity of one lesson to another. The importance of ‘scale’ within geography appears to have been reduced in favour of acknowledging the importance of the environment – perhaps reflecting a more current political agenda. Although page 2 of the proposal refers to several main themes being interlinked, this is arguably not emphasised enough. Consequently, Peter Jackson’s style (page 5) of placing greater importance on stressing connections throughout the world should play a larger role in the curriculum.

GA Member

10:47 - 16/09/12

From assessing the proposed curriculum reviews in comparison to the one currently in place it seems apparent to me that ‘core knowledge’ should form the foundations of school geography. I feel that core knowledge needs to be constructed and developed through primary school and to continue to develop along with the pupil’s enquiry into the subject in order to engage geographical thinking. However, conceptual knowledge development is vital to ensure that students can use this knowledge in context. Too much core knowledge and geography becomes too factual and limiting.

The new proposals are positive because they allow flexible teaching, and a certain amount of autonomy for schools and teachers meaning they can be selective in what is taught at KS3. The current curriculum is in my eyes too broad, it is important to give teachers responsibility over what is taught, however I feel the GA’s curriculum proposal further clarifies what ‘geography’ should be in schools.

James Kimber

GA Member

12:15 - 16/09/12

The new KS3 ‘geography curriculum’ proposals have outlined a clear and concise expectation of what a student should be learning at this level. The new proposals give teachers a much more clear path to follow, however the proposals also allow the teacher to select topics which they feel are relevant. The current curriculum focuses on basic themes such as scale and place but is too broad.
Personally I believe that the KS3 curriculum should focus on having a set of goals/outcomes that students should be achieving. The core knowledge by KS3 should already have been taught at a key stages one and two, so at key stage 3 the broadening of these basic concepts can be investigated and delved into in much more detail. However it will be very tough to go into topics in depth if the pupils do not have the core knowledge to do so. This core knowledge must be developed from key stage one onwards and perhaps it will be this reliance that will take some time to fully develop

William O`Mahoney

GA Member

13:09 - 16/09/12

The key area that should be addressed in the proposed curriculum is the focus on core knowledge. Just as numeracy and literacy are seen as the core knowledge of primary education, forming the basic skills that set a child up for secondary education, core knowledge in KS3 geography is essential in forming the geographical thinking that underpins the more knowledge based exam specifications of later years, or at the very least gives the child a chance to understand some of the ways in which the world works. Achieving a baseline level of knowledge as opposed to an amalgamation of disjointed facts will lead to a more rounded and truer understanding of geography. The thematic approach of place, scale etc allow the teacher a degree of freedom regarding the subject matter. As I see it, one of geography's strengths as a subject is the ways in which it can be relevant in different lives in different ways. Instead of being prescriptive, the curriculum should be free enough to allow an inner city teacher to cover a subject in a way that will appeal to the understanding of their children, whilst the same subject can be taught differently in a rural village school yet still remaining relevant to the children. Outlining the expectation of student attainment at this level allows for achievable goals that can guide students and teachers through their geographical experiences.

Edmund Orme

GA Member

14:41 - 16/09/12

I think the guidelines which state that students must understand the key concepts relating to place, space, scale etc. is a fantastic way of broadening students understanding of the subject. Teachers have a somewhat free role in what to teach as long as the key concepts are understood by the students. This gives the teachers ownership of what they are teaching and allows them to explore, with the students, the various facets of geography much more acutely.
In order that this is possible at KS3, I think it is important to focus on developing core geography knowledge and skills at KS1 and KS2. Core knowledge should be a cornerstone of a student’s development in geography. With this knowledge they will be equipped to start to develop their own conclusions and understand geography conceptually. When they have developed their conceptual knowledge of the subject, they are at a stage of limitless potential.

Jamie Wainwright

GA Member

15:02 - 16/09/12

I think the proposals are a positive move and help clarify what Geography's purpose is within schools, and crucially what its purpose is for students. The clear framework of core knowledge helps to clarify key themes for teachers and for students- but also leaves enough room for creativity and particular areas of interest appropriate in different classrooms. It acknowledges 'pub quiz' geography and how this acts as vocabulary or tools for students to gain understanding of links and flows on a variety of scales- I think this will help reassert a confident subject identity for those within the geographical community and observers outside.

Kirstin Gaymer

GA Member

15:19 - 16/09/12

I welcome the move to identify core knowledge for each Key Stage as I agree it builds a ‘vague knowledge’ of the world that contributes to a young person's cultural literacy. However, this core knowledge should be viewed as the building blocks which allow teachers the opportunity to develop a responsive and relevant programme of study that deepens pupils’ understanding of the world around them, and their place in it.

An omission that I believe the current proposal displays is not to recognise the invaluable resource of the pupil’s own knowledge and experience, not least of cultures and countries outside of the UK. I also think it is a missed opportunity to leave any consideration of rethinking and designing the future until KS4 as geography at all Key Stages could benefit from forward thinking.

Rashed Sharif

GA Member

16:49 - 16/09/12

In my opinion, the strongest aspect of the GA’s curriculum proposal is: defining the purpose of geography education and its benefits to student learning. The GA’s outline of the core-knowledge to be introduced is such that it allows teachers of Geography scope to inspire student enthusiasm for learning with and through Geography along its conceptual frameworks of space, place and environment. My only hope was that there would be a more explicit mention of the inter-disciplinary benefits of geographical enquiry and how this could benefit student learning in a considerable way. However, I do accept that in an age when subject disciplines are made to compete with one another as well as, social and political expectations of them, a need for ‘geographical distinctiveness’ is ever more crucial. Then again, perhaps ‘inter-disciplinarity’ could have played a positive role in achieving this for Geography.

Priya Barai

GA Member

17:27 - 16/09/12

The Key Stage 3 proposal emphasizes the essential core of geographical content that should be taught to every pupil, which I agree, should be the key feature of the geography curriculum for this level. A rigid foundation upon which to build geographical knowledge is essential. Scale, space and place give pupils a good understanding of geographical contexts and helps them understand the world we live in by Year 9, regardless of the varying levels of geographical teaching they may have received in primary education and moving forward, should they chose continue to study geography further or not.

The curriculum only covers the core requirements, this means teachers are free to select the appropriate pedagogy mindful of their pupil’s specific requirements (abilities, interests and so on). In this respect, the new proposals are positive in that they give teachers the autonomy to select what is taught to pupils at Key Stage 3 and, as afore mentioned, it is geography’s relevance to so many different people lives in so many different ways that is it’s key strength and one which I agree should be embraced in teaching.

Georgina Sophie Barroll Brown

GA Member

19:13 - 16/09/12

I very much support the proposal and believe that geographical ‘core knowledge’ has a vital part to play in education. It is suggested that children should be provided with the fundamental building blocks of geographical information and I couldn’t agree more. Pupils can then build on this core knowledge through learning the appropriate skills and techniques needed to make sense of this information and ‘think geographically’. I believe the use of the terms ‘vocabulary’ to describe core knowledge and ‘grammar’ to describe conceptual frameworks is highly appropriate, as one cannot be expected to have a sufficient understanding of grammar with limited vocabulary.

Dean Holden

GA Member

21:25 - 16/09/12

I think that the new key stage 3 proposals has really put a great emphasis on developing the pupils knowledge further, rather than them just becoming a encyclopedia of knowledge. As learning how to interpret data and explain, rather than just describe, is one of the wonderful things which geography can give to pupils.

I interpreted the new proposals as touching on the core subjects like place and space etc., but not dictating what should be taught. Which i think is a good idea, as it still enables freedom for teachers to choose what they believe is best for their students allowing for appropriate pedagogy to be achieved in the classroom.

Rachael Caunt

GA Member

21:50 - 16/09/12

In my opinion, core knowledge is vital for each key stage as this is the foundation of geography to allow clarity and development of more complex information which are all lifelong skills. With this understood, teachers then have the opportunity to teach their class a varied programme that is adapted for the current geography which can be significant in each young persons eyes to develop their own geographical imagination, which the proposal highlights well. I feel the basis of place, space and scale are still fundamental building blocks to build the curriculum upon as this can be understood countrywide as well as suggesting a series of topics to allow greater understanding of the world and its people. A valuable component of geography is fieldwork, and with the new curriculum it would be an excellent opportunity to emphasise the exploration and understanding using this skill as a demonstration within the subject.

Hannah Ashman

GA Member

22:45 - 16/09/12

The national curriculum as it stands has an extremely broad scope and as such allows for great variety in interpretation of how to teach it. This give teachers a large amount of freedom in their teaching and enables greater creativity. However, this also ensures that there is limited direction and has the potential to enable less competent teachers to conduct uninformed and unimaginative lessons. The new curriculum proposals are more directed and contain up-to-date examples for case studies which is of course extremely important in this highly changeable subject. However, perhaps it would do well to include greater emphasis on core knowledge and fieldwork, as there seems to be limited emphasis on this.

Mrs Crawford

GA Member

10:10 - 17/09/12

Thinking geographically
Splendid to build everything on this foundation, but may I suggest that there is a need to clarify the meaning of 'thinking' by spelling out 3 aspects of thinking and then refer to them throughout the curriculum? i.e.
1) analytical thinking eg identify the facts about a topic which describe...
identify the facts which are the reasons for the topic
2) critical thinking e.g.for the assessment/evaluation of
similarities/differences, advantages/disadvantages, most/least important
etc
3) creative thinking e.g. to forecast possible outcomes, look for possible
ways forward etc.

Lucy Cracknell

GA Member

18:47 - 18/09/12

I feel the GA's newest proposal gives less flexibility than the existing curriculum however that the sequence of learning is comprehensive and that the core knowledge, if taught from Key Stage 1 upwards in the way prescribed by these proposals, will give a thorough base and set of competencies for geographical thinking and enquiry. One question is whether the amount of geography taught in primary schools can meet the demands of this proposal.

I very much like the analogy of core or contextual knowledge as vocabulary and conceptual knowledge as grammar. Together they make up the language of geography which can then be applied to situations using geographical procedures and skills. I see this being a useful framework from which to be a 'curriculum maker'.

Julia Armstrong

GA Member

12:35 - 20/09/12

Part B

As a student teacher of limited experience, I don’t feel as though I can comment about some of the detail of the GAs proposals. It looks like it makes sense but at this point…..What might be useful though, is to consider as a student teacher if these proposals would be of use to me as a working teacher, would the approach of working towards“core geographical content” and “thinking geographically” give me the freedom to think creatively about what I teach? Does this proposal support my work with a clear framework? Will this proposal support my autonomy within a school and allow a common start point for professional discussion and debate both within a department and more widely.

To put it briefly, it does seem as though the GA proposals would allow for this type of approach to my work of teaching geography.

One of the important factors to be considered when deciding what to include in a curriculum is that the debate is not only to satisfy geographers ideas about what makes “good geography” but also about how a subject is viewed. Having a clear rationale that makes sense to those outside of the subject is an important part of making sure that geography teaching moves up the list when scare resources, (time, money, CPD etc) are being allocated n a school. Just as important as what we teach, is why we teach it and including a strong rationale helps communicate this to those outside of the subject.

David Mitchell

GA Member

12:03 - 28/09/12

The GA’s curriculum proposals, 2012, give a clear rationale for studying geography at school, and a structure of progression in content from KS1-4.
The rationale is underpinned by the ideas of ‘thinking geographically’ and ‘relational thinking’. There is emphasis on how the subject enables children to make connections between different places and between different characteristics of the world. Geography thus develops abilities to integrate seemingly disparate phenomena – for example connecting different places & lifestyles of consumption and production, changing city & rural landscapes, natural features like mountain ranges and oceans, food production and flooding. Geography is distinct in this endeavour and young geographers (for example those beginning their training as geography teachers) have long recognised the value of this with phrases like “geography brings everything together”... “you see the big picture” and “geographers have a wide range of skills”.
The proposals deal with the question of what counts as ‘knowledge’ with an explanation of the important difference between ‘core’ knowledge and ‘conceptual knowledge’. It is helpful that the proposals take the subject back to its conceptual heart of place, space and environment – this makes clear how all unique places, facts or contexts across the globe are understood through these concepts. It is noticeable (and a good thing) that there is much attention to ‘core knowledge’ in the proposals – a broad (as well as deep) knowledge of the world is a priority. This should avoid the situation where a child can go through school without a reasonable knowledge of where countries are located, for example. But care is taken in the proposals to show the aim of both knowledge and understanding. The latter is made possible by attention to the concepts of geography and the skills of geographic enquiry, including the use of a wide range of data sources and analytical techniques.
The KS1-4 outcomes statements are an attempt to enable progression in the geography content and development of the young geographer. Whilst there is continuity in some aspects (e.g. using maps/ studying both local and distant places) there is a different emphasis, or priority, for that key stage, which I suggest is this:
KS1 – curiosity about places
KS2 – broad world knowledge
KS3 – relationships, interconnections & systems
KS4 – impacts & issues for people
I welcome these emphases (particularly as I have a child in KS1 – yes please, nurture the natural curiosity of the young child!). There is a need for children to sense the progression of the subject as they go through school. Otherwise we risk children finding the subject an unconnected mix of disparate topics. Herein, also, lies the skill of the teacher in using the concepts as well as the contexts of geography. I also welcome the attempt to avoid excessive repetition of certain contexts. The proposals suggest specific contexts are studied at each Key Stage. This can seem rather arbitrary – e.g. why Australasia as KS1, Africa KS2 and Asia KS3? But this does ensure broad world knowledge is gained. Specifying which natural processes to be studied makes particularly good sense (e.g. rivers & coasts focus in KS2, and glaciation KS3). This may avoid the current situation where pupils can study, for example, the same processes of river erosion at KS2, KS3, KS4 and A level – not always in much more depth (especially if they have a very good teacher at KS2). Geography has so much potential to extend and challenge thinking and to learn ever more broadly and deeply about the world, it is surely unnecessary to repeat the same material.
These curriculum proposals provide a coherent framework, however we must remember the ‘importance of the teacher’ (to paraphrase the 2010 white Paper). The curriculum only exists as it is planned and enacted by the teachers in the classroom. A strong school geography lies, in part, with the curriculum making challenge for the geography teacher and their department. They will interpret the curriculum proposals, put ‘flesh on the bones’ and design appropriate detailed content and effective ways to teach and learn. This key role must not be forgotten or overlooked. It is exciting work. The committed geography teachers are enthused by this and they up to the challenge.

David Mitchell

Stephen Akeroyd 22973

Guest

08:49 - 30/09/12

I completed the questionnaire yesterday, but whilst having a look at the "Thinking Geographically" document again, it struck me that current GCSE syllabus' (at least ours, and I suspect others) force a compliance rather than engagement approach to schemes of work and the lessons that result. It is therefore crucial that a future GCSE (or whatever qualification replaces it) enables an engagement approach to flourish. It seems to me that the key factor in the GCSE that determines compliance or engagement is time. At present, there is so much content to teach that it is mostly a case of just trying to plough through it quickly enough, covering everything that could be examined and leaving time for revision lessons (our specification is Edexcel B - which is great in many ways but there is an awful lot for students to learn). I feel that the depth of students' understanding is often very limited, as there is little time to explore geographical content and ideas in any depth. This severely limits the development of geographical thinking and forces the creation of largely compliance based, rather than engagement focused courses (interestingly, in some ways I would consider the course we offer to be good, but only in the sense that we do our best to make it as interesting and engaging as possible - however it is far from offering a satisfactory development of geographical thinking or even an engaging - in the true sense of the word - and robust geographical experience). My point here is that sufficient time must be created in a new GCSE / Ebac, along with the guidance as already proposed, to shift the emphasis towards strong geographical thinking (via concepts and contexts) and thus an engaging curriculum. Assessment must of course reflect this, otherwise it will have little weight - I feel the assessment structure proposed (contextual knowledge, understanding, procedures and skills) should enable this to happen. In short, the new GCSE must allow time for the curriculum to breath, and geographical thinking to flourish.

Helen Katharine Davies

GA Member

21:46 - 30/09/12

The core of the new KS3 geography curriculum should be an understanding of key Physical and Human Geography processes. This should include both theoretical understanding, built through analysing models and learning classifications and also knowledge built by studying specific case studies. Places at a range of scales should be studied each year, including in their local area, the UK, Europe and the world, because geography is fundamentally a world subject. The following broad themes should be incorporated: interactions between humans and their environment, interdependence, cultural understanding and environmentalism and sustainability. Part of geographical education is for the pupils to see themselves as global citizens and to consider how the actions of people (including themselves) have future consequences. Through studying a range of different topics, teachers should ensure that pupils both build on their existing knowledge and experiences and also gain insight into new places, ideas and concepts that they would not learn about through their general life or the media. Individual enquiry is another key part of geography and also an important method by which pupils can become engaged in geography, and in learning in general. Finally, the curriculum should ensure development of core map skills and visual literacy.

Paul Baker

GA Member

17:16 - 01/10/12

All Key stages clearly set out with requirements . Basic core knowledge well set out and this will clearly move the children/ students forward in a progressive way. there is enough room for teachers to develop their own curriculum building but at the same time giving the less confident geography teacher a strong outline to develop the school geography curriculum. this is a positive move and the progression through from KS1 to KS 4 shows that a great deal of thought has gone into these proposals. the fact that this only The curriculum only covers the core requirements, means teachers are free to select the appropriate pedagogy mindful of their pupil’s specific requirements . The new proposals are very positive. the teacher can have autonomy and know what is required to be covered. Geography’s relevance is strengthened by these proposals. the great strength of these proposals is the avoidance of repetition and i know colleagues will certainly agree with me that this will help keep pupils interested in the subject and allow progression as well as the building up of a much greater knowledge and understanding of the subject.

David Baron

GA Member

09:24 - 12/10/12

I agree with a lot of the comments on here regarding the updated curriculum - particularly the focus on core knowledge. I am an environmental scientist by training but currently an ST in a geography department. To develop an understanding of such complex and multifaceted concepts as space and place, a good level of background knowledge is required. Even I have had to brush up on some of the basics. I taught my first year 7 class in a London school recently and when asking the difference between a lake and a river one of the students thought it was that a river had sharks in it! Although this is more of an amusing 'things children say' anecdote it highlights the large gaps in knowledge about some of the geographical features we take for granted as being innately understood by students. If we want students to continue to encourage enquiry and for students to 'travel with a different view' as young geographers, we need to concentrate on the basics at an early age otherwise we can assume almost no prior knowledge for most students at KS3.

Simon Catling

Guest

17:19 - 21/10/12

While broadly I would support this process and the proposals, I do harbour reservations.
It is noteworthy that almost all of the comments recorded here are focused towards key stage 3 seeing earlier geographical study as a preparation, and it is fair that they are supportive of what is proposed.
I do not wish to add greately to what is recorded. But I do have a couple of points to make.
One builds from David Mitchell's note about the four stages and his 'characterisiation' of them which is fair (see above) as they are set out. What I find problematic is that what is given in the Content lists in the GA's proposals seems evidently to leave out impact and issues as matters which key stage 1 & 2 children are able to grasp and engage with. It seems to me that all four elements Mitchell lists should be aspects of all four key stages if we are involved in developing geographical understanding, not creating a sequence where considering 'impact and issues' is something which is really only the provenence of key stages 4, ie the minority of students who currently study geography - which may change (re E-Bac) or may not. I do not think we should underestimate the capability fo young children.
A second point Mitchell makes concerns the sequence of continent studies. It is remarkably unclear why there is this order; it is not progression. The challenge of revisiting areas and scales of study is enormous and it is unlikely that it is overcome by any curriculum change. The dangers of studying 'Africa' in key stage 2 are obvious for all to recognise - a few case studies later will not really challenge stereotypes fostered at a young age, which persist because they are never revisited and challenged.
This indicates the third challenge of this (any) curriculum. Tne large majority of teachers of geography are non-specialists and receive very little initial teacher education (just a few hours) and most likely none during their career. Indeed, the majority of primary teachers gave up geography at age fourteen. There is a considerable need with any new curriculum for CPD (there always has been), but it is unlikely to happen (governments in any economic climate simply do not do it).
Equally, geography is not well resources at primary levels and with all the curriculum changes (for ten subjects) expected at once will not find much funding to enable resources to be available. This is a deep challenge.
My fourth point concerns the lack of follow up to the reference to impact and sustainability in 'Thinking Geographically'. This is a vital aspect of geography, evidentially based (though some appear to think otherwise). It is vital that it is a key aspects of geography studied from key stage 1 - but it is lacking at primary level in these proposals. This diminishes the subject at its core and limits its knowledge. It is rather more than a topic for key stage 3.
Certainly much can be done with these proposals, and good curriculum making can result, by knowledgeable and informed geographers teaching geography. Primary schools largely lack these people - indeed, according to Ofsted (2011) 10% of primary schools now teach no or negligible geography! While the rationale is good, though improvments can be made to the core geography in the Content and Exemplars, the key issue remains how children's first six years of geographical learning actually will provide the basis for key stages 3 and 4 (if they should). This may appear a critical perspective - and the situation is better than the 1970s and 1980s - but for geography really to take off in very many primary schools something more needs to happen. Secondary schools adopting primaries and supporting their development would be a good start. Were this to occur, these (and the government's final) proposals might enable real development in high quality geography teaching and learning across all age phases.

Mr Williams

GA Member

12:31 - 23/10/12

This is a great opportunity. Geography NEEDS to be variously taught, and with synopticity if linkages are to be understood. Of course there is core knowledge (AND understanding and key skills) but it's the breadth of topics and their interrelationships, that makes Geography so interesting. As a teacher in a 6th form college, I like to stretch and challenge my students - and myself - by studying topics less commonly taught in the partner schools, and I believe the students appreciate this. It raises plenty of questions for discussion and enables those 'in the know' to show off a little to the others and help their peers in their understanding of the 'new' topic. I'll cite Glaciation as a good example in this case. Combine this with Climate Change and a whole new dimension to studying Hazards and Sustainability opens out.
A Level students struggle unnecessarily with synopticity. If they're used to creative and critical thinking from study at previous key stages, I'm sure it will make for them, an already enjoyable Field of Knowledge even more so.
Hopefully this will see numbers of those choosing to study Geography at A Level re-establishing themselves back up there alongside History, and consequently progressing beyond to the higher levels of study.

St. Andrews School

GA Member

13:35 - 23/10/12

I think that the GA's proposals are along the right lines but rather than coming over as a piece of Georgian architecture i.e. balanced, symmetrical, uncomplicated, easy on the eye etc. they appear as a gothic edifice - intricate, rather over-complicated and with extra bits added here and there.
There are also bits that need polishing up - Oceania is a much better name for the continent than the misleading and slightly old fashioned Australasia - particularly for KS1 pupils. Double check 'effects' and 'affects' as the verb is used where the noun should be. These are minor observations when placed against more major structural problems. Surely sustainability is something to be taught from a much earlier age that KS4.
As suggested before ... the proposals are fair and considered but they need finessing into a more coherent, logical and age appropriate framework.

Mr Krause

GA Member

10:14 - 25/10/12

The GA's proposals provide a clear indication as to why the Association can claim to be the leading organisation in the UK for the teaching and learning of geography.
Geography's place in the curriculum was secured in all key stages with the introduction of 'National Curriculum 1' in the late 1980's. That place was established by the Association playing a lead role, working closely with others, to ensure that the subject was seen as an essential part of a broad and balanced curriculum.
Time moves on and curriculum emphases change so it is right that the GA recognises the need for core knowledge to be more clearly stated than in the past. The rebalancing of content (the what) alongside process (the how) is long overdue.
There is however an inherent risk that , without additional guidance as to how to deliver these proposals in the classroom, teachers may find it hard to use engaging and challenging ways of delivering the curriculum. We must guard against a curriculum that becomes too knowledge based with all the attendant risks of being driven by textbooks and their sometimes too stereotypical views of the world.
The inclusion of Australasia at KS1 is an example of how this might occur.
First it is right that children should gain the knowledge and understanding that we live on a planet and that there are contrasting places. BUT in the wrong hands the study of Australia, for example, could be a study of plants and animals, without really helping young children to see that most Australians live in western style cities and that Aborigines are not one group but 6000 and that the main influences on the country are in the Asia Pacific region including Hong Kong China, Indonesia and Western USA.
This is where the GA can play to its strengths. It can provide the addtional guidance and all types CPD to support classroom teachers in the raising of standards in the subject.

Lindsay West

Guest

12:42 - 25/10/12

Although I agree with the concept of Thinking Geographically and use of geographical enquiry I have concerns about the proposed curriculum core requirements. Over recent years we have been able to use curriculum making to enthuse and engage our pupils through building on teachers' own interests and experiences. This is what brings geography alive. If concepts are introduced when not age appropriate or relevant we are in danger of switching off our pupils and making geography dull. Greater flexibility, please.

Geoff Jenkins, Royal Meteorological Society

Guest

13:49 - 25/10/12

Comments on the GA National Curriculum Proposals, October 2012

1 We strongly encourage the GA to include more physical geography in the proposals for the National Curriculum. Research has shown that students taking geography at school favour engineering, science, medical and physical geography subjects at University. A recent Ofqual report has shown that at A level there has been a clear drift away from physical geography towards human geography. This can be rectified only by redressing the balance towards physical geography, at the appropriate level, all the way through the curriculum.
2 The recent DfE draft Science Curriculum devotes about 2 pages per year per science subject. This compares with 2.5 pages in the GA draft Core Content for the whole of KS1 - 4. Although it may be the case that DfE will not wish to make the geography curriculum as detailed as those for science subjects, we think that the GA proposal should contain considerably more detail about the core facts, skills and understanding that should be taught.
We note that a few “content exemplars” are given, which expand on the Core Content, and that these are “work in progress”. We suggest that the detail in the exemplars is included for all the topics in the proposed syllabus, which would at least put more flesh on the bones.
3 Weather and climate are at the heart of several problems for society, such as flooding, droughts and climate change, which are set to become more serious. Solutions to some of these problems will be unpalatable, but maybe be more acceptable to a society armed with a better understanding of their root causes. Weather and climate are not taught elsewhere in the curriculum (for example, science). We were pleased to see that the topic of weather is proposed in KS1, including weather terms and awareness of weather conditions, but we were dismayed not to see weather at any later stage in the proposed curriculum. We suggest that weather/climate should feature as a specific topic at every KS, so that understanding picked up in KS1 can be developed and enlarged at each stage. This could be done by revisiting some of the topics introduced in KS1 and 2a. For example, “Features of the weather” at KS1 could be developed to “Understanding our natural environment; what are causes and effects of UK weather and climate? how is the weather forecast?” at later KS. More generally, the proposed curriculum does not support the development of ideas and understanding through the curriculum, by revisiting the same subject areas at different stages.
4 The current National Curriculum (2007) stipulates the need to collect, record and display information, for example using data-logging weather stations, at KS3. We would like to see this included at every KS. This could begin at KS1 with simple visual observations (sunny, rainy), progress to reading a school thermometer at KS2 lower, and involve other weather quantities (eg wind, rain) at KS2 upper. In KS3 and KS4 a data logging weather station should be introduced to give a more comprehensive set of measurements.
Some specific points:
Thinking Geographically, Appendix 1 Geographical Enquiry: the third “How to Use” point should include graphs as well as texts, images, etc. “Texts” could be more specific e.g. “written sources of evidence including age appropriate books, articles etc.”
Thinking Geographically, Appendix 1 Environment column, fourth entry: amend to read “Knowledge and understanding of the workings of the atmosphere (weather and climate) and oceans, and their significance”
Thinking Geographically, Appendix 1 Geographical Enquiry: “How to Investigate” should also include making measurements, including weather measurements
Key Stage Content, KS3, fourth point: We suggest the last sentence could be made more comprehensive by rewording to say “Consider earthquakes, floods and hurricanes”. Including floods in particular would bring the problem closer to home.
Key Stage Content, KS4, first point: To avoid confusion, we suggest this should just focus on climate change, on the assumption that (natural) climate is covered under a general “Weather and Climate” topic at each KS (see our comment 2 above). So this point could now read: “Climate change. How is climate changing, and what is the evidence for the role of human activity? Uncertainty in predicting climate change and the dilemmas associated with assessing local impacts and identifying possible mitigation and adaptation responses.
Royal Meteorological Society
Education Committee

Mel Norman

GA Member

14:28 - 25/10/12

I have completed the questionnaire which expresses my concerns particularly in regard to the 'Key Stage content & initial guiding questions' paper. However, I would just like to say here that I support the comment made by Simon Catling. Without the subject knowledge expertise at KS1, KS2 & to some extent at KS3, how will it be possible to implement this curriculum without the narrow interpretation I fear & expressed in my questionnaire comments?
I will say again, where is the fieldwork? If it it not overtly articulated, there will be every excuse for school managers to refuse fieldwork activities to take place.

Sylvia Knight

Guest

14:49 - 25/10/12

We strongly encourage the GA to include more physical geography in the proposed Curriculum. Although few students will go to take geography A level, and even fewer will progress to University, research has shown that students taking geography at school favour engineering, science, medical and physical geography subjects at University. It is therefore a mistake to assume that a geography National Curriculum which favours human geography and the impacts of physical geography on the human population, rather than an understanding of the processes operating in our physical world, is a mistake.

We were pleased to see weather in Key Stage 1, introducing weather terms and an awareness of weather conditions. However, we were dismayed not to see weather at any later stage in the proposed curriculum. Pupils will never have the opportunity to develop an understanding of the weather that affects them (and almost every industry) on a daily basis. More generally, the proposed curriculum does not support the development of ideas and understanding through the curriculum, by revisiting the same subject areas at different stages.

We feel that particularly in KS1, the curriculum is weak and should contain a wider list of topics. Similarly, in Key Stage 3 there are too few subject areas. This could be rectified by revisiting some of the topics introduced in KS1 and 2a. For example, “Features of the weather” at KS1 could be developed to
Understanding Our Natural Environment
What are causes and effects of UK weather and climate? How is the weather forecast?

We look forward to seeing more detailed content exemplars. The GA proposal should contain considerably more detail about the core knowledge, processes, skills and understanding that should be taught

Some specific points:
“Thinking Geographically” Appendix 1 Geographical Enquiry: the third point should include graphs as well as texts, images, etc.
“Thinking Geographically” Appendix 1 Environment column, fourth entry, amend to read: “Knowledge and understanding of the workings of the atmosphere and oceans, and their significance”
“Thinking Geographically” Appendix 1 should include How to Use written sources of evidence i.e. age appropriate books, articles etc. How to Investigate should also include making measurements
Key Stage Content, KS3, fourth point: We suggest the last sentence could be made more comprehensive by rewording to say “Consider earthquakes, floods, droughts and hurricanes”. Including floods in particular would bring the problem closer to home.
Key Stage Content, KS4, first point: To avoid confusion, we suggest this should just focus on climate change, on the assumption that (natural) climate is covered under a general “Weather and Climate” topic at each KS. So this point could now read: “Climate change. How is climate changing, and what is the evidence for the role of human activity? Uncertainty in predicting climate change and the dilemmas associated with assessing local impacts and identifying possible mitigation and adaptation responses.

Maiden Erlegh School

GA Member

17:30 - 01/11/12

Page 8, appendix 1 of the "Thinking Geographically" document - a table of key skills that should be mastered does NOT contain the word "GRAPH" anywhere!
Surely this is a mistake!
Please fight for its inclusion to maintain the scientific side to geography and the so called 'academic rigour'. It works superbly with topics such as weather and climate eg climate graphs and improves numeracy skills that are a crucial part of a young geographer's skills set.

T.Harris

Guest

14:33 - 12/02/13

Schools currently have significant financial resources wrapped up in teaching resources. If you change significantly the locations for study then schools will need to make new resource investments. At a time of contractiong budgets the implciations of this need to be considered. Could key locations for study be more closely allied with some current locations to enable schools to maximise usage of current resources?