Shaping the curriculum: silos vs integrated approaches th Carina Badger, 25 February 2014 Note: This paper is intended to fuel

discussion rather than provide answers! My research: The field of my research is Holocaust education in England and Wales and one of my research questions (currently) is as follows: To what extent are Citizenship, History and Religious Education dependent on each other in the context of Holocaust education in the school curriculum? Presently (and from September 2014), the Holocaust is specifically cited in the National Curriculum (England and Wales) for History as a required topic by the end of Key Stage 3 (QCA, 2007 and DFE, 2013). It is not mentioned in the Citizenship programme of study. There is no statutory National Curriculum for Religious Education in England and Wales; however, non-statutory guidance does currently mention the Holocaust (QCA, 2007) (though from September 2014 this is likely to shift to genocides: RE Review, 2013). Why a multi-disciplinary approach? There is general support for the proposition that Holocaust education demands a multi-disciplinary approach. For example, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (an international governmental body) cites three key aims of Holocaust education: In general, teaching about the Holocaust should: (i) Advance knowledge about this unprecedented destruction; (ii) Preserve the memory of those who suffered; and (iii) Encourage educators and students to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of the Holocaust and as they apply in today's world (http://www.holocaustremembrance.com/node/318 [accessed 10 January 2014]). In addition to history, the IHRA sees relevance for other disciplines, such as literature, psychology, religious studies, and others (http://www.holocaustremembrance.com/node/319 [accessed 16 January 2014]). Further, the literature regarding Holocaust education in secondary schools indicates strong support for the proposition that certain aims of Holocaust education may lie in developing pupils awareness of human rights issues and genocides, the themes of stereotyping, scapegoating and the exercise of power in local, national and global contexts (Carrington and Short, 1997; Brown and Davies, 1998; Short et al 1998; Hector, 2000; Totten, 1997; Lindquist, 2008; Misco, 2009). Such aims fall more clearly within the ambit of Citizenship rather than History. Moral, theological and philosophical themes also arise indicating a role for Religious Education (Scott, 1991, Day and Burton, 1996, Burke, 2003). Foster and Mercier (2000) asserted that there were many dimensions to the Holocaust, which necessitated a multi-disciplinary approach because, without the religious dimension pupils will be unable to piece together the many parts of the puzzle (2000:29, see also Broadbent, 2000). Do Religious Education, History and Citizenship teachers actually collaborate? Brown and Davies (1998) noted little or no interchange between teachers of History and Religious Studies (1988:79, see also Bousted & Davies, 1993, Hargreaves, 1991, Lortie, 1975, Whitty et al, 1994). Whilst they found that Religious Studies teachers were sometimes positive about the possibilities of co-operation with other teachers (particularly History teachers) this collaboration did not normally take place, even in the form of an exchange of information about what was being taught (Brown and Davies 1998:79). The Institute of Education report on Holocaust education (2009) also indicated a lack of co-ordination and lack of communication between colleagues across different subjects of what is taught, when it is taught and also how it is taught. This research builds on existing research by Short (Short, 2001; see also Brown and Davies, 1998). Reporting on findings of a small-scale study, Short (2001) found that, with regard to cross-curricular collaboration in Holocaust education between teaching colleagues, [n]early two-thirds of the sample 17 out of 28) stated that they had no links whatsoever with other departments and, in other cases, the links seemed rather tenuous (Short 2001:46). A likely area of

conflict rests between subject specialist for History and other areas (Brown & Davies 1998:80). Part of this may lie in a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about the aims of distinct subjects, as well as a lack of framework for effective collaboration. Brown and Davies (1998:79) cite one Religious Education specialists comments on History: The syllabus is overloaded with academic work. We don't shove facts at them. We don't put on an OHP and then say "copy it". Resistance might be dissipated if specialist teachers were more aware of the contributions and aims of other subjects. Two questions arising in connection with this analysis: Why do the majority of schools in England and Wales teach in silos when it comes to the Humanities subjects (i.e. separate Geography, History, Citizenship, Religious Education classes)? Should Humanities be delivered in this way, or is an integrated humanities approach somehow better?

How did we get here? Prior to the Education Reform Act of 1988, there is evidence that many schools were teaching an integrated Humanities curriculum, often called social sciences (Matheson and Matheson, 2000:51). In the 1960s and 1970s the philosophical work of Peters (1966) and Hirst (1974) appears to have dominated thinking in the UK about the nature and structure of the curriculum. They presented a case for a content-based curriculum consisting of forms of knowledge that were regarded as intrinsically worthwhile. This view seemed to provide a justification for a traditional curriculum structured round disciplines or subjects. Being educated, according to this model, required initiation into the various forms of knowledge which each had their own central organising concepts and characteristic methods of investigation that had been developed over time. It was perhaps unsurprising that the 1988 Education Reform Act marked a significant shift in the development of the curriculum in England and Wales, since it divided the whole of the curriculum under ten subject headings (Religious Education was omitted but is mandatory, so can be regarded as an eleventh subject). Such subjects organise knowledge, both theoretical and practical, in particular ways (see, for example, Aldrich, 1998). Curriculum Philosophy? In discussing the primary curriculum, Blenkin and Kelly (1987) distinguish two philosophies in ones approach to curriculum design - traditional and empiricist: For the traditionalist, curriculum integration transgresses certain canons of logic and the requirements imposed by the structure of knowledge itself (Blenkin & Kelly 1987:151). This argument is based on a rationalist view of knowledge and only has validity: if we accept the view that the central concerns of the curriculum are to transmit certain kinds of valuable knowledge and to do this in such a way as to make clear to pupils that they are divided up into certain timeless and discrete forms of rationality . (Blenkin and Kelly 1987:151). Hirst, for example, sees knowledge as being organised into several discrete forms of understanding (Hirst 1974:48), while Phenix (1964:6) talks of six realms of meaning which he categorises as symbolics, empirics, esthetics, synnoetics, ethics, and synoptics. Empiricists, however, claim that subjects: should not be seen as the base from which the curriculum is organised, that such divisions should be natural and make sense to the child in the organisation of his/her knowledge and not presented as derived from some notion of subjects, disciplines or 'forms' (Blenkin and Kelly 1987:151).

In reality, there is clear political backing of specialisation (the traditionalist approach) . This is manifested in the structures and content of GCSE syllabi and the perpetuation of subject divides in government initiatives (e.g. the controversy over the EBacc and the omission of Citizenship and Religious Education from what counts) (http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/qualifications/b00231686/englishbaccalaureate-information-for-schools/ebacc-subjects [accessed 20th February 2014] and, for example, http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jun/25/religious-studies-ebacc-exclusion [accessed 20th February, 2014]). Another important example is the emphasis on specialization in the PGCE; i.e. the political and social structure imposes a particular ideology on curriculum inimical to our view of education as process (Blenkin and Kelly 1987:148). All of which appears perpetuated by the National Curriculum structure (current and impending from September, 2014) which regards subjects as bodies of knowledge that somehow have to be transferred to the consciousness of the learner rather than as media for the development of his/her intellectual or cognitive capacities (Blenkin and Kelly 1987:148) Alternatives? An alternative of interest in my research is the process model of curriculum (more along the empiricist lines) proposed by Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) which itself was influenced by the earlier work of Bruner (1966) (see also Nuffield, 2008). Bruner had articulated a course: Man: a Course of Study, which draws upon a range of disciplines (history, geography, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, religious education) to help young people understand humanity and the forces which shaped it and continue to do so. The three questions posed by Bruner, to which different humanistic disciplines contributed, were: What is human about human beings? How did they get that way? How can they be made more so?

These questions transcend the subject disciplines, but the tools for answering the questions lie in those disciplines. Rudduck (1988) writes that Stenhouse wrote about curriculum development not as an observer, but as an engaged practitioner following his major commission from the Nuffield Foundation in 1967 for a Humanities Curriculum Project. According to Rudduck (1988:32), the humanities for Stenhouse, had a central place in the curriculum because they represented a route to individual emancipation. Very much includenced by Brumers work, for Stenhouses Humanities Curriculum Project (conducted in 1967), this involved the teaching of controversial human issues where teachers could not claim authority on the basis of their subject training (Stenhouse, 1975:30-31). The form and direction of enquiry had to be flexible and open-ended, rather than pre-determined, so that the potential for growth and development was maximised, which meant that the outcomes could be unpredictable. Process curricula are based upon intrinsic principles and procedures rather than upon extrinsic objectives. Typically, they are premised on a view of what an autonomous adult should be and learning process (often dialogical, inquiry-based and experiential) that may serve as the route to achieving this state. According Kelly (1999), a process curriculum is fundamentally a curriculum based upon democratic values, comprising a set of structured activities enabling students to practice citizenship, to develop reflexivity and the capacity to question; a curriculum to enable students to 'come into presence' as unique individuals. Bernstein (cited in Kelly, 1999) identifies three fundamental rights of students that are potentially served by a process curriculum: individual enhancement, inclusion and participation.

Summarising some of the arguments for / against subject silos

For Specialisation leads to development in distinct pedagogies? One ought also to be mindful of lessons from the introduction of Citizenship, which is often taught across multiple subjects (Hayward & Jerome, 2010) and a cross curricular dimension. As Hayward and Jerome (2010:216) indicate, the divided curriculum has inspired much thought and development of pedagogic practice in each area as a distinct area of the curriculum: different teaching methods which established a unique set of recognition and realisation rules for each subject area (Hayward & Jerome, 2010:216), distinct rooms and equipment and the type of discourse in each subject would vary. In consequence, pupils had a very clear idea of what subject they were experiencing and the sort of knowledge and skills it involved ((Hayward & Jerome, 2010:216). Losing the structure of the silos might diminish opportun ities for learning in this area. Silos encourage specialisation, which is beneficial for teaching and learning? With less specialists, it is possible that there may be a detrimental impact on teaching and learning (Kelly, 1982) i.e. we would need to employ experts in Religious Education, History, Geography AND Citizenship, which seems a tall order. Preparation for public exams? Specialising early helps children to get into distinguishable mind frames for different subjects which may aid them when undertaking GCSEs? The new EBacc will encourage separate History / Geography curricula (rather than integrated). Marginalised subjects may become even more marginalized / disappear with integration? Subjects such as Citizenship and Religious Education fight hard for their existence and contribution. With an integrated Humanities curriculum, might these aspects disappear altogether? Against The fiction of specialist teachers? The All Party Parliamentary Group on Religious Education (APPG, 2013) found that more than 50% of teachers teaching Religious Education in England and Wales were not specialized in that subject nor had particular experience in that field. Also, the backgrounds of those entering PGCE Citizenship programmes is very wide: Hayward and Jerome (2010) state that, in 2010, the last 100 students starting the Citizenship PGCE at the IOE had first degrees in a vast range of subjects from sport to criminology. How specialist are these teachers really?

Silos do not address needs of all topics? Kelly argues out that some themes can only be dealt with in an integrated curriculum: No adequate examination of racial problems or relations between the sexes, for example, can be undertaken within any one discipline (Kelly 1978:91). Inequitable centralization of power? With increased integration, there may be a power shift towards central figures in curriculum design rather than being devolved to specialists (Kelly 1982:70)

Having to work with the political status quo? Given the current political reality, radical change to curriculum structures is unlikely. There have been moves towards cross curricular links which express an idea that, for example, moral or citizenship learning might occur in a range of subjects. Is this sufficient?

Fragmented learning? Pring (1976:102) describes the subject-based curriculum as fragmented, apathy-inducing, artificially restricting, unrelated, irrelevant and duplicating. He suggests three reasons for advocating an integrated curriculum: (i) respect for the varied mental activities of pupils; (ii) recognition of the commonsense language and understandings through which pupils already engage in this mental life and to which the more disciplined modes of enquiry must be related; and (iii) the need for a more flexible and cooperative teaching framework. (Pring 1976:120) Integration more democratic? Kelly (1982) suggests that the integrated curriculum is part of a move towards a more 'open' society in which knowledge is freely available. The effect of this is seen in schools: when subject boundaries are strongly maintained, the organisation of the institution remains firmly in the hands of the Head and the heads of the subject departments (Kelly 1982:69). He also suggests that curriculum integration produces a different epistemological attitude in children - a greater willingness to share and collaborate, link ideas and make distinctions.

References
APPG (2013) Report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Religious Education The Truth Unmasked, London: HMSO Blenkin G.M. and Kelly A.V. (1987) The primary curriculum: a process approach to curriculum planning London: Harper and Row Bousted, M. & Davies, I. (1993) Bridge That Gap: Are There Opportunities For History And English Teachers To Work Together? Teaching History, No. 71, pp 10-15. Broadbent, L. (2000). Values Education, Citizenship and the contribution of RE. Teaching Values and Citizenship Across the Curriculum. R. Bailey. Brown, M. & Davies, I. (1998) The Holocaust And Education For Citizenship: The Teaching Of History, Religion And Human Rights In England, Educational Review, 50:1, pp 75-83. Bruner, J., 1966, Man: a course of study, in Towards a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University Press Burke, D. (2003) Death And The Holocaust: The Challenge To Learners And The Need For Support, Journal Of Beliefs & Values: Studies In Religion & Education , 24:1, pp 53-65. Carrington, B. & Short, G. (1997) Holocaust Education, Anti-Racism And Citizenship Educational Review, 49, 3, pp 271-82 Day , D. & Burton, L. (1996) Teaching About The Holocaust: RE Appeals For Help From Theology, in Astley, J. & Francis, L.J. (eds) Christian Theology And Religious Education, pp 198213 (SPCK, London). DFE (2013) The 2014 National Curriculum London:HMSO Foster, S. & Mercier, C. (2000) Teaching The Holocaust Through Religious Education in Davies, I. (ed) Teaching The Holocaust: Educational Dimensions, Principles And Practice, pp 151162, London, Continuum. Hargreaves, A. (1991) Contrived Collegiality: Micropolitics Of Teacher Collaboration in The Politics Of Life In Schools ed. Blaise, J., Sage, London. Hayward, J. & Jerome, L. (2010) Staffing, Status and Subject Knowledge: What does the construction of citizenship as a new curriculum subject in England tell us about the nature of school subjects ? Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 36(2). Hector, S. (2000) Teaching The Holocaust In England in Teaching the Holocaust, Davies. I. (ed), London: Continuum. Hirst PH (1974) Moral education in a secular society London: University of London Press HMSO (1988) Education Reform Act of 1988 London:HMSO IOE (2009) (Pettigrew, A., Salmons, P., Foster, S. and Howson, J. of the Institute of Education) Teaching about the Holocaust in English Secondary Schools: An empirical study of national trends, perspectives and practice , Institute of Education, London. Kelly A.V. (1982) The curriculum: theory and practice London: Harper and Row Kelly, A.V. (1978) Mixed-ability grouping London: Harper and Row Lindquist, D. H. (2008) Five perspectives for teaching the Holocaust American Secondary Education, 36(3), pp 414. Matheson and Matheson (2000) Educational Issues in the Learning Age, Bloomsbury Publishing Misco, T. (2009) Teaching the Holocaust through case study The Social Studies, 100(1), pp 1422. Nuffield (2008) Review of 14-19 Education and Training, England and Wales issues paper 8: 14-19 Curriculum: the Humanities. Nuffield Peters, R.S. (1966) Ethics and Education London: Allen and Unwin Phenix PH (1964) Realms of meaning: a philosophy of the curriculum for general education New York: McGraw-Hill Pring R (1976) Knowledge and schooling Wells: Open Books QCA (2007) The National Curriculum, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London RE Council (2013) A Curriculum Framework for Religious Education in England, The Religious Education Council of England and Wales: London Rudduck, J. (1988) 'Changing the world of the classroom by understanding it: A review of some aspects of the work of Lawrence Stenhouse', Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Vol 4, 1 pp30-42 Scott, A. (1991). Skills for Religious Education. Planning RE in Schools . Evans-Lowndes. Derby, Christian Education Movement: 14-15. Short, G. (2001) Confronting the Holocaust in Religious Education Journal of Beliefs and Values 22, No.1, pp 4154. Short, G., C. Supple, et al. (1998). The Holocaust in the School Curriculum: A European perspective . Germany, Council of Europe Publishing. Stenhouse, L.(1975) Introduction to Curriculum Development and Research , London: Heinemann, passim Totten, S. (1997) A note: Why teach about the Holocaust? Canadian Social Studies, 31(6), pp 176-177. Whitty, G., Rowe, G. & Aggleton, P. (1994) Subjects And Themes In The Secondary School Curriculum in Research Papers In Education, Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp 159-181