Just read an interesting piece by Jim Belben over on the Hodder History blog.
I first met Jim some years ago now, around 2005 when I was working at an event at the RGS-IBG for the Guardian of all folk. I was doing some software reviewing and educational website work, and also linked with the newish (at the time) National Strategies Geography materials.
It was also good to see my blog referenced as one place to go to see the Geography response...
Head over to the GA's website to have your say in the consultation.
An excellent recent addition by Margaret Roberts.
"Alex Standish's curriculum would in my opinion, be disastrous for geographical education. It is extremely dated in that it takes no account of the developments in academic geography and geographical education that have taken place in the last 50 years. His human geography takes no account of, for example, human agency in decision making, conflicting viewpoints on what should be done, on the political and economic contexts in which these decisions are made and of the way places are represented and understood. His physical geography takes no account the complex interplay between human action and physical processes; rivers, coasts, hazards can be managed and are influenced by human action. He does not include thinking on environmental issues. Standish’s geography is simplistic, is mainly descriptive and lacks intellectual rigour.
Geographical education in England currently goes beyond Standish’s description and factor analysis and has developed investigative approaches which enable students to study a wide range of complex issues through the analysis and interpretation of evidence, presented not only on maps, but in statistics, graphs, text, photographs and film.
There are several reasons why a dated curriculum would matter.
First, school geography would become even more detached from the academic discipline and would not be able to benefit from constructive liaison between academic and school geographers. It would stagnate.
Second, it would become difficult to attract good geography graduates into teaching as they would not be able to make use of the subject knowledge gained during their degree course and contribute to the development of the curriculum
Third, children and students in school would find this curriculum unrelated to the lives they lead and to the way they encounter the world through the media. For example, how would knowing about ‘hamlets’ or ‘linear settlements’ or ‘central place theory’ increase students’ understanding of UK's urban areas? Students would find this curriculum irrelevant and boring.
Fourth, the respect that many countries, e.g. Singapore, have for the English geography curriculum and geographical education would be lost. Many geography educators, internationally, would greet a curriculum based on Standish’s ideas with disbelief or ridicule.
Fifth, the Standish curriculum would not enable students to develop an understanding of the major issues we face in the 21st century: globalisation; global warming; increasing urbanisation; use of water and resources; energy supply; feeding the world’s population; huge national and global inequalities; fragile ecosystems and environmental change; local, national and international conflicts.
In my view the Standish curriculum is a stagnant curriculum and every effort should be made to prevent it having any influence on the new geography national curriculum. For the complex demands of the 21st century, we need a geography curriculum which is informed by the latest academic thinking in geography and which excites and engages young people and develops their understanding of the changing and complex world in which they are growing up and in which they will live their adult lives."
I first met Jim some years ago now, around 2005 when I was working at an event at the RGS-IBG for the Guardian of all folk. I was doing some software reviewing and educational website work, and also linked with the newish (at the time) National Strategies Geography materials.
It was also good to see my blog referenced as one place to go to see the Geography response...
Head over to the GA's website to have your say in the consultation.
An excellent recent addition by Margaret Roberts.
"Alex Standish's curriculum would in my opinion, be disastrous for geographical education. It is extremely dated in that it takes no account of the developments in academic geography and geographical education that have taken place in the last 50 years. His human geography takes no account of, for example, human agency in decision making, conflicting viewpoints on what should be done, on the political and economic contexts in which these decisions are made and of the way places are represented and understood. His physical geography takes no account the complex interplay between human action and physical processes; rivers, coasts, hazards can be managed and are influenced by human action. He does not include thinking on environmental issues. Standish’s geography is simplistic, is mainly descriptive and lacks intellectual rigour.
Geographical education in England currently goes beyond Standish’s description and factor analysis and has developed investigative approaches which enable students to study a wide range of complex issues through the analysis and interpretation of evidence, presented not only on maps, but in statistics, graphs, text, photographs and film.
There are several reasons why a dated curriculum would matter.
First, school geography would become even more detached from the academic discipline and would not be able to benefit from constructive liaison between academic and school geographers. It would stagnate.
Second, it would become difficult to attract good geography graduates into teaching as they would not be able to make use of the subject knowledge gained during their degree course and contribute to the development of the curriculum
Third, children and students in school would find this curriculum unrelated to the lives they lead and to the way they encounter the world through the media. For example, how would knowing about ‘hamlets’ or ‘linear settlements’ or ‘central place theory’ increase students’ understanding of UK's urban areas? Students would find this curriculum irrelevant and boring.
Fourth, the respect that many countries, e.g. Singapore, have for the English geography curriculum and geographical education would be lost. Many geography educators, internationally, would greet a curriculum based on Standish’s ideas with disbelief or ridicule.
Fifth, the Standish curriculum would not enable students to develop an understanding of the major issues we face in the 21st century: globalisation; global warming; increasing urbanisation; use of water and resources; energy supply; feeding the world’s population; huge national and global inequalities; fragile ecosystems and environmental change; local, national and international conflicts.
In my view the Standish curriculum is a stagnant curriculum and every effort should be made to prevent it having any influence on the new geography national curriculum. For the complex demands of the 21st century, we need a geography curriculum which is informed by the latest academic thinking in geography and which excites and engages young people and develops their understanding of the changing and complex world in which they are growing up and in which they will live their adult lives."
Comments