Curriculum choice, flexibility and differentiation 14–19: the way forward or flawed prospectus?

Abstract

This article explores the policy and practice of choice, flexibility and differentiation within the 14–19 curriculum in England. After first locating these issues within contemporary curriculum policy it adopts a historical analysis tracing perspectives and practice since 1945. This narrative exposes complex oscillation in policy and practice in relation to curricular choice and differentiation, especially for 14–16 year olds. The paper ends by raising parallels between current and past policy and practice and suggests the need to engage in a more fundamental and informed curriculum dialogue in relation to choice, flexibility and differentiation.

Curriculum theory, curriculum policy and the problem of ill‐disciplined thinking

“…What is worrying about this trend is a growing division and disparity within and particularly between schools regarding access to areas of the curriculum -a pattern equally visible in Higham and Yeomans' (2007) broader analysis of trends within 14-19 provision. The introduction of pathways often serves to 'lock' pupils into given academic/vocational subject trajectories, while the trend among academies in particular, but evident too in significant numbers of state-maintained comprehensive to give less space to history in the curriculum is likely to lead to many students, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, losing their entitlement to learning about the past -learning intended to inform and enrich 'their capacity to make sense of the world in which they live and their place within it'; to 'help them 'develop their own identities'; and to 'equip them to participate in a democratic society' (QCA 2007a).…”

Thirty years of 14–19 education and training in England: reflections on policy, curriculum and organisation

“…Its simplest manifestation has been as a threetrack system comprising broad academic, vocational and occupationalist pathways. In practice the number, breadth and rigidity of the pathways has varied considerably across schools and partnerships which have taken this approach (Higham and Yeomans 2007a). However, the notion that directing learners into pathways at age 14 will improve retention, achievement and progression has achieved support within schools and colleges being seen as a means of catering to different abilities and aptitudes (Harris and Burn 2011;Higham and Yeomans 2006).…”

“…However, this common curriculum was never implemented and there was a gradual, persistent retreat from commonality (Higham and Yeomans 2007a). The New Labour period of 14-19 reform gave particular emphasis to the importance of choice.…”

“…The first of these concerned the retreat in both policy and practice from the initial comprehensive national curriculum for 14-to 16-year-olds. We have written about this elsewhere (Higham and Yeomans 2007a) and will not repeat that analysis here. However, by reducing prescription for 14-to 16-year-olds this retreat created some curriculum policy space at both national and institutional levels within which the notion of a 14-19 phase might be revived.…”

Desarrollo curricular en una comunidad de práctica – principios implementados en el ámbito del proyecto IPEC

“…Desenvolvimento curricular numa comunidade de prática -princípios operacionalizados no âmbito do Projeto IPEC Numa análise da literatura sobre flexibilidade curricular (e.g., Gould, 2012;Higham & Yeomans, 2007;Trindade, Carmo, & Bidarra, 2000), embora esta seja recomendada, não se encontraram trabalhos que a caracterizem e que permitam reconhecê-la quando ocorre. Contudo, ao nível da dimensão centrada no aluno, é possível inferir alguns aspetos da flexibilidade curricular, como identificar níveis de sucesso académico corrente para adequar o ensino alinhado com esses níveis (Gould, 2012); negociar tarefas/ produtos/etc.…”