The Redland Papers ISSN 1360 1334 - Issue Number 3, Autumn Term 1995Contents:

Preface: Kate Ashcroft

Gillian Beardsley with Sue Slocombe: Emerging Issues in Primary Partnerships

Roger Crombie White: The Youth Award Scheme: A celebration of professional practice

Richard Eke and Terry Taylor: Work in Progress: Photography, Partnership and Primary Education

Josephine Eliot - The Renewal of the Education System in Slovakia: Reflections on two Western European funded initiatives

Tor Foster - You Don't Have to Be Female to Succeed on This Course, But it Helps

Penelope Harnett - The Development of the History Curriculum in State Primary Schools in Twentieth Century England

David James - Universal Teacher Education for the FE Sector: Whatever next?

Don Kimber - Infant Children's Awareness and Perceptions of Curriculum, Assessment and Learning in School

Lynn Raphael Reed - Working With Boys: A new research agenda

PrefaceAs the new Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of the West of England, Bristol. I am delighted to write the preface to the third issue of The Redland Papers, especially as it represents a relaunch, following a considerable investment of time and energy from the Co-ordinating Editor, David James, and his editorial team. The Redland Papers is now presented as a refereed journal that focuses on the needs and interests of professional educators, in a smart new format.

The newly presented journal has certainly succeeded in its aim to attract high quality contributions that include analysis of existing practice, critical discussion, accounts of new ideas and methods and reviews of developments and controversial issues, as well as reports of original research.

In this edition, the contributions come from staff at the University of the West of England, Bristol. The editors wish to encourage contributions from other professional educators, especially teachers from schools and colleges. If you are presently doing an MEd dissertation, have participated in the evaluation of a curriculum or other development of have undertaken some action research in a school, college or other educational environment and have found the results interesting, you might wish to consider whether others might be interested also. Equally, you may be aware of an educational idea or issue that needs critical analysis. Whatever you decide to contribute, you will need to articulate your ideas within an analytical framework. If you are unsure about the suitability of an idea, or the process of working up an idea or project into an article, the Co-ordinating Editor will be glad of offer you advice.

As I read the excellent articles in this edition of The Redland Papers, I was struck by the diversity of the contributions and also by the common theme of partnership that runs through them. Many of the articles focus upon the collaborative work of teachers in schools, tutors in higher education, pupils in schools and student teachers, but they also draw on partnerships between the university and the Watershed Media Centre, the Arts Council and South West Arts, universities in Slovakia and teachers in further education.

Gill Beardsley and Sue Slocombe focus on partnership between the university and primary schools in the initial training of teachers. They point to the stresses of such a partnership, but also its rewards. Interestingly, they find that, on the whole, schools do not wish to be more independent of the university, but that they value the contact and support that university tutors can bring. The partnership and the careful evaluation of the way that it is functioning have led to the development of flexibility and diversity in the ways that schools and the university are working together.

Roger Crombie White explores the partnership with teachers that have enabled the Youth Award Scheme to operate in 1500 schools with students within the 14 to 19 age group. The article outlines the way this scheme has developed from the grass roots into a programme that contributes to and

rewards young people's personal and social development and their development of a range of core skills.

Richard Eke and Terry Taylor analyse aspects of a partnership between the Arts Council, UWE Faculty of Education, the Watershed Media Centre, South West Arts and local schools that involves the promotion of visual literacy through photography. The article describes a project in a junior school that enabled the children to develop photographic skills and visual awareness and a parallel project with initial teacher training students. The authors analyse the links between the students' and the children's learning and level descriptors derived from the literature.

Josephine Eliot describes a PHARE initiative in Slovakia focused on the teaching of English and a Tempus project on the development of teaching and learning styles and methods of assessment. She analyses the difficulties of working in a volatile political situation, where values may not be shared, management styles may be non-participative, the initiative may lack systematic co-ordination or partners in the scheme may be ascribed different status or may be the subject of suspicion. The author suggests that foreign aid programmes need to be located within an appropriate management structure to maximise their chances of success.

Tor Foster investigates the reasons behind an apparently higher failure rate for male students within a primary teacher-training programme. She finds that male students are both privileged and disadvantaged. Male students may suffer from being `noticeable' and therefore under pressure to perform well, being excluded from the largely female society in some primary schools, and being the subject of sex stereotyped comments or expectations. On the other hand, male students are sometimes `sponsored' by teachers, see themselves as having something special to offer children, and are more likely to find a first appointment of their choice and are more likely to be promoted within their careers.

Penelope Harnett analyses changes within the written curriculum for history during the twentieth century and the groups that have influenced it. She shows how certain themes re-emerge from time to time. These include the view of history as a way for children to learn about their rights and duties, to develop a national identity and to be introduced to role models through great personalities from the past. She analyses the debate about teaching methods: the ways that notions of relevance, child centredness and integration have developed into a discussion about the role of narrative and knowledge, concept and skill development. She explores the tensions within these debates, the political purposes that underlie the various approaches to content and methods and the ways that views in the ascendancy at the start of the twentieth century relate to those at its close.

David James explores a context for the training of further education teachers that includes the promotion of `quality' through the funding mechanism, the variety of qualifications for further education teachers, the different ways that these are interpreted and valued and the changes in the governance of colleges. He analyses the emerging NVQs for this sector and the potential for

damage to the professional status of lecturers. He goes on to discuss models of teacher education and training and suggests a move away from the pre-technocratic, apprenticeship model to one that is based on competence, but that moves beyond a narrow, behavioural definition of performance to include thinking, capability, reflection, values and certain forms of professional knowledge.

Don Kimber describes an enquiry into what young children make of the curriculum, assessment and learning that they experience in school as a result of the National Curriculum. He finds that most children are unaware of the National Curriculum or of Standard Assessment Tasks. Most are also unaware that they study subjects such as history and geography. Asked about the purposes of schooling, many suggest instrumental ones related to the preparation for adult life or focused on the social learning from working with others. A few see learning as a way to please their teacher or to avoid the embarrassment of ignorance.

In the final paper in this issue, Lynn Raphael Reed considers the current concerns about the education and achievement of boys. She suggests that the problem has been insufficiently analysed and that the focus on boys' problems may be at the expense of those of girls and women. She points to the links between the concern over boys' achievement and worries about their behaviour and that of young men in society at large. She goes on to outline sociological and psychological approaches to boys' experience and concludes that none represents a full explanation of the perceived phenomena of boys' educational failure. She outlines a new agenda that will inform the next phase of her research. This will include an exploration of the ways that gender and sexualities construct (and are constructed in) the interactions between pupils and teachers. She will focus on the definition of `masculinities' and on the notion of masculinity as problematic.

These nine articles represent a little of the diversity of research interests in the Faculty of Education at UWE, Bristol. I am sure that most professional educators will find something here of interest, whether they work in primary, secondary, further or higher education or in other settings with an educational purpose.

Kate Ashcroft

Emerging Issues in Primary PartnershipsGILLIAN BEARDSLEY with SUE SLOCOMBE, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, Bristol.As primary schools become more involved in new modes of partnership with Higher Education, one of the issues arising is the increasing professionalism required by all parties as new roles begin to evolve. DFE Circular 14/93 on the initial training of teachers, requires changes in the balance of responsibility taken by schools and training institutions, greater involvement by teachers and an increasing commitment by both parties in working together to enhance the school experiences of student teachers.

It is the purpose of this paper to consider the extent to which early partnership developments in one institution may be promoting professional development for students, teachers and tutors in this changing culture. The study is set within the context of primary teachers' work and roles since the commencement of the Education Reform Act (1988) and the continuing need for all parties to work within a framework of reflective pedagogy.

The contextThe current context in Primary schools would suggest that teachers have little time to take on extra responsibilities for students in training. The Education Reform Act has had a revolutionary effect on the roles of primary teachers and the ways in which they use their time. As Campbell and Neill (1994) showed, teachers at Key Stage 1 gave large amounts of their time to the implementation of the National Curriculum. In their study of 3255 records of teachers' working days over a four-year period, Campbell and Neill mention the intensity of time management during a school day and teachers' increased contractual responsibility. In 1993 the teachers in the study were spending 54 hours a week on their work. The idea that this might be a temporary state of affairs while the National Curriculum was established has not been supported. In the breakdown of the proportion of time spent on different activities, administration was high on the list coming after teaching and preparation.

However, teacher's professional roles have always included involvement with student teachers and the proposed changes in 14/93 are occurring against a background of greater collaboration and corporate decision making amongst school staff (Pollard et al 1994). The Education Reform Act and subsequent curriculum changes (Dearing 1993) have been the background for the development of whole school policies and plans encouraging teachers to work together. This gives schools opportunities to become more collegiate and to present a unity in decision making which could be valuable when considering their future involvement in teacher training. Discussions by a whole school staff in deciding the particular elements of training they might be involved in could form part of a school development plan and encourage individual professional development. At this early stage in primary partnership

arrangements there is little evidence to suggest that such deliberations are taking place. A recent report on the views of staff in schools concerning current reforms to ITT found very low levels of consultation between headteachers and their staff about a school's involvement in partnerships. The survey carried out by the University of the West of England and the NUT was based on detailed questionnaires returned from 56 primary schools countrywide. The low level of consultation may well have been due to the fact that the study was carried out in the early stages of primary partnership agreements compared with more long standing secondary developments. A positive aspect of the research was that 76.9% of primary co-ordinators felt that involvement in partnerships had `the positive effect of leading teachers to reflect on their own professional practice' (Menter and Whitehead 1995).

These findings raise important issues for tutors in HE in the way they see their role in working with primary schools in developing partnerships. Are there ways in which teachers and HE tutors might be sharing and enhancing one anothers' professional reflection? It would seem that in developing true partnerships both parties need to be appreciating the changes taking place in the other partner's setting as they also reflect on student experiences. The action research reported on in the next section of this paper highlights some of the issues arising and needing to be addressed as partnerships with primary schools begin to evolve.

Primary partnershipsDuring the last two years, primary tutors at the University of the West of England have been involved in extending partnership arrangements with primary schools which include greater involvement by teachers in supervising students and sharing in curriculum development. Our early discussions with head teachers, union representatives and class teachers and our ongoing consultative conferences, provided us with valuable information on the approaches we might use. A major request by schools was for a more consistent use of University personnel in contacts with individual schools and in supervision. Our development of the role of University Link Tutors was an attempt to bring this about. Each Link Tutor works with a small group of schools and as far as possible, supervises all students placed in that school whatever award they may be on, or year they are in. Thus in one school a Link Tutor may have students in their first year of the BA/BSc (Hons) award, some Year 2 students on block school experience (BSE) in their second term and/or Year 3 or PGCE students on their final BSE. There may also be Year 4 students carrying out a research project in the same school.

The University Link Tutor has a growing knowledge of the school and the way it is run and is able to work with senior management in advising on the University programmes, requirements for each school experience and the balance of offerings the school may wish to take up. In some cases one or two University Link Tutors are involved with a cluster of schools and can work with them in identifying and providing professional development.

While these arrangements are still at an early stage, the benefits are already beginning to be apparent in our arrangements with schools for providing

student supervision. Where a school has identified a professional tutor or mentor who is paid by the University in order to supervise students, this person is likely to work very closely with the University link tutor who may also be supervising some of the students in the same school.

Phase 1 of partnershipThe first phase of our partnership arrangements during the Summer term 1994, involved 18 schools and 40 students from both undergraduate and postgraduate awards. Each school identified a professional tutor who was responsible for the supervision of two or more students during their final eight week BSE. All professional tutors attended a training day at the University before the students started their school experience. The professional tutors were provided with supply cover for four observations on each student. A University Tutor made two visits, one early in the block and a second for an observation and mid point review approximately four weeks into the block.

The aim of the first phase was to identify the effectiveness of the support given to students in the pilot schools and to evaluate the experiences of the students, professional tutors, class teachers and university tutors involved. Data was collected from questionnaires sent to all involved at different points in the experience such as after the training day, after the midpoint review and at the end of the BSE. We received responses from 18 professional tutors, 28 of the class teachers, 36 students and 10 University tutors.

In-depth interviews were also carried out with all professional tutors, students and class teachers in six of the schools. We were particularly concerned to find out:

how well informed were the professional tutors in relation to their role?

how effective was their support for the students?

what would the professional tutors wish to add to their knowledge and experiences as a result of their involvement?

The evaluations of the first phase showed that professional tutors valued the closer involvement in University processes and students appreciated having someone in the school who could provide them with a greater understanding of the whole school context. Professional tutors had a good idea of their role but there was felt to be a need for a clearer identification of all roles particularly those of the class teachers who often felt marginalised compared with the involvement they had previously. Several class teachers reported that they would have appreciated talking with the University link tutor as well as the professional tutor early in the BSE in order to iron out any difficulties and establish what was required of them. They were unsure of their roles in relation to the student files and at the mid point review.

In terms of the effectiveness of the supervision provided for students, there were many positive comments from students who appreciated their professional tutor's support in providing `on-the-spot' information and also their knowledge of the children during observations. 76% of the students felt

the pilot enhanced their knowledge of the pupils as the professional tutors knew the children and could engage in discussions on cognitive development and behaviour management for particular individuals. The professional tutor's presence in the classroom did not disturb the balance of the class as an outsider might. More negative responses included lack of time for feedback. Students felt that their development depended very much on the quality of the classroom experience and the feedback given. 89% of professional tutors also reported lack of time as a major concern. They did not always find time for follow up discussions with the students in the hour, which was allowed for observation and feedback and felt torn because of other commitments.

88% of professional tutors requested further guidance on evaluations using competence statements. These were presented in a different format to previous BSEs and needed more explanation and discussion for both professional tutors and University tutors. All professional tutors and students felt there needed to be a continuing liaison with the University tutor particularly in the case of weak or failing students. A typical comment from a professional tutor was:

"The students I have worked with welcomed the project and have been very happy with the outcomes. However if personality clashes or an inability to fit in with the school ethos etc had occurred and all the support had been within the school, this could result in a lot of problems and ill feeling."

A common finding amongst the professional tutors was that their own professional development needed to be a priority if they were to cover the role successfully. This point was reiterated by head teachers who were seeing the role from the school's point of view and felt that the training promised to be sound professional development.

Phase 2 of partnershipIn the second phase of the project it was decided to double the number of schools and students. Some schools from the first phase did not wish to participate as professional tutors had other responsibilities or had moved on. We therefore worked with 21 schools including nine of the original 18. This involved six of the previous professional tutors.

During the second phase the training day was more strategically placed so that professional tutors had all their information before students commenced their serial school visits. We also identified the roles of all concerned and made a list of these roles available to students, schools and University tutors. A module was developed as part of our Modular Programme for Professional Development which enabled professional tutors to explore some of the issues such as observation, feedback, competence's, in more depth. The module was taken up by 12 professional tutors involved in both phases. It was not only seen as valuable in providing accreditation for the work carried out with the students but also in the sharing of experiences and extending the professionalism of all concerned.

Supervision of students

One of the suggestions made by all parties on Phase 1 was that the professional tutor should not be the class teacher with whom the student worked. This recommendation came from 33% of the 28 class teachers, 33% of University tutors and 52% of the 36 students. The students particularly could see the difficulties if they did not get on with a professional tutor who was also the class teacher. In Phase 2 we aimed for professional tutors not to also be class teachers so that they might develop their supervisory role. Unfortunately this was not always possible, particularly in small schools where there were sometimes not more than two or three classes. The professional tutors on Phase 2 suggested that where they were also acting as a class teacher, they could identify another member of staff to be a critical friend for the students so that they always had another person to turn to within the school.

Another issue, which arose from student feedback in Phase 1, was the nature of comments and observations as the school experience developed. Some students felt they received a wider view of children's learning from University tutors, which enabled them move further in developing their reflection on classroom skills. This was particularly true for students who were judged to be or felt they were doing well. They said they gained more from comments made at the mid point review where more in depth discussions could take place.

In Phase 2 of the project we attempted to address this through examining feedback forms and the kind of feedback that might be appropriate at different points within the BSE. Our professional tutors were particularly concerned to follow this through and it was a major anxiety for many. They also made valuable suggestions, which included:

making notes during the session and then using the list of competences to inform the comments being made;

always including goal setting for the following week.

One professional tutor who continued with the Professional Development module developed an observation checklist based on her own experience and on check lists examined on the course. She used this while making observations and used the data for identifying areas of focus and future goals for the students.

Many schools were happy with the arrangements and felt they worked well as long as the students were making appropriate progress. They were very concerned about procedures for students who might be in danger of failing. On the Phase 2 training day and in our documentation to schools we clarified our procedures for students who might be giving cause for concern. These included additional visits by a different University tutor and by an external examiner if this was felt to be necessary. In Phase 2 this system did appear to work reasonably well even though the time involved for all concerned was commented on in evaluations.

Professionalism and ways forward

We began this paper by commenting on the need for growing professionalism and reflection on practice by both schools and higher education institutions (HEIs) as they work more closely in partnership. The concept of `reflective teaching' has become very much part of the discourse used in teacher education. The work of Schon (1983), Pollard and Tann (1987; 1993) Calderhead and Gates (1993) all explore and encourage critical thinking in the examination of theoretical and practical elements of classroom practice. Tabachnick (1991) challenges the common use of the concept of 'reflective teaching' which he suggests often masks `important differences in specific practices'. It may well be that schools and HEIs or students, teachers and tutors need to be conversant with appropriate areas for reflection and appreciate that these may differ and change as a teaching experience develops.

Students in Phase 2 mentioned the need for discussions in relation to their theoretical knowledge of how children learn. This was an element also noted by Dunne and Dunne (1993) who found students particularly valued the cognitive aspects of the supervisory role, which included analysis of practice. The professional tutor role was seen as valuable in the detailed discussions students were able to have in 'analysing classroom events in relation to a set of critical statements', Tabachnick (1991). This may be rather different to the kinds of observations, which give a running record of what has taken place. As partnerships develop it seems clear that students appreciate both and that professional tutors and University tutors might need to review their practice in making sure that they can offer distinct kinds of feedback as students mature in their knowledge and understanding of classroom processes.

Tabachnick (1991) concludes that it is only:

"through the shared experience and perspective of engaged participants in the reflective process, that teacher educators learn what reflection means for themselves and for their students, including some of the meanings of the action that reflection generates."

It would seem that these early stages of developing partnership show how much both HEIs and schools need to understand different requirements. Managing the classroom environment, pupil behaviour and pupil learning are inextricably linked and students have to bring all of these areas together in a very short time. Already we are looking at ways of clarifying our procedures so that serial school days provide students with the information and strategies they may require for managing and contributing to the quality of pupil's learning. At the same time our teacher colleagues are becoming more involved in the expectations of different courses and in students' school based tasks. Their suggestions are valuable and show a growing appreciation of how they are engaging in the process of enhancing students professional awareness as teachers.

Our conclusions so far suggest the need for a very flexible approach to partnership, which allows for diversity rather than uniformity. Each school setting has unique as well as common features, which need to be recognised when negotiating placements for students at different stages in their course.

For schools, this means a clearer identification of roles and time commitments as teachers become more involved and recognise how they might offer different kinds of expertise.

As HEIs provide schools with financial remuneration, University tutors have a major role in helping schools to identify the kinds of partnership arrangements, which would be most appropriate in terms of time and expertise. This is a much more demanding than former models of supervision. It requires collaboration, negotiation and sensitivity to the needs of students and teachers in the enhancement of professional skills for all concerned. In examining the evolving nature of primary partnerships it also becomes clear that where financial arrangements are involved there is an even greater investment required by schools and higher education in ensuring that the reflective nature of supervision is maintained.

AcknowledgementsGrateful thanks are due to all the teacher tutors, class teachers, students and University tutors who participated in the project.

ReferencesCALDERHEAD, J and GATES, P (1993) Conceptualising Reflection in Teacher Development. London, Falmer Press

CAMPBELL, J and NEILL, S (1994) Primary Teachers at Work. London, Routledge

DFE (1988) The Education Reform Act. HMSO, Department for Education

DFE (1993) The Training of Primary School Teachers (DfE Circular 14/93) Department for Education

DEARING, R (1993) The National Curriculum and its Assessment: Final Report. London, School Curriculum Assessment Authority

DUNNE, R and DUNNE, E (1993) `The Purpose and Impact of School-based Work: The Supervisor's Role' in Bennett, N and Carre, C (1993) Learning to Teach. Routledge

MENTER, I and WHITEHEAD, J (1995) Learning the Lessons. Reform in Initial Teacher Education. London, National Union of Teachers.

POLLARD, A and TANN, S (1987, 1993) Reflective Teaching in the Primary School. London, Cassell.

POLLARD, A, BROADFOOT, P, CROLL, P, OSBORN, M and ABBOTT, D (1994) Changing English Primary Schools? The impact of the Education Reform Act at Key Stage One. London, Cassell.

SCHON, D.A (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. London. Temple Smith.

TABACHNICK, R (1991) `Reflections on Reflective Teaching' in Zeichner, K.M and Tabachnick, R eds Issues and Practices in Inquiry-oriented Teacher Education. London, Palmer Press.

The Youth Award Scheme: A celebration of professional practiceROGER CROMBIE WHITE, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, BristolIntroductionThe Youth Award Scheme is a remarkable curriculum phenomenon of the 1980s and 1990s. From its origins in one Devon school in the early 80s, it has become the largest personal and social education programme for the 14-19 age group in England and Wales. The Scheme is run from offices within the University of the West of England's Faculty of Education, reflecting the influence on its evolution of groups of creative teachers attending CAPSE courses at Redland between 1987 and 1991. This paper attempts to explore and explain some of the reasons for the Award Scheme's success, with reference to the wider context of curriculum development and professional autonomy. The ideas in this paper will be further researched and developed for a book to be published by Open University Press in autumn 1996, entitled Curriculum Innovation.

Devised, initiated, implemented and organised entirely by the profession, the Youth Award Scheme now operates in one third of the secondary schools in England and Wales, with 100,000 young people in the 14-19 age group registered for various levels. It straddles the pre- and post-16 experience of students by offering a progressive series of awards at Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum levels. To achieve each level young people are encouraged to complete assignments from a menu of challenges within `areas of activity' that include International Relations, World of Work, The Community, Economic and Industrial Affairs, Science and Technology, Expressive Arts, Health and Survival, Information Handling, The Environment, Industry and Technology, Home Management, Sport and Leisure. This whole suite of awards provides a `curriculum enrichment' programme in its own right, as well as a mechanism for assessing and accrediting core skill competence at NCVQ related levels 1-4.

In 1985 the Youth Award Scheme was running in just one school in one LEA, yet by 1995, 1500 schools and colleges in 84 LEAs were registered for various levels of the award scheme, with the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service highlighting the significance of the award in its guidance notes to schools and colleges relating to university entrance (UCAS 1995).

Of course there have been a number of other important curriculum initiatives for the 14-19 age group in the last ten years. In addition to GCSE the GNVQ is perhaps the most well known, with 200,000 students registered for the various levels. Alongside this BTEC, CGLI, RSA, and other awarding bodies accredit a range of courses, and programmes like Project Trident, Young Enterprise and Crest Awards have been introduced in a large number of schools (Crombie White, Pring and Brockington 1995 p 18).

However, when the history of curriculum development in the closing decades of the 20th century is written, the Youth Award Scheme is likely to stand apart from all the others, distinguished by factors that make it unique. Its uniqueness and its success generate a number of fascinating questions.

For instance, how is it that one teacher's idea for enhancing the extra curricular experience of students in a south Devon comprehensive in the early 80s has become transformed into the largest national programme for accreditation of `core skills' alongside GNVQs? How has this happened without ongoing development funds from the large examination boards or from statutory bodies like SCAA or the Department of Employment? And how is it that in an era when curriculum development is increasingly becoming centrally directed and controlled, with millions being spent on glossy brochures and advertising, schools and colleges are signing up in their hundreds for an initiative that mostly relies on `word of mouth' for its publicity?

There have been no `national launches', no centre page feature advertisements in the educational press, and no interviews with Peter Hobday or Sue Macgregor on Today. Yet each year the take up of the scheme has continued along an exponential curve. In seeking explanations for this phenomenon and drawing out lessons from a study of this initiative, it seems appropriate to examine the changing context of curriculum development in England and Wales, alongside the notion of professional autonomy.

The Centralised Curriculum and the De-centred ProfessionalVarious writers (such as Lawton 1984, Skilbeck 1984, Whitty 1985, Dale 1990, Tomlinson 1992 and Pring 1995) have analysed the shift towards a more centralised control of the curriculum since the second world war, which culminated in the 1988 Education Act and the provision of a `national curriculum' for the 5-16 age group.

There is a strong sense of history repeating itself as parallels are drawn with what became known as `payment by results' for state schools in 1862. Although this system was abolished in 1895, central control of the secondary school curriculum was not actually relaxed until the 1944 Education Act. There followed a period of about thirty years during which the responsibility for curriculum issues lay largely with schools and teachers. The public examination system and parental expectations both set some substantial limits on this professional autonomy, but teachers retained (and exercised) considerable control over what they taught in the classroom (Kirk 1985).

During the 60s and early 70s, alongside the expanding programme of comprehensivisation, teachers were encouraged to take initiative for curriculum development. The Schools Council, established by the Labour government in 1964, was an independent organisation charged with the responsibility of promoting, managing and monitoring curriculum development in schools (Morrell 1966). Since its management group had a majority of teachers, the profession exercised considerable influence over every aspect of the school curriculum. As well as providing a vehicle for the dissemination

of `good practice' between and amongst schools and colleges, the Schools Council initiated and funded remarkable curriculum development programmes of its own. Some like Lawrence Stenhouse's Humanities Curriculum Project (Stenhouse 1967) or Peter McPhail's Moral Education Project quickly gained a national reputation for excellence.

Around this time the introduction of the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE), with its Mode 3 regulations, provided an opportunity for teachers to devise and examine their own syllabuses in subject areas of their own choosing.

In 1970 I took up my first post teaching Science and Drama in a secondary school whose catchment area included the sons and daughters of the scientists who worked at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment near Aldermaston. Splitting atoms in the classroom was child's play for such a group! Despite parental pressure, the Head steadfastly refused to sanction O levels within the school. CSEs were the order of the day, and the whole staff team was encouraged to write and submit Mode 3 versions for approval by the local CSE board.

Those were heady days indeed for a new recruit to the profession! Individual teachers had the power to design a course and its assessment framework, the responsibility for delivering the content in whatever way they chose, and the opportunity to sharpen judgement about standards through discussion with other teachers at the regional moderation of candidates' work. Professional autonomy had a real ring to it then. Although research into Mode 3 CSEs has indicated that they were often perceived as of less worth than the more traditional O levels, (Whitty 1983), there were some remarkable whole school responses to this opportunity which transformed the educational experience and sense of achievement of many students.

However, ten years on from the Schools Council's inception, the oil crisis of 1974 and the upward spiral of youth unemployment generated pressures for a more centralised control of curriculum development. James Callaghan's Ruskin College speech, in which he challenged the relevance to the world of work of much of what was being taught in secondary schools, heralded the dawn of a new relationship between the government and the profession (Callaghan 1976, 1987). This represented a significant shift in ministerial attitude to curriculum control. No longer was the profession to be entrusted with the sort of privileged influence it had enjoyed since the emergence of the Schools Council. The days when a Secretary of State for Education could declare, as George Tomlinson did in 1947, that `the Minister knows nowt about the curriculum' were over (Kirk 1985). Shirley Williams' criticism that schools were paying insufficient attention to respect for industry and wealth creation, was echoed by others:

"It has in recent years become a `truth universally acknowledged' that education should be more closely linked to the world of work and with the country's economic performance, and there has been increasing pressure on schools to assess the relevance of their curriculum to their pupils' future working lives." (HMI 1982).

The emphasis was on `Economic Utility' (Bailey 1984), and it led directly to a number of work related curriculum initiatives, such as TVEI, SCIP, Mini enterprise and Young Enterprise and, ultimately, a national framework for the accreditation of work related competences - with NCVQ as the quality controller.

At the same time as elevating the significance of the `enterprise culture' the current government has legislated for more control from the centre. The changes represented by the 1988, 1992 and 1993 Education Acts have given the Secretary of State unprecedented powers to decide what should be in the curriculum, how it should be assessed, and how the results of the assessments should be reported.

These centrally directed curriculum developments have had a bearing on the position of teachers. Although the `autonomous professional' is a cherished concept, (enshrined in the 1944 Education Act's notion of `partnership' between LEAs, central government and teachers) it has taken a battering in recent years - compounded by the imposition of contractual duties through the Teachers Pay and Conditions Act of 1987 (Ozga 1989).

The partnership is now between government prescribing very detailed regulations about what should be learnt, parents who have been given, in theory at least, the power to choose from a diversity of schools, and employers through sponsorship and membership of governing bodies and Education Business Partnerships.

"Parents know best the needs of their children - certainly better than educational theorists or administrators, better even than our mostly excellent teachers." (DFE 1992).

As the 80s came to a close the rout of the profession was nearing completion. Teachers who had struggled to implement the GCSE were now being required to address programmes of study and attainment targets in the National Curriculum. Records of Achievement were in the ascendancy and Local Management of Schools (LMS) was focusing minds wonderfully on squeezing quarts from pint pots. Teachers were screaming against initiative overload.

And yet, despite all this surrounding turmoil, the germination phase of the Youth Award Scheme had been completed.

The Emergence of the Award SchemeFollowing publication of In and Out of School (White and Brockington 1978), the Schools Council agreed to fund a dissemination programme for the authors to promote the `social and community education' ideas espoused in the book. Between 1980 and 1982 a series of regional conferences were staged around the UK. One of these, in Exeter in 1981, led to the setting up of a 14-18 curriculum working party chaired by Richard Pring at Exeter University. The principal aim of the group was to share and spread `good practice' amongst the participating schools and colleges in Devon.

Concurrently a local trust was persuaded to make £2,000 available for assisting with the development of selected initiatives. I had the pleasurable task of sharing out the funds, which meant visiting each of the schools involved. The deputy head of one of the Exeter schools, Brian Fletcher, invited me in to discuss an idea for curriculum enrichment. He had constructed his own `award scheme' to offer accreditation to his fourth year group for a whole range of achievements that weren't recognised within the traditional examination framework. "It's not a question of passing or failing; it's about rewarding success," explained Brian. "I want to encourage a variety of activities and I need a base where the students can do things". The emphasis was on the word `do'. Brian Fletcher needed equipment for the `base', and the Schools Council project was able to offer £700.

That was 1981. TVEI started in Exeter in 1983 and its resources were used to promote the scheme as a curriculum opportunity for all fourth and fifth year pupils in the school.

In 1985 Brian Fletcher became Head of Coombeshead school in Newton Abbot and, under the leadership of an energetic Head of Year, Rita Rose, the school became the driving force for developing the scheme within a regional consortium of local secondary schools. Television South West offered some sponsorship and the Award Scheme gained credibility with local employers. "I only wish I could have done it when I was at school", said one father, echoing the views of many parents. In October of 1987 the BBC featured the Scheme on the `Education Programme', and the interest generated led to the setting up of two other regional consortia in Avon and Berkshire.

These three consortia of teachers worked together as a loose knit federation for two years to revise and re-write the materials for national dissemination. In the spring of 1990 a series of regional conferences was staged in Taunton, York, Edinburgh, Liverpool and London to offer the scheme to interested teachers in other LEAs. By September 3,000 young people were enrolled on the scheme. A year later this figure had grown to 5,000. By 1993 it was 30,000 and, in 1995, the number of registrations pushed past the 100,000 mark.

Enabling professional practiceIn seeking explanations for the rapid growth in popularity of the Award Scheme it is difficult to disentangle observations about the quality of the product from those which relate to the wider social, educational, economic and political context within which this development has taken place.

Teachers often express unease about the `market place' ideology that forces schools into becoming competing cost centres. Excellence is adjudged on a range of performance indicators that are increasingly being reduced to the lowest common denominator of numbers of pupils gaining 5 A-C grades at GCSE, irrespective of the nature of the intake to the school. Little notice is taken of the school's record of success on a whole set of other indicators like creative or sporting achievements, or moral atmosphere. Perhaps this jars with a body of people who have a deep seated commitment to the importance

of the affective as well as the cognitive domain. Indeed new recruits to the profession, including escapees from industry and commerce, are often attracted to teaching precisely because it is about working with people.

Increasingly, these new recruits and many of those attending further professional development courses are encouraged to adopt the concept of the `reflective practitioner' (Schon 1983, Pollard and Tann 1993), where the individual teacher is encouraged to see him or herself at the centre of a dynamic process in the classroom. Kolb's cycle of experience, reflection and re-formulation is at the heart of this process at all levels of the education system, and there are plenty of signs that this impacts enormously on practice (Kolb 1984).

There is also a reaction to the prescriptive structure of the national curriculum and of the NCVQ framework, which both seem to believe that students will progress in neat, linear steps towards clearly stated outcomes or objectives. Here the assumption seems to be that knowledge gained or skills acquired can be measured precisely, and provide the yardstick for describing (and funding) successful students and effective establishments. Critics of this `outcomes related' approach point to the narrowing consequences of such a focus (Jonathan 1983, Hodkinson 1992, Hyland 1994). This was part of Alan Smithers' concern when he described GNVQs as `a disaster of epic proportions' (Smithers 1993). This approach also ignores the movement that had been gathering pace in the 70s to recognise the significance of the learner's engagement with the process as well as the content of the curriculum. It is as if Bruner has been rendered irrelevant (Bruner 1960, 1990).

Nearly twenty years ago, in describing a curriculum framework under `areas of experience', HMI had struck a chord with many teachers who believed that traditional `subjects' ought not to be held up as the sole focus of schooling (DES 1977). This view has been recently reinforced by those such as Howard Gardner in his writing about `multiple intelligence' (Gardner 1993), or Richard Pring in his eloquent appraisal of the `liberal ideal' (Pring 1995). There is growing acceptance of the need to recognise and celebrate a broader perception of ability and intelligence.

It is fertile ground for implanting a curriculum model which addresses these concerns, and which supports the notion of the enabling and creative professional. Not only does the Youth Award Scheme provide a curriculum enrichment programme for teachers that embraces much of what is cherished under the heading of PSE, but it offers a way of accrediting it as well. It makes sense of the emerging emphasis on `core skills' by helping students and teachers gather evidence of attainment through settings that provide contextualisation for the knowledge gained and skills developed. In rewarding students' success through its stepped programme of challenges, it demonstrably increases motivation. It achieves all the aspirations expressed by HMI ten years ago in Better Schools for a curriculum to be `broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated' (HMSO 1985). The evidence is clear as teachers coming to the scheme for the first time listen to fellow professionals describing the sixth form `enrichment' experience it offers for applicants to

Higher Education, as well as the benefits for those with special educational needs.

The Youth Award Scheme is a child of its time - the offspring of teachers who'd been touched by the Schools Council or the early days of TVEI. However, unlike many other initiatives which rose and fell during the 70s and 80s, it has been able to ride the two horses of economic utility and liberal education. It addresses the concerns of employers and university admission tutors with its accreditation of practical skills and personal qualities, whilst offering a curriculum that fuels the imagination of teachers and students. It has squared a very remarkable circle and is a living testimony to the potential for innovation within the profession.

NoteThe Youth Award Scheme is one of a number of curriculum programmes managed by the Award Scheme Development and Accreditation Network (ASDAN) - a not for profit organisation, representing the consortia of participating establishments, which is based in the offices of an educational charity in Clifton, Bristol. The curriculum development aspect of the Youth Award Scheme is run from within UWE Faculty of Education at Redland, Bristol. For further information about the Award Scheme and other ASDAN programmes, telephone 0117 923 9843.

AcknowledgementsI am grateful to Dave Brockington, Brian Fletcher, Steve Harper and David James for their advice and comments on this article.

ReferencesBAILEY, C (1984) `The Challenge of Economic Utility' in Bailey C Beyond the Present and the Particular. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul

BRUNER, J (1960) The Process of Education. Harvard University Press

BRUNER, J (1990) Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press

CALLAGHAN, J (1976) `Towards a National Debate' speech at Ruskin College October 1976, reported in Education, 22 October 1976

CALLAGHAN, J (1987) Time and Chance. Glasgow, Collins

CROMBIE WHITE, PRING and BROCKINGTON (1995) 14-19 Education and Training: Implementing a Unified System of Learning. London, Royal Society of Arts

DALE, R et al (1990) The TVEI Story: policy, practice and preparation for the workforce. Milton Keynes, Open University Press

DES/HMI (1977) Curriculum 11 to 16. London, HMSO

DES/HMI (1985) Better Schools. HMSO

DES (1982) Teacher Training and Preparation for Working Life. HMSO, p 1

DES (1988) The National Curriculum 5-16. London, HMSO

DFE (1992) Choice and Diversity. London, HMSO

GARDNER, H (1993) Multiple Intelligence: The Theory in Practice. New York, Basic Books

HODKINSON, P (1992) `Alternative models of competence in vocational education and training' Journal of Further and Higher Education 16(2) pp 30-39

HYLAND, T (1994) Competence, Education and NVQs. London, Cassell

JONATHAN, R (1983) `The Manpower Services Model of Education' in Cambridge Journal of Education 13(2) p 9

KIRK, G (1985) `The Growth of Central Influence on the Curriculum' in Kirk G The Core Curriculum. London, Hodder and Stoughton

KOLB, D (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning. Prentice Hall

LAWTON, D (1984) The Tightening Grip; central control of the school curriculum, Bedford Way Papers 21. London, University of London Institute of Education

MORRELL, D (1966) Education and Change, The Annual Joseph Payne Memorial Lectures 1965-66, London, College of Preceptors

OZGA, J (1989) Teachers as a Workforce, Open University E208 Course Unit 19. Milton Keynes, Open University Press

POLLARD, A and TANN, S (1993) Reflective Teaching in the Primary School. Cassell

PRING, R (1989) `The Curriculum and the new vocationalism' British Journal of Education and Work 1 (3) pp 133-48

PRING, R (1995) Closing the Gap: Liberal Education and Vocational Preparation. London, Hodder and Stoughton

SCHON, D (1983) The Reflective Teacher. London, Temple Smith

SKILBECK, M (1984) `Curriculum Evaluation at the National Level' in Skilbeck M (ed) Evaluating the Curriculum in the Eighties. London, Hodder and Stoughton

SMITHERS, A (1993) All our Futures: Britain's Education Revolution (a Dispatches report on Education) Channel Four Television with the Centre for Education and Employment Research, University of Manchester

STENHOUSE, L (1967) Culture and Education. London, Nelson

TOMLINSON (1992) 14-18 Education and Training

UNIVERSITIES and COLLEGES ADMISSIONS SERVICE (1995) Guidance notes to candidates applying for HE entry in 1996, UCAS

WHITE, R and BROCKINGTON, D (1978) In and Out of School. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul

WHITTY (1983) `State Policy and School Examinations' in Ahier J and Flude M (eds) Contemporary Education Policy. London, Croom Helm

WHITTY (1985) Sociology and School Knowledge. London, Methuen

Work in Progress: Photography, Partnership and Primary EducationRICHARD EKE and TERRY TAYLOR, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, BristolIntroductionThis paper begins by acknowledging the volatile external context in which partnerships prioritising art education between schools, arts centres, and higher education are forged. It discusses aspects of a project involving partnership between the Arts Council, the University of the West of England, Bristol, the Watershed Media Centre, South West Arts, and local schools. This partnership focuses on teaching and learning in photography in education and attempts to bring together pupils' classroom learning with the experience of initial teacher training students. The paper goes on to discuss the analysis of images produced by pupils and students, considering these from pedagogic and subject specialist perspectives. The interplay between these perspectives raises issues with regard to the development of our understanding of visual literacy and of the nature of an appropriate initial teacher training.

The project spans the statutory age range although the work we shall report here centres on primary schools.

The nature of the partnershipPractical school based activity was central to the project's agenda of developing reflective pedagogy for the promotion of visual literacy through photography. An invitation to host photographic residencies was sent to all Avon schools with this list of criteria attached.

1. Students\pupils make their own decisions at all levels.

2. The projects require the use of photography as a means of expression.

3. The project process facilitates understanding of image construction and deconstruction.

4. The project outcomes\products are in some way unusual, innovative and challenging to both author and audience.

5. Wherever appropriate the projects include collaboration with other institutions, organisations and individuals.

6. The processes and outcomes of the projects are disseminated to a wider audience through school INSET, cascading, curriculum development and planning.

7. The project brief is generated by the class curriculum and planned jointly by the staff involved and Terry Taylor, Watershed/UWE.

Work of the kind envisaged had been conducted in primary schools and left a legacy of good practice (Craggs 1992; Emmerson 1993). This and other published work already undertaken in this area were drawn on to identify models of practice (eg Davies 1986; Harpley 1990). The intention was to take these models of practice and apply them in classroom situations in much the same way as a class teacher would need to do. This led to work with schools on a long term basis, the use of inexpensive materials and resources, and work with the whole class rather than small privileged groups. Despite the availability of a range of worthwhile materials, some of which make direct links with the National Curriculum (Walton 1995), and of worthwhile learning experiences for pupils involved in the projects, such work does not appear to be sustained when projects or residences conclude (Twitchen 1988).

Our response to this challenge allowed us to engage with a broad conception of partnerships between schools and Higher Education Institutions in ITT. Strategies to facilitate experiences that promote visual literacy in classrooms were developed in school, and by reporting back to, and in collaboration with ITT students. In so doing we recognised:

The challenge of identifying ITT students' entitlement to an arts curriculum (Roberts and Plaster 1994);

The needs schools already have for inservice education to support whole school developments in the arts (Clement 1994);

An unwillingness in many primary schools to take any significant responsibility for ITT in the arts (Eke and Lee 1995);

The logistical difficulties in providing primary pupils with practical experience of darkroom image manipulation.

The work reported here is premised on a desire to broaden arts education in primary schools. A broader conception of partnership enables the sharing of expertise with schools and students, and for students to develop their understandings in the schools they undertake practical teaching in.

Questions of visual literacyThe first four criteria listed above signal the project's focus on promoting visual literacy. Visual literacy is a term which is still gaining currency although its definition seems far from fixed. The definition alters to encompass new perspectives as meanings are perceived and delineated. Due to the inclusion of the term in the second attainment target of the National Orders for Art the debate surrounding its definition has centred on the argument for literacy being enhanced by, and embodied within, an ability to encode (write) as well as decode (read).

'The ability to represent or recover meaning ...' (Eisner 1989)

Dave Allen (1994) suggests that we could possibly identify `a number of visual literacies' and cites Burgess's view that the definition is now superseding its origins in reading and writing so that it implies a `capacity'.

One way to approach the debate is to consider what it might mean to be visually illiterate and how we could move from this position towards literacy. Firstly, there is an intrinsic suggestion that it would be possible to devise a number of visual literacy exercises to take us from one position to the other. Although this would accommodate the `criteria' and `exit competency' led education system it would be totally insufficient in addressing the subtle, beautiful and empowering experience of finding one's own appropriate visual language with which to encapsulate and represent feelings, thoughts, information and emotion. Secondly it presupposes that there exists a state of visual illiteracy. Humans make sense of the world from birth, primarily through vision and therefore develop an understanding of visual relationships from a very early age, and nearly all are visually literate to some extent. Through our experience of working visually with children, we have come to regard them as not `illiterate' visually but differently literate, in surprising and often unrecognised ways.

The Art Working Group, in the foreword to its interim report states that `understanding art is the appropriate path towards visual literacy' (cited by Allen, op cit). This statement suggests that through the study of art pupils can gain the experiences that they need to make appropriate visual decisions in our lives. This reflects the notion that all design in our culture is derived from `fine art' practice. To work in the area of visual literacy is, at best, to work in the domain of art practice in order to `understand' art. If `understanding' is defined as some private, personal arrangement of ideas as opposed to `knowledge' as the public, accepted representational form of ideas, then to understand is to engage in the dialogue of making. Individuals have to experience the dialogue between the maker and the artefact, in the search for the visual language needed to compose `understanding'. This dialogue requires consideration of cultural, social and personal histories, context and a multiplicity of visual texts. It also involves consideration of psychological processes (Gardner & Wolf 1982) and with specific reference to lens based media of cultural relevance (eg Hodge & Tripp 1986; Sullivan 1987). Perhaps a notion of visual literacy can be better apprehended if it is considered as a cognitive process, not a product.

Developing visual literacy - two examplesThe work reported here began with a residency in a junior school initiated by the school which had a clear vision of the potential of the project for its pupils. It was distinctive because the topic allowed pupils to engage in a visual dialogue through the construction of meaning in visual texts and because of the enthusiasm of the colleagues in school. It arose from a topic with Year Five concerned with personal and social education which supported learning for `pre-Dearing' programmes of study and Attainment Targets for English, Mathematics, Art, and possibly Design and Technology. In the post-Dearing world they would appear to be firmly rooted in the art curriculum focusing on visual literacy. The classroom work began by teaching a group of pupils who

cascaded the skills of point and shoot camera operation, reflecting a commitment to the use of affordable and accessible materials. The skills involved were framing, camera angle and distance, the significance of gesture and background, landscape and portrait formats. Awareness of these elements were explored through discussion and analysis of photocopies of images selected from newspapers and magazines and portraits shot using point and shoot cameras. All pupils then discussed ways of producing images of themselves employing appropriate symbols put together with previous experience to produce a photographic portrait. They then adapted the initial portrait through collage techniques to produce images of themselves in the future.

We want to argue that this development of photographic knowledge and skills interacts with the communication of meaning by learners. The only tangible public product that survives experiences of events intended to promote the development of visual literacy are the artifacts. In a discussion of the impact of a different use of the new language of images Berger (1972) makes the point that there is the evidence of the paintings themselves and advises us to study this evidence and judge for ourselves. We want to argue that, as Eisner (1982) suggests, we can infer the development of visual literacy from an examination of learner/artist products. Here we suggest there are contrasts between inferences based on pedagogic expertise and those based on subject expertise which make distinctive contributions to curriculum evaluation. We shall illustrate this by reference to one pupil image.

Figure One

Figure One: first commentaryKate has drawn in her legs. In the original portrait Kate was sitting or leaning on a desk but in the collaged image she wanted to appear standing. However, if we consider the similarities in the treatment of the background to other pupils' work, it is possible to speculate that some conferring occurred, arriving

at common solutions to their visual problems. Kate focuses her intended message on animal welfare by incorporating text. Although a sense of conventional design is not strongly displayed in Kate's image, the care and time taken in executing the complex background texture shows a considerable commitment to the value of decoration. It also appears here that Kate has solved a visual problem by modification of an original idea. We are fairly certain that she stuck down the photocopy and completed the figure with the addition of drawn legs before everything else. When drawing the table we suspect that she found a problem in that the legs of the table should go to the bottom of the page. She felt that if they did not reach the bottom of the page then the legs had not reached the `floor'. This left the image of herself not touching the floor so she invented a stool to stand on to solve the problem.

Figure One: second commentaryThe attainment targets offered by Bazlegette (1989) when applied to this image indicate the following outcomes could be argued from the descriptors offered for Level 5:

Media agency - For the performance area the pupil has been involved in making decisions about the circulation of texts to an audience not known to them personally, and in making editorial decisions. In the knowledge and understanding area the pupil has begun to understand the processes by which texts reach large numbers of people and the differences in cost and status between simple production, complex production and industrial production.

Media technology - In the performance area the pupil appears to be able to identify different characteristics of a wide range of media technologies and in the knowledge and understanding area to have experience of using a wide range of media technologies, understanding what differences technological choices can make to the meaning of a media text.

Media languages - In the performance area the pupil can identify and discuss how conventions are used in media texts, and what is involved in breaking conventions. The pupil is able to deploy purposefully a range of production features, identify and describe the symbolic use of objects. In the knowledge and understanding area the pupil appears to have a concept of convention and to understand the basic principles of editing, altering meanings by additions to and deletions from the text.

Media audience - In the performance area the pupil appears to be able to hypothesize responses in audiences they do not know personally, and produce a text for an audience other than themselves. In the knowledge and understanding area the pupil appears to understand that different contexts for media consumption can affect the meaning of a text for audiences.

Media representations - In the performance area the pupil can identify and discuss differences in representations of objects, people, or events in different texts and account for these. In the knowledge and understanding area the pupil appears to understand that it may be necessary to use stereotypes in media texts.

DiscussionIn pedagogic terms the use of targets embodied in a curriculum proposal (Bazalgette, op cit) emphasise that curriculum through an evaluation identifying general and specific areas of attainment should be visited. Here we can note work on media categories (a key area of media knowledge and understanding identified by Bazalgette that the pupil has not worked in). The question of differentiating pupils' development of visual literacy requires more than statements of attainment, it also requires detailed subject expertise and knowledge of the social context of production. This is provided by the first commentary above, where we see the use of a practitioner discourse identifying issues such as the organisation of space, background texture, conventional design and prioritising the construction/editing of the text. This perspective confirms the finding of earlier work which demonstrates the significance of editing activity in the development of visual literacy (Tidhar 1984).

We are arguing that it is essential to have a view of how a curriculum for visual literacy can be described, and to avoid the assumption that learners reconstruct knowledge in the same way as adults deconstruct it. The consideration of one example suggests that subject expertise is one perspective that extends the definition of a curriculum for visual literacy. This need for a dynamic interplay between subject and pedagogic understandings is particularly apparent in ITT and it is to this strand of the project we now turn.

ITT students' workThe activities undertaken by pupils in schools were mirrored by those undertaken by ITT students. Again the work prioritised the use of low cost, readily available, accessible materials and whole class teaching. The students were engaged in practical, image based production at their own level using newspaper and magazine images, use of the photocopier, simple point and shoot cameras and family snaps to produce work around self identity. They were also required to undertake readings of relevant literature, analyze practice beginning with transcripts and consider classroom applications. In terms of models for pedagogy, students explored tensions between teaching about photography and teaching through photography, between the teaching of skills and knowledge and the communication of meaning and between prioritising classroom processes and classroom products. Key here is that the development of photographic knowledge and skills and the communication of meaning by learners run hand in hand. One example of the outcomes of this work is the image below (Figure Two). This image was produced collaboratively using photographs and materials previously developed and photographs from personal history.

Figure Two

This piece, because of its preoccupation with rectangular and linear form, focuses the three vertical babies' heads as the only `organic' form. It uses text to reinforce the horizontal elements which link the images in a coherent form. The words, "baby faces" although split by the images, reinforce their content. We can see, in this piece also, a willingness to use a single image and explore its potential visual meanings through modification and manipulation. We also see evidence of the awareness, and subsequent value given to accident or chance in that the top left image was `discovered' when an image photocopied onto acetate was laid accidently on a page of an open magazine. This idea was repeated consciously in the centre image. We see evidence of a visual dialogue taking place between the makers and their image in that, although there was a prescribed outcome to the image making, experimentation ensued to find the appropriate visual form for the ideas.

This work indicates that students have a firm grip on issues covered by the attainment targets presented in Bazalgette (op cit) and suggests a sophisticated level of engagement with visual literacy processes. It does this through the collaborative organisation of visual elements, incorporation of a variety of production methods and the arrangement of these elements in space.

This suggestion is reinforced by observations written by students as part of their course work in that they demonstrate a capacity to link their learning to their teaching. For example one student writes:

Having encouraged a close examination of the images presented and allowing the group/audience to construct their own meaning, I created a visual display of the completed narratives. My intention in doing so was to elicit comparisons between the work; demonstrate that images rely on context for meaning; show that interpretations of meaning are wide ranging and that all are correct, thus motivating critical awareness.

We would argue that the examples of students' work we have presented indicate a development of a practical understanding of visual literacy linked with a reflective approach to its classroom implications. The development of reflective pedagogy alongside an understanding of subject and pedagogic issues is notoriously difficult to achieve (Galton 1995). Our students experienced a combination of subject expertise and pedagogic expertise that required them to engage with a critical understanding of subject content and pedagogic issues and have begun to sustain a reflective pedagogy for visual literacy. This combination of faculty and school based activity and of pedagogic and subject perspectives, although satisfying, was also a matter of complex organisation.

Ways forwardIt was hoped that collaborative reflection on the experiences of the school based residencies, would address the issues and arguments surrounding what was perceived as a need for beginning teachers to engage in creative processes as a prerequisite of teaching those processes.

This concern was partially eclipsed by a range of logistical issues, such as how to reassure heads they were getting their money's worth in the present stressful economic situation; how to engage tired teachers who already feel overloaded with information due to recent curriculum reforms; how to evaluate the potency of such training in terms of subsequent classroom work; how to align the powerful arguments underpinning the use of photography in classrooms with the logistic problems of using expensive equipment and materials, the handling of potentially hazardous chemicals by young children and their disposal, and the need for additional staff support for darkroom work to be at all possible. Some of the logistical problems were alleviated, as previously stated, by exploring the potential of found images, the use of the photocopier as a dry darkroom, using cheap colour laboratories to process and print film shot on simple cameras, and the use of photographic techniques possible in whole class situations. Some problems are lodged in the structure of our education system and cannot be dealt with in this paper.

The nature of the curriculum focus in which strategies for visual literacy are deployed appears significant, as does the commitment of colleagues in school to the orientation of the project. An over emphasis on outcomes related to predefined curricula is likely to lead back to the proposals from which assessment emanates rather than towards new definitions of teaching and learning. The importance of editing for the development of visual literacy might well be underplayed by attempts to construct an all embracing curriculum and might mask the significance of an interplay between subject knowledge and pedagogic understandings, especially at Key Stage 2.

This interplay between subject and pedagogic expertise is particularly important for ITT. The project does not simply model good classroom practice, in the normal school tradition, but aims to promote a critical reflective approach to visual literacy. The cycle of work in school informing faculty based activity, which in turn feeds into the students' work in schools, demonstrates the school focused nature of the project. School focused ITT is

not synonymous with school based ITT as currently prioritised by politically motivated critics of primary education. School based ITT would, in this context, raise very serious questions with regard to how and where ITT students would acquire the range of skills and understandings that facilitate a genuine engagement with visual literacy.

Through consideration and exploration of the potential of digital technology, solutions to a number of issues seem possible. The greatest evidence for the development of visual literacy was found when the work required the editing of material to provide meanings delineated in the projects' brief. (We should perhaps make it clear that `editing' refers to decision making processes concerning visual material and its arrangement in order to convey meaning.) The use of computer image manipulation systems is known to provide an exemplary platform for these sorts of processes. The careful evaluation of teaching and learning strategies with regard to this platform becomes a priority. The computer is immediate, offering distinct advantages over chemical photography with young children and people with learning difficulties, where memorising the initial intention is often not possible. This limits the potential for reflection of the product. These advantages, together with the fact that the computer can be sited in the classroom rather than a specialised area, and that the use of chemicals is not necessary, seem to suggest that it will be a powerful tool for our stated aims. Of course, the use of digital hard and software will make other questions explicit around the nature of `computer literacy' and as has been argued recently (an unpublished article Dave Allen 1995) this debate will have to encompass the `convergence and contiguity' of literacies in vision, sound and text.

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to the pupils and students whose work is presented here for their permission to use their images and words.

ReferencesALLEN, D (1994) `Teaching Visual Literacy', Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol 13, No 2, pp 133-143

BAZALGETTE, C (ed) (1989) Primary Media Education: A Curriculum Statement, British Film Institute/Department of Education and Science National Working Party for Primary Media Education, British Film Institute

BERGER, J (1972) Ways of Seeing, London, British Broadcasting Corporation

CLEMENT, R (1994) `The Readiness of Primary Schools to Teach the National Curriculum in Art and Design', Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol 13, No 1, pp 9-20

CRAGGS, C.E (1992) Media Education in the Primary School, London, Routledge

DAVIES, Y (1986) Picture Stories, London, British Film Institute

EMMERSON, A (1993) Teaching Media in the Primary School, London, Cassell

EISNER, E (1982) Cognition and the Curriculum: A Basis for Deciding What to Teach, London, Longman

EISNER, E (1989) `Structure and Magic in Discipline-Based Art Education' in Thistlewood, D (ed) Critical Studies in Art and Design Education, London, Longman/NSEAD

EKE, R and LEE, J (1995) `Our Mutual Friends: partnership with primary schools', Forum for promoting 3-19 comprehensive education, Vol 37, No 2, pp 55-56

GALTON, M (1995) Crisis in the Primary Classroom, London, David Fulton Publishers

GARDNER, H and WOLF, D (1982) `Waves and streams of symbolisation: notes on the development of symbolic capacities in young children' in Rogers, D and Sloboda, J (eds) (1982) The Acquisition of Symbolic Skills, London, Plenum Press

HARPLEY, A (1990) Bright Ideas: Media Education, Leamington Spa, Scholastic Publications

HODGE, R and TRIPP, D (1986) Children and Television: a Semiotic Approach, Cambridge, Polity Press

ROBERTS, M and PLASTER, J (1994) `Art Education in Initial Teacher Education: A Negotiated Education', Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol 13, No 2, pp 173-187

SULLIVAN, E (1987) `Critical Pedagogy and Television' in Livingstone and Contributors Critical Pedagogy and Cultural Power, Basingstoke, McMillan Education

TIDHAR, C.E (1984) `Children Communicating in Cinematic Codes: Effects on Cognitive Skills', Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 5, pp 957-965

TWITCHEN, R (1988) Primetime: Evaluating INSET in Primary Media Education, Mold, Clwyd County Council Media Studies Unit

WALTON, K (1995) Picture my world: Photography in Primary Education, London, Arts Council of Great Britain

The Renewal of the Education System in Slovakia: Reflections on two Western European funded initiatives - JOSEPHINE ELIOT, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, BristolIntroductionFrom September 1993 to June 1995 I was teaching in the English Department of the Pedagogical Faculty of Comenius University, Bratislava, the capital city of the new Slovak Republic. Slovakia had come into existence on January 1 1993 in what was known as `the Velvet Divorce' from the Czech Republic. So as well as all the profound changes affecting a former communist country, Slovakia was coping with emerging nationhood.

I had been recruited by Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) Eastern European Partnership, to teach on the PHARE programme which was financed by the European Union. The initials stand for Poland and Hungary Assistance for the Renewal of the Economy. The programme started in those two countries but has now been extended to most of the former communist countries.

The particular part of the programme that I was working on was the renewal of the education system, specifically the Fast Track programme to train English teachers, who are in desperately short supply.

In what follows I shall focus on management of change, as exemplified by the introduction of the PHARE programme in the English Department of the Pedagogical Faculty and the impact and influence of a Tempus partnership (Trans European Mobility Programme for Students and Staff) on the East European partner. I am interested in how effective Western European funded initiatives are in the restructuring of post-communist education systems. Are they really making much difference to the existing structures and courses?

Management of changeIn 1992 the PHARE programme began in what was then Czechoslovakia. It was introduced in three universities, all of which were in the Czech lands. The following year two Slovak universities, Commenius in Bratislava and Nitra university in Nitra joined the programme, with two more, Presov in Eastern Slovakia and Banska Bystrica in Central Slovakia joining in 1994.

There were a number of serious problems in the first year of the programme. A considerable amount of funding was involved and EU regulations required bi-annual reports, accounts and projected budgets. The PHARE management office, staffed by EU officials, was in Prague, in the Czech Republic, and it was April 1995 before Bratislava had it's own office. This inevitably caused all

sorts of problems; lack of information, delays, lack of advice and support. A small internal unit was set up in the Ministry of Education in Bratislava to manage the programme, but the fast track programme in universities was only a small part of the PHARE programme, which also included curriculum reform in schools, research into methodology and resource development. The unit was new, untrained in procedures, which for the EU are far from simple and had also to cope with frequent changes of personnel in the Ministry. During my two years in Slovakia the government changed twice. The political system was and is far from stable, the current Minister's main concern focuses on the education of the Hungarian minority and she is not, in practice, interested in the PHARE programme. This is problematic since budgets have to be countersigned at ministerial level.

A second problem was the lack of co-ordination of the programme between the two universities involved. There were historical and status issues here. The Co-ordinator was the Head of department at Comenius, a much older institution than Nitra. He had had political disagreements in the past with the Head of department at Nitra, he was used to working in the old way, consulting no-one, ordering people to do things, what is known in Slovakia as `Old Structural Ways'. Initially many paper requirements were ignored, meetings failed to take place. I seemed to meet with the view `we are eager to take the funding but don't tell us what to do'. I shall return to this point later in my discussion of Tempus programmes. The staff who were teaching the new course were poorly prepared. On my arrival, and I had been recruited by VSO specifically for PHARE, on asking what I was to teach, I was told not what but how much, `15 hours'. There were no specially designed syllabi for the new course, no documentation, no forward planning and the new students were beginning a 4 year course the following week! Since meetings were rarely held many of the staff were initially unaware that the programme was externally funded. Very soon however directives began to arrive from the Ministry and colleagues were asked to produce course documentation and syllabi. It must be said that this took almost the whole of the first year. I was able to contribute a great deal to this process but had to be very diplomatic. An American Peace Corps volunteer had joined the faculty at the same time as me, he was much younger and much more impatient than I, and wrote and circulated suggested curricula and syllabi to all members of the department. This, which in the West would be much applauded, here was received with resentment and irritation. His youth, North American zeal and energy and perceived arrogance were not appreciated and he left at the end of the year.

One of the aid management agencies in Bratislava is the British Council. In Poland and the Czech Republic in particular the Council had played a strong advisory role in developing the fast track English programme. Materials were available and professional advice but the Co-ordinator was suspicious of the Council and didn't want it's interference.

Job descriptions have been rare in East Central Europe and still are, as is accountability for performance. In other words, for too long the programme was able to be run in a completely idiosyncratic way. By the end of the first year Brussels intervened and sent in an advisor, whose card gave his name and the impressive title, Expert. In what, wasn't stated. However management

of the Fast track programme was professionalised. A new Co-ordinator was appointed and paid for the extra work. The programme now had four universities participating and regular two day meetings were held, several times each semester. The other three universities in the programme made full use of the British Council, all had a Council funded lecturer.

Management structures were now in place, teaching staff had benefited from attendance at specially organised conferences, procedures for ordering resources and applying for study tours abroad were understood and staff were developing a commitment to the programme. There had been the possibility that Slovakia would lose the PHARE programme, as had happened to Romania in 1993, through mismanagement. This had been averted.

The lesson I would draw from my close involvement in this particular foreign aid programme is that without management training, monies and human resources can be wasted. Not a new discovery but one that seems doomed to repetition.

Tempus partnershipsThe English Department of the Pedagogical Faculty had a Tempus partnership with Thames Valley University which began in 1992. The other partner was Hamburg University.

The Department's students benefited enormously from the TVU Tempus project. Most of the English language students were able to spend a 10 week period in Britain, with a generous individual grant. During my time at Comenius all my colleagues spent one or two periods of 5 weeks at TVU, on study and research programmes. Also the department acquired a number of computers, videos and language learning resources. I referred, in the previous section of this paper, to an attitude of `we want the resources but otherwise we are quite happy with our teaching and curricula'. I will now try to contextualise this.

The content and structure of Central European degrees are generally very different from those in Britain. They are usually 5 years in length and more formally delivered and assessed. Huge lectures, dictated notes and no tutorials are common. Add to this a tightly controlled and assessed curriculum with examinations in Marxism-Leninism each year of schooling, which is the background of the former Eastern bloc countries, and it will be clear that there is a large cultural gulf between British and East European practices.

Colleagues in the Modern Languages Faculty saw themselves as scholars. Content, for most colleagues, was more important than teaching skill. A number had been in the faculty for many years and a common feeling was the West European way lacked rigour. The same syllabi had been used for years and were lists of topics with no stated objectives or outcomes. Each specialist wrote and assessed their own course. Grammar was the highest status subject, followed by Phonetics. Literature was highly regarded and British and American Studies acceptable. Language in Use, or Practical Language, was of low status in the department, certainly in the eyes of the Head of Department, who was a well known grammarian (all English graduates, over

many years, had learnt great chunks of his standard text). This in spite of the fact that we were training students to be teachers of English in elementary schools.

The areas that were identified for development by the Slovak partners in the Tempus programme were teaching and learning styles and methods of assessment. Syllabus revision and design were also targeted for development. During Slovak academic staff study visits to TVU individual programmes of study were followed which typically would include library research and lesson observation. However, given the context I have described above, it is not surprising that many of the lessons observed in Britain were confusing and apparently unfocused to the Slovak teachers.

The informality of staff student relations, student involvement in assessment, integrated subject approaches were all unfamiliar. In some cases these styles were seen as threatening, in others, worthy of dismissal as simply not being of as high a standard as in Central Europe. Methods of assessment that were observed and discussed bore no relation to the largely rote learned practice common throughout Eastern Europe. However, three colleagues, all of whom taught Practical Language in addition to other subjects, were enthused by the observed methods, of both teaching and of assessment and eager to put them into practice.

There were problems, the Head of Department did not support change, the assessment model went against change of delivery, the students were also resistant to working in new ways. Two of the enthusiasts and myself devised a new course for second year students in Practical Language. This was a project based course, which required students to work in groups (a new experience) to research a local issue, interviewing people, conducting surveys, production of a report and a group presentation. The grade for this would cover all parts of their Practical Language course. Previously this had been done by three exams, only one of which was oral. A senior member of the department insisted they must also have a grammar test, in spite of the fact that they had a 3 hour grammar exam on another part of the course. Nevertheless, with a detailed assessment profile, and all presentations and reports marked by two staff, this worked extremely well. Students were required to write an individual evaluation (another new experience) and to keep a diary of positive and negative feelings about the group process. A number of students quoted from their diaries in their evaluations. I analysed their response. Typical comments would include;

"The beginning of our group work was very difficult and uncertain....we decided to change our plans, to reject our previous topic and find a new one." (Michaela)

"This project didn't just help us to improve the four language skills but also taught us to be more responsible, to co-operate well and to understand and be tolerant of others ideas." (Veronika)

"It was very interesting to work on this project. I think it was harder than an ordinary exam in practical language. It was the first time we had done such a thing and doing something new is not easy." (Lucia)

"As far as I'm concerned, when I am a teacher I will definitely do something similar with my pupils because working with other people is important". (Jana)

The evaluations were reflective and generally very positive. The students were proud of what they had achieved. Colleagues were invited to the presentations and the Reports were put on display (also new, students work was never made available for other students to see).

I have described this project at some length in order to illustrate how important my presence was in supporting staff who wanted to change their practice as a consequence of exposure to new ideas. I took responsibility for the new course, so that if there had been problems permanent staff would not have been blamed. Since I had been in the department a year by this time I was trusted and seen as reliable. I would argue that follow-up support from someone familiar with the methods and systems that partners are exposed to on Tempus programmes is vital, if study trips abroad are not simply to become book buying and sight-seeing trips. Putting new theories into practice is risky, it requires confidence, commitment from the top and support from colleagues. It also takes time, change needs to be gradual and guided.

ConclusionTo sum up, in terms of resources, foreign aid programmes are having considerable impact. However, the impact of multi-media rooms and self access centres is negligible if teaching styles do not change so as to incorporate their use. Shelves of books on communicative methods are redundant if they do not reflect departmental style of teaching. In terms of influence, without the support of a Head of department or a foreign lecturer who is committed to the department, it is difficult for new ideas to be put into practice in a meaningful way.

The PHARE programme in Slovakia is now well established, is, indeed, highly regarded by Brussels. The current Tempus programme has ended. Enough exposure to other systems and styles has happened for both students and staff to have been affected, hopefully in more than a superficial way. Overall the programmes I have been discussing are beneficial but it is important to be realistic about the constraints of context, personality and existing power structures.

AcknowledgementI would like to thank a former Slovak colleague for her helpful comments and suggestions in the preparation of this article.

'You don't have to be Female to Succeed on this Course, but it helps' Male Experiences on the PGCE Primary Course at the University of the West of England, Bristol - TOR FOSTER, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, Bristol.Introduction1993 was an unfortunate year for male students on the PGCE Primary Initial Teacher Training course at The University of the West of England as six of them failed their final school experience and were thus unable to qualify as teachers. Not only was this a significant proportion of our total losses (6 out of 9 students or 66%), it was also a high proportion of the 21 males on the course (28.5%)

The failure of almost one in three male students to reach the required standard brought into sharp focus an issue that had been evident to course tutors for some years. For some reason, males seem to experience difficulties in successfully completing their teacher training course. This had been `common sense' knowledge in the faculty, not just on the PGCE course, but also on the undergraduate primary award. Over the years tutors have devoted many extra hours to `nursing' male students through the course, counselling them to leave, or being involved in the often painful process of failing them.

Anecdotal evidence from colleagues working in other teacher education institutions indicates that lack of competence in male students training to be primary teachers is widespread. I am struck by the paradox of this situation in which we teacher educators have consistently been disappointed by the performance of some of our male students and yet we have equally consistently worked at increasing the proportion of males recruited to the course.

In this paper I examine our institutional policy of increasing the proportion of male students but at the same time experiencing them as possible `under-achievers'. Having described the research methodology, I will address the problem of designating male students as a minority group. Drawing on the research data I will offer examples from the students' experiences that indicate a degree of discrimination but at the same time indicate that male students are also privileged. In the second part of the paper, I will examine the tensions between the impact of hegemonic masculinity on the students and the feminine characteristics of the primary school context and suggest that students may experience a degree of dislocation. Finally I will attempt to draw conclusions and indicate ways forward for teacher educators and identify areas for further research.

The research methodsI undertook this study during 1993-94. I decided that a starting point would be an attempt to understand what our male students were experiencing during their course both in schools and at the Faculty of Education.

I collected data through several methods. Firstly, with their permission, I selected extracts from the students' course logs. Secondly, I invited all the male students who remained on the course in July `94 (18 out of 21) to complete a questionnaire. Thirdly, I had access to a report written by a male colleague who had, throughout the year, facilitated a male students' group. Finally I drew on formal and informal conversations with students and colleagues and on observations that I made and recorded during the year.

In sum, the data is a mixture of the deliberately elicited, the somewhat randomly gathered and the casually observed.

Male students - a minority group or not?Male students are in a statistical minority both when they are studying in the Faculty and when they are undertaking their school experience. To accord minority status to male students is, however, problematic for a number of reasons. The evidence suggests that, in a number of ways, male students do experience discriminatory behaviour which could be viewed as similar to the experiences of other minority groups, for example women on a male dominated course or black students on a course with a majority of white students. It is also clear, however, that they are privileged on account of their gender.

Additionally, if I identify male students as a minority group I run the risk of presenting that group as homogeneous - as having similar values, experiences and behaviours. I also risk assuming that their minority experience has a pre-eminent significance to them. Several of the men addressed this point explicitly when responding to the questionnaire. They argued that, for them, other issues seemed to be more relevant, for example being a parent of young children or having given up a lucrative job to pursue a career in teaching. Both of these situations would be ones that they could share with female colleagues.

The degree to which respondents thought their gender was an issue at all varied greatly. Some were able to report on very little, seeing `no problems' for themselves or their colleagues. Others were aware of the complexities of the situation in which they were operating.

Students' experiencesEvidence from my research indicates that there are occasions when students experience discrimination, or at least different treatment, on account of their gender from tutors, school colleagues and female students. Their high visibility, coupled with stereotypical perceptions about them, impacts on them in both the Faculty and the school.

In the Faculty male students are noticed and therefore exposed. Tutors tend to learn their names first and notice if they are absent. Students and tutors are likely to remark if they group together and perhaps employ stereotypes in making judgements about their activities. An incident of this kind was recorded in his log by a student who was, unusually he claimed, working in an all-male group of three on a technology project of bridge building:

"A female tutor observed, `those are men's knots'. Her reason for that was that was that the knots were untidy. She ignored the fact they were temporary."

In schools men may find themselves in a minority of one on the teaching staff where they may experience exclusion from social interaction in the staffroom. One student wrote:

"I felt excluded from conversations and felt my presence might have had an inhibiting effect on their conversations."

and another observed that,

"There was an unspoken assumption that I could not contribute to conversations about cooking etc."

More generally, a number of students felt they were treated differently from female students:

"I had a general sense that I needed to prove myself on all my school experiences but particularly on the first where I felt I was watched more closely than two female students during the first few days."

Another student felt he had passed the test when, after his fourth week in school, a member of staff remarked that they now considered him as `one of the girls'.

In other ways, too, students experienced different treatment. Sometimes this took the form of `mothering' where, for example, `the dinner ladies would pile extra food on my plate", or `the secretary would insist on doing my photocopying'. One student recorded that this preferential treatment was something that he `abused shamelessly', while for others it was an embarrassment that was difficult to deal with.

At other times students were subject to discriminatory treatment which produced greater resentment. One student recorded in his log:

"One thing I am not happy about is the fact after having been given a lecture on equal opportunities by the headteacher I am being forced to wear a suit and tie while female members of staff are allowed to wear deck shoes, track-suit bottoms, leggings and T-shirts. I do not feel comfortable wearing a suit and tie with seven and eight year olds. I think it presents much too stern an image."

Although such exacting and inequitable expectations served to make this student angry and resentful, it is possible to interpret the male headteacher's

behaviour in a different way. He was the only other person in the school who wore a suit. Was the message to this male student `dress like me and you can become as powerful as me'? Evidence of such `sponsorship' has been identified by Buswell (1984). It may have felt like discrimination to the student but perhaps he was, merely on account of his gender, being groomed for the fast track to headship despite the fact that the head teacher knew nothing of the student's attributes, potential or career aspirations.

In a study of staff relations in a secondary school, Cunniston (1989) makes reference to `gender joking' where male teachers use joking to `maintain the comparative success of men and failure of women in obtaining promotion within school hierarchies'. There is evidence that, for the men on our course, this phenomenon is sometimes reversed as they are on the receiving end of this `joking'. This occurred particularly when the students were applying for jobs. Female students and female teachers in schools frequently commented to the male students that they would easily find a job and the underlying implication was that it would be regardless of competence.

A student recorded being told that `it's a shame you'll get a job just because you've got a willy'. Another, while attending a job interview, was asked to wait in a staff room where there was a poster that proclaimed `Grow your own dope - get a man'. While these were the most extreme examples reported by the students, almost all the others recorded that they had received barbed comments on their enhanced and unfair employment prospects.

Having recorded examples of behaviours of others towards the male students, I will now consider what the students themselves bring to their role as potential primary school teachers in terms of their masculinity. I will suggest that, despite their predisposition to be caring professionals, they are required to move between contrasting social contexts and that this can cause a degree of dislocation.

Body building and acting toughThere is no evidence from students or tutors to suggest that during the taught part of the course the male students behaved as badly as the secondary PE students described by Flintoff (1993) where a man would `shout out aloud in a full lecture theatre that the woman sitting next to him had a question' or the men would `groan loudly if a woman asked a question'. I suggest that such intimidatory behaviour would not happen on our course for two reasons. Firstly, the ethos of the course is quite different from the one described by Flintoff in that there is a strong emphasis on equality of opportunity. Secondly, the `kinds' of men who want to become primary teachers and are selected for the course are rather different from those who are training to become secondary PE teachers.

Nevertheless, it would be naive to suggest that some of our male students do not engage in what Benyon (1989) calls `body building' - that is behaving in such a way as to impress their male peers. In particular this is likely to occur when the power of the institution's equal opportunities ethos is relaxed. Examples of such behaviour were cited by students when writing about the

atmosphere of the Male Students' Group. A student who enjoyed the meetings wrote:

"It was quite nice to have the chance to have a pint or two and talk about football."

whereas another student rejected the meetings as being,

"full of homophobic bluster - a distasteful mix of rugby club and sixth form revolutionary council".

This `hegemonic masculinity' (Connell 1987) was picked up by another student who wrote that:

"Most of the group seemed happy to maintain the distance, both physical and emotional, that separates men. We seemed reluctant to be open with one another. We never got to the trusting stage."

On other occasions it was noticeable that some male students relaxed into `behaving like men' when they stepped outside the constraints of the institution and the course. At a rounders game which was part of a social evening for one tutor group several of the women students were teased by male students for their sporting ineptitude. On this occasion these students were behaving like the Brickhill PE students (Flintoff 1993). They were engaging in masculine `identity work'.

It seems that, even among male students who are aspiring to be primary students, the pressure is on them to conform to the values of hegemonic masculinity. They feel obliged to prove that they are `one of the boys' (Jackson 1990) whether or not they approve of what is going on. It is not claimed that all the male students on the course would either experience this pressure to the same degree or respond to it in the same way. However, the masculinity of the `normal' world presents a strong contrast to the `feminine' world of the primary classroom.

The image of the primary teacherI stated earlier that the male students who were accepted onto our course were different from the Brickhill students. It is of course simplistic to refer to `types' but I suggest that our students display traits that come into the category of `caring' and that one of the reasons that they enter the teaching profession is that they like children and want to care for them.

Contrary to Professor Smither's claim (reported in Budge, 1994) that men don't like children to the extent that women do, our PG students, like the ones in Jones' (1990) research, claim to enjoy being with children. Almost all of the students gave this as one of their reasons for entering the profession. Many of them also made reference to the nurturing role of primary teachers. One student wrote:

"I think the best I can do is make the world in which some children spend 6 hours each day as safe and happy and stimulating as possible ..... (teaching)

has made me realise what I am good at which is forming relationships and caring for others."

and others referred to having `something to offer' to children.

It could be argued that the males who do take on the challenge of operating in the mainly female world of the primary school have a particularly strong desire to `care for' children. It is clear that the students are sensitive to the `mumsy' (Burgess and Carter 1992) world that they are entering. One student admitted:

"If I am honest I feel that there was some stigma attached to being a male primary school teacher. This is due to the relatively low number of males - making it a `female profession'. Also the image of primary school children is that they need to be mothered. There is the feeling therefore that a male primary teacher is somehow `less masculine' because they need to possess traits that are more associated with females such as understanding, tenderness and caring. I feel however that males can offer these qualities."

Another obviously relished the `parenting' role that he was able to play, recording that, `it was a privilege to hear some of the children slip into referring to me as Daddy..... I regarded that as a significant slip and also as an honour.'

The same image of teacher as parent is explicitly referred to by the male student who, working alongside the female class teacher, felt that they:

"mirrored the father/mother situation with her telling off the boys but me having no problem with them and the girls sort of getting round me through charm or tears and certainly demanding attention from me".

It is clear from their writing that a number of students had reflected on the kind of teacher that is required, or expected, in the primary classroom. A male student, writing in his log at an early stage of his training, suggested that `perhaps the classroom `voice' with its complex mixture of firmness and sympathy is more difficult for some men to acquire'.

The conflict that exists between this `mothering', `caring' image of the primary teacher and the stereotypical expectations of males caused problems for some of the students. It was difficult for them to know how to position themselves. Male students may well be confused about how to `be' in the classroom and the school. Both female and male students, particularly in the early stages of their training, tend to want to model their teaching style on that of the class teacher. If a male `apprentice' is working with a female class teacher he cannot adopt her voice tone and body language and this may lead to feelings of insecurity. Left to his own devices, the student may lack the confidence to establish a different style of `being' in the classroom. It seems that this issue is rarely acknowledged, much less discussed. Perhaps this is in the misguided but well intentioned notion that 'all student teachers should be treated the same'.

Conclusions

I started out by wanting to understand better the experiences of male students on the PGCE primary course. Essentially I wanted to know whether aspects of their maleness in the context of the course were contributory factors to the perceived lack of competence of some of the students as primary practitioners. I felt that I could only begin to address this question when I had more of an understanding of what it felt like to be a male student, a member of a minority group, trying to enter the predominantly female world of the primary school.

I can identify several issues which have emerged.

Male students are both privileged and disadvantaged. They are privileged in terms of getting a job when they qualify and knowing that their promotion prospects are favourable. This is a fundamental advantage. If a person has economic security, other disadvantages may appear less weighty. This view was expressed very clearly (Foster 1985) by a member of another minority group - a black Asian teacher:

"I think the black man is bound to say that the skinhead who calls me a Paki does me very little harm - it is painful but I get over it - but the Headmaster who stops my promotion for twelve years is my real enemy".

To the student in training and the newly qualified teacher opportunities for career enhancement may appear as hopes rather than certainties. But to men at least such hopes offer a degree of security and confidence.

A more dubious privilege is that men are often welcomed into schools as special, valuable and rare, and there is a tendency for them to be `mothered' by women.

This same rarity factor, and the consequent high visibility, can also work to the students' disadvantage. The exposure may mean that, within the limits of the working day, male students are constantly on their guard - careful not to dominate or offend and aware that what they do or say will be noticed and evaluated. They sometimes feel isolated and excluded by their female colleagues. In addition they may be on the receiving end of `jokes' that judge them as advantaged men rather than as individuals.

Male students have to operate in different worlds; in the Faculty of Education, in schools and in the `outside world'. As they move from one to another there is an expectation that their behaviour should change. In the faculty the pressure is to subscribe to `equality' - to be a student teacher rather than a male. The experience of going into school presents the students with an alternative culture - the `mumsy' world where caring, `feminine' attributes predominate. This world contrasts sharply with the hegemonic masculinity that male students experience in the rest of their lives, whether or not they subscribe to this dominance. The tension between `acting tough' and being caring is perhaps experienced by these men in other situations but it can only be heightened by the primary school context.

Thus, in entering the world of the primary school teacher, male students are constrained in a number of ways and this can lead to confusion. These male

students may be egalitarian and caring `types' but they are receiving mixed messages about the degree to which they can live out their values in their chosen profession. Perhaps we all, to some extent, experience the `I as a living contradiction' (Whitehead 1995) and the confused situation of male primary teachers in particular is a matter of degree.

Having identified these tensions in the position of male primary students, I am conscious that there is not necessarily a link between these experiences and a propensity to fail the course. I feel that this is an exploration that I am only just beginning. However, if we really are serious about wanting more male teachers in primary schools we will need to address the experiences of male students during their training. There is much to explore.

ReferencesBENYON, J (1989) A School for Men: An Ethnographic Case Study of Routine Violence in Schooling, in WALKER, S and BARTON, L (eds) Politics and Processes of Schooling, Open University Press.

BUDGE, D (1994) A World Made for Women, in The Times Educational Supplement June 24

BURGESS, H and CARTER, B (1992) `Bringing out the best in people': teacher training and the `real' teacher, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 13(3)

BUSWELL, C (1984) Sponsorship and Stereotyping in a Northern Comprehensive, in ACKER et al (eds) Women and Education, Kogan Nichols.

CONNELL, R W (1987) Gender and Power, Polity Press.

CUNNISTON, S (1989) Gender Joking in the Staff Room, in: ACKER, S (Ed) Teachers, Gender and Careers, Falmer.

FLINTOFF, A (1993) One of the Boys? Gender Identities in Physical Education Initial Teacher Education, in: SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD, I (Ed) Race Gender and the Education of Teachers, Open University Press.

FOSTER, V (1985) The Activists and the Innocents. Policy and Practice in Multicultural Education in the County of Avon. Unpublished MSc thesis.

JACKSON, D (1990) Unmasking Masculinity - A Critical Autobiography, Unwin Hyman

JONES, M-L (1990) The Attitudes of Men and Women Primary School Teachers to Promotion and Education Management, Education Management and Administration, 18(3).

WHITEHEAD, J (1995) The Growth Of Educational Knowledge, Hyde Publications

The Development of the History Curriculum in State Primary Schools in Twentieth Century EnglandPENELOPE HARNETT, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, Bristol.IntroductionThis paper reviews some of the current tensions within the history National Curriculum and describes the development of the history curriculum in primary schools during the twentieth century. It draws on official documents such as government handbooks and reports, consultation documents and the current history National Curriculum as sources of information. Such sources do have limitations: they do not provide information about the practical implementation of the history curriculum and the lived experiences of teachers and students. However, official documents can provide insights into the purposes and rationale for history teaching in schools. Changing values and attitudes over a period of time can be explored. The significance of such written sources has been noted by Goodson:

In short the written curriculum provides us with a testimony, a documentary source, a changing map of the terrain: it is also one of the best official guidebooks to the institutionalised structure of schooling (1988, p. 16).

Goodson's analysis of the development of subject studies provides a framework for interpreting the development of the primary history curriculum. In his analysis, Goodson suggests that the content of different school subjects varies over time. Content is not static and is liable to change as different interest groups exert their influence on the curriculum. Rather than `monolithic entities', Goodson suggests subjects should be viewed as, `shifting amalgamations of subgroups and traditions' (1994, p. 42). In describing the development of the primary history curriculum this paper seeks to identify some of the different interest groups which have influenced history as a subject in the primary school.

Tensions in the history National CurriculumControversy has surrounded and continues to surround the current history National Curriculum. Margaret Thatcher wanted children to learn the `landmarks of British history', (Kearney 1994) and John Patten stressed the importance of knowing Britain's unique history.

We must not allow our children to be robbed of their birthright of knowledge about our country's history. To have national pride should be seen as a virtue, not a vice. (reported by Shrimsley 1994).

However, when the revision of the history National Curriculum orders emerged in May 1994 the popular press voiced discontent that these criteria

had not been met; `Britain's glorious past banished from lessons,' screamed a headline in the Sun (Roycroft Davis 1994) and other papers were equally censorious. The debate still continues. Nick Tate, chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) speaking at a conference for European teachers of history appealed to a return to teaching about British heroes and heroines in the classroom (Macleod 1995). Interestingly, following this appeal the Guardian newspaper asked a group of eminent historians whom should be included in a list of British heroes and heroines. Some similarities emerge; Oliver Cromwell heads the list, closely followed by Henry VIII, William the Conqueror, Robert Owen, Gladstone and Churchill. However there are also widely differing views on the importance of such figures as John Lennon, Jacques Delors, William Wallace and Grace Darling and their contributions to the nation's history (Macleod 1995).

Comments from these historians in this recent Guardian article illustrate some of the difficulties involved in trying to determine the historical knowledge and content to be taught at school. Different views originate from people's different perspectives on past and present societies. If history is the story of our past, we will all have different versions of the story which we want to relate.

Curriculum content: Historical knowledgeThroughout the twentieth century, history has had a place within the primary school curriculum. The Board of Education (1905) acknowledged difficulties in teaching history, but contended, `despite these drawbacks there are strong reasons why an important place should be given to history in the curriculum of every school.' The `strong reasons' which the Board of Education expounded for teaching history included children knowing the origins of their rights and duties and how to exercise them in the future (interestingly, in terms of universal suffrage only half the school population would have had any rights at this time), the importance of learning `something about their nationality which distinguishes them from the rest of the world', and finally, learning about the influence of great personalities on the course of history.

The importance of children learning an outline of chief events in the nation's history was recognised in the Board of Education's Pamphlet No 37, Report on the Teaching of History. (1923). This pamphlet contained a set of thirty two British history dates which it felt children should know. Four years later, the Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers (Board of Education 1927) recognised the important role of history in fostering a coherent national identity amongst the young and also emphasised that history was, `pre-eminently an instrument of moral training'. The value of history for initiating children into their rights and duties as citizens remained important.

This view of teaching history remained popular during the war and after. R.J Unstead's series of primary history text books, Looking at History: Britain from Cavemen to the present day, with their coloured pictures and artists' illustrations were a very popular series and influenced teaching in junior schools. Unstead himself recognised the importance of moral teaching through history:

Our children are more likely to grow into the kind of race that in our better moments we know ourselves to be, if they have been made aware of the qualities of men and women whom successive generations have admired.

Unstead supported `the heroic presentation of history' and rejected `the fashionable tendency to overstress the little men' (Unstead, 1956, p. 53ff).

Unstead's views contrast with developments which were occurring in academic historical studies. The study of history was moving away from `the great tradition' and taking into account the diversity of past societies eg women's studies, black studies, studies of different social classes. The increasing diversity of historical studies was reflected at secondary school level in the Schools' Council History Project (1976). This project provided opportunities for widening the content of the history curriculum in schools. It included contemporary history and identified key concepts and ideas to be included within the curriculum.

Prior to the National Curriculum however, there was still no prescribed content for history at primary or secondary levels. HMI had difficulty in selecting precise content, recognising that:

...in our multi-cultural society and in an interdependent world, it is easier to add to the key periods and topics than subtract. (DES, 1985, p. 12).

However, a suggested list of key concepts and ideas to be developed across the primary and secondary age range together with a list of criteria for evaluating the history curriculum was provided. HMI (DES, 1988) were again reluctant to prescribe precise content for the history curriculum in the discussion paper, History from 5-16. However, HMI did suggest some outcomes of a course in history and indicated what historical knowledge children should know by the age of sixteen. This content embraced a broad chronological sweep of British history ranging from hunter gatherer societies to the present day. It also included knowledge of different societies elsewhere in the world eg; the Mongol Empire, China and Japan, the Benin, Aztecs, Incas and Russia.

This broad range of historical knowledge contrasts with the limited and detailed content of the current history National Curriculum. The emphasis on the British dimension is reminiscent of the list of dates suggested in the 1923 Report on the Teaching of History. Yet some right wing commentators feel that the British dimension is still underemphasised. Studying history from different perspectives, social, economic and cultural has been condemned. In a minority report, McGovern (1994), a member of the Dearing group advising SCAA on the history National Curriculum, suggested history was carrying too much `sociological baggage'. He argued that undue concentration on these perspectives would lessen the amount of time which could be spent on historical narrative and on the achievements and events which make British history so distinctive. The study of different historical perspectives of history would emphasise our commonality with different societies and nations.

Criticisms have been raised that the curriculum is too Anglo-centric and does not provide enough opportunities for children to develop an awareness of Britain's past in relation to other countries in the world (Visram 1994).

Curriculum content: Historical processLinked with the debate about the historical knowledge to be learnt there is also the debate on how to develop historical understanding with young children. There was little discussion on historical teaching methods in the early years of the century, although there was recognition of the value of story. The Hadow Report also described pictures as essential for learning history (Board of Education 1931, p. 125). Visits to museums and different buildings were also seen as important and in the later years of the primary school it was suggested that children should be introduced to time charts. The Hadow Report recognised the links between history, geography and literature and also emphasised the value of `handwork' and craft in learning history.

The importance of relating history to children's own interests was recognised in The Revised Handbook of Suggestions (1937). Suggestions were included on how to make the subject interesting and meaningful for the child claiming that:

The content of the syllabus or of any lesson in it is of much less importance to children of this age, and especially to those who are slow to learn, than the spirit behind the teaching (Board of Education, 1937, p. 403).

Suggestions for history are only included at the junior level and this could suggest that history was not thought appropriate for study in the infant years, other than through stories.

Increasingly, primary school history became linked with topic work in the classroom. The topic-led approach for learning was endorsed by the Plowden Report and by 1967 history was not always being taught as a separate subject but was being incorporated within a topic centred primary curriculum (DES, 1967).

Ideas about how history should be taught continued to develop. Influenced by Bruner's theories of learning the Schools Council identified particular skills and concepts associated with learning in history for secondary aged children. However, the influence of this secondary project was not significant in many primary schools. Following their survey of primary schools, HMI criticised the quality of work in history and the lack of attention being paid to the development of historical skills and understanding (DES, 1978). HMI called for the identification of skills and ideas associated with history which would be suitable for primary school children.

Many LEAs worked on producing guidelines for the study of history (eg Avon 1982) and HMI (DES, 1985; 1988) discussed appropriate skills and concepts for primary aged children. The importance of developing children's understanding and ways of working in history has also been recognised in the National Curriculum. The original Attainment Targets (DES, 1990) were designed to enable children to engage with some of the ideas and skills

necessary for working in history. These Attainment Targets have since been translated into the Key Elements of the current history National Curriculum (DFE 1995). Together the Key Elements and study units have been designed to create a balance between children's acquisition of historical information and knowledge and the development of their historical skills and understanding.

The dual emphasis in the National Curriculum on knowledge and understanding has also been criticised. McGovern (1994) claims that there is a `real tension between the demands of the subject and an `educationally correct' approach to be adopted in schools'. For McGovern, the most important feature of learning in history is knowledge, and the processes and skills which are acquired in gaining this knowledge are secondary.

Changing contexts, changing curriculumThe description of the development of the history curriculum throughout this century has revealed the changing nature of history teaching and learning in school. At different times, the influence of different groups has shaped the content of the history curriculum.

Child centred theories of education began to influence the history curriculum from the 1920s onwards. The history curriculum endorsed in the Plowden Report was based largely on the interests of the child. Specific historical content and knowledge was not included. However, since 1967 the influence of child centred theories of education has diminished and in the 1970s and 1980s history as a separate discipline with a distinct body of knowledge and way of working has become more evident.

Within the curriculum what counts as historical knowledge has also been reviewed during the century. Similarities between the present National Curriculum and the alphabet of important dates outlined in the 1923 pamphlet have already been noted (Board of Education 1923). Government and right wing commentators have been keen to re-establish the British element within the history National Curriculum. To achieve this end, instances have been documented which reveal the government's specific intervention in the creation of the history National Curriculum (Ball, 1994; Mckiernan, 1993). In his analysis of the history National Curriculum, Ball links the re-emergence of British history with a government agenda stressing social order and control. He argues that the government has established a restorationist curriculum which:

replaces the uncertainties of change with cosy sepia images of family, nation and school which are tied into an ensemble of nostalgia (1994, p. 46).

Government emphasis is on the uniqueness of Britain's position and history. A similar approach was adopted in the 1905 handbook. However, the political contexts of the documents are very different. In 1905 Britain had an extensive empire and was confident in her role as a world power. Social darwinist theories supported imperial beliefs in a superior race with a mission to influence world affairs. Studying British history could explain how Britain

achieved such greatness (Kennedy, 1973). At the end of the century however, emphasising Britain's past history and greatness could have another purpose. Without an Empire and moving closer to union with Europe, an appeal to the greatness of a British past could be seen as part of an attempt to re-assert Britain's national identity and place in the world. As Goodson suggests:

It would seem possible that declining nations in their post-imperial phase have nowhere to go but to retreat into the bunker of the school curriculum (1994, 110).

The increasing specialisation in historical studies over the century has also been reflected in the history curriculum. Much history written last century and at the beginning of the twentieth century was essentially narrative. In the `great tradition' historians were also accomplished story tellers, able to interest their readers with elegant prose and commentaries on the story which they were telling. At school, children learned much of their history through literature and stories. In 1927, the Board of Education claimed `.... whether the story lesson is labelled `Literature' or `History' is immaterial' (1927, p. 118). There was an emphasis on political history and on the great people (especially men) who had contributed to the past. At the end of the twentieth century, historical study is more diverse and takes into account many different experiences of the past. At university level, Cannadine has described how historians have become immersed in detailed research of particular aspects of the past to the neglect of more general and broader interpretations often based on political accounts (Cannadine: 1987). Indeed, Gardiner has suggested it could be argued that history has become so atomised that:

...it renders any expectation of a synthesis hopeless: the chances of a coherent narrative history, the possibility of putting the story of the past back together again, are lost forever (Gardiner, 1988, p. 1).

Within the National Curriculum, the future of narrative history is more assured: the focus statement for Key Stage 2, requires that children should be taught about `important episodes and developments in Britain's past', and the importance of developing a chronological framework is emphasised within Key Element 1. Whilst the importance of narrative is noted, attention is also paid to studying history from different viewpoints. Across Key Stage 2 there is a common requirement for children to study different perspectives - `political, economic, technological and scientific; social; religious; cultural and aesthetic' (DFE, 1995, p. 76).

Further research is needed to explore in more detail some of the contexts outlined above and their influence on the history curriculum in the primary school. Goodson (1994) outlines the need for studying the curriculum from a social constructivist perspective. Alongside the prescriptive accounts originating from curriculum documents, other sources of information need to be explored to consider how the history curriculum was practised in school. Such information could be obtained by reviewing some of the history texts used in school and the method books published to help teachers with their history teaching. Further insights could also be gained from the life histories of

teachers and teacher educators involved in teaching history in the primary school.

Such lines of enquiry would enable the history curriculum to be analyzed both at a prescriptive level and also at the levels of process and practice. Together these different levels could provide valuable insights into the construction and practice of the history curriculum in primary schools. They could contribute towards a deeper understanding of the current history debate and the creation of the history National Curriculum.

ReferencesAVON LEA (1982) History and Geography in Primary Schools. Avon LEA

BALL, S.J (1994) Educational Reform: A critical and post structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press

BOARD OF EDUCATION (1905) Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others Concerned in the Work of Public Elementary Schools

BOARD OF EDUCATION (1923) Report on the Teaching of History, Pamphlet 37. London: HMSO

BOARD OF EDUCATION (1927) Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers. London: HMSO

BOARD OF EDUCATION (1931) Report of the Consultative committee on the Primary School. London: HMSO

BOARD OF EDUCATION (1937) Handbook of Suggestions. London: HMSO

CANNADINE, D (1987) British history: past, present and future? Past and Present. No 116, pp 169-191

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1967) Children and their Primary Schools. London: HMSO

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1978) Primary Education in England: A Survey by HMI. London: HMSO

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1985) History in the Primary and Secondary Years. An HMI View. London: HMSO

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1988) History from 5-16. Curriculum Matters 11. London: HMSO

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1990) National Curriculum History Working Group. Final Report. London: HMSO

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1995) Key Stages 1 and 2 of the National Curriculum. London: HMSO

GARDINER, J (ed) (1988) What is history today? Atlantic Highlands, N J: Humanities Press International

GOODSON, I.F (1988) The Making of the Curriculum - Collected Essays, London: Falmer

GOODSON I.F (1994) Studying Curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press

KEARNEY, H (1994) `Four nations or one?' in Bourdillon, H (ed), Teaching History, London: Routledge

KENNEDY P.M (1973) The decline of nationalistic history in the west, Journal of Contemporary History. (1) pp 77-100

MCKIERNAN, D (1993) History in a national curriculum: imagining the nation at the end of the twentieth century. Curriculum Studies. Vol 25, No 1, pp 33-51

MACLEOD, D (1995) British Heroes find a champion in the English Classroom. The Guardian. 19th September, page 1

MCGOVERN, C (1994) The SCAA Review of the National Curriculum History: A Minority Report. York: Campaign for Real Education

ROYCROFT-DAVIS, C (1994) Britain's glorious past banished from lessons. The Sun. 5 May

SCHOOLS COUNCIL HISTORY 13-16 PROJECT (1976) A New Look at History. Edinburgh: Holmes McDougall

SHRIMSLEY, R (1994) `British history best says Patten', The Daily Telegraph, 19 March

UNSTEAD, R.J (1956) Teaching History in the Junior School. London

VISRAM, R (1994) British history: whose history? Black perspectives on British history in Bourdillon, H (ed) Teaching History. London: Routledge

Universal Teacher Education for the FE Sector: Whatever next?DAVID JAMES, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, BristolIntroductionThe Further Education Development Agency's `occupational and functional mapping' of the further education sector is drawing to a close. At some point recommendations will be made to the Department for Education and Employment, and Ministers will decide whether a lead body should be set up to devise NVQ qualifications for the sector. Ministers and their advisers have more than once indicated that, depending on the progress that is made in FE, similar processes could follow in respect of higher education teaching and even in other sectors such as primary and secondary teaching. In this paper I wish to give brief consideration to the context in which this initiative has come about. I will also make some connections with debates about models of professional development and the implications of concepts of competence for the assessment of learning outcomes in professional education (1).

FE teacher education in contextIt is helpful to begin by comparing the education and training of teachers in the Further Education sector with other sectors of education. The practices of initial training of primary and secondary school teachers are both highly regulated and subject to radical centralised change, yet the principle of such training is almost universally accepted. As a complete contrast to this, consider for a moment the situation in higher education, where the initial training of teachers is still a marginal - perhaps marginalised - issue. Of all the many organisations with relevant interests, it is only the National Union of Students that has called for the universal training of university teachers. There is no doubt that systems of quality assessment and (especially) audit are promoting growth in this area, as are various bodies with an interest in educational technology and development (such as the Staff and Educational Development Association). As yet, and despite some very worthwhile exceptions, the construction of a wider framework of accreditation remains the province of enthusiasts, most of them in the `new' universities.

Further education sits, Cinderella-like, between these two sisters. Approximately 60% of FE teachers hold a teaching qualification (Young et al 1995). Amongst new recruits this drops to about 50%. A system of FE teacher education is in place, but it is not rooted in any mandatory requirements like the Qualified Teacher Status of the school sector (and, until recently, sixth form colleges). A system of government sponsorship, via local authority awards, has enabled many FE teachers to become qualified: however, this has never amounted to more than an enabling device. The result is that both provision and uptake have been able to grow unevenly.

This uneven-ness has been a problem for the FE sector for some years, but it may be about to take on a new significance. It now appears that it is being used to justify the introduction of a different structure and philosophy of FE teacher training which, based on the National Vocational Qualifications framework, offers a degree of uniformity. Civil servants have made it absolutely clear that in the government's view, current qualifications are not sufficiently `relevant' or enabling for the Further Education Funding Council in meeting its obligations to promote quality. What is less clear is whether this view is based on any evaluation of the content of existing courses, or whether it rests on the argument about numbers (ie that existing arrangements have failed to reach almost half of the FE teaching workforce). Given the nature of debates about assessment in other professional fields, we might suspect that ideological disagreements about content are being smuggled in behind objections about numbers and proportions. Whether or not this is the case, the present arrangements for FE teacher education have never had the opportunity to deliver the outcomes now held out as desirable. This is hardly an argument for dispensing with them.

The uneven-ness of provision and uptake mentioned above has produced a number of other problems which do suggest a need for reform. The first of these is the variety within the qualifications held by FE teachers, and the second relates to the variety of meanings these qualifications have in different parts of the sector.

In addition to the DFEE-recognised Certificate in Education (FE) (hereafter CFE), there is the Further and Adult Education Teachers' Certificate (FAETC). The CFE has long ago lost its equivalence to the school-teaching qualification of the same name, and is an academic qualification with a strong practice-based element, whilst the FAETC is a skills-oriented practice-based qualification with some theoretical elements. Both commonly embrace a reflective practice philosophy of some kind. There is an older version of the FAETC (City and Guilds 7307) and a newer version (7306) which is usually achieved in tandem with D32 and D33 certificates. The FAETC and the CFE differ greatly in terms of the nature, breadth and depth of the curriculum involved. Many regard the CFE as the vehicle for an extended professionalism. Both have a number of equivalents, and in the case of the CFE, a number of recent derivatives assessed at various CATS levels. The CFE may be gained through one year of full-time study, or (traditionally) two years of part-time study on day release, or (increasingly) through modular programmes involving mixed modes, particularly evenings and directed study. A large proportion of `initial' CFEs are gained through `in-service' study.

In relation to `meanings', different Local Education Authorities devised and realised their own priorities. Some emulated the school-based system by instituting a probationary year and associated mentoring and assessment. In many the CFE would lead to a salary increment. In some colleges the CFE was effectively a precondition for promotion to course management responsibilities, though recently more dedicated management qualifications have gained in popularity. In many colleges the FAETC functions as an unofficial mechanism for the recruitment of part-time employees or as a filter for those wishing to be considered for full-time posts, offering as it does a

back-door opportunity to assess the development of teaching skills and professional commitment. There are considerable personal costs involved for individual candidates in addition to the course fees they have often paid themselves. Part time teaching-for-free is very common amongst students on both FAETC and CFE courses, and can put inexperienced staff in the somewhat ironic position of demonstrating their potential as professional educators by showing that they are willing to suffer a spell of gross exploitation.

This variety of meanings is unlikely to diminish given the greater autonomy of FE colleges following their April 1993 incorporation. Before incorporation in some areas, LEAs and Regional Advisory Councils were instrumental in persuading FE colleges to see the two parts of the FAETC as joined together with the CFE to make a three-stage model with more or less coherence, and the University of the West of England is amongst many who reconstructed CFE programmes to allow a later entry-point for holders of the FAETC or its equivalent. However, the situation is changing. Most FE employers are likely to find the promise of a lead body and sector-specific NVQs highly attractive, not least because it appears to promise an increase in local control of their staff development using a known framework and a now-familiar technology. There are a number of possible consequences.

The first is that after a long period of disputes in the FE sector, the introduction of sector-specific NVQs might be seen by staff as a further opportunity for the restructuring of the FE teachers' role in circumstances which favour an employer's perspective. Secondly, the redefinition of the FE teacher's role as amounting to an occupation rather than a profession carries with it a certain denial of autonomy, and recognises the fragmentation of tasks which can be seen in any FE college: many FE teachers now specialise in guidance, IT-based learning, distance learning and so on. Thirdly, the introduction of NVQs will give further credence (albeit spurious) to the view that the pre-existing `patchy' arrangements were a problem of inadequate provision rather than a problem of a neglect of the sector at the highest level of policy and resources. It is only recently that central government has `discovered' FE. A fourth possible consequence is a major threat to HE providers of FE teacher education, who may or may not be invited to participate in training endeavours within and between colleges of FE. Do they line themselves up to provide NVQs? Do they counter-attack by marketing the benefits of courses which make the complexity of FE teaching and the professional knowledge entailed a central concern, in the hope that some individual teachers (and perhaps some FE college managements) continue to be persuaded? Do they try to incorporate NVQs within their existing tried and tested models of professional development, much as has happened with sets of competences in the initial training of school teachers? This latter route may not be an option if current developments lead to a new basic qualification for FE teachers which the colleges themselves feel they can comfortably provide in-house, perhaps by readjusting existing FAETC provision.

These are difficult questions, yet they have to considered by anyone with an interest in the initial and continuing professional development of FE teachers. It is most certainly a time to oppose the reductionism inherent in some of the

ideas being put forward. However, it is also a time to be constructive in preparing the ground for how we might wish to work in the future, should a series of sector-specific NVQs come to be introduced. This requires, amongst other things, a consideration of models of professional development and a closer look at the relationship between professional knowledge and learning outcomes.

Models of professional developmentModels of professional development are intimately related to definitions of what it is to be a professional. Although there is not the space to go through these here, we might note that the early (functionalist) sociological work listed attributes thought to be common to professions, and that one of these was invariably the application of a specialist body of knowledge to new situations. Later work informed by marxian sociology which saw professions as an occupational (market) strategy (which certain occupations, like medicine, had been able to exploit with great success) also emphasised the role of a specialised body of knowledge in the control of the supply of licensed practitioners.

Both the way in which the specialist body of knowledge is acquired and who controls it are issues at the heart of the various models of professional development that have been suggested. Bines and Watson (1992) propose three models to account for what they see as a broadly historical sweep of change in professional education. The first, called the `pre-technocratic' or `apprenticeship' model is described thus:

Professional education takes place largely on the job but some instruction may be given through block and/or day release in an associated training school or institute of further or higher education. The curriculum largely comprises the acquisition of `cookbook' knowledge embodied in practice manuals and the mastery of practical routines...This is...characterized by a tight and instrumental focus on professional requirements and competences which are not seen as problematic. Such specifications are largely externally determined... (Bines and Watson, 1992, p. 12).

However, a second model which they term the `technocratic' model is the one that has come to dominate in recent years:

It is characterised by the division of professional education into three main elements. The first comprises the development and transmission of a systematic knowledge base, largely, though not exclusively, based on contributing academic disciplines...The second involves the interpretation and application of the knowledge base to practice, including coverage of the range of professional activities and their contexts, problem-solving principles and processes and socialization into particular values and behaviours...The third element is the supervised practice in selected placements...curriculum content and delivery are largely the responsibility of course providers (ibid pp. 12-13).

There are many criticisms of this model, not least of which is about the potential it seems to offer for variety in standards and the way it has sometimes marginalised or lowered the status of the practice element.

However, the most damaging criticism is to do with the model of professional knowledge embodied within it. As Schon's work has shown, the model is based on a technical rationality which is not in keeping with the nature of professional knowledge and action and which, in its emphasis on theory-into-practice, fails to capture the `artistry' of practice or the `knowledge-in-action' which is fundamental to successful professional work. Schon (1987) proposes that professional education should therefore be organised around a `practicum'.

Criticisms such as these have, according to Bines and Watson, contributed to the beginnings of a third model, which they call `post-technocratic'. In this model there is an

emphasis on the acquisition of professional competences. Such competences are primarily developed through experience of practice and reflection on practice in a practicum within which students have access to skilled practitioners who act as coaches. Such a practicum may be institution- or employment-based (or both) and provides a bridge between the academic institution and the world of practice and between professional education and subsequent employment (ibid p. 16).

Whilst I find their summary of the criticisms of the `technocratic' model convincing, I think that Bines and Watson rely too heavily on the ambiguity in the term `competence' in this outline of a third model. Does it mean the successful performance of tightly specified tasks, or does it include the development of professional values and qualities or capabilities in relation to the myriad of novel situations requiring the solving of problems in which the `competent professional' will need to function effectively? The NCVQ grip on the term `competence', even though it is ill-defined (Ashworth and Saxton, 1990), puts the onus on others to be quite specific about what they mean when they use it.

But how does FE teacher education look if we hold it up against these three models? Perhaps the one-year full time courses look a little like the second model, with elements of the third being incorporated under the influence of pedagogical reasoning around reflection and experiential learning. But what of the large numbers of initial-as-inservice courses? Here students (often by definition) work in further-, adult-, higher-, nurse- or other educational settings, and are required to scrutinise, reflect upon, experiment with and generally interrogate their everyday work experiences in the light of new conceptual tools or comparisons shared with fellow students. The practicum is central in this, and educationally speaking it becomes the source of raw material and the setting for testing and refining new knowledge-in-action. Initial-as-inservice courses are already `post-technocratic'.

Professional knowledge and learning outcomesTwo assertions appear with monotonous regularity in support of the NVQ style of competence-based assessment. One is that it fosters equality of opportunity by breaking with the `time-serving' character of many precursor qualifications and by accrediting prior achievements. The other is that as a

framework for assessment, NVQs are not about the content and processes of the curriculum leading towards assessment. Both assertions are highly questionable, but here I want to focus on the second.

In research about higher education it is increasingly acknowledged that the nature of assessed work is a dominant influence on what students learn and how they learn it (eg Brown and Knight, 1994, p. 12; Employment Department, 1993, pp. 56 and 61; Ramsden, 1992). Both the form and content of assessment do a great deal to shape the curriculum. To say that the assessment tail wags the curriculum dog is probably an understatement: assessment is itself the dog! Assessment is also a political issue at several levels - clearly so in relation to governments and their quangos, but also at the level of the course and the classroom. It is shot through with power relations, and practices of assessment reveal much about the relationships between students and educational institutions (see Boud, 1990; Heron, 1988). To put this another way, a redefinition of the assessment of professional knowledge is a redefinition of the curriculum and of professional work itself.

Hyland has shown how the notions of competence now in widespread use are completely inadequate for the task of assessing the development and acquisition of professional expertise (Hyland, 1992; 1994a; 1994b). Hyland cites the work of Chi et al, which having drawn on empirical studies of the work of experts in a number of different fields, concluded that experts tended to have common characteristics. They tended

to excel in their own domains, had access to a body of systematically organised specialist knowledge, spent a lot of time analyzing problems qualitatively and displayed strong self-monitoring skills. All of these characteristics need to be connected with the key qualities of the `reflective practitioner' (Schon, 1987) so that professionals may avoid lapsing into the static role of the `infallible expert' and instead maintain a commitment to the `continuing reconstruction of...what constitutes relevant and useable knowledge' for `shared reflection and dialogue with clients' (Elliot, 1991, p. 312). (Hyland, 1994a, pp. 11-12).

Other work has examined FE teacher education in relation to the Training and Development Lead Body standards and shown, just as convincingly, that these do not capture very much of the process of preparing effective professionals (Chown and Last, 1993). However, this current incompatibility should not lead us to the conclusion that there is no place in professional education for the measurement of learning outcomes, or that we cannot call some of them `competences'. For this reason I want to outline three sets of ideas about the relationship between professional knowledge and competence in assessment before drawing to a close.

The first is from Michael Eraut, whose discussions of the assessment of competence have been perhaps the most illuminating. His term `performance period' (Eraut, 1990) refers to a proposal for an activity which is required to compliment the now familiar measurement of performance within categories derived from functional task analysis. The assumption here is that to assess the use of knowledge in the performance of a task requires much more than

observing performance. It requires insight into how the performer copes with and decides between a series of competing demands; the use of previous experience in deciding between options; and the continual monitoring and modifying which accompanies `doing'. For Eraut it is the

thinking element in performance, and the more demanding the situation, the more important such thinking becomes, in spite of the greater pressure on thinking time; and the more crucial it is for performers to be aware of their own role and their principal function in the situation (ibid pp. 23-25).

We might put it crudely that even the making of a cake requires a great deal more than cookbook knowledge! Eraut goes on to suggest the means whereby such knowledge can be assessed. Needless to say, this requires something of a departure from the `fundamentalist' position adopted by Mansfield in the same collection, or more assertively, by Jessup with his insistence that `there is no justification for assessing knowledge for its own sake but only for its contribution to competent performance' (Jessup, 1991, p. 123).

Secondly, in the field of primary teacher education, Hayes and Hadfield (1994) have examined the scope for `rapprochement' between what they call the `competencies camp' and the `reflective practitioner' camp. This rests on the use of competencies `naturalistically' as an aid to reflection by focusing on events in teaching. Competencies become a `linguistic tool which can change the language of reflective dialogue' rather like Habermas' description of Freudian psychoanalysis as a `critical theorem' (p. 6). A number of constraints are discussed, but it seems to me that the sticking-point is that the authors imply that it requires only an effort of will to shake off the power of assessment to define curriculum:

To carry out this rapprochement one basic assumption both camps have to agree on is that it at least partially holds true: That competencies are only a description of desired outcomes - they do not specify a particular form of teaching or assessment (Hayes and Hadfield, 1994: p5. Emphasis in original).

Thirdly, Michael Eraut's more recent publication addresses the nature of professional knowledge in the light of a considerable volume of research. Of immediate interest here is his discussion of the notion of capability. This concept has both present and future-oriented connotations, important if we want to maintain a professional education which prepares people to habitually reflect, update, experiment, grow, work in teams, critically assess their situation and so on. Eraut argues that there are three good reasons for the systematic gathering of evidence about capability as well as about performance. In the first place it ought to complement and strengthen performance evidence. Secondly, there are situations in which it is more practicable to gather capability evidence than performance evidence. Thirdly (and in my view, most importantly) capability evidence

...may provide some assurance that candidates have sufficient conceptual, perceptual and ethical knowledge to continue to learn, to grow professionally and to respond flexibly to future, yet unforeseen, challenges and circumstances (Eraut, 1994, pp. 210-11)

ConclusionsIf uneven-ness in the use of existing arrangements for FE teacher education is used as a justification to sweep these arrangements aside, and new NVQ qualifications come to be regarded as both necessary and sufficient for the preparation of FE teachers, then what follows is a redefinition of their work which undervalues the `thinking element in performance'. Whilst this is a problem at all levels in the NVQ framework, it is magnified in the case of professional workers for whom knowledge is always more than `underpinning'.

The Post-16 Committee of the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers has recently made clear its opposition to the narrow conception of learning outcomes embodied in NVQ-style competences. Whilst we might wish to welcome with open arms the prospect of a universally certified-as-competent FE teaching force, it is well worth considering the price we are prepared to pay to achieve it, since what seems to be at stake is the definition of professional knowledge itself.

NoteThis is a revised version of a paper presented at the May 1995 UCET Workshop entitled Models of Teacher Preparation for Further Education. I am very grateful to the other workshop participants for their contributions, which in turn helped me to formulate my own ideas. I am also very grateful to Dr Gillian Blunden for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

ReferencesASHWORTH, P D and SAXTON, J., On Competence, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 14, 1.

BINES, H and WATSON, D (1992) Developing Professional Education, Milton Keynes: SRHE/Open University Press

BROWN, S and KNIGHT, P (1994) Assessing Learners in Higher Education, Kogan Page.

CHOWN, A and LAST, J (1993) `Can the NCVQ model be used for teacher training?' Journal of Further and Higher Education, 17, 2. pp.15-26.

EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT (1993) Assessment Issues in Higher Education, Further and Higher Education Branch.

ERAUT, M (1990) Identifying the Knowledge Which Underpins Performance, in H BLACK and A WOLF (Eds) Knowledge and Competence- Current Issues in Training and Education, Careers and Occupational Information Centre, Employment Department Group.

ERAUT, M (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, London: Falmer Press

HAYES, M and HADFIELD, M (1994) `Contextualising competencies for teaching experience in primary education' Paper presented at BERA Conference, 1994, University of Oxford.

HYLAND, T (1992) Expertise and Competence in Further and Adult Education, British Journal of In-Service Education, 18, 1.

HYLAND, T (1994a) Professional Development, Competence and Teacher Education in the Post-School Sector CEDAR Conference paper, University of Warwick, April 1994.

HYLAND, T (1994b) Competence, Education and NVQs: Dissenting perspectives, London: Cassell.

JESSUP, G (1991) Outcomes: NVQs and the Emerging Model of Education and Training, London: Falmer Press

SCHON, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, London: Jossey-Bass

YOUNG, M., LUCAS, N., SHARP, G. and CUNNINGHAM, B (1995) Teacher Education for the Further Education Sector: Training

Infant Children's Awareness and Perceptions of Curriculum, Assessment and Learning in SchoolDON KIMBER, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, BristolBackgroundThe rhetoric to support the institution of the National Curriculum is presented in terms of `raising standards' and to provide entrants to a skilled workforce so as to enable the nation to compete effectively in the market place and the wider world (Galton, 1995). The purposes, or rationale, for school education are commonly set in the context of an instrumentalist ideology, in which schooling is evaluated very much in terms of how successful it is in developing the requisite skills and attitudes for people to function efficiently in the world of (paid) work. As a result the National Curriculum is based around discrete subject areas, and underpinned by a rigid system of assessing children's learning. This structure was originally going to `run' through the school curriculum for all pupils from age 5 to 16. Conventional subjects have been identified so that the English National Curriculum at the end of the 20th century would have a look familiar to those receiving a traditional `elementary' schooling in the first part of the century.

These changes have prompted many new demands upon teachers and upon children in the classroom. Many primary teachers feel that there are pressures which are in opposition to their preferred ways of working. This is especially so if they see their approach as being child centred. Arguments are advanced (eg Alexander et al 1992) to encourage teachers to (i) invest more time in the study of `subjects' as discrete areas of learning rather than maintain integrated approaches, with much learning organised around topics; (ii) give more attention to assessing and recording children's levels of achievement using nationwide tests - SATs or Standard Assessment Tasks - which in turn can be used to compile local league tables of schools; (iii) adopt more traditional methods of classroom management, including children sitting in rows, and having more whole class teaching at the expense of group work. This is at a time when schools and questions of education retain a high level of visibility and comment in the media, and are the subject of keen political debate. For teachers of young children, proposals are made from time to time, that 5 year old children be tested on the basis of national tests. This measure was advocated in a conference speech in Birmingham, September 1995, by Prime Minister John Major.

As the key consumers in this new educational production system what do young children make of what they are doing in school when they are learning? Why they do they come to school in any case?

In the early days of SATs at KS1, the then Secretary of State for Education, Mr Kenneth Clarke, made extravagant and completely inaccurate claims about 7 year old children to the effect that almost 1 in 3 could not recognise more than three letters of the alphabet, and were not able to read. The remarks caused concern and distress among parents and children, and incensed many teachers. I vividly recall talking to one very committed and normally compliant infant teacher who had fired off a letter of protest to the Department of Education. I also recall a mother whose 7 year old daughter was worried about SATs. She had lain awake all night and had asked her mother would she be able to pass them, and eventually be able to go on to secondary school.

Levels of anxiety on the part of teachers and of children at KS1 would appear to be decreasing. The first report of the PACE (Primary Assessment Curriculum and Experience) project pointed to a drop in reports of children's anxiety felt in SATs from 31% in 1991 to 14% in 1992 (Pollard et al 1994).

With issues about schools and children's learning still being so prominent in the public eye, it is interesting to get some insight into how young children, 6 and 7 year olds, in Year 2 perceive some of these aspects of their day to day life in school; how aware are they of some of the basic elements of the National Curriculum as it is delivered to them day by day in the classroom? Pupil perspectives, despite their importance, rarely feature in public debates about educational matters.

Aims of this study1. to investigate some of the meanings which children give to school and

to learning;

2. to investigate their basic awareness of:

1. the National Curriculum

2. SATs

3. subjects as part of their learning in school and in the curriculum

3. to investigate their thoughts as to the purpose of school, and what they see as the main reasons or advantages for their coming to school.

Notes on methodologyInformation was gathered by means of talking with Year 2 children from 3 classes in three different schools. It was during a four week period in June and July 1995 at the end of the summer term. The children were aged seven or were very nearly so. They had all had recent experience of SATs in English, Maths and Science, earlier that term. The data gathering was by means of loosely structured discussions with small groups of children, usually four in a group.

The set of topics and questions raised for discussion was along the following lines:

1. discussion of work they had done, and had enjoyed, in relation to a recent whole class topic. This was in part to set the scene, and settle the children. It was also hoped that this could ensure that the session would be of some educational value to them.

2. what is understood by `subjects'? (We would now recognise 10 as formally identified in the National Curriculum).

3. have they heard of the National Curriculum, and if so what do they understand by it?

4. have they heard of SAT's, and if so what are they?

5. what is to be gained from coming to school? what is the purpose of school?

The three schools differed on several counts. One was an inner city school, was ethnically diverse, and local housing included a mix of some privately owned, some local authority, and some rented. Another school, serving a predominantly white community, was set in a housing area comprising mixed local authority and private ownership in the outer suburbs. The third, again with predominantly white children, was centrally situated in a traditional market town, which has expanded over the past 25 years with estates for a growing commuter population.

Children were in groups of 3 or 4. There were 3 groups from school A; 2 groups in school B; and 8 groups in school C. This involved 48 children overall.

The distinctions often drawn between key educational ideologies were used loosely to provide a simple model (Morrison and Ridley, 1988; Blenkin and Kelly, 1987). Such clusters of ideologies as a) `progressive, child-centredness, Plowdenesque,' emphasising the child; b) the traditional academic view of education, emphasising knowledge; and c) the instrumentalist, economic focus with a concern for society and economic advance: these all offered a framework against which to consider children's thoughts about the purpose of school, and in some cases the value of learning in particular subject areas. With regard to how children see subject areas and other learning experiences in the classroom, Bernstein's distinctions between strong and weak classifications of curriculum knowledge (see eg Pollard et al 1994) provide a useful framework.

Observations on the Data

Children's knowledge of the National CurriculumWe can consider responses to the broadest question first: what knowledge and awareness do young children have about the National curriculum?

The great majority of the children claimed that they had not heard of the National curriculum. In response to the question `have you heard of the National Curriculum?' the immediate response from children in 10 groups was that they had not, though in two cases further prompting drew statements of `Think so' and `I have' indicated that they might have encountered the term. In 2 groups where `No' was not offered immediately children said `Heard of it but I do not know what it means.' Another child said she had `heard of national but not curriculum'. Children in two groups mentioned `cricket' when asked about the National Curriculum.

It was evident from these responses that for the 48 children in this sample the term National Curriculum did not hold much meaning.

Children's knowledge and understanding of SATsThe question of SATs was raised with children in 12 groups.

In 6 of these groups in response to the question `Have you heard of SATs - do you know what that is to do with?' the answer was an unqualified No.

Only 2 groups offered a response which included an idea of testing or assessment:

Susan - `They are kind of tests at the end of the school year'

Chris - `How good you are at reading'

However it was interesting that even these children did not realise that they had actually been involved in SATs. When asked about SATs `Have you done some?', Susan replied `Not sure' and Chris said `We are going to'.

Responses from 3 groups which did not offer an immediate `No' included:

Heard of it but forgotten. Is it sort of maths?

Science? When people get the sack and lose their job?

To do with tasks?

Once again it is remarkable that so few among 45 children had any idea of SATs although this was something that they had all done during the previous few weeks. Presumably none had lost sleep over them.

Children's knowledge and understanding of subjects within the curriculumChildren were asked about subjects having talked about some topic work that they had recently been doing. Typically chosen in the three schools were the topics of Ghandi; places near and far; and the Second World War. We, as adults, would recognise the rich potential for learning in history and geography with these topics. The children were asked about subjects and their meaning in general terms, but it is most likely that their thoughts would have been

strongly influenced by the discussion of the topic work, which had tended to give prominence to learning in the cognitive domain as well as to `Art'.

The question usually posed was `Do you know what subjects you do in school?'

Usually children needed some further explanation for the question to have more sense.

However children in 3 groups offered `maths' and in 2 other groups responded `number' without further prompting. To provide some additional prompts to tease out ideas of subjects and of curriculum, many other groups were asked if they did maths so as to help them understand what the question meant. All groups when asked about maths immediately responded `yes', they did do maths, and obviously the term had meaning for them.

The following are the responses the children offered without prompting in reply to `What subjects do you do?' Only four National Curriculum Subjects - English, Maths, Science, and Art were mentioned explicitly.

Subject Number of responses

A Maths 3

Numbers 2

B English 2

Reading 2

Writing 9

Handwriting 2

C Science 4

D Art 1

Drawing 3

Painting 4

When asked if they did maths, children in 7 groups other than those recorded in A above straight away replied Yes. When asked if they did science, children in 3 groups other than in C above replied No, with one qualifying this to say that they would do it in the juniors. The one other National Curriculum subject that children recognised readily from their classroom activity was Art. Thus without direct prompts in relation to Art, the tally for relevant responses is shown above.

In terms of conventional subjects we can see that the core National Curriculum - English, Science and Maths - along with `Art', were the ones

which were readily identified by children. With these children, English, including reading and writing, was the subject most commonly identified by them.

There were many other suggestions from the children as to what were `subjects' - `things we do in class' - which do not fall into the traditional or conventional groupings of subjects. Their `subjects' or curriculum components thus included (i) regular activities identified by the teacher within the classroom eg sand and water; choosing; playtime; (ii) less regular but episodic events in school eg going on school trips; and (iii) some one off learning activities which would not be likely to be repeated very often eg seed growing.

In some groups children when asked if they did PE knew what it was and recognised it as part of their curriculum. Music and RE were not brought so strongly into discussion with groups, and thus were hardly mentioned. Technology was put forward by one child as a subject. Children in two other groups did not show any awareness of technology as a subject when asked.

Children in six groups were asked about history and geography. Did they know what history and geography were and if they had `done' some? All six groups replied that they did not do it and/or did not know what history and what geography were about. However children in one group said that `you did history in the juniors' and another child `my brother does geography'. This shows how some children knew the names of these subjects even if they did not recognise them as part of their own classroom learning experiences.

Why do we come to school? What do we gain from it?It was suggested above that one justification for the National Curriculum is that it provides a skilled workforce to meet the needs of employers and will sustain the economic strength of the country. It is also a major vehicle for assessment. It is claimed that this is to help parents know how their children are faring at school, as well as to drive up standards. As such these fit in with the instrumentalist ideology, in which children are schooled for the workplace. This contrasts with other ideologies which can be proposed including a progressive, child centred approach, and a liberal humanist approach. Many primary teachers (especially infant teachers) would no doubt like to see themselves maintaining child centred learning while seeking to meet with the demands of a centrally imposed curriculum. Personal and social education, involving the development of social skills and attitudes, and the boosting of self esteem, will often be high on their list of educational objectives.

When Year 2 children were asked `Why do we come to school?' a broad pattern emerged in their responses, with learning reasons first and foremost, reasons to do with the transmission of knowledge next, followed by employment-related reasons, and with friendship reasons last.

Why do we come to school?

The first and foremost response from all groups to why we come to school was `to Learn'. This response came from every group. Many then went on to

say what was useful to learn, and sometimes why we should learn it. `To learn to read and write' was the most common suggestion and was voiced by children in at least 6 groups. 3 groups gave `maths' as an immediate follow up to what should be learnt: `maths', `learn number' and ` add things up'. Immediate responses to what to learn also included `to share ideas', `how to make friends', `to get a job' and `you would be dumb' (if you did not learn).

After an initial response to the question `why come to school?' children were encouraged to develop their ideas about the purpose of schooling. These extensions of their initial replies included suggestions which involve (i) the transmission view of knowledge or culture, (ii) getting a job (paid), and (iii) social gains or benefits.

Secondly, then, a transmission view of education was apparent. Usually those children who spoke about the ways in which what we learnt in school could be beneficial to us thought about how it would be useful in the adult world .... `When you grow up'. What they learnt in school would enable them to help others in one way or another.

Three groups thought of parental responsibilities and their role as a parent:

When you get married and you have children, and your children ask you how to spell impossible

when your child asks you a question, you feel silly

forget your full stop, tell your children

A potential career as a teacher was another common suggestion for `learning' and achieving while at school: `you might want to be a teacher', `you can be a teacher'. Here again the reason for learning was so that what was learnt could be passed on.

The transmission or passing on of what has been learnt was frequently seen as being helpful to those who in turn would be the learners. This element of wanting to help others seemingly underpinned many of the responses above as well as some others who simply suggested that it was useful to learn in school because you might have to tell people spelling.

In one group the value of learning was seen in part to please the teacher by showing you have learnt what was being taught: `teacher asks you a question, and you won't know the answer'. Others placed value upon learning while in the infants school as a precursor to continuing their educational career in the juniors: `in the juniors you have to learn a lot.'

In the third category, learning at school so as to get a job was suggested in at least 6 groups. Two of these, introduced by boys, spoke of a job with `lot's of money' rather than any job, and a third offered having a `nice job'.

Here again a strongly utilitarian and instrumental view of knowledge underpinned these ideas. Is this something which comes across from parents about why you should work hard at school? Sometimes children couched the getting a job element in rather more specific terms when talking about

particular curriculum areas. Thus `why is it useful to learn history?' was justified on the basis of perhaps getting a job in a museum when you grew up!

Fourthly, another grouping of ideas were those which centred around social or friendship questions. This sort of notion, with little in common with the utilitarian or the instrumental ideas associated with getting a job, usually was presented in the short developing discussion following the immediate response to `why do we come to school'? It was interesting that within six groups there were suggestions along the lines which we could interpret as `social' reasons or benefits from coming to school. Suggestions included `learn how to make friends'; `to make friends'; `to get more friends'; `at home it would be boring'; `to come to help others'; `we might be in trouble some day'.

In several instances there was the suggestion that if one did not come to school, and have an education, then it would be embarrassing and you would `be shown up'. You would `be dumb' or be `stupid' if you did not learn. However one child when discussing this in the context of people in places near and far, made an important and insightful qualification. He said `You would not be stupid if you did not learn in a country which did not have schools.'

Some points for reflection and developmentGiven the level of public debate about schools, standards of education, and the National Curriculum it is remarkable that so many of the children were unaware of the National Curriculum. Even more surprising was how few had any ideas about SATs.

It would be interesting to know at which stage and age would they become generally more knowledgeable about these aspects of school life, and the processes involved. Presumably by the end of KS2 (age 11 years) their awareness of subjects and of SATs will be more acute.

In these schools there are very real attempts to ensure that SATs are carried out with as little disruption as possible for the children involved in them. Also teachers try to make them an educationally positive experience for the children as far as they can. Parents are fully informed about the process of assessment, and thus they also would appear to have played down the significance of SATs with their children.

What are the criteria we use to decide when pupils should be told they are being tested or assessed formally? As adults we presumably would wish to be aware of situations where we are in the process of being critically assessed. Similarly we would no doubt want secondary pupils at KS3 (14 years) to know when they are being tested formally. On what grounds do we decide that it is fair that children are told they are being tested?

In addition to investigating further into parental viewpoints of the National Curriculum and SATs at KS1, it would also be interesting to talk with seven year old children in schools in very affluent neighbourhoods where there is also a stronger tradition of junior children going into selective entry (often

private) secondary schools. Would these children be much more strongly aware of the National Curriculum and of SATs?

Other questions which merit further investigation into aspects of young children's perspectives on school and education relate to possible gender differences. From the limited data there is the suggestion that when talking about getting jobs as a reason for coming to school, boys were more likely to mention jobs which afforded higher incomes. There was also an indication that girls were more prominent in suggesting social and friendship benefits as a reason for coming to school but this was not appreciatively out of proportion to the overall gender balance in the total sample.

The mix of instrumental and of social reasons for coming to school shown by the children is likely to reflect the reasons which the classteachers would support. The Government would no doubt emphasise the former on the basis of the rhetoric used to institute the National Curriculum. However the clear identification by many children of being able to make friends as a key reason for coming to school is encouraging to all of us who see education as being (in part) about relationships, and would wish all schools to be happy places.

ReferencesALEXANDER, R, ROSE, J and WOODHEAD, C (1992) Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools: a discussion paper. London: DES

BLENKIN, G.M and KELLY, A.V (eds) (1987) Early Childhood Education: A Developmental Curriculum. London: Paul Chapman

BLENKIN, G.M and KELLY, A.V (eds) (1994) The National Curriculum and Early Learning. London: Paul Chapman

CAMPBELL, J and NEILL, S (1994) Curriculum Reform at KS1: Teacher Commitment and Policy Failure. Harlow: Longman

EVANS, L, PACKWOOD, A, NEILL, S and CAMPBELL, J (1994) The Meaning of Infant Teachers' Work. London: Routledge

GALTON, M (1995) Crisis in the Primary Classroom. London: Fulton

MORRISON, K and RIDLEY, K (1988) Curriculum Planning and the Primary School. London: Paul Chapman

POLLARD, A, BROADFOOT, P, CROLL, P, OSBORN, M and ABBOTT, D (1994) Changing English Primary Schools? The Impact of the Education Reform Act at Key Stage One. London: Cassell

Working with Boys: A new research agendaLYNN RAPHAEL REED, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, BristolIntroductionPick up any educational or broadsheet newspaper at present and you will see it permeated by a chorus of concern over the educational experiences of boys. The articulation of these issues around boys and schooling is embedded in a wider discourse which surfaces in academic publishing as well as popular journalism, that `masculinity' is in crisis. Indeed, congruent with the postmodernist representation of identity, we are increasingly likely to see this framed as concern with `masculinities', taking the constitution of masculinity as a solid form to be problematic.

Whichever way we come to it, a debate is ensuing about boys in school; a debate which raises challenging issues for teachers, policy makers, educational researchers and theoreticians, particularly for those with an explicit commitment to equal opportunities. What I aim to do in this brief paper is to review some of those challenging issues, identify some features of a research agenda which might address them and to introduce a research project I am currently engaged in, entitled `Working with Boys'.

Articulation of the `problem'First of all we must consider critically how concern with the experiences of boys in school is being articulated. Boys appear to be underachieving in relation to girls against certain measurable outcomes, notably GCSE examination results. Recent publication of examination results have revealed that girls achieve on average 10% better grades at GCSE than boys. This applies across a range of subjects, including those which have traditionally been considered to advantage boys (BBC1 1994). Boys' performance in the literacy domain has attracted particular attention, with evidence that boys are less skilled in and less motivated to become skilled in `schooled literacies' (Blackburne 1995, Millard 1994). A recent article in the Guardian claims `More than one in five boys are leaving school without the literacy and numeracy of the average 10 year old' (MacLeod 1995). The comparability of achievement data in this debate needs to be examined, since these outcomes are measured on diverse scales and in multiple contexts. However, the overall picture emerging from achievement data in the (compulsory) school sector, suggests boys' levels of achievement are a cause for concern.

We may, of course, wish to problematise any argument based upon raw examination or test results. Such data tends to simplify the relational elements and provides little evidence of influencing factors, or the relative effectiveness of certain schools at tackling the issues. Lack of comparison by social class or ethnicity may lead us to false conclusions about the significance of gender (Brown and Riddell 1992). `Value-added' measures may reveal that the

`problems' for boys are in fact identifiable, if not initiated, in the primary sector, and remediated in the secondary. An overconcentration on the outcomes in the secondary sector conceals the reversed gender differential still apparent in the tertiary sector, where certain subjects still recruit a significantly higher number of boys and where the achievement levels for boys may still outstrip girls, even in `girl-friendly' subjects. Gerard McCrum, for example, emeritus professor at Oxford, reports that History is the most gender-sensitive subject at Oxford and Cambridge, where male students' polemical style is still favoured at assessment leading to significantly higher number of `firsts' for men at finals (Gardiner 1995b). Similarly, although twice as many girls as boys earn a grade A in English at GCSE, young men are twice as likely as women to gain first-class honours degrees in English (TES editorial 25.8.95.).

Finally, the current emphasis on boys' performance in schools might suggest that boys are disadvantaged when it comes to progress through employment hierarchies. In fact, it is still the case that a glass ceiling operates for women and, on average across the employment sector, men's pay is significantly higher than women's. It may be that a narrow focus on measurable outcomes inadequately captures the complexity of gender issues in education, and that a broader concern with the `hidden curriculum' should remain a key priority. To quote Riddell (1992):

"Unless this wider social context is taken into account, the conclusion from girls' examination performance could suggest there is really no problem." (p 46)

Concerns over underachievement are parallelled by concerns over boys' behaviours in school. Data on pupil exclusion are considered highly sensitive by schools and LEAs and a clear picture is therefore not easy to acquire. However, exclusion figures reveal that the majority of excluded pupils are boys, and that the majority of them are excluded for `emotional and behavioural difficulties'. In certain LEAs the vast majority of pupils excluded from school are black, working-class boys, particularly boys of African Caribbean heritage (Blair 1995, DFEE 1995).

At the same time we have an increasing identification of certain psychological and physiological syndromes affecting boys and their behaviours in far greater numbers than girls (eg Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder, and Asperger's Syndrome). This tendency to `syndromatise' challenging and difficult behaviours of boys in school urgently requires a sociological analysis. Nonetheless, taken together with reading difficulties, such diagnoses partially account for the predominance of boys in SENs units, groups and classes in school, where boys can outnumber girls by as much as one in six.

This articulation of the `problem' with boys in school resonates with some widely publicised concerns over boys and young men in society at large. A certain demonisation of male youth may, of course, be interpreted as a `moral panic' during a period of economic and political crisis (Hall 1978). Certainly, events like the James Bulger murder, and violent confrontation between joyriders and the police have allowed political rhetoric to surface about the breakdown in law and order and loss of `traditional' family values. More

considered studies, however, do suggest elements of a crisis for young men. One in three men in the UK will have a conviction for a serious offence by the age of 31 (Stanko 1995). Suicide rates for young men are also on the increase, with recent statistics indicating that boys in their mid to late teens and early 20s are almost twice as likely to commit suicide as they were twenty years ago, while the suicide rate for girls of the same age has declined by 23% over the same period (Gardiner 1995a, Duval Smith 1994). Rates of depression amongst boys are on the increase, whilst unwillingness to consult doctors over mental and physical health problems sustain shorter life expectancy for men (Aggleton 1995). Testicular cancer, for example, is the commonest cancer in men between 20-34, with an 85% chance of full cure if caught early enough - yet resistance to self-examination persists (Dillner 1995). A recently launched Health Education campaign has been targeted at boys in school.

We may, therefore, agree that something is happening to boys, but how are we to understand it?

Understanding the `problem'Explanations for boys' difficulties with schooling can be broadly categorised as sociological or psychological. Sociological accounts tend to emphasise the significance of material and ideological changes to men's position in society. Increasing male unemployment and particularly high rates of unemployment amongst young men are used to explain boys' disaffection with schooling and young men's' oppositional stances (Wilkinson 1995).

Linked to this perspective, and arising from a sex-role socialisation thesis about the creation and sustenance of gender identity, is concern about the lack of positive male role models for boys. This is articulated most clearly in relation to African Caribbean boys, both through a critique of influential cultural forms (eg Gangsta Rap) and through a somewhat crude sociological proposition that absent black fathers in the home must be substituted for by positive black role models in the classroom (Jeffreys and Bradley 1995, Sewell 1995, Holland/Channel 4 1995, Parry 1995). Overall, researchers are reporting that boys consider it `uncool' to be successful at school (Williams 1995).

This perspective on the problem leads to particular educational solutions, themselves potentially problematic. The interventions proposed by Stephen Holland have been critiqued for diverting attention away from institutionalised racism, and for undermining the integrity of female teachers (Hutchinson and John 1995). Unproblematised notions of masculinity are embedded in certain `positive' role models. Reported in a recent article in the TES, one school in Rochdale has established a mentoring scheme for boys to shadow business people in industry, so that `boys will see what being busy and organised at work really means' (Haigh 1995). This includes being picked up by a male manager at 6.45 am in the morning to attend a business meeting over breakfast; a questionable and highly gendered practice to emulate.

Sociological critiques of the identification of the `problem' with boys also need exploring. These include analyses of the identification of certain boys as having `emotional and behavioural difficulties' in the first place, where, for example, racism, at individual, institutional and societal levels, has been identified in the processes of exclusion. From a feminist perspective, there is tendency to perceive the current focus on boys and schooling as a backlash against feminist influence in education.

Simple causations between sociological factors and increasing incidence of psychosocial disorders affecting children and teenagers, including boys, do need to be avoided. Rutter and Smith (1995) argue that some of the most popular theories are not supported by reliable evidence, and that further research is urgently needed. What they do conclude, however, is that the development of a youth culture disarticulated from society, increasingly isolated from adults, is a serious concern: what the DEMOS report, Freedom's Children, called the emergence of the `underwolves' (Wroe 1995).

Moving on to psychological explanations, certain psychological perspectives have developed out of concern with male roles, but expressed in terms of deeply internalised identity crises. Drawing on a Jungian framework, the writing of Robert Bly (1990) and the practices around `wild man' rituals are often cited as exemplars of interventions that claim to recover essentialist psychologies of masculinity and thereby heal the psychic pain experienced by men and boys (Rowan 1987).

Cognitive psychological explanations, on the other hand, underpin attempts to identify specific masculine learning styles and preferences. Geoff Hannan, an educational consultant increasingly quoted as an `expert' on boys and achievement, claims that classroom practices favour the reflective and language-rich approach of girls to learning, and that boys are poorer on things like sequential planning and organisation of materials (Gardiner 1995b). This perspective has recently been picked up by SCAA, with Nicholas Tate, Chief Executive, urging schools to use more structured teaching methods to stop boys falling further behind girls in key subjects (`Schools told to stop boys' slide', Guardian, 20.10.95.). How that may be picked up in practice is highly dubious, since the exhortation to introduce `structured teaching' can often validate a return to didactic and teacher centred models of teaching and learning. There is no evidence that such teaching methods promote education for equality in its broadest sense.

What these popularised theorisations of the issues around boys and schooling have not done, is link with the existing work that has been done from a feminist perspective on gender and education. This is partially because existing work around gender and education has tended to focus upon the experience of girls, analysing the structural and interactional features of schooling to reveal multiple dimensions of gender inequality (Deem 1980, Spender and Sarah 1980, Stanworth 1981, Mahoney 1985, Arnot and Weiner 1987, Weiner and Arnot 1987). More recent work has explored the relationship between schooling and sexuality, but again problematising the issues primarily for their effects on girls rather than on boys (Lees 1986, Wolpe 1988, Holly 1989, Jones and Mahoney 1989). Such a focus

necessarily reflects the broadly feminist agendas of such authors, to challenge the dominant patriarchal forms of knowledge and relations of schooling in the interests of women and girls (Harding 1987, Ruddock 1994).

There is however an increasing amount of work being done by academics which casts light on the issues around boys in school. Earlier work on adolescent boys tended to simplify a materialist account of the significance of gender (Willis 1977). More recent work, influenced by the developments within feminist and gay writings, has moved beyond the limitations of a sex-role socialisation thesis (Askew and Ross 1988, Thorne 1993, Weiner 1994). Cultural constructivist theories which problematise identity formation within material, social and psychological contexts have been brought to bear in differing ways on the relationship between masculinity and schooling (Heward 1988, Connell 1989, Skeggs 1991, Mac an Ghaill 1994a). This parallels a move within anti-racist writing to shift the debate away from realist and essentialist notions of `race' and ethnicity to a post-structuralist interest in subjectivities and identity (Donald and Rattansi 1992, Marshall 1994, McCarthy and Crichlow 1994). Within this new framework the focus on sexuality as opposed to gender alone, allows for an exploration of the inter-relationship between different forms of power, subordination and domination (Mac an Ghaill 1994b). The debate in relationship to masculinities and schooling has shifted into a domain informed by both materialist and psychoanalytic theories (Haywood and Mac an Ghaill 1995).

Defining a new research agendaWhat remains to be done is a critical investigation of the reported crisis around boys and schooling, integrating the insights from recent academic writing on gender and education, with practitioner orientated theorisation of the issues. Underpining such an intervention, we need to explore in greater depth the ways in which classroom processes are active in the construction of and sustenance of particular forms of masculine identity. In light of this intention I have recently been awarded a Research Fellowship in the Faculty of Education at UWE, Bristol, to undertake a three year ethnographic study of boys in school. The proposal, entitled `Working with Boys', is to explore the relationship between teachers and boys in a secondary school context. The focus of the study is going to be one group of pupils and their teachers and their experiences in the classroom over five terms, from the end of Year 8, through Year 9 and into the first term of Year 10. Specifically, I wish to investigate the ways in which gender and sexualities construct and are constructed by the interactions between teachers and pupils focusing on masculinities, taking `masculinity' to be problematic. In addition, I am seeking to elaborate our understandings of how issues around masculinity impinge upon the learning process for boys in the classroom context and how working with boys impacts upon both the identity formation and educational practices of teachers (Riseborough 1985). Finally, through looking at the work of a radical teacher in the data set (as defined in Raphael Reed 1995) I wish to develop further our understanding of attempts to engage with and intervene in the dynamics of masculinities in the learning process and thereby to further re-evaluate existing equal opportunities perspectives.

I believe that this research proposes a new agenda in a number of key ways: firstly, by exploring in greater detail (than the broad-brush ethnographic approach of Mac an Ghaill, for example) the interactions and perspectives that inhabit the contested spaces of masculine identity formation in school; secondly, by bringing together some of the insights of social constructivist psychology and symbolic interactionist sociology (Pollard 1990, Pollard 1994, Pollard with Filer 1995) with the emerging literature on critical anti-racism and anti-sexism and thereby repoliticising the agenda; thirdly, by centralising the importance of teacher identity to the classroom processes around gender and specifically in relation to working with boys.

The last of these features builds upon an earlier research project which I have undertaken, gathering life histories of teachers committed to social justice and working in socially deprived contexts. A recurrent theme in their accounts was the difficulties and tensions experienced around working with boys, particularly in working class and multi-ethnic contexts (Raphael Reed 1995). Models of how to work in an emancipatory way with girls do not easily transfer across the gender divide, and dilemmas created by working from a radical perspective with pupils whose masculine identities in school often manifest as domineering and disruptive illuminate some significant limitations to existing perspectives on equal opportunities.

What is urgently needed, I would suggest, is a radical, interpretavist study of boys in school, informed by feminist and post-structuralist perspectives on gender and education, and with clear implications for educational practitioners and policy-makers committed to sustaining equal opportunities work in school. The intended outcomes of this study I hope will help to illuminate the issues around boys and their experiences and progress through schooling, and thereby contribute to this important debate.

ReferencesAGGLETON, P (1995) Young Men Speaking Out, Health Education Authority and INSTED

ARNOT, M and WEINER, G (eds) (1987) Gender and the Politics of Schooling, London, Hutchinson

ASKEW, S and ROSS, C (1988) Boys Don't Cry: Boys and Sexism in Education, Milton Keynes, OUP

BBC (1994) `The Future is Female' in Panorama, October 24th 1994, BBC1

BLACKSTONE, L (1995) `How to Lure the Reluctant Boy Readers' in Times Educational Supplement, October 6th 1995.

BLAIR, M (1995) `Race, Class and Gender in School Research' in Holland J, Blair M with Sheldon S, Debates and Issues in Feminist Research and Pedagogy, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters and OUP

BLY, R (1991) Iron John: a book about men, Shaftesbury, Element Books

BROWN, S and RIDDELL, S (eds) (1992) Class, Race and Gender in Schools, SCRE

CONNELL, R W (1989) `Cool Guys, Swots and Wimps: the interplay of masculinity and education', Oxford Review of Education, 15 (3), pp 291-303.

DEEM, R (ed) (1980) Schooling for Women's Work, London, RKP

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION and EMPLOYMENT (1995) National Survey of Local Education Authorities' Policies and Procedures for the Identification of, and Provision for, Children who are Out of School by Reason of Exclusion or Otherwise, HMSO

DILLNER, L (1995) `The life in your man' in The Guardian, 10th October 1995.

DONALD, J and RATTANSI, A (eds) (1992) `Race', Culture and Difference, London, OUP

DUVAL SMITH, A (1994) `Giving up on Life' in The Guardian, December 3rd 1994.

GARDINER, J (1995a) `Not asking for the moon, just a bedsit' in Times Educational Supplement, 20th October 1995.

GARDINER, J (1995b) `Females do better on reflection' in Times Educational Supplement, 20th October 1995.

HALL, S (1978) `Racism and Reaction' in Five Views on Multiracial Britain, London, CRE.

HARDING, S (ed) (1987) Feminism and Methodology, Milton Keynes, OUP.

HAYWOOD, C and MAC AN GHAILL, M (1995) The Sexual Politics of the Curriculum, Paper to The International Sociology of Education Conference, Sheffield.

HEWARD, C (1988) Making a Man of Him, London, Routledge.

HAIGH, G (1995) `Not for wimps' in Times Educational Supplement, 6th October 1995.

HOLLAND, S (1995) Frontline Programme, Channel 4, 13th September 1995.

HOLLY, L (ed) (1989) Girls and Sexuality: Teaching and Learning, Milton Keynes, OUP.

HUTCHINSON, M and JOHN, G (1995) `Enter the Role Model' in Guardian Education, 26th September 1995.

JEFFREYS, D and BRADLEY, L (1995) `They're poisoning our kids: The new rap backlash' in The Independent, 31st July 1995.

JONES, C and MAHONEY, P (eds) (1989) Learning our Lines: Sexuality and Social Control in Education, London, The Women's Press.

LATHER, P (1986) `Research as Praxis' in Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), pp 257-277.

LEES, S (1986) Losing Out: Sexuality and Adolescent Girls, London, Hutchinson.

MAC AN GHAILL, M (1994a) The Making of Men: Masculinities, sexualities and schooling, Buckingham, OUP.

MAC AN GHAILL, M (1994b) `(In)visibility: Sexuality, masculinity and `race' in the school context' in Epstein D (ed) Challenging Lesbian and Gay Inequalities in Education, Buckingham, OUP.

MACLEOD, D (1995) `Schools told to stop boys' slide' in The Guardian, 20th October 1995.

MAHONEY, P (1985) Schools for Boys? Co-education Reconsidered, London, Hutchinson.

MARSHALL, C (ed) (1994) The New Politics of Race and Gender, Falmer Press.

MCCARTHY, C and CRICHLOW, W (eds) (1994) Race, Identity and Representation in Education, London, Routledge.

MILLARD, E (1994) Developing Readers in the Middle Years, Buckingham, OUP.

PARRY, O (1995) `What's sex got to do with it?' in Guardian Education, 5th September 1995.

POLLARD, A (1990) `Towards a Sociology of Learning in Primary Schools' in British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol 11, No 3.

POLLARD, A (1994) `Pupils' Learning, Identity and Social Context; the case of Mary' in International Studies in Sociology of Education, Vol 4, No 1.

POLLARD, A with FILER, A (1995 forthcoming) Learning and Identity in a Primary School, London, Cassell.

RAPHAEL REED, L (1995) `Reconceptualising Equal Opportunities: a study of radical teacher culture in transition' in Griffiths M and Troyna B (eds) Antiracism, Culture and Social Justice, Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books.

RISEBOROUGH, G (1985) `Pupils, teachers' careers and schooling: an empirical study' in Ball S J and Goodson I F (eds) Teachers' Lives and Careers, London, Falmer Press.

ROWAN, J (1987) The Horned God, London, Routledge.

RUDDOCK, J (1994) Developing a Gender Policy in Secondary Schools, Buckingham, OUP.

RUTTER, M and SMITH, D (1995) Psychosocial Disorders in Young People: Time Trends and their Causes, J Wiley and Sons.

SEWELL, T (1995) `A phallic response to schooling: Black masculinity and race in an inner-city comprehensive' in Griffiths M and Troyna B (eds) Antiracism, Culture and Social Justice, Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books.

SKEGGS, B (1991) `Challenging Masculinity and Using Sexuality', British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12(1), pp 127-140.

SPENDER, D and SARAH, E (eds) (1980) Learning to Lose, London, The Women's Press.

STANWORTH, M (1981) Gender and Schooling: A Study of Sexual Division in the Classroom, London, Hutchinson.

STANKO, B (1995) `Gender and Crime' in Criminal Justice Matters, No 19, Spring 1995, pp 3-4.

TES EDITORIAL (1995) `Standards stumble' in Times Educational Supplement, 25th August, 1995.

THORNE, B (1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School, Buckingham, OUP.

WEINER, G and ARNOT, G (eds) (1987) Gender Under Scrutiny, London, Hutchinson.

WEINER, G (1994) Feminisms in Education, Buckingham, OUP.

WILKINSON, C (1995) The Drop-Out Society: Young People on the Margin, National Youth Agency.

WILLIAMS, E (1995) `Lapped by girls' in Times Educational Supplement, 14th July 1995.

WILLIS, P (1977) Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs, Aldershot, Saxon House.

WOLPE, A M (1988) Within School Walls: The Role of Discipline, Sexuality and the Curriculum, London, Routledge.

WROE, M (1995) `Bitter howl of the underwolf' in The Observor, 1st October 1995.