I am really grateful to Noel Jenkins for raising this on Crit-Geog_Forum,
and would second his considered summarising of Standish, and the political
motivations that underlie his work; and to Tim Hall for posting his review
of Standish's book, that serve to underscore Standish's vision of
geography curricula design (Given Gove sought Niall Ferguason out for
History curricula consultation, I can't say I'm surprised at his seeking
out Standish or anyone remotely resembling the Gradgrind like knowledge
and 'banking-style' pedagogic approaches Gove appears to have a penchant
for).
Standish has 'form' in patronising/winding up professional geography
educators and dismissing iteration of geography education 0practise he
doesn't like via a discourse of dismissal ('political cirrectness gone
mad' being his take on getting students to generally think for themselves)
and his 'consultation' comments are both vague smarm, condesention and a
wonderful example of Gove/ the government sticking two fingers up at those
internationally reknown practitioners, whose work over the past decade has
seen really excellent initiatives bringing far more critically engaged,
thought-full materials, practices and approaches to far more students in
compulsory education.
The GA website archive will have much more on this issue.
http://www.geography.org.uk/getinvolved/geographycurriculumconsultation/background
Consultation ends 31st October on the GA website.
Please take time to read background and respond.
Many thanks
Jo
> I'm grateful to list members who have read the documents because there
has
> been for far too long, in my view, a disconnect between school teachers
and academics. As far as I can tell Alex Standish's contribution to
school
> geography began with a polemical article in Wired back sometime in
2002/3
> where he set out the view that school geography was essentially fact
free, issues -based "greenwashing". His paper caused a furious reaction
amongst teachers at the time, though I can't deny that his message may
have usefully helped to refocus the importance of curriculum planning in
some quarters. Subsequently Standish went off to complete his PhD and in
the meantime, the National Curriculum was revised to leave little in the
way of prescribed content. The resulting blank canvas galvanized the
networking efforts of hundreds of teachers, together with the
professional
> associations supported with generous government funding (Action Plan for
Geography) and left KS3 geography in a far healthier position than it
had
> been for years with the majority of schools offering engaging and
relevant
> lower school courses.
>
> I can understand that at first reading, some list members may welcome a
return to the formal teaching of regional geography and can imagine
constructing vibrant and exciting schemes of work around Standish's
prescribed content. But really - does an 12 year old inner city need to
be
> taught about patterns of rural settlement? I'd urge you to consider that
schools have very little time to deliver the subject at KS3 and without
a
> compelling and relevant lower school experience, students will not
choose
> the subject at KS4 and ultimately we all suffer. I suppose that schools
have been guilty of cherry picking geographical topics that we feel are
more interesting, and I confess that it is a good few years since
Christaller was trotted out in my classroom. What I know for certain is
that by KS4 my students are really looking forward to GCSE, their
results
> are excellent, and I send a great proportion of them onto A level
courses
> and University.
>
> In conclusion, my feeling is that Standish's curriculum is a negative
development. I accept that there is plenty of content in the document
that
> is
