University of Huddersfield Repository

University of Huddersfield Repository
University of Huddersfield Repository
McMahon, Patrick J.
'The opportunity to study History': curriculum politics and school pupils' subject choice in the
General Certificate of Secondary Education
Original Citation
McMahon, Patrick J. (2008) 'The opportunity to study History': curriculum politics and school
pupils' subject choice in the General Certificate of Secondary Education. Doctoral thesis, University
of Huddersfield.
This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/2594/
The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the
University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items
on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners.
Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally
can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any
format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit
purposes without prior permission or charge, provided:
•
•
•
The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy;
A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and
The content is not changed in any way.
For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please
contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/
'The opportunity to study History':
curriculum politics and school pupils' subject choice in the General
Certificate of Secondary Education
Patrick J. McMahon
A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
The School of Education and Professional Development
The University of Huddersfield
April 2008
1
2
Abstract
'The opportunity to study History': curriculum politics and school pupils' subject choice
in the General Certificate of Secondary Education
This study investigates (a) the existence of changes in pupils' perceptions of Key Stage 3 (KS3)
History as they move from Year 8 (Y8) to Year 9 (Y9), when they make choices about which
subjects they will study for General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) during Key
Stage 4 (KS4), and (b) whether any changes might influence their choices. The study adopts a
qualitative approach involving 500 pupils and more than 60 teachers in 10 schools over two
years. The place and usage of History in contemporary society are explored. The origins of
History as a educational issue are reviewed from the late 18th Century to the late 20th Century
when there was considerable debate as to what information should be taught, what skills should
be developed and which teaching methodologies should be employed. These aspects were at
times polarised when 'traditional' teaching seemed to be at odds with the 'new' Schools Council
History Project, against a background of an evolving national examination system. With the
compulsory inclusion of Citizenship within schools' curricula, the role and methodology of
History are subject to further debate. The origins of the current situation, where school History
is a non-compulsory subject in the compulsory state-maintained sector, is outlined with
reference to issues and debates which led to comprehensive schools delivering History as an
element of the National Curriculum as initially presented in the Education Reform Act (ERA)
of 1988, which has since been subject to review and amendment. The study deals with the
introduction, implementation and development of the ERA (1987 –2000) and focuses on the
proposals for the subject of History, responses from teachers, administrators and Government
as well as amendments proposed by the Dearing reviews leading towards Curriculum 2000.
The background to the current GCSE examination scheme is reviewed along with the
requirements for compulsory and non-compulsory subjects, and the rationales employed by
individual schools when constructing ‘GCSE option choice schemes’. Factors that may affect
pupils’ perceptions of History in their Y8 and Y9 are discussed. The sets of data collected
reveal ways in which pupils may be influenced by (i) personal perceptions of interest,
enjoyment, demands of work and usefulness in later life and (ii) externally-controlled issues
such as socio-economic circumstances, access to Special Educational Needs (SEN) or language
support, and the nature of the KS3 History curriculum they experience.
3
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the professional and personal contributions of Dr. Roy Fisher, my
Director of Studies at the University of Huddersfield, who has provided guidance and support
for the duration of the study and who has encouraged me to explore further. His advice has
always been focussed and relevant and he has been readily available to discuss issues as they
emerged. Dr. Lesley-Anne Pearson has provided an on-going review of the work in progress
and has advised on the structuring, development and presentation of this study.
At the schools participating in this study, busy teachers of History and their pupils have
provided the sets of data which form the basis of the study: their contributions, good humour
and candid approaches are gratefully acknowledged. The names of all these contributors and
their schools have been anonymised.
4
Contents
Abbreviations
vii
List of figures and tables
ix
Chapter 1:
The study
1
1.1
Introduction
2
1.2
Framework of the research
11
Perceptions of History in the modern world
13
2.1
Why Study History? An introduction
14
2.2
History: the media
17
2.3
History: governments, politics and traditions
23
History in the school curriculum
35
3.1
Government's role in education
36
3.2
History in the school curriculum
39
3.3
The historical context
40
3.4
Viewpoints
48
3.5
Educational awards
57
3.6
The emergence of the National Curriculum
66
3.7
The Education Reform Act 1988
67
3.8
History in the National Curriculum
71
3.9
Responses specific to History
75
Research planning and design
81
4.1
Introduction
82
4.2
Methodological considerations
83
4.3
Choosing an approach
86
4.4
Ethical considerations
94
4.5
Sampling considerations
97
4.6
Survey and interview design
111
Chapter 2:
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Presentation and examination of data
122
5
5.1
Introduction
123
5.2
Perceptions of History survey: Introduction
125
5.3
Personal perceptions
129
5.4
Perceptions of work demands
145
5.5
Perceptions of usefulness
152
5.6
Summary of trends
164
5.7
GCSE options data
166
Further analysis and discussion
171
Introduction
172
Addressing the research questions
173
Chapter 6
Bibliography
189
Appendices
208
6
ABBREVIATIONS
ACTA
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
AQA
Assessment and Qualifications Alliance
BERA
The British Educational Research Association
BoE
Board of Education
CCCS
Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies
CEO
Chief Education Officer
CRE
Campaign for Real Education
CSE
Certificate of Secondary Education
CTC
City Technical College
DES
Department of Education and Science
DfES
Department for Education and SKills
DfSS
Department for Social Services
ERA
Education Reform Act
FSM
Free School Meals
GCE
General Certificate of Education
GCSE
General Certificate of Secondary Education
GEST
Grants for Education, Support and Training
GNVQ
General National Vocational Qualification
HA
The Historical Association
HMI
Her (His) Majesty's Inspectorate
IDE
Inter Disciplinary Enquiry
ICT
Information Comunication Technology
JWRC
Centre for Research and Documentation Japan's War Responsibility
KS 3
Key Stage 3 (11 - 14)
7
KS 4
Key Stage 4 (14 - 16)
LEA
Local Education Authority
LMS
Local management of schools
LSC
Learning and Skills Council
MoE
Ministry of Education
NC
National Curriculum
NCM
New California Media
NFER
The National Foundation for Educational Research
NUT
National Union of Teachers
NVQ
National Vocational Qualification
OCR
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the RSA
OFSTED
Office for Standards in Education
OUA
Oxford University archives
QCA
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
SAT
Standard attainment test
SCAA
School Curriculumand Assessment Authority
SCHP
Schools Council History Project
SEN
Special Educational Needs
SPCK
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
ST
The Sunday Times
TES
The Times Educational Supplement
TGAT
Task Group on Assessment and Testing
TH
Teaching History
TVEI
Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
UK
United Kingdom
Y8,Y9
Year 8, Year 9 (pupils)
List of figures and Tables
8
Table/Figure
Subject
Page
1.1
Distribution of GCSE grades
6
4.1
Distribution of types of school: 2002
112
4.2
Sample schools compared with DfES national averages
100
5.1
Summary of responses to GCSE surveys; Stages (1) and (2)
168
5.2
Percentages of pupils choosing History at sample schools
169
5.3
Raw GCSE option choices from schools 5, 6 and 7
170
5.4
Numbers and gender of pupils surveyed
126
5.5
Summary of changes in boys' and girls' perceptions of History
128
5.6
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 1
130 -132
5.7
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 2
133 - 135
5.8
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 3
136 - 139
5.9
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 4
146 - 148
5.10
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 5
140 - 142
5.11
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 6
143 - 145
5.12
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 7
149 - 150
5.13
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 8
151 - 152
5.14
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 9
153 - 155
5.15
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 10
156 - 158
9
Table/Figure
Subject
Page
5.16
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 11
159 - 161
5.17
Survey of pupils' perceptions of KS3 History: Factor 12
162 - 163
5.18
Summary of trends in pupils' perceptions of History
164
5.19
Numbers of agreements between boys and girls at each school
165
5.20
Number of agreements between boys and girls for each factor
165
6.1
Chi-Square tests of significance of 12 factors
180
6.2
Numbers of opportunities to choose History in option booklets
184
10
CHAPTER 1
The Study
11
1.1: Introduction
This study will seek to explore pupils' experiences in History as they prepare to make choices
at the age of 14 and, in doing so, will consider why they might reject History as a subject for
further study to examination level. The pupils in the sample used in this study reflect schools
whose cohorts have recorded differing levels of achievement in public examinations, and
differing socio-economic environments, special education needs (SEN) and language-based
ethnicity factors. The pupils' experiences and perceptions of taught History during their second
and third years of secondary school were recorded and compared. These comparisons were
reviewed when those pupils were first aware of the examination option procedures and they
were reviewed again when the pupils had made their final choices. This study will seek to
explore any relationships between (i) their experiences of pre-option History and (ii) among
factors of personal, academic, socio-economic or ethnic-background natures.
Firstly, this study will aim to put into context the current National Curriculum (NC) by tracing
briefly how the media, governments and the public have in the past perceived History, not only
as a school subject but also with regard to its relevance to members of a modern society.
Changes in those perceptions will be examined especially in the light of the works of G. R.
Elton and E. Carr, some aspects of which when adapted and reapplied to teaching in schools in
the 1970s, prompted the then Prime Minister James Callaghan (1975) to call for reappraisals of
the then examination system, the curriculum and the status of vocational training to prepare
youth for a fulfilling role in an increasingly technological world. Almost 30 years later Ofsted
reported that the progress made in establishing successful work-related-learning for KS4
pupils, was disappointing (2004 p.18 - 25) and the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) noted
that only 50 per cent of individuals completed their apprentiships (2005). The reappraisals
12
suggested by Callaghan can be traced through to the current NC and option procedures within
examinations systems, both of which form the basis of the empirical research in this study.
The status of the curriculum subjects available as either compulsory or optional, has been
subject to some amendment since the introduction of the Education Reform Act (ERA) in 1988.
Very many of those pupils may be unaware of wider debates during the early years of the
Twenty First Century when the issue of school History, non-compulsory after the age of 14,
has elicited a variety of comments, assessments and criticisms from journalists, politicians,
academic and professional historians, and film makers. In Britain, the Government has
overseen the national primary, secondary, further and higher stages of education, has devised
systems of funding and has sought to ensure the monitoring of appropriate assessment and
accreditation procedures.
Throughout the vast majority of state-maintained schools in England, and towards the end of
Key Stage 3 (KS3) during their third year of secondary education, Year 9 (Y9) pupils are
currently required to choose some optional subjects for study during their last two years (Y10
and Y11) of compulsory schooling, that is, Key Stage 4 (KS4). History is one of those optional
subjects and in 2001 some 35 per cent of pupils choose to study it (Culpin 2002 p.6). At the
age of 16 pupils will sit public examinations, the General Certificate in Secondary Education
(GCSE), in compulsory subjects and will have prepared for optional subjects which may also
be GCSE or vocational in nature. Some pupils will prepare for internally devised courses
leading to certificated statements of achievement in areas of literacy, numeracy and
Information Communication Technology (ICT) skills.
For many pupils, the topics studied during KS3 will be their last formal experience of learning
History. Changes in Government policies relating to the NC established History as a
13
compulsory subject (1988) and then optional in 1993. Across a range of schools, I have noted
that during KS3 the topics studied (content), the teaching styles (methodology) and levels of
teachers' expectations have varied widely. My own ongoing discussions with pupils, teachers
and subject advisors would seem to indicate that interest, enjoyment and resultant learning is
highest during Y8’s Study Unit ‘Britain 1500 – 1750’, previously entitled ‘The Making of the
United Kingdom’, more specifically during the teaching of the ‘Tudors’. Many teachers and
pupils have indicated that those levels of positive perceptions were likely to decline during Y9
when most schools’ History departments were dealing with the socio-economic and modern
world aspects of the NC - a time when those Y9 pupils are engaged in GCSE option-choice
procedures. Such shifts in pupils' enthusiasms, might also indicate how those pupils differ in
their cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses to the biological changes of puberty
(Parry 2005 p.4) that characterise the adolescent period of development and may reflect the
pupils’ changing levels of involvement, application, enquiry and their willingness to explore
wider and deeper aspects across the curriculum, not just in History, at a time in their school
career when they are forced to reject some subjects. Moor and Lord (2005 p.21) have referred
to a gradual downturn in pupils' enjoyment and motivation' during this stage of schooling
which is characterised by physiological and psychological changes. The National Foundation
for Educational Research (NFER) reported that although many countries reported a 'dip' in
pupils' motivation and performance across this age range, there was no clear supportive
evidence; the NFER suggested that changes in teaching and learning styles, in curriculum
experiences, in school organization and in pupils' personal maturation may all play a part. For
some GCSE pupils, KS3 History was preferable for more basic reasons:
Joti (Y10): In the first three years it wasn't as boring because we made things out of
card and stuff
Ellie (Y10): We used to do lots of different things - now we only do wars and America
It is not only the pupils' experiences during KS3 which may influence decisions, but their
forward-looking perceptions of what GCSE History entails.
14
From discussions in schools I have noted that many pupils, and their teachers had observed that
whilst GCSE History is of interest and is focussed, it is challenging. Coe's (2006) study showed
that when interviewed, Y10 and Y11 pupils confirmed that although generally, they were
enjoying the GCSE History courses, they regarded the subject as difficult and demanding. The
role of GCSE Coursework as an element to be included has been referred to by teachers and
pupils alike. The requirement that the pupils will carry out research, analyse and differentiate
sources of information and present written documents for GCSE assessment presumes levels of
self-motivation, literacy and time-management which may not be apparent to all pupils. The
problematic issue of coursework assessment was noted by the School Curriculum and
Assessment Authority (SCAA) which reported that there were many instances of 'poor
annotation' by teachers on pupils' scripts and that there were examples of poor standardization
across teaching groups at some schools (1994 pp.2-3). The University of London Examinations
and Assessment Council (ULEAC) reported that coursework demands from the various
examination boards varied from one assignment to four, with total pupil's contribution between
3.500 and 6.000 words (ULEAC 1994 p.4). The report also noted that teachers' interpretations
of the criteria for awarding marks for 'Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar' (SPG) were
inconsistent and thus, were '...unreliable...' as part of GCSE history awards (p.19). Bell has
shown that History was more likely to be studied by 'high-attaining pupils rather than lowattaining pupils' (2001 p.214) and this may present the difficulty of comparing the grades
achieved in History with those of different GCSE subjects. For example, in 2005 66.6 per cent
of pupils achieved an A - C grade in GCSE History whilst a similar number, 60.1 per cent,
achieved those grades in GCSE Physical Education. The distributions of those grades illustrate
that more pupils did achieve A* and A grades in History than in Physical Education but also
that more pupils only achieved grades F - U than in Physical Education. In History 39.9 per
15
cent achieved C - E grades but in Physical Education, a much higher proportion, 55.7 per cent
achieved those grades (see p.6).
Fig. 1.1: Distribution of GCSE grades for History and Physical education (Stubbs 2006)
GCSE Grades A - U
25
20
%
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Grades
History
Phy. Education
Thus direct comparisons of A - C rates across different GCSE subjects may not reveal
significant patterns of achievement across the A - G range of grades. For all GCSE pupils, the
competence of their teachers, the physical and social conditions of their environments, the
availability of parental support and the demands of peer pressure may vary widely.
The advent of 'league tables' alongside the NC permits the publication of details of GCSE
examination results for all schools. These are presented in the form of (i) the percentage of
pupils gaining five or more GCSE passes at 'C' grade or above and (ii) the percentage of pupils
gaining five or more passes at 'G' grade or above. As GCSE History is considered as one of the
16
more 'demanding' subjects' pupils may not choose to study it. School management teams
(SMT) may be aware that some pupils would be more likely to benefit (that is 'pass') if they
were advised to select a different option. This however, is purely conjecture and may be
considered a contentious issue. For example, Pyke (1996) has suggested that for some pupils
History would be difficult and that Geography was '...a safer bet...' (p.4).
Advice, in the form of audio-visual presentations which could be customised by individual
schools, is issued annually by the Historical Association (HA) to their members' History
departments in secondary schools across the UK and abroad; this is for dissemination to
parents and pupils, emphasising the importance of skills which would be useful in ‘…work,
study and life…’ (HA 2005 1:1). More specifically, these skills, using information effectively,
weighing up the relative value of conflicting evidence, careful analysis and criticism, would
assist the pupils to understand human behaviour and later, would provide them with exactly the
qualities sought by employers - ‘…independent thinker, open minded, disciplined, problem
solver and the ability to distinguish between the essential and the trivial…’ (HA 2005 1:3).
Reports from examination boards OCR (2006) and Edexcel (2005) reveal that the levels and
applications of such skills in submitted courseworks and examination scripts were in many
cases variable and often lacking. However useful or transferable these skills developed while
studying History at school, the proficient application of such skills may not indicate the pupil’s
interest or enthusiasm for the subject. Some pupils who participated in this study expressed
their own rationale when selecting GCSE subjects:
Danny (Y10): I'm joining the army, I'm in the Cadets, and I'm doing Geography so me
and my Mum can see where I'm sent
Assifa (Y10): I chose History because I want to go on and do Law and the stuff they
sent (sic) said History was useful
The place and purpose of History in schools have been confused somewhat recently: the
proposal to include Citizenship as a compulsory subject in the National Curriculum (see Crick
17
1998), from 2001 and in KS3 and KS4 from 2002, had prompted some teachers to suggest that
it should be an integral element of NC History (Wrenn 1999 p.37), but later surveys by the
Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) reported in 2003 that using some historical
themes to teach Citizenship, were of limited value (OFSTED 2003 p.12). Pupils engaged in the
selection of their GCSE optional subjects might be confused if they encounter History from
two different areas of the NC. The Citizenship Act of 2002 requires that immigrants seeking
citizenship be offered a 'well judged analysis' of 'core British values' although Fisher has
suggested that this could be 'dangerously close to an official history of Britain' (Fisher 2005
p.40-41). The Historical Association's (HA) president Barry Coward agreed: ' Official histories
are a bad thing ... can be used for establishing government purposes and can be reinvented to
support the official establishment' (Coward 2006 p.3). A basic Internet search using 'history'
and 'citizenship' will reveal that the Government's Home Office, the former Department for
Education and Skills (DfES) now split into two new Departments, some secondary schools and
University Departments perceive close links between these two subjects. There may indeed be
an overlap between Citizenship and History as taught in schools, but there could also be cases
of very different emphases. Some groups within society have opinions about issues of what has
been notionally referred to as 'national identity', or as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer
Gordon Brown put it more recently in 2006, 'Britishness' (Brown 2006 p.1), and suggest that
Citizenship should be established in History (Marsden 2005 p.25). Ironically, pupils
participating in this study who choose History are able to discuss the beginnings and the
operations of the League of Nations post-1918, but not one of them was aware of the League's
promotion of school History as important in teaching Citizenship and '...so avoid conflict and
prevent another war...' (Wong 1997 p.4). However, Elton has suggested that there is '...no proof
that knowledge of History, recent or distant succeeds in giving a man much understanding of
his own time...' (1969 p.148).
18
Individuals may adopt relatively narrow interpretations of History, but for very many people,
what they know of British, European or World History and how they interpret it began at
school as a compulsory subject (Frazer 2005 p.19). From the 1960s debates about the content,
that is the 'facts', to be learned, the skills to be developed and the appropriate teaching
methodology have continued. History is not a finite subject, reflecting rules and established
practices of 'linear' (sic) systematic progression from stage to stage such as in Mathematics, the
Sciences and to some extent Modern Foreign Languages (Twigg 2003 Col.414W). History
presents to pupils the process of accepting 'knowledge' and interpretations whilst being made
aware of the concept of possible uncertainty as to the veracity and accuracy of that knowledge.
GCSE pupils may well appreciate the almost transient nature of the subject. Such possible
uncertainty was proffered by controversial revisionist historian David Irving - 'everyone's
baddie...with opaque motives' (Rowan 2000 p.15) - after he had 'denied' historical events and
was facing a prison sentence in Austria in February 2006: in his defence he claimed "History
is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the
more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989" (Irving 2006 p.1).
Those same GCSE pupils may discern the underlying insight of novelist Terry Pratchett who
has more pointedly hinted at the difficulties in accepting historical knowledge:
History unravels gently, like an old sweater. It has been patched and darned many
times, re-knitted to suit different people, shoved in a box under the sink of censorship to
be cut up for dusters of propaganda, yet it always - eventually - manages to spring back
into its old familiar shape. History has a habit of changing the people who think they
are changing it. History always has a few tricks up its frayed sleeve. It's been around a
long time.
(Pratchett 1987 p.150)
If the pupils in our schools are able to experience what seems to be an almost ambivalent
approach to interpreting History, they may be able to apply such discrimination to many
aspects of their developing adult life. Unfortunately, many pupils will cease to study History
beyond the age of 14, as it is no longer a compulsory subject beyond that age. This study will
19
seek to explore pupils' experiences in History as they prepare to make choices at 14 and in
doing so, will consider why they might reject History for further study to examination level.
Those pupils who opt to study History to examination level have to, either overtly or implicitly,
deal with two issues: first, why study History at all? That is, what is the attraction of the
subject? Secondly, within a labyrinth of option procedures where school departments compete
for ‘clients’, how do they negotiate such procedures when opting to study History?
In order to pursue this study, consideration had to be given to how these areas of pupils'
experiences might be explored. Although a National Curriculum of History is delivered in all
maintained schools, there are variations as regards content within the prescribed study units:
for example, when studying the Industrial Revolution pupils at one school may concentrate on
advances in technology whilst pupils at another school may study social issues in depth. At
times, pupils' recollections of their KS3 topics may be vague or perhaps considered somewhat
superficial:
Janine (Y10): I enjoyed learning about Ann Berlin (sic) because they accused her of
being a witch for having six fingers and I liked the clothes they wore
Or, some pupils may demonstrate greater insight:
Lindsey (Y10): I could connect better with the Tudors because it was about how
different people coped with the pressures, specially the women
Both of these comments reflect not just pupils' opinions but may also reveal the possible
influence of the undisclosed effects of the classroom teaching and environment. My
interactions with both teachers and pupils have proved to be of great interest and to have been
generally informative. But herein is a difficulty; one could pursue a wholly qualitative
approach to observing and recording pupils' and teachers' comments and whilst the narratives
20
may be rewarding, they represent 'here and now' pictures rather than comparisons. Thus a
structured approach was adopted, an approach that would identify from pilot studies criteria
which pupils thought important and which might influence their overall perceptions of KS3
and GCSE History. The use of clearly structured surveys, interview procedures and local and
national GCSE data would mean that a similar study could be repeated elsewhere or at another
time and comparisons could be drawn (Sanger 1996 p.13).
1.2: Framework of the study
Chapter Two will seek to show how the media, governments, politicians and writers present
various perceptions of History and how those widely disseminated perceptions have the
potential to confirm or to conflict with content of GCSE courses.
Chapter Three will place the subject of History in context by tracing briefly the development
of compulsory schooling, comprehensive schools, educational awards and the now established
History Study Units in the National Curriculum, and how those Units has been debated in the
context of teaching methodology and relevance for pupils seeking careers in the 21st Century.
Chapter Four in outlining research planning and design, will examine methodological,
ethical and sampling considerations, will identify some constraints within schools, and will
develop a rationale for the designing of data collection tools and their implementation in order
to explore how pupils perceive the relevance, demands and potentially positive aspects of
History, initially during their Y8, and in Y9 when GCSE option procedures are in place.
Chapter Five will present and examine the data collected from the schools surveyed. Firstly,
pupils' initial possible choices for optional GCSE courses will be compared with their final,
21
official choices. Secondly, pupils' perceptions of KS3 History when in Y8 will be compared
with those when in Y9.
Chapter Six will provide a summary of the results in order to exemplify the impact of
potential changes in pupils' motivation whilst studying KS3 History. How any such changes
might affect the choosing of GCSE History will be examined by addressing four issues:
(i)
do pupils' perceptions of History alter from Y8 to Y9?
(ii)
if there are changes, are patterns, associations or conflicts established clearly?
(iii)
do option procedures at different schools offer pupils equal degrees of subject
choice?
(iv)
can any changes in perceptions or school environments be associated with rates
of uptake for GCSE?
22
CHAPTER 2
Perceptions of History in the Modern World
23
2.1: Why study History? An Introduction
Pupils who are presented with the opportunity to study GCSE History during KS4 may view
the process from different perspectives. The following statements made by KS3 pupils who
participated in this study, towards the end of their Y9 after they had made firm choices for
GCSE subjects, illustrate some of the rationales adopted during that period of decision-making.
Lenny: I've always liked it (History) and I'm good at it
Ifran: I had to pick two, I picked History and Geography because the others were
Music and Languages and stuff (sic) that I don't like
Melissa: I got my Drama and wasn't really bothered about the other so I picked History
as well
Very many of the other curriculum subjects may be seen as 'tools' in the pursuit of skills,
employment and careers, useful in that Britain could compete industrially, economically and
technically with other nations of the world, as James Callaghan had voiced during his speech at
Ruskin College in 1975. From the pupils' perspectives, Kniveton's survey (2004) revealed that
14 - 18 year-olds aspired to having money, a job they liked, and that status came from having
possessions, not from particular levels of employment.
History, however, has been ascribed with other non-utilitarian qualities as was apparent in the
opening section of an interim report prepared by the History Working Group in 1989 which
outlined a curriculum for the subject to be taught in maintained schools in England:
History is interesting for its own sake, naturally arousing curiosity and raising
many questions; it suggests and tests hypotheses, and generates speculation
(National Curriculum: History Working Group 1989 p.6).
More recently, History has been viewed as incorporating the transmission of and commitment
to '...the best of the culture we have inherited...' and so provide a common set of values and
experiences for the ‘future citizen’, valuable attributes for those pupils who chose to study
GCSE History (Tate 1998 p. 21). On a more political note, History it had been claimed, could
24
stoke the ‘…fires of nationalism…’ (Toynbee 1970 p. 60) perhaps leading to social unrest.
Others had judged the subject to have little evident utility, wondering what relevance the
escapades of Henry VIII in relation to his wives has for teenagers entering the modern adult
world (Deuchar 1992 p. 1). On this point, for KS3 and KS4 pupils in the classroom, it is
possible that the amount of attention devoted to particular individuals, for example Mary
Tudor, Oliver Cromwell or J. F. Kennedy, may be more a function of their notoriety and their
contemporary position of power, providing interest and excitement, than their importance to
society or their contribution to knowledge. During the last twenty years or so of the Twentieth
Century, in a modern society which has demanded that the education system provides
individuals with employment-related skills, especially those related to developing technologies
and which would compare favourably with those provided in other countries, the study of
History might have seemed out of place.
For the pupils in our schools, History, as formal record, a story or a tale incorporating a
chronological record of the past, seeks to provide an explanation of human activity. Teachers
of KS3 pupils in maintained schools have to select what they judge to be appropriate 'bits' from
the broad sweep of a thousand years of History - not just British, but elements of European and
World History also. In some ways, KS4 History - the GCSE course - is narrower, deeper and
affords greater opportunities for pupils to develop an appreciation that the interpretations of
previous writers of History may have been determined more by the need to conform to the
social expectations, intellectual assumptions and moral quests of their contemporary peers and
audience, than a desire to present evidence which questioned the status quo of the day: for
example, in his foreword to a biography about Lingard (Jones 2004), historian Patrick
Collinson noted that during the established Whig-Protestant mainstream of the Nineteenth
Century it may well have been considered that ‘…a good Catholic Historian was almost an
oxymoron…’ (Collinson 2004). Pupils in the 11 – 14 year-old age range may not attain easily
25
such levels of appreciation of the subtle nuances of a past era, but could, for example during
KS4, have the time and the developing maturity to give serious consideration to the origins and
motives of '...dubious narrations...' (Edwards 2005 p.25) contained in specific documents.
Such doubts were apparent among Y8 pupils participating in this study as they examined
resources from the National Archives, in this instance the 'normal' (readable) signature made
by Guy Fawkes and the signature on his 'confession':
Hassan: They tortured him, he couldn't write proper but they made him
Vicky: (re.signature) It's nothing like - maybe a bit of the 'G' and the 'o'
Gina: I bet he didn't write it - one of the prison people did
Although their discussion continued to explore some of the more gruesome aspects of torture,
these pupils were unable to reach agreement as to the authenticity of the second signature. This
type of investigative teaching stretches the pupils to consider alternatives, to think laterally and
not to rely solely on an accepted corpus of received knowledge. In the Twentieth Century, the
Campaign for Real Education (CRE) pointed out polarised viewpoints found in the nation’s
schools, the ‘mish mash of History’ as opposed to emphasis on events and personalities
(Deuchar 1992 p.2). Pupils may have wondered how studying for and passing an examination
in History would equip them for a fulfilling role in an increasingly utilitarian society.
There is some irony in the fact that outside of schools during the late Twentieth Century, the
United Kingdom (UK) saw a rapid rise in popular History as presented by the ever-expanding
media. It was argued that History as a school subject was under threat and that as a result of
less emphasis on the subject in schools, individuals and the nation as a whole would somehow
be bereft of a clear understanding and appreciation of the society in which they lived.
26
It may be useful to review briefly how school KS3 and GCSE pupils may be confused by the
roles that (i) the media in general and (ii) governments have adopted and the public perceptions
of such roles before examining, in Chapter 3, the origins and development of the present
History curriculum for those pupils.
2.2: History and the media
Before the Twentieth Century media became instantly global in its acquisition and
dissemination of opinions, interpretations and knowledge, it could be argued that
commentators on education in general and History as a particular subject adopted fairly narrow
perceptions. In 1776, David Hume’s introduction to his newly published ‘History of England’
began with:
The curiosity entertained by all civilized nations, of enquiring into the exploits
and adventures of their ancestors, commonly excites a regret that the History of
remote ages should always be so much involved in obscurity, uncertainty and
contradiction
(Hume 1776 p.17).
Hume had written for an adult audience. This is not to suggest such aspects of History were
useful only for adults; forty years later some educators sought to create a '...true relish for the
study of History...' among their students (Slater E 1827 p.iii). Reasons for studying particular
subjects have varied. Goodson (1993) noted that during the mid-Nineteenth Century:
The curriculum of the public and grammar schools was extremely specialised and, in
line with the avowed intention of educating 'Christian gentlemen', stressed classics and
religious education.
(p.14).
Such a desire to retain the established social conventions and associated values may be evident
in the comments of eminent Victorians such as Gaisford, Dean of Oxford's Christ Church
College, who is reputed to have suggested that the study of Classical Greece was essential, and
was a means of gaining ‘…considerable emolument…’ and being ‘…raised above the vulgar
herd…’ (Lloyd-Jones 1982 p.124).
27
The previous consensus of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century History textbooks used
by pupils embodied non-problematic narratives of British, Christian and patriarchal
perspectives on the qualities of bravery, determination and national pride; these ensured that all
pupils were familiar with the exploits of Drake, Nelson and Wellington; even the non-military
‘heroes’ Newton, Stephenson and Brunel had a significant place in English History. In the
early Twenty-first Century, some politicians called for a new emphasis on such characters,
claiming that 'tradition' had been neglected within modern teaching schemes (Helm 2005).
However, Goodson (1995 p.22) notes that such 'tradition' was invented, thus reflecting political
and social priorities that may not be relevant today. It would seem that apart from Boudicca (in
KS2), Elizabeth I and Florence Nightingale (in KS3), women had not featured too highly in the
representations of the development of the nation and Empire, prompting modern debate
centring around a 'his-story and her-story' theme (Lee 2002 p.1). Any such perceived bias was
to be addressed initially post-1950 as sociological data became more available, and more
formally within the ERA of 1988. Interestingly, the roles of those who were neither famous or
powerful in past times were not highlighted significantly. Defoe had expressed a similar line of
thought on the eve of Marlborough's funeral:
We are now solemnising the obsequies of the great Marlborough...his victories,
glories...great schemes and conquests, as if he alone had fought and conquered, what so
many men obtained for him with their blood
(1726 p.53)
Pupils studying GCSE History might well appreciate such thoughts when considering their
own friends and relations in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Twenty years ago the quality of History as presented in television programmes was derided by
some as '...a medium that promised so much but delivered so little...' (Taylor 1981 p.231), yet it
is the media which provided an influential consensus viewpoint of History for pupils during the
very late Twentieth Century. However by the early Twenty-first Century, individuals who
attracted the attention of the school age population as pseudo-heroes or so-called role models
28
were more likely to come not from History, but from the sports fields or the media studios:
writer of children's books, Alan Gibbons was scornful of the influence of such individuals:
When our children see the dumb, the dim, the self-obsessed, the ignorant, the bizarre
and the downright woeful feted by the media, is it any wonder they want a piece of the
action?
(Gibbons 2006 p.32)
Computer games programmers have encapsulated narrow perceptions of the past within their
products which can be as diverse as attacking a castle with a trebuchet, air combat over the
trenches or the tank battle at Kursk. Such snippets of restructured past events present idealised,
clear-cut notions of identity and difference; they do not acknowledge History as an intellectual
enterprise. History is presented as ‘winning or losing’. When watching film, video or DVD,
KS3 and KS4 pupils encounter images representing historical events.
For example, the
experiences of English settlers in 17th century North America as presented in Disney’s
Pocohontas (1995) provides the bare bones of actual events with a lot of entertaining and
enjoyable ‘fill’. However, sometimes blatant falsification has been used at times to 'enhance'
the drama: in the film, The Patriot (2000) which depicts events during the American War of
Independence, British Redcoats are shown burning townspeople in a local church - an event
not documented historically anywhere for that time, but oddly, does mirror events in 1649
when English troops sacked Drogheda (Plant 2001) and in 1944 at Ouradour-sur-Glane, when
German soldiers did carry out such actions (Cavill 1999). My observations of teachers has
indicated that pupils studying GCSE History are made aware, not only of such 'adaptations' but
also of the potential for modern day parallels. The juxtaposition of modern media and historical
events was shown clearly by the titling of Malvern's article in The Times (10-6-2006),
highlighting a forthcoming film:
Hollywood shines light on geezers who killed à Beckett
Pupils' perceptions of History are shaped strongly by film narratives and pictorial
representations (see Seixas 1994); it is difficult for teachers trying to deliver the great breadth
of KS3 History to provide time for pupils to analyse in detail the underlying 'truths'. That
29
opportunity to analyse in depth is a significant aspect of GCSE History during KS4. More
recently Ridley Scott, director of the film Kingdom of Heaven (2005), had been criticised by
some historians for portraying Saladin and the Muslim armies in a more positive way than had
been the case in earlier productions. This film, allegedly suggesting that the Crusaders were
driven by greed rather than piety, prompted this response from a film reviewer: '...this is not
how Christians I know see each other...nor will we want to see the film...' (Harlow 2005).
Ridley's response was that cramming 200 years of History into a two hour film was a
'...challenge...'; his comment that '...every historian is an expert...' highlights the fact that
interpretations of History have differed, and will continue to do so (Andrews 2005). On this
latter point, it is interesting to note that critics in the Middle East felt that the film had
'...captured the spirit of the times...rather than trying to present historical facts...' (Perry 2005).
Pupils opting for GCSE History would be able, quite quickly, to conclude that Christians and
Muslims of our times are not necessarily representative of those involved in the Crusades and
those pupils may well be able to discriminate between '...intelligent, investigative explanation
or theatricality...' (Nightingale 2005 p.37). A Y11 Muslim pupil studying GCSE History
commented:
Haroon (Y11): I think it's fair, they (Christians and Muslims) both did bad things
Television's 'world of hyperreality' (sic) (Pickering 1997 p.64) may have led pupils to be
seduced by the simplicity and accessibility of such stories which may have been distorted,
biased, glamorised and perverted (Jenkins 2002 p.2). Nigel William's production of Elizabeth I
on Channel 4 (October 2005) 'invented' a face-to-face meeting between Elizabeth and Mary
Queen of Scots, probably to highlight a 'human interest' element - good drama, but poor
History. A group of Y8 pupils participating in this study were almost ready to believe that
their teacher had 'got it wrong':
Farhan (Y8): You told us that Elizabeth never met up with Mary, - she only wrote.
Simon (Y8): It says in my book they met [Simon was asked to fetch the book to discover
that he had misread the relevant paragraph]
30
Yet historians such as Simon Sharma and David Starkey, through the medium of television,
have combined scholarship with adept presentation and have to some extent ‘popularised’ the
subject not just for adults but also for some pupils who found the details had enlightened and
extended their appreciation of historical persons and events. Complicated historical stories
have been delivered with '...deceptively simple elegance...' (Tusa 2004 p.142) but 'the youthful
historian (who) prances in front of the camera, exemplar of the new gardening ...to jolly the
viewers along' was not to everyone's taste (Gott 2003 p.1). On television, Adam Hart-Davis,
Richard Holmes and Tony Robinson have demonstrated the value of the 'hands on' approach at
historical sites. All such media presentations, which mirror Hume’s ‘…exploits and adventures
of their ancestors…’ may reflect Collingwood’s ‘…History is a drama…’ (1965 p.36) and have
been put to good use in straddling a divide, perceived earlier, between 'soft popular History'
and 'hard professional History' (Watts 1972 p.10). Even though there is an abundance of
programmes relating to historical peoples and events, it would be wrong to assume that all
pupils forgo their leisure time in order to enhance their knowledge. When interviewing Year 10
pupils who had opted for GCSE History, about their out-of-school viewing and reading
preferences, I found the following exchange of interest:
Question: Do any of you make a special effort to watch television programmes which
relate to your History studies?
Darren: There was a thing about appeasement on telly last term - Sir told us to watch it
Tasleem: I watched a film last week about Mary Tudor. It was nothing to do with my
GCSE work but it was good
Saima: You watch History things when you don't have to?
It is difficult to describe Saima's almost contrived expression of incredulity that a fellow pupil
would voluntarily give up free time for such things.
Pupils may have ‘learned’ or ‘enjoyed’ or done both from what some considered ‘…Starkey’s
court-based soap opera and power politics…’ (Kemp 2004 p.49). When presenters state that
'we don't know' or 'we do not have evidence', they are indicating that in the past, individuals
may have 'covered their tracks' and removed critical documents in much the same way as some
31
businesses, politicians and individuals might do in the present. Pupils are able to associate
with that doubt, experienced when studying some aspects of KS3 and later, examining
critically documents as part of KS4 GCSE History. Such success has been attributed by writers
within the education process to be the result of successful teaching within schools, that is,
‘separating myth from History’ (Smith 4.3.2005 p.26).
In the wider society, even the language of History has changed. Pupils and the public at large
often hear of ‘conflict’ and ‘conflict resolution process’ rather than ‘war’ and ‘peace’, of
‘interface’ to describe a skirmish, riot or battle and of ‘spin’ to describe how some politicians
deal with ‘true’ official statements. The relatively overt dishonesty of ‘propaganda’ – a key
concept in GCSE ‘Modern World’ examinations during much of the 1990s - was replaced by
the almost positive ‘perception management’ during the Iraqi war of 2003 and the freelancing
news reporters who had previously critically monitored all aspects were replaced by
‘embedded journalists’ whose bulletins referred only to those aspects, which were sanctioned
by either side. By Autumn 2003, the negative consequences of such ‘spin’, rhetoric and
political manoeuvre within Government, or as many pupils might see it -‘the adult world’-,
had led to official enquiries, resignations and denials within Government and a new expression
to replace ‘spin’ was voiced, ‘presentation’, which seemed more benign. Toynbee’s 1970s
assertion that some historical documents were not written to provide trustworthy information
may have been valid still (1970 p.55). A group of Y11 pupils discussing the 'value' of using
official sources seem to have accepted that 'spin' was and still is part of Government practice:
Mark - 'nothing new there then...Cecil was at it to control Elizabeth and get Mary
Queen of Scots killed...he made things up 'cause be didn't think women could be proper
leaders...'
Rachel - (sensing another underlying dimension, interrupts) '...like you say Mark..
nothing new!!...'
These comments demonstrate these GCSE pupils developing maturity in their abilities to
present interrelated responses rather than repeat facts. Although in the context of the war in
32
Iraq, the United States Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld had declared “…the absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence…”, raising the possibilities of ‘unknown unknowns’
(Barone 2004); such an approach may be an ideal tenet for professional historians and pupils
alike, again reflecting both Hume’s ‘uncertainty and contradiction’ and the National
Curriculum’s ‘speculation’. The vast majority of the public accepted what Pickering termed the
'seductive qualities' (1997 p.29) of the media, as ‘fact’ and embraced a consensus viewpoint
where pupils accepted passively their own place in, and the relationship of their country to the
rest of the world, with little thought or question. My survey of 60 Y10 pupils (2005) to explore
this suggestion (see appendix E-2), revealed that only 4 (6.6 per cent) regularly read or
watched complete news features. Celebrities, games, cartoons, sports, 'soaps', 'reality' shows,
and especially 'The Simpsons' were considered by the vast majority, to be worth reading or
watching. Their internet usage centred on games, entertainment, sports and music. A wider
survey carried out by the British Dietetic Association (BDA) (2006), of 3000+ adolescents,
revealed little differences in the viewing habits of boys or girls. Thus the media is seen to
provide occasionally, portions of instant History, out of context and with an apparent air of
authority and completeness; indeed, it may be difficult to find many people who acknowledge
any reality unless they see it on a screen. The really significant historical event of the early 21st
Century may be the perceived corruption of the democratic process by the unquantified
involvement of mass media, intelligence services and non-transparent governments. If pupils
have the opportunity to study GCSE History and the teaching of it in schools is successfully
delivered, the citizens of the future may be able to apply the skills of analysis, comparison and
judgement retrospectively.
33
2.3: History: Governments, politics and traditions
Pupils who opt to study GCSE History in order to gain knowledge and understanding may be
made aware that the associated skills of judgement, analysis, comparison and criticism are
indeed transferable across a wide range of careers, as intended by the rationale of the
programmes of study for KS3 and KS4 History. These pupils - the citizens and electors of the
future - will have opportunities to observe and comment on their world. Politicians, who may
or may not have such skills and knowledge when in power, may possibly have had the
potential to deliberately or unwittingly manipulate interpretations of History. This section will
cite some examples of how the subject of History has impinged on many aspects of human
behaviour in different parts of the world. Pupils studying GCSE History may well be able to
draw parallels between what they are studying, for example the Russian revolution, Nazi
Germany, the Cold War or Independence in India, and events in the modern world.
World leaders who lacked Historical knowledge and understanding were unable, it was alleged,
to devise and apply appropriate foreign policies (Cook, 2002). In the United States, fears were
expressed that “...future leaders are graduating with an alarming ignorance of their heritage...a
profound historical illiteracy...which bodes ill for the future...” (American Council of Trustees
and Alumni 2001 p.1) (ACTA) For example, what became known as ‘The History Wars’ (see
MacIntyre 2004) in Australia has promoted continuing discussion, and indeed some ill feeling,
centring on differing interpretations of the details and effects of the colonial settlement on the
original Aboriginal inhabitants. Two viewpoints have predominated; (i) so called "left-wing
liberal" historians backed by supportive left-wing politicians who claimed the founding of the
new Australia was little short of official genocide and dispossession and (ii) so called
"conservative" politicians who sought to support historical research which contradicted that
view (Beams 2004). Pupils expect their teachers to be ethical and to teach objectively; teachers
expect their main sources of information, the historians, to behave similarly. Thus the shifting
34
alliances and conflicts demonstrated by Australia's 'History Wars', give pupils an indication of
the difficulties in providing dispassionate interpretation. The partisan interpretations may be
ideological, promoting self-righteousness whilst at the same time, seeking to deny the
opposition a valid point of view.
A similar but less publicised debate began in Germany in the mid 1980s when ‘…academics
and intellectuals…’ disagreed on how the post-1945 Federal Republic of Germany should
come to terms with its recent (Nazi) past; conservative and pluralist advocates opposed each
other (Hirschfeld 1987 p.8). Pupils and perhaps their teachers may be led to observe that
certain selected Histories were relevant, worthwhile and important, implying that other
Histories were of less value. In England debate has continued between those who believe that
school History should present a mainly British perspective and those who advocate the
inclusion of themes, which stress and promote cultural diversity (Haydn et al 2001 p.18). Such
selectivity, usually politically motivated, wherever in the world, does a disservice to History.
History is not simply a process of selecting received recollections, the rout or the rally, the
victory or the defeat, the creation or the destruction, but it represents aspects of 'pull', the 'yin
and yang' of life (Toynbee 1948 pp.556-557). Although this could promote appropriate
celebration or mourning, and so create the potential for polarization within communities akin to
ancient tribalism, it should be about knowing and understanding the past, making sense of it
and interpreting the present, dispassionately. These few examples have illustrated that pupils
without the skill of historical perspective developed at school, may be unable to make sound
judgements especially when adults make decisions about interpretations of the past.
In some cases, it is not just a discussion about whether pupils should study History, but which
aspects of History should be available to them. Very many of the pupils studying GCSE
History will learn of the establishing and the demise of the League of Nations post-1918 and
35
will have completed a study of the Japan-Manchuria events. Those pupils may be intrigued to
learn of the modern repercussions of Japan's actions when decisions, about which version of
History pupils learn in schools, were highlighted in China during April 2005. Protesters
appeared to have the tacit approval of the Chinese government as they attacked Japanese
property and tried to incite a boycott of Japanese products (Coonan 2005 p.22). Those who
were protesting claimed that (a) they disapproved of the Japanese Prime Minister visiting a war
shrine (in Japan) where alleged war criminals were buried and (b) they objected that the
Japanese Ministry of Education had approved the use in junior high schools of a ‘right-wing'
history textbook that ‘whitewashed Japanese atrocities’ during the period 1931 – 1945 (Ryall
and Levine 2005 p25). A comparison of teaching methods of History in English and Japanese
secondary schools revealed that in Japan, text books were heavily relied upon by teachers and
pupils and that the information therein was considered to represent ‘…immutable truths…’
(Larson et al 2004 p.42). Those Chinese who protested about the alleged dishonesty of
Japanese textbooks, may not, ironically, have had the opportunity to learn, during their own
time in China’s schools, about the world’s condemnation of China’s occupation of Tibet in
1951 or of Mao Zedong's (Tsetung’s) ‘Great Leap Forward’ in their own country during the
late 1950s when possibly as many as thirty million died of starvation (Coonan 2005 p.25).
Chairman Mao's 'Cultural Revolution', reflecting his aspirations for the then present and future,
included the rewriting and reselecting aspects of the China's history to be 'officially'
emphasised (McGovern 1994 p.16). In England, the vast majority of teachers use textbooks as
just another source to illustrate particular items, not as objective summaries of events and
conclusions. This is not solely a case of academics engaged in impassioned debate within the
confines of universities and research institutes, but is a demonstration of how pupils in schools
are subject to the ‘truth’ as presented by adults.
36
The question is, will young pupils, the future citizens, actually read these ‘news’ items and
will the inputs of teachers, textbooks, families and local communities have greater effect?
Alongside this decades-old Sino-Japanese confrontation and perhaps a catalytic factor, was a
deep disagreement concerning the exploration of potentially vast oil and gas fields within a
disputed strip of the East China Sea and Japan’s aspirations for a place on the United Nations
Security Council.
Observant pupils may be confused, even discouraged, by the apparent lack of objectivity from
all sides, when politicians, historians and the media promote their own individual, sometimes
conflicting versions of the ‘true historical facts’, and the public at large forms opinions based
on scant evidence.
In England where the production of History textbooks is not under state control, it is the
publishers who provide materials which cater for the demands of the NC and 'dark incidents'
such as slavery, Nineteenth Century child labour and poorly-controlled industrial expansion
which may have reflected badly on England's History, are dealt with and, according to Simkin,
presented objectively (2005 p.1). Descriptions of such incidents however, when referred to in
current NC history textbooks, seldom match the candid approach of Charles Dickens (1870),
when referring to James II:
After all this hanging, beheading, burning, boiling, mutilating, exposing, robbing,
transporting and selling into slavery, of his unhappy subjects, the King not
unnaturally thought he could do whatever he would.
(p.355)
If pupils have developed open enquiring minds during their GCSE History studies, the
disagreements at academic and political levels may have prompted those pupils to pose
questions along the lines of ‘does authorised History mean censored History?’ Totalitarian
leaders, such as Stalin, Pol Pot and other governments both left and right politically, had been
37
seen to systematically distort History to survive, falsifying the past and manipulating the
present, officially. Hitler had received with pleasure a revised account of Germany’s history
and the authors felt it was no longer necessary to ‘…combat the claims of the Polish
scholars…they had been arrested, deported or shot…’ (Burleigh 1987 pp.43-45).
Leaders of nations which had emerged from a colonial past previously controlled by
Europeans, were aware that their History had been selectively absorbed, or misrepresented, by
the cultural conquest of their region and thus should not be ‘…learnt through European
spectacles…’ (Gandhi 1947). Toynbee asserted that '...no single nation of Europe can show a
History which is self-explanatory...' (1948 p.1) due to their involvement in foreign lands; the
reciprocal 'foreign' influence on Britain was slight in comparison to the British influences on
others.
However, knowledge of immoral and inhuman conduct against native inhabitants, for example
the Spanish in Sixteenth Century Central America, the Dutch in Eighteenth Century Southern
Africa, the French in Nineteenth Century Algeria, the European settlers in Nineteenth Century
North America or during the Twentieth Century, the Belgians in the Congo and the British in
Kenya, seems to have little effect on aggressors during more recent events in Kosovo,
Chechnyna or Sudan.
Urban (2005 p.14)) suggests that a perversion of the democratic process is generated when
'...unscrupulous men (sic) combine with naive journalists to shape excitable public opinion...'.
It would seem that an awareness of History has little influence when individuals with desire for
power, control or commercial wealth drive official and unofficial policies and actions:
questions arise, were such individuals even aware of previous aggression or was it knowledge
of such acts that prompted their own actions? GCSE pupils studying History and Citizenship
38
may observe that in the past, zeal to uphold and expand Christianity was used by some to
promote some actions:
'This is a righteous judgement of God upon these barbarous wretches...'
wrote Cromwell (1649) after his troops has slaughtered civilians at Drogheda and then went on
to slaughter again at Wexford. A few years later (1654) he stated, somewhat ironically, that he
and England had
'...on (their) shoulders the interests of all the Christian people of the world...'
(Roots 1989 p.28)
Over the centuries, peoples may have dismissed and forgotten the subjugation of the original
inhabitants of 'target' lands. During KS3, History teachers may demonstrate the reasoning
behind their decisions regarding the particular topics chosen and the depth to which those
topics would be studied; for example, some pupils may gain a considerable knowledge of the
European expansion into North America, others may never encounter such material. The
selection of such topics may reveal the teachers' personal interests or expertise, the enthusiasm
to experiment or the need for pragmatic responses to the pressures of delivering a coherent
course of History (Freeman 2004 p.4).
Many aspects of in-depth GCSE studies highlight the conflict between political authority and
historical explanation; blatant denial, falsification and omission have all been used at some
time to promote or to defend ideological standpoints. Another aspect is 'revisionism', where
sometimes the historian may not set out to, but does end up challenging the established
consensus of professionals whose reputations rested on an accepted account of past events. The
challenge may have been contrived deliberately or it may have developed as a result of more
detailed research. The skill of analysing sources is an important element of GCSE work and
pupils may be reassured that sometimes even the experts get it wrong. Hastings (2004 p.106)
notes that much of the 'archive' film of World War 1 was faked or taken from contemporary
39
feature films and that 'dramatic' war footage from Vietnam had, at times, been directed by the
cameramen. Documents held at the National Archives in London and used by Martin Allen in
his book 'Himmler's Secret War' (2005), were proved to be elaborate forgeries only months
after the book's publication (Fenton 2005 p.1). For KS4 pupils, such details are thought
provoking. Unfortunately, some observers may have viewed one atrocity as more deserving of
inclusion for teaching in schools, than another, ‘…Stalin was worse than Hitler. Why have we
heard so much about the Holocaust and so little about the Gulags?’ (Montefiore 2005).
Hastings suggests that some 20th Century mass murderers command less attention because no
pictures exist of their crimes, comparable with the 'movie images' (sic) of the Holocaust (2005
p.3). Pickering (1997) has pointed out the unstable relationships created between
...symbolic inclusion and exclusion, of the political implications of evidential
selectivity, of the consequences of acts of historical forgetting as well as remembering,
of the ways in which the organisation of the telling of tales of the past or the relations
of these to those of the historian's present...
(p.7)
when historical reconstructions are presented. In other words, what is absent may be as
significant as what is present. One may assume that the present UK Government would not
wish to be associated with the deliberate selection and manipulation of information, but Crick
has stated that the proposals for Citizenship aim at 'no less than a change in the political culture
of this country both nationally and locally' (1998 pp.37), an aim which might in itself be
subversive or which could be used as a subversive process.
In Britain, when dealing with a thousand years of History in the diverse topics of the National
Curriculum's KS3, it may be unrealistic to expect pupils to appreciate fully the deep-seated
polarization of opinion generated by recorded events; but during GCSE History courses, those
pupils may have opportunities to develop clearer perspectives when comparing the motives and
actions of modern-day political ‘actors’ with their historical counterparts. There may be a
danger in trusting a politician who seeks to 'personify' History as if it was some sort of special
40
advisor whispering in their ear (McKie 2005 p2). Such actors, in their quest for public
acceptance and acclaim, may select carefully, to the exclusion of the whole picture and
contextual influences, those negative aspects of History, which they can then use to create a
'them and us' confrontational dimension. Northern Ireland, the Basque region and Bosnia are
just three examples where communities have been divided, not just by partisan interpretations
of their common Histories, but their refusal to abandon or even adapt the perceived certainty of
those Histories. Gordon Brown (2006 p.1) has suggested that when people are insecure they
retreat into exclusive identities rooted in concepts of blood, race and territory. All peoples
should acknowledge the ‘dark’ incidents in History, but a civilised society must ensure that the
next generation have had the opportunities to learn and to appreciate, that paralleling such
events, there are also many examples of invention, innovation, social improvements, cooperation and excitement which have generated positive bonds within their communities.
The Football World Cup of 2002 demonstrated that a historical dimension runs through the
daily lives of most individuals. In Britain, pupils whose parents and grandparents had no direct
experiences of the Second World War proclaimed their pro-England-anti-Germany allegiance.
Two years later the then German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, remarked that 'If you want
to learn how the traditional Prussian goose-step works, you have to watch British
Television...because in Germany the younger generation ... have never seen it' and thus the
British perpetuated an outdated image of Germany (Beeston, 2004). During preparations for
the 2006 Football World Cup, England's manager appealed to English fans, not to perform 'a
regular chant about German bombers' (Eriksson 2005 p.1) and the German Football
Association reminded all intending visitors that 'performing a Nazi salute was an offence in
Germany' (Theil 2006 p.1). Yet some columnists of the British tabloid press, critical of the
'Lord Haw-Haws' at the BBC, suggested that there was little harm in a few jokes, '...we did win
two world wars...' (sic) (Gaunt 2006 p.1). Germany's Chief of Police was 'having sleepless
41
nights' as he anticipated possibly similar wartime-induced rivalries between Poland and
Germany (Broadbent 2006 p.1). This tournament may present to visitors, younger Germans
who are 'less burdened by historical tragedy' (Times 2006 p.23) and who take pride in their
country's success - among them the inventions of the aspirin, the laptop and the spiked running
shoe.
In Britain, such Anglo-German rivalry was developed during and after the 1939 -1945 war
years. Pre-war radio broadcasts, including entertainment shows, did not include references
which poked fun or insulted Germany; if it did happen 'spontaneously' a sharp rebuke was
issued from the Lord Chamberlain's Office (Thompson 2005). In 1939 the BBC was given
approval and encouragement to produce radio programmes such as 'ITMA' (It's That Man
Again) which lampooned and parodied the German establishment (Jackson 2005). GCSE
pupils may be much more aware of later UK television series 'Dads Army' and 'Allo Allo',
hugely popular, which to some extent perpetuated the stereotypical images of spoof wartime
situations. That mild scepticism of the 'enemy's intentions' may still linger as a useful headline
for media usage when old foes meet on the sports field. When referring to a football match
and using headlines such as ‘English raiders plunder Danes’ on the front page of their
newspapers, journalists (Chittenden and Ngata 2002 p.1) and their editors had assumed their
readers would have had sufficient historical knowledge to appreciate the pun. Although all the
KS4 pupils who participated in this study had learned of the Vikings during their KS3, not one
of those pupils related that knowledge to what they viewed as a sports article. Observers of
international sporting fixtures during the past decade may have noted that many Irish, Scottish
and Welsh fans cheered enthusiastically for England’s opponents. During the Six Nations
Rugby Competition of 2005, those same provincial fans referred to England as the ‘old
enemy’. Very many of the Scottish fans who sang with gusto ‘Flower of Scotland’, may know
little of the historical events about which they sing. What British people do know of their
42
History is often very provincially-focussed and tends to ignore the effects of 'British'
involvement in the Empire and the wider world (Richardson 2005).
Pupils are individuals who live their lives surrounded by, and in the grip of, raw History, not
merely current affairs which have the potential, after exhaustive, repetitive media coverage, to
seem mundane. History is not just concerned with a list of past events but provides a zeitgeist
of another age when people reacted to the stimuli of their environment in exactly the same way
as people do in the modern world. History may not repeat itself as the old adage may claim, but
historical situations do, and it is that concept which may be the most pressing theme for pupils
as they encounter the various aspects of KS3 History in schools. Such situations as the likening
of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler (Neale 2005 p.3) may have been promoted by the
Western forces in order to justify invasion and to indicate to the world that 'appeasement'
would not occur (as was seen to be the case pre-1939). The immediacy of modern
telecommunications brought the events in New York on September the 11th 2001 (Cook 2001)
to the majority of our world’s population. Abstract concepts such as nationalism, religion and
fanaticism embodied as seemingly tangible concrete forms, were thrust from every television
screen, radio and newspaper, and people without a sense of History may lose the essentials of
sound judgement, depth and proportion (Jenkins 2002 p.1). The events of that day - '9/11' - and
the following weeks provided a zeitgeist, not of the past, but of the very world in which pupils
live and will serve as adults. President Bush's response to '9/11', to launch a crusade against
Islamic militants, is interesting in that the using of the word 'crusade' may have been construed
as inflammatory by the wider Muslim communities, some of whom responded by labelling the
Americans as infidels (Cukaj 2005). Neale (2005 p.2) suggests that the President's '...linguistic
gaffe...' may have been vetoed if his advisors had been historically minded.
43
Pupils have the opportunities to view such developing History from outside with their own
perspective - for example, cartoons distributed widely in Iran during 2005 used excerpts from
the film The Exorcist (1973) with the superimposed heads of Secretary of State Rice, President
Bush and Prime Minister Blair, presenting these western leaders as manifestations of Satan
(Harrison F. 2005) - and pupils can develop an awareness for the small revealing details of
human understanding and behaviour and perhaps apply that critical appreciation to events of
the past. History is not just a subject to be encountered within schooling; it is a crucial
ingredient of almost every aspect of human endeavour. Individuals, be they adults or children,
are able to ‘place themselves’ within the context of their family, community and society by
referring to their past experiences; if they are without a history, it may be similar to
experiencing a loss of memory leading to confusion. It is difficult to think of a practical,
vocationally based reason for pupils to study History for its own sake - the subject is an
interwoven web of economic, political, cultural and personal dimensions - but it is a basic
element of the human psyche to need to know the past, even though the extent and depth of
that past can probably never be defined with any certainty. That uncertainty, that nagging
doubt, may help to moderate unquestioned loyalties. Although Henry Ford’s opinion, ‘History
is more or less bunk’ (1916) contrasts with Santayana's comment of that same year, 'those who
cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it', both hint at subjective uncertainties: it is the
uncertainty of History that is a key concept, where evidence may be inadequate, unavailable or
cannot be tested: investigation prompting debate with an open mind is a key process and
together, the concept and the process provide demanding challenges for pupils and their
teachers. Those challenges `exist at all levels of academic, secondary school and popular
History; the irony is that, as History becomes demonstratively more relevant in today’s world
and it becomes more popular in our media-based culture, fewer than half of 14 year-old pupils
in England choose to study it at GCSE.
44
CHAPTER 3
History in the school curriculum
45
The legislation that introduced the ERA in 1988 specified that History would be a compulsory
subject for all pupils until the age of 16 in all maintained schools. Following the Dearing report
of 1993 issued by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA), History was no
longer compulsory after the age of 14, the end of KS3; pupils could opt to choose it to study
for GCSE if they wished. By that time subjects such as Woodwork, Metalwork and Domestic
Sciences had been restructured as 'technologies' and were also available at GCSE. Since then,
the availability of vocational courses and training has expanded. The 1944 Education Act had
been seen by many as a milestone in the provision and planning of education nationally, but
during the intervening years there has been a constant need for reports, further Education Acts
and changes to the system. This would seem to indicate that firstly, Government's
interpretation of its role in providing education as a service has been variable and secondly, its
overview of what should be taught in schools has been subject to many reviews. The following
section will demonstrate briefly how the present system of provision evolved in what might be
considered an uneven way. Further sections will present the development of History as a
school subject, in some ways paralleling discussions among academics such as G.R. Elton and
E.H. Carr, the debates surrounding the content and methodologies to be applied, the origins of
the current GCSE examinations at the end of KS4 and the structure and subsequent changes to
History in the National Curriculum, all of these against a background of 'league tables' of
schools' performances and of the increasing awareness of the need for viable vocational
training.
3.1: Government’s role in education 1800 - 1965
Since the introduction of the ERA in 1988 there have been two major revisions of the National
Curriculum. History was a compulsory subject for GCSE until 1995 when its status became
optional at the age of 14. In the later revisions in Curriculum 2000, the wording used to outline
the skills and content required for History was changed somewhat; however the optional status
46
for History was unaltered, thus maintaining the requirement that pupils would have to choose
to study it for GCSE. Thus the modifications to the National Curriculum (DfES, 1999), issued
by then Secretary of State David Blunkett in October 1999, marked the end of a decade during
which the organisation of education in England had undergone a momentous change. A
curriculum had been firmly established in all English maintained schools since the ERA of
1988. Government had intervened firmly in that the prescriptive nature of (a) the content and
progression of school subjects, (b) the processes of assessment, recording and reporting and (c)
the devolving of financial management to individual schools through the statutory
requirements.
Such approaches adopted by Government were not the result of a continuing concern for
education throughout Britain's history. During the late 17th and early 18th centuries churches,
charities and individual benefactors had provided an eclectic, uncoordinated range of
educational provision. such reflected the norms of the times in that the educating of children
focussed on God, religion, modesty and behaviour (see Tillotson 1694). The rapid
industrialisation and urbanisation of Britain brought further social issues to the attention of
Parliament; what schools did exist concentrated on the 3Rs and Catechism. Today's
Governments have legislated for the provision, content, recording and financial management
involved in schools; Government's role in the 19th Century had been more concerned with the
employment and abuses of the employing of children in factories and mines (see Slaney 1837)
although the factory Act of 1844 did state that children in the 8 - 13 year old age range should
receive the equivalent of three days schooling each week. Inspection was limited and rarely
successful (Marx 1867 pp.87 - 98).
It was not until Forster's Education Act of 1870 that the Government was seen to regard
education as a national issue; that Act may be seen as the forerunner to the implementation of
47
central direction for schools that continues to the present day. In common with today's
provisions, Forster was concerned with the well-being of children, the awareness of
inadequacies and the establishing of local administrations, initially School Boards but later
Local education Authorities. Unlike the ERA of 1988, Forster's Act set up a system rather than
prescribing subjects, assessments and procedures.
Throughout the first half of the 20th Century one is able to trace Governments' increasing
awareness of education-related issues such as the provision of free school meals (FSM),
medical inspections, pupil's individual abilities and the roles of different types of schools. The
Education Act of 1944, enacted after considerable war damage, prompted LEAs to reorganise
their schools and provisions. This led, but unintended by then Act, to the establishing of a 'Tripartite' system of Grammar, technical and Modern school whereby some 20 - 25 per cent of
pupils were 'selected' for a Grammar school place on the basis of an examination - the 11+ taken during their final year at primary schools (Rubinstein and Simon 1972 pp. 36 - 37).
Different types of examinations became available at these secondary schools. The input of
increasing sociological research, initially during the 1950s, into the education 'arena' prompted
an awareness of the importance of (i) pupils' out-of-school experiences and (ii) the relative
merits of the different types of schools (Rubinstein and Simon 1972 p.41). The DES Circular
10/65 laid the way for LEAs to establish mixed-ability 'comprehensive' schools' where the
curricula of Grammar, Technical and Modern schools could co-exist (see Benn and Simon
1970).
Goodson (1993) refers to the controversy generated during the 1970s when James Callaghan,
in his speech at Ruskin College in October 1976, questioned the prevalent teaching methods in
schools, the educational standards being achieved and the limited relationship of schools to
industry (Woodward 2005 p.1). Such controversies continued during the 1980s and culminated
48
with the Government's decision in 1988 to implement a National Curriculum within all
maintained schools. Thus a century after central government’s legislation to provide free and
compulsory education within maintained schools, the ERA of 1988 sought to bring some
degree of standardisation to what went on within those schools. Discussions during the drafting
of that National Curriculum for 5-16 year olds had been concerned not only with defining the
content of the syllabus, but with prescribing a process of assessment for all pupils and finding a
balance between teacher-directed and pupil-centred approaches to learning. During the
previous decades these two approaches and a myriad of variations reflected what was
considered old, traditional, formal, knowledge-based teaching, seemingly being ousted by new,
progressive, pupil centred skills-based learning. Within the subject of History, discussions
about the content to be taught were as contentious as proposals about methodology.
3.2: History in the School Curriculum
As recently as the mid 19th Century young people, children or teenagers, did not have to study
History (Batho 1986 p.219); indeed they were not required to attend a school. Unless their
parents availed of a charitable institution or sponsorship, the children grew up to expect paid or
apprenticed employment as the norm; they would not have had the opportunities to experience
the range of skills and knowledge available in the modern schools of the 21st Century. Parents
of today’s pupils have, as required by the Education Act of 1996 (Ch. 56, Sect. 7 and 8), the
responsibility to ensure that their children proceed, by regular attendance or otherwise, through
compulsory schooling from 5 years of age until the age of 16; during that time pupils accept
the curriculum and incorporated syllabi they experience. They are involved in the immediacy
of their time in class, in school and are mostly unaware of wider debates among
educationalists.
The teaching of History in maintained schools has generated considerable debate during the
49
last three decades. At its extreme, this issue has polarised around (a) those who are concerned
that a specific body of knowledge is imparted and (b) those who advocate a pupil centred
approach to learning emphasising the importance of skills and that History is an appropriate
vehicle for developing transferable skills. This dichotomy of viewpoints has tended to be
labelled as the ‘traditional’ versus the ‘new' or 'progressive'. Although the ‘National
Curriculum 2000’ for History has brought together a widely accepted body of knowledge along
with clear guidance, and this dichotomy is now perhaps less relevant, it is still a continuing
source of discussion. Pupils, who at the age of 14 are on the verge of deciding whether or not
to continue studying History, may have experienced different teachers, each with an individual
approach to delivering the subject within the guidelines of the National Curriculum.
The influential role, positive or negative, of the teacher has been acknowledged:
In some hands, school history can seem a desiccated and stultifying subject, of dubious
relevance and little clear purpose; in others it can seem inspirational, important and
immensely rewarding.
(Hadyn et al 2001 p.1)
The issues surrounding the content and the structure of National Curriculum History
has
prompted much debate among the proponents of traditional and of new methods as practised
within the schools of England. The protracted controversies, taking place against a background
of overall change and restructuring within the provision of state education during the last half
of the Twentieth Century, prompted much discussion when it was apparent that the Education
Reform Act of 1988 specified the knowledge, skills and understanding to be learnt by pupils,
the processes to be taught and the assessment procedures to be introduced. Central government
was seen to be taking a firm control of the curriculum and practices within state schools.
Government intervention was not always the case.
3.3: The Historical Context
The recorded History of pre-Roman, Roman and post-Roman England was provided,
generally, by monks who wrote in Latin during that first millennium. Bede’s ‘The
50
Ecclesiastical History of the English People’ was written at a time (c.731-735) when the
country was not subject to a unified political existence. As a chronicler, Bede used what
information '...he could acquire from ancient documents, the traditions of his elders and his
own knowledge...’ (Marsden 1989 foreword) to compile his works and was the first English
'historian' to date events by the '...year of Our Lord...' (Hassall 1967 p.15). It was customary for
writers to copy the work of earlier authors (who may themselves have copied from others);
their writings may have included relatively accurate eyewitness accounts as well as illinformed hearsay (Hassall 1967 p.xiii), and as such it is not necessary to accept uncritically, the
details therein, just as today, few people would accept the contents of newspaper stories as
total truth. The concise nature of the early handwritten compositions reflected the effort and
time that was involved in the producing of such manuscripts. The later ‘Anglo-Saxon
Chronicles’, using some of Bede’s work, were a collection of volumes written in Latin at
monasteries and recorded mainly information of parochial, local and sometimes regional
interest. The 12th century may have been considered a 'golden age' of learning and literary
activity, especially in the writing of volumes of History (Lawson & Silver 1973 p.20). These
volumes of mostly secondary source documents reflected changes in language usage, Latin,
Old English, Middle English and Anglo-Saxon; later documents demonstrated the arrival of
Norman French spoken by the '...social elite...' and the development of Elizabethan English
'...for the masses...' (Mortimer 2006 p.32), both of which existed alongside the continuing use
of Latin (Woodward E. 1943 p8). Prior to the Reformation and to some extent afterwards,
nearly all documents were in Latin. Within the monasteries, such documents were available to
the monks, some of whom might take up the tasks of continuing to write and update in Latin.
This language was considered to be the route to learning and would provide opportunities for
officials - the equivalent of today's civil servants - to maintain their status within communities
(Curtis and Boultwood 1966 p.13).
51
The principal primary source available from the 11th Century is the Domesday Book, a
statistical survey ordered by William I in order to facilitate the assessment and collection of
taxes; these county-by-county volumes provide an insight into the structure of the levels within
society, the lands held and the assets available locally. Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'Historia
Regnum Britanniae' compiled in the 1130's was mostly fictitious, having invented Kings in
order to satisfy what he perceived as a '...hunger...a growing demand for History...' (Steinbeck
1962 p.63). Within schools, mostly grammar, church and private, texts in the form of single
manuscripts were held and used by the teacher (Curtis and Boultwood 1966 p.14). The advent
and growth of vernacular printing from the late 1400’s created the opportunity to make
available the ‘written word’ to a wider audience, although access was hampered by the lack of
literacy among the bulk of the population. Much of the published work was mainly of a
religious or theological nature whilst historical studies tended to refer to the Classical
Civilisations, comparing Greek ‘culture’ with Roman ‘discipline’ (Stray 1986 p.10). Many
such History texts, written in Latin, were inaccurate and out of date versions '...written by the
ancients...'(Curtis & Boultwood 1966 p.21). At government level, the more detailed and regular
recording of transactions and debates after 1450, provided ‘…exhaustive evidence…’ for later
historians to examine (Elton 1969 p.89). In the late 1700s public demand for published work
on the History of England was such that for David Hume ‘…monies from booksellers much
exceeded anything formerly known in England; I was not only independent, I was opulent…’
(Hume, 1776, pxii). At that time Goldsmith had been producing Histories of England, Greece
and Rome for '...little reputation but much profit...without elaborate research, selecting and
abridging...making strange blunders ...knowing nothing of accuracy...' (Macaulay 1857 p.407).
However Macaulay did acknowledge that such abridged works were considered a '...pleasure
not a task when read by intelligent children...' (p.408).
52
Before compulsory education was established for children in 1870, the teaching of History in
England was confined mainly to grammar schools and to the universities. Although Dr. Arnold
had introduced the subject at Rugby School in 1820 and written examinations were available at
Oxford in the early 1800s, it was not until 1872 that a School of History was established at that
university (Batho 1986 p.214). At degree level, emphasis was given to studying the
development of government and the history of Parliament, from a British, if not English,
perspective. Yet in an essay to accompany an 1850 reprint of Hume’s ‘History of England’
twenty years earlier, the Reverend H. Stebbing had suggested that ‘…History looses much of
its charm and usefulness when it is so completely political…’(1850 p.viii). Contemporary
interest groups reflected that same hierarchical nature of the English professional classes, the
Church, the Universities and the learned aristocracy. History, taught by ‘…intellectually lucid,
analytical and well travelled teachers…’ was based on a selection of hallowed individuals
demonstrating accepted traditions and encompassed a notion of heritage which would be useful
for legislators, orators and statesmen (Chancellor 1970 p.18). The exclusive nature of access to
higher education is illustrated by John Stuart Mill’s inaugural address as Rector at St. Andrews
in 1867; he considered it '...a great absurdity...' that History and Geography should be taught at
university, as the only way of gaining historical knowledge and skills was by private reading,
but it would suffice to teach it in elementary schools (sic) to the children of the '...labouring
classes...'. Seventy years earlier, Archbishop of Canterbury, John Tillotson had indicated that
skills and knowledge gained through reading were '...mere speculation...' and that the
individual should '...travel and carefully view...' (Tillotson 1694 p.489). Regarding the learning
of foreign languages, Mill had also emphasised the role of the individual, with means, to
'...spend a few months in the country itself...' (Mill 1867 pp.21).
Throughout the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries there appears to have been no
simple line of development as regards the content or the methodology employed for teaching
53
History. Many years earlier it had been suggested that essential texts for '...all young persons...'
were the Holy Scriptures alongside Histories of Greece, Rome and England (Slater E. 1827
p.vii) and success at school '...calls into play memory and repeating lessons by rote...' (Hazlitt
W. 1826 p.230). Callcott (1835 p.iv-v) refers to the 'mother or governess' reading 'Little
Arthur's History of England' as important in education 'particularly in that of boys' - an
approach rather incongruous to that experienced by modern GCSE pupils. The Foundation
Deeds of many schools had stipulated which subjects were to be taught; John Locke had
countered such direction when he suggested that Latin, Greek and Hebrew teaching might be
reduced to allow some Maths, History, Geography and Science (Curtis and Boultwood 1966
p.33) but It was not until the implementation of the Grammar School Act in 1840 that such
schools has the freedom to allow additional subjects. The Revised Code of 1862 allowed the
introduction of History, Geography and Grammar in all schools and, reflecting the norms of
the times, Needlework for girls was introduced in 1875. In a satirical piece in 1879 (pp.136137), Punch Magazine highlighted the rather haphazard local arrangements for administration
and financing of the 'new' elementary schools, referring also to what appeared to be an
uncoordinated approach to the curriculum:
Our first lesson will be English history. We will waive the Prehistoric, early British and
Saxon periods ...and commence our studies with the Norman Conquest
Wardle (1970 p.92) acknowledges such lack of uniformity in that where History was taught, it
was
...limited to those apocryphal periods, the Conquest and seldom extends beyond the
reign of Henry VIII or Elizabeth - it is begun at the beginning, but never finished
The rationale for learning History was stated in terms of assisting the individual to
‘…understand himself…’(sic) more fully (Welton 1906 p.225) and to encourage the
development of skills of a general educative nature which would enhance the pupil’s emerging
personality (Worts 1935 p.3). However, the absence of government influence may have
reflected an unquestioned tradition rather than any statutory limitation (Slater 1991 p.8); the
54
including of History as a subject in elementary schools after 1870 may have indicated a desire
on the part of the government to foster patriotic sentiments at a time of growing unease within
society. Some 40 years later that same sentiment was expressed in the hope of a more thorough
and comprehensive dissemination of the teaching of History and patriotism (Keatinge 1910
p23). Counsell (1999 p.7) suggests that (now) a desire to 'eulogise the past' has promoted the
ideas that pupils 'virtuously learned their facts, saluted the empire and developed deep
knowledge in peaceful classrooms' Ironically, German military historian von Bernhardi's
'Germany and the next war' (1912), written to promote fervent German nationalist ideals, had
been translated and reprinted a dozen times in Britain where it was seen as evidence of
confirming potential dangers; such publications had the effect of 'welding the Empire more
solidly together' (Overlack 2004 p.1). During and after the First World War, that more inwardlooking perspective may have been confirmed by
...family breadwinners dead, a generation decimated, swathes cut through the
male youth of village and town, there was a withdrawal from Europe and...a
simple confirmation of the dangerous nature of the foreigner...
(Rowlinson 1986 p.77).
The teaching of History varied within primary, all-age and elementary schools according to
the capacity and interests of the individual teacher; it was considered undesirable that all
schools should follow exactly the same syllabus, reflecting an awareness of local
circumstances. Teachers were assumed to have studied the subject, through independent
reading and in great detail (Marten 1938 p.25). The Government’s Board of Education (BoE)
had felt that the cessation of such personal reading and study had been considered as reason
enough for an individual to withdraw from teaching History (BoE 1923 p.9-10). In schools, the
guiding principle of chronology provided a framework for knowledge which was basically
British and seemed quite natural at a time when England was an undisputed world power, so
much so that some pupils were unaware that Europe had a history (Marten 1938 p.17). The
certainty and the necessity of chronology had been espoused earlier: “...the creation of the
world was 5746 years before the death of George III...” (Slater E 1827 p.13) and Ince and
55
Gilbert's 'Outlines of English History ' used widely during the second half of the Nineteenth
Century, proposed rhymes in order to ensure that 'all classes remember the principle facts', for
example
In ten-o-two on one dark night
The Danes are foully slain,
And Ethelred is put to flight
In ten-one-two by Sweyn
(Ince and Gilbert 1878 p.9)
Such a closed approach, ‘…strings of dates and names in horrifying sequence…’ (Runciman
1887 p.142) was noted by others to the present day. Emphasis on ‘…brute facts, dead and
dry…’ (Collingwood 1965 p.6) and the ‘…leaden teaching (of such) navigational co-ordinates
of a forgotten world…kills History…’ (Fay 2005 p.30) were negative viewpoints expressed
many years later. J.W.Willis Bund (1908), historian and Chairman of the Warwickshire
Education Committee, was clear about his interpretation of the purpose of teaching History in
schools. When he addressed the National Union of Teachers (NUT) in 1908, he stated the
subject had four ‘…definite objects…’ to show:
…that certain men and women … served God in Church and State…
…(that service) was done by…courage, endurance and self sacrifice…
…(resulting) in the …establishment, maintenance and extension of the Empire…
… every child…had a duty to maintain and extend the Empire…
(p.4).
The preservation of that Empire which embraced one sixth of the globe and one quarter of all
human beings (Marsden 1986 p.185) was considered to be a national responsibility. Thus
pupils learning History, who neglected their duty, would be responsible for ‘…national decay
and ruin…’ claimed Willis Bund. One hundred years later, writer Simon Barnes (2006 p.10)
suggested 'A liking for one's country is one thing, a belief in its superiority to all others is mad,
bad and dangerous'. For pupils in elementary schools, the BoE reported that the catechetical
style of teaching History lessons hardly went beyond that of England and of the Empire and
those pupils had tended to have been required to provide little more than ‘…monosyllable…’
answers during such short-term learning (1923 p. 7). Oral lessons and dictation were generally
the norm, a situation where the pupil did very little learning (Holmes 1911 p.135-6). Where
56
History 'readers' were available, many were considered ‘…fearfully dull…’ as authors had
attempted to cram the whole History of the country into 250 pages, producing little more than a
‘…record of facts and figures…’ (Willis Bund 1908 p.3). Some seventy years earlier, the
patriotic ideal that love of one’s country was ‘…almost a religious duty…’ (Callcott 1835
p.vi), had been promoted. Some instances of a less fixed approach emerged; the use of sourcebased teaching had been tried but it was suggested that an over-emphasis on such methodology
would lead to the neglecting of other means of ‘…cultivating interest…’ and of training to
‘…think soundly…’ (Bourne 1902 p.184).
Yet the using of sources and problem solving was encouraged in 1910 by confronting pupils
with documents in order to exercise their minds (Keatinge 1910 p. 23-38). As more textbooks
of varying quality became available, teachers were advised about making appropriate
selections (Hasluck 1920 p.31) and the teachers' use of better textbooks was recommended as
an alternative to a pupils’, sometimes haphazard, ‘find out’ methodology. Consequently,
pupils in different schools did not necessarily acquire the same body of knowledge. The design
of courses was the prerogative of individual staff, thus variation existed not only between
institutions but also within institutions. There appeared to be no fundamental element of the
discipline, as different examination boards sought to test differing bodies of knowledge. In the
post-1945 years, a plethora of different arrangements existed, based generally on what had
‘happened’ in the past, in chronological order. Rather than base practice around the traditions
and expectations of earlier practitioners, Chuter Ede’s statement that ‘…there is no curriculum
for every child…’ (Hansard 1944 col.497), implied that national structures of content and
methodology imposed in schools were not appropriate for all pupils. This theme prompted
researchers to consider the needs of pupils who experienced different stages of developing
skills and abilities, as put forward later by Piaget. When referring such a Piagetian approach to
the school subject of History, Coltham and Fines (1971 p.44) suggested that young children
57
found 'the world of adults' difficult to conceptualise and that 'reasoning' was better suited to the
formal operational stage at 12+ years of age. During the 1950s and the 1960s, as all levels of
British society experienced rapid changes in public services and access to technologies, a new
awareness of the ‘past’ emerged, responding to societal and political change which reflected
concepts of class, gender and race. History teaching began to incorporate a broader knowledge
about the past, including social and economic aspects to accompany the ‘standard’ political
dimensions of rulers, governments, wars and treaties.
Anecdotal evidence from older people would suggest that prior to 1960, History was perceived
to be an important school subject; in those more structured days, teachers invariably knew year
after year what they were going to teach and their pupils knew what to anticipate in terms of
methodology and expectation in many schools. Generally, two factors may have determined
the continuation of ‘accepted’ methodology and content; the ‘…deadweight of tradition…’
and the existing bank of teaching resources (Jones-Nerzic (2005). Some teachers, didactically
active in front of passive pupils, may have led to an uninspiring perception of the ‘…uniform
grey pond of History…’ (John 1993 p.17), an approach which had been observed in the early
20th century - 'Little books and dogmatic teachers tell weary souls what History was and did'
(Fines 1969 p.83). In 1944, the Historical Association, long associated with the maintaining of
historical academic research at the universities, had acknowledged that school pupils should
gain some skills in 'collecting, arranging and interpreting historical sources' (Phillips 1991
p.22). The usefulness of such ‘in-depth’ study and of ‘sympathetic imagination’ may have
indicated awareness within the Ministry of Education (MoE) that History teaching was not
always a rigid progression based on timelines (MoE 1952 p.17).
58
3.4: Viewpoints
Simon (1981 p.124) has noted that the Schools Council came into being at a time when there
was greater awareness of knowledge and of social and economic change and that the debate
about methodology in schools had been expressed in a variety of terms - 'traditional or
progressive', 'subject centred or child centred' and as 'formal or informal' (p.125).
The reading of academic History during and after the 1960s had been dominated by historians
such as G. R. Elton and E. H. Carr among others. Elton's approach suggested meticulous
examination of evidence in a scientifically forensic style, and to explain the past by providing
an account of how the actions of autonomous human agents, within the context of their own
times, shaped events and decisions. Stressing the primacy of political history, Elton referred to
the ambiguities in research caused by incomplete or conflicting evidence and the use of
language within those historical contexts. Carr felt that the acceptance of 'hard facts'
independent of the historian's own interpretation presented difficulties and that the
significance, order and context of those 'facts' were established by the historian from within his
or her own context. This interpretative process had the potential to introduce subjectivity. The
Elton - Carr debate could have influenced History graduates taking up posts in (especially)
secondary schools, and so altered their perspectives of what should be appropriate syllabi for
their pupils. Among these perspectives, teachers have told me, was the possession of
information alone i.e. 'facts', was not knowledge and that the acceptance of a hierarchy of facts
may exclude equally significant facts which some historians have deemed to be of less value
(see Carr Ch. 1 1961). Elton had expressed a similar point: '...no argument exists to establish a
hierarchy of worth among historical periods or regions...' (1969 p.13).
The advent of the Schools’ Council History Project (SCHP) in 1972 - renamed the Schools
History Project in 1988 - and of other ‘new’ subjects centring on an integrated approach was
59
seen to pose a threat to the established methodology. Some politicians may have viewed the
emphasising of History as an ‘approach’ rather than a body of knowledge, as a means for
teachers with extreme viewpoints to ‘...influence uninformed minds…’(Dawson 1995 p.14)
and so threaten the established values of society. Teachers, whose political affiliation may have
demonstrated a feminist, Marxist, postmodern or left-of-centre approach to issues such as
gender, ethnicity, class and environment, may have been seen to be at odds with anticipated
standards. Behind the concern about these emerging methodological aims seemingly intrinsic
to History, may have been the idea that other social priorities might override those aims. Social
Sciences were in some cases seen as performing the role of History in the comprehensive
schools (Heater H.1970 p.137) and it was suggested that some History teachers were in pursuit
of wider ‘…social ends…’ (Beattie 1987 p.17). Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools (HMI)
noted Khrushchev’s suggestion, ‘…historians are dangerous people. They are capable of
upsetting everything…’ (HMI 1985 p.1); this seemed to have represented the concerns of
advocates for both traditional and more recently emerging approaches to teaching History and
arguments, presented in almost arcane and theological styles, and raged around the relative
merits of competency versus knowledge (Nash 2003 p.2). An awareness that the potential use
or misuse of History could ‘…exercise a decisive influence on public opinion and influence the
policy of a great state and the fate of a continent…’ had been proffered some seventy years
earlier (Lodge 1914 p.ix).
The establishing of the journal ‘Teaching History’ (TH) in 1969 seemed to indicate that the HA
had recognised the need to ‘…devise new ways to explore the exciting possibilities of the
subject…’ and to establish them within schools (Hay 1969 p.1). Former editor of TH, Christine
Counsell, suggested that
History, more than any other school subject, is subjected to 'mischievous, sensational
and often wholly inaccurate reporting in the press. Right and Left, 'traditionalist' or
'progressive' are quick to enlist any-out-of context examples as an endorsement for their
own ideological position
60
(Counsell 1999 p.7).
The ‘Traditional’ viewpoint
In the 1960s, those who favoured a traditional approach put forward the notion of the existence
of an ‘indispensable’ (Elton 1969 p.80) body of agreed knowledge and the necessity of its
transmission. Perceptions of History which considered the subject to be of ‘universal human
interest’ (Collingwood 1930 p.3) and that concern for the past was a human ‘characteristic’
(Elton 1969 p.17), prompted the assertion that all historians are essentially educators. The
rigorous methodology utilised by historians paralleled that of the scientists and may have
seemed to incorporate a positivist approach, in seeking to explain the existence and purpose of
the human race (Elton 1969 p.12). Yet the minute detail and meticulous methodology required
by the professional historian in order to contribute to the understanding of contemporary
problems, may not have seemed relevant to the needs of late twentieth century schools. Indeed,
based on the findings of Piaget, Elton (1969 p.182) conceded that ‘proper’ History was too
difficult for school children. Gunning and Gunning stressed the need for a hierarchy of
concepts in order that pupils could understand abstractions (1976 p.43). Not based on scholarly
research, a wider, more generalised approach to History was not viewed by traditionalists as
‘real’ History (Connell-Smith and Lloyd 1972 p.29). The ‘abandonment’ (Elton 1969 p.66) of
the present, divorced from the constraints of present and contemporary society, was deemed a
prerequisite for historical study; such an approach failed to acknowledge the present, wider
heritage of the Western world (Hodgkinson 1962 p.131). Over 40 years earlier, it had taken
the government almost ten years after the First World War to encourage the teaching of some
European and World History within British schools (BoE 1927 p.18) and so recognise that the
History of the British Empire might be taught within a ‘…wider context…’(BoE 1927b p.125
and app) and not just be a exercise to recall '...accepted facts about famous dead Englishmen...'
(Slater 1989 p.1).
61
The ‘New’ viewpoint
Looking for a Nuffield style approach, which had been successful in the teaching of science,
the broader approach of the ‘School History 11-13’ seemed to be an ‘outstanding success’ (TH
1992 p.2). History was now perceived as not just the event, but the thought expressed in it what lay behind the event was the target of investigation and conjecture for pupils, even though
associated sociological data relating to the event was sometimes vague, value laden, ambiguous
and opinionated. The political 'new right' of the time feared that emphasising such childcentred approaches might dilute common cultural values and sense of national identity (Harris
and Foreman-Peck 2004 p.1). Shemilt (1984 pp.50-54) had suggested that there were four
stages in the development of empathy in school History, and that it was teachable and
assessable but Deuchar (1987) had labelled such empathy as 'generalised sentimentality' (p.
15). More recent research (Husbands and Pendry 2000) has suggested that although pupils may
recreate the past historical context by reference to literature, drama and media, they still act as
they are (presently) (p.133). From their work in neurology, Blakemore and Choudhury (2005
p.10) have suggested in their continuing research that from the onset of puberty and throughout
adolescence children's brains are undergoing 'synaptic pruning' and one effect of this is that the
development of 'perspective taking' (empathetic reasoning) is interrupted and shows some
decline during that period. It is during this period that many KS3 pupils are encouraged to
think empathetically when studying History and are embarking on subject choices for GCSE.
The approach adopted by the SCHP sought to cultivate an understanding of contemporary
problems, recognising that people could be deceived by testimony and thus could have been
deceived within the original situation (Booth and Hyland 1996 p.8). Such an approach mirrors
Stebbing’s statement, almost 150 years earlier, ‘…bare knowledge of facts is not
improvement...' (1850 p.x). Interrelated narratives of past events may be chaotic but could
potentially reveal that those events were not a result of clearly defined forces but of individual,
62
autonomous human agents. Approaches which stressed the certainty of History are, in some
way challenged by the awareness that the future, complex as it may be, is highly vulnerable to
tiny influences: Shakespeare's line in Richard III '...kingdom for a horse...' written in 1597,
refers to the significant Battle of Bosworth of 1485 where, supposedly, great changes ensued
from one, initially relatively unimportant, but unforeseen incident - a theme developed within
the rhyme 'All for the want of a horseshoe nail' (Ripperton 2005 p.1).
The teaching of History was to reflect the unpredictable nature of the past, which was the result
of the vagaries of human reasoning and thinking in diverse situations. In order to gain insight
into what Elton (1991) had called '...the magnificent unpredictability of what human beings
may think and do...' (p.8), the ‘learner’, of whatever age must be able to relate seemingly
conflicting evidence of historical characters, apply knowledge, understanding and
interpretation, in order to appreciate with empathy the nuances and contexts of that period. An
example of such vagaries and diverse situations was presented when author Andrew Roberts
contributed to an article in The Times (Roberts 2005 Review p.7) which encouraged children,
possibly potential ‘young Historians’, to write about their favourite or least favourite historical
character:
Dear Mr. Cromwell,
you are my favourite character in
history because it was due to your
Revolution in the 1640’s that we in
Britain have the parliamentary
democracy that we enjoy today, even
if you weren’t particularly proParliament (let alone democratic) in
your own time.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Roberts
Dear Mr. Cromwell,
even though you are my favourite
character in history, you are also my
least favourite character, because you
murdered King Charles I and
countless Irishmen, closed theatres,
established martial rule, were
humourless and cut down maypoles
around which fresh-faced young
women used to frolic.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Roberts
Empathy, where the pupil was encouraged to establish 'relationships' with people and events of
the past and to re-experience through interpretation, became associated with the theme of
63
'progressive' pedagogy (Jenkins 2002 pp.44-46). From such an empathetic approach, the SCHP
and similar programmes had stressed that History was more than just the sum of discrete facts
(Lee 1991 p.47) and that the thematic approach was appropriate: themes such as ‘Medicine’ or
‘Transport’ through the ages had been suggested during the 1930s as a means of promoting
intelligent use of materials rather than concentrating on facts (see Jeffreys 1936 pp. 230-8).
Remembering facts alone was not doing History; pupils needed the tools (skills) of reflection,
evaluation and application. SCHP supported the idea that teachers recognised what pupils
know from outside school (Slater 1989 p.14). Previously the selection of material had seemed
to some to be notoriously biased towards what our culture assumed what was worth knowing
(Fien 1997 p.437). Identifying which skills were to be developed could alleviate the problems
of selection of content for thematic teaching based on the examination of source materials.
Well-planned and effective teaching based around the active, investigative use of primary and
secondary source materials, such as the ‘Jackdaw’ folders published by Jonathan Cape in the
1960s and 70s would, it was hoped, reduce the ‘need’ to follow an externally devised content.
History consists of the ‘accident’ of evidence surviving and some historians considered that too
much material was available and had emphasised that chronology should remain the backbone
of teaching (Elton 1969 p.96), as pupils tended to ‘dump’ anything more than a few years old
into an undifferentiated past (Lomas 1993 p.22). Ironically, pupils having opted for GCSE
History and having been made more aware of the potential value of primary sources, will also
learn of the clever forgeries such as the 'Hitler's Diaries' hoax of 1983, an event prompted by
greed rather than authenticity or ideology, or more recently the discovery that some sixty yearold 'official documents' held at the National Archives relating to Himmler's death were also
forged (see p.30).
Within the integrated teaching schemes, non-specialists came to the subject, perhaps for the
first time, bringing different experiences and different rationales. Content was considered
64
relatively unimportant as long as desired qualities were produced, that is, the acquisition and
development of skills. Enquiry work would, it was suggested, be a means of counteracting an
emphasis on the factual; the underlying assumption was that pupils would develop a long-term
interest prompting a desire to enhance and utilise those skills of analysis, comparison,
interpretation and application (Booth and Husbands 1993 p.33).
The social viewpoint
From the 1960s, commentators argued that schools should provide knowledge for diverse
populations, and prepare for a pluralist society (Collicot 1990 p.12). Democracy and
curriculum were seen to stand in a reciprocal relationship, providing foundations for each
other, serving economic and vocational purposes (Carr W. 1998 p.337), thus producing useful
citizens (Connell-Smith and Lloyd 1972 p.29). Yet schools were told to prepare children for
self-determined lives as autonomous adults (Bramall 2000 p.203), that is, to evade religious,
social and political determinism so that choice was indeed personal and individual. Personal
development was a very important aim (Booth and Hyland 1996 p.33).
Some historians may have felt that the potential exclusion of what had been considered ‘good’
and essential History from young minds put the Nation’s heritage at risk. The concepts of
values and of national identity in Britain were contested: before 1960, the teaching of History
in Scotland may have peen perceived by some pupils there as no more than a ‘chauvinistic haze
permeated by hostility to England’ (Hay 1997 p.60). It is possible that such a comment also
mirrored both Irish and Welsh recollections of History teaching. Some English pupils, when
taught British History which encompassed England’s ‘civilising’ role in Scotland, Wales and
Ireland, may not have been given the opportunities to appreciate the deep rooted perceptions of
colonialism in those provinces; or as Slater put it '...Celts looked in to starve, emigrate or
rebel...foreigners were either, sensibly, allies, or rightly defeated...' (1989 p.1). A knowledge
and understanding of History may contribute to educational and democratic aims but should
65
not arrogate to, or be subjugated by such aims. Hill (1953) suggested that History '...properly
taught can help men to become critical and humane, just as wrongly taught, it can turn them
into bigots and fanatics...' (p.8).
Within the SCHP from the late 1960s, and within Integrated studies and in the integrated Inter
Disciplinary Enquiry (IDE) developed at Goldsmith’s College London, the teaching of New
History was viewed by participating teachers as a means to help pupils develop tolerance,
building and supplementing pre-school values, empowering pupils to reflect and to apply
principles and fundamental convictions. Richard Hoggart's (1967) 'The uses of literacy'
questioned the effect of social class on educational and social development. Hargreaves's
(1972) 'social psychology' and Bernstein's (1971) 'socio-linguistics' were just two elements of
an ever-expanding overview of education within society. The Centre for Contemporary
Cultural Studies (CCCS), established at Birmingham University in the 1960s, stressed the
advent of 'cultural studies', an interdisciplinary approach, to combat perceived shortcomings in
the then existing provision and Hoggart (1970 p.33) prompted readers to examine 'working
class culture' as demonstrated by levels of deprivation and discomfort, and to relate such
economically determined categories to the individual's self development and their social
relationships These were intended to act as general guides to the using of school History as a
means to foster socially-orientated claims or values which may have reflected what Ferguson
has called '...socialism and its ally, permissive liberalism...' (2004 p.xxxvii). Debates about the
effectiveness and integrity of such approaches are ongoing and there is little sign of consensus
(Hadyn et al 2001 p.18). Simon has asserted that such '...muddling through...tinkering with this
and that...' may have produced variations in methodology, but has done nothing to tackle the
lack of serious discussion about the issue of pedagogy (1981 p.133). Today, throughout
England’s maintained schools, the vast majority of which are ‘comprehensive’ as regards
intake, History is taught within the framework of the National Curriculum; pupils are part of a
66
statutory system of education which (a) makes attendance at school compulsory, (b) sets 16 as
the minimum leaving age, (c) prescribes which subjects must be studied until the age of 14 and
which must be taken for approved public examination at the age of 16, (d) provides
suggestions for content and oversees assessment of those subjects and (e) has in place a process
of inspection which, in a extreme case, has the authority to close an under-performing school.
Apart from the Education Act of 1870 which established the ideal of compulsory attendance,
the other conditions have evolved for the most part during the later half of the Twentieth
Century when the contexts for such changes were not always clearly defined.
For pupils in maintained schools, whose experiences of KS3 History may have consisted of
'...slabs of the past...' (Haydn et al 2001 p.7) selected from the previous eleven centuries, there
may not have been sufficient opportunities to appreciate the concept of progression. The more
focussed approach to GCSE History during KS4 investigates (i) the sequence and consequence
of human activity and (ii) the origins and effects of human intent, two aspects which may be
useful as pupils develop their own sophisticated roles in society.
Goodson (1993) refers to the controversy generated during the 1970s when James Callaghan,
in his speech at Ruskin College in October 1976, questioned the prevalent teaching methods in
schools, the educational standards being achieved and the limited relationship of schools to
industry (Woodward 2005 p.1). Such controversies continued during the 1980s and culminated
with the Government's decision in 1988 to implement a National Curriculum within all
maintained schools. Thus a century after central government’s legislation to provide free and
compulsory education within maintained schools, the ERA of 1988 sought to bring some
degree of standardisation to what went on within those schools. Discussions during the drafting
of that National Curriculum for 5-16 year olds had been concerned not just with defining the
content of the syllabus, but with prescribing a process of assessment for all pupils and finding a
67
balance between teacher-directed and pupil-centred approaches to learning. During the
previous decades these two approaches and a myriad of variations reflected what was
considered old, traditional, formal, knowledge-based teaching, seemingly being ousted by new,
progressive, pupil centred skills-based learning. Within the subject of History, discussions
about the content to be taught were as contentious as proposals about methodology.
3.5: Educational Awards
Founded in 1858, the Oxford and Cambridge Local Examinations scheme provided schoolleaving examinations at local centres and were the forerunners of the present GCSE
arrangements (OUA 1996). A General School Certificate was introduced in 1917 and was an
examination for grammar school pupils taken at the age of sixteen; the Higher School
Certificate was taken at eighteen years of age. Goodson (1993) notes that the influence from
the examination boards was stronger than that of the LEAs as regards curricula (p.15). These
General and Higher examinations were replaced in 1951 by the General Certificate of
Education (GCE), the Ordinary or 'O' level being taken at sixteen and the GCE Advanced or 'A'
level being taken after two years further study in the sixth form. By 1980 there had been '...over
2 dozen examination boards whose systems were fragmented, bureaucratic, uncoordinated and
inconsistent...'. (BBC 14.06.2002)
The GCSE examination introduced in 1988 was a hybrid of the General Certificate of
Education – Ordinary Level (GCE ‘O’) and the Schools Council sponsored Certificate of
Secondary Education (CSE). Single-subject GCE 'O level' qualifications had been introduced
in 1951 and had been taken mainly by pupils in grammar schools and independent schools.
Nationally, this represented the top 20 - 25 per cent of the cohort, by a measured test of ability.
Other pupils had been catered for, mostly in secondary modern schools, where the opportunity
to take public examinations was rarely available. In the 50s and early 60s, most young people
therefore left school without any formal qualifications. In 1965, the CSE examinations were
68
introduced to provide a suitable target for a wider ability range, although James Callaghan
(1976 para 6) remarked 11 years later that '...the Schools council have reached
conclusions...maybe they haven't got it right yet...'. The new examination was graded from 1 to
5, with grade 1 being regarded as equivalent to O-level grade C or above, and grade 4 being
pitched at average attainment for the whole age group. GCE-O levels were offered mainly by
examining boards which had links with the universities, whilst CSEs were introduced on a
regional basis, with 14 new awarding bodies being established to make awards in three `modes;
mode 1 was entirely board-run, mode 3 devolved considerable responsibility to schools, and
mode 2 took various intermediate forms.
The regional nature of CSE, supported by new money for innovation from the Employment
Department’s Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI) led to a massive growth in
the range of subject titles and syllabuses, many of them modular. Concerns began to emerge,
which focused on the proliferation of awards, levels of consistency and fairness of assessment,
comparability of standards of awards and the public’s understanding of the status of those
awards. The reality was that O level grades D and E were often preferred by employers to the
higher attainment seemingly embodied in a CSE grade 1 and by the early seventies, it was clear
that CSE was not able to thrive alongside the more familiar O level. Where there had seemed to
be 'boundaries' between pupils entered for O-level examinations and those who had not, the
introduction of the CSE blurred this demarcation and, it was suggested, removed the feeling of
'failure' felt by the 'non exam class' (Benn and Simon 1970 p.175).
The new GCSE examinations were administered by different examination boards offering
different syllabi and had been devised to cater for 60 per cent of secondary school pupils. In
response to the Dearing Report (1993), the then Secretary of State Gillian Shephard had asked
that the number of syllabi be reduced but had not sought to merge the examination boards into
one national body (Blackburne 1994 p.2). Despite wider access to national examinations which
69
reported achievement on an A to G scale, the public in general, employers in particular, and
probably many in the education world regarded grades A to C, that is, the top 50 per cent
academically, as passes and D to G as failures. Culpin (2003 p.15) notes that the four grades
below 'C' mirror the structure of the earlier CSE examination structure. There may be relatively
few marks between a 'C' and a 'D' grade but the difference is significant for the pupil leaving
school with five 'D's rather than five 'C's (Mortimore 1999 p.1). Examination boards review all
candidates' work whose marks are within one per cent of the C-D boundary or whose final
assessments are two or more grades beyond the teachers' predictions' (SCAA 1994 p.3).
Schools were still valued by some on the ‘how many pupils gained five or more GCSEs at A to
C grade’ criteria. This ‘five or more’ target was seen as requiring teachers to pay less attention
to the ‘...lower end...’ (Garner and Cassidy 2003 p.1). The existence and validity of the GCSE
examinations system was to be questioned. When it was designed before 1988 there were no
formal Key Stage Assessment procedures and too many students (sic) gave up ‘…too much too
soon and damaged their future opportunities…’ (Hargreaves 2001)
Ten years later, successive Secretaries of State were still acknowledging that some 50.000
youngsters were leaving school annually at 16 without any qualifications; at that age negative
attitudes towards education may have been entrenched already, especially among boys (Bleach
1997 p.23). By 2001, 73 per cent of KS4 pupils were taking 8, 9 or 10 GCSEs (Bell 2001
p.203); league tables alongside the indispensable examination statistics had indicated a
widening gap between the best and worst schools (Hackett, 2004, p.1) and had shown at times,
to be devalued by the effects of teachers allegedly ‘cheating’ by previewing the test materials
and by parents who could afford to, seeking private tuition for their children (Humphrys 2002
p.17), although the latter assertion reflects an aspect not new to the provision of education in
general; almost 50 years ago, Vernon noted that pupils who received private coaching could
increase their IQ rest scores by 12 - 15 per cent (1957 p.22). Even examination boards such as
70
Edexcel had compounded the problem, having made seven major errors during the first half of
the year 2002 (Curtis 2002 p.1): allegations were that some grades in the 2002 AS
examinations had been downgraded at the behest of Government. Subsequent enquiries and the
resignation of Secretary of State for Education, Estelle Morris, prompted the Sunday Times
(ST) to refer to the state education system as
‘…a bureaucratic quagmire…a schooling
nightmare…’ (ST, Editorial, p18, 13.10.02). Acknowledging Morris’s dedication to her work,
the Times Education Supplement’s (TES) columnist the late Ted Wragg commented that in the
past ‘…we’ve had some prats, some monumental prats doing the job…’(Wragg 2002 p.1).
Former Secretary of State Shirley Williams has described the current (2006) education system
as being based on 'endless directives, guidance, forms and all that (sic) from central
government'. In 2006, Secretary of State Ruth Kelly appeared to upset everyone with her
proposal of limited independence for state 'trust' schools, with perhaps selection by 'aptitude',
although the Select Committee was sceptical of the 'practical distinction between ability and
aptitude' (Eason 2006 p.1). Although Kelly had stated to Parliament 'I never want to see a
return to selection' (25.10.2005 Col. 180), she was seen to be promoting that very possibility
for some English schools, at the same time as her colleague, Maria Eagle (Northern Ireland
Education Minister), outlined 'the (UK) Government's 'enthusiasm for removing selection at
secondary school level' (Bowcott 2006 p.1). By the end of Spring 2006, Kelly, the ninth
Secretary of State since the implementation of the ERA, had been replaced by Alan Johnson.
Since the introduction of the Education Reform Act in 1988, teachers had become more aware
of how the roles of the Government, ministers and administrators impact on the daily life of
schools. Observers may have suggested that the apprehension felt by teachers before an Ofsted
inspection during Chris Woodheads’s alleged ‘reign of terror’ had diminished somewhat
during the periods of his successors, Mike Tomlinson and David Bell (Plomin 2001 p.8).
71
The ‘comprehensive ideal’ - equality of opportunity - may not have delivered the expected
results; disadvantaged pupils’ needs were expressed as socio-economic or emotional, not as
educational. Some inner city schools allegedly registered up to forty per cent of their pupils as
having SENs in order to rationalise anticipated poor results of tests (Marrin 1998 p.10). In such
schools, it seemed that some teachers had undertaken the roles of '...surrogate parent, pseudo
social worker or political agent...' (CRE 1999 p.1) and some 4 years later retired Chief
Inspector Woodhead demanded that teachers should be teachers, not policemen (sic),
counsellors or social workers (Woodhead 2003 p.10). In response to the accusation that
standards were falling in spite of an apparently higher pass rate in 1998, the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA) set up an independent panel to investigate; this reported back that
standards were indeed rising. Yet retired Chief HMI Robinson reported that GCSE standards
had been lowered (massaged) because of Government pressure to meet targets (Woodward W.
2001) and as a result of competition among examination boards seeking more business from
pupils 'flocking' to easier grades (Robinson 2001 p.1). Twelve months later, QCA Chairman
Stubbs resigned after a 'debacle' over grades for AS and A2 examinations when it was alleged
that examiners were told to place greater emphasis on the previous year's statistics, than the
current candidates' worth (Clare and Lightfoot 2002 p.1). Former head of OFSTED, Chris
Woodhead, indicated that politicians knew exactly how to ‘…tip the wink…’ to senior civil
servants in order to ensure that certain undeclared policies might be enacted (Woodhead,
2002). Former Secretary of State Gillian Shepherd commented that there always existed a
conflict (sic) between Government and the DfES and that both played '...linguistic games...' to
achieve their particular aims (Shepherd 21.01.2006). Effective assessment had to be valid and
reliable, she said: as the government had reduced the curriculum into a tightly constrained
system of pre-defined chunks of knowledge, perhaps pupils were better trained to ‘perform’.
Yet some twelve months later, amid suspicion of inappropriate marking policies alongside the
realignment of grade boundaries, a chief examiner resigned stating that standards had been
72
lowered.
Pupil involvement in the GCSE examination process was hampered by the inability of many
schools’ to offer a full range of subjects. Lack of qualified staff, inappropriate teaching space
and most of all, timetabling difficulties forced schools into offering pupils various
combinations of subjects for selection; options which gave the illusion of autonomy to the
individual pupil. Thus teachers mediated a hidden agenda of choice (Jones, 1983, p. 63) and it
was uncommon for pupils to select exactly which package of subjects they preferred without
some degree of compromise (see Pratt et al 1984 and Ryrie et al 1979 for examples of preGCSE option schemes).
A common dilemma for pupils during their Year 9 was to be asked to select either History or
Geography, both non-compulsory, and each subject had supporters ready to comment. This
dilemma was not new:
...how much more unfavourably does a dry list of units, tens, hundreds and thousands
(dates) strike the juvenile student, than the pleasing machinery of atlases and globes...
(Slater E. 1827 p.iv)
In the case of History, facing a potential reduction in entrants of 5.3 per cent in 1996, it was
suggested that pupils perceived it as a difficult subject and that Geography was safer easier
(Pyke 1996 p.4). Yet, it was stated that Geography was ‘…no easy option…’ and was assumed
to provide industrial and economic understanding in a rapidly changing world. (Kent 1996
p.27) Oddly, teachers were sometimes unable to offer any account of what their subject
offered pupils that others did not (Pratt et al 1984 p.115). Presenting History and Geography as
alternatives for study at GCSE level would inhibit the potential development of crosscurricular work (NC 1991 p.13). Both History and Geography were subject to pressures for
curricular space which resulted from a greater emphasis on (a) literacy and numeracy, (b) the
increasing profile of subjects of a vocational nature offering certification NVQ and GNVQ and
(c) the Secretary of State’s ‘…zeal…’ for Citizenship to be included in the curriculum from
73
2001 and in KS3 and KS4 from 2002 (Rowan 2000 p. 15). The determination of the content of
such a ‘value-laden’ subject as Citizenship, if left in the hands of politicians, could lead to the
political indoctrination of school children (Cassidy 1999 p.2). Citizenship was seen as an
additional burden for some teachers, reflecting ‘…silliness and distraction…’ and was not
always seen in a positive light (Woodhead 2002 p.11); in contrast Turner and Baker (2002
p.118) noted that 'History provides an excellent opportunity to teach citizenship'. The QCA
stated '...history is highly relevant to...active engaged citizens ... citizenship can add a new
dimension to history teaching...' (QCA 2004 p.1) and Jerome Freeman, Principle officer for
History with the QCA suggested that history departments '...could contribute to citizenship
through...existing national curriculum programmes of study for history...' (Freeman 2002 p2832). OFSTED however, stated that the value of using historical topics, for example, the
Suffragette Movement to teach democracy, was limited (2003 p.12). The Government's Home
Office publication 'Life in the United Kingdom: a Journey to Citizenship' (2005-6) was 'riddled
with (historical) errors' (Lang 2006) but the author, Sir Bernard Crick dismissed the criticisms
as 'quibbles' (Blair 2006 p.3). Publishers had produced teaching materials which were made
available to teachers, and seemed to acknowledge differing interpretations and approaches (see
‘Survey Citizenship’, TES, Teacher, pp.16-17, 14.11.02).
The non-compulsory status of History education was decried; within Europe in 1998, only
Albania had similar arrangements (McGavin 1998 p.14). Thus, British pupils’ opportunity to
study the subject at KS4 had been seriously eroded (Wrigley 1998 p.10). Some teachers
suggested that examination techniques should be addressed during Year 9 (Laffin 1998 p.14);
it was alleged that many History teachers themselves were aware of the difficulties facing KS4
pupils. These difficulties included the learning of facts, the on-going development of skills, the
research and compilation of coursework and the ability to perform well within a timed
examination, all aspects of the requirements of the GCSE examination. The interpreting of
74
questions and the ability to anticipate what the examiner really sought were seen as potential
areas of difficulty for the pupil. Mountford and Price (2004 p.234) state that History is a
'highly literate subject with complexities of analysis and interpretation'. Almost ten years
earlier in an editorial for ‘Teaching History’ (1995 p.2) Brown suggested that as History was a
‘…literacy subject…’ it was better suited to girls and that 60 per cent of girls took History at
GCSE level. This comment may have reflected KS3 data which indicated that girls’ enjoyment
and success at reading and writing far outstripped that of the boys. Statistics supplied by the
DfES do not support that figure of 60 per cent, but do show that more girls than boys took the
subject: an average of 52 per cent of girls were entrants for History examinations at age 16
during the period 1965 – 1974, 51 per cent for the period 1976 – 1979 and 52.5 per cent for the
period 1981 – 1994. Levels of achievement were higher; 2 per cent more girls than boys gained
a ‘C or better’ grade during the period 1965 – 1974 and 6.5 per cent during the period 1988 –
1994. However, boys outperformed the girls by 1.5 per cent during the period 1976 – 1985, a
period when CSE Grade 1s were incorporated into the results. At that time CSE Grade 1s
accounted for approximately 25 per cent of the total number of GCE Grade Cs.
In 2005 in England, three examining bodies, the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance
(AQA), Edexcel (formerly the Business and Technology Education Council - BTEC and the
University of London Examinations and Assessment Council - ULEAC) and the Oxford,
Cambridge RSA Examinations (OCR) group. Each offered similar History options; they were
and (a) British Social and Economic History, (b) Modern World History and (c) Schools
History Project. Less than one per cent of candidates followed option (a). The specifications for
options (b) and (c) were similar in that
World War I
The Cold War
The League of Nations
World War II
Germany 1918 - 1939
Lenin and Stalin
USA 1919 - 1941
were topics offered for study (HA 2005 p.34). Edexcel offered these but also included topics
75
reflecting the Histories of India, China, South Africa, Vietnam and the Middle East, themes
from which pupils following AQA or OCR syllabi could choose coursework tasks. The overall
style of content and questions at GCSE was seemingly '...narrow and formulaic...' with greater
emphasis on visual sources than on text (HA 2005 p.38).
Previous Secretary of State, Estelle Morris’s ‘…coherent set of qualifications…’ reflected the
QCA’s proposals and would provide a progress check mid-way between the ages of 14 and 19.
Such qualifications might not be provided within comprehensive schools, which had
‘…failed…’ to provide satisfactorily equality of opportunity and had ‘…confused excellence
with elitism…’ (Judd and Dean 2001 p.3). The very significant changes to the provision,
access and delivery of education during the last sixty years may not, it seems, have delivered
Utopia. To explain why would be difficult and may well demonstrate the ad hoc fallacy; was it
the aftermath of the war, or the liberal 1960’s, or comprehensive schools, or Thatcherism, or
the Schools Council, or the Education Reform Act, or New Labour, or any of a myriad of interrelated and indiscernible factors which vary from place to place and from individual to
individual? Seeking seemingly intangible solutions had already been explored some thirty
years earlier and had suggested that schools and the education offered therein was unable to
‘compensate for society’. (Bernstein 1970) and Goodson (1995) suggests that it was 'crass' to
try to keep politics out of education. In the overall scheme, History was just one of many
subjects, competing for space in a ‘. jam-packed curriculum…offering Hitler and the
Henrys…’(Haydon 2002 p.5) and seeking to justify its place within an education system which
has a utilitarian flavour and points towards a technologically proficient world.
3.6: The Emergence of the National Curriculum
Pupils in maintained schools must follow courses of study which comply with the guidelines
offered within the National Curriculum. Whilst at KS4 the themes to be studied and assessment
76
procedures for GCSE are relatively similar across all schools, KS3 pupils in different
secondary schools might not study exactly the same topics; for example some may cover (indepth) the Domesday Book, à Beckett, the Crusades, the Black Death or any other topics which
the teachers feel are appropriate. Some classes may have learned about the native peoples of
North America, others may not. In other words the content of KS3 National Curriculum
History is not necessarily national, but the rationale is. It is necessary to take an overview of
the beginnings of this curriculum, subsequent modifications and teachers' reactions.
3.7: The Education Reform Act 1988
In his 1976 speech at Ruskin College, Oxford, the then Prime Minister James Callaghan stated
that within the '...increasing complexity of modern life...' employers i.e. 'industry' had
complained that recruits from schools lacked the '...basic tools...'. Although he acknowledged
that the sciences in schools should have more technical bias and that more girls should be
encouraged to study such subjects, he noted the gulf between the status of vocational and
academic awards. Callaghan suggested that there was a general unease among parents and
'...others...' about informal methods of teaching in schools and he suggested that perhaps the
Schools Council might have not yet '...got it right...'. What he proposed was a basic curriculum
with universal standards from nursery to adult education, centring on a proper use of resources,
national standards of performance, a relevant role for the Inspectorate of Schools and a review
of the examination system. By 1988 plans had been drawn up by successive governments to
address these issues. It might be argued that whilst these proposals were significant, the real
significance was that a Prime Minister should become so publicly forceful about the work and
direction of single Government Department.
During the 1980s the Conservative Party had embarked on a wide sweeping effort to improve
the quality and efficiency of all public services through a multi-pronged approach of consumer
77
choice, privatisation of public institutions and local decision-making. In education, Parliament
had replaced an educator-dominated, decentralised system with a nationally constructed
‘market-place’ where school quality was secured by national standards, local community
monitoring and parents’ ability to ‘vote with their feet’. A process of per capita funding was
established which rewarded schools that attracted parental ‘business’. Central Government had
sought to address questions of entitlement and differentiation for all pupils. Sir Keith Joseph,
addressing the HA in 1984, had expressed dissatisfaction with the then current practice in
schools. DES Circular 10/65, had anticipated that LEAs would begin, or in some cases,
continue to introduce comprehensive schools where the curricula of Grammar, Modern and
Technical schools would exist side be side within the same institution, with (hopefully) equal
status. This was a major change in the organisation of English schools. It could be argued that a
compulsory National Curriculum might have been seen to conflict with the notion of
democratic free choice. It was not the radical change as envisaged by the Schools Council
some years earlier (Wrigley 1983 p.43).
Before the introduction of a National Curriculum, standardised testing was used generally as
pupils prepared to complete their education and to leave school. Following the ERA (1988),
OFSTED was established to commission inspections to order to identify strengths and
weaknesses in schools, to improve the overall quality of teaching and learning, to raise
standards overall and to provide detailed information to parents about children's schools. The
issuing of ‘National Curriculum: a consultation document’, (DES 1987) set in motion a series
of committees and working parties whose reports went some way to forming the outline
contents of the ERA of 1988. Within the consultation document was the proposal to set up a
Task Group on Assessment and Testing (TGAT), with the responsibility to devise and secure
arrangements which would be (a) simple to administer (b) understandable by all inside and
outside the education service (c) cost effective and (d) supportive of learning (TGAT 1988 p.2.
78
appA). The National Curriculum applied to all pupils of compulsory school age in maintained
schools, and those which were grant-maintained. Whereas pupils in primary schools had
previously been categorised as ‘infants’ or ‘juniors’ and post-primary pupils as ‘secondary’,
under the National Curriculum they would be organised on the basis of four Key Stages as
shown below
Key Stage
Pupils’ ages
Year groups
Key Stage 1
5–7
1–2
Key Stage 2
7 – 11
3–6
Key Stage 3
11 – 14
7–9
Key Stage 4
14 – 16
10 – 11
Such arrangements, alongside the guidelines for OFSTED and the highly prescriptive
framework for each subject, may have been seen as setting up a nationwide procedure to assess
and to monitor the content and standards of education in all maintained schools, although the
ERA (1988) had passed the task of implementing the proposals for curriculum to individual
Head teachers. Local Management of Schools (LMS) was established whereby each head
teacher assumed control of their school’s finances; this was a system that required schools to
prioritise and ‘buy in’ services that had previously been supplied by the Local Education
Authority, for example, the provision of peripatetic music tuition, the hire of swimming pools
and the payment of supply teachers.
The National Curriculum proposed the content, skills and processes of learning in each of ten
subjects; three were defined as ‘core’ subjects (English, Mathematics and Science) and seven
as ‘foundation’ subjects (Design Technology, Information Technology, History, Geography,
Art, Music, and Physical Education) for Key Stages 1 and 2. A modern Foreign Language
would be included at Key Stage 3. At Key Stage 4 English, Mathematics, Science, Physical
79
Education (from August 1995) and from August 1996 Design Technology, Information
Technology and a modern Foreign Language would be examined on the basis of new GCSE
syllabi to be introduced in September 1996 (DfEa 1995 p.v). Such prescription may have
seemed to be at odds with the rationale of the earlier 1944 Act which had not made any
statutory provision for any subject, with the exception of Religious Education. The GCE Olevel examination which replaced the School Certificate Examination in 1951 had not required
that the pupil gain passes in each of a defined set of subjects; subjects could be taken which
reflected the interests and abilities of the individual pupil. The GCE A level examination
permitted individual choice also (Pollard 1970 p. 40).
The status of core and foundation subjects of the National Curriculum did indicate the
Government’s interpretation of their relative importance, demonstrating perhaps a reassertion
of a basic grammar school curriculum. The utilitarian emphasis on literacy and numeracy
coupled with the achievement of targets was designed to promote a raising of expectations and
of standards (Tate 1994 p.19). Cross-curricular themes, reflecting contemporary issues such as
health, environment, careers, economics and citizenship were advised but not required. Until
2001 this reform, ‘from the top’, made little mention of pedagogy - ‘the skills of teaching’ and was viewed initially by many teachers who experienced additional administrative
processes, as a new system to be put in place and to be managed. Within the Consultation
Document the establishing of subsequent schemes of work for the new curriculum was also
delegated to head teachers (sec 10.2) who invariably passed the tasks to Heads of Department.
Such delegation, seen alongside the very general ‘broad and balanced’ (sec.10.3) description,
that pupils would not have to repeat grades, that no specific texts were recommended and that
there were no proposed subject-time allocations might have been interpreted as an unexpected
move towards the decentralisation of education. For ‘activities’ related to the ERA, ninety
million pounds was made available of which sixty-five million pounds was earmarked for the
80
in-service training and education of teachers (INSET) (Wilby 1988 p.6). Changes in both
school governance and financial procedures taking place simultaneously may have blurred the
areas of responsibility between schools and their LEA so reducing the potential effective use of
such funds. A timetable for implementing the proposals by a deadline of 1995 was issued along
with descriptions of Key Stages and Levels of Attainment, within the Education Order (1991).
Responses to the National Curriculum prompted discussions about the merits or otherwise and
had tended to centre on professional, academic and political issues. The National Curriculum,
seen by some as (a) resembling the Board of Education’s Regulation for Syllabus of 1904
(Aldrich 1988 p.22), (b) a ‘…teacher-proofed packaged curriculum…’(Simon 1988 p.82) and
(c) as rectifying a system where teachers and professional educators had been inclined to
‘woolliness’ and were ‘…wary…’ of precise objectives (Wilby 1988 p.8), had generated some
18,000 responses to Secretary of State Kenneth Baker during the consultation period between
July and November 1987. Such ‘…overwhelming…’ approval (Haviland 1988 p.viii) for a
‘…shoddy product…’(White 1988 p.116) which some claimed was little more than an
‘…arbitrary scaffolding for testing…’ (Simon 1988 p.89) in schools, may have demonstrated
that the New Right of the political scene sought to curb the ‘…corrupting process and teacher
autonomy…’. (Phillips 1991 p.21) and an awareness that the ‘…excesses of the 1960’s and
1970’s had swung too far…’ (Tate 1994 p.19), although it might be argued that a government
could not legislate for unprofessionalism, poor communication or misunderstanding. As the
National Curriculum was introduced into schools, it became clear that the requirements for
assessment were complex and time consuming and there was some doubt as to whether schools
could actually manage the procedure (MacLeod 1992 p.1) and that there had been no
discernable rise in standards. However, a marked improvement in the planning of programmes
of study had been noted (Rafferty 1994 p.8). From the viewpoint of the general public, 17 per
cent had not heard of the National Curriculum some five years after its inception (Dore 1994
81
p.4). Cross-curricular themes had been neglected due to the pressures of an overcrowded
timetable and the difficulties of devising systems of evaluation and assessment (Whitty et al
1994 p.178).
3.8: History in the National Curriculum
From the outset, History was viewed by some as an essential component of the curriculum for
all pupils; ‘clutter’ should be eliminated (Slater 1991 p.8). Over the years, various examination
boards had established their own syllabi; there seemed little agreement as to content or what
did constitute a ‘discipline’ of History. At the 11 - 14 stage within schools, teachers of History
had often sought to tailor courses to mirror their own interests and specialisms. Many had
adopted the SCHP as seemingly more relevant, in an attempt to introduce ‘...real as opposed to
school...’ History (Medley and White 1992 p.64). The success of the Nuffield Programme
within the teaching of Science had been noted widely and prompted some teachers of all
subjects to consider their methodology. The ‘new’ History was delivered via a spiral
curriculum, where aspects were revisited in increasing breath and depth. But when the then
Secretary of State Kenneth Baker set up a History Working Party (January 1989) to consider
the implementing of the National Curriculum, only one practising teacher was appointed when
additional input for this ‘potentially controversial’ subject was sought (Aldrich 1991 p.2).
Supporters of the SCHP felt that a ‘core curriculum’ was unworkable due to the wide range of
ability found in the majority of classes in comprehensive schools (Wrigley 1983 p.48). The
traditional view, based on the accumulation of knowledge, the central role of chronology in
History and mainly British in content (Slater 1991 p.13), may have seemed to be restrictive and
teacher dominated. This contrasted sharply with the methodology, based on skills and
concepts, of the SCHP, an approach viewed as meaningful and contemporary where continuity
and change, causation and evidence were the key skills. The number of schools already using
the SCHP seemed to indicate that it was a ‘pioneering’ approach (Dickinson 1991 p.85), but
82
some politicians viewed it as subversive and ineffectual (Plaskow 1985 p.10). Vague criticisms
such as “Tory plots” or “Marxist conspiracies” of the work of the Schools Council in general,
and the Council’s impression that civil servants were ‘hamstrung’ by the need to save money
and be totally accountable, may have led to political interference and the eventually the demise
of Council in 1985 (Mann 1985 p.190). The Order was issued in January 1991 and the
document, ‘History in the National Curriculum (England)’ was issued to schools in March
1991.
Within seventy-five pages, details of the three Attainment Targets and ten levels of Attainment
were provided; programmes of study incorporating Core Study Units across all four Key
Stages were outlined. Information from the ERA (1988) was attached, giving details of
commencement dates for cohorts of pupils between 1991 and 1995. History departments, some
traditional, some embracing ‘new History’ as exemplified by the SCHP, in schools throughout
the country were now faced with the task of ensuring that not only the structure of the National
Curriculum was established, but also the content and the assessment procedures.
The publication of the ‘Non Statutory Guidance’ in April (DES b, 1991) may have enabled all
teachers, reflecting traditional, contemporary or hybrid approaches to classroom work, to
interpret the Study Units, allowing scope for individual schemes of work to be drawn up.
Guidance within the document stressed ‘balance’ and teachers were advised to deal with
‘sensitive’ issues: social, religious and moral. (para.c26). The curriculum for History was not
about the transmission of dogma and prejudice (sec.15.3) but about the interpretation of
evidence. For History teachers dealing with the first cohort of 1991, the structure of Attainment
Targets within the Study units provided clearer guidance as regards what the Government had
envisaged as ‘historical skills’: The Attainment Targets reflected both the traditional
‘knowledge-based’ and the ‘enquiry-based’ approaches:
83
1. Range and depth of historical knowledge and understanding
2. Interpretations of History
3. Historical enquiry
These key elements were further divided into two, three or four ‘strands’ which sought to
define sub-skills with more accuracy.
For teachers, and head teachers who had the
responsibility of ensuring the implementation of the proposals, the content of the Programmes
of Study was, in many cases, very similar to models of good practice which had existed in
many schools. From the outset, teachers of History focused their attention on the two aspects of
the National Curriculum which would require pragmatic responses - Attainment Targets and
Programmes of Study. Although the National Curriculum document (DESa 1991) included
some user-friendly phrases for example, 'opportunities to study’ (p.33), 'opportunities to
develop’ (p.34) and ‘pupils should be helped’ (p.35), the overall content of five Core Study
Units (CSU) was seen as prescriptive.
1. The Roman Empire
2. Medieval Realms; Britain 1066 to 1500
3. The Making of the UK; 1500 to 1750
4. Expansion Trade and Industry; Britain 1750 to 1900
5. The Era of the Second World War
Units (2) to (5) were to be taught in chronological order. A further three Supplementary Study
Units, selected to (a) extend the core British History pre 1920, (b) study a turning point in
European
History pre-1914 and (c) study a past non-European Society, sought to ‘make
demands’ (DESa 1991 p.47) in historical knowledge, understanding and skills. The Dearing
review of 1993, as with the whole question of assessment, simplified the Programme of Study:
Medieval Realms 1066 to 1500
The Making of the UK 1500 to 1750
Britain 1750 to c.1900
The Twentieth Century World
84
A Turning point in European History pre 1914
A Past non-European Society
the first four Study Units being taught in sequence. The guidance issued in 1995 (DfE p.1015) reaffirmed the requirement that Units 1 - 4 were to be taught in sequence, and clarified the
sub-divisions of the Key Elements. For each Study Unit, an outline was provided, indicating
the major historical features of that period. Units 3 and 4 were to be taught through an
‘overview’ approach supported by at least one in-depth study of a significant event,
development or personality of that period. There was scope for teachers to develop their own
Units for 5 and 6 rather than use the examples provided within the document.
3.9: Responses specific to History
(i)
Assessment and Programmes of Study
(ii) Resources
(iii) Time
(i) Assessment and Programmes of Study
TGAT, in suggesting a hierarchy of ten levels of pupil response had assumed an emphasis on
summative assessment. In promoting such a linear age-stage model, Attainment Targets sought
to prompt teachers to base predictions on actual performance, rather than accident, chance or
personal prejudice (Patterson 1994 p.196). To develop, write up and install this system in
departments would involve a considerable investment of time; as teachers were unfamiliar with
seemingly direct intervention from central government, there existed a fear of ‘not doing the
right thing’ (Phillips 1993 p.351). Progress throughout the levels of the Attainment Targets was
dependent on aggregation and reporting procedures; such aggregation of results from quick
recall tests and/or from planned essays, presented difficulties for the practising teachers. There
existed so much responsibility for establishing the process of assessment, that central
85
government's decision to leave it all to the schools to implement and to manage, may have,
ironically, strengthened to some degree, the autonomy felt by teachers (Medley and White
1992 p.74). Yet some teachers, in acknowledging the underlying issue of accountability, feared
that the whole assessment process was an ‘…absurd…straitjacket…’ (Phillips 1991 p.23)
where attainment targets and statements of attainment were little more than a ‘…superficial…'
measure of a pupil’s progress (Patterson, 1994 p.211). OFSTED, having reviewed inspection
findings for the year 1993-4, agreed that assessment was ‘…problematic…’ and that some
targets had been ‘…unsuccessful…’ (OFSTED 1994 p.3).
The whole process of implementing the NC for all subjects was perceived by some as
‘arbitrary and ill-defined’ and ‘over-complicated’ (Haydn 1994 p.215) and led to a review in
1993. In History, the Dearing Report (SCAA 1993) expressed the view that the Programmes of
Study could not be put onto a plausible linear scale, that it was simplistic to assume that pupils
would progress through ten levels of attainment in an orderly way and that the lack of precision
in the criteria for Statements of Attainment had resulted in teachers interpreting them in
different ways (Dearing 1993 p.40).
Consequently the ten levels of assessment were reduced to eight and it was confirmed that
there would be no statutory tests for History or for other Foundation subjects. The original
three Attainment Targets were incorporated into one, entitled ‘History’, within which five ‘key
elements’ were to be addressed.
1.Chronology
2. Range and depth of historical knowledge and understanding
3. Interpretations of History
4. Historical enquiry
5. Organisation and communication.
86
These emphasised the inter-relatedness of knowledge, understanding and skills (Oldham 1994
p.4). In 1996, advice from the (SCAA) recognised the professional judgement of teachers and
suggesting that no particular system was recommended, that adaptation of tests could be
developed and the ‘overall judgement.’ of the teacher was accepted when reporting on the
single Attainment Target ‘History’ utilising the five key elements (SCAA 1996 p.8).
Guidance from SCAA (1997 p.2-4) stated that funding would be available from the
Government’ Grants for Education, Support and Training scheme (GEST). This was four years
after teachers had boycotted the SATs in 1993 (Halpin and Troyna 1994 p.173). This support
was intended to provide training for teachers in assessment and reporting techniques that would
be required to administer the record keeping process. The National Curriculum, as envisaged,
was linked to a plan of national assessment that could be used by parents, as customers, to
judge, compare and select schools for their children. Thus, the new curriculum, driven by
attainment rather than by aims, specified the content areas of each of ten subjects in terms of
knowledge and skills deemed appropriate at certain ages. The levels of attainment in core
subjects, measured by tests administered nationally, would be published. Then parents might
decide to choose better performing schools for their children; under LMS funding, an ageweighted formula linked to pupil numbers might lead to successful schools expanding whilst
under-performing schools might contract or close. The application of such a funding formula
would have implications for staffing, teaching resources and the provision of services from
outside the school.
(ii) Resources:
The inspectorate also noted that within History teaching there had been an undue, uncritical
reliance on texts in the classrooms (OFSTED 1994 p.4 and p.16). Indeed, the whole question of
the provision of adequate resources had been raised earlier: the HA, in consultation with
87
educational publishers, had estimated that £58.3million would be required for the first five
years in order replace older textbooks and to provide materials relating to the Study Units of
the National Curriculum (TH Editorial 4/1990 p.2). In 1994, some schools were still relying on
inadequate and inappropriate books (Hofkins 1994 p.2) and other surveys revealed that 62 per
cent of materials used by Year 8 pupils had been in the form of school-produced information
and work sheets (John 1993 p.18). In many cases this was a cost effective way for teachers to
select and adapt relevant materials for pupil use, without having to purchase sets of textbooks,
many of which contained topics which individual teachers might not require. For many
teachers, the preparation of suitable teaching materials in order to introduce effectively the
content of the National Curriculum and the establishing of appropriate assessment procedures,
made significant demands on their time.
(iii) Time
Anecdotal evidence has indicated that, generally, there were three dimensions to History
teachers’ comments regarding ‘time’; these were the task of departmental consultation and the
subsequent writing up of Programmes of Study, the review and familiarisation process
associated with Attainment Targets and Statements of Attainment, seminal to the Assessment
procedure, the ‘squeezing in’ the huge content of the proposed syllabus and additionally,
competing with other departments for timetable ‘space’. Such demands experienced to some
extent by all foundation subject departments. Government's policy as regards subject-time
allocation was reiterated in 2003;
The amount of time spent on each National Curriculum subject is for individual schools
to decide. Schools are required to cover the programmes of study for each subject
during the relevant key stage but are free to organise the timetable as they wish. The
Department does not collect comparative data which relates to the average amount of
time spent per week on a particular subject.
(Miliband 2003 Col. 414W)
The lack of teaching time available for Haydon's 'jam-packed' curriculum during KS3 History
88
was still seen as a problem when writer John Mortimer (2005)) told The Sunday Times
...with just an hour for History each week...the child who goes to the lavatory may well
miss the Spanish Armada...
(Review: p.10)
Within the teaching of History the interweaving of so many demands led some teachers to
complain that the quality of their teaching was being compromised and that cross-curricular
themes were being neglected (Phillips 1994 p.346). The consensus was that the curriculum was
overcrowded and that there was a resultant lack of coherence (Dunford 1995 p.19). Headlines
from the popular press announcing the ‘…wasting of £500million…and six years…’(Garner
1994 p.8) may not have reflected the implementation of Dearing’s (1993) consensus
curriculum for Key Stages 1, 2 and 3. However, agreement had yet to be reached about the
details of Key Stage 4; issues such as the structure and accreditation of short courses, the role
of vocational education and qualifications and the breadth and balance of core subject
(Dunford 1995 p.39) indicated the lack of coherence across the 14 – 19 year-old timeframe.
For all intents and purposes the National Curriculum was there to stay; yet how could its
effectiveness, its success, be demonstrated or measured?
Initially, Kenneth Baker had hoped that a National Curriculum would enhance the 'health and
wealth' of the country and so ensure the availability of 'worthwhile jobs' for young people in a
modern society (Baker 1988 p.1-2), but the degree of compulsion and prescription was
considered by some, to be too great (Hargreaves 2001). Such ideals were echoed at the Labour
Party Conference at Brighton in 1997 when then Prime Minister Tony Blair promised repairs,
equipment, computers, nursery places and a greater emphasis on literacy and numeracy (Blair
1997 p.1-2). These promises were to be matched with discipline and leadership: failing schools
and LEAs would be taken over by Government control and management, all head teachers
would have appropriate qualifications and poor, that is ineffective, teachers would ‘go’.
Truancy and discipline in schools would be tackled and support from parents was expected – a
89
point also promoted by the previous government (Baker 1988 p.6). Both Baker and Blair had
hinted at the development of further funding for Universities and for Further Education. To
measure the development and successful implementation of all such measures, the Government
would be able to provide statistics. However, data did not focus on one salient point; pupils
within the initial cohorts had been in an ‘…experimental maze…’ and would not have the
opportunity to undo any inappropriate experiences (Byrne 1994 p.16). Results of SATs for
Core subjects for LEAs, individual schools and subjects were to be published to in order that
parents (and the public at large) would be informed about the education progress (or the lack of
it) at national, local and school level. Yet the real benchmark that government, employers,
schools, pupils and parents continued to regard as valid was the national GCSE examination,
taken by pupils at the end of Year 11, the final year of compulsory education. It is not
surprising that many teachers utilise the KS3 '20th Century' study to, additionally, introduce
GCSE topics to their Y9 pupils who might then decide to opt to study History at KS4 (Laffin
1998 p.16). Whether the inclusion of such topics influenced how pupils perceived not just Y9
History, but also the essential elements of a possible GCSE History course, is worthy of
consideration and pupils' comments, perceptions and recollections are relevant. Rudduck and
Flutter (2004 p.2) suggested that pupil-focussed research had tended to refer to pupils'
experiences but had not addressed pupils being consulted about wider school-based policy
issues.
90
Chapter 4
Research planning and design
91
4.1: Introduction
To identify influences within schools and more specifically within Y8 and Y9, that act on
pupils when they have the opportunity to select History as an option during KS3, is key
purpose of this study. A well planned conceptual framework would seek to secure
comprehensive and easily handled information, key aspects of which should be standardised so
that replication could be attempted (Sanger 1996 p.13) The sample studied here attempts to
broadly reflect the attributes present in the wider population. The associated selective process
may not record all characteristics but will focus the observations towards those that are evident
(Harrison-Barbet 1990 p.243); thus one may be aware of the limitations of the research.
In order that the results reflected possible relationships within the data it was important that the
sample of pupils was reasonably representative of the cohort as a whole. Nationally, cohorts of
pupils in secondary schools' KS3s have tended to be around 550,000 during the years 20012005. It would have been unrealistic for a sole researcher to consider dealing with such
numbers; even a 10 per cent sample would have been prohibitive. Thus this study was designed
to involve 500 pupils, from a total of ten schools, tracking two classes from each during their
Y8, Y9 and History groupings in Y10. Schools were asked, that where possible, the two KS3
classes should have the same teacher.
Schools vary in many ways: for example, size, levels of pupils’ achievement at the end of KS3
and KS4, truancy rates, the socio-economic status of the catchment area and numbers of pupils
not having English as their first language. Any sample of schools needs to reflect such factors.
Initially, pilot studies (see section 4.6) were carried out at other schools in order to provide
guidelines for the structure and wording of proposed questionnaires, surveys and interviews
which were designed to explore (a) pupils' perceptions of History during their Y8, Y9 and Y10
and (b) factors which influenced their choice or rejection of History as a potential GCSE
92
subject. The data collected, along with observation and reference to school documents provided
sufficient material for the information to be categorised broadly in order that further refinement
of such categories would reveal underlying relationships.
I will outline the backgrounds to the methodology, ethics and sampling procedures, which were
considered.
4.2: Methodological considerations
Descriptive surveys are a familiar feature of everyday life, often used to compare trends across
a period of time. For example, it may be reported that less KS4 pupils are choosing to study
Modern Languages at GCSE level than was the case ten years ago. The reasons for such
decline are not demonstrated and it is the reasons which are important to educationalists. To
explain the reasons one must identify issues or variables and then seek to explore relationships
among those variables. The strength of such an explanatory approach is that relationships are
explored in their real setting, that is, pupils in their classrooms.
When KS3 pupils have the opportunity to select History as a GCSE option for KS4, they may
be influenced by a variety of factors. To identify those factors within Y8 and Y9, and to seek
relationships, is the purpose of this study. A well planned framework would seek to secure
comprehensive and easily handled information, key aspects of which should be standardised so
that replication could be attempted (Sanger 1996 p.13). Educational research it appears not to
be high on the list of priorities of the busy practicing teacher. Whilst some 25 per cent of
schools' History departments in the UK may subscribe to ‘Teaching History’ (Woodman 2005),
the HA's publication which deals with classroom practice, none of those interviewed
subscribed to ‘educational journals’ which reported current research usually carried out by staff
within Higher Education. In 1996 Hodges had suggested that regarding curriculum planning
and learning styles in maintained schools ' ...abstract talk doesn't percolate outside the world of
93
academic educationalists...' (p.15). Referring to classroom management in an autobiographical
account of his time as teacher, Frank McCourt commented 'Professors of Education never
lectured on how to handle the flying sandwich situation' (2005 p.16). Teachers are not
particularly ‘…rattled by professional historians…’ (Watts 1972 p.9), they are more likely to
be unaware of such research; pressures of preparation, teaching, marking and assessment
present difficulties for teachers to keep up with scholarship (Kitson et al 2004 p.2).
...no amount of Government policy or school guidelines matter as much as the simple
human dynamic between teacher and taught. It was true in the age of Tom Brown's
Schooldays and Mr. Chips; it remains true in the age of students who come to school
with mobile phones and iPods...
(Allen-Mills 2005 p.3)
For the majority of teachers, the weekly ‘Times Educational Supplement’ (TES) was the only
source of information which referred, sometimes very briefly, to new research, latest findings
and government policy.
The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) does have links within schools and
directly to teachers, but its 2003 Director Seamus Hegarty reported that many classroom
teachers applied what he termed the ‘Monday morning test’ (Hegarty 2003). In other words,
extract the relevant tips and guidelines from the research summary and assume that they are
immediately applicable to a class of pupils and thus, teaching and learning will be enhanced.
Creative teaching should not be viewed as an artistic skill but rather the simultaneous,
intellectual application of judgement, experience and insight at any particular moment to match
the pupil, the class and the subject matter being developed. This is a sophisticated and finely
tuned process; experienced teachers may apply appropriate criteria, instantly, to differing
situations. Teachers are aware of the culture and processes which create an individual ethos
within their own classrooms, yet they are acutely aware that they coexist as part of the laiddown procedures of the school which in turn is just one unit within the delivery of the National
94
Curriculum. This research, will focus on a wide age-range; Y8, Y9, and Y10 from a variety of
schools. Thus the selecting of an appropriate sample is paramount.
Constraints within schools
Schools are not only educational institutions but are places where many levels and types of
professional and social interactions co-exist, compete and develop. Within them, teachers and
pupils reflect personal aspects of socio-economic, gender, religious and ethnic issues which
may not be explicit in publicly available data, for example, reports from OFSTED, Standard
Attainment Tests results and GCSE statistics. Such personal aspects may be catered for within
the internal organisation and management procedures and may vary from school to school but
generally, teachers teach and pupils learn subjects within a departmental structure following an
established timetable, all overseen by a hierarchical management. Thus, the National
Curriculum is delivered to pupils. Research involving teachers and pupils requires their cooperation and involvement, which to some extent, will disrupt the normal day-to-day
expectations of the classroom. The aims of this research, to see if there is a reduction in pupils’
enthusiasm for History as they progress through Y9 and explore the possibility that may be one
of the factors which influences their decision to choose or decline the opportunity to study
History in KS4. Such research must involve active contact and discussion with teachers and
pupils and disruption must be kept to a minimum.
Pupils reflect many differences - gender, socio-economic status and religious background - and
attend schools which demonstrate varieties of size, geographical location (rural, urban,
suburban) and status, for example maintained, grammar, City Technology College (CTC),
Voluntary Aided or Controlled. When referring to a school, anecdotal descriptions tend to
focus on the academic performance of pupils as a whole and the behaviour of those pupils
(usually out of school) as viewed by the public. Observers may apply relatively simplistic
95
labels, 'good' or 'bad' and may also be unaware of staff qualifications, departmental staffing and
financial provision within the school. A crude indicator of a school’s performance is the
nationally published ‘league tables’ of GCSE results. These figures, taken alongside SATs
scores, may indicate relative performance among schools, but take little account of individual
departments and of specific classroom teaching of non-statutory subjects such as History. How
the publication of these figures, available within the public domain, influence teachers might
be an important factor. Yet to examine, record and compare a variety of assessment procedures
across a number of schools may provide a series of data which, for non-statutory subjects, is
not comparable empirically. If such measurements in the social sciences are indirect, the
researchers may not be measuring that they think they are (Nachmias and Nachmias 1976
p.59).
4.3:Choosing an approach: Qualitative and quantitative research
Qualitative research
Qualitative research is a field of inquiry that may cut across disciplines and subject matters. It
involves an in-depth understanding of human behaviour and the reasons that govern human
behaviour. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research relies on reasons behind various
aspects of behaviour (Hammersley 1995 p.103). Simply put, it investigates the why and how of
decision-making, as compared to what, where, and when of quantitative research. Thus, the
need is for smaller but focused samples rather than large random samples, and the data is
categorized into patterns as the primary basis for organizing and reporting results. Qualitative
researchers typically rely on four methods for gathering information: (i) participation in the
setting, ii) direct observation, (iii) in depth interviews and (iv) analysis of documents and
materials.
96
Qualitative researchers may use different approaches, such as the grounded theory practice
(see Glaser and Strauss 1967), storytelling, classical ethnography, or shadowing. Qualitative
methods are also loosely present in other methodological approaches such as action research
(see Robson 2002). Such qualitative approaches are sometimes supported by computer
programs, such as NVivo, and the benefits of using such software are mainly in the storing and
segregating of data, in preparation for processing and analysis.
Quantitative research
Quantitative research is systematic scientific investigation. The process of measurement is
central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between
empirical observation and mathematical expression of relationships.
In the social sciences particularly, quantitative research is often contrasted with qualitative
research which is the examination, analysis and interpretation of observations for the purpose
of discovering underlying meanings. Qualitative research is often used to gain a general sense
of phenomena and to form theories that can be tested using further quantitative research. For
instance, in the social sciences qualitative research methods are often used to gain better
understanding of such things as 'intention' from within the response of the subject (Shand 1993
p.205). The modern ideas of quantitative processes have their roots in Auguste Comte's
positivist framework (Hughes and Sharrocks 1997 p.26).
Quantitative research may involve the use of proxies for other quantities that cannot be directly
measured. Tree-ring width, for example, is considered a reliable proxy of ambient
environmental conditions of the past. In schools, the percentage of pupils entitled to free school
meals (FSM) has been used as a proxy to indicate socio-economic levels within the catchment
area, levels which may not be measurable accurately. When used in this way, the proxy only
97
reconstructs a certain amount of the variance.
A positivistic approach
Achievements in the natural sciences have long been viewed as exemplars of ‘proper’
knowledge (Hughes and Sharrock 1997 p.196) reflecting the positivist methodology of direct
observation, accurate measurement and recording: this has had so deep an influence on modern
problem solving, that such an approach is almost considered normative and the methodology is
used and accepted without question. It was used to describe the world empirically and so
discern natural laws through the construction of models. Early positivist views accepted that
social science could be transformed in the direction of the natural sciences’ ‘superior values’
(Sanger 1996 p. 39). Replication was a key condition for the ‘truth’, law’ or ‘fact’ to be
accepted, although Popper’s falsification (Sanger 1996 p.40) introduced an alternative view.
To apply a purely positivist methodology when investigating a social organisation, in this case
schools, would present difficulties. From a methodological standpoint, it was decided that for
the purposes of this study the assumption of a neutral position when conducting the fieldwork
was paramount from the outset, as I did not wish to risk overtly or indirectly influencing the
views expressed by the participants. Whilst some values may seem overt, underlying, external
values may be active; the awareness of policies and assumptions of, for example, the Local
Education Authority (LEA), subject advisors, Department for Education and Science (DfES)
guidelines and the proximity of an Ofsted visit, may influence in subtle ways what happens
within a school.
Observation, the starting point for the application of positivist research, should be neutral, in
the absence of all extraneous influencing factors. But observations within the context of a
school or a classroom may be influenced by the previous experiences of the pupil, the teacher
98
or the researcher (Warburton 1992 p. 83); there is difficulty resisting and eliminating biasing
influences (Pratt 1978 p.107). The choosing of statements, questions or events to be observed
and recorded might be selected on the basis of presupposed, unproved information on the part
of the researcher (Warburton 1992 p. 85). The national political scene may exert expectations
or assumptions whereas a micro-political situation might operate within the human
relationships found in the social organisation (Hammersley 1995 p.103). Observation within
schools would be unlikely to provide exactly the same outcomes even when re-enactment
involved exactly the same people within the same context, on a second or third occasion. The
observing and recording of pupils’ behaviour, interactions, learning outcomes within the
school, agreed under a teacher’s ‘in loco parentis’ role might be viewed as an intrusion. When
dealing with smaller scale research within schools, (McMahon 1996) I have as a matter of
policy, always explained in advance that confidentiality was a priority, why I was there, what
we would do and the purposes to which their contributions would be put; there was always the
option for anyone to opt out without negative assumptions: even such a candid introduction to
the research tasks may have had an influence on the neutrality of the whole process.
Where quantitative data is available there is a temptation to draw conclusions, to apply
causation. Using two variables, perhaps truancy rates and 5 A-C GCSE pass rates, a tenuous
link may be demonstrated; the difficulty is in accepting that the assumption that the truancy
rates and the GCSE pass rates are objective criteria, an attribute necessary for positivist
research. Positivist methodology makes use of control groups. To ascertain any subsequent
effectiveness of particular policies or actions within schools involves ‘using’ people. To
interfere with the development of human beings, unsure of the outcome, cannot be accepted
from a moral standpoint (Pratt 1978 p.102). The future lives of those involved may be affected
(Hammersley 1995 p.112). In examining, as in this case, the perceptions on teachers and
pupils, it would seem that the researcher would have difficulty in establishing positivism’s core
99
element of ‘control group observation’; the assumption that the social world operates within an
on-going scenario of cause and effect which can be measured, is not easily retained. The
premise that empirical research is superior had prompted some social scientists to seek a
positivist but inappropriate methodology to ‘copy slavishly’
(Hammersley 1995 p.11) a
positivist rationale, which should have been avoided. Teachers and pupils, as individuals or as
group members make choices, act and change their minds. Factors dictating these actions
might be deeply subconscious or might be an immediate, unforeseen, pragmatic response.
Human temperament and disposition cannot be predicted and an individual may act ‘out of
character’, or may be perceived to do so (Pratt 1978 p. 73). The social science researcher must
find ways to anticipate and appreciate such ‘rich inner life’ (Hughes and Sharrock 1997 p.123)
of the individual within an educational context.
A qualitative approach
An interpretative methodology may reveal that data collected from social situations may be
‘vague, value laden, opinionated and ambiguous’ (Hughes and Sharrock 1997 p.125). If such
attributes are exposed then they must be considered as part of the complete investigation.
Indeed, some researchers have indicated that situations involving human interactions may exist
more productively based on false, misunderstood or unquestioned belief
(Hughes and
Sharrock 1997 p.72). It would be unlikely that such undercurrents, which drive the day-to-day
interactions, events and more importantly decision making processes within schools, would be
revealed by a positivist methodology. The precise nature of the language of empirical research
is a prerequisite for positivists. A regulated language with a clearly defined pattern of usage
had been proposed for all the sciences (Hammersley, 1995, p. 13) in an attempt to avoid
inconsistencies; it would be unlikely that such a language and usage would be used freely by
teachers and pupils whose interactions are variable and sometimes inconsistent. Yet teachers
often note that the same lessons prepared meticulously and delivered to different classes on the
100
same day do not always necessarily promote the same levels of interest, learning or response
from the pupils. The aims, the language, the pedagogy, were all applied equally, yet unforeseen
and unexplained inconsistencies seemed to emerge.
It is a requirement that within interviews, questionnaires and in classroom observation where
participation is enacted, the language is comprehended by all. It would be inappropriate to
apply a positivist approach to examine the questions with which I am concerned. Firstly, there
is not a theory to prove in an empirical sense; these questions seek to explore the possibility of
the existence of undefined, subjective influences. Secondly, it would be difficult to assume
consistent levels of neutrality from the researcher, the teachers and the pupils - the effect of
varying influences would be difficult to eliminate. Thirdly, using pupils with the approval of
their school (or more narrowly, the teacher) may cause some ethical concerns. To set up
control groups for comparative analysis might interfere with the normal development of the
subject. Fourthly, throughout education, at all levels, the content and usage of language is not
regulated or precise as demanded by objective, empirical research. History is about exploring
the nuances of behaviour of humans as group members and as individuals, each with modus
operandi, sometimes very subtle. Thus finally, much of the data generated within schools may
reflect (sometimes very discretely) the influences created by other out of school factors which
may originate within the peer group, in the home or in society at large.
As an alternative to the positivist approach, whose demands for a particular kind of rigour and
pre-defined parameters are not easily placed within the social context of a school, the
interpretative tradition may seek to understand social events and processes by unobtrusive
observation, and so avoid the problem of respondents acting out of character. The variety of
contexts within schools where interactions and negotiations may follow trends but are not
necessarily ‘fixed’ to a set of rules for every occasion, presents the problem of interpretation.
101
Plural perspectives may lead to contextual ambiguity in reporting a social event (Sanger 1996
p.113). A neutral observer does not easily discern which perspective is being utilised by the
respondent or agent and many aspects of the cultures adopted by the teachers and the pupils are
seldom explained. In an attempt to discern the private processes of individuals within a school
setting, undercurrents which drive those processes may reflect complex relationships between
the pupil’s self-image and the expectations associated with being a member, sometimes
simultaneously, of more than one community (Urmston and Ree 1991 p.58). The hidden rules
and conventions of such memberships, followed by people within a school, might not be
formulated but exist only by tacit agreement (Pratt 1978 p.45). Pupils may behave differently
with different teachers in classroom situations and teachers may behave differently within
whole school, departmental or one-to-one professional encounters. Such ambiguity and
context-related relationships may have to be regarded as a central characteristic of the language
used by teachers and pupils (Kelle 1995 p.2).
Within the teaching-learning situation, strategies used by the teacher may reflect a concern that
the information provided ensures access for all pupils. The pupil’s strategy may reflect a desire
to appear to have understood the information and finish in an expedient manner. Thus both the
teacher and the pupil may have considered it to have been a successful lesson; but the
positivists have cited that people are not very reliable in the process of achieving ‘validity’ as a
problem where re-enactments would be unlikely (Sanger 1996 p.40). The range of strategies
available within the different contexts seems to indicate that some form of interpretative
methodology may be appropriate. Indeed the timing of observations in classrooms may be
significant, for example, immediately after an active P.E. lesson or last lesson of the day may
introduce other influences.
In seeking to analyse the perceptions of teachers and pupils and their perceptions of each
102
other’s perceptions, a theory is not immediately apparent, and the hypothetic-inductive
methodology is concerned with the validation or verification of a theory, not with the origins of
a theory. Researchers may be influenced by some elements of grounded theory methodology;
such an approach would seek to move away from a requirement of verification (Glaser and
Strauss 1967 p.32). Among the attributes of the schools, some are descriptive, factual or
subjective, even problematic. The formation of a generalised hypothesis from an on-going
comparison is not tested as such, but is ‘verified’ by its emergence during the course of the
research, where replication is not a primary goal (Glaser and Strauss 1967 p.23). Progressive
focusing may tease out the existence of internal and external forces and complementary
factors; the systematising of the actions and responses of teachers and pupils may reveal
patterns. Within interviews, a ‘funnel sequence’ may provide the opportunity for the
respondent to relate to more specific and detailed information, whilst the using of the ‘inverted
funnel sequence’ would enable a respondent to reply more generally if required. The researcher
should have these strategies prepared (Nachmias and Nachmias 1976 p.106) before
approaching social structures which have cultural attitudes demanding neutrality: Glaser and
Strauss (1967 p.3) suggest that the researcher does bring along a personal perspective in order
to recognise relevant events and responses. In order to elicit data from the various, changing
perspectives within schools, a flexible approach may be beneficial: - questionnaires,
interviews, observations and access to documentation. From a relatively wide base initially,
observations may be focussed progressively to make available a more discriminating access.
Such may be inductive in nature (Strauss and Corbin 1990 p.24).
The advantage of using a positivist methodology would be that one could begin with a clearly
defined question, that the process of investigation is planned in stages and a conclusion, a
result, anticipated. Verification may proceed by repeating the investigation. This seemingly
simple process has promoted the status of science. An assumption that the nuances, values,
103
feelings and subjectivity which influence the daily actions and behaviours of teachers and
pupils, are part of an on-going scenario of ‘cause and effect’ is not easily retained as positivism
seeks consistency, reliability, and quantitative predictions. But the complex nature of society,
represented within every school and the groupings therein, make such an approach
inappropriate if it is pupils’ perceptions which are at the core of their own decision-making.
Although the interpretative tradition may not always have a rigid structure it does have the
flexibility to be adaptable to the sometimes shifting attributes of the modern classroom and can
be tailored to be structured and reliable within the circumstances. Between the poles of a purely
scientific positivist approach and a neo-postmodernist observation, lies a continuum from
which appropriate methodology may be selected.
4.4: Ethical considerations
Efforts to improve the experiences which school pupils encounter often depend on
investigations that use children as research subjects. Even the most observant and vigilant
teachers would not flatter themselves that they can know all that is happening within the minds
of individual pupils where diverse influences are interacting constantly. Seeking to explore
those influences and how they operate may be useful in the advancement of knowledge but that
does not imply an entitlement to override the rights of others. Pupils are children and, as such,
are a vulnerable population and so are accorded special protection from risks which may arise
during a research procedure if adequate preparation has not been completed. A clear strategy
which outlines all stages of proposed research, from initial contact to completion, should be
available from the outset.
There is a long-standing moral and legal tradition that supports parents as the primary decision
makers for their minor children; that decision making process in ensuring the safety, welfare
and development of each child is considered part of the role of individual teachers working
104
within the framework of a recognised school, that is, in ‘loco parentis’. Therefore, all actions
must be in the best interests of the child (British Educational Research Association 2004 p.7)
(BERA). The ethical concept of assent provides a framework to assist researchers with efforts
to incorporate the views of children who, when recruited as research subjects, must be afforded
care, sensitivity and respect (Oliver, 2004 p135). For pupils within schools, assent is analogous
to consent where the researcher has explained fully the purpose of the investigation and the
proposed procedure to the Headteachers and to subject teachers, who have in turn been
satisfied that no part of the pupils’ experiences would be compromised. The researcher must
operate within established codes of practice where “…an ethic of respect…regardless of age,
sex, race, religion, political beliefs and lifestyle…” should be understood and followed (BERA
2004 p.6). If the researcher, using a variety of methodologies, seeks to investigate any aspect
other than that which would be carried out by the teachers as part of their professional role,
parental permission must be sought. Researchers must acknowledge the obligation to recognise
and meet ethical standards at every stage of the enquiry.
Ethical issues
In this case, the purpose of the research, to identify pupils’ interests during the teaching of
History during Y8 and Y9, to identify the influence of such interests when pupils chose
subjects for GCSE and to seek out other influencing factors, may provide information which
would give teachers insights into (a) the content and methodology of History during KS3 and
(b) how pupils negotiate the GCSE option process. If generalizations are appropriate, teaching
and learning may be enhanced. In the case of this research, before pupils were involved in
consent and participation, approval to proceed was sought from, initially, the Local Education
Authorities (LEAs), then the Headteachers and the Heads of History Departments. For all of
these 'managers', summaries of the proposal and the procedure were available at the outset in
105
order that internal discussions at school management level could take place if required. The
aim was that all levels would have the opportunity to consent having been informed fully, have
the opportunity to seek clarification on any point, have the freedom to arrange visits to fit in
with school schedules and have the option of declining the invitation to participate.
At the early stage it was important to have available a clear timetable for the research, with
some degree of flexibility in order to reduce any ‘sense of intrusion’ into the overall running of
the schools (BERA 2004 p.9). For all LEAs, schools, teachers and pupils emphasis was given
to the element of total confidentially, the use of pseudonyms where appropriate, the secure
storage of all data and the proposed means of publication. The specific approach used (a) to
inform and (b) to apply for the appropriate consent from LEAs, Headteachers, Heads of
Department and pupils to this study is outlined below.
Local Education Authority:
A written request, which outlined the aims and procedure of the proposed research, was
submitted to the Chief Education Officers (CEOs) of the relevant LEAs, indicating those
schools which might be part of the sample. Where a Subject Officer or Advisor was available,
the CEOs office was requested to forward a copy of the request and outline.
Headteachers:
Following LEA approvals, a written request which outlined the aims and procedure of the
proposed research and indicated the potential demands on school staff and pupils who might be
involved was submitted to the Headteachers. An opportunity was offered to discuss the outline
in greater detail. An appropriate time scale was proposed to avoid conflict with examinations,
visits or other activities scheduled within the school.
History teachers:
106
Following approval from the Headteachers, a written request which outlined the aims and
procedure of the proposed research and indicating the possible extent of staff and pupil
involvement, was submitted to the heads of department. A request for an introductory meeting
was made, where a possible time scale and the organisation of data collection was explored.
Incorporated within the outline was a consent form, explaining all aspects as fully as possible.
As this research was not planned to be completed with just one visit, i.e. it was on-going, there
always existed the opportunity to re-negotiate any aspect.
Pupils:
It was envisaged that pupils from Y8 and Y9 would be involved (a) in recording their
perceptions of History as a subject during their Y8 and again during their Y9 and (b) when in
Year 9, those pupils would be asked to record their initial preferences of school subjects for
study at GCSE. As all of these stages incorporated strategies which a teacher might include
within a normal review of their own effectiveness, it was considered to be unnecessary to seek
formal permission from parents. However, pupils were advised that when the data collection
was to take place, it would be voluntary, anonymous and confidential. They were further
assured that if any of their quotations were used, pseudonyms would be applied reflecting only
Year group and gender. The researcher emphasised that their contributions to the data would be
used to explore the possibility of enhancing the teaching of History. Any subsequent teacheroriginated proposals to alter aspects of content or method within Schemes of Work, would
have to be a matter for that teacher’s own professional judgement.
4.5: Sampling considerations
It is widely accepted that people behave in similar ways within similar situations and that
common attitudes can be identified from a small segment of the population and then
generalised. Yet aspects that reflect geographical, social, economic, political and religious
107
differences must be considered. Within this ‘frame’ the devising of a thorough sampling plan is
‘crucial’ (Robson 2002 p.260) if it is to reflect the various organisational and management
procedures of schools and the range of pupils therein. What is sometimes forgotten, is that
schools are not autonomous, almost corporate units with a neutral identity, they are places
where differing levels of complex interactions, processes and aspirations allow an ‘inorganic
solidarity’ (to use Bernstein's socio-linguistics label, out-of-context). It is the attributes and
achievements of the pupils that give the school its identity; this is reflected in the myriad of
statistics collated by the DfES. Initially, the wider characteristics of the overall population
within secondary education need to be identified, that is, the schools and their pupils. The goal
of sampling is to find out who to ask so that inferences may be drawn about how everyone
feels about the topics being researched. Only a slice of the population is involved; thus one
must ensure that the relevant characteristics of the overall population are represented (Morrison
1993 p.115). These characteristics may be represented by distinct subsets or be merged within
each other so that they are proportionally accurate. In general, the size of the sample is a
decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis, having considered the variety of goals to
be achieved and taking into account other aspects which may be particular to individual
schools and perhaps cannot be quantified. Management structures, school and departmental
policies and inter-personal relations may all play complex roles in how schools and individual
subject departments operate.
The size of the sample depends upon the basic characteristics of the population, in this case
KS3 pupils within a variety of educational settings. If there was complete homogeneity, a
sample size of 1 would be sufficient, while a larger sample would obviously be required where
the required characteristics display wide heterogeneity. A random sample, unless large, may
produce skewed results which would be unreliable.
108
One of the ways of dealing with heterogeneity is to break the population into sub-groups or
strata, which display homogeneity among the sample units. This is known as stratified
(random) sampling, which is statistically more efficient than simple random sampling. In this
country, schools are not homogeneous; different types of school management are permitted
which may allow the governing bodies to exercise preferred policies. Within the schools,
pupils are not homogeneous; apart from basic differences of age and gender, they display wide
varieties of ability, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic experience and behaviour. Thus, a
sampling frame should reflect such factors.
SCHOOLS
Management of schools
The establishments within which education is delivered have in the past, been created to
provide schools within easy reach of local communities. Although some demographic changes
have occurred, there is still the public expectation of a ‘local school’. The management of
schools, under the Schools Standards and Framework Act (1998), falls broadly into three
categories each having its own characteristics. 'Community' which are wholly maintained by
LEAs, 'Voluntary' which have retained some degree of control and financial responsibility to
cater for the needs of specific groups, for example, religious, as Voluntary Aided, Controlled
and 'Foundation' schools where the Governing body retains control of admissions and they, or
a charitable body, own the buildings and land. The schools in these three categories have a lot
in common in that they work in partnership with other schools and the LEAs, and they receive
their funding from LEAs and they have to deliver the national curriculum. Other types of
secondary schools, such as Specialist, City Technology Colleges and Academies emphasise
particular aspects of the overall curriculum.
Other schools, Independent and Private are outside the financial remit of the Local Education
Authority. The Government’s DfES department provides a website to make available statistics
109
relating to the numbers of schools and pupil populations, not just within the Community sector,
but those which are Voluntary Aided or Controlled, Foundation or Independent. From these
Tables it is possible to examine distributions of schools and pupils. For example, in 2002-2003
the total number of schools in England that provided mainstream secondary education was
3436. Of this total, 2248 were wholly maintained, 678 were within the Voluntary sector and
510 were Foundation schools. (DfES Table 21) To represent these aspects of management
within a sample would require a distribution of:
Maintained - 66 per cent
Voluntary - 19 per cent
Foundation - 15 per cent
The type of school
The schools themselves may be categorized using different criteria. Post 1944 there was a
general assumption that schools were one of three types, Grammar, Modern and Technical
catering for specific pupils and delivering what was considered appropriate curricula, but
during the interim until 2002 other types of educational units had being considered. Within the
total of 3457 maintained schools (Table 3.1 below) the DfES listed six types of establishment
providing secondary education.
Table 4.1: Distribution of types of school 2002
Type
Middle
Modern
Grammar
Technical
Other
Comprehensive
Total
Number
300
130
161
3
27
2836
3457
%
8.67
3.76
4.65
0.086
0.78
82.03
100
%pupils
4.0
3.0
4.5
0.1
0.6
87.8
100
(DfES 2002-2003Table 41)
However, the 'types of schools' are not fixed entities; during the 1990 and the early years of the
21st Century, specialist schools such as 'sports colleges', 'technology colleges' and 'academies'
have been introduced, in many cases not as 'new' units, but 'redefined' and providing particular
110
emphases on the curricula. In 2006, the Secretary of State proposed the introduction of a new
style of 'Trust' school which might apply what seemed 'selection by ability'.
It is estimated that some 8.6 per cent of all secondary school pupils were educated at
Independent schools which are not included within this table. As this study has focussed on
KS3, figures for that section have been quoted. Cohort size has fluctuated between 550,000 and
600,000 during the last three years (DfES Table 43A) with no significant gender variations.
However, such a basic categorising of schools ignores the idea that schools are more that bare
statistics; they are social constructs wherein people work, learn, play and develop social skills.
These constructs reflect wide variations among and within their populations.
The size of schools.
In England, secondary school size varies between the smallest and the largest - 4 schools had
fewer than 100 pupils and 63 had over 1800 pupils (DfES Table 9b). The average size was 962
but these figures do not indicate how many schools were on split sites, or in the process of
closure, reorganisation or amalgamation. These factors may have an influence on pupil
performance and behaviour. Classes of 25 accounted for 95 per cent of the secondary school
population; 65 per cent of those classes were taught by one teacher, the remainder having some
input from general teaching assistants or staff dealing with the specific needs of individual
pupils (DfES Table 18a). The size of a school, indicated by the number of pupils on roll has a
direct effect on the budget which in turn relates to the provision of staff, teaching and subjects
offered. These three aspects of schools, management, type and size are little more than a ‘head
count’ and are useful only in that they provide a basis, albeit of three distinct layers, for
selecting a small sample of schools which reflect the total distributions.
PUPILS
Statistics issued annually by the Government and published widely by the media, outline the
111
GCSE Examination results for every school in the country. Two sets of data are available (a)
percentage of pupils who gained five or more GCSE passes at grades A – C and (b) percentage
of pupils who gained five or more GCSE passes at grades A – G. Information less readily
available publicly but on the internet websites of OFSTED and the DfES gives percentages (a)
of pupils eligible and taking free school meals, (b) of pupils on the Register as having Special
Educational Needs (SEN) or having Statements (c) of fixed and permanent exclusions of pupils
(d) of pupils from varying ethnic backgrounds and (e) of pupils for whom English is an
additional language. These figures go somewhat to demonstrate the variance within and among
schools as seen from socio-economic, cultural, academic and behavioural standpoints and help
to identify characteristics of the wider school population.
GCSE passes A – C
Of all pupils aged 15+ in 2002, 91.1 per cent were entered for five or more GCSE
examinations nationally: the national average of pupils gaining five or more GCSE passes at
grades A – C was 51.6 per cent in that year (Stubbs 2006 p.2). My communications with the
DfES have confirmed that the range of percentages was from 0 to 100 (Kelly F. 2004). In spite
of the pass structure of A – G, grades A – C are considered as ‘…valid, useful, currency,
worthwhile…’(words often used by teachers, parents and pupils) towards study at GCE
Advanced (A) – Level, entry to Further Education and for career entry. Whilst enlightened and
realistic observers may see grades C - G as useful and positive statements of the achievement
and progress made by individual pupils, the expressions ‘pass’ and ‘fail’ are still often used in
the classroom, the street and the home. However the Government uses A – C as an indicator;
annually league tables are eagerly awaited by schools and LEAs. OFSTED uses statistics as a
measure of relative performance of individual departments within school reports; those
departments and the schools themselves, rather like football clubs, seek to climb the leaguetable-ladder. As these examinations are externally set, marked and moderated, they may be
112
seen by both those within and those outside the field of education, as an objective measure.
Within a survey, the batch of selected schools should demonstrate a relatively wide range and
an overall average of around 50 per cent GCSE A – C passes.
GCSE passes A – G
Nationally, of all the entrants an average of 88.9 per cent gained five or more A – G passes.
However, the range is markedly different from the A – C group; some 90 per cent of entrants
fell within the 65 to 100 range.
Socio-economic background
Among the general public there are many almost anecdotal generalisations about the ‘ethos’ of
an individual school: commonly, expressions such as ‘a good school’, ‘a rough school’, ‘an
inner city school’ or ‘a well run school’ are heard often. In such cases, the speaker and the
listener may have their own, not quite formed interpretation of the meaning; judgement of a
school's 'worth' is a complex undertaking (Hedger and Raleigh 1992 p.61). Commentators on
psychological, sociological and linguistic research during the 1960s and the 1970s sought to
find a link, almost causal, between social class and academic achievement. With the
widespread adoption of comprehensive schools, it was hoped that equality of opportunity
across the social classes would be established, so providing motivation, academic success and
career paths for all. Yet Halsey, speaking some thirty-five years later felt that despite some
notable successes, comprehensive schools had not in the main been able to break out from the
effects of social deprivation (Halsey 1994).
Social deprivation, poverty, lack of money management skills or other expressions of financial
need are not easy to quantify, even though society at large recognises the attributes. Within
113
schools, all levels of social strata may be represented and whilst the circumstances of children
and their families must be confidential, schools do need to be aware of background issues
which may affect the performance and behaviour of individual pupils within the classroom.
The combination of deprivation and disadvantage experienced by individuals may reflect
household issues concerned with levels of income, employment, health disability, educational
and training skills, access to services, social environment, housing condition and incidences of
local crime. Sometimes, it is only when a Social Worker employed by the Department for
Social Services (DfSS) visits the school that the teacher is made aware of the challenging
circumstances and difficulties at a pupil’s home. As the Department for Social Services
oversees these confidential issues the school may only be aware of one aspect. Free School
Meals (FSM) is a benefit associated with means-testing a family’s income and circumstances
and whilst this not a reflection or measure of a pupil's abilities, it may be used as a 'proxy for
(the) socio-economic status' of the pupil's household (DfES 2003 p.64). The percentage of such
households within a school’s catchment area is accepted as a relative indicator of poverty and
has been associated with pupils' low aspiration and potential underachievement (Miliband 2003
p.19). Nationally, some 14.5 per cent of secondary pupils are eligible to receive free school
meals although only 11 per cent actually take them (DfES Table 14). The range however is
quite different; there are schools where no one (0 per cent) is eligible and there are schools
where everyone (100 per cent) is eligible (Cole 2004). A preliminary survey within the initial
forty school revealed that truancy rates, free school meal rates and percentages of A - C passes
at GCSE seemed in many cases to relate to each other. Truancy rates tend to be compiled
within schools themselves and final published rates may or may not indicate varying policies
as regards the interpretation of the term ‘unauthorised absence’. The inclusion of data relating
to free school meals administered externally to meet national criteria and compiled objectively
by Government agencies may be useful when constructing a sample, bearing in mind that the
government may have applied a particular rationale when choosing a mode of presentation.
114
Special educational need (SEN)
Schools must record data about any of their pupils who have special educational needs. The
first stage is assessed internally within the school, the need defined and the pupil’s name
placed on a ‘register’ The second stage is the formal assessment of that pupil, perhaps with the
assistance of outside agencies, the involvement of parents, the local authority and ancillary
staff. Through this process the ‘needs’ are defined more clearly and specifically within a
‘statement’ in order to that appropriate support be provided within the school. The important
distinct between these two stages is that Stage 1 is handled internally and that Stage 2 involves
outside agencies and had legally enforceable requirements. The DfES collates the numbers of
Stage 2 pupils – at present nationally 2.4 per cent of secondary pupils have statements (DfES
Table 34). OFSTED quotes figures for both Stage 1 and 2 in the reports for individual schools.
As the Stage 2 procedure follows statutory guidelines, it may be assumed that the criteria
applied are valid nationally. My own initial survey within schools seemed to indicate that the
procedures adopted for Stage 1 were not always identical, and as such may not be useful to
include when constructing a sample. Although the process of assessing and recording Stage 2
should be standardised, individuals might apply slightly varying interpretations of pupils’
response but the limits on such interpretations are significantly tighter than for Stage 1.
Exclusions
There are two types of exclusions; fixed term (temporary) or permanent which schools apply
when the behaviour of a pupil breaches the (school’s) code of behaviour. When expectations of
behaviour, movement around the building, dining room procedures and attitudes towards staff
and other pupils are less than expected, teachers, exercising professional judgement, will
normally bring any ‘infringements’ to the attention of the pupil concerned. It is only when the
infringements become persistent and escalating that temporary exclusion may be considered.
This is a matter handled internally within the school, and may result in the pupil being
115
excluded for a fixed period, usually up to three days. In some cases, the misbehaviour may be
of such a serious nature even after temporary exclusions that the head teacher may seek to have
the individual ‘permanently excluded’, a procedure previously known as ‘expulsion’. This is
not just an internal matter; the LEA, governors, parents and sometimes Social Services are
involved. Rather like the collecting of data for special education needs, the DfES reports the
numbers of permanent exclusions nationally at 0.23 per cent and this total is further broken
down to reveal regional variation among the LEAs (DfES Table 50). OFSTED records the
numbers of fixed and permanent exclusions within the reports for individual schools. Because
schools may use different criteria for fixed period exclusions, it would not be useful to include
such data when constructing a sample.
Culture
The DfES makes available two sets of data which may relate to the home background of pupils
(i) ethnicity (DfES Table 47b) and (ii) English as an additional language. Language and
ethnicity are not separate issues nor are they always dependent on each other, In some schools
the ethnic makeup of the pupils or roll may indicate a potential for special provision. This may
impact on staffing issues, curriculum planning, budget allocation and examination entries. The
extent of the effect may be minimal or it may demand a rethink of the accepted, traditional
processes within the school. The issue of pupils' languages which has been associated with
access to the curriculum, learning, understanding and succeeding, may at times have been used
as an influencing factor when individual schools commented on GCSE pass rates. This may be
valid and may be useful when constructing a sample.
In summary, for the sample to be representative, the following factors were considered.
SCHOOLS: type of management (e.g. maintained, aided etcetera), school size and type of
school, for example, comprehensive.
116
PUPILS: age, gender, GCSE (A-C and A-G), SEN, permanent exclusions, free school meals
and English as an additional language.
The sample
During the late 1990s I had been involved in the teaching of History to KS3 and KS4 pupils.
Formal and informal contact with colleagues at a variety of schools seemed to indicate that
teachers of all foundation subjects i.e. not compulsory after Y9, experienced additional
pressures as they sought to ensure that sufficient numbers of pupils would opt for their
particular subjects and so provide viable teaching groups for KS4.
Heads of History Departments and their staffs who had indicated concerns about the
difficulties encountered when (a) trying to provide a broad and balanced content during KS3
and (b) adapting to modes of GCSE option procedures at their individual schools, had used ongoing departmental discussions to explore these issues. Experiences and suggestions were
exchanged at subject panel meetings and during in-service training sessions. Generally, many
of those teachers were concerned that there appeared to be a decline in pupils' enthusiasm
during Y9 at a time when option procedures were enacted in schools. Some teachers suggested
that the inclusion of socio-economic, modern History lacked excitement, others claimed that
concentrating on the First and Second World Wars during Y9 had led to more pupils choosing
History. Forty years ago D.B. Heater (1960 p.6) had suggested in the inaugural issue of
Teaching History, that academic experts had drawn arbitrary lines between History and
economics/sociology reflecting a '...morbid condition of western intellectual life...'. The
underlying debate was based around the questions (a) do pupils become less enthusiastic about
History during their Y9 and (b) what prompts them to accept or reject the opportunity to study
that subject at KS4?
117
At that stage I could have been accepted as a participant observer but as no formal or
structured investigation had been proposed or was in progress, any information gained with the
ongoing approval of colleagues, was viewed as groundwork, exploring the issues. An outline
research proposal was drawn up and communicated to Headteachers and Heads of History
Departments of 40 schools and each school was asked to provide a ‘school profile’ (see
Appendix A-1) which indicated factors such as size, status, examination results, ethnicity of
pupils, and socio-economic indicators, and brief summaries of the History Departments'
policies, resources and staffing. 34 schools replied positively. A policy of total confidentiality
was reiterated and all schools were assigned a ‘coded’ number which was not disclosed.
In order to design questionnaires and surveys, pilot studies were carried out at five of the
schools, randomly chosen, where Y8 and Y9 pupils were interviewed during subject neutral
'form time', to explore the issues of how those pupils compare all subjects they encounter. In
order to choose a sample, I had arranged for two colleagues, unconnected with the study, the
schools, or the teaching of History to examine the attributes of the remaining 'anonymous' 29
schools whose identities had been carefully coded in order to provide total confidentiality and
to select 10 which, taken as a whole, reflected the wider dimensions of schools and pupils. In
this way, I was able to avoid bias by being influenced by any of my own professional, personal
or geographical preferences. During the interim I became aware that two of the schools were
experiencing 'staffing difficulties' and at two others there had been changes within the senior
management teams regarding Deputies who would be dealing with KS3 option procedures;
after some discussion I felt that these circumstances might impact on the intended procedure
and thus with the approval of the respective Headteachers, four schools were removed from the
list. The 10 schools chosen from 25 were recoded 1 to 10 and ranked in order of GCSE passes
A - C: this was to facilitate the initial overview of possible relationships among the factors.
The details of the proposed research were then submitted to the relevant LEAs for permission
118
to proceed. To build in external validity at the design stage the initial allocation of adequate
resources and of an appropriate time scale for the collection of data, was paramount. Further
analysis of the data had been carried out in order to relate the sample to national trends. It was
considered important to try to match as far as possible national averages over the final sample
as a whole, even though there existed wide variations among most of the factors.
Some of those variations may, at a future point be the focus of further investigation. For
example, the generally accepted link between poverty as indicated by free school meal rates
and achievement measured by A – C passes at GCSE is not so definite when schools (1) and
(5) are compared; both have a similar free school meal rate but school (5)’s A- C pass rate is
twice that of school (1). At School (2) there appears to be a relationship between ethnicity and
free school meals, whilst school (5) demonstrates no such relationship. Within the table of
figures there are many such nuances, which do illustrate the individual, perhaps immeasurable
nature of each school, but the purpose of this exercise was to attempt to mirror national
statistics although it was accepted that it was virtually impossible to have a 100 per cent
comparison across such a relatively small sample.
These graphs shown at Figure 4.2 p. 111) show pupil-related factors more clearly than the table
of numerical data (see appendix A-3), the range of each variable and its relationships to the
averages published annually by the DfES. Those official averages vary from year to year. The
data contained within each of these six pupil-related factors is averaged and compared with the
DfES figures for the years 2000/01/02. It should be noted that some inclusions within
Government’s summaries might not be directly comparable. Dual Award Science counts as
two awards in Science and two within the overall totals. More recently, schools have been
offering the option to study vocational subjects, for example the General National Vocational
Qualification (GNVQ) at Foundation and Intermediate level, Vocational GCSEs or awards
from the Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC) at Foundation or Intermediate
119
level. Pupils' achievements in GCSEs and Vocational Qualifications are allocated a 'points
score' for each subject taken. The overall structure of provision is changing: in 2001 the
establishment of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) with a budget of £5.5bn – ‘…the
country’s biggest quango…’ (Kingston, 2002,) – sought initially to oversee education and
training, both academic and vocational, for the 16 to 19 year-olds and then, when fully
operational, the 14 to 19 year-olds. By the end of 2005 the budget had increased to £10.4bn
and 11 per cent of 16 - 18 year-olds were not in education, employment or training (NEET)
(LSC 2006).
120
% GCSE passes A - C
% GCSE passes A - G
100
120
90
100
80
70
80
50
%
%
60
60
40
40
30
20
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
10
9
10
School
School
% pupils receiving FSM
% pupils permanently excluded
40
1.2
35
1
30
25
%
%
0.8
0.6
20
15
0.4
10
0.2
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
School
School
% pupils with EAL
% pupils with SEN statements
60
4.5
4
50
3.5
40
3
30
%
%
2.5
2
20
1.5
1
10
0.5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
School
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
School
Figure 4.2: Sample schools compared with DfES averages
National averages (years 2000/01/02) for each category
are shown at - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on each chart.
121
4.6: Survey and interview design
There were two stages to the proposed procedure. Firstly, survey sheets, questionnaires and
interview schedules had to be designed and secondly, the timeframe for data collection had to
be drawn up in order to:
(i) Survey Y8 classes Spring term (perceptions of History)
(ii) Survey those same classes in their Y9 Autumn term (preliminary option choice)
(iii) Survey those same classes, as in (i) in their Y9 Spring term (perceptions of History)
(iv) Collect completed option data from the schools (Summer term) and select one class from
each.
(v) Interview individuals and small groups in Y9 and later in the Autumn term, some Y10 who
had/had not opted for GCSE History re. their perceptions of the 'option procedure' and of KS3
and KS4 History
Alongside this procedure, ongoing discussions with individual teachers of History and of other
foundation subjects continued.
Survey design.
In order to design questionnaires for survey purposes, pilot studies were carried out at five
schools randomly chosen from the 34 participating. Groups of Y8 and Y9 pupils were invited
to explore the issues of how they compared all school subjects they encounter. These
discussions had been arranged to take place during subject neutral 'form time' and where
possible in a neutral environment; the school libraries or dining areas were used when available
and their teachers were asked not to be present. These discussions were introduced to separate
groups of pupils (Y8 and Y9) with the following guidelines:
i. The aim was to find out what KS3 pupils thought about different subjects and how
they compared them.
ii. All comments were confidential and would not be disclosed to the school.
iii. The pupils were asked to refrain from identifying individual teachers.
122
The responses were lively and candid and were recorded in note form during the sessions.
Discussions with pupils from Y8 and Y9 during this design stage of the questionnaire had
revealed that their perceptions of school subjects fell into three broad categories; personal
preferences (4 factors), amount or type of school work demanded (3 factors) and usefulness in
later life either vocationally or personally (4 factors). During these discussions, although Y9
pupils were somewhat more aware than Y8 of the implications of potential career and study
paths after the age of 16, their specific knowledge on these matters was limited. Other factors
did crop up but they were specific to individual pupils, teachers, buildings or schools, for
example
...you get done if you're one minute late...
...you get soaked 'cause you've got to go all the way across the yard...
...there 's a couple of kids in my (subject) group and they're always messin'...
Such types of comments were few but did indicate that certain events, sometimes
acknowledged as relatively unimportant within the "cut and thrust" of daily school life, may
have a greater effect on some individual pupils. On a few occasions some pupils failed to
remember not to identify individuals and, although I had to interrupt their comments, one could
sense a 'knowing look' around the group when a particular teacher was referred to, even with
the use of '...there's a Maths teacher who...'. There was also the occasional attempted comment
referring to their perception of (anonymous) teachers' personalities or competence as
influencing their overall view of a subject: such viewpoints, whether accurate or not, are
important, but it would have been unprofessional and unethical to permit further discussion.
123
Personal preferences:
There was some debate around the theme that pupils only enjoyed subjects in which they were
successful. Individual pupils' commented along the lines of
Wayne: 'I'm good at Art but I'm not really that keen'
or
Ste: 'I love Games and P.E. but I'm only about average in my group but I'm doing well,
getting reasonable grades!'
demonstrate that any 'rule' relating levels of success and enjoyment is not absolute. The
suggestion that some subjects may have a gender-bias was not fully explained by any of the
groups; this may have been a reflection of some pupils' perceptions of approaches adopted by
individual teachers.
Pupils suggested that to have more or less of a particular subject was a useful indicator of a
positive perception; however this factor, more so than any of the others, caused many pupils
not only to decide on an appropriate response, but to consider the consequences. More time for
History would mean less time for some other subject(s) and visa versa. Year 9 pupils had
indicated a greater awareness of this dilemma than had Year 8 and had viewed it from two
perspectives. Firstly, making a decision based solely on the basis of personal preference for or
against History. Secondly, making a decision based on how it could affect other subjects: for
example, more History could mean less, perhaps, Modern Languages or less Science and
conversely, less History could mean more time with some other subjects which may be
preferred.
For this section on 'personal preference' pupils stressed levels of enjoyment, success and
difficulty as personal preferences along with the possibility of having more time for a particular
subject. 'Enjoyment' was considered as the most important, not just of these three aspects, but
also of all 12. Having a 'good' teacher, having general ability or a specific aptitude, coping with
the subject-specific language, the availability of appropriate supporting texts or sheets and
124
being within a group of positive, motivated pupils were all mentioned as important. The pupils
had suggested also, the reverse of any of these points which might prompt feelings of
disengagement and negativity for individuals.
Demands of work:
The demands of homework, class-work and especially the required levels of literacy were cited
as important, alongside skills that were useful and transferable across other subjects. Pupils had
suggested that there were two distinct types of school work demanded for any school subject,
namely what was done in the classroom (classwork) and what was set for completion during
the pupils' own time (homework). They acknowledged that these demands varied from subject
to subject, sometimes due to the practical nature of the subject, for example P.E., Drama or I.T.
and sometimes as a result of the approaches of individual teachers. The pupils also recognised
that the need for literacy skills was more evident in some subjects than others: History was
cited as requiring a high level of such skills.
Pupils had discussed the theme of the different work-patterns; control and direction was
applied differently in different parts of their schools as they attended different subjects. Control
was, they suggested, more consistent and obvious during Modern Languages and indoor P.E
lessons. For other subjects, History included, the atmosphere of the classroom, flexibility of
seating arrangements, the quantity and the pace of classwork and feelings of achievement were
part of an ongoing series of complex interactions with individual teachers. Generally,
homework was regarded as a 'chore' and from the pupils' comments, not applied by teachers
with absolute consistency across the range of subjects. Classwork was viewed more
favourably; the pupils cited clear targets, relevant tasks and ongoing advice from teachers. The
classwork demanded in History, they suggested, revolved around topics and themes,
125
understanding presentations and supporting materials but most of all, classwork was centred on
reading and writing.
Usefulness of History:
Pupils tended to agree that some school subjects were more necessary than others. There was a
general acceptance among them that the skills of reading, writing and mathematics were
important in all walks of life. Even though those pupils may have availed of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) as a 'tool' in many subjects, discussions revealed that skills
in ICT had been accepted as some of the 'new' important skills of the present age. The pupils,
especially Y8, had little more than a hazy idea of which career or extended education path they
might follow, but they acknowledged that some subjects and skills may be useful in adulthood,
not only from a vocational standpoint, but personal perspective of enjoyment or endeavour; for
example, sports, arts or technologies. Pupils recognised that proficiency in specific skills
associated with Modern Languages, Technologies, the Sciences and the Arts could be related
to possible career choices. History was a little different, they suggested: careers as historians,
archaeologists or archivists are not as readily available as, say technicians, designers, office
managers or production operatives. The Historical Association, when advising potential GCSE
students (see p.7), lays great stress, not on Historical knowledge alone, but on the skills of
analysis, criticism, understanding human behaviour, thinking independently and problem
solving. For Y9 pupils, such skills may seem abstract and objective rather than concrete and
subjective: indeed it may be likely that Y9 pupils may be unable to conceptualise these skills
either way. The relevance of particular subjects to career or employment prospects was
highlighted as potentially different from the demands of adult daily life and from the
preferences to pursue personal interests, hobbies or skills.
126
Pupils were aware that some aspects of History referred to other school disciplines. For
example, one group had studied survival rates among passengers and crew on 'The Titanic' and
their tasks had included using databases and writing reports; another group studying 'Slavery',
had applied knowledge learned in Geography lessons to plot the routes and distances of the
'Slave Trade' and a third group had spent some time preparing visual and active displays using
various media, to present evidence of their work on the 'First World War'. Many of the pupils
had applied such knowledge and skills but had not consciously labelled it as 'non-History';
during our discussions later, they realised more clearly the wider nature of their studies.
Whilst literacy and presentation skills were accepted by the pupils to be an integral part of
work in History, if not most subjects, aspects such as empathy, analysis and comparison of
source materials, the ascription of motive, bias and reliability are introduced in varying degrees
in most history lessons at some time during KS3. One group of Y9 pupils had indicated that,
during the previous week, their teacher had also discussed two main themes concerning the
utilisation of skills developed when studying History. Firstly development of wide-ranging,
even-handed and discriminating approaches to everyday life, making the individual a 'better',
more sensitive human being - what the pupils called 'being fair'; secondly, having been made
aware of past events they might be able to apply of objective assessment to the changing
circumstances within a modern society in order to ensure that truth and justice prevail for the
overall well-being of communities, large, and small. This type of discussion was not common
within the schools visited.
Following Robson's (2002 p.294) suggested procedure further examination of the notes taken
during these sessions revealed fifteen factors or 'items' of which eleven had been stressed most
frequently by the pupils as important (see appendix B-1). Although not mentioned to the same
extent as these eleven, the topic of a school subject generating differing responses from boys
127
and girls was discussed frequently and it was included in a final list of twelve factors. The list
of factors was similar to that used in Harland and Lord's cohort study (from 1996) for the
NFER, although semantic differences in the statements would elicit differing responses.
A Likert-type survey sheet was drawn up where pupils from other groups were asked to
respond to a single statement for each factor on a five-point scale i.e.
I enjoy (subject)
5 4 3 2 1
where '5' was total agreement and '1' was total disagreement. (see appendix B-3) Response
sheets were prepared and included all the common KS3 subjects; in this way, each pupil was
asked to consider a randomly chosen subject. What was important at this stage was not to
discover their preferences about Maths, History, French or whatever subject was on their
individual sheet, but to discuss how they negotiated the task. The pupils found the task quite
straightforward but two points arose during follow-up discussions. Firstly, some interpreted a
score of '1' as indicating a degree, albeit small, of agreement with the statement, as illustrated
by pupil Anna's comment
...I would have given it '0'...I hate it!...
Secondly, a score of '3' seemed to indicate a variety of interpretations about the subject - along
the lines of 'it's OK', 'I'm not bothered' or 'I don't know'. Although Robson (2002 p.294)
suggests that such a mid-score reflects neutrality or indecision further discussion with the
pupils indicated that they regarded a score of '3' positively and probably leaning more towards
'agreement' with a score of '4' than 'disagreement'.
The survey sheet was then edited into a bi-polar format specific to History e.g.
I enjoy History
5 4 3 2 1
I dislike History
(see appendix B-4)
128
Subject option sheets
There were two aspects to this procedure. Firstly, participating schools were each asked to
provide a copy of their 'Option Booklet' from the previous academic year; these booklets
contained details of which subjects were available for study in Y10 and explained how the
procedure of 'choice' would take place (see p.65 for information on examination providers).
The format of the schools' booklets was similar; listed were (i) compulsory GCSE subjects (ii)
compulsory non-GCSE subjects, for example Citizenship and (iii) optional GCSE subjects: in
some schools
'skills support' opportunities were available as options. The amount of
information in the booklets varied; some schools provided one page per Department and some
one page to each course available; booklets of 40+ pages were not unusual. Where subjects
were 'capped' as regards numbers of pupils for reasons of supervision or facilities for example
Drama or I.C.T., pupils were advised of such restrictions and further interviews and
discussions were arranged with the individual pupil's Form Tutor and the Head of the
Department concerned. Each school had its own system of categorising optional subjects into
'groups' or 'blocks' from which pupils could choose their preferred 'options' - for example, (i)
History was listed in one block at school 4, in two blocks at school 2 and in three blocks at
school 10 and (ii) alongside prescribed compulsory subjects schools 2, 4 and 10 offered four
options while schools 1 and 5 offered 2. Firstly, the combinations of optional subjects varied
from school to school, and secondly, the range of subjects available and how it was presented
was reviewed annually at each school in order to reflect accommodation, staffing, facilities
available and changes to the statutory requirements of the NC; for example, a Modern Foreign
Language was not compulsory for pupils choosing options from 2003.
Having consulted the booklets for each school, a Stage 1 'preliminary option sheet' was drawn
up (see appendix D-1) where the subjects were listed alphabetically without any groupings or
restrictions which had been indicated in the original booklet. As many of these pupils had met
129
me whilst completing the survey stage in the context of History, form tutors with the
agreement of schools' management, carried out this stage during 'subject neutral' form time.
The staff concerned agreed to a brief form of introduction to the task. The Y9 pupils were
asked to consider that if they were to choose GCSE subjects then, during the Autumn term,
which would they select; for this stage each pupil was asked to record their name and class
details on their sheet. It was emphasised that this was not the 'real thing' but would provide
them with an insight to types of subjects, which might be available, and that their responses
were confidential. To complete this aspect of the survey, details of the actual choices made by
those pupils when they had participated in the 'official' option procedure later in Y9, were
collected: the timing of the 'option process' varies from school to school, but generally takes
place between the latter half of the Spring term and the middle of the Summer term.
The second aspect of this survey was to compare the selections made by each pupil on the
preliminary option sheet with the actual GCSE choices made later in the year. From the data, a
selection of pupils who had changed their mind, eventually choosing or rejecting History, were
interviewed in order to focus on possible influences. It had been planned to use the responses
of around 200 Y9 pupils who were participating in the survey of perceptions of History, that is,
one of the two classes from each of the ten schools, but three schools indicated some reluctance
to facilitate this second stage of the study. In one case, changes in school management had
prompted a review of the option process and it was suggested to me that a survey 'would fit in
better' after 12 - 18 months. At the other two schools, it was the decisions of the Deputy
Headteachers responsible for administering the processes and finalising pupils' choices, that
they were 'too busy'. Even though the Headteachers at those schools had sanctioned the survey,
the Deputies continued, with skill and diplomacy to dodge my requests. Although the Heads of
History Departments at those three schools were able to provide a percentage uptake for KS4
History later, the lack of details of individuals was inconsistent with that of the other seven
130
schools. In order to maintain the original target number of pupils, the second Y9 class was
included from each of schools 1, 2 and 3.
Discussions during this study with teachers of foundation subjects revealed that many of them
did not know exactly how the option choices were managed in order to construct teaching
groups; this is illustrated by a teacher's comment - 'He disappears into his office for a week and
emerges with class lists, all done and dusted!' This is not to suggest that Deputies have acted
with anything other than professionalism when dealing with the needs of the pupils and the
school. Some teachers suspected that where the school had a 'name', a raison d'être, for
example an Academy, a Technology College or other Specialist College, then some foundation
subjects might be at risk. At one Technology College in this study, a group of five highachieving Y9 pupils had opted for History but when interviewed were persuaded to modify
their original choices and so take on the three separate Sciences; they were offered the
possibility of doing History if one of the History Department staff would 'volunteer' to arrange
additional classes after school hours: volunteering is now in its third year.
During preliminary meetings with 43 teachers of different school subjects, the question of what
influences pupils to select certain non-compulsory subjects for GCSE study was discussed.
Many of the suggestions were particular to individual schools and their procedures for
permitting 'choice' for Y9 pupils, but a number of themes were common to the majority of
teachers of those subjects which were, as one teacher of French put it, '...in the annual firing
line...'. It was interesting to note that the teachers had identified ten of the factors used for
subject comparison, which had been generated by pupils during the survey design stage (see
appendix B-2) Teachers stressed also, that perceptions and GCSE option choices may be
subject to the possible influences exerted by other people, for example career advisors, parents,
peers, siblings and interactions at parent-teacher meetings (see appendix D-4). The possibility
131
of some pupils assuming the existence of gender bias attached to some subject areas was also
was emphasised more strongly by teachers than had been the case with the pupils; teachers
who did feel that such a bias existed were unable to give specific examples but suggested that
for some pupils, a subjective perception did exist.
Interview schedules
Interviews with teachers and KS3 and KS4 pupils were organised on a semi-structured basis
and were designed to reflect and explore opinions and suggestions which had emerged since
the beginning of the research process (see appendix E-1).
132
CHAPTER 5
Presentation and examination of data
133
5.1 Introduction
The NFER Report of 2005 examined the potential for a 'dip' in pupils' motivation and
performance following transfer from primary to secondary school What did seem to be
consistent was that the middle years in general (after primary school; age 11- 14) appeared to
constitute a phase in education where least progress is made by pupils. Stables has suggested
that enjoyment, interest, ability and previous performance may all be involved as 14 year-old
pupils become involved in GCSE option procedures (1996 p.161) and Brown has indicated that
there are few marked differences as to how important such influences are when pupils are
making choices (2001 pp.182-183).
The surveys of pupils in their Y8 and Y9 sought to collect information from a representative
sample from which inferences might be drawn. The survey during Y8 might be considered
descriptive in that it presented information without explanation; similarly, the Y9 survey of
those same pupils listed their responses. Each survey on its own does not explain the rationales
of pupils' perceptions or of any shifts during KS3 but taken together, they demonstrate
evidence of change in those perceptions over a 12-month period. Neither of these surveys may
be considered purely explanatory, but any relationships or shifts in pupils' perceptions which
became evident provided scope, firstly, to address the first two questions, as stated below, and
secondly, to seek to relate and patterns of KS3 perceptions to the choosing of History as an
option for GCSE.
This study seeks to explore several questions;
(i) do pupils' perceptions of History alter from Y8 to Y9?
(ii) if there are changes, are patterns, associations or conflicts established clearly?
(iii) do option procedures at different schools offer pupils equal degrees of subject
choice?
134
(iv) can any changes in perceptions or school environments be associated with rates of
uptake for GCSE?
History Questionnaires were completed by pupils in their Y8 and again in their Y9, secondly a
survey of Y9 pupils' possible GCSE option choices compared with actual choices later in Y9
was undertaken and thirdly, ongoing interviews (formal and informal) during the research
programme with pupils and teachers were conducted.
In order to relate the results of this survey of the 'perceptions of History' with the percentages
of pupils opting to study GCSE History the data will be presented thus:
Section A:
Survey of perceptions of KS3 History for Y8 and Y9 pupils
Section B:
Survey of numbers of pupils opting for GCSE History
135
5.2 Section A: Survey of perceptions of KS3 History
During the Spring term of 2003 classes of Y8 pupils from a total of 10 schools, were surveyed
by means of a questionnaire. Those same groups of pupils were surveyed again by
questionnaire one year later (Y9) in Spring 2005.
Table 5.4: Numbers of pupils surveyed
Boys
Girls
Total
Y8 in 2003
204
216
420
Y9 in 2004
208
208
416
Allowing for the fact that pupil numbers in classes and schools are not fixed, it was not
expected that the two survey totals would match exactly; indeed, it was assumed that whilst the
majority would participate, some individual pupils would not be available for one or both
stages of the survey. All questionnaires recorded the school and the gender of the respondent.
Each pupil had been asked to respond to a series of opposing statements, using a scale as
shown in the example below, in order to indicate their personal opinion.
Example of survey statements
Factor (1):
I enjoy History 5 4 3 2 1 I dislike History
For the survey in Y8 the raw data was collected from two classes at each of 10 schools i.e. a
total of 20 classes; from all the schools, the responses from boys and girls were separated
providing overall, responses from 10 groups of boys and 10 groups of girls (see App. C-1).
Using Microsoft Office 2000 software the numbers of pupils selecting each score (5, 4 etc) for
each factor were calculated and totals were produced for Y8, for Y9 and for the boys and the
136
girls in each Year group. The totals for boys and for girls from each school were separated and
all results converted to percentages. Thus for each 'perception factor', figures were available for
each Year group as a whole, for all boys or all girls separately and for boys or girls at each
individual school (App. C-6).
During the design stage pupils had suggested three categories of perceptions; the data will be
presented within three separate sections:
(i):
Personal perceptions of KS3 History
(ii):
Demands of KS3 History
(iii):
Usefulness of KS3 History
Although not discussed specifically within informal and semi-structured group interviews, it
was apparent that many pupils had opinions about how particular teachers might influence
perceptions, both positively and negatively; for ethical reasons these opinions were not
explored further at that time.
A preliminary examination of the data revealed, that in some cases, the changes in scores for
boys and girls in Y9 did not follow patterns. If School 3 is used as an example, boys' and girls'
scores both increased by eight percent for factor 8 indicating an increased awareness of the
importance of reading and writing skills in Y9, but for factor 12 - History has lots of useful
skills - the boys' score fell by 14 per cent in contrast to the girls' rise of eight per cent. Of the
nine Y9 pupils at this school who has expressed an interest in GCSE History during the autumn
term, only four opted later in the year.
There are many such anomalies, some very small, across the groups in the schools, but all
indicative of the potential for variability and inconsistency in pupils' 'rich inner lives' as they
progress through this stage of their school experiences. Similarly, Table 5.5 below indicates
137
that the mean scores for the 12 'Perceptions of History' factors were all clustered around the
mid-point '3' (from 2.4 to 3.9) and that the overall percentage changes on mean scores from Y8
to Y9 were small, As with the numbers opting for GCSE History where a summary mean score
of 27.1 per cent of pupils opting for History did not reveal overtly the extent of changes within
individual schools (from 11.1 to 47.6 per cent), much wider shifts in perceptions occurred at
those individual schools (from +16 per cent to -34 per cent), than are indicated by the mean
scores (from +1.4 percent to -7.6) per cent shown in Table 5.5 below
Table 5.5: Percentage changes in all boys' and all girls' mean scores for 12 survey factors:
Factor
Y8 Boys Y9 Boys
%
change
Y8 Girls
Y9 Girls
%
change
1 Enjoyment
3.9
3.52
-7.60
3.3
3.02
-5.6
2 Difficulty
3.25
3.00
-5.00
3.14
3.04
-2
3 Gender
3.11
2.95
-3.00
2.94
2.87
-1.4
4 Homework
3.46
3.36
-2.00
3.40
3.37
-0.6
5 More History
2.98
2.79
-3.00
2.69
2.47
-4.4
6 Success
3.6
3.5
-2.00
3.38
3.25
-2.6
7 Classwork
3.18
3.25
+1.40
3.21
3.17
-0.8
8 Reading & Writing
4.23
3.95
-5.60
3.97
3.83
-2.8
9 Adult life
3.17
3.13
-0.08
2.93
3.07
+2.6
10 Careers
3.15
3.17
+0.04
3.07
2.99
-1.6
11 Other subjects
3.35
3.03
-6.40
3.17
3.20
-1.6
12 Other skills
3.76
3.41
-7.00
3.40
3.22
-3.6
In order to explore the data for each factor, firstly, a brief summary of the overall
analysis trends will precede a more detailed breakdown of the data. Secondly, using
138
SPSS 12.0.1 software to assist further analysis, the means, standard deviations for
each factor will be provided for individual school groups. Bar charts and tables have
been produced in order to demonstrate shifts in opinions from Y8 to Y9; further
charts, presenting responses from boys or girls from each Year or school group, have
been included where appropriate in order to focus on which particular groups of
pupils, if any, may have influenced the overall trend. For each factor a Chi-Square test
will be applied in order to record the significance of any change from Y8 to Y9.
Information from the schools' profiles (see p.111) and comments from teachers and
pupils that provide useful supporting or contradictory insights will be included.
Pseudonyms will be used for individual pupils, indicating where appropriate, school,
year-group or gender.
139
5.3 Pupils' personal perceptions of KS3 History
At the design stage of this study pupils had suggested that to enjoy a school subject was an
important factor and was viewed generally to be linked to levels of success, finding the
work easy, the possibility of having more subject time available and a perception of genderneutrality of that subject. These suggestions were incorporated into the statements as shown
in the example (p.127).
Factor 1: Pupils' enjoyment of KS3 History.
The QCA Report for History (2005 p.15) suggested that as many as 40 per cent of pupils
transfer to secondary school with negative perceptions of the subject and that many pupils
'...appeared to have forgotten...' much of what they had learned at primary school. By Y9
almost 70 per cent of pupils reported that they found History 'quite enjoyable' (p.16) and
QCA noted that the 'climate in the lesson' - the personality and nature of the teacher and his
or her relations with the class - was an important determinant of levels of enjoyment.
Summary:
Initially, two aspects are discernable; firstly, any increases in the mean scores relating to
greater enjoyment of History in Y9 are small (2 to 6 percent) but decreases indicating less
enjoyment are relatively large (2 to 34 per cent). Secondly, comparing their responses in
Y9 girls were twice as likely to experience reduced levels of enjoyment of History.
Figure 5.6: Factor 1: Pupils' enjoyment of KS3 History
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
4
3
2
1
Scor e
Year 8
Year 9
140
There is close agreement between Y8 (21.3 per cent) and Y9 (23.5 per cent) as regards the
percentages of pupils choosing '3', that is, not to commit to enjoying (5 and 4) or disliking (2
and 1) History. However, it is the Y8 pupils who appear to be more positive; almost 60 per
cent have indicated enjoyment ('5' or '4') and 18.5 per cent have indicated dislike ('2' or '1')
whilst the respective figures for Y9 are 49 per cent and 27.4 per cent. In other words, when
in Y8, 39.8 per cent of pupils had expressed dislike or no concern for History, but when in
Y9 that figure had risen to 51 per cent, a shift of 11 per cent. The distributions of boys' and
girls' scores in each Year group shown in the following Figure 5.6 (a) and (b), show that the
percentage of boys who scored 4 has remained almost unchanged from Y8 to Y9, just a drop
of 1.7 per cent, but there has been a drop of 12.1 per cent among those scoring 5. For the
girls, it is almost the reverse: scores for 5 have increased by 1.5 per cent but the scores for 4
have decreased by10.2 per cent in Y9.
Figure 5.6: Factor 1: enjoyment/dislike of KS3 History: Y8 and Y9 (a) boys and (b) girls
(a)
(b)
Boys
Girls
45
40
40
35
35
30
% of pupils
% of pupils
30
25
20
25
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
5
4
3
2
Score
Year 8
Year 9
1
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Year 8
Year 9
Reference to the mean scores for these groups (see Table 5.6 (c)) reveals that the Y8 mean
scores for boys and girls fell in Y9. Standard deviations, (see Table 5.6 (d)) are relatively
141
small in Y8 but have widened in Y9, particularly for the girls.
Table 5.6: Factor I: pupils' enjoyment of History
Table 5.6: Factor I: pupils' enjoyment of History
(c) Mean scores
(d) Standard deviations
Boys
Girls
Y8
3.9
3.3
Y9
3.52
% Change
-7.6%
Boys
Girls
Y8
0.79
0.78
3.02
Y9
0.94
1.24
-5.6%
% Change
+19.0%
+59.17%
Reference to the data from individual schools (App. C-5) shows that two groups of boys
and three of girls increased their mean score slightly in Y9. Some examples of the wide
variations in Y8 - Y9 mean scores are shown in Table 5.6 (e) below.
Table 5.6 (e): Factor 1: pupils' enjoyment of KS3 History: mean score percentage changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-32%
-34%
School 2
-6%
-12%
School 3
-2%
no change
School 4
+6%
+6%
School 5
no change
-6%
School 6
-6%
no change
School 7
+2%
-6%
School 8
-16%
-8%
School 9
-12%
-6%
School 10
-4%
-6%
142
Factor 2: Pupils' perceptions of KS3 History as easy or difficult.
Teachers of History face difficulties in presenting their subject to pupils. Elliot suggests that
there are three problematic areas (1980 p.41). Firstly, the complexities of human (adult)
experiences are beyond pupils' understanding, echoing Elton's view (1969 p.182). Secondly
the 'evidence' available does not match the impact of, for example, field trips for geography
or laboratory experiments in Science and finally, the sheer volume and continuing
expansion of historical knowledge creates difficulties in planning a coherent syllabus. QCA
noted that pupils who found the subject difficult referred to the 'overuse' of worksheets,
textbooks and essay tasks (2005 p.16).
Summary:
Boys were more likely to express an apparent awareness of increasing difficulty in Y9;
seven groups' mean scores fell between 6 and 14 per cent and five girls' groups had scores
where reductions ranged from 4 to 14 per cent.
Pupils' comments during the pilot discussions had indicated that alongside 'enjoyment', how
'easy' a subject seemed could be linked to several positive experiences. (Stables and Stables
1995 p.49) During the surveys, pupils who selected a score of '3', about 40 per cent,
indicated that they had no particular concern as to the ease or difficulty of studying History:
the distributions of scores were similar during Y8 and Y9 for boys and for girls, as shown in
Figure 5.7 (a) and (b), but boys appear to have experienced some degree of greater difficulty
143
Figure 5.7: Factor 2: pupils' perceptions of ease/difficulty of KS3 History: by Year group (a) and by gender (b)
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
% of pupils
% of pupils
30
25
20
15
25
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
4
3
Score
Year 8
2
1
Score
Boys
Year 9
Girls
Table 5.7(c) below, shows that the mean scores of both boys and girls have increased
slightly indicating pupils having perceived greater difficulty in Y9 and although SDs have
Table 5.7 (c): Factor 2: difficulty of History
Table 5.7 (d): Factor 2: difficulty of History
(c) Mean scores
(d) Standard deviations
Boys
Girls
Y8
3.25
3.14
Y9
3.00
% Change
-5.0%
Boys
Girls
Y8
0.93
0.89
3.04
Y9
1.0
1.06
-2%
% Change
+5.5%
+19.1%
also increased they are still around the '1' mark [see Figure 5.7 (d)]. Pupils who scored '1'
or '2' indicated that they perceived History as having some degree of difficulty; in Y8 49
girls and 60 boys had expressed a degree of difficulty. These numbers had risen to 60 and
63 respectively in Y9, an increase of 22 per cent (boys) and of 5 per cent (girls). (see App.
144
C-6)
Table 5.7 (e): Factor 2: pupils' perceptions of the difficulty of KS3 History:
mean score percentage changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-6%
-4%
School 2
-8%
-4%
School 3
-10%
no change
School 4
no change
+10%
School 5
-6%
+4%
School 6
-10%
+10%
School 7
+12%
-8%
School 8
+2%
no change
School 9
-14%
-18%
School 10
-8%
-14%
145
Factor 3: Perception of gender-bias in KS3 History.
Ofsted's report for History 2002/03, published in 2004 (Ofsted 2004), showed that girls
consistently outperformed boys at GCSE History 1996 - 2003 by some 3 per cent A - C
grades. QCA's report for History (2004-2005) also noted that proportionally more girls
studied the subject at GCSE and proportionally more girls achieved higher graded than
boys. Discussions with pupils during the progress of this study did not reveal any strong
feelings of gender bias, overall, but a small minority of pupils, mostly girls, had indicated
polarised opinions. Whether these were due to a genuine perception of History or as results
of personal experiences is difficult to explore. The middle years of schooling is a period
when children move from childhood, through adolescence towards adulthood, and move
away from a family dominated value system towards peer group influences. Whitehead
(1996 pp.148 - 149) suggests that girls are more sensitive to sex stereotypes than are boys
and that as History is about 'people' then the subject is more suitable for females rather than
males. Stables and Stables (1995 p.41) state that girls are more likely to prefer 'writing
subjects' such as History while boys were more likely to refer to practical activities as
reasons for preferring a subject (p.50); the same study recorded that girls more so than boys
tended to rate their teacher's personality as important.
Summary:
Although over 70 percent of Y8 and Y9 pupils chose '3' on their surveys - a neutral
standpoint - seven groups of boys and five of girls had reduced mean scores in Y9
indicating that they felt that History was more suited to girls; conversely, two groups of
boys and four of girls felt the opposite. Generally, percentage changes were small but
there were exceptions.
Of all the twelve factors, this one returned the highest numbers of respondents scoring '3'
146
see Table 5.8 (a) and (b), a score which the pupils had referred to as reflecting attitudes of
'middle of the road, ' not bothered', or 'it's OK'.
Table 5.8: Factor 3: Perceived bias in KS3 History:
(a) by Year group and (b) by gender of pupils
(b)
350
350
300
300
250
250
Number of pupils
Number of pupils
(a)
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
5
4
3
2
Score
Year 8
Year 9
1
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
Looking at the Year 8 and Year 9 boys' results (see App. C-6), 71.6 per cent chose '3'; for
the girls, the figure was 67.5 per cent as is indicated by SDs which are also relatively small.
(see Table 5.8 (d)) However, this does show that 28.4 per cent of boys and 32.5 per cent of
girls felt they had perceived some degree of a 'gender factor' within their experiences of
KS3 History. The mean scores appear to show a very slight move towards 'preferred by
girls' (see Table 5.8 (c) below).
147
Table 5.8: Factor 3; perceived gender bias in KS3 History (a): mean scores; (b) Std.Dev.
(c)
(d)
Boys
Girls
Year 8
0.69
0.83
2.87
Year 9
0.81
0.80
-1.4%
Change
+17.3%
-3.6%
Boys
Girls
Year 8
3.11
2.94
Year 9
2.95
% Change
-3%
Looking at the extreme responses of '5' and '1' (see App. C-6) from Y8, 30 girls and 20 boys
chose these scores; for Year 9 the numbers were 30 and 33 respectively. These totals are
shown in Table 5.8 (e) below in order to clarify the small changes listed in Table 5.8 (c)
above.
Table 5.8 (e); Factor 3: Numbers of pupils in Y8 and Y9 scoring '5' or '1'
Boys
Boys
Girls
Girls
Score
5
1
5
1
Year 8
12
8
12
18
Year 9
20
13
7
23
% Change
+66%
+62%
-41%
+27%
Although the same individual pupils may not be scoring '5' or '1' in Year 8 and in Year 9, it
does seem that 13 boys and 3 girls have confirmed their perceptions. As stated, these
numbers are relatively small but do indicate that some individual pupils may perceive a bias
and thus their overview of History may be influenced. Within these overall figures, specific
trends at individual schools which may have exercised influences may not be apparent, but
148
reference to Table 5.8 (f) shows that some relatively large, sometimes conflicting shifts in
mean scores have occurred at some schools.
Table 5.8 (f): Factor 3: pupils' perceptions of gender bias in History:
mean score percentage changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-4%
-8%
School 2
-8%
+2%
School 3
-10%
no change
School 4
no change
+10%
School 5
-6%
+4%
School 6
-10%
+10%
School 7
-8%
+8%
School 8
+2%
no change
School 9
-14%
-18%
School 10
-8%
-14%
149
Factor 5: Prefer more or less History on the KS3 timetable.
During the survey design stage this factor, although considered important, had prompted
much discussion about the consequences of altering the KS3 timetable. (see p.115)
Summary:
In Y9 there was a general expression of preferring less History (13 groups) with mean
score reductions from 2 to 32 per cent, with no definite difference between boys' and
girls' responses. It is difficult to ascribe motives to the pupils' reasoning with this factor;
the 'notion' of manipulating the timetable may have been at play (see p.114).
Overall, Figure 5.10 (a) and (b) below, show that there was a general indication of pupils
preferring 'less History' during Year 9.
Figure 5.10: Factor 5: prefer more or less KS3 History
percentages of pupils' scores (a) Y8 and (b) Y9
(a)
(b)
Year 8
Year 9
40
35
35
30
30
% of pupils
% of pupils
25
25
20
15
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
5
4
3
2
Score
Boys
Girls
1
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
None of the Y8 8 groups scored means above 3.8; 10 had scores above a mean of 3. In Year
9, five groups scored between 3 and 3.7. For each year group as a whole, the mean was
150
below 3. (see Table 5.10 (c) below)
Table 5.10: Factor 5: preferring more or less KS3 History: (a) Mean scores and (b) SDs
(c)
(d)
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Year 8
2.98
2.69
Year 8
1.07
1.19
Year 9
2.79
2.47
Year 9
1.18
1.25
% Change
-3.8%
-5.4%
% Change
+10.3%
+5.0%
Table 5.10 (e) below indicated that whilst mean scores at some schools 3 and 4 showed very
little change, reference to overall returns (see App. C-7) shows that seven groups scored
slightly higher means in Year 9, ranging from ranging +0.6 per cent to +9 per cent; such
trends are virtually eliminated when other schools, or gender groups returned significant
reductions of mean scores in Year 9 for example, schools 7 and 8 or the girls at school 2 and
boys at school 10, shown below.
Table 5.10 (e): Factor 5: preferring more or less KS3 History: Mean scores changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-28%
-32%
School 2
no change
-14%
School 3
-4%
-2%
School 4
no change
+8%
School 5
+8%
+10%
School 6
-6%
-10%
School 7
no change
+8%
School 8
-18%
-28%
School 9
+4%
-2%
School 10
-14%
-2%
151
The relative lack of consensus shown by the spread of scoring among the pupils, about this
particular factor, is demonstrated in Figure 5.10 below.
Figure 5.10 (f): Factor 5: preferring more or less KS3 History: Percentages of all pupils' scores
All pupils: Years 8 and 9
30
25
% of pupils
20
15
10
5
0
5
4
3
2
1
Score
All pupils: Years 8 and 9
152
Factor 6: Pupils' perception of being successful or unsuccessful in KS3 History
Dekker's work examining pupils' perceptions of their levels of achievement indicated that
KS3 girls were more likely to attribute any failure to their 'lack of ability' whilst boys tended
to refer to their own 'lack of effort' (1996 p.189).
Summary:
Five groups felt more successful in Y9 while 14 felt less so. Boys' and girls' responses
were very similar within the range of 2 to 16 per cent change of mean scores but the
number of girls scoring '1', that is no feeling of success, doubled in Y9.
During the discussion stage, it became clear that very many pupils did not separate
'enjoyment' and success', or indeed the reverse, 'dislike' and 'unsuccessful' acceptance that as
a 'rule', success and enjoyment went together. The distribution of scores for Y8 and Y9 are
shown in Figure 5.11 (a) below and appears to show quite similar trends across each Year
group; also shown is a shift towards 'unsuccessful' from Y8 to Y9.
Figure 5.11: Factor 6: successful or unsuccessful in KS3 History:
(a)
(b)
percentages of Y9 boys' and girls' scores
percentages of Y8 and Y9 pupils' scores
45
40
40
35
35
30
% of pupils
% of pupils
30
25
20
15
25
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
5
4
3
2
Score
Year 8
Year 9
1
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
In Y8 all of the groups, boys and girls, had mean scores of greater than '3'; in Year 9, only
one group returned a mean score of less than '3' (2.95). (see App. C-5) The other scores
153
ranged from 3 to 4.1. Table 5.11 (c) below shows that although there has been a small drop
in the pupils' perceptions in Year 9, the summary means, all above 3, indicate positive
responses, that is, feeling some degree of success. A comparison of the distributions of boys'
and girls' scores shown in Figure 5.11 (b) (above) seems to show similarities, but reference
to the data (see App. C-6) indicates some level of reciprocal relationship between Y8 and
Y9 boys' scores of '5' and '1' see Table 5.11 (e) below: the girls' scores show a degree of
polarisation, especially towards 'feeling unsuccessful' in KS3 History.
Table 5.11: Factor 6: Successful or unsuccessful in KS3 History:(a) mean scores (b) SDs for Y8 and Y9
(c)
(d)
Boys
Girls
Year 8
3.60
3.38
Year 9
3.50
% Change
-2.0%
Boys
Girls
Year 8
0.89
0.90
3.25
Year 9
1.02
1.15
-2.6%
% Change
+7.6%
+5.0%
These extreme movements in the scoring patterns are not reflected so clearly in the overall
mean scores of the Year groups. (see Table 5.11 (e) below)
Table 5.11 (e): Factor 6: successful or unsuccessful in KS3 History:
numbers of pupils choosing scores of '5' or '1'
Boys
Boys
Girls
Girls
Score
5
1
5
1
Year 8
38
8
25
9
Year 9
26
11
28
23
% Change
-31.6%
+30%
+15.8%
+156.2%
154
Shifts in mean scores at individual schools as shown in Table 5.11 (f) below indicate that in
some cases any change was marginal (for example school 4) whilst changes were more
significant at others (for example school 8).
Table 5.11 (f): Factor 6: successful or unsuccessful in KS3 History: Mean scores changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-16%
-16%
School 2
no change
-12%
School 3
-2%
+4%
School 4
+2%
+2%
School 5
-4%
-6%
School 6
-10%
+2%
School 7
+4%
-6%
School 8
-10%
-10%
School 9
-6%
-4%
School 10
-4%
-4%
155
5.4 Pupils' perceptions of the demands made of them when studying KS3 History
Factor 4: Too much or too little homework in KS3 History.
It might have been anticipated that the overwhelming majority of pupils tended to agree
somewhat with the statement 'History has lots of homework'; anecdotal comments would
suggest that for some pupils, any homework was too much.
Summary:
There was very little change in boys' or girls' perceptions of the amount of homework set;
the distributions are somewhat skewed, showing that about 50 per cent of all pupils in
both Y8 and in Y9 felt that there was lots of homework, the remaining 50 per cent were
either undecided or felt there was too little.
The distributions of scores for Y8 and Y9 shown below in Figure 5.9 present broadly
similar patterns of some skew towards 'too much homework'.
Figure 5.9: Factor 4: too much/too little homework in KS3 History:
percentages of pupils' scores (a) Y8 and (b) Y9
(a)
(b)
Year 9
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
% of pupils
% of pupils
Year 8
20
15
25
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
5
4
3
2
Score
Boys
Girls
1
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Series2
Table 5.9 (c) below, showing the mean scores for each Year group confirms the skew and
156
the lack of any great change in Y9 of the pupils' perception of 'lots' of homework. SDs have
widened very slightly but are still clustered around the '1' mark.
Table 5.9(c): Factor 4: too much/too little homework in KS3History: mean scores (c) and SDs (d)
(c)
(d)
Boys
Girls
Year 8
3.46
3.40
Year 9
3.36
% Change
-2%
Boys
Girls
Year 8
0.92
1.02
3.37
Year 9
1.00
1.15
-0.6%
% Change
+8.6%
+12.73%
Although 11 of the 20 groups recorded reduced mean scores in Year 9, there are exceptions:
boys and girls at school 4 had both returned mean scores of less than 3 in Year 8, but
showed slight increases of 7.4 per cent (boys) and 3.8 per cent (girls). At school 7, the boys'
score rose by 8.5 per cent and the girls' by 25.4 per cent. Both of these instances indicate
that for some pupils at specific schools there was a greater awareness of the increased
demands of homework when in Year 9. The variations are shown in Table 5.9 (e) below
Table 5.9 (e): Factor 4: too much/too little homework in KS3 History: Mean scores changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
+4%
+16%
School 2
-8%
-8%
School 3
-6%
+8%
School 4
+6%
+4%
School 5
-10%
+2%
School 6
-2%
-6%
School 7
-10%
-10%
School 8
+2%
-8%
School 9
no change
+4%
School 10
+8%
-6%
157
Factor (7): Too much or too little classwork in KS3 History
Discussions with KS3 pupils revealed that most were able to recall with some enthusiasm a
selection of the themes/topics/study units that they had encountered. The recurring criticism
from boys and girls was that at times it seemed (to them) that teaching patterns began with
some discussion and then moved to worksheets or textbook exercises.
Summary:
Responses in Y8 and Y9 were very similar with very little difference in mean scores; the
patterns of scoring for boys and girls remained much the same. Of the 20 Y9 groups 19
had mean scores between 3 and 3.4, indicating a slight, but definite perception of workload in class.
The survey revealed that over 50 per cent of all pupils in Y8 and Y9 scored '3', indicating
that their experiences of working in the classroom had not led them to have definite
perceptions of the demands of KS3 History. There has been very little change across the
Year groups as a whole, as shown in Figure.12 (a) and (b) below.
Figure 5.12; Factor 7: Too much or too little classwork in KS3 History
(a)
(b)
Year 8
Year 9
60
60
50
50
40
40
% of pupils
% of pupils
Percentages of Year 8 (a) and Year 9 (b) pupils' scores
30
20
30
20
10
10
0
0
5
4
3
2
Score
Boys
Girls
1
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
158
Table 5.12 (c) below confirms the patterns of Figures 5.12 (a) and (b) and that the overall
percentage change in mean scores was very small. In Y8, only one group had a mean of less
than 3 (2.85), the rest being in the range 3 to 3.6; in Y9, one mean was less than 3 (2.63) and
the rest in the range 3 to 3.5.
Table 5.12: Factor 7: too much/too little classwork in KS3 History: Mean scores (c) and SDs (d)
(c)
(d)
Boys
Girls
Year 8
3.18
3.21
Year 9
3.25
% Change
+1.4%
Boys
Girls
Year 8
0.92
0.76
3.17
Year 9
0.84
0.91
-0.8%
% Change
-6.5%
+19.7%
SDs have remained less than '1'. Of the 20 Y9 groups, 10 (7 boys and 3 girls) had increased
their mean score very slightly (2 per cent or less).
Table 5.12 (e): Factor 7: too much/too little classwork in KS3 History: Mean scores changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
no change
no change
School 2
-2%
no change
School 3
+2%
+2%
School 4
no change
no change
School 5
-10%
-2%
School 6
+2%
-8%
School 7
+12%
+4%
School 8
+2%
-2%
School 9
+2%
+4%
School 10
+4%
-2%
159
Factor 8: Reading and writing are important/unimportant in History
Summary:
There was general agreement among the pupils about the importance of these skills; in
spite of slight reductions in Y9 mean scores, they remained just below '4'. The pattern
of responses for boys and girls was very similar but Y9 boys were slightly more likely
than the girls to attribute importance to this factor.
Pupils' collective responses to these statements produced the highest mean scores of all the
factors, as shown in Figure 5.13 (a) and (b) below.
Figure 5.13: Factor 8: Reading and writing are important/unimportant in KS3 History:
percentages of pupils' scores (a) Y8 and (b) Y9
(a)
(b)
Year 8
Year 9
60
50
45
50
40
35
% of pupils
% of pupils
40
30
20
30
25
20
15
10
10
5
0
0
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
In terms of numbers of pupils, 420 in Y8, 328 (about 78 per cent) scored '4' or '5', indicating
agreement that reading and writing were important in KS3 History: in Y9, 297 out of 416
(about 72 per cent) pupils scored similarly. (see App. C-6) At About 6 per cent of Y8 and 15
per cent of Y9 chose the opposite scores of '2' and '1'.
The slight reversal from Y8 to Y9 at
the '4' mark, shown above (a) to (b) represents about 1 per cent of boys and 5 per cent of
girls.
In Y8 the scores ranged from 3.39 to 4.78, 11 of which were greater than 4; in Y9 the range
was from 3.42 to 4.75 with 5 groups scoring more than 5. Tables 5.13 (c) and (d) below
shows small reductions in mean scores and although the percentage increases in SDs seems
160
large, the figures close to the '1' mark.
Table 5.13:Factor 8:Reading/writing are important/unimportant in KS3 History: Mean scores (c) and SD (d)
(c)
(d)
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Year 8
5.23
3.97
Year 8
0.87
0.93
Year 9
3.95
3.83
Year 9
1.07
1.23
% Change
-5.6%
-2.8%
Change
+22.9%
+32.2%
The relatively small percentage mean scores as shown above do not reveal the large shifts in
perceptions by some groups at individual schools, or indicate the existence of (i) consistent
patterns such as at School 3 or (ii) inconsistent patterns as at Schools 1, 2 and 6 as shown
below in Table 5.13 (e).
Table 5.13 (e): Factor 8: reading and writing are important/unimportant in KS3 History:
Mean scores percentage changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-10%
-20%
School 2
+2%
-12%
School 3
+8%
+8%
School 4
+2%
+8%
School 5
-12%
-6%
School 6
22%
-4%
School 7
-22%
+2%
School 8
no change
-8%
School 9
-12%
-2%
School 10
-6%
no change
161
5.5 Pupils' perceptions of the usefulness of studying History
In Chapter 1, the acquisition of skills for 'work, study and life', the understanding of human
behaviour, the generation of qualities sought by employers and the involvement of
citizenship were all cited by commentators as factors demonstrating the usefulness of
studying History. Chapter 2 records contributors suggesting that studying History may also
promote the transmission of 'culture' and that leaders would be more likely to make sound
political judgements. But these are based on adult interpretations; KS3 pupils, from their
relatively inexperienced 13 and 14 year-old viewpoints had suggested that there were four
'usefulness' factors to be considered when choosing to study a subject, such as History.
Factor 9: History is important/not important for adult life
Summary:
There were slight shifts of opinion in Y9: ten groups felt more strongly than in Y8 that
history was important for adult life and eight thought the opposite. Overall the mean
scores barely changed, remaining around the '3' mark.
It may be seen from Figures 5.14 (a) and (b) that the patterns of distributions of pupils'
scores has not altered significantly from Y8 to Y9. The numbers choosing '3' in Y8 (46 per
cent) appear to have reduced to about 36 per cent in Y9 and those scoring '4' or '5' have
increased slightly. There is a small but noticeable increase (about 6 per cent) in the number
of boys choosing '1' when in Y9.
162
Figure 5.14: Factor 9: History is important/unimportant for adult life:
percentages of pupils' scores (a) Y8 and (b) Y9
(a)
(b)
Year 8
Year 9
45
40
40
35
35
30
% of pupils
% of pupils
30
25
20
15
25
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
Score
Boys
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
Girls
Changes in the mean scores, (see Table 5.14 (c) below) remaining around the '3' mark are
small and the SDs show little change for the boys and slightly more for the girls whose '4'
and '5' scores increased in Y9.
Table 5.14: Factor 9: History is important/unimportant for adult life:
(c) Mean scores for Y8 and Y9: (d) SDs for Y8 and Y9
Boys
Girls
Year 8
1.09
1.16
3.07
Year 9
1.02
1.26
+2.6%
% Change
+0.6%
-8.6%
Boys
Girls
Year 8
3.17
2.93
Year 9
3.13
% Change
-0.08%
Responses from boys and girls at each school tended to reflect similar levels of change from
Y8 to Y9; for example schools 2, 3 5 and 9, shown in Table 5.14 (e) below.
163
Table 5.14 (e): Factor 9: History is important/unimportant for adult life:
Mean scores percentage changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-6%
+2%
School 2
-14%
-8%
School 3
+14%
+10%
School 4
no change
+8%
School 5
-6%
-6%
School 6
-16%
no change
School 7
+14%
+4%
School 8
+6%
+14%
School 9
-10%
-12%
School 10
+4%
+10%
164
Factor 10: History is/is not important for a job or career
The Y8 pupils in this study made little comment about possible career paths but in Y9, when
confronted with the option of dropping out of some subjects and the availability of advice
from careers advisors and GCSE subject teachers, they began to express some awareness of
the adult, working world. Kniveton (2004) found that pupils expressed interest in potential
career paths without a great deal of knowledge about particular occupations. One quarter of
boys sought advice compared to between one third and one half of girls (Stables and Stables
1995 p.45). The boys considered themselves more independent as regards making their
option choices but were less clear about their post-Y11 intentions.
Summary:
In Y8, opinions among boys and girls were very similar but in Y9 Girls were less likely
than the boys to consider that History was useful for a job or career.
With reference to future employment, it would appear that more Y8 boys than Y8 girls
tended to regard History as important (see Figures 5.15 (a) and (b) below) and those
perceptions showed a degree of further polarisation in Y9.
Figure 5.15: Factor 10: History is important/unimportant for a job or career:
percentages of pupils' scores (a) Y8 and (b) Y9
(a)
(b)
Year 8
Year 9
40
60
35
50
30
% of pupils
% of pupils
40
30
25
20
15
20
10
10
5
0
0
5
4
3
2
Score
Boys
Girls
1
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
165
The mean scores for this factor, shown at Table 5.15 (c) show very little differences
between the gender or year groups.
Table 5.15: Factor 10: History is important/unimportant for a job or career:
(c) Mean scores for Y8 and Y9: (d) SDs for Y8 and Y9
(c)
(d)
Boys
Girls
Year 8
0.98
1.07
2.99
Year 9
1.06
1.15
-1.6%
% Change
+8.0%
+13.5%
Boys
Girls
Year 8
3.15
3.07
Year 9
3.17
% Change
+0.04%
The distributions of scores for this factor, at Figure 5.15 (a) and (b) above, seem to show
relatively large percentages of both Year 8 and Year 9 pupils choosing '3' and in this respect
are similar to those of Factor 9 which had also required the pupils to 'look to the future'. If
the data is sorted by gender and the 'important' scores ('5' and '4') are combined, as are the
'unimportant' scores ('2' and '1') Figure 5.15 (f) below, shows that girls' perceptions of
'important for a career' (scores '5' or '4') barely altered from Year 8 to Year 9; however, it is
clear that about 4 per cent changed their '3' score to '1' or '2' over the same period. Although
there was a similar shift of around 4 per cent for the boys towards '1' or '2', see Figure 5.15
(e) below, another 4 per cent had moved towards '5' or '4'.
Figure 5.15: Factor 10: Percentages of (5-4, 3 or 2-1) scores for (a) Boys and (f) Girls
(e)
(f)
Girls
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
% of pupils
% of pupils
Boys
25
20
25
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
5 or 4
3
2 or 1
Score
Year 8
Year 9
5 or 4
3
2 or 1
Score
Year 8
Year 9
166
These are small shifts but do seem to suggest that some Y9 pupils have moved away from a
state of indecision, that is, from scoring '3'. The patterns of boys' and girls' responses appear
to be consistent although there is some disagreement at schools 4, 6 and 7. See Table 5.15
(g) below
Table 5.15 (g): Factor 10: History is important/unimportant for a job or career:
Mean scores percentage changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-14%
-10%
School 2
-14%
-8%
School 3
+14%
+10%
School 4
no change
+8%
School 5
-6%
-6%
School 6
-16%
no change
School 7
+12%
+12%
School 8
+6%
+14%
School 9
-10%
-12%
School 10
+4%
+10%
167
Factor 11: History does/does not include other school subjects.
As none of the History departments participating in this study were involved in formally
designed cross-curricular projects, pupils' responses to this question, when interviewed,
were vague. Common associations were linked to Geography (exploration and wars), to
Sciences (Industrial Revolution, inventions and the History of Medicine) and to English (the
constant demands for reading and writing).
Summary:
There was no clear consensus about this factor. Although more than 40 per cent
agreed to some degree that History did involve other subjects, the remaining 60 per
cent of pupils were fairly evenly split between 'undecided' and 'disagreement'. If
anything, there was a slight move towards disagreement in Y9, especially among the
boys.
There is a general agreement in both year groups that, to some degree, the using of other
school subjects is part of the classroom experience when History is being taught (see Table
5.16 (a) and (b): over 40 per cent of boys and girls scored '5' or '4' even though it appears
that boys were less positive in Y9 and girls were more positive.
(a)
(b)
Year 8
Year 9
35
35
30
30
25
25
% of pupils
% of pupils
Figure 5.16: Factor 11: History does/does not include other school subjects
percentages of pupils' scores (a) Y8 and (b) Y9
20
15
10
20
15
10
5
5
0
5
4
3
2
Score
Boys
Girls
1
0
5
4
3
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
168
Although the mean scores for all groups are above the '3' mark, they reflect a ranges of 2.47
to 4.45 in Y8 and 2.4 to 3.61 in Y9. The Y9 SDs have widened slightly from just above the
Y8 '1' level.
Table 5.16: Factor 11: History does/does not include other school subjects
(c) Mean scores for Y8 and Y9: (d) SDs for Y8 and Y9
(c)
(d)
Boys
Girls
Year 8
3.35
3.17
Year 9
3.03
% Change
-6.4%
Boys
Girls
Year 8
1.05
1.15
3.20
Year 9
1.25
1.26
-1.6%
% Change
+19%
+9%
Figures 5.16 (e) and (f) below shows that in Y8 the number of boys scoring '5' or '4' was 8
per cent greater than the girls' but that situation was reversed in Y9 when the girls moved 6
per cent ahead of the boys. At the '2' or '1' score, the opposite occurred; when in Y9 5 per
cent more boys than girls chose this score thus reversing the situation in Y8 when the girls
were 10 per cent ahead.
Figure 5.16: Factor 11: History does/does not include other school subjects:
Percentages of (a) Y8 and (b) Y9 Boys' and Girls' (5-4, 3 or 2-1) scores
(e)
(f)
Year 8
Year 9
60
50
45
50
40
35
% of pupils
% of pupils
40
30
20
30
25
20
15
10
10
5
0
0
5 or 4
3
2 or 1
Score
Boys
Girls
5 or 4
3
2 or 1
Score
Boys
Girls
169
In Year 8, there is no distinct pattern to the scores at individual schools; at five schools, it
was the boys who returned scores higher than the girls, and at other five schools it was the
girls who returned scores higher than the boys' (see App. C-6). This pattern was repeated in
eight of the schools in Year 9. Of the four Year 8 groups (two each of boys and girls)
scoring less than a mean of '3', all of them scored below '3' in year 9. Table 5.16 (g) below
shows that only four of the 20 groups increased their mean scores in Y9 to indicate greater
awareness of 'other subjects' being part of KS3 History.
Table 5.16 (g): Factor 11: History does/does not include other school subjects:
Mean scores percentage changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-6%
+6%
School 2
-4%
-6%
School 3
-6%
-4%
School 4
-2%
-2%
School 5
+6%
no change
School 6
-12%
-2%
School 7
-16%
-4%
School 8
-8%
+2%
School 9
-10%
+2%
School 10
no change
+4%
170
Factor 12: History does/does not include lots of useful skills
The HA (see p. 7) has indicated what it regarded as 'useful' skills developed when studying
History. QCA's report for History (2004-2005) suggested that KS3 pupils failed to acquire a
good overview, due in many cases to school departments presenting unrelated in-depth
studies. Discussions with the pupils in Y8 and Y9 indicated that they were very aware of the
requirements to be able to read accurately, to write legibly and to express their responses
clearly, but they seemed less aware of the skills of comparison and analysis. Many of the
pupils were able to mention skills such as 'using sources' and 'comparing evidence' but few
were able to give more than vague comments.
Summary;
Boys seemed more likely than girls to be more aware of useful skills in Y9 although the
percentages of boys and girls not responding positively, that is scoring 3, 2 or 1 were still
quite high, 47 per cent (boys) and 58 per cent (girls).
The distribution of scores from Y8 to Y9 shows a clear shift (see Figures 5.17 (a) and (b)
below); in Y9 the percentage of boys scoring '5' or '4' has fallen 12 per cent and the girls by
8 per cent. For those scoring '1' or '2', the percentage of boys has doubled from 12 per cent
to 24 percent and the girls' percentages have increased by 4 per cent to 29 per cent. (App. C6) In Year 9, about 25 per cent of all pupils had opted to score '3', which if taken with the 26
per cent who scored '2' or '1', seems to indicate that 50 per cent of pupils may not have
grasped the significance of the skills offered in History lessons.
171
Figure 5.17: Factor 12: History does/does not include useful skills:percentages of pupils' scores (a) Y8 and (b)
Y9
(a)
(b)
Year 9
35
35
30
30
25
25
% of pupils
% of pupils
y ear 8
20
15
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
4
3
Score
Boys
Girls
2
1
Score
Boys
Girls
The mean scores and SDs shown in Table 5.17 (d) below confirm the trends shown above.
Table5.17: Factor 12: History does/does not include lots of useful skills
(a) Mean scores for Y8 and Y9: (b) SDs for Y8 and Y9
(c)
(d)
Boys
Girls
Year 8
3.76
3.40
Year 9
3.41
% Change
-7.00%
Boys
Girls
Year 8
0.99
1.01
3.22
Year 9
1.21
1.29
-3.6%
% Change
+22.2%
+27.7%
The shifts in mean scores for the 20 groups of boys or girls at individual schools, indicate
that in Y9 only five of these groups' scores had moved towards showing greater awareness
of 'useful skills' in History. (see Table 5.17 (e) p.163)
172
Table 5.17 (e): Factor 12: History does/does not include lots of useful skills:
Mean scores percentage changes from Y8 to Y9
School
Boys
Girls
School 1
-34%
-16%
School 2
-12%
-20%
School 3
-14%
+8%
School 4
no change
+4%
School 5
+4%
no change
School 6
no change
-8%
School 7
-10%
-4%
School 8
-8%
+4%
School 9
-2%
-12%
School 10
+6%
-12%
173
5.6 Summary of trends found in the survey of perceptions of KS3 History
Firstly, the data presented in Section 2 demonstrates that there are wide variations, not
only from school to school but also between groups within some individual schools. The
overall trends as shown in Table 5.18 below indicate that, generally, Y9 pupils wanted
less History, felt reduced levels of enjoyment and success, were less concerned about
literacy skills or classwork and had sensed some degree of gender bias in History.
Table 5.18: 20 groups; Summary of trends in pupils' perceptions of KS3 History
N = 20 groups
Perception
Number of groups
'more aware' in Y9
Number of groups
'less aware' in Y9
Number of groups
aware of
'no change' in Y9
1 Enjoyment
3
14
3
2 Easy
5
12
3
3 Gender bias
18
0
2
4 Homework
9
10
1
5 Want More History
5
12
3
6 Success
5
14
1
7 Classwork
9
6
5
8 Reading & Writing
6
12
2
9 Adult life
9
8
1
10 Careers
8
11
1
11 Other subjects
6
12
2
12 Other skills
6
11
3
Percentage
37.4%
51.1%
11.5%
The distribution of opinions also varies considerably: in almost 50 per cent of cases at
individual schools, boys' and girls' had expressed opposite perceptions of some factors.
The instances of 'agreement' between boys and girls at (i) each school and (ii) for each
factor are shown below at Figure 5.19 and 5.20; for details of the scale of such agreement
174
or disagreement, App. C-7.
Figure 5.19: Number of agreements (out of 12 factors) between boys and girls at each school
Boys and girls agree
10
9
Numer of agreements (N=12)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
School
Figure 5.20: numbers of agreements (out of 10 schools) between all boys and all girls about each factor
Levels of agreement about 12 factors
8
Number of schools (N=10)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
Factor
175
5.7 GCSE option choice survey
Reference has been made (see p.7) to an audio-visual presentation, 'Choosing History at
14', which is provided annually by the HA to their members' History departments in
secondary schools across the UK. The content could be customised by individual schools
and included three presentations, firstly for every pupil in the school, secondly for parents
who attended 'option evenings' and thirdly for the teachers of the History department at
each school. All the presentations emphasised in different ways the importance of skills
which would be useful in ‘…work, study and life…’ (HA 2005 1:1).
The message common to all three was:
Historians are regarded as having had an education that trains their minds to
assemble, organise and present facts and opinions and this is a very useful quality
in many walks of life and careers...History is an excellent preparation for very
many other jobs
and continues to list very many individuals who had studied History, among them Gordon
Brown, Anita Roddick, Michael Palin, Salman Rushdie and Lord Sainsbury. Creed and
Patton (2003) suggest that pupils may express career preferences without a great deal of
knowledge about individual jobs and Siann et al (1988 p.197) comment that career paths
may be influenced by local socio-economic circumstances and differing expectations
within various ethnic groupings.
The teachers within the History department were guided in such a way that they would
respond in a consistent way to common option-related questions from pupils although
Brown has stated that some pupils chose a subject for 'want of a better alternative' (2001
p.178) and Stables and Stables noted that subjects perceived as 'easier' may affect pupils'
choices (1996 p.49). The HA suggested that the individual pupil's past experience of KS3
History was a strong determining factor of subject choice. A second vital factor was the
popularity and perceived effectiveness of staff (HA 2005 TP: p.1). For ethical reasons this
176
second factor had not been included in the Y8 and Y9 surveys of pupils' perceptions of
History. Other factors included a Department having a good GCSE success rate, staff who
taught both KS3 and KS4 pupils with evident enthusiasm, good discipline and maintained
good relationships with all pupils(p.4). Addnett (2003 p.2) has shown that generally
pupils will choose subjects at which they are comparatively successful and Adey and
Biddulph (2001) noted that some ten per cent of 14 year-olds said that a school
department's GCSE results were an important influence.
All of these would seem to indicate that the pupils' experiences during KS3 were more
influential than discussions about career paths or the reading of brief course specifications
laid out in technical, or at worst simplistic language in an option booklet (HA TP: p.1).
The survey data collected from the remaining seven schools indicates that from the
sample of 173 Y9 pupils, 47 (27.1 per cent) made a firm commitment to study GCSE
History, although there were wide variations across the schools from just over 10 per cent
to almost 50 per cent (see Table 5.2 p.). The initial purpose of this part of the study had
been (Stage 1), to identify those pupils who had indicated during their first term of their
Y9 a preference to study History for GCSE and to record later in the academic year
(Stage 2) when they had completed their official option forms and had been assigned to
subjects for study in KS4, if they had or had not changed their minds. Comparison of the
data from both Stages also identified pupils who had not chosen History at Stage 1 but
had done so at Stage 2 (see pp.169 for details of procedure). The following Table 5.1
indicates the numbers of pupils involved and the numbers who (i) chose History at Stage
1, (ii) chose History again at Stage 2 and (iii) did not choose History at Stage 1 but did so
at Stage 2.
177
Table 5.1: Numbers of pupils participating in Stages 1 and 2 of option choice survey.
Respondents
Respondents
Chose History
Chose History
Chose History
Stage 1
Stage 1 and 2
Stage 1
Stage 1 and 2
Stage 2
1
35
27
4
1
2
2
44
38
15
7
3
3
39
29
9
4
2
4
24
21
11
7
3
8
23
18
7
4
2
9
24
21
5
3
0
10
22
19
10
8
1
Totals
211
173
61
34
13
School
Responses from pupils who had been present for both Stages and who had chosen History
at either or both Stages, were considered.
In summary, 34 pupils had continued to prefer History as a GCSE option throughout their
Y9, 28 had decided against it and a further 13, in spite of not having chosen it earlier in
the Autumn term, did choose it when definite decisions had to be made before entering
KS4.
178
Table 5.2: Numbers and percentages of pupils in sample classes choosing GCSE History.
School
Sample: Number of
Sample: Number
Year 9: Number
Year 9: Number
pupils
and (%) of pupils
of pupils
and (%) of pupils
choosing History
choosing History
1
27
3 (11.1%)
156
21 (13.4%)
2
38
10 (26.3%)
172
42 (24.4%)
3
29
6 (21.0%)
158
41 (25.9%)
4
21
10 (47.6%)
180
64 (35.5%)
8
18
6 (33.3%)
190
57 (30.0%)
9
21
3 (14.2%)
213
36 (16.9%)
10
19
9 (47.6%)
97
41 (42.2%)
Totals
173
47 (27.1%)
1166
302 (26.9%)
For illustrative purposes, the final uptakes at Schools 5, 6 and 7, which had not completed
Stage 2, are shown at Table 5.3 below but it should be noted that these figures refer only
to the Stage 1 sample groups and whole Y9 groups.
179
Table 5.3: percentages of pupils opting for GCSE History at Schools 5, 6 and 7
School
5
Figure for Stage 1
sample
23%
6
25%
32%
7
36%
28%
Final figures for Y9
21%
Towards the end of the Summer term in 2004, schools were requested to facilitate the
arranging of interviews with selections of Y9 pupils, who had opted for History or who
had changed their mind for or against, about choosing the subject. Unlike Biddulph and
Adey's two studies where schools were asked to select pupils who 'would not be shy
about participating in discussion' (Biddulph and Adey 2001 p.2) and in (Biddulph and
Adey 2003 p.291) when it was left to the teachers who had tended to select those
individuals who 'would contribute readily to discussion', this study was planned to include
all pupils in the focus groups, that is, 34 who chose History at Stage 1 and 2, 27 who
chose only at Stage 1 and 13 who chose only at Stage 2. The timing and accommodating
of the interviews were organised by the teachers to fit in with their normal routines.
The GCSE choices made by the pupils during Stages 1 and 2 of this part of the study will
be compared with compared with shifts in perceptions of History from Y8 to Y9, in
Chapter 6.
180
CHAPTER 6
Further analysis and discussion
181
6.1 Introduction
Elsewhere in this study references have been made to the development of the present
system of educational provision. School attendance became compulsory, curricula were
defined and refined, leaving ages were altered, school units were re-organised and relabelled and at each stage, there was almost a feeling of accomplishment - 'having
arrived'. It would be wrong to assume in 2008 that society has reached its educational
objectives, as its goals have not be stated with any long-term certainty; Trust schools may
be appearing, having degrees of self-determination for themselves and their local
authorities, and possibly having 'selective' admission policies which might have been
considered inappropriate during the 1965 - 1985 era. Examinations, which were
standardised in 1988, may be replaced by Diplomas that record achievements in
combinations of vocational and academic subjects, subjects which may be revised and redefined. The age of 14+ could be considered as a pivotal stage when pupils are presented
with 'pathways' to education, training and employment, underpinned by a credit system
that recognises achievement of units and qualifications. This system would be, stated the
QCA, within a National Qualifications Framework (NQF)
•
•
•
more responsive to employer and learner needs
demand- and market-led
simple, flexible and with currency for learners
(QCA 2005).
In 10 years time, the educational provision in secondary schools may demonstrate
features which teachers and pupils who have participated in this study might not
recognise.
182
6.2 Addressing the research questions
The GCSE survey data collected from the seven of the ten schools as presented in Chapter
4 indicates that from the sample of 173 Y9 pupils, 47 (27.1 per cent) made a firm
commitment to study GCSE History, although the numbers at individual schools varied
from just over 10 per cent to almost 50 per cent. Of the 61 Y9 pupils who, in their
Autumn term had expressed an interest in GCSE History, only 34 (55 per cent)
maintained that intention. The Perceptions data revealed wide variations in pupils'
opinions about History. Before exploring the data from individual schools and comparing
pupils' perceptions alongside the GCSE take-up rates, in order to consider the patterns and
variations, it may be useful to acknowledge other possible influencing factors, that is,
perceived difficulty, academic and vocational choices, pupils' physiological and
psychological development, events within the school and pupils' experiences of the
content and structure of KS3 History.
Difficulty
Reference has been made earlier in this study to the perceived difficulty of History, but
'difficult' in relation to what? The QCA, the Government's body for examination
regulation, had stated consistently that different GCSEs were equally difficult (Halpin
2006 p.27), yet John Dunford, representing schools and college stated that 'we have
always known that some (GCSEs) are harder' than others and that there was nothing
wrong with students 'playing the system' (Mansell 2006 p.2). In Bell's study (2001 p.214)
it was found that History was more likely to be studied by 'high attaining pupils rather
than low attaining pupils' and that the reduction in numbers opting for GCSE History was
most marked for low and medium attaining pupils. Practical subjects were liked best by
boys and girls (Colley and Comber (2003 p.62). Coe's (2006) investigation involving over
600.000 pupils, each entered for at least one GCSE, concluded that different levels of
183
difficulty did exist and that Drama, Physical Education and Media Studies as the easiest
subjects for students to get good grades; Sciences and Modern Foreign Languages were
the most difficult (pp.4-10) and differences in the quality of teaching or student
motivation could not fully explain anomalies (Coe 2006 p.11). During Coe's study Y10
and Y11 pupils who were interviewed confirmed that they regarded the GCSE History
course as difficult and demanding but, generally, they were enjoying it.
Choice
The introduction of GCSE 'league tables' (see p.6) provided schools with the opportunity,
perhaps the obligation, to be seen to be 'improving'. It was suggested that some schools
had achieved success by 'steering pupils away from challenging exams' (NUT 2006 p.1)
and encouraging those pupils to take vocational GNVQs which would be worth (in league
table sense) depending on level, two or four GCSE passes. This is a very different
approach from schools which offered only GCSE courses. Another dimension of this
'vocational ploy' was that the criteria of five A - C passes at GCSE could be made up with
any combination of subjects that would not necessarily include the core subjects of
English and Mathematics. Smithers (2005 p.1) has suggested that although the
Government had hailed the rate of 55.7 per cent A - C GCSEs, the pass rates for English
and Mathematics had actually fallen. The Government has signalled its intention, that in
the future, these two subjects will be included in 'the five'. The LSC had suggested that
reforming the provision of education and training for 14 - 19 year-olds would require
influence at the option stage at the end of KS3 (Nash 2003 p.2); by the end of 2005 89 per
cent of 16 - 18 year olds were in some form of education, employment or training (LSC
2006 p.2).
184
Another influencing factor is that of the design of option booklets; pupils may be given
free choice to select from one list of subjects or, as in most schools in this survey, pupils
were asked to select one subject from each 'block' where selections of subjects had been
grouped together. This latter approach may be seen as restrictive and perhaps forcing
pupils into a situation where they are unable to exercise their 'real' preferences. After
Stage 2 at School 4, pupils who opted for History were interviewed: they suggested that
from the subject teachers' perspectives the following occurred
Andy: more GCSE passes made them (subject teachers) look good
Ian: they tried to make you do it (their subject)
Sally: they discouraged the deadlegs (sic)
Perhaps not typical, one School 8 parent recalled the experience of 'Option Evening' at
her son's school:
We went to see everybody that night, all the teachers, and every one told
us that Ashley - and Ashley's not the brightest (sic) - would pass GCSE now I know the differences between passes and none of those teachers
would commit themselves.
Asked why they had chosen History, the following responses indicate the some of the
difficulties faced by the Y9 pupils at different schools who had completed Stage 2:
Usman: there's no guarantee you'll be good at it
Carly: if it doesn't fit on the timetable you might not get it
Emma: it's (GCSE) two years off
The pupil: development
Stables (1997 p.199) has suggested caution should be exercised when offering subject
options at a time when the naivety and volatility of 14 year-old pupils' aspirations might
lead to their making potentially major life choices even though they are legally children.
Blakemore and Choudhury have researched the differing and non-linear rates of change
between boys and girls (2005 pp.9-10) during puberty. Advice to parents from the Royal
College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) (2004 p.2) acknowledged that during adolescence
185
there will be the instances of moodiness, restlessness and the need for reassurance as
teenagers begin to move from a family-orientated to a social-peer group experience,
partly during KS3. These changes occur at a time when pupils are asked to consider the
initial steps towards potential career paths when inconsistent advice from parents,
teachers, siblings or peers may lead to additional stress (Blenkinsop et al 2005 p.5). The
implications of decisions made at this stage may not be clearly understood by the pupils
(Munro and Elsom 2000 p.149).
Social and gender issues may also be contributing factors. The impact of family
background, a combination of social class, economic and what van de Werfhorst (2003
p.41) termed 'cultural' capital, could exert an influence on the pupil's decision making
progress; middle-class parents were more likely to steer their children, regardless of
ability, towards Law or Medicine (p.44). Jonsson (1999 p.391) suggested that girls have a
comparative advantage in the Arts and Humanities.
Events within school
I wish to focus on a less defined area and it is not the intention here to review the relevant
research, but to note an important dimension of school life. When planning an approach
to this study reference was made to the potential difficulties of identifying 'real' human
activities. All who work in and visit schools will be aware of the interacting dynamics;
levels of pupils' behaviour, interest, motivation, application and attainment are seldom
totally constant. To some extent, one might observe similar variations among teachers.
The ten schools were visited on numerous occasions for surveys, interview and informal
classroom observation. Professionally, one must acknowledge the commitment of
teachers to teach, encourage and support all pupils. Equally, one must accept that the
pupils are not static units to be plied with information; their levels of motivation and
186
interest change, sometimes from subject to subject, teacher to teacher and day to day. In
some cases schools serve socially and economically deprived local areas with high
numbers of pupils receiving FSMs and there may at times, be difficulties in recruiting and
maintaining staff at 'challenging' schools. At such schools, a DfES (2005) survey
conducted by Price Waterhouse Cooper, revealed that Additional Educational Needs
(AED) could be identified by reference to the percentages of pupils with EAL, identified
SEN, receiving in-class support and coming from homes where the effects of domestic
and community circumstances led to increased emotional, economic and physical stress.
The Ofsted Report for one such school in this study (School 1), summed up a
combination of difficult circumstances which management were 'unable to prevent or
correct' (Ofsted School 1-p.8):
a high turnover of staff
high rates of staff absence due to illness
poor behaviour of pupils
increased stress among teachers
It was not unusual for up to 20 per cent of staff to leave annually. Invariably, most were
replaced by relatively inexperienced or supply teachers. In 2001 for example, four
permanent and ten supply teachers in School 1replaced 14 staff who had left. It would be
unjust to attribute a school's problems to newcomers, but Ofsted reported that some
GCSE History pupils were taught by non-specialist supply teachers in classes where there
was insufficient support for SEN pupils, contributing to levels of achievement, 'wellbelow' the national average. Of 29 unsatisfactory lessons (all subjects), 19 had been
taught by supply teachers. Yet at School 2 which had more than average SEN pupils and
almost double the national rate for FSM, Ofsted found that all History teaching was at
least 'satisfactory' although not enough attention was paid to the 'particular learning styles
of gifted pupils' (Ofsted School 2- p.42); staff turnover and absence were minimal and the
Deputies kept a 'preferred list' of supply teachers, who were in great demand by other
187
schools as well. It may not be unreasonable to accept that at some schools, the
combination of factors such as local environment, intake, levels of effective school
management, staff turnover and relative experience of teachers could contribute an almost
self-fulfilling increase or lack of success and self-esteem; to a greater or lesser degree, all
schools are subject to the combined influences of these factors which may act positively
or negatively.
Ofsted reports (3, 6 and 8) for Schools 3, 6 and 8 refer to the need to adapt teaching
strategies and materials to cater for the lower attaining pupils; at School 5 it was
suggested that the higher attaining pupils were insufficiently challenged (Ofsted 5-p.44).
At School 9 which had the second lowest uptake of GCSE History, Ofsted suggested that
pupils (in History classes) were passive, lacked encouragement and on occasion 'too much
was expected' (Ofsted 9-p.63). At School 4 where more pupils than in most schools chose
GCSE History, OFSTED suggested that this was a result of teachers applying appropriate
strategies and materials for pupils with different levels of attainment (Ofsted 4-p.45).
The experience: KS3 History
Although all of the schools in this study followed the National Curriculum there was
considerable variety as to what was taught during KS3. The three British themes (1066 1500, 1500 - 1750 and 1750 - 1900) tended to have similar content in all schools but
different aspects were emphasised. For example, at School 8, for four weeks Henry ll was
used as a backdrop to aspects of affirming royal authority, new coinage, the conflict
between Church and State, the death of à Beckett and Strongbow in Ireland; at School 2
'Beckett and Henry' (sic) was a research task for pupils during a three week taught unit
dealing with feudal agriculture and village life. There are very many such individual
interpretations of KS3 Study Units. Units dealing with European History pre-1914, World
188
History pre-1900 and World History post-1900 also reflected differences of choice and
emphasis; 'The rise of Islam', 'Black peoples of the Americas' and 'The Mughal empire'
are some examples of schools' schemes for pre-1900 World History.
The general pattern of distribution of Study Units in KS3 was similar although, as stated,
emphasis was varied perhaps reflecting the interests and expertise within each History
Department. Y7 tended to cover 'Britain 1066 - 1500', Y8, 'Britain 1500 - 1750' and, in
most cases, 'Britain 1750 - 1900'. Also, in all the schools pre-1914 European and the pre1900 World Studies were covered in Y7 or Y8. Only at Schools 4 and 10 was the unit
'Britain 1750 - 1900' delivered during the first half of Y9. It is clear that schools are
devoting the majority of Y9 to the delivery of post-1900 World History emphasising two
World Wars, the Holocaust and the Cold War. Suggestions from the DfES (see App. E-3)
are much wider ranging and include, for example, America in the 1920s and 30s,
developments in communications, science or technology and the extension of franchise.
Some schools do include similar short study units. Teachers at all ten schools have stated
that, increasingly, they are inclined towards using Y9 as preparation for the GCSE course
even though more than half of the pupils will not opt for History. Comments from some
pupils, interviewed towards the end of their Y9 hint at differing reactions:
Emma: We did women getting the vote - that was good. (pause)The bit about the
Duke being shot was good but the war (WWl) was boring.
Farana: It's (Y9) all wars - it's not like real history (prompt for more) - like Henry
Vlll, he wore dodgy clothes and you couldn't trust him
Paula: Yeah it was good, we did the trenches and then Hitler and the Jews
Jack: It was O.K. I'm not doing History so I wasn't bothered
Overall, the consensus among pupils was that Y9 History was difficult, detailed and
lacked sufficient variety.
189
Questions:
The data listed in Chapter 4 highlights the general trends and specifies information for
each school and is intended to provide answers to these questions:
(i)
(ii)
do pupils' perceptions of History alter from Y8 to Y9?
if there are changes, are patterns, associations or conflicts established
clearly?
(iii)
do option procedures at different schools offer pupils equal degrees of
subject choice?
(iv)
can any changes in perceptions or school environments be associated with
rates of uptake for GCSE?
Question (i) Do pupils' perceptions of History alter from Y8 to Y9?
The simple answer is 'yes'.
The data in Chapter 5 indicates that there were 213 instances of change out of a possible
240 (12 factors for each of 20 groups) varying in scale from 2 to 34 per cent (see
Appendix C-7). The significance of those changes is shown below in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Chi-Square tests applied to perception factors for Y8 and Y9
Factor
Change from Y8 to Y9
Chi Square
Significance
of Change
1 Enjoyment
.008
Very significant
2 Difficulty
.020
Significant
3 Gender
.675
Not significant
4 Homework
.401
Not significant
5 More History
.001
Very significant
6 Success
.017
Very significant
7 Classwork
.356
Not significant
8 Reading & Writing
.054
Just significant
9 Adult life
.125
Not significant
10 Careers
.191
Not significant
11 Other subjects
.034
Significant
12 Other skills
.043
Significant
190
The reductions in enjoyment, feelings of success and wanting more History are all very
significant, indicating definite shifts in opinions. It may be noted that any changes in the
pupils' perceptions of 'usefulness in careers or adult life', even though they were a year
older and being made aware of 'the future', were not significant.
Question (ii)
if changes do exist, are patterns, associations or conflicts established
clearly?
If the criterion is 'clearly,' then the answer is 'no'.
The following paragraphs may illustrate the complex and sometimes unpredictable nature
of interactions among personal perceptions, the school environment and GCSE options.
(a) Pupils at School 1 provided the greatest number of shifts in perceptions (9 out
of 12) where boys and girls were in agreement and the widest range of mean score
changes ( boys - 32 per cent and girls - 34 per cent for decreasing enjoyment).
This school also had the smallest percentage (11.1 per cent) of pupils opting for
GCSE. Ironically, their responses to factor 2 (Ease - Difficulty) scarcely changed;
their lack of enjoyment did not seem to stem from History being too difficult, but
they did indicate increased homework demands in Y9. Reference to the school
profile shows that 37 per cent of pupils received free school meals (FSM), the
highest in the sample, and it may be tempting to attribute that fact as a major
contributor (Milliband 2003, DfES 2003, McCallum and Sumner 2005) to the
apparent lack of pupils' interest or aspirations. But along with School 1, Schools 2,
3 and 5 all have rates of FSM of at least double the national average of 14.5 per
cent and whilst the uptake of History GCSE at School 1 was 11per cent, the
figures at those other schools were 26, 21 and 30 per cent respectively. The
191
percentage of pupils at School 1 with SEN is 50 per cent above the national
average but at School 3 the figure is almost 75 per cent above and does not seem
to have been a factor when comparing 5 GCSE A - C data: School 1 (18 per cent)
and School 3 (28 per cent).
(b) The lack of uniform associations shown so far would seem to indicate that the
socio-economic status of the pupils (FSM), the numbers of SENs have not had any
direct influence on pupils' decision to choose or reject History. Anecdotally the
rates of permanent exclusions are sometimes used as a vague indicator of how
schools are managing pupils: School 2 had a rate which was three times the
national average yet attracted more GCSE history options than three other schools
whose rates were below half that average.
(c) School 1 and School 9 had the lowest uptakes of GCSE History, 11 per cent
and 14 per cent yet surprisingly these two schools are almost at opposite ends of
the scales for 5 A - C passes, number of SENs, permanent exclusions and FSMs.
For History, responses from boys and girls at both schools did demonstrate
patterns of increasing dislike, greater difficulty, more work, less success and less
awareness of literacy skills.
Although many pupils referred to the increased demands of reading and writing in
Y9, the fact that they 'perceived' it as less important may be a result of their own
increasing proficiency.
At the schools which had the highest uptakes of 47 per cent, pupils differed in
their perceptions; at School 10, pupils expressed less enjoyment, more difficulty
and less success whilst at School 4, pupils cited increased enjoyment, more
192
homework, greater success and more emphasis on literacy skills. School 4 had
four times more SEN pupils, 11 times more with FSM and less than a third of
School 10's 5 A - C GCSE passes. In the option booklets, School 4's pupils had
only one opportunity to choose History, while at School 10 pupils had three.
Interestingly, School 4 was the only school where boy and girls demonstrated
increased enjoyment in Y9 even though their mean scores still remained below of
'3'.
(d) The interpretation of pupils' perceived workloads is less clear. At only three
schools did boys and girls agree about there being more homework and classwork
in Y9. Three schools agreed that there was less homework. The distribution of
responses of perceived levels of work appears not to follow any patterns at the
remaining schools.
(e)
Changes in pupils' perceptions of History having a 'gender bias' were small
except at School 9 where pupils of both sexes felt, in Y9, that the subject was
preferred by girls. This is difficult to explain; the school has 13 per cent EAL
pupils and support teachers assist in classes. The teacher assigned to the pupils in
the surveyed classes was bilingual, an Historian and sought, with professionalism,
skill and enthusiasm to promote positive self-perceptions among her female pupils
and did appear to be successful. Discussions with the teachers afterwards when the
shifts in scores were apparent did not reveal any explanation; indeed the staff
referred back to records to see if a particular part of the course might have implied
a gender bias. At Stage 1 of the option survey, three boys and two girls 'opted' but
at Stage 2 two of the boys did not.
193
Question (iii) do option procedures at different schools offer pupils equal degrees of
subject choice?
The answer is 'no'.
Whilst one must appreciate that option booklets presented what was available in terms of
the staffing and resources available, there is wide variation in what is offered, how it is
offered and how many options are offered (see Table 6.2 below).
Table 6.2: The numbers of opportunities at each school to opt for GCSE History
School
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number of options
2
4
3
4
2
3
4
3
4
4
Reserve option available
Number of opportunities to
YES NO NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
choose History from blocks
All the schools did include the 'caveat' that every effort would be made to accommodate
pupils' choices.
During preliminary interviews at the schools, staff made it clear that options were
reviewed annually. For an illustration of how one expanding school adapted the choices
available and the format of the subject blocks over a three-year period, from a total of 20
subjects in four blocks to 27 subjects in three blocks, see appendix D-3.
Question (iv) can any aspects of schools' environments or changes in pupils' perceptions
be associated with rates of uptake for GCSE History?
The answer is 'yes'.
At all ten schools, History pupils received between 75 and 105 minutes weekly; all Heads
of Department and full time members were graduates. Part-time Department members, in
all but one school, had some third-level training in History. It was difficult to compare
194
financing arrangements as all school had their own 'formula' for the allocating of funds,
but overall, the situations seemed equitable although Ofsted reported that at School 1,
funding for the Humanities had been halved (Ofsted-1 p.60 para 148). Resources were
similar, with supplies of relevant texts, in-house printed materials and access to electronic
presentations, interactive whiteboards and IT. As this was a relatively small sample, some
degree of generalisation may be necessary. Firstly, aspects such as FSM, SEN, EAL and
exclusions do not appear to have exercised any direct influence on the percentages of
pupils opting for History. It may be that any one of these, or any combination may
contribute to the overall performances in schools and so affect annual A - C and A - G
GCSE outcomes.
What is clear is that pupils' attitudes to History surveyed in this study did change in Y9,
generally towards a more negative standpoint. Observing Y8 classes, one is struck by the
enthusiasm and variety of responses of pupils; one must also acknowledge the sheer range
of historical themes which are available and which can be tailored and presented to suit
the teachers' interests and the pupils' needs. In some ways the current provision during Y7
and Y8 is not very different from the pre-ERA of 1988 when very many schemes of
History were delivered in very many ways. Somehow, that 'spark' does not seem to be as
active in Y9. This is not to deny that there exists some splendid and exciting teaching in
Y9 but teachers of all foundation subjects are under pressure to ensure that sufficient
numbers of pupils will choose their subject and there is the added dimension, the
aspiration, that those pupils will be able to perform well at GCSE. The 'volunteering'
teacher referred to on page122 (para. 2) summed up the situation with 'At least I know I'll
have five (pupils) with grades A or B'.
195
Although teachers of foundation subjects did seem somewhat anxious about the annual
option process, pupils appeared to be quite relaxed. Pupils' recollections of their 'options
experiences' tended to be positive, for example,
Tony: it was dead simple, just fill in the form
Fay: I was doing Geography and they let me change into History after a
week
and pupils were more likely to quote their siblings' and peers' advice and experiences,
rather than that of teachers, parents and other adults:
Asad: My sister told me it was hard, lots of work, but I ignored her
Chris: I asked (Years) 10 and 11 - they said it's hard
Debbie: They (Y10) said as long as you keep up, it's OK
Although there is tremendous variety of historical themes taught in Y7 and Y8, there is a
remarkable 'preparing-for-GCSE' uniformity across Y9 classes. Perhaps that uniformity
was what the NC was all about and somehow teachers of Y7 and Y8 managed to maintain
choices of content and pedagogy. In KS3 almost 2000 years of History are selectively
pruned and squeezed into Y7 and Y8; following this selective expediency, Y9 - one-third
of KS3 time - deals with scarcely 50 years. This is hardly the broad and balanced
curriculum as envisaged in 1988. Schools 4 and 10, with the highest uptake for GCSE
History at almost 50 per cent above the national average, did not devote all of Y9 to the
20th Century. School 4 allocated the Autumn and first half of the Spring terms to
'Industrial Revolution' themes - changes in agriculture, transport, urban development and
social conditions. The remainder of the year was allocated to WW1, the rise of Hitler, the
Holocaust and a 'profile study' of J. F. Kennedy. School 10's programme was broadly
similar but included also a unit of the 'boom and bust' of 1920-30's America and an
opportunity for pupils to compile biographies from their choice of historical characters
from their studies in Y7 and Y8 - William Wallace, à Beckett, Henry Vlll, Mary Stuart,
the Stephenson brothers and Florence Nightengale are examples.
At the other eight
196
schools, Y9 studies were based around WW1, WW2, the Holocaust and the Cold War. In
the introduction to this study it was suggested that after 'Britain 1500 - 1750' in Y8, the
socio-economic content of 'Britain 1750 - 1900' followed by the '20th Century' in Y9 led
to a decline in pupils' enthusiasm for History. Discussions with Y9 pupils who had or had
not opted for GCSE History have led me to revise that suggestion. Interviews with those
pupils revealed that their studies of the Plague, the Tudors, the Gunpowder Plot, Slavery,
Factory Children, the development of transport, the Suffragette Movement and aspects of
Local History were all enjoyed equally. Significantly, those pupils were able to discuss
aspects of such themes in some detail, while their recall of studying the First World War,
apart from trench warfare, was limited and the Second World War was summarised with
'Hitler was mad and he killed the Jews'. Perhaps teachers may revert into a less flexible
mode as they present what is in reality, an introduction to GCSE History and pupils may
not find that experience inspiring.
The late TES columnist Ted Wragg had commented that the present, the evolving,
secondary examination system 'drives the curriculum and in so doing, strangles it' (2005
p.2). The 2006 - 2007 budget of £10.4bn (up from £5.5,bn in 2001) available to the LSC
for 14 - 19 provision demonstrates Government's concern over a priority area. Funding
since 2002 (LSC 2006) has failed to attract the 11 per cent of 16 to 18 year-olds who are
not in education, employment or training (NEET). Such funding may not be entirely
altruistic; Godfrey et al. (2002) provided data for the DfES which indicated that the
lifetime 'costs to the state' for each 16 - 18 cohort exceeded £15bn and any reduction in
NEET numbers would benefit the individual, of course, and the treasury: this approach to provide education in order to protect the public purse - appears to be broadly similar to
proposals put before Parliament in 1837 (see p.37 in Chapter 3 of this study). Current
debates about the future provision of education for the 14 - 19 year-olds could provide
197
opportunities for KS3 be seen as a free-standing stage, almost as a 'lower school' which is
not part of the post-14 examination or training structures. In 2005 the then Secretary of
State for Education, Ruth Kelly, writing to Chris Banks, Chairman of the LSC, stated that
the reform of KS3 curriculum would be part of the LSC's remit (Kelly 2005). It may be
overly optimistic to presume a more independent KS3 when History may flourish, but it is
likely that the dead hand of examination bureaucracy will continue to apply Wragg's
'strangulation'. The NFER's (2006 p.3) survey of headteachers revealed that only three
per cent regarded KS3 curriculum as a main concern - a long way behind the 50 to 60+
per cents of headteachers who cited budgets, staffing and pupil behaviour as priorities.
As things are today, almost two-thirds of 14 year olds do not opt for GCSE History; if
their last formal experiences of the subject is a constricted overview of modern, mostly
European, 20th Century political and military History which overshadows centuries of
change, development and individuals, then it is possible to argue that we do a disservice
to education generally, and to our pupils in particular.
During this study, I observed that the vast majority of pupils had approached the GCSE
option choice processes calmly and without undue stress (see p.185***). The HA
suggests that the '...option ritual is a time of great anxiety for all (History) teachers...' and
that the '...spectre of low uptake and potential over-staffing...' was a real threat (HA 2005
TP:p.1). Such anxieties may have the effect prompting such teachers to greater efforts to
'promote' the subject.
198
199
BIBLIOGRAPHY
200
ACTA (2000) Historical Literacy in the 21st Century. 21.02.2000 available at www.goacta.org/
publications/ reports/acta_american_memory.pdf accessed 7th March 2003
Addnett N, Coe R, Davies P, Hutton D and Telhaj S. (2003) Investigating the possible benefits of
greater choice within secondary schools. Newcastle: BERA
Adey K and Biddulph M. (2001) Pupil perceptions of effective teaching and subject relevance in
history and geography at Key Stage 3. Research in Education. Vol 71 No 1
pp.1 -8
Aldrich R. (1988) National Curriculum: an historical perspective; in Lawton D. and Chitty C.
(eds.) (1988) The National Curriculum. Institute of Education, University of
London: Bedford Way Papers no.33 pp.21-33
Aldrich R. (ed.) (1991) History in the National Curriculum. Institute of Education, University of
London: Kogan Page
Allen M. (2005) Himmler's secret war: The covert peace negotiations. London: Robson Books
Allen-Mills T. (2005) School of human mischief. The Sunday Times. Review. 20th November p.3
Andrews H. (2005) Assessing the Kingdom of Heaven. UCC News June-July 2005 available at
http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/jul05/kingdom.html accessed 22nd September
2005
Baker K. (1988) North of England Conference. 1st June 1988 Nottingham:
Barnes S. (2006) Some particular place to go. The Times. Books. 20th May p.10
Barone M. (2004) The National Interest. www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/
mb_040324. htm accessed 22nd April 2004
Batho G. (1986) From a test of memory to a training for life; in Price M. (ed.) (1986) The
Development of the Secondary Curriculum. London: Croom Helm pp.214-243
BBC News (2002) Leaked report damns exam system. 14th June p.1 available at http://www.news.
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2044799.stm accessed 20th July 2002
BDA (2006) Square Eyes Survey. London: BDA
Beams N. (2004) What is at stake in Australia's "History Wars". Part 1: Competing political
agendas. available at hhtp:/www.wswb.org/articles/2004/jul2004/hiw1j12_prn.shtml accessed 18th October 2004
Beattie (1987) History in Peril, may parents preserve it. London: CPS
Beeston R. (2004) Is the war over? 31.10.2004 London: Times Online at
http//www.timesonline.co.uk/ article/0,,3-1320338,00.html accessed 3rd
November 2002
Bell F. (2001) Patterns of subject uptake and examination entry. Education Studies Vol.27 No.2
pp.201-219
Benn C. and Simon B. 1970 Halfway there. London: McGraw-Hill
BERA (2004) Revised ethical guidelines for educational research (2004). Southwell: BERA
Bernstein B. (1970) Education cannot compensate for society. New Society, no.XXX pp. 344-347
Bernstein B. (1971) Class, codes and control.Vol.1 London: Routledge and Keegan Paul
201
Biddulph M. and Adey K. (2003) Perceptions v reality: pupils' experiences of learning history and
Geography at KS4. The Curriculum Journal Vol.14 No.3 Autumn pp.291 - 303
Blackburne L. (1994) Ministry to tighten GCSE marking. Times Educational Supplement. 4th
November p.2
Blair A. (2006) Rough guide to British history. The Times. 29th April p.3
Blair T. (1997) Annual Labour Party Conference. Brighton. September
Blakemore S. and Choudhury S. (2005) Development of the adolescent brain: implications for
executive function and social cognition. University College London. Interim
paper supplied by Blakemore S. to [email protected] 11th October
2005
Bleach K. (1997) Research Focus. Times Educational Supplement. 14th February p.21
Blenkinsop S, McCrone T, Morris M. and Wade P. (2005) How do young people make choices at
age and age 16? Slough: NFER
BoE (1923) The teaching of history. London: HMSO
BoE (1927) Handbook of suggestions for the consideration of teachers and others concerned in
the work of public elementary schools. London: HMSO
Booth M. & Husbands C. (1993) The history national curriculum in England and Wales. The
Curriculum Journal Vol. 4. pp.21-36
Booth A. and Hyland P. (eds.) (1996) History in Higher Education. Oxford: Blackwell
Bourne H.E. (1902) The teaching of history and civics in the elementary and in the secondary
school. New York: Green & Co.
Bowcott O. (2006) Ulster grammar school survival tied to renewal of devolution. guardian online
13th June Available at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/0,,1796289,00.htm. accessed 11th
October 2006
Bramall S. (2000) Opening up openmindedness. Educational Theory Vol.50. no.2 pp201-212
Broadbent R. (2006) Hooligans hit by firm control. Timesonline 22nd March p.1 available at
http:// timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27-1976180,00.html accessed 23 rd March
2006-03-26
Brown C.A. (2001) Can legislation reduce gender differences in GCSE and A-level entries
between 1970 and 1995? Educational Studies. Vol27 No2 pp. 179-186
Brown G. (2006) Britishness. Speech delivered at the Fabian New Year Conference 14th January
London
Brown R. (1995) Editorial. Teaching History. No. 94 January 1995 p.2
Brown R. (1995) Managing the learning of history. London: David Fulton
Bund J. Willis (1908) The teaching of History in Elementary Schools. Worcester: Worcestershire
Education Committee
Burleigh M. (1987) Albert Brackmann and the Nazi adjustment of History. History Today. March
1987 pp.42-46
202
Byrne C. (1994) A rushed curriculum? The Times Educational Supplement. 16th December p.16
Callaghan J. (1976) Towards a national debate. Speech at Ruskin College Oxford 18th October.
Education Vol. 148 No. 17 pp.332 - 333
Callcot M. (1835) Little Arthur's History of England. London: Murray
Carr E.J. (1961) What is History? London: Penguin
Carr W. (1998)The curriculum for a democratic society. Curriculum Studies Vol. 6 No.3 pp.323340
Cassidy S. (1999) Methodists warn of politicised citizenship. The Times Educational Supplement.
11th June p.2
Cavill P. (1999) History Page. available at http://www.cavillconnections/co.uk/ouradour.htm
accessed 10th January 2002
Chancellor V. (1970) History for their masters: opinion in the English history textbook 1800 1914. Bath: Adams and Dart
Chittenden M. and Ngata M. (2002) English raiders plunder Danes. The Sunday Times 16th June
p.1
Chuter Ede J. (1944) Hansard. House of Commons. Vol 396 col.1497 (20th January 1944)
Clare J. and Lightfoot L. (2002) Exams watchdog sacked. Daily Telegraph 28th September
available at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml/news/2002/09/28/xnam28.x
ml accessed 19th November 2002
Coe R. (2006) Relative difficulties of examinations at GCSE: an application of the Rasch model.
University of Durham: Curriculum, Evaluation and Management(CEM) Centre
Cole M. (2004) FSM query. email from [email protected] to pmcmahon5050
@netscape.net 13th January
Colley A. and Comber C. (2003) School subject preferences: age and gender differences revisited.
Educational Studies. Vol.29 No.1 pp.59-67
Collicott S. (1990) Who is the National Curriculum for? Teaching History October 1990: pp.8-12
Collingwood R. G. (1930) The Philosophy of History. London: The Historical Association
Collingwood R. G. (1965) Essays in the philosophy of history. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Collinson P. (2004) Foreward; in Jones E. (2004) John Lingard and the pursuit of historical truth.
Bournemouth: Sussex Academic Press
Coltham J. and Fines J. (1971) Educational objectives for the study of History and a suggested
framework. London: Historical Association
Connell-Smith G. and Lloyd H.A. (1972) The relevance of history. London: Heinemann
Cook A. (2001) Letter from America. BBC Radio 4 16th September 0845-0900hrs
Cook A. (2002) Letter from America. BBC Radio 4 10th February 0845-0900hrs
Coonan C. (2005) Anti-Japan riots spread in China. The Sunday Times. 17th April p.22
Counsell C. (1999) Teaching History. History Today (1999) 11th January pp. 1-7
203
Coward B. (2006) Rough guide to British History. The Times 29th April p.3
CRE (1999) A sinister change of purpose. Newsletter Summer Vol. 13 No.2
Crick B. (1998) Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. London:
QCA
Cukaj F. (2005) The War in Iraq. The Business Globe. New York: Globe Institute of Technology
15th December p.2
Culpin C. (2002) GCSE History. Fast Forward. pp.15-17 London: The Historical Association
Curtis P. (2002) A catalogue of errors. 31st May 2002: available at
http://education.guardian.co.uk/ schools/story/0,,725626,00.html accessed 9th
June 2004
Curtis S. and Boultwood M. (1960) History of English education since 1800. (4th edition) Foxton:
University Tutorial Press
Dawson I. (1995) The re-appearance of the Cheshire Cat. Teaching History. June no. 80 pp.14-17
Dearing R. (1993) The national curriculum and its assessment. London: SEAC
Defoe D. (1726) The instability of human glory; in Peacock W. (1918) Selected English essays.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Dekkers H. (1996) Determinants of subject-related choice. A longitudinal study in secondary
education. Educational research and evaluation Vol2 No2 pp.185-209
DES (1977) Education in schools: a consultative document. London:HMSO
DES (1987) The National Curriculum 5 - 16: a consultation document. London: DES
DES (1989) The national curriculum History working group: interim report. London:HMSO
DES (1990) The national curriculum working group: Final report. London:HMSO
DES-a (1991) History in the national curriculum. London: HMSO
DES-b (1991) History: non-statutory guidance. London: HMSO
DES (1993) Teaching history at key stage 3. London: HMSO
DfE (1995) History in the national curriculum. London: HMSO
DfEa (1995) GCSE to GCE A/AS Value Added: Briefing for schools and colleges. London: DFEE
DfES (1999) National curriculum assessment of 7, 11 and 14 year-olds by local education
authorities. London: HMSO
DfES (2000 - 2002) Statistics tables 9b, 18a, 21, 34, 41, 43a, 47b and 50 supplied by Kuganathan
C.
DfES (2003) Preparing for change. London: HMSO
DfES (2004) 5 year strategy for children and learners. London: HMSO
DfES (2005) A study of Additional Educational Needs - Phase 11. London: Price Waterhouse
Cooler
204
Deuchar S. (1992) Bogus History. Campaign for Real Education. No.19 p.1
Deuchar S. (1987) History and GCSE History. London: Centre for Policy Studies
Dickens C. (1870) A Child's History of England. London: Chapman and Hall
Dickinson A. (1991) Issues of assessment in Aldrich R.(ed.) (1991) History in the National
Curriculum. Institute of Education, University of London: Kogan Page
Dore A. (1994) GNVQ alongside GCSE. Times Educational Supplement. 11th November p.4
Dunford J. (1995) A circle yet to be squared. Times Educational Supplement. 10th February p.19
Eason G. (2006) MPs question point of new schools. BBC News Online 27th January; available at
http://bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4651948.stm accessed 22nd February
Edwards F. (2005) The plot that never was and never ends. in Bradbury S. (Ed.) Folio Magazine.
Autumn pp.21-26
Elliot, B. J. (1980) An Early Failure of Curriculum Reform: History Teaching in England 19181940. Journal of Education Administration and History Vol12, No2, 39-48.
Elton G.R. (1991) Return to essentials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Elton G.R. (1969) The practice of history. London: Collins Fontana
Eriksson S-G. (2005) Eriksson appeals over war chanting. BBConline p.1 available at
http://news.bbc. co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/4516630.stm
accessed 4th January 2006-03-26
Fay L. (2005) Botany Bay Watch. The Sunday Times. Culture. 24th April p.30
Fenton B. (2005) Files on Himmler's 'murder' exposed as fake. The Daily Telegraph. 2nd July p.1
Ferguson N. (2004) Introduction; in Plumb J.H. (1969) The death of the past. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan pp.xxi - xlii
Fien J. (1997) Learning to care: a focus for values in health and environmental education. Health
Education Research Vol. 12 No.4 pp.437-447
Fines J. (1969) Recent research into the teaching of History. Teaching History. Nov 1969 Vol. 1
No2 pp.83-86
Fisher T. (2005) Passing the citizenship test. The Historian. Spring 2005 pp.40-41
Ford. (1916) History is more or less bunk: interview with C. Wheeler. The Chicago Tribune. 25th
May available
http://www.earlymodernweb.org/emm/index.php/archives/2005/08/is-historybunk/ accessed 20th October 2005
Frazer (2005) Our Island Story - a review. http://www.galorepark.co.uk/reviews/1902984749.html
accessed 11th July 2005
Freeman J. (2002) New opportunities for history . Teaching History. no.28 March 2002 pp.28-32
Gandhi M. (1947) International Relations Conference. 2nd April available at
www.gandhiserve.org/ information/listen_to_gandhi/lec_2iarc/lec_2_iarc.html
accessed 8th January 2004
Garner R. (1994) £500 mullion wasted. Daily Mirror. 10th. May p.8
205
Garner R. and Cassidy S. (2003) GCSE pass rates lowest for a decade. The Independent. 21st
August p.1
Gaunt J. (2006) Flippin' furhur furore. The Sun. 6th June p. 11
Gibbons A. (2006) Questioning haul (sic) of fame. Times Educational Supplement. 5th May p.32
Glaser B. and Strauss A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine
Godfrey C., Hutton S., Bradshaw J., Coles B., Craig G., and Johnson J. (2002) Estimating the cost
of being "not in education, employment or training at the age 16 - 18".
University of York: Social Policy Research Unit
Goodson I. (1993) 3rd Ed. School subjects and curriculum change. London: The Falmer Press
Goodson I. (1995) 2nd Ed. The making of curriculum. London: The Falmer Press
Gott R. (2003) A talent to provoke. New Statesman. 27th January p.28
Gunning S. and Gunning D. (1976) Concepts and thinking skills: teaching strategies in history and
social studies. Education 3 - 13. Vol4 part1 April pp.43-47
Jones E. (2004) John Lingard and the pursuit of historical truth. Bournemouth: Sussex Academic
Press
HA (2005) Choosing History at 14: Careers DVD. Presentations to schools. London: The
Historical Association
HA (2005) Choosing History at 14: Careers DVD. TP: Presentations to teachers. London: The
Historical Association
HA (2005) History 14-19: Curriculum Development project. London: The Historical Association
Hackett G. (2004) School choice a myth says report. available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
article/ 0,,2087-1143596,00.html accessed 22nd April 2005
Halpin T. (2006) PE stands for particularly easy at GCSE. The Times.1st April p.27
Halpin D. and Troyna B. (1994) Researching education policy; ethical and methodological issues.
London: Falmer Press
Halsey A.H. (1994) Changing schools. in Harrison B. (ed.) The history of Oxford University Vol.
Vlll. Oxford: OUP pp.51-68
Hammersley M. (1995) The politics of social research. London: Sage
Hargreaves D. (2001) QCA Annual Conference speech. London 26th June. available at www.qca/
home/annual conference 2001
Hargreaves D. (1972) Interpersonal relations and education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Harland J. and Lord H. (1996) Northern Ireland Curriculum Cohort Study. Slough: NFER
Harlow J. (2005) Christian right goes to war with Ridley's Crusaders "Kingdom of heaven". The
Sunday Times. 24th April p.25
Harris R and Foreman-Peck L. (2004) Stepping into other peoples' shoes. Teaching and assessing
empathy in the secondary school history curriculum. available at
http://www.centres. ex.ac/historyresources/journal8/HarrisForeman-Peck.doc.
accessed 2nd February 2005
206
Harrison F. (2005) From our own correspondent. BBC Radio 4. 1130-1200hrs 24th September
Harrison-Barbet A. (1990) Mastering philosophy. London: Macmillan
Hasluck E. (1920) The teaching of history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hassall W. (1967) They saw it happen 55BC - 1485. Oxford: Blackwell
Hastings M. (2004) Hacks and scholars: allies of a kind. in Cannadine D. (ed.) (2004) History and
the media. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Hastings M. (2005) Response to the QCA Report on History 2004-2005. available at
http://education forum.iphost.com/index.php?showtopic=5705. accessed 6th
December 2005
Haviland J. (ed.) (1988) Take Care Mr. Baker. London: Fourth Estate Ltd
Hay D. (1969) Editorial. Teaching History May. Vol 1 No.2 p.1
Hay D. (1997) Memories of a Calvinist childhood. in Lawrence W.G. (ed.) Roots in a northern
landscape. Edinburgh: Scottish Cultural Press
Haydn T., Hunt M. and Arthur J. (2001) Learning to Teach History in the Secondary School. (2nd
edition) London: Routledge
Haydn T. (1994) The case of history and the 45 boxes; a case study of the impact of the TGAT
testing model: The Curriculum Journal. Summer vol.5 pp.215-233
Haydn T. (2005) Pupil perceptions of history ay Key Stage 3: Final Report. October 2005.
Supplied by T. Haydn at [email protected] to [email protected]
23rd December
Haydn T. (2005) The Education Forum. available at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.
php?showtopic=3739 accessed 25th May
Haydon C. (2002) Has history a future? The Independent. 14th November p.5
Hazlitt W. (1826) On the ignorance of the learned; in Peacock W. (1918) Selected English essays.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hasluck E. (1920) The teaching of history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Heater D.B. (1960) Contemporary history justified. London: Methuen
Heater H. (1970) History and the social sciences. in Ballard M. (1970) New Developments in the
Study and Teaching of History. London: Temple-Smith pp.131-146
Hedger K. and Raleigh M. (1992) GCSE examination results: improvement of route 1. The
Curriculum Journal. Vol3. No.1 pp52-63
Hegarty S. (2003) Final word. Report. Association of Teachers and Lecturers. May. p.30
Helm T. (2005) What every pupil should know about Britain. available at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/main.jhmtl?xml=/news/2002/01/27/nhist27.xml, accessed 30th October
2005
Hill C. (1953) Suggestions on the teaching of history. Paris: UNESCO
Hirschfeld G. (1987) Erasing the past. History Today. August Vol. 37 pp.8-10
207
HMI (1985) History in the primary and secondary years. London: HMSO
Hodges L. (1996) 10 year conservative 'plot'. Times Educational Supplement. 12th January p.15
Hodgkinson H.L. (1962) Education in social and cultural perspectives. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Hofkins D. (1994) Gaps in the foundations. The Times Educational Supplement. 12th May p.2
Hoggart R. (1967) The Uses of Literacy. London: Chatto and Windus
Hoggart R. (1970) Speaking to each other: about society. London: Chatto and Windus
Holmes E. (1911) What is and what might be; a study of education in general and elementary
education in particular. London: Constable
Hughes J. and Sharrock W. (1997) The philosophy of social research. London: Longman
Hume D. (1776) (Edition 1850) History of England. London: Virtue
Humphrys J. (2002) Exams are not the measure of a child so let's ditch them. The Sunday Times.
9th June p.17
Husbands C. and Pendry A. (2000) Thinking and feeling: pupils' preconceptions about the past
and historical understanding. in Arthur J. & Phillips R. (eds.) (2000) Issues in
History Teaching. London: Routledge pp.129-143
Ince H. and Gilbert J. (1877) Outlines of English History. London: W. Kent
Irving D. (2006) Holocaust denier Irving to appeal. BBCnews p.1 21st February 2006 available at
http://www.news.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4734648.stm accessed 24th February
2006
Jackson P. (2005) Don't mention the war. BBC Radio 4. 16th July 1030-1100hrs
Jeffreys M. (1936) The teaching of history by means of ‘lines of development’. History. Vol.21,
pp230-238
Jenkins S. (2002) History is not bunk but most historians are. The Sunday Times. 5th May p.16
John D. (1993) History Tasks at Key stage 3: a survey of five schools. Teaching History. January
1993 pp17-2
Jones E. (2004) John Lingard and the pursuit of historical truth. Brighton: Sussex Academic
Press
Jones T. (1983) A survey of the option choice process in 6 11-16 high schools. University of
Lancaster: Centre for research and development.
Jones-Nerzic R. (2005) The Education Forum. available at
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index. php?showtopic=3739 accessed 29th
April - 2nd May
Jonsson J. (1999) Explaining sex differences in educational choice: an empirical assessment of a
rationale. European Sociological Review. No. 15 pp. 391-404
Judd J. and Dean C. (2001) GCSE exams take a back row. Times Educational Supplement. 15th
June p.3
Keatinge M.W. (1910) Studies in the teaching of history. London: A & C Black
Kelle U. (1995) Computer-aided qualitative data analysis. London: Sage
208
Kelly F. (2004) GCSE ranges of percentages. email from [email protected] to
pmcmahon5050 @netscape.net 7th March
Kelly R. (2005) Hansard. Col. 180 25th October. available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/
cmhansard/cm051025/debtext/51025.htm
Kelly R. (2005) Letter to Chris Banks (chairman of the LSC). 25th October
Kemp T. (2004) The making of the UK. Teaching History. September Vol.116 pp.49-51
Kent A. (1996) Comment. The Times Educational Supplement. 13th.September p.27
Kingston P. (2002) GCSE exams to take a break. available at Guardian Unlimited http://browse.
guardian.co.uk/search?search=kingston+2002+gcse&N=
Kitson A. (2004) Editorial. Teaching History. March Vol. 114 p.2
Kitson A., Kinlock N., Counsell C. and McConnell T. (2004) Editorial. Teaching History.
September Vol. 116 p.2
Kniveton, Bromley H . (2004) The influences and motivations on which students base their choice
of career. Research in Education. Nov.
Kogan M. and Packwood T. (1974) Advisory committees and councils in education. London:
Routledge
Laffin D. (1998) My essays could go on forever. Teaching History. February 2000 pp.14-20
Lang S. (2006) Today. BBC Radio 4. 29th April 0800 - 0900hrs
Larson Y., Matthews R. and Booth M. (2004) Have the Japanese anything to learn from the
British experience? Teaching History. March Vol. 114 pp.37-43
Lawson J. and Silver H. (1973) A social history of education in England. London: Methuen
Lee F.R. (2002) Making history Her Story, too. New York Times 28th July
Lee P (1991) Historical Knowledge and the National Curriculum. in Aldrich R. (ed.) (1991)
History in the National Curriculum. Institute of Education, University of
London: Kogan Page pp.39-65
Lloyd-Jones H. (1982) Blood for the ghosts: classical influences in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. London: Duckworth
Lodge R. (1914) Foreword to Levett E. (1913) 2nd Edition (1914) Europe since Napoleon 18151910. London: Blackie
Lomas T. (1993) Teaching and assessing historical Understanding. London: The Historical
Association
LSC (2006) Record numbers of 16-18 year olds in training. available at http://www.lsc.gov. uk/
National/Media/PressReleases/pr366_sfr-16-18-participation.htm accessed 8th
May 2006
Macaulay Lord (1857) Oliver Goldsmith; in Peacock W. (1918) (ed.) Selected English essays.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Macintyre S. (2004) The history wars. 2nd Ed. Carlton: Melbourne University Press
209
MacLeod D. (1992) National Curriculum: thoughts. The Independent. 30th December p.1
Malvern J. (2006) Hollywood shines light on geezers who killed à Beckett. The Times. 10th June
p.12
Mann J. (1985) Who killed the Schools Council? in Plaskow M. (1985) (ed.) Life and death of the
Schools Council. London: Falmer Press pp.179-193
Mansell W. (2006) Drama and P.E. are soft options. Times Educational Supplement 31st March.
available at http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story_id=2216293 accessed 4th April
2006
Marrin M. (1998) The teachers' plot to make our children into failures. The Daily Telegraph. 17th
December p.10
Marsden G. (2005) Only Connect. The Fabian Review. Vol.117 No. x pp.24-25
Marsden J. (1989) The illustrated Bede. London: Macmillan
Marsden W. (1986) The RGS and Geography in Secondary Education. in Price M. (ed.) (1986)
The development of the secondary curriculum.London: Croom Helm pp.182213
Marten C.H.K. (1938) On the teaching of history. in Price M. (ed.) (1986) The development of the
secondary curriculum. London: Croom Helm
Marx K. (1906) Capital: a critique of political economy. Vol 1: The process of capital production.
Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company
Mason J. (1996) Qualitative researching. London: Sage
McCourt F. (2005) Teacher Man. London: Fourth Estate
McGavin D. (1998) Going down in History. The Times educational Supplement: editorial . 20th
February p.14
McGovern C. (1994) The history curriculum is bunk. The Times. 7th. May p.16
McKie D. (2005) Making up History. available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/
0,,1601498,00.html accessed 4th November
McMahon P. (1990-95) Unpublished: History working party, Rochdale
Medley R. and White C. (1992) Assessing the national curriculum: The Curriculum Journal
Vol.3 pp65-81
Miliband D. (2003) House of Commons Written Answers: Column 414W. 30th April. available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200303/cmhansard/vo30430w12.
htm
Miliband D. (2003) Don't believe the NUT testing myths. The Times Educational Supplement.
14th November p.19
Mill J.S. (1867) Inaugural address at St. Andrews. St. Andrews: University Library
Ministry of Education (1952) Teaching History. Pamphlet no.23 London HMSO
Montefiore S. (2005) The greatest monster. The Sunday Times: Culture 29th May p.37
210
Moor H. and Lord P. (2005) How do pupils experience the curriculum? NFER 58th Annual
Report. Slough: NFER pp.20-21
Morris E. (2002) Education not delivering. BBC Ceefax 23rd June pp. 113-114
Morrison K. (1993) Planning and accomplishing school-centred evaluation. Dereham: Peter
Francis
Mortimer I. (2006) Englishness is more about Crécy than a cup of tea. The Guardian. 9th March
p.32
Mortimer J. (2005) Let the teacher teach. The Sunday Times: Review 13th October p.10
Mortimore P. (1999) Comprehensive schools: examining the evidence. available at
http://www.casenet. org.uk/mortimore.htm accessed 16th July 2003
Mountford P. and Price I. (2004) Thinking skills, assessment for learning and literacy strategies in
teaching history. Teacher Development. Vol.8 No 2 and 3 pp.233-240
Munro M. and Elsom D. (2000) Choosing science at 16. in Physics Education. No.3 News P.149
Musgrove F. (1979) Schools and social order. London: Wiley
Nachmias D. and Nachmias C. (1976) Research methods in the social sciences. London: Arnold
Nash I (ed.) (2003) Learning reforms: focus on skills - 14. The Times Educational Supplement .
28th March
Neale G. (2005) Essay No.2 The New Statesman. pp.1-3 19th December. available at http://www.
newstatesman.com/200512190017 accessed 3rd January 2006-01-17
NCC (1991) Interim report to the Secretary of State on cross-curricular issues. NC2/10
London:HMSO
NFER (2006) The 'key stage 3 dip' - does it exist? Available at
www.inca.org.uk/pdf/Final_Dip_Report
NFER (2006) Annual survey of trends in secondary education. Digest no. 1: Survey of 2005.
Slough: NFER
Nightengale B. (2005) Guy Fawkes ignites the imagination. The Times. 1st October p.37
OFSTED (1994) History: a review of inspection findings. London: HMSO
OFSTED (2003) National curriculum citizenship: planning and implementation. London: HMSO
Oldham Education Department (1994-5) Planning and delivering history in the national
curriculum. Oldham: Oldham MBC
Oliver P. (2004) Writing your thesis. London: Sage
OUA (1996) Oxford and Cambridge Examinations. available at
oua.ox.ac.uk/holdings/Oxford%20 &%20Cambridge%20OC.pdf
Overlack P. (2004) German assessment of British and Australian relations 1901-1914. Australian
Journal of Politics and History. Vol. 50 No. 2 June pp.194 - 210
Parry V. (2005) Caution: mind under construction. The Times: Body and Soul. 5th November
pp.4-5.
211
Patterson D.H. (1994) Introducing and assessing national curriculum history at KS3. The
Curriculum Journal Vol.5 pp195-213
Perry T. (2005) Crusade movie strikes chord in Arab world. 09.05.05. Cairo: Reuters available at
http://
go.reuters.com/newsroomGBU.jhtml;jsessionid=AZLY2OJ1RLLCKCRBA
EKSFFA accessed 11th October
Phillips R. (1991) National curriculum history and teacher autonomy: a major challenge. in
Teaching History. October pp. 21-24
Phillips R. (1993) Teachers' perceptions of the first year's implementation of Key Stage 3 history
in the National Curriculum in England. Research Papers in Education Vol. 8
No. 3 pp.329-352
Pickering M. (1997) History, Experience and Cultural Studies. Basingstoke:Macmillan Press Ltd.
Plant D. (2001) British Civil Wars. available at http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/164952-cromwell-ireland.htm#drogheda: accessed 10th January 2002
Plaskow M. (1985) (ed.) Life and death of the Schools Council. London: Falmer Press
Plomin J. (2001) Woodhead gives up public affairs. available at http://education.guardian.co.uk/
schools/story/0,5500,503370,00.html accessed 29th March 2002
Pollard M. (1970) Education today and how it works. London: New English Library
Pratchett T. (1987) Mort. London: Corgi
Pratt V. (1978) The philosophy of the social sciences. London: Methuen
Pratt J. Bloomfield J. and Seale C. (1984) Option choice: a question of equal opportunity.
Windsor: NFER-Nelson
Punch Mr. (1879) A pleasant prospect. Punch Magazine. Vol. lxxvi (76) 29th March pp.136-137
Pyke N. (1996) Historians want to curb growth of GCSE rival. Times Educational Supplement.
30th August p.4
QCA (2004) Home website.
http://www.qca.org.uk/history/innovating/key3/wider_curriculum/citizenship.ht
m
QCA (2005) National Qualifications Framework. email from [email protected] 20th March 2006 to
[email protected]
Rafferty F. (1994) Full marks. The Times Educational Supplement. 11th November p.7
RCPsych (2004) Surviving adolescence - a toolkit for parents. London: RCPsych
Richardson B. (2005) Christian science monitor. available at
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0418/ p07s02-woap.html accessed 19th
August 2005
Richardson D. (2005) The Education Forum. available at
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index. php?showtopic=3739 accessed 29th
April
212
Ripperton L. (2005) The Baldwin Project. p.1 available at http://www.mainlesson.com p.1
accessed 22nd August 2004
Roberts A. (2005) Buffalo Bill versus Oliver Cromwell. The Times: Review. 16th April p.7
Robinson J. (2001) Top GCSE grades a fix. BBC News available at http://newsbbc.co.uk/1/hi/
education/1505761.stm
Robson C. (2002) Real world research, 2nd. edition Oxford: Blackwell
Roots I. (1989) (ed.) Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. London: Everyman
Rowan P. (2000) Stake your claim in slice of history. The Times Educational Supplement. 21st
April p.15
Rowlinson W. (1986) Modern languages: the retreat from reform; in Price M. (ed.) (1986) The
development of the secondary curriculum. London: Croom Helm pp.77-102
Rubinstein D. and Simon B. (1972) The evolution of the comprehensive school: 1926 - 1972.
London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul
Rudduck J. and Flutter J. (2004) Consulting young people in schools. Swindon: ESRC
Runciman J. (1887) Schools and scholars. London: Chatto and Windus
Ryall J. and Levine M. (2005) Germ warfare victims raise China's fury. The Sunday Times. 24th
April p.25
Ryrie A., Furst A. and Lauder M. (1979) Choices and chances. London: Hodder and Staughton
Sanger J. (1996) The Compleat Observer. London: Falmer Press
Santayna G. (1916) A life of reason. Book 1 - Reason and common sense. Chapter 2 para. 18.
SCAA (1994) Examining GCSE History: scrutiny London: HMSO
SCAA (1996) History:optional tests and tasks. London: HMSO
SCAA (1997) Assessment arrangements: non-core subjects. London: HMSO
Seixas P. (1994) Adolescents viewing history through film. American Journal of Education
Vol.102 May
Shand J. (1993) Philosophy and philosophers. Cambridge: UCL Press
Shemilt D. (1984) Beauty and the philosopher: empathy in History and Classroom. in Dickinson
A., Lee A. and Rogers P. (eds.) Learning History. London: Heinemann pp.5054
Shepherd G. (2006) Today. BBC Radio 4. 21st January 0830 - 0900hrs.
Siann G, Lightbody P, Nicholson S, Tait L. and Walsh D. (!998) talking about subject choice at
secondary school and career aspirations: conversations with students of
Chinese background. British journal of Guidance and Counselling. Vol26 No2
pp.195-220
Simkin J. (2005) The Education Forum. available at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.
php?showtopic=3739 accessed 29th April 2nd May
213
Simon B. (1981) Why no pedagogy in England? in Simon B. and Taylor W. (1981) Education in
the eighties: the central issues. London: Batsford Academic and Educational
Ltd. pp.124-145
Simon H. (1988) Teachers professionalism and the national curriculum; in Lawton D. and Chitty
C. (eds.) (1988) The National Curriculum. Institute of Education, University
of London: Bedford Way Papers No.33 pp.78-90
Slaney R. A. (1837) The state of education of the poorer classes in large towns. London J.
Hatchard & Son Reprinted: (1971) Manchester: E. Morten
Slater E. (1827) 4th Edition Sententae chronologicae. London: Wallis
Slater J. (1989) The politics of history teaching London: Institute of Education, University of
London:
Slater John (1991) History in the National Curriculum; the Final Report of the History Working
Group. in Aldrich R. (ed.) (1991) History in the NationalCurriculum. Institute
of Education, University of London: Kogan Page pp.8-38
Smith A. (2005) Starkey's blinkered view of History. The Times Educational Supplement. 4th
March p.26
Smithers R. (2005) League table row takes shine off GCSE achievement. available at
http://education. guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1597467,00.html 21st
October accessed 13th February 2006
ST (2002) Editorial. Sunday Times. 13th October p.18
Stables A. (1996) Subject choice: the process and management of pupil and student choices.
London: Cassell
Stables A. and Stables S. (1995) Gender differences in students' approaches to A-level subject
shoices and perceptions of A-level subjects: a study of first year A-level
students in a tertiary college. Educational research. Spring 1995 Vol37 No1
pp.39-51
Stebbing H. (1850) The study of history; in Hume D. (1776) (1850 edition.) History of England.
London: Virtue pp.i-x
Steinbeck J. (1962) Travels with Charley in search of America. London: Penguin
Stephens L. (2005) Government education departments. email from l.stephens @dfes.gsi.gov.uk
to pmcmahon5050 @netscape.net 11th January: see also http://www.ndad.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/AH/13/detail.html
Stephens Rev J.R. Marx Engels on Britain. New York Daily Tribune. 15th March 1853 available
at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/25.htm accessed on
11th June 2003
Strauss A. and Corbin J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Stray C. (1986) Culture or discipline? The redefinition of Classical Education; in Price M. (ed.)
(1986) The development of the secondary curriculum. London: Croom Helm
pp.10-48
Stubbs B. (2005) Data. supplied by http://www.bstubs.co.uk/gcse.htm
Stubbs B. (2006) Data. supplied by [email protected]/gcse.htm
Tate N. (1994) Target vision. The Times Educational Supplement. 2nd December p.11
214
Tate N. (1998) Comment. The Times Educational Supplement. 13th February p.2
Taylor L. (1981) The media and education; in Simon B. and Taylor W. (eds.) (1981) Education in
the eighties: the central issues. London: Batsford Academic and Educational
Ltd.pp.231-249
TGAT (1988) A report. London: DES
TH (1990) Editorial. Teaching History. 2/1990 p.2
TH (1992) Editorial. Teaching History. 3/1993 p.2
TH (1995) Editorial. Teaching History. 2/1995 p.2
Theil Dr. (2006) German police will protect fans. BBCOnline 22nd March p.1 available at
http://www. bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4835366.stm accessed 23rd March 2006-03-26
Thompson D. (2005) Don't mention the war. BBC Radio 4. 16th July 1030-1100hrs
Tillotson J. (1696) Of the education of children; in Sermons on several subjects and occasions
(1742) Vol. IIII pp.447-519 London: J & T Dormer
The Times (2006) Vorsprung durch football. Editorial 3rd. June p. 23
Tonge N. (1993) Industrialisation and society. Walton-on-Thames: Nelson
Toynbee A.J. (1948) A Study of History. London: OUP
Toynbee A.J. (1970) Widening our historical horizon; in Ballard M. (1970) New Developments in
the Study and Teaching of History. London: Temple-Smith pp.50-60
Turner D. and Baker P. (2002) Activities for teaching citizenship in schools. London: Kogan Paul
Tusa J. (2004) A deep and continuing use of history; in Cannadine D. (ed.) (2004) History and
the media. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Twigg S. (2003) House of Commons Written Answers: Column 414W. 30th April. available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200303/cmhansard/vo30430w12.
htm
Tysoe N. (1988) Education breeding: is IQ formed by hereditary or environment? The
Independent: Education. 24th November p.21
ULEAC (1994) A comparative study in GCSE History London: ULEAC
Urban M. (2005) How General Gordon span out of control. The Times. Books pp.14-15 1st
October
Urmston J. and Ree J. (1991) Encyclopaedia of Western philosophy and philosophers. London:
Routledge
van de Werfhorst H., Sullivan A. and Yi Cheung (2003) Social class, ability and choice of
subjects. British Educational Research Journal Vol. 29 No. 1 pp. 41-62
Vernon P. (1957) Secondary school selection. London Methuen
von Bernhardi F. (1914) Germany and the next war. London: Arnold (Popular Edition)
Warburton N. (1992) Philosophy: the basics. London: Routledge
215
Wardle D. (1970) English Popular Education 1780-1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Watts D.G. (1972) The learning of history. London: RK
Webb J. (2005) Dinosaurs, evangelicals and the state. From our own correspondent. BBC Radio
4. 26th November 1130-1200hrs
Welton J. (1906) Principles and methods of teaching. London: University Tutorial Press
White J. (1988) An unconstitutional national curriculum; in Lawton D. and Chitty C. (Eds.)
(1988) The National Curriculum. Institute of Education, University of London:
Bedford Way Papers No.33 pp.113-122
Whitehead J. Educational Research Summer 1996 Vol38 No2 pp.147-160
Whitty G. Rowe G and Aggleton (1994) Subjects and themes in the secondary school curriculum.
Research Papers in education. Vol 9. No.2 pp.159-181
Wilby P. (1988) A national straitjacket? The Independent. 8th December p.8
Williams N. (2005) Elizabeth I. Channel 4 24th. September 2100hrs
Williams S. (2006) Any Questions. BBC Radio4 18th January 1300-1330
Wong J. (1997) Rhetoric and educational policies on the use of history for citizenship education.
Education Policy and Analysis Archive Vol.5 No.14 June 13th.
Woodhead C. (2002) Interview with John Humphrys. Today. BBC Radio 4 10th June 0830-9000
Woodhead C. (2003) Not just the select few. The Sunday Times. 21st December p.15
Woodman M. (2005) Teaching History distribution. email from [email protected]
August to [email protected]
Woodward E.L. (1943) British Historians. London: Collins
Woodward W. (2001) New GCSE figures show governments' targets met.
http://education.guardian. co.uk/gcse2001/story/0,,602396,00.html
Woodward W. (2005) Landscape architect. guardianonline available at
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/
politicspast/story/0,,1452147,00.html#article_continue. accessed 24th May
Worts F.R. (1935) The teaching of history in schools: a new approach. London: Heinemann
Wragg T. (2002) Estelle Morris quits. The Times Educational Supplement. 25th October p.1
Wragg T. (2005) Exam board sells tips to teachers. The Times Educational Supplement. 23rd
September p.2
Wrenn A. (1999) Build it in; don't bolt it on: history's opportunity to support critical citizenship.
Teaching History No. 96 pp. 13-18
Wrigley C. (1998) Historians campaign for a better life. The Times Educational Supplement. 20th
February p.10
Wrigley J. (1983) Confessions of a curriculum man; in Plaskow M. (1985) (ed.) Life and death of
the Schools Council. London: Falmer Press pp.41-53
216
217
APPENDICES:
Contents
Schedule
219
A.
Sample: school data AND DfES data
B.
Survey sheet design
C.
Perceptions of KS3 History: Survey data
D.
GCSE options: survey data
E.
Interviews and other surveys
Schedule
220
APPENDIX:
Schedule
Year
Term
2000-01
Autumn
Informal school visits: background reading
Spring
Informal school visits: background reading
Summer
Informal school visits: background reading
Autumn
Collect data from schools: construct a sample
2001-02
Spring
2002-03
Trial and refine Survey sheets
Autumn
Confirm sample: arrange schedule for Survey
Interview teachers: option procedures
Autumn
Administer GCSE option choice - Year 9 - stage 1
Collect GCSE option choice - Year 9 - stage 2
Autumn
Informal interviews with teachers and Year 10 students
Initial review of all data
Summer
Clarification sought from schools where required
Autumn
Informal interviews with Year 11 students
Spring
221
Administer Survey - Year 9 - stage 2
Summer
Spring
2005-06
Administer Survey - Year 8 - stage 1
Summer
Spring
2004-05
Pupil interviews: design Survey sheets
Summer
Spring
2003-04
Task
Final data analysis
Appendix A: The sample
1. Initial survey-form for schools
2. Comparison of DfES data with sample data
3. Six factors used for school comparison
2
APPENDIX: A-1
3
4
5
6
APPENDIX: A-2
Comparison of national (DfES) averages (2002-2003) with
sample
FACTOR
7
National average2002/3/4
Sample average
Age
KS3
KS3
Gender
M/F
M/F
% GCSE passes A – C
50.2
49
% GCSE passes A - G
91.1
90.2
% SEN Statements
2.4
2.04
% Exclusions (perm.)
0.235
0.287
% Free school meals
15.25
16.4
% English Additional language
8.4
9.7
Average number on roll
954
990
Average class size
25
24
% Pupils in Comprehensive schools
87.9
91.7
% Pupils in Grammar schools
4.6
5.9
% School Management LEA
66
66.8
% School Management Voluntary
19
16.6
% School Management Foundation
15.
16.6
APPENDIX: A-3
Statistics for schools' sample
8
Original code
RQ
RB
DT
LM
JH
CS
LV
CR
RW
BG
School
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% 5 GCSE A-C
18
28
28
36
39
50
51
81
89
92
% 5 GCSE A-G
69
85
87
84
90
95
93
99
92
100
% SEN Stat.
3.6
2.7
4.1
3.2
2.3
2.5
1.4
0.5
0.7
0.7
% EXCL Perm.
1.1
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
% FSM
37
29
34
11
35
10
6
2
3
0
% EAL
3
49
5
1
0
3
4
0
13
1
Appendix B: Survey sheet design
1. Factors from pilot discussions with pupils
2. Factors cited by teachers
3. Pilot single-pole Likert survey
4. Final bi-pole History survey sheet
9
APPENDIX: B-1
YEAR 8 & 9 PUPILS – RANDOM CLASS SAMPLES
12 Factors employed when comparing school subjects
Emphasis on reading and written tasks
Reference to other school subjects
Amount of time available for the subject
Relevance for a job
Degree of enjoyment
Degree of difficulty
Amount of homework
Usefulness in adult life
Transferable skills
Degree of success
Amount of work in class
Perceived to have gender bias
10
APPENDIX B-2
KS3 Teachers
15 Factors suggested as influencing pupils' perceptions
Emphasis on reading and written tasks
Reference to other school subjects
Amount of time available for the subject
Relevance for a job
Degree of enjoyment
Degree of difficulty
Amount of homework
Perceived to have gender bias
Usefulness in adult life
Transferable skills
Degree of success
Amount of work in class
Personality of the teacher
Competence of the teacher
Parent perception of subject value
2
APPENDIX: B-3
Here are statements about the school subject 'French'.
'5' means you agree strongly and '1' means you disagree strongly. Please read
each statement carefully and try to decide how you feel about it by putting a circle
around the number which is closest to what you think
I enjoy French
5 4 3 2 1
French is easy
5 4 3 2 1
French is preferred by boys
5 4 3 2 1
French has lots of homework
5 4 3 2 1
I would like more French on my timetable
5 4 3 2 1
I am successful in this subject
5 4 3 2 1
I have too much work to do in class
5 4 3 2 1
Reading and writing are very important in French 5 4 3 2 1
French is important for adult life
5 4 3 2 1
French is important for a job or career
5 4 3 2 1
French includes other school subjects
5 4 3 2 1
French includes lots of useful skills
5 4 3 2 1
Class? ______
3
Boy or Girl? _______
Please leave
this box empty
Final Survey Sheet B-4
2
APPENDIX B-4:
School:
Form…………
Boy or Girl……...
Here are statements about the subject of History. Please read each statement carefully and try to decide how you feel about it.
I enjoy History
History is easy
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
I dislike History
History is difficult
History is preferred by boys
5 4 3 2 1
History is preferred by girls
History has lots of homework
5 4 3 2 1
History has very little homework
I would like more History on my timetable
5 4 3 2 1
I would like less History on my timetable
I am successful in this subject
5 4 3 2 1
I am not successful in this subject
I have too much work to do in class
5 4 3 2 1
I do not have enough work to do in class
Reading and writing are very important in History
5 4 3 2 1
Reading and writing are not very important in History
History is important for adult life
5 4 3 2 1
History is not important for adult life.
History is important for a job or career
5 4 3 2 1
History is not important for a job or career
History includes other school subjects
5 4 3 2 1
History does not include other school subjects
History includes lots of useful skills
5 4 3 2 1
History does not include lots of useful skills
2
Appendix C: Survey of pupils' perceptions
1. Raw data: Year 8
2. SPSS data Year 8
3. Raw data Year 9
4. SPSS data Year 9
5. Mean scores and standard deviations for 12 factors
6. Numbers and percentages of pupils' responses
7. Percentage shifts in mean scores of 12 factors
2
C-1. Raw data: Year 8
1.
School 1
2.
School 2
3.
School 3
4.
School 4
5.
School 5
6.
School 6
7.
School 7
8.
School 8
9.
School 9
10. School 10
3
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK MORE H SUCCESS
3
1
3
5
1
4
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
4
5
2
3
3
3
5
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
2
1
5
3
3
5
5
2
3
4
4
2
3
3
1
2
4
5
2
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
5
1
4
5
5
3
5
1
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
2
3
5
1
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
5
2
3
4
5
4
3
5
5
2
5
5
4
3
3
4
1
3
4
5
3
4
3
5
3
1
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
3
5
5
4
2
2
4
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
1
3
4
3
4
3
1
2
5
3
2
5
3
4
2
3
4
3
4
1
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
2
5
5
1
5
2
3
5
5
4
3
3
2
4
3
4
1
2
3
3
5
5
2
3
2
4
4
2
5
4
3
5
5
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
4
4
5
4
3
2
5
5
3
4
2
4
5
5
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
5
1
3
5
5
5
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
3
3
5
3
2
1
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
2
5
5
HWORK MORE H SUCCESS
CAREER SUBJECTS SKILLS
SCHOOL
1
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
20
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
5
1
3
5
2
4
4
5
3
CAREER SUBJECTS SKILLS
4
4
5
2
4
3
5
1
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
5
1
4
2
2
3
1
1
3
4
3
3
5
1
4
3
5
5
3
5
5
4
3
3
5
2
3
4
5
2
2
4
3
4
2
2
4
2
3
3
5
3
4
3
4
2
2
3
5
1
4
3
3
4
3
4
2
5
3
3
1
1
3
4
5
1
3
1
3
4
3
3
5
3
4
4
5
3
2
4
3
5
3
2
5
2
4
3
5
3
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
5
1
4
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
5
4
5
3
4
3
3
3
1
3
4
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
4
1
4
3
3
5
3
3
3
4
5
3
5
1
5
3
5
3
3
5
5
3
3
1
1
1
4
2
4
3
2
3
4
2
4
3
5
1
3
4
3
1
2
3
3
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 1
2
SCHOOL
1
YEAR
8
GENDER
F
N=
18
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H SUCCESS
4
4
3
2
3
1
5
3
3
1
4
3
3
4
1
3
3
2
4
2
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
4
3
4
3
2
4
1
4
3
3
5
1
1
1
3
4
3
4
1
5
5
5
3
1
1
3
5
1
5
3
4
3
4
3
2
1
5
5
4
4
5
3
5
5
2
3
3
4
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
4
1
1
3
5
1
1
5
5
1
1
2
4
2
4
3
4
2
3
3
1
5
3
4
2
2
4
3
4
2
3
2
4
2
1
4
4
4
3
3
5
3
5
5
1
1
1
3
5
3
3
1
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
5
3
1
4
5
4
2
3
3
2
3
5
4
2
5
3
3
2
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
3
2
1
3
4
1
2
1
3
3
4
3
3
5
3
MORE H SUCCESS
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
SCHOOL
2
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
17
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
5
3
CAREER SUBJECTS
4
3
4
2
4
3
3
2
4
3
5
4
3
2
4
4
5
3
3
5
4
3
5
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
3
5
2
4
5
5
2
4
3
4
2
2
3
3
4
3
2
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
2
3
5
5
4
4
5
2
1
5
1
4
1
3
5
5
3
3
4
3
3
5
3
4
4
5
5
3
5
5
4
3
3
3
5
4
4
4
3
2
4
5
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
5
2
5
2
5
4
4
3
4
5
4
4
5
3
2
4
4
4
2
3
4
3
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
2
3
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
4
2
3
3
5
3
1
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
4
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
5
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
2
1
3
3
4
5
3
2
3
4
3
5
4
3
5
5
4
2
3
4
3
4
3
5
3
3
5
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 2
3
SKILLS
SCHOOL
2
YEAR
8
GENDER
F
N=
22
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H SUCCESS
4
2
3
4
3
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
3
5
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
3
4
5
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
5
3
4
3
3
1
5
3
5
5
3
4
4
5
1
5
3
5
2
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
4
3
5
2
3
3
4
5
4
3
3
5
5
2
5
3
4
3
4
5
3
3
4
5
5
3
5
2
4
3
5
5
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
5
1
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
2
4
3
4
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
3
5
3
4
3
5
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
5
4
5
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
5
3
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
5
4
2
5
2
3
4
4
5
4
2
3
5
5
2
5
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
5
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
5
5
1
3
4
5
5
5
3
5
4
5
5
2
2
4
2
4
3
3
5
3
5
5
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
2
5
3
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
SCHOOL
3
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H SUCCESS
4
2
3
4
4
3
5
1
1
2
3
4
4
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
CAREER SUBJECTS
21
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
3
3
4
3
2
1
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
2
4
3
4
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
5
2
3
4
3
4
4
2
2
4
5
1
3
4
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
5
3
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
4
1
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
1
3
5
4
1
1
1
3
4
2
3
3
2
4
3
5
1
5
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
4
2
3
5
4
4
2
5
1
4
3
5
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
2
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
2
2
4
3
2
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
1
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
5
3
4
4
4
5
4
5
1
5
5
4
4
3
3
1
3
2
1
3
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
1
2
4
3
3
2
2
4
3
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
1
1
5
1
1
3
3
4
1
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
5
4
5
5
1
5
4
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
SCHOOL
3
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 3
4
SKILLS
SKILLS
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
25
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
1
3
3
5
MORE H SUCCESS
1
1
4
3
5
2
3
4
2
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
1
2
5
3
1
2
3
5
5
3
3
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
5
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
4
2
3
3
5
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
5
4
4
5
3
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
3
4
3
5
5
3
3
2
3
5
3
1
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
3
1
5
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
2
3
4
2
5
2
5
2
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
1
1
4
1
3
2
5
1
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
2
5
5
3
4
3
4
3
2
3
2
5
3
4
5
2
5
3
2
3
4
1
2
3
3
5
3
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
2
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
5
3
1
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
5
1
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
4
5
3
3
4
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
5
3
4
3
5
3
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
3
2
4
1
SCHOOL
4
MORE H SUCCESS
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
23
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
1
3
3
5
1
1
4
3
5
CAREER SUBJECTS
2
3
4
1
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
1
2
5
3
1
5
3
5
5
3
3
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
5
2
1
3
3
2
1
3
4
2
3
3
5
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
4
4
5
3
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
3
4
3
5
3
1
3
2
3
5
3
1
4
3
2
5
1
4
3
3
1
5
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
2
3
4
2
5
2
5
2
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
1
1
4
1
3
2
5
1
1
3
5
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
2
1
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
4
1
3
1
2
5
4
3
2
3
4
1
4
3
3
1
5
2
5
1
5
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
4
2
3
1
2
5
3
3
3
5
5
1
5
3
5
4
4
2
3
4
5
2
5
3
3
2
4
2
3
3
1
1
3
3
5
3
2
5
4
1
5
3
5
1
1
5
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
2
1
1
1
4
2
1
3
3
4
3
2
3
4
2
3
5
2
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 4
5
SKILLS
SCHOOL
4
YEAR
8
GENDER
F
N=
22
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
4
4
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
4
4
2
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
5
3
2
4
4
4
4
3
4
5
3
3
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
5
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
5
4
3
3
3
4
3
2
4
2
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
4
4
3
3
4
5
4
5
5
4
3
3
5
4
3
4
3
4
3
5
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
4
5
3
3
5
3
3
4
4
4
3
5
3
5
5
5
4
1
3
4
5
4
3
4
4
5
3
5
3
3
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
5
3
4
2
2
2
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
2
2
4
5
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
2
1
3
4
5
4
3
3
2
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
2
1
3
1
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
SCHOOL
5
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
19
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
4
1
1
3
3
2
3
4
2
1
3
4
4
2
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
1
4
3
3
2
4
2
1
5
3
5
2
4
5
5
4
3
5
3
1
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
3
1
4
4
5
3
1
3
4
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
1
2
1
3
2
5
5
1
4
4
4
1
3
3
1
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
3
2
4
3
4
4
5
5
2
2
3
4
4
3
5
5
4
4
5
3
3
2
4
2
3
3
5
2
5
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
4
3
4
5
4
1
3
3
3
4
4
2
4
3
4
5
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
5
3
2
4
4
2
1
4
3
1
3
4
4
4
3
1
2
5
3
4
5
3
4
3
4
5
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
1
4
3
4
4
3
4
5
3
3
4
4
5
3
4
3
5
4
3
3
5
5
4
5
5
3
5
5
SCHOOL
5
YEAR
8
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 5
6
SKILLS
GENDER
F
N=
24
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
5
4
4
1
4
5
5
4
5
4
3
5
4
2
3
4
3
4
3
1
3
4
4
3
4
2
4
2
4
3
2
3
3
5
4
3
4
3
5
3
4
4
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
3
5
4
4
5
2
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
1
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
2
3
4
2
3
5
4
4
3
5
4
3
4
5
4
4
3
5
1
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
3
4
4
5
3
5
3
3
5
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
5
3
3
4
4
5
4
3
3
5
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
2
5
4
4
2
4
5
2
3
3
5
4
2
5
2
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
4
5
3
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
3
3
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
1
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
3
2
3
5
4
3
5
4
4
5
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
5
4
1
4
4
4
5
2
4
2
4
4
5
3
4
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
SCHOOL
6
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
22
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
4
3
1
5
1
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
5
1
2
1
4
5
1
4
1
3
3
1
5
1
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
2
2
1
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
4
4
1
2
3
2
5
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
4
3
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
3
4
1
3
4
5
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
1
4
4
2
2
1
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
5
4
3
5
5
4
3
3
5
1
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
5
3
5
4
5
3
4
5
3
5
3
5
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
5
5
5
5
2
4
3
3
3
2
3
5
3
4
5
3
3
5
1
2
1
3
5
5
5
3
4
5
5
4
3
5
5
3
4
2
3
4
5
5
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
5
2
3
4
4
3
3
1
1
5
1
5
5
5
4
5
3
2
1
5
3
4
3
4
4
2
2
4
2
4
3
1
1
3
4
3
3
3
1
4
3
4
3
4
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
2
5
3
5
3
4
5
3
3
1
1
3
1
5
4
2
3
2
2
3
4
SCHOOL
6
YEAR
8
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 6
7
GENDER
F
N=
24
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK MORE H SUCCESS
3
1
3
5
1
4
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
4
5
2
3
3
3
5
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
2
1
5
3
3
5
5
2
3
4
4
2
3
3
1
2
4
5
2
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
5
1
4
5
5
3
5
1
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
2
3
5
1
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
5
2
3
4
5
4
3
5
5
2
5
5
4
3
3
4
1
3
4
5
3
4
3
5
3
1
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
3
5
5
4
2
2
4
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
1
3
4
3
4
3
1
2
5
3
2
5
3
4
2
3
4
3
4
1
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
2
5
5
1
5
2
3
5
5
4
3
3
2
4
3
4
1
2
3
3
5
5
2
3
2
4
4
2
5
4
3
5
5
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
4
4
5
4
3
2
5
5
3
4
2
4
5
5
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
5
1
3
5
5
5
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
3
3
5
3
2
1
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
2
5
5
HWORK MORE H SUCCESS
CAREER SUBJECTS SKILLS
SCHOOL
7
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
20
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
5
1
3
5
2
4
4
5
3
CAREER SUBJECTS SKILLS
4
4
5
2
4
3
5
1
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
5
1
4
2
2
3
1
1
3
4
3
3
5
1
4
3
5
5
3
5
5
4
3
3
5
2
3
4
5
2
2
4
3
4
2
2
4
2
3
3
5
3
4
3
4
2
2
3
5
1
4
3
3
4
3
4
2
5
3
3
1
1
3
4
5
1
3
1
3
4
3
3
5
3
4
4
5
3
2
4
3
5
3
2
5
2
4
3
5
3
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
5
1
4
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
5
4
5
3
4
3
3
3
1
3
4
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
4
1
4
3
3
5
3
3
3
4
5
3
5
1
5
3
5
3
3
5
5
3
3
1
1
1
4
2
4
3
2
3
4
2
4
3
5
1
3
4
3
1
2
3
3
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 7
8
SCHOOL
7
YEAR
8
GENDER
F
N=
18
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
2
2
3
5
1
3
4
5
3
3
4
5
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
5
4
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
5
4
3
3
3
5
2
3
5
4
3
3
2
3
2
1
4
5
2
3
2
5
4
3
4
1
5
5
4
5
4
4
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
2
3
4
4
4
4
5
3
4
4
5
4
5
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
1
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
4
5
2
3
3
3
2
4
4
1
4
3
5
3
3
2
1
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
5
3
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
5
3
3
4
2
4
2
3
3
2
4
3
4
1
4
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
5
5
3
4
3
5
3
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
3
5
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
2
5
5
1
4
4
4
1
3
3
1
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
2
4
3
4
4
5
SCHOOL
8
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
22
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
CAREER SUBJECTS
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
4
4
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
2
1
3
4
4
2
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
1
4
3
3
2
4
2
1
5
3
5
2
4
5
5
4
3
5
3
1
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
3
1
4
4
5
3
1
3
4
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
1
2
1
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
5
5
4
3
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
5
5
3
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
2
2
4
2
3
1
5
1
3
4
3
1
1
1
2
4
2
3
5
3
4
4
5
1
1
3
1
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
4
3
5
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
4
3
1
2
1
3
3
1
5
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
SCHOOL
8
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 8
9
SKILLS
YEAR
8
GENDER
F
N=
21
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
1
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
4
3
4
3
3
5
5
3
2
5
3
1
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
3
2
1
5
2
5
2
4
1
4
4
3
3
5
2
4
3
5
5
5
4
3
2
3
3
5
1
2
4
5
3
4
4
3
5
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
2
3
4
2
4
4
5
2
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
5
4
5
3
1
4
2
3
2
3
1
3
4
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
4
3
5
3
3
4
4
2
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
2
3
5
4
4
2
3
5
2
3
4
5
3
3
5
5
4
3
3
5
2
3
4
5
3
3
5
5
4
3
3
5
2
3
4
5
3
3
5
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
5
3
3
5
4
5
3
4
1
3
5
3
5
3
SCHOOL
9
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
22
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
2
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
2
2
4
3
4
2
2
3
5
2
1
4
2
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
2
3
3
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
2
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
2
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
1
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
5
4
3
2
5
5
2
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
2
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
3
3
5
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
2
3
SCHOOL
9
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 9
10
SKILLS
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
20
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
4
4
3
4
4
5
3
4
3
3
3
4
5
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
3
3
4
4
4
2
5
4
3
3
2
5
2
5
2
5
5
3
3
2
4
4
3
5
2
4
1
4
3
2
3
2
3
4
3
5
3
1
2
4
5
2
3
4
4
5
3
5
5
4
5
4
4
2
3
4
3
4
3
5
1
5
1
4
4
3
4
2
5
3
4
5
3
2
1
3
5
3
3
4
4
5
3
5
3
3
5
4
5
4
4
3
4
5
3
5
3
3
4
4
5
4
3
3
5
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
2
5
4
4
2
4
4
1
3
2
1
3
3
5
2
2
2
4
5
2
3
3
5
4
2
5
2
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
4
5
3
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
3
3
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
1
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
3
2
3
5
4
3
5
4
4
5
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
5
4
1
4
4
4
5
2
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
4
2
SCHOOL
10
YEAR
8
GENDER
M
N=
19
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
4
3
5
4
1
1
4
4
3
1
2
1
4
2
3
4
3
3
4
5
3
3
4
4
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
5
5
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
1
5
3
5
5
4
3
5
3
4
4
5
1
5
3
5
4
4
2
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
5
5
4
3
3
4
4
3
5
2
3
3
4
5
5
3
3
5
5
2
5
3
4
3
4
5
3
3
4
5
5
3
5
2
4
3
5
5
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
5
1
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
3
5
3
4
3
5
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
5
4
5
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
5
3
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
5
4
2
5
2
3
4
4
5
4
2
3
5
5
2
5
2
4
3
4
4
5
3
5
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
5
5
1
3
4
5
5
5
3
5
4
5
5
3
2
4
2
4
3
3
5
3
5
5
SCHOOL
10
YEAR
8
APPENDIX:: RD: 8: Sch 10
11
SKILLS
GENDER
F
N=
19
C-2. SPSS data: Year 8
1.
School 1
2.
School 2
3.
School 3
4.
School 4
5.
School 5
6.
School 6
7.
School 7
8.
School 8
9.
School 9
10. School 10
Key: 8-1 m = Year 8 - school 1 male
2
3
8-1 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Min.
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.8947 1.10024
3.6842 .88523
3.0526 1.02598
3.3158 .58239
3.7368 1.09758
4.0526 .77986
3.1053 .87526
4.3684 1.01163
2.9474 1.07877
3.4737 1.07333
3.4737 .90483
4.4737 .61178
8-1 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Min.
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.8571 .65465
3.0000 .77460
2.9524 .80475
3.2857 .71714
3.3333 .85635
4.0000 .54772
3.1905 .51177
4.6190 .58959
3.0000 1.09545
3.1905 1.12335
3.1905 1.32737
4.1905 .74960
2
8-2 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
2.7059 1.21268
3.4706 1.06757
2.8824 1.11144
3.5882 1.27764
2.1176 .85749
3.0000 1.22474
3.2941 1.15999
3.7647 1.43742
3.0588 1.63824
2.8824 1.69124
2.8824 1.40900
3.4118 1.62245
8-2 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Min.
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.3636 1.09307
3.3636 .95346
2.9545 .78542
3.4091 .95912
3.0909 1.37699
3.6818 .89370
3.0909 .68376
4.1364 .88884
3.2273 1.23179
3.1364 1.08213
3.8182 1.05272
3.9545 .95005
3
8-3 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Min.
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.5238 .60159
3.4762 .74960
2.9048 .70034
3.5714 .74642
3.8571 .96362
4.0000 .63246
3.0952 .70034
4.3810 .74001
2.5238 .92839
3.7619 .83095
3.3333 .57735
4.5238 .51177
8-3f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.0400 .97809
2.9200 .99666
2.9200 .81240
3.1600 1.21381
2.7600 .96954
3.0800 1.11505
3.1200 1.05357
3.8800 1.09240
2.3200 1.37598
2.8800 1.26886
2.6800 1.49220
2.8800 1.42361
4
8-4 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
Min.
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
2.4783 1.08165
2.8696 .69442
2.9565 .70571
3.1304 1.21746
1.8261 1.11405
2.8261 1.15413
3.2609 .81002
3.3478 1.22877
3.3913 1.15755
3.0435 1.02151
3.4348 1.23679
2.8696 1.32474
8-4 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
Max.
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
1.7273 .98473
3.0000 .92582
3.0000 .97590
2.9091 1.15095
1.6818 1.08612
3.0000 1.44749
3.2727 1.03196
3.4091 1.46902
2.7727 1.15189
3.0455 1.09010
3.6818 1.12911
3.0455 1.13294
5
8-5 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Min
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
Max
5.00
4.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.1579 .60214
3.6842 .58239
2.8947 .31530
3.6842 .74927
3.2105 1.08418
3.8421 .89834
3.6842 .58239
4.4211 .76853
3.5263 .84119
2.7368 .80568
3.0526 .70504
3.2105 .85498
8-5 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Min
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Max
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.1765 .52859
3.2353 .90342
2.8824 .60025
3.1765 .72761
3.6471 .93148
3.6471 .78591
3.1765 .39295
3.8824 .99262
3.2941 .98518
3.0588 .65865
3.3529 .93148
3.4706 .79982
6
8-6 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Min.
4.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.5455 .50965
3.5000 1.01183
3.4545 .80043
3.8182 .85280
3.3636 1.17698
3.9545 .78542
3.2273 1.02036
4.3636 .65795
3.8182 .95799
3.1364 .77432
3.2727 1.12045
4.0455 .95005
8-6 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.0417 1.12208
3.1667 1.09014
2.5833 1.13890
3.4167 1.47196
2.5000 1.50362
3.2500 .73721
3.0833 1.05981
3.7083 .99909
3.4167 1.21285
3.3750 1.13492
3.3333 1.04950
3.5833 1.28255
7
8-7 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Min.
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.0500 .88704
2.4000 .88258
2.9500 .68633
3.7000 1.12858
2.8500 1.49649
3.2500 1.20852
2.8500 1.22582
4.6000 .94032
2.8000 1.15166
2.9500 .60481
4.4500 .82558
4.1500 1.18210
8-7 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.3333 1.32842
3.1111 .90025
2.7222 .89479
4.1667 1.33945
1.7222 1.07406
3.5556 .70479
3.2778 .66911
3.8333 1.24853
3.0000 1.02899
2.6667 .84017
3.0000 1.41421
3.3889 1.03690
8
8-8-m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Min.
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.8636 1.08213
2.9545 1.09010
3.2727 .55048
3.7727 .81251
3.1364 1.20694
3.6364 .78954
3.1364 .56023
3.9545 .84387
3.0000 1.02353
3.2273 .75162
3.6818 1.17053
3.5455 1.22386
8-8-f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Min.
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.5714 .97834
2.8095 .92839
2.9524 .86465
3.4762 1.07792
2.7143 1.14642
3.4286 .97834
3.4762 .67964
3.8571 .79282
2.8095 1.24976
2.8095 1.36452
2.6667 1.11056
2.6190 1.49921
9
8-9 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Min.
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.7273 .88273
3.2273 .92231
3.1364 .35125
3.6818 1.21052
2.3182 .99457
3.4091 .79637
3.2273 1.02036
4.2727 .88273
3.4091 1.05375
3.2727 1.03196
3.8636 1.08213
3.6818 .83873
8-9 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Min.
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.6500 .67082
3.5500 .51042
3.1000 .44721
3.2000 .69585
2.8500 .74516
3.5000 .68825
3.0500 .51042
3.9000 .85224
3.1000 .71818
2.7000 .73270
3.0000 1.02598
2.9500 .60481
8-10 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Min.
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.4737 .61178
2.8947 1.14962
3.3684 .68399
3.2632 .93346
3.6842 1.24956
4.1053 .80930
3.1053 .73747
4.7895 .41885
3.1579 1.11869
3.2105 1.03166
2.9474 1.31122
3.8947 .73747
8-10 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Min.
4.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.6316 .49559
3.7368 .80568
3.0000 .88192
3.5789 .76853
3.8421 1.11869
3.8947 .93659
3.1579 .76472
4.4211 .76853
2.5789 .96124
3.6316 1.01163
3.3158 .67104
4.3684 .95513
10
APPENDIX:
C-3: Year 9: raw data
1.
School 1
2.
School 2
3.
School 3
4.
School 4
5.
School 5
6.
School 6
7.
School 7
8.
School 8
9.
School 9
10. School 10
2
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
4
3
2
4
1
2
5
1
4
4
5
2
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
2
4
3
4
4
5
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
1
4
4
5
5
4
1
3
5
5
2
5
3
2
5
4
4
4
1
5
3
4
3
5
3
5
1
4
3
2
1
4
1
3
4
5
5
3
5
5
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
4
4
3
2
2
3
4
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
5
4
5
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
5
4
4
4
5
2
3
2
1
3
5
5
5
2
3
5
5
3
1
4
3
2
5
5
2
4
1
1
4
2
2
2
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
4
4
4
2
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
4
3
1
3
4
1
1
2
2
4
3
3
2
4
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
5
5
1
2
2
4
5
5
4
5
SCHOOL
1
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
YEAR
9
GENDER
M
N=
18
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
3
2
2
3
2
4
3
5
5
4
4
5
3
3
2
4
2
3
3
5
2
5
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
4
3
4
5
4
1
3
4
3
4
4
2
4
3
4
5
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
5
3
2
4
4
2
1
4
3
1
3
4
4
4
3
1
2
3
3
4
5
3
4
3
4
5
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
1
4
3
4
4
3
4
5
3
3
4
4
5
3
4
3
5
4
3
3
5
5
4
5
5
3
5
5
2
3
3
3
2
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
4
2
4
4
3
5
1
4
3
4
3
2
4
5
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
3
2
3
4
4
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
3
5
4
4
4
5
1
1
3
5
1
1
5
4
1
5
2
1
1
1
4
4
1
3
5
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
5
2
1
3
3
4
4
5
5
4
4
3
SCHOOL
1
YEAR
9
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 1
2
SKILLS
GENDER
F
N=
21
ENJOY
3
2
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
4
3
4
4
2
2
1
5
2
3
3
1
4
1
EASY
2
5
4
2
1
3
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
5
BOYS
3
1
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
1
4
HWORK
4
1
3
4
4
3
3
5
3
4
4
3
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
1
2
2
1
3
1
MORE H
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
4
2
1
1
4
1
2
2
5
5
1
SUCCESS
3
3
4
4
2
2
3
1
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
1
5
2
4
4
1
3
2
WORK
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
5
4
3
5
3
4
2
4
3
4
3
4
1
3
3
1
3
1
ENJOY
3
3
5
1
1
3
3
4
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
EASY
1
5
5
5
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
BOYS
3
3
3
1
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
4
3
HWORK
1
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
5
1
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
5
5
4
MORE H
1
1
3
1
1
4
4
1
2
2
3
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
1
3
5
SUCCESS
3
2
5
2
2
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
WORK
5
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
5
3
4
4
3
3
R-WRI
4
5
4
5
5
3
4
5
4
3
4
5
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
4
4
3
2
1
ADULT
3
5
3
2
1
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
4
3
5
5
CAREER SUBJECTS
2
1
5
5
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
1
3
2
1
1
4
1
3
3
1
1
5
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
2
4
1
3
1
1
5
5
3
4
2
1
3
2
4
1
4
5
1
1
SCHOOL
YEAR
GENDER
N=
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
3
3
4
2
2
2
1
1
5
1
3
4
3
2
5
4
3
2
5
4
4
2
5
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
5
3
2
5
5
3
3
2
5
5
1
3
5
4
2
2
1
2
2
3
4
3
1
3
1
3
4
4
3
3
5
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
5
1
3
5
5
3
5
3
SCHOOL
YEAR
GENDER
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 2
N=
SKILLS
5
5
2
3
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
2
1
4
2
2
2
2
5
1
2
9
M
25
SKILLS
5
3
5
2
1
3
3
4
2
2
3
4
4
2
3
1
3
1
3
2
3
5
2
9
F
22
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
5
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
3
4
4
4
4
2
5
4
3
2
2
5
2
5
2
5
5
3
3
2
4
4
3
5
2
4
1
4
3
2
3
2
3
4
3
5
3
3
2
4
5
2
3
4
4
5
3
5
5
4
5
4
4
2
3
4
3
3
3
5
1
5
1
4
4
3
4
2
5
3
4
5
3
3
1
3
5
3
3
4
4
5
3
5
3
3
5
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
5
3
3
4
4
5
4
3
3
5
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
2
5
4
4
2
4
4
1
3
2
1
3
3
5
2
2
2
4
5
2
3
3
5
4
2
5
2
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
4
5
3
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
3
3
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
1
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
3
2
3
5
4
3
5
4
4
5
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
5
4
1
4
4
4
5
3
4
2
4
4
5
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
SCHOOL
3
YEAR
9
CAREER SUBJECTS
GENDER
M
N=
20
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
5
2
3
5
3
4
4
5
5
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
4
5
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
1
3
4
2
3
1
3
3
2
4
2
3
4
5
5
3
1
2
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
2
5
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
2
3
1
4
2
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
1
5
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
3
5
2
4
2
5
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
4
4
4
5
2
5
4
3
3
4
4
3
5
3
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
2
3
5
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
5
3
4
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
5
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
4
3
3
4
4
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 3
4
SKILLS
SKILLS
SCHOOL
3
YEAR
9
GENDER
F
N=
20
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
4
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
3
4
1
3
4
4
2
1
1
3
1
5
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
5
3
3
3
4
3
5
3
4
1
3
3
4
5
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
4
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
2
4
4
3
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
4
5
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
5
4
5
5
5
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
4
3
1
1
3
2
4
1
3
3
4
3
3
4
5
3
4
4
4
5
3
1
4
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
3
1
1
3
2
1
5
4
4
2
5
5
3
3
5
4
3
4
5
4
1
3
4
2
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
3
4
1
3
4
3
4
3
4
1
4
5
4
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
4
2
4
3
1
5
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
3
5
1
1
3
3
5
4
4
2
5
SCHOOL
4
YEAR
9
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
GENDER
M
N=
24
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
2
4
3
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
2
1
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
5
5
4
5
4
1
4
2
1
2
1
3
1
4
2
1
2
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
5
4
4
4
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
2
4
1
2
3
5
4
3
3
4
4
2
5
3
3
4
5
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
1
1
4
5
3
1
5
5
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
3
4
4
5
1
4
2
5
3
3
3
2
1
5
2
5
4
3
4
3
3
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
1
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
5
4
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
2
4
4
5
2
3
5
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
4
3
3
2
3
5
1
3
3
5
1
3
4
3
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
5
1
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
3
1
3
3
5
4
5
3
4
1
5
3
4
1
4
2
5
4
1
5
4
SCHOOL
4
YEAR
9
GENDER
F
N=
21
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 4
5
SKILLS
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
2
5
4
4
5
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
5
5
3
2
5
5
3
4
4
3
3
2
5
3
3
4
5
4
3
4
3
2
4
4
3
3
1
5
2
3
4
5
3
2
3
2
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
1
4
1
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
3
3
4
3
5
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
2
3
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
5
5
2
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
3
4
3
3
5
4
5
4
4
3
5
4
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
SCHOOL
5
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
YEAR
9
GENDER
M
N=
17
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
2
3
3
3
2
4
3
2
2
CAREER SUBJECTS
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
4
2
4
4
3
5
1
4
3
4
3
2
4
5
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
2
4
3
4
2
4
4
3
2
3
4
4
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
3
5
4
4
4
5
1
1
3
5
1
1
5
4
1
5
2
1
1
1
4
4
1
3
5
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
5
2
1
3
3
4
4
5
5
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
1
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
4
5
2
3
3
3
2
4
4
1
4
3
5
3
3
2
1
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
5
3
3
2
4
4
3
4
4
5
3
3
4
2
2
4
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
3
3
2
4
2
3
3
2
4
3
4
1
4
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
5
5
3
4
3
5
3
4
4
4
4
5
3
3
3
5
2
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
SCHOOL
5
YEAR
9
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 5
6
SKILLS
GENDER
F
N=
22
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
5
3
4
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
5
4
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
3
3
5
3
4
4
5
2
2
1
3
5
4
2
4
2
5
4
5
5
3
4
5
4
3
5
4
1
1
4
4
3
1
2
1
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
5
5
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
1
5
3
5
5
4
3
5
3
4
4
5
1
5
3
5
4
2
5
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
1
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
3
4
5
1
2
2
3
4
4
3
4
2
4
3
5
3
4
3
5
5
2
2
4
2
5
3
5
5
5
2
3
5
4
3
5
5
3
4
5
4
3
3
5
4
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
4
2
1
3
4
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
5
4
1
5
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
5
SCHOOL
6
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
YEAR
9
GENDER
M
N=
21
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
5
5
3
2
3
5
1
5
3
CAREER SUBJECTS
4
1
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
1
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
1
5
5
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
2
2
4
2
5
4
3
2
3
4
2
5
2
2
3
5
5
3
5
1
3
2
3
1
2
3
3
5
4
2
3
1
3
3
5
1
3
3
3
5
1
3
1
5
3
4
1
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
3
3
5
1
3
2
3
5
1
3
1
5
4
2
4
5
5
1
5
1
3
5
5
1
4
3
2
5
1
4
1
3
3
3
2
4
5
3
3
4
5
3
4
3
4
5
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
4
1
3
3
3
2
2
5
5
4
5
3
4
2
4
3
4
4
2
1
2
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
5
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
5
3
3
3
2
SCHOOL
6
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 6
7
SKILLS
YEAR
9
GENDER
F
N=
19
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
3
4
3
4
1
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
1
3
4
3
1
3
5
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
2
3
4
3
5
5
3
5
1
5
2
4
5
2
5
1
1
3
3
5
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
2
2
4
2
4
2
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
5
1
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
2
3
2
5
2
4
4
2
2
5
2
5
2
1
1
1
5
5
1
3
1
5
3
2
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
1
1
3
2
3
3
1
2
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
2
4
2
5
4
4
5
5
5
1
4
5
1
1
5
1
1
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
5
2
3
5
2
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
2
3
3
3
5
4
5
2
4
3
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
4
2
2
4
1
4
2
3
4
4
5
4
5
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
2
4
3
2
1
3
3
5
1
1
5
3
1
1
1
1
3
4
3
4
1
3
3
5
2
3
2
2
SCHOOL
7
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
YEAR
9
GENDER
M
N=
22
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
4
2
4
3
1
3
3
5
1
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
3
2
4
5
3
4
2
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
2
4
4
3
5
2
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
5
1
3
3
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
3
5
1
3
2
3
5
2
5
1
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
5
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
3
4
2
2
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
4
4
3
5
1
5
5
1
3
5
2
4
2
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
4
1
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
4
1
2
3
5
3
2
3
4
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
3
5
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
5
2
2
3
5
2
3
3
5
3
4
5
4
2
3
3
5
1
3
4
5
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
1
5
3
4
1
1
3
4
4
3
3
5
3
4
3
5
3
3
4
5
SCHOOL
7
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 7
8
SKILLS
YEAR
9
GENDER
F
N=
21
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
3
4
3
4
1
3
3
5
4
3
5
5
2
4
3
4
1
2
3
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
3
4
2
3
4
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
3
4
3
5
5
5
1
3
5
4
2
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
5
3
3
3
4
2
4
3
5
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
4
5
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
5
2
4
3
5
5
3
3
2
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
1
3
5
5
3
1
1
1
4
4
3
2
2
5
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
3
3
5
3
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
4
3
3
4
1
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
1
2
3
2
4
4
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
SCHOOL
8
YEAR
9
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
GENDER
M
N=
20
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
5
4
3
4
2
5
3
5
2
CAREER SUBJECTS
4
5
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
5
2
1
1
3
2
3
5
5
3
5
3
2
2
3
5
1
3
3
2
1
1
5
5
3
5
3
4
5
5
3
2
5
5
3
3
2
3
5
5
3
2
4
3
1
3
2
4
5
4
4
5
2
3
1
4
1
2
5
2
1
2
1
2
5
3
1
3
4
4
3
5
5
4
4
1
5
2
3
3
3
3
2
5
2
4
3
3
5
3
3
3
4
3
1
4
5
3
2
2
4
2
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
1
1
3
4
1
1
3
4
5
1
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
3
5
1
2
2
3
4
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
1
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
5
1
4
4
5
5
3
3
3
4
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
2
4
1
3
1
3
5
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
1
1
4
3
2
5
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
3
4
2
5
1
2
1
3
3
3
4
2
2
4
3
3
4
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 8
9
SKILLS
3
3
SCHOOL
8
YEAR
9
GENDER
F
N=
21
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
5
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
5
1
3
2
4
5
5
4
4
4
2
5
5
3
4
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
2
5
3
4
2
1
5
3
1
5
5
2
4
1
5
1
3
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
2
3
4
1
2
5
5
3
3
5
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
3
4
5
4
2
5
3
4
3
4
1
2
5
4
5
4
2
5
1
2
3
5
1
2
5
3
4
5
3
3
4
1
5
4
1
3
3
5
3
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
4
3
5
5
3
4
3
5
3
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
2
5
5
2
1
2
5
5
1
2
4
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
3
5
3
4
4
5
1
3
5
4
4
4
3
5
3
2
3
3
1
5
4
4
3
4
5
5
1
4
3
5
3
3
5
2
3
2
5
4
2
5
3
5
2
2
3
5
2
4
1
1
1
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
5
4
3
5
5
SCHOOL
9
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
YEAR
9
GENDER
M
N=
21
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
5
5
5
1
5
4
4
5
1
CAREER SUBJECTS
1
3
3
1
1
1
5
1
1
5
5
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
5
2
3
4
3
1
5
1
1
1
2
3
1
5
3
1
1
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
4
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
1
2
4
5
5
1
2
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
3
3
2
1
4
1
2
1
4
4
3
5
5
3
4
4
1
3
3
4
4
2
5
5
2
4
3
5
1
2
5
4
2
1
5
5
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
1
4
5
1
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
5
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
1
4
1
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
2
4
4
3
5
5
5
4
3
4
3
1
5
3
2
1
4
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
5
4
3
3
1
1
5
1
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
3
SCHOOL
9
YEAR
9
GENDER
F
N=
19
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 9
10
SKILLS
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
4
3
4
4
3
3
2
5
3
5
2
5
4
2
4
2
3
3
3
5
2
4
1
3
5
2
3
3
3
5
4
5
3
2
2
4
3
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
3
4
3
3
4
4
5
2
5
1
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
3
4
5
1
2
2
3
4
1
3
4
2
4
3
5
3
4
3
5
5
2
2
4
2
5
3
5
5
5
2
3
5
4
3
5
5
3
4
5
4
3
3
5
4
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
4
2
1
3
4
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
5
4
1
5
4
2
3
3
2
2
3
4
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
5
3
1
5
4
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
2
3
5
3
4
4
5
2
2
1
3
5
2
2
4
2
5
4
5
5
3
CAREER SUBJECTS
SKILLS
4
5
SCHOOL
10
YEAR
9
GENDER
M
N=
20
ENJOY
EASY
BOYS
HWORK
MORE H
SUCCESS
WORK
R-WRI
ADULT
CAREER SUBJECTS
5
4
2
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
5
1
1
3
5
5
5
5
2
5
4
5
5
2
5
4
2
4
2
1
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
5
4
5
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
3
5
4
2
5
2
3
4
4
5
4
3
3
5
5
2
5
3
4
3
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
5
2
2
5
4
5
3
4
4
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
1
4
5
5
5
1
2
5
3
3
4
5
5
3
5
2
4
3
5
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
4
3
5
1
3
4
2
4
4
3
3
5
3
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
4
2
2
3
5
3
4
4
2
4
4
1
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
5
5
4
3
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
4
4
3
3
2
3
5
4
4
5
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
5
4
2
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
2
2
4
3
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
5
SCHOOL
10
YEAR
9
APPENDIX:: RD: 9: Sch 10
11
SKILLS
GENDER
F
N=
22
12
C-4: SPSS data Year 9
1.
School 1
2.
School 2
3.
School 3
4.
School 4
5.
School 5
6.
School 6
7.
School 7
8.
School 8
9.
School 9
10. School 10
Key: 9-1 m = Year 9 - school 1 male
2
2
9-1 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
2.9091 1.01929
3.3636 1.13580
2.8182 .73266
3.5909 1.22121
1.9091 1.01929
3.2273 1.19251
3.1818 1.00647
3.8636 1.08213
2.6364 1.13580
2.7727 1.06600
3.1818 1.25874
2.7727 1.44525
9-1 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Min.
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
2.4762 .98077
2.8571 .91026
3.0000 .31623
4.0952 .99523
1.7143 .84515
3.1905 .87287
3.1429 .57321
3.6667 1.23828
3.1905 1.12335
2.6667 1.19722
3.5238 .98077
3.3810 1.02353
3
9-2 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
2.4000 1.22474
2.9200 .99666
2.9200 .81240
3.1600 1.21381
2.0800 1.25565
3.0800 1.11505
3.1200 1.05357
3.8800 1.09240
2.3200 1.37598
2.8800 1.26886
2.6800 1.49220
2.8800 1.42361
9-2 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
2.7727 1.23179
3.1818 1.05272
3.0000 .75593
3.0000 1.27242
2.3182 1.39340
3.0455 .89853
3.0000 .97590
3.5909 1.18157
2.8636 1.24577
3.0000 1.19523
3.5000 1.43925
2.9091 1.23091
4
9-3 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Min.
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.4500 .60481
2.9000 1.11921
3.4500 .75915
3.2000 .89443
3.6500 1.22582
3.9000 .85224
3.1500 .74516
4.7500 .55012
3.2000 1.10501
3.5000 .76089
3.0000 1.29777
3.8500 .74516
9-3 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.0500 1.23438
2.9500 1.05006
2.9500 .75915
3.5500 1.05006
2.6000 .88258
3.2000 1.19649
3.2500 .96655
4.2500 1.01955
2.8000 .95145
2.7500 1.06992
2.8500 1.22582
3.2500 1.25132
5
9-4 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
Min.
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
2.7917 1.14129
3.2917 1.08264
3.1667 .70196
2.5000 .93250
2.1667 1.34056
3.1250 .89988
3.1667 .86811
3.4167 1.34864
3.5833 1.38051
2.9167 1.31601
2.9167 1.24819
2.7083 1.39811
9-4 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
2.0952 1.26114
3.5238 .98077
2.6667 .79582
3.0952 1.22085
2.0476 1.16087
3.1429 1.27615
3.2381 .99523
3.8571 1.52597
3.1905 1.28915
2.6190 1.16087
3.5238 1.32737
3.2857 1.38358
6
9-5 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Min.
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.1765 .52859
3.2353 .90342
2.8824 .60025
3.1765 .72761
3.6471 .93148
3.6471 .78591
3.1765 .39295
3.8824 .99262
3.2941 .98518
3.0588 .65865
3.3529 .93148
3.4706 .79982
9-5 f
EASY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.0455 1.36198
2.9091 1.30600
3.1818 .73266
3.6364 .84771
2.2727 1.20245
3.2273 1.26986
3.3182 .71623
3.7727 .97257
2.8636 1.32001
3.0909 1.10880
3.0909 1.30600
3.0000 1.44749
7
9-6 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Min.
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.2381 .70034
3.0000 .77460
3.2381 .83095
3.7143 .84515
3.0000 1.14018
3.4762 .98077
3.3333 .48305
4.2381 .70034
3.0952 1.26114
3.3810 1.11697
2.6190 1.02353
4.0000 1.14018
9-6 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Min.
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.1053 1.41007
3.6316 .89508
3.0526 .52427
3.1053 1.10024
3.0000 1.52753
3.3158 1.10818
2.6316 1.11607
3.5789 1.07061
3.4737 1.17229
3.1053 1.10024
3.2632 1.19453
3.1053 1.28646
8
9-7 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Min.
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.1667 .85749
3.0556 .99836
2.5556 1.09664
3.2778 .89479
2.8889 1.27827
3.4444 1.04162
3.4444 .92178
3.5000 1.50489
3.5556 1.29352
3.5556 1.04162
3.6111 1.41998
3.6667 1.32842
9-7 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
21.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.0476 1.20317
2.7619 1.09109
3.1429 .85356
3.6190 .92066
2.1905 1.16701
3.2857 1.18924
3.4762 .67964
3.9524 1.02353
3.2381 1.64027
3.2381 1.17918
2.8571 1.38873
4.0000 4.02374
9
9-8 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.0000 .97333
3.0000 .91766
2.9000 .71818
3.8500 .98809
2.2000 1.10501
3.1500 1.13671
3.2500 1.01955
3.9500 1.39454
3.3500 1.13671
2.8500 .98809
3.2500 1.33278
3.1000 1.33377
9-8 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.1429 1.45896
2.8571 .96362
2.3810 .97346
3.0000 1.30384
2.0952 1.48003
2.9524 1.32198
3.3810 1.20317
3.4286 1.28730
3.5238 1.47034
2.7143 1.18924
2.7143 1.30931
2.8095 1.36452
9-9 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.1429 1.01419
3.0000 1.04881
3.7143 1.30931
4.3333 .96609
1.9524 1.07127
3.0476 1.11697
3.3333 1.06458
4.6190 .66904
3.4762 1.32737
4.0000 1.18322
3.9048 1.04426
4.1905 1.03049
9-9 f
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Min.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
3.5263 1.46699
2.6842 1.41628
2.5789 1.46499
3.4211 1.77375
2.7368 1.69450
3.3684 1.38285
3.2632 1.24017
3.8947 1.41007
2.5789 1.42657
3.3158 1.29326
3.1053 1.55973
3.5263 1.46699
10
9-10 m
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Min.
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
Max.
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.2000 .69585
2.4500 .82558
3.2000 .69585
3.6000 .75394
2.9000 .91191
3.6500 .87509
3.3500 .58714
4.4500 .60481
3.3500 1.18210
3.4000 1.04630
2.4000 1.04630
4.1000 .91191
9-910
ENJOY
EASY
M-F
H'WORK
MORE HIS
SUCCESS
C'WORK
READ-WRI
ADULT
CAREER
SUBJECTS
SKILLS
Valid N =
N
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Min.
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
Max.
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Mean Std. Dev.
4.3182 .64633
3.0909 .86790
2.8182 .90692
3.2273 .42893
3.7727 1.02036
3.8636 .99021
3.0455 .72225
4.4091 .95912
3.0455 1.04550
3.4091 1.09801
3.5909 .95912
3.7727 1.10978
11
12
C-5: Summaries of means and standard deviations
for each of 12 factors across 10 schools: 12 sheets
2
Factor 1
5= enjoy H
School 1:
M
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4.526
0.512
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
4.157
F
School 6:
M
4.545
F
School 7:
M
4.05
F
School 8:
M
3.86
F
School 9:
M
3.571
3.727
0.67
0.611
F
19
4.631
0.495
Total
Mean
3
1.41
0.797
3.367
0.788
19
18
3.047
1.203
0.973
21
20
3.142
1.458
1.48
21
21
3.352
1.466
0.695
19
20
4.318
0.646
204 216
3.904
22
21
0.857
19
21
1.361
0.7
3.105
4.2
1.261
17
3.045
20
20
24
0.528
21
22
1.424
1.41
2.095
3.142
1.231
20
3.05
3
22
3.65
4.473
0.978
0.882
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
0.604
18
N
(M) (F)
0.98
1.22
2.772
4.166
N
22
2.476
24
1.328
1.082
1.019
4.238
20
3.333
2.909
24
1.122
0.887
SD
4.147
22
3.041
Mean
22
1.013
0.509
SD
2.791
19
3.375
Mean
25
0.984
0.602
Y9
4.45
23
1.727
Y9
22
1.143
1.081
Y9
2.4
21
3.04
2.478
1.093
0.601
Y9
21
17
3.363
4.523
(M) (F)
0.727
1.212
F
N
19
4.142
2.705
N
22
208 208
3.52
0.948
3.02
1.244
Factor 2
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
5= H is easy
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.684
0.885
School 1:
M
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
3.684
F
School 6:
M
3.5
F
School 7:
M
2.4
F
School 8:
M
2.954
F
School 9:
M
2.809
3.227
0.51
1.149
F
19
3.736
0.805
Total
Mean
4
0.895
0.932
3.1446
0.898
19
18
2.761
1.091
0.917
21
20
2.857
1.075
1.325
21
21
2.681
1.416
0.825
19
20
3.09
0.867
204 216
3.2506
22
21
1.022
19
21
1.306
0.774
3.631
2.45
0.98
17
2.909
20
20
24
0.903
21
22
1.05
1.082
3.523
2.571
1.052
20
2.95
3
22
3.55
2.894
0.928
0.922
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
1.119
18
N
(M) (F)
0.91
0.996
3.181
3.055
N
22
2.857
24
0.9
1.09
1.135
3
20
3.111
3.363
24
1.312
0.882
SD
3.325
22
3.166
Mean
22
0.883
1.011
SD
3.291
19
2.791
Mean
25
0.925
0.523
Y9
2.9
23
3
Y9
22
0.996
1.042
Y9
3.055
21
2.92
3.217
0.953
0.749
Y9
21
17
3.363
3.476
(M) (F)
0.774
1.067
F
N
19
3
3.47
N
22
208 208
3.001
1.0098
30.44
1.064
Factor 3
5= H is preferred by boys
School 1:
M
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.052
1.025
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
2.984
F
School 6:
M
3.454
F
School 7:
M
2.95
F
School 8:
M
3.272
F
School 9:
M
2.952
3.136
0.447
0.683
F
19
3
0.881
Total
Mean
5
0.524
0.6937
29.433
0.881
19
18
3.142
0.853
0.718
21
20
2.381
0.973
1.244
21
21
2.578
1.464
0.695
19
20
2.818
0.906
204 216
3.117
22
21
1.096
19
21
0.732
0.83
3.052
3.2
0.795
17
3.181
20
20
24
0.6
21
22
0.759
0.701
2.666
2.381
0.755
20
2.95
2.9
22
3.1
3.368
0.864
0.351
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
0.759
18
N
(M) (F)
0.316
0.812
3
2.555
N
22
3
24
0.894
0.55
0.732
3.238
20
2.722
2.818
24
1.138
0.686
SD
2.882
22
2.583
Mean
22
0.794
0.8
SD
3.166
19
3.25
Mean
25
0.975
0.315
Y9
3.45
23
3
Y9
22
0.812
0.716
Y9
2.92
21
2.92
3.173
0.785
0.7
Y9
21
17
2.954
2.904
(M) (F)
0.804
1.111
F
N
19
2.952
2.882
N
22
208 208
2.951
0.8187
2.876
0.807
Factor 4
5= too much H homework
School 1:
M
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.315
0.582
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
3.684
F
School 6:
M
3.818
F
School 7:
M
3.7
F
School 8:
M
3.772
F
School 9:
M
3.476
3.681
0.695
0.933
F
19
3.578
0.768
Total
Mean
6
1.258
0.923
3.409
1.027
19
18
3.619
0.92
0.988
21
20
3
1.303
1.622
21
21
3.421
1.773
0.753
19
20
3.227
0.428
204 216
3.467
22
21
0.894
19
21
0.847
0.845
3.105
3.6
1.209
17
3.636
20
20
24
0.727
21
22
1.05
0.932
3.095
3.666
0.775
20
3.55
3.85
22
3.2
3.263
1.077
1.21
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
0.894
18
N
(M) (F)
1.995
1.213
3
3.227
N
22
4.095
24
1.339
0.812
1.221
3.714
20
4.166
3.59
24
1.471
1.128
SD
3.176
22
3.416
Mean
22
0.884
0.852
SD
2.5
19
3.5
Mean
25
1.15
0.749
Y9
3.2
23
2.909
Y9
22
1.213
0.947
Y9
3.16
21
3.16
2.278
0.959
0.746
Y9
21
17
3.409
3.571
(M) (F)
0.717
1.276
F
N
19
3.285
3.588
N
22
208 208
3.3683
1.0089
3.374
1.155
Factor 5
5= prefer more H
School 1:
M
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.315
0.582
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
3.21
F
School 6:
M
3.363
F
School 7:
M
2.85
F
School 8:
M
3.136
F
School 9:
M
3.476
2.318
0.745
1.249
F
19
3.842
1.118
Total
Mean
7
1.527
1.0766
2.792
1.197
19
18
2.19
1.167
1.105
21
20
2.095
1.48
1.631
21
21
2.736
1.694
0.911
19
20
3.772
1.02
204 216
2.9893
22
21
1.278
19
21
1.202
1.14
3
2.9
1.16
17
2.272
20
20
24
0.931
21
22
1.05
1.34
2.047
2.523
1.393
20
2.6
2.2
22
2.85
3.684
1.077
0.994
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
1.225
18
N
(M) (F)
0.845
1.301
2.318
2.888
N
22
1.714
24
1.074
1.206
1.019
3
20
1.722
1.909
24
1.503
1.496
SD
3.647
22
2.5
Mean
22
1.6
1.17
SD
2.166
19
2.708
Mean
25
1.086
1.084
Y9
3.65
23
1.681
Y9
22
1.54
1.223
Y9
2.08
21
2.72
2.043
1.376
0.963
Y9
21
17
3.09
3.857
(M) (F)
0.856
0.799
F
N
19
3.333
2.117
N
22
208 208
2.6963
1.1881
2.474
1.253
Factor 6
5= successul in H
School 1:
M
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4.052
0.779
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
3.842
F
School 6:
M
3.954
F
School 7:
M
3.25
F
School 8:
M
3.636
F
School 9:
M
3.428
3.409
0.688
0.898
F
19
4.105
0.936
Total
Mean
8
1.108
0.8962
3.509
0.908
19
18
3.285
1.189
1.236
21
20
2.952
1.321
1.289
21
21
3.368
1.382
0.875
19
20
3.863
0.99
204 216
3.6072
22
21
1.041
19
21
1.269
0.98
3.315
3.65
1.276
17
3.227
20
20
24
0.785
21
22
1.196
0.899
3.142
3.19
0.898
20
3.2
3.15
22
3.5
3.842
0.978
0.796
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
0.852
18
N
(M) (F)
0.872
1.115
3.045
3.444
N
22
3.19
24
0.704
0.789
1.192
3.476
20
3.555
3.227
24
0.737
1.208
SD
3.647
22
3.25
Mean
22
0.722
0.785
SD
3.125
19
3.5
Mean
25
1.477
0.898
Y9
3.9
23
3
Y9
22
1.115
0.9
Y9
3.08
21
3.08
3.087
0.893
0.632
Y9
21
17
3.681
4
(M) (F)
0.83
1.277
F
N
19
4
3
N
22
208 208
3.3889
1.0264
3.258
1.151
Factor 7
5 =too much H classwork
School 1:
M
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.105
0.875
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
3.684
F
School 6:
M
3.227
F
School 7:
M
2.85
F
School 8:
M
3.136
F
School 9:
M
3.476
3.227
0.51
0.737
F
19
3.157
0.764
Total
Mean
9
1.116
0.9204
3.217
0.789556
19
18
3.476
0.679
1.019
21
20
3.381
1.203
1.39
21
21
3.263
1.24
0.587
19
20
3.045
0.722
204 216
3.1896
22
21
0.912
19
21
0.716
0.483
2.63
3.35
0.995
17
3.318
20
20
24
0.392
21
22
0.966
0.868
3.238
3.333
0.975
20
3.25
3.25
22
3.05
3.105
0.679
1.02
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
0.745
18
N
(M) (F)
0.573
1.053
3
3.444
N
22
3.142
24
0.669
0.56
1.006
3.333
20
3.277
3.181
24
1.059
1.225
SD
3.176
22
3.083
Mean
22
0.658
1.02
SD
3.166
19
3.458
Mean
25
1.031
0.582
Y9
3.15
23
3.272
Y9
22
1.053
0.886
Y9
3.12
21
3.12
3.173
0.683
0.7
Y9
21
17
3.09
3.095
(M) (F)
0.511
1.599
F
N
19
3.19
3.294
N
22
208 208
3.2503
0.8455
3.174
0./918
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
5=read/wri are important in H
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
School 1:
4.368
1.011
Factor 8
M
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
4.421
F
School 6:
M
4.363
F
School 7:
M
4.6
F
School 8:
M
3.954
F
School 9:
M
3.857
4.272
0.852
0.418
F
19
4.421
0.764
Total
Mean
10
1.07
0.879
3.979
0.977111
19
18
3.952
1.023
1.394
21
20
3.428
1.287
1.527
21
21
3.894
1.41
0.604
19
20
4.409
0.959
204 216
4.2303
22
21
1.504
19
21
0.972
0.7
3.578
4.45
1.525
17
3.772
20
20
24
0.992
21
22
1.019
1.348
3.857
3.666
1.81
20
4.25
3.95
22
3.9
4.789
0.792
0.882
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
0.55
18
N
(M) (F)
1.238
1.092
3.59
3.5
N
22
3.666
24
1.248
0.842
1.082
4.238
20
3.833
3.863
24
0.999
0.94
SD
3.882
22
3.7
Mean
22
0.69
0.657
SD
3.416
19
4.041
Mean
25
1.469
0.768
Y9
4.75
23
3.409
Y9
22
1.092
1.373
Y9
3.88
21
3.88
3.391
0.888
0.74
Y9
21
17
4.136
4.381
(M) (F)
0.589
1.159
F
N
19
4.619
3.764
N
22
208 208
3.9595
1.0793
3.839
1.231
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
5 =H important for adult life
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
School 1:
2.947
1.078
Factor 9
M
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
3.526
F
School 6:
M
3.818
F
School 7:
M
2.8
F
School 8:
M
3
F
School 9:
M
2.809
3.409
0.718
1.118
F
19
2.578
0.961
Total
Mean
11
1.172
1.0963
2.932
1.168
19
18
3.238
1.64
1.136
21
20
3.523
1.47
1.465
21
21
2.578
1.426
1.182
19
20
3.045
1.045
204 216
3.1759
22
21
1.293
19
21
1.32
1.261
3.473
3.35
1.289
17
2.863
20
20
24
0.985
21
22
0.951
1.38
3.19
2.952
1.245
20
2.8
3.35
22
3.1
3.157
1.249
1.053
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
1.105
18
N
(M) (F)
1.123
1.375
2.863
3.555
N
22
3.19
24
1.202
1.023
1.135
3.095
20
3
2.636
24
1.212
1.151
SD
3.294
22
3.416
Mean
22
1.493
0.957
SD
3.583
19
3.166
Mean
25
1.151
0.841
Y9
3.2
23
2.772
Y9
22
1.375
1.377
Y9
2.32
21
2.32
3.521
1.231
0.928
Y9
21
17
3.227
2.523
(M) (F)
1.095
1.437
F
N
19
3
3.058
N
22
208 208
3.1335
3.1335
3.076
1.268
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
5 =H important for job/career
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
School 1:
3.473
0.97
Factor 10
M
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
2.736
F
School 6:
M
3.136
F
School 7:
M
2.95
F
School 8:
M
3.227
F
School 9:
M
2.809
3.272
0.732
1.031
F
19
3.631
30.731
1.011
10.726 204 216
Total
Mean
12
1.1
1.179
0.988
1.189
1.03
0.987
3.073
1.067
21
21
3.315
1.293
1.046
19
20
3.409
29.906
1.098
22
11.588
408 216
3.1516
21
20
2.714
10.664
19
18
3.238
31.788
22
21
1.04
19
21
1.108
1.116
3.105
3.4
1.16
17
3.09
20
20
24
0.658
21
22
1.069
1.248
2.619
3.476
1.195
20
2.75
2.85
22
2.7
3.21
1.364
1.031
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
1.056
18
N
(M) (F)
1.197
1.268
3
3.555
N
22
2.666
24
0.84
0.751
1.214
3.381
20
2.666
2.772
24
1.134
0.945
SD
3.058
22
3.375
Mean
22
1.082
0.774
SD
2.916
19
3.291
Mean
25
1.09
0.805
Y9
3.5
23
3.045
Y9
22
1.268
1.324
Y9
2.88
21
2.888
2.869
1.082
0.83
Y9
21
17
3.136
3.761
(M) (F)
1.123
1.409
F
N
19
3.19
2.882
N
208 208
3.1788
1.0664
2.99
1.158
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
5 = H includes other subjects
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
School 1:
3.473
0.904
Factor 11
M
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
3.052
F
School 6:
M
3.272
F
School 7:
M
4.45
F
School 8:
M
3.681
F
School 9:
M
2.666
3.863
1.025
1.311
F
19
3.315
0.671
Total
Mean
13
1.194
1.0519
3.176
1.136
19
18
2.857
1.338
1.331
21
20
2.714
1.309
1.499
21
21
3.105
1.559
1.046
19
20
3.58
0.959
204 216
3.3503
22
21
1.419
19
21
1.306
1.023
3.263
2.4
1.327
17
3.09
20
20
24
0.931
21
22
1.225
1.248
3.523
3.381
1.439
20
2.85
3.25
22
3
2.497
1.11
1.082
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
1.297
18
N
(M) (F)
0.98
1.492
3.5
3.611
N
22
3.523
24
1.414
1.17
1.258
2.619
20
3
3.181
24
1.049
0.825
SD
3.352
22
3.333
Mean
22
1.282
1.12
SD
2.916
19
3.083
Mean
25
1.129
0.705
Y9
3
23
3.681
Y9
22
1.492
1.206
Y9
2.68
21
2.68
3
1.052
0.577
Y9
21
17
3.818
3.333
(M) (F)
1.327
1.619
F
N
19
3.19
2.882
N
22
208 208
3.039
1.2544
3.2
1.263
Factor 12
5 = H includes useful skills
School 1:
M
Y8
Y8
Y8
Y8
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4.473
0.611
F
School 2:
M
School 3:
M
F
School 4:
M
F
School 5:
M
3.21
F
School 6:
M
4.045
F
School 7:
M
4.15
F
School 8:
M
3.545
F
School 9:
M
2.619
3.681
0.604
0.737
F
19
4.368
0.955
Total
Mean
14
1.286
0.9956
3.4
1.1012
19
18
3.19
1.364
1.333
21
20
2.809
1.364
1.66
21
21
3.526
1.466
0.911
19
20
3.772
1.109
204 216
3.7627
22
21
1.328
19
21
1.447
1.14
3.105
4.1
1.383
17
3
20
20
24
0.799
21
22
1.251
1.398
3.285
3.571
1.23
20
3.25
3.1
22
2.95
3.894
1.499
0.838
F
School 10: M
22
21
25
0.745
18
N
(M) (F)
1.023
1.423
2.909
3.666
N
22
3.381
24
1.036
1.223
1.445
4
20
3.388
2.772
24
1.282
1.182
SD
3.47
22
3.583
Mean
22
1.38
0.95
SD
2.7
19
3.083
Mean
25
1.132
0.854
Y9
3.85
23
3.045
Y9
22
1.423
1.428
Y9
2.88
21
2.88
2.695
0.95
0.511
Y9
21
17
3.954
4.523
(M) (F)
0.749
1.622
F
N
19
4.19
3.411
N
22
208 208
3.4109
1.2182
3.227
1.2923
C-6: Numbers and percentages of Boys' and Girls' responses to each of 12 factors
1. Year 8
2. Year 9
2
Appendix C--6-1
216 Yr 8 G
204 Yr 8 B
N=
%=
65
78
35
16
10
ENJOY
31.86275 38.23529 17.15686 7.843137 4.901961
15
70
69
42
8
%=
EASY
21
5.882353 10.29412
153
75
10
8
GENDER
77
62
26
4
17.15686
37.7451
30.39216
12.7451
1.960784
27
52
59
26
40
13.23529
25.4902
28.92157
12.7451
19.60784
38
79
63
16
8
HOMEWORK
46
109
24
8
MORE H
65
26
5
7
49.5098
31.86275
12.7451
2.45098
3.431373
34
34
85
35
16
SUCCESS
42
99
28
12
CLASSWORK
60
68
21
14
READ-WRI
ADULT
67
48
13
12
31.37255 32.84314 23.52941 6.372549 5.882353
2
60
12
20
35
24
67
94
40
9
146
20
18
76
24
14
31.01852 35.18519 11.11111 6.481481
28
25
88
11
58
79
73
36.57407
33.7963
30
28
13.88889 12.96296
CAREER
76
39
49
76
18
9
120
21
6
26
43
49
9
6
22.68519 4.166667 2.777778
89
41.2037
90
37
32
17.12963 14.81481
36
21
12.03704 19.90741 41.66667 16.66667 9.722222
SUBJECTS
20.09804 29.41176 33.33333 10.29412 6.862745
64
13
5.092593 26.85185 55.55556 9.722222 2.777778
11.27451 20.58824 48.52941 13.72549 5.882353
41
19
11.57407 40.74074 35.18519 8.333333 4.166667
16.66667 16.66667 41.66667 17.15686 7.843137
23
33
11.11111 12.96296 35.18519 18.05556 22.68519
8.333333 22.54902 53.43137 11.76471 3.921569
101
55
15.27778 35.18519 25.46296 15.27778 8.796296
16.2037
18.62745 38.72549 30.88235 7.843137 3.921569
17
76
5.555556 9.259259 67.59259 9.259259 8.333333
4.901961 3.921569
35
33
6.018519 27.77778 43.51852 18.51852 4.166667
7.352941 34.31373 33.82353 20.58824 3.921569
12
N=
33
57
66
15.27778 26.38889 30.55556
SKILLS
51
56
55
35
25
16.2037
11.57407
34
20
23.61111 25.92593 25.46296 15.74074 9.259259
Appendix-6-2
208 Yr 9 G
208 Yr 9 B
N=
%=
41
76
51
23
17
ENJOY
19.71154 36.53846 24.51923 11.05769 8.173077
16
47
82
7.692308 22.59615 39.42308
20
19
142
52
11
25
5.288462
14
13
9.615385 9.134615 68.26923 6.730769
34
67
73
22
EASY
GENDER
37
55
42
57
HOMEWORK
12.5
17
71
73
27
11
MORE H
116
20
6
SUCCESS
43.75
41
68
27
12
10
CLASSWORK
70
32
27
READ-WRI
53
13.94231 25.48077
29
56
78
37.5
59
30
18
ADULT
35
CAREER
54
49
28
22
26.44231 25.96154 23.55769 13.46154 10.57692
3
42
7
23
139
16
41
54
70
28
24
24
46
46
28
66
69
22
23
35
116
24
79
59
40
18
38
35
71
33
24
42
76
40
11.53846 20.19231 36.53846 19.23077
SUBJECTS
13.94231 26.92308 28.36538 13.94231 16.82692
55
82
18
23
15
68
23
10
12
31
18.26923 16.82692 34.13462 15.86538 14.90385
14.42308 8.653846
29
45
37.98077 28.36538 19.23077 8.653846 5.769231
19.71154 18.26923 33.65385 15.38462 12.98077
29
21
22.59615 18.26923 17.30769
11.05769 16.82692 55.76923 11.53846 4.807692
32.69231 12.98077 5.769231 4.807692
38
25
36
13.46154 31.73077 33.17308 10.57692 11.05769
8.173077 23.55769 55.76923 9.615385 2.884615
91
16.82692
38
11.53846 11.53846 22.11538 22.11538 32.69231
34.13462 35.09615 12.98077 5.288462
49
%=
47
19.71154 25.96154 33.65385 13.46154 7.211538
8.173077 17.78846 26.44231 20.19231 27.40385
26
52
3.365385 11.05769 66.82692 7.692308 11.05769
16.34615 32.21154 35.09615 10.57692 5.769231
17
35
10.09615 21.63462 39.42308 20.19231 8.653846
6.25
12
N=
34
63
56
22
26
12.5
33
16.34615 30.28846 26.92308 10.57692 15.86538
SKILLS
45
42
61
34
21.63462 20.19231 29.32692 16.34615
26
12.5
C-7:
Summaries of percentage shifts in mean scores of 12 factors
1o schools - boys and girls
4
Appendix: C-7
SCHOOL
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
8
8
9
9
10
10
GENDER
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
ENJOY
-32%
-34%
-6%
-12%
-2%
6%
6%
-16%
-8%
-12%
-6%
-4%
-6%
EASY
-6%
-4%
-8%
-4%
-10%
10%
2%
-14%
-18%
-8%
-14%
GENDER
-4%
2%
2%
2%
10%
-8%
-6%
-12%
-16%
-12%
-4%
-4%
H'WORK
4%
16%
-8%
-8%
-6%
8%
4%
2%
-8%
4%
8%
-6%
MORE H
-28%
-32%
-14%
-4%
-2%
8%
-18%
-28%
4%
-2%
-14%
-2%
SUCCESS
-16%
-16%
-12%
-2%
4%
2%
-10%
-10%
-6%
-4%
-4%
-4%
2%
2%
2%
-2%
2%
4%
4%
-2%
-8%
-12%
-2%
-6%
C'WORK
-2%
READ'WRI
-10%
-20%
2%
-12%
8%
8%
ADULT
-6%
2%
-14%
-8%
14%
10%
CAREERS
-14%
-10%
-2%
-4%
-2%
SUBJECTS
-6%
6%
-4%
-6%
-6%
4%
SKILLS
-34%
-16%
-12%
-20%
-14%
8%
5
6%
2%
2%
8%
8%
6%
14%
-10%
-12%
4%
10%
2%
-8%
-8%
-2%
4%
10%
4%
-4%
-2%
-2%
-8%
2%
-10%
2%
4%
-8%
4%
-2%
12%
4%
6%
-12%
Appendix D: GCSE option sheets
1. Stage 1
2. Stage 2
3. School 2: Comparison of option sheets 2002-2006
4. Teachers opinions of factors which may influence pupils' choices
6
7
APPENDIX: D-1
Each year, Year 9 pupils are asked to select three ‘option subjects’ to
study alongside ‘compulsory’ subjects for GCSE during Years 10 and 11.
The list of option subjects may change from year to year. Here is a list
of ‘option subjects’, which were available last year.
X
.
.
.
.
Insert here an alphabetical list of subjects
.
.
.
ì
Read the list carefully: if you had to choose three subjects, which
would they be?
1.
2.
3.
**Please note: you are NOT choosing subjects for GCSE at this stage – you
will be given a new list next year along with detailed information about
each subject.
School: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Form. . . . . Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boy or Girl . . . .
2
2
APPENDIX: D-2
D-2: Option forms for 10 schools
Subject key
1.
School 1
2.
School 2
3.
School 3
4.
School 4
5.
School 5
6.
School 6
7.
School 7
8.
School 8
9.
School 9
10. School 10
3
Abbreviation
SUBJECT
Ar
ART
Be
BENGALI
Bu
BUSINESS STUDIES
Ca
CATERING
Da
DANCE
Dr
DRAMA
DT
DESIGN TECHNOLOGY
Fr
FRENCH
FT
FOOD TECHNOLOGY
Ge
GEOGRAPHY
Gm
GERMAN
GT
GRAPHICS TECHNOLOGY
Hi
HISTORY
Hu
HUMANITIES
ICT
INFORMATION and COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
La
LATIN
Me
MEDIA STUDIES
Mu
MUSIC
PE
PHYSICAL EDUCATION
Re
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
RT
RESISTANT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY
Sc
SINGLE SCIENCE
So
SOCIOLOGY
Sp
SPANISH
TX
TEXTILES TECHNOLOGY
Ur
URDU
Subject Key
4
Core subjects:
English Language
English Literature
Mathematics
Dual Science
Technology Option Ä
Physical education
Religious Studies
Personal, Social, Health
and Citizenship
Education
Choose ONE Technology
Resistant Materials
Food Technology
Electronics
Textiles
Graphics
School 1
Choose TWO subjects
(X) and ONE reserve (R)
Art
Business Studies
Drama
Geography
Leisure and Tourism
History
Spanish
French
German
Music
PE (GCSE)
ICT
Media Studies
Child Care
5
Compulsory subjects
English Language and Literature
Mathematics
Science
Physical Education
Personal, Social and religious
education
GCSE double award
GCSE
GCSE double award
Non GCSE
Non GCSE
You must choose one subject from each column of the table below: write
your choices in the boxes at the bottom of the columns.
Humanities
Geography
Creative and
Expressive Arts
Art
History
Music
Humanities
Drama
Religious
Education
Media Studies
Physical
Education
Dance
Design and
Technology
Food
Technology
Enrichment
option
Business
Studies
Textiles
Technology
Information
Technology
Resistant
Materials
Technology
Geography
Information
Technology
Art
History
Media Studies
Graphic
Products
Technology
Drama
French
German
Urdu
Bengali
School 2
6
Core subjects:
English Language
English Literature
Mathematics
Science
Select THREE of the following subjects in order of priority,
1st, 2nd and 3rd.
Optional subjects:
Art
Dance
Design Technology
Drama
English as a Second Language
Fashion and Textiles
French
German
Geography
History
Information Technology
Music
Physical Education
Spanish
School 3
7
Core subjects:
English
Mathematics
Science
Personal Development
Religious Education
ICT
Games
Select FOUR optional subjects:
(9)
and select ONE reserve subject: (R)
Optional subjects:
(9) or (R)
Art and Design
Drama
Media Studies
Music
Geography
History
French
German
Catering
Design Technology: Resistant Materials
Design Technology: Graphic Products
Information and Communication
Technology
Physical Education
School 4
8
Compulsory Subjects
GCSE
English Language* and Literature*
2
Mathematics*
1
Double Science**
1
ITC
Religious Education
PHSE
Physical Education.
You must select (2) optional subjects
and select (1) reserve subject.
1st choice
Optional subjects:
Art and Design
Design Technology: Resistant Materials
Design Technology: Graphic Products
Design Technology: Textiles
Design Technology: Food
Drama
French
Geography
History
Media Studies
Music
Physical Education
Spanish
School 5
9
Reserve
Compulsory
Block 1
Block 2
GCSE
Choose 2 and
1 reserve
Choose 1 and
1 reserve
English
Language
English
Literature
Art
Drama
Food
Mathematics
Dance
Dual Science
French
Textiles
Geography
Resistant Materials
Graphics
History
Not GCSE
Media Studies
Not
Music
PE
PE
PHSE
Spanish
Citizenship
RE
IT
Block 1
2 choices and 1 reserve
Your choices
Reserve
School 6
10
Block 2
1 choice and 1 reserve
Core subjects
Block A
Block B
Block C
Block D
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
English
French
History
DT: Food Technology
English Literature
German
Geography
DT: Textile Technology
Mathematics
Spanish
Religious Studies
DT: Product Design
Dual Award
Science
PE
(non-GCSE)
Citizenship
(non-GCSE)
Art and Design:
Painting and Drawing
Art and Design:
Textiles
Art and Design:
3D Studies
DT: Resistant Materials
Business Studies
ICT: Information and
Communication Technology
Drama
Geography
German
Religious Education
History
Music
Religious Studies
Physical Studies
Spanish
School 7
11
Compulsory subjects:
English Language
English Literature
Mathematics
R.E Short Course
3
3
3
3
Choose one Science course:
Dual Award Science …
Three separate Sciences …
Choose one Modern Foreign Language:
French …
German …
Spanish …
Choose one Humanity:
Geography …
History …
School 8
If you chose 3 Sciences
select ONE of these
12
Optional subjects:
Art
Design Technology
Drama
French
Geography
German
History
Music
Physical Education
Spanish
Optional subjects:
Art
Design Technology
Drama
French
Geography
German
History
Music
Physical Education
Spanish
If you chose Dual Award Science
select TWO of these.
Core subjects
Creative Arts
Languages
Humanities
Technology
Supplementary
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
English
Art and Design
French
History
Food Technology
Art and Design
English Literature
Music
German
Geography
Textiles Technology
Business Studies
Mathematics
Drama
Religious Studies
Graphic Products
Music
Resistant Materials
History
Science
PE (non-GCSE)
Physical Education
PHSE (non-GCSE)
German
Citizenship (nonGCSE)
RE (non-GCSE)
Sociology
School 9
13
Resistant Materials
Cert. of Achievement
Compulsory
subjects
Modern
Language
Block A
Block B
Block C
Choose (A) or
one from (B)
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
English Language
A:
Three
separate Sciences
French
History
Art
Third Separate Science
English Literature
or
German
Geography
Mathematics
B:
Science (Core
and Additional)
Religious Studies
(GCSE Short course)
Complementary Studies
(non-GCSE)
PE and Games
(non-GCSE)
Science *
I.C.T.
DT: Graphic Products
Music
or
Physical Education
Drama
Biology and
Chemistry
French
History
or
German
Biology and Physics
History
or
Chemistry and
Physics
Latin
DT: Resistant Materials
Geography
Business Studies
Geography
Latin
Business Studies
School 10
14
* Note: If you choose three separate Sciences you MUST also select 'Third separate Science' for your choice in Block C.
D-3: School2: Comparison of option sheets used 2002 and soo6
15
Compulsory subjects
English Language and Literature
Mathematics
Science
Physical Education
Personal, Social and religious
education
GCSE double award
GCSE
GCSE double award
Non GCSE
Non GCSE
You must choose one subject from each column of the table below:
write your choices in the boxes at the bottom of the columns.
Humanities
Geography
Creative and
Expressive
Arts
Art
History
Music
Humanities
Drama
Religious
Education
Media Studies
Physical
Education
Dance
Design and
Technology
Enrichment
option
Food
Technology
Business
Studies
Textiles
Technology
Information
Technology
Resistant
Materials
Technology
Geography
Information
Technology
Art
History
Media Studies
Graphic
Products
Technology
Drama
French
German
Urdu
Bengali
School 2 : 2002-3
16
Core
subjects
English
Group 1
5
hours/fortnight
GCSE Art
English
Literature
GCSE Drama
Mathematics
GCSE Dance
Science
GCSE French
PE
(non-GCSE)
GCSE
Geography
PHSE
(Progress
File)
Citizenship
(½ GCSE)
GCSE German
RE
(½ GCSE)
GCSE
Humanities
IT
(non-GCSE)
GCSE Media
Studies
L
Group 2
School 2 : 2006
Group 3
6 hours/fortnight
7 hours/fortnight
IT:DIDA (1-4)
CIDA (1-2)
GCSE
Product Design
& Food (2)
GCSE
Product Design
& Graphics (2)
GCSE
Product Design
& Textiles (2)
GCSE Applied Art
(2)
GCSE Product
Design &
Resistant
Materials (2)
GCSE History
GCSE Music
GCSE PE
GCSE Spanish
GCSE Urdu
L
GCSE
Applied Business
(2)
GCSE/NVG Level 1
Catering (2)
BTEC
First Certificate
Performing Arts
(Dance) (2)
BTEC
Intro Certificate
Performing Arts
(Dance) (2)
GCSE
Health & Social
Care (2)
GCSE
Leisure and
Tourism (2)
BTEC
First Certificate
(Performing Arts in
Music and Acting
(2)
BTEC Intro
Certificate
(Performing Arts in
Music and Acting)
(2)

Number in
Number in brackets
brackets
indicates number of
indicates number
GCSEs or
of GCSEs or
equivalent
equivalent
In each 'X' columns mark your choices in priority using
1, 2 and 3. You may choose also 2 reserves; mark them R1 and R2
17

L
D-4. Teachers opinions of factors which may influence
pupils' choices
18
Appendix D-4
Imagine that you are a Year 9 pupil about to complete your option choices for subjects to
study for GCSE. What emphasis would YOU, AS A YEAR 9 PUPIL, attach to the
following elements when choosing an optional subject?
Please circle your choice for each element:
4= very important 3= important 2= slightly important 1= neutral
0=
unimportant
Emphasis on reading and written tasks
4
3
2
1
0
Reference to other school subjects
4
3
2
1
0
Relevance for a job
4
3
2
1
0
Degree of enjoyment
4
3
2
1
0
Degree of difficulty
4
3
2
1
0
Amount of homework
4
3
2
1
0
Perceived to have gender bias
4
3
2
1
0
Relevance to FE/HE admission
4
3
2
1
0
Perception of course content
4
3
2
1
0
Usefulness in adult life
4
3
2
1
0
Influence of school-based careers advice
4
3
2
1
0
Transferable skills
4
3
2
1
0
Personality of the subject teacher
4
3
2
1
0
Perceived competence of the subject teacher 4
3
2
1
0
Degree of previous success
4
3
2
1
0
Demands of coursework
4
3
2
1
0
Parental perception of subject value
4
3
2
1
0
Influence of peers
4
3
2
1
0
Influence of siblings
4
3
2
1
0
Influence of parent-teacher evening
4
3
2
1
0
Please indicate your age-range and teaching experience:
21-31
32-41
42-51
52-61
61+
Years teaching
If you think there is a factor not included above, please put it in the box
below
19
Appendix E
20
Appendix E-1:
A Semi-structured interview pattern
Year 10/Year11
Representative sample
Introduction
________________________________________________________
Pre-amble re. Topics already done from GCSE course
First impressions of GCSE History; demands/content/satisfaction
Why are they studying History?
Procedure for choosing History in Year 9
Recollections/observations of that procedure
Influencing factors during that procedure
Year 9 perceptions of GCSE History
Differences between experiences of Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4
Compare Coursework with Topic /Project work
Recollections of Year 9 History
Recollections of Key Stage 3 History
Types of tasks/learning
Recall of significant parts of the course
21
Appendix E-2
If there are any newspapers or magazines that you read often,
list them in this box: say if they are daily, weekly or monthly.
Which sections of these do you enjoy most?
What are your favourite television programmes?
How often, where and at what times do you watch news reports
Are you able to use a computer at home on a regular basis?
Sometimes pupils use the Internet to find information which will help them
with their school work: at other times you might ‘surf the net’. When you
use the Internet for something that is not to do with school work, which
subjects and web sites do you look for?
22
23
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement