Search

This paper argues that the existence of a canon of established and privileged texts in the primary literacy curriculum in England can be traced historically and has informed current national policy and practice. This canonisation of a particular set of literature has served to marginalise popular cultural and media texts, often the preferred texts of children in contemporary society. The paper examines the historical development of an established, hegemonic body of texts and critically analyses current national curricula frameworks for primary literacy in order to determine the way in which reading material is framed. It is argued that current national policy enshrines particular textual traditions at the expense of more popular forms of material and that this has major implications for the relevance of the future primary literacy curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last few years there has been a renewed interest in questions of citizenship and in particular its relation to young people. This has been allied to an educational discourse where the emphasis has been upon questions concerned with ‘outcome’ rather than with ‘process’– with the curriculum and methods of teaching rather than questions of understanding and learning. This paper seeks to describe and illuminate the linkages within and between these related discourses. It advocates an inclusive and relational view of citizenship-as-practice within a distinctive socio-economic and political, and cultural milieu. Drawing upon some empirical insights from our research we conclude that an appropriate educational programme would respect the claim to citizenship status of everyone in society, including children and young people. It would work together with young people rather than on young people, and recognise that the actual practices of citizenship, and the ways in which these practices transform over time are educationally significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs that there are two problems in educational theory. People, today, are most concerned about practical decision-making in curriculum; and whether it should be an area of expert decision-making, because only experts are steeped in the theories of learning and pedagogy, or open to parents or indeed even students. Some would argue against expert decision-making on grounds that we have no solid theories of human learning, etc., to back up the practice of education, unlike nuclear technology which rests on the firmer ground of nuclear physics. If social science theory is impossible in principle, it has not been demonstrated so far. Nevertheless, there are two lessons arising over and above the problem of the meaning of theory. First, even if educational theories are possible and one has access to them, they would not ensure absolute and unassailable certainty. Second, the reason that certainty is impossible and, perhaps also, the reason that people encounter such difficulty in generating educational theory.