Egalitarian Curricula at Comprehensive Schools in England : A Comparative Study of Two Secondary Schools

Abstract

This paper aims to examine the models of common curriculum, which were proposed for comprehensive schools in England. First, it shows that there were two models based on the egalitarian principles. According to Model 1, a common curriculum should be organised as a collection of disciplines; whereas according to Model 2, a common curriculum should be organised as a collection of disciplines; whereas according to Model 2, a common curriculum should be designed considering other dimensions (such as 'learning processes' and 'learning environments') as well as disciplines. In order to evaluate these models, this paper reports the results of a comparative study of two comprehensive schools in Birmingham. The research was based mainly on qualitative data, such as interviews with teachers and observation of school life. Oak Tree School employed curriculum policies which were similar to Model 1. It had the strongest restriction on pupils' subject choice, attempting to maximise the number of GCSE passes. The headteacher aimed to promote equality among the pupils, but his focus on GCSE qualifications had produced an authoritarian ethos in the school. On the other hand, Banyan Tree School was primarily trying to promote a democratic ethos, which is similar to the idea underpinning Model 2. At this school too, teachers thought that a certain number of GCSE subjects should be compulsory, but they offered more freedom of subject choice to their pupils. In order to prevent pupils' subject choice from being influenced by their social backgrounds, the school was challenging pupils' stereotypes by offering positive role models. The school curriculum included more elements of vocational education, and those of personal and social education. As a result, Banyan Tree School seemed to be more successful in promoting equality than Oak Tree School. Lastly, based on this study, this paper explains what the limitations of Model 1 are and the advantages inherent in Model 2.