{"title":"Equality and diversity in secondary schools: teachers’ agentic and constrained enactments of the curriculum","authors":"Asma Lebbakhar, Katie Hoskins, A. Chappell","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In England educators have been concerned about ensuring equality and diversity in education due to ever-diversifying school populations, who find themselves positioned as outsiders to England’s National Curriculum. This article explores the accessibility and limitations of the curriculum from the perspective of ten secondary school teachers in nine different subjects in inner city state schools. We begin by examining the participants’ goals and aims when enacting the curriculum to make it accessible to all students. However, the prescriptive nature of the curriculum in most subjects makes this task challenging. We then examine how participants perceived that they enabled students’ access to the curriculum and the challenges encountered. We focus on art and English to highlight the different spaces to enact equality and diversity within the curriculum. In the nonprescriptive art curriculum, teachers choose their own resources and themes, allowing for greater creativity and cultural inclusivity. In contrast, in the English curriculum, teachers find the process of equalising and diversifying the curriculum difficult, particularly at Key Stage 4, due to the high status of the subject. To conclude, we argue that the more prescriptive a curriculum subject is, the more difficult it is to make it equal, diverse and inclusive of everyone.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"London Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In England educators have been concerned about ensuring equality and diversity in education due to ever-diversifying school populations, who find themselves positioned as outsiders to England’s National Curriculum. This article explores the accessibility and limitations of the curriculum from the perspective of ten secondary school teachers in nine different subjects in inner city state schools. We begin by examining the participants’ goals and aims when enacting the curriculum to make it accessible to all students. However, the prescriptive nature of the curriculum in most subjects makes this task challenging. We then examine how participants perceived that they enabled students’ access to the curriculum and the challenges encountered. We focus on art and English to highlight the different spaces to enact equality and diversity within the curriculum. In the nonprescriptive art curriculum, teachers choose their own resources and themes, allowing for greater creativity and cultural inclusivity. In contrast, in the English curriculum, teachers find the process of equalising and diversifying the curriculum difficult, particularly at Key Stage 4, due to the high status of the subject. To conclude, we argue that the more prescriptive a curriculum subject is, the more difficult it is to make it equal, diverse and inclusive of everyone.
期刊介绍:
London Review of Education (LRE), an international peer-reviewed journal, aims to promote and disseminate high-quality analyses of important issues in contemporary education. As well as matters of public goals and policies, these issues include those of pedagogy, curriculum, organisation, resources, and institutional effectiveness. LRE wishes to report on these issues at all levels and in all types of education, and in national and transnational contexts. LRE wishes to show linkages between research and educational policy and practice, and to show how educational policy and practice are connected to other areas of social and economic policy.