It was great to receive a copy of Martin Fautley’s new book today. Congratulations on this excellent book Martin. There is lots of value here and I know that music teachers will find it really useful. Assessment is such a contentious area but Martin gives clear, practical advice to music teachers  Basically, music teachers should be making much more use of assessment for learning techniques, periodic assessment and looking at how other subjects handle assessment at Key Stage 3. The QCA has lots of good advice about this on the new National Curriculum website. NAME published a very helpful document written byDr Martin Fautley (available from their website), and you could also read the book Martin and I wrote on this. Here’s the link.

School subject communities are neither harmonious nor homogeneous and members do not necessarily share particular values, subject definitions and interests. (Jephcote & Davies 2007, p.210)

The diverse memberships of school subject communities create conditions conducive to contest, conflict and tension, both within a subject and between it and other subjects where we need to understand the effects of interaction across a series of boundaries between subject subcultures. (Cooper 1983, p.208)

The main task here is to define the principles and purposes for cross-curricular teaching and learning. To do this effectively, it will be important to consider and learn from a range of broader research that has been undertaken.

Research Review 1: Evidence from recent research within the United

Commissioned by the QCDA, the Centre for the Use of Research and Evidence in Education (CUREE) has been analysing the impact of recent curriculum changes in the United Kingdom’s schools. Their map of research evidence (2009a) presents some interesting evidence that will help us to develop our principles and purposes for cross-curricular teaching and learning. The key findings from their systematic review identified cross-curricular pedagogies as one aspect of teachers’ practice that was facilitated or hindered by a range of issues. These were:

• The effectiveness of learning that is ‘context based’ (dealing with ideas and phenomena in real or simulated practical situations);
• The importance of connecting the curriculum with young people’s experiences of home and community and the related, but also distinctive theme of parental involvement in children’s learning in the home;
• The impact on pupil motivation and learning of structured dialogue in group work and of collaborative learning;
• The need to create opportunities to identify and build on pupils’ existing conceptual understandings;
• The need to remove rigidity in the approach to the curriculum – to allow time and space for conceptual development, to encourage integration of cross-curricular learning;
• The need for excellence and professional development in subject knowledge – without which teachers would be unable to seize opportunities for curriculum innovation, particularly in relation to context-based learning. (CIDREE 2009a)

Each of these issues is explored further in their review of individual studies (CUREE 2009b). The first point to note is that cross-curricular approaches proved to be effective when they were either ‘context based’ (i.e. centred around a particular theme/dimension) or connected the school-based curriculum with young people’s experiences more widely (e.g. in the home and the community). Secondly, the positive impact of this type of approach on pupils was noted in terms of their motivation, discursive language and potential to collaborate with each other. More negatively, the damaging lack of consideration to how this new approach would build on pupils’ existing ‘conceptual understanding’ was noted. Turning this around, it will be important that new innovation in curriculum planning and development is constructively linked to pupils’ current range of experiences and understanding (their ‘folk pedagogy’ in Bruner’s terms (Bruner 1996)). Thirdly, and at the level of curriculum design, these types of approaches were facilitated by flexibility in curriculum design, by allowing ‘time and space’ for development. Finally, and perhaps most important for our ongoing discussion, the need for excellence in teachers’ subject knowledge is prioritised. The research suggests that this is a vital precursor for curriculum innovation.

Research Review 2: Evidence from the European context

The Consortium of Institutions for Development and Research in Education in Europe (CIDREE) produced an interesting European Union wide report into cross-curricular themes in education (CIDREE 2005). Although this report deals primarily with the introduction of cross-curricular themes (e.g. personal, social and health education, citizenship education, etc), it does identify a range of factors that influence the success or failure of a cross-curricular theme (either as a stand alone component within a curriculum or embedded within existing subjects). The research surveyed 27 countries through a range of methods. This research identified a range of key problems in the implementation of cross-curricular approaches.

Firstly, the most common pressure on the successful introduction of cross-curricular approaches to curriculum planning was due to the pressure on school timetables and the overloading of the curriculum itself. As we saw in Chapter 1, these are common problems in the recent history of educational reform in the United Kingdom. The report emphasises that the role of the teacher is paramount in the successful implementation of cross-curricular approaches. But:

Many teachers report a lack of self-confidence with respect to cross-curricular themes (Saunders et al 1995) or they feel themselves ill prepared in addressing these themes (Van Looy, 2002; Arnot & Wilkins cited in Kerr, 1999; Kerr, 2000; Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2001). This inadequacy relates to both the lack of content knowledge and to the inability to employ a range of teaching and learning approaches appropriate to the theme (Kerr, 2000). (CIDREE 2005, p.8)

In order to combat teachers’ lack of experience or competence with cross-curricular themes or approaches, the report emphasises that teacher development was reported as the ‘top priority’ for schools in improving their provision. But, this was not easy either:

However, even when teachers take part in in-service training relating to aspects of, for example personal, social and health education (PSHE), the impact of this training appears to be limited because teachers have insufficient time to put their training experiences into practice (OFSTED, 2001). (CIDREE 2005, p.9)

The report considers some of the reasons for these problems and identifies that, in contrast to traditional subjects, some of these themes lack academic traditions, research and development base’ (ibid). In terms of developing an appropriate pedagogy for cross-curricular teaching the report has some interesting comments from a range of European perspectives:

Research on the process evaluation of the introduction of cross-curricular themes shows that successful introduction requires the usage of active teaching methods which, according to many teachers, is difficult to realise (Stevens cited in Somers, 2001). … Furthermore, it seems that teachers often insist on the dominance of subject principles in structuring pupils’ learning. This makes teaching the themes through including them in subjects very difficult. (CIDREE 2005, p.9)

As a specific example of this, the report identifies an issue related to language:

Particularly, the rules of use of ‘talk’ in different contexts seem to be one of the key problems (Whitty et al 1994a). Buck & Inman (1993) advocate a form of learning which enables pupils to acquire knowledge through content which is both challenging and relevant and through learning processes which are active and experiential. (CIDREE 2005, p.9)

The extent to which teachers are able to co-operate and collaborate within a school was another important factor in stimulating cross-curricular activities:

There is a lot of evidence that co-operation between teachers and the involvement of all teachers of the same school are important conditions for successfully implementing cross-curricular themes (Van Looy 2002; Estyn 2002). However, this consultative structure is not always present in secondary schools (Inspectie van het Onderwijs 2001) or there is a lack of communication culture (Somers, 2001). Furthermore, members of the school community who are asked to coordinate cross-curricular work in schools, often find it difficult to motivate colleagues and do not have the same influence on their colleagues as school directors usually have (Somers, 2001). (CIDREE 2005, p.10)

The nature and structure of educational resources were next to come under scrutiny. Here, the report criticises resources for a lack of advice about managing collaborative projects and a lack of coherence in the structure and approach:

Hargreaves (1991) states that the task to create coherence within the cross-curricular themes is being largely left to the teachers. This can be explained by the fact that some guidance documents provide insufficient advice as to how teachers might make these links. Moreover, guidance documents seem sometimes to intensify the difficulties since there is no coherence of approach across the different themes (Beck, 1995). (CIDREE 2005, p.10)

Here, the importance of an appropriate assessment methodology is raised:

Students feel that if an aspect of learning is not assessed, it implies that it is of low importance and low relevance to their lives (Walker, 2002). The pre-survey report for European Conference on the implementation of cross-curricular themes reveals that five countries mention the lack of evaluation as an aspect that undermines the status of the themes (Maes, et al. 2001). … The findings of this report clearly point to the importance of having identifiable evaluation systems to provide appropriate recognition and realization rules for work relating to cross-curricular themes. (CIDREE 2005, p.10)

More briefly, the report is able to identify some positive features for the implementation of a cross-curricular approach. These are that cross-curricular approaches should:

• Demand that pupils pull together appropriate knowledge from a range of subjects and relate it to everyday life;
• Be characterised by an objective and open-minded approach to controversial issues with attention for the quality and quantity of evidence;
• Use concepts as the intellectual building blocks and as essential aids to the categorisation, organisation and analysis of knowledge and experiences;
• Use participatory and experiential teaching and learning styles;
• Deal explicitly with questions and issues that enable pupils to explore fundamental aspects of our lives.

In relation to how schools can be managed effectively to achieve these aims, the report concludes by stating that they are characterised by:

• Having a vision and goals which are well described and with which all participants are familiar with it;
• Aiming at both cognitive and personal and social development of their pupils;
• Making decisions in a participative way;
• Possessing a strong ability to self-assess and innovate.

I’m starting today with a brief historical overview of issues relating to cross-curricular teaching and learning from a UK-perspective. It would be great to get feedback on these ideas, particularly from those of you reading outside the UK who have faced different sets of policy/circumstance than over here. So, here we go.

Recent educational policies, initiatives and resulting curriculum frameworks all have a history. It is interesting to take the longer view and consider how these current initiatives have emerged from, or perhaps are distinct from, previous ways of thinking or working. In this section, we will briefly consider a range of issues drawn from literature surrounding the implementation of the National Curriculum in the early 1990s. As we will see, some of the questions and issues being raised then have an interesting parallel to issues being considered today.

The implementation of the first National Curriculum in 1992 was encompassed by an extensive range of discussion amongst educators and politicians about a range of issues. Amongst this discussion, the inclusion within the National Curriculum of what were referred to at the time as ‘cross-curricular dimensions, skills and themes’ was hotly contested. Some of the arguments will be familiar. Dafour, writing in 1990, stated that:

‘Education’ and ‘curriculum’ have not been defined in any previous Education Act, although the Education Reform Act, 1988, which is about both, does depart from this tradition by providing a definition of the curriculum along with a prescriptive list of subjects that must, subsequently, be taught. (Dafour 1990, p.1)

One can sense the tumultuous political arguments that are raging beneath his prose. Within, and beyond, this ‘prescriptive’ list of subjects there were winners and losers, e.g. music was included, drama was not; physical education is there in its own right, dance was not, etc. The sense of politicians ‘meddling’ in the construction of a curriculum was very real at this time. One could cite numerous examples of how individual subject content was changed in response to Government ‘interference’, even at the level of individual Government ministers (Verma and Pumfrey 1993, p.21). Dafour goes on to say that:

While the status and context of different forms of knowledge will continue to be influenced by political and ideological considerations, political partiality should not be allowed to influence the final choice and status of particular subjects and cross-curricular themes for the school curriculum. The only question that should be asked is an educational one – how can all the subjects and themes fit together into the curriculum? (Dafour 1990, p.11)

Unfortunately this was not, and perhaps has never been, the case. Politics and education have a long and troubled history. But as one can see from the second part of this statement, alongside the inclusion of certain subjects, cross-curricular themes were also included within the curriculum framework. The National Curriculum Council defined these themes as:

… elements that enrich the educational experience of pupils. They are more structured and pervasive than any other cross-curricular provision and include a strong component of knowledge and understanding in addition to skills. Most can be taught through other subjects as well as through themes and topics. (NCC 1989, p.6)

These cross-curricular themes included topics such as economic and industrial understanding, health education, environmental education and citizenship. But in addition to themes, the inclusion of cross-curricular skills such as communication, numeracy, problem solving, information technology and study skills were implemented. Writing in 1993, a year after the introduction of the National Curriculum, the prescribed subjects and these various cross-curricular components, Pumfrey commented that:

The sheer rate of change that is taking place in education is unprecedented. The volume of paper reaching schools and requiring responses is daunting, even to the most committed professional. The core and other foundation subjects are currently centre-stage. Unless teachers and schools are vigilant, the benefits of cross-curricular themes could be adversely affected.

At present, the National Curriculum is far from fully in place in schools. The way in which various subjects are cross-curricular themes have been introduced into the secondary school syllabus has not been of the highest order. Too little preparation and consultation have led to controversial changes. (Pumfrey 1993, p.21)

As we will go on to see, in respect of implementing cross-curricular elements within a wider curriculum framework, little has changed in twenty years! The position facing teachers today is that the inclusion of cross-curricular dimensions within the new secondary curriculum is non-statutory. Given the raft of other new initiatives, this sends a strong message to teachers about where their priorities might lie. Crawford (2000) considers the role of policy makers and their relationship to practitioners in a fascinating study. At the level of the individual teacher who in the early 1990s, as we have seen, was struggling to make sense of these monumental changes in curriculum policy and design and had to side-line cross-curricular themes in favour of core subjects, he quotes Ball who stated that ‘teachers were reduced to agents of policies which were decided elsewhere’ (Ball 1990, p.171). Perhaps there is nothing new there either. But more generally, whilst Crawford’s belief is that the then Department for Education and Science was not against the principle of whole curriculum initiatives (i.e. an approach that blended together subjects with cross-curricular themes), his concluding thought is that ‘the debate over the whole curriculum is representative of a conflict over the strategy of curriculum implementation’ (Crawford 2000, p.628).

In summary, this tumultuous period demonstrated many things. Firstly, the marriage of subjects and cross-curricular themes within the curriculum is not an easy one. Secondly, the imposition of large changes in curriculum design often mean that teachers will focus on what they know, i.e. their subject, and not make the wider links that might have been envisaged by a ‘whole curriculum. Finally, although the benefits of a cross-curricular set of themes and skills were recognised by politicians and educators, the practical implementation of the curriculum itself meant that opportunities were missed and creative links were established between subjects or between subjects and cross-curricular themes.

My view is that supporting gifted and talented pupils is, firstly, an essential part of an individual teacher’s role. Their pedagogy needs to be broad enough to ensure that all children are challenged at all stages of their education. This is not a simple task when you are faced with large classes containing mixed abilities, but it is possible (and my book will show you how!).

But organisations like the NAGTY had a part to play in providing a service to schools in helping them support their gifted and talented pupils. However, in the current financial climate it is no surprise that cuts like this are being made. Within the field of music education, I am going to bet a significant sum that the current (one might say extravagant) funding that certain initiatives have received is going to be slashed, if not cut completely, over the next 12 months or so, whichever party comes to power in the May election.

In some senses, there are no surprises here at all. The report endorses the Wider Opportunities approach to instrumental learning, even hinting that whole class tuition is as effective as small group tuition. On second thoughts, perhaps I should have been surprised by that if I reflect back over the longer term of instrumental teaching in schools?

Obviously, I’m a firm advocate for the benefits of a music education for all children. But I do worry that pieces of research/evaluation like this sometimes over-step the mark. I’m really not sure that claims about pupils’ self-esteem being raised through participating in Wider Opportunities, and the benefits that this has on their wider studies, can be validated in what seems like a short-scale evaluative study. Surely a longitudinal study of some sort is needed for that? But, the research seems to have been funded by the FMS, Yamaha and other musical groups so perhaps its findings are not that suprising. The key recommendations made be laugh out loud. What do you make of this selection:

1.2 Planning and programming of WO should be more open to input and decision making from children; Why?

2.5 Continued financial and resource commitment to schools and music services is needed to meet the rapid growth in demand for WO music provisions; No surprise there! Nothing like having a bit of research to back up your claim for more money from an ever-decreasing pot.

3.4 Strategic targeting towards broader improvement in initial teacher education for class teachers; Easy to have a pop at classroom teachers. We’ve seen that before fairly recently.

3.5 Encouraging greater parity of training and pay and conditions across music services; In other words, lets pay unqualified instructors the same as qualified teachers. After all, what’s the difference?

Bit cynical? Maybe. What do others think?

Scholars have differed about the correct interpretation of these dark words, which may mean no more than that the fox, for all his cunning, is defeated by the hedgehog’s one defence. But, taken figuratively, the words can be made to yield a sense in which they mark one of the deepest differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be, human beings in general.

For there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system, less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel – a single, universal, organising principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance – and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or physiological cause, related to no moral or aesthetic principle. These last lead lives, perform acts and entertain ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal; their thought is scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in themselves, without, consciously or unconsciously, seeking to fit them into, or exclude them from, any one unchanging, all-embracing, sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical, unitary inner vision. The first kind of intellectual and artistic personality belongs to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes. (Berlin 1953, pp.1-2)

So, put simply, Berlin’s application of Archilochus is that human beings can be categorised as either being ‘hedgehogs’ or ‘foxes’. Hedghogs’ lives are dominated by a single, central vision of reality through which they think and feel. Foxes, in contrast, live what might be called a centrifugal life, pursuing many divergent ends. Berlin goes on to give examples of each type. Famous hedgehogs that he cites include Plato, Proust and Nietzsche; famous foxes included Montaigne, Goethe and Shakespeare. The bottom line in Berlin’s use of the metaphor is that there are different ways of knowing or approaching reality, namely the far-ranging generalist or the concentrated specialist.

As a bit of light relief, do you think you are a hedgehog or a fox? Tetlock’s book (Tetlock 2005) contains this short quiz to help you find out. Answer all of the questions first by either agreeing or disagreeing with the following twelve statements and then check how to score your responses below.

1. Scholars are usually at greater risk of exaggerating how complex the world is than they are of underestimating how complex it is.

2. We are closer than many think to achieving parsimonious explanations of politics

3. I think politics is more cloud-like than clock-like (cloud-like meaning inherently unpredictable; ‘clock-like’ meaning perfectly predictable if we have adequate knowledge).

4. The more common error in decision making is to abandon good ideas too quickly, not to stick with bad ideas too long.

5. Having clear rules and order at work is essential for success.

6. Even after I have made up my mind about something, I am always eager to consider a different opinion.

7. I dislike questions that can be answered in many different ways.

8. I usually make important decisions quickly and confidently.

9. When considering most conflict situations, I can usually see how both sides could be right.

10. It is annoying to listen to someone who cannot seem to make up his or her mind.

11. I prefer interacting with people whose opinions are very different from my own.

12. When trying to solve a problem I often see so many options that it is confusing.

To score your responses, start at 0. If you agreed with any of the above statements apply the scores below; if you disagreed, apply the opposite score (i.e. -3 will become +3).

1. -3

2. -5

3. +4

4. -5

5. -2

6. +5

7. -6

8. -4

9. +5

10. -3

11. +4

12. +1

If you end up with a score of +7 or above, you are a fox; -7 or below, you are hedgehog. If you are somewhere in-between, you are a curious, new mammalian cross-breed (perhaps a fox-hog, or maybe a hedge-hox?). But do not take it too seriously!

On a related matter, there is an interesting reference in the letter from the QCDA to Ed Balls about APP:

It seems that there is a move to shy away from dictating to schools the precise approach that they should conducting teacher asessment at Key Stage 3. It is all ‘as you are then’ to my mind. My response: what a wasted opportunity.