In an article published in 1992 (Chitty, 1992), I argued that, on the face of it, the 1988 Education Reform Act, and in particular the clauses relating to the National Curriculum, appeared to represent a ‘defeat’ for the thinking of two major groups: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate; and a powerful faction within the Conservative Party of the 1980s often referred to as either the ‘Industrial Trainers’ or the ‘Conservative Modernizers’. As we saw in Chapter 7, the HMI model of a common ‘entitlement’ curriculum was based on the idea of eight or nine ‘areas of learning and experience’; the curriculum programme for older students put forward by the so-called Modernizers (referred to briefly above on page 148) emphasized the concept of a 14–19 continuum or framework, with the status of vocational education and training radically enhanced. It has to be conceded that there were few among the decision-making class of the early 1990s who wished to resurrect the HMI model of curriculum planning; but the views of the Modernizers were not to be dismissed so lightly, and even in 1992 it was already becoming clear to many teachers that Key Stage Four of the National Curriculum would be heavily overloaded and that it could not be implemented in the form envisaged by Kenneth Baker and the civil servants of the DES. As we shall see later in this chapter, the idea of a 14–19 curriculum embracing both ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ pathways steadily gained ground as the 1990s progressed, and was to find expression in major modifications to the statutory curriculum proposed by Sir Ron Dearing.
Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
- The 14–19 Continuum: Issues and Policies for Education and Training
- Macmillan Education UK
- Sequence number
- Chapter number