View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Is It Time to Ditch the Notion of 'Core Subjects'?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Is It Time to Ditch the Notion of 'Core Subjects'?
Language: English
Authors: Marjorie Thomas (ORCID 0009-0007-8695-5121)
Source: British Journal of Special Education. 2025 52(2):265-271.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Educational Change, National Curriculum, Core Curriculum, Intellectual Disciplines, Resource Allocation, Accountability, Bias, Industry, Student Needs, Qualifications, Literacy, Numeracy, Pass Fail Grading
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (Wales)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8578.70023
ISSN: 0952-3383
1467-8578
Abstract: Wales is in the middle of a fundamental reform of its curriculum and consequent assessment design. There is a welcome broadening of the range of subjects offered at levels 1 and 2, yet the notion that some subjects are more important than others persists. Furthermore, the 'core' subjects of language, mathematics and science are seeing the biggest changes: English language and literature will be merged; Welsh language and literature will be merged; physics, chemistry and biology will be merged; and separate mathematics qualifications (mathematics and numeracy) will be combined. The tension between the demands of industry on the one hand and the needs of learners on the other often means that schools are caught in the middle, trying to do the best for their individual learners while being held accountable for attainment data decided by Government. Yet in a system created for externally decided grade boundaries and standardised scores in which a certain proportion of 'failure' is 'baked in' by the statistics, how can we ensure the flourishing of all our children, even those who fall below one standard deviation from the mean? How much of an influence can the idea be that the inherent benefit to an individual is sufficient justification for an education without the need to pander to the requirements of a capitalist influence on policymakers? Furthermore, can GCSE English (or Welsh) be used as a reliable proxy for literacy? This article imagines the outcomes for learners, schools and employment if the power of the notion of core subjects were drained from metrics such as Attainment 8/Capped 9 and any best grades were counted instead.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1474951
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEIsVX52I-hPEa6ux0APQGAAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN9zbSV4Yyum88gYrwIBEICBm6b-pk7fGbxibXP9HDXBSLICx8BXQSfU0gXFKBm5TnObqfs_CDvpOq30xJ39My38K_r-CLmO3vbLrL9NVhvT-KCdEElU1OmpefFWN915mtYzHodFsSEwHA9yAyipVH66JKRK98Ep_drpL-Ewb6AdncY2n6TXvMp2sfw137wMCcU9hQ-wt3AIofNe5ojEhen766fTFUyfqLhuSEnn
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186162461;bmp01jun.25;2025Jun27.03:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186162461-1">Is it time to ditch the notion of 'core subjects'? </title> <p>Wales is in the middle of a fundamental reform of its curriculum and consequent assessment design. There is a welcome broadening of the range of subjects offered at levels 1 and 2, yet the notion that some subjects are more important than others persists. Furthermore, the 'core' subjects of language, mathematics and science are seeing the biggest changes: English language and literature will be merged; Welsh language and literature will be merged; physics, chemistry and biology will be merged; and separate mathematics qualifications (mathematics and numeracy) will be combined. The tension between the demands of industry on the one hand and the needs of learners on the other often means that schools are caught in the middle, trying to do the best for their individual learners while being held accountable for attainment data decided by Government. Yet in a system created for externally decided grade boundaries and standardised scores in which a certain proportion of 'failure' is 'baked in' by the statistics, how can we ensure the flourishing of all our children, even those who fall below one standard deviation from the mean? How much of an influence can the idea be that the inherent benefit to an individual is sufficient justification for an education without the need to pander to the requirements of a capitalist influence on policymakers? Furthermore, can GCSE English (or Welsh) be used as a reliable proxy for literacy? This article imagines the outcomes for learners, schools and employment if the power of the notion of core subjects were drained from metrics such as Attainment 8/Capped 9 and any best grades were counted instead.</p> <p>Keywords: accountability; ALN; curriculum; qualifications; SEN</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The greatest influence on school resource allocation and timetables is the suite of externally imposed accountability measures.</item> <p></p> <item> The inclusion of non‐negotiable core subjects in accountability measures leads to a narrowing of the curriculum and bias towards the demands of industry over the needs of students. It also prejudices against approximately one‐third of the school population who do not achieve grade C/level 4 in language and mathematics.</item> <p></p> <item> There is currently very little research available on this matter but a simple solution could be to remove the notion of core subjects from accountability measures and allow schools to create a timetable that is driven by the needs of its students, namely, to gain qualifications for the next step in their lives.</item> <p></p> <item> GCSE English/Welsh and mathematics are unreliable proxies for literacy and numeracy. A pass/fail qualification is proposed which would focus on allowing all students to be literate and numerate. It would also provide industry with the assurance that employees had achieved an acceptable level of literacy and numeracy.</item> </ulist> <p>Key points</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Wales is in the middle of a fundamental reform of its curriculum and consequent assessment design. There is a welcome broadening of the range of subjects offered at levels 1 and 2, yet the notion that some subjects are more important than others persists. Furthermore, the 'core' subjects of language, mathematics and science are seeing the biggest changes: English language and literature will be merged; Welsh language and literature will be merged; physics, chemistry and biology will be merged; and separate mathematics qualifications (mathematics and numeracy) will be combined.</p> <p>The tension between the demands of industry on the one hand and the needs of learners on the other often means that schools are caught in the middle, trying to do the best for their individual learners while being held accountable for attainment data decided by Government. Yet in a system created for externally decided grade boundaries and standardised scores in which a certain proportion of 'failure' is 'baked in' by the statistics, how can we ensure the flourishing of all our children, even those who fall below one standard deviation from the mean? How much of an influence can the idea be that the inherent benefit to an individual is sufficient justification for an education without the need to pander to the requirements of a capitalist influence on policymakers? Furthermore, can GCSE English (or Welsh) be used as a reliable proxy for literacy? This article imagines the outcomes for learners, schools and employment if the power of the notion of core subjects were drained from metrics such as Attainment 8/Capped 9 and any best grades were counted instead.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-3">THE RISE OF NEOLIBERAL COMMON SENSE</hd> <p>For those old enough to have taught in the 1970s and early '80s, the idea that all school subjects could be equal is neither radical nor impossible. Prior to the 1988 Education Reform Act, which established the National Curriculum in England and Wales, schools themselves were broadly allowed to decide what to teach (James, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>]). The past 40 years, however, have seen power shift from local education authorities to central Government (James, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]), with the interests of industry and employers increasing in importance (Shaw & Shirley, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref3">32</reflink>]), and the influence of neoliberal politics overtaking all spheres of Western society (Clarke & Mills, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]; Sellars & Imig, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>This last factor – neoliberalism – has become so pervasive in Western education policy that its tenets are accepted almost universally within the UK as simply 'a commonsensical understanding of how education should work' (Evans, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref6">13</reflink>], p. 135). Sellars and Imig ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>], p. 172) offer a summary of neoliberalism in their 'five Cs': competitiveness, conformity, conservatism, convention and commerce. It transforms intelligence and skills into a country's main natural resource and demands standardised methods of quantifying and profiling different populations, so that companies know where to invest (Evans, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>The idea that mass education could be harnessed to service industry is not new. The 1870 Elementary Education Act was largely brought about by the lobbying of industrialists for the National Education League, in response to the strength of their belief that education was essential to the British nation's ability to maintain its international manufacturing lead (UK Parliament, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>]). Years later, Callaghan's 'Ruskin' speech in 1976 boldly criticised teachers and an education system which was out of touch with the needs of the country and reinforced the idea that education policy was not only – or even mainly – for teachers and parents: Government and industry also had a stake in its design (Shaw & Shirley, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>By the time David Cameron announced in 2014 that if 'countries are going to win in the global race and children compete and get the best jobs, you need mathematicians and scientists – pure and simple' (UK Government, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref11">37</reflink>], para. 11), there was very little opposition to his ideas per se. For example, not one of the comments under the story as reported in the left‐wing <emph>Guardian</emph> newspaper contains a single challenge to the premise of prioritising maths and science, or to the assertion that children are competing in a global race which must be won (Press Association, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]). The common‐sense arguments, delivered in a note to editors, were clear: 'Research by Deloitte ... shows that productivity for those working in mathematics and science occupations is more than double the national average' (UK Government, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>], para. 15). Furthermore, Cameron did not announce at that time any extra investment in developing reading. Pupils at age 10 who had high mathematics scores went on to earn 7.3% more than others at age 30; reading skills also attracted 'a premium' but not as large as that for mathematics (UK Government, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref14">37</reflink>], para. 16). Common wisdom apparently accepted that education was about productivity and maximising economic growth, even if that meant prioritising mathematics over literacy.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-4">CURRICULUM, QUALIFICATIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY</hd> <p>Wales is in the process of root‐and‐branch reform of its National Curriculum and it has been interesting to note the order of the processes that have taken place. First came the curriculum, implemented from September 2022 and extending to Year 9 in September 2024. The first students to study for qualifications under the new system will begin Year 10 in 2025 and will sit their external examinations in 2027. Draft specifications for the new GCSE qualifications were made available in the summer of 2024, with approved copies becoming available from September last year. The 'new data and information ecosystem' (Owen et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref15">25</reflink>]) through which schools will be held accountable for their results has to this date not yet been made known. The NASUWT rightly raised the issue of teachers having to 'reverse‐engineer' the curriculum they have cobbled together in the interim to fit both the qualifications it serves and the performance management measures by which schools will be judged (Senedd Cymru, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>It can only be naive to think that anything other than the measures by which a school will be held accountable would drive school finances, resources and the timetable. In the hierarchy of elements that influence what happens in school, accountability is king (Creese & Isaacs, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]). The relationship between a country's frameworks for curriculum, qualifications and accountability goes in one direction only: schools will build their curriculum offering from the regulations and guidance set out in a country's national curriculum, if there is one, but the content of subject lessons is necessarily dictated by the practicalities of preparing students to pass examinations at age 16. How much time is spent on each subject – and how many resources are allocated to helping students pass a particular exam – is led by the system of accountability within which a school operates (Creese et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). In a society that views schools as mainly tools for increasing productivity (Freidus & Ewing, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref19">14</reflink>]; McNutt, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]), most students' timetables will be heavily weighted towards what the powers within Government and industry have decided should be 'core subjects', however noble the aims of curriculum policy documents might sound.</p> <p>The National Curriculum for England, for example, 'provides pupils with an introduction to the essential knowledge they need to be educated citizens. It introduces pupils to the best that has been thought and said, and helps engender an appreciation of human creativity and achievement' (DfE, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref21">10</reflink>], para. 3.1). Such a human basis for curriculum should lead to broad and creative subject offerings for students, as future 'educated citizens' (DfE, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>], para. 3.1). However, the curriculum places legal boundaries around what are defined as core subjects – English, mathematics and science – and all pupils must study these three subjects from ages five to 16 (DfE, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref23">10</reflink>], para 3.5). Additionally, England has one of the most complex and centralised systems of management in the UK (Creese & Isaacs, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]), which has been and continues to be subject to a high level of political manufacturing (Wrigley, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref25">41</reflink>]). Ofsted's ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref26">24</reflink>]) inspection framework now judges schools on the breadth of their curriculum, specifying that pupils should study the full range of subjects for as long as possible, yet the experience of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) students remains that core subjects dominate not only their placement school timetables but the university ITE timetable also (Caldwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Wales, the 2008 school curriculum was made up of seven different components: the National Curriculum, the literacy and numeracy framework, personal and social education, sex and relationships education, careers and the world of work, religious education (RE) and the digital competence framework. Nobody would argue with these topics, but despite RE and physical education (PE) being statutory subjects, the space allocated to them in most timetables was the bare minimum because they were not included in performance measurements. Evidence from England (Neumann et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref28">22</reflink>]) has shown how accountability measures in that country have led to a narrowing of the curriculum offer in 75% of schools that responded, as well as having a profound effect on the hierarchy of subjects, with a consequent decrease in examination entry rates, reduced resources and less time being allocated to non‐core subjects (Neumann et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>]). This is the nub of the matter, that accountability measures which place more value on some qualifications than others inevitably lead to a narrowing of the curriculum and a devaluation of the broad range of interests and abilities that is central to the human experience (Parameshwaran & Thomson, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-5">CLIENTS OR PRODUCTS</hd> <p>It is not difficult to sense the disconnect between the lofty ideals of the curriculum and the more mundane reality of needing to compete with other schools for pupils (as well as surviving the glare of Ofsted). In this business model, pupils are not clients but products – created at no cost to the actual client, which is the economy – complete with a suite of skills designed to produce wealth for others. The model also has no room for pupils with additional learning needs, or those who require an enhanced level of 'investment' in their education. The statistical analysis applied to examination results ensures that only a specific proportion of students will achieve any particular grade; the requirement that a certain percentage of learners achieve a grade 4/C pass means that the rest of the cohort is expected to fail. Blame for this failure is consistently placed at the door of pupils, their families or schools themselves (Connelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref31">6</reflink>]; Torrence & Wright, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>]), despite the percentage being 'baked into' the distribution of marks each year. It is as though the capitalist system has never quite known what to do with the ones who fail, but it can do enough with the ones who pass to serve its purposes.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-6">MEASURING WHAT WE VALUE</hd> <p>It was Biesta ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]) who noted that there has been a drift in the UK towards 'valuing what we measure rather than measuring what we value' (p. 1) and that this drift has been caused by a rise in 'measurement culture' (p. 2) led by international comparative studies such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). It is worthwhile to reflect on what it is that we value as a society, how this can include what individual human beings value rather than expecting everybody to conform to an imposed norm, and how we can measure this effectively within our education systems.</p> <p>Wales has a long and noble history of education for 'y werin' – the common people – beginning, as in other societies, with vocational training for carpenters, coopers, smiths, masons and saddlers provided by craftsmen's guilds (Jones & Roderick, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]). In the eighteenth century, Wales saw an explosion of desire for literacy, driven by the need to read and understand the Bible and by the vision and organisational skills of Revd Griffith Jones, Llanddowror (Davies, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]). Later, as south‐east Wales became industrialised in the nineteenth century, towns and villages bloomed and alongside the terraced houses and non‐conformist chapels, Workmen's Halls and Miners' Institutes sprang up in equal measure: places where the working classes would educate themselves and each other in the libraries and classes held within these institutions (Baggs, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>]). I would like to argue that these three examples from Wales's past provide reliable reference points for identifying what is desirable in terms of the purpose of education for our young people today.</p> <p>The first is qualification: much like the smiths and carpenters of old, we all need to acquire skills for work so that we can support ourselves and our families and contribute financially to our communities. The second is literacy, because being able to communicate in writing, and to understand what others have written and why, allows us to move beyond our immediate experiences and engage with the whole of humanity. Numeracy can also be added to this section for practical reasons. The third is what some might term 'citizenship' – how to get along with others and what we can all do to help ourselves and each other as members of an interdependent community.</p> <p>Schools are well placed to provide these three things, and in the case of 'qualification' they are uniquely placed. It is possible to learn literacy and numeracy at home, given the right circumstances, and participating in society in any way (such as sports clubs, church and coffee mornings, for example) can hone social and community skills. Schools, however, are the gateway to qualifications. Keeping this purpose in mind – while fully comprehending that Maslow's hierarchy of needs ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref37">20</reflink>]) underpins any efforts to get children to learn – helps reduce the overwhelming expectations which can burden teachers that they have to solve all of society's problems, from lack of breakfast to toilet training to making friends, dealing with money, knowing how to vote and avoiding drugs. Schools exist to qualify young people for the next step in their lives – or more specifically, in most cases, for their careers.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-7">ALL SUBJECTS ARE CREATED EQUAL</hd> <p>Core subjects take up so much space in a pupil's timetable that it is not unusual for students to have a very limited number of options available to them for their GCSEs after language, mathematics, three sciences, RE and PE are factored in. Leaving aside the demands of industry for the moment, if students were given a completely free choice of 10 subjects to study at GCSE level, is it possible to imagine how that would play out over the next generation? In terms of accountability, schools could be measured by scores from the top six subjects awarded to a student, which – if the student has chosen all their own courses and not had to plough through mandatory subjects in which they have no interest – should result in better grades all round. An additional measure could involve tracking students' next steps, which should encourage a focus on destinations rather than viewing the school's role as ceasing once the exam is done. Pupil destinations – the percentage of students staying in education or going into employment after Key Stage 4 – are already one of the six headline measurements for schools in England (DfE, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-8">LITERACY AND NUMERACY</hd> <p>People do need to be literate and numerate, but it has been argued that current means of assessing these skills are not fit for purpose (IFS, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]). The GCSE subjects of English and Welsh are linked to literacy in both languages, but they are not same. Likewise, GCSE mathematics and the skills involved in numeracy are linked but are not the same. GCSEs tend to assess a broad range of skills combined, many of which go beyond what is necessary to function and thrive as literate and numerate people in society. As a result, GCSE grades are unreliable proxies for measurements of literacy and numeracy (Thake, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref40">34</reflink>]). Using GCSE results to measure literacy or numeracy is also problematic because of the proportion of students receiving grade C (grade 4) or below. In the 2022 to 2023 school year, only 65.1% of pupils in England achieved a grade 4 or above in GCSE English and mathematics (that is, they 'passed' both English and mathematics GCSE) (Gov.uk, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]). This means that almost 35% of students did not. While there are some young people who will be unable to achieve a good enough standard of literacy and numeracy to be independent, such as some students with severe or complex learning needs, why would any society not want all its population to master these skills?</p> <p>Acquiring literacy and numeracy is easy for some but not for everyone: individual biological differences impact the ease and speed with which children develop the cognitive faculties that underpin good reading, writing and arithmetic. Therefore a specific focus on holding schools accountable for training students in literacy and numeracy would be desirable and also practical as long as most of the other burdens that occupy educators are taken away from the system. Schools need to have access to excellent and effective resources and training, and to be freed from focusing on meaningless performance measures so that they can allocate time and resources to their core functions of preparing young people for their next step.</p> <p>It would not be beyond the realms of imagination to decide what level of literacy or numeracy a person needs to be able to function and thrive in society, nor to devise a pass/fail assessment which would provide reliable information to the person and to prospective employers as to whether or not that minimum standard had been achieved, much like a driving test. The examination board AQA has already begun researching the feasibility of such a qualification (Thake, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref42">34</reflink>]). Some students would pass easily while others would need more coaching and time. Those who find these skills instinctive might decide to study GCSE English or Welsh language or literature, and have qualifications to show that their own standard of language is more advanced. Gifted mathematicians could still choose GCSE mathematics and explore the topics contained therein. Others who struggle with language or numbers would have to work a bit harder to achieve the qualification, but at the same time they would not have to spend the majority of their school hours in lessons that were difficult for them and that highlighted their biological differences. On the contrary: they would be allowed to shine in a range of subjects more suited to their own particular learning profile. Additionally, the value of all subjects as sources of vocabulary (Quigley, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref43">29</reflink>]), language structures (Dickinson & Neuman, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]) and background knowledge (Willingham, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref45">40</reflink>]) would be enhanced – everybody would be contributing to the development of the skills required to pass the literacy and numeracy 'driving' test.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-9">EDUCATION AND SOCIETY</hd> <p>Knowing how to be part of society is far more difficult to measure and beyond the scope of this article. However, building communities and helping people get on with a broad range of different personalities is what most schools are particularly good at doing: in the comprehensive system, schools are a microcosm of society and provide a framework in which to learn some difficult interpersonal skills. Teachers understand the increased sense of school community, connectedness and student rapport that result from extra‐curricular activities, for example (Khalife, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref46">19</reflink>]), and teachers' retention is intrinsically bound up with motivation, of which the 'social utility value' of their job is an important factor (Watt & Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref47">39</reflink>], p. 187; Parr et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref48">27</reflink>]). If schools were liberated from the tyranny of core subjects, pupils would spend their time working towards qualifications of their choice, and everybody could be contributing to an achievable recognition of literacy and numeracy skills. Common sense, hopefully, dictates that the rest should follow.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-10">LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION</hd> <p>It is difficult to find data from systems that have re‐imagined accountability measures without core subjects, even internationally. Accountability is not, of itself, a bad thing, but research into its effects tends to examine the notion of high or low accountability, rather than drilling down into what would happen if schools were held accountable for something else (e.g. Suto & Oates, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref49">33</reflink>]; Torres, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]). A further limitation is the sparsity of research into pupils' attitudes to core subjects, as well as those of teachers, but this would be a fascinating and essential field to explore before curriculum reform could begin.</p> <p>This article has argued that within a complex scaffold of prescriptions for learning, the single most influential element of timetables and resources is the use of core subject performance as a measure of accountability. The solution could be equally simple: remove this metric from Attainment 8/Capped 9 measures. It might take a while for schools to feel their freedom, but once they did, because teachers are highly invested in providing the best for their learners (Amitai & Van Houtte, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]; Parr et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref52">27</reflink>]), the curriculum they built would naturally fulfil every noble and bold aspiration written into national curricula by politicians and civil servants alike, and would hand power back to the young people themselves to learn what they know they need to learn.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-11">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Rhiannon Packer, for her encouragement to write this think piece.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-12">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>No funding was received for this article.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-13">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>There is no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-14">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0186162461-15">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>Ethical approval was not required for this work.</p> <ref id="AN0186162461-16"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref51" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amitai, A. & Van Houtte, M. (2022) Being pushed out of the career: former teachers' reasons for leaving the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 103 – 540. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref36" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baggs, C. (2001) How well read was my valley? Reading, popular fiction, and the miners of South Wales, 1875–1939. Book History, 4 (1), 277 – 301. Project Muse. Available from: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/2/article/3609/summary [Accessed 30th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref33" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2008) Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21 (1), 33 – 46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092‐008‐9064‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Caldwell, H., Whewell, E., Bracey, P., Heaton, R., Crawford, H. & Shelley, C. (2020) Teaching on insecure foundations? Pre‐service teachers in England's perceptions of the wider curriculum subjects in primary schools. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51 (2), 231 – 246. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2020.1819202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Clarke, M. & Mills, M. (2021) "We have never been public:" continuity and change in the policy production of "the public" in education in England. European Educational Research Journal, 21 (1), 13 – 28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904121990477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref31" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Connelly, R., Gayle, V. & Murray, S. (2013) Young people and school GCSE attainment: exploring the middle. Sociological Research Online, 18 (1), 210 – 221. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2880</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Creese, B., Gonzalez, A. & Isaacs, T. (2016) Comparing international curriculum systems: the international instructional systems study. Curriculum Journal, 27 (1), 5 – 23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1128346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref17" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Creese, B. & Isaacs, T. (2016) International instructional systems: how England measures up. Curriculum Journal, 27 (1), 151 – 165. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1131171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Davies, J. (2007) Hanes Cymru. London : Penguin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DfE (Department for Education). (2014) National curriculum in England: framework for Key Stages 1 to 4. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national‐curriculum‐in‐england‐framework‐for‐key‐stages‐1‐to‐4/the‐national‐curriculum‐in‐england‐framework‐for‐key‐stages‐1‐to‐4">www.gov.uk/government/publications/national‐curriculum‐in‐england‐framework‐for‐key‐stages‐1‐to‐4/the‐national‐curriculum‐in‐england‐framework‐for‐key‐stages‐1‐to‐4</ulink> [Accessed 28th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DfE (Department for Education). (2024) Secondary accountability measures 2023–2024 guidance. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67508cf52956d2d4b1632afc/Secondary%5faccountability%5fmeasures%5f2024%5f‐%5f2025%5f.pdf [Accessed 29th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson, D.K. & Neuman, S.B. (2002) Handbook of early literacy research. New York : Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, D. (2021) Standardising Wales: divergence and convergence in welsh education policy. In: Evans, D., Smith, K. & Williams, H. (Eds.) The welsh way: essays on neoliberalism and devolution. Cardigan : Parthian, pp. 121 – 137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freidus, A. & Ewing, E. (2022) Race, school quality, and neoliberal educational policy. Educational Policy, 36 (4), 763 – 768. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08959048221087208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gov.uk. (2024) GCSE English and Maths results. Gov.UK ethnicity facts and figures. Available from: https://www.ethnicity‐facts‐figures.service.gov.uk/education‐skills‐and‐training/11‐to‐16‐years‐old/a‐to‐c‐in‐english‐and‐maths‐gcse‐attainment‐for‐children‐aged‐14‐to‐16‐key‐stage‐4/latest/ [Accessed 29th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies). (2025) Major challenges for education in Wales. Available from: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/major‐challenges‐education‐wales [Accessed 29th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> James, M. (2018, October 2) National curriculum in England: the first 30 years, part 1. BERA. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/national‐curriculum‐in‐england‐the‐first‐30‐years‐part‐1">www.bera.ac.uk/blog/national‐curriculum‐in‐england‐the‐first‐30‐years‐part‐1</ulink> [Accessed 27th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, G.E. & Roderick, G.W. (2003) A history of education in Wales. Cardiff : University of Wales Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khalife, J. (1970) The experiences of Ontario secondary school teachers who are heavily involved in extracurricular activities. Available from: <ulink href="http://hdl.handle.net/1807/77051">http://hdl.handle.net/1807/77051</ulink> [Accessed 29th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslow, A.H. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370 – 396. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNutt, C. (2020) Unpacking 'neoliberal' schooling. Medium. Available from: https://medium.com/human‐restoration‐project/unpacking‐neoliberal‐schooling‐aa3a2add66e8 [Accessed 30th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumann, E., Gerwitz, S., Towers, E. & Maguire, M. (2016) A Curriculum for All?. London : King's College London. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.kcl.ac.uk/archive/news/education/news/curriculum‐for‐all‐final.pdf">www.kcl.ac.uk/archive/news/education/news/curriculum‐for‐all‐final.pdf</ulink> [Accessed 30th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumann, E., Gerwitz, S., Towers, E. & Maguire, M. (2020) Neoconservative education policy and the case of the English baccalaureate. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52 (5), 702 – 719. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1708466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofsted. (2023) Education inspection framework. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education‐inspection‐framework/education‐inspection‐framework‐for‐september‐2023#what‐inspectors‐will‐consider‐when‐making‐judgements">www.gov.uk/government/publications/education‐inspection‐framework/education‐inspection‐framework‐for‐september‐2023#what‐inspectors‐will‐consider‐when‐making‐judgements</ulink> [Accessed 10th March 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owen, C., Bermudez, T., Southwick, O., Kyriacou, J., Hill, G. & Davies, T. (2023) Developing a new data and information ecosystem that supports the reformed school system in Wales: findings from a research study: welsh government response. Available from: https://www.gov.wales/developing‐new‐data‐and‐information‐ecosystem‐supports‐reformed‐school‐system‐wales‐findings‐html [Accessed 30th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parameshwaran, M. & Thomson, D. (2015) The impact of accountability reforms on the key stage 4 curriculum: how have changes to school and college performance tables affected pupil access to qualifications and subjects in secondary schools in England? London Review of Education, 13 (2), 157 – 173. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18546/lre.13.2.13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parr, A., Gladstone, J., Rosenzweig, E. & Wang, M.‐T. (2021) Why do I teach? A mixed‐methods study of in‐service teachers' motivations, autonomy‐supportive instruction, and emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, 103228. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103228</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Press Association. (2014) David Cameron promises thousands more maths and science teachers. Guardian, 8 December. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/08/david‐cameron‐more‐maths‐science‐teachers‐british‐schools">www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/08/david‐cameron‐more‐maths‐science‐teachers‐british‐schools</ulink> [Accessed 27th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quigley, A. (2018) Closing the vocabulary gap [Preprint]. London : Routledge. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315113272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sellars, M. & Imig, S. (2020) The real cost of neoliberalism for educators and students. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26 (1), 172 – 184. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1823488</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Senedd Cymru. (2022) Response by NASUWT to to the Children, Young People and Education Committee Inquiry into Implementation of Education Reforms. Available from: https://business.senedd.wales/documents/s135907/IER23NASUWTCymru.html?CT=2 [Accessed 28th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, S. & Shirley, I. (2022) History of education. In: Elton‐Chalcraft, S. & Cooper, H. (Eds.) Professional studies in primary education, 4th edition. London : Sage, pp. 3 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suto, I. & Oates, T. (2021) High‐stakes testing after basic secondary education: how and why is it done in high‐performing education systems? Cambridge assessment research report [preprint]. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/610965‐high‐stakes‐testing‐after‐basic‐secondary‐education‐how‐and‐why‐is‐it‐done‐in‐high‐performing‐education‐systems‐.pdf">www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/610965‐high‐stakes‐testing‐after‐basic‐secondary‐education‐how‐and‐why‐is‐it‐done‐in‐high‐performing‐education‐systems‐.pdf</ulink> [Accessed 10th March 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thake, A. (2023) A B, C, it's as Easy as 1, 2, 3. AQA. Available from: https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/content/about‐us/education‐policy/AQA‐TOWARDS‐NEW‐ASSESSMENTS‐NLD.PDF [Accessed 27th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrence, H. & Wright, J. (2018) Blaming the victim: assessment, examinations, and the responsibilisation of students and teachers in neo‐liberal governance. In: Halse, C. & Hartung, C. (Eds.) Responsibility and responsibilisation in education, 1st edition. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torres, R. (2021) Does test‐based school accountability have an impact on student achievement and equity in education? A panel approach using Pisa. OECD Education Working Papers, OECD ilibrary, OECD.org. Available from: https://www.oecd‐ilibrary.org/education/does‐test‐based‐school‐accountability‐have‐an‐impact‐on‐student‐achievement‐and‐equity‐in‐education%5f0798600f‐en [Accessed 10th March 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UK Government. (2014) Maths and science must be the top priority in our schools, says prime minister. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/news/maths‐and‐science‐must‐be‐the‐top‐priority‐in‐our‐schools‐says‐prime‐minister">www.gov.uk/government/news/maths‐and‐science‐must‐be‐the‐top‐priority‐in‐our‐schools‐says‐prime‐minister</ulink> [Accessed 27th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UK Parliament. (2025) The 1870 Education Act. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/living‐heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/overview/1870educationact/">www.parliament.uk/about/living‐heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/overview/1870educationact/</ulink> [Accessed 28th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watt, H.M.G. & Richardson, P.W. (2012) An introduction to teaching motivations in different countries: comparisons using the fit‐choice scale. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (3), 185 – 197. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2012.700049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willingham, D.T. (2021) Why don't students like school?: a cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Hoboken, NJ : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wrigley, T. (2014) Policy paper – the politics of curriculum in schools. Available from: https://www.education‐uk.org/documents/pdfs/2014‐wrigley‐politics‐of‐curriculum‐in‐schools.pdf [Accessed 29th January 2025].</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marjorie Thomas</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref50"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1474951
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Is It Time to Ditch the Notion of 'Core Subjects'?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marjorie+Thomas%22">Marjorie Thomas</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8695-5121">0009-0007-8695-5121</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Special+Education%22"><i>British Journal of Special Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 52(2):265-271.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22National+Curriculum%22">National Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Core+Curriculum%22">Core Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disciplines%22">Intellectual Disciplines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resource+Allocation%22">Resource Allocation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bias%22">Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Industry%22">Industry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Needs%22">Student Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualifications%22">Qualifications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Numeracy%22">Numeracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pass+Fail+Grading%22">Pass Fail Grading</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28Wales%29%22">United Kingdom (Wales)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1467-8578.70023
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0952-3383<br />1467-8578
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Wales is in the middle of a fundamental reform of its curriculum and consequent assessment design. There is a welcome broadening of the range of subjects offered at levels 1 and 2, yet the notion that some subjects are more important than others persists. Furthermore, the 'core' subjects of language, mathematics and science are seeing the biggest changes: English language and literature will be merged; Welsh language and literature will be merged; physics, chemistry and biology will be merged; and separate mathematics qualifications (mathematics and numeracy) will be combined. The tension between the demands of industry on the one hand and the needs of learners on the other often means that schools are caught in the middle, trying to do the best for their individual learners while being held accountable for attainment data decided by Government. Yet in a system created for externally decided grade boundaries and standardised scores in which a certain proportion of 'failure' is 'baked in' by the statistics, how can we ensure the flourishing of all our children, even those who fall below one standard deviation from the mean? How much of an influence can the idea be that the inherent benefit to an individual is sufficient justification for an education without the need to pander to the requirements of a capitalist influence on policymakers? Furthermore, can GCSE English (or Welsh) be used as a reliable proxy for literacy? This article imagines the outcomes for learners, schools and employment if the power of the notion of core subjects were drained from metrics such as Attainment 8/Capped 9 and any best grades were counted instead.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1474951
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1474951
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1467-8578.70023
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 265
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: National Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Core Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disciplines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Resource Allocation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accountability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Industry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Qualifications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Numeracy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pass Fail Grading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (Wales)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Is It Time to Ditch the Notion of 'Core Subjects'?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marjorie Thomas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0952-3383
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8578
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Special Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1