View in EDS HTML Full Text

Gender, Curriculum, and Assessment Issues to 16+.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Gender, Curriculum, and Assessment Issues to 16+.
Language: English
Authors: Burrage, Hilary
Source: Gender and Education. 1991 3(1):31-43.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 1991
Document Type: Journal Articles
Opinion Papers
Descriptors: Adolescents, British National Curriculum, Career Choice, Curriculum, Foreign Countries, Occupational Aspiration, Sex Differences, Testing, Vocational Education
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (England), United Kingdom (Wales)
Abstract: Discusses the issue of gender in relation to England's National Curriculum and associated assessment and testing. The new curriculum is technology based and vocationally oriented. Foresees difficulties in providing gender-equal education unless more attention is given to the differing interests and goals of boys and girls. (DM)
Entry Date: 1991
Accession Number: EJ427933
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN9707080090;GAE01MAR.91;1997Sep19.14:34;v2.3</anid> <title id="AN9707080090-1">GENDER, CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT ISSUES TO 16+ </title> <p>ABSTRACT </p> <p>This paper examines the relationship between curriculum and assessment in respect of gender, focusing largely on ages 14-16+ . Discussion concerns specifically those gender issues arising from the current trend towards vocationalism and from the intention, via the 1988 Education Reform Act, to introduce in England and Wales a national curriculum and a national system of assessment and testing. Proposals for the new National Curriculum are examined and it is argued that the overall curriculum is becoming increasingly assessment and vocationally-led, the prescribed emphases being technological. The school curriculum itself is therefore increasingly founded upon technology in respect of both content and modes of student assessment. Further, the intention to introduce a technologically-based and technological curriculum may give rise to some difficulties in respect of another current intention, variously interpreted though it is, to produce more gender-equal educational provision. </p> <hd id="AN9707080090-2"> Introduction </hd> <p>The last few years have seen many changes in England and Wales in the final years of compulsory schooling. Some of these changes, such as the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), involve new methods of teaching and new methods of examining, but most of them have also reflected the current political interest in `vocationalism' (the Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education (CPVE) and the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI)). </p> <p>There exist, however, clashes of intention and principle in curricular up to 16+--for example, as Wallace (1985, p. 21) notes, in ". . . the difficulty of finding compatability between the GCSE principle of s single-subject based examinations and the CPVE principle of a whole curriculum". It is in part questions of compatibility which more recent developments, especially the National Curriculum, are in the longer term intended to address. But whilst such curricular incompatibilities are of themselves matters of concern, there also exist important issues concerning gender--particularly, the fundamental question of whether current curriculum innovations are equally easily delivered and accessible to female and male students. The literature to inform policy in this area remains incomplete, and has more often focussed on science and mathematics, or sometimes on testing and assessment, than on curriculum per se. This article will, attempt to offer a somewhat wider perspective and will focus on (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) institutional provision at 14-16 (especially the National Curriculum); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) subject choice and assessment at 14+; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) assessment and curricular delivery at 14-16+; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) rationales and methods of testing and assessment at 14-16+. </p> <p>Throughout this discussion it will, of course, be important to remember that gender experiences are mediated by, among other factors, class, culture and race/ethnicity. </p> <hd id="AN9707080090-3"> (1) Institutional Provision at 14-16+; the vocational curriculum and the new National Curriculum </hd> <p>Recent curricular innovation, especially at 14-16+, has been led in part by philosophies of increased emphasis on vocationalisism-for example, the Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education (CPVE), the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI), various Manpower Service Commission (MSC) and (latterly) Training Agency schemes, and proposals for National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ). However, change has also been effected by the standardisation of academic provision and assessment across the ability range through the General Certificate of Secondary Education, Records of Achievement and profiling, and,most recently, through the National Curriculum and its associated testing. </p> <p>Given the haste with which much of this innovation has occurred it is not surprising that gender issues have failed to attract widespread national debate. Nor, initially, did the memberships of the two new curriculum organisations give clear examples of equal opportunity: the National Curriculum Council (NCC) comprised nine men and six women, whilst the School Examinations and Assessments Council (SEAC) (the more `technical' body?) had a membership of ten men and five women. These ratios have become recently more equitable, but still very few members are from ethnic minorities and both committees have male `Chairman'. </p> <p>Thus (white) male supremacy continues in the corridors of power, despite the aspirations towards equality of opportunity of some individuals and institutions--even elementary training in equal opportunities remains discretionary within local Education Authorities (LEAs); indeed, with the 1988 Education Reform Act, this discretion may lie with individual Boards of Governors and Head Teachers (Deem, 1989). And nationally, despite the formal requirements of TVEI etc., male hegemony is marked (Wickham, 1985). There seems little real will to facilitate determined, publically visible strategies to enhance equality of opportunity. </p> <p>Nonetheless, a more rigorous approach to equality of opportunity in schools could be supposed to exist in the actual formulation of the National Curriculum. In addition to its stated commitment to equity, the National Curriculum does require a `broad and balanced' curriculum for all pupils. Its specifics and general direction, however, remain problematic in respect of real equal opportunities, as we shall see. </p> <p>In this section, then, we shall consider the gender perspectives of some of the National Curriculum `subject' Working Parties which have to date reported, and secondly, the general direction of the National Curriculum so far. </p> <p>The National Curriculum Subject Working Party Proposals </p> <p>Of the first four sets of subject-specific Proposals published(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">n1</reflink>), three (Mathematics, Science, and Design and Technology) concern curricula perceived by some children as more `suitable' for boys than girls. (There is much evidence that some girls deliberately avoid science/maths areas because they perceive these as divorced from their interests--see Burrage, 1973; Kelly, 1981; Easlea, 1983; Harding, 1986; Kelly, 1987; Hoyle, 1988, BBC, 1990). Prioritisation of the `technical' curriculum apart (Nash, 1990), however, these Proposals demonstrate both marginalisation and a lack of coherent philosophy in their treatment of equal opportunity. </p> <p>The Mathematics Proposals, like those for Science Department of Education and Science, 1988a and 1988b) raise the issue of gender, but in both cases in a section of the Proposals which follows, rather than precedes, discussion of curricula per se. Thus, the Mathematics publication explains the equity issue in terms of ". . . girls' lack of confidence in their ability to do mathematics (and) . . . deeply entrenched social attitudes (which) can take generations to change". (p. 86) The remedy it proposes for teachers is to ensure: </p> <p>that the materials and examples they use are free from gender stereotyping and that they give as much attention to the girls in their class as to the boys. (This approach is...) a matter of good teaching practice, rather than something to be taken on board in the construction of the mathematics curriculum itself. DES 1988a, p. 87). </p> <p>In these propositions about the causation of girls' `under-achievement' in mathematics we find little attention to questions of motivation by and interest in the curriculum and its outcomes; mathematics itself is left intact and unchallenged, even though serious concern is expressed about girls' lack of confidence, under-participation and under-achievement conventionally defined. No attempt is made to explain differences in attitude and achievement by gender. Nor, in the ensuing Statutory Document: Mathematics (DES, 1989) are there any substantive suggestions about classroom practice here. </p> <p>Some of these issues are, however, acknowledged in the National Curriculum Proposals for Science (DES, 1988b). This recognition begins with a statement, parallel to, but more reflective than, that for Mathematics: </p> <p>. . . much remains to be done if (science) is to be equally accessible to all pupils, irrespective of their gender, ethnic background and intellectual ability. We regard (these issues) as being of the greatest importance. It is a matter of some regret that in the short time we have had for our work we have not been able to address them as thoroughly as they deserve, much less resolve them. . . these problems are deep seated and complex, with their roots in early childhood and in the expectations of parents and society. (DES 1988b, p. 91) </p> <p>But, in contrast to the Mathematics Proposals, these remarks are followed by a consideration of the part of the science curriculum itself may play in effecting `underachievement' in girls: </p> <p>we believe that the curriculum we propose. . . will do much to reduce the present inequalities. .. However, further work on the causes of the different perceptions of, and reactions to Science of boys and girls, would be desirable in order to be more precise about how. . . equality of opportunity might best be achieved. (DES 1988b, p. 91) </p> <p>The Science Proposals do not acknowledge explicitly that science itself may be perceived as fundamentally `male' (McNeil, 1987); but it is recognised that some ways of teaching science reduce its accessibility to female students. </p> <p>The third set of Proposals published, for English (DES, 1989c), also show a concern for stereotyping and attitudes (Section 11.8), and do begin to address the gender-related links between curriculum and assessment: </p> <p>There are. . . documented differences between the average test performances of girls and boys in different subjects. . .The causes of such differences are not well understood. (Section 11.10) </p> <p>We do not suggest that results of assessment should be adjusted to take account of the characteristic differences between groups in performance. But. . . standard assessment tasks and other assessment instruments (should...) minimise bias in the task or context and guard against any preconceptions of assessors. (DES 1989c, Section 11.17) </p> <p>Despite some recognition of the significance of curricular and assessment arrangements, however,the English Working Party's bare observation that variables in attainment are "not well understood" leaves much, as they themselves imply, unsaid. Indeed, reservations about the English Working Party's "simplistic treatment" of equity issues (see a critique in the National Curriculum Council 1989 English Consultation Report, p. 15) may also be applied to other publications which have so far emanated from the National Curriculum Council. </p> <p>The Design and Technology Proposals DES, 1989d) state that: </p> <p>It will not be possible for pupils to satisfy the requirements of our attainment targets and programmes of study by working in a narrow vein of activities, e.g. boys working on mechanical and constructional tasks while girls concentrate on catering and textile-related activities.. . (DES 1989d, Section 1.42, p. 6) </p> <p>But we also learn both that "The comparable broadening of the curriculum in boys' schools (compared to girls') has unfortunately all too often failed to be accorded a sufficiently high priority" (Section 1.43, p. 7), and that ". . . the curriculum should provide equal opportunities for boys and girls... (so that we must) . . . consider, in this context, the expectations and attitudes of girls to design and technology" (Supplementary Guidance to the Working Group, section 16, p. 96). </p> <p>Are we to infer that, in some technological areas, the (established) curriculum for boys remains problematic, but, as is also suggested in the Mathematics and Science Proposals, so do girls' attitudes? If so, is this another example of `victim-blaming' in respect of girls? </p> <p>The General Direction of the National Curriculum </p> <p>If we return to broader considerations of the National Curriculum the following comments seem particularly appropriate. Firstly, the National Curriculum, like many other present government educational initiatives, is grossly under-resourced (Weston, 1989). There is little cash to support the intended shift towards, for example, technical and scientific education, or to train staff already in post for the new demands made upon them (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">n2</reflink>). Similarly, as the Science and English Proposals note, there have been no resources or time to investigate and resolve issues concerned with (gender) inequality. </p> <p>Secondly, an increase in resources for science and technical subjects, even alongside more emphasis on the teaching of languages, will not necessarily enhance equality of educational opportunity for girls and boys. There is rarely any underlying debate about how--or, indeed, why--girls and boys respectively might be convinced that, say, science and technology or communications and languages `should' be of equal interest and use to both sexes. Indeed, there has been an almost total silence about the educational rationale for motivating boys and girls equally towards `gender-stereotyped' subjects. There are both convincing and less well-grounded arguments for this emphasis; but it is often presented simply as a sort of moral or, as Ince (1990) notes, economic imperative, rather than an issue of `entitlement' or `social justice' (Weiner, 1990). The National Curriculum continues to neglect these basic educational issues. </p> <p>Thirdly, the claim that the National Curriculum represents a `broad and balanced' curriculum is not a matter of total consensus. The arts-based disciplines which girls more frequently choose have been downgraded in favour of mathematics, science and technology (by implication, the physical if not the biological sciences?). Furthermore, certain subjects, including the entirety of the `personal' and socio-political curriculum, have not been identified (pace Her Majesty's Inspectorate's 1985 Curriculum Matters 2) as part of the `foundation' or statutory curriculum at all (Burrage, 1987, 1988 & 1990c). Yet these subjects constitute crucial areas of knowledge for all young people (FACTASS, 1989) and are markedly popular with female students. </p> <p>Lastly, although the mode of delivery of the National Curriculum is to be left to teachers, its segmented structure makes equitable, integrated and holistic approaches to learning, despite belated efforts to address cross-curricular issues, particularly difficult to achieve; and such approaches will be further endangered by a substantial emphasis on `core' subject testing and assessment. But, as we shall see, holistic approaches to learning may be especially important for girls. </p> <p>In sum, current National Curriculum policies include neither resources to promote the implementation of equal opportunity, nor a coherent philosophy to explain inequalities and inform any such programme. </p> <hd id="AN9707080090-4"> (2) Subject Choice and Assessment at 14+ </hd> <p>Despite the rhetoric that choices of subject and career direction should remain open as long as possible, decisions with real long-term effects will continue to be made at 14+ by all school children who take GCSE. The National Curriculum at present specifies only that a range of subjects, including the `core' (Mathematics, English and Science), shall continue to be studied until age 16, not that this full range shall be taken as GCSE courses (but see Nash, 1989 and Duffy, 1990)(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">n3</reflink>). </p> <p>One of the most crucial tests of the core and national curriculum attainment--and presumably also of subject choice--will also be at age 14, an age at which many children are particularly prone to sex-stereotypical performance and preferences (EOC, 1983). At this age girls may loose interest in `non-traditional' subjects and prospects, in favour of stereotypically `feminine' occupations and of an expectation of marriage and a family; whilst at the same age boys may be particularly interested in `masculine' subjects and occupations at the expense of languages and communication, the humanities and personal, health and social education (PHSE). </p> <p>Another aspect of subject choice and assessment at 14+ may also be significant. In some subject areas (e.g. GCSE Maths) decisions must be made by staff and students about both examination entry and level (standard) of entry. On the basis of current evidence the probable gender-related outcomes of such decisions are not too difficult to predict. Similarly, the `dual award' (i.e. two subject) proposal for GCSE Science in the National Curriculum is problematic (James, 1988; Nash, 1990). Dobson (1988) comments that: </p> <p>[The Secretaries of State] do not envisage that all students will need to aim for the full range of attainment targets [at 14-16]; some will aim for "Key elements of a worth-while balanced science programme" . . . leading to a single GCSE certificate. Which pupils these are is not made clear--the less able? Girls? Future captains of industry? Merchant bankers? (Dobson, 1988, p. 44) </p> <p>14+ can be an age at which adolescents are particularly susceptible to gender stereotyping processes (Kelly, 1981); but with the National Curriculum it remains the age at which the first major decisions which shape future careers are made. Further, and conversely, it may be that the forthcoming insistence upon Science along with English and Mathematics for all students to age 16 will be at the expense of areas in which more girls excel. Will some girls, especially, become alienated from this technologically-orientated curriculum before they reach 16, and thereby fail also to achieve in non-mandatory areas where they have more interest and competence? </p> <hd id="AN9707080090-5"> (3) Assessment and Curricular Delivery at 14-16+ </hd> <p>The traditional subject-based design of the National Curriculum may not be helpful in developing modes of delivery which overcome sex-stereotypical responses to different curricular areas. Girls seem to prefer to think about the implications of what they are studying over a wide range and to emphasise responsibility and relationships above independent judgement (Gilligan, 1982; Murphy, 1988; DES, 1989f), whilst boys tend to take a more instrumental view of their work. The traditional curriculum is, in general, more closely geared to boys' than to girls' preferences in these respects. </p> <p>Similarly, there have been suggestions (e.g. Royal Society and Institute of Mathematics, 1986; Murphy, 1988) that girls find it easier to learn if they are given opportunities to discuss possible answers to questions without arriving immediately at `right' or `wrong' conclusions; and that they may find practical and investigative work in mixed classes difficult because of their fear of ridicule by the boys (Kelly, 1976). </p> <p>Further, girls may prefer to progress by way of coursework rather than `sudden death' type tests (Fawcett Society, n.d.). GCSE may thus be a form of learning and assessment more acceptable to girls than progression by way of standardised (e.g. multiple choice) tests. Whilst the National Curriculum does not necessarily require this latter sort of standardisation, there is a danger that technologies of testing and a technically-inclined curriculum may predispose to such a format. We need, then, to consider more fully the gender aspects also of formal curriculum construction and its relations with assessment. Such literature as there is (Stockard, 1980; Sutherland, 1981; Foster, 1985; Yates, 1985; Grafton et al., 1987) tends to examine subject choices and options, and perhaps also the `hidden curriculum'. There is however little reported work on how pedagogy--the delivery of the curriculum in the formal, `teaching' sense at the chalk face--affects the learning process of girls and boys respectively. </p> <p>Gender considerations have so far been exclusively related to decontextualised `core' curricula--and mostly, indeed, of curricula often perceived by students as `masculine'. Official recognition of the need, sensitively, to incorporate into the National Curriculum `social' and `personal' aspects of learning has been at best belated, as has consideration of integrated studies/cross-curricular `themes'. Nor have the implications in assessment terms of the humanities, let alone cross-curricular studies, been properly explored. </p> <p>But unless these matters are addressed at a fundamental level, we may discover we have an educational system in which `hard', isolated curricula and instrumentally conceived quantification (assessment:) of its outcomes diminish the network of linked experiences which `soft' and/or integrated studies can offer. The `soft' curriculum is much more difficult to assess in terms of student learning outcomes (FACTASS; 1989, Burrage, 1990a), but it is the soft curriculum which may be preferred by girls and young women. The present emphasis on `hard' curriculum and testable outcomes in the National Curriculum and in vocational courses could be at the expense of those parts of educational experience which more girls than boys find interesting or comfortable--witness continuing (though not static) differences in preference for and performance in humanities and science subjects (BBC, 1990; HMSO, 1990). We do not yet know if the straightjacket of standardised testing will lead to a further devaluing of the parts of the curriculum which are not instrumental and easily quantifiable. As Nuttall & Goldstein (1986) argue in slightly less specific vein: </p> <p>If profiles [of performance] are to be faithful to a curriculum, then they will presumably have to sacrifice the aim of comparability across curricula, and cease striving to become context free. (Nuttall & Goldstein 1986, p. 187) </p> <p>Not only, however, must we now "cease striving to become context free" but, in gender and curriculum/assessment terms, we have to become context conscious. How boys and girls learn in different teaching contexts is probably significant in much the same way as what subjects they study, when it comes to their respective attainments in their studies. In these teens interaction with, and the shaping of the curriculum by formal attainment targets and testing becomes potentially very much a gender issue. </p> <hd id="AN9707080090-6"> (4) Rationales and Methods of Assessment and Testing at 14 to 16+ </hd> <p>The preceding sections of this paper attempted to place the gender aspects of testing and assessment within a wider educational context. We need now to ask what function(s) assessment and testing are intended to fulfil (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">n4</reflink>). Amongst the intended outcomes of assessment and testing may be the following: </p> <p>(i) Assessment of individual learner's (a) knowledge; (b) understanding; (c) manipulation of (a) and (b); (d) critical appreciation as above; and (e) attitudes (general or specific). </p> <p>(ii) Assessment of curriculum delivery by (a) individual teachers; (b) teams of teachers; and (c) whole institutions </p> <p>(iii) Assessment of curricular programmes, in individual institutions or in wider contexts. </p> <p>Despite this variety of possible intended outcomes for assessment and testing, the current debate has been conducted almost entirely within the parameters of (i) a-c. (The separate nascent debate about teacher appraisal/training (see Boxall & Burrage, 1989) is, similarly, likely to be conducted in terms of ii (a).). </p> <p>Not only has there been little discussion of the fundamental purposes of assessment and testing (Broadfoot, 1990), but there is a striking dearth of information on the gender aspects of all these factors. There does exist a literature on gender outcomes of assessment (EOC, 1987; Goldstein, 1987; Open University, 1987), especially in Mathematics and Science (Assessment of Performance Unit, 1982; 1986; 1988). With the exception of Murphy (1988) this remains, however, largely decontextualised and is explored mainly in terms of `objective' (but not gender neutral?) testing conducted according to psychological but essentially asociological premises. </p> <p>Similarly, there is now an interest (ULEB, 1985; Fawcett Society, n.d.) in emphasising the gender analysis of texts, specifically examination papers. This analysis, although essential, is however only of particular end-points; it ignores process and previous experience. Further, despite this literature on avoiding gender bias in examination scripts, we know very little about process and the immediate responses, as opposed to scored outcomes, which gender bias may have on boys and girls respectively when they actually sit examinations (but see Wood, 1978). </p> <p>Thus, whilst girls may score better on questions which require essay-type answers and boys prefer multiple choice response (EOC, 1987), this is not sufficient information on which to build a system of testing such as that required by the 1988 Education Reform Act. As Kearns (1989) demonstrates in her discussion of the ILEA Profile and London Record of Achievement Scheme, these preferences are not a sound basis in gender terms for the more extensive negotiated `profiling' required by programmes such as TVEI and CPVE. </p> <p>But even in TVEI and similar programmes, the probably different understandings of young men and women concerning their `perceived needs' and `future aims' (cf. Sutherland, 1981; Griffin, 1985; Wallace, 1987; Kearns, 1989), and perhaps even the understandings respectively of male and female assessors, require more acknowledgement in the profiling process (DES, 1989f, pp. 8-9). </p> <p>But, at base, profiling does nonetheless usually remain negotiated. Testing for the National Curriculum, in contrast, is clearly intended to `lead' and control the curriculum. It will concentrate on `core', predominantly technical, areas of study, and will thereby almost inevitably focus on instrumental knowledge and understanding. It is unlikely in these respects to be gender-neutral, even if it appears overall to be `objective'. As so often in rational-scientific endeavour, the technology has outstripped our sensitivity to its gender contexts. </p> <hd id="AN9707080090-7"> (5) Conclusion </hd> <p>The National Curriculum and current vocational provision are integrally linked to notions of assessment and testing. To date, however, only superficial official attention has been given to the pedagogic relationship between curriculum and testing, to the issue of gender and assessment or, in terms of widespread effective delivery, to that of gender and curriculum. </p> <p>This paper has identified some gender issues which may lie behind the curriculum-assessment conundrum. Gender considerations have so far concerned almost exclusively de-contextualised `core' (and predominantly `male') curricula. We know little about how, resprctively, boys' and girls' experiences, learning and assessed achievement may be affected by different teaching styles, curricular content or degree of integration in various `subject areas'/cross-curricular `themes'. </p> <p>A concern for equal opportunities in the National Curriculum offers potential for a thorough-going examination of both delivery and assessment. We must find ways to develop less gender-bound modes of learning and testing. Criterion referencing, formative results, moderated scales and negotiated assessment related to progression are all concepts which must be explored in relation to the wider educational experiences of both girls and boys. Similarly, the research agenda which arises from the area we have surveyed is substantial, and could include questions relating not only to classroom procedures but also to vocational and other `non-school' issues </p> <p>Finally, we must remain alert to the fact that theoretical accounts of genderdifferentiated educational outcomes are possible. TVEI, CPVE, NVQ and other vocational programmes are now well docurnerlted. The National Curriculum and School Examination and Assessment Councils have begun to embrace their tasks. Perhaps the nature of their analyses and responses to tile demand that curriculum and student assessment become more gender-conscious will enable us to appraise some theoretical accounts of gender in education against empirical evidence. Certainly, a greater understanding of tile gender perspectives which lie behind current innovation must be to the benefit of all children whom the new curriculum and modes of assessment are intended to serve. </p> <hd id="AN9707080090-8"> Acknowledgement </hd> <p>I am grateful to Librarians at the Assessment of Performance Unit, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the National Union of Teachers Headquarters, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education Headquarters and the University of Liverpool Department of Education for their assistance in locating the available literature on the subject of this paper. </p> <p>Correspondence: Hilary Burrage, National Curriculum Development Officer, Wirral Metropolitan College, Borough Road, Birkenhead, Wirral, L42 9QD, United Kingdom. </p> <ref id="AN9707080090-9"> <title>NOTES</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">(n1)</bibl> <bibtext>The National Curriculum, arising from the 1988 Education Reform Act, applies to 5-16 year olds who attend state (but not independent) schools in England and Wales. It sets out to establish three `core subjects'-Mathematics, Science and English--and seven `foundation' subjects--Design and Technology, History, Geography, Art, Music, Physical Education, and, at secondary level, a Modern Language. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>Three cross-curricular `dimensions'--Personal and Social Education (PSE), a multi-cultural approach and equal opportunities for girls and boys-of all aspects of school curriculum have been identified by the National Curriculum Council, as have certain cross-curricular `skills' (e.g., oracy, numeracy and study skills) and a number of cross-curricular `themes' (e.g. Health Education, Environmental Education and Economic and Industrial Understanding). The National Curriculum Council Circular Number 6, published in October 1989, provides some initial notes on these aspects of the `whole curriculum. Up-to-date information on developments is obtainable from the National Curriculum Council, Albion Wharf 25 Skeldergate, York YO1 2XL., UK. </p> <p>A discussion of the three National curriculum cross-curricular `dimensions' and of some of the `themes'is available in Dufour (1990). </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">n2</reflink>) The Report' on assessment in the National Curriculum by the task Group on Assessment and Testing (DES, 1987) suggested that a single day's training on assessment for all four hundred thousand or so school teachers in England nd Wales might cost approximately 20m--not much less than the entire in-service training allowance, covering all aspects of education, which was made by the government for the 1988-9 academic year. </p> <p>The National Curriculum Council is required by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to produce recommendations on `Attainment Targets' (areas of study, the contents of each listed in order of progression) for individual `subjects' within the curriculum. These attainment targets are designed to follow the development of children through Key Stages, viz: Key Stage 1=age 5-7; 2=8-11; 3=12-14; 4=15-16. (There seems to be a genes-al assumption, perhaps more appropriate in some areas than others, that, even though individual children will reach widely different end-point levels, `ages' and `stages' can be regarded as sequential). </p> <p>The Task Group on Assessment: and Testing was set up under the 1988 Educational Reform Act to advise on Attainment Targets and assessment agreements. Subsequently, the School Examination and Assessment Council has come into being to implement a national testing programme of Standard Assessment Tasks (SATs) for children at ages 7, 11, 14 and 16. </p> <p>These have been piloted for age 7 in 1991 and will subsequently be piloted for other ages. There has been considerable debate about the nature and order of introduction of tests for all ages in Mathematics, Science, Technology, English and then the other foundation subjects. (This order of introduction is, of course, pertinent to the present discussion.) Questions about the testing of cross-curricular areas, or of the relational between GCSE and SATs at age 16, still remain. </p> <p>Only the years of statutory schooling are discussed in this paper. Readers should be aware, however, (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>) that many vocational programmes now span the 14-18 age range (a blurring of school and non-advanced/further education and training is now occurring and `staying on' rates are subject to various economic factors (Raffe & Willms, 1989)) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>) that, despite the Government's instant rejection of the Higginson Report (DES, 1988c) on A-levels, significant changes in Advanced and A/S level examinations are probably imminent, as is a `core' 16-19 curriculum (Pring, 1990; Times Educational Supplement, 1990). </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">n4</reflink>) Assessment, profiling and testing are all terms which, in professional usage, have particular technical meanings. Definitions may be found as indicated: </p> <p>Assessment: Meighan (1986, p. 163); Task Group on Assessment and testing Report (DES, 1987, Preface and Glossary and Paragraph 5) Records Achievement (`profiling'): South-East Records of Achievement (1988, p. 1) Test: Task Group on Assessment and Testing Report (DES, 1987, Preface and Glossary) The relationship between curriculum and testing is complex, but is discussed in Broadfoot (1990). The philosophies underlying current curricular development are also discussed in Boxall & Burrage (1989) and Burrage (1990c). </p> <p>REFERENCES </p> <p>ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE UNIT (APU) (1982) Science in Schools: Survey Reports No. 1 at ages 11, 13, 15 (London, DES). </p> <p>ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE UNIT (APU) (1986) A Review of Monitoring in Mathematics, 1978-1982 (London, DES). </p> <p>ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE UNIT (APU) (1988) Mathematics: attitudes and gender differences (London, DES). </p> <p>BOXALL, WALTRAUD & BURRAGE, HILARY (1989) Recent relevant experience: how CATE legitimates narrowly defined concepts of teacher education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 13(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>) pp. 30-45. </p> <p>BROADFOOT, PATRICIA (1990) Cinderella and the ugly sisters: an assessment policy pantomine in two acts, Curriculum Journal, 1(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>), pp. 199-215. </p> <p>BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (1990) Pupils back exam subjects, but girls differ from boys, Press Release, 13 February 1990 (London, BBC). </p> <p>BURRAGE, HILARY (1973) Women Scientists, M.Sc. dissertation, University of Salford, reported (in part only) in: H BURRAGE (1983) Women University Teachers of Natural Science, Social Studies of Science, 13(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>). </p> <p>BURRAGE, HILARY (1987) Sociology and Health education in the curriculum, Social Science Teacher, 17(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>), pp. 21-23. (The bibliography for this article published in: Social Science Teacher, 18(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>), p. 24.) </p> <p>BURRAGE, HILARY (1988) Social science in the National curriculum, Social Science Teacher, 17(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>), pp. 107-110. </p> <p>BURRAGE, HILARY (1990a) Health education, in BARRY DUFOUR (Ed.) The New Social Curriculum: a guide to cross-curricular themes Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). </p> <p>BURRAGE, HILARY (1990b) An agenda for research in an discussion of educational gender equality, Social Science Teacher, 19(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>), p. 58. </p> <p>BURRAGE, HILARY (1990c) The hows and whys of the new curriculum, Social Science Teacher (Special Edition on Social Science, Personal and Social education and the Whole Curriculum), 19(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>), p. 65. </p> <p>COCKBURN, CYNTHIA (1987) Two Track Training: sex inequalities and the YTS, (London, Macmillan Education) </p> <p>DEEM, ROSEMARY (1989) The new school governing bodies are gender and race on the agenda? Gender and Education, 1(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>), pp. 247 -260. </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1987) Task Group on Assessment and Testing: a report (London, DES). </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1988a) Mathematics for ages 5 to 16: proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales (London, DES). </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1988b) science for ages 5 to 16: proposals of the Secretary of State and the Secretary for Wales (London, DES) </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1988c) Advancing A-Levels (the report of the Committee chaired by Dr G. R. Higginson) (London, DES) </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1989a),Mathematics in the National Curriculum (London, DES/HMSO). </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE. (1989b) Science in the National Curriculum (London, DES/HMSO). </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1989c) English for ages 5 to 16: proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales (London, DES). </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1989d) English in National curriculum (London, DES/ HMSO). </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1989e) Design and technology for ages 5 to 16: proposals of the Secretary of State for education and Science and The Secretary of state wales (London, DES). </p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1989f) Records of achievement report of the Records of Achievement National Steering Committee (London, DES). </p> <p>DOBSON, KEN (1988) Checks and balance: what are the implication for science teachers of national curriculum assessment?, Times Educational Supplement, 21 October 1988, p. 44. </p> <p>DUFFY, MICHAEL (1990) Operation Overload, Times Educational Supplement, 9 February. </p> <p>DUFOUR, BARRY (Ed.) (1990) The New Social Curriculum: a guide to cross-curricular themes, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). </p> <p>EASLEA, BRIAN (1983) Fathering the Unthinkable: masculinity, science and the nuclear arms race (London, Pluto). </p> <p>EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION (EOC) (1985) The Response of the Equal Opportunities Commission to the Department of Education and Science discussion document, The Organization and Content of the 5-16 Curriculum (Manchester, EOC). </p> <p>EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION (EOC) (1987) National testing and equal opportunities: submission by the Equal Opportunities Commission to the DES' Task Group on National Testing, in: National Curriculum: Task Group on Assessment and Testing. a report (London, DES). </p> <p>FACTASS (Joint Forum of Academic Teaching Association in the Social Sciences) (1989) Social science, personal and social education and the curriculum: a document submitted to the National Curriculum Council, published in Social Science Teacher, 18(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>), pp 85-90. </p> <p>FARLEY, MICHAEL (1985) Trends and structural changes in English vocational education, in: R. DALE (Ed.) Education, Training and Employment: towards a new vocationalism? (Oxford, Pergamon). </p> <p>FAWCETT SOCIETY (n.d.) Exams for the boys, Fawcett Educations papers (London, Fawcett Society). </p> <p>FOSTER, MARIANA (1985) A curriculum for all? the relationship between racism, feminism and schooling: a personal view, in: GABY WEINER (Ed.) just a bunch of Girls (Milton Keynes, Open University Press). </p> <p>FURTHER EDUCATION UNIT/SCHOOL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (1985) Supporting TVEI (London, Further Educational Unit). </p> <p>GILLIGAN, CAROL (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological theory and women's development (London, Harvard University Press). </p> <p>GOLDSTEIN, HARVEY (1987) Gender bias and test norms in educational in: MADELEINE ARNOT & GABY WEINER (Eds) Gender and the Politics of Schooling (Milton Keynes, Hutchinson/Open University Press). </p> <p>GRAFTON, TERESA et al. (1987) Gender and Curriculum choice, in: Madeleine Arnot and Gaby Weiner (Eds) Gender and the Politics of schooling (Milton Keynes, Hutchinson/Open University Press). </p> <p>GRIFFIN, CHRISTINE (1985) Typical Girls Young Woman from school to Job Market (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul). </p> <p>HARDING, JAN (Ed.) (1986) Perspectives on Gender and Science (Lewes, Falmer Press). </p> <p>HER MAJESTY'S INSPECTORATE (1985) curriculum Matter's 2: the curriculum for 5-16 (London, DES). </p> <p>HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (1990) Social Trend's 20 (London, HMSO). </p> <p>HOLLAND, JANET (1988) Girls and occupational choice: in search of meanings, in: ANDREW POLLARD, JUNE PURVIS & GEOFFREY WALFORD (Eds), Education, Training and the New vocationalism: experience and policy (Milton Keynes, Open University Press). </p> <p>HOYLE, CECLIA (Ed.) (1988) Girls and Computers: general issues and cases studies of Logo in the mathematics classroom, Bedford Way Papers 34 (London, Institute of Education, University of London). </p> <p>INCE, MARTIN (1990) When people become a scare resource, Times Higher Education Supplement, 9 February, p.7. </p> <p>JAMES, EDWYN (1988) Improving the formula, Time's Educational Supplement, 23 September, p. 25. </p> <p>KEARNS, JACKIE (1989) Case study: issues of gender in the inner Education Authority Profile and London Record of Achievement scheme, in: HELEN BURCHELL & VAL. MILLAN (Eds) Changing Perspectives on Gender: new initiatives in secondary education (Milton Keynes, Open University Press). </p> <p>KELLY, ALlSON (1976) A study of external examination in differences in attainment, Research in research in Education, 16, pp. 37-63. </p> <p>KELLY, ALISON (1981) The Missing Half. girls and science education, (Manchester, Manchester University Press). </p> <p>KELLY, ALISON (1987) The constructions of masculine science in: MADELEINE ARNOT & GABY WEINER (Eds) Gender and the Politics of Schooling (Milton Keynes, Hutchinson/Open University Press). </p> <p>MARTIN, BRIAN (1987) Merit and Power, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 22(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>). </p> <p>McNAY, IAN (1986) GCSE and the New Vocationalism, in: TIM HORTON (Ed.) GCSE: Examining the new System (London, Harper & Row). </p> <p>MCNEIL, MAUREEN (Ed.) (1987) Gender and Expertise (London, Free Association Books). </p> <p>MEIGHAN, ROLLAND (1986) A Sociology of examining, 2nd end (London, Holt, Rinehart & Winston). </p> <p>MlLLMAN, VAL. (1983) Progression of retrogression? The implication of the new vocationalism for girls, Social Science Teacher, 13(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>), pp. 40-41. </p> <p>MlLLMAN, VAL. (1985) The new vocationalism in secondary schools: its influence on girls, in: JUDITH WHYTE et al. (Eds), Girl Friendly Schooling (London, Methuen). </p> <p>MOON, BOB (1988) Pinning down the shadows, Times Educational Supplement, 29 July, p. 4. </p> <p>MURPHY, PATRICIA (1988) Gender and Assessment, Curriculum, 9(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>), pp. 165-171. </p> <p>NASH, IAN (1989) Assessments boom, `will end' GCSE exam, Times Educational Supplement, 3 February, p. A4. </p> <p>NASH, IAN (1990) Fighting for some space to call their own, Times Educational Supplement, 9 February. </p> <p>NATIONAL CURRICULUM COUNCIL (1989) English in the national Curriculum: a report to the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the statutory consultation for attainment targets and programmes of studying English at key stages 2, 3 and 4 (York, National Curriculum Council). </p> <p>NUTTALL. D.L. & GOLDSTEIN, HARVEY (1986) Profiles and graded Tests: the technical issues, in: PATRICIA BROADFOOT (Ed) Profiles and Records of Achievement: a review of issues and practice (London, Holt, Rinehart & Winston). </p> <p>OPEN UNIVERSITY, Gender and Educational Bibliography (compiled by MADELEINE ARNOT & GARY WEINER for the MA in Education `Gender and Education' course (E813)) (Milton Keynes, Open University). </p> <p>PRING, RICHARD (1990) Spanning the deep cultural spasm, Education Guardian, 13 February, p. 21. </p> <p>RAFFE, DAVID & WILLMS, J. DOUGLAS (1989) Schooling the discourage worker: local-labour-market effects on educational participation, Sociology, 23(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>), pp. 559-.581. </p> <p>ROYAL SOCIETY AND INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS (1986) Girls and mathematics (London, RSIM). </p> <p>SOUTH-EAST RECORDS OF ACHIEVEMENT (1988) South-East Records of Achievement Handbook (SERA, Tunbridge Wells). </p> <p>STOCKARD,JEAN (1980) Sex inequities in the experience of student, in: JEAN STOCKARD et al. (Eds) Sex Equity in Education (London, Academic Press). </p> <p>SUTHERLAND, MARGARET B. (1981) Sex Bias in Education (Oxford, Basil Blackwell). </p> <p>TIMES EDUCATIONAL SUPPLEMENT (1990) Grounding for a life work of: 16-19s, Times Educational Supplement, 2 February, p. 13 (report of the part of the Secretary of States speech to the Society of Education Officers Annual Conference) </p> <p>UNIVERSITY OF LONDON EXAMINATION BOARD (ULEB) (1985) Sexism, Discrimination and Gender Biases in GCE Examinations (London, ULEB). </p> <p>WALLACE, CLAIRE (1987) For Richer, For Poorer: growing up in out of work (London: Tavistock Publications). </p> <p>WALLACE, R.G. (1985) Introducing Technical and Vocational Education (London, Macmillan Education). </p> <p>WEINER, GABY (1990) Ethical practice in an unjust world: Educational evaluation and social justice, Gender and Education, 2(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>), pp. 247 -254. </p> <p>WESTON, CELIA (1989) Teachers warn on curriculum, Guardian, 27 November, p. 5. </p> <p>WICKHAM, ANN (1985) Gender divisions, training and the state, in: ROGER DALE (Ed.) Education, Training and Employment: towards a new vocationalism? (Oxford, Pergamon Press). </p> <p>WOOD, R (1978) Sex differences in answers to English language comprehension items, Educational Studies, 4, pp.157-165. </p> <p>YATES, LYN (1985) Is `girl friendly schooling' really what girls need?, in: JUDITH WHYTE et al. (Eds.) Girl friendly. Schooling (London, Methuen). </p> <aug> <p>By HILARY BURRAGE[*], Wirral Metropolitan College, United Kingdom </p> <p></p> <p>[*] Hilary Burrage writes here in a personal capacity. </p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib3" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref4"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ427933
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Gender, Curriculum, and Assessment Issues to 16+.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burrage%2C+Hilary%22">Burrage, Hilary</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Gender+and+Education%22"><i>Gender and Education</i></searchLink>. 1991 3(1):31-43.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1991
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Opinion Papers
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22British+National+Curriculum%22">British National Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Choice%22">Career Choice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum%22">Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Occupational+Aspiration%22">Occupational Aspiration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Differences%22">Sex Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Testing%22">Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocational+Education%22">Vocational Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28Wales%29%22">United Kingdom (Wales)</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Discusses the issue of gender in relation to England's National Curriculum and associated assessment and testing. The new curriculum is technology based and vocationally oriented. Foresees difficulties in providing gender-equal education unless more attention is given to the differing interests and goals of boys and girls. (DM)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1991
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ427933
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ427933
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 31
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: British National Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Career Choice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Occupational Aspiration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocational Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (Wales)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Gender, Curriculum, and Assessment Issues to 16+.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burrage, Hilary
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 1991
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 3
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Gender and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1