ABSTRACT
These two knowledge bases have been linked in this chapter because what is included in a curriculum needs to be linked to the aims and purposes of education. In some ways the primary curriculum has changed radically since the nineteenth century. However, as scholars such as Alexander (1984) have pointed out, the so-called freedom and flexibility of the post-Plowden era concealed a situation in which there were in reality two primary curricula, which he labelled Curriculum I and Curriculum II. Curriculum I is the high priority area of ‘basic skills’, defined as reading, writing, and mathematics; Curriculum II comprises the lower priority areas of creative and expressive arts, social and environmental studies, scientific understanding, moral and religious education and so on (Alexander 1984). This divide was in fact reinforced in the National Curriculum by distinguishing between core subjects and foundation subjects, although science entered the core at this time. It is further reinforced by the introduction of the high-priority literacy and numeracy hours (DfEE 1998b; 1999b), sharply defined in their relative frameworks, and made to feel compulsory even if there is some room for negotiation. It would seem then that primary education is about instruction in basic literacy and numeracy, much as elementary education was in the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth century: in fact, plus ça change. However, in aims and purposes of primary education and in versions of the primary curriculum, there have always been contradictions and confusions (Alexander 1984). These are related to tensions and misunderstandings: the tensions between the needs of society and the needs of individuals, between child-centred education and education in subjects; and misunderstandings about the nature of subject knowledge. This is not the place for an extended discussion on the primary curriculum, since we are concerned here with the curriculum knowledge of expert teachers. However, teachers need to be aware of the historical complexities and contradictions in the primary curriculum, and consider these in their reflections on teaching and in making professional judgements about what to teach and how to teach it.
