by Dr. Lee Jerome 27

work' (Gerrard, 2014) blending 'emotional regulation, resilience, altruism, [and] responsibility… with positive psychology' (Ecclestone, 2014, 469). In doing so these resources promote a model of change in which the individual assumes responsibility for their own moral improvement as the precursor to any positive change in the wider world. Justice is rendered a personal character trait, politics largely disappears from view, to be replaced with the search for individual moral improvement. To the extent that the individual is promoted as the main unit of analysis, and political understanding is avoided, we would concur with the critics rather than Kristjánsson’s response.

Whilst Kristjánsson might believe the resources could be salvaged if they were brought into better alignment with his theoretical model, we believe these flaws reflect some fundamental problems with character education. By focusing on the materials designed for students we have clarified the following lines of critique, some of which have been absent or underplayed in the existing literature. Firstly, we suspect it is difficult for character education in practice not to be excessively focused on individualistic and de-politicised accounts, because these accounts are developed on the basis of individualistic and de-politicised premises (i.e. the philosophy of virtue ethics).

Secondly, we also suspect that the process of ‘phronesis’ invoked in Kristjánsson’s account of character education is providing cover for an inadequate conceptualisation of how a person engages in moral reasoning. Ultimately there is little room for moral reasoning in the classroom if someone else already knows both what a student’s answer should be, and what reasons are acceptable. Similarly, there is little incentive for a teacher to develop detailed case studies, reflecting contextually specific phronesis, if they believe that the correct ethical answer is already clearly evident.

Thirdly, it seems to us that there is problematic leap from the foundational ideas in virtue ethics to the practical content of a lesson. McCowan (2009) has observed that curriculum policy is translated from fairly vague aspirations to increasingly concrete activities as policy moves from government to mediating institutions, and from those institutions to schools, then through schools to class teachers, and finally from teachers to students. Each of these steps can be seen as a leap from one type of activity to another – from abstract philosophical goals to specific tasks and worksheets. As we have read these resources we have been struck by the idea that, whilst virtue ethics has been criticised for being too vague about what one should do in any given situation (Kisby, 2017) the resources themselves struggle with the opposite problem – they seem all too willing to assert unjustified right answers in any situation. This introduces a new line of critique about the problems of translation and interpretation as one moves from what McCowan (90) calls 'ideal ends' to the 'real means' of lesson plans and materials. It further suggests that claims to have resolved the problems with character education theoretically should be met with caution, and the materials produced by character advocates should be subjected to equal scrutiny.

Our analysis also raises the question of whether dedicated character lessons should be delivered at all in schools. Interestingly, as Purpel (1997, 143) notes, advocates of character education often argue that schools inevitably promote values and therefore, directly or indirectly, inevitably engage in character development. It seems then that character educators simply wish to seize control of how this is done, but the analysis of these resources indicates why such a form of moral education would be deeply conservative. Moreover, as we have argued, their vision of social development is problematic, being premised on the idea that individuals must improve themselves in order to improve society. In contrast, in our view, social progress can best be achieved by engaging young people in collective acts of citizenship, in which political problems are met with political responses.

This article is adapted from: Lee Jerome & Ben Kisby (2020): Lessons in character education: incorporating neoliberal learning in classroom resources, Critical Studies in Education https://doi.org /10.1080/17508487.2020.1733037

Preparation for GCSE or an Opportunity for Subject Enrichment - What is the Purpose of the Key Stage 3 Curriculum?

Objective

At Berkhamsted, there is not a directive to follow the National Curriculum framework; we are able to design our own programmes of study. It has been a topic of debate within the English Department whether we start to prepare the students for skills needed for particular GCSE tasks from Year 7 or whether we reserve this for Year 10. Some subjects start their GCSE courses in Year 9. The dialogue between a knowledge-rich curriculum vs. skills-based curriculum is livelier than ever; without the imposition of external examinations, Key Stage 3 is at the heart of this debate. This action research project was designed to provide a timely insight into the ways in which teachers and students view Key Stage 3 at Berkhamsted.

Through surveying academic departments to discuss their KS3 provision, the intention is to explore the motivations and intentions for programmes of study. Locally, conclusions may be drawn on the impact of experimenting with the English Department programme of study with intervention units to promote subject enrichment in lieu of explicitly teaching GCSE skills. Pupil voice is instrumental to this research – students were surveyed to hear their experiences of Key Stage 3 education and the transition to GCSE courses.

Research Review The National Curriculum and Key Stage 3

The current statutory National Curriculum dates from 2014 at which point it was introduced to most year groups across primary and secondary education.

Key stages of education were first introduced in the Education Reform Act of 1988 to accompany the introduction of the National Curriculum. The term ‘Key Stage 3’ is defined in the Education Act 2002 as ‘the period beginning at the same time as the school year in which the majority of pupils in his class attain the age of twelve and ending at the same time as the school year in which the majority of pupils in his class attain the age of fourteen’ (National Archives, 2002). Standard Attainment Tests (SATs) were rolled out in each key stage, with KS3 students first sitting them in 1995. These tests became the main form of statutory assessment; however, by 2008, the SATs were scrapped for KS3 students.

In a 2008 report evaluating and analysing 'National Testing', the House of Commons and the Department for Children Schools and Families declared concerns with the current testing arrangements in state schools. It raised concerns that the 'professional abilities of teachers' were under-used and that the high-stakes nature of the tests led to 'phenomena such as teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum and focusing disproportionate resources on borderline pupils' (Select Committee, 2008).

OFSTED declares that it has no preferred curriculum or stance on the length of schools’ provision for KS3 and KS4. According to Lough (2019) 63% of state secondary schools now run lengthened Key Stage 4, dropping a year from Key Stage 3 to cater for GCSEs. The inspectorate has insisted it has no rule barring schools with three-year GCSEs from

achieving ‘outstanding’. A spokesperson for Ofsted said it had 'no view about whether Key Stage 3 should last for two or three years, and this is not a determining or limiting criterion within the handbook'. But they added research showed that a 'narrowed curriculum' could limit pupils’ choices and have a 'disproportionately negative effect' on disadvantaged pupils (AllenKinross, 2019).

Mark Lehain, Director of 'Parents and Teachers for Excellence' campaign, argues that starting GCSEs early means that pupils lose out to the breadth of knowledge they are entitled to. 'The best way to help pupils do well at 16 is to ensure they get maximum exposure to a wellsequenced, knowledge-rich curriculum throughout primary and key stage 3, not squeeze things out and start GCSE topics sooner,' he said. 'This is also the right thing to do in terms of their cultural entitlement. Better quality learning, not simply more time, is the key to everything' (Lough, 2019). A Department for Education spokesperson said: 'We have specifically designed the national curriculum so that Key Stage 3 is an important part of preparing pupils for GCSEs. Schools are free to decide how to teach the curriculum, but it should cover a broad and balanced range of subjects to ensure children are ready for study at Key Stage 4 and beyond' (ibid., 2019).

Independent schools and Key Stage 3 independent schools do not have to follow the National Curriculum; however, Regulation 2 of the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014 ensures that independent schools have a written policy on the curriculum they provide, which is further supported by plans and schemes of work (Legislation, 2014).

The majority of leading independent schools are structured traditionally where senior schools welcome students in Year 9 (with prep schools and feeder preps catering for Year 7 and Year 8 education).

In those senior independent schools which do teach the 11-18 age range, several have adopted their own pathway for Key Stage 3. Benenden School, an independent boarding school for 11-18 year old girls in Kent, has created its own bespoke ‘The Benenden Diploma’ which is advertised as a ‘highly interactive, investigative curriculum designed to provide challenge and intellectual stimulation and promote problem-solving and the application of knowledge’ (ibid., 2021). Although students are taught by subject specialists, each term, for a few days, the normal structure of the day is suspended to allow students to work on cross-curricular projects. These sessions are led by professionals such as working artists, writers, scientists or engineers. The themes for each of the six terms are: Identity, Journeys, Rites and Celebrations, Childhood and Adolescence and Around the World in 80 Days. Benenden School highlights that ‘in contrast to most schools, each lesson is delivered in a spirit of enquiry. Every lesson or series of lessons begins with a question: for example, if you were designing a building in an earthquake area, what would you need to consider? How can I write an effective news article and meet my publication deadline? How do Islam and Christianity differ?’ (ibid., 2021)

At the beginning and end of each term, the students experience a launch or plenary project that addresses the theme directly and where they can work on projects for a sustained period of time. Often the work developed in teams is presented to an adult audience, developing skills of collaboration, timekeeping, resourcefulness, etc. In the summer term of Year 8, the girls undertake a piece of independent research known as The Extended Project.

At Magdalen College School, an independent day school in Oxford, all pupils in Year 8 complete a Junior Waynflete Studies Project ‘on twelve-week rotations under the guidance of a supervisor. This is an extended piece of research and writing on a topic of their choosing, and is designed to build pupils’ independence in learning, to foster rigour and creativity of thought, and to cultivate the skills necessary for ongoing success and enjoyment of study at school and beyond’ (Magdalen College School, 2021).

Berkhamsted School is an interesting setting as a number of its students at the boys’ school enter in Year 9, which means that it faces obstacles in presenting all students with a consistent Key Stage 3 programme.

Data Collection Due to the subjective nature of the research project and its intended outcomes, I mostly favoured qualitative data.

I distributed a survey to Heads of Department / Key Stage 3 Department Leads. This questionnaire asked for departmental perspectives on the purpose and place of KS3 and views on the potential introduction of the GCSE course. 10 Heads of Department / Key Stage 3 Leads replied.

I distributed a questionnaire to my:

This questionnaire asked for students’ views on programmes of study and assessments in Key Stage 3.

I then conducted a focus group (three students from Year 9, three from Year 10 and three from the Lower Sixth) to respond to questions more directly linked to Key Stage 3 provision in the English Department. Year 9 class (20 boys) Year 10 class (20 girls) Lower Sixth students (10 students: 6 boys and 4 girls)

Key Findings

Berkhamsted School – Key Stage 3 · Students prefer the acquisition of knowledge rather than just a skills-based Key Stage 3 experience · Students mark the distinction between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 learning by the high frequency of assessment at KS3 · In subjects where the GCSE course begins in Year 9, Heads of Department / Key

Stage 3 Leads make this choice because of the lack of time allocation for Key Stage 4 in their subjects · Whilst Year 9 students are positive about starting some GCSE courses early, those in

Year 10 and the Lower Sixth are far less positive about a three-year GCSE course (particularly covering / revisiting exam material taught three years before the examination paper).

English Department – Key Stage 3

· Students do not wish to compromise the range of class readers and development of skills taught over the three years by starting either GCSE course in Year 9 · Students respond well to a variety of assessment tasks (creative, critical, written and oral) across the three years · Students enjoy and benefit from the reading schemes in class (organised by the

Library) – this is the only time in their timetable given to independent reading for pleasure.