Introduction
This book has begun with an extended personal narrative for an important reason. During the course of this chapter I will argue that teachers are at the heart of the process of teaching and learning. Their beliefs, aspirations and values are all important, informing elements of the design and delivery of a curriculum. The creation of an enriching pedagogy for cross-curricular teaching and learning (an important and often misunderstood term) can be achieved if teachers can reclaim some authority in curriculum development and delivery. Recent developments in the National Curriculum at Key Stage 3 present some exciting opportunities for this to happen.
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves. Before we begin to consider what an approach to cross-curricular teaching and learning might look like, three important principles that underpin this book will be introduced. Two of the principles draw on the key phrases and ideas from educationalists who, sadly, are no longer with us. The third springs from these. In choosing to start the book with these principles, it is hoped that the reader will recognise that, in several key respects, developing an approach to cross-curricular teaching and learning is embedded within good teaching per se. Obviously our concerns throughout the majority of this book will be to consider the bookās title and associated themes in some detail. But, first, a platform about the curriculum, teachers and pedagogy needs to be built. It is time to examine three foundational principles of this book.
Principle 1: No curriculum development without teacher development
Fifty years ago, the Crowther Report stated that āeverything in education depends ultimately on the teacherā (Central Advisory Council for Education 1959). It is a sentiment that one of the greatest educational thinkers of recent decades, Lawrence Stenhouse, would have undoubtedly agreed with. Stenhouse was a firm advocate for the teacher. It was fitting that the teachers with whom he worked across East Anglia contributed a plaque in his memory. On it, they inscribed Stenhouseās own words: āIt is the teachers who in the end will change the world of the school by understanding itā (Stenhouse 1975, p. 208).
Stenhouse was well known for his belief that teachers could enhance their professional understanding by engaging in processes of educational research. His notion of the āteacher as researcherā has done much to shape current thinking about professional development, reflective practice and action research. He was an outspoken critic of what he saw as the deprofessionalisation of the teacher through āobjectiveā based curriculum models. These, he said:
For Stenhouse, such curriculum models were a symbol of distrust of the teacher. He worked hard to challenge such approaches. More than that, he developed alternative ideas that reasserted the teachersā role in curriculum planning and development. If, as he wrote, āit seems odd to minimise the use of the most expensive resource in the schoolā (Stenhouse 1975, p. 24), it would be better to āreinvest in the teacher and to construct the curriculum in ways that would enhance teachersā understanding and capabilityā (Ruddock 1995, p. 5).
It is this background that led Stenhouse to make one of his most famous statements: āNo curriculum development without teacher developmentā (Stenhouse 1975, p. 142). As Silbeck comments:
These are powerful arguments that have much resonance with current thinking about curriculum design and development. As we will go on to see, recent pieces of curriculum reform have placed a greater degree of ownership and responsibility on schools. The greatest asset of every school is its teaching staff. The ālocalisationā of the National Curriculum presents an opportunity for teachers to respond to the challenge of developing themselves and the curriculum they offer to their pupils in tandem.
Principle 2: Subjectivity is like a garment that cannot be removed
Alan Peshkinās work on subjectivity is important for anyone engaged in research activities (Peshkin 1988). As the second key principle for this book, the above phrase is drawn from the following paragraph of his seminal paper on the topic of subjectivity and its influence on the research process:
For our discussion, subjectivity can have a double meaning. In the sense that Peshkin is talking about, it refers to our personal qualities that affect the results of our work. It could include aspects related to our values, knowledge and understanding about a whole range of issues (both educational or, probably, more generally). These, Peshkin argues, cannot be removed. They are like a garment through which our gaze is mediated. They influence the way we feel, think and act. Our subjectivities need to be examined and understood in order for us to engage meaningfully with each ot...