Teaching Business Education 14-19

Martin Jephcote, Ian Abbott

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135056858
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Education
• Index: Business

Written in association with the EBEA, this authoritative text provides a comprehensive and insightful study of current curriculum development and classroom practice with business education. Up-to-date, practical and covering the very latest issues, it presents:

* Advice on planning courses and managing the curriculum

* The latest developments in 14-19

* Guidance on the emerging work-related curriculum

* A focus on key topics such as enterprise education, e-learning and citizenship

* A teacher-reviewed annotated resource guide of text-based and web-based resources.

PART 1 Business and Economics in a Changing World

CHAPTER 1 The changing curriculum: the interaction of policy and practice

Martin Jephcote and Ian Abbott

Introduction

For teachers in schools and colleges there is a sense in which new demands are always being placed on them, and to a degree these require changes in the curriculum in terms of what is taught and how it is assessed. Indeed, the history of education in the past thirty years gives witness to how the curriculum has been used to promote one agenda or another; for example, to promote equality of opportunity, to respond to rising youth unemployment and growing disaffection, to combat crime, and to enable Britain to compete in the global knowledge-based economy Schools and colleges have been faced with endless initiatives, with one arriving so soon after the other that they begin to be counter-productive. This works to leave the impression that educational policy-making is piecemeal and nothing more than a response to the latest panic. It might also leave teachers feeling swamped and exhausted by the constant pressure for change. What is certain is that the autonomy which teachers once thought they had has been lost because of the ways in which central government has taken more control, not just in shaping the curriculum but also through the coercive mechanisms of assessment and external quality control.

For teachers of business and related subjects the last thirty years has been a particularly turbulent time. Economics was an established A level subject and enjoyed record numbers of examination entries. Economics teachers were so confident about their subject and its base in schools that they wanted to expand to reach lower-aged pupils, and some wanted to ensure that a basic understanding of economics was a curriculum entitlement for everyone. As early as 1973 Christie believed that all pupils in secondary schools should be given some form of economics education and Holley (1973), while against proselytising the subject, was in favour of developing skills and abilities for a changing world. The idea that the Economics Association should establish an Economics Education 14–16 Project was first conceived in the early 1970s but did not get under way until 1976, making its first-phase formal report in 1980. In the period 1980 to 1983 the emphasis of the second phase of the Project was to develop exemplar materials to be used in economics, commerce and multidisciplinary social subjects. The third phase of the Project, started in 1985, was a wider dissemination phase which was directed at spearheading the spread of economic literacy through the in-service training of teachers; and in 1985 the revised exemplar materials were published in three volumes called Young Person as Consumer, Young Person as Citizen and Young Person as Producer. An objective of the materials was what Ryba (1984) called ‘personalising’ economics and was based on his view that courses in economic understanding should be available to all pupils regardless of ability. The publication of the materials was timely in a number of respects. First, they provided a concrete example of how LEAs and schools might respond to the DES consultation document The School Curriculum (1985), credited by Ryba and Hodkinson (1985) as the most important document to date in terms of the future of economics in the 14–16 curriculum because of its references to the needs of the economy and establishing links between schools and industry. Second, the materials informed the development of a teacher's guide for the introduction of the General Certificate of Secondary Education which in 1986 replaced the O level and Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) and introduced the materials to a wide school and college audience.

Thirty years ago a business studies department was probably separate from the higher-status economics department. Typically, a business studies department comprised a permutation of office skills, typewriting, shorthand, commercial English, and commerce. A level business studies was first introduced in 1967 as an outcome of the pioneering work of John Dancy, the Master of Marlborough College, with financial support from the Wolfson Foundation and in collaboration with a small number of schools and the Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. By 1975, 50 centres entered 400 candidates (Barker 1974) and over the same period business education developed and expanded as a vocational course in further education. More than 75,000 students were enrolled on either a Certificate in Office Studies, an Ordinary National Certificate or Diploma, or a Higher National Certificate or Diploma. Dyer (1979), the then Director of the A level Business Studies Project, sought to dispel any thought that it was vocationally oriented. His predecessor, however, recognised the inherent relationships between business studies and delivering what industry wanted, that was, he suggested, to provide information on how the nation earns its living and develop an appreciation of the role of industry and commerce in this process (Clifford 1978).

Today economics stands at the margin of the curriculum whereas business enjoys the ‘high ground’. Indeed, as the title of this book suggests, economics in schools and colleges is, arguably, pretty much subsumed within the broad business education framework. Lines (1988) had warned that action was needed to revitalise and renew the study of economics and Livesey (1986) and Levacic (1987) foreshadowed the likely effect of the continued adherence to an outdated economic and pedagogic paradigm on the numbers taking A level. There was also a growing perception on the part of teachers and students that it was both easier to pass and get higher grades in business than in economics.

At times, there have been opportunities for activists, such as members of the Economics Association/EBEA to be proactive, to set the agenda and work at bringing about change. At other times, they have been forced into a reactive mode, having to respond to external agendas and to changing conditions, and often this has seemed like a fight for survival. For example, in response to the rejection of the recommendations made by the Higginson Committee (1988) for the reform of A level, the Secondary Examinations and Assessment Council promoted its own review. An outcome was the development of principles to cover all AS and A level syllabuses which supported the ‘twin-track’ approach dividing academic and vocational qualifications. In response, in 1989 the Association undertook a major review of the post-16 economics curriculum and formally launched its Economics Education 16–19 Project in 1991. Among other things, the intentions of the Project were to stimulate a review of the nature of economics thinking in both academic and vocational contexts and consider the implications for teaching, learning and assessment strategies. It sought to address the gap between the sorts of abstract economics now so widely criticised and the interests and understanding of professional economists. It did not set out to produce a new examination syllabus but sought to clarify the nature of learning economics and provide an antidote to the existing theory-first approach.

The fact was, however, that against a background of increased staying-on rates in post-16 education, in the period 1990 to 1996 the numbers taking economics halved whereas those taking business doubled. This ‘turn-around’ is well illustrated through the recent history of the Economics and Business Education Association (EBEA). For example, in his report to the 1990 Annual General Meeting, the Chair of the Association indicated that extending services to members who taught business studies was a priority and he reafiirmed a commitment to forging an effective partnership with the National Association of Advisers and Inspectors in Business and Economics Education (NAAIBEE) and the Society of Teachers of Business Education (STBE) (Hodkinson 1991). It was not however until 2003 that a Joint Policy Forum for Business Education succeeded in getting the EBEA, NAAIBEE, STBE and the National Association for Business Education (NABSE) into meaningful negotiations (see Wall 2004). A more immediate response to the growth of business was when, in 1993, the then Economics Association transmuted into the EBEA and its journal, once called Teaching Economics changed its title, first to Economics and Business Education, and in 1997 to Teaching Business and Economics. These changes reflected the decline in economics and the rise of business at GCSE and A level and as a popular General National Vocational Qualification (GNVQ) introduced in 1993.

Business and economics in the curriculum

Even though individual subjects might seem impervious to change they are not monolithic but evolve over time. It would be wrong to think that changes necessarily come about as a result of a ‘grand plan’ or from the deliberate workings of an identifiable pressure group, but instead changes are often the result of the complex interplay of people and events. Over time there is an ongoing contest within and between subjects over matters such as their definition, content and pedagogic practices and between subjects and subject factions over status. New generations of teachers and others within subject communities engage in a process of thinking about the purposes of the subjects they teach and in the ways in which they seek to make changes. Moreover, engagement in this evolutionary process is important if as Kirk et al. (1997) asserted, courses that fail to reinvent themselves in the face of new circumstances are liable to decline or disappear. Indeed, as this and other chapters illustrate, these matters are particularly pertinent to the development of business and economics education in the UK.

A starting-point is to ask what are the purposes of business and economics in the curriculum and for individual teachers to be clear about why they teach their subject. Looking at curriculum provision today we might express some dissatisfaction with existing arrangements and argue for a curriculum more suited to those culturally and socially deprived young people who form the bulk of the lower achievers. Instead of attaching so much importance to an academic curriculum we might also argue that it should be pitched at a level of practical common life experiences, rather than at the level of abstraction, which is generally considered to be more appropriate for those culturally and socially advantaged higher achievers. We might think of education as essentially preparatory for life ahead and to ensure that young people can cope with the circumstances they are likely to encounter throughout their lives. If so, then perhaps emphasis should be placed on methods of enquiry rather than on an accumulation of facts and less emphasis be given to external testing. The fact is that these sorts of concerns are not new but were raised more than thirty years ago by educationalists such as Bantock (1971) and Musgrave (1968), but continue to be recurring themes.

As early as 1974 Raynor (1974: 9) had noted the tensions and ‘contradictory forces’ pulling the curriculum in opposite directions. He asked:

• Should schools meet the needs of the individual child or meet the needs of society and the economy?
• Are schools to be used as a means of changing society or preserving the existing social order?
• Should schools be a vehicle to transmit traditional moral values even though these may be regularly breached in the wider society?

These are not easy questions to answer. For example, on the one hand, employers may emphasise the need to prepare young people for the world of work. Politicians may assert the need for schools to contribute to an efficient and competitive economy. Parents and pupils may be most concerned about finding jobs and providing for a secure future. Taking these together we might, without getting into issues of either defining society or specifying its systematic requirements, suggest that a key role of schooling could be to provide young people with the appropriate general and vocational knowledge and understanding, skills and attitudes that made them better prepared for changing patterns of work. A role for schooling could be seen as to induct prospective workers, managers, consumers and citizens into their more or less predetermined roles in the culture of a democratic industrialised society. This would be achieved by providing pupils with the necessary knowledge and understanding and engendering values, attitudes and beliefs which enabled them to transfer easily from school to their adult roles as effective managers, workers, consumers and citizens.

On the other hand, it could be argued that the role of schooling is not to facilitate passage into the prevailing or taken-for-granted ‘norms’ and structures of society. A purpose of education could be to question the future direction of society. Rather than regard existing school-society relationships as self-perpetuating, educatio...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• About the contributors
• Part 1: Business and Economics in a Changing World
• 2 Part 2: Teaching and Learning
• Part 3: Initial and Continuing Teacher Development
• Part 4: Business Education Resource Guide
• Index