A ‘capability’ perspective on geography in schools

4 A ‘capability’ perspective on geography in schools

This chapter argues for fresh ways of articulating geography’s contribution to education. After restating the importance of aims and the need for teachers to engage with questions of purpose, we present an analysis of geographical knowledge and understanding for the school setting – distinguishing intensive and extensive knowledges and advocating an approach that centres on an education for understanding. This includes the important notion of students as knowledge producers and the notion that knowledge is often contingent, not least on what the learners bring to the task of knowledge production. We then use this discussion as a platform to introduce the helpful idea of education for capability. We suggest that there may be something worth exploring under the guise of ‘geo-capability’ that would centre on the capacity of children and young people to use the key, organizing concepts of geography (such as scale or interdependence) in their enquiries and endeavours to make sense of the world.

Introduction

Misconstruing education as the simple transmission of information from one party (teachers) to another (students), these partners can fail to see the true importance of pedagogy . . . (E)ducation is always life changing for students – whether they realize it or not . . . (T)he knowledge that students assimilate is not simply ‘added on’ to fully formed characters – like icing on a cake or an extension to a house. Rather that knowledge helps to mould students into cer- tain kinds of people. Formal education cannot, in short, fail to shape the char- acter of those who experience it.

(Castree 2005: 245–6) The overarching theme of this book so far has been the relationship between geography

the subject discipline and geography teachers, or more precisely, the purpose of geo- graphy and its contribution to the school curriculum. In Chapter 3, we looked at some implications for those teaching geography in schools, emphasizing their role as ‘curri- culum-makers’ and the profound importance of developing a big picture of geography and its place in curriculum-making.

This chapter takes us one step further. Castree (2005) follows his ‘sober recognition’ of the significance of educational encounters (quoted above) with the realization that this is liberating for both teachers and students. He goes on to say, and we certainly agree, that ‘there is no one ‘‘correct’’ set of things that students should know; there is no one ‘‘proper’’ way of learning; there are no ‘‘self-evident’’ goals of education. Instead, there are only ever choices about what to teach, how to teach and to what ends’ (Castree 2005: 246, original italic). This is, as bell hooks (1994: 206) once wrote, an ‘awesome responsibility’.

54 CONCEPTS, CONTEXTS AND HISTORIES Here we advocate deeper thought about the purpose of geography in the curriculum

and how it serves wider educational goals or aims. Thinking geographically contributes to cultural, spiritual, social and moral understanding, which is why, for example, geography teachers may develop with students their argumentation skills, strategies to address moral dilemmas and awareness of the ethical dimensions of topics, themes or issues. In a sense therefore it is not at all difficult to see how geography serves educational goals. However, this is a very broad set of claims and so loose that it offers some dangers to the unwary or ill-equipped. Teaching ‘carelessly’ (Morgan and Lambert 2005: pp. 62–65; see also Lambert and Balderstone 2009) needs to be avoided and Chapter 3 has shown the importance of balancing various competing priorities in order to minimize the risks of ‘curriculum corruption’ (Whelan 2007) as described in Chapter 3 of this book (see also Lambert 2008). Our argument is that careful thought about educational goals and pur- poses is essential and we are particularly concerned to do this in relation to knowledge and understanding in geography. Later in this chapter, we describe a framework for this using a ‘capability’ approach. Capability is an important synthesizing idea. It concerns the growth and development of the individual per se, but also contributing to the building of ‘social capital’, meaning here the dynamic and developing intellectual resources from which society as a whole can draw in addressing choices of how to live.

Aims and purposes, knowledge and understanding It is difficult to overemphasize the significance of aims. Geography (or indeed any other

subject discipline in school) may no longer be a sufficient end in itself, if ever it was. Subject disciplines, contributing to the selection from the wider culture that the curri- culum represents (Lawton 1989), have a justifiable place in the curriculum only because they serve, and can contribute to, a range of educational purposes in particular and significant ways. What this means in a complex ‘knowledge society’ (see Chapter 2) demands a sophisticated response. Subjects connect us to a range of intellectual tradi- tions (Chapter 1), and are shot through with arguments and disputes about how to make sense of the world. School subjects are a product of these traditions. We have seen (in Chapter 3) that teachers are crucial in making the curriculum drawing from the subject as

a resource. But we now need to say more about subject knowledge characterized in this way. This section addresses aims, knowledge and understanding. We show that young people can become more capable as individuals through using some of the products and

methods of disciplines such as geography. The original (1988) National Curriculum for England and Wales was essentially aimless (White 2004; 2006). However, enthusiasm for an aims-based curriculum has grown apace in recent years. A growing number of schools are following new pro- grammes at Key Stage 3 such as the Royal Society of Arts Opening Minds project (RSA 2005) based on a number of core ‘competences’ needed for life in the modern world. In such schools subject teaching is played down in favour of cross-curricular learning, often based on themes. In this context John White, a philosopher of education, has observed:

Society-watchers on the look-out for changes in national zeitgeist should take note of what is happening at grass-roots level in schools and in major

55 educational agencies and pressure groups. The 1988 settlement is now widely

A ‘CAPABILITY’ PERSPECTIVE ON GEOGRAPHY IN SCHOOLS

rejected. While government may be cautiously reluctant about radical change for fear of being accused of flirting with the soggy progressivism of the 1960s, professionals are increasingly taking things into their own hands.

(White 2006:6) What White (2006) appears to show is that teachers in schools are prepared to

challenge certain taken-for-granted aspects about school education and specifically the assumption that it should be based on a ‘traditional range of school subjects’. Funda- mental questions are in the air such as:

What is school education for?

What should be its aims in a society like our own?