A Critical Comparison of the 2013 draft English Curriculum with Current High School Practice

Abstract

The following article describes the context, planning, execution and findings of a small scale critical comparison between the Draft 2013 History National Curriculum and current practice in schools. The article opens with a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding the announcement of the draft in the context of ongoing debates about curriculum ideology before going on to look at the curriculum itself in greater depth.  The research uses Critical Discourse Analysis to expose the hegemonic intentionality of the new curriculum. Using an intertextual approach, it contrasts this document with the existing practice of schools (Northern Comprehensive and Southern Grammar) and finds significant points of difference. These differences are expressed in terms of modality, selectivity and representation each of which shows the two schools’ curricula to be more progressive in terms of Santome’s tests of progressiveness (2009). The study argues that the most significant difference between progressive and conservative curricula is not the selection or omission of topics, but the way in which topics are presented.  The article closes with a critical reflection on the process which argues for the efficacy of intertextual CDA as a tool for this kind of study.