“How useful is the concept of ‘capability’ in assessing the purpose of geography in education?”

1. “How useful is the concept of ‘capability’ in assessing the purpose of geography in education?” Richard Bustin, Geography teacher, Bancroft’s school. rbustin@gmail.com MPhil/ PhD student, Institute of Education.

2. BACKGROUND Geography branded ‘boring’ and ‘irrelevant’ (Ofsted 2008, 2011) Decline in pupils opting to take the subject at GCSE and A level. Curriculum planning now around ‘key concepts’- Place, Space, Scale, Interdependence, Physical and Human processes, Cultural understanding and diversity. 2011: National Curriculum review- geography? English Baccalaureate? Core knowledge? “without a substantial geographical component, it is possible to argue that young people will be restricted in their capacity to make sense of the complex, unequal, fast changing and often dangerous world in which they live” (Lambert 2008). Butt (2008) warns “the study of what we might still call ‘geographical issues’ will certainly continue in schools, colleges and universities – for understanding about such issues is important to any young person who wishes to become an autonomous, responsible and enlightened ‘global citizen’. Unfortunately, these issues are no longer recognised as being fundamentally ‘geographical’ – if current trends continue it is possible that they will not be taught by geographers in future” (p.164).

3. Purpose of geography (2010s): Purpose of geography (2010s): • - GA manifesto “A different view” (2009) • ‘Thinking Geographically’ (Jackson 2000) • ‘Grammar’ and ‘vocabulary’ of geography. • - GA manifesto “A different view” (2009) • ‘Thinking Geographically’ (Jackson 2000) • ‘Grammar’ and ‘vocabulary’ of geography. • BUT: • Thinking skills (about what?) • Geographical content of ITT? (Roberts 2010) • - Political interference? • Corruption of the curriculum? (Standish 2007) • Ideological differences? (Rawling 2000) • BUT: • Thinking skills (about what?) • Geographical content of ITT? (Roberts 2010) • - Political interference? • Corruption of the curriculum? (Standish 2007) • Ideological differences? (Rawling 2000) Rawling 2000 p212

4. CAPABILITY APPROACH Welfare economics: Sen (1980), Nussbaum (2000) COMMODITY/ STRUCTURAL FEATURES CAPABILITY (SET) FUNCTIONING • Wellbeing capability Nussbaum (2000) • Life. • Bodily Health. • Bodily Integrity. • Senses, Imagination, and Thought. • Emotions. • Practical Reason. • Affiliation. • Other Species. • Humanities capability (Hinchcliffe 2006) • Critical Examination and Judgement • Narrative imagination • Recognition/concern for others (citizenship in a globalised world) • Reflective learning (ability to articulate and revise personal aims) • Practical judgement (in relatively complex situations) • Take responsibility for others • Educational capability (Terzi 2005) • Literacy. • Numeracy. • Sociality and participation. • Learning dispositions. • Physical activities. • Science and technology. • Practical reason. • Geography capability (Lambert 2011) • Overall, it can be argued, a capability perspective on geography in education evokes a subject that can contribute to young people’s: • Deep descriptive ‘world knowledge’ • Theoretically informed relational understanding of people and places in the world • Propensity and disposition to think about alternative social, economic and environmental futures.

5. THE RESEARCH: “How useful is the concept of ‘capability’ in assessing the purpose of geography in education?” 1. What affects the development of geo capabilities with students in real school settings? 2. How do students of geography use their subject to understand the world, and how does this fit in to a (geo-) capabilities perspective? 3. How might a ‘geo capabilities’ framework provide a way for curriculum makers to see the value of school geography? STRUCTURAL FEATURES GEO CAPABILITY FUNCTIONING RESEARCH METHODS: Interviews with geography students (different ages) in different school settings, interviews with university lecturers (admissions tutors), geography teachers.

6. REFERENCES (selected) Butt G (2008) Is the future secure for geography education, Geography 93 (3) p158- 165. Goudie, A (1993) Schools and universities- the great divide, Geography 78 (4) p 338-9 Jackson P (2006) Thinking Geographically, Geography 91 (3), p 199-204. Lambert D (2008) Why are school subjects important? Forum, 50, 2. Available form www.wwwords.co.uk. Lambert D (2009) (ed), A different View, a manifesto from the Geographical Association. Sheffield: Geographical Association. Lambert D (2011) Reframing school geography: A Capability approach. In Butt (ed) Geography, Education and the Future. Continuum. Nussbaum M (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ofsted (2008) Geography in schools- changing practice. Press release. Available at www.ofsted.gov.uk. Rawling E (2000) Ideology, politics and curriculum change: reflections on school geography 2000, Geography, 85 (3), p. 209-220. Roberts M (2010) Where’s the Geography? Reflections on being a senior examiner. Teaching Geography 35 (3) p 112- 113. Sen A (1980) Equality of what? The Tanner Lecture on human values delivered at Stanford University May 22, 1979. Standish A (2007) Geography used to be about maps, In Whelan (ed) The corruption of the Curriculum. London: CIVITAS.