Seminar on 21st February 2011 in Mukogawa Women’s University
Primary education in Britain:
Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
Peter Cunningham
㧖Abstract
What can we learn from policy change? What can we learn about primary schools and primary teaching by understanding the dynamics of recent change?
This lecture will present an account and an analysis of changes in policy and practice over the last twenty years in Britain. It will also discuss the continuing process of change and current policy trends following a recent change of government.
The session will encourage students to reflect on comparisons between Japan and Britain as a way of understanding the social, economic and political factors that inform primary education.
The session will be arranged in three sections:
1. Curriculum
- national curriculum and the needs of primary children - citizenship, health and welfare
- assessment and testing
2. Teachers
- teacher qualification and professional development - teacher autonomy and teaching methods
- teachers and other adults in the classroom
3. School governance
- variety of types of primary school - local accountability
- national accountability
* Bye-Fellow of Homerton College, Cambridge, and Visiting Fellow at the University of London Institute of Education
Input to session 1. Curriculum
1.1 National Curriculum and the needs of primary children
In Britain the ‘elementary’ school curriculum at the beginning of state education 140 years ago comprised the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic, together with religious education. Over the first half of the twentieth century increasing knowledge of developmental psychology led to an understanding of the curriculum in terms of children’s development. Education became known as ‘primary’ to reflect the developmental stages of the child. By the time of the Plowden Report (1967) on ‘Children and their Primary Schools’ emphasis was on the needs of the individual child, and responsibility for the curriculum was left to individual schools and teachers.
In the 1970s and 1980s increasing concern about national economic performance and problems of literacy and numeracy amongst children entering employment after school led government policy to revive the earlier emphasis on basic skills and preparing children for the world of work. A National Curriculum (NC) was introduced 1988 by a Conservative government that believed in traditional school subjects. The NC also increased assessment and testing as a means of monitoring children’s progress and helping them to improve, and as a means of monitoring and improving schools’ effectiveness.
Another argument for centralised control of the curriculum was to produce an ‘entitlement curriculum’, to ensure that all children throughout Britain would receive a common experience at school. The NC would also make it easier for their parents to move from one part of the country to another, to satisfy the changing demands of the labour market, without too much interruption of their children’s schooling. But these policies undermined the ‘child-centred ideal’ of teachers responding to the needs of individual children in their class, as perceived by the teacher.
The National Curriculum implemented in primary schools from 1990 has two ‘Key Stages’, Key Stage One for children from age 5 to age 7 and Key Stage Two for children from age 8 to age 11. It is defined in terms of ‘core’ subjects (English, Maths and Science) and ‘foundation’ subjects (Geography, History, Design and Technology (DT), Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Music, Art and Design, Physical Education). Religious Education is statutory but not strictly part of the NC.
How far the needs of individual children can be met by a national curriculum is a question we could discuss.
1.2 Citizenship, health and welfare (and Religious Education)
Two broad aims for the school curriculum were reflected in the Education Act 1996, requiring that all schools provide a balanced and broadly based curriculum: ‘to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils and of society’; and ‘to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life’.
These aims are further explained as follows:
The school curriculum should … develop principles for distinguishing between right and wrong. It should develop their knowledge, understanding and appreciation of their own and different beliefs and cultures, and how these influence individuals and societies. The school curriculum should pass on enduring values, develop pupils' integrity and autonomy and help them to be responsible and caring citizens capable of contributing to the development of a just society.
The school curriculum should promote pupils' self-esteem and emotional wellbeing and help them to form and maintain worthwhile and satisfying relationships, based on respect for themselves and for others, at home, school, work and in the community. It should develop their ability to relate to others and work for the common good.
Citizenship and welfare are an explicit and important aspect of state policy on education. This policy reflects an expectation that schooling will help to fix the many problems of social breakdown, yet it can be seen to be in tension with the emphasis on developing basic skills and subject knowledge that constitute the formal curriculum and by which schools are formally assessed. Opportunities for citizenship and health education have to be made across the primary curriculum in all sorts of activities, and the ethos and organisation of the school has to play an important part in transmitting these values to children.
The formal content of the curriculum that contributes to this includes Religious Education (RE) and ‘personal, social and health education’ (PSHE), which includes sex education. In the case of RE and of sex education, however, parents can choose to withdraw their children, and although this happens infrequently, it raises serious questions about aspects of the curriculum for all children that are regarded as extremely important, but from which parents can opt out. Most schools must teach religious education according to a locally agreed syllabus that should reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are mainly Christian, while taking account of the teachings and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain. But again exceptions occur because schools of a religious character are not bound by this requirement. These are difficult dilemmas that we could discuss.
1.3 Assessment and testing
The National Curriculum included for the first time a system of regular assessment and testing. The aim was for government to be able to monitor the progress and achievement of schools and to enable parents to exercise choice by identifying ‘good schools’ and ‘bad schools’. This process introduced for political reasons was made possible by increasing sophistication of information technology and by increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for assessment.
However it met with a lot of opposition from the teaching profession because of its perceived narrowness which gave a distorted view of children’s progress and personal development, its apparent undermining of professional
judgment, its damaging effect on children in labelling and increasing anxiety, and the increased workload which detracted from quality teaching time. Many parents and others, professional and lay people, also objected in the early stages because of the distortion of the curriculum in encouraging teaching to the test.
Parents also observed the stress that testing and ‘labelling’ caused in some children. There were also objections to the publication of results in ‘league tables’ which encouraged competition between schools and damaged morale of teachers and children attending schools that performed comparatively badly, especially where the fundamental cause of lower scores was more likely to be the social and economic deprivation of children rather than the quality of teaching.
Some improvements were made as a result of these objections, for example simplifying the system of assessment and introducing ‘value added’ measures that took some account of the level that children were achieving on entry to school, also taking account of measures of social deprivation, although these were fairly crude such as numbers of children receiving ‘free school meals’.
Problems of assessment and testing in relation to the primary school curriculum could be a topic for discussion.
2. Teachers
2.1 Teacher qualification and professional development
Within a state education system, government has always been concerned to ensure a sufficient supply of teachers, and of sufficient quality. So it was necessary to provide the means of training teachers, either through apprenticeship or through colleges. Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), was awarded by the state, and not (as in the case of lawyers and doctors) by an independent professional body. But the details of knowledge required by teachers and the methods by which they learned the necessary skills for teaching were, like the school curriculum, traditionally thought of as a purely professional issue and not a matter for political interference.
However, just as the effectiveness of schools came under closer scrutiny by the state in the 1970s and 1980s, so the education and training of teachers became a matter of public concern and government policies began to be more specific and more controlling over professional development. This has tended to undermine not only
Questions for discussion:
٨ What is unclear or needs more explanation?
٨ What are the advantages and problems for the primary curriculum in serving individual needs, social needs, and the state’s needs?
٨ How does assessment and testing in Japan help or hinder a curriculum for personal and social development?
professional independence but also the academic independence of the universities, who had been responsible for designing and validating course of teacher training.
In 1984 the British government established a Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education appointed by the Secretary of State for Education, responsible for approving courses of initial training. This was later succeeded by a Teacher Training Agency (TTA) which began to specify a detailed list of ‘competences’ to be demonstrated by teachers in order to qualify. These competences later became known as ‘standards’, finely graded by descriptions of satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance.
Governments have developed an increasing number of school-based routes into teaching and reduced the extent of university-based courses. More recently the TTA, now renamed the Training and Development Agency, has been given the oversight of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) throughout a teacher’s career. Also introduced was a professional qualification specifically for Head Teachers (NPQH) with emphasis on the skills of managing schools as organisations and a National College for School Leadership. This signals a departure from the generally accepted ‘collegial’ tradition of a Head Teacher, especially in primary schools, as first and foremost a teacher, a colleague in the education of young children who took the leading role amongst a team of teachers.
Professional development had been a matter of individual preference for teachers who might choose to follow further courses in subject knowledge or professional skills. Increasingly requirements for further professional development have been decided by the Head Teacher and senior management according to the school’s particular curriculum or institutional needs at any one time (often following the outcomes of a school inspection). CPD resources have also increasingly been targeted by government at national initiatives such as the National Literacy Strategy and National Numeracy Strategy.
Issues for discussion that are raised by these policies might be the proper role for universities in the training of teachers, and the independence of the individual teacher in planning their own professional development.
2.2 Teacher autonomy and teaching methods
The NC in 1988 had been a culture shock for a profession that had always regarded curriculum as a matter for independent professional judgment. Government ministers at the time insisted that although this step had become necessary it would never attempt to dictate to teachers how they should teach. But after only a few years, a new Secretary of State for Education commissioned a report on ‘Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools’ (1992). Its authors were Robin Alexander, Jim Rose and Chris Woodhead, three individuals who have had prominent roles in the subsequent discourse of primary education up to the present time. Their discussion, which was ostensibly critical of ‘informal’ and ‘child-centred’ practice in primary teaching, heralded a new phase that led to government determination of teaching methods.
Continuing concern about standards of literacy and numeracy through the 1990s and the diversity of methods adopted for the teaching of English and maths in different schools and by different teachers, appeared to justify
the formulation of a national strategy that was realised by the New Labour government from 1997. This strategy promoted a daily ‘literacy hour’ and a ‘numeracy hour’ throughout Key Stages One and Two, for which the materials and the method of teaching were tightly planned and widely disseminated. Dissemination of methods and training of teachers was extensively organised on a national scale. Many teachers in fact welcomed the detailed prescription as giving them the reassurance of a prescribed structure in curriculum areas that were receiving a great deal of hostile publicity, where they felt vulnerable and open to potential criticism for the outcomes of children’s learning.
Standards as reflected in the results of national testing in English and maths improved dramatically in the first years of the strategies. Government claimed credit for this, although independent evaluations were more reserved, suggesting this was partly an effect of novelty, and the effects of ‘teaching to the test’. Also increasingly identified in more balanced evaluations was the negative impact on other aspects of the curriculum and on children’s school experiences as they spent a greater proportion of their time in routine classroom procedures and proportionately less time in creative, expressive and physical activities. For teachers, the impact of this new way of working to central government direction would take much longer to show, but as ten years have now passed, research on teachers reveals less job satisfaction, less initiative and creativity. There is a genuine danger that a more routine and conformist approach to the work of primary teaching will alter the experiences that children have of personal interaction and mutual enjoyment of learning with their teachers. It may even to deter livelier personalities from becoming primary teachers.
2.3 Teachers and other adults in the classroom
Historically, the role of the primary class teacher has been conceived as having responsibility for ‘the whole child’ in a single class for the entire school year. Thus the teacher takes care not just of the intellectual learning, but of the child’s physical, social and emotional development of individuals for as long as they’re in her, or his, class. Obviously there are limits to what’s possible, especially given the size of the class. But the implications for the teachers’ role are many. In some situations more than others they had to concern themselves with matters of welfare and with many practical matters in addition to their formal teaching. Sometimes there was limited assistance available, in earlier times in the form of ‘pupil-teachers’ (apprentice teachers) or more recently in the form of ‘parent helpers’ who might volunteer to assist in the classroom one or two mornings or afternoons during the week.
In very recent times the government embarked on a deliberate policy of ‘workforce reform’, one idea of which was to provide assistance for teachers in some of the more practical tasks. Government policies on curriculum and the ‘strategies’ required more planning, preparation and assessment, more ‘paperwork’ on the part of the teacher. So the role of ‘classroom assistant’ was more clearly identified, and more classroom assistants were employed by schools. As teachers were required to undertake more professional development during the school day, it was envisaged that classroom assistants could cover their absence by taking charge of the class. Some training was made available for classroom assistants, but a question inevitably raised by this policy was how effectively an unqualified (and lower paid) ‘assistant’ could cover all the aspects of a professional teacher’s role.
3. School governance
3.1 Variety of types of primary school
Even within a uniform state system, schools will vary widely in size and character depending on their location and on the character of the local population and local economy. In Britain there is still quite a lot of variety for historical reasons. Most obviously, when you visit an English village, small or large town, or city, are the number of denominational primary schools, especially Church of England.
Even the structure of state primary schooling, sometimes varies between different local education authorities for historical and geographical reasons. More densely populated areas often had separate infant and junior schools, though it has seemed to make more economical and more educational sense to bring these into one ‘all-through’ primary from ages 5-11. A few parts of the country still have middle schools designed to soften the dramatic (and sometimes traumatic) transition from primary to secondary schools at the age of 11, by creating ‘middle schools’ with two transitions at the age of 8 or 9, and again at 13 or 14. Middle schools however became increasingly unpopular after the introduction of the national curriculum as these transition points disrupted the progression through KS1, KS2 and KS3.
3.2 Local accountability
Local Education Authorities (LEAs) were part of democratically elected local government, and were responsible for local schools, but were often in conflict with national government over education policy. Reforms to school governance and from the 1970s began to recognise the parents’ role and a need for ‘partnership’ in primary education. This was associated with informed ‘consumerism’ as a positive development, but also with the ideology of education as a ‘market place’ which has been a less constructive.
More varied types of primary school have also arisen from successive governments’ attempts to devolve the funding of and responsibility for schools to local communities. This process has been very piecemeal and haphazard as far as primary schools are concerned. Grant Maintained schools were encouraged encouraged under a Conservative government in the early 1990s, freeing themselves from local authority control and getting their funds direct from national government and there have been many similar experiments and innovations under Conservative and New Labour governments in the last twenty years, such as Foundation Schools, Trust
Questions for discussion:
٨ What is unclear or needs more explanation?
٨ How should teachers best be prepared for their role through initial education and training, and what are their needs for continuing professional development? ٨ How far do primary school teachers have professional independence in Japan,
what kinds of support do they receive from other adults in school, and how far does this affect their professionalism?
Schools, Academies, and now so-called Free Schools under the new Coalition (Conservative and Liberal Democrat) government in 2010. There are benefits to community involvement in schools, but these policies are politically ideological and can lead to social divisiveness, a problem that is worth discussing.
3.3 National accountability
Finally we need to return to the machinery of assessment, testing, evaluation and inspection, mentioned earlier in relation to curriculum. (Section 1.3). We will discuss school inspection by Ofsted in the UK as well as assessment and testing.
One dynamic behind the high profile emphasis on assessment and testing was the increasing use of comparative national measurements of educational quality and achievement made by international bodies. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, founded after the Second World War, has taken an increasing interest in education and exercises a strong influence over national education policies:
‘Education is a major area of spending for OECD countries, but they face tough questions when it comes to allocating these resources: How best to balance spending across people’s lives—from preschool to adult learning? How can the role of education in fuelling economic growth be reconciled with other education goals? And what are the best ways of achieving those goals? Drawing on the experience of member countries, OECD helps societies answer these questions. The goal is to create education and training systems that contribute to social stability and economic strength, and that provide everybody with the chance to make the most of their innate abilities at every stage of life.’
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an internationally standardised assessment that was jointly developed by participating economies and administered to15-year-olds in schools. Four assessments have so far been carried out (in 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009), and data for the assessment which took place in 2009 was released on 7 December 2010. Korea and Finland topped the OECD’s latest PISA survey of reading literacy among 15-year olds, which for the first time tested students’ ability to manage digital information. The survey, based on two-hour tests of a half million students in more than 70 economies, also tested mathematics and science. The next strongest performances were from Hong Kong-China, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand and Japan.
Questions for discussion:
٨ What is unclear or needs more explanation?
٨ Should parents and the local community be able to influence the quality of their primary schools?
٨ What arrangements are made for ensuring the quality of primary education in Japan?
Primary education in Britain: Policy and practice in cultural context
1988 to 2011 Dr Peter Cunningham
Homerton College, University of Cambridge and
Institute of Education, University of London
United Kingdom (UK)
Countries of the UK: -England -Wales -Scotland -Northern Ireland Local Authorities (LAs) In England Margaret Thatcher Conservative Prime Minister 1979-1990 Tony Blair Labour Prime Minister 1997-2007 䋭 㪌㪈 䋭
David Cameron (Conservative) Prime Minister Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) Deputy PM
Coalition Government
2010-1. Curriculum
1.1 National Curriculum and
the needs of primary children 0-5 Early Years Foundation Stage 5-11
Key stages 1 & 2
11-16 or 11-18 Key Stages 3 & 4
16-18 18-21
Nursery Children’s Centre
Child-minder
Primary school
Infant/junior Secondary school 6
th Form
College University
1870
--‘Elementary Education’ = ‘the three R’s’: Reading, Writing, Arithmetic 1944 –
‘Primary Education’ = children’s development:
‘learning by discovery’, ‘integrated day’ 1988
--‘National Curriculum’ = ‘core subjects’:
English, Mathematics, Science and ‘foundation subjects’: History, Geography, Art, Music, PE 1998 –
‘National Strategies’ = intensive programmes for ‘literacy’ and ‘numeracy’ Trends in National Policy for Primary Curriculum 1870-2010
1. Curriculum
1.2 Citizenship, health and welfare
ECM 2004
ECM 2004
1. Curriculum
1.3 Assessment and testing
Questions for discussion:
xWhat is unclear or needs more explanation? xWhat are the advantages and problems for the primary school in serving individual needs, social needs, and the state’s needs?
xHow does assessment and testing in Japan help or hinder a curriculum for personal and social development?
2. Teachers
2.1 Teacher qualification
and professional development
2. Teachers
2.2 Teachers autonomy
and teaching methods
2 Teachers
2.3 Teachers and other adults
in the classroom
Teachers and other adults in the classroom
Questions for discussion:
•What is unclear or needs more explanation?
•How should teachers best be prepared for their role through initial education and training, and what are their need for continuing professional development? •How far primary school teachers have professional independence in Japan, what kinds of support do they receive from other adults in the school, and how far does this affect their professionalism ?
3. School governance
3.1 Variety of types of primary school
Community School
Faith or Foundation School Academy
Free School
3. School governance
3.2 Local accountability
secondary school
primary school
children’s centre
nursery
local authority central government
Children’s Trust
3. School governance
3.3 National accountability
Questions for discussion:
•What is unclear or needs more explanation?
•Should parents and the local community be able to influence the quality of their primary schools?
•What arrangements are made for ensuring the quality of primary education in Japan?
4. How are policies changing
under the new
Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition government?
2011 ᐕ 2 21 ᣣ㧘ᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇᢥቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ᢎ⢒ቇኾࡒ࠽ Seminar on 21st February 2011 in Mukogawa Women’s University
ࠗࠡࠬߩೋ╬ᢎ⢒㧦
1988 ᐕ߆ࠄ 2011 ᐕߩᢥൻ⊛ᢥ⣂ߦ߅ߌࠆᢎ⢒╷ߣᢎ⢒ታ〣
Primary education in Britain:
Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
ࡇ࠲ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓ
㧖⪺
⋙⸶㧦ጊ㦮ᵗሶ
㧖㧖⸶㧦ዊᨋ␞ᄹ
㧖㧖㧖, ’⧷⩐
㧖㧖㧖, ᳰዥᴕⓄ
㧖㧖㧖, ⊕⍹ሶ
㧖㧖㧖,
ᚭ↰߽߽
㧖㧖㧖, ᴡญടᄹ
㧖㧖㧖, ᧻⪲ ᕺ
㧖㧖㧖, ᧄ૫ᄹ
㧖㧖㧖Peter CUNNINGHAM
㧖YAMASAKI, Yoko
㧖㧖KOBAYASHI, Rena
㧖㧖㧖, MAKIMURA, Eri
㧖㧖㧖, IKEJIRI, Saho
㧖㧖㧖, SHIRAISHI, Yuko
㧖㧖㧖,
TODA, Momo
㧖㧖㧖, KAWAGUCHI, Kana
㧖㧖㧖, MATSUBA, Megumi
㧖㧖㧖, MORIMOTO, Kana
㧖㧖㧖ⷐ⚂ ╷ߩᄌൻ߆ࠄ㧘⑳ߚߜߪࠍቇ߱ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߩߢߒࠂ߁߆ޕೋ╬ቇᩞᢎ⢒ߩㄭᐕߩ⊛ߥᄌൻࠍℂ⸃ߔࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘 ೋ╬ቇᩞߣೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߩࠍ⑳ߚߜߪቇ߱ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߩߢߒࠂ߁߆ޕ ᧄࡒ࠽ߢߪㆊ20 ᐕ㑆ߩࠗࠡࠬߩ╷ߣᢎ⢒ታ〣ࠍឭ␜ߒಽᨆߒ߹ߔޕ߹ߚ㧘ߘߩᄌൻߩㆊ⒟ߩ⛮⛯ᕈߣㄭᐕߩ ᐭߩᄌൻࠍㄡߞߡߘࠇࠄߩ╷ะࠍ⼏⺰ߒ߹ߔޕ ᧄ࠶࡚ࠪࡦߪએਅߩ3 ㇱ㐷ߢ᭴ᚑߐࠇߡ߹ߔޕ 1㧚ࠞࠠࡘࡓ 㧙࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓ㧘ೋ╬Ბ㓏ߩሶߤ߽ߩ࠾ ࠭ 㧙ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊஜᐽ㧔ߣቬᢎᢎ⢒㧕 㧙ࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎 2㧚ᢎᏧ 㧙ᢎᏧߩ⾗ᩰߣኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐ 㧙ᢎᏧߩ⥄ᓞᕈߣᢎ⢒ᣇᴺ 㧙ᢎቶߩਛߩᢎᏧߣᢎᏧએᄖߩᄢੱ 3㧚ቇᩞㆇ༡ 㧙ೋ╬ቇᩞߩᄙ᭽ߥ࠲ࠗࡊ 㧙ᣇᒰዪߩ⺑⽿છ 㧙࿖ኅߩ⺑⽿છ 㧝㧚ࠞࠠࡘࡓ㧔㪚㫌㫉㫉㫀㪺㫌㫃㫌㫄㧕 㧝㧝࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓ㧘ೋ╬Ბ㓏ߩሶߤ߽ߩ࠾࠭
㧔National Curriculum and the needs of primary children㧕
ࠗࠡࠬߩޟၮ␆ޠ㧔elementary㧕ቇᩞࠞࠠࡘࡓߪ㧘 140 ᐕ೨ߩᢎ⢒㧔state education㧕ߩ㐿ᆎᤨߦߪ㧘⺒ߺ ᦠ߈⸘▚ߣߞߚၮᧄ⊛ࠬࠠ࡞ߦട߃ߡ㧘ቬᢎᢎ⢒߆ࠄ ᭴ᚑߐࠇߡ߹ߒߚޕ20 ♿ߦߞߡඨ♿એ߽ߩ㑆㧘 ⊒㆐ᔃℂቇߩ⍮⼂ߩჇടߦࠃࠅ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩ⊒㆐ߩⷰὐ ߆ࠄࠞࠠࡘࡓ߇ℂ⸃ߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚޕᢎ⢒ߣ ߪ 㧘 ሶ ߤ ߽ ߩ ⊒ ㆐ Ბ 㓏 ࠍ ᤋ ߔ ࠆ ߴ ߈ ޟ ਥ ⷐ ߥ ߽ ߩ ޠ 㧔primary㧕ߢࠆ㧘ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚ1ޕޟሶ ߤ߽ߣೋ╬ቇᩞޠ㧔‘Children and their Primary Schools’㧕ߦ㑐 * ࠤࡦࡉ࠶ࠫᄢቇ㧔Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge㧕㧘ࡠࡦ࠼ࡦᄢቇ㧔Institute of Education, University of
London㧕
** ᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇ㧔Mukogawa Women’s University㧕
*** ᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇᢎ⢒ቇ⑼ቇㇱ↢㧔Undergraduate student, Department of Education, Mukogawa Women’s University㧕
ߔࠆࡊ࠙࠺ࡦႎ๔ᦠ 㧔1967㧕2߇ೀⴕߐࠇࠆᤨ߹ߢߦߪ㧘 ሶߤ߽৻ੱ߭ߣࠅߩ࠾࠭߇㊀ⷞߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߡ߅ ࠅ㧘ࠞࠠࡘࡓߦኻߔࠆ⽿છߪޘߩቇᩞ߿ᢎᏧߦᆔߨ ࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߡ߹ߒߚޕ 1970 ᐕ߆ࠄ 80 ᐕઍߦ߆ߌߡ㧘࿖ኅ⚻ᷣߩታ❣ߣතᬺᓟ ߦዞ⡯ߔࠆሶߤ߽ߚߜߩ࠹ࠪ㧔⺒ߺᦠ߈⢻ജ㧕߿ ࠾ࡘࡔࠪ㧔⸘▚⢻ജ㧕ߩ㗴ߦኻߔࠆ㑐ᔃ߇㜞߹ߞ ߚߎߣߦࠃࠅ㧘ᐭߩ╷ߪ㧘ᣧᦼߩᲑ㓏ߢၮ␆ᛛ⢻ࠍり ߦߟߌߐߖࠆߎߣߣ㧘ഭߩ⇇ߦࠆḰࠍሶߤ߽ߚߜ ߦߐߖࠆߎߣߩ㊀ⷞࠍᓳᵴߐߖࠆߎߣࠍߥߊߐࠇ߹ߒ ߚޕ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓߪ㧘વ⛔⊛ߥቇᩞߩᢎ⑼ࠍ ଔ୯ࠆ߽ߩߣ⠨߃ࠆౄᐭߦࠃࠅ㧘1988 ᐕߦዉߐ ࠇ߹ߒߚޕ߹ߚ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩㅴᱠࠍ࠴ࠚ࠶ࠢߒᓐࠄ߇ะ ߔࠆߩࠍഥߌࠆᚻᲑߣߒߡ㧘ߐࠄߦቇᩞߩലᕈࠍ࠴ࠚ ࠶ࠢߒߡะߐߖࠆᚻᲑߣߒߡ㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘ ࡓߪ㧘ࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ࠍჇ߿ߒ߹ߒߚޕ ਛᄩ㓸ᮭ⊛ߥࠞࠠࡘࡓᡰ㈩ߩ߽߁৻ߟߩ⺰ὐߪ㧘ࠗ ࠡࠬߓࠀ߁ߩሶߤ߽ߚߜߔߴߡ߇ቇᩞߢߩㅢߩ㛎ࠍ ฃ ߌ ࠄ ࠇ ࠆ ߎ ߣ ࠍ ⸽ ߔ ࠆ ޟ ⾗ ᩰ ࠞ ࠠ ࡘ ࡓ ޠ 㧔‘entitlement curriculum’㧕ࠍߟߊࠆߎߣߢߒߚޕ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽ ࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓߪ߹ߚ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩࠬࠢࡦࠣࠍ ߹ࠅᅹߍࠆߎߣߥߊ㧘ⷫߚߜ߇࿖ߩࠆၞ߆ࠄߩၞ ߦᒁߞߒ㧘ഭᏒ႐ߩᄌൻߒߟߟࠆ㔛ⷐࠍḩߚߔߩࠍ ኈᤃߦߒࠃ߁ߣߒߡ߹ߒߚޕߒ߆ߒ㧘ߎࠇࠄߩ╷ߪ㧘 ቇ⚖ߩሶߤ߽৻ੱ߭ߣࠅߩ࠾࠭ߦᔕߓࠃ߁ߣߔࠆᢎᏧߚ ߜߩޟሶߤ߽ਛᔃߩℂᗐޠ㧔‘child-centred ideal’㧕ࠍ்ߟߌ߹ ߒߚޕᢎᏧߪߘߩࠃ߁ߦฃߌߣߚߩߢߔޕ 1990 ᐕ߆ࠄೋ╬ቇᩞߢታᣉߐࠇߚ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘ ࡓߦߪ㧘ੑߟߩޟࠠࠬ࠹ࠫޠ㧔‘Key Stages’㧕߇ࠅ ߹ߔޕ5㨪7 ᱦߩሶߤ߽ߪࠠࠬ࠹ࠫ 1㧘8㨪11 ᱦߩሶߤ ߽ߪࠠࠬ࠹ࠫ2 ߦ⋧ᒰߒ߹ߔޕߘࠇߪ㧘ޟਛᔃޠ㧔‘core’㧕 ᢎ⑼㧔⧷⺆㧘▚ᢙ㧘ℂ⑼㧕ߣ㧘ℂ㧘ᱧผ㧘࠺ࠩࠗࡦᛛ ⴚ㧔DT㧦Designed Technology㧕㧘ᖱႎࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡚ࠪࡦ ᛛⴚ㧔ICT㧦Information and Communications Technology㧕㧘㖸 ᭉ㧘⟤ⴚ࠺ࠩࠗࡦ㧘りᢎ⢒ߣߞߚޟၮ⋚ޠ㧔‘foundation’㧕 ᢎ⑼ߩⷰὐߦࠃߞߡቯࠄࠇߡ߹ߔޕቬᢎᢎ⢒ߪᴺߦࠃ ߞߡቯࠄࠇߡ߹ߔ߇㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓߩ෩ ኒߥ㗔ၞߦߪߞߡ߹ߖࠎޕ ሶߤ߽৻ੱ߭ߣࠅߩ࠾࠭߇㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘ ࡓߦࠃߞߡߤߩ⒟ᐲḩߚߐࠇᓧࠆߩ߆ߣ߁ࠍ㧘⑳ߚ ߜߪߎࠇ߆ࠄ⺰ߓߡ߈߹ߒࠂ߁ޕ 㧔ዊᨋ␞ᄹ㧕 㧝㧞ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊஜᐽ㧔ߣቬᢎᢎ⢒㧕
㧔Citizenship, health and welfare㧔and Religious Education㧕㧕
ቇᩞߩࠞࠠࡘࡓߦ㑐ߔࠆੑߟߩᐢ⋡⊛ߪ㧘1996 ᐕ ᢎ⢒ᴺߦᤋߐࠇ߹ߒߚޕߘߩᢎ⢒ᴺߢߪ㧘ߔߴߡߩቇᩞ ߇⺞ߩߣࠇߚᐢၮ⋚ࠍߔࠆࠞࠠࡘࡓߩឭଏࠍ ᳞ߡ߹ߔޕޟ↢ᓤߣ␠ળߩ♖⊛ᓼ⊛ᢥൻ⊛⍮ ⊛り⊛⊒㆐ࠍଦㅴߒޠ㧘ߘߒߡޟ↢ᓤߩߚߦ␠ળ↢ᵴ ߩᯏળ߿⽿છ㧘⚻㛎ࠍⓍ߹ߖࠆޠߚߦ㧘ߔߴߡߩቇᩞ߇ ⺞ߩߣࠇߚᐢၮ⋚ࠍߔࠆࠞࠠࡘࡓࠍឭଏߔࠆ ߎߣࠍ᳞ߡ߹ߔޕ ߎࠇࠄߩ⋡⊛ߪ㧘ߐࠄߦએਅߩࠃ߁ߦ⺑ߐࠇߡ߹ߔޕ ቇᩞߩࠞࠠࡘࡓߪ㧘ༀᖡࠍߔࠆᓼ⟵ࠍ⊒ ㆐ߐߖࠆߴ߈߽ߩߢࠅ㧘ఽ┬⥄り߿⇣ߥࠆାઔ㧘ᢥ ൻ߿㧘ߎࠇࠄ߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߦੱߣ␠ળߦᓇ㗀ࠍ߷ߔ ߆ߣ߁ߎߣߦኻߔࠆ⍮⼂㧘ℂ⸃㧘⹏ଔࠍ⊒㆐ߐߖࠆ ߴ߈߽ߩߢࠆޕቇᩞߩࠞࠠࡘࡓߪ㧘᥉ㆉ⊛ߥ⻉ ଔ୯ࠍવ߃㧘ఽ┬↢ᓤߩ⺈ታߐߣ⥄ᓞᕈࠍ⊒㆐ߐߖ㧘 ᓐࠄ߇ᱜߥ␠ળߩ⊒ዷߦ⽸₂ߒᓧࠆ⽿છᗵߣᕁ߿ ࠅߩࠆᏒ᳃ߦߥࠆߩࠍᡰេߔߴ߈ߢࠆޕ ቇᩞߩࠞࠠࡘࡓߪ㧘ఽ┬↢ᓤߩ⥄ዅᔃ߿ᖱ✜⊛ߥ ᐘᗵࠍଦㅴߐߖࠆߴ߈߽ߩߢࠅ㧘ኅᐸቇᩞ⡯ ႐ၞ␠ળߢߩ⥄ಽ⥄りߣઁ⠪߳ߩᢘᗧߦၮߠߡ㧘 ଔ୯߇ࠅḩ⿷ߩߊੱ㑆㑐ଥࠍᓐࠄ߇ᒻᚑߒ㧘ߘߒ ߡ⛽ᜬߔࠆߩࠍᡰេߔߴ߈߽ߩߢࠆޕቇᩞߩࠞࠠ ࡘࡓߪ㧘ઁ⠪ߣ㑐ࠊࠅㅢߩ⋉ߩߚߦߊᓐࠄ ߩ⢻ജࠍ⊒㆐ߐߖࠆߴ߈߽ߩߢࠆޕ ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߣߪ㧘ᢎ⢒ߦ㑐ߔࠆ࿖ኅ╷ߩ㗼 ⊛߆ߟ㊀ⷐߥዪ㕙ߢߔޕߎߩ╷ߪ㧘ቇᩞᢎ⢒߇㧘␠ળ ߩㅌߦ㑐ࠊࠆᄙߊߩ㗴ࠍ⸃ߔࠆߩߦᓎ┙ߟߢࠈ߁ ߣ߁ᦼᓙࠍᤋߒߡ߹ߔޕߒ߆ߒߘࠇߪ㧘ᱜⷙߩࠞ ࠠࡘࡓࠍ᭴ᚑߒ⻉ቇᩞ߇ᱜᑼߦࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߐࠇࠆၮ␆ ᛛ⢻ߣ㧘ᢎ⑼⍮⼂ߩะࠍ㊀ⷞߔࠆߎߣߣߩ✕ᒛ⁁ᘒߦ ࠆࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇ߹ߔޕࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߣஜᐽᢎ⢒ߩᯏળ ߪ㧘ࠄࠁࠆ⒳㘃ߩᵴേߦ߅ߡೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߩࠞࠠࡘࡓ ࠍᮮᢿߒߡࠄࠇߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠅ߹ߖࠎޕߘߒߡ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚ ߜߦߎࠇࠄߩଔ୯ࠍવ߃ࠆ㓙ߦ㧘ቇᩞߩ․⾰ߣ⚵❱߇㊀ⷐ ߥᓎഀࠍᜂࠊߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠅ߹ߖࠎޕ ߎߩߎߣߦነਈߔࠆࠞࠠࡘࡓߩᱜᑼߥౝኈߦߪ㧘ቬ ᢎᢎ⢒㧔RE㧕ߣ㧘ᕈᢎ⢒ࠍޟੱᩰ␠ળஜᐽߩᢎ⢒ޠ 㧔PSHE㧕߇ࠅ߹ߔޕߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄ㧘ቬᢎᢎ⢒ߣᕈᢎ⢒ߩ ႐วߪ㧘ਔⷫ߇ᓐࠄߩሶߤ߽ߦฃߌߐߖߥߣ߁ㆬᛯ߇ ߢ߈㧘⒘ߦߢߔ߇㧘ߎߩߎߣߪߎࠆߩߢߔޕߘࠇߪ㧘㕖 Ᏹߦ㊀ⷐߢࠆߣߺߥߐࠇߡࠆߔߴߡߩሶߤ߽߳ߩࠞ ࠠࡘࡓߩ⻉ዪ㕙ߦ㑐ߒߡᷓೞߥ㗴ࠍ߭߈߅ߎߒߡ߹ ߔޕߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄ㧘ਔⷫߪ㨇ߘࠇࠍሶߤ߽ߦฃߌߐߖߥ㨉 ㆬᛯ⊛㔌⣕㧔opt out㧕߇ߢ߈ࠆߩߢߔޕ߶ߣࠎߤߩቇᩞߪ㧘 ၞߏߣߩࠕࠣ࠼ࠪࡃࠬߦࠃߞߡ㧘ቬᢎᢎ⢒ࠍᢎ ߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠅ߹ߖࠎޕߘߒߡ㧘߶ߣࠎߤߩቇᩞߪ㧘ߘ ߩࠪࡃࠬߦ㧘ઁߩਥⷐߥቬᢎߩᢎ⢒ߣታ〣ࠍ⠨ᘦߒߡ ߹ߔ߇㧘ࠣ࠻ࡉ࠹ࡦߩቬᢎ⊛વ⛔߇ਥߣߒߡࠠ 䋭 㪌㪏 䋭
ࠬ࠻ᢎߢࠆߣ߁ታࠍᤋߒߡࠆߩߢߔޕߒ߆ߒ߹ ߚ㧘ቬᢎ⊛․⦡ࠍᜬߟቇᩞߪߎߩⷐ᳞ߦ❈ࠄࠇ߹ߖࠎߩߢ㧘 ߐࠄߦᄖ߽ߎࠅ߹ߔޕߎࠇࠄߪ㧘⑳ߚߜߩ⼏⺰ߦ୯ߔ ࠆⶄ㔀ߥࠫࡦࡑߢߔޕ
㧔’⧷⩐㧕
㧝㧟ࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎 㧔Assessment and testing㧕
࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓߦߪ㧘ೋߡቯᦼ⊛ߥࠕࠬ ࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ߩᐲ߇߹ࠇࠆߎߣߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚޕߘߩ⋡ ⊛ߪ㧘ᐭ߇⻉ቇᩞߩㅴᱠߣ㆐ᚑᐲࠍ࠴ࠚ࠶ࠢߔࠆߎߣ߇ ߢ߈㧘ਔⷫߚߜ߇ޟ⦟ቇᩞޠ߿ޟᖡቇᩞޠࠍᭂߡ ㆬᛯߢ߈ࠆࠃ߁ߦߔࠆߎߣߢߒߚޕᴦ⊛ߥℂ↱ߢዉߐ ࠇߚߎߩភ⟎ߪ㧘ᖱႎᛛⴚ߇߹ߔ߹ߔ♖Ꮑߦߥߞߡߊߎ ߣ߿㧘ࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߩᚻᴺ߇Ბޘߣᵞ✵ߐࠇߡߊߎߣߦ ࠃߞߡ㧘น⢻ߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚޕ ߒ߆ߒ㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓߦࠄࠇࠆ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚ ߜߩㅴᱠ߿ੱߩ⊒㆐ߦߟߡᱡࠄࠇߚᣇࠍਈ߃ࠆ ⁜ߐ߿㧘ኾ㐷⊛ߥ್ᢿߩࠄ߆ߥᓟㅌ㧘࠶࠹࡞ߠߌ߿ሶߤ ߽ߚߜߩਇࠍჇߔߎߣߦࠃࠆኂߥᓇ㗀㧘ᢎᤨ㑆ߩ⾰ࠍ ៊ߥ߁ഭ⽶ᜂߩჇടߩߖߢ㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓ ߪᢎ⡯⠪߆ࠄᄙߊߩᛕ್ࠍฃߌ߹ߒߚޕᄙߊߩⷫߚߜߩઁߦ ኾ㐷ኅ߿⚛ੱ߽㧘⹜㛎ߩߚߩᢎ⢒ࠍᅑബߔࠆࠞࠠࡘࡓ ߩ߭ߕߺࠁ߃ߦ㧘ᣧᲑ㓏߆ࠄኻߒߡ߹ߒߚޕ ⷫߚߜߪ߹ߚ㧘⹜㛎ࠍߔࠆߎߣ߿ޟ࠶࠹࡞ߠߌޠ߇㧘 ࠆሶߤ߽ߚߜߦᒁ߈ߎߔࠬ࠻ࠬߦ᳇ߠߡ߹ߒ ߚޕ߹ߚ㧘ቇᩞ㑆ߩ┹ࠍᅑബߔࠆߎߣߦࠃࠅ㧘Ყセ⊛ᚑ ❣ߩᖡ߆ߞߚቇᩞ㧘․ߦૐᓧὐߩේ࿃߇ᢎ⢒ߩ⾰ࠃࠅ߽ ߒࠈሶߤ߽ߚߜߩ␠ળ⊛⚻ᷣ⊛࿎┆⁁ᘒߩቇᩞߦㅢ߁ᢎ Ꮷߣሶߤ߽ߚߜߩ჻᳇ࠍ៊ߥ߁ޟᚑ❣ޠߩ⚿ᨐ߳ߩ ኻ߽ࠅ߹ߒߚޕ ߎߩࠃ߁ߥኻߩ⚿ᨐ㧘ߊߟ߆ߩᡷༀ߇ߥߐࠇ߹ߒߚޕ ߚߣ߃߫㧘ࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ᐲࠍ◲⚛ൻߔࠆߎߣ߿㧘ሶߤ߽ ߚߜߩቇᤨߩᚑ❣ࠍߊࠄ߆⠨ᘦߦࠇࠆޟട▚⹏ଔޠ ភ⟎ࠍዉߔࠆߎߣ㧘߹ߚ␠ળ⊛࿎┆ߩ⒟ᐲࠍ⠨ᘦߔࠆߎ ߣߢߔޕߚߛ㧘ޟήᢱߩቇᩞ⛎㘩ޠ㧔free school meals㧕ࠍฃ ߌߡࠆሶߤ߽ߩᢙߩࠃ߁ߦᧂߛಽᨆߐࠇߡߥ߽ߩ߽ ࠆߩߢߔ߇ޕ ೋ╬ቇᩞߩࠞࠠࡘࡓߦ㑐ߔࠆࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ߩ 㗴߇㧘⼏⺰ߩ࠹ࡑߦߥࠆߢߒࠂ߁ޕ ⸛⺰ߩߚߩ㧦 ਇߥὐ߿㧘ߐࠄߦ⺑߇ᔅⷐߥ▎ᚲߪࠅ߹ߔ߆ޕ ੱߩ࠾࠭㧘␠ળߩ࠾࠭㧘࿖ኅߩ࠾࠭ߦᓎ┙ߟ ೋ╬ࠞࠠࡘࡓߩ㐳ᚲ߿㗴ὐߪߢߔ߆ޕ ᣣᧄߦ߅ߡ㧘ࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ߪ㧘ੱߩ⊒㆐߿ ␠ળߩ⊒ዷߩߚߩࠞࠠࡘࡓߦߤߩࠃ߁ߦᓎ┙ ߞߡ߹ߔ߆㧘ࠆߪੱߩ⊒㆐߿␠ળߩ⊒ዷߩߚ ߩࠞࠠࡘࡓࠍᅹߍߡ߹ߔ߆ޕ 㧔ᳰዥᴕⓄ㧕 㧞㧚ᢎᏧ㧔㪫㪼㪸㪺㪿㪼㫉㫊㧕 㧞㧝ᢎᏧߩ⾗ᩰߣኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐
㧔Teacher qualification and professional development㧕
ᢎ⢒ᐲߩਛߢ㧘ᐭߪᏱߦචಽߥᢎຬߩଏ⛎ߣචಽ ߥ⾰ߩ⸽ߦ㑐ࠊߞߡ߈߹ߒߚޕᓥߞߡ㧘ᓤᒉᐲ߆ᄢቇ ߩߤߜࠄ߆ߦࠃࠅ㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑߩᚻᲑࠍឭଏߔࠆᔅⷐ߇ࠅ ߹ߒߚޕᢎຬ⾗ᩰ㧔QTS㧦Qualified Teacher Status㧕ߪ࿖߆
ࠄਈ߃ࠄࠇ㧘㧔ᑯ⼔჻߿ක⠪ߩ႐วߩࠃ߁ߦ㧕⁛┙⊛ߥኾ㐷 ኅߩ࿅߆ࠄਈ߃ࠄࠇࠆ߽ߩߢߪࠅ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚޕߒ߆ ߒ㧘ᢎຬߦⷐ᳞ߐࠇࠆ⍮⼂ߩ⚦߿㧘ᓐࠄ߇ᢎߔࠆ㓙ߦ ᔅⷐߥᛛⴚࠍቇ߱ᣇᴺߪ㧘ቇᩞߩࠞࠠࡘࡓߩࠃ߁ߦ㧘 ⚐☴ߦኾ㐷⊛ߥߎߣߢࠅ㧘ᐭ߇ᐓᷤߔࠆߎߣߢߪߥ ߣᤄ߆ࠄ⠨߃ࠄࠇߡ߹ߒߚޕ ߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄ㧘1970 ᐕઍߣ 80 ᐕઍߦ㧘࿖ኅߦࠃߞߡቇ ᩞߩലᕈ߇✎ኒߦ⺞ᩏߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠆߦߟࠇߡ㧘ᢎຬ ߩ㙃ᚑߣᢎ⢒߇࿖ኅߩ㑐ᔃߣߥࠅ㧘ᐭߩ╷߇㧘ࠃࠅ ⚦ߦߥࠅኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐ࠍࠃࠅᒝߊᡰ㈩ߒᆎ߹ߒߚޕߎ ߩߎߣߦࠃࠅ㧘ኾ㐷⡯ߣߒߡߩ⁛┙ߛߌߢߥߊ㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑ ⺖⒟ࠍ┙᩺ߒᴺᓞ⊛ലᕈࠍਈ߃ࠆ⽿છࠍߔࠆᄢቇߩቇ ⊛⁛┙ߐ߃߽㧘ㅌߔࠆะߦࠅ߹ߒߚޕ
1984 ᐕߦࠗࠡࠬᐭߪ㧘ᢎ⢒ᄢ⤿㧔Secretary of State for Education㧕߇છߒ㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑೋᦼ⺖⒟ࠍᛚߔࠆ⽿છࠍ ⽶߁㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑቯදળ㧔Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education㧕ࠍഃ⸳ߒ߹ߒߚޕᓟߦߎࠇߪ㧘⾗ᩰࠍᓧ
ࠆߚߦᢎຬ߇␜ߔߴ߈ޟࠦࡦࡇ࠹ࡦࠪ㧔⢻ജ㧕ޠߩ⚦
ߥࠬ࠻ࠍ⏕ߦߒᆎߚᢎຬ㙃ᚑᯏ㑐㧔એਅTTA㧦Teacher Training Agency㧕ߦ⛮ᛚߐࠇ߹ߒߚޕߎࠇࠄߩ⢻ജߪᓟߦޟ᳓ Ḱޠߣߒߡ⍮ࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ㧘ḩ⿷ࠆߪਇḩ⿷ߥᚑ ❣㧔satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance㧕ߣ߁⸥ㅀߦ ࠃߞߡ⚦߆ߊ╬⚖ߠߌࠄࠇ߹ߒߚޕ
ᐭߪ㧘ቇᩞߦၮ⋚ࠍ⟎ߊᢎ⡯߳ߩ╭ߩᢙࠍჇ߿ߒߡ㧘 ᄢቇၮ⋚ߩ⺖⒟ߩ▸࿐ࠍᷫࠄߒ߹ߒߚޕᦨㄭ㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑᯏ ᭴㧔ߢߪTraining and Development Agency ߦᡷ⒓㧕ߪᢎ Ꮷ ߩ ⡯ ߦ ࠆ 㑆 ߩ ⛮ ⛯ ⊛ ኾ 㐷 ⢻ ജ 㐿 ⊒ 㧔 એ ਅ CPD 㧦 Continuing Professional Development㧕ߩ⋙〈ᮭ߇ਈ߃ࠄࠇ߹ ߒߚޕหᤨߦዉߐࠇߚߩ߇㧘⚵❱ߣߒߡߩቇᩞࠍ▤ℂߔ ࠆᛛⴚࠍ㊀ⷞߔࠆ㧘․ߦᩞ㐳㧔Head Teacher㧕ߦߥࠆߚߩ
ኾ㐷⡯⾗ᩰ㧔NPQH㧕ߣ࿖┙ࠬࠢ࡞࠳ࠪ࠶ࡊ
ࠞ࠶ࠫ㧔a National College for School Leadership㧕ߢߔޕߎ ߩߎߣߪ৻⥸⊛ߦࠄࠇߡ߈ߚᩞ㐳⡯ߩޟห⊛ޠવ⛔ ߆ࠄߩ㔌⣕ࠍᗧߒߡ߹ߔޕߣࠅࠊߌ㧘ᩞ㐳ߣ߁ߩߪ㧘 ೋ╬ቇᩞߢߪ㧘ᦨೋߩਥⷐߥᢎຬߣߒߡ㧘ᐜሶߤ߽ߚߜ ߦᢎ⢒ߔࠆ㓙ߦᢎຬ㓸࿅ߩਛߢਥዉ⊛ߥᓎഀࠍᜂߞߡ߹ ߔޕ ኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐ߪ㧘ᢎᏧ߇ᢎ⑼ߩ⍮⼂ߣኾ㐷⊛ᛛⴚߩߤߜ ࠄࠍࠃࠅᷓߊቇ߱߆ߩㆬᛯࠍੱߦਈ߃ߡ߈߹ߒߚޕᏱߦ ᩞ㐳ߣ⚖▤ℂ⠪ߦࠃࠅ㧘㨇ᄙߊߪቇᩞ⺞ᩏߩ⚿ᨐߦᓥߞ ߡ㨉ቇᩞߩ․ቯߩࠞࠠࡘࡓ߿ᐲߩ࠾࠭ߦᔕߓߚ 䋭 㪌㪐 䋭
ߐࠄߥࠆኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐߇㧘߹ߔ߹ߔⷐ᳞ߐࠇߡ߈ߡ߹ߔޕ ⛮⛯⊛ኾ㐷⢻ജ㐿⊒㧔Continuing Professional Development , CPD㧕ߩ⾗Ḯ߽㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࠹ࠪࠬ࠻࠹ࠫ 㧔National Literacy Strategy㧕 ߿࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࠾ࡘࡔࠪ ࠬ࠻࠹ࠫ㧔National Numeracy Strategy㧕ߣߞߚ ᐭߩ࿖ኅ᭴ᗐߩ⋡ᮡߣߐࠇߡ߹ߔޕ ߎࠇࠄߩ╷߇߭߈߅ߎߔ㗴ὐߪ㧘ᢎຬࠍ㙃ᚑߔࠆ㓙 ߩᄢቇߩᧄ᧪ߩᓎഀߣ㧘ᢎᏧ⥄りߩኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐ࠍ⸘↹ߔ ࠆޘߩᢎᏧߩ⁛┙ᕈߦࠆߢߒࠂ߁ޕ 㧔⊕⍹ሶ㧕 㧞㧞ᢎᏧߩ⥄ᓞᕈߣᢎ⢒ᣇᴺ
㧔Teacher autonomy and teaching methods㧕
ࠞࠠࡘࡓࠍ⁛┙⊛ߥኾ㐷ኅߩ್ᢿߦࠃࠆ߽ߩߣᏱߦ ⠨߃ߡ߈ߚኾ㐷⡯⠪ߦߣߞߡ㧘1988 ᐕߩ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞ ࠠࡘࡓߪࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡚ࠪ࠶ࠢߢߒߚޕᒰᤨߩᄢ⤿ߪ㧘ߎ ߩភ⟎߇ᔅⷐߦߥߞߡߒ߹ߞߚߌࠇߤ߽㧘ߤߩࠃ߁ߦᢎ߃ ࠆߴ߈߆ࠍᢎᏧ㆐ߦᜰ࿑ߔࠆߟ߽ࠅߪߒߡߥߣਥᒛߒ ߹ߒߚޕߒ߆ߒ㧘ࠊߕ߆ᢙᐕᓟ㧘ᣂߒᢥㇱᄢ⤿ߪ㧘ޟೋ╬ ቇᩞߢߩࠞࠠࡘࡓ✬ᚑߣᢎቶߢߩታ〣ޠ㧔‘Curriculum Organization and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools’㧕㧔1992 ᐕ㧕ߦ㑐ߔࠆႎ๔ᦠߩᚑࠍߓ߹ߒߚޕߘߩၫ╩⠪ߪࡠ ࡆࡦࠕࠢࠩࡦ࠳㧔Robin Alexander㧕㧘ࠫࡓࡠ࠭㧔Jim Rose㧕㧘ߘߒߡࠢࠬ࠙࠶࠼ࡋ࠶࠼㧔Chris Woodhead㧕ߣ ߁㧘ߦߚࠆ߹ߢߩೋ╬ቇᩞᢎ⢒ߩߘߩᓟߩᱠߺߦ ߅ߡவߒߚᓎഀࠍᨐߚߒߚਃੱߢߒߚޕᓐࠄߩ⼏⺰ߪ㧘 ೋ╬ቇᩞߢߩޟ㕖ᱜᑼޠߥޟሶߤ߽ਛᔃޠ㧔‘Child-centred’㧕 ߩታ〣ߦኻߒߡ㕙ߪᛕ್⊛ߢࠅ㧘ᐭߦࠃࠆᢎ⢒ᣇ ᴺߩቯࠍ߽ߚࠄߔᣂߒዪ㕙ߩ೨߱ࠇߣߥࠅ߹ߒߚޕ 1990 ᐕઍࠍㅢߒߡ㧘⸘▚ߣ⺒ߺᦠ߈ߩ⢻ജߩ᳓Ḱߦߟ ߡߩ㑐ᔃ߇⛮⛯ߒߚߎߣ߿㧘ߐ߹ߑ߹ߥቇᩞߢߐ߹ߑ߹ߥ ᢎᏧߦࠃࠅ⧷⺆ߣᢙቇࠍᢎ߃ࠆߚߦណࠄࠇߚᣇᴺ߇ᄙ᭽ ߢߞߚߎߣߪ㧘1997 ᐕ߆ࠄߩᣂഭౄᐭߦࠃߞߡታ ߐࠇߚ࿖ኅᚢ⇛ߩᢥൻࠍᱜᒰൻߔࠆࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇ߹ߒ ߚޕᢎ⢒ᣇᴺߩ᥉ߣᢎᏧߩ⢒ᚑߪ㧘࿖ኅߢᄢⷙᮨߦ⚵❱ ߐࠇߡ߹ߒߚޕߎߩᚢ⇛ߪ㧘ࠠࠬ࠹ࠫ1 ߣࠠ ࠬ࠹ࠫ2 ࠍㅢߒߡ㧘Ფᣣߩޟ࠹ࠪ㧔⺒ߺᦠ߈㧕 ߩᤨ㑆ޠߣޟ⸘▚ߩᤨ㑆ޠࠍᅑബߒ߹ߒߚޕߘߩߚߩᢎ ᧚ߣᢎ⢒ᣇᴺ߇߈ߜࠎߣ⸘↹ߐࠇ㧘ᐢߊ᥉ߒ߹ߒߚޕᣇ ᴺߩ᥉ߣᢎຬߩ㙃ᚑߪ㧘࿖ኅⷙᮨߢᐢ▸࿐ߦⴕࠊࠇ߹ߒ ߚޕታ㓙ᄙߊߩᢎᏧߪ㧘ᄢߦᢜኻ⊛ߥᛕ್ࠍฃߌߡߚ ࠞࠠࡘࡓ㗔ၞߢቯࠄࠇߚ᭴ㅧߣ߁ᔃᗵࠍᓐࠄߦ ਈ߃ࠆ߽ߩߣߒߡ㧘⚦ߥⷙቯࠍ᱑ㄫߒ߹ߒߚޕߘࠇߪ㧘 ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩቇ⠌⚿ᨐߦኻߔࠆẜ⊛ߥᛕ್ߦኻߒߡ㓗ߛ ࠄߌߢ㐿ߌߞ߯ࠈߍߢࠆߣ㧘ᓐࠄߪᗵߓߡߚ߆ࠄߢߔޕ ⧷⺆ߣᢙቇߩ࿖ኅ⹜㛎ߩ⚿ᨐߦᤋߐࠇࠆ᳓Ḱߪ㧘ᚢ⇛ ߩ৻ᐕ⋡ߢᄢޘ⊛ߦะߒ߹ߒߚޕᐭߪ㧘ߎࠇߪ৻ߟߦ ߪᣂ╷ߩᚑᨐߢࠅ㧘ޟ⹜㛎ߩߚߩᢎ⢒ޠߩലᨐߢࠆ ߣ␜ໂߒߡ㧘⁛┙ߒߚ╙ਃ⠪ߦࠃࠆ⹏ଔߪ߹ߛⴕࠊࠇߡ ߥߌࠇߤ߽㧘ߎߩ⚿ᨐࠍା㗬ߔࠆߣਥᒛߒ߹ߒߚޕ߹ߚ㧘 ࠃࠅဋⴧߩߣࠇߚ⹏ଔߦ߅ߡ⏕ߐࠇߚߎߣߪ㧘ሶߤ߽ ߚߜ߇ࠃࠅᄙߊߩᤨ㑆ࠍ߹ࠅ߈ߞߚᢎቶᵴേߦ⾌߿ߒ㧘 ߘࠇߦᲧߒߡഃㅧᵴേ߿ᵴേ㧘りᵴേߦ߁ᤨ㑆߇ ᷫࠆߩߢ㧘ࠞࠠࡘࡓߩߩ㕙߿ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩቇᩞ⚻㛎 ߦࠃߊߥᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆߣ߁ߎߣߢߒߚޕਛᄩᐭߩᜰ ␜ߦᓥߞߡߊߎߩᣂߒᣇᴺߩᓇ㗀߇ᢎᏧߚߜߦࠇࠆ ߦߪ㧘߹ߛᄙߊߩᤨ㑆߇߆߆ࠆߢߒࠂ߁ޕߒ߆ߒ㧘10 ᐕ⚻ ߞߚᣣ㧘ᢎᏧߚߜࠍ⺞ᩏߔࠇ߫㧘ߩḩ⿷ᐲ߿⥄⊒ᕈ㧘 ഃㅧᕈߩૐਅ߇ࠄ߆ߦߥࠆߢߒࠂ߁ޕೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߩ߳ ߩࠃࠅᯏ᪾⊛ߢᓥ㗅ߥขࠅ⚵ߺߩߖߢ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜ߇⚻㛎 ߔࠆ㧘ᢎᏧߣ৻✜ߦቇ߱ߎߣߩ⋧ߩᭉߒߐ߿ੱߩ߰ࠇ ߩ⚻㛎ࠍᄌ߃ߡߒ߹߁߆߽ߒࠇߥߣ߁㧘⌀ߩෂ㒾ᕈ߇ ẜࠎߢ߹ߔޕߘࠇߪ㧘ᵴ⊒ߥੱߦೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߩᢎᏧߦߥࠆߎ ߣࠍᕁߣߤ߹ࠄߖࠆߎߣߦߐ߃ߥࠅ߆ߨ߹ߖࠎޕ 㧔ᚭ↰߽߽㧕 㧞㧟ᢎቶߩਛߩᢎᏧߣᢎᏧએᄖߩᄢੱ
㧔Teachers and other adults in the classroom㧕
ᱧผ㧘ೋ╬ቇᩞߢߩᢎᏧߩᓎഀߪ㧘ోቇᐕᐲ㧘ฦࠢ ࠬߩޟߔߴߡߩሶߤ߽ޠߦኻߒߡ⽿છࠍᜬߟߎߣߛߣ⠨߃ ࠄࠇߡ߹ߒߚޕߒߚ߇ߞߡᢎᏧߪ㧘⍮⊛ߥቇ⠌ߛߌߢߥ ߊ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜ߇ᓐ߽ߒߊߪᓐᅚߩࠢࠬߦࠆ㒢ࠅ㧘ᓐ ࠄߩり߿␠ળᕈ㧘ᗵᖱߩޘߩ⊒㆐ࠍᔃ߇ߌߡ߹ߔޕ ߣࠅࠊߌ㧘ࠢࠬߩⷙᮨߪਈ߃ࠄࠇߚ߽ߩߢߔߩߢ㧘ߥߒ ᓧࠆߎߣߦߪࠄ߆ߦ㒢ᐲ߇ࠅ߹ߔޕߒ߆ߒ㧘ᢎᏧߚߜ ߩᓎഀߦ߹ࠇࠆ߽ߩߪᄙߩߢߔޕᱜⷙߩᬺߦട߃ߡ㧘 ࠆ⁁ᴫߢߪ㧘ᓐࠄߪ⺕ࠃࠅ߽ߩ㗴߿ᄙߊߩታ㓙ߩ 㗴ߦ㑐ࠊࠄߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠅ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚޕᤨߦߪ㧘↪ߢ ߈ࠆᡰេߦ㒢ࠅ߇ࠅ߹ߒߚޕฎߊߪޟೋ╬ቇᩞߩᢎ⢒ታ ⠌↢ޠ㨇⠌ߩᢎᏧ㨉ߣ߁ᒻߢ㧘ᦨㄭߢߪ㧘㧝ㅳ㑆ߦඦ ೨߿ඦᓟߩ1 ࿁߹ߚߪ 2 ࿁㧘ᢎቶߢេഥߔࠆࡏࡦ࠹ࠖࠕ ߩࠃ߁ߥޟࡍࠕࡦ࠻ࡋ࡞ࡄ࠭ޠߩᒻߢߥߐࠇߡ߈߹ ߒߚޕ ߟᦨㄭ㧘ᐭߪޟഭജᡷ㕟ޠߩ⸘↹⊛ߥ╷ߦਸ਼ࠅ ߒ߹ߒߚޕߘߩ৻ߟߩ⠨߃ߪ㧘ࠄ߆ߩታ㓙⊛ߥࠍ ߒߡࠆᢎᏧߦኻߒߡᡰេࠍਈ߃ࠆߎߣߢߒߚޕᐭߩࠞ ࠠࡘࡓߦ㑐ߔࠆ╷ߣޟᚢ⇛ޠߪ㧘ࠃࠅᄙߊߩ⸘↹᩺㧘 Ḱ㧘Ⓧ߽ࠅ╬㧘ᢎᏧߩޟᦠ㘃ޠࠍᔅⷐߣߒߡ߹ ߒߚޕߘߎߢ㧘ޟᢎቶࠕࠪࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻ޠߩᓎഀߪߪߞ߈ࠅ ࠄࠇ㧘ቇᩞߪࠃࠅᄙߊߩᢎቶࠕࠪࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻ࠍ㓹߹ߒߚޕ ᢎᏧߚߜߪ㧘ᬺᣣߦߪࠃࠅኾ㐷⊛ߥㇱಽߩ⊒㆐߇᳞ࠄ ࠇߡ߹ߒߚߩߢ㧘ᢎቶࠕࠪࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻ߪ㧘ࠢࠬࠍᜂᒰߔ ࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡ㧘ᢎᏧߩਇࠍ߁ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߣ੍ᗐߐ ࠇ߹ߒߚޕᢎቶࠕࠪࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻ߪ㧘╬߆ߩ⸠✵ࠍฃߌࠆߎ ߣ߇ߢ߈߹ߒߚ߇㧘ߎߩ╷߇ᔅὼ⊛ߦ߭߈߅ߎߔ㗴ߪ㧘 ⾗ᩰߩߥ㨇ߘߒߡ⾓㊄ߩૐ㨉ޟࠕࠪࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻ޠ߇㧘߆ 䋭 㪍㪇 䋭
ߦലᨐ⊛ߦࡊࡠߩᢎᏧߩᓎഀߩߔߴߡߩዪ㕙ࠍࠞࡃߢ߈ ࠆߩ߆ߣ߁ߎߣߢߒߚޕ
⸛⺰ߩߚߩ㧦
ਇߥὐ߿㧘ߐࠄߦ⺑ߩᔅⷐߥߣߎࠈߪࠅ߹ߔ߆ޕ ᢎ Ꮷ ߪ ೋ ᦼ ᢎ ⢒ ߣ ೋ ᦼ 㙃 ᚑ 㧔initial education and
training㧕ߦࠃߞߡ㧘߆ߦߒߡ⥄ಽߩᓎഀߦኻߔࠆᦨ ༀߩḰࠍߔࠆߴ߈ߢߔ߆ޕ߹ߚ㧘ᢎᏧߩኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒ ㆐ࠍ⛮⛯ߔࠆߚߦᓐࠄߦᔅⷐߥߎߣߪߢߔ߆ޕ ᣣᧄߢߪ㧘ೋ╬ቇᩞߩᢎຬߩኾ㐷⡯⊛⁛┙ᕈߪߤߩ⒟ ᐲߢߔ߆ޕ߹ߚ㧘ᓐࠄߪቇᩞߩਛߢ㧘ᢎᏧએᄖߩᄢੱ ߆ࠄߤߩࠃ߁ߥ⒳㘃ߩᡰេࠍฃߌߡ߹ߔ߆ޕߘߒ ߡ㧘ߘࠇߪᢎᏧߩኾ㐷ᕈߦߤߩߊࠄ㧘ᓇ㗀ߒߡ߹ ߔ߆ޕ 㧔ᴡญടᄹ㧕 㧟㧚ቇᩞㆇ༡㧔5EJQQNIQXGTPCPEG㧕 㧟㧝ೋ╬ቇᩞߩᄙ᭽ߥ࠲ࠗࡊ
㧔Variety of types of primary school㧕
↹৻⊛ߥ࿖ኅᐲߩਛߦߞߡߐ߃㧘ቇᩞߪၞᕈ߿ ၞ᳃ߩ․ᓽ㧘ၞߩ⚻ᷣജߦࠃߞߡ㧘ⷙᮨ߿ᕈᩰߩὐߢ ᄢߦ⇣ߥࠆߢߒࠂ߁ޕࠗࠡࠬߢߪ㧘ᱧผ⊛ߥℂ↱ߦࠃ ߞߡ㧘ᧂߛߦᐢᄙ᭽ᕈ߇ࠅ߹ߔޕᦨ߽ࠄ߆ߥ߽ߩ ߣߒߡߪ㧘ߥߚ߇ࠗࠡࠬߩ߿㧘ዊߐߥࠆߪᄢ߈ ߥ↸߿Ꮢࠍ⸰ࠇࠆߣ㧘ߘߎߢࠗࠡࠬ࿖ᢎળ㧔Church of England㧕ߩࠃ߁ߥ․ቯߩቬᵷߩೋ╬ቇᩞߩᢙߩᄙߐߦ᳇ߠ ߊߎߣߢߒࠂ߁ޕ ࿖ኅߩೋ╬ቇᩞᢎ⢒ߩ⚵❱ߢߐ߃߽㧘ᱧผ⊛ℂ⊛ߥ ℂ↱ߩߚߦ㧘ߘࠇߘࠇߩᣇᢎ⢒ᒰዪ㑆ߦߪ㧘ᤨߦߪ᭽ޘ ߥ㆑߇ࠅ߹ߔޕࠃࠅੱญ߇ኒ㓸ߒߡࠆၞߢߪ㧘ਥ ߦ5 ᱦ߆ࠄ 11 ᱦߩޟ৻⽾ߒߚޠ㧔all-through㧕ೋ╬ቇᩞߦ߹ ߣࠆߎߣ߇⚻ᷣ⊛ᢎ⢒⊛ߥᗧࠍᜬߟࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇࠆ ߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ㧘ߒ߫ߒ߫ᐜ⒩ߣೋ╬ቇᩞࠍޘߦᜬߞ ߡ߹ߔޕ8 ᱦఽࠆߪ 9 ᱦఽߩ⒖ⴕߣ㧘13 ᱦఽࠆ ߪ 14 ᱦఽ߳ߩੑߟߩ⒖ⴕࠍߟߥߋޟࡒ࠼࡞ࠬࠢ࡞ޠ 㧔‘middle schools’㧕ࠍࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡ㧘11 ᱦߢೋ╬ቇᩞ ߆ࠄਛ╬ቇᩞ߳⒖ࠆ⊛ߥ⒖ⴕ㧔ߘߒߡᤨߦߪ♖⊛ߦᄖ ்ࠍฃߌࠆࠃ߁ߥ㧕ࠍࠄߍࠆࠃ߁ߦ⸘↹ߐࠇߚࡒ࠼࡞ࠬ ࠢ࡞߇ᧂߛߦሽߔࠆߊߟ߆ߩၞ߽ࠅ߹ߔޕߒ߆ ߒߥ߇ࠄ㧘ࡒ࠼࡞ࠬࠢ࡞ߪ㧘ߎࠇࠄੑߟߩ⒖ⴕᦼߦࠠ ࠬ࠹ࠫ1㧘ࠠࠬ࠹ࠫ 2㧘ߘߒߡࠠࠬ࠹ࠫ 3 ߩ ߟߥ߇ࠅࠍㅜಾࠇߐߖࠆߩߢ㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓ ߇ዉߐࠇߚᓟߪ㧘߹ߔ߹ߔਇੱ᳇ߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚޕ 㧟㧞ᣇᒰዪߩ⺑⽿છ㧔㧔Local accountability㧕 ᣇᢎ⢒ᒰዪ㧔LEAs㧕ߪ㧘᳃ਥ⊛ߦㆬ߫ࠇߚᣇᐭߩ ৻ㇱߢࠅ㧘ၞߩቇᩞߦኻߒߡ⽿છࠍ⽶ߞߡ߹ߒߚޕ ߒ߆ߒ㧘ᣇᢎ⢒ᒰዪߪߒ߫ߒ߫ᢎ⢒╷ߦ㑐ߒߡਛᄩ ᐭߣኻ┙ߒ߹ߒߚޕೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߦ߅ߌࠆਔⷫߩᓎഀߣޟදജޠ 㧔partnership㧕ߩᔅⷐᕈߦ᳇ߠ߈ᆎߚߩߪ㧘1970 ᐕઍߩ ቇᩞㆇ༡ߩᡷ㕟߆ࠄߢߔޕߘߩᡷ㕟ߪ㧘ᖱႎߦንࠎߛⓍᭂ ⊛ߥ⊒ዷߣߒߡߩޟᶖ⾌⠪ㆇേޠ㧔consumerism㧕߿㧘ᑪ⸳ ⊛ߥᗧࠍ߽ߚߥޟࡑࠤ࠶࠻ߩ႐ᚲޠ㧔market place㧕ߣ ߒߡߩᢎ⢒ࠗ࠺ࠝࡠࠡߣ߽㑐ㅪߒߡ߹ߒߚޕ ೋ╬ቇᩞߩࠃࠅᄙ᭽ߥ࠲ࠗࡊߪ㧘ቇᩞߩ⾗㊄⺞㆐߿ቇᩞ ߦኻߔࠆ⽿છࠍၞ␠ળߦ⼑ࠅᷰߘ߁ߣ߁㧘ᐭߩ⛮⛯ ⊛ߥ⹜ߺ߆ࠄ↢ߓࠆߎߣ߽ࠅ߹ߔޕߎߩㆊ⒟ߪ㧘ೋ╬ቇ ᩞߦ㑐ߔࠆ㒢ࠅ㧘㕖Ᏹߦࠁߞߊࠅߢ⊒⊛ߥ߽ߩߢߔޕ࿖ ᐶഥቇᩞߪ㧘1990 ᐕઍೋ㗡ߦౄᐭߩ߽ߣߢᅑബߐ ࠇ߹ߒߚޕߘࠇߪ㧘ᣇᒰዪߩ▤ℂ߆ࠄㅏࠇߡ࿖ኅᐭ߆ ࠄ⋥ធߦ⾗㊄ࠍᓧࠆ߽ߩߢߒߚޕౄᐭߣᦨᓟߩ20 ᐕ ߪᣂഭౄᐭߩ߽ߣߢ㧘ᣇഥቇᩞ㧘࠻ࠬ࠻ࠬࠢ ࡞㧘ࠕࠞ࠺ࡒ㧘ߘߒߡ2010 ᐕߩᣂㅪ┙ᐭ㧔߅ࠃ߮ ⥄↱᳃ਥౄ㧕ߩ߽ߣߢߩ㧘ᣣߩࠊࠁࠆࡈࠬࠢ࡞ ߩࠃ߁ߥ㧘ᄙߊߩ㘃ૃߒߚታ㛎ߣᡷ㕟߇ߥߐࠇߡ߈߹ߒߚޕ ၞ␠ળ߇ቇᩞߦ㑐ࠊࠆߩߪ⋉ߢߔ߇㧘ߎࠇࠄߩ╷ߪ ᴦࠗ࠺ࠝࡠࠡ⊛ߢࠅ㧘␠ળ⊛ߥಽⵚࠍ߹ߨ߈߆ߨ ߹ߖࠎޕߘࠇߪ㧘⼏⺰ߦ୯ߔࠆ㗴ߢߔޕ 㧔᧻⪲ ᕺ㧕 㧟㧟࿖ኅߩ⺑⽿છ㧔National accountability㧕 ᦨᓟߦ⑳ߚߜߪ㧘ࠞࠠࡘࡓߦ㑐ㅪߒߡవߦㅀߴߚ㧔 ࡚ࠢࠪࡦ 1. 3㧕ࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻㧘⹜㛎㧘⹏ଔ㧘ߘߒߡᩏኤߩ ᯏ᭴ߦᚯࠆᔅⷐ߇ࠅ߹ߔޕ⑳ߚߜߪࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻߿⹜㛎 ߣห᭽ߦ㧘ㅪว₺࿖ߩᢎ⢒᳓Ḱዪߦࠃࠆቇᩞᩏኤߦߟߡ ⼏⺰ߒ߹ߒࠂ߁ޕ ࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ࠍ⪺ߒߊ㊀ⷞߔࠆߎߣߩ⢛ᓟߦࠆ ⊛ᄌൻߪ㧘࿖㓙࿅ߦࠃߞߡࠄࠇߚ㧘࿖ߏߣߩᢎ⢒ߩ ⾰ߣ㆐ᚑᐲߩᲧセዤᐲߩ↪ߩჇടߢߒߚޕ╙ੑᰴ⇇ᄢ ᚢએᓟߦ⸳┙ߐࠇߚ⚻ᷣදജ㐿⊒ᯏ᭴㧔OECD㧕ߪ㧘ᢎ⢒ ߳ߩ㑐ᔃࠍࠄߖߡ㧘࿖ኅߩᢎ⢒╷ߦᒝᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃߹ ߒߚޕߔߥࠊߜ㧘 ޟᢎ⢒ߪ⚻ᷣදജ㐿⊒ᯏ᭴ߩട⋖࿖߇߅㊄ࠍ⾌߿ ߔ৻ᄢ㗔ၞߢߔ߇㧘ߎࠇࠄߩ⾗Ḯࠍ㈩ಽߔࠆߣ߁ ߎߣߦߥࠆߣ㧘㔍ߒ㗴ߦ⋥㕙ߒ߹ߔޕᐜ⒩߆ ࠄᚑੱᢎ⢒ߦ⥋ࠆ߹ߢ㧘ੱޘߩ↢ᵴߩਛߢߤߩࠃ߁ ߦ⾗㊄ࠍ߁ߣᦨ߽ߟࠅว߇⦟ߩ߆ޕ⚻ᷣߩᚑ 㐳ࠍഥ㐳ߔࠆߣ߁ᢎ⢒ߩᓎഀߪ㧘ߤ߁ߒߚࠄઁߩ ᢎ⢒⋡ᮡߣ⺞ߒᓧࠆߩ߆ޕߘߒߡ㧘ߎࠇࠄߩ⋡ᮡ ࠍ㆐ᚑߔࠆᦨ⦟ߩᣇᴺߪߥߩ߆ޕട⋖࿖ߩ⚻㛎ࠍ ឬߒߡߺࠆߥࠄ߫㧘OECD ߪߎࠇࠄߩ㗴ߦኻߒ ߡ␠ળߩ᳞ࠆ╵߃ࠍਈ߃ࠆߩࠍഥߌߡߊࠇࠆޕ OECD ߩ⋡ᮡߪ㧘␠ળߩቯ߿⚻ᷣജߦ⽸₂ߒ㧘ੱ ↢ߩߤߩᲑ㓏ߦ߅ߡ߽ߔߴߡߩੱߦ↢߹ࠇᜬߞߚ ᚽ⢻ࠍᦨ߽ࠃߊ⊒ើߔࠆᯏળࠍߔߴߡਈ߃ࠆߎߣߢ ࠆޕޠ
↢ᓤߩ࿖㓙ቇ⠌㆐ᐲ⺞ᩏ㧔The Programme for
International Student Assessment : PISA㧕ߪ㧘ቇᩞߩ 15 ᱦߩ ↢ᓤߩߚߦ㧘⚻ᷣ߿⚻༡ߦෳടߔࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡදห⊛ ߦિዷߒߡࠆ࿖㓙᳓Ḱߩࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߢߔޕ߹ߢߩߣ ߎࠈ4 ࿁ߩࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻߇ⴕࠊࠇ㧔2000㧘2003㧘2006㧘2009 ᐕ㧕㧘ߘߒߡ2009 ᐕߦⴕࠊࠇߚࠕࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߩ࠺࠲ߪ㧘 2010 ᐕ 12 7 ᣣߦ㐿ߐࠇ߹ߒߚޕ㖧࿖ߣࡈࠖࡦࡦ࠼ ߪ㧘OECD ߩ 15 ᱦ↢ᓤߩᦨᣂߩ PISA ߩ⺒⸃࠹ࠪ㧔⺒ ߺᦠ߈㧕⺞ᩏߢ࠻࠶ࡊߦ┙ߜ㧘ߘߒߡ㧘ߘߩࠕࠬࡔࡦ ࠻ߪ࠺ࠫ࠲࡞ᖱႎࠍᛒ߁↢ᓤߩ⢻ജߦߟߡߩೋߡߩ⺞ ᩏߢߒߚޕߘߩ⺞ᩏߪ70 ࠞ࿖એߩ 50 ਁੱߩ↢ᓤߩ 2 ᤨ 㑆ߩ⹜㛎ߦၮߠߡ߅ࠅ㧘ᢙቇߣℂ⑼ߩ⹜㛎߽ታᣉߐࠇ߹ ߒߚޕߟߢᅢᚑ❣ߢߞߚߩߪ㧘ਛ࿖㚅᷼㧘ࠪࡦࠟࡐ ࡞㧘ࠞ࠽࠳㧘࠾ࡘࠫࡦ࠼ߣᣣᧄߢߒߚޕ ⸛⺰ߩߚߩ㧦 ಽ߆ࠄߥߎߣ߿߽ߞߣ⺑ߒߡ߶ߒߎߣ߇ࠅ߹ ߔ߆ޕ ⷫ߿ၞ␠ળ߇ೋ╬ቇᩞߩ⾰ߦᓇ㗀ࠍ߷ߔߎߣ߇ߢ ߈ࠆࠃ߁ߦߔࠆߴ߈ߢߔ߆ޕ ᣣᧄߢߪೋ╬ቇᩞߩ⾰ߩ⸽ߩߚߦߤࠎߥ⺞ᢛ߇ߥ ߐࠇߡ߹ߔ߆ޕ 㧔ᧄ૫ᄹ㧕 㧨ߣ߇߈㧙⸃⺑߮⻢ㄉ㧙㧪 ⸥ߪ㧘ᐔᚑ22 ᐕᐲᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇ․⚻⾌ޟ․⦡ࠆ ᢎ⢒ᡰេࡊࡠࠣࡓ㧛ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒࿖㓙ᵹ߳ߩข⚵ߺ㧦 ᄖ࿖⺆ࠍ↪ߚᢎ⢒ᵴേߩలታޠ㧔੍▚ࠦ࠼22103㧘ᬺ ᜂᒰ⠪㧦ጊ㦮ᵗሶ㧕ߩ੍▚ࠍ↪ߡ㧘ࠗࠡࠬߩᢎᏧᢎ⢒ ⎇ⓥߩኾ㐷ኅߢࠆࡇ࠲ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ࠍ⡜ߒߡ ታᣉߒߚᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇᢥቇㇱᢎ⢒ቇ⑼ᄢቇ㒮ᢎ⢒ቇኾ ਥߩࡒ࠽ޟࠗࠡࠬߩೋ╬ᢎ⢒㧦1988 ᐕ߆ࠄ 2011 ᐕߩᢥൻ⊛ᢥ⣂ߦ߅ߌࠆᢎ⢒╷ߣᢎ⢒ታ〣ޠߩో⸶ߢ ࠆޕ ࠗࠡࠬߢߪቇᩞᢎ⢒ߪ㧘ቬᢎ⊛ᢥ⣂ࠍήⷞߔࠆߎߣ߇ ߢ߈ߥߚ㧘৻⥸ߩੱޘߦ㐿߆ࠇߚ࿖᳃ߩߚߩᢎ⢒ ᐲ߇ᚑ┙ߔࠆߩߪᭂߡㆃޕᢎ⢒߇ㄭઍൻߣ߁ᱧผ ⽎ߣߣ߽ߦ⺆ࠄࠇࠆᣣᧄߣᲧߴࠆߣ㧘ޟ࿖᳃ᢎ⢒㧔ᢎ ⢒㧕ޠߣ߁⸒⪲߇ߔᗧߪᭂߡ᭽⋧ࠍ⇣ߦߒߡࠆޕ ৻⥸ߦ㧘࿖ኅߩㄭઍൻߣᢎ⢒ᐲߩᚑ┙ߪ㧘⋧ߦ㑐ㅪ ߠߌߡᝒ߃ࠄࠇࠆ߇㧘ࠗࠡࠬߪ↥ᬺ㕟ߦࠃߞߡㄭઍൻ ࠍᣧᦼߦᚑߒㆀߍߚ࿖ߢࠆߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ㧘߹ߚߘ߁ߢ ࠆ߇ࠁ߃ߦ㧘࿖᳃ᢎ⢒ᐲߩᚑ┙߳ߩߪࠁߞߊࠅߣߒ ߡࠆޕߘࠇࠁ߃㧘ࠗࠡࠬᢎ⢒ผ⎇ⓥߢߪ㧘Ԙ⟵ോ㧘ԙ ήఘ㧘Ԛଶߣ߁3 ߟߩේೣࠍలߚߔᢎ⢒ᐲߩ⏕┙ ࠍߤߩᤨὐߦ᳞ࠆ߆㧘ߣ߁ߎߣ߽ᧂߛ⺰ߩ᷵ਛߦ ࠆߩߢࠆޕุ㧘ߒࠈᢎ⢒ߩᚑ┙ߣ߁ᱧผ⽎ߪሽ ߒߥ㧘ߣߐ߃⸒ࠊࠇߡࠆߩߢࠆޕ ߚߣ߃߫㧘ᐭߦࠃࠆቇᩞᢎ⢒߳ߩ࿖ᐶഥ㊄ߩઃߪ 1833 ᐕߦ㐿ᆎߐࠇࠆ߇㧘ၮ␆ᢎ⢒ᴺ߇ᚑ┙ߒߚߩߪ 1870 ᐕߦߥߞߡ߆ࠄߢࠆޕߘߩᓟ㧘ߔߴߡߩ⠪߳ߩਛ╬ᢎ⢒ ࠍߣ߁ⷐ᳞ߦ╵߃ߚ1944 ᐕᢎ⢒ᴺ㧔ߚߛߒ㧘⢻ജߩਃ ಽጘဳߩਛ╬ᢎ⢒㧕㧘ㅴᱠਥ⟵ߩᢎ⢒ࠍផᅑߒߚࡊ࠙࠺ࡦ ႎ๔ᦠ㧔1967 ᐕ㧕㧘ᢎᏧᢎ⢒ࠍ 3 ߟߩࠨࠗࠢ࡞ߢ᭴ᗐߒߚ ࠫࠚࡓ࠭ႎ๔ᦠ㧔1972 ᐕ㧕㧘ㅴᱠਥ⟵ᢎ⢒ߣᢎᏧߩᜰዉ ജࠍഭౄᮭਅߩࠠࡖࡂࡦ㚂⋧߇ᛕ್ߒߚ߆ߩࠬࠠ ࡦṶ⺑㧔1976 ᐕ㧕㧘ߘߒߡౄࠨ࠶࠴ࡖᮭਅߩ 1988 ᐕᢎ⢒ᡷ㕟ᴺ㧔࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞࠠࡘࡓߩቯ㧕ߣ⛯߈㧘 ᴦߩ⺖㗴ࠍޟᢎ⢒㧘ᢎ⢒㧘ᢎ⢒ޠߣਥᒛߒߚࡉࠕഭ ౄᮭࠍ⚻ߡ㧘㧘⥄↱ౄߣౄߩㅪวᮭਅߢᢎ⢒ᡷ 㕟ߪㅴࠄࠇߡࠆޕ ᧄࡒ࠽ߩ⿰ᣦߪ㧘ߎ߁ߒߚᱧผ⊛⢛᥊ࠍⷞ㊁ߦࠇ ߟߟ㧘ᢎ⢒ߦࡐ࠹ࠖࠢࠬ߇ࠅߎࠎߢߊ᭽⋧ߣᢥ⣂ࠍ㧘 ᢎᏧߦߥࠆߎߣࠍᦸࠎߢࠆቇ↢⻉᳁ߣߣ߽ߦ࿖㓙⊛ߥⷞ ὐࠍᜬߞߡ⠨߃ߡߺࠃ߁㧘ߣ߁ߎߣߦߞߚޕߘߩ⿰ᣦ ߪ㧘⻠Ṷ⠪ߩࡇ࠲ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߩౕ⊛ߢࠊ߆ࠅ ߿ߔ⺑ߩ߅㒶ߢ߁߹ߊታߒߚޕ ߎߎߢࡇ࠲ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߩ⚻ᱧ߿⎇ⓥᬺ❣ߦዋ ߒ⸅ࠇߡ߅߈ߚޕඳ჻ߪ㧘ࠤࡦࡉ࠶ࠫᄢቇࠫࠚࡓ࠭ ࠞ࠶ࠫ㧘ࠝ࠶ࠢࠬࡈࠜ࠼ᄢቇ࠙ࠚࠬ࠻ࡒࡦࠬ࠲ࠞ ࠶ࠫࠍୃੌᓟ㧘ࠝ࠶ࠢࠬࡈࠜ࠼ࠪࡖ߮ࠬ࠲ࠪࡖߩ ೋ╬ቇᩞߢᢎᏧࠍ⚻㛎ߒ㧘ߘߩᓟ㧘ࠝ࠶ࠢࠬࡈࠜ࠼ᄢቇ ߮ࠤࡦࡉ࠶ࠫᄢቇߢᢎᏧᢎ⢒ߩߦ៤ࠊߞߡ߈ߚᢎ ⢒ผኅߢࠆޕᓐߩඳ჻ቇ㧔࠭ᄢቇ㧕⺧᳞⺰ᢥߪ㧘 ⸶⠪ᵈ2 ߦߍߚ᜕⋙⸶ޡࠗࠡࠬೋ╬ቇᩞߩࠞࠠࡘ ࡓޢ㧔ߟߥࠎ 㧕ߢࠅ㧘ߘࠇߪ1945 ᐕએ㒠ߩࠞࠠࡘ ࡓߩᄌㆫࠍߐ߹ߑ߹ߥⷺᐲ߆ࠄ⸃ߒߚߣ߁ὐߢ㧘↹ ᦼ⊛ߥ⎇ⓥߣ⟎ߠߌࠄࠇߡࠆޕᓐߪ㧘ቯᐕᓟߩ߽㧘 ࠤࡦࡉ࠶ࠫᄢቇࡎࡑ࠻ࡦࠞ࠶ࠫߣࡠࡦ࠼ࡦᄢቇᢎ⢒ ቇ⎇ⓥᚲߩቴຬ⎇ⓥ⠪ߣߒߡ⎇ⓥߣᄢቇ㒮↢ߩᜰዉࠍߒߥ ߇ࠄ㧘ࠗࠡࠬᢎ⢒ผቇળߩቇળ ”Histor of Education” ߩ✬㓸ᆔຬߣߒߡ࿖ౝᄖ⊛ߦᵴേߒ㧘ᢎ⢒ผߩ⎇ⓥ⠪ߩ⢒ ᚑߦዧജߒߡࠆޕ߹ߚ㧘ᤓᐕᄐ߆ࠄᐭߩᆔ⸤ᬺߢ ࠆࠤࡦࡉ࠶ࠫᄢቇޟࠞࠩࡈࠬ࠲ࡦߩᢎຬ㙃ᚑޠࠍਥዉߒ㧘 ߘߩᵴേ▸࿐ߪ⋉ޘᐢ߇ߞߡࠆޕ ߹ߚ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߩੑౠ⋡ߩ⪺߽ᄢᄌ⥝߽ᷓ ߩߢࠆޕߘࠇߪ㧘ᐭഥ㊄ࠍᓧߡታᣉߒߚ⺞ᩏ⎇ⓥߩ ᚑᨐࠍ㧘หߩࠟ࠼࠽㧔Philip Gardner㧕ߣߣ߽ߦ߹ߣ ߚ”Becoming Teachers: Texts and Testimonies, 1907-1950” 㧔Woburn Education Series, 2004㧕ߢࠆޕߘߎߦߪ㧘ᢎᏧ߇ ߤߩࠃ߁ߥ␠ળ⊛⢛᥊ߩਛߢߤߩࠃ߁ߦᾘᖨߒߥ߇ࠄᢎᏧ ߩኾ㐷ᕈࠍ㜞ߡᢎᏧߦߥߞߡߞߚ߆㧘ᢎᏧߪߘࠇߙࠇ ߩᤨઍߦ↢ߓߚ㗴߿⺖㗴ߦߤߩࠃ߁ߦะ߈ว㧘ᢎᏧߣ ߒߡߩኾ㐷⊛ࠕࠗ࠺ࡦ࠹ࠖ࠹ࠖࠍᷓߡߞߚ߆㧘ߘߒߡ ᢎᏧ⥄りߩੱ↢ࠍߤߩࠃ߁ߦ⥄Ꮖታߒߡߞߚ߆ߣߞ ߚ㧘ࠊ߫ޟᢎᏧߩᗧ⺰ޠޟᢎᏧߩ↢ᚑ⺰ޠߣ߽߁ߴ߈ ⎇ⓥᚑᨐ߇߉ߞߒࠅߣߟ߹ߞߡࠆޕೋ╬ਛ╬ᢎᏧ㑆ߩ 䋭 㪍㪉 䋭
ੱ⊛ࡀ࠶࠻ࡢࠢߩਛߢߎߩࠃ߁ߥᚑᨐࠍߍࠆߦߪ㧘ା 㗬㑐ଥ߇ᦨ߽㊀ⷐߢࠆޕߎࠇ߇ᚑഞߒߚߩߪ㧘৻㊀ߦ㧘 ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߩ᷷ෘߢ⺈ታߥੱᨩߦࠃࠆ߽ߩߢࠈ߁ޕ ⤘ᄢߥᤨ㑆ߣ⚻ࠍ⾌߿ߐࠇߚᧄᦠ߽㧘ᢎᏧᢎ⢒㧔ผ㧕ࠍ ⎇ⓥኻ⽎ߣߒߡࠆᣇߦ߅൘ߒߚ⪺ߢࠆޕ ߹ ߚ ߐ ࠄ ߦ 㧘2012 ᐕ 1 ߦ ߪ 㧘㐳 ᐕ ขࠅ ⚵ ࠎߢ ߈ ߚ”Politics and the Primary Teacher”㧔Understanding Primary Education Series, Routledge㧕 ߽ᪧߐࠇߚޕߎߩ⪺ߩࠬ ࠲ࡦࠬߣౝኈߪᧄࡒ࠽ߢ߽ㅀߴࠄࠇߚ߇㧘ೋ╬ቇᩞߩ ᢎ⢒ᕁᗐ߿ࠞࠠࡘࡓߩᱧผߛߌߢߥߊ㧘ᢎ⢒ߩ╷ผ ⎇ⓥߦ߽㍈⋡ࠍะߌߚᧄᦠ߽㧘ቇ↢⻉᳁ߦ߽ߗ߭߅⺒ߺ ߚߛ߈ߚ⪺ߢࠆޕᧄᦠߩ⌕⌒ὐ߿⠨ኤౝኈߩ⏕߆ ߐߦߟߡߪ㧘ࠗࠡࠬߢߪᣧߊ߽⛘⾥ߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ㧘ߘߩ 㜞⹏ଔߪ㧘 ␠߿ࡎࡑ࠻ࡦࠞ࠶ࠫߩ࠙ࠚ࠶ࡉࠨࠗ ࠻ߦឝタߐࠇߡࠆޕࠗࠡࠬߩᢎᏧ㧘ߣࠅࠊߌೋ╬ቇᩞ ߩᢎ⡯ߦߟߡߎߩࠃ߁ߦᄙⷺ⊛ߦ⎇ⓥߒߡࠆ⎇ⓥ⠪ ߪ㧘᳁ࠍ߅ߡઁߦߪሽߒߥߢࠈ߁ޕ ߣߎࠈߢ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߣ⡜⽿છ⠪ߩጊ㦮ߣߩ⎇ⓥ ᵹߪ㧘2003 ᐕߩࠗࠡࠬᢎ⢒ผቇળᄢળෳടߩ᛬ߦ㧘ᒰ ᤨ࠙ࠚ࡞࠭ᄢቇߦߚࡠࠗࡠ࠙ᢎߦ⚫ߐࠇߚߎߣ ߦᆎ߹ࠆޕએᓟ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߪ╩⠪ߩ⎇ⓥᜰዉഥ⸒⠪ ߢࠆߣหᤨߦห⎇ⓥ⠪ߣߥߞߚޕ2006 ᐕ 8 ߦߪ㧘ࠞ ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߣ╩⠪ࠄᣣᧄੱߩᣂᢎ⢒ㆇേ⎇ⓥ⠪ߪ㧘ห ߢ⎇ⓥ⊒㧔ᣈ㧦ᘮᙥᄢቇ㧕ࠍߒߡ⎇ⓥᵹࠍᷓߡ߈ߚޕ ߘࠇࠁ߃㧘ᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇ߳ߩඳ჻ߩ⸰ߪ2 ᐲ⋡ߢࠆޕ ߇㧘ߒ߆ߒᧄቇߢߩࡒ࠽ߪೋߡߩߎߣߢߞߚޕ ߘߩߚ㧘㐿߹ߢߦߪ㧘⋥ធળߞߚࠅࠬࠞࠗࡊࠍߒߚ ࠅߒߡᐲ߽ᗧ឵ߒ㧘⻠⠌ౝኈ߿ᣇᴺߦߟߡ⺞ᢛࠍ ߒߚޕߘߩ৻ߟ߇⻠Ṷࠬ࠲ࠗ࡞ߩᎿᄦߢࠆޕቇㇱ↢߽ᄙ ߊᏨߒߡࠆߩߢ㧘ᦨೋ߆ࠄᦨᓟ߹ߢࠍ৻᳇ߦ⻠Ṷߔࠆ ߩߢߪߥߊ㧘࡚ࠢࠪࡦߏߣߦ㑆ࠍ߅߈㧘2 ߟߩࠣ࡞ࡊ ߦಽ߆ࠇߡ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߣᅏ᭽ߩࡃࡀ࠶࠻ඳ჻ࠍ࿐ࠎ ߢ⾰⇼ᔕ╵ߩᤨ㑆ࠍขࠅ㧘ℂ⸃ࠍࠃࠅᷓߡߞߚޕੑߟ ߩࠣ࡞ࡊߢㅢ⸶ߥߤߩഥࠍߒߚߩߪ㧘ᢎ⢒ቇ⑼4 ᐕ↢ ߩᮮ૫ሶ㧔ᄢቇ㒮ᢎ⢒ቇኾ1 ᐕ↢ࡠࡦ࠼ࡦᄢቇ SOAS ᄢቇ㒮㧝ᐕ↢㧕㧘ᢎ⢒ቇ⑼ᢎຬߩᄢᵤዏᔒ⻠Ꮷߣጊ㦮 ᵗሶߢࠆޕฃ⻠↢ߩ⾰ߩౝኈߪ㧘ᣣᧄߣࠗࠡࠬߩᢎ Ꮷߩ߅߆ࠇߡࠆ┙႐߿ⅣႺߩ㆑ࠍ⏕ߦᤋߐߖࠆ߽ ߩ߇ᄙߊ㧘ᓐࠄߩᕁ⠨ߩ߇ᐢ߇ߞߚࠃ߁ߢࠆޕട߃ߡ㧘 ᢎ⢒ⴕὑ߇㧘ᢎᏧߛߌߢߥߊᄢੱ߿࿖ኅߩ㑐ਈ߇ࠆߣ ߁ߎߣ㧘ߘࠇࠁ߃ᢎᏧߦߪޟ⺑⽿છޠ߇ࠆߣ߁ߎߣ ߇ߒߞ߆ࠅߣવࠊߞߚࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇࠆޕߎࠇߪ࿖ࠍ߃ߚ ࠹ࡑߢࠅ㧘ᢎ⡯ߦዞߚ⠪߇⋥㕙ߔࠆᄢ߈ߥ⺖㗴ߩౝ ߩ৻ߟߢࠆޕߘߩߎߣߪฃ⻠↢ߩฃ⻠ᓟߩࠦࡔࡦ࠻ߦ߽ ␜ߐࠇߡࠆޕᧄ♿ⷐߩ120㨪122 㗁ࠍෳᾖߐࠇߚޕ ߥ߅㧘⸶ߦ㓙ߒߡߪ㧘ᢎ⢒ቇ⑼3 ᐕ↢㧔ጊ㦮ᵗሶࡒ㧘 4 ᐕ↢㧕ߩ╙৻ᰴ⸶ࠍጊ㦮߇ᜰዉߒ㧘ᧄ߳ߩ㍳ߦ㓙 ߒߡౣᐲὐᬌୃᱜߒ㧘⸶ᵈߣ⸃⺑ࠍઃߒߚޕᧄࡒ࠽ ߩ৻ㅪߩข⚵ߺߪ㧘Ḱ߆ࠄᢙ߃ࠆߣ⚂3 ᐕඨ߇⚻ㆊߔࠆ ߎߣߦߥࠆޕࡒ࠽⸥㍳ߣߒߡߎߩࠃ߁ߦ߹ߣࠆߎߣ ߇ߢ߈ߚߩߪ㧘৻㊀ߦ㑐ଥߩߺߥߐ߹ߩߏදജߣߏᡰេߩ ⾦ߢࠆޕߎߩߎߣࠍᗵ⻢ߒߟߟ㧘ࡒ࠽⸥㍳߇㍳ߦ ⥋ߞߚߎߣߦߟߡ㧘߹ߕߪ⸶ᬺߦᅗ㑵ߒߚቇ↢߿㧘 ࡒ࠽ታᣉߦ㓙ߒߡߟ߽ᗂߒߺߥߊᡰេߒߡߊߛߐߞ ߡࠆ㕖Ᏹൕഥᚻߩศ↰ዊ⊖ว᳁ߣߣ߽ߦ༑߮ߚߣᕁ ߁ޕ⸒߁߹ߢ߽ߥߊ㧘ᧄ㇌⸶ߩᦨ⚳⽿છߪጊ㦮ߦࠆޕᕁ ࠊߧ⺋⸶ߥߤ߽ࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥޕᔊᙈߩߥߏᗧࠍ ߚߛߌࠇ߫ᐘߢࠆޕ ᦨᓟߦߥߞߚ߇㧘ᐢፉᄢቇߩේ⟵ੳᢎ㧔ᐢፉᄢቇฬ ᢎ㧘ㅍᄢቇᐢፉቇ⠌ࡦ࠲ᚲ㐳㧕ߦ߽ᓮ␞ࠍ↳ ߒߍߨ߫ߥࠄߥޕේᢎߩߏዧജߦࠃߞߡ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦ ࠟࡓඳ჻ߪᐢፉᄢቇ߆ࠄߩ⡜߽ฃߌࠄࠇߚޕߘߎߢ㧘ห ᄢቇߩᢎ⢒ቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ߩ㒮↢߿ᢎຬߦኻߒߡ⻠Ṷߐࠇᄢ재 ⹏ߢߞߚ㧘ߣ߁ߎߣࠍુߞߚޕ࠹ࡑቯߦ㓙ߒߡ㧘 ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߣ⺞ᢛࠍㅴߡ߈ߚ⠪ߣߒߡᄢᄌ߁ࠇߒߊ ᕁ߁ޕߎࠇ߆ࠄ߽ࠗࠡࠬߣᣣᧄߩ⎇ⓥ⠪ߩᵹ߇߹ߔ߹ ߔᵴᕈൻߒߡߊߎߣࠍ㗿ߟߟ㧘ߎߩ႐ࠍ୫ࠅߡ㧘ᐢፉ ߢߩ᳁ߩṛਛ㧘߆ߣߏදജߚߛߚේ⟵ੳᢎ㧘 ᫃৻ᥙಎᢎ㧔㡆㐷ᢎ⢒ᄢቇ㧕㧘⾆ሶ⻠Ꮷ㧔Ყᴦጊᄢ ቇ⍴ᦼᄢቇㇱ㧕ߦ㧘ᔃࠃࠅᓮ␞ࠍ↳ߒߍߚޕ 㧔ጊ㦮ᵗሶ㧕 㧨ಠ㧪 㧔㧕ේౖߩ̈ ̉ߪޔޟ ޠߢ⸥ߒߚޕ 㧔㧕ᢥᧃߦࠆ⣉ᵈߪޔ⋙⸶⠪ߩ⸶ᵈߢࠆޕ 㧔㧕⋙⸶⠪߇ߞߚ⸒⪲ߪޔ=?ߢ␜ߒߚޕ 㧔㧕⸶ᢥߩㅜਛߦ㧔 㧕ߢᝌߒߚ᳁ฬߪ╙৻ᰴ⸶⠪ࠍᜰ ߔޕ 㧙⸶ᵈ㧙 1 ߎߎߢߪ㧘‘elementary’ ߣ‘primary’ ߩ↪⺆ߩಽߌߦ ᵈᗧߔࠆᔅⷐ߇ࠆޕߥߗߥࠄ㧘‘elementary’ ߩ⸒⪲ߪ㧘 ⶄ✢ဳߩቇᩞ㓏᪽ߩሽࠍ೨ឭߣߒߡࠆ߆ࠄߢࠆޕ 2 ࡊ࠙࠺ࡦႎ๔ᦠ߇ࠗࠡࠬߩೋ╬ቇᩞߩࠞࠠࡘ ࡓߦਈ߃ߚᓇ㗀ߦߟߡߪ㧘ࡇ࠲ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓ⪺㧘 ጊ㦮ᵗሶᧁਃ⋙⸶ޡࠗࠡࠬߩೋ╬ቇᩞࠞࠠࡘ ࡓᡷ㕟㧙ㅴᱠਥ⟵⊛ℂᗐߩ᥉㧙ޢ㧔Curriculum Change in the Primary School since 1945㧕ߦߒޕ
3 ࡒ࠼࡞ࠬࠢ࡞ߪ㧘1963 ᐕߦࠢ࠶ࠣ㧔Cregg, Alec㧕߇㧘 ࠙ࠚࠬ࠻ࠗ࠺ࠖࡦࠣߢዉߒߚߎߣߦᆎ߹ࠆޕߎࠇ ߪ㧘ࡈࠔࠬ࠻ࠬࠢ࡞㧘ࡒ࠼࡞ࠬࠢ࡞㧘ࠞࡦ࠳ ࠬࠢ࡞ߣ߁ਃߟߩ❑♽ߩቇᩞ⒳ߩ᭴ㅧࠪࠬ࠹
ࡓࠍᜰߔਃᲑ㓏ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ㧔’three-tire’ system㧕ߩ⢐ቯࠍᗧ ߔࠆޕ߹ߚ㧘ࡊ࠙࠺ࡦႎ๔ᦠߢߪ㧘ࡈࠔࠬ࠻ࠬࠢ ࡞㧔5-8/9 ᱦ㧕߿ࡒ࠼࡞ࠬࠢ࡞ߣᡷ⒓ߔࠆߎߣߦࠃߞ ߡ㧘ೋ╬ࠞࠠࡘࡓߣߘߩᢎ⢒ᣇᴺࠍᒛߔࠆߎߣ߇ ឭ⸒ߐࠇߚޕ㧔ࡇ࠲ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓ⪺㧘ጊ㦮ᵗሶᧁ ਃ⋙⸶೨ឝᦠ㧘ޟ↪⺆⸃⺑ޠp. 391 ෳᾖ㧕 4 ╙ੑᰴ⇇ᄢᚢᓟߩ 1948 ᐕ㧘∋ᑷߒ߈ߞߚ࡛ࡠ࠶ࡄ ⚻ᷣࠍᵴᕈൻߒᢇᷣߔࠆߚߦ㧘ࠕࡔࠞวⴐ࿖ߦࠃࠆ ࡛ࡠ࠶ࡄᓳ⥝ᡰេ⸘↹ࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߚࡑࠪࡖ࡞ࡊ ࡦߩฃߌࠇࠍᢛߔࠆᯏ㑐ߣߒߡ㧘࡛ࡠ࠶ࡄߩ 16 ߆࿖ෳടߩ᰷Ꮊ⚻ᷣදജᯏ᭴㧔OEEC㧕߇⸳┙ߐࠇߚޕ 1950 ᐕ㧘OEEC ߦࠕࡔࠞวⴐ࿖ߣࠞ࠽࠳߇Ḱട⋖࿖ߣ ߒߡෳടߒ㧘1961 ᐕ㧘࡛ࡠ࠶ࡄ⚻ᷣߩᓳ⥝ߦ㧘᰷ Ꮊߣർ☨߇⥄↱ਥ⟵⚻ᷣ߿⾏ᤃߢኻ╬ߥ㑐ଥߣߒߡ⊒ ዷදജߔࠆ⋡⊛ߩਅ㧘OEEC ߪ⊒ዷ⊛ߦᡷ⚵ߐࠇ㧘 ߩ⚻ᷣදജ㐿⊒ᯏ᭴㧔OECD㧕߇ഃ┙ߐࠇߚޕ 1964 ᐕએ㒠㧘ᓥ᧪ߩᨒߢࠆ᰷ߣർ☨ߣ߁ℂ⊛ 㒢ࠍขࠅᛄ㧘ࠕࠫࠕ㧘᧲᰷ߦ߽ട⋖࿖ࠍᄢߒߚޕ ᣣᧄߪᣧߊ߆ࠄOECD ട⋖ߦ㑐ᔃࠍ␜ߒ㧘ᨒᄢ⋥ᓟߩ 1964 ᐕ 4 28 ᣣߦട⋖ߔࠆߦ⥋ߞߚޕ1990 ᐕઍߦࠅ㧘 ಄ᚢ᭴ㅧ߇፣უߔࠆߣ㧘ࡑࠪࡖ࡞ࡊࡦߩᓳ⥝ᡰេ ߩኻ⽎߆ࠄᄖࠇߡߚ᧲᰷⻉࿖߿ᣂ⥝Ꮏᬺ࿖߇ട⋖ߔ ࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ㧘ᣣߩOECD ߦ⥋ߞߚޕ ߥ߅㧘OECD ߪ㧘એਅߩ 3 ߟࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߡࠆޕ 㧔OECD ᧦⚂╙ 1 ᧦㧕 Ԙ⚻ᷣᚑ㐳㧔ߢ߈ࠆ㒢ࠅߩ⚻ᷣᚑ㐳㧘㓹↪ߩჇᄢ㧘↢ᵴ ᳓Ḱߩะࠍ࿑ࠆߎߣ㧕㧘ԙ㐿⊒㧔⚻ᷣ⊒ዷㅜߦࠆ ⻉ၞߩ⚻ᷣߩஜోߥᄢߦነਈߔࠆߎߣ㧕㧘Ԛ⾏ᤃ 㧔ᄙ⋡⊛߆ߟήᏅߥ⇇⾏ᤃߩᄢߦነਈߔࠆߎ ߣ㧕ޕ ߐࠄߦ㧘ߩട⋖࿖ߪએਅߩ 34 ߆࿖ߢࠆޕ ⊒⿷ᒰೋߩේട⋖࿖㧔ࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻㗅㧕ߪ㧘ࠝࠬ ࠻ࠕ㧘ࡌ࡞ࠡ㧘ࠞ࠽࠳㧘࠺ࡦࡑࠢ㧘ࡈࡦࠬ㧘࠼ ࠗ࠷㧘ࠡࠪࡖ㧘ࠕࠗࠬࡦ࠼㧘ࠕࠗ࡞ࡦ࠼㧘ࠗ࠲ ࠕ㧘࡞ࠢࡦࡉ࡞ࠢ㧘ࠝࡦ࠳㧘ࡁ࡞࠙ࠚ㧘ࡐ࡞࠻ࠟ ࡞㧘ࠬࡍࠗࡦ㧘ࠬ࠙ࠚ࠺ࡦ㧘ࠬࠗࠬ㧘࠻࡞ࠦ㧘ࠗࠡ ࠬ㧘ࠕࡔࠞวⴐ࿖ ߢࠅ㧘ߘߩᓟߩട⋖࿖㧔ട⋖ᐕ 㗅㧕ߪ㧘ᣣᧄ㧔1964 ᐕ 4 28 ᣣ㧕㧘ࡈࠖࡦࡦ࠼㧔1969 ᐕ1 28 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠝࠬ࠻ࠕ㧔1971 ᐕ 6 7 ᣣ㧕㧘࠾ ࡘࠫࡦ࠼㧔1973 ᐕ 5 29 ᣣ㧕㧘ࡔࠠࠪࠦ㧔1994 ᐕ5 18 ᣣ㧕㧘࠴ࠚࠦ㧔1995 ᐕ 12 21 ᣣ㧕㧘ࡂࡦࠟ 㧔1996 ᐕ 5 7 ᣣ㧕㧘ࡐࡦ࠼㧔1996 ᐕ 11 22 ᣣ㧕㧘 㖧࿖㧔1996 ᐕ 12 12 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠬࡠࡃࠠࠕ㧔2000 ᐕ 12 14 ᣣ㧕㧘࠴㧔2010 ᐕ 5 7 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠬࡠࡌ࠾ࠕ㧔2010 ᐕ 7 21 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠗࠬࠛ࡞㧔2010 ᐕ 9 7 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠛࠬ࠻࠾ ࠕ㧔2010 ᐕ 12 9 ᣣ㧕ߢࠆޕ߹ߚ㧘 ട⋖↳⺧࿖ ߪ ࡠࠪࠕ㧔2007 ᐕ 5 㧕㧘ട⋖ࠍⷞ㊁ߦࠇߚ OECD ߩ ⺞ᩏ㐿ᆎࠍℂળ߇ോ✚㐳ߦ⺧᳞㧔2007 ᐕ 5 㧕ߒߚ 㑐ਈᒝൻ࿖ ߪ㧘ࡉࠫ࡞㧘ਛ⪇ੱ᳃࿖㧘ࠗࡦ࠼㧘 ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ㧘ධࠕࡈࠞ࿖ ߢࠆޕߎࠇࠄߩട ⋖↳⺧࿖㧘㑐ਈᒝൻ࿖ߩ߶߆㧘㚅᷼㧔ޟਛ࿖㚅᷼ޠߣߒ ߡෳട㧕㧘ਛ⪇᳃࿖㧔ޟ࠴ࡖࠗ࠾࠭࠲ࠗࡍࠗޠߣߒߡෳ ട㧕㧘ࠪࡦࠟࡐ࡞ߥߤ㧘ᄙᢙߩ࿖߿ၞ߇ࠝࡉࠩࡃ ߣߒߡOECD ߩ⒳ޘߩᯏ㑐ߩᵴേߦෳടߒߡࠆޕએ ਅߩ࠙ࠚ࠶ࡉࠨࠗ࠻ࠍෳᾖޕߚߛߒ㧘⧯ᐓߩ⺋⸃߽ࠆ ࠃ߁ߢࠆޕ 㧔http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B5%8C%E6%B8%88% E5%8D%94%E5%8A%9B%E9%96%8B%E7%99%BA%E6 %A9%9F%E6%A7%8B㧕㧔11th/Feb. 2011㧕 䋭 㪍㪋 䋭
