Curriculum Reform ?

Proposals for reforms in education appear frequently in the literature and especially proposals for curriculum reform. Presumably this means that there are problems to be solved. Because of the frequency of reform proposals this would seem to indicate that previous reforms did not remove the problems they were intended to solve. Curriculum reforms continue to bombard us every few years. Educators, and especially politicians with an eye to their respective electorates, exhort us about reforms that we have to have (Glatthorn and Jailall, 2000; Hargreaves, Earl et al., 2001).

Bourke (1994) notes that the term ‘reform’ is typically used to refer to changes instituted from above – ‘the implication in much of the rhetoric is that only government decision-making can reform education’ (p. 1). He questions whether governments are always able to reform (to make better) – on many occasions the changes implemented by a government are worse for at least some groups. Kennedy (1995) asserts that curriculum reform is really about changes to the content and organization of what is taught, within the constraints of social, economic and political contexts. Curriculum content and organization is of central importance but unless a reform effort is consistent with the values of the wider society it is unlikely to be successful. Glatthorn and Jailall (2000) consider that curriculum reform not only involves content and organization but that it is mainly directed at students and teachers.

As far as student learning is concerned, we continue to seek out improvements in excellence and equity for our schools. The twenty-first century has the same strong emphasis that we experienced in the previous century. Reforms are also targeted at the quality of the teaching force. There are concerns about the old norms of individualism, isolationism and privatism (Lortie, 1975) and that teachers should be addressing the new social realities of teaching (Lieberman and Miller, 2000).

Hargreaves (1995) takes the issue further and notes the inter-connectedness of curriculum reform in terms of societal change. For example, he argues that secondary schools are the prime symbols and symptoms of ‘modernity’ (for example, bureaucratic complexity, inflexibility) and that ‘postmodern’ conditions of the 1990s (and beyond into the twenty-first century) require very different principles.

Kennedy (1995) refers to the similarities in reform efforts occurring in the United Kingdom, the USA and Australia. He concurs with Coombs (1985) that in all these countries there has been ‘a crisis of confidence in education itself ’ (p. 9). No longer is curriculum decision-making the preserve of professional educators – governments are now playing a central role in terms of broad social, political and economic agendas. In the United Kingdom, the National Curriculum introduced in 1988 was based on the Right ideology of a market economy and a consumer-oriented emphasis. A number of schools have opted out of local education authority control, supposedly to allow parents more choice. A policy of open enrolment and local management of schools is now in place. The Left ideology since 1997 (New Labour government) has been conservative and pragmatic and focused squarely on literacy and numeracy standards for students (Crump 1998).

In Australia in the 1990s an attempt to develop a national, outcomes based curriculum using curriculum statements and profiles almost succeeded but was jettisoned due to the active opposition from several states. Since then slightly modified ‘state versions’ of outcomes-based approaches have been implemented (Watt, 2000). The ideology behind this is largely economics-driven, with emphasis on higher-order skills and standards (Marsh and Willis, 2003). In New Zealand a massive restructuring of the education system occurred in the late 1980s. According to Peters (1995) the ideology for these reforms was based on neo-liberal principles of individualism, deregulation and privatization. There is currently in the USA a strong interest in national standards and the need to develop a core of knowledge and skills that all students should be taught. However, the underlying ideology is about state-led standards and common practices for all students.

The ideology supports standard practices and uniform goals and tends to minimize the importance of equity issues and reduces the impact of local initiatives. Apple (1988) argues that reforms should concentrate on the relationship between schooling and the larger society and on the structure of inequalities in society – the deskilling of jobs, and the lowering of wages and benefits.

In the USA over the last decade, various reforms have been advocated via official reports but also through state legislation. Not all reforms are integrated into one major reform policy, and in fact, some authors such as Cibulka (1990) argue that some of the reform proposals are not consistent and are even contradictory. Cibulka suggests that there are some major or ‘core’ proposals which have occurred in most states (for example, state mandates) and ‘ancillary’ proposals (for example, greater choice of schools) which have been advocated by some pressure groups in some states.

These proposals represent a ‘pluralist’ approach to reform and because of the inconsistencies between different policies there is little shared consensus over ends or means. These pluralist bargaining games may create a lot of media publicity but the lack of unity could mean limited chances of success. By contrast, reforms in the United Kingdom have ‘coherence’ and were implemented as a total package of reform, despite widespread criticism. The ruling Conservative party under the leadership of the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher produced reforms that were aimed at raising standards of all students. The creation of core and foundation subjects, key stages, attainment targets and standard assessment tasks were carefully orchestrated to achieve this end. Notwithstanding, it is far from clear whether these reforms were accepted and implemented appropriately by teachers. Plank (1988) suggests that there are four main types of reform, which he categorizes as ‘additive’ reforms, ‘external’ reforms, ‘regulatory’ reforms and ‘structural’ reforms . By far the most difficult to achieve are the structural reforms. ‘Additive’ reforms are relatively easy to implement because they involve additional resources and do not affect the organizational character of schools. An example would be a fully funded computer literacy programme.

‘External’ reforms also have little effect on the structure of schools, as they concentrate upon teachers entering the system or students leaving the system.

‘Regulatory’ reforms seek changes in schools but do not necessarily affect the basic structure. The emphasis is upon more time and effort to achieve higher student achievements. Examples include longer school days and school years, core curriculum, statewide testing.

‘Structural’ reforms require alterations to the structure and operation of schools. They question current school structures and have the potential to be extremely disruptive to teachers and students. Examples include merit pay plans and voucher systems for parents to use at schools of their choice.

The first decade of the twenty-first century is revealing some perennial challenges in terms of curriculum reform but also some promising developments. A number of reforms are cyclical – at certain periods they have strong support while at other times they can be quite minimal. The strength and influence of standards-based reforms in several countries is impressive. It is interesting to ponder on which are the main factors driving it – is it a general world view and the economic status of the society, is it due to the recommendations of prestigious committees; or is it due to the emergence of new technology (Glatthorn and Jailall, 2000)?

Despite the enthusiasm that can be generated by new reforms it is important to remember that making reform proposals is only part of the process and that there are many problems in getting reforms implemented. The factors affecting innovation and change, and implementation, are most pertinent.

1. ‘Educational reform cannot progress without financial resources. People, time and materials are necessary costs that are not considered to any great degree in most reform reports’ (Presseisen, 1989, p. 135). Why is it that reform reports rarely include detailed budgets? Who should determine priorities for finance for reform proposals?

2. Some of the most difficult dilemmas we face currently have been around for a long time. Give examples of reforms that have been proposed over the decades to solve a particular curriculum problem. Have any proposals been more successful than others? Give reasons.

3. ‘Do schools exist to increase the nation’s productivity or for other equally important personal and social goals?’ (Passow, 1988, p. 254). What is your stance on this matter?

4. The reform proposals in the USA reflect and help perpetuate practices that are at odds with equity goals. Why do you consider that equity goals which were being advanced in the 1960s and 1970s are not being given a high priority in the twenty first century? Are equity and excellence diametrically opposed goals?

5. ‘Schools and especially classrooms, are remarkably resistant to change, much to the consternation of politicians, policy-makers and innovators . . . Professional and institutional structures are resilient. They withstand many an assault and have powerful capacities to maintain and reproduce themselves despite surface changes’ (Hargreaves, 1994). Can this claim be substantiated? Give examples to support your response.

6. ‘English education has a history of power domination rather than power sharing. The recent and current reforms in English education ensure that schools endure  as organised hierarchies’ (Southworth, 2000, p. 14). What are the implications for the success of transformational reform if such hierarchies exist?