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?

Curriculum Implementation

Curriculum starts as a plan. It only becomes a reality when teachers implement it with real students in a real classroom. Careful planning and development are obviously important, but they count for nothing unless teachers are aware of the product and have the skills to implement the curriculum in their classrooms.

As noted by Fullan (1999) and Scott (1999), a curriculum, however well designed, must be implemented if it is to have any impact on students. Although this is obvious, there are thousands of curriculum documents now gathering dust on storeroom shelves because they were never implemented or because they were implemented unintelligently. The obvious importance of curriculum implementation has not necessarily led to widespread understanding of what it entails or of what is problematic about it. The term ‘implementation’ refers to the ‘actual use’ of a curriculum/syllabus, or what it ‘consists of in practice’ (Fullan and Pomfret, 1977). It is a critical phase in the cycle of planning and teaching a curriculum. Adoption of a curriculum refers to somebody’s intentions to use it, be it a teacher or a head office official, but it does not indicate whether the curriculum is implemented or not.

Implementation refers to actual use, as outlined above, but there is also an important ‘attitudinal’ element. In education systems where teachers and principals have the opportunity to choose among competing curriculum packages (i.e. acting as ‘selectors’) then attitudinal dispositions are clearly important. For example, if a teacher perceives that the current curriculum he or she is using is deficient in certain areas, then an alternative will be sought which overcomes these problems. Leithwood (1981) maintains that teachers will

only become involved in implementing new curricula if they perceive a dysfunction – they have a desire to reduce the gap between current and preferred practices, with reference to their teaching in a particular subject. But for many subjects, a revised or new curriculum is produced to be used by teachers in all schools in a school district and no choice is available. There is no opportunity for teachers to consider alternatives. Their task is to find out how to use the new curriculum as effectively as possible. In these circumstances, the dominant implementation questions for the teacher might be:

 How do I do it?

 Will I ever get it to work smoothly?

 To whom can I turn to get assistance?

 Am I doing what the practice requires?

 What is the effect on the learner?

This emphasis on how to use a new curriculum is a major concern for teachers because as ‘craft specialists’ they gain most of their intrinsic satisfaction from being successful in using a particular approach and materials with their students. However, the implementation of any new curriculum will take a teacher a considerable period of time as he or she needs to become competent and confident in its use. It is only when a new curriculum is completely accepted by teachers in a school and the activities associated with it are a matter of routine, that the phase ‘institutionalization’ is said to have been reached.

Nonetheless, some writers (for example, Snyder et al., 1992) argue that the idea of institutionalization unduly implies that the curriculum is something concrete and static. These writers suggest that ‘curriculum enactment’ is a more useful way of describing the ongoing process of implementation because it emphasizes the educational experiences that students and teachers jointly undergo as they determine what the curriculum will be like in each classroom. There is also the matter of commitment to change (Cuban, 1992). Not all teachers will automatically accept the notion that a newly proposed curriculum is what they should use, nor will all want to use it with their students (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1991). Most would no doubt welcome the opportunity to choose among several alternatives. In fact, some teachers might be perfectly satisfied with their existing curriculum. In situations where teachers have no choice about whether or not to use a new curriculum, they may embrace the new curriculum with enthusiasm, becoming what is known as ‘consonant’ users (willing to conform to the new curriculum), or they may be reluctant, making considerable alterations in the curriculum, thus becoming what is known as ‘dissonant’ users (unwilling to conform). In extreme cases, a dissonant user may erect a fac¸ade of compliance while adopting Machiavellian tactics to resist or even to undermine the new curriculum. Again, the attitudes of individual teachers are extremely important in implementation.

Some subjects in schools are considered to be important core areas and are given detailed treatment in syllabus documents. For these subjects, teachers may be expected to cover particular content and to follow a certain instructional sequence. The term used for this adherence to prescribed details is ‘fidelity of use’. Alternatively, there may be other subjects where teachers can exercise their creative flair and implement very special, individual versions of a curriculum. This is then termed ‘adaptation’ or ‘process orientation’.

Factors Affecting Implementation

Several education experts have produced very useful insights about implementation and the relative success of it in schools. In the early 1980s Fullan (1982) produced a list of factors affecting implementation which is frequently quoted in the literature. These factors refer to the attributes of the innovation or change, characteristics of the school district, characteristics of the school as a unit, and factors external to the local school system. A wideranging list of factors is provided based on the experiences of a project developer (Parsons, 1987). House (1979) uses three perspectives (technical, political and cultural) to explain how and why certain implementation practices have occurred over the decades. The ‘technical’ perspective assumes that systematic planning and a rational approach can overcome typical teacher problems of lack of time and expertise. The ‘political’ perspective recognizes that rational behaviour is limited in practice and that it is the balance of power among parties that determines whether curriculum implementation efforts will be successful or not. The ‘cultural’ perspective emphasizes cultural transformation as a major factor in determining the success or otherwise of implementation endeavours. It is the deeply ingrained beliefs and values of stakeholders, which are socially shared and shaped, that ultimately affect what happens in classrooms.

Problems of Describing/Measuring Implementation

Attempts to describe the implementation of new curricula are fraught with all kinds of difficulties. For example, do you focus upon the curriculum materials, or what the teacher is doing, or what the students are doing? If the intention is to try to do all three things, what criteria do you use to select instances of each, since they are all occurring simultaneously in the classroom? Are there optimal times to examine how a curriculum is being implemented, such as after 6 months of operation, or a year, or even longer?

Trying to measure degrees of implementation is even more difficult than trying to describe it. Decisions have to be made about what kinds of data should be collected, such as observational data, document analysis or self report data. Measurement data also tend to have a punitive air about them and so this can lead to concerns about who is doing the measuring and who is to receive the results.

Measuring Student Activities and Achievements

A major reason for producing a new curriculum is to provide better learning opportunities for students, such as higher achievement levels in terms of particular understandings, skills and values. Rarely is it possible, however, for measurements to be obtained on student achievements so that it can be stated unequivocally that a new curriculum is superior to the previous one, in terms of particular dimensions. There are so many confounding variables which affect student scores. A single test is unlikely to be suitable for use and to be able to provide valid and reliable comparable data between a new curriculum and the previous one. Despite the lack of empirical evidence linking testing with student achievement, high stakes testing of students became a political priority during the 1990s (Nave et al., 2000), and there is pressure from some quarters for a single national test for all students (Porter, 1993). A differing point of view holds that a more promising development is authentic assessment of student learning, such as through the use of portfolios of student work or through increasingly sophisticated ways of measuring problem-solving, reasoning and critical thinking (Resnick and Tucker, 1992).

Measuring Use of Curriculum Materials

In most teaching programmes, curriculum materials figure prominently in the day-to-day activities undertaken by the teacher and students. In fact, surveys have revealed that school students can spend up to 80 per cent of their time engaged with particular curriculum materials (Cornbleth, 1990). It is clearly important in any study of implementation to gather information about how curriculum materials are used. Some of the curriculum materials analysis schemes developed in the 1970s provide convenient criteria for evaluating curriculum materials (for example, Piper, 1976; Eraut et al., 1975). However, these schemes are often very time-consuming to complete and tend to emphasize the characteristics of the curriculum materials in isolation.

During the 1980s more attention was paid to developing checklists which provide ratings of curriculum materials ‘in use’ (for example, the Innovations Configuration developed by Hall and Loucks, 1978; and the Practice Profile developed by Loucks and Crandall, 1982).

The Innovations Configuration (IC) describes the different operational forms of an innovation that result as teachers implement it in their classrooms. The checklist can be structured to indicate the variations that are considered to be ideal, acceptable and unacceptable uses of an innovation (Hord and Huling- Austin, 1987).

The rapid growth in the use of the Internet by teachers and students has also spread numerous new ideas about what can be included in checklists of curriculum materials and how they can be used (Means, 2001). In particular, the Internet has become a huge new resource for teachers and students (Molnar, 2000; Schofield and Davidson, 2000).

Measuring Teacher Activities

Various methods have been used over the decades to measure teachers’ implementation activities, ranging from formal visitations to observation checklists, questionnaires, interviews and self-report techniques. In the implementation studies have been very extensively undertaken since the 1970s, observation checklists and rating scales are commonly used. In these studies, particular categories of behaviour are determined in advance and used as the basis for the checklist items and rating scales. For example, self-report techniques are incorporated into the Stages of Concern (SoC), an instrument developed by Hall et al. (1977) and subsequently used widely in many countries. The SoC focuses upon teachers’ feelings as they become involved in implementing an innovation. These will vary in both type and intensity. Hall et al. argue that there are a definable set of major stages of concern and that as teachers become involved in implementing an innovation they will move developmentally through these stages .

The SoC has been widely used in a number of countries, as noted in studies by Wells and Anderson (1997), Bailey and Palsha (1992) and Guan (2000). Of special interest is a confirmatory study by Marsh and Penn (1988), who found that the concerns of students engaged in a remedial reading programme progressed in a sequence similar to the SoC. Second-generation research in Belgium and the Netherlands (Vandenberghe, 1983; Van den Berg, 1993; Van der Vegt and Vandenberghe, 1992) has produced an alternative version of the SoC that includes an increased number of self-oriented concerns.

Van den Berg (2002) highlights the major impact of concerns theory on the professional development of teachers and the extent to which concerns-based instruments, such as the SoC, have been used to examine levels of curriculum implementation in a variety of subjects, including new innovations such as School Net technology.  Nonetheless, weaknesses in the SoC have also been uncovered. One major weakness is that the fixed stages do not discriminate completely between how different teachers in different schools might implement a new curriculum.

How a planned curriculum is implemented as the enacted curriculum in any school is a complex process that can vary enormously from school to school. The only certainty about curriculum implementation is that there is no one right way of going about it for all teachers in all schools. The ongoing issues concerning curriculum implementation are not likely to be resolved, but in recent years there has been growing awareness of the complexity of the process, and hence more reason for both caution and guarded optimism.

1. Some common implementation problems according to Clough et al. (1989) include the following: . too little time for teachers to plan and learn new skills and practices; . too many competing demands make successful implementation impossible; . failure to understand and take into account site-specific differences among schools. Explain why these could be major problems. What solutions would you offer?

2. ‘For a new curriculum project to be fully implemented there are four core changes required of a teacher – changes in class groupings and organization, materials, practices and behaviours, and in beliefs and understandings’ (Fullan, 1989, p. 8). Do you agree with these four core changes? Give examples to illustrate

their importance. Alternatively, put forward other more important factors.

3. ‘Because implementation takes place in a fluid setting, implementation problems are never ‘‘solved’’. Rather they evolve . . . new issues, new requirements, new considerations emerge as the process unfolds’ (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 174). What are the implications of this statement for implementing new curricula in schools? What implementation elements can or cannot be planned in advance What contingency plans should be developed?

4. ‘Successful implementation is an individual development process within certain organizational conditions and strategies’ (Fullan, 1989, p. 24). To what extent are individual development factors (for example, commitment, skills, willingness to experiment) important? What are some important organizational conditions?

5. ‘Testing certain content in certain ways will result in an alignment of classroom practices with the official view of what and how subjects should be taught’ (Matheison, 1991, p. 201). Does testing ensure that fidelity of use implementation occurs? What are some problems associated with curriculum controlled by testing?

6. Pressure and support are both needed to ensure that implementation occurs. Do you agree? How might pressure and support occur simultaneously within your school or school district?

Objectives, Learning Outcomes and Standards

Learning within a school environment is typically goal directed. Students are at school because they want to learn certain things, attain specific standards, and perhaps satisfy the requirements for a particular diploma or award. The majority of students are not there, as described mischievously by Postman and Weingartner (1987), to serve out a sentence! Teachers, too, are not serving ‘time’ in schools but are wanting their students to achieve particular goals or ends.

Objectives provide an answer to what it is that students want to learn and what it is that teachers are trying to teach them. There are many other terms that are used as synonyms, such as ‘outcomes’, ‘goals’, ‘aims’, ‘purpose’, ‘intentions’. Some authors, such as Moore (2001) and Glatthorn and Jailall (2000), make distinctions between some of these terms but, based upon widespread use and application, the major terms are undoubtedly ‘objectives’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘standards’.

Objectives

Objectives greatly assist the planning process for teachers. The foundation for well-planned teaching is, unquestionably, clearly stated objectives. Some teachers resist using objectives because they consider they are too limiting or are inappropriate for certain content that cannot be specifically defined or evaluated. Yet measurement experts such as Mager (1984) point out that ‘if you are teaching things that cannot be evaluated, you are in the awkward position of being unable to demonstrate that you are teaching anything at all. Intangibles are often intangible because we have been too lazy to think about what it is we want students to be able to do’ (p. 5).

In terms of the teaching role, objectives provide the opportunity for teachers to formulate and, it is hoped, act upon, clear statements about what students are intended to learn through instruction. We are probably all aware of anecdotes which refer to the guessing games which can occur between a teacher and students. For example: What does our teacher want us to learn? I don’t know what he/she wants. Is it to memorize/regurgitate certain content or is it to apply and explain certain content? Objectives, if conveyed to students,  can eradicate a lot of these misunderstandings and can lead to a higher level of communication between the teacher and students.

Objectives are also likely to lead to higher levels of achievement by students, but only under certain conditions. For example, objectives can lead to better learning in lessons which are loosely structured, such as research projects or a film. However, for lessons which involve very structured materials, such as a tightly sequenced laboratory experiment or a computer program, objectives seem to be less important (Tobias and Duchastel, 1974). Objectives assist teachers and students to focus upon what will be evaluated. There should be a close relationship between the assignments, tests and checklists used by the teacher and the objectives for the particular teaching unit or lessons. The feedback received by students from particular assessments lets them know whether they are achieving the standards required.

Outcomes

Willis and Kissane (1997) define outcome statements as ‘broad descriptions of student competencies which reflect long term learning of significance beyond school, and which are superordinate to the details of any particular curriculum content, sequence or pedagogy’ (p. 21).

Outcome statements concentrate upon the outputs rather than the inputs of teaching. Exponents of this approach argue that objectives only concentrate upon the inputs of teaching.

To a certain extent, the approach represents a recycling of earlier movements, especially in the USA, such as mastery learning and competency-based education. Yet, it does not incorporate specific behavioural statements. Rather, the emphasis is upon broad outcome statements to be achieved, eight to twelve statements per learning area (which typically comprises several teaching subjects).

A very successful and leading exponent of outcome-based education in the USA has been William Spady. According to Spady (1993) ‘Outcome-based education’ means focusing and organizing a school’s entire programme and instructional efforts around the clearly defined outcomes we want all students to demonstrate when they leave school (p. ii).

That is, the intended learning results are the start-up points in defining the system (Hansen, 1989). A set of conditions are described that characterize real life and these are used to derive a set of culminatory role performances. Students are required to provide a culminating demonstration – the focus is upon competence as well as content but not on the time needed to reach this standard. Specifically, an outcome is an actual demonstration in an authentic context (Spady, 1993, p. 4).

Moore (2001) notes that in the USA there have been many versions of outcome-based education (OBE) but all of them promote system-level change –  ‘observable, measurable outcomes; and the belief that all students can learn’ (p. 98).

This may have been their major attraction and the cause for their demise; they promised far-reaching reform but could not deliver. Some states within the USA were enthusiastic about OBE at first, such as the Pennsylvania Department of Education which recommended it be used throughout the state (Glatthorn and Jailall, 2000). However, by the mid- 1990s OBE was being widely criticized in terms of:

(a) its over emphasis on outcomes rather than processes;

(b) schools inflicting values that conflicted with parental values;

(c) lack of hard evidence that OBE worked;

(d) fears that OBE would ‘dumb-down’ the curriculum and lead to lower standards;

(e) concerns that content becomes subservient under an OBE approach;

(f) student outcome statements being difficult and expensive to assess.

As a result, OBE in the USA rapidly declined in the 1990s to be overtaken by standards-based (content standards) and constructivist approaches (Glatthorn and Jailall, 2000).

Standards

The raising of educational standards is a constant cry in educational reform. In the USA there was a major impetus in the 1990s to create ‘unified national standards that would ensure consistent delivery and outcomes across diverse state systems and districts via the Educate America Act, 1994’ (Blyth, 2002, p. 7). Knowledge experts in the various subject fields have produced standards for their respective subjects. These standards have been taken up by individual states in the USA and incorporated into state curriculum frameworks and mastery tests. According to Arends (2000) ‘state frameworks have an important influence on what is taught in schools because mastery tests are usually built around the performance standards identified in the frameworks’ (p. 52).

A distinction needs to be made between content and performance standards. Content standards declare knowledge to be acquired, whether it is processes or content. Performance standards are tasks to be completed by a student where the knowledge is embedded in the task and where a student has to use the knowledge and skills in a certain way.

Marzano and Kendall (1996) contend that both content and performance standards need to be used. Further, they suggest that the content standards are articulated at a general level but with specific subcomponents at developmental levels or ‘benchmarks’. As noted by Blyth (2002) ‘benchmarks are essential in describing the developmental components of the general domain identified by a standard.’

Standards seem to be welcomed by many teachers and citizens . Various writers extol the virtues of the new standards – they are a better way to develop conceptual understanding and reasoning (Goldsmith and Mark, 1999). Rosenholtz (1991) asserts that standards provides a common focus, clarifies understanding, accelerates communication and promotes persistence and collective purpose. Yet, other educators are more cautious. Schmoker and Marzano (1999) raise the question, will the standards movement endure? They contend that educators have to be very disciplined about writing clear standards and for the standards to be limited in number. Moore (2001) notes that the standards must be carefully linked to assessment. Glatthorn and Jailall (2000) assert that many of the standards are too vague about content.

The Relative Merits of Objectives, Outcomes and Standards

In the 1970s, various educators criticized what they perceived to be undue attention being devoted to objectives in teaching, and especially behavioural objectives. For example, Eisner (1979, p. 103) developed the term expressive objective and later expressive outcome to demonstrate that not all teaching requires the same degree of certainty.

It is evident that outcome statements together with pointers and work samples do provide considerable guidance for teachers about the standard required in a specific subject or learning area. Whether they are a better planning mechanism than objectives is problematic – there is insufficient empirical evidence available to be categoric about this matter (Ellis and Fouts, 1993). All that we can list at this time are the possible advantages:

 they are more explicit statements about what students should be able to do;

they allow teachers more flexibility in planning their teaching;

there is less emphasis upon content to be covered and more emphasis upon skills/competencies to be achieved;

they provide more concrete details about student performance for parents;

they will enable teachers and school principals to be more accountable about student standards;

they can address higher-order thinking skills;

they acknowledge differing learning styles and forms of intelligence.

It should be emphasized that none of these purported advantages has been substantiated in the research literature. Further, educators are still searching for solutions to some major problems such as the following.  Enormous workloads for teachers (especially primary school teachers) to assess students on outcome statements even when using special computer software such as KIDMAP.

Providing sufficient professional development training for teachers on the outcomes-based approach. Teachers need substantial training to arrive at a shared commitment to the achievement of a common set of outcome statements (Griffin, 1998).  Developing outcome statements (and pointers) which are meaningful  and assessable. It cannot be assumed that all teachers will interpret them in the same way (Willis and Kissane, 1997).  Developing an economical system to monitor whether the outcomes have been achieved or not (Brady, 1996).  Obtaining evidence that an outcomes approach will lead to improved learning (Darling-Hammond, 1994).

Educators reacting to the national profiles in Australia have also been critical of attempts to specify in advance the outcome levels for students. Collins (1994a, p. 14) concludes that the ‘profiles are just, quite literally, cultural artefacts . . . the levels do not mark a necessary ordering of any developmental sequence (more accurately, we have no evidence that they do), but are simply a setting out of particular, and likely to change, majority cultural patterns.’

It can also be argued that objectives share many of the advantages listed for outcomes without incurring the disadvantages. For example, objectives enable teachers and students to focus upon major concepts, they can be communicated easily to parents and students and they enable assessment procedures to be directly related to the objectives. Furthermore, objectives do not have some of the inherent weaknesses of outcome statements in that there are no assumptions about developmental/growth levels or necessity for semi arbitrary areas of knowledge to be divided into strands.

Types of Objectives

Objectives can range from the general to the highly specific. It can be argued that the two extremes have relatively little impact upon teachers. General  abstract statements about such affairs as intellectual development or citizenship provide little insight for the teacher. On the other hand, objectives that are so tightly focused that they concentrate upon low-level, insignificant facts or processes are also of very limited use to teachers.

Behavioural Objectives

Behavioural objectives are perceived by some educators to be at a middle position between these two extremes. These objectives focus upon observable and measurable changes in students. Typically, adherents of behavioural objectives require three criteria to be met, namely: evidence of achievement, conditions of performance and acceptable levels of performance.

Evidence of Achievement

The performance by learners must be stated as an observable student behaviour. Hence it is suggested that teachers should use terms which are observable, such as:

 List

 Define

 Add

 Calculate

 Demonstrate

Example: Students will list the states and territories of Australia. Conditions of Performance This criterion requires that the important conditions under which the behaviour is expected to occur must also be specified.

Example: Using a compass and a ruler, construct two tangents to a circle of 6cm diameter from an external point 12cm from the circle centre.

Acceptable Levels of Performance

It is also necessary to state the minimum acceptable levels of performance, or in other words, the criterion for success. It defines the desired performance and may be expressed in terms of speed (amount of time taken), accuracy or quality. 

Example: Students must spell accurately 90% of the 15 words presented. By combining these three criteria, we get detailed behavioural objectives which can be readily observed and measured.

Example: Students will match up accurately 90% of the rivers listed with their location in states of Australia without using their workbooks.

Instructional Objectives

A case can be made for instructional objectives (behavioural or non-behavioural) to be used by teachers to assist with the instructional process. They provide a clearer direction and overcome vague ideas that might not have been fully developed. Further, they assist the teacher in selecting appropriate content, teaching strategies, resources and assessment. Having instructional objectives can also assist the teacher in demonstrating accountability to the principal, to parents, and to the head office education system personnel (Cohen et al., 1998).

For each major unit of instruction it is reasonable and useful for a teacher to develop a number of instructional objectives – for example, two to six. Of course, the teacher will have help in formulating objectives – help from national and state, governmental and professional, local district and school resources. And these objectives should be statements of the major purposes to guide the teacher and the student through the curriculum. As noted earlier, objectives can act like a road map. A road map need not specify every town and creek to be useful. Likewise objectives for a unit of instruction need not specify every change in student behaviour.

Without following the strict criteria described above for behavioural objectives, there are some criteria which enable teachers and curriculum developers to produce effective instructional objectives. These include:

scope: the objectives must be sufficiently broad to include all desirable outcomes, presumably relating to knowledge, skills and values;

consistency: the objectives should be consistent with each other and reflect a similar value orientation;

suitability: the objectives should be relevant and suitable for students at particular grade levels;

validity: the objectives should reflect and state what we want them to mean;

feasibility: the objectives should be attainable by all students;

specificity: the objectives should avoid ambiguity and be phrased precisely.

To follow each of these criteria closely would be an exacting task. Nevertheless, it is important to keep them in mind when devising appropriate instructional objectives.

Classifying Objectives

During the 1970s experts in educational evaluation, led in particular by Benjamin Bloom, began exploring the possibility of classifying objectives in terms of cognitive, affective and psychomotor behaviours. Cognitive objectives deal with intellectual processes such as knowing, perceiving, recognizing and   reasoning. Affective objectives deal with feeling, emotion, appreciation and valuing. Psychomotor objectives deal with skilled ways of moving such as throwing a ball, dancing and handwriting. Of course, it is important to remember that in real life, behaviours from these three domains occur simultaneously. Notwithstanding, by focusing upon one domain at a time we can gain important insights about planning lessons.

To celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain (Bloom et al., 1956) notable educators in the United Stated produced critiques which were included in the volume edited by Anderson and Sosniak (1994). Some of the conclusions made by these authors are worth noting:

 Teacher educators at universities have used the Taxonomy to help teachers plan their lessons, prepare their tests and ask questions.  Teachers have made little use of the Taxonomy because it is too time consuming, it is not practical to spend time on the higher-order objectives (which takes away time from content), and it is too rational and complex.

 The Taxonomy concentrates upon categorizing and does not provide any guidance about how to translate these objectives into teaching programmes – as a result it has had limited impact.  The major enduring influence of the Taxonomy has been to convey the notion of higher- and lower-level cognitive behaviours.

 The Taxonomy has been used extensively by experts preparing tests.  Although the Taxonomy purports to be descriptive and neutral, it concentrates upon overt student behaviours only.  The Taxonomy has been a major focus for discussion in most countries of the world; it has forced educators to raise questions as to whether they have varied the cognitive level of tasks, exercises and examinations they propose, and whether they sufficiently stimulate their students to think.

Teachers undertake purposeful activities in schools. To give direction to what the teacher and students are doing involves the communication to all parties of particular intents. Over the decades, ‘objectives’ in their various forms have been used to communicate intent. ‘Outcomes’ and ‘standards’ are currently being highlighted as more user-friendly approaches to communicate intent. It is problematic whether their popularity will continue into the next decade (Glatthorn and Fontana, 2002).

Reflections and Issues

1. Instructional objectives can be powerful directives in the teaching process. Discuss.

2. Objectives appear to stand for an excessive interest in efficiency, an undue and misplaced zeal for things rather than process or experience. . . they seem to portray little heaps of knowledge, rather than an integrating structure or matrix. Critically analyse this statement.

3. To what extent is it possible in practice to devise outcomes for which all students can achieve satisfactory standards? Outline some of the possibilities and problems in achieving this end.

4. Compare and contrast the benefits of ‘behavioural’ objectives and ‘instructional’ objectives.

5. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of using an outcome-based and a standards-based approach to curriculum planning.

6. How are the standards established by central policy makers more desirable than the standards currently set by texts and high-status tests?

What Is a Curriculum Framework?

A ‘curriculum framework’ can be defined as a group of related subjects or themes, which fit together according to a predetermined set of criteria to appropriately cover an area of study. Each curriculum framework has the potential to provide a structure for designing subjects and a rationale and policy context for subsequent curriculum development of these subjects. Examples of school-oriented curriculum frameworks include ‘science’ (including, for example, biology, chemistry, physics, geology) and ‘commerce’ (including, for example, accounting, office studies, economics, computing). In the USA the term ‘social studies’ was first used by the National Education Association in 1894 to describe predominantly history, but also geography, economics, government and civics. However, there have been many other frameworks which have been proposed by educators over the decades, and these are examined next.

Educational theorists over the years have produced their ideal framework groupings. For example, Hirst (1974) has argued convincingly that knowledge can be classified into eight forms, which he labels as:

 mathematics;

 physical sciences;

 human sciences;

 history;

 religion;

 literature and the fine arts;

 philosophy;

 moral knowledge.

As noted by Ribbins (1992), Hirst distinguishes between ‘forms’ and ‘fields’ of knowledge, and in some cases there is considerable overlap with school subjects and university disciplines but in other cases very little. Hirst (1967) states:

I have argued elsewhere that although the domain of human knowledge can be regarded as composed of a number of logically distinct forms of knowledge, we do in fact for many purposes, deliberately and self-consciously organize knowledge into a large variety of fields which often form the units employed in teaching. The problems that arise in teaching such complex fields as . . . geography . . . are much more difficult to analyse than those arising in such forms as, say, mathematics, physics and history. (Hirst, 1967, p. 44)

Phenix in his work Realms of Meaning (1964) maintains that there are six fundamental patterns of meaning that determine the quality of every humanly significant experience . Young (1971) argues that society selects, classifies, distributes, transmits and evaluates educational knowledge. He maintains that academic curricula assume that some kinds and areas of knowledge are much more worthwhile than others. Young argues that frameworks based upon subject-based academic curricula are rarely examined and that they should be seen for what they are – ‘no more than historic constructs of a particular time’. Goodson (1981) is not entirely convinced about the historical basis for the control by dominant groups. Based upon a number of studies he argues that sociologists such as Young have ‘raided’ history to support their theory:

Studies develop, so to speak, horizontally working out from theories to social structure and social order. When historical evidence is presented it is provided as a snapshot from the past to prove a contemporary point. (Goodson, 1985, p. 358)

 A framework based on ‘Realms of Meaning’

Realm of Meaning Disciplines

Symbolics: Ordinary language, mathematics, non-discursive symbolic forms

Empirics: Physical sciences, life sciences, psychology, social sciences Aesthetics Music, visual arts, arts of movement, literature

Synnoetics: Philosophy, psychology, literature, religion; in their existential aspects Ethics The varied special areas of moral and ethical concern

Synoptics: History, religion, philosophy

Recent Approaches

Curriculum frameworks developed in the 1990s and twenty-first century are predominantly guides that have been explicitly designed and written to assist school communities of teachers, students and parents in their curriculum ‘decision- making’ about K-10 programmes (Kerr, 1989). It should be noted that curriculum frameworks can assist in the review and development of curricula by schools and system-level personnel. That is, there is an important ‘control’ element involved too.

Components

A curriculum framework document usually includes:

 a rationale or platform;

 scope and parameters of the curriculum area;

 broad goals and purposes of subjects within the curriculum area;

 guidelines for course design;

 content;

 teaching and learning principles;

 guidelines for evaluation of subjects;

 criteria for accreditation and certification of subjects;

 future developments for the area.

Hardy (1990) argues that the rationale or platform for a curriculum framework is of major importance – a statement of the values, principles and assumptions that have guided those who produced the framework.

Features

A comprehensive and well-developed framework should contain the following features:

 strong links between theory and practice;

up-to-date and relevant information about pedagogy, learning and

resources;

evocative and inspiring to teachers – they become impressed by its

potential as a curriculum area.

Impact upon Teachers

Impact of curriculum frameworks upon teachers:

frameworks provide greater coherence across subjects and across the grade levels K–12 – they demonstrate the commonalities between subjects within a framework and enable content and skills to be sequenced across grade levels;

 frameworks encourage teachers to evaluate the total learning environment – teachers need to consider the effectiveness of the taught curriculum, and their teaching effectiveness as well as student performances;  frameworks enable curriculum boundaries to be reconsidered and sometimes redefined – they highlight the changing emphases and the evolving boundaries of subjects;

frameworks encourage teachers to reconsider their packaging and delivery of subjects – it enables them to develop new emphases (for example, vocational, recreational) and career pathways;

 frameworks enable relatively low-status subjects to be given a more prominent place in the school programme because equal status is given to all frameworks.

Advantages of Using Curriculum Frameworks

The advantages of using curriculum frameworks are:

students have access to a broader education by being able to select from a number of curriculum frameworks rather than a narrow range of traditional subjects;

the curriculum will be more coherent and orderly because the framework for each curriculum area is arranged, usually from kindergarten to secondary levels, and priorities are established for each level;

high-quality curriculum development is likely to occur because planning criteria and standards apply consistently across all curriculum frameworks;

there are opportunities for curriculum frameworks to include subjects which are highly prescriptive and those that allow considerable flexibility and variation at the school level;

new content areas and skills can be easily accommodated in curriculum frameworks including various multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary variations;

curriculum frameworks developed at a state or regional level have the potential to become accepted as national frameworks;

there are opportunities to incorporate desirable skills into each framework such as communication and language skills, numeracy skills, problem-solving skills.

Disadvantages of Using Curriculum Frameworks

The disadvantages of using curriculum frameworks are:

if frameworks become too detailed they can become very directive for teachers;

they can become an instrument of compliance and used as a means of control by central education authorities.

Reflections and Issues

1. ‘Frameworks improve the quality of curriculum by assisting in the evaluation of existing curriculum and helping to revise and develop curriculum’ (Hardy, 1990, p. 5). In what ways is this likely to occur?

2. ‘Schools should operate within the general guidelines of central office personnel – curriculum frameworks enable this to occur.’ Discuss.

3. ‘Curriculum frameworks provide opportunities for an education system to include new subjects to suit a country’s present and future social and economic needs.’ To what extent can this occur? Give examples of where such initiatives have been successful.

4. ‘The National Curriculum (in the UK) will equip students with the knowledge, skills and understanding that they need for adult life and employment’ (Baker, Secretary of State, in Cooper, 1990, p. 144). Do you agree? What have been some of the problems?

5. ‘There has been an almost total lack of argument for the National Curriculum (UK), both in general terms and in detail’ (Wiegand and Rayner, 1989). Why do you think the foundation subjects were selected for special attention in the framework? What could have been some alternative ways of organizing the curriculum? What opportunities are there for themes and for interdisciplinary work?

6. ‘We are left with a curriculum (UK) founded upon a myth about the educational excellence of the old grammar school curriculum. Central to this myth is the idea that the traditional disciplines or subjects encapsulate standards of educational excellence’ (Elliott and Chan, 2002, p. 20). Discuss.

7. The national statements and profiles (Australia) reinforce the move towards an outcomes-based education system, in common with many other developed countries. The move towards an outcomes basis is associated with a call for more explicit specification of what should be valued and reported on in schools (Boston, 1994, p. 30). Discuss.

8. The national statements (Australia) represent a summation of the best available knowledge about the content in the eight learning areas. ‘It builds upon some of the best of current practice and provides moral support for the continuance of a range of good practices’ (Willis 1991, p. 4). Discuss.

9. ‘The enthusiasm Australian educational agencies have shown for diverting resources into centrally-driven curriculum development has not translated well into useful products’ (Blyth, 2002, p. 21). Discuss.

What Is Curriculum?

Defining the word curriculum is no easy matter. Perhaps the most common definition derives from the word’s Latin root, which means ‘racecourse’. Indeed, for many students, the school curriculum is a race to be run, a series of obstacles or hurdles (subjects) to be passed. It is important to keep in mind that schools in Western civilization have been heavily influenced since the fourth century B.C. by the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle and that the word curriculum has been used historically to describe the subjects taught during the classical period of Greek civilization. The interpretation of the word curriculum broadened in the twentieth century to include subjects other than the classics. Today, school documents, newspaper articles, committee

reports, and many academic textbooks refer to any and all subjects offered or prescribed as ‘the curriculum of the school’.

Consequently, it is not surprising that writers such as Longstreet and Shane (1993) consider that ‘curriculum is an historical accident – it has not been developed to accomplish a clear set of purposes. Rather, it has evolved as a response to the increasing complexity of educational decision making’ (p. 7).

Some Definitions of Curriculum

Many writers advocate their own preferred definition of curriculum, which emphasizes other meanings or connotations, particularly those the term has taken on recently. According to Portelli (1987), more than 120 definitions of the term appear in the professional literature devoted to curriculum, presumably because authors are concerned about either delimiting what the term means or establishing new meanings that have become associated with it. Hlebowitsh (1993) criticizes commentators in the curriculum field who focus ‘only on certain facets of early curriculum thought while ignoring others’ (p. 2).

We need to be watchful, therefore, about definitions that capture only a few of the various characteristics of curriculum (Toombs and Tierney, 1993), especially those that are partisan or biased. Portelli (1987), drawing on a metaphor developed by Soltis (1978), notes, ‘Those who look for the definition of curriculum are like a sincere but misguided centaur hunter, who even with a fully provisioned safari and a gun kept always at the ready, nonetheless will never require the services of a taxidermist’ (p. 364). The incompleteness of any definition notwithstanding, certain definitions of the term can provide insights about common emphases and characteristics within the general idea of curriculum. Consider, for example, the following definitions of curriculum.

 Curriculum is the ‘permanent’ subjects that embody essential knowledge.  Curriculum is those subjects that are most useful for contemporary living.

 Curriculum is all planned learnings for which the school is responsible.

 Curriculum is the totality of learning experiences so that students can attain general skills and knowledge at a variety of learning sites.

 Curriculum is what the students construct from working with the computer and its various networks, such as the Internet.

 Curriculum is the questioning of authority and the searching for complex views of human situations.

Definition 1

Curriculum is such ‘permanent’ subjects as grammar, reading, logic, rhetoric, mathematics, and the greatest books of the Western world that best embody essential knowledge.

An example is the National Curriculum enacted in the United Kingdom in 1988, which prescribed the curriculum in terms of three core and seven foundational subjects, including specific content and specific goals for student achievement in each subject.

Problems Posed by the Definition

This definition suggests that the curriculum is limited to only a few academic subjects. It assumes that what is studied is what is learned. It does not address questions such as: Does the state of knowledge change? If so, shouldn’t the subjects making up the curriculum also change? What makes learning such subjects essential? Goodson and Marsh (1996) point out that the National Curriculum in the United Kingdom is simply a reconstitution of the subjects included in the Secondary Regulations of 1904, suggesting that ‘historical amnesia allows curriculum reconstruction to be presented as curriculum revolution’ (p. 157). Griffith (2000) contends that a knowledge-based curriculum such as the National Curriculum does not exist independently of space and time. It should not be considered ahistorically, for it is neither neutral, factual, nor value free.

Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum

Definition 2

Curriculum is those subjects that are most useful for living in contemporary society.

The subjects that make up this curriculum are usually chosen in terms of major present-day issues and problems within society, but the definition itself does not preclude individual students from making their own choices about which subjects are most useful.

Problems posed by the Definition

This definition seems to imply that what is contemporary has more value than what is long-lasting. It encourages schools and students to accommodate themselves to society as it exists instead of attempting to improve it. It leaves open questions such as: What accounts for stability in the curriculum? What is useful knowledge? If useful practical skills are increasingly emphasized, what becomes of intellectual development?

Definition 3

Curriculum is all planned learnings for which the school is responsible. ‘Planned learnings’ can be long written documents specifying content, shorter lists of intended learning outcomes, or simply the general ideas of teachers about what students should know. Exponents of curriculum as a plan include Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis (1981), Beauchamp (1981), and Posner (1998).

Problems Posed by the Definition

This definition seems to assume that what is studied is learned. It may limit ‘planned learnings’ to those that are easiest to achieve, not those that are most desirable. It does not address questions such as: On what basis does the school select and take responsibility for certain learnings while excluding others? Is it possible for teachers to separate the ends of instruction from the means? Are unplanned, but actual, learnings excluded from the curriculum?

Definition 4

Curriculum is the totality of learning experiences provided to students so that they can attain general skills and knowledge at a variety of learning sites. Emphasis is on learning rather than teaching, especially learning skills and knowledge at sites other than schools. The assumption is that all sites – including workplace sites – can be conducive to learning general knowledge. This approach to curriculum has been heavily publicized in a number of countries recently and is usually supported for economic reasons by business organizations, other vocationally oriented groups, and advocates of explicit competency standards.

Problems Posed by the Definition

This definition usually leads to a narrow technical-functionalist approach to curriculum, requiring that unduly large numbers of outcomes and high levels of specificity be identified. Walker (1994) and Cairns (1992) are critical of the uniformity and the focus on minimum standards the definition encourages. Moore (2000) points out that the economic well-being of a nation depends on much besides vocational training.

Definition 5

Curriculum is what the student constructs from working with the computer and its various networks, such as the Internet. Obviously, this is a modern definition. It assumes that computers are everywhere – in the home, school, and office – and students, perceiving them as part of the natural landscape, are thriving. Although teachers have been slow in developing computer skills, many are now becoming involved. Advocates argue that the new computing technologies have created a culture for increasingly active learning; students can construct their own meanings as they locate sources on the Internet, explore issues and communicate with others. Social skills are also developed through chat groups, conferences, and e-mail communications.

Problems Posed by the Definition

Although some writers such as Vine et al. (2000) contend that schools in the near future will change drastically as students access more electronic resources from the home, others such as Reid (2000) and Westbury (2000) believe that schools will remain long-enduring institutions. Budin (1999) reminds us that technology is not a neutral tool. What is now available on the Internet, for example, is not necessarily what should be on it or what will be on it tomorrow. Furthermore, not all students have the same level of access to the Internet, and the learning it promotes may prove to be far more passive than now commonly believed. We should, therefore, be wary of excessive claims about active or constructivist learning made possible by computers.

Definition 6

Curriculum is the questioning of authority and the searching for complexviews of human situations. This definition is consistent with the ancient Socratic maxim ‘The unexamined life is not worth living’. However, it may also overly encourage rejection of what is, making it a postmodernist definition. The term postmodernist implies opposition to widely used (‘modern’) values and practices. Hence, postmodernists are disparate in their own views, usually sharing only a desire to challenge what is modern, a readiness to accept the unaccepted, and a willingness to conceptualize new ways of thinking.

Problems Posed by the Definition

Postmodernism reduced simply to the process of questioning may not be helpful in identifying in practice how students should spend their time and energy. Although many authors are enthusiastic about the general potential of postmodernist thinking (Slattery, 1995; Atkinson, 2000; Parker, 1997), others (Barrow, 1999) contend that it is overly general, vague, and confused. It is subject to the charge of relativism. Moore (2000) contends there is a fatal, internal contradiction among those postmodernists who state that all truth is relative, when this statement itself would have to be nonrelative in order to be true.

Characteristics of Curriculum

Some curriculum experts, such as Goodlad (1979), contend that an analysis of definitions is a useful starting point for examining the field of curriculum. Other writers argue that there are important concepts or characteristics that need to be considered and which give some insights into how particular value orientations have evolved and why. Walker (1990) argues that the fundamental concepts of curriculum include:  content: which may be depicted in terms of concept maps, topics, and themes, all of which are abstractions which people have invested and named;  purpose: usually categorized as intellectual, social and personal; often divided into superordinate purposes; stated purposes are not always reliable indicators of actions;  organization: planning is based upon scope and sequence (order of presence over time); can be tightly organized or relatively open-ended.

Other writers such as Beane et al. (1986) produce principles of curriculum but they are more value-oriented and less generic. For example, they list five major principles about curriculum:

 concern with the experiences of learners;

 making decisions about both content and process;

 making decisions about a variety of issues and topics;

 involving many groups;

 decision-making at many levels.

What Is Curriculum?

It is evident that these authors have a particular conception of curriculum; perhaps a combination of student- and society-centred. Inevitably, if specific principles are given a high priority, then a particular conception of curriculum emerges. Longstreet and Shane (1993) refer to four major conceptions of curriculum:  society-oriented curriculum: the purpose of schooling is to serve society;  student-centred curriculum: the student is the crucial source of all curriculum;  knowledge-centred curriculum: knowledge is the heart of curriculum;  eclectic curriculum: various compromises are possible including mindless eclecticism!

The conceptions or orientations of curriculum produced by Eisner and Vallance (1974) are often cited in literature, namely:  a cognitive process orientation: cognitive skills applicable to a wide range of intellectual problems;  technological orientation: to develop means to achieve prespecified ends;  self-actualization orientation: individual students discover and develop their unique identities;  social reconstructionist orientation: schools must be an agency of social change;  academic rationalist orientation: to use and appreciate the ideas and works of the various disciplines.

It is interesting to note that Vallance (1986) modified these orientations 12 years later by deleting ‘self-actualization’ and adding ‘personal success’ (pursuing a specific, practical end) and a ‘curriculum for personal commitment’ (pursuing learning for its inherent rewards). These conceptions of curriculum are useful to the extent that they remind educators of some value orientations that they may be following, whether directly or indirectly. Yet others, such as Pinar et al. (1995), argue that these conceptions are stereotypes and are of little value.

Who Is Involved in Curriculum?

Curriculum workers are many and include school-based personnel such as teachers, principals, and parents and university-based specialists, industry and community groups, and government agencies and politicians. Jackson (1992) suggests that a large number of those working in the curriculum field are involved in serving the daily and technical needs of those who work in schools. This has been the traditional role over the decades where the focus has been upon curriculum development for school contexts.

Pinar et al. (1995) refer to the ‘shifting domain of curriculum development as politicians, textbook companies, and subject-matter specialists in the university, rather than school practitioners and university professors of curriculum, exercise leadership and control over curriculum development’ (p. 41). It is certainly the case in most OECD (developed) countries that a wider range of interest groups are now involved in curriculum development (Ross, 2000).

Curriculum in the twenty-first century is indeed moving in many directions and some would assert that this reflects a conceptual advance (Jackson, 1992) and a more sophisticated view of the curriculum. Others would argue that curriculum as a field of study is still conceptually underdeveloped (Goodlad and Su, 1992) and rather like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall!! (Wright, 2000).

Reflections and Issues

1. There are very divergent views about the nature of curriculum.What definition of curriculum do you support? Justify your choice.

2. Trying to clarify central concepts by proposing definitions for them has been popular in many fields (Portelli, 1987). Have these concepts and definitions proven useful in the field of curriculum?

3. ‘The struggle over the definition of curriculum is a matter of social and political priorities as well as intellectual discourse’ (Goodson 1988, p. 23). Reflect upon a particular period of time and analyse the initiatives, successes and failures which occurred in terms of curriculum development or policy development.

4. ‘If the curriculum is to be the instrument of change in education, its meanings and operational terms must be clearer than they are currently’ (Toombs and Tierney, 1993, p. 175). Discuss.

5. ‘The term ‘‘social subjects’’ rarely occurs in the current formulations of the National Curriculum or the whole curriculum in the United Kingdom; indeed the very work ‘‘society’’ is notable by its infrequency.’ (Campbell, 1993, p. 137) Does this indicate deficiencies in the conceptions of curriculum incorporated into the National Curriculum? Discuss.

Mathematics is independent of culture

The counterpoint to the “mathematics is independent of culture” perspective expressed above is that knowledge of any type, but specifically mathematical knowledge, is a powerful vehicle for social access and social mobility. Hence lack of access to mathematics is a barrier – a barrier that leaves people socially and economically disenfranchised. For these reasons, noted civil rights worker Robert Moses declared that “the most urgent social issue affecting poor people and people of color is economic access…. I believe that the absence of math literacy in urban and rural communities throughout this country is an issue as urgent as the lack of registered Black voters in Mississippi was in 1961.” (Moses, 2001, p. 5). Who gets to learn mathematics, and the nature of the mathematics that is learned, are matters of consequence. This fact is one of the underpinnings of the math wars. It has been true for more than a century.

Anthropologists and historians may differ with regard to details, depending on their focus. Rosen (2000), an anthropologist, argues that over the past century or more there have been three “master narratives” (or myths) regarding Education , “Each of which celebrates a particular set of cultural ideals: education for democratic equality (the story that schools should serve the needs of democracy by promoting equality and providing training for citizenship); education for social efficiency (the story that schools should serve the needs of the social and economic order by training students to occupy different positions in society and the economy); and education for social mobility (the story that schools should serve the needs of individuals by

providing the means of gaining advantage in competitions for social mobility).” (Rosen, 2000, p. 4)

Stanic (1987), an historian of mathematics education, describes four perspectives on mathematics that battled for dominance in the early 1900s, and then throughout the century. Humanists believed in “mental discipline,” the ability to reason, and the cultural value of mathematics. That is: learning mathematics is (by virtue of transfer) learning to think logically in general; mathematics is also one of civilization’s greatest cultural achievements, and merits study on that basis. Developmentalists focused on the alignment of school curricula with the growing mental capacities of children. (During the heyday of Piagetian stage theory, some developmentalists argued that topics such as algebra should not be taught until students became “formal thinkers.”) Social efficiency educators, identified above by Rosen, thought of schools as the place to prepare students for their predetermined social roles. In opposition, social meliorists (similar to those who believed in education for social mobility) focused on schools as potential sources of social justice, calling for “equality of opportunity through the fair distribution of extant knowledge” (p. 152).

To these social forces shaping mathematics curricula I would add one more. Mathematics has been seen as a foundation for the nation’s military and economic pre-eminence, and in times of perceived national crisis mathematics curricula have received significant attention. This was the case before and during both world wars, the cold war (especially the post-Sputnik era, which gave rise to the “New Math”), and the U.S. economic crises of the 1980s (see A Nation at Risk: National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

With this as background, let us trace both numbers and curricular trends. The 20th century can be viewed as the century of democratization of schooling in the United States. In 1890 fewer than 7% of the 14 year-olds in the United States were enrolled in high school, with roughly half of those going on to graduate (Stanic, 1987, p. 150). High school and beyond were reserved for the elite, with fewer students graduating from high school back then than earn Masters and Ph.D. degrees today. In short, “education for the masses” meant elementary school. In line with the ideas of the social efficiency educators, an elementary school education often meant instruction in the very very basics. For example, one set of instructions from a school district in the 1890s instructed teachers that their students were to learn no more mathematics than would enable them to serve as clerks in local shops (Resnick, 1987). In contrast, the high school curriculum was quite rigorous. High school students studied algebra, geometry and physics, and were held to high standards. In the 1909-1910 school year, roughly 57% of the nation’s high school students studied algebra and more than 31% studied geometry. (A negligible 1.9% studied trigonometry, which was often studied at the college level;

calculus was an upper division college course.) (Jones & Coxford, 1970, p. 54).

By the beginning of World War II, almost three-fourths of the children aged 14 to 17 attended high school, and 49% of the 17 year-olds graduated (Stanic, 1987, p. 150). This expanding population put pressure on the system. Broadly speaking, the curriculum remained unchanged while the student body facing it was much more diverse and illprepared than heretofore. (The percentage of students enrolled in high school mathematics dropped steadily from 1909 to 1949, from 57% to 27% in the case of algebra and from 31% to 13% in the case of geometry. It must be remembered, however, that there was a ten-fold increase in the proportion of students enrolled in high school, as well as general population growth. In purely numerical terms, then, far more students were enrolled in algebra and geometry than previously.) As always, in times of national crisis the spotlight tends to focus on mathematical and scientific preparation for the military and for the economy. “In the 1940s it became something of a public scandal that army recruits knew so little math that the army itself had to provide training in the arithmetic needed for basic bookkeeping and gunnery. Admiral Nimitz complained of mathematical deficiencies of would-be officer candidates and navy volunteers. The basic skills of these military personnel should have been learned in the public schools but were not.” (Klein, 2003) The truth be told, however, there was not a huge amount of change in the actual curriculum, before or after these complaints.

The next major crisis did affect curricula, at least temporarily. In October 1957, the USSR caught the United States off guard with its successful launch of the satellite Sputnik. That event came amidst the Cold War and Soviet threats of world domination. (It was more than 40 years ago, but I still remember Nikita Khruchschev banging his shoe on a table at the United Nations, and his famous words “We will bury you.”) Sputnik spurred the American scientific community into action. With support from the National Science Foundation, a range of curricula with “modern” content were developed in mathematics and the sciences. Collectively, the mathematics curricula became known as the New Math. For the first time, some of the content really was new: aspects of set theory, modular arithmetic, and symbolic logic were embedded in the curriculum. The full story of the New Math should be told (though not here); it shows clearly how curricular issues can become social issues. Specifically, it provides a cautionary tale for reform. One of the morals of the experience with the New Math is that for a curriculum to succeed it needs to be made accessible to various constituencies and stakeholders. If teachers feel uncomfortable with a curriculum they have not been prepared to implement, they will either shy away from it or bastardize it. If parents feel disenfranchised because they do not feel competent to help their children, and they do not recognize what is in the curriculum as being of significant value (and what value is someone trained in standard arithmetic likely to see in studying “clock arithmetic” or set theory?) they will ultimately demand change.

The one-liner, which is an over-simplification but represents accepted wisdom: “By the early 1970s New Math was dead.” (Klein, 2003). In a reaction to what were seen as the excesses of the New Math, the nation’s mathematics classrooms went “back to basics” – the theme of the 1970s. In broad-brush terms, the curriculum returned to what it had been before: arithmetic in grades 1-8, algebra in 9th grade, geometry in 10th, a second year of algebra and sometimes trigonometry in 11th, and “pre-calculus” in 12th.There are various opinions about the level of standards and rigor demanded of students – some will argue that less was being asked of students than before, and some will disagree – but in broad outline, the curricula of the 1970 resembled those of the pre-Sputnik years. In compensation for the “excesses” of the 1960s, however, the back-to-basics curricula focused largely on skills and procedures.

By 1980, the results of a decade of such instruction were in. Not surprisingly, students showed little ability at problem solving – after all, curricula had not emphasized aspects of mathematics beyond mastery of core mathematical procedures. But, performance on the “basics” had not improved either. Whether this was due to back to basics curricula being watered-down versions of their pre-Sputnik counterparts, to a different social climate after the 1960s where schooling (and discipline) were de-emphasized, or because it is difficult for students to remember and implement abstract symbolic manipulations in the absence of conceptual understanding, was (and is) hotly debated. What was not debated, however, is that the mathematical performance of U.S. students was not what it should have been.There was one lasting change due to the post-Sputnik reforms. Calculus entered the high school curriculum for those students on a more accelerated track.

In response, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published An Agenda for Action” in 1980. NCTM proposed that an exclusive focus on basics was wrong-headed, and that a primary goal of mathematics curricula should be to have students develop problem-solving skills. “Back to basics” was to be replaced by “problem solving.” From the jaundiced perspective of a researcher in mathematical thinking and problem solving, what passed for “problem solving” in the 1980s was a travesty. Although research on problem solving had begun to flower, the deeper findings about the nature of thinking and problem solving were not generally known or understood. As a result, the problem solving “movement” was superficial. In the early 1980s, “problem solving” was typically taken to mean having students solve simple word problems instead of (or in addition to) performing computations. Thus a sheet of exercises that looked like 7 – 4 = ?

might be replaced by a sheet of exercises that looked like John had 7 apples. He gave 4 apples to Mary.

How many apples does John have left? But otherwise, things remained much the same. Part of the difficulty lay in the mechanisms for producing textbooks, a topic discussed in greater detail below. Soon after the publication of An Agenda for Action, major publishers produced “problem solving editions” of their textbooks.