- Email: [email protected]
The introduction of school-based curriculum development in a centralised education system: A possible tactic
0738-0593/90 $3.00 + .00 Pergamon Press pic
tnt. J. Edu cational Developm ent, Vol. 10. No .4 , pp , 303-309, 1990 Printedin GreatBritain
THE INTRODUCTION OF SCHOOL-BASED CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN A CENTRALISED EDUCATION SYSTEM: A POSSIBLE TACTIC R. M. GARRETT Centre for Overseas Studies , University of Bristol, U.K. Abstract-It is suggested that, despite the problems surrounding school-based curriculum development, there is a sufficiently large pool of teachers' experience that must be used if a mature educational system is to be developed within a country . The circular argument for not giving teachers more autonomy because they do not have experience of working on their own can be broken, it is suggested , using a 10% model. Giving teachers full responsibility for 10% of their work and enabling them to work at those areas of curriculum development in which they feel most capable or have the most interest will enable them to display and develop their various talents . Such a system , it is suggested , will also play an important role in providing a more needs oriented, school based in-service education provision .
society and all parts of a country are offered exactly the same educational diet and are thus Centralised control is probably the most not disadvantaged. Should the economy of the common pattern of educational provision to be country demand a mobile work force, the found throughout the world although the education of children who may travel from one degree and nature of this control is varied and is part of the country to another will not be changing, from the recent moves towards a adversely affected as the curriculum remains a broad framework of Attainment Targets now constant factor throughout the country . being put into place in England and Wales For those nations in the process of economic (DES, 1988) to the precise prescription of development it is necessary to match carefully specific objectives and prescribed textbooks scarce resources to needs. Tight central control typical of many developing countries (for of the curriculum makes it comparatively easy example China and Zambia). to make adjustments - or wholesale changesThere are of course a number of well to the curriculum to meet economic and rehearsed reasons for control to be exercised development plans, while political control is from the centre. One of the most frequently more easily exercised and provides for easier raised is that of quality control. By laying down manipulation of overall goals of national a detailed curriculum a minimum standard is set importance of nation building. for the amount of work or area of content to be A centralised system is also economically covered during any particular period of time , more efficient. With all schools working and the inclusion of all important topics and towards the same curriculum and syllabus, their adequate treatment is ensured. Similarly, there is an economy of scale in the provision of by specifying the precise objectives to be infrastructure , equipment, books and expendiachieved it is a comparatively simple task for ture on materials, since 'standard' items can be inspectors to check that these are being met. bought and/or ordered in bulk , based on the Materials can be continually reviewed and up- assumption that all schools' needs will be the graded by experts, incorporating the latest ideas same and large economically viable runs of to emerge from subject and educational material have a guaranteed market. research, and in this way standards are Finally, there is an argument in favour of maintained and improved. centralisation that revolves around accountaIt is also argued that central control provides bility. With standard objectives and a standard for equal opportunities . Pupils from all levels of provision of equipment and materials it is INTRODUCfION
303
304
R. M. GARRETI
argued that schools and their teachers can be held more easily and justifiably accountable for the results achieved by their pupils in comparison with others , since there should not be any local differences or deficiencies that would disadvantage either pupils or teachers. While this all amounts to a very powerful set of reasons upon which to base an argument for the tight control of the curriculum , there are of course many criticisms that can be leveled at such logic in the light of actual experiences. For example, the formal curriculum, as represented by the written down aims, objectives and precise classroom activities in a teacher manual, can often bear little resemblance to the actual curriculum, or that which is daily carried on in the classroom or laboratory and which is the interaction of teachers' interpretations of the formal curriculum. It is impossible for inspectors and advisors to monitor all the activities going on in anyone school - even if such close scrutiny was desirable from an educational/ profe ssional point of view. Therefore, de facto , there are local differences in the actual curriculum, even if within the most carefully and detailed control prescriptions. There is also the danger that with no incentives, either financial or professional, to do otherwise, teachers will teach that which the curriculum calls for and no -more . Thus the tendency may then be for the minimum quantity and quality called for in the formal curriculum to become the maximum. In addition, if teachers adhere strictly to the centrally produced document there is no scope nor inducement for learning to be adapted to suit local needs, or the individuality of each pupil. A more subtle pitfall that may arise from such a situation is that experts at the centre will need to protect their own position and may then be tempted constantly to advocate changes and fresh plans in order to justify their own existence. Change will become important for its own sake and not necessarily for any sound pedagogical or educational reasons . A consequence of such constant change is that it develops insecurit y and stress among teachers rather than confidence and professional security. There is also a danger that the long-term health of the profession can suffer. Teachers spoonfed and without a sense of ownership of what they teach will tend not to display any innovation or extended professionalism. Self
development and teachers' individuality will be suppressed to the detriment of the system as a whole. A further set of criticisms relate to the nature of the model that a centralised system must adopt. A pre-planned curriculum , by definition, requires the precise statement of objectives. Thus , any alternative models of curriculum development and practice , such as the process approach , which require a more spontaneous involvement for both teachers and pupils are at best restricted, or at worst impossible to contemplate. Related to this is the whole underlying philosophy of a centralised curriculum and the assumption that teachers and teaching are the key to good education. While one certainly cannot suggest that teachers are unimportant, such an emphasis tends to leave learning and the learner in a subser vient position . Awareness of such drawbacks to the centralised curriculum have therefore caused a considerable degree of shifting from the centre to the schools. This can be detected in Spain and Chile where there are moves towards municipal, rather than state control , and in many other countries where there is a rhetoric at least in support of more local and school involvement. These movements have been documented by Brady (1987) for Australia, and in the U .S.A. by Kimpston and Rogers (1988). Again the reasons put forth for school-focused, and more particularly, teacher-based curriculum development are many. Research evidence for example, suggests that the participation of teachers in the making of curriculum decisions results in 'greater job satisfaction, higher productivity, lower costs, greater commitment to, and personal integration into , an organisation' (Kimpston and Rogers, 1988). Teachers, it is frequently claimed , also bring a whole range of special skills and attributes to bear upon curriculum problems. Given that teachers are in daily contact with pupils and use curriculum materials constantly, it is argued that they have a particular ability to judge the classroom value and viability of ideas (Connelly and Ben-Peretz, 1980; Elbaz , 1981), to assess the potential of such ideas as learning stimuli (Carson , 1984) and , therefore , as a result, teacher-produced materials tend to have less start-up problems (Short , 1983). This evidence , combined with the fact that teaching materials of one 's own devising makes for greater
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN A CENTRALISED EDUCATION SYSTEM
305
commitment to the changes, is also an impor- ment Centres (CDCs ) that this has sponsored , tant consideration favouring direct teacher as being an educational extension of the involvement in curriculum development. consumer society with in-built obsolescence Such findings however are largely reported being a natural requirement of every new move ; from countries where a highly skilled , com- necessary to ensure the self perpetuation of the paratively well paid and motivated teaching CDC. In fact, in a very real sense the continued force exists. In countries still trying to develop a cycle of five year plans and constant centralised similar group of professionals the arguments curriculum development acts as a brak e rather look rather different, and these will be noted than an accelerator. No time is given for the later. Because of their close working relation- hard pressed teachers to cope with new ideas ship, it is also claimed that teachers are in the before a further wave of fresh demands is best position to observe , and be aware of, the passing over them. Thus it may be argued that individual needs of their students, the local CDCs, as conceived of in most countries, and limitations of plant and resource provision, and, the materials they produce , actually prevent in turn, the restrictions and demands that these professional development. Teachers fed with make upon curriculum provision. Even if one 'teacher-proof' materials and who have little accepts these observ ations , and it is possible to access to expensive INSET will be unable and produce counter claims, it is nevertheless a big disinclined to develop them selves further. step to extrapolate from them to statements The experti se within the CDC should, more about teachers therefore being the best people commonly, be directed towards supporting the to produce the materials that such needs and development of teachers' own ideas in their own restrictions place upon the curriculum. One just classrooms. It should be the urgent task of many cannot assume that teach ers will have the very countries to consider seriously how they might specific writing and designing skills needed , or convert CDCs into teacher support units , with the ability to use existing materials in an teachers genuinely in charge of curriculum imaginative and appropriate manner. development, not just a token consultation of a Despite these critical comments there is still a chosen few, before the new plans are drawn up. strong argument to be made for teachers being No single curriculum can ever hope to cater involved in the production of their own for the individuality of students and the local materials. As has already been noted , the actual needs of all communities. This can only be curriculum is in the hands of the teach er. In a achieved when teachers , armed with the tactics very real sense they are curriculum modifiers, if of normal curriculum adjustment (Garrett, not develop ers, even if they only modify by 1988), take on the profe ssional responsibility default rather than for any positive reason. If that is clearly theirs. they can be given a sense of ownership of what is Assuming therefore that, despite reservato be taught, then delivery at classroom level is tions , there is a strong prima facie case for more likely to be effective and enthusiastic and teachers to be given more control over all the teachers are more likely to become extended various aspects of curriculum , why is it that professionals , seeking to acquire the additional the re is not a much more vigorous move skills they may be lacking. towards such a state of affairs? I have also argued elsewhere (Garrett, 1988) Of course there is the usual inbuilt inertia of that a more gentle adju stment of the curri- education systems to be overcome . Real change culum, as near to the point of change required is always difficult to instigate, but that apart as possible, is the 'normal' course of curriculum there are some very real problems to surmount. development and is most appropriately carried As has been hinted at earlier, there are counter out by the teaching professionals thems elves. arguments levelled at those who support the Only on the relatively rare occasions when idea of teacher control. Do teachers really have fundamental changes are called for - periods the skills required to observe children in such a of curriculum 'revolution' - are the tactics of way as to be able to identify their needs and , central curriculum change required. There is even more difficult, to design and use materals often too much developm ent activity when fine to meet such needs ? The answer must surel y be , tuning is all that is called for. Indeed, one can of course, that not all teachers can possibly do see the whole edifice of centralised curriculum all of these things , but there will be a substantial development , and the Curriculum De velop- proportion who are able to do much of what
306
R. M. GARRETI Table 1. The problems and benefit s of school-based curriculum development (SBCD) Problems associated with SHCD
Benefits of SHCD
1. Abilities, skills and knowledge of teachers inadequate and incomplete to undertake the task .
1. Abilities and skills of teachers allowed to develop . Acts as a form of in-service training.
2. Attitudes of teachers towards the extra responsibilitie s and work loads could be adverse .
2. Teachers involved in, and therefore likely to be better agents of, the changes.
3. Responsibilities of central government need to be re-defined.
3. Professionalism of teachers is enhanced and extended.
4. Lack of national cohesion. Developments haphazard and inefficient.
4. Changes made at the point of delivery and therefore more effective in producing changes.
5. Systematic monitoring and evaluation of development very difficult and costly to make .
5. Small changes tend to be made that do not unduly disrupt schools and are tailored to fit funding and resources as available.
6. Localisation leads to provincialisation, trivialisation.
6. Able to respond to local and individual needs.
would be required of them. When talking of sophisticated educational systems, where all teachers have received a lengthy period of training and have good inservice support, we might be in a better position to say more exactly what the situation is, but in those systems still grappling with the quantitative problems of basic education provision, and only just starting to think about improved quality in any meaningful way, the answers are more difficult to provide . Such uncertainty then leads to a circular trap, a 'Catch-22' situation. We do not give teachers autonomy or control over the curriculum because they do not have the necessary skills to be permitted to function as full professionals. 'Teacher-proof' materials must therefore be produced to guard against the dangers of inexperience. On the other hand such skills are not going to be produced within the levels of training, both pre- and in-service, that are normally provided and , with no freedom . in their classrooms to practise , teachers are not going toacquire them through experience either. The various points of view and arguments that surround the introduction of school based curriculum development have been gathered in Table 1. How do we break this vicious circle? What is lacking is a model for breaking the cycle. The rest of this paper proposes a tactic for the
introduction of school-based curriculum development on a large scale that will enable all teachers to display, and improve upon, what professional skills they have in the area of curriculum development. This is based upon the very important assumption that many teachers, caught in tightly controlled systems, do in fact possess the potential to extend themselves professionally and that not only do we have a duty to help them realise this potential, we cannot afford not to do so. The centrally controlled system is, I would suggest, of limited initial value . Once a critical stage in the development of a country's educational provision has been passed and concern is for improved quality, then central control becomes counter productive and a maturing educational system must necessarily turn to its teaching force as a whole for its ideas and tap this rich resource if there is to be any significant improvement in quality. THE MODEL It is obviously impossible suddenly to give autonomy to each teacher, or even school, but that must be an eventual goal. If we espouse the view that our pupils learn better through active involvement in what they are expected to do , why do we not do the same for our teachers in their learning and let them participate in an
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN A CENTRALISED EDUCATION SYSTEM
active manner in their own professional development? The model suggested breaks the deadlock by giving a degree of autonomy or participation to each and every teacher, whilst still guarding against the most obvious dangers that this involves. If the centralised curriculum is maintained for say nine-tenths of the year, with all its major objectives intact and teachable, pupils will be insulated from the poor, idiosynchratic courses, materials and teaching that might come as a result of giving total control to individual teachers or schools. The crucial suggestion is that the remaining onetenth of the school year should be taken up with locally devised, written and designed materials and courses. The unit, or module, produced for this period would have to be the work of local teachers. It would be a requirement of the teachers to devise original materials and not to use the time available either for revision for examinations or for catching up on work not covered in the central core of the curriculum. There are of course problems even with this modest suggestion. Some means of guaranteeing that the time is spent for the purpose for which it is set aside and for ensuring that teachers, pupils and parents take it seriously are needed.
307
teachers to display their work. In this way good practice is communicated to all teachers and kudos given to those who produce the work. The very best materials on a national level might be gathered together into official publications or video tapes for which payment might be made to the authors. The whole exercise would enable inspectors/ advisors to identify teachers with specific attributes; those with talents for writing, designing or evaluating materials for example. As a result some of these might be selected to act as teachers/mentors or local in-service assistants. Once again the involvement and recognition of special abilities would encourage teachers to take the whole exercise seriously. GUARANTEEING PUPIL INVOLVEMENT There is a distinct possibility that pupils might regard an unexamined module of the curriculum as unimportant and therefore disregard it, or even use the time for what they might regard as more useful revision of the main core syllabus. This could be countered by having the examination of the local option carried out by the teachers (with external moderation) and a bonus system of marks being added to any final examination, university entrance, grades, etc.
GUARANTEEING TEACHER INVOLVEMENT This might be done primarily by linking the development of materials in some way to promotion. As such, an activity is in fact a form of in-service training, then having reached some pre-determined standard of curriculum development quality should qualify a teacher for enhancement on the salary scale. The materials produced, course outlines and pupils' work would have to exhibited and assessed by advisors/inspectors. The punitive side could be diminished by also using such an exercise to identify training requirements and thereby enabling scarce in-service training resources to be targeted towards specific needs. (Other teachers by the same process might be identified who could provide the training.) A further positive inducement would arise from a selection of the best materials from each area of the country to be published or disseminated in the most appropriate manner - perhaps by a small lecture tour of the
MODlFICAnON A number of modifications of this basic idea would allow it to be introduced in a range of different guises to suit local conditions. Simply to allow teachers freely to devise their own curricular modules, albeit for a short period of time, could well be a most dauntingly formidable task designed to frighten rather than encourage, particularly for those teachers who have hitherto been spoonfed a central diet. It might well be inappropriate, even for the most enthusiastic of teachers, to be asked to undertake a number of different tasks. There is research evidence to suggest that teachers have very distinct preferences for different aspects of the curriculum development cycle. Thus Young (1979) has found that some prefer the translation of a given curriculum into instruction the most enjoyable, while others prefer to develop activities for their own classroom (Lortie, 1975). One therefore has to ask what is to be
R. M. GARRETI'
308
Fig. 1. Schema for relating degrees of curriculum development to levels of curriculum activity.
~Of
Creati on
Adaptation
Selection
autonomy of developer
Level of activity
AIMS! OBJECfIVES
CONTENT
TEACHING METHODS
EVALUATION ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
developed by the teacher and at what level ? Should teachers be asked/required to engage in the full range of designing, writing and testing of materials , or just undertake the modification of existing ideas? Should all teachers have to work on their own, or is there room for collaboration? These and similar questions can of course only be adequately addressed in the context of a specific situation but it is possible to offer a structure that would help in such decision making. Skilbeck (1976) has provided a dimension that is useful. He suggests that in the shift towards school-based curriculum development the degree to which this can take place can be categorised at the levels of creation , adaptation , and selection - that is from the full blown devising of totally new activities at one end to the selection from a range of topics, issues or suggestions at the other. If we add to this a further dimension of curriculum aims. content , methods and evaluation , a useful structure emerges (See Fig. 1). It now becomes clear from such a scheme that a whole range of levels of activity and degrees of autonomy may be practised at anyone time by any individual or group . Thus, for example , a
whole school may create a new set of aims , select from existing content a serious of concepts to meet these aims and adapt the teaching methods to make the material more appropriate to the new aims and local conditions. Alternatively , an ambitious, able teacher may well create a whole new set of aims , content, methods and tailored evaluation system. Yet another individual might simply be encouraged to select from a content bank and to adapt his or her teaching methods. It might, in some situations, be more appropriate within an encouragement/reward system , to grade teachers' potential , and only after displaying certain abilitie s would the y be permitted to move from selection to adaptation to creation , although this would seem to rather counter the whole principle recommended within this paper, of giving teachers encouragement to tryout their own ideas and to give them room to tak e professional risks without too much damage being caused in the case of failure . Therefore, it is suggested that only after trial , or for those with very limited confidence, should the latter approach be adopted. Similarly, local conditions would also tend to
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN A CENTRALISED EDUCATION SYSTEM
dictate the manner in which this scheme might be put into practice. While the ultimate aim might well be for individual teachers eventually to take ownership of, and responsibility for, their own curriculum, initially groups of teachers within a school, whole schools, or even school clusters, may well usefully co-operate in some joint venture, pooling the various skills of the individual involved. Thus, at secondary level, a departmental group ofteachers (maths, science, geography) might form a working group to produce a new module. Equally, some school-wide policy decision may be taken, say the development of better communication skills across the whole range of activities, and all subject teachers could come together in a common cause. At an even broader level, a group of schools might collaborate in the use of scarce expertise, for example skill and knowledge in the teaching of primary science, or it might be that the module produced was designed to make maximum use of expensive equipment or specialist school facilities . Such a system, of course, would require considerable back-up from the advisory/inspectorate network, but as this would be acting simultaneously as an in-service activity there would, hopefully, be savings from the INSET budget. Incidentally, such a system could assist in the alleviation of yet another perennial problem in many developing countries - that of the unqualified teacher. Much time and effort is spent upon giving such teachers formal qualifications through hugely expensive inservice training. Yet there is little, if any, evidence available that indicates that such training is in fact effective, that it produces better teachers once they are formally qualified. We just do not know if the newly certificated teacher actually performs better or more effectively in the classroom. The system suggested here would eventually result in
309
teachers demonstrating their abilities and capabilities. It is therefore possible to give qualified teacher status on the basis of direct evidence. All teachers of, say, over five years continuous service and who perform well in their development module could be certificated. The consequent saving of money could be re-directed to a more 'needs led' advisory/ INSET service and the resultant professional pride generated would lead to even greater improvements.
REFERENCES Brady, L. (1987) Explaining school based satisfaction: a case study. Journal of Curriculum Studies 19 (4), 375378.
Carson, A. S. (1984) Control of the curriculum: a case for teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies 16 (1), 19-28. Connelly, F. and Ben-Peretz, M. (1980) Teachers' role in the using and doing of research and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies 12 (2), 95107.
DES (1988) The Curriculum 5-16. HMSO. Elbaz, F (1981) The teacher's practical knowledge: report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry 11 (1), 43-71. Garrett, R. M. (1988) Adaptaci6n curricular 'del fin hacia el principio' una tactica alternativa para el desarrollo curricular. Investigacion en la Escuela 5,3-10. Kimpston, R. D. and Rogers, K. B. (1988) Predispositions, participatory roles and perceptions of teachers, principals and community members in a collaborative curriculum planning process. Journal of Curriculum Studies 20 (4), 351-367. Lortie, D. (1975) School Teacher. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Short, E. C. (1983) The concept of competence: its use and disuse in education. Journal of Teacher Education XXXI (2),2-6.
Skilbeck, M. (1976) School based curriculum development and teacher education policy. In Teachers and Innovators. OECD, Paris. Skilbeck, M. (1988) The school and curriculum decisions. In Understanding School Management (edited by Glatter, R.). Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Young, J. (1979) The curriculum decision making preferences of school personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 25, 20-29.
tnt. J. Edu cational Developm ent, Vol. 10. No .4 , pp , 303-309, 1990 Printedin GreatBritain
THE INTRODUCTION OF SCHOOL-BASED CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN A CENTRALISED EDUCATION SYSTEM: A POSSIBLE TACTIC R. M. GARRETT Centre for Overseas Studies , University of Bristol, U.K. Abstract-It is suggested that, despite the problems surrounding school-based curriculum development, there is a sufficiently large pool of teachers' experience that must be used if a mature educational system is to be developed within a country . The circular argument for not giving teachers more autonomy because they do not have experience of working on their own can be broken, it is suggested , using a 10% model. Giving teachers full responsibility for 10% of their work and enabling them to work at those areas of curriculum development in which they feel most capable or have the most interest will enable them to display and develop their various talents . Such a system , it is suggested , will also play an important role in providing a more needs oriented, school based in-service education provision .
society and all parts of a country are offered exactly the same educational diet and are thus Centralised control is probably the most not disadvantaged. Should the economy of the common pattern of educational provision to be country demand a mobile work force, the found throughout the world although the education of children who may travel from one degree and nature of this control is varied and is part of the country to another will not be changing, from the recent moves towards a adversely affected as the curriculum remains a broad framework of Attainment Targets now constant factor throughout the country . being put into place in England and Wales For those nations in the process of economic (DES, 1988) to the precise prescription of development it is necessary to match carefully specific objectives and prescribed textbooks scarce resources to needs. Tight central control typical of many developing countries (for of the curriculum makes it comparatively easy example China and Zambia). to make adjustments - or wholesale changesThere are of course a number of well to the curriculum to meet economic and rehearsed reasons for control to be exercised development plans, while political control is from the centre. One of the most frequently more easily exercised and provides for easier raised is that of quality control. By laying down manipulation of overall goals of national a detailed curriculum a minimum standard is set importance of nation building. for the amount of work or area of content to be A centralised system is also economically covered during any particular period of time , more efficient. With all schools working and the inclusion of all important topics and towards the same curriculum and syllabus, their adequate treatment is ensured. Similarly, there is an economy of scale in the provision of by specifying the precise objectives to be infrastructure , equipment, books and expendiachieved it is a comparatively simple task for ture on materials, since 'standard' items can be inspectors to check that these are being met. bought and/or ordered in bulk , based on the Materials can be continually reviewed and up- assumption that all schools' needs will be the graded by experts, incorporating the latest ideas same and large economically viable runs of to emerge from subject and educational material have a guaranteed market. research, and in this way standards are Finally, there is an argument in favour of maintained and improved. centralisation that revolves around accountaIt is also argued that central control provides bility. With standard objectives and a standard for equal opportunities . Pupils from all levels of provision of equipment and materials it is INTRODUCfION
303
304
R. M. GARRETI
argued that schools and their teachers can be held more easily and justifiably accountable for the results achieved by their pupils in comparison with others , since there should not be any local differences or deficiencies that would disadvantage either pupils or teachers. While this all amounts to a very powerful set of reasons upon which to base an argument for the tight control of the curriculum , there are of course many criticisms that can be leveled at such logic in the light of actual experiences. For example, the formal curriculum, as represented by the written down aims, objectives and precise classroom activities in a teacher manual, can often bear little resemblance to the actual curriculum, or that which is daily carried on in the classroom or laboratory and which is the interaction of teachers' interpretations of the formal curriculum. It is impossible for inspectors and advisors to monitor all the activities going on in anyone school - even if such close scrutiny was desirable from an educational/ profe ssional point of view. Therefore, de facto , there are local differences in the actual curriculum, even if within the most carefully and detailed control prescriptions. There is also the danger that with no incentives, either financial or professional, to do otherwise, teachers will teach that which the curriculum calls for and no -more . Thus the tendency may then be for the minimum quantity and quality called for in the formal curriculum to become the maximum. In addition, if teachers adhere strictly to the centrally produced document there is no scope nor inducement for learning to be adapted to suit local needs, or the individuality of each pupil. A more subtle pitfall that may arise from such a situation is that experts at the centre will need to protect their own position and may then be tempted constantly to advocate changes and fresh plans in order to justify their own existence. Change will become important for its own sake and not necessarily for any sound pedagogical or educational reasons . A consequence of such constant change is that it develops insecurit y and stress among teachers rather than confidence and professional security. There is also a danger that the long-term health of the profession can suffer. Teachers spoonfed and without a sense of ownership of what they teach will tend not to display any innovation or extended professionalism. Self
development and teachers' individuality will be suppressed to the detriment of the system as a whole. A further set of criticisms relate to the nature of the model that a centralised system must adopt. A pre-planned curriculum , by definition, requires the precise statement of objectives. Thus , any alternative models of curriculum development and practice , such as the process approach , which require a more spontaneous involvement for both teachers and pupils are at best restricted, or at worst impossible to contemplate. Related to this is the whole underlying philosophy of a centralised curriculum and the assumption that teachers and teaching are the key to good education. While one certainly cannot suggest that teachers are unimportant, such an emphasis tends to leave learning and the learner in a subser vient position . Awareness of such drawbacks to the centralised curriculum have therefore caused a considerable degree of shifting from the centre to the schools. This can be detected in Spain and Chile where there are moves towards municipal, rather than state control , and in many other countries where there is a rhetoric at least in support of more local and school involvement. These movements have been documented by Brady (1987) for Australia, and in the U .S.A. by Kimpston and Rogers (1988). Again the reasons put forth for school-focused, and more particularly, teacher-based curriculum development are many. Research evidence for example, suggests that the participation of teachers in the making of curriculum decisions results in 'greater job satisfaction, higher productivity, lower costs, greater commitment to, and personal integration into , an organisation' (Kimpston and Rogers, 1988). Teachers, it is frequently claimed , also bring a whole range of special skills and attributes to bear upon curriculum problems. Given that teachers are in daily contact with pupils and use curriculum materials constantly, it is argued that they have a particular ability to judge the classroom value and viability of ideas (Connelly and Ben-Peretz, 1980; Elbaz , 1981), to assess the potential of such ideas as learning stimuli (Carson , 1984) and , therefore , as a result, teacher-produced materials tend to have less start-up problems (Short , 1983). This evidence , combined with the fact that teaching materials of one 's own devising makes for greater
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN A CENTRALISED EDUCATION SYSTEM
305
commitment to the changes, is also an impor- ment Centres (CDCs ) that this has sponsored , tant consideration favouring direct teacher as being an educational extension of the involvement in curriculum development. consumer society with in-built obsolescence Such findings however are largely reported being a natural requirement of every new move ; from countries where a highly skilled , com- necessary to ensure the self perpetuation of the paratively well paid and motivated teaching CDC. In fact, in a very real sense the continued force exists. In countries still trying to develop a cycle of five year plans and constant centralised similar group of professionals the arguments curriculum development acts as a brak e rather look rather different, and these will be noted than an accelerator. No time is given for the later. Because of their close working relation- hard pressed teachers to cope with new ideas ship, it is also claimed that teachers are in the before a further wave of fresh demands is best position to observe , and be aware of, the passing over them. Thus it may be argued that individual needs of their students, the local CDCs, as conceived of in most countries, and limitations of plant and resource provision, and, the materials they produce , actually prevent in turn, the restrictions and demands that these professional development. Teachers fed with make upon curriculum provision. Even if one 'teacher-proof' materials and who have little accepts these observ ations , and it is possible to access to expensive INSET will be unable and produce counter claims, it is nevertheless a big disinclined to develop them selves further. step to extrapolate from them to statements The experti se within the CDC should, more about teachers therefore being the best people commonly, be directed towards supporting the to produce the materials that such needs and development of teachers' own ideas in their own restrictions place upon the curriculum. One just classrooms. It should be the urgent task of many cannot assume that teach ers will have the very countries to consider seriously how they might specific writing and designing skills needed , or convert CDCs into teacher support units , with the ability to use existing materials in an teachers genuinely in charge of curriculum imaginative and appropriate manner. development, not just a token consultation of a Despite these critical comments there is still a chosen few, before the new plans are drawn up. strong argument to be made for teachers being No single curriculum can ever hope to cater involved in the production of their own for the individuality of students and the local materials. As has already been noted , the actual needs of all communities. This can only be curriculum is in the hands of the teach er. In a achieved when teachers , armed with the tactics very real sense they are curriculum modifiers, if of normal curriculum adjustment (Garrett, not develop ers, even if they only modify by 1988), take on the profe ssional responsibility default rather than for any positive reason. If that is clearly theirs. they can be given a sense of ownership of what is Assuming therefore that, despite reservato be taught, then delivery at classroom level is tions , there is a strong prima facie case for more likely to be effective and enthusiastic and teachers to be given more control over all the teachers are more likely to become extended various aspects of curriculum , why is it that professionals , seeking to acquire the additional the re is not a much more vigorous move skills they may be lacking. towards such a state of affairs? I have also argued elsewhere (Garrett, 1988) Of course there is the usual inbuilt inertia of that a more gentle adju stment of the curri- education systems to be overcome . Real change culum, as near to the point of change required is always difficult to instigate, but that apart as possible, is the 'normal' course of curriculum there are some very real problems to surmount. development and is most appropriately carried As has been hinted at earlier, there are counter out by the teaching professionals thems elves. arguments levelled at those who support the Only on the relatively rare occasions when idea of teacher control. Do teachers really have fundamental changes are called for - periods the skills required to observe children in such a of curriculum 'revolution' - are the tactics of way as to be able to identify their needs and , central curriculum change required. There is even more difficult, to design and use materals often too much developm ent activity when fine to meet such needs ? The answer must surel y be , tuning is all that is called for. Indeed, one can of course, that not all teachers can possibly do see the whole edifice of centralised curriculum all of these things , but there will be a substantial development , and the Curriculum De velop- proportion who are able to do much of what
306
R. M. GARRETI Table 1. The problems and benefit s of school-based curriculum development (SBCD) Problems associated with SHCD
Benefits of SHCD
1. Abilities, skills and knowledge of teachers inadequate and incomplete to undertake the task .
1. Abilities and skills of teachers allowed to develop . Acts as a form of in-service training.
2. Attitudes of teachers towards the extra responsibilitie s and work loads could be adverse .
2. Teachers involved in, and therefore likely to be better agents of, the changes.
3. Responsibilities of central government need to be re-defined.
3. Professionalism of teachers is enhanced and extended.
4. Lack of national cohesion. Developments haphazard and inefficient.
4. Changes made at the point of delivery and therefore more effective in producing changes.
5. Systematic monitoring and evaluation of development very difficult and costly to make .
5. Small changes tend to be made that do not unduly disrupt schools and are tailored to fit funding and resources as available.
6. Localisation leads to provincialisation, trivialisation.
6. Able to respond to local and individual needs.
would be required of them. When talking of sophisticated educational systems, where all teachers have received a lengthy period of training and have good inservice support, we might be in a better position to say more exactly what the situation is, but in those systems still grappling with the quantitative problems of basic education provision, and only just starting to think about improved quality in any meaningful way, the answers are more difficult to provide . Such uncertainty then leads to a circular trap, a 'Catch-22' situation. We do not give teachers autonomy or control over the curriculum because they do not have the necessary skills to be permitted to function as full professionals. 'Teacher-proof' materials must therefore be produced to guard against the dangers of inexperience. On the other hand such skills are not going to be produced within the levels of training, both pre- and in-service, that are normally provided and , with no freedom . in their classrooms to practise , teachers are not going toacquire them through experience either. The various points of view and arguments that surround the introduction of school based curriculum development have been gathered in Table 1. How do we break this vicious circle? What is lacking is a model for breaking the cycle. The rest of this paper proposes a tactic for the
introduction of school-based curriculum development on a large scale that will enable all teachers to display, and improve upon, what professional skills they have in the area of curriculum development. This is based upon the very important assumption that many teachers, caught in tightly controlled systems, do in fact possess the potential to extend themselves professionally and that not only do we have a duty to help them realise this potential, we cannot afford not to do so. The centrally controlled system is, I would suggest, of limited initial value . Once a critical stage in the development of a country's educational provision has been passed and concern is for improved quality, then central control becomes counter productive and a maturing educational system must necessarily turn to its teaching force as a whole for its ideas and tap this rich resource if there is to be any significant improvement in quality. THE MODEL It is obviously impossible suddenly to give autonomy to each teacher, or even school, but that must be an eventual goal. If we espouse the view that our pupils learn better through active involvement in what they are expected to do , why do we not do the same for our teachers in their learning and let them participate in an
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN A CENTRALISED EDUCATION SYSTEM
active manner in their own professional development? The model suggested breaks the deadlock by giving a degree of autonomy or participation to each and every teacher, whilst still guarding against the most obvious dangers that this involves. If the centralised curriculum is maintained for say nine-tenths of the year, with all its major objectives intact and teachable, pupils will be insulated from the poor, idiosynchratic courses, materials and teaching that might come as a result of giving total control to individual teachers or schools. The crucial suggestion is that the remaining onetenth of the school year should be taken up with locally devised, written and designed materials and courses. The unit, or module, produced for this period would have to be the work of local teachers. It would be a requirement of the teachers to devise original materials and not to use the time available either for revision for examinations or for catching up on work not covered in the central core of the curriculum. There are of course problems even with this modest suggestion. Some means of guaranteeing that the time is spent for the purpose for which it is set aside and for ensuring that teachers, pupils and parents take it seriously are needed.
307
teachers to display their work. In this way good practice is communicated to all teachers and kudos given to those who produce the work. The very best materials on a national level might be gathered together into official publications or video tapes for which payment might be made to the authors. The whole exercise would enable inspectors/ advisors to identify teachers with specific attributes; those with talents for writing, designing or evaluating materials for example. As a result some of these might be selected to act as teachers/mentors or local in-service assistants. Once again the involvement and recognition of special abilities would encourage teachers to take the whole exercise seriously. GUARANTEEING PUPIL INVOLVEMENT There is a distinct possibility that pupils might regard an unexamined module of the curriculum as unimportant and therefore disregard it, or even use the time for what they might regard as more useful revision of the main core syllabus. This could be countered by having the examination of the local option carried out by the teachers (with external moderation) and a bonus system of marks being added to any final examination, university entrance, grades, etc.
GUARANTEEING TEACHER INVOLVEMENT This might be done primarily by linking the development of materials in some way to promotion. As such, an activity is in fact a form of in-service training, then having reached some pre-determined standard of curriculum development quality should qualify a teacher for enhancement on the salary scale. The materials produced, course outlines and pupils' work would have to exhibited and assessed by advisors/inspectors. The punitive side could be diminished by also using such an exercise to identify training requirements and thereby enabling scarce in-service training resources to be targeted towards specific needs. (Other teachers by the same process might be identified who could provide the training.) A further positive inducement would arise from a selection of the best materials from each area of the country to be published or disseminated in the most appropriate manner - perhaps by a small lecture tour of the
MODlFICAnON A number of modifications of this basic idea would allow it to be introduced in a range of different guises to suit local conditions. Simply to allow teachers freely to devise their own curricular modules, albeit for a short period of time, could well be a most dauntingly formidable task designed to frighten rather than encourage, particularly for those teachers who have hitherto been spoonfed a central diet. It might well be inappropriate, even for the most enthusiastic of teachers, to be asked to undertake a number of different tasks. There is research evidence to suggest that teachers have very distinct preferences for different aspects of the curriculum development cycle. Thus Young (1979) has found that some prefer the translation of a given curriculum into instruction the most enjoyable, while others prefer to develop activities for their own classroom (Lortie, 1975). One therefore has to ask what is to be
R. M. GARRETI'
308
Fig. 1. Schema for relating degrees of curriculum development to levels of curriculum activity.
~Of
Creati on
Adaptation
Selection
autonomy of developer
Level of activity
AIMS! OBJECfIVES
CONTENT
TEACHING METHODS
EVALUATION ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
developed by the teacher and at what level ? Should teachers be asked/required to engage in the full range of designing, writing and testing of materials , or just undertake the modification of existing ideas? Should all teachers have to work on their own, or is there room for collaboration? These and similar questions can of course only be adequately addressed in the context of a specific situation but it is possible to offer a structure that would help in such decision making. Skilbeck (1976) has provided a dimension that is useful. He suggests that in the shift towards school-based curriculum development the degree to which this can take place can be categorised at the levels of creation , adaptation , and selection - that is from the full blown devising of totally new activities at one end to the selection from a range of topics, issues or suggestions at the other. If we add to this a further dimension of curriculum aims. content , methods and evaluation , a useful structure emerges (See Fig. 1). It now becomes clear from such a scheme that a whole range of levels of activity and degrees of autonomy may be practised at anyone time by any individual or group . Thus, for example , a
whole school may create a new set of aims , select from existing content a serious of concepts to meet these aims and adapt the teaching methods to make the material more appropriate to the new aims and local conditions. Alternatively , an ambitious, able teacher may well create a whole new set of aims , content, methods and tailored evaluation system. Yet another individual might simply be encouraged to select from a content bank and to adapt his or her teaching methods. It might, in some situations, be more appropriate within an encouragement/reward system , to grade teachers' potential , and only after displaying certain abilitie s would the y be permitted to move from selection to adaptation to creation , although this would seem to rather counter the whole principle recommended within this paper, of giving teachers encouragement to tryout their own ideas and to give them room to tak e professional risks without too much damage being caused in the case of failure . Therefore, it is suggested that only after trial , or for those with very limited confidence, should the latter approach be adopted. Similarly, local conditions would also tend to
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN A CENTRALISED EDUCATION SYSTEM
dictate the manner in which this scheme might be put into practice. While the ultimate aim might well be for individual teachers eventually to take ownership of, and responsibility for, their own curriculum, initially groups of teachers within a school, whole schools, or even school clusters, may well usefully co-operate in some joint venture, pooling the various skills of the individual involved. Thus, at secondary level, a departmental group ofteachers (maths, science, geography) might form a working group to produce a new module. Equally, some school-wide policy decision may be taken, say the development of better communication skills across the whole range of activities, and all subject teachers could come together in a common cause. At an even broader level, a group of schools might collaborate in the use of scarce expertise, for example skill and knowledge in the teaching of primary science, or it might be that the module produced was designed to make maximum use of expensive equipment or specialist school facilities . Such a system, of course, would require considerable back-up from the advisory/inspectorate network, but as this would be acting simultaneously as an in-service activity there would, hopefully, be savings from the INSET budget. Incidentally, such a system could assist in the alleviation of yet another perennial problem in many developing countries - that of the unqualified teacher. Much time and effort is spent upon giving such teachers formal qualifications through hugely expensive inservice training. Yet there is little, if any, evidence available that indicates that such training is in fact effective, that it produces better teachers once they are formally qualified. We just do not know if the newly certificated teacher actually performs better or more effectively in the classroom. The system suggested here would eventually result in
309
teachers demonstrating their abilities and capabilities. It is therefore possible to give qualified teacher status on the basis of direct evidence. All teachers of, say, over five years continuous service and who perform well in their development module could be certificated. The consequent saving of money could be re-directed to a more 'needs led' advisory/ INSET service and the resultant professional pride generated would lead to even greater improvements.
REFERENCES Brady, L. (1987) Explaining school based satisfaction: a case study. Journal of Curriculum Studies 19 (4), 375378.
Carson, A. S. (1984) Control of the curriculum: a case for teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies 16 (1), 19-28. Connelly, F. and Ben-Peretz, M. (1980) Teachers' role in the using and doing of research and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies 12 (2), 95107.
DES (1988) The Curriculum 5-16. HMSO. Elbaz, F (1981) The teacher's practical knowledge: report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry 11 (1), 43-71. Garrett, R. M. (1988) Adaptaci6n curricular 'del fin hacia el principio' una tactica alternativa para el desarrollo curricular. Investigacion en la Escuela 5,3-10. Kimpston, R. D. and Rogers, K. B. (1988) Predispositions, participatory roles and perceptions of teachers, principals and community members in a collaborative curriculum planning process. Journal of Curriculum Studies 20 (4), 351-367. Lortie, D. (1975) School Teacher. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Short, E. C. (1983) The concept of competence: its use and disuse in education. Journal of Teacher Education XXXI (2),2-6.
Skilbeck, M. (1976) School based curriculum development and teacher education policy. In Teachers and Innovators. OECD, Paris. Skilbeck, M. (1988) The school and curriculum decisions. In Understanding School Management (edited by Glatter, R.). Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Young, J. (1979) The curriculum decision making preferences of school personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 25, 20-29.