national and school-based curriculum development

Fundamentals of EducationalbaETN 40

National and school-basedcurriculum development

UNESCO:International Institute forEducational Planning

Fundamentals of educational planning - 40

Included in the series:*

2.

4

5

6.

7

8.

9

10.

11.

12,

13.

18.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

The relation ofeducational plans to economic and social planningR.PoignantPlanning and the educational administratorCE. BeebyThe social context ofeducational planningC.A. AndersonThe costingofofeducational plansJ. Vaizey, J.D. ChesswasThe problems ofrural educationV.L. GriffithsEducationalplanning; the adviser's roleA. CurleDemographic aspects ofeducational planningTa Ngoc C.The analysis ofeducational costs and expenditureJ. HallakTheThe professional identity ofthe educational planner

Tie conditionsfor success in educational planningG.C. RuscoeCost-benefit analysis in educational planningM. WoodhallPlanning educationalassistancefor the second development decadeH.M.PhilipsRealistic educational planningK.R. McKinnonPlanning education in relation to rural developmentG.M.CoverdaleAlternatives and decisions in educational planningJ.D. MontgomeryPlanning the school curriculumA. LewyCostfactors in planning educational technological systemsD.T. JamisonThe planning and lifelong educationP. FurterEducation and employment: a critical appraisalM. CamoyPlanning teacher demand and supplyP. WilliamsPlanning early childhood care and education in developing countriesA. HeronCommunication media in educationfor low-income countriesE.G. McAnany,J.K. MayoThe planning ofnonformal educationD.R. EvansEducation, training and the traditional sectorJ. Hallak, F. CaillodsHigher education and employment: the ITEP experience infive less-developed countriesG. Psacha: os, B.C. SanyalEducational planning as a social processT. MalanHi hereducation and social stratification: an international comparative study

. HuA conceptualframeworkfor the development oflifelong education in the USSRA. VladislavlevEducation in austerity: optionsfor plannersK. LewinEducational planning in AsiaR. Roy-Sin;Education projects: elaboration,financing and managementA. MagnenIncreasing teachereffectivenessL.W.Anderson

* Also published in French. Othertitles to appear.

National and school-based

development

Arieh Lewy

Paris 1991UNESCO:International Institute for Educational Planning

The Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) has providedfinancial assistance for the publication of this booklet.

Published in 1991 by the United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization7 place de Fontenoy, 75700,ParisPrinted in France by Imprimerie Gauthier-Villars, 75018 Paris

Cover design by Bruno PfaffliISBN 92-803-1141-7© UNESCO 1991

Foreword

The booklets in this series are written primarily for two types ofclientéle: those engaged in educational planning andadministration, in developing as well as developed countries; andothers, less specialised, such as senior governmentofficials andpolicy-makers who seek a more general understanding ofeducational planning and of how it is related to overall nationaldevelopment. They are intended to be of use either for privatestudy orin formal training programmes.

Since this series was launched in 1967 practices and conceptsof educational planning have undergone substantial change. Manyof the assumptions which underlay earlier attempts to rationalisethe process of educational development have been criticised orabandoned. If rigid mandatory centralised planning has nowclearly proven to be inappropriate however, all forms of planninghave not been banished. On the contrary the need for collectingdata, evaluating the efficiency of existing programmes,undertaking a wide range of studies, exploring the future andfostering broad debate on these bases to guide educational policy-and decision-making has become even more acute than before.

The scope of educational planning has been broadened. Inaddition to the formal system of education, it is now applied to allother important educational efforts in non-formal settings.Attention to the growth and expansion of educational systemsisbeing complemented and sometimes even replaced by a growingconcer for the quality of the entire educational process and forthe controlof its results. Finally, planners and administrators havebecome more and more aware of the importance ofimplementation strategies and of the role of different regulatorymechanismsin this respect: the choice of financing methods, theexamination and certification procedures or various other

5

Foreword

regulation and incentive structures. The concern of planners istwofold : to reach a better understanding of the validity ofeducation in its own empirically observed specific dimensions andto help in defining appropriate strategies for change.

The purposes of these booklets include monitoring theevolution and change in educational policies and their effect uponeducational planning requirements; highlighting current issues ofeducational planning and analysing them in the context of theirhistorical and societal setting; and disseminating methodologiesof planning which can be applied in the context of both thedeveloped and the developing countries.

In orderto help the Institute identify the real up-to-date issuesin educational planning and policy-making in different parts of theworld, an Editorial Board has been appointed composed of twogeneral editors and five associate editors from different regions,all professionals of high repute in their field. At the first meetingof this new Editorial Board in January 1990, its membersidentified key topics to be covered in the coming issues, underthefollowing headings:

Education and development.Equity.Quality of education.Structure, administration and managementof education.Curriculum,Cost and financing of education.Planning techniques and approaches.Information systems, monitoring and evaluation.S

AADAPYWND

Oneor two associate editors correspond to each heading.Theseries has been carefully planned but no attempt has been

made to avoid differences or even contradictions in the viewsexpressed by the authors. The Institute itself does not wish toimpose any official doctrine. Thus, while the views are theresponsibility of the authors and may not always be shared byUNESCOorthe IJEP, they warrant attention in the internationalforum of ideas. Indeed, one of the purposesofthis series is toreflect a diversity of experience and opinions by giving different

Foreword

authors from a wide range of backgrounds and disciplines theopportunity to express their views on changing theories andpractices in educational planning.

A very important issue in educational planning andadministration nowadays is that of decentralisation and of howmuch autonomy should be left to regions, communities andinstitutions. The debate is particularly vivid in the area ofcurriculum development. What is likely to contribute most to thequality and the relevance of education? A curriculum developedby high level experts at the central level, with the risk of not beingimplemented, or a curriculum developed at the regional- orschool-levels. In order to review current knowledge on thissubject, the Editorial Board requested Professor Arieh Lewyof theTel-Aviv University, Israel, to prepare this booklet on "Nationaland School-Based Curriculum Development". While doing so,Professor Lewy presents a numberof very interesting experiencesin developed and developing countries. As the authorpoints out,it is clearly not a simple question of either one or the other, butrather a matter of finding the right balance between whatis to bedefined centrally and what is to be defined locally.

The Institute would like to thank Professor T. NevillePostlethwaite, co-general editor and special editor ofthis issue, forthe active role he played in its preparation.

Jacques HallakDirector, IEP

Composition ofthe Editorial Board

Chairman:

General Editors:

Associate Editors:

Jacques HallakDirector, HEP

Francoise CaillodsHEP

T. Neville PostlethwaiteUniversity of HamburgGermany

Arfah A. AzizLanguageInstituteMalaysia

Aletta GrisayUniversity of Li¢geBelgium

Claudio de Moura Castro

International Labour Office

Switzerland

Kenneth N. Ross

Deakin UniversityAustralia

Douglas M. WindhamState University ofNewYork at Albany, USA

Preface

Whatchildren are expected to learn in school has a majoraffect onwhat they do learn. But, who decides what the curriculum shouldbe for all of the children in a school system? Can it be that inlarge countries where there are different cultures and differenttypes of labour markets in different parts of the country thereshould be one national curriculum or should it be different fordifferent provinces, regions, or districts? Or, how different shouldit be?

The planning of what will be taught, the way in which theteaching-learning materials will be produced, the trailing of suchmaterials and their subsequent revision, the implementation of thecurriculum involving teacher education and the distribution ofmaterials and, sometimes, accompanying teacher guides is alengthy task involving manyskills.

But, each school is based in a small community. And often,each community can haveslightly different needs from other, evenneighbouring communities. Should it, therefore, be an individualschool which determines its own curriculum?

In short, is it ‘better’ to have nationally-determined curriculaor school-based curricula? As can be imagined, much depends onthe meaning of the terms National Curriculum and School-BasedCurriculum and, in the end, both havetheir place.

National and school-based curriculum development

Professor Arieh Lewy, a person who has worked incurriculum development and evaluation in many industrialised anddeveloping countries, has taken up these issues in detail in thisbooklet in the ‘Fundamentals of Educational Planning Series.’ Hehas, furthermore, suggested how the ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’modes can be fused.

Apart from providing and maintaining school buildings andequipment and making sure that children attend school,educational planners must ensure a curriculum appropriate tosocietal as well as individual needs and the training of the teachersto implement it. This booklet will be of direct interest to allplanners concerned with improving the quality of education andthose dealing with the determination and implementation ofcurricula in particular.

T. Neville PostlethwaiteCo-general Editor

10

Contents

Foreword

Preface

Introduction

I. National and school-based curriculumdevelopment: a historical perspective

II. The meaningof ‘school-based curriculumdevelopment’

Ill. Types of school-based curriculum developmentactivities

IV. Groupsaffecting school-based curriculumdevelopment

V. Evaluating school-based curriculumdevelopment projects

VI. Arguments for and against school-basedcurriculum development

VII. National framework and school-baseddevelopment

Bibliography

13

17

26

36

61

83

98

113

117

11

Introduction

Traditionally, curriculum was conceived ofas the totality of skillsand topics to be taught in schools. Quite frequently, the curriculumwas determined by age-old traditions, and remained unchanged forlong periods of time. Consequently, no need wasfelt to produce aformal curriculum document, and in the cases in which such adocument was produced, it contained a concise list of skills andtopics. These were occasionally accompanied by some explanationabout their importance, the sequenceoftheir teaching and the timeto be allocated to their teaching. Documents ofthis type have beenusually referred to as syllabuses. Since syllabuses were quitestable over several years, and were only altered after long periodsof time, educational systems did not need to employ curriculumofficials on a permanent basis. The revision of school syllabuseswas usually carried out by ad hoc committees.

The New Curriculum Movement of the late 1950s broughtabout changes in the conceptual definition of curriculum, thespecification of physical objects through which it was embodiedand the way it became produced. Adopting the idea of the‘Structure of Discipline’, it employed academic anddiscipline-oriented criteria for determining what should be taughtin schools. The scope of objects considered to constitute thephysical embodiment of the curriculum became broadened tocontain, in addition to the syllabus, textbooks, workbooks,teachers’ guides, demonstration instruments, tests, and so on. Tocope with the complex task of preparing a broad variety ofcurriculum objects, to control their quality, to adapt them to thechanging conditions of the environmentand the state-of-the-art ofdisciplines taught in schools, large-scale curriculum development

13


institutions were established across the world by centraleducational authorities and/or other, publicly supportedfoundations.

These institutions had hardly succeeded in producingthefirstset of curricula for all grade levels and subjects taught in schools,when arguments were brought up against such a ‘top-down’curriculum development approach, claiming that schools andteachers should play an active role in developing their owncurricula (Connelly 1972). In the 1980s a_ strong

counter-movement opposing the views of the New CurriculumMovement emerged. It became known as the School-BasedCurriculum Development (SBCD) movement (Skilbeck 1984).

The operational implications of this movement were notstatedwith a sufficient level of clarity, and it created some confusionamong educational planners. Several questions were raised whichhave not been seriously considered, let alone satisfactorilyanswered:

¢ Do the ideas of the SBCD movementimplythat nationalor centrally operating curriculum development centersshould be dismantled?

* Should the scope of their work be reduced drastically?¢ Alternatively, should the SBCD supplement centrally

developed curricula, while national curriculumdevelopmentcenters continue to fulfil the leading role insupplying curricula for the educational system and inassuming responsibility for promoting supplementarySBCDactivities?

The uncertainty about the implications of the SBCD movementhas been felt more strongly in emerging educational systems ofdeveloping countries, and mainly in those that have not yetestablished national curriculum development centers and in whicha newly established center has not yet completed the work ofproducing curricula for all grade levels and school subjects.

Should such educational systems establish a curriculumcenter, or encourage existing curriculum centers to complete thework of producing a national curriculum,or in the face of theideas of the newly emerging counter-movement, should they

14

Introduction

delegate the work of curriculum development into the hands ofcommunities, schools and teachers?

This booklet examines issues and problemsrelated to thesedilemmas, and summarizes experience accumulated in the last twodecades, both in developing and developed countries. It alsoexamines the roles various curriculum developing agencies cansuccessfully carry out and whether there is an adequate relationbetween these two types of curriculum developing bodies. It ishoped that such information maybe of use to educational plannersin initiating and monitoring curriculum developing activities.

The first chapter of the booklet provides a historical overviewof central and local or school-based curriculum developmentpractices in various countries across the world, and traces changessince the emergence of the New Curriculum Movementofthe late1950s in the conceptions about the role of these two types ofcurriculum developmentactivities. The second chapter addressesissues related to defining basic terms used in the context ofcurriculum development and discusses the implications ofadopting one or anotherdefinition.

Chapter 3 describes varieties of SBCD activities, anddemonstrates that the scope of SBCD may vary from minoradaptation at the school level of externally produced curriculummaterials, through producing supplementary curriculum units oflocal interest, to producing alternative and innovative courses forbeing included in the school programme. Chapter 4 examines therole of various local groups in curriculum developmentactivities,such as the local authorities, the community, local culturalinstitutions, voluntary organizations, the local business andindustry establishments, the school community, the parents andthe local higher education and teachertraining institutions. It alsoexamines the conditions which are conducive to increasing thesuccess of collaborative enterprises among schools, and betweenschools and research or developmentinstitutions. Chapter 5 dealswith the evaluation of SBCD programmes and distinguishesbetween examining the quality of a particular set of curriculummaterials, evaluating the school’s success in taking advantage ofavailable local resources for intensifying SBCD activities, and thecontribution of SBCDactivities in a whole educational system for

15


improving the quality of education and for raising the level ofeducational outcomes. Chapter 6 summarizes the advantages anddisadvantages of SBCDactivities.

Finally, the last chapter of the booklet points out thecomplementary nature of national, and school-based curriculumdevelopmentand advises educational planners how to get the mostout of curriculum developmentactivities of both types.

16

I. National and school-based curriculumdevelopment: a historical perspective

Since the 1950s large-scale curriculum reforms have beenintroduced in most educational systems across the world. The firstand most notable among them was the curriculum reform of the1950s in the United States of America. Other educational systemsfollowed suit later and initiated educational reformsof a similartype. In the USA the reformsfed on severe criticism of what wastaught in schools. Leading science experts in Americanuniversities asserted that the ‘soft pedagogy’ of Americaneducation, by emphasizing the idea of life adjustment andsupporting the inclusion in the school programme ofnon-academic activities, such as social dancing and peer-grouprelations, reduced the motivation of youngsters to take advancedcourses in science and to strive for excellence in scholarlyachievement. In other countries, which had not experimented with‘soft pedagogies’ dissatisfaction was also expressed about thescience curricula whose content had been watered down andwhich lacked academic rigour. Consequently, it was asserted thatsuch courses failed to prepare secondary school students forchallenging science coursesat the universities.

Suchcriticism reached larger audiences, and those who wereconcemed with the advancementof science and technology arguedfor an overall revision of science and mathematics curricula inboth the primary and the secondary school. Scientists of renown,first in the USA, and a few years later in other industrializedcountries, took the lead in developing new curricula. In contrast toprevious curricula, which either imparted functional knowledge

17


such as carrying out everyday mathematical operations orbalancing a cheque book orcontaining a heavy load of factualinformation, the new curricula aimed at providing an up-to-dateand scientifically valid picture of a particular discipline. Theyemphasized the key concepts and broad ideas underlying thestructure of the discipline and focused on teaching inquirymethods which aimed at the generation of new knowledgeas wellas the acquisition of existing knowledge. Laboratory activitiesserved as a means of discovery rather than of verification, and inthis way added to the excitement of the scientist’s work. Theactivities involved in producing innovative curricula of this typebecame referred to in the curriculum literature as the NewCurriculum Movement.

Some basic ideas of this movement were shared bycurriculum developers in the USA and the United Kingdom, butdue to historical differences between these two countries in theapproach towards producing curricula they developed differentdefinitions of the curriculum user. In the USA the curriculumdevelopers provided textbooks for leamers, while in the UnitedKingdom they produced teachers guides instructing teachers whatand how to teach their classes.

The development of such innovative programmes gainedmassive financial support in the USA from the National ScienceFoundation, and in the United Kingdom the Nuffield Foundationprovided financial backing. Some developing countries alsorevealed interest in the ideas of the New Curriculum Movementand hurried either to adapt foreign programmesforlocal use or toestablish National Curriculum Centers that developed newprogrammes adopting the operational pattems of curriculumdevelopment teams in industrialized countries. Large-scalecurriculum development projects were initiated in variouscountries in the 1960s and the 1970s, although by then the generalenthusiasm for such programmeswas abating.

Beyond the innovative pedagogical ideas described above,these programmes were characterized by common developmentand dissemination procedures. The programmes were prepared byprofessional teams, mostly led by subject specialists of highreputation. As indicated above, the recipients of the new

18

A historical perspective

programmes in the USA were the students, and in the UnitedKingdom the teachers. In both countries the development teamswere engaged in intensive work for long periods (usually one tothree years) before the first sets of instructional material werereleased for use. Before release each componentof the programmewas tried out in schools, meticulously evaluated, and revised onthe basis of the evaluation results. Dissemination of theprogrammewas in a ‘top down’ manner. The development teamsundertook extensive in-service training of teachers to prepare themfor using the new programmes adequately. Teachers wererequired to fulfil the role of mediators between the new set ofinstructional material and the pupils; their task was to carry outactivities specified in teachers guides or in textbooks.

In many cases the ‘center-periphery’ approach todissemination was employed: the producers of the innovativeprogrammes, who usually themselves were or represented theowners, established regional offices equipped with centrallyprovided guidelines and directives to help teachers overcomedifficulties encountered in operating the programme. It is ofinterest to note that these large-scale curriculum projectsoriginated in countries where centralized school systems did notprevail. In the USA and the United Kingdom, at the projectsinitiation, the curriculum was considered to be the prerogative ofthe school, and schools were keen to avoid external intervention inmatters which they considered to pertain to the domain of theirautonomy.

As it tumed out, the innovative programmes were judgedsuperior to their predecessors. Critics thought them interesting,even exciting, and the lessons focused on significant aspects of thediscipline. Empirical studies have shown that the programmeassignmentfor students, if well presented, has high appeal for theusers. Teachers received well assembled kits of accessories,obviating the need to search for their own auxiliary coursematerial. Full use was made of colour and artwork in books andother materials. High-tech enrichment materials were alsoproduced, importing communication techniques from theadvertising and leisure industries and presenting an exciting newworld.

19


In spite of this, these new curricula reached a surprisinglysmall proportion of schools. As reported by Harlen (1985),attempts to introduce active inquiry based science into primaryschools yielded disappointing results. She indicated that in theUnited Kingdom in the middle of the 1970s half of the primaryclasses had no science in the curriculum, and only about 10 percent of the schools had developed science programmesseriously.Similarly and at the same time, in the USA about 85 per cent ofschools did not use the materials of the major curriculum projects.

Leading curriculum experts tried to explain why costlyprogrammes developed by the nation’s experts with muchfinancial support and with books and instructional materials ofhigh quality, failed to gain a foothold in the schools. Someclaimed that the new programmes required teachers to assumenewroles in the class, and that the teachers were not well preparedfor them. The new programmes encouraged the asking ofquestions which could be answered only by joint inquiry ofteachers and pupils; the teacher was no longer the source ofknowledge, while pupils frequently would be in possession ofrelevant knowledge that the teacher did not have. Others claimedthat some teachers may have had a weak backgroundin scienceand consequently lacked the confidence to handle science at suchan advanced level; that they moreover lacked a commitment toscience instruction as an indispensable component of primaryeducation, and for such reasons avoided the use of theseinnovative programmes. Indeed even in secondary schoolsintensive science study based on active learning, problem solving,and inquiry was required only for those who opted to specialize inscience. Others were allowed to content themselves with takingan introductory course imparting knowledgeofa factual type.

These explanations imply an optimistic view of centralizedcurricula disseminated through a center-periphery mechanism.They imply that optimal use of the programmes may be achievedby better preparation of teachers through pre-service or in-servicecourses and by convincing the educational authorities, parents,school boards and curriculum committee members of the value ofthese programmes.

20


In the 1980s, however, the failure of large-scale centralcurricula was identified by somecritics as the result of theinherent characteristics of curriculum centralism, rather than beingcaused by shortcomings in implementation. They claimed thatexperts operating at development centers far from the users oftheir products were not in a position to transmit the subtleinnovative features of new programmes to teachers with whomthey had no personal contact, nor were they able to motivateteachers to change their teaching habits to the extent needed toensure the success of the new curricula. In this view, onlygrassroots initiatives had a chance of succeeding, and accordinglyteachers were invited to participate actively in developing theirown curricula.

Another consideration of the proponents of this view was thatthe professional status of the teachers would be enhanced if,

instead of serving as obedient implementers of externally imposedcurricula, they were empowered to make decisions about what toteach and given the challenge of participating in the creativeprocess of producing newinstructional materials. Furthermore, theidea of self-determination and the importance of local autonomy,suited the democratic ethos better than the traditional demand ofcompliance with externally imposed regulations.

The widespread perception of the inherent weaknesses ofcentral curricula led in the 1970s and 1980s to the rise of a countermovement which became known as School-Based CurriculumDevelopment (SBCD). This emerging curriculum movementrejected the operational principles and partly also the ideals of theNew Curriculum Movement, which in the 1950s and 1960s hadhoped to institute worldwide reform in schools. The School-BasedCurriculum Development differed from its rival, the NewCurriculum Movement, on the questions of where curricula shouldbe developed (at central offices or at the school level) and whoshould be involved in making decisions (national experts or school

related persons); it was also opposedto the rigid division betweensubject areas, favouring instead an interdisciplinary approach fortopics which required it, and linking curriculum to the learner’simmediate environment and personal experience. The nameSchool-Based Curriculum Development conveyed principally that

21


the shortcomings of the New Curriculum Movement were to beremedied by having curriculum-related decisions made at schoollevel.

In emerging educational systems of the Third World prioritywas given to establishing a national curriculum that was expectedto strengthen national identity, contribute to modemization of theeducational system and hasten provision of, at least, primaryeducation for all. The idea of national unity gained greateremphasis than that of respect for divergent values and interestswithin the nation. Educational planners believed that nationalgoals were best achieved through central planning, and thereforedid not press for greater autonomy on the schools’ behalf, onmatters of curriculum. The majority of initiatives in this area isconsequently based on voluntary co-operation among groups ofschools.

Nevertheless, in the 1980s, first those developing countrieswhich had already succeeded in producing a national curriculum,and later also those which failed to accomplish this task, becameaware of the desirability of encouraging curriculum-relatedinitiatives at regional, local and school levels, in part tosupplementthe national curriculum andin part to substitute someof its elements.

These two patterns of curriculum development, thecentralized and the school-based approaches, are not innovationsof the second half of the 20th century. Both of them have existedfor a long time. The central curriculum development has a longhistory in France and Germany. In France the study plans of theAncient Régime were replaced by new programmes of studiesbetween 1821 and 1840. These programmesspecified the range oftopics for which candidates could be examined nationally. Everyschool in France was provided with an identical programme andtimetable. The programme each year was the continuation of theprevious year’s work, the pupil being introduced to ever morecomplex ideas. To move up from oneclass to the next, pupils hadto show mastery of the previous year’s programme. Such arestrictive course of schoolwork left little latitude to teachers andhardly took account of the personality of either the class orindividual pupils.

22


Germanyalso has tradition of centralized curricula. Prussiastarted to issue detailed study plans for its schools in the 18thcentury, a process completed at the beginning of the 19th century.This was described as the first formal curriculum ‘in the modemsense’ of an educational system. It comprised the specification ofcompulsory subjects accompanied by their respective number ofhours (timetable), stipulations on the aims, content and method ofteaching and compulsory reading assignments. To some extentthe Prussian curriculum also stipulated the requirements forpromotion from class-to-class and for obtaining certificates(Menck 1989).

In contrast to these two instances of highly centralizedcurricula, in the USA and the United Kingdom full authority forcurriculum decisions was delegated to the local authorities andthey empowered schools to exercise autonomy in matters ofcurriculum. At the beginning of the century, in the USA, morethan 100,000 independent school districts operated, each of themhaving full power to make curricular decisions. The number ofschool districts was then substantially reduced and toward the endof the 1980s there were only approximately 16,000 school districtsin the whole country. Even so, the American educational systemhad 16,000 different school curricula.

England and Wales, making up the largest educational systemin the United Kingdom, have an old tradition of decentralized,school-based curriculum. During the long history of these politicalunits the central authorities have intervened very little in curricularmatters of the curriculum. Some curricular specifications forprimary schools issued in 1862 were abolished in 1926, and thoseissued for secondary schools in 1902 were abolished in 1944.After the passing of the 1944 Educational Act there was nonational specification of the curriculum in England and Walesapart from the obligation for all schools to provide religiouseducation. For the entire period from 1944 to 1988, when thegovemment’s proposal for a National Curriculum for England andWales, incorporated in the Education Reform Act, received royalassent, school-based curriculum developmentwas therule.

Examining the two hundred year long history of theseconflicting patterns of curriculum development we note that no

23


single pattem was fully dominant in any of the above-mentionedcountries. As Goldhammer (1985) remarked: "in spite of itshighly centralised govemance over primary and secondary schoolsFrance has a long tradition of local involvement (in schoolmatters)". [p.2060]

At the same time one should be aware that the school’sfreedom in curricular matters has its limits. Dealing with theeducational system in England and Wales, Skilbeck (1984) notes:

"The freedom of the school also entails the exercise oftheir prerogatives and responsibilities, by the severallegitimate interests over and above the teachers (e.g.parents, students, community groups, local and centralgovernment)”. [Skilbeck p.86]

There are also other constraints, such as external examinations,job requirements, and legal considerations, for example, theobligation in the 1944 Act to provide religious education.

The above examples support the view that, in practice,schools cannot and do not rigidly follow programmesprescribedby external or central authorities, but that, at the same time, theschool cannot disregard externally imposed constraints in decidingwhatto teach.

Implications

1. The history of curriculum changes in any particulareducational system has implications for educational planning, andtherefore it should be thoroughly studied by curriculumdevelopers.2. Even in a country with a relatively short history ofmaintaining a modem educational system,it is highly importantto be aware of the changes which occurred in the schoolprogramme,ofthe roots of the present day curriculum, and of theconsequencesofthe national educational heritage.3. It is equally important to study trends in school programmesacross the world.4. Curricular decisions have to be made, and are made, both atnational and local level. At no one of these twolevels alone can allparameters of the school programmebe determined.

24


5. The distribution of decision-making power between thenational and local level authorities changes over time. Inimplementing such changes, attention should be paid to thetraditions of educational planning in the country, and in mostcases it is desirable that such changes be incremental rather thanradical.6. In emergent educational systems, priority should be given toproducing a national curriculum framework. Local levelcurriculum decisions should deal with supplementing the nationalframework and adaptingit to local conditions.

25

II. The meaningof ‘school-based curriculumdevelopment’

Conflicting views about the advantages and disadvantages ofcentralistic and school-based curriculum development practicehave been intensified by differences in defining the componentelements of the complex term ‘school-based curriculumdevelopment’. Therefore, before dealing with the substantialissues of curriculum development, an attempt will be made toprovide a working definition of the terms used.

Curriculum

As noticed by several writers, the term curriculum is elusiveand epistemologically ill-defined. There is little agreement onwhere curriculum matters end and the rest of education begins.Not surprisingly, there are many definitions of curriculum. Rule(1973) identified 119 definitions of the term, and there have beenseveral additions tothis list since then.

The ambiguity of the term is intensified by the fact that inmost European languages there is no equivalent to the English‘curriculum’. In French there is the term ‘programmescolaire’, inGerman ‘Lehrplan’, and in Russian ‘soderzhanie obrazovaniya’.These terms tend to correspond to the English ‘syllabus’. ARussian scholar questioning the meaning of the term curriculumsaid that he was unable to see exactly what English-speakingscholars understood by the word, and he urged them to define it asthe theory of programmes of instruction (Muckle 1988). Thisnarrow definition is adopted by several American experts too.Good (1973, 3rd edition), for example, defines curriculum as "ageneral overall plan of the content, or specific materials ofinstruction that the school should offer the student by way of

26

The meaning ofschool-based curriculum development

qualifying him for graduationorcertification or for entrance into aprofessional or vocational field" (p.157). Taba’s (1962) definitionof curriculum is "a plan for leaning" (p.9). This is broader thanGood’s definition: "plan for leaming" means more than ‘a plan ofcontent’ inasmuch as it must comprise instructional materials, aswell as the outline of the content units. Indeed, in the 1960scurriculum experts produced curriculum packages containing -- inaddition to the traditional textbook, worksheets and teachers guide-- demonstration charts, study enrichment materials, equipmentand materials for carrying out experiments and audiovisualteaching aids (such as film clips and video cassettes, which laterwere substituted by video-discs) supplemented by interactivecomputer programmes. Nevertheless, both of these definitionsrefer to physical objects such as documents, books andinstructional material, and thus foster an undesirable dualism. Asindicated by Portelli (1987), the emphasis on what should betaught tends to neglect the leamer. From the 1930s onwardsthecurriculum has often been defined in terms of experience in orderto eliminate this dualism. The Tyler-rationale regards ‘learningexperiences’ as a crucial element of the curriculum (Tyler 1950).Macdonald (1986; p. 207) stresses ‘learning experiences’ sayingthat curriculum is not the course to be run, but the course that wasrun. The tendency to define curriculum as an experience, and notmerely as a plan, arose not only to avoid the undesirable dualismbetween a written document and what is going on in the school,but also in response to the growing feeling that most of theproducts of the curriculum developmentefforts of the 1960s and1970s were not put into practice. The distinction between plan andexperience wasanalytically studied by Goodlad and Klein (1979).Their study allowed to define the following curriculum phases:1. Intended curriculum,or curriculum plan and outline, usuallyreferred to as syllabus.2. Instructional materials to be used by teachers and learners inrealizing this plan.3. Teaching leaming activities initiated and carried out in theclass. These activities are not necessarily identical with thosespecified in the materials provided. Some activities may be

27


omitted from the actual programme, substituted by new ones orthey may be modified.4. The learners’ personal experiences, which again may berelated only to a subset of activities carried out in the class. Alearner may be inattentive during a particular activity in the class,or may not grasp, or may misinterpret, a particular event in theclass.5. The outcomeof using the curriculum,or the level of masteryof curricular objectives attained by learners.

When considering the debate between central andschool-based curriculum developmentit is of interest to note thatthe phases described above also represent a continuum ofdiminishing levels of universality. A syllabus or a curricular planmay be common to a large group of schools or even to a wholeeducational system. Several different series of textbooks may beproduced on the basis of a single syllabus. Indeed, in mostcentraled educational systems, where a common syllabus ofStudies is prescribed for schools of a particular type, theeducational authorities encourage the use, or even support theproduction, of several sets of competing instructional materials,provided each of them follows the syllabus.

Whatis described above as the third phase of the curriculumis, by definition, school-based, since it is unique for each teacheror class. The last two phases are unique to each individual. Inother words, focusing on the fourth and fifth phases of curriculum,as defined by Goodlad and Klein (1970), two persons attendingthe same class may well seem to have encountered two differentcurricula.

Development

It is easier to define ‘development’ than ‘curriculum’.Developmentis usually not used as a technical term, although inseveral areas, such as geometry, mathematics, photography andmusic, it has a particular technical denotation. Among thedefinitions appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary, "a fullerdisclosure or working out of the details of anything, as a plan, ascheme,a plot of a novel" comesclosest to the meaning suggested

28


to the expression ‘curriculum development’. According to thisdefinition the preparation of the plan would not constitute a part ofdevelopment, but only the elaboration of the plan or putting it intopractice. In ordinary usage, however, development may refer topreparing a plan as well as workingoutits details.

Thus, curriculum development may refer to preparing aplan of operation for putting into use an existing syllabus,including the selection of textbooks and instructional materials, orit may mean producing a syllabus and the accessories needed forusing it in the class. In particular, it may mean the writing oftextbooks, teachers guides and the preparation of teaching aids,and in some cases also the evaluation instruments for examiningthe attainment of the programme goals. Moreover, all activitiesrelated to establishing the validity or the adequacy of both planand accessories may legitimately be described as curriculumdevelopment activities. Thus, curriculum development activitiesmay begin with the preparation of a syllabus, but quite often theystart at a phase whenthe syllabusis already available.

Braybrooke and Lindblom (1963) distinguished betweentwo types of curriculum developmentactions. Thefirst strives todevelop a comprehensively reformed curriculum, in which allelements of the programmeare developed anew withoutrelying onelements of the available programme. The second worksaccording to the ‘disjointed incremental’ pattern, changing onlysmall, selected elements of the existing programme.

Reference to two types of curriculum developmentis alsomade by Connelly (1972). He distinguishes between ‘local-userdevelopment’ and ‘external development’. The first refers todevelopmentactivities carried out by the users of the curriculumand the second to the developmentof the curriculum componentsby others. Elaborating on this distinction Connelly argues that, intheory, a curriculum can be fully developed either by the users orby external developers, although such cases rarely occur inpractice. Most frequently, local users will participate indevelopment activities, but they will also take advantage ofcurriculum components developed by external developers, such asresearch and developmentinstitutions or commercial agencies.

29


According to Connelly’s view, the curriculum implementedin the class almost always contains a locally developedcomponent. Only on rare occasions, as when teachers introduceinto their classes a set of extemally prepared, programmedinstructional materials and create an environment ofself-instruction, is the teaching-learning fully dependent on anexternally developed curriculum. Even so, this type of instructionconstitutes only one part of the overall learning activities of theclass.

Silberstein (1979) elaborates on Connelly’s ideas. He uses

Connellys_ distinction between development activities ofcurriculum users and of extemal groups and agrees that theprocess of curriculum development should be viewed as acontinuum beginning with the work of a central body, external tothe school, and ending in teaching-learning situations in theclassroom, but he does not accept the sharp differentiation of rolesattributed by Connelly to these two types of developers. Aschematic representation of Connelly’s view is presented inFigure 2.1,

External Developers Curriculum Users Developers Teaching/. “ ~— LearningTdeas' ; ” ; 5

Deliberations . Deliberations . .Materials Situations

Figure 2.1 Curriculum development: one continuum

30


According to this scheme, curriculum development is atwo phase process, in which the first group of actors finishes itsrole with the completion of the first phase, upon which, at thesecond stage, a new group of actors appears on the scene phase.The ‘external’ developers and the user developers each work on adifferent part of the curriculum development continuum, and thework of the ‘user’ developers begins where the formerleaveoff.According to Connelly, the ideal ‘user’ developer can be describedmetaphorically as a customerin a supermarket. On the shelves aretins with labels specifying the contents, the ingredients, andvarious dishes that can be prepared from the contents. Skilled andintelligent shoppers will select suitable items and will return homeand prepare a meal matchedto their needs. Similarly, curriculummaterials developed by ‘external’ parties should present clearly‘labelled’ alternatives (various viewpoints on teaching thediscipline, on psychological and social attitudes, etc.), withspecifications of the contents, characteristics (including thetheoretical assumptions underlying the curriculum materials), andpotential uses of the materials. Intelligent teacher consumers,skilled in the art of selection, will choose the materials they judgeSuitable, and will alter, augment, process, and transform them tosuit their classes.

Silberstein challenges Connelly’s linear, two-phaseconception, and suggests a model of collaboration betweenexternal and user developers as presented in Figure 2.2.

According to Silberstein, during the first phase of theprocess, extemal developers assume the task of producing theinstructional materials. Their involvement in the curriculumprocess, however, does not come to an end when they have donethis, and in the second phase of using the curriculum andimplementing it in schools, the external development team has toestablish a collaborative relationship with the users and help themcontinue the work of development. Silberstein lists three furthertasks to be undertaken personally by external developers:

. Involvementin work with teacher educators.

. Workshopsfor developing personalized orlocalized supplementary curriculum units.

. Workshop for curriculum adaptation.

31

ce

quaw

idop

aaap

WINyNIWAND

7°7sans

[PPoUaA

es1O

qET]

OD

"Tdeas"

External

Developers

a

Curriculum

Materials

suoyoeasiayaeaypur

sdopaaag

[vus91Kq]

Y

Alternative andSupplementaryCurriculumMaterials

Personalizedand LocalizedCurriculumMaterials

TeacherTrainingProgramsand SpecialMaterials

Training the Users

Teaching/LearningSituations

oe

Juat

udoj

asap

wnjn

d144

ndpa

sbq-

JOOY

ISPU

DJD

UOII

ON


School-based

The expression ‘school-based’ in the term school-basedcurriculum development is also interpreted in various ways.Connelly (1972) avoided the expression and substituted

“‘user-developer’. While these two expressions often have the samemeaning and may refer to the same person, i.e. the classroomteacher, this is by no means always the case. A ‘user-developer’ isnot necessarily school-based, and ‘school-based’ is not necessarilythe same as ‘user-developer’. The expression ‘user-developer’may refer to a team of teachers from various schools workingunder the guidance of an external curriculum consultant to adapt aset of commercially disseminated instructional materials to theneeds of their students. Participation in such a team may takeplace within the framework of a university-maintained in-servicetraining programme,to which teachers mayregister on their owninitiative and on an individual basis. By using instructionalmaterials developed by the team, a teacher participating in thein-service programme becomes a user-developer, but theprogramme used by the teacher is not school-based. It was notinitiated by the school and it may well be that it was not adoptedby other teachers teaching the same subject in parallel classes.If,on the other hand, a school adopts a programme produced orrevised by a team of its own teachers, then the programme isschool-based, but those teachers who did not participate in itsdevelopmentare not user-developers.

One may also ask who participates in the development ofschool-based programmes? All the teachers teaching a particularsubject? Some of the teachers only? If in a certain school, within

the framework imposed by an external authority or by the schoolauthorities, the teachers enjoy a relatively high level of autonomyin determining what to teach and what kind of instructionalmaterials to use, does such a Situation represent school-basedcurriculum development?

As indicated by Sabar (1989):

",..school-based curriculum development ought notto be,and indeed cannot be, reduced to teacher-basedcurriculum development, important as teachers’ roles are

33


at every stage. It should be participatory, that is decisionsshould be shared with all those involved in the educationalexperience.” (p.202)

Sabar lists several potentially legitimate partners in school-basedcurriculum development: parents, if possible leamers themselves,other institutions and agencies in the society.

Frequently, in educational practice, representatives of thelocal authorities or of the local educational authorities participatein curriculum decisions. A variety of interest groups such aschurches, labour unions, universities and other institutions ofhigher education, as well as industrial and commercial chambers,claim a say in the school curriculum. Quite often, local authoritiesprescribe the school programmeforall schools in the geographicarea of their jurisdiction. Certainly, such arrangements do notrepresent instances of school-based curriculum development. Inthe curriculum literature, devolution of power in matters of thecurriculum and school-based curriculum developmentare treatedquite often under one heading, while in practice these are twodifferent phenomena. Devolution is a precondition of school-basedcurriculum development: it may precipitate school-basedcurriculum development, but it does not in itself constitute asufficient condition. Without full awareness of the differencesbetween the concepts of devolution, user-developer, andschool-based curriculum development statements made aboutcurriculum development may remain void of exact meaning.

The scope of SBCD

The broadest definition of SBCD implies not only fullautonomy for the school to decide what to teach, but also acommitment on its behalf to prepare instructional materials forthe courses offered, with a minimal reliance on availabletextbooks. The narrowestdefinition of SBCD would stipulate thatthe central educational authorities delegate some freedom to, orbestow some autonomyuponthelocal or the school authorities indetermining a certain part of the school programme.

In practice, we never encounter a full realization of thebroadest definition of SBCD. There are no schools which

34

The meaningofschool-based curriculum development

operate according to the principles represented by this broadestdefinition. On the other hand, employing the narrowestdefinition, one maysaythat all schools incorporate some elementsof SBCD approachin their routine activities.

The subsequent sections describe SBCD activities whichhave a substantial impact onlife in the school.

Implications

1. Meaningful communication about SBCD is possible only ifthe terms of the discourse are precisely defined. Consequently,deliberation about curriculum should start with defining the termsused.2. Contradictory statements and recommendations about SBCDmay reflect differences in definitions of terms and, therefore,when used in decision-making context, they must be analyzedwith regard to meaningsoriginally attributed to them.3. Precise definition of terms may lead towards identification ofareas of consensus which, in tum, may create a favourable climatefor negotiating.

35

III. Types of school-based curriculum developmentactivities .

Some national curriculum frameworks are highly prescriptive.Sometimesthey specify educational aims, instructional objectives,curriculum contents and grade level attainment standards.Frequently they also contain a list of approved textbooks, or theyare periodically supplemented by such a list. In other countriesthey provide a loose framework and encourage curriculumdevelopmentinitiatives at a local and schoollevel.

Even the highly prescriptive frameworks bestow a certainautonomy upon the schools in matters of the curriculum.Paradoxically, they frequently oblige schools to exerciseautonomy, and to make decisions at the local or school levelabout a certain part of the curriculum. The scope of school-baseddecisions about the curriculum varies across countries and acrossschools within a country, involving mostly from 10 to 30 per centof the total school programme.

Schools also differ with regard to the types of theprogrammes they decide to introduce within the framework oftheautonomy bestowed upon them. Some schools opt to extendStudy time for the regular curricular subjects while othersintroduce topics of local interest, or cross-disciplinary studiesrelated to a particular topicofinterest.

Curriculum developmentat local and school level consists ofthe following activities: selecting and adapting existingeducational programmes, integrating study topics from cognatedisciplines into a single course or examining a_ certainphenomenon or problem through an_ interdisciplinary orcross-disciplinary approach, and producing new instructional

36

Types ofschool-based curriculumdevelopment activities

units either for supplementing existing curriculum materials or forcreating new learning units.

Selecting curriculum at the school andclass levels

The most commoncurriculum-related decision at the schooland class levels consists of selection. In many educationalsystems the teachers involvement in curriculum development islimited to this act of selection. Moreover, even in those systemswhere teachers do enjoy a high level of autonomy, curriculumdevelopmentstill means selecting and organizing content units forteaching, and/or selecting appropriate learning materials fromthose available on the market. The act of selection enables theteacherto play an active role in determining whatto teach.

Selection may be regarded as less professionally demandingthan producing new curriculum materials, but one should notunderestimate the expertise needed for fulfilling this role. Byanalogy, the professional knowledge required for producing a wellwritten critique about a musical performance is by no meansinferior to, though evidently very different from, that needed forplaying an instrument and producing enjoyable music.

It should be noted that the right to select is a necessary, butnot a sufficient condition, for taking advantage ofthis privilege.There is also a need for having alternatives to select from. Incountries where the production of curriculum materials is acommercial enterprise, the market offers a broad repertoire of suchalternatives. Under such circumstances users have to select. Incontrast, in countries where the central authorities specify allparameters of the curriculum materials, or even produce them,frequently, there are no alternatives. Consequently, users do notface the difficulties of selection. In developed countries one mayobserve great competition for customers, and it is not uncommonfor a single company to produce alternative versions of aprogrammeto cater for differential needs andtastes in the targetpopulation. Thus, for example, the Biological Science CurriculumStudy (BSCS) produced three alternative versions of theirprogramme. These became known as the Blue, Green, and Yellowversion of the programme. The Blue version of the programme

37


focused on biology at the molecular level, the Green version onpopulations and communities, while the Yellow version put greatemphasis on the cellular level. The user who decided to adopt theBSCScurriculum had to select one of these versions, and was inneed of criteria to guide this selection. Developing countrieswhich chose to use the BSCS programmeadapted for local useonly one of these versions, and thus both the need and thepossibility of being engaged in selection was eliminated at anearly stage.

Due to scarcity of resources as well as of experts in mostdeveloping countries, the scope of alternative sets of curricula andinstructional materials is quite limited. Nevertheless, one mayidentify some attempts of producing alternative sets of textbooksfor a single syllabus. Thus, for example, in Botswana in 1989 anew Integrated Social Studies programme for Junior High Schoolwas approved by the Social Studies panel of the Department ofEducation, and almost simultaneously two parallel sets oftextbooks were produced: Botswana Social Studies and JuniorSecondary Social Studies (Clarken 1990). The users of theprogrammehavetheright and the onus to choose between them.

Selecting something which may have significant andlong-lasting effect on the life of others requires a reasonable levelof connoisseurship. Consequently, teachers need to acquireexpertise in selecting curricula, to nurture it, and to use it in theirdaily work for the benefit of their students.

Selection, in dealing with the curriculum of a school or aclass, takes place at various levels. The most comprehensive formof selection is selecting subjects for inclusion in the programme.Most school systemsoffer a list of elective subjects from whichschools have to select the few they will offer. Frequently thecentral educational authorities prescribe certain rules for selection,like the obligation to select some subject in the field of art orscience. Schools may havethe right to include in their programmea subject which does not appearin the basic repertoire of electivesubjects like archaeology, philosophyof science,etc.

Deciding to use a particular textbook or a particular set ofaccessories represents another level of curriculum relatedselection. Also in daily teaching routine the decision by the

38


teacher to deal with one particular exercise in the textbook andskip over another is an instance of determining the parameters ofthe curriculum throughselection.

To prepare teachers for making selections, which best servethe needs of all interested parties, teacher education has to providebasic knowledge and practicein this field.

In practice, one may observe a variety of approaches toselection. The naive consumer may operate according to theprinciple of ‘first seen, first chosen’. The more choosy customermaysearchtill he or she finds a satisfactory object. The hesitantcustomer may examine a variety of options, and, reaching a levelof fatigue, will select the last encountered. The rationaldecision-maker follows a well-structured, multi-phased methodwhich consists of listing the items on the available repertoire,determining criteria for selection, applying these and rating theitems on the repertoire according to the relevant criteria, andfinally combining these ratings into a decision-making formula.

Listing the items: In numerous educational systems a greatvariety of alternative curriculum itemsis available and the teachermay encounter difficulties when compiling a satisfactory list ofaltematives. Frequently, central educational authorities do apreliminary screening and they publish a list of books, or othertypes of curriculum materials which are approved for use in theschool. In other cases, commercial companies or consumerorganizations prepare lists which may be used by teachers.Whenever such orientation materials are not readily available,they should be produced locally at the school level or through theco-operation of several schools.

Specifying relevant criteria: The curriculum literatureaboundsin checklists which specify criteria for selecting curricula,textbooks and other types of curriculum materials. The mostcomprehensive collection of relevant forms and checklists wascompiled by Woodbury (1979). An example of a form providedby Woodbury is presented in Table 3.1.

39


Table 3.1 Curriculum-selection form

Name of Textbook: Grade: Date:Publisher. Ri 7

Author: Schoot

Check one

Excellent Good |Fair| Poor} No CategoryOpinion Scores” A.Racism and Sexism: Group 1

1 Mustrations (examples)a. stereotypesb. Mfestytec. tokanism ©

VN Storylinea. relationships

b. standard for success

c. viewpoint

d. sexism

B. Authenticity1 Accuracy of Facts/

Appropriate to Context

2. Impartiality ofpresentation

3. Up-to-date Information

C Appropriateness1 Contribution to the

program objectives

2 Vocabulary level

0. Scope1 Coverage of subject

matter

2. Concept development

3. Skills development(map-reading, use ofgraphs, etc )

4. Process development

(e.g. problem solving)

& Interesti

‘4. Relationship to user's

experience

2. Intellectuat challenge

3. Appeal to students

F. Organization1 Sequential development |

of concepts 1

2. Match with District |

sequences |

TOTAL SCORE =

POSSIBLE RANGE =

Source: Woodbury, M. 1979. Selecting materials for instruction: issues andpolicies, Littletown: Libraries Unlimited, p.217.

40


Armbruster and Anderson (1981) provided a conceptualframework for dealing with textbook-related criteria. Theyintroduced the concept ‘considerate text’ and defined it as one thatincorporates concer for:(a) Structure (has a discourse structure that best conveys the

information).

(b) Coherence (makes the relationships among ideas clear

enoughso that there is a logical connection from one idea tothe next).

(c) Unity (addresses one purposeat a time); and(d) Audience appropriateness (fits the knowledge base of the

reader).Textbook Evaluation forms for students and teachers have

been produced in developing countries, too. Systematic work inthis has been done by the National Council of EducationalResearch and Training (NCERT)in New Delhi, India. India has along tradition of concern for the quality of textbooks, and a seriesof publications in the 1970s about evaluating textbooks meritsinternational attention. Exemplary questions from the EvaluationForm for Textbooks in English are presented in Table 3.2.Combining the ratings: Finally there is a need to combine theratings into an overall evaluative statement. The form in table 3.1suggests a mode of quantitative summary, but one may usequalitative summary based on analytical combination ofqualifications or on a holistic-impressionistic judgement.In rating the quality of any type of instructional materials oneshould consider the specific needs of a particular group of users. Acurriculum or a textbook which serves well one group of learnersor teachers may be unsuitable for another group of learners.

Adaptation

Curriculum adaptation is defined by Grobman and Blum(1985) as the modification of a course of study for groupsdifferent from those for whom the course wasoriginally prepared.Adaptation can take place at national or system level. It may alsotake place at school or class level, whenever a teacher or a group

41


of teachers decide to modify some elements of a curriculum usedin the school(s).

Table 3.2. Selected items from the questionnaire for textbooks

in English

Evaluative criteriaPrinciples and aspects Criteria

Aimsand purposes ° General objectives weredeveloped keeping in view national goalsas defined by various EducationCommissions.. Specific objectives for differentstages were developed, keeping in viewtime allotted in the syllabus

Content: Linguistic ° The selection of vocabulary isappropriate in terms of frequency basedon contemporary spoken and writtenEnglish of everyday use.

Thematic . The themes are varied enough incontent and form to grip and sustain theinterest of children.

Gradation ° Linguistic elements are groupedinto stages according to age, grade andmaturity level of the children.

Tilustrations ° They are relevant and significantto the theme.° They clarify and interpret theverbal content.. They are technically perfect intermsofsize, details, colour and print.

Exercises . They coverall objectives.° They are different types, likeessays, and short, controlled composition.

42


Adaptation at national level consists of changes neededbecause of differences of an ecological and socio-cultural nature,in historical and political perspectives, or in classroom situations.An example of a system level adaptation is the case of the BSCS(Biological Science Curriculum Study) which was developed inthe USAin the 1960s, and which was adapted for use in more than40 nations and translated into 21 languages.

The need to adapt biology textbooks to local, environmentalconditions is emphasized by Grobman and Blum (1985). Theyprovide the following justification:

"Discussions of plants and animals from the localenvironment make textual materials more relevant forstudents. Thus for students in the United Kingdom andmost of the USA,references to oak, willow, or pine treeswould be familiar, but for students in tropical areas ofIndia or the Philippines, they would not. In an adaptation,those examples might be replaced with palm, banana, andbanyan trees. In Japan the silkworm is used for many ofthe genetic experiments for which the fruit fly isemployedin the United States". (p.1136)A close examination of curricula which were transferred from

one society to another reveals that adaptation touched not only onissues related to the characteristics of the eco-system, but also onsocietal features like internalized national attitudes to politics andreligion, which are also important factors to be considered incurriculum adaptation (Holmes 1977). Indeed, in the Russian

BSCS adaptation, the achievements of Russian scientists wereemphasized compared to the original American version, and in theItalian adaptation of the Harvard Physics Project, Galileo is givenmore space than in the Americanoriginal.

Other reasons for adapting a curriculum whentransferring itfrom one nation to another may be the differences in availableresources for teaching the subject, in terms of time allocation,budget available for sophisticated laboratory equipment, classsize,etc.

Even within one single country, regional differences maynecessitate adapting a curriculum used in one region of thecountry to another which is different from the first. A curriculum

43


intended for a highly industrialized region needs adaptation whenput to use in a less industrialized, agricultural economy area.Moreover, even transferring to another industrial area, whichdiffers from the previous one with regard to the sources of energyused, raw materials and products, may need modification.Similarly, the transfer of a curriculum prepared for one particularagricultural area to another which grows different crops can befacilitated by making adequate modifications of some learningexperiences contained in the programme.

Linguistic or ethnic heterogeneity of a country’s population,or parallel maintenance of various school types or school systemsinside one region, such as public and religious schools, orvocational and academically oriented secondary schools, may alsorequire adapted versions of an available curriculum.

Adaptation at system level is usually carried out by centrallyoperating teams of curriculum experts with or without theparticipation of a few selected teachers.

Curriculum adaptation also takes place at the school and classlevel, and work of this nature is mostly carried out by teacherswho are going to use the adapted materials themselves. Berliner(1982) demonstrated that teachers adapt the goals, objectives, andcontent of formal curricula to their specific classroom context.They take the freedom to deviate from the mandated programmeand modify it by additions, deletions and changes in sequence andemphasis.

Holmes (1989) discussed ethical considerations in theteachers modifying of the curriculum. He argued that, in free,multi-cultural and individualistic society, both teachers andstudents may face situations which will require modifyingcurriculum plans prepared by others.

The modifications carried out at both national and schoollevel may touch upon various aspects of the curriculum. Inextreme cases, the adaptation may require minor modificationsonly, such as changing some illustrations like human figuresand/or their dress, types of houses or other dwelling facilities.Such minimal changes will allow the transfer of the curriculumfrom one group to another. But most frequently, more substantialchanges are required for successful curriculum transfer. Blum

44


et al. (1981) identified 40 curriculum aspects of which should beconsidered when a decision about adaptation is made. He groupedthem underthe following headings: (a) aims; (b) content selection,(c) content organization; (d) leaming experiences; and (e) resourcematerials.

Examples of curriculum adaptation can be found both indeveloping and in developed countries. As was already mentionedabove, the American BSCS programme was adapted for use in,among other countries, Australia, Italy and Russia. In severalcases the adaptation also implied translation to another language.The Caribbean version of the BSCS,and the Malaysian adaptationof the Scottish Integrated Science (SIS) programmeare interestingexamples of curriculum adaptation for developing countries. Thefirst represented a dissemination attempt of the BSCS project,while the second was initiated by the national educationauthorities, and wascarried out by a local curriculum developmentteam.

Curriculum adaptation in developing countries is frequentlybased on eclectic selection of learning units from a variety ofsubject-based educational programmes. An example of such anadaptation is the Social Studies programme in Botswana. Itorganized some elements borrowed from available Social Studiesprogrammes in order to explain to primary and middle schoolchildren the inherent values of Botswana’s national philosophyknownas Kagisano,or social harmony. This philosophy embodiesthe ideals of democracy, development, self-reliance and unity(Clarken 1990).

While Botswana’s Social Studies curriculum represents anexercise in national level adaptation, it nevertheless also impliesregional and school based adaptation. As suggested by theNational Commission of Education (1977):

"Unity embraces many important ideas such as loyalty,co-operation and a sense of national identity. It does notmean uniformity, but rather emphasis on common bondsand interests between Botswana’s people of differentregions, ethnic groups, religions, political parties, oreconomic circumstances”. (p.30).

45


To live up to this ideal, several elements of the programmehave to be adapted at the local level in order to allow anappropriate treatmentof values of regional or local significance.

Curriculum integration

Creating links between different bodies of knowledgeacquired by schoolgoers has long been a concern of educators.Giventhe fact that in most schools the curriculum includes varioussubjects and that during a single day pupils frequently attendlessons in six or seven different subjects, a need has been felt tofind ways of reducing the fragmentation of knowledge andconveying a coherent view of man and his environment. Theattempt to overcome or reduce the barriers between schoolsubjects and to arrange studies in a way that takes intoconsideration common elements across different bodies ofknowledge is usually referred to as curriculum integration. Someintegrative programmes have been prepared by professional teamsat curriculum developmentinstitutions of various types, but quitefrequently integrative topics are developed at the schoollevel, as aschoolbasedactivity.

Glatthorn and Foshay (1985) provide a historical review and

describe various methods of integration, some of which can beobserved in schools today. A relatively narrow relation betweentwo or more subjects is represented in the correlated curriculum.Thus, for example, the correlation between physical science andmathematics means that the sequence of topics in physics andmathematics is arranged so that certain advanced techniques inmathematics are taught before problems in physics which can besolved by using these techniques. Cross-disciplinary studies arethose in which various disciplines are studied as a single subject.Thus, for example, in the USA ‘social studies’ appears in theschool programme as a single subject combining topics fromgeography, economics, anthropology, sociology, psychology andsometimes also history. Recently, both at college and high schoollevel, ‘area studies’ have become popular. These address theproblems of a culturally distinct geographic area by the use of acomprehensive range of disciplines, including history, literature,

46


geography and local languages. Examples are Hispanic studies,South East Asian studies and African studies. Anothercross-disciplinary study is found in general science or integratedscience, in which disciplines like biology, physics, chemistry,geology and astronomy are combined into one subject. In the1980s, Science, Technology and Society (STS) emerged as awidely taught school subject. Solomon (1989) described thissubject as “essentially interdisciplinary in that it aims to explorethe interactions between science knowledge, technologicalapplication, and the social context which direct the endeavoursand either benefits or suffers from the results” (p.668). Programmeunits are mostly problem-based, which enables each community tobase studies on its particular problems. Among the topics dealtwithin these units are issues of national or local importance, likemineral wealth, health, and nutrition.

In developing countries integrated curricula have beeninitiated and supported by the central educational authorities ordevelopment agencies, but there are cases of grass-rootinitiative,too. Several integrated programmes focused on regional or ruraldevelopment issues and had a strong practical bias. Fitzgerald(1990) described a large-scale environmental educationprogrammethat began in 1985 in the Welo region of Ethiopia. Theaims of the programme were formulated jointly by the Ministry ofEducation and the Swedish International Development Authority(SIDA). The programme focused on halting environmentaldegradation, and in dealing with this issue it tried to pull togetherknowledge and ideas from various sources andareasoflife.

In 1989, in the regional capital Dese, approximately 3,500educational personnel received training focusing on the integratedprogramme and issues of programme implementation. TheSpecific topics to be dealt with were: developing terraces,constructing check-dams, planting trees, carrying out experimentsin agro-forestry. Due to its practical bias the programmepaid littleattention to principles and generalizations underlying therecommended routes of actions. Fitzgerald (1990) pointed out thedifficulties in establishing an adequate balance between thepractical and the theoretical components of a programmeofthis

47


type, and claimed that emphasizing relevance might negativelyaffect the pursuit of academicrigour.

Supplementary curriculum materials

Curriculum materials which do not constitute a part of theregular curriculum are referred to as supplementary curriculummaterials. By regular curriculum are meant those items thatteachers are required to use in their routine work. These usuallyare furnished as a curriculum kit containing a set of items such asa syllabus, textbook, published workbooks, resource units, ateacher’s handbook and source book, and evaluation instruments.The items may also be bought separately, and in some schools orschool systems teachers may be required to produce someoftheseitems. The supplementary curriculum materials consistworksheets, revision exercises, newspaper and_ periodicalclippings, audio or video recordings, film loops or short films,pictures, models, charts, games and computer discs. These serveto facilitate the mastery of those curricular objectives which arecontained in the regular curriculum. At the school level teachersmay select supplementary materials from those available at themarket or may develop such materials as a co-operative endeavourwith their peers or by themselves.

Curriculum experts differentiate between supplementarymaterials, aimed to increase the effectiveness of the teaching of anagreed upon curriculum, and enrichmentmaterials, which broadenits scope (Thomas 1985a, 1985b). In practice, however, it may bedifficult to distinguish between the two. Nevertheless, followingthe commonterminology,the topic of curriculum enrichmentwillbe dealt with separately.

As specified above, the items contained in the list of regularcurriculum materials differ from those listed as supplementarymaterials. Nevertheless, specifying the characteristics of aparticular curriculum item do not necessarily reveal whetherit is apart of the regular curriculum or the supplementary materials.Thus, for example, demonstration materials or games may becontained in the regular curriculum kit, although they are mostfrequently a product ofthe teacher’sinitiative.

48


Thomas (1985a) distinguishes between three types ofsupplementary materials: (a) plans for activities, (b) topical orillustrative material supportive of subject matter, (c) verbal andpictorial products and equipment.(a) Activities refer to activities other than reading or speakingabout something. Such activities may increase leamingefficiency.They increase students’ motivation and lead to betterunderstanding.(b) The second category is subject-matter-related material. Thismay present to the leamer recent information on issuesrelated tothe topics of their study. Thus, for example, a newspaper reviewof the performance in the local theatre of a play taught in theschool, articles published on the occasion of the anniversary of anational or international historical event, a TV programmeabout aparticular country transmitted on the occasion of a visit of a sportsteam or important political personality from that country, can beused in the class in the context of teaching a particular topic, notonly to motivate students, but also to establish links between whatis taught in the school and what captures public interest outside it.An example of supplementary materials of this type is thecommemoration of the two hundredth anniversary of the FrenchRevolution in 1989 across the whole world. In most countriesarticles of various types were published about the far reachingconsequencesofthis event, and one may assumethat a great manyteachers used such materials as supplementary resources whileteaching this topic in their classes.(c) The third category of supplementary materials consists ofverbal and pictorial products and equipment of various types.This category contains also catalogues and guide books ofresources which can be used by teachers and students. A list oflibraries and resource centres, annotated bibliographies aboutrelevant books, catalogues of available audiovisual articles,together with guidelines for obtaining them, are of greatimportance for teaching effectively. Manuals for operatinginstruments constitute another group of items in this category.Numerousreports, catalogues and guides prepared by public andcommercial bodies provide useful orientation for teachers andpupils.

49


Teachers should bear in mind the need to check the accuracy ofthe information contained in such materials. They have toascertain their relevance to particular needs or localcircumstances, and encourage pupils to use these resources bydemonstration of their worth. Quite frequently, local conditionsdo not permit the use of publicly available guides and catalogues,and suitable materials of this type need to be prepared locally.Teachers have to assumea leading role in carrying out work ofthis type. It is their responsibility to ensure that such materialsshould suit the reading level of their pupils and that the notesdescribing the characteristic features of each item should representrelevant experiences accumulated in the local context.

Enrichment materials

Enrichmentmaterials serve to expand the objectives of theregular curriculum. They provide an opportunity for students toacquire knowledge, to internalize values and to master skillswhich are related to the cumicular topics dealt with in a course ofStudies, but exceed the breadth and the depth of coverage of theregular curriculum. Enrichment materials become necessary inthe following cases:1. A particular class has above-average ability and may reach ahigher level of achievement than the standard of the curriculum.In certain countries, schools may offer advanced courses forstudents of high ability bestowing academic credits acknowledgedby institutions of higher education.2. The teacher has a special interest in further elaborating aparticular topic, or local circumstances justify or encouragethis.3. Recent events or developments in politics, economics,science, or technology may change the focus of interest in aparticular subject and must be taken into account in the schoolprogramme.4. A school may concentrate on or excel in certain studies oractivities (such as art, physical education, or mathematics) and itmay pursue a policy of admitting students who are interested inextended studies of the type offered by the school. In Hungary,for example, selected schools and classes schedule 10-12 weekly

50


periods of mathematics in the secondary school timetable, andother schools follow this pattern in other subject areas.

These cases represent two types of reasons for broadening thescope of studies in a subject: Firstly, the predilection of personsinvolved in making decisions about the curriculum and secondlysignificant events outside the school related to what is beingtaught in the school.

Thomas (1985b) distinguishes between two types ofcurriculum enrichment materials: extension of the regularprogrammeandindividualized enrichment.

He also suggests two criteria for evaluating curriculumextension. These are educational importance (curriculum plannersmay be asked to answer the question whether the enrichmentmaterials will profit the learners or the community) and

replacement importance (since adding new topics to the existingcurriculum requires time, it may be necessary to reduce timeallocated to other topics in the same subject or other subjects, inwhich case one has to answer the question why the enrichmenttopic is more important.than the topics it replaces). The secondtype of enrichmentis the individualized one. Such materials areintended not for the whole class but only for selected individualsin the class. These may be talented students or those whoreveal aspecial interest in a subject related topic or skill.

Individualized enrichment materials may vary in the length oftime they require. One can devise short 2-3 minute assignments orlonger ones. Examples of individual assignments of varyingextent are listed by Thomas (1985b:1184):

"Examples of experiences requiring only a few minutesare : assign a pupil to read a single passage in a story andanswer one question about the passage, or to create threequestions to test classmates’ understanding of the sciencetopic just studied, or to draw a pencil sketch of theimagined appearance of the hero from a story the classhas been reading. Examples of longer term activities are:assign a student to construct a model of a village from anhistorical event just studied, or to read the biographies offamousscientists, or to write descriptions of a historical

51


incident on the basis of interviews the student has carriedout with three elderly members of the community".Thomas (1985b:1185) suggests three criteria for judging the

suitability of individualized enrichment materials:"(a) Worthwhile objectives -- did the activity teach thestudent something of real value or merely provide trivialinformation or worthless skills? (6) New knowledge and

heightened skills -- did the activity enable the student tolearn something new and achieve higherlevels of skills, ordid it merely repeat something the student had alreadymastered? (c) Classroom-managementefficiency -- didthe activity require an undue amount of teacher time, sothat the leaming of the rest of the class memberssuffered? Did the activity distract other students fromtheir studies?”.

1. Remedial or corrective learning materials

A unique type of supplementary learning material comestoserve the needs of slow leamers or of those whohave difficultiesin mastering a particular element of the curriculum. For manyhighly structured school curricula such remedial and correctivematerials are produced by the developmentteam and are containedin the regular curriculum kit, but mostly it is the responsibility ofthe teacher or of a group of teachers to prepare them. To somedegree, remedial and corrective curriculum activities constitute apart of the regular curriculum. Good teachers have always paidattention to the needs of those who have not mastered the coursematerials, but in overcrowded classes slower leamers might beignored. Lundgren (1972) finds that teachers have differentexpectations of what proportion of their students should masterthetaught material. Someare satisfied with 50 per cent while moreexacting teachers would start to teaching a new topic only whenapproximately 70 per cent of the class has mastered the previoustopic taught. Generally, in the regular instructional framework toodemanding an approach may unacceptably slow downthe pacingof the curriculum for the class, and average and above averagestudents will leam muchless than they are capableof.

52


The mastery leaming strategy emphasizes the importance ofsystematically testing the achievement level of students andmaking decisions about what to teach in the class, for the wholegroup and for each individual, on the basis of his or her actuallymeasured levels of achievement. ;

The mastery leaming strategy uses pre-planned remedial orcorrective leaming materials. Teaching is done after assessingstudents knowledge of a new topic in relation to an expected levelof knowledge. After a particular unit of the curriculum is taught,those who pass criterion-referenced mastery test of all theobjectives of the curriculum unit may moveonto the next unit. Atthis point teachers are expected to provide individually tailoredcorrective leaming materials to the students who failed themastery test. Teachers are expected to prepare remedial materialsfor each of the objectives contained in the curricular materials.The individualized corrective materials are administered either inextra study time or during scheduled study time, when studentswith an advanced level of knowledge provide peer tutoring tothose whoneed help.

The mastery leaming strategy is based on_ thewell-documented assumption that with high-quality teachingapproximately 90 per cent of the learners can be expected tomasterthe curricular objectives.

In general, the remedial or corrective curriculum materialsmay be of the following types:1. Additional exercises of the type administered in class (thenumber of exercises done in class may be insufficient for someleamers to reach a level of mastery in a particular topic).2. Prerequisite knowledge: the preparation of mastery learningcurriculum units depends on establishing the prerequisiteknowledge and corrective materials for those who have notattainedit.3. Analysis of a complex problem into its basic components, andexercises for dealing with these components separately beforecombining them into the complex single problem.4. Providing additional or alternative cues for students on how todeal with a particular problem.

53


The mastery leaming strategy has been used intensively inseveral developing countries. Its contribution in raising theachievementlevel of learners was acknowledged in a recent panelmeeting at the Asian Centre of Educational Innovation forDevelopment (ACEID) by the participants representing nineteenAsian and Pacific region states (ACEID 1990). Through collectivedeliberation the panel identified ten mega-trends in the curriculumreforms observed in developing countries. These basic trends, intheir view, have specific implications for the content of the schoolcurriculum in all subjects, and at both the primary and secondarylevels. One of these mega-trendsis the utilization of the masterylearningstrategy.

Studies about the effectiveness of mastery learning werecarried out in various developing countries. In Malaysia, Nordin(1980) examinedthe relative importance of various components ofthe mastery learning strategy (such as cues and participation), andfoundits strongest componentto be the utilization of feedback andcorrectives. Kim’s (1975) study in South Korea is probably thelargest experimental design type study which has ever beencarried out for examining the effectiveness of a teaching strategy.The original mastery leaming strategy was adjusted to the specialcircumstances of South Korea, where classes include 70 pupils,consequently making it impossible to apply an individualizedapproachto teaching. The findings of this large scale experimentalstudy proved the effectiveness of the treatment.

Another example of using corrective materials developed atschool level is provided by Okpala and Onocha (1988). Withoutdirectly referring to mastery leaming method,they tried to identifydifficult learning topics in advanced high school physics coursesin Nigeria. On basis of the O-level physics syllabus, they compileda list of 53 topics and asked students to indicate the extent ofdifficulties they encountered in leaming each one of them. Thisneeds-assessment type study may provide orientation to teachersabout the nature of supplementary study materials required for aparticular group of students, and thus motivate teachers initiatingSBCDactivities.

While in the above mentioned cases the remedial orcorrective teaching materials were produced by the monitoring

54


agencies, in most cases additional corrective exercises wereproduced at the school level. Thus, use of the mastery learningStrategy challenges teachers to produce instructional materials tosuit any particular target population.

2. Topics of local interest

Topics of local interest may be dealt with in the framework ofa particular subject or in an integrated course of several cognatedisciplines.

The most frequently used local interest topics are included ingeography studies. Indeed,the first curricular units in geographydeal with phenomenarelated to the childs close environment. Thefirst steps in leaming to use the geographical map are structuredaccording to the ‘proximal-distal’ principle, starting with topicsrelated to the child’s close vicinity, thus enabling integration ofthe child’s personal experiences with formal studies in the school.Such curriculum units can be best prepared at local level with theactive participation of local teachers. Most school subjectscontain topics of local interest, like local history or history offamous personalities with local connections; multi-cultural studiesfocusing on the culture of various groups in the local community,art treasures available in local museums, the local trade andindustry and career opportunities, the economic resources of thelocation, the flora and fauna of a given region -- all these topicsneed to be dealt with in the school programmeand the preparationof curriculum materials covering topics of this type can be done atlocal level.

An example of producing a small oral history project as acO-operative venture in four rural primary schools is described byEvans (1989). Primary school children carried out tape recordedinterviews with senior citizens of the community. Theinformation collected in this way was transcribed and distributedto all children participating in the project. Small teams wereorganized and each team focused on summarizing a particularaspect of the history of the place. The recordings collected by thechildren and their summaries were deposited in local archives and

55


they may serve as resource material for future age-cohorts in theschools.

Another example of local history study is described byGraham (1988). His project was conducted in a mixed abilitysecondary school in the United Kingdom. It was carried out as acollaborative project of the history and geography departmentwithoccasional help from crafts and English teachers, and the supportof the Local History Society. The study focused on a particularperiod of time. The students used primary and secondary sources.A bibliography of printed publications relevant to the topic wascompiled; documents, pictures, photos and census data availablein the archives were examined; historical remnants of the periodwere studied. The teacher responsible for the project prepared aguideline for carrying out local history studies. He also referred tothe ‘spin-off’ of such a project:

"\.. it is a great aid in obtaining the active support ofyour colleagues to outline the ‘spin-offs’ and personaladvancement that may materialise from the work. Theseinclude, and I make no apologies for the mercenary tone,such motivesas:

- enhancement of credibility with pupils as itdisplays teacher effort in an area with universal appeal toall age groups, i.e. necessitates co-operation and theteacher and pupils having to leam together;

- increased promotion prospects both within andoutside the school;

- enhances the reputation of the school withparents and otherinterested parties;

- gives personal status within the community asa teacherinterested in your area". [Graham 1988,p. 27]An example of adding supplementary units dealing with

issues of local significance to a programme developed by aprofessional team is provided by the social studies curriculum inthe English-speaking Caribbean. Traditionally, the role of socialstudies in this part of the world has been cast in the mould ofknowledge of the past fused with some knowledge of localinstitutions. Emphasis has been on knowledge and the learning ofcurrent information on political, social and economic information.

56


A joint team of the University of West Indies campuses fromJamaica, Trinidad and Barbados introduced some of the recenttrends and current theories into the field of social studieseducation, and developed a social studies education programmewhich focuses on training students to become thinking citizens,equipped for, and willing to participate in, the task of nationbuilding.

As indicated by Griffith (1990), any topic in thiswell-structured social studies programmelendsitself to generatingtopics of local concern which are closely associated with thestudents’ immediate experience. Such units are, of course, bestproduced bylocal teams.

3. Current events

Current events may instigate schools to quickly develop newinstructional modules or to carry out learning activities dealingwith the significance of such events. At the system level suchworkof curriculum development maytake a long time, preventingimmediate reaction. A delayed treatment of such events may beinappropniate.

One event which certainly motivated many teachers ofliterature to introduce changesin their course and probably also toproduce a new instructional module, was the awarding of theNobel prize to the Mexican writer Octavio Paz in 1990. Anexample of dealing in the school with an industrial disasterextensively covered in the mass media is provided by Plant(1988). On April 26, 1986 the nuclear reactor of Chernobyl,Ukraine, USSR, suffered a major explosion. Within a few days ahuge cloud of radioactivity was distributed over a large area ofNorth Europe at a distance more than 3000 km. away from theplace of the explosion. Due to a heavy rainfall on 2 and 3 Maythere was a wet deposition of radioactive fall-out on the vegetationin the Upland areas of Britain. In a small seaside town at theseashore on the North Coast the physics teacher, together with hisstudents, carried out a background measure using equipmentavailable at the physics laboratory of the school (a Mullarrd ZP1481 Geiger-Muller tube in conjunction with a Panax scaler).

57


Subsequently, for several days count measures were taken using apiece of card approximately 100 mm square. It was found that on2 and 3 May the count rates were significantly above thebackground. The cards used on these two days were measuredsubsequently in order to obtain decay curves for the depositedmaterial. The number of counts per hour in excess of thebackground was not significant from 8 May onwards. Trying toidentify the material and the radiation dosage the experimentledto the conclusion, that the hazard to the public from directradiation from active material, which has been deposited on theground,is small, and not more than that one receives on a retumflight from Londonto Paris.

4. New instructionalunits

SBCD may focus on developing new instructional units.Topics of local interest or those dealing with current events mayfall into this category. Additionally schools may develop coursesabout emergingtopics or disciplinary areas which previously werenot taught in schools, and therefore no syllabuses or instructionalmaterials have been producedfortheir study.

An example of a grassroots initiative course in an emergingstudy area is presented by the Secondary Science CurriculumReview (1987). It consists of a module in biotechnology. A teamproduced guidelines for teachers, instructional materials forpupils, supplementary worksheets and a set of 36 slides. The teamdescribed the course as follows:

“The material explores the historical, social and industrialcontexts of science and helps students recognise that thesolutions scientists generate to problems may beproblematic in themselves. It also encourages thedevelopmentof ‘economic awareness’.The materials focus on Dairy Biotechnology (yoghurtmanufacture), Yeast Technology Today, WashdayBiotechnology, Cloning, Genetic Engineering, including atheatre play based on the insulin story. Active learningmethods include role-play, experimental problem-solving,data handling, cost analysis, modelling, drama, a

58


simulated radio broadcast based on the controversial issue

of genetic engineering, and directed activities related totexts". (p.BO1).

Implications

1. Schools should take advantage of the freedom bestowed uponthem to share responsibility with the central authorities in makingdecisions abouttheir educational programmes.2. At the school level, curriculum-related decisions are made bythe principal, the subject-matter co-ordinator, the classroomteacher, the whole staff, the parents, etc. Schools should strive tocreate a consensus about the distribution of decision-makingpower among these factors, and should prepare a writtendocumentspecifying relevantrules.3. Schools are advised to distribute decision-making powerabout curricular matters among the central management of theinstitute, the subject departments and the individual teachers.4. Decisions about adopting a curriculum and selectinginstructional materials should be madeafter carefully examining abroad variety of available alternatives.5. Agreement should be reached at the school level among allinterested parties about criteria of evaluating curricula andinstructional materials of other types.6. It is advisable to adopt a curriculum evaluation form, and ifnecessary to adapt it to local needs and conditions. Schools mayalso produce an evaluation form by borrowing items from avariety of available forms, or construct their own.7. School level decisions about adapting available curriculashould be based on serious deliberations in which all interestedparties are given the opportunity to express their opinions.8. Teachers within a single departmentor, across departments,

should be encouraged to create links between different bodies ofknowledge. This can be done in the form of establishingcorrelation among them or developing integrated curricular units.It is recommended that at each grade level at least one integratedtopic should be included in the curriculum.

59


9, Issues and problems of local concem, like environmentprotection, utilization of local resources, augmenting local jobopportunities, may serve as a basis for school-based developmentof integrated curriculum units.10. Supplementary materials like enrichment units, remedialmaterials and independent modules dealing with topics of localinterest or current events can be prepared by individual teachers,ad hoc teams from the school, teams from the staff members ofseveral schools or co-operatively by members of the school staffand out-of-school volunteers and experts.

60

IV. Groups affecting school-based curriculumdevelopment

Asalready indicated, SBCD is a generic term. It describes avariety of curriculum developmentactivities differing from eachother from the points of view of scope, purpose, and persons orgroupsparticipating in it. At the sametimeit is also a misleadingterm because it refers to activities initiated by persons or groupsoutside the school or in which individual teachers, rather than theschool community, revealed interest.

The school’s educational programmeis affected by statutoryregulations which formally determine the rights and obligationsof various parties concerned with the school. The nationalauthorities, the regional and district offices, the local educationalauthorities, and frequently also the parents, are formally grantedsome rights of intervention. There are also non-statutory groupswhich exert pressure on the school in matters of determining thecurriculum.

Figure 4.1 contains a schematic representation of forcesaffecting the school’s programme. The major factors exertinginfluence on curriculum decision are the national framework(which in some large or multi-cultural/multi-ethnic countries canbe substituted by separate frameworks for the regional, cultural orlinguistic sub-systems), the school community (comprising of theteaching and non-teaching staff, the principal and groups directlylinked to the school and participating personally in the affairs ofthe school), and the individual teacher.

61

c9

WIN|NILIINDpaseq-[ooyssSundae

s10jseVq[pansy

! Local authorities

Non-statutory

Statutory impactimpact Curriculum

{f_.. ara —> groups <t-National curriculum at

framework AAutonomousorganizations

District, regional Yoffices ,

Community -—

Local business

y_ Nw and industry

Local School ii: Auxileducational o( community organizationsauthorities 7 7a 8

Teachers * Parents

Learners

JuaudojanapUNjNILLIND

Pasvg-JOOYIS

pul;oUOYON

Groupsaffecting school-based curriculum development

This section examines the nature of impact of various groupsreferred to in Figure 4.1. Our focus is the SBCD,and thereforemost arrows are pointing to the school community and theindividual teacher. Factors affecting the national curriculumframework are outside the domain of our interest. The schemerepresents the view that the national curriculum framework, thedemandsof the local educational authorities, and the pressure ofnon-profit or commercial curriculum groups,all have an importantsay what happens in schools in terms of SBCD. At the same timethe developmentactivities of the curriculum groups are affectedprimarily by the national framework and secondarily by thedemandsof the learners and parents.

The statutory impactline

SBCD may be affected by legislation or by other statutorydecrees either positively or negatively. The central authorities maymove towards devolution of curriculum decision making or mayreduce to a minimum the powerof other factors in such decisions.In the former case the regional authorities may share power withthe central authorities, or may fully substitute them. Furthermorethe local authorities and the schools may be given autonomy todecide whatto teach.

1. Local authorities

The word ‘local’ in this context refers to situations, where thedecisions are made outside the school, while the decision-makersdeal with the programmeof schools personally known to them andproblems and needs they are familiar with. In this respect theydiffer from central authorities that deal with the curriculum of alarge number of schools without having direct and personalcontact with those affected by their decisions.

Curriculum decisions at local level deal, usually, withorganizational and managementaspects of the school programme,or with macro-aspects of the curriculum content. To the firstcategory pertain issues such as streaming or de-streaming and thesupport for open education pattems. To the second category

63


pertain issues such as the standards of achievement at variousgrade levels, comprehensive versus multi-cultural-trackframework, censorship of books used in the school, the place ofsex education in the school programme, andmulti-cultural-cultural education. Such decisions also involveselecting subjects to be taught in a particular school from a broadvariety of centrally approved subjects or disciplines. This would,for example, include whetherto teach typing or technical drawingin a particular school, or which foreign language or art subjectshould be included in the school’s programme.

2. Educational authorities at the locallevel

The local level educational authorities differ across countriesin their organizational structure and their involvement incurriculum decisions. In some countries, like England and Wales,the Local Educational Authorities (LEAs) are a branch ofthe localauthorities. In other countries, like the USA, each School Districthas its own School Board, which acts as an independent agency,raises levies, and is not subject to the administrative control of thelocal authorities. The local educational authorities are likely toinitiate curriculum development activities only if demand isimposed upon them to do so. Demand may come from above,thatis, from the national government and local authorities, or frombelow,from the voting constituency. Shipman (1985) claimed thatthe Local Educational Authorities (LEAs) in England and Walesempowered the school to make decisions about their curriculumand did not initiate curriculum development activities untilpressure was applied both from above, from the centralgovernment, national committees, and through research reports, aswell as from below, from teachers and interest groups. Demandsfor the School Board involvementin curriculum development arealso heard in the USA. A national survey conducted in the USArevealed that most school districts prefer a ‘home-grown’curriculum, and more than twothirds of the districts have a masterplan for curriculum development (Martin et al. 1987).

Involvementin the curriculum of authorities at the local-levelis felt not only in organising curriculum development teams or

64


producing curriculum materials. But also in the great variety ofinitiatives which do not directly involve the curriculum but which,nevertheless, have an impact on what is taught in schools. Themaintenance of resource centres, the organization of in-servicecourses, the administration of achievement surveys, andinformation gathering questionnaires sent to schools servemultiple purposes, and among others they inform schools aboutwhat they are expected to teach.

3. The school community

Modern theories of educational organization describe schoolsas a loosely coupled system, characterized by the followingtraits(Ecker 1985):

a. Unclear goals: Even if schools define their goals in termslike ‘excellence’ or ‘quality of instruction’, they encounterdifficulties in operationally defining these terms.

b. Unclear technology: The transmission of knowledge islittle understood and little rationalized.

c. Fluid participation: The participation of staff members indifferent activities is not stable.

Nevertheless, curriculum development is based on team work, andit can be effectively done only if the legitimacy of such an activityis fully supported by a cohesive group within the institute. Wolfeet al. (1989) argues that the school community consists of fourgroups: the principal and other senior administrative task holders,the teachers, the parents and the learners. They view theinterrelationships among these four groups as an important factorin determining the success of any school-based initiative. Thecommunity spirit of the school is enhanced by norms, values andbeliefs that include collaboration, collegiality, cohesiveness,support, commitment, open communication, shared decisionmaking, co-operation, ownership and belonging.

The roles of the administration, including the principal, andthe teachers will now be taken up, while the involvement of theparents and the learners will be examined in the following sectiondealing with the non-statutory impacts.

65


(i) The principal

It is the role of the principal to energize the schoolcommunity. Wolfe et al. (1989) suggest a series of activities whichmay create a sense of community, like establishing a schoolgovemor’s team, introducing team teaching and co-operativelearning. Summarizing studies which deal with the schoolcommunity, they provide the following list of behaviours whichshould characterize the behaviourofthe principal:

. Promotes open communication and shareddecision-making between teachers, students,parents and administrators.

° Provides opportunities for enhancing collegialrelations.

. Seeks agreementaboutthe mission of the school.

. Promotes a strong school spirit.In Sri Lanka, in the context of the development and

implementation of an innovative rural education programme, oneof the important phases of the planning was running a workshopfor principals of rural primary schools. The workshop wasdesigned to bring new dimensions to the roles of the principals.Previously, the stress in management was on administrationleaving a vacuum in the academic and pedagogic aspects of schoollife. The objectives of the workshop were, among others, todevelop (a) the ability and the knowledge of methodology foridentifying community resources, (b) the ability to integrateteaching/learning in the world of work and the cultural milieu ofthe community, (c) positive attitudes towards the dignity oflabour, (d) awareness about the potential of rural learningresources for teachingAearing (Ekanayake 1990).

A comprehensive treatment of the principals role in SBCDispresented by Schwab (1983). He argues for the principal’sparticipation in SBCD activities, but emphasizes that the principalshould not serve as the chairman of the committee dealing withsuch matters. Participation is important, because the principal’sknowledge and approval of a new programmeis critical for theeffective installation of the change. Secondly, the principal,if longenough in that position, may have the fullest knowledge of those

66


factors which affect teaching and learning in the school. On theother hand, serving as a chairman entails the danger that thechairman of the group would act as an administrator rather than asan ‘educational expert’. According to Schwab, the co-ordinator ofthe curriculum group should be seen by the teachers as one oftheirs and not as a superiorauthority.

(ii) The teachers

The curriculum reform of the 1960s viewed the process ofcurriculum development as a highly professional activity to becarried out by specially trained experts, and in which teachers mayfulfil only marginal roles. Teachers were invited to participate inthe work of the professional development teams, but mostly onlyin a part-time capacity or as being seconded from their regularjobs for a limited period of time. The classroom experience of theteacher was considered to be a useful and important source ofprofessional knowledge needed for making curriculum decisionsof some types, but it was judged to be less than sufficient forcarrying out the work of curriculum developers. Experts workingat curriculum developmentcenters revealed more sensitivity to theteachers’ lack of ability to use their sophisticated curriculumrather than to their own lack of experience dealing with classroomsituations. Aware of the fact that the teacher is a necessarymediator between the centrally produced curriculum andits targetpopulation, curriculum experts designed curriculum guides thatspecified the teacher’s action in detail, and organised intensivein-Service courses to ensure that teachers would do in the classwhat the curriculum planners believed they should do. Connellyand Clandinin (1988: p. 138) described this attitude by saying:“Teachers were seen as modifying screens of the purposes builtinto the materials." Therefore, various strategies were undertakento minimize teacher influence, and materials of this type wereconsidered to be ‘teacher-proof’ materials.

In the 1970s it became apparent that these centrallydeveloped, highly sophisticated programmes did not succeed inchanging teaching practice. Teachers frequently did notunderstand the new materials, did not identify with the innovation

67


and continued to teach as they did before. The belief in thepossibility of producing teacher-proof materials was shaken andthe reputation of the teacher as being competent to deal withcurricular matters was restored. Teachers were asked to increasetheir involvementin producing curricula, and their participation inthis process has now been accepted as a necessary feature ofdevelopment.

By 1990 the view which favours a teacher-proof curriculumhad been fully repudiated. Educators recognized that it wasvirtually impossible to prepare curriculum materials on whichteachers could not imprint their personal stamp. The strong beliefin the desirability of the teacher’s involvement in curriculumdevelopment, and in his or her competency to do such work wasreflected in the term curriculum-proof teacher which came toridicule the ill-conceived idea of teacher-proof curricula.

Teachers’ involvement in curriculum development can beobserved in developing countries, too, but with lower frequencythan in developed countries. In developing countries, teachers’involvement in SBCDis greatly dependent on obtaining supportfrom external agencies. Sutaria (1990) described a large-scaleproject in the Philippines known as the Programfor DecentralizedEducational Development (PRODED). Its goal was ‘teaching formaximum learning’. The programme was launched in 1983 inresponse to the results of the national Survey of Outcomes ofElementary Education, which revealed that pupils mastered lessthan half of the competencies expected for their grade levels. Thecentral educational authorities defined a list of minimumcompetencies for each grade level and set an operational objectivefor all schools to raise the number of goals attained by the pupilseach year by two per cent. Teachers were encouraged to developsupplementary materials suitable for the unique needs. The authornoted that:

"schools that had an abundance of locally developedmaterials designed for learners of various abilitiesregistered better performance than those that hada littlenumber. The self-instructional modules were particularlyuseful in getting people more involved in their ownlearning" (p. 248).

68


A cautionary note against exaggerated hopes with regard tothe teachers’ involvement in curriculum development is wellarticulated by Hargreaves (1989). He claims that teachers arepresent-oriented, conservative, individualistic, try to avoidlong-term planning, havedifficulties in incorporating in their dailywork continuous collaboration with others and often resistinvolvement in whole school decision-making.

But despite the doubts expressed by Hargreaves, the mostactive partners in curriculum development activities are theteachers. The scope of their activity may be limited, but itconstitutes a significant contribution to enhancing the identity ofthe school and its communityspirit.

The non-statutory impactline

Some factors have an impact on SBCD even without therebeing formal empowermentfor their intervention in the school’sprogramme. Paradoxically enough large-scale centralisticcurriculum projects, such as the American Biological ScienceCurriculum Study, where adopted, generated intensive SBCDactivities. Teachers, impressed by the quality of the programme,tried to adapt it to local conditions, to develop supplementarymodules of local interest, and even to develop new programmemodules, imitating the features of such ‘imported curricula’.

This section deals with the impact of the community,including voluntary and auxiliary organizations, and business andindustrial bodies operating inside the community. It also dealswith the involvement of parents and learners in deciding whatshould be taught in schools. In some educational systems parentsand learners right of involvement has some statutory basis, butsince in most countries this right is not clearly stated, let aloneoperationalized and realized, it seems appropriate to deal withthem in this section.

(iv) The community

There is a growing trend of forging strong relationshipsbetween schools and the communities served by them. Schools

69


are expected to respond to local needs both through whatis taughtin the classes and through providing facilities for programmesserving the community’s adult population. At the same time thecommunity is expected to recruit resources for the school and toco-operate with it in ensuring that the curriculum satisfies localneeds.

Ideal as this relationship seems to be, the involvement ofcommunity groupsin the professional aspects of school life is notalways welcomed by the teachers. Teachers’ Unions, too,frequently view this mutual dependency as an infringement uponthe professional autonomy of the teacher. Nevertheless, thebenefits of co-operative action between schools and communitiesoutweigh its drawbacks.

The community’s right of involvement is rooted in thedemocratic principle that public services should operate in a waywhichsatisfies the expectations of their sponsor. The necessity ofthe latters involvement is rooted in the fact that teachers maycome to work from a distant geographic area, and their cultural,social and linguistic background may be different from that of theschool’s population, so that without close co-operation with thecommunity’s adult population they would encounterdifficulties inresponding to local needs.

The community’s curriculum-related orientation can beconveyed to schools through various channels. Informalstatements made at occasional gatherings, celebrations or publicevents by influential persons may contain messages which shouldbe considered by the school in making curricular decisions, Butthe direct involvement of organized bodies within the community,or representing the community, is a more powerful way ofexerting pressure on the school. In some educational systemscommunities are legally empowered to organize advisorycommittees with full or limited authority to make curriculumrelated decisions. Churches, religious institutions, commercial,industrial and agricultural bodies representing the need ofcertainsub-groups of the community, local organizations, or localbranches of national voluntary organizations all may exertpressure to include some topics in the school programme. Somenational voluntary organizations have established liaison offices

70

Groups affecting school-based curriculum development

for dealing with schools. In many cases they also producecurriculum materials, and they are interested in using their localbranches to disseminate these materials in the local schools.Voluntary organizations all over the world deal with issues ofenvironmental protection, preservation of wildlife, health care,preservation of historical monuments, cultivation of localtraditions, home industries, science clubs, creativearts, etc.

Also, auxiliary organizations which were established to assistthe school in specific matters, or to represent the interest ofminority groups or special interest groups among the studentpopulation, may have an impact on school-based curriculumdecisions.

The reaction of the school to the needs of the community maybe responsive or initiatory. It may concede to communitydemands, or it may initiate contact with agencies operating in thecommunity to help the school adjust its programmeto local needs.

In developing countries, strong links between schools andcommunities served by them have been observed in mostcountries concerned with rural development. Ekanayake (1990)described a programmeof this type in Sri Lanka which aimed athaving an impact on rural people and helping them to meet theirfuture needs. As a preparatory activity for producing curriculumunits which deal with locally relevant topics, the curriculumplanning team visited rural communities and identified sites,situations, personnel, etc. which may serve as Rural EducationalResources (RER), and constitute a target of curriculum units. Theylisted twenty-three such items including (a) human resources(likethe village physician, eye specialist, funeral officer), (b) craft andcommercial resources (like the blacksmith, pottery, tile-makingindustry, stores, garage), (c) institutions (like the religious center,agricultural productivity center, hand-loom center) and (d) naturalresources (like a small tributary of a river). School-based teams

aided by experts were invited to develop learning experiencesutilizing these resources for various grade levels of the primaryschool. These locally relevant topics were expected to assist in thesocialization of the pupils for the cultural, social and economicenvironment of their village. Links between the school and thecommunity were strengthened through the followingactivities:

71


1. Organizing community awareness programmes through schooldevelopment societies and village level officials in order to createawareness of the aims and purposes of the new design.2. Organizing committees in the village. The function of thecommittees could be : (a) developing study sites; (b) organizingstudy centers; (c) sharing responsibility with those who volunteer,(d) evaluating and monitoring progress.3. Organizing exhibitions in the school and developing localmuseums which may contain local artefacts, contrivances,products, stories/books written aboutthe villagelife.

4. Parents’ involvement

Parents constitute a special sub-group of the communitycharacterized by being obliged to maintain some contact with theschool. According to Berger (1987), parents are very interested inall aspects of their children’s education. They differ from schooladministrators and teachers in their desire for more involvementindecision-making. School staff want more involvementof parentsin supporting the school programme but little parentalinvolvementin decision-making aboutthe life in the school.

Berger distinguishes between six school related parentaleducational activities:1. Parents help children to learn, supervise their homework.2. They are spectators in the school, attend school performancesin which their children are involved.3. They are accessory volunteers, rendering non-educationalservices to school, such as raising funds, maintaining the buildingand equipment.4. They provide para-professional educational services, in thecapacity of teacheraid,etc.5. As resource persons they may help the teacher by coming tothe class and providing supplementary information derived fromtheir personal or professional experience about curriculum relatedtopics. Moreover they may motivate the teacher to teach topicswhichare related to the parents personal expertise.6. As policy makers they may be involved in the process ofdecision-making about variousissues related to the school.

72


Only the two last activities touch upon curriculum relatedissues, and one of them,the parents’ role as resource person, playsa marginal role in curricular decisions.

Public opinion surveys in the USA indicate that the school’scurriculum is one of the three major school related concems of theparent (the other two being discipline and drug abuse).Nevertheless, in numerous educational systems across the world,parental right to participate in decisions about the curriculum isnot anchored in the law. Thus, in Australia, where the centraleducational authorities monitored a gradual devolution ofdecision-making power, or in England and Wales, where a newnationally prescribed curriculum framework was introduced, theresponsibility for curriculum was delegated to the regional andlocal authorities, while the right of the parents has not been clearlydefined. In the USA,too, the school site advisory council may ormay not have members whose children study in the schools oftheir responsibility. Parents may ask the help of the court if theyare not satisfied with the school’s operation but they do not havedirect access to the process of decision-making. On the otherhand, there are educational systems such as_ Indonesia andHungary where, by law, parents have the right to determine thecontent of a given percentage (usually 20-30 per cent) of thewhole school programme. However, none of these arrangementsguarantees smooth co-operation between schools and parents.Co-operation requires initiative and leadership. While both partiesmay initiate co-operative action, schools are usually more adeptatinitiating and providing leadership than are parents. Indeedparents frequently do not constitute a homogeneous group, anditmay well happen that the interest of one group of parentscontradicts the interest of another. In such cases the schoolleadership has to initiate action and work out a solution acceptableto all conflicting parties.

The school’s capability to identify areas of consensus inwhich teachers, parents and pupils can co-operate may create afavourable climate in the school which, in tum, maylead to apartnership with parents in making decisions about variouscurriculum-related issues. An example of such triple co-operationin developing a health based physical education programmeis

73


described by Hulbert (1987). The programme developers createda questionnaire about health related views, opinions andbehaviours and asked the children to answerthe questions togetherwith their parents at their homes. [Illustrative items from thequestionnaires are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Questions answered jointly by children and

their parents

%Taking part in physical activities can improve aperson’s fitness 3.2

Jogging Can strengthen a person’s heart 52

A lot of backaches are caused because people don’thave strong enough musclesin their stomachs 70.8

Taking part in vigorous exercise releases chemicalsinto the blood which can makeyoufeel“high” 4.15

Sugar is an unnecessary part ofour diet 48.8

For some people too muchsalt in their diet canincrease the risk of suffering from a stroke or heartdisease 13.8

Percentage of sample who gaveincorrect response or were “not sure” about the truthof the statements

Source: Hulbert, L. (1987). Health based physical education: the need to involveparents, Bulletin of Physical Education, p.11.

74


The summary of the questions served as a basis for planningjointly with the parents a physical education programmefor thechildren.

An example from Malaysia about co-operation betweenparents and teachers to increase the relevance of the curriculumfor solving daily life problems is described by Aziz et al (1990).

"An initial activity of the project was an attemptto raiseparents’ awareness oftheir roles in education throughdialogues and discussions with the headman andmembers of the community, informal get-together anddemonstration sessions. Having gained a favourableresponse, community centers were set up whereworkshops were organized ....for developing suitableteaching-learning materials for school and home use.Someof these materials include reading passages, picturecards and educational games”. (p. 60-61)It should be noted, however, that parents’ co-operation with

schools may depend onthe existence of an adequate climate, andin many cases there is a need for providing suitable training.Stromquist (1986) described an attempt to decentralizeeducational decision-making in Peru. It tumed out that theinnovation suggested by the central educational authoritiesappealed to neither the teachers nor the parents. Due to theTeachers Union’s opposition, the teachers refused to co-operatewith the Ministry of Education in implementing the suggestedchange. Parents received neither training nor encouragement tofulfil such a role. The administrative staff of the Ministry did notknow how to implementthis change. Finally, the whole idea ofdecentralization had to be abandoned.

5. Learner participation in curriculum decisions

Educators have concerned themselves with learner

participation in decisions about the curriculum for two reasons.The first is that if leamers have an interest in a topic of studiestheir motivation to learn is enhanced. The secondis that the ideal

of self-determination or the democratization of school life is

75


promoted if learners are considered as partners in determining thecourse of their own studies.

A student-centered approach in making curriculum decisionshas been advocated in Sri Lanka and Thailand, hoping to enablestudents to solve problems, to seek additional knowledge bythemselves, and to apply such knowledge to daily life situations(Aziz et al 1990).

Surveys to find out what topics learners were interested inwere carried out as a preparatory activity for several large-scalecurriculum developmentprojects. Thus, for example, in the US,the Children Television Workshop (CTW) used various techniquesto discover what kinds of programmes children liked. Childrenwere presented with a large selection of photographs covering awide range of topics such as animals, spaceships, plants, insects,and requested to rank the picturesin orderofinterest.

In another technique children were requested to communicatethe questions or problems that preoccupied them in order todetermine the appeal of various topics. As may be expected, theoriginality of the questions asked by children exceeded theimagination of adults. Some examples were:

* How does the body know whenit is time to grow?* Why do zebras havestripes?¢ How do you make chalk?* Is there a real Santa Claus?* Why do sometimesfeel like I have no friends?Thereis little consensus among educators on the desirability,

let alone the desirable scope, of learners’ involvement incurriculum decisions. At one end of the continuum are those whorecognize the instrumental value of considering learners’ interest.Thus, for example, Smith et al. (1957, p.603) argue that the"interests of the individual learner are not a sufficient criterion ofcurriculum content, [but] they are necessary criterion”. At the

other extreme are those who claim that learners should be givenfull freedom to make decisions about their own programme aslong as they remain within the framework prescribed by theschool.

Leamers’ involvement in curriculum development can bedescribed in termsof:

76


* the nature of the developmentactivity;¢ the scope of the curriculum elements over which learners

may havea say;* the locusoftheinitiative.Nature of the development activity: Learner involvementin

curriculum decisions is usually limited to selecting a course ofstudies, but there are numerous examples of learners preparinginstructional materials. It is almost universally accepted practiceto offer electives in secondary schools. Pupils may be allowed toselect a particular subject from electives offered by the school.The school often invites pupils to suggest subjects or topics forinclusion in their programme.

Scope of curriculum elements: Learner decisions mayrelateto macro-elements of study or micro-elements only. Opting for aparticular elective may mean a commitment of several years. Forexample, deciding to study a certain foreign language or artsubject may require continuous study for two or three years oreven more. Alternatively, the decision may consist in selecting aparticular unit in a modularly structured course or a particularassignment in a lesson. Often, sets of instructional materialscontain a wide selection of assignments differing in content, levelof difficulty, organization (individual or co-operative), nature ofmental operation (such as reading and writing, hands-on work,observing phenomena, talking to people, carrying out art work,etc.). Where there is assignment choice one mustlearn to select, orin other words, to build up a personalized curriculum.

Schools may have various institutional arrangements forfostering a personalized curriculum. Examples are severalvariations of what is called independent studies. Pupils may studya particular subject, or a topic in it, which is not included in theregular curriculum. In this case use is made of availableself-instructional materials. Pupils may carry out small-scaleresearch studies, either individually or on a co-operative basis,under the guidance of a teacher or an outside expert volunteeringto serve as a mentor. Sometimesthe topic of such independentstudies is negotiated with the teacher and the agreement isspecified in a curriculum contract.

77


The locus of the initiative: The initiative for involvingstudents in curriculum related decisions may come from outsidethe school, like the central educational authorities, the communityor the parents. It may instead be school-based or teacher-based.Innumerous educational systems the national curriculum prescribesthat schools should provide alternatives to select from, or establishsome type of partnership with leamers in making decisions aboutthe curriculum.

Collaboration

Curriculum development is teamwork which can be carriedout by the teachers of a single school or through collaborationbetween teachers from several schools, or through collaborationbetween schools and support services from outside the school.During the 1980s schools most commonly developed curricula inpartnership with universities, institutes of teacher training andotherinstitutes of higher education. ~

De Bevoise (1986) mentioned several reasons for the

universities willingness to enter into partnership with schools inthe field of curriculum development. Firstly, universities redefinedtheir roles and ceased to view themselves as_ institutionsresponsible only for research and teaching, instead committingthemselves to direct social involvement. Universities are nowconsciously dedicated to serving the surrounding area and thusenhancing linkage with the community. Secondly, universities andparticularly schools of education, realized that close contact withschools is necessary for generating knowledge which maycontribute to the improvement of education. The curriculum ofteacher education was broadenedto include observing life in theschool, carrying out experiments,trailling new teaching methodsand instructional materials. Schools could serve as laboratoriesfor generating knowledge about education. All these activitiesrequired partnership with the schools. Thirdly, universitiesbecame aware that improved high school teaching may raise theentry level knowledge of students being admitted to theuniversities. Thus, involvement in the high school programmeprovides a service for the university, too. Finally, collaborative

78


studies, if supported by funds from external bodies, agencies orlocal or national educational authorities, increase the university’sresources.

Collaboration in curriculum development betweenuniversities and schools may take different forms. One type ofcollaboration is an agreement between a university and a group ofschools, according to which each of the two partners mayinitiateaction, and each project or programmeis carried out by an ad hocteam. A group of teachers may invite an expert from thecollaborating university to work with them on a particular project,and several curriculum projects, can be carried out simultaneouslyby groups of smali teams. University staff members may beinvited to lecture in high school classes, and high school teachersmay be invited to speak about their teaching experiences touniversity students and faculty members. Collaboration of thistype enables grassrootinitiative on a broad scale.

In most cases the initiative comes from universities.University-based projects recruit teachers or accept those whoapply for admission as partners in curriculum development. Thepartners of such collaborative endeavour respect each othersprofessional expertise and neither of them strives to be dominantin the group. .

McGowan and Williams (1990) examined the impact ofschool-university partnership and found that it may createmeaningful changes in the school’s curriculum if the partnership isflexible, situation-specific, practitioner-formulated and monitored,interactive, relatively egalitarian, systematic and directed at aproblem which participants perceive as relevant.

An example of collaboration of this type is the Children’sLearning in Science Project (CLISP) of the University of Leeds,United Kingdom.

6. Two instances of collaboration with universities incurriculum development

The curriculum development activities of the Children’sLearning Science Project (CLISP) in the University of Leeds(United Kingdom) are an example of collaboration between a

79


university and a group of 30 teachers. The teachers, under theguidance of an expert team from the university, developed andtrailled teaching schemesin various areas of science teaching.

The purpose of the project is to produce curriculum materialsbased on the constructivist view of learning. The project selectsonly commonly taught curriculum contents and developscurriculum materials which follow the pattern of a particularteaching method.

The basis of the constructivist view is that children constructtheir own knowledge through personal interaction with naturalphenomena andsocial interaction with adults and peers (Needham1987). Since children already have notions how things happen inthe world before they cometo study formal science,it is importantfor the teacherfirst to find out their ideas about topics being taughtand then to let them reflect about these ideas, compare them withthose of others, and evaluate the usefulness of these ideasalongside the teacher’s scientific theories.

The characteristic features of this projectis illustrated here bythe outline of a curriculum unit on plant nutrition. (SeeFigure 4.2). The unit consists of three main sections: testingpupils’s ideas, exploration of the school-science (or the teacher’s)ideas, and application of the school-science idea. The samestructure is employed in other units produced by the Centre.

Another instance of collaboration between schools and aninstitution of higher education occurred in the curriculumdevelopmentactivities of the Jntegrated Rural Development IRD)project in Bunumbu, Sierra Leone. The entire project was anexperiment to confront some of the national and sectionalproblems faced by the people of the country. One of theseproblems wasthe fact that the educational system, normally thesupplier of the required manpower, and an influential social agentfailed to meet the demands. As noted by Banya (1989) educationwas bookish and strongly reflected the traditions of the Britishsystem. Bunumbu Teachers’ College, the single institute of highereducation operating in the region, was asked to assumeresponsibility for monitoring curriculum development for theformal and informal educational frameworks. The collegeco-operated with 20 schools within a 20 mile radius. They served

80


mainly as pilot schools for trying out new leaming units. Throughthis project, links were established with central governmentalagencies and also with the University of Sierra Leone. Therelationship between the Teachers College and the trial schoolswas of a hierarchical structure, rather than one of sharedresponsibility. The situation was characterized by its potential forcollaboration, but it was not realized in practice.

ORIENTATION, Howdoplants get their food?ANDEarnG - pooling pupils’ ideas LESSONS

PUPILS' - choosing ideasto test 1 - 3{DEAS - designing and performinga test

Y

Producing a consensusof findings

Y

PRESENATION Familiarization with school science view

EXPLORATION -

SCIENCE VIEW Exploring school science view 4-5throughpractical activities

y

Applying school science viewin a wider context LESSON

Y

APPLICATION OF Pupils reviewing the change inSCHOOL SCIENCE heir iVIEW their ideas

Needham 1987

Source: Needham, R. (1987). Approaches to teaching plant nutrition, Childrens’Learning in Science Project, Centre for Studies in Science and MathematicsEducation, University of Leeds, 1987, p.10.

Figure 4.2 Outline of the plant nutrition teaching scheme

81


Implications

1. The managementofthe school, and particularly the principal,should be aware of SBCD activities initiated by various groupsand sources, and they should adequately support such initiatives.2. In large schools it is desirable to establish curriculumcommittees in which the principal should take part, but notnecessarily serve as its chairman/woman.3. Teachers’ participation in curriculum development mayenhance their identification with the school and increase theirfeeling of belonging. Nevertheless, perseverance of teachers injobs of this type can be ensured only if such work is duelyacknowledged and remunerated. Involvement in SBCD shouldentitle teachers to a reduced teaching load.4. Schools should maintain contact with local educationalauthorities, and establish partnership with other schools in thesamelocality or in the close vicinity for the sake of co-ordinatingSBCD activities. They should also co-operate with localorganizations, industries and businesses by answering their needsand recruiting their help for local level curriculum development.5. Co-operative endeavours with local cultural institutions andpartnership in curriculum development with local institutions ofhigher education have proved to be highly rewarding, and schoolsshould take advantage of such opportunities.6. Schools should be alert to identify non-expensive localresources, which may serve as a basis for designing learningactivities. People pursuing occupations related to topics dealt withwithin the curriculum, local institutions, etc., may enrich therelevance of externally developed curricula.7. Schools should establish forums which involve parents in avariety of curriculum-related decisions, and especially inincorporating issues of local interest in the school programme.8. In school level decision-making, as much attention aspossible should be paid to the interest revealed by students intopics of different types. Schools should establish channelsthrough which information can be gathered, at regular timeintervals, about changesin the areas ofthe students’ interest. Thisinformation should be used in decisions about course offering andin determiningrules related to elective subjects in the school.

V. Evaluating school-based curriculumdevelopmentprojects

Conceptually, the evaluation of school-based curriculum is nodifferent from curriculum evaluation in general. Consequently,allmodels, schemes, designs, materials and approaches presented inthe curriculum evaluation literature are also applicable to SBCD.Nevertheless, constraints of time, training, and resources availablefor the evaluation of SBCD products, in practice, necessitate someadjustment.

Curriculum development is a time-consuming endeavour.Central curriculum development teams may spend several yearspreparing instructional materials for a one-year course in aparticular subject. In contrast, SBCD products are mostly preparedby small teams of teachers, who usually carry out curriculumdevelopment activities on a part-time basis alongside theirteaching load. Curriculum developmentactivities inside the schoolfocus on immediate needs. Teams rarely work on a particularcourse of study for more than a year, and quite frequently theyhave to prepare materials for use in the same year of production.

The difficulties imposed by time constraints are balanced bythe fact that the framework of SBCD facilitates the collection ofevaluation inputs, which are the by-products of daily work in theschool, such as minutesof staff conferences and what Lindvall andCox (1970) call ‘curriculum embedded tests’, i.e. assignments,exercises, homework,tests given to pupils as a part of their routineschool work, and also reviewed and scored by teachers as part oftheir own routine work.

83


While the professional literature includes numerous reportsabout the evaluation of particular SBCD programmes,very littlehas been done to systematize procedures or to suggest models,taking into consideration the unique evaluation conditions ofSBCD.

Characteristics of SBCD which have a bearing ondetermining a suitable way of evaluation are, for instance, thenature of the developmentactivity; the distance between user anddeveloper, and whether the curriculum is for single or recurrentuse.

The development activity: SBCD may mean selectinginstructional materials, adapting or supplementing existingprogrammesfor local needs, or developing new programme unitsor modules.

The distance between user and developer: In the context ofSBCD the developer him or herself may be the user of theprogramme. Quite frequently, however, users did notparticipate inthe process of the development.

Single versus recurrent use: Some SBCD products and also,but less frequently, centrally developed ones are meant to be usedon a single occasion. This is the case, for example, withcurriculum modules dealing with current events. Excitingtechnological innovations, momentous cultural events, majoreconomic changes, or natural disasters may call for such singleuse.

Continuous evaluation linked to developmentand use

Continuouscurriculum evaluation is important because of theneedto carry out formative evaluation of educational programmesat the early phases of their development and because judgementsabout curricula and instructional materials, as about otherphenomenain the field of education, have a time-boundvalidity.

As curriculum development initiatives became widespread,both at national and at local-level, and the sequenceofactions inthis multiphase endeavour was articulated, experts tried todescribe evaluation activities appropriate to each phase.

84

Evaluating school-based curriculumdevelopment projects

In this section evaluation activities in the following threephases in the life-cycle of SBCD products will be dealt with:pre-development, the phase of programme development, and thatof using the programme.

1. Pre-development phase

The need for collecting information about the context inwhich a particular curriculum innovation will be put to use isemphasized by most experts in the field of programme evaluation(Huberman and Cox, 1990). Stufflebeam et al. (1971) introducedthe term ‘context evaluation’ and claimed that evaluators shouldgather information about needs which have not been met, missedopportunities, and problems. According to Pennington (1985),evaluation experts can provide information needed for curriculumplanners by:

¢ analyzing relevant reports and publications;* drawing on the perceptions, experiences and expectations

of those familiar with the context, such as teachers,curriculum consultants, and would-be employers of theschool leavers;

* reviewing existing curricular materials and critiques oftheir quality;

* utilizing results of routine achievement surveys orexaminations;

* comparing the characteristics of successful textbooks withthose of less successful ones, and

* organizing community forums to discuss the needs fornew programmes.

2. The development phase

In the phase of programme development, evaluation focuseson examining the adequacy of programme components orelements and the sequence of learning activities. As soon as thefirst draft is available, the whole programme becomesthetarget ofevaluation.

85


Evaluation at this phase may use empirical data collectedduring trialling of curriculum products or by analyticalexamination of the programme plan and ofinstructional materials.The reported findings may be accompanied by suggestions forprogrammerevision. This maylead to iterative cycles of revision,trialling and evaluation. In practice, however, experienced teamsseldom need more than a single cycle oftrial and revision.

Examples of evaluation approaches used at this phase arepresented below.(1) LearnerVerification and Revision

Evaluation based on trialling of instructional materials isreferred to as Learner Verification and Revision (EPIE, 1980).Figure 5.1 shows the revision of a page in a draft version of aprimary reader. There are substantially more correct responses forthe revised exercise andillustration than for the original ones, thusproving the effectiveness of the revision.(2) Intrinsic evaluation

Intrinsic evaluation focuses on the inherent characteristics ofcurricula rather than on their effects. According to Eraut (1985),the curricular traits to be examined are those of the adequacy ofthe curriculum goals, consistency between goals espoused and thecontent of the instructional materials, and the accuracy, coverageand significance of content. Intrinsic evaluation studies frequentlyuse evaluation checklists. An extensive collection of curriculumevaluation checklists was compiled by Woodbury (1979). Anexample of a checklist used by the National Study of SchoolEvaluation (1987) to evaluate a school’s mathematics programmeis presented in Table 5.1.(3) Curriculum criticism

Another approach to evaluation can be found in curriculumcriticism, first advocated by Mann (1969), and later developedand expanded by Eisner (1985) into an effective method forimproving educational programmes. Curriculum criticism has itsroots in the cognateness ofinstructional materials andliterature.

86


Original Directions Underline che man behind the man with the drum.

Circle the wan in froot of the man with the born.

v

Revieed Directions RK

v

Look below at the people who play music io chepatede. Point to the Lady with the born. Rowpoiot co the one ia fronr of the lady.

Point to the boy playing the drm. Rew pointte the one behind the boy. Underline the onebehind the boy.

ve

Source: EPIE. (1980). Educational Products Information Exchange: DecipheringLRV,Vol. 12,p.46.

Figure 5.1 A picture andits revision

87


Table 5.1 Descriptive criteria of mathematics curriculum

Descriptive Criteria

1. The curriculum is consistent with the phi-losophy and goals of the school .......... 54321 na

2. The offerings extend the skills and under-

standing developed in previous courses ... 54321 na3. Coursesat all levels stress understanding

and the ability to use important mathe-matical relations such as equality, inequality

and CONZTUENCE ...... eee eee eee ee eee 54321 na4. Coursesat all levels stress understanding of

and proper use of mathematical symbols . 54321 na5. Courses atall levels stress an understanding

of estimation skills ..............---0005 54321 na6. Coursesatall levels stress algorithmic and

heuristic strategies for problem solving .. 54321 na

7. Courses include the use of a calculator as an

option if appropriate ................... 54328. Instruction in reading comprehension skills

directly related to mathematics is provided

_~ na

at all levels of the program ............. 54321 na9. The offerings include developmentofthe real

and complex number systems ........... 54321 na

10. Appropriate courses stress the nature of

proof and provide the student with oppor-tunities to develop competency in handlingthe process of proof ................200. 54321 na

Source: National Study of School Evaluation. (1987). Evaluative Criteria, 6thedition, NSSE.(p.232).

88


Both are textual materials, usually published in the form ofbooksorarticles. Thus, for Willis (1978), evaluation:

"\.ds an art as well as a science. While it is well for thecurriculum worker to know thescientific principles, theempirical data, and the technological applications, thatinform muchofhis practice, it is equally well for him tobe conversant with those aspects of arts which comeintoplay, when what happens with a curriculum or in aclassroom inevitably spills out beyond those scientificconstructs he has chosen to employ”. (p. 93).

3. Using SBCD products

School authorities are aware that SBCD needs support interms of time allocation, access to expert consultants, resources,etc., but they believe that once the curriculum products are ready,teachers can retum to their classes and devote their time to theirpupils. While programme development implies co-operative workamongteachers, the use of such curriculum products is consideredthe private task of each teacher.

In contrast to the commonpractice of allocating resources tothe maintenance of school buildings and to hardware, schoolauthorities overlook the maintenance needs of instructionalsoftware. SBCD products are meant to serve the needs of theschool for several years, and without adequate maintenance theymay quickly lose their viability.

Evaluating the use of curricula serves the purpose ofidentifying flaws in the maintenance of programmes and ofsuggesting ways which may increase the effectiveness of thecontinued use of the programme. Accordingly, it should focus onquestionsof the following types:1. Is the programme used in the classes in a way that isconsistent with the philosophy specified by its developers?2. Does the programmecontinue to hold the interest of thosewho prepared it or use it in their classes? Is it discussed formallyor informally by teachers and other school staff members? Doesthe school arrange open days to air problems encountered in using

89


the programme?Do inspectors or local authorities continue to takean interest in the success of the programme?3. Are there further attempts to update the programme, broadenit, supplementit, and increase the resources available? Are thereopportunities for systematic in-service training activities in the useof the programme? Have teachers changed some aspects of theprogramme?4. Do pupils attain the objectives of the programme? Is thereevidence for growth in cognitive, affective, and psychomotorachievements?

Monitoring SBCDat the schoollevel

Schools may be successful in developing SBCD products ofhigh quality yet, at the same time, the overall monitoring ofcurriculum developmentinside the school may suffer from seriousshortcomings.

Several questionnaires have been developed for examiningthis aspect of schoollife (see NSSE, 1987; Metropolitan Boroughof Solihull, 1980). Iflustrative examples of issues mentioned inthese instrumentsare presented below:

Democratization ofplanning: What arrangements are made toensure that all teachers are involved in curriculum developmentofsome type?

Responding to local needs: 1s an opportunity given toparents, community experts, local industry representatives, andlocal associations and organizations to participate in decisionsaboutthe curriculum?

Institutionalization of SBCD activities: What is the scope ofSBCDactivities, resources, working procedures?

Care for populations of special needs: Are able children,children with learning difficulties, children with behaviourproblems,specially gifted children all catered to?

Multi-ethnic programmes: Has the school an explicit policyopposing racism? What steps are taken to communicate thispolicy to children, parents, teaching and non-teachingstaff, etc.?

Equal opportunity for boys and girls: Are all curriculumchoices available to every child?

90


Balance in study areas: 1s the curriculum biased towardacademic disciplines?

Evaluation as consumerorientation

SBCD products may serve the needs of a broad group ofusers or only of those who participated in their development.Ensuring the ‘exportability’ of curriculum products hasimplications for both development and evaluation. Regardingdevelopment, other users will need a more complete description ofthe programmerationale and a more detailed set of instructions foruse, than users who are also developers. This may requireintensive training, and some external help in monitoring the use ofthe programme.

Evaluation of an ‘exportable’ programme entails examiningthe availability of supporting materials, their quality and theirsuitability to any particular group of recommended users.

Beyond evaluating such accessories of a programme,there isa need to provide a consumerorientation scheme which describesand, if possible, also validatesits characteristics. Much attention ispaid to consumerorientation in our society, and quality consciousbuyers can obtain information about the merits of a wide varietyof goods. Consumer orientation is also available for culturalgoods. Newspapers contain evaluative information on new films,books, and television programmes. A variety of guides helpteachers to select instructional materials.

Where there is a large group of users, there is a need toprepare a scheme of reviewing procedures which can be easilyused. Enterprises for this purpose were initiated by national orregional institutions in several countries. Examples of centralizedreviewing of SBCD products are the "National Science TeachersAssociation: Focus on Excellence" group in the USA (Pennick,Yager and Bonnstetter 1986) and the Secondary ScienceCurriculum Review, SSCR (1987) in the United Kingdom. Theevaluation model of SSCR is presented in Figure 5.2.

91

6

19sAz

epuo

sasdU

7'sJANI

QUIdYISUOTZEN]VAa

11NDJOU

jn

MOIAIIWIN

Working groupActivity

Group workingto developits product

Lexeland type of product evaluation: by whomA

Grouprefinesor tunesproduct inthe light offeedback from

Y

Some/all members of the group test parV/all ofits productin ownclassLargely formative

Empirical Product Evaluation

LEVEL B v LEVEL C Y LEVELD Y

Groupsendsitsproductto anothergroup with similarimercsts forcritique .Formative/summative

Intrinsic Evaluation

Groupsendsitsproducttoregional groupingfor critiqueFormative/summative


Groupsendsitsproduct toexternal agencyviaemployers;leamed socy/advisers; parentsLargely summative


Group couldamend productin the lightof feedbackfrom B or Cor D

Flowchart suggesting ideal practical steps in the evaluation of the product ofa local working group

Group sends final product to SSCR Central Team togetherwith commentsat (A), (B), (C) or (D) . .

ae) Summative - feasibility, desirability, technical merit

Intrinsic Product Evaluation

Responsibility for initiatingevaluative activity

Responsibility at this levelrests with working groupsEvaluative activity initiatedby agreement between groupsand RPLsand recorded centrally

Responsibility at these levelsrests with RPLs. Evaluativeactivity initiated by agreementbetween groups and RPLs andrecorded centrally

Responsibility at this levelresis with Central Team

Secondary Science Curriculum Review 1987

juauidojaaap

UIN]NI1LINDpa

sng-

JOOY

ISPu

vJD

UOTI

ION


It can be seen that the evaluation is carried out at threedifferent levels: empirical product evaluation by members of thedevelopment team; intrinsic evaluation by extemal reviewers fromother teams engaged in similar curriculum development work,critics, and agencies of stakeholders of the programme; andintrinsic evaluation by the central team.

4. Evaluating the impact ofSBCD at system level

So far, issues related to evaluating the quality of a particularSBCD programme have been examined. The procedures describedin the previous sections may be of use in judging the merits ofprogrammes,and in helping developers and users to improvetheirquality. But SBCD is more than a possible method of preparingcurricula and instructional materials. It also represents anapproach to education which supports the view that teachersshould act as partners in determining the programmeof their ownwork or the curriculum of the school they teach in.

Worldwide attempts to initiate SBCD reflect the growingconfidence among educators that teachers will accept thechallenge of participating in SBCD, and carry out this tasksuccessfully, that the programmes developed in this way will behigh quality products, which will eventually contribute to theimprovement of education. Unfortunately, these tenets have neverbeen put to the test. Curriculum experts who favour the SBCDapproach have carried out small-scale validation studies ofparticular programmes, but hitherto no system-level examinationof these issues has been carried out.

More needsto be known aboutthe status of SBCD in schoolstoday for decisions to be taken aboutits future,its desired scope inschools of different types, the support needed for increasing itseffectiveness, and adequately linking it with national orsystem-level curriculum frameworks. To gain such knowledgethere is a need to compile a list of questions to be answered;identify types of studies which may yield valid responses andfinall carry out such studies and summarizetheirfindings.

Since the aim ofthis section is to suggest ways of evaluatingSBCD,only thefirst of these issues will be discussed.

93


5. Aframeworkfor a SBCD data base

Data collection on SBCDis carried out mostly for a particularschool, either for the purpose of accreditation (National Study ofSchool Evaluation, 1987), or as a routine report to the educationalauthorities (Inner London Educational Authority, 1982). In thissection a list of questions will be presented which should beansweredat school level, although a summary of answers acrossschools rather than within a single one is supposed to providefindings which may inform decision-makers. The questions dealwith the state-of-the-art of SBCD; changes in SBCD over time,quality of the SBCD product, and the outcomes of using SBCDproducts.

(a) State-of-the-art of SBCD in schools1. What SBCD patterns have emerged? (Whoparticipates, whatare the working procedures?)2. What proportions of locally and externally developedcurriculum materials are used in the school? What factors areassociated with the magnitude of these proportions?3. Several types of curriculum development activities aredescribed as SBCD, the most salient being curriculum selectionadaptation, supplementing, integrating, and producing newmaterials. What is the proportion of each of the developmenttypesin the totality of SBCDactivities?4. Is there an ideal balance between locally and externallydeveloped curricula? If so, what are its parameters? How are thelatter determined?5. If such an ideal pattern is identifiable, is it the same fordifferent groups of children (age, ability level, motivation,socio-economic status, personality traits), for different teachingpurposes (introducing a new topic, corrective teaching,individualized teaching, enrichment studies), and for differentsubject areas?

(b) Changesovertimein the status of SBCD6. What changes have occurred in the status of SBCD in theschool during the last five or ten years? Has the scope of SBCDincreased or decreased? Has its focus changed? Havedevelopment procedures changed?

94


7. Provide details of the history of individual teachers’involvement in SBCD. Have they exhibited perseverance? Whatfactors are associated with perseverancein participating in SBCD?8. For how long have particular SBCD products been used inthe school? What changes have they undergone,if any?

(c) The quality of the SBCD product

9. Whatis the quality of the SBCD product on the basis ofintrinsic product evaluation criteria? Compare its quality withcommercially or institutionally prepared materials.10. Were the curriculum products evaluated? By whom? Whatmodel, method,etc. of evaluation was used? What werethe resultsof the evaluation?

(d) The impact of using SBCD products

11. Have the SBCD products affected teachers’ performance?Have the products promoted ‘curriculum literacy’ (i.e. a better

understanding of the nature of curriculum or instructionalmaterials; greater precision in describing personal experiences,selecting criteria for evaluation, and using them)?12. Do teachers identify more with the school and with aparticular educational programme? (Is it good that teachersidentify with a self-developed programme rather than criticallyexamine it continually?)13. Has the SBCDactivity contributed to improving the schoolclimate in terms of cohesion, co-operation, initiative, tolerance tocriticism, and general quality of life?14. Do children using SBCD products like their school better,and carry out school assignments or homework better than thoseusing externally produced programmes?15. Do children have a different attitude to SBCD products thanto commercially or institutionally produced ones? Do SBCDproducts take better care of individual differences than other typesof programmes?16. Do children acquire a higher level of mastery of skills andcontents through SBCD products than through extemallydeveloped products?

Large-scale national and cross-national studies on the impactof home environment variables and school-related organizationaland teaching behaviours on affective and cognitive educational

95


variables, have provided a basis on which to interpret the findingsof any particular school-based study (Walker, 1976; Coleman,1966). Thus, for example, having information about thecorrelation across the whole educational system between any twovariables may help in interpreting empirical findings related to thecorrelation between these two variables in a_ particularschool-based study.

The same principle applies to the issue of SBCD. In theabsence of basic information about trendsin the entire educationalsystem, references to small-scale school-based studies may yieldbiased and deceptive information about the significance of SBCDand aboutits potential contribution to education.

Implications

1. SBCD evaluation should aim atthree targets:* Products developed by local teamse Schoollevel activities related to SBCD« Changesat national level as a result of supporting SBCD

2. Evaluators of a particular SBCD product shoud examineitsquality, the way it is used and its impact.3. Despite the differences in the scope of activites related to,and resources available for national and school-based curriculumdevelopment, conceptually, evaluation of SBCD products is notdifferent from that of other curriculum products. Therefore,models and methods suitable for evaluating educational productsin general, can be used also for evaluating school-based curricula.4. Needs assessment studies examining the nature and thequality of available curriculum materials, local needs anddemands, pre-requisite knowledge and interest of the targetpopulation, should preceed decisions about the parameters of anylocally developed educational programme.5. Evaluators of SBCD programmes should conveniently takeadvantage of ‘curriculum embedded products’, i. e. productsgenerated during the process of development and routine use ofthe curriculum (like reaction of teachers and pupils to instructionalmaterials, work assignments, homework, test and examinationsadministered in the class), as input for evaluation. Consequently,

96


they should have easily access to a large quantity of non-reactiveevaluation data.6. As to school level activities, evaluation should deal withquestions like democratization of SBCD or providing opportunityfor all interested teachers to participate, involvement of theparents and community members in curriculum related decisions,adequate maintenance and renewal of SBCDproducts.7. Finally, at national level, evaluation should examine thereaction of schools to the challenge of SBCD, their perseverancein producing school-based curricula, the factors associated witheffective SBCD, and the contribution of SBCD to theimprovementof education.

97

VI. Arguments for and against school-basedcurriculum development

The professional literature is replete with arguments supportingschool-based curriculum development. Most publications dealingwith this topic have a hortative undertone. Very few articlesrepresenting adversary views of SBCD have been published.Experts who oppose SBCD favouring centralistic curriculumdevelopment and supporting the ‘scientific’ approach haveadvertently avoided polemics with supporters of SBCD. Nor havethey attempted to describe their view of the weaknesses of SBCD.They have confined themselves to specifying successful patternsof co-operation between experts in subject areas, curriculum, andsocial studies, and have suggested designs for scholarly studies tobe carried out in conjunction with developing school programmes.Although arguments against SBCD may be implied in theirwriting, they have seldom made them explicit. Arguments againstSBCD are in fact mostly contained in the caveats of writerssympathetic to SBCD.

This chapter reviews the arguments for and against SBCD.Itshould be borne in mind that by 1990 the heated debate betweenthe advocates of SBCD and those of the centralistic approach hasconsiderably abated. Once it was recognized that both thecentralistic and the school-based (or local) modes of curriculumdevelopment had a contribution to make , the point of the debateshifted from repudiating one or another model to striking abalance between them.

Thus some argue for limiting the intervention of centralauthorities and agencies to the establishment of a nationalcurriculum framework, as reflected in the following words of Holt(1987).

98

Argumentsfor and against school-basedcurriculum development

"What I am suggesting therefore is that the developmentof major curriculum initiatives which requirecomprehensive review and consultation in order toachieve an acceptable coherence of context, pedagogy,materials and assessment be left to curriculumdevelopment teams which are not school-based.Teachers in school would be encouraged to see their rolein the partnership of curriculum development as that ofintelligent and informed critic-cum-researcher..... and tomakeadjustments that take account of the impact of localconditions that only they can fully comprehend”. ( p. 82)Others support strong involvement of central bodies such as

educational authorities, research and developmentinstitutions andprivate publishing companies, in prescribing the major parametersof the school programmes and producing instructional materials,with schools deciding only about a limited part of the totalprogramme.

It should be remembered that SBCD is a generic termdescribing a variety of non-centralist curriculum developmentpatterns. Therefore it may well be that certain of the argumentslisted below apply only to a sub-category of the SBCD mode.

Arguments for SBCD

Arguments in favour of SBCD take into account socio-politicalideals, the definition of the teacher’s role, local needs orientation,and effective monitoring and control.

I. Socio-political ideals

The right of self-determination is one of the dominant idealsof contemporary political thought. Not surprisingly it has affectedlife in school, too. In numerous educational systems attempts havebeen made to endow schools with autonomy in matters of thecurriculum.

The implications of school autonomy for SBCD need furtherclarification. Firstly, in whom does the autonomyreside? Are theteachers acting as substitutes for parents? Should the members or

99


the representatives of the community be involved in makingdecisions about the curriculum? Whatis the role ofthe principal inimplementing the school’s autonomy in the area of curriculumdevelopment? Strong leadership in the school may facilitateSBCD,butthe principal’s intervention may infringe on the right ofself-determination of others. Secondly, in practice, is the right ofself-determination realized by the school-based groups dealingwith the curriculum? Gordon (1987) examines teachers’perception of the school’s autonomyand finds that despite formaldeclarative statements about autonomy, teachers believe that theyare constrained in making decisions about the curriculum.

2. Role definition of teachers

Two aspects of the teacher’s role definition have bearings onSBCD: responsibility for the curriculum and the status of theteaching profession.(1) Responsibility for the curriculum: The curriculum movementof the 1950s favoured highly structured educational programmesproviding teachers with detailed instructions. The most commoncriterion for successful use of the programme was adherence tothese instructions, that is ‘fidelity of implementation’. Whenteachers failed or were unwilling to fully carry out the instructionswith a high level of fidelity, in spite of intensive in-servicetraining, it was concluded that in order to implement aneducational programme well, teachers must themselves gainexperience in programme development. This was not to say thatteachers should develop all programmesorinstructional materialsthey used, but that ‘curriculum literacy’ was seen as a prerequisitefor successful programme implementation, and suchliteracy couldbe acquired only through active participation in the developmentof some educational programmes.(2) The status of the teaching profession: Traditionally, teaching,especially in primary school, has not been considered an area ofprofessional expertise, and teachers have not been considered aprofessional group. Unlike the education of lawyers, doctors andengineers, that of teachers has not traditionally taken place in aframework of recognized academic status. Moreover, the teaching

100


profession offers very little career opportunities for those whoexcel in their work. Only a small proportion of teachers arepromoted to school principal or inspector, and the qualificationsneeded for such positions are quite different from those needed forsucceeding in teaching. In the 1970s and 1980s efforts were madein several countries on behalf of teachers’ unions in conjunctionwith the national educational authorities to raise the status ofteachers and transform teaching into a professional career area.One manifestation of professionalization is the provision of careeropportunities based on responsibility. Another manifestation is theopportunity of gaining public recognition for creative innovations.

The involvementof teachers in curriculum development maycontribute to their professionalization in two ways. Firstly, it mayprovide a basis for promotion. Thus the position of ‘curriculumpostholders’ was introduced in England and Wales (Campbell1985). Secondly, teachers appointed for such positions may gainpublic recognition for rendering special professional services totheir schools and through contributing to the improvement of theeducational practice, in general.

3. Local-needs orientation

SBCDis in a better position to respond to local needs than anationally developed curriculum.It can take into consideration theunique characteristics of the ecosystem of a particular area, thecultural and religious values of the local population, occupationalopportunities for school leavers, and the ability level of theschoolgoers together with their previous learning experiences andthe resources available in and to the school.

Reid (1987) states that responding to differential local needs

from a single national center may be an unmanageable task, whileat local level such problems can be more easily solved:

"When education systems are centrally administered,curriculum developmentor organisational change tends tobe seen as a ‘one-off’ exercise. Plans have to be made andresources gathered for a major co-ordinated effort to bringmatters to a successfui conclusion.... Thus, planning andimplementing changeis seen as a costly exercise that can

101

Nationaland school-based curriculum development

only be undertaken infrequently. But at the school levelthe scale is different, the opportunities and constraints areof a different order. Teachers ‘know’ their schools, theirchildren and their communities in a way that centralauthorities can never ‘know’ the national systems theyadminister". (p. 111)

4. Effective monitoring and control

One of the arguments in favour of SBCD is that it allowseffectiveness in monitoring the programme and controllingresources. Schools are more stable institutions than curriculumdeveloping agencies. Numerous centrally produced educationalprogrammes continue to be used in schools at a time when thedevelopment agencies have already been disbanded. Schools canadapt programmes to changing conditions, and update them ifnecessary.

Arguments against SBCD

Some of the arguments presented above point out the meritsof SBCD, but call attention to its limitations at the same time.Thus, they also may be used as arguments against exaggerateddemandsfor fully rejecting national intervention in the curriculumand using only school-based curriculum materials.

For the sake of balance, the arguments presented in thissection focus on the disadvantages of determining all parametersof the curriculum at the school level and of using onlyschool-based instructional materials. These arguments do not denyto the school the role of autonomous partner in the process ofdetermining some components ofits own curriculum.

5. The teachers’ ability to produce curriculum

Naturally the situation may vary from one country to anotherbut it is reasonable to believe that some teachers can and willproduce teaching materials. There is evidence that many of themactually do work of this kind, but no informationis available about

102


the proportion of teachers whoare interested in or able to do suchwork. Of course, one can train teachers for this purpose, but thequestion is, on account of what? Should this engagementbe a highpriority componentof teachertraining?

There are signs that the feasibility of such accomplishmentsis doubtful. First, there is little hope that the teaching professionwill in the forthcoming years attract candidates of high intellectualcapabilities. On the contrary, it is more likely that in competitionwith other more prestigious and better paid professionsit will losesuch candidates. Second, large-scale engagement of teachers indeveloping instructional materials will necessarily requireincreased expenditure and there are good reasons to doubt whethersociety will be willing to bear these expenses. Third, educationaltechnology will increasingly intrude on the field of education andbring abouta proliferation of commercially produced instructionalmaterials. In the face of these observable trends the odds areagainst massive involvementof teachers in producing instructionalmaterials.

6. The quality of the product

Someteaching materials developed by teachers excel in theirquality, but most do not match the quality of materials developedby professional curriculum teams. If one considers the vastamount of items that curriculum teamsscreen until they select asingle one for inclusion in a teaching programme, one mustseriously question whether teachers can do such a job. Obtainingaccess to authentic materials which are used by curriculum expertsin the process of their work is, in most cases, impossible forindividual teachers. Of course, experts in various subjects canco-operate in the process of school-based curriculum developmentbut, in practice, national curriculum projects find it difficult toobtain help from highly qualified experts -- so how can one expectthat individual schools will be able to create such links?

103


7. The professional role definition of the teacher

The SBCD idea reflects the presupposition that curriculumconstruction and the developmentof teaching materials constitutean essential element of the teacher’s role. This may be so, but noattempt has been made empirically to validate the presupposition.It may also be the case that the capacities for teaching and forconstructing teaching materials are not related to each other. Evenif one endorses the view that teachers have to be familiar with theprinciples of developing teaching materials and accept that theyshould have some experience in doing such work, it does notnecessarily mean that they should systematically and constantly beengaged in such work. Imposingthe task of materials developmentupon the teacher will reduce the time available for carrying outother schoolactivities which cannot be delegated.

8. The characteristics of teacher-initiated changes

An argument frequently adduced in favour of SBCDis thatthe reform intentions of outside planners become diluted whenimplemented in schools. Supporters of SBCD contend thatteachers are more effective in dealing with programmes developedby themselves than in implementing changes suggested by others.This may be true, but the changesinitiated by teachers tend to belimited in scope and, being usually based on consensuallyaccepted educational ideas, are conservative in nature.

Most school-based innovations touch on marginal aspects ofeducational programmes. The implementation of major curriculumchangesis greatly facilitated by being monitored by the centraleducational authorities. The provision of in-service trainingopportunities, the establishment of adequately equipped resourcecenters, and the continuous availability of consulting services arenecessary for effective implementation of large scale changes.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that radical change can occur inthe school programme without intervention of the centraleducational authorities.

104


9. Weak evaluation basis

SBCD programmestend to have a weak evaluation basis.Despite the fact that most SBCD projects have an evaluationcomponent, these evaluation components can hardly provide afirm basis for judging the quality of programmes. Firstly, schoolsdo not have well trained evaluation experts. Secondly, teachersinvolved in development activities do not attribute highimportance to evaluation. Frequently teachers do not have the timeto carry out programme evaluation in a systematic mannerafterhaving devoted much time and energy to planning the change andimplementing it. Campbell (1985) reviewed the evaluation of tenSBCD curriculum projects and found that in only five cases didthe entire staff of the school participate in the evaluation; only intwo development projects were the school principal and thecurriculum co-ordinator involved in evaluating the programme.

10. Acommon core ofknowledge

Societies are characterized by sharing a basic set of concepts,ideas, literary allusions, and characters from history, and thesocialization of the individual implies becoming familiar withthem. Hirsch (1987) compiled a list of approximately 3000 itemsand referred to them as basic knowledge in Cultural Literacy.Stating that the items differed from one culture to another, hesubtitled the book “What every American has to know". Hirschclaimed that concepts like relativity and photosynthesis,geographical locations like Hiroshima and literary quotations like"To be or not to be" constituted, at least in the USA, and quitelikely in manyliterate cultures across the world,a part of a literateperson’s basic vocabulary. Without familiarity with these itemsone cannot well understand one’s own language.

The list compiled by Hirsch contains items from a greatvariety of subjects taught in schools. One may disagree with himin the scope of the itemsor the validity of his selection. One mayeven judge the attempt as an arbitrary exercise lacking any worth.Nevertheless, in most countries importance is attached toimparting knowledge about the national cultural heritage. A

105


national curriculum framework would seem to be more effectivein attaining this goal than SBCD.

Content bias in national examinations

A national syllabus, even if it permits school-based choicesfrom alternative content-blocks, may serve as a basis for planningcontent-fair examinations for all schools of the nation. In contrast,widespread SBCDactivities in any educational system lead to thediversification of curriculum contents taught in schools, thereforecreating difficulties in preparing nationally valid examinations.Problemsrelated to content bias of tests were examined by Walkerand Schaffarzick (1977), and the authors demonstrated that themajority of tests are biased toward one or another curriculum, andthey lack cross-curricular content validity.

Educational systems with a tradition of SBCD have madenumerous attempts to ensure that tests used in the whole systemare content-fair. Three of such attempts made in England andWales, which mayserve as a model for other countries, will bedescribed here.1. The Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) carried outlarge-scale testing in schools of England and Wales, and to avoidcontent-bias they developed tests which focused on what theydefined as a ‘developmentline’ in a particular area of study (suchas mathematical, scientific, language, etc.), rather than on themastery of pre-specified content units. Areas of study were notdefined in terms of subjects taught in schools, since it was claimedthat whateverthe range of subject matters taught, and whatever thedifferences in contentacross curricula used, everything contributesto one or more of these lines of development. As indicated byPring (1981):

"The procedure adopted by APU wasto establish workinggroups for each of the lines of development’. Thesegroups would identify the main strand of developmentwhich would reflect the curriculum aimsandactivities ofschools - whatever the balance of subjects and differencesin curriculum content between one school andanother". (p.157).

106


2. The attempt of school-based profiling constitutes anotherexample of carrying out curriculum-free evaluation of educationalachievement. Teachers were asked to provide profile descriptionof their students, which contained specification of areas studies inwhich the individual participated and assessment of his or herlevel of achievement. To enable comparison across schools, therewas a need to establish standards of both the curricula used andthe achievementlevels attained (Murphy and Torrance 1988).3. The most comprehensive framework for carrying out nationalexaminations in the face of diversity of curricula used in theschools can be attributed to the Waddell (1978) committee ofEngland and Wales. The committee recommended thatexamining-boards should legitimize three examination modesineach subject-matter according to the following pattems:

ModeI, Examinations conducted by the examining board onsyllabuses set and published by the board.Mode II, Examination conducted by the examining board onSyllabuses devised by individual schools andlor groups ofschools, and approved by the board.Mode III, Examination set and marked internally byindividual schools or groups of schools, but moderated bythe board, on syllabuses devised by individual schools orgroups ofschools.The allowance made to use Mode II and Mode Ill

examinations guarantees the school’s autonomy in matters ofcurriculum, and moderation on behalf of examining boards. Thisentails controlling the standards of the questions and the gradesassigned to a particular examination paper, enabling comparisonsacross schools.

SBCDwithin a national curriculum framework

The arguments presented for and against SBCD reflect theview that these two phenomena, the SBCD and the NationalCurriculum Framework complement each other with eachfulfilling a unique role in determining what should be taught inschools. Towards the end of the 1980s one could observe areconciliation between these two approaches. Educational

107


systems which previously gave full freedom to schools introduceda national curriculum framework to guide schools in organizingtheir programme. The movement towards disseminating SBCD inhighly centralized educational systems has been slow, but itsimportance as complementary to national curriculum developmenthas been universally acknowledged.

By 1990, most educational systems made decisions aboutcurriculum both at national and local levels, although the scope ofSBCD activities is quite negligible in a great many of them. Itshould be noted that developing and introducing a nationalcurriculum framework, in a country which in the past bestowedfull autonomy upon the schools, is easier than introducing orincreasing the scope of SBCD activities in a highly centralizededucational system. This is so, because a single institution maycreate, disseminate and monitor a loosely prescribed nationalcurriculum framework with a relatively high level of success,

while the implementation of SBCD across an educational systemimplies re-educating all teachers and considerably changingteacher education programmes. The transition towards SBCDrequires time and can be realized only phase by phase. Using theterm coined by Havelock and Huberman(1977), the ‘scale of

change’ of such transition is large. Numerous components of thesystem have to be changed (like the conditions of textbookpublication, provision of leaming resources, teacher educationprogrammes, supervision, examination system), and radicalchangesin the behaviour of persons implementing the transitionare required.

The proliferation of SBCD in an educational system has twodimensions: the scope of curriculum coverage and the scope ofschools in which SBCDactivities take place. As for the scope ofcurriculum coverage, in most countries which recently adopted theidea of SBCD, schools were challenged to assume responsibilityfor developing a specified proportion of their programme (usually10-30 per cent). In most cases the specified proportion sets anupper limit of permissible SBCD activities. In reality, however,SBCD activities seldom approach this upper limit. The seconddimension of proliferation is the proportion of schools in whichSBCDactivities take place. Even in countries with a long tradition

108


of SBCD, no quantitative information is available about theproportion of schools seriously engaged in such activities, letalone about the nature of these. The scope of SBCD activities in aparticular country, as well as in a particular study area, can bedescribed in terms of these two dimensions.

In the face of slow progressof proliferating SBCD across andwithin educational systems, one may ask whether SBCDis asuitable approach for all systems and all schools. Are therepre-conditions which should be met in order to advise systems orindividual schools getting involved in SBCD activities? Shoulddeveloping countries be encouraged to allow SBCD activities inthe nation’s schools? Should they encourage suchactivities? Is theabove specified balance of advantages and disadvantages ofSBCDin developing countries identical to that observed in highlyindustrialized countries?

Undoubtedly, SBCD can be more easily implemented ineducational systems with highly qualified and well-educatedteachers, who work in well-equipped schools, with small classes,and are entitled to a reduced teaching load, or even being fullyreleased from teaching assignment for a specified period of time,in compensation for SBCD services rendered to the school. Suchconditions are seldom found in educational systems of developingcountries. Consequently, the chances for successful SBCDactivities are less than those in highly industrialized ones. Yet, inspite of the scarcity of resources, educational developments acrossthe world at the beginning of the last decade of our millennium donot justify discouraging developing countries from SBCDactivities and experimentations. Hitherto, as described in moredetail in the previous sections, evidence has been accumulatedabout successful attempts of introducing SBCD activities indeveloping countries (Clarken 1990; Ekanayake 1990; Okpala andOnocha 1988; Sutaria 1990). These instances are encouraging, andit is worthwhile to continue to support additional endeavours ofthis type.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to present successfulattempts of SBCD in highly industrialized countries as a model forthe developing countries. SBCDactivities in developing countriesshould be different from those in industrialized ones, at least along

109


three dimensions: the scope of their proliferation; the type ofSBCDactivities; and the pattern of monitoring such activities.

The scope of proliferation: In developing countries it isdesirable to limit the scope of curriculum coverage for whichSBCDactivities are recommended. A reasonable starting pointmay be 10 per cent of the curriculum, which gradually may beexpanded up to 25 per cent. Also, the scope of schoolsparticipating in such enterprises should initially be limited, andgradually expanded after providing suitable training for teachers.Significant benefits can be derived for the educational systemeven if only a few schools carry out SBCDactivities. Involvementof a few teachers in activities may set the standard for the wholesystem and may constitute an avenue for promotion along theprofessional ladder.

The type of SBCD activities: As reported in the professionalliterature SBCD activities in developing countries are frequentlylinked to rural development programmes. SBCD activities areelements of comprehensive programmes which aim to contributeto the quality of life and not only to the educational achievementof the students, They enjoy strong community support. Frequently,they are carried out as a co-operative enterprise of several schoolsand are supported by a regional Teacher College or University.Some of the projects focus on producing remedial or correctiveteaching materials. There are few instances of producingalternative sets of instructional materials. The instructionalmaterials produced at local level supplement national curriculumunits rather than producing entirely new courses.

The pattern of monitoring SBCD: In developing countriesmost SBCDactivities are initiated by agents operating outside theschool. Regional educational offices and/or internationalorganizations are most frequently the initiators of SBCD projects.The production of school-based materials is assisted andsupervised by experts. Also, National Curriculum DevelopmentCenters monitor SBCDactivities, partly by preparing exemplaryunits and partly by organizing workshopsin whichtheoretical andpractical aspects of SBCD are discussed. In most developingcountries the National Curriculum Framework and limited SBCD

110


activities are not conceived as alternative ways of action, butrather as complementary.

Nevertheless, progress in this direction, in most centralizededucational systemsis restricted to a few experimental schools. Inthose countries where schools were challenged to assumeresponsibility for a certain proportion of their programme(mostly10-30 per cent), one may observe more SBCDactivities, but theyseldom fully cover the permitted range of such actions. Mostfrequently such activities, limited to certain weekly hours of theschool schedule, are used for augmenting the scope of studies inthe core subjects. By 1990, in most educational systems whereSBCDhas gained a publicly recognizedstatus, it still affects onlya very small proportion of schools, and even here mostly in theselection of programmesrather than in the production of newones. However, schools engaged in SBCD are frequentlyconsidered to belong to the nation’s mostprestigious schools.

Implications

1. National concern for the school programme manifestedthrough establishing an overall curriculum framework maypromote rather than hinder SBCD.2. The national curriculum should make provision forlocal-level curriculum development, determine its nature andscope, provide guidelines and maintain support services forcontinuously raising the standards of school-based andlocally- developed programmes.3. Educational systems should develop and publish formallyapproved curriculum frameworks for ensuring that all pupilsacquire a common core of knowledge.4. Major curriculum initiatives requiring large scale planningand co-ordination can be better carried out by expert teams, whilecatering for local needs can be better accomplished through localor school level developmentactivities.5. Initiators of SBCD activities should be aware of the scope ofresourcesat their disposition and plan their agenda accordingly.6. Experience in curriculum development should be considereda useful componentof pre-service and in-service teacher education

111


programmes. Involvement in curriculum development helpsteachers to understand curriculum documents and successfully usecurriculum materials developed by others.7. Teachers interested in curriculum development should beencouraged and supported by the school while keeping in mindthat excellence in teaching is not necessarily associated withexcellence in curriculum development.8. Involvement in curriculum development should beconsidered one of the professional promotion tracks offered toteachers.9. The appropriate balance between externally and locallydeveloped curricula differs across educational systems and acrossschools within a single system. The maximal scope of SBCDactivities should be determined at the system level, and their rangeshould be approximately 10-25 per cent of the total curriculum.Only schools with properly trained staff members andwell-equipped resource centers should strive to expand theirSBCDactivities to reach the nationally permitted limit.10. Since SBCD leads towards the diversification of contentstaught in schools, provisions should be made for paralleldiversification of the examination forms. The national examiningboards should take care of moderating the standards acrossexaminations conducted on different syllabuses.

112

VII. National framework and school-baseddevelopment

Contemporary curriculum developmentis characterized by a highlevel of freedom bestowed upon the schools to initiate innovationswithin the limits of a nationally prescribed, broad curriculumframework. This approach is well articulated in the curriculumguidelines of the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum(SCCC), the principal advisory body on the school curriculum ofthe Secretary of State for Scotland. A document published in1989 describes the curriculum in relation to national, local andindividual levels.

The National Curriculum Framework offers a broad range ofcourses to the schools. For several subject areas, guidelines andcourse materials emanating from the SCCC andother sources arewidely used. Nationally approved full courses, short courses andmodules are also available within this framework. The courses aresupplemented by support materials prepared underthe auspices ofSCCCandother agencies.

The central education authorities assist schools in adaptingthe national guidelines to local circumstances. From the nationalcurricular framework each school selects, adapts, and developscourses and modules; and from these it derives programmesappropriate to local and school needs, which are compatible withthe availability of staff and resources.

Atthe schoollevel there is a process of negotiation involvingschool, parents and pupils through which, and within localprovision, a programme appropriate to needs and aspirations ofeach individual pupil is constructed. This programmeis expectedto be related to the individuals career intentions.

Examining the partnership between the central educationalauthorities and the school, through the perspective of the teacher’s

113


involvement in curricular decisions, reveals that the teacher’scurriculum-related decisions may represent various levels ofautonomy. The teacher may act as an autonomous consumerselecting from programmesspecified in the national curriculumframework. He or she mayadapt an available set of instructionalmaterials or develop his or her own one. The teacher may alsodevelop an optional course and assume responsibility forpreparing both the syllabus and the instructional materials.

Curriculum experts nowadays are no longer disposed to viewone or another pattem of curriculum production as a panacea forall problems encountered in dealing with school programmes.There is an increased awareness of the unique contribution to theschool life of each of these decision-making and productionpatterns. The major concem of curriculum experts is to decideabout the balance between these different approaches, under whatcircumstances should one prefer one pattern to another, and howcould the products of the national and the school-based curriculumdevelopment be improved.

Ideally, each school should use both externally and locallyproduced curricula, while each teacher should be engaged inselection, adaptation, integration of curriculum materials and theproduction of new ones. But the ideal balance among programmesand activities of different types may vary from school-to-school,from subject-to-subject, and from teacher-to-teacher.

The appropriate balance between centrally and locallyproduced curricula in highly industrialized countries may beunlike that of developing countries. In the latter, at the initialphases of introducing SBCD, it may be desirable to limit itscoverage tO approximately 10 per cent of the total curriculumwhich can then be gradually augmented up to 25 per cent. Thisseems to be the suitable scope of SBCD activities in industrializedcountries, too. But while in industrialized countries, from the verybeginning the great majority of schools may be engaged in SBCDactivities, in developing countries,first, only a small proportion ofschools -- usually the best equipped and most prestigious ones,and those that are assisted by external agencies -- will startcarrying out SBCDactivities, and the spread of this practice willbe highly dependent on the pace of appropriate teachertraining.

114

Nationalframework and school-based development

It is quite likely, for instance, that local history,environmental topics, local cultural and economic resources arebest studied through school-based curricula, while mathematics,foreign languages, national or world history and grammar aremore amenable for treatment through a national curriculumframework. Nevertheless, national guidelines may serve as auseful framework for developing school-based programmes ontopics of local interest, and local supplementation of nationallydeveloped programmes mayincreasetheir relevance for the pupilsof a particular school. Also, it may well be that some teachersprefer using programmes developed by external experts, whileother teachers enjoy developing curricula for their class, andteach best using instructional materials developed by themselves.But all teachers have to acquire basic skills both in producingcurricula and in using curricula produced by others. This is sobecause teachers frequently face the need of responding quickly tocurrent events at the school, local, national and inter-nationallevel, and of teaching topics for which no instructional materialshave yet been developed. On the other hand, no teacher hassufficient time and knowledge for being fully self-sufficient inmatters of curriculum supply.

The question of improving the quality of SBCD wasaddressed by Sabar (1983). In her view, the success of SBCD isdependent on the support provided by the central bodies of thenational educational system, the institutions of teacher educationand the schools.

National authorities need to establish a network of curriculumconsultants, to set up a national information center and to makearrangements with the public examination systems to prepareSuitable examination alternatives for those who use locallydeveloped programmes,

The teacher education institutions should teach curriculumplanning as an integral part of pre-service and in-service educationprogrammes. Schools should allocate resources such asequipment, manpower, space and time for carrying out SBCDwork.

The diversification of curricula used in schools mayjeopardize the content validity or the curticulum-faimess of

115

Nationaland school-based curriculum development

nationally produced examinations. Therefore, the intensification ofSBCD requires making adequate adjustments in the nationalexamination system for the schools.

One way of dealing with this issue is adopting therecommendations of the Waddell (1978) Committee of England

and Wales, and imposing upon the national or regional examiningboards so that they should conduct examinations on syllabusesdevised by schools or groups of schools and also to serve as amoderator of examinations conducted at the school level, i. e.control the standards of examination questions and the gradesassigned to a particular response. Indeed in numerous educationalsystems this approach has been successfully adopted and SBCDprogrammeshave been allowed to conduct their own examinationsunder the careful monitoring and moderating of the centralauthorities.

Curriculum development is described by Schwab (1971) as apractical activity based on the art of the eclectic. In reality,however, the professional literature dealing with SBCD anditsrelation to the national curriculum framework is not sufficientlyanchored in practical wisdom. It is either normative andpersuasive or anecdotal. There is a dearth of relevant practicalknowledge. It should be hoped that the increased interest in thistopic will result in the accumulation of knowledgeof this type.

116

Bibliography

ACEID (Asian Centre of Educational Innovation forDevelopment) 1990. "Developing new teacher competenciesin response to mega-trends in curricula", ACEJD Newsletter,Issue 36.

Armbruster, B.B. ; Anderson, T.H. 1981. Content area textbooks,

Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, ERIC.

Aziz, A.A. Ahmad, S.H. ; Bakar, F.A. 1990. Improving the qualityof education: strategies for implementing change, KualaLumpur,Ministry of Education.

Banya, Kingsley, 1989. Education for rural development: myth orreality, Intemational Journal on Educational Development,

9(2):111-26.

Berger, Eugenia Hepworth. 1987. Parents as partners ineducation: the school and home working together, 2ndedition, Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.

Berliner, David. 1982. The executive function of teaching. Paperpresented at AERA meeting, New York.

Blum,A. ; Kragelund, Z. ; Pottenger, F. 1981. Development andevaluation of a curriculum adaptation scheme, ScienceEducation 65:521-536.

Braybrook, D. ; Lindblom, C.E. 1963. A strategy of decision:policy evaluation as a social process, New York: Free Press.

117

Bibliography

Campbell, R.J., 1985. Developing the primary school curriculum,London: Holt Education.

Clarken, R.H., 1990. Conceptualizing a junior secondary socialstudies program for Botswana, Paper presented at the April16-20 annual meeting of American Educational ResearchAssociation (AERA), Boston, MA.

Coleman,J. 1966. Report on equality of educational opportunity,Washington, DC, US GovernmentPrinting Office.

Connelly, F.M. 1972. The functions of curriculum development,Interchange, 3(2-3):161-177.

Connelly, F.M. ; Clandinin, D. Jean. 1988. Teachers ascurriculum planners: narratives of experience, New York:Teachers College Press.

De Bevoise, Wynn, 1986. Collaboration: some principles ofbridgework, Ed. Lead. 43(5):9-12.

Ecker, D. 1985. "Theories of educational organization: modern",In T. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (editors): InternationalEncyclopedia ofEducation.

Eisner, E.W. 1985. The educational imagination: on the designand evaluation of school programs, 2nd edition, New York:MacMillan.

Ekanayake, S.B. 1990. "Rural pedagogy: a grassroots approach torural development". In Prospects, 20(1):115-127.

EPIE, 1980. Educational products information exchange:deciphering LRV, volume 12(3).

Eraut, M., 1985. "Intrinsic evaluation", In T. Husén and T.N.

Postlethwaite (editors): International Encyclopedia ofEducation.

118

Bibliography

Evans, Dylis, M., 1989. A small oral history project in four ruralCumbrian primary schools, Teaching History, no. 56:25-27.

Fitzgerald, Maureen, 1990. “Education for sustainabledevelopment: decision-making for environmental educationin Ethiopia", Jnternational Journal of EducationalDevelopment, volume10 (4):289-302.

Glatthorn, A.A. ; Foshay, A.W. 1985. “Curriculum integration",In T. Husén and T. N. Postlethwaite (editors.): /nternationalEncyclopedia ofEducation.

Goldhammer, K. 1985. "Governance of primary and secondaryeducation”. In T. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (editors.):International Encyclopedia ofEducation.

Good, C.V. 1973. Dictionary of Education, 3rd edition. NewYork: McGraw Hill.

Goodlad, J.I. ; Klein, M. F. ; Tye, K.A., 1979. "The domains ofcurriculum and their study". In: Goodlad J. I. and Associates,Curriculum inquiry: the study of curriculum practice, NewYork: McGraw-Hill

Gordon, David, 1987. "Autonomy is more than just the absence ofexternal constraints". In N. Sabar et al (eds.): Partnershipand autonomy.

Graham,Eric, J. 1988. "Local history studies in the classroom",Teaching History, no. 53:25-33.

Griffith, A.D. 1990. "Social studies for nation building", TheSocial Studies, 81(4):161-5.

Grobman, A. B. ; Blum, A. 1985. "Curriculum Adaptation", InT. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (editors.): InternationalEncyclopedia ofEducation.

119

Bibliography

Hargreaves, Andy, 1989. Curriculum and assessment reform,Milton Keynes: Open University.

Harlen, Wynne, 1985. "Science education: primary schoolprograms". In T. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (editors.):International Encyclopedia ofEducation.

Havelock, R.G. ; Huberman, A.M. 1977. Solving educationalproblems: a theory and reality of innovations in developingcountries, Paris: UNESCO.

Hirsch, E.D. 1987. Cultural literacy, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Holmes, B. 1977. Science education: cultural borrowing andcomparative research, Stud. Sc. Educ. 4:83-110.

Holmes, M. 1989. "Ethical issues in curriculum”. In T. Husén andT. N. Postlethwaite (editors.): International Encyclopedia ofEducation, Supplementno.1.

Holt, Maurice. 1987. "Are schools capable of making criticaldecisions about their curriculum”. In N. Sabar, J. Rudduckand W.Reid (editors.): Partnership and Autonomy.

Huberman, M. ; Cox, P. 1990. "Evaluation utilization: buildinglinks between action and reflection". In Studies inEducational Evaluation, 16(1):157-180.

Hulbert, Louise. 1987. Health based physical education: the needto involve parents. In Bulletin of Physical Education.,23(2):6-11.

Husén, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (editors.), 1985. InternationalEncyclopedia ofEducation, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Husén, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (editors.), 1989. /nternationalEncyclopedia of Education: Suppl. no. 1, Oxford: PergamonPress.

120

Bibliography

ILEA, (inner London Educational Authority), 1982. Keeping theschool under review, London:ILEA.

Kim, H. 1975. "Evaluation of the mastery learning project inKorea". In Studies in Educational Evaluation, 1(1):13-22.

Lindvall, C.M. ; Cox, R. 1970. The IPI evaluation program,Chicago: Rand McNally.

Lundgren, U.P. 1972. Frame factors and the teaching process: acontribution to curriculum theory and theory of teaching,Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

MacDonald, J.B. 1986. "The domain of curriculum", Journal ofCurriculum and Supervision, 1(3):205-14.

McGowan, M.T. ; Williams, R.O. 1990. Communication withinschool-university partnership and its effect on curricularchange, Paper at AERA, Boston.

Mann, J.S. 1969. Curriculum criticism, curriculum theorynetwork, Issue 2, Winter, p.2-14, also in Willis, G (ed):Qualitative Evaluation.

Martin, David, S. ; Saif, Philip, S. ; Thiel, Linda, 1987.Curriculum development: who is involved and how? Ed.Leadership, 44(4):40-48.

Menck,Peter. 1989. "Curriculum development in FRG: Traditionor reform?", Education, (Biannual collection - published bythe Institute for Scientific Co-operation, Tubingen),Volume 40:49-63.

Metropolitan Borough of Solihull Education Committee, 1980.Evaluating the primary school, Solihull Education Authority.

Muckle, J. 1988. A guide to soviet curriculum, London: CroomHelm.

121

Bibliography

Murphy,R.; Torrance, H. 1988. The changingface of educationalassessment, Milton Keynes, Open University.

National Commission on Education, 1977. Education forKagisano: Report of the National Commission on Education,Gaborone, GovernmentPrinter.

National Council of Educational Research and Training (CCERT),1970. Preparation and evaluation of textbooks in English,New Delhi: NCERT.

National Study of School Evaluation, 1987, Evaluative Criteria.6th edition NSSE.

Needham, R. 1987. Teaching strategies for developingunderstanding in science, University of Leeds, Centre forStudies in science and mathematics education, Children’sLeaming in Science Project (CLISP).

Needham, R. 1987. Approaches to teaching plant nutrition,University of Leeds, Centre for studies in science andmathematics education, Children’s Learning in ScienceProject (CLISP).

Nordin, A. B. 1980. Improving learning: an experimentin ruralprimary schools in Malaysia, Evaluation in Education,4:143-163.

Okpala, Promise ; Onocha, Charles, 1988. Difficult physics topicsin Nigerian secondary schools, Physics Education,23:168-72.

Pennick, John, E. ; Yager, R.E. ; Bonnstetter, Ronald, 1986.Teachers make exemplary programs, Ed. Lead., 44(2):12-20.

Pennington, F.W. 1985. "Needs Assessment in adult education",In T. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (editors.): InternationalEncyclopedia ofEducation.

122

Bibliography

Plant, R. D. 1988. A school investigation into Chernobyl fallout,Physics Ed. 23(1):26-30.

Portelli, John, P. 1987. "Perspectives and imperatives on definingcurriculum”, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,2(4):354-67.

Pring, R. 1981. "Monitoring performance: reflections on theassessment of performance unit", in D. Lacy and D. Lawton(editors.), Evaluation and Accountability, London, Methuen.

Reid, W. 1987. "The function of SBCD: a cautionary note". InN. Sabar, et al (eds): Partnership and autonomy.

Rule, A.C. 1973. A philosophical inquiry into the meaning(s) ofcurriculum, Doctoral thesis at New York University.

Sabar, N. 1983. School-based science curriculum development:myth or reality, European Journal on Science Education5(4):457-462.

Sabar, N, 1989. "Curriculum development, school-based", InT. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (editors.): /nternationalEncyclopedia ofEducation, Supplementno.1.

Sabar, Naama ; Rudduck, Jean ; Reid, William, (editors). 1987.Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculumdevelopment, Sheffield:University of Sheffield.

Schwab, J.J. 1971. "The practical: arts of the eclectic”. In SchoolReview, 79:493-542.

Schwab, J.J. 1983. "The practical 4: something for curriculumprofessors to do”. In Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3):239-26S.

Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum. 1989.

Curriculum Design for the Secondary Stages, Dundee:Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum.

123

Bibliography

Secondary Science Curriculum Review, 1987. Better science: adirectory of resources, London, Heineman.

Shipman, M. 1985. “Local educational authorities and thecurriculum"; in P. Raggett and P. Weiner (editors);Curriculum and assessment: some policy issues, Oxford;Pergamon Press.

Silberstein, M. 1979. "Training teachers to implement generalcharacteristics of the curriculum”. In Tamir, P. ; Blum,A.;Hofstein, A. (editors.), Curriculum implementation and itsrelationship to its development, Jerusalem, HebrewUniversity, Science Teaching Center.

Skilbeck, M. 1984. School-based curriculum development,London: Harper and Row.

Smith, O.B. ; Stanley, W.O. ; Shores, J.H. 1957. Fundamentals ofcurriculum development, rev. edn., New York: Harcourt,Brace.

Solomon, J. 1989. Science, technology and society as a curriculartopic, In T. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (editors.):International Encyclopedia ofEducation.

Stromquist, Nelly P. 1986. “Decentralizing educationaldecision-making in Peru: intentions and reality”,International Journal on Educational Development,6 (1):47-60.

Stufflebeam, D. ; Foley, W.J. ; Gephart, W.J. ; Guba, EJ. ;Hammond, H.D. ; Merriman, H.O. ; Provus, M.M., 1971.Educational evaluation and_ decision making,Itasca,IL: Peacock.

Sutaria, M.C. 1990. "Teaching for maximum leaming: thePhilippines experience", International Review of Education,36(2):243-50.

124

Bibliography

Taba, H. 1962. Curriculum Development: Theory and practice,New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Thomas, R.M. 1985a. "Supplementary curriculum programs", InT. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (editors.): InternationalEncyclopedia ofEducation.

Thomas, R.M. 1985b. “Curriculum enrichment", In T. Husén ;

T.N. Postlethwaite (editors.): International Encyclopedia ofEducation.

Tyler, R. W. 1950. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction,Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Waddell, Sir James. 1978, School Examinations, London, HMSO.

Walker, D. 1976. The IEA six subject survey: an empirical study ofeducation in twenty-one countries, Stockholm: Almgqvist andWiksell.

Walker, D.F. ; Schaffarzick, J. 1977. Comparing curricula, Rev. ofEducational Res. 44(1): 83-111.

Willis, G. (ed.) 1978. Qualitative evaluation, Berkeley:McCutchan.

Wolfe, Michael, P. ; Howell, G.L.; Charland, J.A. 1989.Energizing the school community: A research approach topractical school improvement, Clearing House, 63(1):29-32.

Woodbury, M. 1979. Selecting materials for instruction: issuesandpolicies, Littletown: Libraries Unlimited.

125

IIEP publications and documents

More than 650 titles on all aspects of educational planning have beenpublished by the Intemational Institute for Educational Planning. A

comprehensive catalogue, giving details of their availability, includesresearch reports, case studies, seminar documents, training materials,occasional papers and reference books in the following subjectcategories:

Economics ofeducation, costs andfinancing.

Manpowerand employment.

Demographic studies.

The location ofschools (school map) and sub-national planning.

Administration and management.

Curriculum development and evaluation.

Educationaltechnology.

Primary, secondary and higher education.

Vocationaland technical education.

Non-formal, out-of-school, adult and rural education.

Copies of the catalogue may be obtained from the ITEP on request.

The International Institute for Educational Planning

The International Institute for Educational Planning (JEP) is an internationalcentre for advanced training and research in thefield of educational planning. Itwas established by UNESCO in 1963 and is financed by UNESCO and byvoluntary contributions from Member States. In recent years the followingMember States have provided voluntary contributions to the Institute: Belgium,Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, India, Ireland, Norway, Sweden,Switzerland.

The Institute’s aim is to contribute to the development of education throughoutthe world, by expanding both knowledge and the supply of competentprofessionals in the field of educational planning. In this endeavour the Instituteco-operates with interested training and research organizations in Member States.The Governing Board of the IEP, which approvesthe Institute’s programme andbudget, consists of eight elected members and four members designated by theUnited Nations Organization andcertain of its specialized agenciesand institutes.

Chairman:Victor L. Urquidi, (Mexico) Research Professor Emeritus, E] Colegio de México,

Mexico.

Designated Members:Goran Ohiin, Assistant Secretary-General, Office for Development, Research and

Policy Analysis, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs,United Nations.

Visvanathan Rajagopalan, Vice President, Sector Policy and Research, Policy,Planning and Research, The World Bank.

Allan F, Sait, Director, Training Department, Intemational Labour Office.Jeggan C. Senghor, Director, African Institute for Economic Development and

Planning.

Elected Members :Isao Amagi, (Japan), Special Advisor to the Minister of Education, Science and

Culture, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Tokyo.Henri Bartoli, (France), Professor, University of Paris I, Pantheon-Sorbonne.

Paris.Mohamed Dowidar, (Egypt), Professor and President of the Department of

Economics, Law Faculty, University of Alexandria.Kabiru Kinyanjui, (Kenya), Senior ProgrammeOfficer, Social Sciences Division,

International Development Research Centre, Nairobi.Alexandre P. Viadislavlev, (USSR), First Secretary, All-Union Council of

Scientific and Engineering Societies of the USSR, Moscow.Lennart Wohlgemuth, (Sweden), Assistant Director-General, Swedish

International DevelopmentAuthority, Stockholm.

* (one vacancy).

Inquiries about the Institute should be addressedto:The Office of the Director, International Institute for Educational Planning,7-9 rue Eugéne-Delacroix, 75116 Paris.