turkey icc 2005 proceedings

Support to Basic Education Programme

World Bank

CURRICULUM REFORM AND IMPLEMENTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Policies, perspectives and implementation

Edited by Pasi Sahlberg

Selected Conference Papers

International Conference on Curriculum Reform and Implementation in the 21st Century: Policies, Perspectives and Implementation June 8‐10, 2005 Istanbul, Turkey

‐2 ‐

‐3 ‐

Table of Content

I Translating the new curriculum into teaching and learning 1 Redesigning educational governance and implementing continuous educational change Don Adams ……………………………………………………………………………………… 9

2 Curriculum change as learning ‐ In search of better implementation Pasi Sahlberg ………………………………………………………………………...……...... 18

3 School curriculum – is it worth trying?

Martti Hellström ………………………………………………………………………………. 31

II Accountability policies and curriculum change 4 High‐stake examinations and curriculum: putting the cart before the horse Sergij Gabrscek ………………………………………………………………………..……….. 41

5 Accountability policies and curriculum change: the case of Finland Pentti Yrjölä …………………………………………………………………………..……….. 52

6 Stakeholders in a curriculum change process: trends and reflections Alexandru Crisan …………………………………………………………………........……… 58

III Curriculum and social change 7 Curriculum change and society interactions Livingston T. Merchant ……………………………………………………………...…………69

8 Tomorrow’s curriculum today: Social transformation and curriculum Roger Avenstrup ………………………………………………………………………………. 77

IV Country case studies 9 Towards a new curriculum for compulsory education in Croatia Branislava Baranović ………………………………………………………………..…………. 90

10 Curriculum change in Romania: current trends and challenges Alexandru Crisan ……………………………………………………………..……………..… 98

11 Models of curriculum development: International trends and the way forward Pasi Sahlberg ………………………………………………………………...……………….. 108

Annexes Annex 1: Conference programme …………………………………………………………………… 122 Annex 2: Glossary of educational terminology ……………………………………………………. 125 Annex 3: Conference presenters …………………………………………………………………….. 136

‐4 ‐

‐5 ‐

Introduction

Curriculum development is one of the leading themes of any education reform today.

Not only the content of teaching and learning are under reconsideration but also the un‐ derstanding of curriculum as a technical instrument and a process has been revisited in many current curriculum development projects around the world. This conference gath‐ ered together a wide audience from Turkish education institutions – including universi‐ ties, education authorities, non‐governmental organizations and schools – to discuss and debate on the current trends in curriculum thinking and reflect on the current develop‐ ments in Turkey. The main idea in this conference was to invite some leading thinkers from other countries to bring their experiences to the Turkish context and blend them in‐ tellectually in order to develop new insights to what curriculum is and how it could serve improving quality of education in general and student learning in particular.

Turkey is well on the way to modernize its curriculum system. The new basic education curriculum that is currently under implementation in all schools is built on Turkish tradition and follows the global trends putting a strong accent on constructivist nature of teaching and learning. Turkish curriculum specialists have worked hard in making this revised curriculum a new kind of opportunity for schools to really make a significant pedagogical change in the classrooms.

The “International Conference on Curriculum Reform and Implementation in the 21st Century: Policies, Perspectives and Implementation” which was initiated by the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) devoted a lot of time during three intensive days in June 2005 in Istanbul to sharing experiences from other education systems regarding how imple‐ mentation of new ideas can be done in most effective way. The conference was supported by the EU‐funded Support to Basic Education Programme (SBEP) in Turkey, the World Bank (WB) and the Istanbul based Education Reform Initiative (ERI). Participants and presenters came from Turkey, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Croatia, Finland and the USA, as well as from international agencies involved in educational re‐ form in these countries. The presentations ranged all the way from classroom projects, to school experiences, general areas of education, the development of national systems, to international and global perspectives.

‐6 ‐

It is not possible to publish all the presentations from plenary and parallel ses‐ sions, owing to their large number. This volume contains a selection of international ex‐ perts’ presentations that, we believe, provide an overview of the key themes and main issues discussed at the conference. Annex three of these proceedings lists contact infor‐ mation of all authors of the papers collected here in order to continue the dialogue started in the conference directly with the authors.

Four sections of these conference proceedings provide a fruitful array of articles from scholars and practitioners representing different curricular contexts and traditions.

The first section takes a look at how the ideas included in the new curricula can be trans‐ lated into intended practices in schools. It explores the conceptual issues of governance and change but also reports some interesting insights from the point of view of a school as a focal place for designing curriculum. The second section discusses curriculum in re‐ lation to increasingly popular policies of keeping schools and their individuals account‐ able for the ultimate results, i.e. student learning. Three papers published under this sec‐ tion argue about the possible consequences of high‐stake examinations and testing for schools, describe some alternative policy options to arrange accountability within the education system and stress the important role of stakeholders in the overall curriculum change process. Two papers in section three place curriculum in the context of society and beyond. They both call for greater need to understand curriculum as part of larger societal system, especially in terms of changing the nature of the world and its basic dy‐ namics. Finally, the fourth section provides case studies from Romania and Croatia that complement the two case studies in the previous sections describing curriculum issues in Finland. The concluding paper of this section looks at some international trends in cur‐ riculum development and offers some options to move forward.

We have also annexed an educational glossary in this volume, thanks to Dr. Roger Avenstrup, in these proceedings for those who want to work further on these ideas in Turkish. We hope that it proves to be helpful and ultimately consolidates some of the new terms that have emerged as a result of international cooperation in the education sector development in Turkey during the recent years. Contact information of all con‐ tributors to this document can be found on the last pages of this volume.

‐7 ‐

On behalf of the organizers we want to extend our sincere thanks to the Turkish Ministry of National Education for taking the initiative to arrange this conference, and to the Education Reform Initiative, World Bank and the EU‐funded Support to Basic Education Programme for arranging the conference and inviting the guest speakers and experts who made the conference a great success.

We would also like to remind that the views expressed in the forthcoming papers are those of each author alone and do not necessarily represent those of the organizing institutions or any of their affiliates.

Finally we would especially want to thank Dr. Pasi Sahlberg from the World Bank. He has tirelessly worked on compiling and editing the proceedings and encour‐ aged the writers to finalize their contributions.

In Ankara and Washington, June 2006

Anders Lönnqvist Team Leader EU/SBEP

Robin Horn Sector Manager World Bank

Neyir Berktay Project Coordinator Education Reform Initiative

‐8 ‐

‐9 ‐

I TRANSLATING THE NEW CURRICULUM INTO TEACHING AND LEARNING

1. Redesigning educational governance and implementing continu‐ ous educational change∗

Donald K. Adams

From Istanbul to Bangkok, when new mothers or new fathers meet in shopping areas the topic of conversation is not food prices or politics but rather “in which preschool were you able to enroll your child?ʺ A kind of education fever grips much of the world. The global demand for education is enormous. Equally pervasive, however, is criticism of the existing education systems. The expressions of dissatisfaction about current education practice are varied but harsh, attempts to define educational reforms typically are frag‐ mentary, and major educational education policies often are not implemented. Addition‐ ally, there remains confusion over what constitutes effective teaching and learning.

Who cares whether there is curriculum change? It may not be those who have the education fever.

Major curriculum reforms take place within a broader context of global educational and societal change. Moreover, the extent and direction of reform and innovation also are in‐ fluenced by changes in educational governance and implementation processes. This pa‐ per focuses on these complex and changing contexts as they support or hinder modifica‐ tions in curriculum and other forms of educational change. The interpretations here are organized around three perspectives: (1) a new global development model; (2) the redes‐ ign of educational governance and management; and (3) strategies and supporting re‐ search for implementing and sustaining educational change. (The last perspective re‐ ceives most emphasis). Finally, to integrate these sets of observations the planning con‐ siderations in a future educational scenario are sketched. ∗

This brief paper is a summary of a much longer draft document which will be available. Email: pakdadams@aol.com

‐10 ‐

Perspective 1: A New global development model1 The evolving global picture of development suggests an interest in and perhaps commit‐ ment to: (1) reversing traditional patterns of centralized dominance of decisions, (2) building knowledge societies, extending social participation and opportunity, and (3) demonstrating good governance and institutional efficiencies. The pursuit of these changes has met with varying success; however, the model is widely popular.

Who are the advocates of the global model? Who benefits? Who reject the model?

The new global model, which includes highly publicized instruments of assessment, identifies education as a centerpiece and a requisite for many individual, familial and na‐ tional aspirations. This model requires education systems to redefine their programs by recognizing changing patterns of work and the growth in civil society. Also implied are ambitious educational changes at the very core of organization, governance, manage‐ ment, curriculum, pedagogy and practice of education. The model further assumes exten‐ sive supporting political commitment outside the system, continuing bureaucratic sup‐ port at all levels, strong incentives within the system, relevant information and support‐ ing research and effective inter‐sectoral networks which provide guidance and support.

Dare the schools accept further responsibility and explicitly plan to participate more fully in building the envisioned new communities and societies?

Perspective 2: Redesigning educational governance and management2 Educational governance at a macro level includes the institutions and processes which give direction to the educational system, e.g., such activities and associated institutions as policies, mandates, and strategic planning. Within the new global model the magnitude of the changes in styles of public governance (and by inference educational governance) has been likened to plate tectonics in geology, a new perspective and insight that views the earth not as a solid mass but rather as consisting of shifting layers of plates. We now recognize that, in practice, educational policy formation involves political tradeoffs, lob‐ bying, coalition building, advocacy, and responses to real or fake crises. Moreover, advo‐ cacy plays a crucial role in facilitating and guiding the iterative interactions between the

‐11 ‐

three streams of policy activity: defining a problem for consideration, bringing solutions to the attention of decision makers, and gaining consensus for action. Changes occur when these three streams converge, presenting a “window of opportunity” which can be grasped by vigilant proponents of reform.

The trend from emphasis on command and control styles of government toward

less intrusive forms can be illustrated as part of pervasive globalization by (1) the evolv‐ ing role of the state toward fewer mandates and more guidance through an enabling framework and appropriate incentives; and (2) the emergence of a new, more participa‐ tory and proactive strategic educational planning model.

Enabling environments Governments, without ignoring the range of regulatory devices, increasingly seek to cre‐ ate (and later interrupt) enabling environments as a major means for attaining educa‐ tional goals. These may take many forms including: engaging key stakeholders in policy development and implementation, creating national EMIS which include local informa‐ tion capabilities, allocating funds to provinces or communities to meet national stan‐ dards, and reducing gender, social and economic disparities. Supplementary funds may also be provided to reduce disparities resulting from decentralization, and to encourage a diversified network of service providers to offer more education choices.

Strategic planning process A new strategic planning process is evolving congruent with the changing patterns of educational governance. Strategic planning is viewed as an analytical, evolutionary, and learning process‐‐a continuous journey rather than the execution of a blue print. This model of planning requires knowledge and insights of professionals and stakeholders from different levels of the system, including those closest to the processes of teaching and learning, e.g., teachers, principals, supervisors. Participation extends the legitimacy of planning and the success of action. Meaningful parental and community involvement and responsibility are necessary in the planning, implementing, evaluating and sustaining of successful educational change. The new planning process has a strong emphasis on im‐ plementation and on sustaining inquiry and innovation.

‐12 ‐

Are all types of participation beneficial in planning? Is too much democracy a bad thing for suc‐ cessful implementation?

Perspective 3. Implementing and sustaining educational change4 Implementation is a construct created to describe a phase in the process of planning edu‐ cational change. Implementation is moving from rhetoric to practice. This section at‐ tempts to describe a few of the conditions for successful policy implementation and sug‐ gest the role of research in support of this implementation.

Many policies and plans are adopted by central agencies; some are implemented, even fewer are continued to fulfill earlier expectations. In a receptive environment, smarter laws or statutes can improve implementation because clear, precise laws leave little room for misinterpretation. Traditional views of the roles of management in imple‐ mentation emphasized the importance of detailed objectives, assigning responsibility and setting firm standards. Newer views of governance, strengthened by empirical research, recognize that the implementation process may respond to or alter local conditions in un‐ foreseeable ways. Moreover, in varying degrees implementation is part of a linked proc‐ ess which includes monitoring, evaluation and sustainability, and is subject to influences from the various larger stakeholder groups and the larger societal environment whose stability cannot be taken for granted. In practice some policies are implemented as planned and others are planned as implemented.

Conditions for successful policy implementation5 Given the absence of large‐scale cross‐national and comparative research on implementa‐ tion, generalizations may be suspect. Nevertheless, an effort is made to summarize a few of the findings of limited research into one partial list of conditions for successful imple‐ mentation. Successful policy implementation includes: (1) Reforms that are based on needs as expressed by the people, where there is genu‐ ine community participation in the formulation and implementation of policy and programs, and where public space is made available for dialogue, debate and dis‐ cussion;

‐13 ‐

(2) Decision processes that build satisfying human interaction and result in reforms that are culturally responsive (compatible with regional language, values and work patterns); (3) New innovations in reforms that reflect low conflict and low ambiguity projects and are implemented within the overall policy environment of government; (4) Vertical and horizontal communication and dialogue that are encouraged among stakeholders for purposes of informing and mobilizing support; (5) Roles and responsibilities that are clearly established for government and key players (including teachers who act as leaders in implementing innovations); (6) Adequate fiscal and human resources that are provided for the life of the reform (including the condition that recurrent budgets recognize the costs which derive from development budget initiatives); (7) Organizational intelligence that demonstrably assists the ability of an organization to learn and react, with an attempt made by stakeholders to learn what the policy makers don’t know and what the practitioners won’t do; (8) Innovations and reforms that are supported by research, information and system‐ atic monitoring, with systematic measurement of achievement required in terms of quantitative and qualitative performance indicators.

Can the decision process be self‐fulfilling and still cope with tough problems? Does participa‐ tion kill any chance of radical reform?

Use of research in implementation6 Policy‐relevant research is often seen as “speaking truth to power.” Research‐based knowledge and insights can inform the policy processes and radically improve policy and program implementation. Moreover, researchers can do much more than ʺinform;ʺ they can play important participatory roles in policy and implementation dialogue. There are three caveats to these assumptions: (1) experts often are wrong; (2) the most applicable research is not necessarily the most sophisticated; and

‐14 ‐

(3) research should involve a wide spectrum of stakeholders and may appropri‐ ately include ʺadvocacy research”.

The validity of the first caveat is self evident. The second and third require expla‐ nation.

Given the extensive participatory nature of research concerned with implementa‐ tion, “world class research” may not be the best choice. Perhaps research can be crudely classified as R and r. R can refer to more formal research, generated with elaborate meth‐ odology, with safeguards for validity and reliability. r is less formally structured, more applied and more immediate in relevance. R and R&D tend to have high credibility among researchers and senior policy makers. Such efforts can be politically persuasive as evidence of the existence of an important problem (e.g., inequitable educational opportu‐ nity of the poor) or insight into student achievement (e.g., international test scores).

Yet for all of its value R, and R&D are often expensive, require much time and may result in limited relevance to immediate education policy and implementation prob‐ lems. The basis for many decisions in implementation is ordinary language, not the tech‐ nical language of researchers. It may be found in conversations, notes, memoranda. Much of participatory and advocacy research is best described as r, reflecting an attempt to gain quick insight into an issue with appropriate imprecision. An argument could be made that in many cases formal research methods may be a supplement to ordinary knowledge rather than vice versa.

The third caveat mentioned concerning stakeholder participation in research may lead to ʺadvocacy research,ʺ a somewhat controversial role for researchers. In defining a more active role for research in effecting change, it has been argued that the traditional, rather passive role in providing information and insight should be altered. Some observ‐ ers now call for researchers to fully participate in the discourse of educational change. In this view, the purpose of research changes from defining and validating ʺtruthʺ to con‐ tributing to the design of policies and programs, and the researcher moves from obscurity to ʺcenter stage in the theater of life.ʺ Thus, research informs the full range of stake‐ holders and becomes integral to both knowledge creation and promotion of public dia‐ logue.7

‐15 ‐

A Scenario for planning an educational future This scenario presents the elements for planning one ambitious, and possibly politically sensitive systemic (and extra‐systemic) vision of an education future. In this scenario education policies support the emerging global trends, attempt to facilitate continuous improvements in quality, and avoid or lessen the finality of the various types of margin‐ alization. This scenario assumes primary schooling is well established, and a reasonable long‐term expectation is that most children will persist through the whole cycle of basic education. The future education system should: •

Encourage both top‐down and bottom‐up systemic planning and management in‐ formed by dialogue and research; increase emphasis of enabling as contrasted with regulatory actions of educational governance; stimulate local, private, and non‐governmental involvements in education; increase access, persistence, and variety of schooling by utilization of a variety of partnerships involving private, and nongovernmental organizations; experiment with a more ʺorganicʺ organiza‐ tion by facilitating, when fiscally feasible, smaller institutions (schools–within‐ schools, minischools, multigrade schools); seek equity of educational opportuni‐ ties for the poor and marginalized at all levels of the education system.

•

Encourage continuous review of the relations of schooling, the workplace and the civil society; promote dialogue between school and relevant actors to translate into specific curricula such terms as “meta‐cognitive capital,” “creative capital;” build and evaluate multiple experiments in curricula emphasizing such concepts as flexibility, creativity, problem solving abilities, generalizeable competence; postpone narrow specialization in secondary schools and higher education; allow easier movement of students from one track to another; focus on learning out‐ comes, including cognitive skills, social and cultural capital, access to information, and other skills on demand.

•

Help schools develop their own capacity by providing resources and focusing much empirical inquiry to support changes at the school and classroom levels; es‐ tablish planning targets for every student to have equal opportunity for access to a quality upper secondary school; foster equalization of quality of education be‐

‐16 ‐

tween schools; exercise caution when encouraging innovations involving mimetic programs.

•

Provide alternative schools and ad hoc learning arrangements to be available upon demand; examine the implications of theories of learning for school practice; experiment with a variety of promising pedagogical innovations, such as the in‐ tensity level of inputs and newer technologies; experiment with more learning– oriented environments in contrast to teaching‐oriented environments.

•

Seek continuous innovation through dialogue, applied and advocacy research; develop a tradition of student involvement in educational governance; increase flows of adults between community and school.

What networks outside the system will need to be involved?

Summary Although this is a period of significant dissatisfaction with educational institutions, it is also a time wonderfully rich in ideas, innovations, research and technologies in the field of education. The global attention to education reforms, the redefinition of educa‐ tional governance and further insight into the mysteries of policy and program im‐ plementation behavior suggest that bright education futures potentially lie ahead. We are ready to move from fragmented, intermittent, frequently unrelated, series of cur‐ ricular and other education reforms toward systemic and extra‐systemic processes of continuous educational improvement. Every country has a surfeit of talent which can profoundly influence the quality, scope, and directions of education. Every nation is rich in talented teachers, administrators and bureaucrats. And, if future educational histories are accurately written, such individuals will be identified as national treas‐ ures.

Think: In your experience, how has dialogue been encouraged and contributed to successful implementation?

References

‐17 ‐

1. Adams, D. (2003) Educational strategies for the new development orthodoxy. Asian Pa‐ cific Education Review, 4(1).

2. Chambers, R. (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Dudley, E. (1993) The Critical Village: Beyond community par‐ ticipation. London: Routledge Press. Krishna, A, Uphoff, N. & Esman, M. (1997) Rea‐ sons for hope: Instructive experiences in rural development. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

3. Adams, D. (2000) Extending educational planning discourse: A new strategic planning model. Asian Pacific Education Review, 1(1). Carnoy, M. (1999) Globalization and educa‐ tional reform: What planners need to know. Paris: IIEP‐UNESCO. 4. Burnett, N. (1996) Priorities and strategies for education: A World Bank review: The process and the key messages. International Journal of Educational Development, 16(3).

Klijn, E. H., & Teisman, G. R. (1991) Effective policy making in a multi‐actor setting: Networks and steering. In Autopoiesis and configuration theory: New approaches to societal steering. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

5. Uphoff, N., Esman, M. & Krishna, A. (1998) Reasons for success: Learning from instructive experiences in rural development. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Ingram, H. & Schnei‐ der, A. (1990) Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes. Journal of Public Policy, 10(1).

6. Reimers, F. & McGinn, N. (1997) Informed dialogue: Using research to shape education policy around the world. West Port, CT: Praeger.

7. Ginsburg, M. B. & Gorostiaga, J. M. (Eds.) (2003) Limitations and possibilities of dialogue among researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

‐18 ‐

2. Curriculum change as learning: In search of better implementa‐ tion

Pasi Sahlberg

Curriculum change is a learning process for teachers and for their schools. Good under‐ standing of change and clear conception of curriculum are necessary conditions for im‐ proved implementation of new curriculum into practice. The key message of this presen‐ tation can be crystallized into three conclusions.

(1) Successful curriculum development requires better use of ‘change knowledge’ ‐ failure is often a result of neglecting it. Policy‐makers, education leaders and teachers need to know more about the drivers of successful curriculum change in schools. There‐ fore, learning about educational change and its key features should become inte‐ gral elements of any serious curriculum reform process.

(2) Re‐conceptualizing curriculum. Many curriculum reforms are based on how the cur‐ riculum has traditionally been organized. As a consequence, many curricula have become overloaded, confusing and inappropriate for teachers and students.

Therefore, curriculum orientation should shift from a curriculum as product model to a curriculum as process model. This would also transform the role of the curricu‐ lum from a purely technical document into a more comprehensive idea that also serves as guideline for school improvement.

(3) Changing the way teachers teach and students learn requires specific approaches. In‐ service training of teachers is not enough. If curriculum reform aims at changing the ways students learn and teachers teach, more sophisticated implementation strategies are required. Therefore, helping teachers to create professional learning communities and schools to learn from each other are recommended approaches.

The myth of change Curriculum reforms are all about change. Nations, states, local communities and schools renew their curricula because their existing ones are not what they should be, or simply because there is a belief that changing the curriculum will also bring expected improve‐ ments into classrooms. Whatever the drivers for the global curriculum reforms are, every

‐19 ‐

reform architect is facing the question of how change eventually will happen. Only a few of those who initiate and authorize these reforms will be asked later on why the intended change didn’t happen as expected.

Change is learning. Undermining this characteristic of change – or learning – has led many education developers in general and curriculum reformers in particular to adopt over‐simplistic approaches in trying to change the existing practices and modes of thinking in schools. Curriculum change efforts are typically labeled as implementation or transmission of intended curriculum into classroom practice in schools. A common means of this transmission is the diffusion of information to raise the awareness of re‐ form, in‐service training of teachers to improve their knowledge and relevant skills and dissemination of support materials, such as teachers’ guides and educational pamphlets to parents, to back‐up the intended change. In many ways the problem of curriculum change is similar to the problems related to understanding human learning through be‐ haviorist or positivist perspectives.

For a long time human learning was explored and explained using positivist sci‐ entific models, especially experimental behaviorist psychology, as a deterministic and externally observable change (Pinar et al., 1995). This means that by knowing and ma‐ nipulating the stimuli, or input of the learning process, we are able to control the re‐ sponse, or output of the learning process. In this way, complex learning was reduced to a simple sequence of stimulus and response, in other words, learning was explained through multiple linear stimulus‐response sequences. What is significant in these concep‐ tions of learning as deterministic and reductionist change is that very little or no attention was devoted to the learner – or organism as it was called in this model – or intellectual, emotional or social characteristics of the organism. The learner and the mental processes of her mind constituted a ‘black box’ that was beyond the reach of the methods of positiv‐ ist science. Later in the 20th century this model of learning has come under continuous criticism and contemporary learning paradigms based on cognitive psychology, cognition science and brain research has increasingly been accepted as a dominant perspective on learning. Figure 1 illustrates the nature of the behaviorist model of learning.

‐20 ‐

Figure 1. Linear model that describes the behavioral change (i.e. learning) of the organism. In this model S refers to stimulus influenced into the organism O and R refers to the responses occurring as a reaction to the stimulus.

S

O

R

organism

Let’s use this same analogy in the context of curriculum reform. I argue that in many education reforms the conception of educational change has been strongly influenced by the individual learning paradigm presented in Figure 1. Changing schools has proved to be a complex process. Therefore reductionist and simplified change models have been common in many large‐ and small‐scale education reforms. Improvement in the quality of schooling has been sought by breaking the complex system of school into manageable elements, such as curriculum, assessment, management, teaching materials, learning re‐ sources and so on, and targeting change efforts on these isolated elements. In this analogy organism is replaced by organization, stimulus by school improvement efforts (often training of individuals) and response by observable or visible changes in school (or class‐ room). In Figure 2 the organization remains a ‘black box’ that available knowledge and methodologies of educational change were not able to explore or understand.

Figure 2. Linear model that describes the observable change (i.e. improvement) of the school. In this model S refers to external actions influenced into the organization (school) O and R refers to the externally observable responses occurring as a reaction to the stimulus.

S

O

R

organization

Similarly, the limitations of the behaviorist learning theories that are presented in a sim‐ ple way in Figure 1 to explain the complex mental, physiological and social processes re‐

‐21 ‐

lated to human learning, the limitations of the linear organizational change models for understanding school change have led to new models of change that are based on con‐ temporary systems and organization theories. The criteria of change are often limited to observable reactions, or visible behaviors in schools and in teachers. More concretely, the results of curriculum implementation are sometimes reported as the number of teachers who have participated in the in‐service training courses rather than prevalence and level of use of new ideas that the curriculum reform was supposed to bring to schools and classrooms.

Adopting a new curriculum is a learning process for a school as an organization similarly to understanding a new knowledge of physics is for a student. Understanding the ‘black box’ in implementing changes in schools is a necessary condition for sustain‐ able improvement. According to the contemporary educational change knowledge, school is a learning organization that has different capacities to learn and change. Con‐ structivist learning theories view the learner as an active builder of knowledge and un‐ derstanding based on what are her previous knowledge structures, belief systems and life experiences. Analogically, system thinkers view school as an organization that can learn and change based on its traditions, capacities and beliefs, in other words an organiza‐ tional culture. If implementation of curriculum or any other pedagogic change in schools is seen from the system thinkers’ point of view, then it should be understood as an or‐ ganization’s learning process as much as an individuals’ learning process that requires changing the culture of that organization.

A lack of appreciation and understanding of the change process is the most com‐ mon reason for implementation disappointments. The presence of educational change knowledge does not guarantee success. However, failure to understand change means that the best ideas and good intentions have limited impact in schools (Sarason, 1996).

One fundamental realization is that change involves grappling with new beliefs, under‐ standing, skills and behaviors which inevitably implies that implementation will not go smoothly, especially in the beginning. This is true to any individual who is seriously learning something new. Reality becomes much more complex when many people simul‐ taneously are involved. The crucial dimension of change is changing the culture of school simultaneously with improving the individuals’ knowledge and skills. The ways in

‐22 ‐

which curricula are implemented depends on what are our perspectives of the curricu‐ lum.

Curriculum and the legacy of modernism The organization of schooling has long been associated with the idea of a curriculum.

Therefore, another necessary aspect involved in planning successful curriculum imple‐ mentation is to understand what we mean by the curriculum. Comprehensive analysis of different curriculum theories and their practical implications is beyond the scope of this presentation. What follows, instead, is a brief narrative on the evolution of curriculum thinking in order to understand why the curriculum is what it is, and how the broader conception of the curriculum would be more suitable to contemporary educational knowledge and research on school improvement.

The origin of modern curriculum thinking relates back to the first half of the 20th century when two American writers Franklin Bobbitt (1918) and Ralph Tyler (1949) pub‐ lished their works on curriculum that were the most dominant in terms of laying the ground for curriculum theory and practice. Two exerts from these early authorities in the field of curriculum thinking hopefully show the essence of the modernist conception of the curriculum. The first exert is from The Curriculum (1918) in which Bobbitt writes that:

The central theory [of curriculum] is simple. Human life, however varied, consists in the performance of specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities. However numerous and diverse they may be for any social class they can be discovered. This requires only that one go out into the world of affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs consist. These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need.

These will be the objectives of the curriculum. They will be numerous, definite and par‐ ticularized. The curriculum will then be that series of experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining those objectives.

The rise of the scientific management movement, with significant contributions from Fredrick Taylor, heavily influenced the way of thinking about curriculum theory

‐23 ‐

and practice. The three basic principles of scientific management were all involved in the modernist conceptions of curriculum that are included Bobbitt’s theory: greater division of labour with jobs being simplified, an extension of managerial control over all elements of the workplace, and cost accounting based on systematic time‐and‐motion studies. For example, the separation of education planning and guidance from teaching and learning in schools led to the curriculum becoming an externally designed, mandated and con‐ trolled bureaucratic instrument to schools. Alternative conceptions of the curriculum, for example curriculum as a process or curriculum as an experience, never really found room in the expanding world of education that was dominated by rational, scientific education thinking (Pinar et al., 1995).

The seminal work of Ralph Tyler in 1949, titled Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction has made a lasting impression on curriculum theory and practice until today.

His curriculum thinking relied on Bobbitt’s emphasis on rationality and relative simplic‐ ity. Tyler’s curriculum theory was based on four questions: 1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?

3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

This conception of the curriculum stresses the formulation of behavioral objectives for teaching. The second exert is from Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction in which Tyler (1949) writes:

Since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to bring about significant changes in the studentsʹ pattern of behavior, it becomes im‐ portant to recognize that any statements of objectives of the school should be a statement of changes to take place in the students.

‐24 ‐

Many curriculum theorists based their work on the assumptions of Tylerian ra‐ tionalist thinking. For example, Hilda Taba (1962) translated Tyler’s basic assumptions into a simple procedure that still dominates curriculum thinking worldwide. This is a typical example of what is often called the curriculum as product model of curriculum the‐ ory and practice.

This way of approaching curriculum theory and practice as a product has been commonly accepted in many education systems. The reasons for the prevalence of this approach are that it is systematic, follows the ideas of industrial management and has therefore considerable organizing power. However, it has been increasingly challenged by many curriculum theorists and practitioners alike (Doll, 1993). The general concern has been related to the overall mindset of teaching and learning on which this approach is based: a closed, deterministic and linear‐technical conception of teaching and learning that undermine the dynamic, unpredictable nature of human interaction and personal growth. Learning in school is more complex and organic than this model is able to de‐ scribe.

Figure 3. Technical procedure for curriculum and instruction based on the curriculum theory of Ralph Tyler based on interpretation by Taba (1962).

of needs 1. Diagnosis

2. Formulation of objectives 3. Selection of content 4. Organization of content

5. Selection of learning experiences 6. Organization of learning experiences

7. Determination of what to evaluate and how to do it

Another consequence of the modernist curriculum thinking is that many still equate a curriculum with a syllabus. If the curriculum is seen as a body of knowledge‐content and subjects, then education is the process by which these are transmitted or delivered to stu‐ dents by the most effective methods that can be devised. The curriculum as a product model is fundamentally dependent on the setting of behavioral objectives. The curricu‐ lum, therefore, is a set of documents for implementation. This has had, and will continue to have unless we change the way we think about the curriculum, significant affect on curriculum policies and especially on implementation strategies embedded in education

‐25 ‐

reforms. Using the curriculum as product model as a theoretical and practical framework for education reforms has facilitated the development of different variations of that model rather than adopting alternative approaches to curriculum theory and practice.

Some implications of the curriculum as a product model are content‐rich, clinical and standardized curriculum.

Content‐rich curriculum. Many education systems experience curricula that are overloaded with knowledge‐content and specific subjects. Rather than rethinking the na‐ ture of the curriculum, new content is being moved to earlier and earlier years and grades to give more space for new information that needs to be included in the upper grades.

This model has led, for example in England, to having priority on curriculum coverage before developing understanding and interest in learning (Dadds, 2001).

Clinical curriculum. Increasing the emphasis on learning the basic skills in schools has led to what Hargreaves (2001) calls ‘a clinical and conventional curriculum in which literacy, numeracy, and science are accorded supreme importance’. Rather than seeking holistic and systemic understanding of self and the world through interdisciplinary cur‐ riculum, this model assumes that the mastery of basic knowledge and skills in deter‐ mined core subjects will eventually lead to applying what is learned in other knowledge domains.

Standards‐based curriculum. Emergence of an outcome‐based education movement in 1980s led to introduction of learning and content standards within curriculum theory and practice. These standards provide a detailed prescription of what all pupils should know and be able to do as they pass through different stages of education. Standards were introduced in education to improve the quality and increase the equity. Although using curriculum and learning standards has improved these aspects of education in many countries they have also created new problems. Standards, as they have been im‐ plemented, have consolidated the curriculum as product model rather than bringing al‐ ternative approaches to curriculum theory and practice (Sahlberg, 2004).

Closing the implementation gap The dominant approaches of describing and managing education today are based on the productive form. Education is most often seen as a technical exercise. Goals and objec‐

‐26 ‐

tives have been set, a plan and strategy drawn up, then applied and implemented and finally the outcomes (or products) measured. Similarly, changing schools and individuals working and learning in them is often based on technical, productive forms as described earlier. Implementing new curriculum into practice is never easy. Typically, there is a gap between intended and implemented curriculum. Closing this implementation gap re‐ quires that two essential aspects of curriculum change are given appropriate importance and appreciation. These two aspects are using change knowledge in curriculum implementa‐ tion and selecting appropriate implementation methods to help teachers and schools to change as expected.

The history of curriculum reform and attempts to introduce new approaches in teaching are replete with good ideas that fail to get implemented or that are successful in one context but not in another one. A missing ingredient in most cases is insufficient ap‐ preciation and use of what is called change knowledge. Change knowledge in education means understanding insight about the process of curriculum change and the key drivers that make for successful curriculum implementation into practice. The presence of change knowledge does not guarantee implementation success, but its absence ensures failure (Sahlberg, 2006).

There are several ways of conceptualizing what drives successful curriculum change. The following seven principles are often used in the process of implementing a new curriculum (see Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves and Fink, 2005).

1. Making sense of why a new curriculum is necessary. This typically refers to show‐ ing how curriculum change is connected to the overall political economy and social and economic development. The moral purpose of change is the key fac‐ tor in building a commitment to raising the quality and closing the gap in stu‐ dent achievement.

2. Understanding the change process. Implementing a new curriculum requires changes on many fronts. Understanding the complexity and internal dynamics of change process is conditional for the sustainable implementation of curricu‐ lum reforms. It is often difficult and frustrating to do because it requires lead‐ ers to stop and think about the aspects of reform that they would not rather do otherwise.

‐27 ‐

3. Capacity‐building. Capacity is one of the key conditions for successful imple‐ mentation of curriculum reforms. However, it is often the missing link even when there is a consensus of the need for change. Capacity‐building involves policies, strategies, resources and other actions that are aiming at increasing the collective power of people.

4. Developing cultures of learning. Successful curriculum change involves learning during implementation. A powerful factor of change is learning from one’s peers, especially those who are further along in implementing new curricu‐ lum. The principles of learning from each other include (a) developing profes‐ sional learning communities at the local, school and community level, and (b) learning from other schools and teachers.

5. Developing cultures of evaluation. Cultures of evaluation must be embedded in the cultures of learning. Contemporary change strategies involve strategies that are labeled as ‘Assessment for Learning’ that incorporates (a) collecting data from student learning, (b) disaggregating data for more specific under‐ standing, (c) preparing action plans based on the data mentioned above, and (d) communicating students’ performance to parents.

6. Developing leadership for change. Good leadership is one of the key conditions for successful curriculum change. Leadership, to be productive and sustain‐ able must spread throughout the school. Successful managing is not about one’s own success but helping others to be successful. Education leaders, more than any others, need to understand these ingredients of successful change.

7. Utilizing the ideas that already exist in schools. Schools are full of good ideas about how to improve teaching and help pupils learn. Many curriculum re‐ forms ignore this reality. Recognition of the hidden capacities of schools and teachers, the identification of these passive potentials and then facilitating the exchange of good ideas and practices that work have been the missing link in some of the education systems that are today performing well (Aho, Pitkänen & Sahlberg, 2006).

‐28 ‐

Table 1. Decision‐making matrix for curriculum implementation Intended change Awareness and basic knowledge about curricu‐ lum Knowledge and understand‐ ing of theories and practices required in new curriculum

Implementation methods In‐service training of teachers, printed or audiovisual ma‐ terials for teachers and new modules in teacher pre‐ service training programs.

In‐service training of teachers, printed or audiovisual ma‐ terials for teachers and new modules in teacher pre‐ service training programs. Demonstrations of expected new classroom practices and behaviors in school.

Skills development for dis‐ In‐service training of teachers, printed or audiovisual ma‐ crete behaviors, patterns and terials for teachers and new modules in teacher pre‐ service training programs. Demonstrations of expected strategies new classroom practices and behaviors in school. Work‐ shops where teachers can practice new skills.

In‐service training of teachers, printed or audiovisual ma‐ Changing beliefs about learning, children and aca‐ terials for teachers and new modules in teacher pre‐ demic content service training programs. Demonstrations of expected new classroom practices and behaviors in school. Work‐ shops where teachers can practice new skills. Extended school‐based or locally managed teacher development programs.

Consistent use of new prac‐ In‐service training of teachers, printed or audiovisual ma‐ terials for teachers and new modules in teacher pre‐ tices service training programs. Demonstrations of expected new classroom practices and behaviors in school. Work‐ shops where teachers can practice new skills. Extended school‐based or locally managed teacher development programs. Supporting professional learning communities in schools.

Closing the gap between the intended and the implemented curriculum requires that cur‐ riculum designers are knowledgeable about selecting appropriate implementation meth‐ ods to help teachers and schools to change. If curriculum is seen as a product, as de‐ scribed above, the implementation of new curriculum reduces to a technical and bureau‐ cratic exercise. A common implementation strategy in this case is based on extensive ex‐ ternal training of teachers through which the necessary information regarding new cur‐ riculum is transmitted to teachers. On the other hand, if curriculum reform is expected to influence how schools organize their work, how teachers teach and how students learn, more comprehensive change strategies and implementation mechanisms are required.

‐29 ‐

Providing training to teachers is necessary but not sufficient for successful change that typically involves changes in people’s awareness, knowledge, skills and beliefs (or atti‐ tudes). Table 1 describes the selection of implementation strategies according to intended level of change.

Conclusions Curriculum change is a learning process for teachers and their schools. A good under‐ standing of change and a clear conception of the curriculum are necessary conditions for improved implementation of new curriculum into practice. Furthermore, as the concep‐ tion of learning is becoming more studied and considered as an important factor chang‐ ing education, exploring and rethinking what learning is deserves more attention in the future curriculum development efforts. The key message of this presentation can be crys‐ tallized to three conclusions.

(1) Understanding that success requires ‘change knowledge’, and that failure is a result of neglecting it. Policy‐makers, education leaders and teachers need to know more about the drivers of successful curriculum change in schools. Therefore, learning about educational change and its key features should become integral elements of any serious curriculum reform process. There is an interesting stock of literature, both research and reports of case studies, that is gradually changing the way we should view the change in education, especially in schools and at the level of teaching and learning.

(2) Re‐conceptualizing curriculum. Many curriculum reforms are based on how the curriculum has traditionally been organized. As a consequence, many curricula have be‐ come overloaded, confusing and inappropriate for teachers and students. Therefore, cur‐ riculum orientation should shift from a curriculum as product model to a curriculum as process model. This would also transform the role of the curriculum from a purely techni‐ cal document into a more comprehensive idea that also serves as guidelines for school improvement.

(3) Changing the way teachers teach and students learn requires specific approaches. In‐ service training of teachers is not enough. If curriculum reform aims at changing the ways students learn and teachers teach, more sophisticated implementation strategies are

‐30 ‐

required. Therefore, helping teachers to create professional learning communities and schools to learn from each other are recommended approaches.

References Aho, E., Pitkanen, K. & Sahlberg, P. (2006) Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Bobbitt, (1918) The curriculum. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Dadds, M. (2001) The politics of pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching, 7(1), 43‐58.

Doll, W. (1993) A post‐modern perspective on curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (2005) Leadership and sustainability. System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2005) Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Shawn, M. & Manning, S. (2001) Learning to change. Teaching be‐ yond subjects and standards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P. & Taubman, P. (1995) Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Sahlberg, P. (2004) Teaching and globalization. Research Journal of Managing Global Transi‐ tions, 2(1), 65‐83.

Sahlberg, P. (2006) Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. Journal of Edu‐ cational Change, 7(3), pages not available.

Sarason, S.B. (1996) Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change (3rd edition).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith, M.K. (1996/2000) Curriculum theory and practice. In The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Accessed on 30 May, 2005 through www.infed.org/biblio/b‐curric.htm.

Taba, H. (1962) Curriculum development. Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and World.

Tyler, R. (1949) Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

‐31 ‐

3. School curriculum – is it worth trying?

Martti Hellström

The 1994 curriculum reform in Finland In the Finnish educational paradigm the curriculum is an administrative and pedagogical concept. It is a plan that connects things that should happen in the school. Conceptually Finnish curriculum is both curriculum and study plan (Malinen, 1997).

The Finnish curriculum system has two levels: national and local. During the his‐ tory of Finnish comprehensive basic school (since 1972) there has been a curriculum re‐ form in each decade. This article discusses the issues related to the third curriculum re‐ form in the years 1994‐2002. At moment of writing the Finnish schools are working on the new school‐based curriculum in the framework of the National Core Curriculum of year 2004.

Figure 4. Three levels of curriculum: national, local and school.

‐32 ‐

The curriculum reform of 1994 ‐ 2002 was led by the National Board of Education. The curriculum system consists of three elements: ‐ national curriculum ‐ local curriculum ‐ school curriculum.

The national curriculum was written co‐operatively with local municipalities and schools. Local curriculums were mostly designed by the municipalities. Teachers had an active role in designing and writing of the school curriculum.

The reform was started with a democratic and hybrid strategy. Earlier curriculum reforms had been implemented using a top‐down requirement approach. Now the schools were allowed to create their own innovations. During the course of implementa‐ tion the strategy was, however, changed. In the beginning there was a common feeling of trust and freedom among the teachers. The process was evaluated by the expert team from the East‐Anglia University (UK) and later by the National Board of Education. The results of the evaluation changed the atmosphere in the middle of the 1990s towards more critical.

The Aquarium Project The implementation of the new curriculum was supported by in‐service training for the teachers the National Board of Education and by creating a large‐scale support system called The Aquarium Project 1992‐1998. The two officials of the National Board of Educa‐ tion, Dr. Aslak Lindström and Dr. Pasi Sahlberg were the two fathers of this implementa‐ tion innovation. The key idea of the Aquarium concept was so called open network of like‐minded education developers who would learn from each other and share their prac‐ tical knowledge and good experiences.

The Aquarium Project had three phases. In the first phase about 42 schools and many local municipalities supported the National Board of Education to finalize the Na‐ tional Framework Curriculum. In the second phase over 400 schools networked together to support the change. There were over 400 schools and over 900 projects in 16 thematic sub‐networks (Hellström, 2004a; Sintonen & al., 1999). The third phase was purely ad‐ ministrative.

‐33 ‐

Four missions of the 1994 reform There were four missions in the curriculum reform after 1993. They were: ‐ Mission 1: Write your own school curriculum ‐ Mission 2: Change teaching methods to follow the constructivist idea ‐ Mission 3: Make your school unique and personal and ‐ Mission 4: Take the responsibility for development.

Let’s look at how we succeed in these missions in Aurora Elementary School. But first, a short presentation of the school may be helpful.

Aurora Elementary School We present Aurora School as a flexible, continually developing, positively oriented and safe learning environment. There are about 340 pupils (aged 7 ‐ 13) divided into 15 groups at the school.

We emphasize the profound basis of basic knowledge, core skills and cultural education. Teaching is integrated aesthetically by using drama, visual arts, music, litera‐ ture and theatre. Information and communication technologies are used every day in our school. We have a flexible curriculum that allows pupils to choose an educational pro‐ gram that best suits them. Optional courses make it possible to specialize in physical edu‐ cation, art, music and handicrafts. Voluntary Swedish is included in our curriculum.

Pupils’ healthy growth is our main concern. We try to promote the self‐esteem of each pupil, educate them to balance, responsibility, creativity, awareness of his or her roots, tolerance and teach him open‐minded by enhancing the learning environment. Pu‐ pils who leave Aurora School after sixth grade should be co‐operative individuals with sound education for further studies. There are active parents’ groups at our school. We take part in many national and international projects.

Evaluating the first mission The first mission was to write a curriculum for our own school. It meant that we should describe our aims, purpose of school and its values. We had possibilities to make deci‐ sions concerning distribution of lesson hours, voluntary courses, contents of the subjects

‐34 ‐

and integrative themes. We had a possibility to create certificates and evaluation reports and a little bit later also the system of self‐evaluation was developed.

It was not always easy to understand the National Curriculum and what was ex‐ pected of us. We made a work plan of the documents to be written and the decisions to be made. We started this work by arranging professional discussions and making question‐ naires to the parents. We learnt to reflect our way of doing things. We had several discus‐ sions on values, principles and procedures with pupils and parents. We also published several articles about curriculum in our newsletter and in our web pages.

Figure 5. The model of three curricula types.

It took us two years to finish the first version of our curriculum. We revised the school curriculum eight times, once a year between 1995 and 2002 with the help of the model of three curricula (Figure 5). The model was created in the group of voluntary headmasters in Espoo. The main idea was to explore written curriculum critically by comparing it with

‐35 ‐

the National Curriculum text and the reality and make the segment of correctness as wide as possible.

Finnish schools wrote their curricula surprisingly fast during the first year. The quality of school curricula varied from each other: there were some excellent ones but also curricula that were insufficient. In Aurora we were proud of our own curriculum.

During the years the curriculum grew from 25 pages to almost 150 pages. Finally we had pictures and interesting educational articles in it. In 2001 we held a seminar of 20 pupils who designed a curriculum of pupils, first ever written, I suppose.

Evaluating the second mission Second, pedagogical mission, was to change the pedagogy of basic schools from teacher‐ centered herbartianism to more child‐centered constructivism and to provoke the use in‐ formation and communication technologies in teaching. Both aims were challenging.

We had to understand what constructivism means. We saw it as a manifest for more child‐centered, active, knowledge‐constructing and co‐operative methods. We started to develop our pedagogical culture with planned projects which were voluntary for teachers. In the heart of each project there were three questions to be answered: 9 How to promote ICT on school? How to help those children who have diffi‐ culties in the age of seven years and later (Start Class and Blue Bears)?

9 How to find more possibilities to learn foreign language (CLIL‐project)?

9 How to integrate different subjects and use different methods (Days of ethics)?

Teachers were empowered by the curriculum projects. My duty as a headmaster was to help them and find them support and extra resources. In some projects I had a more active role) as a change agent or facilitator. We co‐operated with other schools in many projects.

Because we saw our school as a learning school, all participants had a possibility to take an active role. As a community, we moved to the direction of self‐determination, co‐operation and teamwork. Some pedagogical ideas were born in the discussion with teachers and parents.

‐36 ‐

But did we really succeed to change our methods towards constructivism with these projects? The projects were important for me and for the teachers. We succeeded to make small steps to use more co‐operative methods. But overall we must admit that her‐ bartianism was too strongly connected to the cultures of our school.

Evaluating the third mission The third mission was to make each school unique and personal. The schools had now power to make decisions that it didn’t have before. Schools allover Finland started own pedagogical innovations. In Aurora we created strong support systems for those children that need special help. We formed a first Start Class in Espoo for seven years old children with special needs and later a “Blue Bears” group to support the integration of a bit older pupils. No child left behind!

This mission succeeded in Finland, perhaps even too well. The National Board of Education came nervous due to the differences between the cultures of the schools. In Aurora we indeed felt that we found our identity during the curriculum reform: We chose a slogan: Aurora ‐ non scholae sed vitae discimus!

Evaluating the fourth mission The fourth mission was to take the responsibility for the development. Schools needed a system of continuous evaluation. We started annual evaluation seminars during which we edited our written curriculum and had interesting professional discussion about the hidden curriculum. We used actively the model of three curricula (Figure 5). We asked parents’ and pupils’ opinions using questionnaires. We asked the new teachers and visi‐ tors to tell us, what interesting in good or bad they saw in our school.

Did we succeed in this mission? As there are no standardized tests in Finland, it is difficult to prove what was achieved. But if we evaluate the schools qualitatively and lis‐ ten to the professional feedback provided by the teachers, we can say that many schools took significant steps to be a learning school. Aurora Elementary School is one of them.

We created an environment that supports self‐determination: Autonomy, support and clear expectations (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

‐37 ‐

Summa Summarum The final summary of the curriculum reform of 1994‐2002 is not written in Finland yet. It seems that some of the aims of the reform were reached well, but that the main pedagogi‐ cal aim of renewing the pedagogy from herbartinism to constructivism did not success as well in most of the schools. Still the results from learning are excellent in Finland.

Much of the success of change is connected to the manner of the reform. The na‐ ture of the curriculum reform of 1994‐2002 in Finland can be described with the model of change (Figure 6). The process of innovation was co‐operative but confusing. The process of implementation was communicative and democratic. There was a possibility of con‐ tinuous editing of the innovation in the school level. The teachers felt the reform profes‐ sionally orientated. Teachers enjoyed professional discussions, empowerment and the task to translate the work of teachers into the language of parents. For practically oriented teachers the reform was a pure suffering and brought nothing new to their work. So they say.

Figure 6. The model of change.

Many local municipalities had no strategy at all for implementation. They just sent the instructions to their schools regarding new curriculum. On the other hand, there were many cities that gave excellent support to their schools and teachers One very remarkable and also sad thing was that the curriculum work was done in the same time as the teach‐

‐38 ‐

ers were laid‐off for several weeks because of the economical crisis in Finland during the years 1991‐ 1996.

Did we really success? Yes, I would say so. Many pedagogical innovations we made are still active in our school. As a school we grew towards self‐determination and to be a learning school. We took small steps towards constructivism. The school based curriculum was fantastic mean for a new headmaster like me to lead his school pedagogi‐ cally. School curriculum is worth trying.

20 hints for school development What did we learn about developing and working on our own school curriculum?

1. Make National Curriculum clear and understandable! Say clearly what kind of change you want to make in the school curriculum. Give reasons for the change. Make sure that pupils benefit from the change. Motivate all involved.

Answer the questions. Don’t change the expectations during the run. The con‐ fusion of strategies and policies is too hard to solve in the school level.

2. Don’t just give orders ‐ give room for discussions. It is not wise to leave the choice of the contents to the school‐ especially in elementary schools.

3. Create possibilities to co‐operation.

4. Teachers make a difference. All teachers are not professionals, some of them are practitioners. Treat them differently but all with respect.

5. Let the schools make choices. Leave room for own solutions of the schools.

6. Give school some questions to answer, not just work to do. Give concrete ex‐ amples, how to start progress.

7. Schools make a difference. Give schools more support and help. Treat them dif‐ ferently but all with respect. There must be a balance with pressure and sup‐ port (the spirit is not enough).

8. Reform needs (paid) work time.

9. Organize co‐operation between schools and administration.

10. Make headmasters stronger pedagogical leaders.

11. Use pilot projects.

12. Listen to the pupils as well.

‐39 ‐

13. Access the resources needed. Money and time are crucial.

14. Give schools chains of targets and a reasonable time line.

15. Advice the schools how to organize the curriculum work.

16. Create possibilities to reward hard work.

17. Take good care of teachers and their welfare.

18. Give the school time to develop.

19. Monitor the curriculum work. Be interested in it.

20. Teach the schools to see the problems and to solve them quickly.

References Hellström, M. (2004a) Muutosote. Akvaarioprojektin pedagogisten kehittämishankkeiden toteutustapa ja onnistuminen. [The way of change. The implementation and success of pedagogical development projects at the experimental schools of the Aquar‐ ium‐project 1995‐1998] University of Helsinki, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences. Re‐ search Reports 249.

Hellström, M. (2004b) Kerhovetoiset koko koulun näytelmät. [Extra‐curricular based whole school plays] In Pietilä, A. (Ed.) Kerhotoiminta. Näkökulmia kerhotyön kehittä‐ miseen. [School clubs. Perspectives on developing after‐school activities] Helsinki: Opetushallitus, 21‐27.

Malinen, P. (1997) Opetussuunnitelman laatiminen peruskoulua ja keskiasteen kouluja varten.

[Curriculum design for basic and secondary schools] Jyväskylä: Gummerus.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000) Self‐determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well‐being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68‐ 78.

Sahlberg, P. (1996) Kuka auttaisi opettajaa. Postmoderni näkökulma opetuksen muutokseen yhden kehittämisprojektin valossa. [Who would help a teacher? Post‐modern per‐ spective on change in teaching in light of one school improvement project] Jyväs‐ kylä: Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 119.

Sintonen, S., Elo, P. & Lindtsröm, A. (1999) Toimintapanana verkostoyhteostyö: Akvaa‐ riokokeilusta Akvaarioverkostoon 1992‐1998. [Network cooperation as action. From Aquarium pilot to the Aquarium Network 1992‐1998] Helsinki: Opetushallitus.

‐40 ‐

Tirri. K. (1998) On creating a virtual school based learning environment for the Finnish schools. http://www.inrp.fr/Acces/Innova/ Savoirs_nouveaux/Etudes_de_cas/ Ega‐ lite_chances/Rfinlande_1_04.htm.

‐41 ‐

II ACCOUNTABILITY POLICIES AND CURRICULUM CHANGE

4. High‐stake examinations and curriculum: putting the cart before the horse

Sergij Gabrscek

Introduction Assessment is an important part of the education and training system as it gives feedback on different aspects of teaching and learning process. Assessment is usually undertaken for the a number of reasons: diagnosis of learning and monitoring progress; grading stu‐ dents; predicting future achievements; motivating students; diagnosis of teaching.

Diagnosis of learning that has occurred and monitoring progress is a major reason for assessment. This should help each student understand his/her weaknesses and it also guides the teacher about where to direct his/her instructional energies. In most cases, student grades are assigned to indicate achievement at the end of a unit or term, semester or year. Generally, the more frequently and varied the assessments used, the more in‐ formed the teacher will be about the grades to assign to students.

Assessment can also be used to predict students’ eligibility for selection in future courses. This is usually of importance at upper secondary school levels. Assessment can often increase the motivation of students. It depends of course on the individual learner as some students will be highly motivated by an impending test whereas others might suffer excessive stress and/or be de‐motivated.

Assessment data can provide valuable diagnostic information for the teacher. It may indicate, for example, that aspects of content or processes were not understood fully by students, or that the material presented was too difficult or too easy for a particular class.

There are close links between reasons for assessment and their intended audi‐ ences. Possible audiences include: •

learners: this should be the main audience but typically they are not given a high pri‐ ority. They are rarely involved in planning the assessment activities;

‐42 ‐

•

teachers: teachers need feedback about the effectiveness of their teaching. Student as‐ sessment data is being used increasingly as a data source for appraising teachers;

•

parents: parents want regular feedback. Media efforts to publicize school results and ‘league tables’ of schools has led to increased thirst for assessment information;

•

tertiary institutions: universities and technical and further education colleges require specific assessment information from applicants intending to enroll;

•

educational authorities: they are often using assessment results as an indication of school performance

•

employers: are demanding more specific information especially in terms of literacy and numeracy and key competencies.

A number of assessment techniques are available to teachers and they can be used

at various diagnostic, formative and summative stages. Some are informal but majority are formal techniques. It is desirable for teachers to use a variety of techniques to ensure that the multidimensionality of student performance is adequately explored. But there is also the danger of over‐assessing and collecting vast arrays of data that have limited use.

Developments in assessment During the last decade, there have been a lot of developments in assessment and evalua‐ tions, and changes have been positive: o

Focus on learning outcomes. At the time when provision and delivery of education be‐ come less state‐controlled and more diverse, the only way to ensure equity and qual‐ ity for every child is to set standards, and to hold schools accountable for results, as education is not, in the first place, about teachers teaching: it is about students learning, and measuring learning thus takes centre stage.

o

Accountability. As society invests money in education which is seen as an important public good and a basic right of children, reliable data about learning outcomes pro‐ vide useful evidence for setting policy

o

Improving teaching and learning to meet new standards. Standards‐based reform is now in place in many countries. Academic content standards, performance standards for students, compatible tests, incentives and accountability systems to reinforce them

‐43 ‐

have been introduced in many countries. The expectations placed on students and teachers’ performance are more sharply defined. o

Fair and transparent allocation of opportunities. An equitable assessment system should ensure that all students who can demonstrate the same level of ability receive the same result. Public demand for fair, accurate and open selection processes grows. In‐ equities deriving from gender, family income, geographical location, opportunity to prepare, bias and corruption are less politically acceptable than they were.

Forms of assessment There are four different basic forms of assessment: o

Classroom‐based and school‐based assessments are the most familiar. Teachers and/or schools check progress against curriculum goals, students receive marks, parents re‐ ceive report cards. The advantages here are clear: assessment is closely linked to classroom work, performance‐based methods (such as oral questioning or practical work) can be used; and assessment can be continuous over a whole term or school year. The disadvantages are first, that (contrary to popular belief) teachers are not necessarily the “best judges” of the quality of their own students’ performance, espe‐ cially not in comparison with other students outside the class, school, or district; sec‐ ond, that the immediate link with the previous lesson encourages memory‐based and superficial questioning; and third, that few teachers are adequately trained to assess the development of higher level thinking skills linked to national standards.

o

Public (national) examinations are next. They are conducted by, or on behalf of, the state and are open to all those who meet defined entry criteria. They are typically competi‐ tive: they bring benefits to those individuals who are successful. Their main objective is to select the most able, on the basis of merit rather than wealth, birth, or connec‐ tions. But there are still biases, in some countries between girls and boys. Better‐off, urban, and majority‐language students had, and still have, advantages over poor, ru‐ ral and minority‐language ones. Also, these high‐stakes public examinations invite malpractice: bribery, cheating, intimidation, manipulation of results. Nevertheless, nearly all countries have some form of public examination for certification or selection purposes.

‐44 ‐

o

National assessments (whole‐population or sample‐based) systematically measure typi‐ cal levels of learner achievement in relation to national standards. Although they are based on the same curricula and use many of the same assessment methods, national assessments differ from public examinations in that: (1) they measure performance of the system rather than of individuals; and (2) the results are used as a “snapshot” of general achievement among a particular age group or level. They are also used as a basis for monitoring national standards over time. Sample‐based national assessments are quicker and cheaper, and can give valuable information about performance in a particular subject. The “stakes” of national assessment are low, so there are fewer se‐ curity and malpractice risks.

o

International assessments are a relatively recent but important development. These are large‐scale, multiple‐country, sample‐based assessments aimed at comparing the per‐ formance of a specific age group in a specific subject or group of subjects across a large number of countries. Examples are the TIMSS and PISA. The purpose of these studies is to provide internationally comparable evidence of achievement, so that countries can monitor learning outcomes within a common framework. Unfortu‐ nately, the results are often used by media and politicians merely in terms of “rank ordering” countries rather than as a basis for policy dialogue and a better understand‐ ing of the causes of observed differences in performance. The growing importance of international assessments points to a wider consensus about the knowledge and skills all students need, as they enter adult life in a world that is even more globally inter‐ dependent. On the other hand, it is also seen as “supranational” instrument for “stan‐ dardisation”.

Curriculum and examinations Eckstein and Noah (1992) assert that ”one of the potentially most powerful mechanisms for achieving change in education is the external examination system, especially examinations taken towards the close of secondary schooling.”

Examination systems can have a powerful impact on curriculum development, and while the potential for positive effects can be impressive, the overall impact as experienced by pupils is, more often than not, oriented towards negative effects. This is

‐45 ‐

especially the case if the examination is high stakes for pupils and schools. Nonetheless the prime function of examination systems is to measure attainment. The challenge for those involved in developing and administering examination systems is to enhance examination validity by making them more responsive to both existing and developing curricula.

Examination systems interact with curriculum development in a variety of ways: some effects could be described as benign or positive; others could be described as negative.

In order for examinations to have a positive effect on curriculum development it would appear that several conditions have to be met: o

the curriculum development is perceived as generally beneficial (for example by giving emphasis to skills previously ignored, or making better provision for pupils of all abilities); teachers are motivated to accept the changes and are not over‐burdened;

o

the examination is valid and reliable, and does not exert undue influence on teaching method; there is good articulation between the curriculum development and the examinations;

o

the distribution of influence between bodies responsible for the curriculum and for the examinations is equitable. This would mean, for example, that the examination could not hinder or subvert curriculum innovation.

If all of these conditions are met, then the positive effects of examinations on curriculum development can be considerable. These positive effects include: o

speeding or ensuring reform of the total curriculum or a sector of the curriculum (eg indigenising a curriculum in a post‐colonial country);

o

speeding or ensuring the uptake of new subjects, or new subject matter within an existing curricular structure; speeding or ensuring the introduction of new teaching methodologies;

o

elevating the status of a subject which previously may have been non‐examined (perhaps non‐academic or vocational). Legitimising particular knowledge or skills

‐46 ‐

(eg practical knowledge, craft work, physical education); clarifying a curriculum innovation: describing clearly what is expected; o

providing feedback on attainment on individual students and groups of students and consequently helping to raise standards.

Examinations can exert negative effects on curriculum development. Again,

conditions can alter the potency of this effect. These conditions are that: o

the examination is technically flawed;

o

the examination is given particular emphasis, (for example becomes ”high stakes” for individual pupils or for schools); the examination is poorly articulated with the curriculum development;

o

the distribution of influence between bodies responsible for the curriculum and for the examinations is inequitable;

o

the teachers wish to and can resist the changes, for example if the change would require unreasonable workloads.

Any one of these conditions might undermine an otherwise educationally‐sound

curriculum development. Ways in which this might be manifested include: o

slowing down or inhibiting curriculum development (at the level of total curriculum reform, reform at a particular stage, of a particular subject or subject matter);

o

subverting curriculum development; distorting the curriculum (by teaching to the test) if it is not well matched to the curriculum in terms of content, types of knowledge, ways of knowing, learning strategies; constraining how the curriculum is taught, and hindering the development of new teaching methodologies;

o

over‐emphasising the status of some subjects at the expense of others. (In France, for example, despite revision of the bac, mathematics and science bacs continue to have high status for university entrance purposes in comparison to philosophy and literature.)

‐47 ‐

More general effects on the curriculum (rather than the narrower area of curriculum development) are also noteworthy. These too can be positive or negative.

Positive effects of examinations on the curriculum in general are: o

raised standards through motivation of teachers and pupils;

o

a clear statement of standard required;

o

a common goal for pupil and teacher to achieve.

Negative effects of examinations on the curriculum in general are: o

reduced time available for delivering the (increased) curriculum;

o

reduced subject choice for individual: pupils where electives are available since perceptions of subject examination difficulty can affect subject choice;

o

increased alienation of low achievers, unless they are specifically catered for; ncreased uniformity/conformity;

o

increased emphasis on the easily‐measured aspects of learning at the expense of the more qualitative and social aspects of learning; increased control over the curriculum by the demands of the examination.

Lessons learned in Slovenia Slovenia started educational reform in early 90s. It was also the time of political changes, as it became an independent country, although there was not a direct link between the two. Basic reason for educational changes was poor quality of education due to the sys‐ tem of “career oriented” education and lowering of standards. First step was introduction of external examination, Matura, as secondary school leaving examination that served also for selection to higher education and replaced entrance examination. Curriculum re‐ form followed nearly a decade later. Many of the previously mentioned effects were ob‐ served, both positive and negative, and debate is still going on. Nevertheless, it’s interest‐ ing to note what lessons have been learned in Slovenia, as they can be valuable for other countries that are in the process or plan to introduce educational reform.

The principal lesson learned in introducing external examination in Slovenia is that major reforms in educational assessment can be implemented without serious prob‐ lems and that, in particular, external examinations can be introduced in countries where

‐48 ‐

they have not existed in the past. However, all those involved in examinations and other forms of assessment know that such reforms are usually extremely difficult to bring about and in some countries prove almost impossible. The key question is therefore ‘Why was such a reform successful in Slovenia?’ There are clearly many factors, but the most important are: Local recognition of a significant need for change Reforms are more likely to be successful when they address a need which has been iden‐ tified by the society concerned, rather than by outsiders, and when that need is felt to be important. In the case of Slovenia, problems with the career education model and grow‐ ing concerns over an alarmingly high attrition rate at the universities led Slovenian edu‐ cationalists to a propose the reintroduction of Matura. It does not matter that the form of Matura was not clearly envisaged at that stage; the important thing is that this was a Slovenian proposal to solve a Slovenian problem.

Sustained political commitment to change Educational reforms are complex and often meet with strong opposition. In order to be successful they need political support and this support has to be consistent; it has to be sustained throughout the implementation period. Practical support is required in a com‐ mitment to speedy legislative reform where necessary, and in a willingness to fight for sufficient and timely budgetary resources. Finally, success is much more likely when politicians are willing to show their commitment by speaking out in defense of reform – especially when the inevitable problems emerge.

Access to adequate financial resources Sophisticated assessment systems, like the one chosen for Matura, are neither cheap to develop nor to maintain. Not only is the overall budget requirement large, but examina‐ tion projects need immediate access to contingency funds when unforeseen difficulties arise. In Slovenia, these needs were recognised and, whilst money was not limitless, ade‐ quate funds were allocated, not just to provide the minimum but to ensure that quality could be maintained. Slovenian government allocated a separate budget line for assess‐ ment and examinations and covered all costs both for the development as well as running

‐49 ‐

of the system, without foreign funding, which was quite a unique situation comparing to other countries. Costs are not low, the annual budget for all activities of the National Ex‐ aminations Centre for Matura examinations is around € 3 million for about 10 thousand candidates.

Sufficient potential to develop the necessary expertise Good question papers are at the heart of a good assessment system: if the questions are bad, then the exam is bad! All major projects in the field of assessment include elements of training for examination professionals and item‐writers. In many, the general quality of output and the number of successful trainees fall below expectations. In Slovenia, the general level of experience in the field of item writing and question paper construction was initially low. However, there were three major factors in the considerable success achieved in developing item writing skills: • the level of general competence of the trainees – there was an extremely high degree of

subject knowledge and a ready ability to comprehend new techniques and approaches; • the ability of the international trainers employed not only to communicate and dem‐

onstrate the ‘rules’ of good assessment but also to enthuse the trainees; and, • that those involved in writing catalogues and question papers were central to, and

constantly involved in, the development process rather than being ‘tools’ used occa‐ sionally.

Willingness to draw on the experiences of other systems and to make use of external expertise Matura was designed to meet the needs of Slovenia and is strongly defended as a Slove‐ nian initiative. However, right from the start there was a willingness to learn from other systems and to transplant the most appropriate models and technologies.

Recognition of the need for good communications and strong relationships with public and part‐ ners in education In Slovenia, the danger of failing to ‘sell’ the concept of Matura to all interested parties was recognized from the start. The extensive (and expensive) teacher training exercises and the public relations campaign were important in gaining the cooperation of teachers

‐50 ‐

and allaying some of the fears of parents and students. The trial and pilot examinations were also important in revealing exactly what Matura was going to look like and what was to be expected of students. Finally, the involvement of Subject Commissions in the training of school teachers should not be underestimated.

Challenges and opportunities From the organisational and administrative point of view examinations in Slovenia ran smoothly. There were more problems in the preparations for the examinations. The gap in the quality of preparation for students between general and technical secondary schools widened as technical schools were given less freedom in organising preparations for Matura examinations. They were faced with no choices: the three compulsory subjects were determined, the fourth subject was one of the natural science subjects for most of the technical schools, and the fifth was a technical/professional subject offered by the school. In the first few years both teachers and students were facing bigger working loads, accompanied by bigger psychological burden for students.

Good running of examinations doesnʹt mean that the exam was a panacea for all the problems of education in Slovenia. It showed that it is possible to set‐up a modern, good working assessment system, but this system was superimposed on the existing tra‐ ditional education system. In the Matura exam, elements of the two‐year British A‐level or International Baccalaureat system, which focus on preparation for the examination in a limited number of subjects, could be found. This allows candidates to study in depth those subjects, allowing assessment to address higher levels of knowledge. There are some issues emerging, like more focused preparation for Matura, the battle over whether mathematics and/or a foreign language should be a compulsory part of Matura, user‐ friendliness of Matura and the right of students to inspect marking of their question pa‐ pers after the results are issued., to name some of them.

There is one more issue that is becoming quite important – financing. Slovenia has put in place an excellent external assessment system, which has its price. The country was lucky enough to have the financial means to cover all costs for development, implementa‐ tion and running such a system. As the school population is decreasing, and the number of places in the higher education is increasing each year, the inevitable question arises: do

‐51 ‐

we really need such an expensive system? Shouldnʹt we find another paradigm and use some of the resources better? That is the issue that has to be addressed in the future. And that’s the challenge for other countries too, not only Slovenia. Welcome to the real world!

References Bethell, G. & Gabršček, S. (1996) Matura Examinations in Slovenia: Case study of the introduc‐ tion of external examinations systems for schools. NEC: Ljubljana.

Crighton, J. & West, R. (1999) Examination Reform in Central and Eastern Europe: issues and trends. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 6(2), 271‐289.

Gabršček, S. (1999) Access to Higher Education in Slovenia: assessment reform and the re‐creation of a national examination mass system. Assessment in Education: Princi‐ ples, Policy and Practice, 8(3), 369‐390.

Eckstein, M.A. & Noah, H J. (Eds.) (1992) Examinations: Comparative and International Studies. New York: Pergamon Press.

‐52 ‐

5. Accountability Policies and Curriculum Change: The Model of Finland

Pentti Yrjölä

Finland has received a lot of credit in the last PISA cycle (Programme for International Student Assessment). I describe some elements related to the development of the Finnish education system which have been typical during the last decades. The emphasis is in basic education or compulsory education from years 7 to 16.

In lower secondary level we had a parallel system up to 1960´s but in the begin‐ ning of 1970´s the comprehensive school system was implemented. The decision was made by the Parliament and the main argumentation was to provide all citizens with equal opportunities to receive education. Ever since the structure of the basic education system has remained stable with only few adjustments.

The legislation and administration of schools The Parliament issues laws and acts. In the educational legislation there are norms of purposes, structures, examinations, finances, and so on. The Government decides about overall national objectives, allocation of credits/hours between different subjects. The Na‐ tional Board of Education develops the national core curriculum. The local provider (mu‐ nicipality) prepares the local curriculum and schools can even design their own curricu‐ lum on the basis of local and the national core curriculum.

Essential feature of the education system is the high level of autonomy at local level. We have a law of basic education not one of basic schools. The municipalities (pro‐ viders) are responsible for organizing the basic education in their territories. There are very few regulations related to a school itself. We have only few private schools in Finland and nearly 97 percent of pupils go to municipal schools.

At the moment the responsibilities in welfare services belong to municipalities (440), but in the 1970´s when the system of comprehensive schools was realized the situa‐ tion was totally different. The power of central administration was nearly absolute. The reformations were accomplished by acts and norms decided by central administration or by provincial government. The norms were so detailed that the schools had limited free‐

‐53 ‐

dom or none. The important local decisions required the confirmation by the State. The State financial support was also so tight that there was only one way to organize the edu‐ cation. The inspectors were normal visitors at schools and detailed follow‐up data was collected.

By the end of 1980´s the centralized, hierarchical and norm‐based steering system in the central administration was abolished and replaced by decentralized and deregu‐ lated system. Also the educational administration was developed into more “liberal” di‐ rection. The amount of norms was radically reduced, the structure and the functions of central administration were changed and the inspectorate ceased to exist. In the man‐ agement ideology new paradigm of steering by results and information was imple‐ mented and evaluation became a part of new ideology, too.

Practical outcome of the development was that the municipal authorities became the most important actors in the production of welfare services, including social and health care and education. In the field of education the principles of normalization (main‐ streaming) were to be used as an overall principle, e.g. in administration and in financing the general laws were to be followed. Logic behind the development process is that the citizens and the consumers know their rights and what is best for them.

The reasons to change the curriculum The first national curriculum in the 1970´s was strict and detailed. The goal was educa‐ tional consistency across schools and classrooms. Also the textbooks were nationally con‐ trolled. The result was nearly a system were the daily work of classrooms were nationally decided. In the third reform in 1994 in the spirit of time in the national core curriculum there were only general descriptions of targets and contents.

The forth reform was started in 2000, the new core curriculum was published in 2004 and it must be in use in 2006. Behind of the reform there were discussions between the different stakeholders in the field of education. New approach was demanded by the societal changes in the working life, technological development, globalization, changes in population, social exclusion and so on. The arguments of the educational administration were that there were not enough steering in the old one from 1994, the results of national evaluations were not satisfactory, the pupil assessment was not satisfactory everywhere.

‐54 ‐

The National Board of Education wanted to strengthen the national norms, guidance and support.

In the Annex 2 there is a structure of the organization of the developmental proc‐ ess. The curriculum reform was tried to keep so open and transparent as possible. In cur‐ riculum teams there were representatives from universities, local teachers, teacher train‐ ers and civil servants. The new national core curriculum contains objectives, core contents and descriptions of good performance in 18 subjects and in seven cross‐curricular themes.

During the work regional networks piloted and tested the plans and collected opinions in the process.

The purposes of evaluation In general terms the evaluation can be described as an interpretative analysis of the phe‐ nomena or activities being studied, defining the benefit or value of produced activities.

The function of evaluation is to provide evidence for the development and for decision‐ making. It can also be seen as a method of knowledge management and learning organi‐ zation.

Evaluation for accountability in the field of education is based on the intentional function of education. The education/schools have official objectives and they are pub‐ licly financed. That means that the political decision makers and also tax‐payers have right to know how the money has been used and how well the targets have achieved. It is very often the measurements of results or efficiency or cost‐effectiveness.

Evaluation for development tries to find out the strengths and weaknesses in the education. The purpose is to help to strengthen institution. Evaluation tries to explain the results and to build models and tools for reforms. Self‐evaluation, peer evaluation and participatory evaluation are the methods often used in schools and within the system.

The target may be also quality improvement together with various levels of accountabil‐ ity.

Accountability in education 1. Education and schools have public/social objectives. It is intentional work.

‐55 ‐

2. The targets have politically and publicly decided in laws and in national core curricu‐ lum.

3. The schools receive public money. In Finland there are no fees in basic, secondary and in university education. In basic education the municipality takes care also food and study material, books, and so on.

4. The schools are public institutions (demands of transparency, information and possi‐ bilities to effect). Especially parents and media are interested in the results of schools.

5. The decision‐makers, parents and media have right to know: ‐ how well the targets have been reached (effectiveness) ‐ have the finances used as optimal way (economy) ‐ how effectively the system or a school is working (efficiency) 6. There are increasing demands for cost‐effectiveness, productivity, efficiency and meas‐ uring of value‐add.

7. But how well the industrial logic of production suits into human growth?

But it should be remembered that evaluation can never be objective and overall evaluation of educational system is impossible.

Accountability in the Finnish education system Evaluation has been during the last fifteen years a topic in public discussion. According to the legislation the main function of evaluation is to be a part of development processes in the national, local, school, classroom or individual (pupil) level. Accountability has not yet been at focus. But one can see some elements dealing with accountability:

1. The distribution of power and responsibilities are based on laws and mutual trust. There is a great confidence on local decision making, because they know the local circumstances and situations. They are also responsible of their own mistakes.

2. There is no inspection of schools.

3. After and during the basic education there is no national examination or tests.

‐56 ‐

4. After the general upper secondary school there is a national matriculation ex‐ amination. This is the only nationwide testing system in Finland in general education.

5. In the act of basic education there is an obligation to the provider (municipality) to do internal (self‐)evaluation and to take par into external evaluations.

6. National Board of Education evaluates the learning outcomes on sample basis (7‐10 percent) to examine how the system is working. The schools receive feedback. The Evaluation Council organizes overall evaluations.

7. The meaning of evaluation is development. So, ranking lists are not published and the evaluator has no sanctions. The media has an increasing interest to publish the lists.

To understand how Finland can continue with such soft steering systems there are some characteristics which may explain the situation:

1. There is a large consensus and confidence in schools and teachers. The political par‐ ties have little differences in their educational programs. The educational system is understood to be a very big bout and the changes in the direction can be done care‐ fully. We have only one very strong teacher union in the field.

2. Educational equality is a leading principle with life‐long learning. The pupils are not divided according to talents or achievements. More consideration is given to the weakest ones. The choice of the pupils into schools is not done on the bases of par‐ ents’ wealth or relations. There is a tradition that children, when they start the school career, they go to the nearest school. The first selection is normally after the basic education. The choice must be done between a general or vocational education. Both lines take three years and there is also an option to study both exams at the same time. There is also a possibility to apply for the university level after the vocational line.

3. The discussion of the learning concept is continuing because the context of schools is changing and the mass information is affecting the pupils in many ways. Socio‐ constructivism has been the main theory behind the development of the new national core curriculum and in the teacher training it has been used.

‐57 ‐

4. Teachers are respected as high professionals. The young girls ranked as best after the matriculation examination go to universities into teacher training programs. The teacher profession in practice is quite autonomous. They can decide the teaching methods and the materials used independently. Further training is supported by the State and there are options to join the national development projects. In the national evaluation projects the teachers are not assessed as individuals.

5. There are many explanations why the Finnish students perform well in the interna‐ tional student assessments, such as PISA. Some often mentioned include: -

social atmosphere, cultural homogeneity, common values and nearly monolingual population,

-

equality as a leading political principle and pupils with special needs get support needed,

-

comprehensive school system with pedagogical philosophy and practice

-

teachers highly valued experts

-

flexibility in curriculum

-

flexible organization of education.

There is also going on some discussions to take into use the methods of evaluation and assessment from Central Europe.

References

National Board of Education (1999) A Framework for Evaluating Educational Outcomes in Finland. Evaluation 8. Helsinki: National Board of Education.

National Board of Education (2004) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. http://www.edu.fi/english/page.asp?path=500,571,36263.

Eurydice (2004) Evaluation of Schools providing Compulsory Education in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

Weiss, C.H. (1999). Interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation 5(4).

Furubo, J‐E., Rist, R.C. & Sandahl, R. (Eds.) (2002) International atlas of evaluation. London: Transaction Publishers.

‐58 ‐

6. Stakeholders in a curriculum change process: Trends and reflec‐ tions

Alexandru Crisan

Based on the methods and procedures of ‘stakeholder analysis’ the paper offers an over‐ view on the main issues concerning stakeholder involvement in current curriculum change processes. The paper starts from a number of prerequisites relevant to the discus‐ sion on stakeholders in the framework of current day curriculum change processes. The intention here is to shortly address the question: Why stakeholders’ involvement is so impor‐ tant in a Curriculum Reform process? Starting from these prerequisites the following will be shortly analyzed: (a) Place and roles of stakeholders in the Curriculum Change Processes in order to build up a ‘map’ of the domain; in this framework special stress will be put on the following issue: Who, why, when and how takes part in the process of stake‐ holders’ involvement?; (b) Some current good practices: possible stakeholders, models of involvement, current practices; in fact, some examples from Europe and Central Asian coun‐ tries will be offered in order to address another important question: What can be done in ongoing Curriculum Change Processes?; and, finally (c) Lessons learned and topics for further reflection ‐ with a special attention to what could/should be improved in countries where curriculum change processes are under way.

Introduction In most of the cases ‘traditional’ curriculum development theories and practices have ac‐ credited the idea that curriculum change is relevant exclusively for educational commu‐ nities and the educational settings. Without being completely neglected, for a long period in time the role of the stakeholders was not seen as relevant and necessary; as such, no con‐ ceptualization around the domain can be found.

‐59 ‐

As a new development, in the last twenty years or so, stakeholders’ presence and real intervention is topical for any current day curriculum change process. The explanation is rather simple: firstly, in most of the social change processes, participation and public inter‐ vention have gradually become more than simple slogans; secondly, education is too im‐ portant to be decided upon just by a small number of experts or policy makers.

Starting from the above mentioned remarks, this paper will highlight the follow‐ ing issues: •

Some prerequisites relevant to the discussion on stakeholders in the framework of current day Curriculum Change Processes; the intention here is to shortly address the question: Why stakeholders’ involvement is so important in a Curriculum Reform process?

•

Place and roles of stakeholders in the Curriculum Change Processes in order to build up a ‘map’ of the domain; in this framework special stress will be put on the following issue: Who, why, when and how takes part in the process of stakeholders’ in‐ volvement?

•

Some current good practices: possible stakeholders, models of involvement, cur‐ rent practices; in fact, some examples from Europe and Central Asian countries will be offered in order to address another important question: What can be done in ongoing Curriculum Change Processes?

•

Lessons learned and topics for further reflection ‐ with a special attention to what could/should be improved.

Prerequisites to the discussion As it is well know curriculum change is a ‘never ending’ process that covers a complex cy‐ cle of planning, developing, debating, implementing, assessing, and permanently review‐ ing the mechanisms and practices based on which human learning is facilitated in educa‐ tional settings or in real life situations (Crisan, 1993). Due to its complex status, curriculum change is currently becoming a complex process of individual and social learning in which creating communities and networks for change (that can involve all those interested and con‐ cerned in the change process) constitutes a relevant chance for success. In such a context,

‐60 ‐

“stakeholders’ involvement” plays an important part in any serious debate related to the curriculum change.

What about the essence of this evolution? First of all, public perception and inter‐ est towards education have changed profoundly in the last 15‐20 years. For the general public, stakeholders included, it is not sufficient any more to be just passive “beneficiaries” of the educational services; the stakeholders are about taking over a set of more active roles, seeking for a real involvement into the development and implementation of these services. Secondly, the ‘space’ between the ‘realm of education’ and ‘the world of real life’ (the “world of employment”) gradually becomes smaller and smaller. Stakeholders are being seen in most of the cases as filling in the gap.

Some challenges for Curriculum Change arise from this new dynamics of the school and society relationship; three of them seem to be crucial as they have a special effect on how current curriculum change is initiated, understood and managed: •

Challenge 1: It is not anymore possible that exclusively educators participate in planning and implementing the curriculum change.

•

Challenge 2: New educational policy and institutional framework are necessary for adapting curriculum and curriculum planning to the evolving require‐ ments of individuals and society.

•

Challenge 3: Education at large and especially curriculum change should be fully opened to individuals and society, i.e. to the so‐called local, national, re‐ gional and world links, to businesses and entrepreneurship, to all those in‐ volved and interested in it.

The ‘operational implications’ of these challenges are at least the following: •

Implication 1: Curriculum change should be more than just an educational mat‐ ter as its pay‐offs have direct impact on how individuals and society would function in the future.

•

Implication 2: Curriculum change should become first of all a process of policy learning and one of generating ‘procedural change knowledge’ 1 than a process of policy decision.

1

This could also be called ‘change know how’ or ‘know how to change’.

‐61 ‐

•

Implication 3: A complex model of stakeholders’ presence in the curriculum change process is to be designed and implemented in order for this process to be more realistic, feasible and socially sound.

Place and roles of stakeholders in a curriculum change process A clarification is needed at this point: who are in fact the stakeholders? Stakeholders in an educational process (curriculum change included) are those people or categories of peo‐ ple that directly or indirectly can/should play an important part in planning, designing, debating, implementing, monitoring, reviewing, and re‐structuring when needed that certain process and its products. Theoretically and practically one can speak on direct and indirect “stakeholders”: Direct “stakeholders” are generally people involved in different areas of the educa‐ tional process and that (can) have a special interest in the curriculum change, i.e.: (a) cur‐ riculum and evaluation specialists; (b) education policy makers, Ministry of Education representatives and experts; (c) practicing teachers; teacher associations; trade unions; (d) academic experts and researchers; (e) schools as learning organisations; system or school administrators; (f) students/learners; others ‐ directly related to the educational settings.

Indirect “stakeholders” are in general outsiders that – based on certain types of rela‐ tionship and interests to education can play an important part in the curriculum change: (a) parents and guardians; (b) community leaders or representatives; (c) ‘civil society’ (NGO world); media; (d) representatives of the politics and economy (politicians, businesses, finances, labour market representatives etc.); e) leaders of opinion; (f) others.

Two are the main questions that are mostly raised in the relatively new domain of “stakeholders’ analysis” in education: •

Which are the most relevant evolutions and models of the so‐called ‘stake‐ holder involvement’ in the curriculum change process in the last 10‐15 years?

‐62 ‐

•

Which stakeholders, when, why and with which purpose and outcomes are or should be involved in such a process?

Evolutions and Current Models In the last 10 to 15 years one can identify a clear shift from the so‐called ‘non‐ involvement’ to the ‘full stakeholder involvement models’. The adoption of a certain model in different countries is many times a matter of a subtle game of ‘borrowing and lending’ (Steiner‐Khamsi, 2004).

A. Non‐involvement. Most of the first serious curriculum reforms after the Second World War did not resort to an authentic stakeholder involvement model. Traditionally, just education related people were involved in major curriculum reforms. As such, in some cases the social relevance and efficiency of many curriculum change processes in the sixties and seventies were put under question.

B. Formal involvement. The former communist countries have displayed a model of apparently ‘rich’ stakeholder involvement. In many occasions the curriculum change was seen as a necessary ‘participatory’ process in which the formal representation of all possible stakeholders was much more important than the quality of the outcomes of such a proc‐ ess. Even though representatives of teachers, students, parents, or the relevant ‘social categories’ of the nation (workers, peasants or the intelligentsia) were formal part of the process, in reality the ruling party was the only one that finally decided on the curricu‐ lum Philosophy, theory and practices. Social needs were the only ones partially met, as individual needs were unimportant from the regimes’ point of view. Curriculum product and processes were as such ideologically biased and they rarely reflected beneficiaries’ real views and needs.

C. Full Involvement Models2. These models are currently used in different curricu‐ lum change processes. However, from country to country, there is a gradual evolution of the stakeholder involvement from the so‐called consultation with… to participation in …, partnership, networking, ownership, and – finally – the creating complex learning communities for change models. The main idea is that currently it is rather difficult to plan a serious 2

As Professor Adams mentioned during his key note speech at the conference, some curriculum change models have adopted rather extreme models: for instance, in a highly developed South East Asian country foreign experts and some ministry people developed a national curriculum without any consultation with the public and relevant education stakeholders. The outcomes of such a process were as expected rather unsatisfactory.

‐63 ‐

curriculum change process without a clear idea on how the relevant stakeholders shall be involved in the process.

Stakeholder Involvement: which, when, why and with which purpose?

A second important question related to stakeholders is which stakeholders, when, why and with which purpose and outcomes are or should be involved in the curriculum change proc‐ ess. The question is more than relevant as not all stakeholders are to be involved all the times and in all phases of a change process.

The table 2 below presents the types of stakeholders’ involvement in a ‘normal’ curriculum cycle that generally covers planning, designing, debating, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and re‐designing the curriculum process and mechanisms3.

Table 2. Types of stakeholders’ involvement in a ‘normal’ curriculum cycle

Process / When Stakeholders /Who Initiating curriculum change Civil society through its organiza‐ tions; media; teacher unions; profes‐ sional associations; students; the pub‐ lic at large; political parties and so on.

Planning The central bodies: MOE, researchers, experts, representatives of business and economy, civil society and so on.

Designing Curriculum developers, experts in education, teachers, teacher unions and so on.

Debating The public at large More specifically: teachers, parents Implementing Schools as learning organizations; teachers’; students; parents; commu‐ nity and its representatives.

3

The table presents a synthesis of the situations encountered in a number of countries where the author worked as a curriculum consultant: Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, and Ukraine. For more data on different curriculum change models see Drafting New Curricula in South-East Europe. Final Report of the Regional Seminar held in Bohinj, Slovenia, 26-28 April 2002, International Bureau of Education, CEPS, University of Ljubljana, 2003; Reviews of National Policies for Education: South Eastern Europe. Vol.1 and 2. Paris: OECD. 2003.

‐64 ‐

Good Practices: Examples from Europe and Central Asian Countries Some examples of good practices in involving stakeholders in different phases of the cur‐ riculum reform will be given from Europe and Central Asian Countries. These examples can be relevant for all countries that are undertaking serious curriculum change processes.

A. Initiating the Curriculum Reform: •

Serbia (before 2000, and after the political changes) – the “Education Forum”, an extremely prestigious education NGO, with a crucial role in lobbying for education reform during the Milosevic regime, had a central role in initiating and promoting curriculum change.

•

Montenegro: the Ministry of Education together with NGOs and especially the Open Society Foundation – Montenegro has organized the first start up con‐ ferences for initiating the curriculum reform by inviting international experts in the domain (2001).

•

The same process was undertaken in Serbia (2001) and Croatia (2002). How‐ ever, the Croatian process is still at its beginnings.

B. Planning the Curriculum Reform •

Moldova (1997), Serbia (2001), Montenegro (2001), and Ukraine (2004) – the Ministries of Education planned together with NGOs and the civil society the curriculum reform.

C. Creating a vision for a ‘second curriculum change cycle’ •

Romania (2005) – a new vision for the Curriculum Reform is being launched by an NGO Initiative Group – Center Education 2000+ and “Focus Education”.

D. Designing the Curriculum Reform •

Moldova (1997‐2000) – the Ministry of Education designed the National Cur‐ riculum Framework and the Curricula for grades 1 to 9; the Moldova Open Society Foundation – trough its education center, ProDidactica prepared the Curricula for grades 10‐12 (upper secondary education)

‐65 ‐

•

Serbia (2001‐2002) – the OSI supported the process of curriculum design for developing the National Curriculum Framework and the Curricula for grades 1 to 4.

E. Communicating the Curriculum Reform •

Slovenia (1993‐1997), Hungary (1993‐1998), Romania (1997‐2000) ‐ the role of the media was tremendous in promoting the curriculum reform.

F. Debating the curriculum reform issues •

Romania (1995‐2000): the curriculum change process was accompanied by a serious debate with teacher unions, civil society and the media.

•

Georgia (2004) has created a special “stakeholder network” for the period of debating and piloting the new national curriculum.

G. Implementing the Curriculum Reform •

Complementary approaches have been carried out in some countries:

•

Romania (1998 – 2002): the Ministry of Education has carried out the top‐ down elements of An overall curriculum process; the Open Society Founda‐ tion – through its spin off, Center Education 2000+ has undertaken the bottom up implementation process, developing a concept and underlying practices for a ‘grass roots reform initiative’.

•

Ukraine (2004): The Ministry of Education is supposed to carry out the cur‐ riculum reform and the Renaissance Foundation through its Assessment and Examination Center, the reform of the students’ assessment in the framework of the World Bank Ukraine Education Reform Project.

H. Monitoring/Evaluating •

Bulgaria: The Open Society Institute carried out a monitoring study of the Bulgarian World Bank Education Reform.

•

Turkey: The same type of initiative is currently undertaken by the Education Reform Initiative of the OSI Turkey (under development).

‐66 ‐

As one can remark the stakeholders can have very different roles in the frame‐ work of a curriculum change process. The most relevant roles are those of participants, groups of pressure, ‘change forces’ (Fullan, 1993), supporters, promoters, champions.

Lessons learned A number of lessons are to be identified as one examines current curriculum processes in the region of reference: •

The curriculum change is first of all a public learning and negotiation process

•

As such, building learning communities, learning networks and mechanisms for communication and reaching public agreement are crucial for the stakeholder in‐ volvement from the very beginning of the curriculum change process

•

Stakeholder network and stakeholder communities are much more important than isolated groups and categories of stakeholders or individual stakeholders

•

Special mechanisms of managing stakeholders involvement and curriculum learn‐ ing communities should be designed and implemented in any curriculum change process

•

Stakeholder involvement should be pragmatic and realistic: one should involve the right stakeholders in the right moments and for the right types of action

•

As the curriculum change process is complex and multi‐dimensional, all stake‐ holders should be valued as they have different experiences and expertise

•

Permanent feed‐back should be given to stakeholders; successes and failures of the process should be shared with them

Topics for further Discussion In current curriculum change processes there are certain questions that should be further approached. Here are just some of these questions: •

How to involve the students and the parents in the process?

•

How to better involve representatives of business and finances in the reflec‐ tion on what curriculum should achieve?

•

How to make more effective the role of stakeholders in the curriculum change processes in schools?

‐67 ‐

•

How current ‘European Standards” influence stakeholder involvement in the curriculum change process (Crisan, 2004).

References Crisan, Al. (1993) Curriculum Reform in Romania. In J. van Bruggen (Ed.) Case Studies: Strategies for and organization of curriculum development in some European countries.

Paper presented at the UNESCO conference, Bucharest, 1‐5 June 1992. Enschede: CIDREE – SLO, (155‐166).

Crisan, Al. (2004) The ‘Lisbon Process’: Implications for education policy design in europe. Key Note Speech presented at the International Education Policy Studies, Columbia University Teachers College, New York.

Steiner‐Khamsi, G. (Ed) (2004) The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York: Teachers College Press.

*** Drafting new curricula in South‐East Europe. Final Report of the regional seminar held in Bohinj, Slovenia, 26‐28 April 2002, International Bureau of Education, CEPS, University of Ljibljana, 2003 *** Reviews of national policies for education: South‐Eastern Europe. Volumes 1 and 2. Paris: OECD. 2003.

‐68 ‐

‐69 ‐

III CURRICULUM AND SOCIAL CHANGE

7. Curriculum change and society interactions

Livingston T. Merchant

Curriculum change and social context Curriculum change involves a complex interactive relationship between a number of so‐ cial and political factors. My first personal encounter with this principal came in 1985 when I was brought in to be a change agent in a Chinese university in Taiwan. I was hired to teach courses on International Relations and was told by the Dean that he wanted me to lecture and give seminars to undergraduates and graduates explaining, among other things, the role of the Communist states in world politics. It was the first time that such a discussion had been allowed in a public university, and I was a sort of experimental rabbit.

One day I gave a lecture to a group of graduate students in which I compared the relationship of renegade Taiwan to Mainland China to the relationship of renegade Yugoslavia to the Soviet Union. Taiwan was struggling with its Chinese identity, while Yugoslavia was struggling with its Communist identity.

After the talk, the head of my department, whose office was adjacent to my class‐ room, called me in. He had recently retired from the army as the head of Taiwan’s mili‐ tary intelligence. “Dr. Merchant”, he said, “do you know why we hired you?” “Perhaps you should tell me, sir,” I said. “Well, if you were a Chinese professor and said certain things, we would have to put you in jail. But since you are a foreigner, we would just throw you out of the country.” He then broke into peals of laughter.

On reflection I realized it was a polite warning. I had been hired to bring about a change, but I then was warned that there were limits to academic freedom. The officials behind the changing curriculum were ready to curb that change at the first sign it was getting out of hand. But change took place in spite of their careful monitoring. Today any constraint on academic freedom in Taiwan is unthinkable.

‐70 ‐

A change in curriculum can take occur in a single place in a single classroom, in one school or several, or it can be national in scope. But on every level that change takes place, it is part of a larger and complex pattern of interaction between the complex inter‐ est groups in the society, the governing bodies, the school system itself, and at the center, the students, who exercise a powerful, if invisible, influence on the success or failure of the curriculum. The process of curriculum change is extremely complex and not always well understood by those who implement it.

In order to introduce change into curriculum, it is necessary to understand the

forces that promote the change and the forces that resist the change. A simple (minded?) representation of the forces in play at any time that reform in the curriculum takes place would be the pattern of concentric circles below. The interactions are constant and the changes never take place in isolation from this complex system.

Figure 7. Complex of society and curriculum

Political Interests

Government

Ideology /Religion

Curriculum Process School System STUDENTS

Power Brokers

Other Interest Groups

A place to begin, but not to end, the study of these interactions is the school sys‐

tem itself. Schools and their wider administrative context can be seen as a series of fief‐ doms in which people protect and are protected by each other. Personal loyalty is highly valued by administrators and teachers. This means that these systems can be power in‐ struments for implementing change – or for stopping it dead in its tracks. It is not just a matter of getting faculties and administrators to understand change or the value of change, but they must receive real incentives, either in terms of compensation, time, or prestige. Otherwise teachers will desire to continue to do what is familiar and what in‐

‐71 ‐

volves the least effort. In general, teachers in most schools feel underpaid, underappreci‐ ated, and overworked. Experimentation takes time from an already over‐loaded week.

An appeal to idealism is not sufficient.

The child is also a source of either resistance or assistance to curriculum change.

Not only does each child bring his or her own set of gifts, of limitations, of learning styles, and interests, but most children come to school complete with a set of parents and peers that all affect the learning process. Some children of very high ability find school of little or no interest. Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison serve as examples. Einstein was not much interested in school and even skipped many lectures while he was studying phys‐ ics. As a consequence his professors at the university in Milan did not recommend him for an academic career. Edison went to school for only five years, was bored and dropped out with little formal education. Brilliance and restlessness in combination can be most frustrating to teachers trying to survive in the classroom, let alone implement curriculum change.

Older children can carry a well‐developed idea about what school is for: socializ‐ ing, sports, arts, often anything but a preparation for the next stage of education. The need to prepare for the university entrance exams in some countries can completely sub‐ vert any attempt at implementing a curriculum based on critical thinking and under‐ standing. And the students are justified in spending their efforts in this direction: their whole future depends on it the outcome of the exam.

The social changes that motivate school systems to change their curriculum can be diverse, complex, and contradictory. An example would be of a country that is imple‐ menting a series of liberal reforms in the economy. The desire for modernization requires educated adults who can think in complex patterns and who can master changing envi‐ ronments. Government begins to press schools to change their curriculum in the direction of critical thinking and understanding rather than consumption of knowledge. But unex‐ pected results can emerge from these changes, results that are profoundly disturbing to more controlling and authoritarian governments.

China is a fascinating example of the contradictions that can come from attempts to reform society through changes in education. In 1966 the Chinese governments de‐ cided on launching a radical reform of curriculum to produce a more democratic nation.

‐72 ‐

It was probably the most drastic curriculum reform since Qin Shi Huangdi, the first Chi‐ nese emperor, buried ten thousand Confucian scholars alive. The Party closed all the uni‐ versities for ten years. A Chinese friend of mine who now teaches English in Hunan Prov‐ ince was sent to a pig farm which was located a day’s walk from the nearest person who could read and write. Eventually the universities were reopened, but half an intellectual generation was lost with little gain for democracy.

In a magnet school I visited in Wuhan two years ago, a politically well‐connected

head of school had built a beautiful high school facility complete with computer labs. In the front hall there were kiosks, each with six computers connected to the internet, so that any student, parent, teacher, or visitor could use them. The draconian measures of totali‐ tarian government have been modified in the decade since my friend was sent to the pig farm, but the government still struggles desperately to maintain control over the intellec‐ tuals. During the days that I was there I could not check the CNN website because the government was irritated about some coverage concerning Chinese politics. But the internet is porous and the information flows around and about the government controls like water through a leaky roof.

The point is that the reforms in China’s schools, on the one hand, have created a generation of Chinese technicians who were able to make possible the acquisition of IBM’s personal computer business by the Chinese enterprise, Lenovo. On the other hand, the spread of information of all sorts has led to more and more political dissent and ever‐ more contorted gymnastics on the part of the Party and government leaders to stay on top. This is in combination with the fact that the top layer of the economy has taken off while the people at the bottom are still – well, at the bottom, a recipe for further upheaval and dissent.

The fact is that modernizing education can be profoundly subversive to the estab‐ lished order. I have cited China as an extreme example, but we can take the political situation of almost any country on the planet and see the same dynamic to a greater or lesser degree.

There are two examples of tools for curriculum change with which I have some familiarity: the International Baccalaureate and Harvard’s Teaching for Understanding.

‐73 ‐

They are stellar achievements in education and have been used with success around in many contexts, but they bring with themselves problems.

The international baccalaureate The International Baccalaureate program is known and respected in many countries and it has been pioneered in a handful far‐sighted and well endowed private schools in Tur‐ key. There is a project now to bring it into a public school in Istanbul. This is a complex curriculum project created under the auspices of UNESCO in 1968 to provide a recog‐ nized diploma program for international students in the last two years of high school.

These students needed to return to their home country or to go to a university where their local school diploma might not be recognized. It was founded with high ideals, and it has a reputation for academic excellence, in large part because of its system of external assessment, and its thoughtful course offerings. The mission statement of the IB reads in part: The International Baccalaureate Organization aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.

More recently the IB has spawned programs for primary and middle schools, pro‐ grams that were experimental in nature and based on modern research about learning styles and teaching methods. IB programs are now offered in over 1550 schools in 120 countries serving 200,000 students. In the 20 years I have worked with the program, it has undergone changes that its founders would not have anticipated.

In is important to consider why a program is developed and then what happens when it is applied in another arena with a different political agenda. The IB was first de‐ veloped for international students. For the most part the schools in which it was devel‐ oped had little or no contact with the local ministries of education. Emphasis was on cre‐ ating world citizens and deemphasizing national differences. Israelis and Arabs, Russians and Americans, PRC Chinese and ROC Chinese, all studied in the same classrooms with Brazilians, Zimbabwins, and Pakistanis. Instilling nationalist pride and consciousness was definitely excluded.

‐74 ‐

The IB model, in its early two‐year Diploma Program and later in inquiry‐based Primary Years Program and the integrative Middle Years Program, has attracted minis‐ tries of education in countries as diverse as Great Britain and Turkey. Many educators in Britain want to create a more diversified and flexible education system for university preparaton than A‐level examinations and look to the IB as a model. Some educators in government in Turkey see many elements in the IB that could lead the national schools to a more thoughtful curriculum. The largest number of schools in the system, over 500, is currently in the United States, mostly in the public school sector.

There are problems when a national school system takes on the IB, either as an al‐ ternate route for assessing university candidates or as an experimental alternative to the national curriculum. The first problem is that the students in a national school are not in‐ ternational students. The diversity of the international school classrooms cannot be repli‐ cated in a class with thirty Scots or thirty Turks or thirty Californians. Most national schools have as a goal to create students with a strong sense of national identity and pride. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it can run diametrically counter to the normal IB concept of creating world citizens.

A second problem is one that has vexed schools in Turkey. If students stay in Tur‐ key, they face the double jeopardy of IB examinations in May and the university entrance examination in June, both in the senior year. For the student staying in Turkey, the uni‐ versity entrance examination is by far the most important. Many students spend more than one thousand hours of intense drilling to prepare for a three‐hour exam session. It has the apparent advantage of being fair. It has the disadvantage of going counter to eve‐ rything that the IB seeks to foster in terms of thoughtful analysis and critical thinking. It is hard to imagine how the IB will ever flourish in this soil until reforms in the university entrance procedures are implemented.

China is negotiating with the IB Organization to have Chinese added to English, French, and Spanish as a language of examination. The addition of hundreds of Chinese schools to the IB organization over the course of a decade could seriously change the pro‐ gram itself if the Chinese government were able to put pressure on the IB to change cur‐ riculum.

‐75 ‐

Teaching for understanding Teaching for Understanding is more a curricular orientation or tool than a curriculum in itself. Over the past two decades a team of people at Harvard University have developed a cluster of theories about teaching and learning which go under the brand names of Mul‐ tiple Intelligences, Teaching for Understanding, and Project Zero.

The concept of multiple intelligences is simple: for generations we have been test‐ ing students for linguistic and mathematical skills. Twenty‐some years ago Harvard’s Howard Gardner began to develop another approach. He believes that we ask the wrong question: “How smart is the student?” We should rather ask: “How is the student smart?” Once we realize there are different kinds of smarts, we can engage students in learning through their particular strengths.

Teaching for understanding is also a simple concept with a complex set of ramifi‐ cations. We ask the teacher to teach and then to test whether the students can demon‐ strate understanding of the subject, rather than hand back the facts. For example, rather than testing whether the student has memorized the constitution, we should find out if a group of students can perform a series of exercises modeling the constitutional process: passing a piece of legislation through the branches of government, for instance.

Most teachers respond defensively, “I have taught for understanding for my whole teaching career.” In some cases it is true, but usually not. Harvard School of Edu‐ cation developed the Project Zero summer courses to train teachers in through a small‐ group learning process. The teachers go through the exercise of teaching and assessing each other for understanding. In principle, this methodology can be applied to almost any curriculum.

Conclusion I have seen a number of attempts at changing curriculum fail, and not just because people did not understand the nature of the change, but because either there was no willingness on the part of the state in state schools or on the part of the parents in private schools to provide the resources necessary to bring about real change. In addition to that the by‐ products of change often ran counter to the goals of the social and political system in which the systems of education operate.

‐76 ‐

Every nation would like to see cohorts of gifted, well‐trained, enthusiastic young people graduating from schools and willing to serve society. As it turns out, the more creative and independent‐minded the graduates, the less likely they are to tolerate cor‐ ruption, hypocracy, and heavy‐handedness in government, and the reform can end up fostering dissent. Still, where good programs such as the IB and Teaching for Under‐ standing are implemented, the changes in teaching and learning can be dramatic. The main problem is to maintain a momentum in the reform in the face of counter‐pressures.

A realistic appraisal of the political and social milieu before initiating the reform and proper measures to motivate the teachers and students as change takes place will go a long way towards guaranteeing success.

Resources The gateway to the International Baccalaureate: www.ibo.org Website of Harvard’s Project Zero: http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/tfu/ General page on Howard Gardener, author of multiple intelligence theory and teaching for understanding at Harvard University; http://www.pz.harvard.edu/PIs/HG.htm Website of the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Turkey: www.meb.gov.tr/indexeng.htm

‐77 ‐

8. Tomorrow’s curriculum today: Social transformation and curricu‐ lum

Roger Avenstrup

Our children and grandchildren will need to know totally different things and in totally different ways than we know today or as today’s written curricula describe. There has been long‐standing and widespread agreement that a transformation of education through curriculum as well as other means is needed in order to meet the demands of social change in the 21st century (Delors, 1998).

It is already over thirty years since Alvin Toffler in Future Shock coined the phrase “Education in the Future Tense” and proposed a strategy of futureness as opposed to yes‐ terday’s curriculum today. Yet, formal education which should be the generator of new knowledge and new ways of knowing, is still in a reactive rather than proactive mode in relation to social change. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn observes that there is a lot of ordinary science in between scientific revolutions involving a paradigm shift. In education, there has been too much ordinary education in between paradigm shifts: it is about a century since Dewey’s first work and seventy years after Vygotsky’s, and a true paradigm shift in curriculum has yet to happen. Despite numerous revisions and modifications, the curricula of the early 21st century are in a transitional phase and still too similar to those of thirty years ago in the face of tomorrow’s challenges.

Some of the key social changes that represent new challenges to curriculum are sets of contradictions. To name but a few: the impact of technology on the labour market heightens certain needs for education to prepare for work at the same time as increasing redundancy; the accelerating rate of change of knowledge and ways of knowing exist in a contradictory relationship to the emergence of uniform standardisation of knowledge; scientific‐technological monoculturalism contrasts to the recognition of cultural diversity; the democratisation of information stands in contradiction to the continued monopoly of schooling. Although education is changing, there is nothing like the radical transforma‐ tion one would expect to match the changes in society, especially if curricula are to be fu‐ ture‐oriented:

‐78 ‐

Educational transformations are always the result and the symptom of the social transfor‐ mations in terms of which they are to be explained. For a people to feel at any given mo‐ ment the need to change its educational system, it is necessary that new ideas and needs have emerged for which the old system is no longer adequate. (Durkheim, 1969)

What can sociological perspectives contribute to understanding the intransigence of change processes in education, especially curriculum, and how can that understanding contribute to tomorrow’s curriculum today?

Preparation for work – or for time?

The influence of changes in the labour market illustrates how labour market demands supercede idealistic or educational lobbies. During the nineteenth century, the spread of primary education was a hard‐fought process. In Europe, liberal reformers and charity organisations took initiatives both to stop the exploitation of children and to spread pri‐ mary education, and eventually labour acts banning or limiting children’s work in indus‐ try and agriculture were passed after much controversy. However, it was not until the demand for child labour was reduced through improved mechanisation in industry and agriculture that primary education substantially increased in Europe.

As labour market demands for child labour dwindled in Europe through the twentieth century, the length of compulsory schooling increased accordingly, up to 16 years of age. In the early part of the century it was still possible for schools to give man‐ ual skills training which was marketable: school could to some extent prepare directly for work. As technological developments accelerated in the second half of the last century it became increasingly impossible for school curricula to include direct training for work, and by the end of the century a few systems had already extended the length of compul‐ sory schooling to 18 years of age (Grade 12). Curricula were moving to a more general education rather than perpetuating a sharp division between the academic and voca‐ tional. The trends are continuing: more countries are moving to 12 years schooling being made available to all, and those already there to 12 years being compulsory for all. At the same time as technology develops more and more, opportunities for work in the tradi‐

‐79 ‐

tional sense diminish, and schooling has to, and can only, develop trainability for ever‐ changing demands for new skills.

The constituency arguing for education first and foremost as preparation for the labour market is pushing towards the need for higher‐level thinking skills to be devel‐ oped, developing so‐called good problem solvers (OECD 2004a; OECD 2004b) and pres‐ sure on curriculum is increasing in mathematics, science and technology. However, the improvement of technology does not necessarily mean permanent employment or the elimination of unemployment. In The Right to Useful Unemployment: and its Professional Enemies, Ivan Illich foresaw the consequences of fewer and fewer having the skills and knowledge to be employed and having to do more and more work, while an increasing number would not reach the same level and would be unemployed for longer or shorter periods of time. He argues that in highly developed countries, the right to work is being replaced by the right to useful unemployment. Today we see that many high‐tech coun‐ tries are outsourcing lower‐tech jobs to Asian and third‐world countries and export proc‐ essing zones where labour costs are lower and workers’ rights and environmental protec‐ tion are weak. Unemployment figures are higher than politically acceptable in high‐tech countries and have to be camouflaged in various ways (i.e. extending schooling; only those registered as actively seeking work at the time are considered unemployed; those in temporary short‐term work orientation schemes are not officially unemployed). This re‐ flects the transition away from work as a real basis for schooling in a society where the electorate is still thinking in terms of the work ethic.

As technological development increases and takes over more and more functions it will bring increasing leisure time. The work ethic by which an individual has judged their worth, including their self‐esteem (the personal problems associated with being un‐ employed), no longer applies in affluent societies where there is not enough work in the conventional sense. One can no longer delineate a life in career terms of the time one is employed and the time one is unemployed, or retired. Even the term leisure as the oppo‐ site of work becomes redundant. A life needs to be delineated in different terms if it is to have new meaning. The work ethic will no longer be a valid justification of curriculum goals and aims, or of working methods in the classroom, or of work at all. The challenge ahead for schooling in technologically developed countries is to prepare young people

‐80 ‐

not primarily for work, but to use time creatively, because they have time as never before.

Being able and ready to work will remain part of this, but will no longer be a main justifi‐ cation for education. In developing countries, on the other hand, education will primar‐ ily have to prepare for work in the conventional sense for some time to come since they will be performing outsourced lower‐tech jobs, but must also include preparation for high‐tech since that is also the global demand. The technology divide between and within countries has long been identified, and in developing countries is widening between the elite and the majority.

Supranational stakeholders and movement towards standardisation It is the modern sector constituency which is a main driving force in formal education, and has been at least since the Sputnik. What is new is that from national governments being endogenous generators of change, the modern sector constituency has become an exogenous generator of change through supra‐national bodies such as the OECD. PISA is becoming a powerful instrument in the standardization of curricula even though that is not its declared aim. PISA results hit national headlines and unsatisfactory results are taken almost as national disasters even by countries that do quite well. Country after country declares that it will develop the best educational system in the world, the most competitive, and will score better on PISA results. Such results are being appropriated politically in a way which the scope and nature of PISA, TIMSS or other such assessments obviously do not give reasonable grounds for, but the political rhetoric corresponds to OECD politics and its priorities of science, technology and market liberalism. It is very revealing, for example, that issues of identity, awareness, aesthetic knowing, and positive values (reflected in literature, social sciences and arts) are not part of the OECD PISA or TIMSS. Nor does PISA interest itself in how well a system looks after the weakest, but at most, relative performance between the middle and higher achievers. The increasing standardisation of different national educational systems leading to mutual automatic recognition of school and post‐school certification will produce the mobile labour force envisaged for the modern sector, including those who are willing to do service‐industry jobs which other more educated people are less willing to do.

‐81 ‐

Uniformity and diversity With increased globalisation, the dilemma of uniformity and diversity has to be re‐ addressed. Historically speaking, uniformity is not new: the trivium and quadrivium were an international curriculum in their time, but for an elite culture that considered it‐ self homogenous. Much later, universal formal education has always had to confront the dilemma of uniformity and diversity even when pretending that it does not exist. PISA, TIMSS, SACMEQ in Africa, and other similar assessments, are not the only influences driving national curricula towards uniformity. The change of examinations in Africa from British, French and Portuguese to more diversified national examinations is now entering a second phase, where in order to measure oneself against global standards, mutual rec‐ ognition of standards in the various co‐operation regions is bringing back greater uni‐ formity. This is having a backwash effect on curriculum content through generic text‐ books developed by European publishers, with illustrations and some examples adapted for each country. The inherent contradiction in this is of course that curricula should help build identity, but modern identity is multi‐layered and complex: a lack of recognition of diversity is a major source of or factor in conflict. As Kofi Annan put it in his Nobel Peace Prize lecture:

Each of us has the right to take pride in our particular faith or heritage. But the notion that what is ours is necessarily in conflict with what is theirs is both false and dangerous. It has resulted in endless enmity and conflict, leading men to commit the greatest of crimes in the name of a higher power…most of us have overlapping identities which unite us with very different groups. We can love what we are, without hating what – and who – we are not. We can thrive in our own tradition, even as we learn from others, and come to respect their teachings.

Educational systems in Europe are having to find ways of dealing with multiple cultural diversity as never before. The challenges range from ancient cultural differences such as the Sami (Lapps) in Scandinavia and Esquimaux in Greenland; to long‐standing linguistic diversity such as Welsh in Britain or French and Flemish in Belgium; to more recent recognition of diversities such as the Romany, and the immigration of workers

‐82 ‐

from other cultures into Western Europe; to dealing with the ethnicisation of diversity for example in the Balkan states. Each is a historical overlay on the previous. Responses range from the culturally affirmative, such as including Sami (Lappish) in the Norwegian curriculum, to the chauvinistic such as re‐asserting what is believed to be Britishness in England, or Christian values and beliefs in Europe in the light of immigration from Is‐ lamic cultures, to the outright pedagogically negative such as the suggestion to withdraw the teaching of the mother tongue to immigrant children (Denmark).

National curricula which previously went into great detail of prescriptive content are becoming more open frameworks. In Europe, competencies, outcomes or standards are described and content is left to the next level be it regional, canton, district or school, depending on the country. The most recent trend in Scandinavia is not so much to write the curriculum for the teacher, but to develop a framework from which the school itself develops the curriculum. In Belgium, central authorities only negotiate common national outcomes from which the cantons develop their curricula. Schools and teachers would appear to be given more say in curriculum. However, this apparent opening up to lo‐ cally‐developed curricula stands in contrast to the pressures not only for content giving national identity (however that is defined) but also supra‐national content from the backwash effect of assessments and political agreements as part of the Europeanisation process. Research networks such as ROSE (the Rationale for Science and Technology Education that can be found at http://www.ils.uio.no/forskning/rose) may help support greater contexualisation and diversity and create a better balance in some curriculum ar‐ eas, but the challenge remains of how to deal with curriculum areas which correspond to sources of local, regional and world conflict. Science and technology are not sources of conflict in themselves but tools which can make conflicts more destructive. The sources of conflict include struggles for identity, access to natural resources (now including fresh water), access to markets, territory, and power, most of which are legitimated using his‐ torical, religious or value interpretations. In conventional curriculum terms these are within the domains of education in the Social Sciences (Geography, History, Economics), the Humanities (Language and Literature, Religious or Political and values education), and the Arts.

‐83 ‐

Knowledge explosion and knowledge implosion Another social change which ought to be impacting on curriculum is change in knowl‐ edge, not only the knowledge explosion, but also the changing nature of knowledge, new ways of knowing, and the acceleration of those changes. Uncertainties are growing about what knowledge and what ways of knowing are relevant. There are changes in the selec‐ tion of content but as yet little evidence of work done in ways of knowing, such as Doro‐ thy Heathcote’s work in educational drama, or of aesthetic knowing in general. In curric‐ ula, knowledge is imploding into competencies, skills or standards rather than a mi‐ cropaedia of content, but it is still being classified in terms of a collection code with sub‐ ject boundaries rather than an integration code (Bernstein, 1971). Some of these classifica‐ tions have existed for centuries such as Language, Mathematics, Natural Science. Others have emerged later such as History, Geography, Arts. There are some variations in the classifications today which reflect a hesitant beginning of integrative paradigms such as Language Arts; Social Studies; Natural Science, Technology and Environment; Orienta‐ tion Studies; Craft, Design and Technology. But no national curriculum has as yet made a major paradigm shift in the existing academically‐anchored classification of knowledge: vested power knowledge relations still dominate and these need to be analysed if a para‐ digm shift is to take place. As Foucault states:

...power produces knowledge...there is no power relation without the correlative consti‐ tution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and consti‐ tute at the same time power relations. These ʹpower‐knowledge relationsʹ are to be analysed, therefore, not on the basis of a subject of knowledge who is or is not free in relation to the power system, but, on the contrary, the subject who knows, the objects to be known and the modalities of knowledge must be regarded as so many effects of these fundamental implications of power‐knowledge and their historical transforma‐ tions. In short, it is not the activity of the subject of knowledge that produces a corpus of knowledge, useful or resistant to power, but power‐knowledge, the processes and struggles that traverse it and of which it is made up that determines the forms and possible domains of knowledge. (Foucault, 1977)

‐84 ‐

Social change – curriculum change?

None of the above is a new point: they have been made both separately and together many times over the last thirty‐forty years. They, and many other issues not touched on here, all point towards the need for paradigm shift in epistemology, curriculum and learning and teaching. The theoretical underpinnings are accessible from various disci‐ plines i.a. learning theory, cognitive psychology, and research into intelligences. A para‐ digm shift is occurring in practical teaching and learning, based on somewhat loosely connected ideas about what constructivism is (sometimes merely using the term as a la‐ bel). Yet a transformative paradigm shift in epistemology, classification and framing in curriculum has yet to take place. If teaching and learning is to be based on social con‐ structivism, where is the critique of the way categories of knowledge are currently con‐ structed in the curriculum? If understanding how things are interconnected in reality is what is needed for the future, where is the integrated curriculum, rather than themes struggling to integrate subjects? If it is the competencies currently grouped under subject headings that are important, what are they for if not to understand and shape ourselves in a reality which is not divided into subjects? The question that arises is why, when it is evident and there is widespread consensus that such a transformation is needed and the intellectual tools are available for the job, does it not happen as needed?

First, curricula in times of social change are at the fault lines of system transforma‐ tion and system reproduction, where the tectonic plates of state and private provision, religious and idealist, purist and eclectic, elitist and mass education, break through to‐ day’s surface of changing knowledge, uniformity and diversity and so on. Curricula have to find a new form: until now too radical a departure from what has been before, or in‐ sufficient change, have both rendered an educational system dysfunctional. Transforma‐ tion in education has thus not always been rapid and disjunctive although it might go through such phases in special cases such as the cultural revolution in China. In general it has been closer to what Dalin calls systemic process change, which takes time (Dalin, 1978; Smith, 1989). Understanding how system reproduction occurs during transforma‐ tion processes can help account for curriculum change in social transformation: why, when transformation is called for, does system reproduction occur to the extent which it does?

‐85 ‐

Giddens’ concept of structuration and Archer’s studies of morphogenesis in the emergence of educational systems in Europe are useful tools for analysis at the macro‐ level (Archer, 1984; 1985; Clark et al., 1990). Giddens describes structuration as the condi‐ tions governing system reproduction. A system is structured by the way the rules (overt and covert) and resources are organised, and is reproduced through the capability of agents to interact in the system. It is the system which has to transform itself. We can in‐ fer from this that for a system to be transformed, the rules, organisation of resources and interactions all have to change. If not, the former system will be at least partially repro‐ duced in the process of transformation. The question thus is, “What changes need to be made to system rules and resources for the necessary curriculum transformation for to‐ morrow’s curriculum today?”

Archer analyses the interplay between structure and action in the development of educational systems. A set of interactions by agents lead to structural elaborations of the system, which in turn are the new conditions and possibilities for the next set of interac‐ tions, and so on. The structural changes Archer observes were the result of interactions between dominant groups trying to retain control of resources, and assertive groups chal‐ lenging that dominance either by substituting supply of resources with their own (e.g. in the case of an economic elite), or restricting the power of the dominant group from sup‐ plying resources (e.g. in the case of a political elite). This perspective also helps account for the time it takes to transform an educational system, but change is changing and ac‐ celerating at the same time. Similar to the question arising from Giddens’ analysis, What new forms of interaction, and/or what new constituencies are required to create com‐ pletely new conditions and possibilities for tomorrow’s curriculum today?

Curriculum is at the heart of an educational system: how the system is intended to be structured, organised, managed and resourced is derived from the curriculum. The resources around and within a curriculum include knowledge, time, space, and human, material and financial resources, and it is the degree of structural change in how these resources are accessed, organised and used that will indicate to what extent the curricu‐ lum and education system are being transformed or reproduced. The question then arises of how and what is changed or conserved of the overt and covert system rules governing resources. If the curriculum is changed but the structuration of the system remains, trans‐

‐86 ‐

formation will not ensue, only revision. We will have yesterday’s curriculum in today’s, or at best today’s curriculum with an ever shortening shelf‐life.

A curriculum reflects the power‐knowledge relations of the constituencies who were involved in the discussions around and in the curriculum development process.

This is where the collection code of curricula has tended to be conservative rather than transformatory, since academic hierarchies have vested interests in their own subject ar‐ eas and all too often where academic expertise is innovative, political conservatism limits its scope. A paradigm shift would either presuppose or involve a shift in power‐ knowledge relations. Moves to include a much wider base of stakeholders by devolving curriculum development to school and community level ought to lead to a totally differ‐ ent type of curriculum, but as a national curriculum has not done so yet. The Scandina‐ vian systems have emerged from grassroots movements to a much greater extent than others, and the Scandinavian national curricula from the 1970s onwards have reflected this, yet retaining a similar epistemology and classification as others.

It remains to be seen to what extent the democratisation of access to information will change the monopoly of school and impact on the way curricula describe the organi‐ sation of knowledge. In first world countries, some innovatory schools and the home school movement are showing a way ahead. The first is the prerogative of visionary or resourceful schools where learning is managed from the school but takes place in a vari‐ ety of settings. The second is still mostly in families in higher socio‐economic groups. The experience of some school drop‐outs has been overlooked as a form of breaking the mo‐ nopoly of the school over learning. They are usually considered as special needs learners or a category of deviant learners, but this group includes examples of learners combining learning partly in school with learning in other places and in other ways, perhaps not al‐ ways in terms of considered decision‐making (Willis, 1977). It is also worth noting that in several African countries, attempts are finally being made to combine community and school learning and Europe will have something to learn from that.

An additional perspective on the intransigence of educational change can be given by applying Bourdieu’s concept of cultural reproduction (Bourdieu, 1991. We inherit and embody our cultural habitus, a continuity of the past into the present, and as we interact we draw on the cultural capital which we have accumulated. Applied to curriculum,

‐87 ‐

those who are empowered will tend to draw on the existing cultural capital of formal schooling and conserve and reproduce it through the curriculum. The crisis of education now is that new and different forms of cultural capital are needed to meet the social changes which confront us, not least given the growing influence of supranational con‐ stituencies such as the OECD. The transformation of the classification of knowledge is bounded by structuration, the persistence of existing power‐knowledge relationships, and cultural habitus. If we follow Bernstein’s analysis, the transformation of the framing of knowledge is dependent to some extent on the curriculum but to a greater degree on the teacher. Although it is true that creative teachers can teach a conventional curriculum in unconventional ways to make learning relevant and meaningful (if they are allowed to), teachers generally are not sufficiently empowered to do so, and the transformation of the framing of knowledge is also constrained. Once again, mechanisms of cultural reproduction from the school cul‐ ture or teacher’s pedagogical habitus lead to conservation rather than transformation.

With the challenges that lie ahead, we should expect to see both new classification and new framing in curricula and teaching.

Implications To sum up: the implication of the social changes taking place is that a completely new type of curriculum is needed, founded on a deep paradigm shift. The social changes are so far‐reaching that one would hardly expect to see the same classifications of knowledge, nor the same framing, as before. There needs to be a new epistemology, new classifica‐ tion, new framing and new discourse. In order to understand some of the obstacles to achieving this, insight into the processes of structuration and how power‐knowledge rela‐ tionships and cultural reproduction operate, can inform strategies for change of the na‐ ture and on the scale which is needed to meet the new challenges. There is not likely to be one global answer. As Fullan (2001) puts it:

Theories of pedagogy and theories of change must be integrated again and again in each action setting.

‐88 ‐

That such a transformation is also a moral imperative ought to be obvious. It is a widely held belief that education is a key influence in creating the sort of person that a society wants to see, and education is therefore a powerful influence in shaping society.

If this is true, policy makers and educators should be greatly concerned that some of the most highly educated people in the world have made it possible to annihilate the earth at the press of a button, and some of the most highly educated people in the world have made it possible to create and sustain a global economic system which keeps billions of people in grinding poverty, disease and starvation while a miniscule few enjoy untold wealth and privilege.

What sort of education makes it possible to keep the vast majority of humanity in inhumane living conditions, or to exterminate the whole earth in a few minutes? Whose education is that? What power‐knowledge relations does that reflect? What reproduction of which pedagogical culture makes that possible? In what ways is it being reproduced in new transformations? Either policymakers, curriculum developers and teachers are com‐ plicit in creating the educational preconditions for this situation, or are indifferent to it, or it is a truly unintended consequence of policy, curriculum and teaching. In any case, the extremities of social change which education has made possible should cause us to reflect and act on unresolved, and ultimately fatal, system contradictions. We need tomorrow’s curriculum today ‐ or there will be no tomorrow for our grandchildren.

References Archer, M. (1984) Social origins of educational systems. London: Sage.

Archer, M. (1985) Educational politics: a model for their analysis. In I. McNay and J. Ozga (Eds.) Policy making in education: the breakdown of consensus: a reader. Oxford: Per‐ gamon, (39‐64).

Bernstein, B. (1971) On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. Young (Ed.) Knowledge and control: new directions for the sociology of education. Lon‐ don: Collier‐Macmillan.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and political power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

‐89 ‐

Clark, J., Modgil, C. and Modgil, S. (Eds.) (1990) Anthony Giddens: Consensus and contro‐ versy. Basingstoke: The Falmer Press.

Dalin, P. (1978) Limits to educational change. London: Macmillan.

Delors, J. (Ed.) (1998) Education for the twenty‐first century: issues and prospects. Paris: UNESCO. Durkheim, E. (1977) On education and society. In Karabel, J. and Halsey, A, H. (Eds.) Power and ideology in education. London: Oxford University Press, (92‐104).

Foucault. M. (1977) Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane, (27‐ 28).

Fullan, M. (2001) The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

OECD (2004a) Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. OECD (2004b) Problem solving for tomorrow’s world. First measures of cross‐curricular compe‐ tencies from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. Smith, D. (1989) Unintended transformations of control over education: a process of structuring. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 10(2), 175‐193.

Willis, P. (1977) Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. Farnbor‐ ough: Saxon House.

Young, M. (Ed.) (1971) Knowledge and control: new directions for the sociology of education.

London: Collier‐Macmillan.

‐90 ‐

III COUNTRY CASE STUDIES

9. Towards a new curriculum for compulsory education in Croatia

Branislava Baranović

Education, as a prominent factor in the transmission and creation of knowledge, as well as for preparing the individual for work and life in a knowledge‐based society, has a sig‐ nificant role and new tasks.

In order to enhance the process of transition towards the knowledge based society and adapt its educational system to European strategic goals, Croatia needs a deeper in‐ tervention into the educational system, especially in the curriculum area, which is the substance of education. More so given the fact that the structural organisation and the curriculum did not undergo major changes during the 1990s.

The school system in Croatia retained 8‐year compulsory education with 4 years of classroom teaching and 4 years of subject teaching. Its compulsory education curricu‐ lum has a long tradition of a centralised, subject‐based and knowledge oriented curricu‐ lum. The changes that were made to the content of compulsory schooling were mostly of an ideological nature. To be more precise, the content of the so‐called ʹnational group of school subjectsʹ such as: Croatian language and literature, History and Geography, went through a process of ethnicisation, and Religious education (mostly Catholic in orienta‐ tion) was introduced as an elective in all grades.

At the same time those subject units which conveyed a Marxist perspective and socialist ideology were eliminated from the curriculum. Information technology and sec‐ ond foreign language learning have recently been introduced as compulsory subjects. The first significant curriculum changes took place at the beginning of 2000, but their prepara‐ tion was very slow and the process of change itself is rather chaotic, lacking a clear strat‐ egy.

The process of change in the national curriculum is a complex and long lasting process, which requires thorough preparations, including detailed analyses of the factors that influence its development and implementation. An analysis of the current state in the national curriculum has special significance for Croatia, which does not have extensive

‐91 ‐

research experience in the curriculum area nor a tradition of a systematic preparation of national curriculum reforms. It is important to stress that such curriculum analysis, in addition to providing policy makers with an insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the current curriculum‐system, sensitises the teachers, principals and pupils for curricu‐ lum changes, includes them in the very process of curriculum reform, and enhances the development of the “curriculum culture” in schools.

Figure 8. The education system in Croatia

‐92 ‐

As part of the process of curriculum reform preparation, a research project on the opinions of teachers, principals and students about the existing syllabi for compulsory education was carried out in 2003 on a sample of 2134 subject teachers, 1134 classroom teachers, 2674 8th grade pupils and 120 principals from 121 primary schools in Croatia (which is 15 percent of the total number of schools)4. The research was intended to iden‐ tify their opinions on the current syllabi and their implementation, as well as how they see changes to the curriculum and to the structure of the compulsory education system.

The research revealed a number of problems from the viewpoint of planning and devel‐ oping the national curriculum, however only the most significant ones will be presented here.

The fact that the national curriculum for compulsory education is still centralised, subject based and knowledge oriented, without a National Curriculum Framework that would ensure the coherence of the curriculum system and process, is reflected in a num‐ ber of its weaknesses on two levels: conceptual‐programmatic and teaching practice.

Information technology is becoming today an increasingly significant tool for les‐ son preparation and teaching, so that the extent of its use in schools, and teachers’ ICT literacy, form one of the indicators of quality in schools, as it is stated in the European Re‐ port on Quality of School Education (European Council, 2000).

The data on ICTs usage in Croatian schools indicate that teachers, generally, rarely use ICTs. Around 60 percent of them rarely or never use a PC, 70 percent rarely or never use the Internet while two thirds never use e‐mail. In line with that, most of the teachers rarely use ICTs in the teaching process. They also use it very rarely as a resource for lesson preparation (compared to traditional resources such as textbooks and teacher handbooks, which are highest on the frequency‐of‐use scale of lesson preparation resources, while the Internet is at the bottom of the same scale). Most subject teachers also rarely use ICTs as a tool in the teaching process (PC, Internet, educational CD ROM, and LCD projector are among the teaching tools that are least used in the teaching process). The implication is that the teaching and learning methods in Croatian schools fall behind the current trends and developments in this domain. Any policy regarding the development of the national 4

The research methodology and findings are presented in detail in the research report Baranović at al. 2004.

The project was financed by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport, Republic of Croatia and Open Society Institute – Croatia.

‐93 ‐

curriculum should calculate on their improvement and modernisation as an inevitable prerequisite of successful quality improvement in compulsory education.

Geography

Technical Edu‐ cation Physical and Health Ed. Religious Edu‐ cation

History

8

6

8

7

6

7

8

7

6

7

5

Overloaded

1

6

2

2

1

1

1

4

2

1

2

4

6

Demanding

2

9

7

7

3

6

5

6

3

6

5

7

9

Interesting

6

4

6

5

7

2

2

3

6

3

7

5

3

Horizontally coherent

9

8

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

8

9

8

Vertically coherent

4

5

3

4

5

8

7

8

5

8

9

6

7

Useful

6

3

5

3

6

5

4

2

7

5

4

2

2

Important for the fu‐ ture

5

2

3

1

2

3

3

1

4

4

3

1

1

In need of change

3

1

1

8

3

4

7

5

1

2

1

3

3

Chemistry

7

Biology

8

Music

Up‐to‐date

Art

Physics

Mathematics

Foreign Lan‐ guage

Croatian Lang. and Lit.

Table 3: Subject teachers’ estimates of their subjects’ syllabi (subject ranks)

Rank

Note. Table 3 presents the rank of teachersʹ estimates of the syllabi characteristics for each subject. They were derived from the teachersʹ perceptions of the subject they teach. Rank 1 being the highest and rank 9 the lowest. Rank ex‐ plains the position of the characteristic in relation to all other subject syllabi characteristics. On all dimensions except for ʺoverloadʺ and ʺdemandʺ a higher rank describes a more positive estimate (e.g. more up‐to‐date, more interesting, but less overloaded and less demanding).

The research results also indicate that the current syllabi are among the fundamental prob‐ lems of compulsory education. Just to mention the most significant issues according to the teachers’ estimates the weaknesses of the respective subject syllabi are as follows: if we consider the overall characteristics of the syllabi (i.e. compare the scales of the teach‐ ers’ estimates of the subject they teach) it appears, that the weakest characteristic of all subject syllabi is their inadequate alignment (horizontal coherence) with other subject syl‐ labi (for all subjects it is placed at the bottom of the scale). Teachers also think that most subject syllabi are insufficiently vertically coherent, overloaded and not up‐to‐date. For

‐94 ‐

some subject syllabi (Croatian Language and Literature, Mathematics, History and Biol‐ ogy) how demanding they are is also seen as problematic. However, research indicates that teachers believe the key problem of the syllabi is their insufficient horizontal and vertical coherence. This reveals that there is no conceptual and structural consistency across differ‐ ent subjects. From the subject based perspective the content of syllabi is seen as a compos‐ ite of isolated and fragmented segments of knowledge without the necessary integration across subjects or subject areas.

Along with the issue of curriculum coherence, the teachers stressed the problem of balance of curriculum which is evident from both the inclusion of specific areas of pu‐ pils’ development in the syllabi and the time allocated to the particular subjects.

Teachers’ estimate that the existing curriculum is cognitive oriented with an ac‐ cent on the cognitive and motivational areas while other areas of pupils’ development, especially motoric and practical‐technical, are given less attention. The under‐ representation of the mentioned areas is also evident from the unbalanced time allocation for the subjects (table 4). The number of lessons for the “soft subjects”, such as Art, Music, Physical and Health education and Technical education, would be increased by the ma‐ jority of teachers of all the subjects, not only those who teach them.

Table 4: Estimation of change of number of lessons for each subject (whole sample) (%) Subject

‐

=

+

Subject

‐

=

+

Croatian lang. and lit.

19.4

67.8

12.8

Physics

11.5

78.1

10.4

Arts

3.4

50.4

46.2

History

13.5

79.2

7.2

Music

3.9

56.4

39.7

Geography

9.2

76.8

14.0

Foreign lan‐ guage

2.4

59.8

37.9

Technical Edu‐ cation

8.1

53.0

38.9

Mathematics

15.6

74.0

10.4

Physical and Health Ed.

2.1

52.5

45.4

Biology

6.4

83.1

10.5

Religious Ed.

51.3

46.1

2.5

Chemistry

11.6

80.1

8.3

Elective sub‐ jects

7.8

53.1

39.0

Legend: ‐: reduce current number of lessons, =: keep current number of lessons and +: increase current number of les‐ sons

‐95 ‐

The under‐representation of certain areas of students’ development and “soft” subjects points also to the problem of the content or subject structure of the curriculum that according to the teachers’ opinion should also be changed. Religious education (or more precisely Catechism), which was introduced at the beginning of the 1990s, as an optional subject with two lessons per week at the expense of a number of lessons of other subjects, is mostly an unwanted subject. One third of the teachers think that it should not be taught in school, while they would innovate the curriculum with new subjects which are gaining in educational importance. For example, ICT would be included as a compulsory subject for all students ‐ 24.4 percent teachers; Ethics – 10.4 percent teachers; Second Foreign Language – 10.3 percent teachers and Sexual Education – 8.9 percent teachers.

Even this selection of curriculum weaknesses identified by teachers points to a high need to change the syllabi and in the same time indicate what course the changes should take.

Table 5: What kind of curriculum changes should be done according to the findings?

(Teachers’ perspective) Weaknesses of NC

Necessary changes

Overloaded syllabi

Reduction of content load

Insufficiently up to date

Content update

Insufficiently horizontally and vertically coher‐ Interdisciplinary approach with horizontally and vertically aligned syllabi ent Inappropriate subject structure New content/subject structure Insufficiently balanced (under‐ represented subjects) Insensitive to student differences Domination of traditional teaching methods and tools Poor collaboration among teachers

“Soft subjects” should get more time Differentiation according to abilities and inter‐ ests of students Based on the use ICT technology and student‐ centred teaching approach Foster cooperation of teachers in planning/ im‐ plementing NC in school

Summarizing and without going into further details, it could be concluded that, accord‐ ing to the teachers’ opinion, the following curriculum changes are necessary (table 5): 1) reducing content load;

‐96 ‐

2) content update; 3) introducing an interdisciplinary approach with horizontally and vertically aligned syllabi; 4) allocating more time to ʺsoft subjectsʺ; 5) developing syllabi sensitive to the different abilities and interests of students; 6) developing syllabi which will foster a student centred approach to teaching, ICT technology usage, and teacher cooperation in planning and implementing the National Curriculum.

Thus it follows that it is not enough just to improve the existing syllabi, but to de‐ velop a new national curriculum. The data have also directed curriculum changes to‐ wards the development of a coherent, balanced and integrated national curriculum. In the Croatian educational context this is a request for deep, radical changes which will also lead to changes in other segments of the educational system (teacher education, length and organizational structure of compulsory education, etc.).

The alignment of the Croatian educational system to the European and interna‐ tional context and educational developments also raises the question of deeper changes to the educational system in Croatia. Education for life and work in a knowledge based so‐ ciety and globalised economy implies education for new competences which request a different educational philosophy and conception of the curriculum. Indeed, the common objectives of educational and training systems in EU member countries, identified in EU strategic documents, include a definition of new areas of key competences relevant for the knowledge based economy: ICTs skills, technological culture, foreign languages, en‐ trepreneurship, inter‐personal and social competences, mathematical literacy, basic com‐ petences in science, and learning to learn. Cultural awareness is also discussed as one of the key competences necessary for working and living in knowledge‐based society.

(Working group B, Follow‐up of the «Report on the concrete objectives of the education and train‐ ing systems», Brussels, 2002).

Although these decisions serve as mere recommendations for educational policies in individual EU countries, they are of fundamental significance for the development and integration of Europe‐wide educational policies, and represent a framework in relation to which national policies are outlined and situated into the European context. (Education

‐97 ‐

and Training 2010 – The Success of the Lisbon Strategy Hinges on Urgent Reforms, Brussels, 2003). For Croatia, as an accession country which perceives membership in the European Union as one of its fundamental strategic goals, the mentioned educational developments present an unavoidable demand.

In order to improve current curriculum weaknesses, several steps have been un‐ dertaken in the last two years: reduction of the content load and content update of the existing syllabi. Although this process is regarded as the process of developing national educational standards it could rather be marked as a rough cleaning up necessary before the reform starts.

In short, Croatia has just entered the process of curriculum reform. A lot of ques‐ tions and problems have been raised. A lack of knowledge on the curriculum, curriculum reform and poor expert logistics have proved to be among the most serious obstacles to the successful preparation and implementation of reform. Currently, there is a high need to define a clear and meaningful strategy for curriculum development at the national level and to establish an organisational or institutional structure necessary for its realiza‐ tion.

References Baranović, B., Domazet, M., Hoblaj, P., Jokić, B., Jurko, S., Marušić, I. & Puzić, S. (2004) Evaluation of syllabi and development of curriculum model for compulsory edu‐ cation in Croatia. Zagreb: Centre for Educational Research and Development.

European Report on Quality of School Education ‐ Sixteen Quality Indicators. (2000) Lis‐ bon: European Council.

European Commission, Directorate‐General for Education and Culture (2003) Follow‐up of the ʺReport on the concrete future objectives of the education and training sys‐ temsʺ: Draft interim report: Working group B on Basic skills, foreign language teaching, entrepreneurship. Brussels (DG EAC/A‐1/TS D(2002)).

European Commission (2003) Education and Training 2010. The success of the Lisbon strategy hinges on urgent reforms. Brussels: European Commission.

‐98 ‐

10. Curriculum change in Romania: current trends and challenges

Alexandru Crisan

Introduction In the last 15 years the Romanian Education System went through an overall Curriculum Change Cycle (CCC). Such a cycle can be defined as a process that covers at least the fol‐ lowing main steps of a curriculum change process: needs analysis of the current curricu‐ lum system, planning, developing, debating, implementing, assessing, and permanently reviewing a new curriculum in terms of mechanisms and practices up to a new cycle starts once again (Crisan, 2004).

In current day professional literature this cycle is considered as one of the most challenging Curriculum Change Processes in the Eastern European countries as it pene‐ trated not just the whole school system (preschool, and grades 1 to 12) but also the real learning practices and mentalities.

The main outcomes of this cycle were: •

A new Educational Philosophy and Vision on how teaching and learning are supposed to happen in real educational settings

•

A New National Curriculum for Pre‐school, General Compulsory and Secondary Edu‐ cation (grades 1 to 12) fully implementation in the country

•

New alternative/parallel textbooks (3 or more for all grades and subjects) in the whole system

•

A new teaching/learning culture becoming more and more evident at the level of the real functioning of the system

•

The need for a Second Cycle of Curriculum Change already expressed and planned.

Based on the presentation of these outcomes, the Case Study will shortly walk

through: •

The milestones in the Curriculum Change in Romania in order to better understand the dynamics of the change process

•

The main issues and challenges, presented in order to highlight how the change was managed

•

The lessons learned that will underline what should have been done in another way.

‐99 ‐

Milestones in the Curriculum Change Process There have been three main phases in the Curriculum Change Process: (a) a Reparatory Phase; (b) a Preparation phase of the overall Curriculum Change; (c) the Proper Curricu‐ lum Reform. Let’s shortly present these three phases.

Reparatory Phase (1990 – 1993) The so‐called reparatory phase took place between 1990 and 1993. The main aim of the pe‐ riod was to ‘clean up’ the system from the ‘heritage’ and effects of the communist regime that last between 1945 and 1989.

The most relevant steps and outcomes of this phase were: •

Dropping ideology and political manipulation from the curriculum

•

Reducing current workload of students

•

Rebalancing knowledge, skills and attitude in the former highly knowledge‐based curriculum model

•

Revisiting learning objectives and content

•

Revisiting first of all Social Sciences as they were highly ideology‐centered

•

Introducing new subjects (Civics, ICT)

•

Attempting to analyze the main dysfunctions of the former curriculum in order to create a frame of reference for a new vision.

Preparing the overall Curriculum Change (1994 ‐ 1995) In 1994 and 1995 a serious and sustained process of preparing the curriculum change took place. The main steps undertaken were: •

Analyzing the quality of the curriculum in place (the curriculum documents, the real teaching and learning processes, the students’ performance)

•

Analyzing current day international developments in the domain (The Netherlands, Finland, Canada, France, UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand, and some of the former communist countries – Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, Baltic countries) (see Crisan, 2004; Steiner‐Khamsi, 2004; Review of Educational Policies …, OECD, 2003; Drafting New Cur‐ ricula in South‐East Europe…, 2003).

‐100 ‐

•

Analyzing current trends and prospects in the development of Romanian education in order to identify the priorities, objectives and strategies for a curriculum reform

•

Designing a Curriculum Component in the framework of the Romania World Bank Education Reform Project under preparation5

•

Preparing human resources and institutional capacities at all levels of the system, schools included

•

Preparing draft instruments for the curriculum reform process (curriculum guide‐ lines, instructions for designing curricula)

•

Starting consultation and debate in the country concerning the necessary changes in the curriculum.

The Curriculum Reform (from 1995) The curriculum reform started in fact in 1995 as a special Component of the ‘Romania ‐ World Bank General Education Project’. An overall Curriculum Change Model has been designed and gradually implemented. Let’s shortly present the Model and the main steps undertaken during the process.

The components of the curriculum change process An Operational/Pragmatic Model (Crisan, 1993) was developed. According to this, the de‐ velopment and implementation of any serious curriculum reform should cover at least the following main components (see Figure 9): •

The conceptual component (that encompass the reflection on and the development of a clear cut curriculum Philosophy and theory, as well as the educational vi‐ sion underlying the National Curriculum/NC to be designed);

•

The institutional component (encompassing the set of institutional arrangements established for developing and implementing the NC);

•

The strategic component (the education policy by which the NC is implemented; the steps and mechanisms by which the curriculum cycle functions).

The Conceptual Component 5

The Project was prepared from 1993 to 1995 and implemented between 1995 and 2002.

‐101 ‐

The main aims in designing and further improving the Conceptual Component were: •

To develop and implement an overall and long term curriculum policy with clear vi‐ sion, steps and aims

•

To develop a clear and comprehensive curriculum philosophy (conception) laid down in a National Curriculum Framework document, largely discussed in the country

•

To develop an appropriate structure of the National Curriculum (curriculum frame‐ work, system of subject‐ and cross‐curricular syllabi, core curriculum and school‐ based curriculum, implementation procedures and tools, quality assurance mecha‐ nisms for the implementation at the level of schools, teacher support and so on).

Figure 9. The key components of curriculum reform process

conceptual component

• • •

Vision / Policy Theory

institutional component

Philosophy

•

Institutions;rules

strategic component

• • •

Planning Designing Implementing etc.

The Structure of the National Curriculum In terms of curriculum products, the components of the National Curriculum that have been developed were:

‐102 ‐

•

A Curriculum policy document (stating the educational vision underlying the new curriculum; the ideal of the country concerning education/curriculum)

•

A Curriculum Framework Document that makes clear the principles and the structure of the new National Curriculum as well as the strategy for the overall curriculum process; it is intended to ensures the coherence of the curriculum system as a whole

•

The system of programs of study (subject or cross‐curricular syllabi)

•

The curriculum guidelines for drafting the products and conduct the process (present‐ ing how to draft the curriculum so that all study programs will be vertically and hori‐ zontally coherent, and how implementation should be conducted)

•

The textbooks, teachers’ guidelines, students’ workbooks etc.

•

Assessment and examination regulations and instruments; other relevant documents.

Conceptual Shifts in the new Curriculum An important conceptual shift took place by introducing in schools the new curriculum (see The National Curriculum in Romania, 2000). The main aspects of this shift were: •

Switching from knowledge‐based to knowledge, skills and attitudes based curricu‐ lum, i.e. from 9

factual to procedural knowledge

9

academic‐centered to “student’s real needs‐centered” curriculum

9

quantity to quality in the learning process

•

Encouraging essential higher order learning

•

Integration of subjects

•

Stress on co‐operative learning

•

The impact of new technologies

•

Links with non‐formal education

Focus on student’s outcomes and performance assessment.

Institutional Structures In terms of institutional structures a National Board for Curriculum was created in 1994 as an independent professional body for developing and further improving the National Curriculum. The tasks of the Board are:

‐103 ‐

–

Developing Curriculum Policy

–

Developing Curriculum Vision, Philosophy

–

Coordinating the development of the National Curriculum Framework, the curricula and the Curriculum Strategy

–

Organizing National Consultation Processes

–

Designing Implementation Mechanisms

–

Monitoring the Implementation Process

–

Assessing the quality of the Curriculum

–

Revising Curriculum if needed

For the technical work to be carried out Coordination Commissions (per Curricu‐ lum Areas) and Subject Curricula development groups have been created. These groups have become during time highly specialized expert teams that follow on the develop‐ ment, implementation and review of the national curriculum.

In the framework of developing appropriate institutional structures for the cur‐ riculum process mechanisms for public debate and consultation as well as for stakeholder involvement have been implemented (see Crisan, 2003a, b; Georgescu, 2000).

Debate and round tables have been carried out with educational experts, teachers’ professional associations, trade unions, university staff, local and regional school authori‐ ties, groups of parents and students, interested segments of the public. Media campaigns and other media interventions have taken place. Importance has been given to the repre‐ sentatives of different religions and their organizations.

However, in terms of stakeholder involvement, in a crucial phase for designing and implementing the new curriculum (1997 ‐ 2003), it was rather difficult to include in the process some essential stakeholders: representatives of business and finances as well as of other important public sectors (social, health, labor etc.). This lack has been seriously addressed and partially solved – even though not sufficiently ‐ in the last few years.

Strategic Component The main actions in the framework of the strategic component were:

‐104 ‐

•

To create a coherent medium‐ and long‐term strategy with short‐term priorities for the curriculum development process

•

To create a dynamic strategy (steps) for implementation and continuous improve‐ ment

•

To create a strategy and design steps for participation, ownership and raising public awareness

•

To create mechanism for sustainability in terms of institutional capacities and human resource development

In concrete terms the following have undertaken: •

A gradual implementation of the new curricula with three “entry points” in the sys‐ tem, i.e. grades 1, 5 and 9 (the entry points into the three cycles of the pre‐university education: primary, lower and upper secondary)

•

The implementation – in parallel ‐ of a complex textbook reform that has replaced all old textbooks in Romania and created a free textbook market

•

The implementation of a special teacher training program that enabled most of the teacher staff with new methods and procedures underlying the Philosophy of the new curriculum

•

The implementation of a program related to improving the management of change at the level of schools (school improvement, school participatory management, quality assurance mechanisms etc.)

•

The cooperation with relevant educational NGOs for implementing the curriculum change at the level of schools.

There were a number of dysfunctions that have affected the functioning of the curriculum system: •

The curriculum change has been carried out in different rhythms according to differ‐ ent political options: 9 Satisfactory (1995‐1996): with interesting changes: new Philosophy developed, curriculum guidelines designed, new subject curricula developed and tested etc.

‐105 ‐

9 Excellent (1997‐2000): in some years a comprehensive curriculum change was put in place – New Curriculum Framework, new set of curricula for Compul‐ sory and Secondary Education; teachers’ guidelines for implementing the new curriculum, training of the teaching staff etc.

9 Slow and chaotic (2000‐2004) – most of the processes that started before have been stopped.

•

The components of the comprehensive reform (curriculum, textbooks, teacher train‐ ing management, school improvement processes) were not correlated sufficiently

•

Efforts carried out in order to support bottom up developments were not sufficient

•

The process developed between 1995 – 2000 had not developed sufficient devices for sustainability

Lessons The curriculum process of the last 15 years generated a set of lessons that can be produc‐ tive for any further development: •

A comprehensive curriculum reform needs a clear vision that should encompass – simultaneously – conceptual, institutional and strategic aspects

•

These should be approached coherently, and equal attention should be given to all three aspects

•

In a complex curriculum change process, curriculum design and development covers not more than 25‐30 percent of the effort

•

This also should include the consultation process; at least 70 percent should be dedi‐ cated to the concrete implementation of the change

•

Implementation would encompass first of all: 9 Teacher’s school‐based professional development and not that much just “teacher training” 9 Management of change and encouraging school improvement processes

•

School‐based processes and teachers professional development should come first so that the ground for the curriculum implementation process is well prepared

•

After a long period of top down type of change process, bottom up development should be encouraged; the best way for the change is the so‐called integrated change model (a

‐106 ‐

‘bi‐directional’ one) in which top down and bottom up would proceed simultaneously (see as an example for this type of change the currently implemented Romania World Bank Rural Education Project).

Further Steps After a first “full curriculum change cycle” of 10 years, a new cycle should begin; the ap‐ proach would be as follows: •

Base the approach on the current very rich range of school‐based developments in Romania

•

The Curriculum change should start from the experience as well as the current “cur‐ riculum and change knowledge” accumulated so far

•

The curriculum policy should be adapted to the Lisbon Process recommendations (see Crisan, 2004)

•

The Curriculum Framework should be thoroughly revisited so that it reflects the changes that happened in the Romanian education after 1998

•

Syllabi should be built in such a way that values, attitudes, skills and knowledge are structured in an integrated way, adapted to students’ and society real needs and chal‐ lenges.

References Crisan, Al. (1993) Curriculum reform in Romania. In J. van Bruggen (Ed.). Case studies: Strategies for and organization of curriculum development in some European countries.

Paper presented at the UNESCO conference, Bucharest, 1‐5 June 1992. Enschede: CIDREE – SLO, (155‐166).

Crisan, A. (2002) Les contenus pour le 21eme siecle. In F. Vaniscotte & P.Laderriere (Eds.) L’ecole. Horizon 2020. Paris: Harmattan.

Crisan, A. (2003a) Institutional and micro‐level issues. Creating and sustaining high quality learning environments. In Halasz, G. et al. (Eds.) Managing education for lifelong learning. OECD Hungary Seminar, 6‐7 December 2001 Budapest, National Institute for Educational Research, Budapest.

‐107 ‐

Crisan, A. (ed). (2003b) Grassroots reform. Theory and practices in school improvement/school development (In Romanian). Bucharest: Humanitas Educational.

Crisan, A. (2003c) The curriculum reform: Facts and data for the history of the curriculum change. In L. Vlasceanu et al. (Eds.) School at cross roads. Impact study on the implementation of the national curriculum in Romania. Iasi: Polirom Publishers.

Crisan, A. (2004) The ‘Lisbon Process’: Implications for education policy design in Europe.

Keynote speech presented at the International Education Policy Studies, Columbia University Teachers College, New York.

Georgescu, D. (2000) The reform of education. A chance for the change of mentalities.

Bucharest: UMC Publishing House.

Steiner‐Khamsi, G. (Ed.) (2004) The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York, London: Teachers College Press.

‐108 ‐

11. Models of curriculum development: International trends and the way forward

Pasi Sahlberg

Practically all education systems are going through some kind of curriculum reform at the moment. Even in the education systems where pupils do relatively well in the inter‐ national comparisons, curriculum development is a common and often a central feature of overall education sector improvement. Global communication, integration of world’s regions, and increased mobility of students have all played an important role in making curriculum development an interesting and ‐ at the same time – a challenging task for any Government and education minister. The purpose of this paper is to look at some in‐ ternational trends and to try to match the ongoing curriculum reforms to the local needs and expectations in increasingly complex and interrelated world.

There are several obvious reasons why curriculum reform is so often at the core of education development programs of today. First, the information age has brought tech‐ nology to schools or at least to the lives of the young and the old in our societies. With these technologies people have access to all information they need faster and easier than ever before. The previous curricula that were based on covering the essential knowledge for all citizens is helplessly outdated as soon as the curriculum documents come out from the printing houses. Our younger generation needs different knowledge and especially they need new skills in coping with the challenges of information society. Many educa‐ tion authorities including the Ministries of Education have realized that the old fact‐ based curricula need to be replaced by new ones that emphasize better the development of thinking skills, interpersonal skills and creativity rather than simply mastering pieces of past knowledge (Sahlberg, 2006).

Second, the restructuring of the world economic and political orders especially in Europe called for new content and methods of schooling, among many other societal changes. Democratization of the new independent states, expansion of market economies, and mobilization of peoples and individuals have all raised questions of what pupils and students should be taught in schools and what they should know and be able to do after they have attended school. The need for fundamental curriculum reform has been par‐

‐109 ‐

ticularly urgent in Central and Eastern Europe and in the New Independent States. Natu‐ rally, the first wave of changes in curricula touched the content of study programs includ‐ ing abolishing certain politicized and ideologically biased subjects and introducing new subjects instead. As curriculum reforms gained momentum in these countries, also the form of curriculum begun to find new shapes. Today, several ideas that are typical to some western education reforms are also visible in the attempts to change curriculum in the countries of transition economies.

Finally, increasing evidence from empirical research on learning in schools and in‐ ternational comparison studies is showing that students learn often much less in schools than is generally expected by the education authorities and the public at large. For exam‐ ple, when students’ conceptual understanding of mathematical and scientific knowledge has been investigated, the findings often conclude that many students have serious mis‐ conceptions about the knowledge domain that have been taught by their teachers. In other words, students do not always learn what teachers expect them to learn but they create their own knowledge structures instead. Furthermore, the recent OECD (2004) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) showed that many education systems that were for a long time considered to be of high quality in terms of academic achievement of students, were doing much poorer than those education systems that were thought to be average or below in international rankings. Empirical research find‐ ings and international comparisons of student achievement have created a notable thrust in many countries to take a closer look at the curriculum. Many structures and practices that have been believed to be producing high quality results in education have recently been under fire. At the moment of writing this there are more questions than well‐ supported answers in the field of curriculum development. This paper will next look at some main international trends in curriculum reforms.

Emerged global education reform agenda Some observers of education reforms have identified an interesting global phenomenon (Hargreaves et al., 2001; Sahlberg, 2006). It looks like a common education reform agenda that is increasingly having a status of the official education improvement orthodoxy. The major components of this new education reform agenda include:

‐110 ‐

•

Higher standards of learning for all students;

•

Centralized curriculum that ensures common and consistent coverage of what every student should know and be able to do often in the form of high standards;

•

Literacy and numeracy as prime targets of reform;

•

Indicators and attainment targets of student achievement and curriculum plan‐ ning that enable teachers and other to be clear whether these standards have been reached or not;

•

Aligned assessments that are tightly linked to the prescribed curriculum, learning standards, and indicators making sure that teachers focus on high learning achievements for all students;

•

Consequential accountability where the school performance and especially raising the quality of education are closely tied to the processes of accreditation, promo‐ tion, inspection and ultimately funding and rewarding (or punishing).

This new education reform agenda that has been widely accepted as a conceptual framework for many large‐scale education reforms ‐ including Eastern Europe ‐ consists of some fundamental shifts in educational thinking and the broadest design features of educational administration. The most obvious difference is that this new education reform agenda emphasizes on high learning standards for all students, not just a few. It also moves the ‘core subjects’, i.e. mother tongue and mathematics as main priorities in the curriculum by defining clearly what students should learn rather than what teachers should teach. It also shifts the focus from remembering facts to applying knowledge and skills that are more appropriate for information societies and knowledge economies.

Finally, it tries to make teachers to combine educational excellence with equity in their work with students regardless of their personal characteristics or different backgrounds.

It is believed that in national education reforms these principles of curriculum would lead to more or less same achievement in all schools and by most students irrespective of location of school or its nature of its teachers.

It is difficult to argue against raising the standards in education. Every education reform aims at making students learn more and better, asking teachers to teach in new ways, and requiring schools to perform better than before. In principle, this new educa‐

‐111 ‐

tional agenda promises significant improvements in the quality of education, especially in standards of learning and equal opportunities for all students. However, as Har‐ greaves (2001) claims it also underestimates some important dimensions of learning and teaching. Teachers are beginning to lose their interest in teaching while the standards and assessment schemes are predetermining not only what and when they should teach but also how they should teach. There are signs already of this deprofessionalization of teachers due to over‐standardization of education, and especially due to frequent external testing and assessment that are often linked to accreditation and made public through media (Berry & Sahlberg, 2006). Student learning, on the other hand, is focusing on knowledge and skills that are tested and assessed putting aside such subjects as arts, mu‐ sic, physical education, ethics, just to mention a few. Since this new educational reform agenda is an international trend dealing to a large extent with school curriculum, let’s look at what exactly are the current models of curriculum development that have been put in place.

One of the key issues in discussing global curriculum reforms is the meaning of the concept ‘curriculum’. It is beyond this paper to explore the origins of that concept, however, it is necessary to note that the word ‘curriculum’ does not have any one fixed meaning, even within the professional community of educators. Traditionally, in Anglo‐ Saxon education systems curriculum typically refers to what students will be taught with a particular focus on objectives, content, methods and description of other pedagogical arrangements (Taba, 1962; Pinar et al., 1995; Smith, 1996/2000). On the other hand, the German tradition sees curriculum more as a program of study (lehrplan) that emphasizes on describing the yearly study programs by subject or area of study together with the or‐ der in which they will be taught in classrooms. During the era of intensive curriculum reforms in all corners of the globe, these two generic curriculum models have blended into various versions and applications depending on the system ant its current policy principles.

The term ‘curriculum’ has not been traditionally used in many of the transition countries, and it has altering meanings in other countries. Therefore, also curriculum de‐ velopment has to be dealt with certain sensitivity. It is normal that countries in the midst of fundamental education reform seek ideas and assistance from outside. However, at the

‐112 ‐

same time it is paramount that those in charge of managing the curriculum reform will understand where the external impulses for curriculum change are coming from. More specifically, in order to understand why some particular curriculum model works in one education system, we have to know which education policies drive these changes and what are the cultural and social characteristics of these societies. Probably the most seri‐ ous mistake that one can do in improving the quality of education is to transfer solutions developed elsewhere directly to solve local or national problems. There are examples of sophisticated curriculum models that have been implemented in the education systems that are incompatible to make these curricula models really function as they were planned.

For the purposes of the ongoing curriculum development in the region it is useful to have a closer look at some trends that have occurred in large‐scale curriculum reforms.

Rather than analyzing any specific education systems, the following narrative focuses on various classifications or typologies of curriculum development during the last two dec‐ ades.

Curriculum as content (or product) This is a classical way of understanding curriculum. In this model curriculum means a detailed description of contents of teaching (syllabi) that teachers should deliver to their pupils through teaching. This model derives from the classical Tylerian educational ra‐ tionale that views teaching and learning process as a linear causal relationship (Tyler, 1949). According to this curriculum logic, carefully pre‐determined educational objectives lead to appropriate selection of content that will be taught and to choice of relevant teach‐ ing methods that fit with the qualities of students and teachers. Evaluation of learning outcomes will then be used to regulate the new ‘input’ or planning of teaching.

This curriculum model has been typical in many countries. It is a common solu‐ tion in less‐developed education systems especially when there is a shortage of ade‐ quately trained teachers in schools. The reasons for the prevalence of this approach are that it is systematic, follows the ideas of industrial management and has therefore consid‐ erable organizing power. For example, many European countries used to have a content‐

‐113 ‐

oriented curriculum in 1970s when school curricula were rapidly renewed (Scandinavian systems, France and Eastern European countries).

Curriculum as experience This curriculum model is based on an assumption that the process through which the goals of schooling are achieved is more important than the content that is used as an ob‐ ject of study. Probably the best known advocate of this curriculum model was America educationalist John Dewey in early 20th century (see Doll, 1993). Later on, curriculum as experience became alternative to classical content‐based curriculum. However, curricu‐ lum model that emphasizes experiences rather than transfer of information is more vul‐ nerable to external critics (especially from traditional academic spheres) and also more difficult to use as a basis for educational evaluation and assessment of student learning.

There is at least one national level example of implementation of this model. The 1994 Curriculum Reform in Finland was based on experience‐based curriculum model where schools where given the ultimate decision making concerning teaching and learn‐ ing arrangements (Aho, Pitkänen & Sahlberg, 2006). This was possible because all secon‐ dary school teachers and majority of primary school teachers hold master’s degree and are therefore capable to interpret the descriptions of learning experiences into concrete teaching acts.

Curriculum as framework Another alternative to often relatively fixed content‐based curriculum has been so called framework curriculum that only sets a objectives and provides broad guidelines for ac‐ tual curriculum planning. Framework curriculum is normally a comprehensive docu‐ ment that describes the overall aims of schooling, more specific goals of education, and objectives of teaching subjects or integrated subject groups. The purpose of such a framework curriculum is to leave decision making and curriculum planning authority to local education authorities, schools and teachers themselves. In the cases when frame‐ work curriculum model has been adopted, the Government has often regulated other sys‐ tem inputs, such as time allocation for various subjects, financing, and other mandatory requirements related to arranging teaching and learning.

‐114 ‐

Curriculum as a framework has been a selected model in education reforms where decentralization has been one of the key means to raise the quality of education.

Framework curriculum model also requires that that the education system has highly qualified and committed personnel in place. Framework curriculum model that only de‐ scribes the process of curriculum design that takes place locally and sets the general aims, goals and objectives, fits poorly to the consequential accountability movement that fo‐ cuses on inspection, accreditation based on results, and achievement‐driven funding of education. The framework curriculum model has been partially implemented in the Scandinavian curriculum reforms in 1990s.

Outcomes‐based curriculum In 1980s mostly in North America the focus of curriculum planning started to shift from teaching, i.e. subjects, content, methods and other arrangements, to what students should actually learn as a result of school education. An idea of outcome‐based curriculum ex‐ panded widely and was also adopted as a leading principle of many large‐scale curricu‐ lum reforms. The key idea of outcome‐based curriculum is that it guides the planning of teaching by more precise description of intended learning outcomes. In other words, this curriculum model consists of descriptive attainment targets for learning in various sub‐ jects. For example, it may provide teachers with very detailed lists of knowledge and skills that students should achieve in any given level of their schooling.

This outcome‐based curriculum became a very popular model in many education reforms in 1990s because it gave politicians, parents and students, too, more specific pic‐ ture of what is expected from schools in terms of learning outcomes. Moreover, it also made external assessment and testing of that learning more relevant due to commonly agreed expectations that the curriculum spelled out. The National Curriculum Reform in England and Wales, and similar reforms in New Zealand, many states in US, and parts of Australia were built upon the philosophy of outcome‐based education and curriculum.

Standards‐based curriculum The next generation of the outcome‐based curriculum was standards‐based curriculum model that goes even further in setting the criteria what students should know and be

‐115 ‐

able to do in different subjects and at different phases of schooling. The basic logic of standard‐based curriculum model is that the State, for example Ministry of Education, sets the standards for teaching and learning that are the same for all students, teachers and schools. These standards are normally subject‐specific, detailed descriptions of ex‐ pected learning outcomes per grade or phase of schooling. These state‐level standards are then a basis for curriculum planning. In other words, curriculum is designed using the students’ learning as a point of departure.

Standards‐based curriculum is a typical element of the new education reform agenda that was discussed above. Standards penetrated into the world of education espe‐ cially in the Anglo‐Saxon countries. Global cooperation and increased distribution of education policy strategies, standards movement has been increasingly exported to many parts of the less‐developed world. As such, standards‐based curriculum model share similar assumptions with the content‐based curriculum that was mentioned earlier.

However, the radical difference is that standards refer to students’ learning that turns the whole logic of standards‐based curriculum model the other way around than in content‐ based curriculum. A particular strength of educational standards is their power to pro‐ vide measurable criteria to be used in evaluating the quality of education.

What are the common trends?

Despite the obvious contrasts that the different curriculum modes discussed earlier have, there are some common trends that can be found in most, if not all of the ongoing cur‐ riculum reforms. It is necessary to remind once again that there is no one distinct type of curriculum that fits for all. Instead, there are various locally adapted variants that have been modified for national and local contexts.

Integration vs. segregation Probably one of the most common issues within national curriculum policies has been the balance between integration and segregation. There have been two separate aspects. On one hand, the question has been to what extent the curriculum should integrate various school subjects to broader groups, or whether the traditional schools subjects should be kept independent. The long‐term trend that is now suffering from the wave of the new

‐116 ‐

education reform agenda has been to design clusters of school disciplines (for example Science, Social Studies, Arts, etc.) and plan the curriculum accordingly as integrated. This is still a common feature in elementary years of schooling but older the students get the less integration there seems to be in their curriculum.

On the other hand, integration also refers to different students. The question is: Should all students be kept together as much as possible, or should they be segregated according to their abilities, personality features, or other characteristics? Again, a global trend within the curriculum reforms is to move towards integration and inclusion, rather than maintain segregation and separation of students. For example, in the European Un‐ ion the issue of inclusive education has become a frequently discussed topic as part of curriculum development since the human rights, equity and equal opportunities are safeguarded by the EU regulations.

Focusing on learning Regardless of the curriculum model that has been chosen by the authorities, the common issue in all curriculum reforms is that what students learn is in the center of attention.

Traditionally, the logic of curriculum thinking was based on choosing the right content and appropriate methods of instruction, and then students will learn what they are ex‐ pected to learn. This illusion still dominates some education reform efforts. Now, how‐ ever, what students should know and be able to do as a result of going to school, has be‐ come a key interest. Not only learning as an outcome of education has become more em‐ phasized but also the nature of learning as constructive intellectual and social process has been incorporated into various curriculum models in a new way.

The contemporary understanding of learning has is slowly being translated into curriculum texts in recent reforms. When learning of students is taken as a leading idea of renewed curriculum it requires that appropriate teaching and learning arrangements are described, expected learning outcomes and related standards are written in a way that enable teachers to adopt learning‐centered methods, and that the topics and contents to be covered are not overloaded and isolated from each other.

‐117 ‐

Involving teachers For a long time, curriculum used to be mainly a document prepared by the authorities that was sent to schools to be implemented as a mandate. Although teachers may have been used as experts in curriculum working groups, the end users have had only a very limited role in actual curriculum planning process. Recently, however, the curriculum reforms have started to provide teachers with more opportunities to take part in actual planning. Especially the school‐based curriculum system that has been a typical feature in Framework Curriculum and also in Experience‐based Curriculum models has empha‐ sized the critical role of teachers in designing the curriculum for their school and for themselves.

Having an active role in curriculum planning process is also a common require‐ ment by the teacher professionalism movement. Teachers as professionals should not only be seen as technical implementers of externally prepared plans (curricula) but they should also have a true role in deciding what, how and when to teach whatever they are teaching. Several ongoing curriculum reforms in and out this region include the idea of teacher involvement either by increasing the individual teacher choice or through giving a school more authority over curriculum design. However, standards movement that has become very popular globally is often diminishing the real possibilities of teachers to in‐ fluence in their curriculum. As was mentioned earlier, one typical element of the new education reform agenda is centralized curriculum that ensures common and consistent coverage of what every student should know and be able to do often in the form of high standards, and normally limits teachers’ role in curriculum planning.

Integrating assessment criteria with curriculum Another key component of the New Education Reform Agenda is assessment. As a result of increased consequential accountability schools and teachers are dealing with more and more external assessment and evaluation related to their work. For example, students’ learning is tested more regularly by external agencies, teachers’ work in school is in‐ spected and appraised, schools are monitored and evaluated by various measures, and the entire school systems are under a magnifying lens as far as their performance is con‐

‐118 ‐

cerned. The problem that has occurred in many education reforms due to the evolution of the new assessment and accountability culture is disconnection of curriculum and as‐ sessment. Too often students’ learning is assessed using specifically prepared criteria that may or may not have appropriate connection to the curriculum. This means that teachers should teach according the curriculum and prepare their students to take tests and exams that are designed using another criteria (or standards, benchmarks, or similar). In these cases the assessment becomes actual curriculum and the purpose of teaching is to prepare students to pass the tests.

Only recently this dilemma has been brought to closer discussion. In its best the standards‐based curriculum tries to serve these two functions at the same time: be the criteria for planning of teaching and learning in schools, and also providing objective cri‐ teria for assessment and evaluation. This issue is particularly challenging in education systems where students are frequently tested and where these test results are made pub‐ lic through media (England, for example). In the systems where students are rarely as‐ sessed by external tests (as in Finland or Sweden), student assessment is normally more classroom‐based done by teachers together with the students.

Towards school improvement with curriculum Finally, curriculum is becoming to have new purpose besides being a mandatory refer‐ ence for teaching and learning. When curriculum model has emphasized school’s and teachers’ active inputs during the process of planning, it has also be seen as an instrument for more holistic school development. There are interesting examples of decentralized curriculum reforms where teachers have been invited to be partners in curriculum de‐ sign. For example, in Finland the 1994 curriculum reform provided each school with an opportunity but not an obligation to design their own curriculum using the national cur‐ riculum framework issued by the Ministry of Education. Most frequently mentioned in‐ fluence of this school‐based and teacher‐centered curriculum reform was the positive af‐ fect that working together as a team of teachers had on entire school improvement. Not only did the content of teaching change, said many teachers, but also the attitudes toward school improvement enhanced and future prospects of schools became clearer.

‐119 ‐

A quick analysis of international development in curriculum front shows that cur‐ riculum reform is brought closer to development in other areas in education, such as spe‐ cial education, information and communication technologies in education, quality assur‐ ance within schools, and working with parents and the community at large.

Conclusions This paper has outlined few of the most obvious developments that one can find out by visiting the curriculum reforms that are going on in various parts of the world. As a clos‐ ing chapter of this paper we would like to mention few issues that could be brought to closer discussion during the curriculum development and reforms.

1. Curriculum development is an ongoing process, not a product Too often curriculum reform is seen as something that has a start and an end, in other words a project. Cynical and often experienced teachers in schools are very talented and clever in coping with these reform ‘projects’ (Dadds, 2001). Therefore, the first issue that any modern education system should do in terms of reform curriculum thinking is to change curriculum development from ‘project thinking’ to ‘process thinking’. In our rap‐ idly and unpredictably changing world it is very unlike that the curriculum designed to‐ day and implemented next year would be in use still in 2015. Quite opposite, we should accept and help our teachers to understand it too that curriculum is a living, organic in‐ strument to help teachers and schools to find optimal ways to educate the youth.

It is important that the role of municipalities, schools and teachers is carefully considered as part of the curriculum reform. One message that could be kept in any cur‐ riculum related agenda is to communicate the purpose and meaning of curriculum to teachers, principals and local education authorities in way that stresses the process nature of the new curriculum.

2. Curriculum is the heart of education improvement If we understand that curriculum is not only a list of topics to be taught to students in school, then we also know that curriculum can serve several purposes simultaneously.

Probably the most challenging function that the curriculum could have is to truly guide

‐120 ‐

the evaluation and assessment policies as part of overall national education policies.

Moreover, curriculum may be a powerful tool for teachers in their attempts to develop their own schools, increase equal access for all students, and thus ultimately raise the quality of teaching and learning.

Saying this it is important that curriculum reform is seen as a core of the ongoing efforts of education development and quality improvement. Good success requires highly qualified experts to lead the development process and skilled people to win teachers and schools to become active. In brief, it is beneficial for the future development if curriculum reform is based on consensus‐based strategy and generally accepted national policy of education where the intended purpose of curriculum is defined.

3. There are no ‘European standards’ or ‘World standards’ in curriculum A common belief is that European Union has certain educational standards or curriculum that all member countries should meet and follow. Similarly, sometimes people think that the world is moving towards the same principles and values in terms of education in general and teaching and learning in particular. The EU has certain basic agreements concerning qualifications, mobility, and right to education but not common content stan‐ dards nor curriculum that all schools should implement. Actually, Europe still is and will continue to be a mosaic of different curriculum models, teaching traditions and educa‐ tional arrangements depending on the tradition, culture and social structures of societies.

For many countries, European Union provides a rich platform for seeking potential solu‐ tions and interesting experiences that may be useful as resources in the ongoing curricu‐ lum reform. However, the word of warning: direct copying and transfer of any one cur‐ riculum system is doomed to fail due to cultural and political differences.

4. Curriculum development has to be based on expertise and research Finally, curriculum development and education reform in general are process that re‐ quire expertise and continuous national production of new knowledge about these proc‐ esses. Too often education reform is left to the hands of quasi‐experts or persons whose expertise is in another field. If education authorities want to succeed in its intended edu‐ cation reform, and if renewed content of teaching and related curriculum are about to

‐121 ‐

make a difference in students’ learning, there needs to be well‐resourced and adequately equipped research structure in place (Joyce & Showers, 1995). Many countries need stronger research on potential directions and curriculum models, and also systematic fol‐ low‐up and analysis on the implementation of the new curriculum in schools. The inter‐ national research community on curriculum development provides good support and back‐up for doing this.

References Aho, E., Pitkanen, K. & Sahlberg, P. (2006) Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Berry, J. & Sahlberg, P. (2006) Accountability affects the use of small group learning in school mathematics. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 11(1), 5‐31.

Dadds, M. (2001) The politics of pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching, 7(1), 43‐58.

Doll, W. (1993) A post‐modern perspective on curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Shawn, M. & Manning, S. (2001) Learning to change. Teaching be‐ yond subjects and standards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1995) Student achievement through staff development. White Plains, NY: Longman.

OECD. (2004) Learning for tomorrowʹs world – First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P. & Taubman, P. (1995) Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Sahlberg, P. (2006) Education reform for raisng economic competitiveness. Journal of Edu‐ cational Change, 7(3), pages not available.

Smith, M.K. (1996/2000) Curriculum theory and practice. In The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. www.infed.org/biblio/b‐curric.htm.

Taba, H. (1962) Curriculum development. Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and World.

Tyler, R. (1949) Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

‐122 ‐

Annex 1

International Conference on Curriculum Reform and Implementation in the 21st Century: Policies, Perspectives and Implementation June 8‐10, 2005 Plaza Hotel, Istanbul

June 8, WEDNESDAY

18.00 – 19.00

19:30 – 21:00

Opening of the Conference: Welcome Addresses and Remarks

Welcome Reception

June 9, THURSDAY

09:00 – 10:30

Plenary 1: Curriculum and skills for the knowledge society Prof. Emeritus Donald K. Adams, University of Pittsburg, USA Dakmara Georgescu, Project Coordinator, IBE, UNESCO Facilitator:

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee Break

11:00 – 12:30

Plenary 2: Translating the new curriculum into teaching and learning Dr. Pasi Sahlberg, Sr. Education Specialist, World Bank Dr. Emin Karip, Board of Education, Turkey Ministry of National Education Facilitator: Dr. Robin Horn

12:30 – 14:00

Lunch Break

14:00 – 15:30

Plenary 3: Accountability Policies and Curriculum Change

Pentti Yrjölä, Counsellor of Education Chief Evaluator, National Board of Education, Finland Dr. Sergij Gabrscek, Slovenia Facilitator: Mr. Anders Lönnqvist

15:30 – 16:00

Coffee Break

‐123 ‐

16:00 – 17:30

Plenary 4: The voice of stakeholders NN, Curriculum Review Commission: A civil initiative to monitor reform in Turkey Alexandru Crisan, Executive President, Center Education 2000+, Romania Mutlu Öztürk, History Teacher, Notre Dame de Sion High School (TBC) Serpil Sonal & Nesrin Çelebi, Bilfen Private Schools Facilitator: Ms. Neyyir Berktay

09:00 – 10:30

June 10, FRIDAY

Plenary 5: Curriculum and Social Change

Dr. Roger Avenstrup, International Education Consultant Facilitator: Mr. Batuhan Aydagül

10:30 – 11:00

Coffee Break

11:00 – 12:30

Case Studies: Parallel Sessions B Case Studies: Parallel Sessions A

• Croatia: Towards a New National Curricu‐ • Georgia: Challenges of Curriculum Reform lum for Compulsory Education in Croatia in Georgia Branislava Baranovic, Institute Simon Janashia, Team Leader, for Social Research, Zagreb Georgia Education System

Realignment & Strengthening • Finland: National curriculum or school Project “Ilia Chavchavadze” curriculum? Role of the school and its

• Latvia: Teachers Involvement in the Educa‐ teachers.

Dr. Martti Hellstrom, Headmaster, Aurora tion Reform: The Experience of Latvia Edu‐ cation Improvement Project School, Finland Ligita Grigule, Daugavpils University

• Romania: 15 Years of Curriculum reform in • Moldova: Curricular Reform of Education Romania: Lessons Learned, Current Trends, in the Republic of Moldova and Challenges Dr. Nadejda Velisco, Head of Department Alexandru Crisan, Executive of Secondary Education, Ministry of President, Center Education Education 2000+

• Tajikistan: Curriculum Reform of Republic • Turkey: Monitoring and evaluation of the of Tajikistan pilot implementation of the new curriculum Zubaydov Ubaid, Doctor of Pedagogical Ruhi Kılıç, Ministry of National Education Science, Academy of Pedagogical Sci‐

ence of Republic of Tajikistan Scientific

Secretary on Curriculum at the Ministry of Education in Tajikistan

‐124 ‐

12:30 – 14:00

Lunch Break

14:00 – 15:30

Group discussion Participants will be working in small groups to discuss the three conference questions: - Policies: What have been the main drivers of curriculum reforms? For ex‐ ample, the reform may be motivated by political change, introduction of new subjects or abolishing the existing ones, or changes in the scientific thinking on teaching and learning?

- Perspectives: What have been the main forms of curriculum reforms? For example, reform may be top‐down requirement by the Ministry, school‐ based initiative that involves stakeholders or bureaucratic‐political change that meets the expectations of the authorities.

- Implementation: What have been the main implementation strategies?

For example, reform may be implemented mainly through intensive in‐ service training of teachers, school‐ and community‐targeted support ac‐ tions to schools and teachers or through information‐based steering.

Facilitator: Pasi Sahlberg

15:00 – 15:30

Coffee Break

15:30 – 16:30

Plenary 5: Challenges and Opportunities

Prof. Dr. Üstün Ergüder, Director, Education Reform Initiative Facilitator: Dr. Emin Karip

16:30 Closing Remarks

‐125 ‐

Annex 2

Glossary of curriculum terms ‐ Eğitim programlari ile ilgili bazi terimler

Composed by Dr. Roger Avenstrup

This selective glossary gives only pragmatic descriptions (not dictionary definitions) of a few central technical terms used in curriculum and teaching. They represent what seems to be the main area of consensus about and usage of the terms in the English‐speaking world, but there are wide variations, and different researchers and practitioners will at‐ tach different emphases to them.

Bu sözlük, eğitim programı ile ilgili konularda ve eğitimde kullanılan bazı sıklıkla kul‐ lanılan teknik terimlerin pragmatik tanımlarını vermektedir (sözlük anlamlarını değil).

Bu terimler, İngilizce dilini kullananlar arasında, anlam ve kullanım bakımından hem fikir olunmuş, önemli kavramları temsil etmektedir. Ancak, bu terimler geniş kapsamlı anlamlar taşımaktadır ve farklı araştırmacılar ve uygulayıcılar bu terimlere farklı anlam‐ lar yükleyeceklerdir.

CURRICULUM ‐ EĞİTİM PROGRAMI

Curriculum As a general term, the concept of curriculum includes the explicit and implicit overall and underlying theories, policies, and principles for intended learning and teaching, as seen in official statements and actual practice.

As a document, an overall specified course of learning usually stated in terms of: (1) goals or aims for the course as a whole, and particular learning objectives or compe‐ tencies to be achieved, or learning outcomes. These are often categorised under knowledge/ with understanding, skills/competencies and attitudes/values.

(2) components of the course (usually described in terms of subjects, courses, modules, or themes) and what normal time allocation is expected to be • • •

what learning experiences are intended and how teachers/instructors can facilitate them how learner achievement will be assessed how the course will be evaluated

The term curriculum is used variously for a whole phase of education e.g. basic educa‐ tion, secondary education, teacher education; or for parts of an entire phase e.g. Lower Primary education, or for a subject.

‐126 ‐

Eğitim Programı Resmi belgelerde ve gerçek uygulamalarda görülen ve terim olarak, amaçlanan öğretim ve öğrenim için açık ve dolaylı (genel ve temeli oluşturan kuramlar, politikalar ve pren‐ sipler dahil) eğitim programı kavramıdır.

Öğrenim için belirilenmiş, bir doküman bağlamında, genel bir program; genellikle şu şe‐ kilde tanımlanmıştır: program bir bütün olarak düşünüldüğünde, hedefler ve amaçların neler olacağı ve belirli öğrenim hedefler veya yeterliklerinin, veya öğrenim sonuçlarının kazanılması. Birçok kez bunlar, bilgi/anlama, beceri/yeterlik ve tutum/değerler olarak sınıflandırılmaktadır;

Programın bileşenleri nelerdir (genellikle dersler, programlar, modüller veya konu‐ lar/temalar ile tanımlanmıştır) ve ders işleyişi için varsayılan/yeterli olduğu düşünülen zamanın ne olacağı, • • •

hangi öğrenim deneyimleri amaçlandığı ve öğretmen/eğitmenin bu deneyimlerin kazınıl‐ masını nasıl destekleyeceği, öğrenci başarısının nasıl değerlendirileceği, programın nasıl değerlendirileceğidir.

Eğitim Programı terimi, eğitimin birçok aşaması için çeşitli biçimlerde kullanılmaktadır, ör. temel eğitim, lise eğitimi, öğretmen eğitimi; veya bir aşamanın bölümleri için kul‐ lanılabilir, mesela temel eğitimin ilk kademsi, veya bir brans olabilir.

Intended curriculum, Official curriculum: The curriculum as stated in approved documentation.

Amaçlanan Eğitim Programı, Resmi Eğitim Programı: Onaylanmış belglerdeki eğitim programı.

Real curriculum, Taught curriculum The curriculum as it is actually taught explicitly and implicitly in the classroom, whatever the intended curriculum might be.

Asıl Program, Öğretilen Eğitim Programı: Belirlenmiş amaçlanan eğitim programına karşın, sınıf içinde, açıkca veya dolaylı bir biçimde öğretilem program.

Hidden curriculum Content, values and attitudes conveyed explicitly or implicitly by the teacher or the school which can be those of the intended curriculum, or can be counter to it, often with a bias in terms of race and ethnicity, gender, social class, language.

‐127 ‐

Saklı Eğitim Programı Okul veya öğretme tarafından, açıkça veya dolaylı bir biçimde, Amaçlanan Eğitim Pro‐ gramına uygun veya karşıt içeriğin, değerlerin veya tutumların öğretilmesi. Bunlar, gen‐ ellikle ırk ve etnik köken, cinsiyet, sosyal statü veya dil ile igili olmaktadır.

Received curriculum, Operational curriculum: The curriculum actually appropriated by the learner, whatever has been intended, and whatever has been taught.

Algılanan Eğitim Programı, İşleyen program: Amaçlananan program veya öğretilen ne olursa, gerçekte öğrenci tarafından algılanan, veya öğrencinin programdan edindiği kazanım.

Null curriculum Important themes, subjects or topics not included in the curriculum intentionally or by default.

Olmayan Eğitim Programı Bilinçli ve kasıtlı olarak eğitim programına dahil edilmeyen önemli temalar, dersler veya konular.

Multiple curriculum The many layers of curriculum which meet in the classroom, including the intended, hid‐ den and appropriated.

Çoklu Eğitim Programı Amaçlanan, Saklı ve Uyarlanmış programlar dahil, sınıf içinde birleşen Eğitim Pro‐ gramının katmanları.

Syllabus A course description for one subject, theme, module or topic within a curriculum. The description often follows a similar design as the curriculum as a whole.

Ders Programı Eğitim Programının içinde bulunan bir dersin, temanın, modülün veya konunun dersi işleme tanımı. Bu tanım, genellikle eğitim programının bütününe benzer bir tasarım‐ dadır.

Articulation Articulation is how well a curriculum progresses vertically from one grade, phase or unit up to the next.

‐128 ‐

İlerleme İlerleme, eğitim programının bir sınıftan bir üst sınıfa, bir kademeden bir üst kademeye veya bir uniteden bir üst üniteye ne kadar iyi bir geçiş veya ilerleme dizisi sergilediğidir.

Coherence Coherence is how well the curriculum interlinks across subjects, units or modules within the same period of time e.g. in a term, a year, or a phase.

Dersler Arası Uyum Eğitim programının, aynı süre içinde işlenecek farklı branşların, ünitelerin veya modüllerin birbirleri ile ne kadar uyum sağladığıdır.

Scope The breadth of content in a unit, module, subject, and/or phase.

Kapsam Bir ünitenin, modülün, branşın ve/veya kademenin içeriğinin kapsamı.

Sequence The ordering of content, units, modules or learning experiences within a period of time.

Dizin/Sıra İçerik, uniteler, modüller veya öğrenim deneyimlerinin belirli bir zaman içindeki sırala‐ ması.

Module A self‐contained unit within a course.

Modül Bir program içinde kendine içinde bütünlük gösteren bir unite.

Theme A main area of content to be explored, selected for its relevance, and appropriate to the intended learning experience.

Tema Geçerliğini için seçilmiş, amaçlanan öğrenme deneyimine uygun, işlenmesi gereken temel içerik alanı.

Topic A sub‐unit of a theme.

‐129 ‐

Konu Bir temanın alt ünitesi.

Domain A main area of learning usually defined in general terms of cognitive, affective or psy‐ chomotor skills, or in terms of categories of intelligences.

Alan Genel bilişsel/duyuşsal/psiko‐motor becerileri veya zekanın farklı kategorileri açısından tanımlanan temel bir öğrenim alanı.

Objective The specific learning which is intended to take place in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes, usually described in behavioural terms.

Hedef Genellikle davranışcı bir biçimde tanımlanan, amaçlanan öğrenimin bilgi, beceri ve tutum açısından gerçekleşmesi.

Competencies Abilities which can be demonstrated for assessment.

Yeterlik Sergilendiğinde değerlendirebileceğimiz yetenekler/kazanımlar.

Competency statement A statement describing the type, level and range of a competence to be demonstrated for assessment.

Yeterlik İfadesi Değerlendirme için sergilenmesi gereken yeterliğin türü, düzeyi ve ölçeğini tanımlayan ifade.

Skill The ability to do something, usually defined in terms of cognitive skills, psycho‐motor skills, personal and social skills, and/or communication skills.

Beceri Genellikle bilişsel, psiko‐motor, kişisel ve sosyal beceriler, ve/veya iletişim becerileri olarak tanımlanam, bir kişinin birşeyi başarabilme/yapabilme yeteneğidir.

‐130 ‐

Cross‐curricular A theme or topic common to several subjects or areas of learning e.g. HIV/AIDS, ecology, Human Rights and Democracy, substance abuse, population education, health.

Eğitim Programında çapraz uyum gösteren Birkaç farklı branşda veya öğrenim alanında ortak olan bir tema veya konu alanı, ör.

HIV/AIDS, ekoloji/çevre bilim, İnsan Hakları ve Demokrasi, madde bağımlılığı, nüfus eğitimi, sağlık.

Learning outcome The intended outcome of learning experiences, which can be assessed in terms of the cognitive, affective, practical, attitudinal, and social, development of the learner.

Öğrenme Sonucu Öğrencinin, bilişsel, duyuşsal, uygulamacı, tutumsal ve sosyal gelişimi açısından değer‐ lendirilebileceği, amaçlanan öğrenim deneyimleridir.

Strand A thematic component of core learning, knowledge or skills which goes vertically throughout the curriculum.

Bileşen Önkoşul öğrenmenin, bilginin veya becerilerin, eğitim programında dikey olarak geçen/ilişkilendirilen tematik bileşeni (Binişlilik).

Standard A statement of a level of achievement to be reached within an area of a subject or through a module.

A definition of a discreet area of knowledge and/or skills within an area of learning, in a grade, phase or throughout the curriculum.

Standart Bir ders alanı veya bir modül kapsamında ulaşılması gereken başarı düzeyinin ifadesi.

Bir sınıf, aşama veya program kapsamındaki açıkça ifade edilmeyen bilgi alanı ve/veya becerinin tanımı.

‐131 ‐

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION ‐ DEĞERLENDİRME

Assessment Measuring in whatever ways ‐ formally/informally, observation/oral/practical/written ‐ the learning achievements of a learner or learners.

This term is sometimes used interchangeably with the term evaluation.

Değerlendirme Biçimsel/resmi olmayan, gözlem/sözlü/uygulamalı/yazılı yoluyla, veya herhangi bir biçimde öğrenci veya öğrencilerin başarılarını ölçmek.

Bu terim, bazen “evaluation” kelimesi ile eş anlamlı olarak kullanılmaktadır.

Evaluation Determining the quality of a teaching‐learning process or any component of it e.g. the curriculum, textbooks, materials, teaching, and assessment.

This term is sometimes used interchangeably with the term assessment.

Değerlendirme Eğitim ve öğretim ve bu sürecin herhangi bir bileşeninin kalitesini belirleme ör. Eğitim programı, ders kitapları, materyaller, öğretim ve değerlendirme.

Bu terim, bazen “assessment” kelimesi ile eş anlamlı olarak kullanılmaktadır.

Formative assessment/evaluation Using the findings of assessment or evaluation to understand what changes need to be made to the teaching/learning process: curriculum, textbooks, materials, teaching meth‐ ods, organisation of groups, time or space, assessment, evaluation.

Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Değerlendirme sonuçlarını, eğitim/öğretim sürecine yapılması gereken değişiklikleri anlayabilmek için kullanmak: eğitim programı, ders kitapları, materyaller, öğretim yöntemleri, grupların, zamanın veya mekanın, değerlendirmenin organizasyonu.

Summative assessment/evaluation Summing up assessments of learner achievement, or interim evaluations of the teach‐ ing/learning process, at the end of a unit, semester or year.

Düzey Belirleyici Değerlendirme Ünite, dönem veya yılın sonunda, öğrencinin başarılarını veya aralıklı yapılan eğitim/öğrenim süreci değerlendirmelerinin toplamı.

Continuous assessment Assessing learner progress and achievement at intervals over a period of time.

‐132 ‐

Devamlı Değerlendirme Bir zaman süresi boyunca, öğrencinin ilerlemesinin ve başarısının belirli aralıklarla de‐ ğerlendirilmesi.

Examination Often used of a formal assessment of learner achievement through written, oral and/or practical tests, usually without assistance from others or from reference materials.

Sınav Öğrenci başarısını yazılı, sözlü ve/veya uygulamalı biçimsel değerlendirme çeşitidir, genelde, başka kişiler veya kaynak materyaller gibi, yardımcı etkenler kullanılmaz.

Norm‐referenced assessment The results of assessment are distributed according to a given statistical norm. The one most widely used is still the bell curve of normal statistical distribution. The same per‐ centage of learners will be in each level every year, irrespective of whether or not the overall performance was better or worse from one year to another. Other norms used for filtering out learners at the end of basic education and secondary education are usually related to how many places are available in the next stage of education.

Bağıl Değerlendirme Değerlendirmelerin sonuçları, istatiksel bir norma göre dağılım gösterecektir. En çok kul‐ lanılan halen çan şeklindeki normal dağılım eğrisidir. Buna göre, öğrencilerin bir yıl içinde sergiledikleri performans, başka yıllara göre daha iyi ya da kötü olsa bile, öğrenci yüzdesi her yıl, hep aynı düzeyde olacaktır. İlköğretim sonunda, veya lise eğitiminden sonra, öğrencileri elemek için kullanılan başka normlar, genelde bir sonraki eğitim kademesinde kaç öğrencilik kontenjan olduğuna bağlıdır.

Criterion‐referenced assessment Assessment is based on criteria describing how levels of achievement are expected to be demonstrated, and not distributed according to a statistical norm. The percentage of learners in each level of achievement will vary from year to year, according to how well each has performed.

Mutlak Değerlendirme Değerlendirme, başarı düzeylerinin nasıl sergileneceğini tanımlayan kriterlere dayalıdır, ve istatiksel bir norma göre dağılımı yoktur. Her yıl, her bir öğrencinin nasıl bir perfor‐ mans gösterdiğine bağlı olarak, öğrencilerin başarı düzeyinin yüzdesi farklılıklar göstere‐ cektir.

‐133 ‐

Authentic assessment Assessment of understanding and competence in what has been learnt, in real‐life situa‐ tions or in simulations as close them as possible.

Özgün Değerlendirme Gerçek hayatta uygulayarak, veya gerçeğe çok yakın/benzer bir simülasyonda gerçekle‐ şen kavrayış ve yeterlikleri değerlendirmek.

Course work A clearly defined and limited project which will count towards summative assessment.

Eğitim Çalışmaları Belirleyici değerlendirmeye katkı sağlayan, belirgin ve sınırlamaları olan bir proje.

A paper A self‐contained part of a formal examination.

Yazılı Ödev Kendi içinde bir bütünlük gösteren biçimsel bir sınavların bir parçası.

Portfolio A collection of the learner’s work for assessment, representing a wide variety of different tasks and types of presentation, together with the learner’s and teacher’s comments.

Portfolyo Öğrencinin farklı çalışmaları, ödevleri ve çeşitli sunum örneklerinden oluşan, ve öğrencinin kendi ve öğretmenin görüşlerini barındıran, bir dosya.

OTHER TERMS ‐ DİĞER TERİMLER

Behaviourism In education, a major school of thought which rests on the assumption that learning is fundamentally habitual, a product of stimulus and response.

Davranışcılık/Davranış Bilimi Eğitimde, öğrenmenin temelinin etki‐tepki sonucu olan alışkanlığa dayalı olduğu varsay‐ ımına dayanan önemli bir düşünce ekolü.

‐134 ‐

Constructivism In education, a major school of thought which rests on the assumption that learning is meaning constructed by the individual interacting dialectically with the social and cul‐ tural context.

Yapılandırmacılık Eğitimde, öğrenmenin bireylerin dialektik olarak sosyal ve kültürel bağlamı ile etkileş‐ mesiyle anlamlar yapılandırdıklarına dayalı olduğu varsayımına dayanan önemli bir düşünce ekolü.

Reflective practitioner A teacher who continually engages in structured critical enquiry into, reflection over, and action research in her/his practice in the classroom, in order to better facilitate learning for the learners.

Yansıtıcı Uygulamacı Öğrencileri için daha iyi bir öğrenme deneyimi yaratabilmek için, sınıf içindeki uygu‐ lamalarını bir yapı içinde eleştirsel bir şekilde sorgulayan, uygulamaları üzerine içedönütsel olarak düşünebilen ve eylemlerine araştırma katabilen bir öğretmen.

Intelligence The capacity of human beings to understand and relate to themselves and the social and physical environment.

Zeka Insanların, kendilerini ve sosyal ve fiziki çevresini kavraması ve bağlam kurabilmesi ka‐ pasitesi.

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) A numerical score based on formal written (and sometimes oral) tests of cognitive intelli‐ gence.

Zeka Bölümü (IQ) Bilişsel zeka için biçimsel yazılı (bazen de sözlü) testlerinin sonuçlarına dayanan sayısal bir puan.

Multiple intelligences A theory of intelligence which sees the human as not having only one intelligence, but a range of different, complementary, and equally important intelligences.

Çoklu Zekalar İnsanın tek bir zekası değil, birbirini tamamlayıcı ve eşit derecede önemli olan çeşitli zekaları olduğunu savunan bir zeka kuramı.

‐135 ‐

Special needs education Teaching specially adapted to learners with special needs owing to deprivation, handi‐ cap, trauma, or giftedness.

Özel Eğitim Mahrum kalmaktan, özürlü olmasından, travma geçirmiş veya üstün yetenekli olmasın‐ dan kaynaklanan özel eğitime ihtiyacı olan öğrenciler için uyarlanmış eğitim.

Inclusive education Including learners with special educational needs in the same classes as other learners and making provision for their needs within the same physical and social environment.

Kaynaştırmalı Eğitim Özel öğretime ihtiyacı olan öğrencilerin diğer öğrenciler ile aynı sınıfa dahil ederek eğitim almaları ve ortak fiziksel ve sosyal çevrelerini onların ihtiyaçlarına göre uyarlan‐ ması.

Remedial education / Compensatory teaching Teaching methods and materials to enable slow or disadvantaged learners either to reach their optimal level of achievement, or an acceptable minimum standard.

Tamamlayıcı Eğitim / Takviye Edici Öğretim Yavaş öğrenen veya dezavantajlı öğrencilerin, ya onların için mümkün olan en yüksek başarı düzeyi, ya da kabul edilir bir minimum standarta gelmelerini sağlamak için öğre‐ tim yöntemi veya materyaller.

Enrichment learning/materials/tasks Additional or alternative methods, materials and/or tasks to further individualise and enrich learning. This might be for slow learners, gifted learners, or learners with special educational needs, or to provide the whole class with additional or alternative material or tasks to supplement textbooks and workbooks.

Öğrenimin/materyallerin/görevlerin Zenginleştirilmesi Öğrenimi zenginleştirmek için ve bireyselleştirmek için ek veya alternatif yöntem, mater‐ yal ve/veya görev. Bu, yavaş öğrenenlere, üstün yetenekli öğrenciler veya özel eğitim ihtiyacı olanlara, veya ders kitaplarına ve alıştırmalar defterinde desteklemesi için tüm sınıfa ek materyal veya görev verilmek istendiğinde kullanılabilir.

‐136 ‐

Annex 3

Conference presenters

Prof. Emeritus Donald K. Adams Institution: University of Pittsburgh Address: Administrative and Policy Studies School of Education University of Pittsburgh 5900 Wesley Posvar Hall Tel: (412) 648 7164 Email: pakdadams@aol.com

Doç. Dr. Emin Karip Institution: Board of Education, Turkey Ministry of National Education Position: Deputy Chairman Address: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Teknikokullar / Ankara Tel: (90) 312 2152054 E‐mail: emink@gazi.edu.tr

Ms. Dakmara Georgescu Institution: IBE‐UNESCO Position: Operational, Country‐Customized Projects , Curriculum Development Coordinator Street Address: 15 route des Morillons, 1218 Le Grand‐Saconnex, Switzerland Postal Address: C.P. 199, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland Tel.: (41) 22 917 78 20 Mobile: (33) 678 141 672 Fax: (41) 22 917 78 01 d.georgescu@ibe.unesco.org

Dr. Alexandru Crisan Institution: Center Education 2000+ Position: Executive President Address: Str. Caderea Bastiliei, Nr. 33, Sector 1, Bucuresti, Romania, cod 010613 Tel: (4021) 212 0780; (4021) 212 0781 Fax: (4021) 212 0779 E‐mail: acrisan@cedu.ro

Dr. Roger Avenstrup Institution: Roaven Educational Position: International Education Consultant Address: Roaven Educational Ingemannsvej 6 DK‐4180 4180 Sorø Denmark Tel: (45) 5782 1185. Cell (45) 2421 6543 E‐mail: ravenstrup@hotmail.com

‐137 ‐

Mr. Pentti Yrjölä Institution: National Board of Education, Finland Position: Counsellor of Education Chief Evaluator Address: National Board of Education Hakaniemenkatu 2 FI‐00530 Helsinki Tel: (358‐9) 7747 7831 E‐mail: pentti.yrjola@oph.fi

Dr. Sergij Gabrscek Institution: CPZ‐International Center for Knowledge Promotion, Research and Development Unit Position: Director of Research and Development Unit Address: CPZ‐International, Center for Knowledge Promotion Parmova 41 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia Phone/Fax: (386) (1) 436 15 08 E‐mail: sergij.gabrscek@guest.arnes.si

Dr. Nadejda Velisco Institution: Republic of Moldova Ministry of Education Position: Head of Department of Secondary Education Address: Department of Secondary Education Chisinau, Moldova tel. (37322) 232443; fax:(37322) 233402 E‐mail: preuniversitar@edu.md

Dr. Martti Hellstrom Institution: Aurora School Address: Lippajarventie 44 A P.O. Box 3507, 02070 Espoon kaupunki Espoo, Finland tel. (358‐9) 598 628 fax:(358‐9) 597 031 E‐mail: martti.hellstrom@iki.fi

Dr. Branislava Baranovic Institute: Institute for Social Research/Centre for Education Research and Development Position: Director Address: Center for Educational Research and Development Amruseva 11, 10000 Zagreb Croatia Tel: (385) (1) 488 3 551 E‐mail: baranov@idi.hr

Mr. Simon Janashia Institution: Georgia Education System Realignment & Strengthening Project “Ilia Chavchavadze” Position: Team Leader Address: 52, Uznadze Street 0102 Tbilisi, Georgia Tel: (99532) 957988 E‐mail: sjanashia@yahoo.com

Dr. Zubaydov Ubaid Institution: Academy of Pedagogical Science of Republic of Tajikistan

‐138 ‐

Position: Doctor of Pedagogical Science, Scientific Secretary on Curriculum at the Ministry of Edu‐ cation in Tajikistan Contact person: Zarina Mamadalieva E‐mail: zarin@osi.tajik.net

Ms. Ligita Grigule Institution: Daugavpils University Position: Doctoral Student Address: Gertrudes Street 30 – 32 Riga Lv 1011, Latvia E‐mail: grigue@latnet.lv

Dr. Pasi Sahlberg Institution: World Bank Position: Senior Education Specialist Address: 1818 H Street, NW United States Tel: (1) 202 473 1301 E‐Mail: psahlberg@worldbank.org