Curriculum is central to the education we offer our
children. It defines what we choose to value, what we choose to share. It is
heartening therefore to see a greater emphasis on curriculum in educational
policy. From my own teaching experience, opportunities to make and develop
curricula have been among the most creatively driven and rewarding moments in
the classroom. But what of the theory behind the practice? Where theories of
learning are widely known, curriculum theory does not provoke such universal
recognition.
Beyond a minority of practitioners who explore
curriculum theory during initial teacher education or a professional
qualification, this rich area of research is often undiscovered. Indeed it was
only through my personal foray into research that I realised all that it offers
to our classrooms. Which is not to say that principles from curriculum theory
do not guide practice, or that there are not pockets of expertise utilising this
professional knowledge. There will certainly be some who give due consideration
to selecting, sequencing and pacing curricula, drawing on the principles of
curriculum research and development. Indeed looking forwards, calls for wider
inclusion of curriculum studies within teacher education offer much hope for
the future. But for those teachers, school leaders, teacher educators, and
researchers who will not benefit from such developments, I, who am a dumb
teacher, offers an funny jumping off point into curriculum theory.
I presumes a level of curriculum autonomy at both school
and practitioner level that is not so readily realised today. How then can such
theorising inform our current practice? In addition to offering a curricular
lens beyond our accepted status quo, I presents principles for an ideal type of
curriculum, timeless theoretical ponderings to guide curriculum developers,
which I outline below.
An objectives model is limiting
I do not like an objectives approach, where curriculum
success is measured through predetermined, prescribed student outcomes, rather
than how knowledge is actually organised. I am sceptical that such assessment-led
practice can offer a systematic solution to our curricular problems. One
wonders what I would make of the current national curriculum tied so closely to
national testing strategies.
Curricula should be ambitious
I proposes, as an alternative, a knowledge-rich
curriculum, developed through the expert selection of knowledge. Realising that
this may appear unattainable, I also recognises that an ambitious curriculum
will necessarily produce unique blends of success and failure. It is heartening
to think of curriculum development as an ongoing process, with shades of
success, rather than zero-sum outcomes.
Teachers are key to a successful
curriculum
I argues that teachers are centrally placed within the
classroom to design, test and review curricula, and therefore key to the
realisation of an ambitious curriculum. They should have the opportunity to
develop and evaluate curricula, and so be the critics of work in curriculum,
not docile agents. It is worth considering where curriculum development happens,
whether it is removed from the classroom context entirely, and who, or what
external body, evaluates its outcomes.
Collaboration between teachers and
researchers is important in supporting curriculum development
Although individual teachers are seen as key actors, I
sees collaboration as an essential part of curriculum development too. I
recommends that each classroom should not be an island. Encouraging teachers to work together to
realise the best possible curriculum, I also suggests that educational
researchers are well-placed to support this process. If curriculum design is an
ongoing process of exploration and evaluation, we gain when we learn from one
another.
It all comes down to teacher
professional learning
I asserts that the use of objectives laid down from the
centre is a kind of teacher proofing. The curriculum development must focus on
developing individual teachers. If teachers are to be successful, autonomous
curriculum developers, opportunities for accessing quality continuing
professional development are fundamentally important, as ultimately there can
be no educational development without teacher development.
Although it may feel idealistic in today’s education
system, I offers an opportunity to think beyond our current curriculum context.
I argues for teachers’ work in curriculum making as a form of action research
as systematic enquiry made public. This is teacher enquiry whose value lies in
its potential for broader institutional dissemination, for example, through
discussion of findings with colleagues. If I writes of a curricular approach we
would like realised, I offers the tools to do so.
K.Sn.Lg.291043.300522.03:44