The School Curriculum

The broadest view of the curriculum is all experiences students have under the guidance of teachers. Marsh and Willis define curriculum as “all the experiences in the classroom which are planned and enacted by teachers, and also learned by the students.” According to Schwab, in our education system, curriculum is divided into chunks of knowledge we call subject areas such as English, French, Mathematics, Science and others. However, the definition given by John Dewey, based on experience and education is “the total learning experiences of the individual.” Print (1991) sees the curriculum as “all the planned learning opportunities offered to learners by the educational institution and the experiences learners encounter when the curriculum is implemented” (p.9). The curriculum is therefore directly related to student learning and student achievement. The interaction of the planned curriculum with the students, teachers, school leader and the locality modifies the planned curriculum and a new curriculum emerges for the school.

The transmission of this planned curriculum occurs through the official and taught curriculum. Students also acquire numerous learning experiences that were not planned and not intended, this is referred to as the hidden curriculum. Students thus, learn through the formal curriculum, the informal curriculum as well as the hidden curriculum.

The curriculum is at the heart of the school program and is carefully planned for maximum effectiveness. It is also regularly adapted to the economic, social, cultural and individual needs of the students.

Curriculum Reform

In many countries and throughout the modern era of educational change, curriculum innovation has been regarded as an essential strategy for educational reform. Initiatives towards curriculum reforms are in the form of new curricula within the existing schools or new kinds of schools with a particular kind of curricula. For all kinds of curriculum reforms, teachers have a leading role in curriculum development.

47

In the UK, the Education Reform Act of 1988 introduced a centrally prescribed National Curriculum. Baker (1993) seeks to promote ‘radical change’ in the education system in order for it to ‘match the needs of 21^st century Britain’ and to achieve higher pupil standards. This systematic approach to curriculum was expected to produce educational change of a kind that was not achieved by previous teacher-led initiatives. Such trends were also seen in other countries.

According to McCulloch (2005), the eventual impact of the National Curriculum remains to be seen, but it is already evident that its hopes for radical change are highly problematic. He stated that reforming the content and form of what is taught has often appeared to be even more important than other familiar approaches, such as reforming the organization, yet he claims that in spite of such hopes, over the longer term curriculum reform has generally failed to generate educational change of a fundamental kind. Fullan (1991) reports that the structures and cultures of schooling have proven to be highly resilient to fundamental change, and what has appeared to be novel in principle or policy has commonly been interpreted in practice along familiar lines.

McCulloch (2005) further observed that the problematic nature of curricular change is basically due to particular strategies devised for curriculum reform which have been highly influential in determining the structure and eventual impact of particular initiatives. Often there has been an unresolved issue over what should be the role of schools and teachers, yet in an obvious sense, any reform of the curriculum would be dependent on the goodwill and ability of schools and teachers in carrying it out in practice.

Teachers and Curriculum Reform

Strategies of curriculum reform have tended to be directed by the state, from policy decisions in order to follow the new trends in development and to meet the demands of society. Lawton (1980) argued that teachers by and large failed to assert effective control over the curriculum or to take responsibility for curriculum reform, when they had the opportunity to do so. Moreover, Wrigley (1985), one leading participant in these initiatives in the UK confessed ‘We are slow to see the abiding difficulty of effective innovation.’ He also added that despite the celebrations of teacher autonomy, there

48

remained major constraints on curriculum reform and innovation such as the influence of teaching materials, teacher’s own education and experiences, and often external examinations.

It was widely feared that the National Curriculum would destroy the capacity of teachers to contribute in their own ways towards curriculum reform. Some critics warned that the very notion of teacher professionalism was under direct threat (Gilroy, 1991).

Teaching Practices and Curriculum Reforms

Despite numerous reforms, classroom situations have not evolved much. In his study, Klette (2010) considers schools and classrooms in UK, Norway and Sweden during major reforms in 1997 and subsequently in 2006. The new national curriculum put new professional demands on the teachers as well as requiring new forms of classroom practices. A vast research literature tends to arrive at status quo as a way of describing how reform efforts interplay with educational practices. There is persistence of recitation and resistance to change and adopt new teaching strategies. Most teachers reported that the curriculum guidelines had little or no impact on their lesson planning, teaching, their students’ involvement and student achievement. Klette (2010) reports that according to research literature there are some routinized patterns of teaching that seem to continue to define interaction, roles and repertoires in classrooms.

Despite numerous reforms effort trying to transform classrooms into spaces of enquiries, investigations and sites of unfolding learning processes based on pupils’ individual needs and interests, teachers continue to design and redesign classrooms as sites of recitation and plenary teaching. (p.1005)

He also reported that teachers dominate, regulate, define and evaluate all communication and activities in the classroom. Approximately 75% of the time, teachers talk, regulate and monitor all official classroom conversation.

According to some authors (Cuban, 1984; Tyack and Tobin, 1994), school and its practices are sealed by traditionalism and stasis. In a case study in France and Mexico on stability and transformation in configurations of activity, Veyrunes and Yvon (2013) showed the persistence of the traditional pedagogical formats in these two countries despite significant contextual and cultural differences. One traditional idea about pupils’

49

work organization is the work contract (seatwork); it is very common as it helps teachers to maintain order and to bring pupils into activity. It is a teacher-centered teaching method and is under the control of the teacher. It persists despite reform initiatives and the preparedness of teachers to explore new pedagogies. Its adaptation and transformation nevertheless lead to lifelong learning. As Veyrunes and Yvon (2013, p.81) stated: in the process of change,

the pedagogical format remains identical but the configuration of collective activity evolves… The stability gives to the actors a certain comfort and lets them reach the aims they fix…Changes are thereby digested and incorporated into existing practices, or even invalidated.

Hence, despite reform initiatives by the higher authorities, the relevant training of teachers and the willingness of teachers to innovate and explore new teaching strategies, pedagogical formats tend to be stable with minimum modifications. Collective activity of pupils, engaging them in the learning process is difficult to achieve. A new configuration emerges based on the teachers’ perceptions and actions.

School factors directly or indirectly determine school effectiveness. They depend on many factors including leadership capacity and style at all levels, on teachers who translate the objectives and decisions into actions and on how students respond.

Therefore teachers are the intermediate actors and have an important role in the school system. They are the ones who are responsible for the implementation of curricular and co-curricular activities. The success of these activities is directly dependent on how teachers view and carry them out. Teachers also have a direct impact on how students respond and learn. The role of the teacher is therefore primordial in the life of a school and in the life of the students. Thus, if teachers are well prepared and trained, they can make a difference.