In the ever-changing world, does curriculum matter?

Mr Wayne Samuels Brunswick North West Primary School West Brunswick, Victoria, Australia

Introduction

With an ever-changing world, there is nothing more significant than a curriculum for our schools. A curriculum that takes into consideration what our students want, and will need, for the future. One that gives an equal voice to all learners and educators in a multifaceted, multicultural society.

When considering a curriculum however, we have to be clear about what everyone wants from a general education – will the education enable students to deal with many different types of people in varied work environments? Will they learn to manage their own learning and be reflective? Will they be able to create new knowledge, with ICT? Will they be globally conscious, socially active, responsive and responsible? Will they be leaders or followers? Challengers of the status quo or conformists?

My contention in this paper is that curriculum does matter and that, no matter what is happening in the wider world, schools need to have documentation that gives a series of learning foci, which can be flexibly adapted in a range of school settings and reach outcomes that will deliver what students want from their schooling and what we, as society, business and educational institutions, regard as important, now and in the future.

Education will always involve business and the wider society and will never just be a matter for educationalists or academic theorists to muse over and fix. Rather, it will be a societal agreement of what is important, as the education our students gain from their schooling, through the ‘intended’ curriculum, will have an impact on wider society (UWA, 1995).

As Young (1999) explains, ‘the curriculum … is not just an educational question of primary concern only to policy makers and those involved in schools and colleges. It inevitably reflects our assumptions about the distribution of individual capacities and the kind of culture to which we want young people to have access. It follows that the curriculum will always be to some degree contested and be a political as well as educational matter’.

We, as educators, have to make certain that we do not allow political motives and agendas to drive what is taught, if we consider curriculum to matter. Instead, we need to take ideas on board but critically assess their purpose.

However, when the ‘intended’ curriculum is filtered down to institutions (school, university, TAFE, and so on) it is the way the given institution ‘enacts’ the curriculum that determines how students experience it and, ultimately, how they will progress, and the options that will be unlocked to them after they reach postcompulsory schooling age. Then there is the influence of the ‘hidden’ or ‘null’ curriculum, which has very little data attached to it, to determine the sort of impact this aspect of the curriculum has in shaping postcompulsory schooling opportunities as well (UWA, 1995).

The four elements of the curriculum mentioned above; intended, enacted, experienced and hidden, will form the basis in answering the question of whether or not curriculum matters in an ever-changing world. In providing this answer, I feel it is how we deal with the issues arising from these four components of curriculum, which will determine whether curriculum matters.

The four curriculum elements to be discussed and elaborated upon were obtained from Gehrke (1992), UWA (1995) and Yates (2006) and are broken down as:

• Curriculum as intention. This approach to curriculum is characterised by predetermined aims, goals and objectives describing what students should learn.

• Curriculum as enacted. The simple explanation of this term is the ‘how’ of curriculum instruction. Teachers’ approach, deduction and delivery of the curriculum, as intended by state frameworks and school policy.

• Curriculum as experience. This view of curriculum depicts it as a set of planned learning experiences encountered by students. In the classroom, it includes a wide range of activities, such as experiments, role plays, simulations, and so on.

• Curriculum as hidden. What does not get taught is also part of the curriculum. This null curriculum is powerful by virtue of its absence. The null curriculum often suggests a hidden (or implicit) curriculum. The hidden curriculum, however, is implied not only by what is not present, but by much of what is.

The curriculum as it happens

Curriculum as intention. Many conversations I have with colleagues regarding the curriculum almost always revert back to how much there is to be done; in the little time allocated and how this will lead to no more than a superficial, introductory manner of teaching and learning. As Fullan (cited in Hopkins, 2005) points out:

‘In schools … the main problem is not the absence of innovations but the presence of too many disconnected, episodic, piecemeal, superficially-adorned projects. The situation is worse for schools than for business. Both are facing turbulent, uncertain environments, but schools are suffering the additional burden of having a torrent of unwanted, uncoordinated policies of innovations raining down on them from hierarchical bureaucracies’.

So, before we even consider whether the curriculum will work or matter, we need to ensure that we have the balance right. What I mean by balance is that we have accounted for the various subjects in relation to the resource allocation of schools, students (gender, race, socio-economic status, and so on), school settings and community contexts and history. The ‘we’ in this context, is defined as those in positions of decision-making regarding the state’s curriculum agenda; curriculum writers, government, business, and so on.

If curriculum is going to matter, then there has to be consideration placed on individual schools within a larger system. There needs to be ongoing support structures and evaluation of practices within the school to determine whether its intended values, goals and objectives are being met.

The aspect I like and dislike about the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS), which tries to accommodate the former statement, is that it suggests to schools the need to adapt and adopt what works for them. ‘There is … no single approach. Schools have responsibility for, and control over, the educational program they develop to enable their students to achieve the standards’ (Hopkins, 2005).

What this assumes, though, is that schools actually know what their students need to meet the standards. Through my own experience, handing over responsibility to a school, and only the school, to get students to meet the curriculum (VELS) standards is fraught with danger. One school I am aware of, for example, has a hiring policy that does not take into consideration the gelling of staff with the needs of its clientele, too many ‘episodic and superficially adorned’ (Fullan cited in Hopkins, 2005) projects, leadership that devalues teacher input and judgement, external initiatives instigated by peripheral leadership that does not value the work of those before them and a lack of understanding of the school culture that has led to its current state, and a lack of time for teachers to have meaningful collegial dialogue about the ‘big questions’ regarding their current school circumstances and avenues of improvement through the analysis of best practice.

If curriculum matters, then such practices will surely be a disservice to a school. This is where support structures and further deliberation about curriculum, teaching and learning should be central. School values and goals should be pragmatic, not merely lip service and one sided.

According to Durant (cited in Hopkins, 2005) ‘it is important that teachers’ vision and values are articulated and then that they are involved both in setting the agenda for change and in exercising leadership to make it happen. Genuine engagement in school improvement, rather than just implementation enables teachers to operate more effectively intelligently and critically within changing policy contexts’.

When students, teachers and parents are truly involved in curriculum construction and implementation, it will matter, as the curriculum will be owned, valued and contextually appropriate. The VELS document is theoretically correct, I believe, but it needs to be careful in applying standards. One question I ask as an African immigrant is: ‘Whose standards are they and how did they come about?’

When looking at prescribed aims, goals and objectives in describing what students should learn, we need to be careful not to be dragged into learning for vocational reasons but rather learning to ‘understand’ (Gardner, 2004). We need to ensure that students are not parts of the ‘knowledge society or knowledge based economy’ (Willinsky, 2005) juggernaut consuming the business world, but rather creating knowledge for the purpose of the common good of society. We need to be involved in the creation of knowledge to benefit the less fortunate in our society; the ones with an unequal representation of voice and power.

Drucker (cited in Willinksy 2005) argues that ‘schools have always done more than their share in sorting students out for the economy. They have done less well in preparing students to advance the general democratic quality of their society and workplace’.

With some teachers devaluing the curriculum, with the myriad of reasons they have, I have personally heard comments such as ‘VELS is what we did 20 years ago’; ‘What number curriculum are we up to?’, ‘This document is biased’ and ‘So this is what the ivory tower has knocked up’; it doesn’t matter what is actually written on the VELS pages. What matters is what happens behind the closed classroom door, which is determined by the teacher and his or her past experiences, values and beliefs.

The way in which schools challenge and/or support teacher beliefs and values will say much about the curriculum components and outcomes they determine as important in shaping their students, and ultimately, whether the curriculum matters. If we are to value curriculum, then these teacher perspectives need to be identified and clarified. I think it’s not that teachers dismiss the curriculum. Rather, the enormity of the document and the lack of true consultation affect their practice and dialogue.

With the VELS grappling with the notion of the ‘knowledge society’ (Drucker, cited in Willinsky, 2005), active citizenship and personal learning we have to be aware of what this might mean it terms of the curriculum and the types of environments (schools) and students we are creating. As Drucker (cited in Willinsky, 2005) points out there will be a new class distinction created by the knowledge society ideology and that ‘knowledge workers will amount to no more than a large minority of the workforce’, which will in due course create a large amount of non-knowledge workers. What will the future hold for the latter?

The important fact, as summed up by Barcan, is that ‘schooling does not proceed in a cultural vacuum. Socially generated ideas and attitudes help shape the curriculum both positively and adversely. School learning is supplemented by knowledge and values engendered by the family, the church, the peer group, the internet, and above all media, especially television and popular music’ (Barcan, 2005).

My argument here is that it is not so much that I am against the ideas that shape the curriculum but, more importantly, whose ideas and viewpoints they are and what their agendas are for raising the ideas. I would hope that the forum for sharing of such ideas is open and accessible to all whom it affects.

Curriculum as enacted

When we look at the current VELS trialled and undertaken by many Victorian schools at present, we read what its intentions are from the glossy introductory paper it is written on. However, the individual meaning/s we take away from it and what we enact is the difficulty in constructing curriculum and structuring/assessing/evaluating outcomes. After all, the curriculum does not happen in a vacuum.

For example, the VCAA (2005) revised VELS level 5 document states:

‘Learning focus statements are written for each level. These outline the learning that students need to focus on if they are to progress in the domain and achieve the standards at the levels where they apply. They suggest appropriate learning experiences from which teachers can draw to develop relevant teaching and learning activities’.

It goes on to talk about ‘in depth’ learning from years 5 to 8 and exploring how at years 9 to 10 ‘learning might be applied in that world’ (VCAA, 2005).

As Thomson (2002) looks at it, curriculum is more a ‘verb than a noun. Making curriculum is never complete: it is an ongoing construction given life by specific teachers working with particular students in specific schools. Curriculum is a practice which is embodied. Those who make curriculum invest themselves in it’.

My concern with a curriculum that is enacted differently to the way it was intended to be, is that those with a silenced voice (and here I focus particularly on the Indigenous community) don’t get proper representation when discussing components that need to be delivered to students to gain a complete understanding or perspective of all Australian history and culture. When the curriculum is enacted, we need supervision of the actualities of classroom practice to determine that what we value as a school and society is carried out appropriately, and not place blame on structures that impede our in-depth studying and understanding of these areas.

McClean (cited in Irving (2004) asks do ‘we as educators, with the timetable pressures that are on us, got [sic] the time and patience to work with Indigenous communities and individuals to make Indigenous education successful? Can we be gently persistent and observe the protocols that are necessary? We must!’ Irving supports this by adding that ‘ultimately, all students will be the winners, with relevant, meaningful and accurate curricula that equally value both ways of knowing and being in the world’ (Irving, 2004).

The problem here is that the learning takes place in various ways for different groups. What does learning look like for an immigrant from Sudan, an Indigenous student or a gifted student? What experiences constitutes an application of learning that results in progression against a predetermined standard? Does ‘dumbing down’ the curriculum in disadvantaged schools allow these students to progress the same as students from more advantaged schools? Does taking a different educational pathway disadvantage some students? Whose voice is dominant and whose is silenced?

A curriculum is paramount to specify explicitly these issues and, in my viewpoint, the reason a curriculum should exist. If the curriculum is written without ambiguity, then such issues can be tackled in-depth and with socially moral outcomes.

These are the (types of) questions I would hope are at the forefront of educators’ minds when they deliberate in teams as to what should be taught for the day, week, term and semester, to best meet the needs of their students, so as they can progress logically with an understanding of what the purpose of their learning is.

Curriculum initiatives undertaken by schools, which take the guess work out of these types of questions, include the inclusion of students (and communities) in the creation of school level policies related to curriculum tasks or units of work. Holdsworth identifies 33 such curriculum approaches which ‘commonly involve students designing, implementing and reflecting on approaches to learning through engagement with real issues in their school and wider communities’. He goes onto say that there are a number of aspects, involving communities, that can be explored and that ‘students have the skills and abilities to do these … as well as meeting course objectives and requirements … that have outcomes of real, external and recognised value’ (Holdsworth, 2004)

If curriculum is to matter in a changing world, then it is to be relevant, flexible and open to critique so it can be constantly shaped according to the needs of students and communities. With the national curriculum debate, we have to remember that, state to state, our focus will vary somewhat in terms of what we want from our populace, even though our national identity is calling for synchronised values and beliefs.

Yates (2006) comments on curriculum delivery viewpoints of the past, in which ‘it has often been assumed that if the particular bits of curriculum get taught well, these [core skills] happen. The new developments are saying, let’s consider those outcomes we want to happen and whether the things we do are really nurturing them’.

Wilson takes the standpoint that if we are to gain these core skills through the curriculum; we need to ‘specify a volume of material which is small enough to permit deep learning to occur’ (Wilson, 2003). When reading further into Wilson’s (2003) paper, I find that what the recommendation is, is to take away any teacher input or decision-making in terms of what is to be taught, and how, and have it almost as rigid and prescriptive as the UK educational outline. Taking the stance that if we are to gain the core skills we are intending, and that are aligned to our curriculum documents for our students, we need to be explicit about what needs to be taught. However, currently, we ‘get someone to decide what to teach. At present, and with some variations between systems, it is often the teacher … the effect of this is that we offer teachers little or no guidance about what [how] to teach’ and as a result we miss the mark.

I feel Wilson has got it wrong; to take away teacher [school] choice in what, and how, they teach, is not taking into consideration the various contexts in which our schools exist. The VELS supports the notion of school choice, suggesting a greater emphasis be placed on school autonomy in curricula, as schools (generally) have a greater understanding of their student body and its community. Barcan (2005) suggests that ‘in the 50s and 60s money was the remedy for all educations pitfalls … but it is widely recognised that even if all the money demanded suddenly became available a crisis would still exist’. It depends on what gets done with that money!

Money spent well is very useful in any circumstance. What’s needed is more support for schools, focusing on assessment and evaluation practices, data analysis and programs initiated for improvement.

An example, when visiting Chile in 2005, I witnessed an innovative partnership between business and education sectors to provide state-of-the-art ICT equipment and infrastructure for all schools. This cost millions of dollars. However, where they went wrong, was that little emphasis placed on funding for professional development for teachers, in running this equipment to gain better outcomes for the students. Consequently, the computers were used as ornaments, surfing the net, email, playing games and word processing. Somehow I don’t think this was envisaged in the original plan to achieve better student results.

Curriculum as experience

As Thomson (2002) explains, ‘despite curriculum documents that speak of imagination, innovation and creativity, schools are mostly pretty serious places. Students must do ‘learning-work’ in class’.’

It is the school and planning teams within the school that determine which excursions/incursions to book and the purpose for them; what speakers or special guests to invite to support the curriculum (units); what focus is important in a given subject; how learning takes place and what pedagogies are of greatest value in reaching prescribed standards.

In the end, these experiences shape what our students remember of their schooling and form, in some parts, the culture of the school and the perceptions held overall by students of their teachers. Through experience of planning just such activities, and deciding on learning tasks for students as a team leader and coordinator, students place great emphasis on the types of experiences they are given, which support what they do in class and often speculate whether teachers actually care about their feelings (enjoyment) when planning (learning) experiences for them.

Lannes (2002), when undertaking a study of Brazilian schools and comparing students’ interests with what is being taught, mentions that ‘despite the increased time spent at school, it has become clear that the school …is not capable of fulfilling the majority of the students’ expectations at a moment when so great an amount of new knowledge is being generated and there are so many alternative sources of information’.

Recalling some of Holdsworth’s (2004) suggestions for ‘active student participation through an action based curriculum’, we could incorporate student input and alternative pathways, even at primary school age level, to make student experience more attuned to their expectations. Having contributions from wider bodies that align to the needs of the students and the community could greatly assist in making students’ school experience one of personal relevance, and one in which the outcomes are better than just meeting prescribed standards.

Cusworth et al. (1994) states that even though many changes were recommended for schools, and the way they operated, in the early 90’s across New South Wales, by centralised Boards of Studies, ultimately ‘it is teachers who must implement curriculum initiatives’.

For this reason, we need to guarantee that teachers have greater input into curriculum (initiatives) at state and system level – because if teachers own it they are much more likely to ensure that it succeeds in the classroom. On the other hand, this does not mean teachers control the curriculum entirely, but rather, through bona fide consultation and with their students in mind, guide it more closely to its intended purpose.

Curriculum as hidden

For me, this is the most interesting aspect of the four curriculum components, and the one that has an impact on student outcomes and aspirations. In terms of mattering, in the long term, about what we (teachers, business, politicians, and so on) want from our students, this aspect of the curriculum seems to play a key role. Yates (2006) believes that the ‘hidden curriculum of the messages conveyed to them [students] needs more attention than it has often been given’.

Even though the term ‘hidden’ depicts a curriculum that is not present, it is as present as any other facet of the intended curriculum. However, this component is assessed through getting the viewpoint of the constituents of a particular educational institution focusing specifically on questions pertaining to how they perceive their school, what it is trying to achieve and what messages it sends to the wider community.

Yates, when carrying out the 12 to 18 project longitudinal study, captured some features of the hidden curriculum and what subtleties are conveyed by a school in the way they educate their students. Yates (2000) wanted to focus on ‘ the way, overall, each school [when comparing two middle Australian high schools] seems to be producing a different form of outcomes, a different form of seeing oneself and one’s place in the world and a different form of thinking about other social groups’. These [outcomes] were not necessarily explicitly mentioned in state curriculum frameworks or school policy documents, but rather, implicitly, as the result of day-to-day interactions by its members; students, teachers and parents.

Therefore, if we are to take the stance that curriculum does matter in a changing world, the hidden factor of the curriculum will have to be closely monitored and reviewed by educational institutions, as to the impact it has on the intended curriculum and the perception of the students who experience it.

The curriculum needs to allow schools to define their values, through consultation with its community and with a wider understanding of national and global issues. Following this, schools need to audit their practices in light of these values and adjust their practices accordingly.

What is my school doing in terms of the ‘curriculum’?

In an article by Healey, in which he suggested that, in terms of making school (the curriculum) more relevant and skills based for our students, where they can link their learning from the subjects they are completing to that of post-school opportunities for employment, we need to:

‘Integrate school based learning with community and workplace learning. Teachers should be able to draw upon relevant members of the community, upon business and local government, upon the parents as key resources to extend the school’s capacity to deliver exciting, sound and responsible learning for young people, whether the focus is skill development in general education or in vocational education and training – both areas are skill development, vocational learning opportunities’.
(Healey et al., 2002).

In relation to the above statement by Healey, I would like to briefly outline three examples in which, I believe my school has embodied Healey’s sentiment and much which is good about the current VELS, through taking the curriculum and moulding it around that of the students and their current/future needs, effective and interesting learning opportunities involving the wider school community, stretching the interests of students with special talents, and delivery centred around diverse student needs.

Scientists in School program

This program, initiated and run by a staff member, sought expression of interests from students and parents who were interested in taking part, and contributing to, the program. The science program allows community members to come in and share knowledge about their respective scientific fields, while giving students ‘hands on’ learning experiences.

The program also runs in a time slot different to that of normal curriculum initiatives, in that it commences before school every Tuesday morning at 8am! And still, it is a packed classroom, with enthused students wanting more when the session ends.

The more important point here is that this program has given students some idea of what applied science is about and what a certain vocation entails, and whether they would be interested in pursuing further avenues related to it.

Extending Your Talents program

Extending Your Talents was initiated by a few staff members who felt that we had to cater, not only for the low achieving students, but also for those at the middle and top end of the curriculum. The idea was that teachers invite students they believe have a level of skill, which, if the student is interested, is worthy of being supported and extended further.

Students in these lessons are exposed to more in-depth material and further opportunity to work with like-minded peers in solving applied tasks. They work on the tasks over an entire term during the middle timetable session (11.30am-12.30pm), every Wednesday. Again, the school structure has been changed to accommodate student interest.

Classes currently on offer for students over the next term are: Art, Italian, Physical Education, Drama, Journalism and Maths.

Integrated Studies planning and delivery

The way the interdisciplinary or integrated studies aspect of the VELS is planned and delivered is also noteworthy. We, as a team, start with the end in mind; formulating questions that will focus the exploration of tasks to be completed by students. There is also considerable dialogue surrounding what students should be learning, and why.

A recent unit of work taking into account the relevant VELS standards and outcomes was the one on fair trade. In choosing the particular unit and lessons to complete, it was through consensus as a team that students at ‘this’ school need to be more aware of local, national and global issues which affect them, and how society is shaped through decisions they/we make as consumers.

The learning is then applied by students through making a product that shows learning. Tasks are negotiated to allow students to display individual qualities and viewpoints within a criterion-based assessment document.

Conclusion

In identifying the curriculum as four components: intended, enacted, experienced and hidden, we can begin to formulate an understanding of how these particular aspects relate to student outcomes from school to school, and even grade to grade, and speculate whether curriculum does, indeed, matter.

Through summarising the various ideas raised by the four aforementioned components, we can begin to see that curriculum does matter, in that it is an avenue:

• for marginalised groups to have input
• to balance vocational and skills-based learning
• to align society, school system, student and teacher wants, needs, values and beliefs
• for exploration of issues that affect disadvantaged groups
• to give different pathways (options) to non-academic students, while maintaining academic rigour in alternative ways
• to make sure that aspects that are important to us all are made core
• to constantly review and refine what is important to us all in ever-changing times.

However, it is paramount that the four components, or ways of looking or working with curriculum, are articulated and scrutinised by people in the profession and those who have a vested interest in its successful delivery: all of us in society.

A closing comment by Danzinger (cited in Barcan, 2005), which I think encapsulates why we need curricula, is that ‘what teachers do is how civilisations are built…what happens here at school is, therefore, central to the survival of our civilisation’.

References

Barcan, A, (2005). ‘The disputed curriculum’. In Quadrant. June 2005. pp. 34-45.
Cusworth, R, et al. (1994). ‘Changing the curriculum: an innovative case study’. Paper presented at 1994 AARE conference, Newcastle, 29 November.
Gardner, H, (2004). ‘Discipline, understanding, and community’. In Journal of curriculum studies. 36 (2), pp. 233-236.
Gehrke, N. et al. (1992). ‘In search of the school curriculum’. In Review of research in education. 18 (1), 51-110
Healey, B, et al. (2002). ‘What does ‘learning’ mean in a post-industrial society?’ In Unicorn. 28 (3), pp.18-23.
Holdsworth, R, (2004). ‘Active student participation through an action based curriculum’. AYRC, Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne.
Hopkins, J, (2005). ‘From the ‘coalface’’. In Teacher. August, pp.6-9.
Irving, F, (2004). ‘Can you hear me? Learning to listen to Indigenous voice in the curriculum’. Speech written, from Irving, F (2003) ‘Can you hear me? Are you listening?’ In Professional voice. 2 (3), July 2003 Melbourne: AEU.
Lannes, D, et al. (2002), ‘Brazilian schools: comparing students’ interests with what is being taught’. In Educational research. 44 (2), pp.157-179.
Learning innovation. Newsletter of the Innovative Teaching Forum, University of Western Australia. June 1995.
Thomson, P, (2002). ‘Meddling with modernism: towards a curriculum conversation’. National KLA Conference, Adelaide, 27 June.
Willinsky, John (2005). ‘Just say know? Schooling the knowledge society’. In Educational theory. 55 (1), pp.97-112.
Wilson, B, (2003). ‘How we got the curriculum wrong…’. Paper presented at Queensland Secondary Principals’ Association Conference 2003, 4-6 June, Gold Coast.
Yates, L, et al. (2000). ‘Social justice and the middle’. In Australian education researcher. 27 (3), pp.59-77.
Yates, L. (2005). ‘What can schools do? Knowledge, social identities and the changing world’. Inaugural Professorial Lecture, Deans’ Lecture Series 2005, The University of Melbourne.
Yates, L. (2006). ‘Curriculum vision in the 21st century’. In Learning matters.
Yates, L, (2006). ‘Curriculum for a Knowledge Society’. Course Notes, Master of School Leadership, Semester 1, 2006, The University of Melbourne.
Young, M, (1999). ‘Knowledge, Learning and the Curriculum of the Future’. In British educational research journal. 25 (4), pp.463-477.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2005). ‘Victorian Essential Learning Standards: Level 5. Revised Edition, December 2005. VCAA: Melbourne.