Examining curricula in different countries, it seems that there
can be a gap between what the curriculum prescribes and what is actually being
taught at the class level. This discrepancy
is mainly down the fact that at the grass-root level, teachers are predominantly
concerned with how the examination boards examine different parts of the curriculum
and their teaching is focused on what is required to pass examinations
successfully. In this sense, the high
stake assessment drives the curriculum content which is being taught to
students, especially if the programmes of study are not sufficiently linked
with attainment targets.
This concerns me as we are currently on the brink of
introducing the new national curriculum content aimed at raising educational
standards. The policy makers appear to
be convinced that the new national curriculum with its greater focus on early
knowledge acquisition will be a driver for much needed improvement in
educational standards. So far, the curriculum content has been emphasised with
little reference to aims and purposes, despite the recommendations by the
Expert Panel (James, Oats, Pollard, Wiliam) who stated in their report[1]
We believe defining
curricular aims is the most effective way of establishing and maintaining
coherent provision.
If the Government is
sincere in its desire to reduce central prescription, we need to evaluate the
goals implicit in our current practices and select only those that provide a
sound basis for the future. In other words, we need be very clear about the
particular aims and purposes of the school curriculum and the justification for
them – bearing in mind the needs of society, the nature of knowledge, and the
needs of pupils, as well as comparisons with other jurisdictions. Then we need
to be thorough in our analysis of what content will serve them best.
The Expert Panel also advised about a proper consultation
process with all stakeholders involved and cautioned against the pace of
changes:
...we believe it is
right that there should be a period of engagement/consultation on the key
decisions that have the potential to radically change the National Curriculum,
beyond changes to the content. This is important given the pace of the review.
In Hong Kong, a review process
extended over a decade[2].
So far, most of the recommendations have been ignored.
Although Programmes of Study for some subjects have been published, they are
being developed as-we-go-along and it would seem without much considered
attention to aims and purposes, as the only aim seems to be the rush to push
the changes through.
Do the policy makers really believe that the new framework
has the “potential to result in radical change to the National Curriculum,
beyond change to curriculum content” (Expert Panel Review)? The risk could be another missed opportunity
and that risk seems very real indeed.
If the Programmes of Study are not sufficiently linked to effective
assessment that defines the expected standards, the danger again is that the
new curriculum may fail to raise standards – the raison d’être behind driving
all the changes. The experts agreed:
We emphasise the
importance of establishing a very direct and clear relationship between ‘that
which is to be taught and learned’ and assessment (both formative and ongoing and periodic and
summative).
The threat still remains that if these direct links between
what is being taught and assessed are not established at the onset, high-stake
testing developed by examination boards to serve the new qualifications may be
the real driver for what is being taught and learnt. Unless there are well developed, explicit
Programmes of Study clearly linked to Attainment Targets defining expected
standards, the danger is that teachers will teach to-the-test and schools will
deliver irrelevant qualifications in the quest for satisfying self-manipulated accountability
aims (in the high-stakes accountability game of meeting required standards), despite
the Panel recommending to, “reduce the flexibility schools currently enjoy to
ensure that the Key Stage 4 curriculum meets the vocational and academic
aspirations of their students at the time”.
The students only have one chance – let’s give them the best
chance possible.
[1]
Department for Education,
(2011). The Framework for the National Curriculum. A report by the Expert Panel
for the National Curriculum review. (London: Department for Education).
[2]
Kwok, S., (2008). New
Horizons in Cultivation of Talents: a decade of education in Hong Kong. (Hong
Kong: Education Bureau).
No comments:
Post a Comment