Curriculum Flexibility: Critical Questions to Teachers, Schools, Teacher Educators And

Curriculum flexibility: critical questions to teachers, schools, teacher educators and researchers

Manuela Esteves

Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Lisbon

E-mail:

EUROPEAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

ECER 2002 – LISBOA

September 12th, 2002

Paper presented at the session 3B of the Network 3:

European Curriculum Research (ECUNET)

Portuguese basic education is undergoing an important curriculum reform. Recurrent findings of poor levels of achievement by the majority of pupils from 1st to 9th grades and a very large dissatisfaction with precedent curricular policies lead to the urgency of this reform.

Precedents of the curriculum reform

No real and extensive diagnosis of this unsatisfactory situation ever took place. But there are several evidences about the nature of problems we face.

Teachers were invited in the school year of 1996/97 to identify, reflect and debate collectively about the problematic curriculum issues in basic education. This operation called “Participated reflection about the curriculum” had the virtue of convening large thousands of teachers to discuss about the very important curriculum problems they face everyday and every year. But because of the methodology adopted to manage and to summarize this debate, no clear ideas were generated, neither a synthesis of proposals was subjected to general consideration.

On the other hand, in the field of educational research some efforts have been made to identify factors and motives responsible for the failure of past expectations of a greater academic success of pupils, namely raised by the precedent basic education curriculum reform (1989-1994). But the studies carried out, mostly case studies, even if they were able to produce in-depth insights of what was going on in a particular set - school or classroom-, were not in measure to present broader conclusions useful to curriculum development changes at a national level.

Finally, some comparative international studies, as PISA for example, even if their main purpose is to measure and compare pupils performances, give some elements and partial answers about what is happening in the field of curriculum development in each country involved.

Aims of the reform movement

In the absence of an effective diagnosis, the educational political authorities decided to implement a new curriculum reform called “basic education curriculum reorganization” (finally published in a decree of January 2001). The aims pointed by the reorganization may be seen as a reverse portrait of the negative traits the authorities recognized in the present situation. We will recall those aims here:

–to guarantee a basic education for all;

– to pay particular attention to situations of exclusion;

–to clarify the demands about the core apprenticeship and the ways it should be developed;

–to reinforce the links from one cycle to another inside basic education both at curriculum and organizational levels;

–to create three new curriculum areas: an area of supervised study, an area of interdisciplinary project work and an area of civic education;

–to make compulsory the use of experimental methods in the teaching-learning activities in sciences;

–to foster the educational processes in modern languages;

–to develop artistic education;

–to reinforce the core curriculum of Portuguese language and of mathematics.

Following a pattern already identified in many other educational systems, the current process of changes stands mainly upon decisions to be taken by schools and teachers and relatively less on decisions of the political and administrative authorities than it has been done in the past.

Educational authorities explicitly admitted the “need to abandon an image of the curriculum as a set of norms and rules to be followed in every classroom in a way supposed to be uniform” and “the need to support the development of new practices of curriculum management, in the context of a greater school autonomy”.

As Boyd (1990) pointed out, after a first wave of curriculum reforms in the eighties characterized by their centralized and bureaucratic nature, in the late eighties and in the nineties, in the USA, a second wave arrived emphasizing notions as “teacher professionalism” and “school restructuring”. It was argued that decentralization, flexibility and autonomy are essential to motivate teachers and to face the diversity of students population.

Even if it was thought to explain curriculum changes in another national situation we suppose that this framework may also be applied to what happened in Portugal from the curriculum reform of 1989-94 to the reform that is being implemented since 1997.

The main guiding principles of the present reform are then:

–to develop school’s and teacher’s autonomy related with curriculum design and implementation;

– to counterbalance the subject matter based curriculum by introducing non disciplinary curricular areas;

– to focus pupil’s learning on the development of competencies;

–to differentiate teaching practices and students opportunities to learn;

–to develop evaluation as a continuous activity to monitor both school performance and pupil learning;

–to empower teachers councils and teachers working teams.

Early experiences

Experiences were developed in several schools before the generalization of the present curriculum reform which took place in the school year of 2001/02. Between 1997 and 2001, several schools ranging from 10 in the first year to 180 in the latest, adopted in a volunteer basis a set of curriculum innovations under the guidelines of the “Flexible Curriculum Management Project” presented by the Ministry of Education.

Those innovations are now being adopted by all schools.

That is why we thought it would be interesting to work upon thirty reports prepared by basic schools involved in the early experience of the new curriculum.

In some of these cases, twelve research teams from different universities and polytechnic schools followed and/or evaluated the development of those experiences. We also considered the reports they published.

We intended to analyse the results reported by school teachers and by academic teams with two main purposes:

–to illuminate the critical questions raised by the implementation of a school focused curriculum within the framework of a centralized educational administration;

–to perceive the needs for a more specialized initial and continuing education of teachers in the field of curriculum development.

Schools share their experiences

Thirty basic schools accepted the invitation to report the projects they developed, their successes, their failures and the difficulties they found in implementing innovations.

There are different types of schools under consideration here as may be seen in the next table.

Type of school / Total
Integrate basic school (1-9 grades) / 5
Basic school – 1st cycle (1-4 grades) / 5
Basic school 2nd-3rd cycles (5-9 grades) / 17
Basic school 2nd-3rd cycles +Secondary
(5-12 grades) / 1
Basic school 3rd cycle + Secondary
(7-12 grades) / 2

Reports published in 2001 were treated by a content analysis procedure to highlight (i) the motives that lead these schools to adopt the flexible curriculum management, (ii) the main focuses of their efforts and (iii) the outcomes they believe they obtained.

We distinguished references having to do with pupils and references about teachers.

The next two tables summarize our findings.

SCHOOL PROJECTS OF FLEXIBLE CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT (N=30)

Motives for adoption, main focuses and outcomes of the project in relation with pupils needs and interests

MOTIVES /

n

/

MAIN FOCUSES

/

n

/

OUTCOMES

/

n

Low levels of achievement / 22 / To develop learning through projects / 14 / Improvement in interpersonal relationships / 9
Difficulties related to great socio-economic and socio-cultural differences / 16 / To develop study competences / 12 / Greater involvement in school activities / 5
Increasing lack of motivation to learn / 12 / To educate for a responsible citizenship / 11 / Greater autonomy / 4
Intolerance and conflicts in multicultural contexts / 4 / To raise pupils motivation and self esteem / 10 / Increased self esteem / 3
Weak possibilities of access to cultural sources in rural areas / 3 / To individualize evaluation / 5 / Higher success rates / 3
Dominance of curriculum seen only as instruction / 2 / To develop cooperative work among students / 4 / More collaborative work / 1
Difficulties in selecting and interpreting information / 1 / Lower early school leave rates / 1

Comments:

Clearly, the more frequent motivation that lead schools into this experience was the recognition of pupils’ low levels of academic achievement (22 cases). But when results are mentioned, only three schools report they obtained higher success rates. Positive outcomes were verified mainly in the field of attitudes and affective dispositions (interpersonal relationships, involvement, autonomy, self esteem, collaboration). The question we raise is if teachers paid enough attention to the development and evaluation of strategies meant to improve teaching and learning namely in what concerns classroom activities.

SCHOOL PROJECTS OF FLEXIBLE CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT (N=30)

Motives for adoption and main focuses of the project in relation with

teachers needs and interests

MOTIVES / n / MAIN FOCUSES / n
To surpass the prescriptive view of the curriculum / 5 / To plan learning projects adapted to specific students and groups / 14
To counteract the strong individualism of teachers work / 5 / To develop collaborative work among teachers / 14
To deal better with the large amount contents in most subjects / 2 / To rebuilt professional knowledge upon new basis: experimenting innovations, reflection and action-research / 9
To meet teacher education needs in the field of curriculum development / 2 / To focus curriculum in the development of students’ competencies / 8
To surpass the additive view of knowledge in a curriculum divided by disciplines / 2 / To empower teachers’ teams / 8
To cope with the lack of spaces for collective reflection / 1 / To clarify new concepts in the field of curriculum theory / 8
To change teaching practices / 5
To promote better curriculum articulations / 4
To profit from multicultural school contexts / 2

Comments:

Motives invoked by schools to justify the adoption of a flexible curriculum management are less frequently related with teachers’ than with pupils’ needs and interests. The two strongest kinds of motives here have to do with the desire of abandoning traditional conceptions of the curriculum and with the will to develop a new professional culture among teachers enhancing collaborative work and collective decision making.

Teachers and schools found some difficulties in implementing the innovations they decided. Next table gives a portrait of those difficulties as mentioned in the reports.

School projects of flexible curriculum management (N=30)

DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS / n
Finding and managing spaces and time for collaborative work among teachers / 13
Insufficient preparation of teachers in the field of curriculum development / 6
Questioning of the traditional teachers’ identity and of their professionalism / 5
Strong variation of the teaching staff from one school year to another / 5
Teachers conservatism / 5
Planning adequate group/class projects / 5
Mixed feelings (desire/fear) about school autonomy / 4
Reorganizing subject matter teaching-learning activities / 4
Rethinking evaluation procedures / 4
Conflicting opinions about the definition of a core curriculum / 3
Lack of school centred in-service teacher education / 3
Lack of motivation to innovate / 3

Final remarks

The first critical question we identified as to do with the concept of curriculum itself. Traditionally, curriculum was thought as a plan of studies. The turn to a concept of curriculum as the set of educational experiences decided and provided at school level and the outcomes in terms of effective pupils learning is still difficult to assume by teachers in their professional culture and in the day to day activities.

Secondly, the promise of a larger autonomy in developing the curriculum has lead also to frequent misunderstandings: teachers appear quite divided between those who think there exists no real autonomy since a strictly local curriculum is not to be conceived and implemented, and those who think autonomy as a compromise of the local with the national standards for curriculum development.

Thirdly, flexibility – another key-concept of the present curricular reform – is frequently seen only at the light of the power schools have nowadays to decide how to distribute learning time by different subject matters, within certain limits. But flexibility in deciding what educational objectives to pursue, what teaching strategies to use, what means of assessment and evaluation to develop with particular students in a particular context, being as we see it, the more important issues in a flexible curriculum management, still appear to most teachers too difficult to plan and to implement.

Evidence gathered in case studies show clearly the importance of this difficulties when teachers are to deal with the new made demands of planning curricular school and class projects.

The development of interdisciplinary projects by students, the organization of a “learning how to study” area and of civic education activities as elements of the new curriculum design are demanding not only teamwork among teachers in a way they were not used to, but also their professional development in the field of curriculum issues.

Both initial and continuing education of teachers need to be reconceptualized if we want to give an adequate support to this new trends in Portuguese curriculum development. Simply to add new subject matters to teacher education programs doesn’t seem to be enough to solve the problems identified. In our opinion there is clearly a need to rethink and reinforce the links among academic preparation, educational research and school fieldwork.

References

Boyd, W. (1990). “Balancing control and autonomy in school reform: the politics of Perestroika”. In j. Murphy (ed.), The educational reform movement of the 1980s. Perspectives and cases. California: McCutchan

Departamento de Educação Básica, M.E. (ed.). (2001). Gestão flexível do currículo. Escolas partilham experiências. Lisboa: DEB-ME

Departamento de Educação Básica, M.E. (ed.). (2002). Gestão flexível do currículo. Reflexões de formadores e investigadores. Lisboa: DEB-ME

Esteves, M. (2000) “Flexibilidade curricular e formação de professores” Revista de Educação, IX, 1,117-123

Esteves, M. (2002) “Gestão curricular e estratégias de formação de professores” in Departamento de Educação Básica, M.E. (ed.). Gestão flexível do currículo. Reflexões de formadores e investigadores. Lisboa: DEB-ME

Fernandes, M. R. (2000). Mudança e inovação na pós-modernidade. Perspectivas curriculares. Porto: Porto Editora