Towards a Better Future

Recommendations

Info

Chapter Three: Curriculum PART TWO: A NEW APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN Leading and Supporting Change in Schools, 2009 In 2009, the NCCA published a discussion paper on Leading and Supporting Change in Schools that, inter alia, identified the key role of teachers in the implementation of change and explored how lasting change in teaching, learning, school culture and implementation could be achieved. The document emphasised that ‘realising deep educational change can only happen through teachers and school management and their interactions and relationships with the learner.’ It recognised the need to give schools greater autonomy in setting the agenda for change at the local level and the need to involve teachers and schools in both planning for change as well as involving them in the process of change (NCCA, 2009). As a result of debate and discussion, and in line with developments in curriculum planning internationally, the NCCA made significant changes in its approach to curriculum and syllabus planning and design in 2009. The NCCA’s revised approach emphasised a ‘learning outcomes’ approach to curriculum design, the role of teachers as curriculum developers and the use of an online portal. Learning Outcomes Approach Under the ’learning-outcomes’ approach, new curricula and syllabi would be specified in terms of topics and learning outcomes – it would be a matter for individual teachers to interpret these topics and learning outcomes and to plan their teaching accordingly. A learning-outcomes approach to curriculum and programme planning has been widely adopted internationally in recent years. It is used by many OECD countries for designing early years, primary and second-level curricula and has been adopted in the US, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, as well as in the 50 countries of the European Higher Education Area (under the Bologna agreement) as a tool for designing higher education programmes (Hyland et al 2007). In the early 2000s, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) produced a national curriculum framework for primary and second-level schools that has many parallels to the NCCA’s approach. In 2012/13, the council of federal, state, and territory education ministers in Australia endorsed a revised Senior Cycle curriculum ‘as the agreed and common base for the development of state and territory senior secondary courses’. A learning outcomes approach was also adopted in 2010/11 in the curriculum frameworks developed by Education Scotland – Scotland’s national curriculum authority (Hyland, 2014). However, there is an important distinction between those countries and Ireland. In the case of Australia and Scotland, there is an intermediate structure between the national curriculum body and the schools, which mediates and interprets the national curriculum and provides detailed guidelines and support for individual schools. As indicated above, each Australian state and territory has its own education ministry and Scotland has 32 individual local — 33 —
Towards a Better Future: A Review of the Irish School System education authorities. In Ireland, there is no such intermediate framework, apart from the Education and Training Boards for vocational schools and community colleges. Moreover, while a learning-outcomes approach is learner-focused and provides clear information on what a learner is expected to know and to be able to do following the completion of a programme, defining a curriculum solely in terms of learning outcomes has its limitations. Learning outcomes are statements of essential learning, and as essential learning, they are written at minimum acceptable or threshold (pass/fail) standard. The learning described in learning outcomes is the learning that must be attained in order that the learner can be deemed to have passed a minimum threshold (Moon, 2000). For implementation purposes, it can be argued that a curriculum requires greater specification in order to enable teachers to ensure that the level and depth at which the subject is being taught is appropriate to the stage of progression of their students. A curriculum or syllabus that focuses only on (minimum) learning outcomes is at risk of under-estimating and underchallenging higher achievers and failing those with learning difficulties. Teachers as Curriculum Developers In explaining the emphasis on teacher involvement in the NCCA’s revised model of curriculum planning, Anne Looney, CEO of the NCCA, described teachers as ‘agents of curriculum development’ and stated that ‘their practice is valued, not as a site of curriculum ‘implementation’ but as a context for innovation’ (Looney, 2014). Her colleague, John Hammond, made a similar point in 2011 when he said ‘… In the context of developments in curriculum and assessment, these things are best achieved by growing the capacity of schools as centres of innovation and change, by supporting and developing the professionalism of teachers, thereby improving the most important interaction in education which is between the teacher and the learner in the classroom’ (Hammond et al, 2011). It goes without saying that teachers play a hugely significant role in planning, developing and implementing curricula. There is nothing new about this realisation. Experience of school-based and teacher-based curriculum development is not new in Ireland – especially at primary level, where schools and teachers have been encouraged since 1971 to use a school-based approach to curriculum planning. Curriculum and lesson planning has been a significant component of initial teacher education programmes for primary teachers since the 1970s. However, for many second-level teachers and principals, a school-based approach to curriculum planning and development is a relatively novel development and one of which many have little (if any) expertise or experience. For many generations of second-level teachers, the Junior and Leaving Certificate syllabi were their ‘bible’, and they have traditionally relied unduly heavily on the prescribed syllabus and on textbookbased teaching. — 34 —
Page 1 and 2: Towards a BETTER FUTURE A Review of
Page 3 and 4: Published in Ireland by IPPN (the I
Page 5 and 6: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 47: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 99 and 100:
Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
show all

Towards a Better Future

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?