CfE is similar in many respects to other worldwide curriculum development. A notable example is New Zealand’s new National Curriculum. New Zealand has many parallels with Scotland, including being similar in size, and having many remote rural schools. It has puzzled me for some time that the new NZ curriculum has largely received a warm welcome from teachers and the media, the main exception being recent opposition to the imposition of standards-based evaluative assessment. And this is opposed largely because it is seen as acting against the philosophy of the new curriculum.

A report at http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/curriculum/monitoring-and-evaluating-curriculum-implementation-final-evaluation-report-on-the-implementation-of-the-new-zealand-curriculum-20082009/executive-summary provides some clues. There have been difficulties – complexity, difficulties associated with shifting old ways of thinking and a tendency to frame the new in terms of existing practices. However, the new curriculum remains popular, and many schools describe genuine school-based curriculum development, rather than merely auditing existing practice (as has often been the case with CfE).

The above report and conversations with academics working in New Zealand suggest a number of reasons why the NZ curriculum has been more smoothly implemented than CfE:

  • There was systematic engagement at the development phase with teachers and other stakeholders. This has meant that implementation has proceeded on the basis of considerable clarity about purposes and methods, as well as a widespread consensus that the new curriculum is merited.
  • In NZ there was a sense of the curriculum ‘catching up’ with teachers existing ‘constructivist’ approaches, rather than what in Scotland is a less comfortable fit between the curriculum and many teachers existing views about education. In NZ, many teachers see themselves as facilitators of learning, rather than as ‘transmissionist’ deliverers of content. In Scotland, I think the latter views are more prevalent, as is evidenced by widespread talk about ‘delivering’ the curriculum/outcomes/learning.
  • Linked to this, in NZ there were considerable efforts to make the underpinning learning theory explicit – in contrast to CfE where, for example, teachers are exhorted to develop active learning, AifL techniques, etc., without the underpinning theory being considered too deeply.

The question here is: ‘how do we draw on these insights to inform the future development of the curriculum in Scotland?’.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s