1. Organizing curriculum change: an introduction

Author: Ian Westbury, Jessica Aspfors, Anna-Verena Fries, Sven-Erik Hansén, Frank Ohlhaver, Moritz Rosenmund & Kirsten Sivesind

Source: Journal of Curriculum Studies (22 Nov 2016): 729-743.

Abstract:

This paper introduces the questions and approaches of a five-nation cross-cultural study of state-based curriculum-making discussed in this issue of JCS. The paper reviews the two decade-long interest of many nations in state-based curriculum-making and presents a framework for thinking about state-based curriculum-making as a tool of educational governance.

 

2. State-based curriculum-making, Part I

Author: Kirsten Sivesind & Ian Westbury

Source: Journal of Curriculum Studies (22 Nov 2016): 744-756

Abstract:

This paper frames the problem underlying the cross-cultural Organizing Curriculum Change (OCC) study of state-based curriculum-making. The paper discusses the increased use by states over the past two decades of the century-old instrument of the state-based curriculum and the tool of the curriculum commission. The paper contrasts the slender English-language writing on these institutions with the extensive German literature, with particular emphasis on the post-1970s German analysis and the revisionist analysis of the 1980s.

 

3. State-based curriculum-making, Part 2, the tool-kit for the state’s curriculum-making

Author: Ian Westbury & Kirsten Sivesind

Source: Journal of Curriculum Studies (22 Nov 2016): 757-765

Abstract:

The paper identifies three tools that support the administrative instrument of a state-based curriculum commission: compartmentalization, licensing and segmentation. These tools channel the state’s curriculum-making towards forms of symbolic rather than regulatory action. The state curriculum becomes a framework for the ideological governance of schools and school systems.

 

4. State-based curriculum work and curriculum-making: Norway’s Læreplanverket 1997

Author: Kirsten Sivesind & Ian Westbury

Source: Journal of Curriculum Studies (22 Nov 2016):766-782

Abstract:

This case study of the development of the Norwegian compulsory school curriculum of 1997, Læreplanverket 1997, parallels a study of the development of the Illinois Learning Standards of 1997. The pair of case studies is designed to explore the administration of state-based curriculum-making and, in particular, the use in curriculum-making of the administrative tools of compartmentalization, segmentation and licencing. Often the use of these tools serves to make the curriculum as a guiding instrument largely symbolic and/or ideological.

 

5. State-based curriculum-making: the Illinois Learning Standards

Author: Ian Westbury

Source: Journal of Curriculum Studies (22 Nov 2016):783-802

Abstract:

This case study of the development of the Illinois Learning Standards of 1997 parallels a study of the development of the Norwegian compulsory school curriculum of 1997, Læreplanverket 1997. The pair of case studies is designed to explore the administration of state-based curriculum-making and, in particular, the use of the administrative tools of compartmentalization, segmentation and licencing. Often the use of these tools serves to make the curriculum as a guiding instrument largely symbolic and/or ideological.

 

6. Talk, decisions, and action in curriculum-making: reflections on the ILS and L97 case studies

Author: Ian Westbury

Source: Journal of Curriculum Studies (22 Nov 2016):803-814

Abstract:

Previous papers in this issue of JCS have presented case studies of the state-based curriculum commissions that developed the Illinois Learning Standards of 1997 and Norway’s Læreplanverket 1997 (L97) (1997). The studies were developed using as a framework a body of German research that sees state-based curriculum-making as a tool for managing the interface between school systems and states’ publics and politics. The principal question for this cross-case analysis is the portability of the German framework to the ILS and L97 cases. There many features of the two cases that do mirror the characteristics of Germany’s state-based curriculum-making, which leaves the questions ‘How, when and why was this transnational model of state-based curriculum-making invented?’

 

7. Propedeutics to an international comparative analysis of state-based curriculum-making

Author: Moritz Rosenmund

Source: Journal of Curriculum Studies (22 Nov 2016):815-832

Abstract:

Why should we assume systematic comparative research on state-based curriculum-making to be possible at all, given the high complexity and large variety of institutional forms of educational and political systems across nation-states? On the other hand, how can we explain the significant endeavour of nation-states all over the world to align their curricula with emergent issues, within their systems and on a global scale, if we reject the idea of comparability altogether? Drawing on research aiming at the re-analysis of data from parallel projects on curriculum-making in comparative perspective, this paper outlines some of the questions that need to be answered. It deals, first, with the issue of comparative methodology. It subsequently identifies the nation-state as the explanatory, but not necessarily observational, unit of analysis of research on state-based curriculum-making and discusses relationships between education, state and society. Finally, it attempts to distinguish different sources of challenges to the existing education system and to draw a line from their perception to their awareness and interpretation as issues to deal with and finally to their translation into charges for curriculum developers.

 

8. Enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership via teacher engagement in state-based curriculum-making: the Estonian case

Author: Rain Mikser, Anita Kärner & Edgar Krull

Source: Journal of Curriculum Studies (22 Nov 2016):833-855

Abstract:

Teachers’ curriculum ownership is increasingly gaining attention in many countries. It is particularly important that under the conditions of centralized curriculum-making, teachers as final implementers of curricular ideas identify themselves with these ideas. This study investigates Estonian upper secondary school teachers’ views on the impact that teacher engagement in state-based curriculum-making has had on their feelings of curriculum ownership. Like elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the curriculum policy in Estonia after the fall of communism has attempted to combine state-based curriculum-making with measures to enhance teachers’ curriculum ownership. The study compares the views of two teacher groups—those who participated in state-level curriculum development and those who did not—regarding the curriculum-making process and curriculum documents. Data were gathered by interviewing 34 teachers. As for the theoretical framework, we used Hopmann’s concept of the three basic features of the social process in centralized curriculum-making: compartmentalization, licensing and segmentation. The study revealed that the proclaimed aim of educational policy of enhancing teachers’ curriculum ownership—essentially an attempt at de-segmentation and licensing—has not been achieved due to the opposing tendencies of compartmentalization and segmentation, which are not enunciated but inherent in the curriculum-making process and curriculum documents.