التعليم القائم على المعايير 5562

التعليم القائم على المعايير

STANDARDS-BASED EDUCATION

لطلب هذه الدراسة تحت رقم  (5562) مترجم الى العربية نرجو مراسلتنا على الايميل التالي info@googangroup.com   لطلب العمل الرجاء ذكر رقم العمل مباشرة عند الطلب .

www.googangroup.com 

قسم الدراسات 

المقدمة

يُعرّف "المعيار" وفق قاموس ماكميلان الإنجليزي، بأن هو مستوى الجودة أو الإنجاز خصوصا ذلك الذي يعتبره الناس عموما عادي أو مقبول، وهو يستخدم للحكم على شخص ما أو شيء ما ويصاغ أو يوضع حسب مجموعة من القواعد والمقاييس المقبولة عموما (ص1395).

إن فكرة استخدام المعايير كأساس للنظام التربوي ليست شيئا جديدا لا في المفهوم ولا في الممارسة. ففي أرجاء العالم، تبنت نظم التعليم بعض المفاهيم عن المعايير وبينما قد تختلف هذه المفاهيم، فإن الشيء المشترك بين هذه المفاهيم يتمثل في الإدانة الشديدة بأن المعايير سوف تساعد في إنجاز التلاميذ. يقيس نظام التعليم القائم على المعايير كل طالب قياسا على معيار مجرد، بدلا من قياس جودة الطالب مقارنة بالآخرين. يتعلم الطالب عموما أفضل في البيئة التي تعتمد على المعايير بسبب أن الجميع يعمل على تحقيق نفس الهدف. إن استخدام المعايير أيضا يسيطر أيضا على ميول المعلم لمقارنة أداء الطالب مقابل طالب آخر أي الترتيب بالرجوع إلى المعايير ولكن بدلا ذلك يقيس أداء الطالب على مجموعة من المعايير الصريحة المتفق عليها. إن تبنى المعايير أيضا ينتقل بعيدا عن تعليمات الفصل التي تطرحها تشكيلة من كتب النصوص سواء بالصدمة أو بالتصميم. في تلك الحالة، يصبح تعليم الطالب هو البؤرة، حيث تستهدف المعايير مستوى عالي وعميق من فهم الطالب، بدلا من الاقتصار على محتوى كتاب النصوص. وفي السياق الذي لا توجد فيه المعايير الشائعة في النظام، هناك احتمال أن يضع كل طالب معاييره الخاصة، وإذا نظرنا إلى هذا الأمر في المدارس، سنجد أن مطالب المدرسة من الطالب ستكون مختلفة. في هذا الصدد، إن المقارنات بين المدارس لأي سبب كان، وربما أهمها هو معرفة مدى تقدم المدرسة في تقديم التعليم، قد تثبت صعوبته الشديدة بسبب عدم التناسق في المقام الأول.

ومن الموضوعات في هذه الدراسة 

المناهج الدراسية الوطنية في المملكة المتحدة

 المناهج الدراسية الوطنية في فنلندا   

المنهج الوطني نيوزيلندا

 STANDARDS-BASED EDUCATION

Introduction

According to Macmillan English Dictionary, a ‘standard’ is “a level of quality or achievement, especially one that people generally consider normal or acceptable; used for judging someone or something, made or done according to a generally accepted set of rule, measurements” (p. 1395)

The idea of the use of standards as a foundation for an education system is not something that is novel, in concept nor in practice. Across the world, education systems have adopted some notion of standards, and whilst these may differ, the commonality between these is the deep-seated conviction that the standards will help with students’ achievement. A standards-based system measures each student against a concrete standard, instead of measuring how well the student performs as compared to others. Students generally learn better in a standards-based environment because everybody's working towards the same goal. The use of standards also takes away the teacher’s tendencies to compare a student’s performance against that of another, i.e. norm-reference rankings, but instead gauges the students’ performance against a set of agreed explicit standards. The adoption of standards also moves away from classroom instruction being driven by a selection of textbooks, either by accident or by design. As such, student learning becomes the focus, where standards aim for a high and deep level of student understanding, than limited to the textbook content. In a context where common standards do not exist in the system, there is the possibility of each teacher setting his/her own standards, and if this is viewed across schools, we will find that school demands on students will be different. In this respect, comparison across schools, for whatever reason, and perhaps most importantly, to know how schools are progressing in education provision, may prove to be very challenging, for the reason of inconsistencies in the first instance.

Harris and Carr (1996) describe how various stakeholders in an education system may benefit from the setting of standards. For the state, standards become a common reference tool and provide a defined framework for national assessment. For districts and schools, standards are pivotal for the development of ways to organize curriculum content, instructional programs and assessment plans. In instruction, teachers use standards as guide to design curriculum, instruction and assessment on the basis of learning priorities. With the existence of standards too, teachers are able to convey to students what expectations are set for their learning, which will help improve their learning. In addition, with the clear performance expectations, students will understand what they are required to do in order to meet the expectations. And lastly, standards provide parents clear expectations for the children’s learning, and thus they are able to objectively see their development.

The adoption of a standards-based education system also requires a systemic change is made to the teaching-learning process, where the curriculum, instruction, assessment and teacher professional development are all aligned, based on the standards requirement. Systemic reform is required for successful implementation of standards-based education. According to Clune (2001), the impact of standards occurs through the dynamic interaction of reform activities, policies related to the content and implementation of standards, and a curriculum that includes content and pedagogy that align with standards. Thus, Clune’s analysis emphasizes the role of systemic reform in standards-based education. Teacher buy-in is very important in the implementation of SBE. It is important that standards are treated as ‘vision and guidance versus top-down mandate” (Au, 2010).

The governments of countries usually are inclined to control the content of the curriculum, and to a certain etxtent, the manner of delivery and details of instruction. This is so as the way these are done may have some influence and repercussions on the thinking, and behaviour of its people. (Kennedy, 1996). While there are many variations to the curriculum model, there seems to be a tendency for governments to centralize educational change (Kennedy, 1996).  Curriculum reform, being part of the educational change, happens due to a number of changes, including, and usually are globalisation, new technology, the knowledge economy and cultural diversity as well as developments in teaching and learning (Bruniges, 2005).

Curriculum reform related to the inclusion of standards as a guide and framework for teaching and learning carries many nomenclature. While in the United States, whose practice description and analysis feature heavily in many publications, the term used to refer to a standards-based system is standards-based reform (SBE); and then common core standards – following a review (and the implications for practice are different); in many other countries, the practice is known through the existence of a national curriculum.

The idea of a standard assumes that everyone is in agreement about issues which seem simple enough: What should our children be learning in school? How should they learn these? How can we ensure they learn them and how do we know that they have learnt them? (Avenstrup, 2007). These elements are echoed by Lyn & Ceri (2000), who contend that while there may be differing views on the paths that one may take in a standards-based education system, there is a commonality with regard to three major tenets: (1) Learning goals i.e., standards are specified, (2) standards apply to all students, (3) assessment provides feedback about student performance relative to the standards. From general observation of a standards-based system in practice, these are simple notions where, in implementation, teachers know what the standards are and choose classroom activities and teaching strategies that enable students to achieve the standards. The standards are also made known to the students, and they too are aware of how and what they will be assessed on, and what would give them a good ‘position’. In other words, expectations of the school on them are made explicit. Parents too know the standards, and as such are able to help the students with their homework, and any other extra studying in which they might wish to engage. School administrators, on their part, will know what support and resources that will have to be put in place in order for the school to ensure that students achieve the standards.

A simplistic description of the process involved in an education system that adopts the standards-based education is as follows: firstly, the standards will have to be set. These are usually learning standards or content standards, and are also commonly referred to as the curriculum framework. Once these are established, the framework needs to be operationalised and developed, so that teachers can use these as a guide to help their students master the standards. These are usually known as the syllabus. Based on the syllabus, teachers then will design the course content and also decide on the best method or strategies to use for instructional purposes. It is based on the above then that students’ performance will be assessed, which also reflects on the schools’ performance. Results of the assessment will then be used to make improvement with respect to the teaching and learning. It is evident from the processes involved that the processes of planning, delivering, monitoring and improving courses are pivotal in a system that is oriented towards a uniform standard.

This review will look at standards-based education, specifically, at the models of implementation, from various countries across the globe: the United States, Finland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand; describing the system, and providing a review of the system in place. Each account will describe the curriculum, its implementation and the current state of affairs. An overall summary is provided at the end of the review.

Standards-based education in the United States

The call for clear, measureable standards in American schools came in the form of Standards-based Education (SBE, from hereon) reform. The first report that was produced that marked the standards movement is “A Nation at Risk”, by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. The SBE reform was propagated actively based on the premise that every single student is able to reach higher levels of achievement, provided certain conditions are met i.e., “achievement levels are clearly defined, students know in advance what they have to do to meet them; and teaching, learning and assessment are designed in ways that support the achievement of students who work hard” (Education Commission of the States, Denver, 2002:3). In the same policy brief seven principles of SBE are delineated. It was contented that, when used as guiding factors for a SBE system, student learning and achievement will improve. The seven principles are (1) challenging standards apply to all students; (2) standards are clear, tangible and widely communicated; (3) success is based on the provision of adequate time and student effort; (4) A variety of instructional strategies are used; (5) curriculum, assessments are instruction are aligned with content standards; (6) a variety of assessment tools are used; and (7) multiple levels of academic achievement are established.

It is believed that the setting of clear and high standards for all students will lead the students to gain the knowledge and skills they will need to have to “be vital members of the American workforce and a democratic society” (Education Commission of the States, Denver, 2002, 3). SBE is also meant to address the issue of accountability - to provide information to the general public on how well schools are doing. The SBE reform is supported by a United States Act of Congress, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.

Whilst the general standards are set centrally, the specifics of how students would be taught the standards would be left to local decision-makers. This concurs with Au (2010) who contends that standards are not meant to be highly specific; rather they are supposed to provide a broad vision and make explicit the important outcomes expected from student learning. They should also enable the teacher, at the implementation level, to interpret and hence decide on the specifics of what to actually teach. This element of local decision-making, i.e., individual states setting their own standards, was the major factor that made the American standards-based system different from the national curricula model used by many other countries, where all states within the country adopt the same standards.

Prior to the SBE reform and movement, while there was a system in place, it was believed that sufficiently clear standards were lacking then, and that district standards documents that were used as guides were not helping schools achieve the focus and alignment that were thought necessary for success. In words used by Schmoker and Marzano, there was “chaos” (1999: 19), and that it was this “state of chaos” that became the rationale for the standards movement.

Thirty years after the first report most often associated with the beginning of the standards movement (“A Nation at Risk”, by National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) was released, many issues are still being brought to the forefront on SBE. For the most part, many agree on the need for a standard, but many also (amongst teachers) question on their own preparedness for teaching towards the standards set. It would appear also that based on our review of conclusions made on the effectiveness of the SBE with specific reference to curriculum, instruction and assessment, similar chaos to that mentioned by Schmoker and Marzano (1999), has been created and perpetuated. The ‘new’ standards have resulted in “bloated and poorly written standards that almost no one can realistically teach to or ever hope to adequately assess” (Schmoker and Marzano, 1999, 19). The issue of a content that is overloaded in quantity has surfaced, making the curriculum unmanageable, and hence having repercussions with regard to instruction and assessment. Meaningful, rather than rhetorical alignment with assessments is questioned (Schmoker and Marzano, 1999, 21).

In a SBE system, it is important that the teacher understands the alignment of elements in the system - the curriculum, the instruction, the assessment, teacher evaluation and resource allocation, so as the “unit is truly effective” (Gaddy, Dean and Kendall; 2002:12). Whilst it may seem that the need for the alignment is easily and logically understood, it appears to be more challenging in practice. In a study on teachers’ insights on the implementation of SBE (Chambers & Dean, 2000), teachers were not able to easily ‘translate’ what SBE meant for their practice in and out of the classroom. Research also shows that teacher support may be lacking, and needs improvement, where instructional support system in schools need to be given more attention and allocation of resources, including for curriculum, instruction, professional development, and interventions for more at-risk students  (Resnick and Zurawsky, 2005).

In terms of alignment also, in a SBE system, assessment is tightly linked to the teaching and learning that happens in the classroom. Baines and Stanley (2006:120) argue that “the great advantage in having a fixed, controlled curriculum aligned with an exam is that student progress can be neatly charted over a period of time” and also that “it virtually assures student progress”. This is so because what gets taught is virtually what gets tested. The mirroring approach ensures that teachers plan and deliver their lessons in consideration of the scope of the exam. Proponents of the standard-based curriculum further warm to this idea in a context where school reputation rides on students’ success, as gauged by how well they do in the exams. The employment of a fixed curriculum, nevertheless, is not without problems. For one, it assumes that “knowledge is static, that what is important to know now will be the same as what will be important thirty years hence” (Baines and Stanley, 2006, 120). In addition, the neat and tidy way in which knowledge is presented in the curriculum digresses from the notion of real learning; it does not provide much room for trial and error, and as is the case with many discussions and opposition on standards, there is the fear of it curbing innovation (Baines and Stanley, 2006). 

The issue of teachers, resources and instructional support is also one that is very prominent in any teaching and learning context, as it is in the US in the context of SBE reform.  While the logic of having standards for student learning, developing consensus around the standards, connecting the standards to an assessment programme, and having an accountability system with actual consequences seem simple (Loeb et al, 2008), the implication in action, especially for teachers, are serious and are central to the success of standards-based reform (Rowan, 1996). Loeb et al (2008) carried out a study in Washington State in trying to ascertain connections between the reform and teaching practice. The study generally found that teachers do respond to the state reform, as expected (i.e., based on the theory that teachers will pay attention to the reform, will try to meet the demands of the policy and will adjust their instruction appropriately). The teachers in the study were found to have made efforts in ensuring that they were familiar with the state reform, and found that their leadership was supportive of their requirement as a result of the reform. The teachers were found to have also adjusted their teaching practices to align with the standards and ensured that assessment that was carried out, are mapped to the standards. They were also seen to be taking the results of the assessment seriously, ensuring that instructions were geared towards the assessment. Loeb et al (2008) commented that this pattern echoed the common concern with standard-based reform, which is ‘teaching to the test’.

On the downside however, the same study found that the reforms have not sufficiently prompted or assisted teachers to serve all students equally well. Teachers reported that while their classrooms were seeing greater diversity, the teachers did not feel that all the students will be able to rise to the standard that is required at their grade-level. Very small proportion of teachers in fact engaged in teaching practices that would address the need of a diverse student population; and linked to this was the teachers’ own preparedness to serve this group of students. Further linked to this, was also the teachers’ opportunities for learning to work effectively with a diverse group of students, of which a majority of the teachers have had, but who view this as not necessarily being the most valuable. Generally, in this respect, the findings point to the need for more effective support for the teaching of a diversified group of students. In all teachers felt that whilst standards have become part and parcel of their job description, the standards do not sit comfortably with some teachers, in that support was felt to be too little, and that special learning needs of a more diversified group of students was not well served.

Linked to the issue of student diversity is also the idea of success being gauged by students’ performance; which is challenging in respect to managing and catering to the varying ability levels in any given typical classroom, as we have seen in Loeb et al’s (2008) study above. One of the greatest challenges of standards-based instruction implementation in the US, is providing equitable focus in the classroom, to the top proportion and the struggling proportion of the classroom population, as the focus is largely given to the proportion of students who would be able to ‘perform’ and thus give the school a good reputation. While the repercussion of this approach does not impact much, probably on the more able or gifted students, it is the group comprising of less-able, learning-disabled, slow learners  i.e., those at the other end of the academic scale that may be more at risk. “Because these children may have physically or emotionally debilitating conditions that hinder their performance on exams, a teacher who wants to maximize test scores would be better served spending time with other children” (Baines and Stanley, 2006, 121). These authors even go to the extent of contending that the propagation of communal goal of minimum competencies through standards-based education does not address very well on driving towards “excellence, innovation and individualization” (Baines and Stanley, 2006, 121).

One of the weaknesses cited on assessment based on standardised curriculum is that due to methodological constraints and limitations, focus is placed only on aspects that are measureable. Hence, the backwash effect of this is that only what gets tested eventually gets taught, and the curriculum gets watered down, in such a way that only aspects that that lend themselves easily and comfortably for testing will be taught and focused on (Volante, 2010). The proponents of standardised curriculum have also argued on the use of school assessment based on the curriculum as a means of assessing the health of schools. When centralised standardised testing results are used for this purpose, the result may not be a true overall and comprehensive picture of the schools’ health. This is based on the argument that “many key aspects of student learning cannot be assessed centrally and require teacher judgment at the classroom level.” (Volante, 2010:55). In addition, as results are used to form conclusion on schools health, while standards are set to encourage high expectations and achievement for all states and for all types of students, in reality, they have the potential for states to set lower standards for everyone. It seems that the lower the standards, which are set by individual states at implementation level, the easier it is for schools to meet the targets and show that schools in the states were progressing. For example, Pennsylvania was found to have deliberately lowered its proficiency standards after too many schools failed to clear the minimum threshold. Observers believe the current law is creating a “race to the bottom,” undoing years of gradual rises in expectations and achievement (Ryan, 2004). With states setting the standards in the model, McCluskey (2010) noted that “the effect of these reforms has been spotty at best” (p.6), where “on their own, states have set standards of widely varying- but generally low – quality”. Evidence for the low set of standards is further seen in a report (de Mello, Blankenship & McLaughlin, 2009): test scores were correlated with performance levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. (NAEP is a set of central exams used to evaluate American students in several subjects). It looked at fourth grade and eighth grade Mathematics and Reading. For Mathematics, one state out of the 48 investigated had set its fourth grade proficiency level at the similar level to that of NAEP; and only two out of 47 states for eighth grade. ,For Reading, none set their proficiency (out if the 48) at the NAEP’s proficiency level at fourth grade, nor at eighth grade level. NAEP basic level seems to be a reference point for many of the states.

The effect of the low quality set is that poor performers have been labeled as ‘proficient’, and instead of pushing standards and performance to a higher level, the effort does exactly the opposite.  This realization, amongst others, has led to groups of advocates of national standards, who base their argument on the fact that on international assessments, the United States is outdone by countries whose education systems are based on national standards (McCluskey, 2010). The proponents of national standards also present their argument based on the need to cut the pervasive hiding of failings in practice, done by altering standards or tests; and that it made better sense, that in the increasingly globalised economy, that a single standards exist in one country. The Common Core State Standards Initiative was launched in April of 2009, and towards the end of the same year, 51 states and territories have agreed “to support the development of “internationally benchmarked” English and Mathematics standards” (McCluskey, 2010, 2). This however does not bind them to its actual adoption, but if and when they do choose to adopt them, the states will have to agree to use 85 percent of the standards as their own.

National Curriculum Finland

Ranking of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations on the Programmes for International Student Assessment (PISA) in mathematics, science and reading show that Finland ranks above the OECD average in 2011; at 3^rd, 6^th and 2^nd place in reading, mathematics and science respectively (see    http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/oecd-education-rankings/). Due to this result and similar trend over the past few years, and other positive trends, such as smaller variation in achievement amongst Finnish students; and across Finnish schools compared to other OECD countries (Darling-Hammond, 2009), much reference is made to Finland for clues on educational development. Finland education system adopts a national curriculum, which is decided by the Finnish National Board of Education (NBE). The national core curriculum for basic education specifies the objectives and core contents of cross-curricular themes, subjects, and subject groups in basic education intended for pupils receiving compulsory education, and of other education as referred to in the Basic Education Act, with the exception of pre-primary education. The national core curriculum for basic education constitutes a regulation, on the basis of which, the provider of basic education will take decisions respecting curriculum.

Finland has adopted a “thinking curriculum” for all its students, where it has shifted from a centralized system to one that is localized, and teachers design the curriculum based on “very lean” (Darling-Hammond, 2009:18) national standards. The national curriculum in Finland, which was introduced in 2004 has become much less detailed and prescriptive over the past two decades. Implied in this move is the necessity for investments to be made into the capacity building of teachers and schools generally, which Finland has done rather extensively. The training is imperative for the successful curriculum implementation, because teachers are given the freedom to select their own textbooks and other instructional materials, seeing that they are given the flexibility to decide what and how they will teach. As for assessment, while the curriculum provides some broad criteria for student assessment, teachers have the ultimate responsibility to build a continuous system for assessing students’ progress. The criteria serve as guidelines for teachers to produce a more detailed curriculum, expected outcomes and assessment approaches (FNBE 2007). The focus of student learning leans heavily on the inquiry method, and students work on their own tasks and goals (after agreeing with their teachers) and at their own pace. By design, focus is placed on trusting pupils to take personal responsibility for their own learning. External testing in Finland is done on a sampling basis and is designed to provide information on the functioning of the system as a whole (see http://montrose42.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/finland-and-its-curriculum). Finland does not practice external standardized tests, either to rank schools or students, and “most teacher feedback is in narrative form, emphasizing descriptions of their learning progress and areas for growth” (Darling-Hammond, 2009:20).

If success of Finland is to be gauged by its students’ performance in the international tests, then it may well be that one of the core factor is the heavy investments that the country has placed on teacher education and teacher professional development. The Finnish model of education system now is one that is “a modern, publicly financed education system with widespread equity, good quality, large participation – all of this at reasonable cost” (Sahlberg, 2009:2). Emphasis placed on the curriculum delivery implementers seem to have paid off.  The education system is implemented in a way that ensures “equitable funding and extensive preparation for all teachers” (Darling-Hammond, 2009:18). It is interesting to note that teacher capacity building in Finland seems to take centre stage, where most teachers in the country now hold master’s degree in subject matter, and in education; and they are also extensively prepared to teach and meet the needs of diverse learners (Laukkanen, 2008), as is the set-up of a Finnish community – and living true to the idea of a standards-based education (i.e., meeting the needs of all learners).

In essence, Finnish school culture is also responsible for the success. The instruction and approach at Finnish schools have been structured to fit heterogeneous student groups (Välijärvi, 2005). In doing so, the teacher has had to be flexible, work around the local resources available, including working with the community, placing the student as central to the process. Counseling, and remedial teaching are also part and parcel of the process. Because of these demands, and the realization that teachers have to do their best as professionals of education, investments into teacher education has been substantial. Student teachers are ensured the experience of teaching heterogeneous groups early during their teaching practice and they are trained to realize that they need to have a wide repertoire of teaching methods at their disposal, and the importance of having knowledge of the implications and outcomes of utilizing one method or the other. The production of high quality teachers allowed Finland to be comfortable with the independence given to the Finnish teacher, and the school generally, to organize their work within the scope of the national core curriculum, which has been utilized to the most optimum level by the competent teachers (Välijärvi, 2005).  

The progression or development of emphasis placed on teachers can be seen if we were to backtrack almost a decade before Välijärvi (2005) reported the findings above. Kennedy (1996) reported that demand is high on teachers who have to implement the educational changes taking place within the public education system; as they have to adopt new ideologies and implement them in their teaching. The double demand of teachers adopting their ideologies to that which is required of them through the change, and then passing on the ideologies to the students (as is theintended purpose of the curriculum change),  puts teachers under strain. Kennedy maintained that logistical and professional conditions need to be met if Finland was looking for successful implementation of any educational change. This we now see a decade on, with heavy investments on teacher education and teacher professional development.

National Curriculum in the UK

The UK National Curriculum serves as a guide to study for key subjects which would give parents and teachers confidence that students were acquiring the knowledge necessary at every level of study to make appropriate progress (http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk). The purpose of the National Curriculum is to standardise the content taught across schools in order to enable assessment, which in turn enabled the compilation of league tables detailing the assessment statistics for each school. These league tables can be used by parents to make decisions on the school for their children based on their measured ability to teach the National Curriculum, and as such were intended to encourage a ‘free market’. There are two broad aims of the national curriculum, which provide an essential context within which schools develop their own curriculum: Aim (1): The school curriculum should aim to provide opportunities for all pupils to learn and to achieve; and Aim (2): The school curriculum should aim to promote pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and prepare all pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life. The National Curriculum applies to pupils of compulsory school age in community and foundation schools, including community special schools and foundation special schools, and voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools. It is organised on the basis of four key stages.

Key stage 1: Ages 5-7 (Years 1-2)

Key stage 2: Ages 7-11 (Years 3-6)

Key stage 3: Ages 11-14 (Years 7-9)

Key stage 4: Ages 14-16 (Years 10-11).

At key stages 1 and 2 the statutory subjects that all pupils must study are art and design, design and technology, English, geography, history, information and communication technology, mathematics, music, physical education and science. Religious education must also be provided at key stages 1 and 2. The statutory subjects that all pupils must study at key stage 3 are art and design, citizenship, design and technology, English, geography, history, information and communication technology, mathematics, modern foreign languages, music, physical education and science. Meanwhile, the statutory subjects that all pupils must study at key stage 4 are citizenship, English, information and communication technology, mathematics, physical education and science. The teaching of careers education, sex education, work-related learning and religious education is also statutory at both key stages 3 and 4. There are also non-statutory programmes of study for religious education, based on the Framework for Religious Education, personal wellbeing, which includes the requirements for sex and relationship and drugs education, and economic wellbeing and financial capability, which includes the requirements for careers education.

For each subject and for each key stage, programmes of study set out what pupils should be taught, and attainment targets set out the expected standards of pupils' performance. Schools organise their own school curriculum to include the programmes of study. The programmes of study (as defined by the Education Act 1996, section 353b) set out what pupils should be taught in each subject at each key stage, and provide the basis for planning schemes of work.

 Assessments are carried out at three ages: seven (school year 2, at the end of Key Stage 1), eleven (Year 6, the end of Key Stage 2) and fourteen (Year 9, the end of Key Stage 3). Some aspects of subjects are teacher-assessed, whilst others involve sitting an examination paper. The results are considered when school and local education authority performance league tables are being compiled, but they do not lead to any formal qualification for the candidates taking them.

National testing takes place in the UK school system, and it got the country involved in the high stakes performance culture that now dominates English education (Ball, 2003). National testing include the utilization of national, local, school and individual targets and hence, the publication of results in what is popularly known as ‘league tables’. The school inspectorate scrutinizes the school results in relation to national norms and expectations. The practice has been that schools that fail to meet the set government targets, are made public, and given ‘notice to improve’ or put in ‘special measures’. It is the case that schools will be closed if they consistently fail to improve.

Although the primary purpose for the National Curriculum was to enable league tables and inform parental choice, many parents or guardians still fail to get the school of their choice and there is concern that the league tables have a detrimental effect on pupils. Focus on league tables had resulted in pupils being pressured to attain high grades and so opt for subjects that are seen as easier to get good marks in such as art, drama and history. The result has been for the more difficult mathematics in subjects such as chemistry and physics being dropped.

As it has developed, the National Curriculum has come to cover more subjects, prescribe more outcomes and take up more school time than originally intended. It is the Government's intention that the National Curriculum be slimmed down so that it properly reflects the body of essential knowledge which all children should learn and does not absorb the overwhelming majority of teaching time in schools. It is now thought that individual schools should have greater freedom to construct their own programmes of study in subjects outside the National Curriculum and develop approaches to learning and study which complement it. A new National Curriculum is now being developed to raise standards for all children. On 20 January 2011 the Secretary of State for Education announced a review of the National Curriculum in England to consider the content and structure of the National Curriculum at both primary and secondary levels (http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/strategy/laupdates/a0073941/review-of-the-national-curriculum-in-england) - The review, which will be led by the Department for Education (DoE), will set out to ensure that the National Curriculum is able to fulfil its original purpose. These are: to set out what all children should learn, and to focus on essential knowledge in key subjects in a way that embodies rigour and high standards. The DoE intends that the reforms give schools greater control over their wider school curriculum. Teachers will also be given more freedom to use their professionalism and expertise to support all children’s learning and development.

According to its website, the National Curriculum is moving towards the following aims:

• to embody rigour and high standards and create coherence in what is taught in schools;
• to ensure that all children have the opportunity to acquire a core of essential knowledge in the key subject disciplines; and
• beyond that core, to allow teachers the freedom to use their professionalism and expertise in order to help all children realise their potential. (http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/strategy/laupdates/a0073941/review-of-the-national-curriculum-in-england)

While the review is being conducted, the existing National Curriculum requirements for both primary and secondary schools will remain in force and schools should plan on that basis.

The existence of the review of the currently practiced curriculum implies that there was some level of dissatisfaction with the curriculum that has been around for a long time. There was a feeling in the government that the existing curriculum was too overloaded in content, while the new curriculum will define only "core knowledge" and concepts expected of pupils (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/03/england-curriculum-review-debate-controversy) .

National  Curriculum Australia

In December 2008, the council of state and territory education ministers adopted the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, which provides guide for the development of the Australian Curriculum. The declaration gives emphasis on the importance of knowledge, understanding and skills of learning areas, general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities as the basis for a curriculum designed to provide a foundation for participation in the Australian community and to support 21st century learning. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), established in 2008, is the independent authority responsible for the development of a national curriculum, a national assessment program and a national data collection and reporting program. As it stands now, or prior to the Australian National Curriculum implementation, all state public and catholic schools in Australia follow individual states/ territories curriculum. As such, one would find the Northern Territory Curriculum Framework, The South Australia Curriculum Standards and Accountability Framework , the Tasmanian Curriculum, and the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS), by way of naming a few examples.

Set to be fully rolled out in for its Phase One where the new English, Maths, Science and History curriculums will be taught in all Phase One year groups (Foundation to Year 10), the Australian Curriculum acknowledges the changing ways in which young people will learn and the challenges that will continue to shape their learning in the future. The Australian Curriculum sets out what all young Australians are to be taught, and the expected quality of learning as they progress through schooling. The Australian Curriculum is being introduced to “equip all young Australians with the essential skills, knowledge and capabilities to thrive and compete in a globalised world and information rich workplaces of the current century” (Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, 2008, as sourced from ACARA website, October 1, 2010).

It acknowledges that the needs and interests of students will vary, and that schools and teachers will plan from the curriculum in ways that respond to those needs and interests. The national curriculum comprises content, which are knowledge, skills and understanding that students are expected to learn; achievement standards that set out aspects of learning that students are able to demonstrate at the end of each year; and a reporting framework, which presents information that describe the quality of students’ achievement (Watt, 2009). The Australian Curriculum is progressively being developed for all learning areas and subjects set out in the Melbourne Declaration: initially for English, mathematics, science and history, statements for which were released in March 2010; followed by geography, languages, the arts, economics, business, civics and citizenship, health and physical education, and information and communication technology and design and technology (http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Curriculum/Overview). The curriculum explains the place and purpose of the learning area in the school curriculum, identifies the major learning that students will be able to demonstrate as a result of learning from the curriculum, provides an overview of how the curriculum in the learning area will be organised from the Foundation (stage) to Year 10, specify what teachers are expected to teach, along with elaborations that illustrate the content descriptions. The curriculum also sets out achievement standards that describe the quality of learning typically expected of students, which are accompanied by work samples that illustrate the achievement standards through annotated student work. The curriculum also states the general capabilities that describe a set of skills, behaviours and dispositions that apply across subject-based content, and also spell out cross-curriculum priorities that ensure the Australian Curriculum is relevant to the lives of students.

In terms of student assessment, the National Assessment Program (NAP) is utilized, where it is a measure through which governments, education authorities and schools can determine whether or not young Australians are meeting important educational outcomes. In line with the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, that states that ‘assessment of student progress will be rigorous and comprehensive. It needs to reflect the curriculum, and draw on a combination of the professional judgement of teachers and testing, including national testing (http://www.nap.edu.au/About/Why_NAP). The first NAPLAN tests took place in 2008. It encompassed tests endorsed and conducted by the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). ACARA will manage the development and oversee the delivery of tests for NAPLAN from 2010.

In carrying out the new curriculum, the real educational challenge, as is evident from the three countries we have seen so far, is capacity building in every teacher (Ingvarson, 2010) and the need to set clear standards to articulate what teachers need to know and be able to do in order to ‘operationalise’  the curriculum. Concerns have also been raised that the implementation of the national curriculum has not seen the roles played by authorities in charge of teacher education. In this context, it is the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). Ingvarson (2010) maintains that complementary roles need to be developed between ACARA and this institute, as either’s success is dependent on the success of the other. The concern basically, is on the need to have a more integrated approach to the new curriculum on offer; and that teacher professional training and capacity issues are taken as an important part and parcel of the curriculum reform. Related to the training of teachers, Ingvarson (2010) also points out to what is thought to be a broad standard that needs to be translated by beginning teachers. The concern is generally on whether or not teachers are able to do this; and if perhaps the standards are too broad that they do not provide sufficient guide to teacher educators to ensure that the graduate teachers meet the performance standard as set out in the central document. In all, the question of teacher professional development arises as does the issue of teacher ownership of the vision set out in the curriculum.

The size of the country, with such diverse pockets of population as in Australia, creates another issue in starting a national curriculum implementation; particularly related to the issue of access to the curriculum, and all its logistical and professional requirements. In a study conducted by Halsey, Drummon, & van Breda, M. (2010), they found that leaders of rural, regional and remote schools requested more information about the Australian Curriculum. Whilst this indicate interest on the part of the school, it also highlights the notion that not enough efforts are being made to ensure the understanding, and hence the acceptance of the national curriculum. The study also suggested that there is a strong sense that consultation about implementing the Australian Curriculum needs to be increase; and that this is particularly vital as insufficient information and information flow may lead to the perception that the task of starting to implement a new curriculum is a difficult one, and may dumb down the importance and spirit of having a national curriculum.

The same study found that the leaders of rural, regional and remote schools expressed the need for sufficient resources in order to successfully introduce the Australian Curriculum. In specific terms, this refers to adequate funding, reference persons or experts on curriculum matters, and sufficient time for teachers to work on their tasks. This is understandable and reasonable request. Already, for example, New South Wales is delaying their new curriculum planning year to 2013, with classroom implementation starting only in 2014, with the NSW Government and Board of Studies contending that more time and funding is required to prepare teachers for the implementation of the new curriculum. The NSW Minister of Education, in his press release said that “When we introduce new curriculum in NSW we allow time for schools to have a year for thorough planning and a second year to introduce the curriculum into our classrooms. This results in quality education for the students of NSW. Teachers and schools need to know exactly what will be asked of them in the next few years, so that they can think ahead and continue to provide the high standards of education we are used to in NSW.” (http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/australian-curriculum/pdf_doc/media-release-110809-australian-curriculum.pdf)

National Curriculum New Zealand

Prior to 2010, specifically since 1992, New Zealand was already implementing an outcomes-focused curriculum; that is a curriculum that sets out what students need to know and should be able to do (http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum). Youngs (2008) noted that throughout the 1990s New Zealand schools experienced extensive transition, from a syllabus-based approach to a framework approach that emphasised broader achievement objectives. The then New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education, 1993) placed Essential Skills alongside Essential Learning Areas, the latter incorporated the subjects commonly taught in schools. Each Essential Learning Area was separately implemented according to a timeline that spread from 1993 through to the late 1990s. However, due to changes locally and globally, the New Zealand government felt that a review of the curriculum was necessary:

“Since it was launched, there has been no slowing of the pace of social change. Our population has become increasingly diverse, technologies are more sophisticated, and the demands of the workplace are more complex. Our education system must respond to these and the other challenges of our times. For this reason, a review of the curriculum was undertaken” (http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum).

However, before we peruse further into the revised curriculum, it is interesting to get a taste of what was happening in schools before the revised version came into implementation.

A case study conducted by McGee et al (2004), commissioned by New Zealand Ministry of Education, provided extensive insights into the implementation of the national curriculum then. While teachers in the study reported that they understood the national curriculum documents and were confident in using them, they also contended that achievement objectives were too generic that they have had to develop their own curriculum plans from the national documents to guide programmes and lesson planning for their particular students. This requirement demanded content knowledge that is sufficient for the task of ‘translating’ the national documents to workable curriculum plans. As such, the issue of teacher content knowledge is an important one. Whilst the teachers in the study exhibited wide variation in their own knowledge of curriculum areas, they also questioned if the curriculum documents would be of much use for teachers who did not have a sound knowledge base.  Teachers in the study made up for this shortcoming by having numerous collaboration in the preparation of long-term school and syndicate plans, which in the study, appear to be a central approach in implementing the curriculum.

In the same study, teachers expressed being pressured to address everything in the curriculum document, and exhibited the belief that they should “cover everything”, and thus, they were faced with the issue of not having enough time to do all that they had to do. However, the study pointed out that the government policy only stated that there would be seven curriculum areas, but the policy did not dictate on how teachers should go about planning and teaching from the seven statements. In terms of the management of assessment records, it was found that while most schools had developed achievement data-gathering systems, the data was used solely for reporting purposes. It was not clear whether information gathered through the data collection always fed back into planning and teaching for improvement. Nevertheless, the majority of schools and teachers gave high priority to whole-school/department professional development.  In general, it was found from the study that the structure of the curriculum, and expectations about student achievement have had a resounding effect on curriculum and assessment implementation. Schools and teachers take the national curriculum documents very professionally, evident through the existence of school-based programmes and syndication.

In another study by Jones, Harlow and Cowie (2004), particularly on technology curriculum implementation, teachers’  prime concern was the difficulty of resourcing the equipment needed to implement the curriculum – in other words, resources needed to ensure that the curriculum is implemented as is required. The teachers in the study also  though that the curriculum then was ‘crowded’, and understanding the curriculum thus, was a major challenge. Again, as in the review we have seen so far, the question of teacher capacity, skills and professional development also was raised; where teachers felt that upskilling was imperative for the smoother implementation of the curriculum. Despite these comments, the teachers nevertheless expressed satisfaction with the curriculum statement which they through were clear in allowing them to understand and plan tasks that they had to carry out. Many teachers felt that the curriculum statement was user-friendly.

 In November 2007, a revised curriculum was launched for use in New Zealand schools, to be implemented on 1 February 2010. The revised curriculum placed an intentional emphasis on effective pedagogy and Key Competencies replacing the Essential Skills of the previous curriculum framework. Referred to as The New Zealand Curriculum, it applies to all English-medium state and to all students in those schools, irrespective of their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, belief, ability or disability, social or cultural background, or geographical location. The eight principles of The New Zealand Curriculum are the foundations and touchstones of curriculum review, design and practice in schools, and apply to all schools and to every aspect of the curriculum. The eight principles cover: high expectations, acknowledgment of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, cultural diversity, inclusion, learning to learn, community engagement, coherence and future focus. The principles are positioned in The New Zealand Curriculum as the founding framework that guides curriculum decision-making.

The curriculum also specifies values, key competencies and learning areas, which are eight altogether: English, the arts, health and physical education, learning languages, mathematics and statistics, science, social sciences, and technology. Achievement objectives are set for each of the learning areas. These three important elements (values, key competencies and learning areas) are the basis for teaching and learning processes and activities in schools. The curriculum document does not specifically structure the way the learning areas should be addressed in practice, but maintains that “while the learning areas are presented as distinct, this should not limit the ways in which schools structure the learning experiences offered to students” (http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Learning-areas).

In implementing The New Zealand Curriculum, schools are given the autonomy to develop a curriculum model suiting the needs of the local students and other stakeholders, and making use of locally available resources; as such making the curriculum accessible to all teachers and students in its implementation. Schools are required to base their curriculum on the principles of The New Zealand Curriculum, which serves as a guide and a framework. Schools are expected to make decisions on the curriculum implementation and outcome details in consultation and agreement with all parties relevant to the education of the students i.e., teachers, trustees, parents, students and the community. In this respect The New Zealand Curriculum provide the framework for discussion, in terms of the vision, values, principles and key competencies expected of students, and the type of local support needed for the development of the competencies.

An initial evaluation was conducted by the Education Review Office (ERO) to conduct an to investigate how schools were using the eight principles and the teaching as inquiry process (see publication by Education Review Office, ERO, 2011). It was found that in 82 percent of schools evaluated by ERO, the principles were evident in the school curriculum, indicating a very positive uptake on the revised curriculum by the schools. It also appears that school leadership was pivotal in ensuring that the review happened in schools. The revised curriculum also place emphasis on teaching as inquiry; a process that involves teachers to investigate the impact of their decisions and practice on students. The largely successful implementation was attributed to support systems and active participation of school leadership in making sense of the curriculum, and implementing them:

“There were clear links between school level support systems and classroom practice in terms of teaching as inquiry and the curriculum principles. Where school level curriculum development and review processes were well developed and teaching as inquiry was happening well, leaders were correspondingly active in promoting understanding about The New Zealand Curriculum and teachers’ professional learning.

(Education Review Office, ERO, 2011:3)

What was evident from the review is the way the curriculum is cascaded into the hands of the schools, from a central framework, to a detailed implementation plan. It appears that professionalism is high in managing the implementation of the curriculum at school level, and the collective way of working at the school level in translating and providing flesh to the bone (i.e. the New Zealand Curriculum) ensures that a sound work plan is achieved that will serve the need of the students and the local community.

The review exercise was concerned about using information about the curriculum implementation for further improvement to the school curriculum and programmes. This is mentioned in the foreword of the ERO evaluation (2011) – “The New Zealand Curriculum allows schools the flexibility to design their learning programmes based on what their own students need. ERO’s interest is in the extent to which schools look closely at the impact of their teaching, and are able to make well-informed decisions to change and improve their school’s curriculum and programmes.” The involvement of the larger local community is also acknowledged of its importance: ‘Successful delivery in education relies on many people and organisations across the community working together for the benefit of children and young people.’

As a result of the review, the ERO highlights several important elements that seem to ensure the successful implementation of the New Zealand curriculum. Firstly, is teacher attitudes. Teachers in the review seem to have a set of attitudes that the ERO believed was pivotal to the teaching and learning culture in the classroom. Where there was strong inquiry, teachers showed a desire to make a difference in the students’ learning, through including students in the process of learning and inclinations to try to improve their own practices. Of course, there was room for improvement, especially in the area of data collection and of their use afterwards. The idea of data collection in the curriculum is to enable self-review or evaluation to be made, and thus to be linked to improving practices, including at planning stage. This points for the need for more professional training and for capacity building programmes to be conducted.

A second important element that the review found was on the role of school leadership. School leadership ensured that the teachers received the support they needed in order to carry out reflections on their teaching and learning. School leaders also played very active roles in supporting teachers’ work in the classroom; where some quite explicitly initiated discussions about the curriculum so as to allow everyone to know what their roles are and what they are expected to undertake in order to implement the curriculum successfully. The school leaders in question also went to great lengths to promote “coherence and uniformity” in practice, such as ensuring there are formats and guidelines that teachers are able to use for them to undertake inquiry, with it being central to the New Zealand curriculum. School leaders’ active involvement in making sense of the curriculum, and helping others to do so, has created a positive culture “characterised by high expectations for student achievement, shared aspirations to improve teaching, and a desire to work collaboratively” (ERO, 2011)

Discussion and Summary

After describing the systems used in the five countries by way of standard-based education, several elements seem to stand out with regard to the system itself, and the implementation.

According to Avenstrup (2007), the curriculum is the heart of education, comprising of dynamics in terms of the sharing and learning that take place between the teacher and the student. Other matters that relate to the system, thus, should be derived from the curriculum; including the type of assessment to be carried out, the matter of teacher training and teacher development, learning and teaching resources to be used, and the issue of educational administration as relating to the curriculum and system requirements.

As related to this, therefore is the question of control, or rather the centralization of curriculum. In a system that entails central control, the matters that relate to the implementation of the curriculum should also be managed at the central level, generally. According to Kennedy (1996), too much centralized control results in the obstruction of change an innovation, and stifled teacher and learner creativity. Governments that are bent to keep to a centralized curriculum will do well to deliberate on the outcomes of such a curriculum, in view of the kind of citizens they would wish to produce for the nation’s future societies. In addition, countries that philosophically regard schools as centres of innovation and change need to look into the value of decentralization, even if the argument has been that centralization is cost-efficient, it may not be cost-effective with regard to the bigger overall goals of the educations system (Kennedy, 1996).

Decentralisation has been commonly characterized as being able to evoke participation, teachers feeling direct relevance of the curriculum to them, feeling a sense of ownership, leading to heightened commitment and motivation and drive in the primary implementers of any given curriculum, which are the teachers (Kennedy, 1996). If the issue of centralization creates the worry of curbing creativity and innovation, as explained above, the danger in decentralization is over decentralization. The standards-model that was practiced in the US is an example, where states were given the autonomy and freedom to determine their own standards. As a result, it was found that in the absence of sufficiently clear central standards and the presence of state standards document, schools were not achieving the focus and alignment that were thought necessary for success; in this case success measured, amongst others by the relatively low performance of the US compared to  other OECD countries (United States was ranked below the PISA average in the 2011 ranking for Mathematics, and just above the average for Science, and ranked at only number 17 for Reading). In words used by Schmoker and Marzano, there was “chaos” (1999:19), and it was the “state of chaos” that became the rationale for the standards movement now (the Common Core Standards). Australia also was practicing a decentralized curriculum, similar to that of the US model. Compare these to Finland, which adopts a localized system, yet based on a set of lean national standards. A dichotomy of centralized vs decentralized, also termed by Pascale (1991) as ‘fit’ and ‘split’ creates challenges we have seen in the cases above. Kennedy (1996:78) maintains that “the dichotomy is problematic, if governments remain fixed at one of the two ends of the spectrum, or constantly veer between the two extremes” (of centralized vs decentralized). The answer perhaps does not lie in the choosing of one or the other, but rather in maintaining a healthy combination of the central and the local. This is seen in the cases of Finland and New Zealand, where local autonomy and participation is encouraged, based on central or national standards. Kennedy (1996), citing Dalin (1994) offers an illustration of a workable model: “A national team is important for the development of materials, provision of resources, teacher development, and evaluation, and for generally providing a coordinating role. The periphery (at the level of the school or groups of schools within an area) designs or adapts materials, and conducts staff development and teacher training, both of which are carried out as “close” to the classroom as possible. Supervision of teachers is provided by Heads or local inspectors and teams are created in schools and across schools. The role of the Head is particularly important as a local leader, as is the local community and involvement of parents.” It seem increasingly the case that this balance works out better as teachers have a sense of ownership, and are active players in the game of curriculum implementation.

Related to the idea that balancing between the central and local may be a viable model in a standards-based system. It is imperative to bear in mind that the balancing act alone will not guarantee a successful implementation. One may have a brilliant curriculum, but if the curriculum implementers are unable to carry it out, for reasons of lack of knowledge, or know-ho, then the curriculum will probably fail. Teachers will have to be trained to ensure that they are capable of enacting the curriculum, and translating them from the national or central standards. However, catering for in-service teachers’ needs alone will not be sufficient (Sahlberg, 2005).  The Finland model was successful due to the country’s heavy investment into teacher capacity building and teacher professional development, as well as into its pre-service training of its teachers. This also means that teacher education programs will have to align to the requirement of the curriculum in practice, as well as ensuring that the teacher educators themselves have the capability and capacity to ‘teach’ the necessities. Avenstrup (2007) contends that the teacher educator themselves have to change if the student teacher is expected to have learning experiences, approaches and assessment in the period of their studies as they are expected to manage in the classroom.

In fact, strong professional capacity is required at both central and local levels. The Australian authority in charge of curriculum, ACARA, has noted this importance, indicated through an advertisement it has put up inviting applicants to join their team of curriculum writers at central level. It also suggests positively that the authority values the expertise of its people, and is thus open for suggestions. This approach provides ownership to its people of the new upcoming curriculum, thus ensuring buy-in and relatively easier implementation.. Also the involvement of the local community in producing the local curriculum in both the New Zealand and the Finland models is one of the better examples in ensuring that the school serves the need of the local community, and that the local community is involved in the development of its people. This is in line with Sahlbergs’s (2005) contention that curriculum reform that aims to change the ways students learn and teachers teach need to engage in sophisticated implementation strategies, which include , helping teachers to create professional learning communities and schools to learn from each other (Sahlberg, 2005). Sahlberg places great emphasis on capacity building as a condition for successful curriculum implementation,

“Capacity is one of the key conditions for successful implementation of curriculum reforms. However, it is often the missing link even when there is a consensus of the need for change. Capacity‐building involves policies, strategies, resources and other actions that are aiming at increasing the collective power of people” (Sahlberg, 2005:27).

The idea of asking teachers to produce their own syllabus and materials might seem like an overload but only if sufficient support was not available. Kennedy (1996) maintains that teacher responsibilities of syllabus and materials design to teachers will work if teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills, and time to reflect and understand on the curriculum developments. In a study on the implementation of a technology curriculum, Jones, Harlow and Cowie (2004) attested that professional development in the beginning of the implementation phase of the curriculum has had a positive impact in terms of teachers knowing about the curriculum and in many ways what are technology-learning activities. Ultimately, the teacher’s role as a powerful player in any curriculum change and implementation can only ring true with sufficient support and resources. Otherwise, the change will create undue stress, dissatisfaction and failure of the system in implementation.

Leadership is also an important element in curriculum implementation.  The challenge for leadership in matters of curriculum implementation is to respond to the agenda by establishing strategic plans on how teaching and learning should take place (Lamb, 2010). Its importance is also, for example, highlighted by Ingvarson (2010) who maintains the needs for an integrative effort between Australia’s ACARA and its authorities in charge of teaching and school leadership. Leadership in an undertaking such as developing a school-based curriculum, is pivotal to keeping the whole, as it is the work of the leader that will bring cohesion, coherence and sense of reality to the vision set out in the curriculum. In many cases, guidance is needed in making sense and thus implementing the curriculum, which requires a new range of capabilities (Harris, 2007). It is the role of the leadership that will establish a professional learning community, in the midst of the challenge of implementing a national curriculum.

Assessment based on national curriculum has indicated that student development has been enhanced (Whetton et al, 2007; Tymms, 2004). However, if concerns in the case of the US are true, then matters of low quality standards will have to be managed, bearing in mind that one of the reasons that led to the watering down of the curriculum and low quality benchmarks were the race to meet the targets, which are linked to funds and resource allocation. The punitive approach to assessment results, as opposed to a developmental one, seemed to be detrimental in terms of the backwash effect it created in the system, as there is the threat of school closure as in the UK system. Another criticism of assessment in the context of standards-based curriculum is that only aspects that can be measures will be tested; thus leading to teachers teaching only what can be tested. On this matter, McCluskey (2010) noted that while most standardized tests measure “hard” learning, there is no evidence that it is the hard learning aspects that are necessarily most important in an education system. Finland teacher feedback, as part of assessment, is given in the narrative, explaining students’ development and areas in which they can further improve – is an example where assessment does not necessarily focus on aspects that are measureable. As there is an overt link between assessment and what gets taught in a standards-based system, there is perhaps a need to rethink the content of a national curriculum thus addressing the problem of content overload often associated with such system (Alexander, R (ed) 2010). For example, Singapore reduced its national curriculum in 1999 and gave importance to the development of creative and thinking skills, so that teachers could integrate thinking skills and the use of IT in school lesson (McCluskey, 2010). Japan, according to McCluskey (2010) undertook similar step, by reducing the content of its national curriculum by nearly a third, and included more independent and student-driven work. While tests may be an indicator of a school success, it is by no means the only indicator, a path taken by the Finland system, whose external testing only serves the purpose to gauge if the system was functioning well as a whole, rather than to measure student and school success. McCluskey (2010) is quick to note that “movement away from strict standards and testing does not prove anything….these nations probably still support centralized standards and testing…(but) that these nations…have moved to loosen their systems must not be ignored – it could mean that they have recognized real shortcomings of their systems” (p.19)

What is obvious from the models that we have looked at is that whatever model a nation decides to adopt – centralized, decentralized, or a balance between the two with appropriate emphasis on particular elements, is that it is not the matter that the choice itself is bad or good. The success of the model chosen is dependent on how well the curriculum in the model adopted has been designed and developed, the level of its consistency and coherence, and whether the peripheral elements have been given a thorough thought and then addressed sufficiently well. These will include matters of assessment, of delivery, of professional development, of teacher feedback, and of community relevance. It is having a system that addresses the central as well as the peripheral, with adequate support and resources, that will yield success, the definition for which will determine the type of model the nation decides to adopt.

References

Alexander, R. (ed) (2010). Children, their world, their education. Routledge.

Au (2010) Taking ownership of standards-based education Reading Today April/May 2010

Avenstrup, R. (2007) The challenge of curriculum reform and implementation: some implications of a constructivist approach – Retreived October 1, 2011, from Support to Basic Education Programme website http://tedp.meb.gov.tr

Ball, S. 2003. The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy 18 (2), 215-28.

Baines, L. and Stanley, G.K. (2006). The Iatrogenic Consequences of Standards-based Education. Vol 79 Issue 3 pp119-123

Bruniges, M. (2005). What is driving curriculum reform in Australia? Paper presented at Curriculum and assessment: Closing the gap, the annual conference of the Curriculum Corporation Brisbane. Retrieved on October 1, 2011, from

http://cmslive.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/Bruniges_edited.pdf

Clune, W. H. (2001). Toward a theory of standards-based reform: The case of nine NSF statewide Systemic Initiatives. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 13–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

de Mello, V.B., Blankenship, C. and McLaughlin, D. (2009) Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics

Education Review Office New Zealand. Retrieved on September 28, 2011 http://www.ero.govt.nz/National-Reports/Directions-for-Learning-The-New-Zealand-Curriculum-Principles-and-Teaching-as-Inquiry-May-2011

England's school curriculum review sparks debate. Retrieved on October 5, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/03/england-curriculum-review-debate-controversy

Finland and Its Curriculum. Retrieved on September 28, 2011 http://montrose42.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/finland-and-its-curriculum

Gaddy, B., C. Dean and J. Kendall (2002). Keeping the focus on learning. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Halsey, J., Drummond, A., van Breda, M. (2010). Implementing the Australian Curriculum

in Rural, Regional and Remote Schools, and Schools of Distance Education Flinders University Document

Harris, D.E. & Carr, J.K. (1996). How to use standards in the classroom. Virginia: ASCD.

Ingvarson, L. ‘Teachers need to lift game,’, The Advertiser, 9 March 2010, page 67

Jones, A; Harlow, A. & and Cowie, B. (2004). New Zealand Teachers’ Experiences in Implementing the Technology Curriculum International Journal of Technology and Design Education 14, 101–119, 2004.Kluwer Academic Publishers

Kennedy, C. (1996) Teacher Roles in Curriculum Reform. ELTED, Vol.2 Issue 1 Autumn 1996

Lamb, J. (2010). Leading Mathematics Reform and the Lost Opportunity Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, Vol. 12.2, 32–46

Laukkanen, R. (2008). Finnish Strategy for High-Level Education for All. In Governance and Perormance of Education Systems, ed. N.C. Soguel & P. Jaccard. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Loeb, H; Knapp,M.S.,Elfers, A.M. Teachers’ response to standards-based reform: Probing reform assumptions in Washington State. Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 16 Number 8, April 21, 2008

Lyn, C. & Ceri, D. (2000) Noteworthy perspectives on Implementing Standards-Based Education.Aurora: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning

McGee, C., Hill, M.,. Cowie, B., Miller, T., Lee, P., Milne, L., Earl, K., Donaghy, A. and. Jones, A. (2004)  Curriculum Stocktake: National school sampling study. Case studies of schools: implementation of national curriculum. Ministry Of Education, New Zealand,

NSW to delay implementation of Australian curriculum.  Retrieved on September 28, 2011http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/australian-curriculum/pdf_doc/media-release-110809-australian-curriculum.pdf

OECD Education Rankings – 2011. Retrieved on September 28, 2011

http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/oecd-education-rankings/

Pascale, R. 1991. Managing on the edge. Penguin Books.

Pope, S. (2011). The English assessment regime: How consistency and standards stifle innovation and improved validity for the assessment of mathematics in Smith, C. (Ed.) Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics 31(2) June 2011 Standards-based education.

Resnick, L. B., & Zurawsky, C. (2005). Getting back on course: Standards-based reform and accountability. American Educator [online]. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring05/resnick.htm

Review of the National Curriculum in England. Retrieved on September 28, 2011

http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/strategy/laupdates/a0073941/review-of-the-national-curriculum-in-england

Rowan, B. (1996). Standards as incentives for educational reform. In S. Fuhrman & J.O’Day. (1996). Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp.195-225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sahlberg, P. (2005) Curriculum change as learning ‐ In search of better implementation. Proceedings of International Conference on Curriculum Reform and Implementation in the 21^st Century: Policies, Perspectives and Implementation June 8-10, Turkey.

Sahlberg, P. (2009). Educational Change in Finland. In International Handbook of Educational Change, ed. A. Hargreaves, M. Fullan, A. Lieberman, and D. Hopkins, pp 1-28. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schmoker, M. & Marzano, R.J. (1999). Realising the Promise of Stamdard-Based education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17.

The New Zealand Curriculum. Retrieved on September 28, 2011 http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum

Tymms, P. (2004) Are standards rising in English Primary Schools? British Educational Research Journal 30(4):477-494

Välijärvi, J. (2005) Education Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2003 & Vol. 32, No. 1, 2004  The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Volante, L. (2010). Standards-based reform: Can we do better? Education Canada Vol. 47 (1). Pp. 54-56

Watt, M. (2009). The Movement for National Academic Standards: A Comparison of the Common Core State Standards Initiative in the USA and the National Curriculum in Australia. Paper for presentation at the conference of the Australian Curriculum Studies Association, Hotel Realm, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 2 to 4 October 2009

Whetton, C., Ruddock, G. & Twist, L. (2007) Standards in English Primary Education: the International Evidence (Primary Review Research Survey 4/2). University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education.

Why NAP? Retrieved on September 28, 2011

http://www.nap.edu.au/About/Why_NAP