Curriculum Evaluation
The education system in mainstream and Lifelong Sector has been
extensively linked to the idea of a curriculum or a body
of knowledge aimed at linking society and education. However, the historic
changes of curriculum over the last decades have been influenced by a number of
factors such as economic, sociological, political and technological changes.
Therefore, since the first curriculum initiative in early 1870, there as been a
continuous curriculum development in the UK, some of the changes in curriculum
were as a result of legislations and other as a direct response of reports by respected individuals. For
example, The Education Reform Act 1988 (Baker), replaced GCEs and CSEs with
GCSEs and introduced the National Curriculum to schools. However, the changes
to the Curriculum have so prominent towards the beginning of the 1990s possibly
influenced by a number of factors. For instance, in 1992 FE and Training Bill
was formed with the purpose of funding all school/universities academic
education which resulted in funding controls taken away from Local Education
Authorities (LEAs).Also in 1993 Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) was formed to
inspect publicly funded work-based learning for over 16s and in the mid of the
1990 Modern Apprenticeship was introduced followed by the John Tomlinson Report
of 1996 which focused on FE provision for students with disabilities or
difficulties. In essence, the John Tomlinson report indentified the need for a
more inclusive curriculum and import to this assignment is the Helen Kennedy
report of 1997 which resulted in Widen Participation themes focusing on further
education. Furthermore, a number of changes to the Curriculum continued to
right up to 2015 where the school leaving age has been raised to 18year old
with a possibility of being raised to 19 year old. However, curriculum issues
particularly relating to young people tend to draw a lot of political debate
across the UK and the wider world because of its link with humanity.
Furthermore, (Wilson, 2009:391) appear to make an important argument
that effective curriculum must be able to responsive to the needs of learners,
employers and to reflect upon the needs of society. Also, curriculum choices in
Lifelong Sector are primarily shaped by economic forces such as the
availability of funding and demand trends in education needs. The changes in
curriculum particularly in the Lifelong Sector resulted in changes in which
teachers perform their duties. For example, prior to 2007 it was not
necessarily a requirement to have a qualified teacher Status (QTLS) when
teaching in Lifelong Sector. So the changes to the curriculum means that
teachers working within the Lifelong Sector need to be qualified and to keep
updating their knowledge or professional practice through engage in continuous
professional development. Hence, the assignment seeks to critically assess the
curriculum in the context of lifelong.
In addition to that, the coursework assignment requires me to critically
analyses aspect of a curriculum I am interested in and then consider it in
terms of a specific and broader context to include discussion on social,
political, economic and education issues. In this context, the assignment would
first consider historic developments in curriculum within the Lifelong sector
and then employ theoretical critiques which indicate a sustained engagement
with appropriate academic literature. However, the primary focus of the
assignment seeks to evaluate aspects of mathematics curriculum within the
context of Lifelong sector. So the role and contributions of mathematics
curriculum within the Lifelong is considered from social, economic and
political context. The assignment then moves on to consider the role of
neo-liberal liberal ideas in education over the last four decades particularly
in areas of curriculum design and that of quality assurance processes.
Critical evaluation
Although
careful consideration is needed in respect to content of the curriculum,
teachers should think organisational policy frameworks and other constraints in
delivery. A curriculum is not just about developing or designing a course of
study for learners as it is subject to several interpretations depending on the
context in which it measured. According to Levine, (2002) it was in the context of
educational innovation that brought the idea of curriculum evaluation as an
organised and professional field. The term curriculum is widely used in schools
and colleges as such defined differently. However, Curzon, (2004) suggest that
a curriculum is a statement of aims of specific objectives; it indicates some
selection and organization of content and includes a programme of evaluation of
the outcome. Curriculum is considered to be an important part of education
system for planning and delivery purposes to name a few. The post-compulsory
education system is too diverse attracting wide range of groups of learners as
such curriculum planning and design require careful consideration. Thus the
relationship between curriculum theories and practice need to be explored when
designing a curriculum of study. The product model of curriculum
which depends on the setting of objectives,
delivery plan drawn up, and the outcomes (products) measured. In this regard,
the Product Model of curriculum seek to measure or evaluate
the curriculum based what a learner can do after a period of study or learning.
The Product model is linked to Tyler (1949) who organised the curriculum around
four central fundamental questions which are; (a) what educational purposes
should the school or institution seek to attain? (b)What educational
experiences can be provided which are likely to attain these purposes? (c) How
can these educational experiences be effectively organised? (d) How can we
determine whether these purposes are being attained? Kelly, (2004:15). In
addition to that, Tyler (1949) argues that curriculum planning should be able
to define the overall aims and objectives, the ground to be covered (content),
methods to be used to achieve the goals and the devices to be used to evaluation
the outcome/product.
Given
the amount
of investment into 14-19 curriculums over the last decades particularly in
areas of vocational education and training, I am tempted to appreciate Tyler`s
argument in relations. This is largely due to the fact that utilising
the Tyler Model of curriculum could help both practitioners and policy makers measure the
outcome of learner`s experience. Thus if the curriculum should define what the
learner can do after the course then Tyler`s argument is central to matter of
national economic competitive and social justice. This is perhaps the reason
why the post-16 curriculum increasingly attract attention among all programs
offered by the Lifelong Sector. According to Levine, (2002), investment in
developing new curriculum is being necessitated by the changing nature of
socio-economic and dissatisfaction of the existing education system. This is
somehow true is one compare New Labour government of Tony Blair and that
Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, the Conservative government shrank expenditure
on education, (Elliot and Elkins, 2004). This was in sharp contrast to New
Labour`s government policy on education. So the dissatisfaction of the
education system from 1979 right to the late 1990s led to a wide range of
changes to the curriculum which appeared to influence the product model. New
Labour`s curriculum policy aimed at increasing the number of young people,
ethnic minorities and disabled groups into further and higher education. As a
result, the education system expanded rapidly and empirical studies by Blanden and
Machin, (2004) found that the number of students entering higher education rose
from 400,000 in the 1960s to 2 million in early 2000s. Many vocational learning
curriculums were introduced targeting young people seeking to meet the needs of
learners in areas of employment and academics. Moreover, Work-based learning
(WBL) curriculum address industrial requirement for young people so that they
can become employable. So through widening participation which seemed to have
brought the idea of inclusion in further and higher education enables people
from social disadvantage and low income families access education or training.
Furthermore,
the Product model of curriculum can also be linked to national economic
competiveness. For example, a lot of empirical studies have shown that
investing in education systems is positively correlated to economic growth.
Battiston, Domench, and Gasparini, (2014) found that acquisition of skills or
knowledge were some of the primary sources of economic development. Also, Blanden
and Machin, (2004) found that expansion of the education system in the UK
contributing to positively to productivity (GDP). Furthermore, economic growth
driven by human capital acquired skills through education has potential to be
substantial and more sustainable, Jalil. A and Idrees.M, (2012). Therefore, it could be
argued that the post-16 curriculum is economic driven aimed at creating a more
experienced and active labour market contributing to UK GDP growth rates. So the product model of curriculum appears to
provide a framework to evaluate its objective or the outcomes, for example
work-based curriculum maybe designed to either reduce the rate of unemployment
or promote economic growth or both depending on the intended objectives it is
designed for. However, the success of the product/objective model depends on
how it is being delivered which could perhaps explain the reasons why UK unemployment
dropped sharply from over 10% in 1992 to about 4.5% in early 2000s, (Table 1).
Despite its strength, the product model of the national curriculum relies on practitioners
and learner attitude which may again explain the UK economic trends from 1978
to 2014.
Curriculum evaluation in the context of economic
and social justice using the product model succeeds largely when practitioners
pursue the appropriate curriculum delivery model. One of Tyler`s fundamental
question relates to delivery of the curriculum and I found myself more pursued
to agree on this matter. So as a trainee mathematics teacher, I had the
opportunity to deliver part of 14-19 year olds curriculum in which the
government appear to have large stake in it. There are three ways in which
curriculum could be delivered as such practitioners can use linear or modular or
spiral model or a combination. From my own experience of teaching
at different education providers during placement, I found linear to a bit more
disadvantaging to young people because it only delivers and assessments are
done at the end of the course or study. Majority of learners I have been
involved with at both Stoke on Trent College and PM training maybe considered
being low level learners, so using a linear model to deliver curriculum is
likely to fail to meet its intended goals. Stoke on Trent College appear to be linked to
the linear model of curriculum delivery and some students failed their exams
making it impossible for them to progress to the next stage. Given that
majority the Lifelong Sector is overwhelmed by low level learners so Bruner`s
spiral model (1966) could be used in delivering a curriculum. In this model new
ideas are a result of previous learning and follow the development of
reflection in order to bring about learning and use a wide range of assessment
methods.
However, my last placement provider appears to
utilise spiral model as majority of teaching and learning invoke the reflective
mode of learning. Moreover, the students were prepared for examinations and
students who grasped topics covered were given the chance to seat their
examination. Central to PM training`s curriculum was to enable learners achieve
at least level 1 functional Maths and English so they can access various
apprenticeship opportunities. This was achieved through the utilising the
process model of curriculum which is concerned with all aspects of the
curriculum content and its wider effects. Thus the process model of curriculum
considers individual learner and how they like to learn as well as exploring
how they want to learn. This type of curriculum model put learners at the
centre of their learning, as such promoting and inspire learners to actively
participate. This is because , the process model of curriculum focuses on the
relationship between learner and teacher making it looks at the delivery of
learning, the methods of instruction and progress of learning . For this
reason, the curriculum models chosen can determine help policy makers and
practitioners evaluate the success of a given Lifelong course of study. Having
said that, when evaluating a given curriculum it is important to take into
consideration of Tyler`s four fundamental questions particularly from a macroeconomic and social
justice policy framework and then the success or outcomes are affected by how
the curriculum is being delivered as well as learners` attitude. This make the
process model of curriculum more central as it focuses on the relationship
between teachers and learners. Hence teachers need to choose the best model
which encourages positive learner experience to ensure the intended objectives
of the curriculum are realised.
Reference
A.V.Kelly,
(2004) The Curriculum theory and practice, 5th edn, SAGE Publications .London
Westbury,
I (1970), Curriculum Evaluation; Review
of Educational research 40 (2), pge 239-260, American Educational research
Association, USA.
Leathwood.C
and Phillips.D,(2000) Developing Curriculum Evaluation Research in Higher
Education:Process,Politics and Practicalities; Higher Education,40 (3),pge
313-330 ,Pringer pulisher.
Wilson,L(2009), Practical Teaching, A Guide to
PTLLS and DTLLS,1stedn, Cengage Learning, UK
Levine.T,(2002)
Stability and Change in Curriculum Evaluation;Studies in Educational
Evaluation,28(2002),pge1-33, Pergamon,
Curzon,L.B,
(2004) Teaching in Further Education , an outline of Principles and Practice.,
6th edn, Ciontinuum , London.
Blanden
and Machin, (2004),Educational inequality
and expansion of UK higher education, Scottish Journal of Political
Economy,51(2).pge 230-249 (LSE Research Online,(http://eprints.lse.ac.uk)
Battiston.D,
Domench, C.G and Gasparini.L, (2014), Could
an increase in education raise income inequality? Evidence from Latin America;
Latin American Journal of Economics,51(1),pge 1-4,Centre for economic
performance, LSE , London.
Benos.N
and Zotou.S,(2014),Education and Economic
Growth : A meta-Regression Analysis; World Development.64,pge.669-689,
Elsevier Ltd.
Jalil.A
and Idrees.M, (2012), Modelling the
impact of education on the economic growth: Evidence from aggregate and disaggregated
time series data of Pakistan; Economic Modelling.31,(2013),pge 383-388,
Elsevier Ltd.
Sobel.I,(1978),The Human Capital Revolution in Economic Development: Its Current
History and Status, Comparative Education Review,22 (2) pge.278-308,The University
of Chicago Press, USA.
Quiggin.J,(1999),Human Capital Theory and Education Policy in
Australia, The Australian Economic Review,32 (2) pge 130-144, Blackwell
Publishers Ltd, UK.