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,1^stedn, 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., 6^th 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.