ALWAYS LEARNING PE

Pearson Holdings Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd

Forest Drive, Pinelands, CapeTown
www.pearsoned.co.za

Copyright © Pearson Holdings Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

First published 2014

Print ISBN: 9781775788775

ePDF ISBN: 9780796231772

Publisher: Liesbet van Wyk

Editor: Ettie Labuschagne-Williams
Proofreaders: Martie Oudkerk, Ian Parsons
Cover photograph:Alvaro Martinez/ Getty Images/ Gallo Images
Book design: Lynn Siljeur
Typesetting & DTP artwork: RobinYule
Printed by:
Chapter 6:Teaching, learning and curriculumresources ...................... 11o
Tony Mays
Introduction .................................................................................................1
....1
...O...................
What kinds of assumptions are we talking about? ....................................... 111
How do assu mptions shape practice? .......................................................... 120
Teaching and learning resources........................................................................1..2..3..........
How are OER different from other resources? ............................................. 124
Why engage with OER? ..................................................................................................12.5
Curriculum, techno logy and e-learning..........................................................1..2..7..
Conclusion........................................................................................................................1 29
References................................................................................................................1..3
...0..........

Chapter 7: Curriculum and assessment. .......................................................... 134

Peter Beets
Introduction........................................................................................... 134
Curriculum and curriculum development in South Africa ............................ 136
Making the link with assessment ................................................................... 137
The danger of systemic testing ...................................................................... 139
Assessment for different purposes ............................................................... 140
Balanced assessment for more effective curriculum delivery ..................... 152
Conclusion....................................... ...................................................................1
..5
...3............
References .............................................................................................154

Chapter 8: Curriculum leadership in South African schools ...................... 157

Clarence Williams
Introduction ...........................................................................................157
Theoretical framework............................................................................158
Curriculum leadership in South African schools pre-l 994 ...................... 1.60
Curriculum leadership in South African schools post-1994 ........................ 163
A possible way forward: Enabling curriculum leadership through
action research ....................................................................................... 167
Conclusion ........................................................................................................1 7.3
References.............................................................................................. .....................1 74
Chapter 3: Curriculum and ideology ............................................................5.6
Anne Becker and Petro du Preez
Introduction ............................................................................................ 56
Ideology .................................................................................................... 56
The relation curriculum and ideolog y ....................................................... 5.7
Embedded assum p t io n s in curricu lum ............................................................... 60
Marketisation of educatio n .............................................................................. 61
Post-apart heid curriculum ................................................................................................68.
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 72
References ........................................................................................................ 73

Chapter 4: Curriculum and moral debates: On virtue education and

multicultural integration ........ .....................................................................7
..6........
Yusef Waghid
Introduction ............................................................................................ 76
Virt ue education and the myths of paternalism, conservatism and
individ ualism ........................................................................ .................................................77
Multicultural integration as constitutive of educational experience .......... 8 1
Towards a curriculum of multicultural integration ..................................... 82
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 89
References............................................................................................................................ ...8..9........

Chapter 5: Curriculum development: processes and contexts.................. 91

Geesje van den Berg
Introduction ............................................................................................ 91
Defining curriculum development............................................................ 92
The influence of curriculum design on curriculum development.............. 93
Different approaches to curriculum development. ................................... 95
Curriculum as socially constructed .......................................................... 105
Curriculum making: some visions and imaginations ................................. 1.06
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 107
References........................................................ ................................................................1..0..7...
 CONTENTS
Introduction...............................................................................................1..
Petro du Preez and Chris Reddy
Engag ing the disciplinary context th rough vision and imaginings ................. 1
References......................................................................................................................................9.....

Chapter 1: Curriculum: Exploring an ever-changing landscape ............. 11

Chris Reddy
Introduction ............................................................................................ 11
Tracing the origins of curriculum and influences that shaped the construct 11
Curriculum: one construct; many meanings .................................................... 12
Curriculum studies/inquiry: perspectives and approaches ............................ 14
Curriculum and knowledge...........................................................................1...9.......................
Curriculum in practice .............................................................................. 21
Curriculum policy and systems ........................................................................ 22
Curriculum: implementation and regulation .............................................. 24
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 26
References...........................................................................................................2..8....................

Chapter 2: Looking back on curriculum reform in South Africa

and beyond ..............................................................................................32
Shan Simmonds
Introduction ........................................................................ .........................................3..2........
Curriculum history .................................................................................... 32
National curriculum in South Africa pre-1994...............................................3..4.............
Curriculum reform post-1994................................................................................3..5..
Curriculum reform: challenges, critiques and contestations .......................... 49
Beyond curriculum as policy and practice: towards curriculum as inquiry ..... 5
.2
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 53
References ............................................................................................... 53
Chapter 9: Reimagining curriculumevaluation ....................................... 177
Petro du Preez
Introduction ................................................................................... 177
The culture that machined curriculum evaluation ....................................178
Circulating and breaking with the signs that tradit iona lly code
curriculum evaluat ion ...................................... ..........................................................1..8..0...
Changing images of cu rriculum evaluation ................................................ 1.82
Reimagining curricu lum evaluation......................................................... 188
Conclusion............................................................................ .................... .......................192
References ..................................................................................................... 1
. 93

Conclusion: Imaginatvie reflections and future possib ilities for

curriculum and Curriculum Studies .................................................................195
Petro du Preez and Chris Reddy
References.......................................................................................................200

lndex.......................................................................................................201
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Anne Becker (PhD) graduated from North-West University (NWU)

(Potchefstroom Campus) and holds the position of post-doctoral research
fellow at the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the san1e university.Her
fields of interest include curriculum, human rights and moral education. She
is a member of the Human Rights Education in Diversity (HRE iD) research
group and the Education for Human Rights (EDU -HRi ght) research unit.
She was involved in the 2010-2013 international South Africa Netherlands
Research Progran1me on Alternatives in Development (SANPAD) project:
'Human rights ed ucation in diversity: Empowering girls in rural and
metropolitan school environments' (Roux, CD) and is curren tly a member
of the National R esearch Foundation (NRF) funded project team:' Human
rights literacy:A quest for meaning' (Roux, CD). She has read papers
at various international and national conferences and has also published
interna tionally.Dr Becker is the author of Chapter 3.
Chris Reddy (PhD) is a professor in the Department of Curriculum
Studies in the Faculty of Edu cation at Stellenbosch U niversity (SU). His
research interests include Curriculum Studies, Environmental Education
andTeacher Education. He has published regularly in all three areas and
publications include journal articles, book chapters and popular articles
in professional journals. He lectures on undergraduate and post-graduate
progran1mes and serves as a senior research degree supervisor for Masters and
Doctoral students in the department. He also serves as coo rdinator of the
Environmental Education Progran1me (EEPUS) in the Faculty of Ed ucation.
He is involved with NRF-funded projects and has also served as project
leader of funded community interaction research projects in Stellenbosch
and other parts of the country. He is an NRF-rated researcher. Professor
Reddy is the co-editor of this publication, co-author of the Introduction and
Conclusion, and author of Chapter 1.
Clarence Williams (DEd) trained as a prin1ary school teacher at Dower and
Hewat Colleges of Education. He started his teaching career in East London
and then transferred to CapeTown. He became involved in Teacher Education
in the late 1980s - initially at the Roggebaai College of Education (Cape
Town) and, after the rationalisation of South African Colleges of Education
in the mid-1990s,at theWestern Cape College of Education in Kuilsriver.
He is currently attached to the Faculty of Education at the University of the
Western Cape (UWC) as Associate Professor.He lecturesprimarily in the

x C
U
R
 field of Educational Leadership and Manage ment. H is primary research foci
are educational leadership and educat ion policy.Professor Williams is the
author of Chapter 8.
Geesje van den Berg (DEd) started her undergraduate studies at NWU ,
and obtained a Masters at the University of Kwazulu- N atal. She co mpleted
a DEd at U nisa. C urr ently, she is an Associate Professor and head of the
D epa rtment of Curriculum and Instructio nal Stu dies at Unisa,where she
has been a staff mem ber since 2002. She is involv ed in the man ageme nt and
leadership of various programmes in Curriculum Studies.With a number of
journal articles, conference publications and completed Mastersand Doctoral
students, her particular field of interest lies in teaching and learning in an
open distance learning (ODL) environment. She is involved in a Masters in
Education in O DL, co-offered by the University of Maryland University
College (USA) and U nisa. Professor van den Berg is the author of Chapter 5.
Peter Beets (PhD) is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Curriculum Studies in the Faculty of Education at SU.After seven years
of teaching at a high school, he lectured at three different Colleges of
Education. He joined the Western Cape Education D epartmen t (WCED)
in 1998, first as Curriculum Advisor, then as Se nior C urr iculum Planner
for Geography. Peter Beets obtained a BA (Hons) degree in Geography
and a Senior Teachers' Diploma from UWC. He also holds a Masters
degree in Geography from Unisa,an Ad vanced Professional Diploma in
Educational Developm ent from Leeds Metro politan University (UK), as
well as a PhD from SU. Peter Beets teaches and researches in the fields of
Geography Education, Educational Assessment and curriculun1. He is a rated
researcher and has a number of academic publications to his credit. He was
awarded a gold medal by the Society for South African Geographers for
his con tribution to Geography Education. Professor Bee ts is the author of
Chapter 7.
Petro du Preez (PhD) is an Associate P rofessor in Curriculum Studies at
the NWU (Potchefstroom Campus) and part of the Edu-HRight unit at the
Faculty of Education Sciences. H er research is in the areas of C urriculum
Studies for diverse religious and cultural contexts, human rights education
for social transform ation and research method ology.She has pub lished
widely on these topics (14 peer-reviewed articles, eight chapters in academic
books) and has delivered 44 papers at international and national conferences.
She has also delivered Masters and Doctoral students. Professor du Preez is
rated nationally as a young researcher by the NRF, has received numerous
awards as a young scientist and leader in her research domain, participated in

ABO vii
UT
THE
six national and international research projects, and is currently the project
leader of two projects funded by the NRF and the Association of Non-
Fiction and Academic W riters of South Africa. Professordu Preez is the
co-editor of this publication, co-aut hor of the Introduction, Conclusion and
Chapter 3, and the author of Chapter 9.
Shan Simmonds (PhD ) is a senior lecturer in Curriculum Studies at
the NWU (Potchefstroom C ampus).She received a South Africa Vrije
University Strategic Alliance (SAVUSA) schol arship in 2012 and graduated
with a PhD in 2013 (NWU). She is the subject chair of the subject group:
'C urriculum Studies, Philosophy and R esearchMethodology'. Shan
Simmonds has published eight articles and book chapters and presented
15 papers at national and international conferences.Dr Simmonds is the
author of Chapter 2.
Tony Mays (MEd) is a Senior Programme Specialist with the South
African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE). He works with a number
of higher education institutions in the areas of strategic planning,systems
review, op erational coordination, ODL policy and practice, quality assurance
and evaluation, curriculum design, open education resources and the
management of teaching practice within South Africa, as well as the sub-
Saharan African region and internationally. He has published/ co-published
textbooks for K12 Language and Literature andTeacher Education and
presented papers and published journal articles on ODL policy, practice and
costing, as well as ODL forTeacher Education.Tony Mays holds a BA (Hons)
(Wales), PGCE (Westminster College, Oxford), BEd (Hons) (Natal) and an
MEd (Unisa).Tony Mays is the author of Chapter 6.
YusefWaghid (PhD, DEd , DPhil) is currently Distinguished Professor of
Education in the Department of Education Policy Studies at SU, where he
has been both Chair and Dean of the faculty. He holds three doctorates in
the areas of Philosophy of Ed ucation (UWC), Education Policy Studies, and
Philosophy (SU). He is a fellow of the Academy of Science of South Africa
(ASSAf), executive member of the International Network of Philosophers
of Education, B- rated NRF-researcher with internationally acclaimed
status - having rendered 151 academic paper presentation s, including 62
keynote addresses - and Editor-in-Chief of the South African Journal of
Higher Education. His published research foci include analytical philosophy
of education within the genres of democratic citizenship education,African
philosophy of education, higher education transformation, and religious
education and ethics.He is also a member of the task team of the Council
on Higher Education (CHE):'R eviewing the State of HE in SA overTwenty
Years' (2013-2014). ProfessorWaghid is the author of Chapter 4.

x C
U
R
 A B B RE V I AT I O N S AND ACRONYMS

ANAs Annual National Assessments

ANC African National Congress
ARG Assessment Reform Group
ASSAf Academy of Science of South Africa
C2005 Curriculum 2005
CAPS Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement
CASS con tinu ous assessm ent
CCBY Creative Commons By License - also known as CC by
license
CHE Council of Higher Education
CNE Christian National Education
COL Commonwealth of Learning
DET D epart ment of Education and Training
DHET Department of Higher Education and Training
DBE Department of Basic Education
DoE Department of Education
EDU- HRi ght Education for Human Rights
EEPUS Environmental Education Programme of the University
of Stellenbosch
GEAR Growth, Employment and R edistribution (programme)
HDRC Human Development R esource Centre
HREiD Human Rights Education in Diversity
ICTs Information and Communication Technologies
IEB Independent Examination Board
IRRODL International R eview of R esearch in Open and
Distance Learning
MOO Cs Massive O pen O nline Courses
NCS National Curriculum Statement
NECC National Education Crisis Committee
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Developm ent
NEPI National Education Policy Investigation
NETF National Education Training Forum
NGO Non-Goverment Organisation
NRF National R esearch Foundation
NTB National Training Board
OBE Outcomes-Based Education

AB ix
O
UT
ODL O pen Distance Learning
OER Open Educational R esources
OSD Occupational Specific Dispensation
RDDA R esearch D evelopm ent Dissemination and Adoption
RDP R econstruction and Development Progranun e
RNCS R evised National Curriculum Statement
SAIDE South African Institute for Distance Education
SANPAD South Africa Netherlands R esearch Programme on
Alternatives in Development
SAVUSA South AfricaVrije University Strategic Alliance
SGB School Governing Body
SMTs School Management Teams
SU Stellenbosch University
NWU North-West U niversity
Unisa University of Sout h Africa
uwc University of the Western Cape

ABBREVIATIONS xi
ODL O pen Distance Learning
OER Open Educational R esources
OSD Occupational Specific Dispensation
RDDA R esearch D evelopm ent Dissemination and Adoption
RDP R econstruction and Development Progranun e
RNCS R evised National Curriculum Statement
SAIDE South African Institute for Distance Education
SANPAD South Africa Netherlands R esearch Programme on
Alternatives in Development
SAVUSA South AfricaVrije University Strategic Alliance
SGB School Governing Body
SMTs School Management Teams
SU Stellenbosch University
NWU North-West U niversity
Unisa University of Sout h Africa
uwc University of the Western Cape

ABBREVIATIONS xi
 INTRODUCTION

Engaging the disciplinary context

through vision and imaginings
Petro du Preez & Chris Reddy

The field of Curriculum has been in constant flux since its inception
in the early 201h century and continues to shift and change (Breault &
Marshall, 2010).There have been various factors and influences that have
resulted in major theoretical shifts impacting on theory and practice.
Globalisation and local political power shifts have been influential in
the last two decades and this has left a lasting impression on the field
(Smith, 1998). One of the radical shifts, historically, has been the rise in
reconceptualist thinking (Pinar, 2013) during the 1970s which presented
a major challenge to the hegemonic ideas of curriculum that were then
the norm.This is often considered an important paradigm shift in the field
which opened up broader understandings of the construct curriculum
by including more social and critical influences thus, in a sense, breaking
away from the scientific mode of management and development that was
characteristic ofTylerian and Taylorian ideas (Kliebard, 2013).
Ideas on curriculum are linked to historical and temporal periods. When
the construct was first developed in the Western world in the early 1900s
there was a dominance of systematic and scientific discourses based on
industrial and mechanical models of the time (Kliebard, 2013).These
were directly transferred to social and societal activities like education.
The period of rapid development, mechanisation, economic renewal and
consumerism is often referred to as modernism. Modernist approaches
to curriculum and curriculum development are essentially based on
modernist assumptions about reality, and the modernist grand formulae
(Collinson et al., 2009). For instance, a view of curriculum that assumes
that curriculum development is a linear, strongly structured and centrally
controlled process may be based on structural-functionalist assumptions.
This is often seen as a period of narrow viewpoints based on efficiency
and control that focused on material development and what was popularly
referred to as scientific principles of operation.This grand narrative

1 C
U
R
 was challenged and in a sense reviewed by what was referred to as
postmodernist thought and ideas (Doll, 2008). Much of the dominant and
hegemonic discourses were challenged by more open and broader ideas
of knowing and doing that permeated all sectors of society. Curriculum
theory and other societal activities were all impacted upon by the ideas
linked to this way of doing and temporal period.
Even with the postmodern influences in the field, Curriculum Studies
as a scholarly domain is still being criticised for its inability to 'move on;
discover and invent new worlds and new ideas' (Morrison, 2004:487). In
essence, this plea for innovation and boundary piercing in Curriculum
Studies requires that scholars in the field articulate and explore novel
visions and imaginings. Firstly, this requires that Curriculum Studies
scholars ask questions about 'what could be' possible, and do not
limit themselves to asking 'what is' or 'what was' the situation. Greene
(2007:561) describes this process as bringing'an "as-if" into being, to look
through the windows of the actual to what might be and what ought
to be'. Secondly, it requires that we see both vision and imaginings as
creative triggers that can spawn innovation and invention of new ways of
doing and thinking.Vision and imaginings could therefore be understood
as a cognitive process that requires us 'to pull aside the curtains of habit,
automatism, banality, so that alternative possibilities can be perceived'
(Greene, 2007:562).As mentioned, Curriculum Studies requires new
directions, but before we can imagine such directions and set visions in
relation to it, it is important to understand how Curriculum Studies has
shifted and developed.
In South Africa (the context of the authors) the major socio-political change
in 1994 led to a period of change and intense ferment in education in
South Africa. Few events in South Africa have been as dramatic and sudden
as the demise of apartheid (the institutionalised separation of races in all
spheres of life) and the introduction of a majority, multi-party government
by democratic process in 1994. Lotz and Olivier (1998:2) indicate that
the change in government in 1994 enabled fundamental change in the
education policy environment in South Africa, which was primarily aimed
at transformation at systemic, social and methodological levels.Johnson
(1995:131) notes that educational policy changes were potentially far
reaching in that the proposals for education transformation were situated
within a broader strategy for national reconstruction and development.
Christie (2005) indicates that the 'new' South Africa was born at a time
of great change in the world. Changes associated with globalisation were

INTR 2
ODUC
TION
taking place in the economies, cultures and societies of the world. Building
a new society in South Africa needed to be founded on what already
existed and this included a legacy of disparity, inequality and deprivation of
schools and communities. Changes needed to take place at various scales,
including global (challenges of globalisation), nation state development
(decisions about economy and society), state policy (how policy processes
open possibilities for change - yet also face limits), and scale of the school
and classroom (providing learning experiences of high quality for all
learners - curriculum). Christie (1998) adds that schools are complex
social institutions with complex relationships shaped by conscious and
unconscious processes that are both rational and irrational.These processes
and institutions are all linked to curriculum and curriculum processes.
Jansen (1998) indicates that the initial far-reaching curriculum policy
development (see, for example, Chapter 2 on the Outcomes-Based
Education curriculum) was an act of political symbolism in which the
primary preoccupation of the state was with its own legitimacy. Initial
curriculum and policies did not take the current realities of schools into
account, nor the transition in society. According to Jansen (1998) it was
an attempt to push something innovative into schools in order to reclaim
or establish some form of credibility for the ministry of education.This
curriculum was later reviewed (details in Chapter 2) and, according to
Chisholm (2005:195), the curriculum making processes reflected/included
struggles of opposing groups to have their interests, values, histories and
politics reflected in the curriculum. She adds that the resulting curriculum
was very much the social product of contests between social forces, but
it was not the product of any one such social force and so combined
material and symbolic interests which intersected at various points.
The curriculum currently in use is a more centrally developed policy
which reflects international trends of a prescriptive national curriculum,
administered and controlled by the central government and national
education department.
This publication is a distillation of studies of curriculum practices linked
to the context of change mentioned above. It also highlights the tension
between change and continuity (Flinders & Thornton, 2013). Here
continuity refers to the tenacity of the discipline to rely on and endorse
grand narratives. The collection of chapters brings together the work of
practitioners - academics who grappled with shifts and changes in various
academic and social contexts, working with top-down imperatives in a
variety of practice realities.The chapters touch on important curriculum
actions and activities ranging from ideas about curriculum theory

3 C
U
R
 (Curriculum Studies) and practices related to aspects of curriculum such
as materials, assessment, curriculum development, all in a process of change
and transformation amidst theoretical continuity.
In the first chapter, Chris Reddy explores the fluid nature of the
Curriculum Studies discipline and how this has, amongst others,
influenced ways of conceptualising the concept curriculum. He explores
how different philosophical traditions have influenced the field and how
this has created a wide array of viewpoints of curriculum knowledge and
structure. His exploration provides meaning and evidence, for Breault
and Marshall (2010:179) claim that 'for more than a century, curriculum
scholars produced new working definitions of curriculum, creating
the field's definitional largesse. However, definitions do not come from
curriculum scholars alone: every pedagogue, parent, pundit, policy maker
and politician has one too.Today's conflicting definitions reflect different
vantage points from which curriculum is engaged with as well as different
philosophies and foci regarding the relationship between schools and
society ... the multiplication of curriculum definitions is not an urgent
problem to be solved, but rather a state of affairs to be acknowledged as
inevitable'. Reddy imagines that the dynamism of the field be kept alive
by a constant engagement with the complexity thereof.
Shan Simmonds provides a historical overview of curriculum reform
movements in South Africa in the second chapter. She maps historical
movements prior to the democratisation of South Africa and elaborately
explores the curriculum policy cycles since 1994.Throughout her
historical voyage she alludes to the main discourses that have shaped
ways of thinking and doing curriculum that left distinct residues in our
current conceptions of Curriculum Studies. In particular, she highlights
the political nature of curriculum and its propensity to be seen as a social
product. She critically engages with these shifts and discusses challenges
surrounding such conceptualisations of curriculum. More importantly, she
critically engages with the question of whether outcomes- based education
should still be seen as the foundation of the new NCS-CAPS, given its
historically loaded presence. Simmonds clearly portrays her vision and
imagining of curriculum as an inq uiry: a discursive space where ignorance
can be transcended and where questions become more important than
answers. In such a space, she argues, lies the potential to generate new ways
of doing and thinking when curriculum reform transpires. She concludes
with a plea that curriculum scholars should move beyond their comfort
zones and broaden their vistas to begin the creative process of redirecting
the discipline.

INTR 4
ODUC
TION
In Chapter 3,Anne Becker and Petro du Preez explore the influence of
ideology on Curriculum Studies. Particular emphasis is placed on the
marketisation of education as a result of the hegemony of neo-liberalism.
Their arguments,for the most part, echo Bridges and Jonathan's (2005:132)
critique of the commodification of education: ' ... education becomes a
commodity and schools production lines,"educated" students the products,
and teachers rewarded on the basis of their productivity. Such language ...
systematically distorts our understanding of the nature of education ... It
turns intrinsic values and essentially moral and humanistic relations into
instrumental ones'. Becker and Du Preez argue that when a curriculum is
conceptualised in such an ideological tone, it instrumentalises the relations
between humans and deprives them of ethical relations. Examples from the
South African curriculum are used to illustrate how such ideology infiltrates
the null and hidden curricula and the consequences they might have.Their
vision is that the 'curtains of habit, automatism, [and] banality' (Greene,
2007:562) that conceal the ethical relations between humans be pulled
aside.They imagine that this will create a space where curriculum and the
ideologies that underpin it can be disclosed and challenged in the pursuit of
an ethical curriculum landscape.
Yusef Waghid's chapter (Chapter 4) follows up on the question of an
ethical curriculum landscape, when he situates curriculum in broader
moral debates. He particularly questions whether curriculum theory
should continue to integrate virtue education. Multicultural integration,
as an essential manifestation of virtue education, is also brought into
his arguments. His vision is that multicultural integration receives more
attention in curriculum theorising because of its aptitude to promote
cosmopolitan norms that are based on the principles of hospitality
and care, and that are inclusive of democratic ideals and human rights
aspirations.Waghid's vision and imaginings regarding the value of
cosmopolitanism in the Curriculum Studies domain are especially
significant given Hansen's (2008:290) interpretation of cosmopolitanism
as an '... idea [that] offers more than a critical asset with which to examine
contemporary troubles.The idea is not merely parasitic upon crisis. It
provides a fruitful, time-honoured standpoint for building upon human
accomplishments ... and extending them both locally and globally ...... The
idea of the cosmopolitan holds promise because it emerges at this nexus of
possibility and challenge'.
In Chapter 5, Geesje van den Berg explores the notion of curriculum
development from technical and non-technical approaches. Curriculum
development is discussed in relation to curriculum design principles. Critical

6 C
U
R
 commentaries on different theories are provided throughout the chapter and
her position highlights the significance of a socially constructed curriculum
theory. She concludes, arguing that curriculum development theories should
keep up with our rapidly changing society and new approaches that are
flexible and open to technological advancements should be considered.
In line with the opening chapter, she too urges curriculum scholars to
pursue postmodern perspectives to curriculum making that can move the
field forward and prevent stagnation in the discipline.The importance of
indigenous knowledge systems, not only in terms of including them in
curriculum content, but as a way to move the field forward and discover
new ways of knowing, is also suggested. Lastly, she imagines a space where
research on curriculum making for post-conflict societies can be investigated.
In Chapter 6 Tony Mays focuses on teaching and learning as intended
curriculum activities in the education arena.The author points out the
important purposes of education and knowledge and connects these to
the all important assumptions linked to the processes.This is clarified with
reference to philosophical frameworks related to knowledge, teaching
and the links between the two and how assumptions shape practice. In
other words, how our views of knowledge influence how we teach and
what assumptions we make for learning as a concomitant process linked
to teaching. He further discusses teaching and learning resources and
discusses traditional resources like textbooks and makes reference to both
their limitations and value. He then proceeds to present ideas related to
Open Educational Resources, e- learning,self-regulated learning and
limited mediated learning.The underlying and pervasive message here
is that it is imperative to shift from traditional resources and regimented
learning processes to more open resources which allow interpretation
by and input from users. In doing this, he highlights how working with
Open Educational Resources allows teachers to mix, match and create
new resources and in the process develop new ideas with others leading to
personal and professional development. In terms of learning, he indicates
that self-learning (also see Chapter 7 on assessment as learning) provides
for more flexible schedules, personal development and meaningful learning
by students in collaboration with teachers and facilitators, rather than
learning regulated by teachers and in1plicitly rigid decontextualised policy
documents.The overall thrust is about developing sensitive materials
contextually and approaches that are learner centred rather than externally
imposed. It provides viewpoints that depart from the passive procedures
that are policy and system driven to more open forms of curriculum
implementation and interpretation, much like Schwab's (1973, 1993) idea

IN S
TR
O
of the practical where curriculum is re-envisioned and re-in1aginedat
local level through collaborative and on-going processes of engagement.
In Chapter 7 Peter Beets provides a background to the curriculum process
in South Africa and links these to international and global trends. Ideas
related to the place, function and value of assessment in curriculum and
formal education are broadly outlined and clearly linked to the uses of
assessment in formal education systems.The critical discussion of assessment
as a process of measurement linked to drives for greater efficiency
and efficacy in education provides a useful backdrop to education in
current global systems. Assessment is essentially a tool for measurement,
developing trends, links to qualifications and progress within systems.This is
juxtaposed with the subsequent text which links assessment to the personal
development of learners.The text weaves a narrative about assessment of
learning (summative), assessment for learning (formative) and assessment as
learning. Each approach is linked to systems and highlights that while they
are all important and valued in education, extreme positions that actually
do not focus on learners and learning, can have detrimental effects.The
author highlights the purposes of assessment, how different assessment
processes are used for different purposes, and how all of them have intrinsic
value. Beets argues for a balanced approach that provides opportunities for
growth, is context sensitive and also provides maximum space for learner
development and growth. He imagines a balanced approach as one that
provides opportunities for assessment as learning in 'partnership' with
assessment of and for learning.The emphasis is placed on sensitivity, the
needs oflearners and procedures that actually promote learner development
and growth rather than curriculum expediency and policy imperatives that
call for procedural uniformity and compliance.
Clarence Williams' chapter (Chapter 8) deals with the construct
curriculum leadership and focuses strongly on schools and schooling
in this context.The author provides background on the history of
leadership in schools and emphasises the idea that positional leadership
was traditionally dominant and vestiges of this understanding of leadership
still dominate in most schools. He emphasises the historical disparities
and backlogs in schools that have not been bridged as an impediment to
change and transformation in leadership practices. Another factor that
is mentioned is the importance of central ideas of position and place
in leadership.This the author describes as central roles that need to be
occupied and implemented by school principals and management teams
in order for schools to self-actualise a common purpose and set of values
for the school. It is also mentioned that distributed leadership is more

7 C
U
R
 desirable as it involves more people and perspectives, is collaborative and
empowering.This, he feels, can also counter the old positional leadership
dominance but highlights that - according to research - capacity
building in this regard can take from five to ten years. Action research
as an empowering collaborative process is discussed and suggested as a
possible way forward for the improvement of curriculum leadership.The
process as imagined by the author is inclusive, collaborative and reflexive,
allowing for discussion and improvement along the way. It also provides
for the current 'system' to serve as a point of departure with a view to
improvement and eventual transformation.
In Chapter 9 Petro du Preez focuses on re- imagining the place of curriculum
evaluation in contemporary curriculum thinking.The author suggests that
curriculum evaluation is embedded in the process of curriculum making and
that it has the potential to assist teachers to make informed contributions
when consulted in curriculum review processes. It is further suggested that
this would assist teachers in taking ownership of curriculum transformation
processes.The author then explores positions taken over time regarding the
process of evaluation and makes suggestions for transformative possibilities
in curriculum evaluation related to context.The origins of this approach in
a managerial culture with technocratic rationalities of the day are discussed.
This includes mainly summative procedures which tested whether objectives
set were attained and whether the desired behavioural changes were achieved.
It also includesTyler's evidence-based responses for formative evaluation to
include paper and pencil tests, observations, questionnaires, interviews and
other actual evidences. All is, however, seen as a gross oversimplification of
complex questions that curriculum in practice actually presents, as it includes
mainly product testing, summative processes of evaluation and evidence-based
practice.This signifies a linear process based on the curriculum developers'
intents ands' information needs. In terms of this orientation, curriculum
evaluations are therefore quantitative and summative in nature and aimed
at testing curriculum products. Ideas are presented for on-going evaluation
that has a formative point of reference. Curriculum enquiry is argued for as
a reformative practice in which evaluation is reconceptualised in terms of
critical theory and in which curriculum enquiry as a reformative project is
based on reflection and action.
One of the recurring themes in the chapters of this publication is the
top-down prescriptions and traditional views of curriculum that continue
to dominate the discipline. Together with this, neo-liberal influences that
spur changes in education policy and curriculum practice are also evident.
These themes are not unique to the South African context and transcend

IN 8
TR
O
borders to such an extent that centralised national curricula and all the
discourses that go with it, are becoming the dominant global tendency.
This is also about reclaiming the discourses of curriculum and education
by educators as they have long been appropriated by institutions and forces
away from the actual sites of education.
While curriculum as policy represents a preferred future, the enactment
and insertion are often problematic. Narrow interpretations, coupled with
linear implementation, and causal processes, often do not achieve stated
aims and objectives. Context and reality vary and social conditions rarely
support imposed ideas linked to policies. 'New' ideas and thinking, which
can be seen as imagining a different and more contextualised future,
present a shift that might be more achievable. It is therefore important to
consider the possibilities that imagination might offer.
Imagination is not opposed to rationality, as often thought, but is part of
rational, reasoning processes (Byrne, 2005). It is not only about facts, but
counterfactual possibilities, when people create images in their mind that
address the question of'if only' (Byrne, 2005:1-2).To move the field of
Curriculum Studies forward, it is important that we understand the roots
of the discipline, 'break with the anchorage' that prevents us from moving
the discipline forward and then use our imaginations and visions 'to
light the slow fuse of possibility' (Greene, 2007:566).The chapters in this
publication provide a starting point for this process.

REFERENCES
Breault, D.A. & Marshall,J.D. 2010. Definitions of curri culum. In C. Kridel (ed.). E11cyclopaedia
of wrriwf11111 stHdies. London: Sage.

Byrne, D. & Jo nathan, R. 2005. Education and the Market. In N. Blake, P. S meyers, R. Smith
& P. Standish (eds). 11,e Blackwell G11ide to the Philosophy of Ed1u atio11. USA, UK & Australia:
Blackwell Publishing.
Bridges, R . 2005. 11,e Ratio11al l111aginatio11. How PeopleCreate Alternativesto Rt>alit y. Cambridge :
MIT Press.

Chisholm. L. 2005.The making of South Africa's National Curriculum Statement.Journal c!f

C11rriw/11111 Studies, 37(2):193-208.
Christie, P. 1998. Schools as (Dis)Organisations: the 'breakdown of the culture of learning and
teaching' in South African schools. Cambridge ]011mal <?f Education, 28(3):283-300.
Christie, P. 20 08. Cha11gi11g Schools in South ,1frica. Opening the doors eflearning. Heinemann:
Johannesburg.
, . Ling, L., Matheson, I., Newcombe, L. & Zolga, I.
C ollinson, V., Kozina, E.,Yu-Hao, K
2009. Professional development for teachers: A world of change. European journal efTeacher
Education,32(1):3- 19.

9 C
U
R
 Doll,W 2008. Complexity and the Culture of Curriculum. Educational Philosophy and Tl,eory,
Vol.40(1):190-212.
Flinders, D. & Thornton, S. (eds). 2013.Tlw Curriculum Studies Rc"der {4'11 edition). New York
and United Kingdom: Routledge.
Greene, M. 2007.The artistic-aesthetic curriculum. In R. Curren (ed.). Philosophy o.f Ed11c"tio11:
A11 m,thofog)'. USA, UK & Australia: Blackwell Publishing.

Hansen, D.T. 2008. Curriculum and the idea of a cosmopolitan inheritance.j1"'ma/ 1!{
C urriw l,.,m Studies, 40(3):289-312.

Jansen,J. 1998. Curriculum reform in South Africa: a critical analysis of outcomes-based

education. Cambridge ]011maf of Ed11catio11,Vol. 38(3):321-331.
Johnson, D. 1995.The challenges of educational reconstruction and transformation in South
Africa. C<1mparativt· Ed11catio11, 31(2):131-141.
Kliebard, H. 2013.The Rise of Scientific Curriculum-Making and Its Aftermath. In D.
Flinders & S.Thornton. The Curriw/11111 Studies Reader (4'h edition). New York and United
Kingdom: Routledge.
Lotz, H. & Olivier, C. 1998. Clarifying orientations to learning programme development
within the OBE curriculum framework and the Learning for Sustainability Curriculum
2005 Pilot Project in Gauteng and Mpumalanga. Unpublished paper presented at the
Outcomes Based Education International Symposium,Vista Uniwrsity, 17-18 November,
1998.
Morrison, K. 2004.The poverty of curriculum theory: a critique ofWraga and Hlebowitsh.
Joumal of Curriculum Studies, 36(4):487-494.
Pinar,W 2013.The Reconcepmalizarion of Curriculum Studies. In D. Flinders & S.Thornton.
11,e Cmricu/11111 S111dies Reader (4th edition). New York and United Kingdom: Routledge.
Schwab,J. 1973.The practical:Translation into curriculum. Scliool Revitw,81:501-522.
Schwab,J. 1993.The Practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. C11rric11l11111
Iuq11iry, 13(3):239-265.
Smith, D. 1998. Curriculum and Teaching Face Globalization. In D. Flinders & S.Thornton.
11,e Curricu/11111 Studies Reader (3 rd edition). NewYork and United Kingdom: Routledge.

IN 10
TR
O
 CHAPTER 1

Curriculum: Exploring an
ever-changing landscape
Chris Reddy

Introduction
While courses of study, categories of knowledge and skills have existed
for centuries, the emergence of curr iculum as social co nstruct and field of
study is a fairly recent development. MacDonald (1992) contends that the
field of curriculum is a 20th century developm ent in education that closely
paralleled the development and organisation of mass schoo ling in Western
countries.
In this chapter I briefly trace the origins of curriculum as a field, present
ideas that link theory of curriculum and practices linked to curri cul um as a
twentieth century social construct in education. I also discuss ideas related
to Curriculum Studies and its cu rren t position as a contested ter rajn of
academic scholarship and research,and I finally discuss the complexity of
curriculum as a construct and a system and its vacillations between theory
and practice in the processes of education.

Tracing the origins of curriculum and influences that

shaped the construct
Doll (2002) provides a historical development of the term which can be
seen as a precur sor to the field of curriculum as we know it today. His
discussion refers to early educational practices where students followed
masters and read according to the instruction of masters and scholars in
ancient R ome and Greece.The 'coursesof study' followed were really open
and student choice was a high determining factor of what they preferred
to be involved with.This form of incidental education changed in the
mid-1500s and early 1600s when a more formal and organised approach to
learning and content of learning emerged. According to Doll (2002), Peter
R amus was one of the earliest theorists to propose a map of knowledge

11 CU
RRI
CUL
 which was later adopted by the universities of Leiden and Glasgow.T hese
were Protestant universities which were strongly influenced by Calvinistic
ideas of discipline, order and organisation.
T he idea of a formal knowledge plan seemed to lin k seamlessly with the
strict order which feature strongly in C alvinistic ideas of life accor din g
to Doll (2002). Curriculum started to take on a form of organised
and sequential guide to learning which was very different to the more
itinerant and open learning ideas that were dominant earlier. Like the
rise of Protestantism, comm ercialism and the shifts in intellectual order, a
social change interested in simplicity,effici ency and method became more
dominant around the same time.
According to Doll (2002), R amus first used the word 'curriculum' to
describe a sequentially ordered map of knowledge which he believed
was a general outline of fit-all knowledge. He also suggested that the
framework provided guidelines to teaching and this is considered to be
the beginning of methodisation of teaching.This framework seemed to
present the genesis of ordered, controlled teaching and learning of specified
knowledge and methods.T his was emph asised more strongly during the
rise of American industrialisation which had broad implications for society
as a whole. Using this as an example, it is clear that when curriculum was
systematised together with teaching, it forged a strong control alliance that
has remained in existence to this day (Doll, 2002).
Kliebard (1986) indicates that during the American industrial expansion
of the 1890s the role of schooling altered radically.T he ideas of Frederick
Taylor related to industrial management were ado pted in schooling and
led to a highly organised and controlled system of schooling focused
on workin g with children to produce pre-determined and particular
outcomes. He suggests that this was part of the methodisation of American
society and culture and strongly involved schools and learning in schools.
T his seems to have been an early indication of the broad understanding of
curriculum and its influences from and on society as it developed largely
in the Western context of the world and the form in which it has played
out and been ado pte d in South Africa.The understanding of curriculum to
this day is broad and open to interpretation and influenced by societal and
theoretical perspectives,some of which will be discussed later.

Curriculum: one construct; many meanings

It is widely reported in literature that the construct curriculum is not
easy to define or to explain (McDonald, 1999; Goodson, 1997; Stenhouse,

CH 12
APT
ER
1975). Curriculum is a soc ial construct (developed by human deliberation)
and it must therefore be accepted that there is no generally accepted
inter pretation of this concept.Yet it is not without meaning and should
always be explained in the context in which it is used, leadin g to vario us
ways of interpreting it.
The most popular interpretation is based on a literal interpretation
(Goodson, 1997:23) of the word curriculum as der ived from the Latin
word'currere'.The word curriculum was thus derived from'currere',
which means a course or track. Curriculum was the track on which
athletes competed or on which chariot races were held in ancient R ome.
This seems an appropriate metaphor in educational discourse for the
processes which educators plan and through which learners proceed to
reach certain learning objectives or outcomes.Apple (1979:111), in turn,
describes curr iculum as 'educative environments in which students are to
dwell'. Grumet (1981:115) describes curr iculum as ' the collective story we
tell our children about our past, our present and our future'. Bartlett and
Burton (2007) indicate that curr iculu m is a social construction at the heart
of the education system and that it gives shape and form to much of what
happens in educational institutions at all levels.They indicate further that
curriculum is often referred to as if it were a collection of subjects that
appear on the timetable of education institutions. Kelly (2009), however,
suggests that this is a limiting view and that a broader view of all the
experiences provided might be a better perspective on the construct.
How we view curriculum is a matter of choice, which is largely influenced
by the ways in which we frame the construct. As discussed above, the
term 'curriculum' has been described in literature and texts in education
in various ways and it is unlikely that consensus will ever be reached.
The construct is complex and is linked to and influenced by many social
processes and interactions and its meaning is often taken for granted by
those involved in education. In schooling and in education more broadly,
there are many powerful ideas (education theories) which have been used
to steer and justify the way we view curriculum. All these powerful ideas in
education have influenced, or served as ratio nale for, our conceptualisation
of curriculum. In seeking to clarify and justify how and why we do things
in different ways in everyday practice, we have tended to explain what we
do with reference to fran1eworks derived from these theories within the
field of education. In the following section I will briefly discuss the main
features and ideological foundations of each.

13 CU
RRI
CUL
 Curriculum studies/inquiry:perspectives and
approaches
Curriculum inquiry or studies implies that curriculum is the object of
enquiry of a process of systematic examination. Connelly and Connelly
(2010) define curriculum enquiry as the deliberate inquir y into curriculum
research questions.This kind of enquiry seeks curriculum knowledge on
virtually anything that might be relevant to thinking about or making
practical decisions on curriculum matters. Some of these decisions are
theoretical and impact on choices and actions related to curriculum.
These are th en linked to theoretical ideas that frame social activities
like education and curriculum in particular. Pinar (2004:2) suggests that
curriculum theory is the interdisciplinary study of educational experience.
This he later qualified as
[t]hat interdisciplinary field committed to the study of educational
experience, especially but not only, as that experience is encoded in
the school curriculum, itself a highly symbolic as well as institutional
structuration of (potentially) educational experience (Pinar, 2004: 20).

Coleman (2003:17) mentions that 'curriculum, like all other social

phenomena, can be understood in fundamentally diffe rent ways'. He argues
that in order to understand the term curriculum, one needs to view it in
terms of broad approaches to curriculum theorising. In other words, one
needs to have an understanding of the different views, perspectives or
paradigms curri culum scholars have of curriculum. In explaining what a
paradigm is, Coleman (2003:17) briefly refers to Guba and Lincoln using
their description of a paradigm as:
A basic set of beliefs, a set of assumptions we are willing to make,
which serve as touchstones in guiding our activities. The crucial
thing to note here is that these paradigms are basic 'belief' systems;
they cannot be proven or disproven, but they represent the most
fundamental positions we are willing to take.

Paradigms can therefore be seen as ways in which curriculum is being

perceived, aln1ost like looking through different conceptual lenses or
frameworks. Curriculum frameworks are the broad ideaswe have of
curriculum.T hese are influenced by our orientations to the construct and
Horton and Hanes (1993) posit that philosophical views or frameworks help to
establish important components within curriculum.Schubert (1986) suggests
that perspectives from contexts or background, nourish the development of
a set of beliefs or assumptions in people. He calls this the philosophical stance

CH 14
APT
ER
and suggests that these views are at the heart of every curriculum endeavour.
As is the case elsewhere in this literature, curriculum theory is principall y
identified with and as a form of social theo ry (Green, 2010).
There are a number of distinct, but not unrelated, approaches to
curr iculum.These approaches are based on coherent sets of values and
beliefs related to education, often termed education ideologies.T he
paradigms and perspectives related to these are discussed below.

Positivist
Positivist predilections in curr iculum orientations normally show in the
nature of prescribed content, and how that content has been determined.
It is seen to be suited to an educatio n system where authorities prescribe
content and method in order to promote certain social values and political
beliefs. Such a model of curr iculum represents a com plex construct like
curriculum and its developm ent as if it were a simple, decontextualised,
value-free, orderly and predictable process.
The Research Development Dissemi nation and Adoption (RDDA)-approach
(Robottom, 1996) to curriculum development which has dominated the field
can be regarded as an overarching and continuous process in which systenu tic
and purposeful planning features strongly from the design stage to evaluation.
This approach to curriculum has been attributed to ideas promo ted by Ralph
Tyler who was an early curriculum scholar. Many regard theTyler model of
curriculum (the theoretical model for the RO DA-approach) as positivist/
modernist, due to its structured and recipe-like nature.
Such an approach leads to a curriculum with rigorously and authoritatively
prescribed content and can thus be regarded as positivist as it assumes that
knowledge can (and should) be centrally constructed and transferred. Such
a curr iculum favours discipline-based teaching and learning and prescribed
assessment and teaching methods, mostly transmission mode. It is often
regarded as reductionist as it delinks subjects and promotes rote learning
in isolation.
Henderson (1992) highlights a significant change which occurred in
the formal study of curriculum in America in the 1980s, leading to the
rejection of a technocratic view of curriculum by a significant nun1ber
of curriculum theorists. According to Pinar (1988:2), these scholars
'reconceptualised' Curriculum Studies to be 'the scholarly and disciplined
understanding of educational experience, particularly in its political,
cultural, gender and historical dimensions'.This loose grouping of scholars

15 CU
RRI
CUL
 is often referred to as the ' reconcep tualists' and the discussions of the
paradigms below are related to reconceptualist ideas of curriculum theory
and understandings.

lnterpretivist
This paradigm is, to a large extent, a response to the positivistic, prescriptive
cur riculum or Tylerian approach to curriculum. Cornbleth (1990)
writes that one of the implications of this position is that curriculum is
constructed within actual learning situations with actual students. Learning
is a social process and curr iculum knowledge is so cially constructed and
subject to critique and reconstructio n. Schubert (1986) indicates that the
interpretive paradigm is also referred to as the hermeneutic paradigm
(which literally means the reinterpretatio n of biblical texts). He suggests
that in this sense it takes on a metaphorical use that refers to the on- going
process of reflectively interpr eting th e meaning of lived experience.
Schubert (1986) states that the practical paradigm serves the end of
insight and understanding in situation ally specific settings. Knowledge
and curricula produced are subjected to constant evaluation and scrutiny
with a view to improvement within the specific context in/ for which they
were intended.

Critical
Cornb leth (1990:194) writes that a critical perspective or paradigm
entails 'questioning appearances and taken-for-granted practices, probing
assumptions and implications'. She urges that key features of a critical
perspective are its normative stance against all forms of domination, and
its context sensitivity (Cornbleth, 1990:3). She contends that its purposes
are enlightenment and empowerment that can foster personal and social
liberation from various forms of domination such as ideological hegemonies.
Therefore, in her view, in order for curriculum to encourage critical
thinking, it must be seen and treated as value laden, contextualised and
opposed to oppression of individuals by means of the ideological and socio-
economic forces in the broader world. Critical theorists like Cornbleth see
the need to expose these impeding forces and take action to overcome them.
Critical orientation has an emphasis on blending of action and enquiry,
commonly referred to as praxis.The term 'critical praxis' refers to an
integration of theoretical critique of society and action or practice that
seeks to improve society and the individual through education. It fur ther
involves reflection on what it means to engage in worthwhile experience,

CH 16
APT
ER
even in the face of constra.ints on social justice.
A critical perspective on curriculum emp hasises the need to take
cognisance of injustices in society and the ways in which these can be
minimised and social justice can be served. Schiro (1978) writes that a
social reconstructivist ideology (critical) assumes that the comn1unity is
unhealthy,and that it is being threatened. Something must therefore be
done to avoid the destruction of the community,and the school has an
important role to play in this regard.

Post-structuralism
Stru cturalism, as a way of thinking about the world, is ultimately based on
the human need for pattern seeking/ making. Its main tenet is that there
is no en tity that can be isolated and studied on its own; the true natu re of
things lie not in themselves,'but in the relationships that we construct and
then perceive between them' (Hawkes, 1977:17). Structuralists tend to look
for universal stru ctures in human actions, culture and language.
In other words, human beings create structures such as ideas,plan s, systems,
ideologies and technologies, which in turn influence the way they act and
think.All the structures developed by human s are described and embedded
in linguistic practices that take on particular forms such as metaphors,
myths, symbols and social institutions.The linguistic format is in terms of
word structures and relationships.
Similarly, curriculum, being an artefact, is 'not out there in nature waiting
to be discovered'; it is something structured by a particular community,
which then reciprocally influences the way that community thinks about
teaching and learning.
It follows from the discussion so far that if a particular discursive practice
(constellation of signs) is sanction ed and others not permitted, certain ways
of behaviour would find favour and others not. Post-structuralist criticism is
a means of establishing which privileged vocabularies and discursive practices
influence our behaviour, and which language games have been forbidden.
According to Cherryholmes, (1987:17-19), adopting a post-structural
attitude leads educato rs to ask certain key questions regarding curriculum.
These include what learning opportunities have been included and excluded
from curriculum and whose interests have been served in such processes.
They might also query who participates in discourses with authority and
who might have been silenced. Furthermore, questions might also be asked
about the social structures and historical conditions by means of which topics
and valued categories of curriculum are legitimated.

17 CU
RRI
CUL
 • What learning opportunities have been included and what
opportunities have been excluded?
• Whose interests are being served and whose interests are excluded?
• Who participates with authorily in curricular discourse, who
listens and who is excluded?
• What are the dominant and valued categories?
• What curriculum topics are part of the discourse and which have
been left out?
• What are the social structures and historical conditions by means
of which topics are legitimated?

Goodson (1994) writes that the school curriculum is a social artefact

conceived of and made for deliberate human purposes. Goodson
(1997:181) further mentions that sociologists of education have long faced
a paradox: 'Curriculum is avowedly and manifestly a social construction,
why then is this central social construct treated as a timeless given?' H e
adds that the problem has been compounded by the fact that it has been
treated as a neutral given embedded in an otherwise meaningful and
complex situation. Cornbleth (1990) reasons that curriculum should be
seen as that interaction which happens in the classroom, a continuous
social process which consists of the interactions between students, teachers,
knowledge and milieu. She thus views curriculum as a social process rather
than a fixed programme or structured linear process.
Schubert (1986) states that the way we think about or conceptualise
curricular phenomena has considerable impact on what those phenomena
become. It is understandable, though, that curriculum has often been
grounded in ideological conflict and Henderson (1992) advocates the idea
of ideological pluralism related to curriculum. He argues that this position
rejects the inevitable victory of one ideology over another, with the result
that there is no ideological 'high ground' to serve as a final referent for truth.
Orientations to curriculum theory and practice do not represent distinct
schools of thought. Each of these theoretical positions is rather wide ranging
and there is undoubtedly some overlap among them.These frameworks
are essentially key orienting ideas about possible teaching and learning
experiences, which become enacted through teaching and learning
processes in real-life settings. Bartlett and Burton (2007) indicate that
modern state curricula are likely to be derived from an amalgam of different
ideologies rather than from one consistent and clearly defined paradigm.

CH 18
APT
ER
How curricula are conceived of and developed is linked to contextual
factors which include social, econo mic and political factors that are
supported by dominant discourses linked to power. It is therefore
important to remain vigilant and to employ tools of theory when dealing
with curriculum choices and other issues of choi ces related to curriculum
and education more broadly.

Curriculum and knowledge

As a social process, education is closely linked to and involved with
knowledge. Knowledge, however, has many different meanings and can be
viewed in different ways. It is, however, generally accepted that knowledge
is socially const ructed by human deliberation and interaction and that
knowledge therefore does not exist independen tly of humans. It is human s
that give knowledge meaning and that have developed and organised/
archived knowledge systems over time.
Osberg and Biesta (2003:84), in their text on complexity and representation
in education, assert that modern Western schooling is 'almost invariably
organised as an epistemological practice with knowledge firmly foregrounded
as a guiding principle for education'.They further indicate that education
institutions present knowledge about the world 'o utside' and for that very
reason they rely upon a representational epistemology.This is an epistemology
which says that our knowledge stands for or represents a world that is separate
from our knowledge itself. In their opinion, modern education relies on
epistemological representation rather than on ethical or political theory.What
forms do this knowledge take in terms of curriculum?
Coffey (2000) suggests that what counts as knowledge is not straightforward
and there are a number of ways in which the idea of knowledge can be
analysed (and challenged) within contemporary educational contexts. Bartlett
and Burton (2007) suggest that knowledge is not just a body of facts about the
world, but that knowledge comes packaged in particular styles. Knowledge
has been reified as an object or product to be revealed to students over the
course of their schooling. Curriculum knowledge is mainstream or consensus
knowledge; the knowledge deemed important to learn. It is often seen as part
of the official legitimated knowledge that is laid down by the state and realised
through educational or school contexts (Coffey, 2000).
What is the prevailing pattern of curriculum knowledge? C urriculum
knowledge is assumed to be different from everyday knowledge and best
studied apart from everyday experience and general world knowledge.It is
external to and independent of individuals - knowledge is a pre-existing

19 CU
RRI
CUL
 truth or reality out there verified by exper ts. It is not created by ordinary
people and certainly not by students. It is treated as secure and unchanging,
of fixed nature and accepted as a given by teacher's tex ts and other
authoritative sources. It also has a presumed public character and distance
from students' day to day lives (Coffey, 2000; Cornbleth, 1996).
Curriculum knowledge is thus reproducible and transmittable and can
be reproduced by stude nts during examinations, for example. Technical
curri culum knowledge is comprised of discrete skills and pieces of
information.T he associated lear ning tasks are mechanistic and unrelated
to students' exper iences - are largely pre-planned activities intended to
produce measurable com petencies. C urriculum content is always defined
and determined - state guidelines and policy directives can actually
prescribe what gets taught in schools as with national or core curricula
in favour today in many parts of the world (see C hapte r 5 on technical
approaches).
School cu rricula are conceptualised in terms of subject specialisation
and indeed compartmentalisation and these ideas have been developed
powerfully thro ugh state education systems (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977).
H ence the school curriculum and its associated pedagogic practices are
conceptualised in terms of discrete packages of knowledge, for example
mathematics, history, English literature, and so on. These are organised
into school subjects and the subjects then divided into segments, facts,
concepts, skills, topics and subtopics.These are typically arranged
sequentially and hierarchically and presumed to add up eventually to a
cohe rent body of knowledge within the subject or to the subject itself.
Selection, organisation and treatment of curriculum knowledge are
largely fragmented, fixed, public or distant from studen ts, and presumably
reproducible and applicable and transmittable to students.
Popkewitz (2009:308) indicates that school subjects require transpo rtation
and translation tools to move academic ideas (labs, science buildings,
history archives, etc.) and cultural practices of broader or mother disciplines
into the school curriculum.These include theories of child development,
selection and organisation of content by age levels and didactic practices to
effect teaching and so on. T he pedagogical practice of relating unfamiliar
public knowledge to what students already know, is intended to make the
public knowledge accessible and acceptable to students, not to transform it.
Stanley and Wise (1993 ) refer to situated knowledge - knowledge within
social and cultural contexts. Normal educational arenas do not legitimate
knowledge located in everyday practices and contexts and, hence,

CH 20
APT
ER
contextualised knowledge is framed negatively in formal curriculum
discourse. Postmodern concer ns with debunking absolute truths has
frequently called for the recognition of situated knowledge as being
authentic contextual knowledge that is important in vario us co ntexts.T his
is linked to ideas on indigenous knowledge and local proble1ns and issues
which are considered to be valuable 'counter narratives' to the domin ant
discourses in schoo ling and education in general. Central ideas on natio nal
curricula have made thi s a difficult option to follow and it is seemingly
still on the margins of mainstream education, according to Stanley and
Wise (1993). Knowledge has been complexified, problematised thoro ughly,
almost always in a dialectical relationship with power and identity,and
remains central to th e curr iculum project (see Chapter 5 on process and
praxis approaches).
Curriculum knowledge, as discussed above, is developed into structured
curricula as we have come to know it and is often referred to as the
explicit or written curri culum (Wilson, 2005).T his is developed and
organised in terms of various systems for education and sch oolin g.
Goodson (1994) highlights th e selective nature of curr iculum by indicating
that it represents a particular selection (conten t, knowledge and practices)
from a range of possible choices. He fur ther indicates that sin ce educational
goals are always contentious, the social construction of the school
curriculum involves political and ideological co n testatio n linked to power
and influence at different levels within formal education systems.
Pinar (2004:xv) asserts that the key question remains:What knowledge
is of most worth ? He suggests that this is animated by ethics, history and
politics and rem ains an on-going question. He indicates that an important
aspect of curriculum processes is to link the planned curriculum to the lived
cu rriculum and to demonstrate to children that scholarship can speak to
them and that scholarship can enabl e them to speak. His suggestion, in short,
is that curriculum knowledge should be enabling and not alienatin g, and that
it needs to be mediated in terms of current living and life circumstances.

Curriculum in practice
The dominant artefact of curriculum is the paper or electronic policy
document. Meanings of curriculum oscillate around being a document
and a plan of action, a product and a process closely linked to education
activities at various levels of education institutio ns.The discussion in
this section links to curriculum and curriculum policy in practice. In a
sense, this equates to theory and practice and the players and stakeholders

21 CU
RRI
CUL
 involved in each.We explore ideas related to curr iculum as a plan and as a
formal set of ideas for education processes,as well as how these plans take
concrete forms in practice.

Curriculum policy and systems

Policy appears in documen ts with a variety of names which include
curriculum guide, guideline and syllabus and course outline. Formal policy
discourse reflec ts the times and political trends in education. Policies are
linked to political perspectives and the policies (products) and processes
(development) are strongly influenced by governme nts/ ruling parties.
Curriculum policy is derived by way of bureaucra tic and academic
processes from competing discourses and represents concrete political
positions on knowledge questions and policy products.T he influence of
policy will receive special attention in Chapter 2.
Three kinds of curriculum policy can be distinguished according to
Connelly and Connelly (2010:227): formal, implicit and prudential.
• Formal policy is the official mandatory statement of what is to be
taught to students. It is develo ped by those responsible (government-
sanctioned officials) and expressed in different ways. Final documents
are linked to philosophical perspectives, goals, subject matter knowledge
standards, what students should know and be able to do.
• Imp licit curriculum refers to policies at various administrative and
government levels that influence practices. Policies with normally
significant impact on local practices refer to statements, documen ts and
suggestions that accompany formal curriculum policy and that do not
carry the weight of a mandatory requirement but are often treated as
such in practice.
• Prudential curriculum policy refers to the practical wisdom and
practical knowledge used by teachers and/ or school administrators as
they adopt formal and implicit curriculum policy for local situations.
The three kinds of policies mentioned above interact in different ways
under different forms of administration.
Policy generally represents the preferred way of doing by authorities and are
linked to bigger systems, often national or regional education bureaucracies.
Bartlett and Burton (2007) indicate that curriculum of educational
establishments such as schools, collegesand universities have a powerful legal
basis which is regulated and kept under control by various institu tions.

CH 22
APT
ER
Gough (1999:49) asks the question,' Is a bureaucratic system a material
reality or is it, to borrow William Gibsons' (1984) description, "a consensual
hallucination" that exists because most of us behaveas if it existed?' He
enquires further about how have we come to think of schools, districts and
even curriculum and policies as systems, what kind of systems we imagine
them to be and what is actually systematic about them (Go ugh, 1999: 49).
These questions are perennial and have been a contested arena in the field
for a long tim e.
Key components of curr iculum systems are informational patterns such
as statements, objectives, co ntent patterns and they invariably have been
represented as material objects. Gough (1999:50), in discussing the
'archaeology of cur riculum systems', mentions that a dominant curriculum
artefact of curr iculum administration that is continuo uslyproduced and
reproduced is th e print - on- paper curr iculu m document (policy).This
he considers a relatively inflexible medium which is often called 'hard
copy' for good reason. Electronic versions are now produced but these are
equally inflexible and often exist on offic ial websites in PDF format.
Go ugh (1999) further mentions that another long standing tradition
of representation of curriculum is that of a closed system of discrete
components, namely objectives, content, processes and products acting
in linear cause-and-effect relationships. Furth ermore many of these
components and the spaces they occupy have been conceptualised as
mate rial objects. Gough (1999:50) suggests that the term 'content' seems
to indicate that curr iculum is like a container (an object with bounded
spatial dimensions), while reference to frameworks, standards and flow
charts used to depict planning sequences invoke the technical languages
of manufacturing industries.The language of curriculum is infused
with residues of attempts to model organisations on industrial systems
of producing and transforming materials, the socalled factory model of
schooling (Chapter 3).
Gough (1999) further suggests that most education bureaucracies are still
governed by a systematic rationality that privileges orderly and predictable
processes culminating in stable output. In these systems, curriculum
documents function as hom eostatic devices regulating the diverse inputs of
students and teachers by bringing them within closed circuits of corrective
feedback in order to maintain stability and equilibrium. Beauchamp (1968)
in Gough (1999) introduced the idea of cur riculum engineer ing to
describe the curriculum system and its internal dynamics.

23 CU
RRI
CUL
 National curriculum systems: curriculum engineering

Curriculum engineering consists of all th e processesnecessary to make a

curriculum system function in schools.T he chief engineers in the system
are the education district officials, princip als and curriculum directo rs.
T hey, the engineers, organise and direct the manipulation of the various
tasks and operations that must go on in order for the curri culum to be
planned, implemented in classrooms through the instruction al programme,
evaluated and revised in the light of data accumulated through evaluation.
T his idea of a cur riculum system that steers education in particular
directions by way of a legitimised system is highlighted in the current
wave of implementation of national curricula in many countries,including
South Africa. National curricula provide a mechanism for government to
exert direct control over what is required to be learnt and how it is taught
in schools.T his allows space for the normalising and regulating aspects of
dominant discourses,according to Coffey (2000:43) and 'epitomises the
symbolic and real link between school knowledge and the needs of the state'.
Croxford (2000:115) indicates that the national cur ricula of the nineties in
the UK were influenced more by a conservative right political agenda than
by educational or egalitarian principles.Coffey (2000) believes this is an
indication that schooling has been increasin gly reco gnised as an important
site of cultural transmission, with the state playin g an increasing role in
legitimising appropriate knowledge transmission.
National curricula confirm the status of school knowledge as some thing
that can be defined, delivered and assessed under discrete headings. School
knowledge, in such contexts, is divided into key stages and delivered in
terms of distinct subject areas as per the cur riculum imperatives.T his
excludes paren ts, children and teachers as creators of knowledge and the
state becomes the arbiter of what counts as knowledge (Coffey,2000).
These ideas are driven via policies developed and systems conceived of to
cont rol and regulate education processes.

Curriculum: implementation and regulation

Educational activities are generally considered to consist of ends and means
and, according to McCowan (2009:337), the relationship between the two
is far from straightforward. McCowan (2009) suggests that the relationship
can be developed along two frames.The first is proximity between ends
and means, where the ex tent of separation or unification between means
and ends is of great importance.The second is rationale and refers to the

CH 24
APT
ER
grounds on which means are chosen (McCowan, 2009:321). So how is the
former related to the latter?
The means-end relationship in curr iculum implementation is extended
and discussed by McCowan (2009:337). He suggests that proximity
between ends and means and rationale for choice of means is the frame of
reasoning used.According to him, proximity relates to the exte nt to which
ends and means are unified and/or separated from each other.There are
three ideas in this reasoning, namely separation, harmony and unification.
• Separation is most com mon, and most discussions assume they are
always separate and have a necessary relationship of causality where
means lead to particular ends.
• In the case of harmony, elements considered important in the ends are
embodied in the means. Means confo rm with and lead to the principles
of the ends.
• In the case of unification, the ends become the means - often in a cycle
of continuing development. Ends become means and means become
ends, and it is difficult to distinguish between the approach and the
result as they are so unified in purpose.
Rationale, according to McCowan (2009), is the thinking related to the
choices made in the means- end process.These include em pirical evidence
which demonstrates an observed link between means and achieving ends
and authority/tradition which is adopted on the basis of continuity with
past practices, which often result in the maintenance of existing practices
and procedures.
The curriculum is therefore central to the production and maintenance
of any political and social regime and is also heavily implicated in the
production of regulative understandings. Curriculum that unreflectively
employs the prevailing discourse and power relations becomes an element
of social regulation.Apple, in Van den Berg (1991: 33), highlights another
problem. He argues that 'curriculum is not something educational
that simply falls out of the sky', but is 'inheren tly a political and moral
process ... [which] involves ideological, political and intensely personal
conceptions of valuable educational activity'. In developing this argument,
Van den B erg (1991) co ntends that schools in all societies tend to play a
significant role in the maintenance of the existing social, economic and
political order, thus promoting the views of the dominant groups within
the society. Accordin g to him, this is primarily accomplished through the
school cur riculum.

25 CU
RRI
CUL
 While the dominant artefact of curriculum, the paper or electronic policy
document, does drive curriculum activities, there are various levels of activity
that impact on and play a role in curriculum implementation. Coffey (2000)
indicates that the legitimation and reproduction of knowledge play central
roles in the overall aims as we ll as everyday practices of education. As a social
process,education is concerned with the transmission of various kinds of
knowledge.T his knowledge is (re)produced, transmitted and mediated th rough
the relationship between teachers and learners within institutional co ntexts
and framewo rks, for example the school curriculum. Schools and colleges
have been seen as vehicles for reproduction and transmission of multiple
knowledges,working within state- regulated frameworks.T here are, how ever,
differences between what Kelly (2009) refers to as the planned curriculum that
is in tended and th e rece ived cur ric ulum that is actually expe rience d and that
happ ens. Furth ermore, the hidden cur riculum , that which is implied by school
rituals and social stru ctu res, also plays a role.T he importance of context is again
highlighted in these views.

Conclusion
Bartlett and Burton (2007) indicate that the idea of curriculum is one of those
fundamental constructs that has an embedded and take n- for-granted status
that needs to be opened up through study so that the apparently given ideas
can be subjected to rethinking. Doll (2002) writes that an im portan t milestone
in curriculum studies was when Pinar and Grumet (1976) drew atten tion
to their distinction related to their representation of curriculum as 'c urrere'.
Curriculum as 'c u rrere' essen tially represents cur ricul um as a noun in English,
w hich represen ts the courses and the track, the pre-determined structures that
we have come to know as curriculum as a material object.T his wo uld include
the definitions and descriptio ns as well as the policies and documents that
represent curri culum and cu rri culum systems as discussed and described earlier.
Pinar and G rumet (1976) felt it important to view curriculum in its verb
form , as discussed by Doll (2002:43). 'Currere', according to them, could
also be seen as runnin g th e co urse, and can be seen as a set of experi ences -
the experien ce of running.T his would represent the experiences of
learners and teachers as they nego tiate the curriculum through and durin g
im plementatio n. Pin ar an d G ru met (1976 ), partic ularly, em phasise the
ex peri en ces of learn ers as th ey neg o tiate th e curr icu lu m and how th ey
discover and learn about th e wo rld and th eir role s in it. C urricul um then
becomes a processor method of negotiating passages, self- experiences and
reflec tio ns in the world thro ugh in teraction and development of the self

CH 26
APT
ER
(Pinar & Grumet, 1976). Cur riculum , when considered as a noun and as a
verb, closely links to constructs of theory and practice, material object and
process in constant interaction and exchange with each other, and forever-
changing form or structure.
Grumet (1988:172) discusses the difficulty of' capturing' the meaning and
description of curriculum in terms of our established frames of reference.
She indicates that curriculum is like a moving form - varying from syllabi
(documents), classroom discourse, intended learning outcomes, and learning
experience - that is constantly shifting from one form to the other. She
adds that just as we make meaning of a form it shifts from one to the other,
from object to action, for example, making it difficult to capture the form in
established language and matrices of reference we have developed.
According to Smith (2005), the practice of curric ulum is therefore not an
easy undertaking and requires more than guesswork, good hunches, trial
and error and merely prudential considerations. He suggests that it requires
knowledge of circumstances, alternatives, effects and specialised knowledge
pertaining to curriculum practice itself - and knowl edge that can inform
these decisions. Curriculum practice is a shared responsibility - one that
involves many different people, visionaries and policy makers; experts in
academic, technical and practical fields of knowledge, school officials and
funders; teachers, pupils (learners) and curriculum practice professionals, co-
ordinators and process managers. Curriculum processes discussed above
clearly show the features of what Clarke and Collins (2007) describe as
complex systems.The character istics of complex systems, namely networks,
feedback loops, self-regulation and disequilibrium represent dynamic
interactions that cannot be accounted for by simple or complicated views
and applications/ rende rin gs. Complex phenomena have many variables
but the outcomes are rarely predictable and it has been suggested that
curriculum should be seen in this way.
Slattery (2006:275) indicates that curriculum models based on modern
versions of Newtonian physics have attempted, like a clockwork universe,
to impo se uniformity. Every lesson, every goal and objective must conform
to predetermined principles, cultural forms, social structures or curricular
guides. Doll (1993) writes that in the past, our commitment to certainty has
encouraged us to structure curriculum only in sequential linear terms and to
consider learning only as a direct result of teaching.Doll (1993) further points
out that such sequential ordering and cause-and-effect epistemology (based on
a metaphysical commitment to determinism and certainty) underpin Tyler's
modernist rationale for a well-designed curriculum.Such a view assumes a

27 CU
RRI
CUL
 learner to be a receiver and not a creator of knowledge;a spectator who even
in the most creative moments can only discover that which already exists.
A curriculum based on these assumptions emph asises transmission, linearity
and measurement rather than transformation, non-linearity and creation.
Morri son (2004:487) warns that narrowness of vision, repetition of already
familiar mat er ial, irrelevance and recycling ideas lead to curriculum closure
and sterility as an approach to the field of cur riculum theory and development.
Novelty and originality are required to advance the field of curriculum theory.
It needs to draw on emergent disciplines outside of education, touch major
issues in everyday life and replace outworn but convenient labels.
Gough (1999) indicates that dominant discourses suggest that curriculum
inquiry and practice are characterised by metaphors that suggest closed
systems and linear dynamics. He also refers to the predictability and
regulatory effects of curriculu m documents and their associated apparatus.
As an alternative perspective, Gough (1999) indicates that complexity
theories invite us to consider the possibilities and practicalities of working
in open, far-from-equilibrium systems, the dynamics of which are non-
linear,self-reflexive, reversible and self organising.This provides a flexibility
that can better enable curriculum action in context.
Curriculum probably needs to operate in both its noun and verb forms in
education processes to serve its purposes in education. Stenhouse (1975:53)
described curriculum as an attempt to communicate the essential principles
and features of an educational programme in such a form that it is open to
critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice. In other
words, he suggests that curriculum needs to develop in context in ways that
best support implementation and action in the particular context. Davies
and Edwards (2001) use the analogy that caterpillars need to develop into
butterflies through a complex process, and will not fly if we simply add wings
to them.Similarly, complex processes such as curriculum development need to
unfold in time and context to develop outcomes.We probably need to adopt
the suggestion made by Cvetek (2008), that if education professionals accept
complexity and unpredictability as part of education processes, curr iculum as a
field could be more responsive to the real needs of education and provide the
life experiences and opportunities it promises in all contexts.

REFERENCES

Apple, M.W. 1991. Creative agenda and progressive possibilities. Education and Urban Society,
23 (3):279 - 292.

Apple, M. 1983. Curricular form and the logic of technical control. In M.WApple and
L. Weiss (eds). 1983. Ideology and the pradice of schooling. Philadelphia.Temple University Press.

CH 28
APT
ER
Ayers,W 1992.The shifting ground of curricttlum thought and everyday practice. 171eory imo
Practice,Vol. XXX I, number 3, Summer 1992.
Bartlett, S. & Burton, D. 2007. Introduction to Education Studies (2 nd edition). London: Sage
Publications.

Beauchamp, G. 1968. Curriculum Theory (2nd edition).Wilmette, II.: Kagg press.

Bernstein, B.1971. On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M.F.D.Young

(ed.). Knowledge and control: New directions for the Sociology ef Knoweldge.London: Macmillan.

Bernstein, R.J.1983. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bernstein, R.J. 1990. Class codes and Control .Volume 5:Towards a theory efeducational
transmission. London: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron,J. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.

Brown, P., H alsey, A., Lauder, H., & Wells, A. Stuart. 1997.The transformation of Education and
society: An introduction. In A. Halsey,H. Lauder, & A.Stuart Wells (eds). Education: Culture,
economy, society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Capra, F. 1992. Belonging to the Universe. Harmondsworth:Penguin.

Cherryholmes, C. 1987.A social project for curr icu lum: Post-structural perspectives.Journal ef
Curriculum Studies, 19(4):295-316.
Chisholm, L. 2005.The making of South Africa's National Curriculum Statement.Journal ef
Curriculum Studies, 37(2):193-208.
Clarke, A. & Collins, S. 2007. Complexity science and student teacher supervision. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23 :160- 172.
Coffey, M. 2000. Education and Social Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Coffey,A. & Delamont, S. 2000. Feminism and the classroom teacher: Re search, praxis and Pedagogy.
London: R outledgeFalmer.

Collinson,V, Kozina, E.,Yu- Hao, K., Ling, L., Matheson, I., Newcombe, L. & Zolga, I. 2009.
Professionaldevelopment for teachers: A world of change. EuropeanJournal ofTeacl1er
Education, 32(1):3- 19.
Connelly, F. and Connelly, G. (2010). Curriculum Policy. In C. Kridel (ed.). E,uyc/opaedia of
Currimlum Studies (1:224-227). New York: Sage publishers.
Cornbleth, C. 1990. Curriculum i11 context.Basingstoke: Falmer Press.

Croxford, L. 2000. Gender and national Curricula. In).Salisbury & S. Riddel (eds). Gender,
Policy and Educational change. London: Routledge.

Cvetek, S. 2008.Applying chaos theory to lesson planning and delivery. Europ

eanJournal ef
Teacher Education, 31(3):247-256.

Davies, M. & Edwards, G. 2001.Will the curriculum caterpillar ever learn to fly? InJ.Collins,
K. Insley &J. Soler (eds). Developing pedagogy. R esearchinpgractice. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing LTD.

29 CU
RRI
CUL
 Doll,W 1989. Foundations for a Post- modern curriculum.Journal ef Curriculum studies,
21 (3):243 - 270.

Doll,W. 1993. Curriculum possibilities in 'Po st'- Futur e.J ourna/ of Curriculum and Supervision,
Summer 8(4):277- 292.

Doll,W 2002. Ghosts and the curriculum. In W. Doll & N. Gough (eds). Curriculum Visions. New
York: Peter Lang.

Gibson,W. 1984. Neuromancer. N ew York : Ac e.

Giroux, H. A. 1988. Critical theory and the culture of politics and voice: rethinking the
discourses of educational research. In R .R . Sherman & R.B.Webb (eds). Qualitative Research
in education: Focus and Methods. Lewes: Falmer.
Goodson, I. 1994. Studyinlt curriculum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Goodson. l. 1997. The Changing Curriculum: Studies in Social C onstruction. New York: Peter Lang.

Gough, N. 1999. Understanding Curric ulum Systems. In J. H enderson & K. Kesson (eds).
Understanding Democratic Curriculum Leadership. N ew Yo rk: Teachers College Press.

Green, B. 2010. R ethinking the representation problem in curric ulum inquiry.Journal ef

Curriculum Studies,Vol. 42(4):451-469.
Grumet, M. 1981. Restitution and reconstruction of educational experience: an
autobiographical method for curriculum theory. In Martin Lawn & Len Barton (eds).
Rethinking Curriculum Studies: A .Radical Approach. London: Croom Helm.
Grumet, M. 1988. Bitter milk:Women and teaching. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

H aw, K. 1988. Educating Muslim girls: shifting discourses. Buckingham: Open University Press.

H enderso n,]. 1992 . Curriculum discourse and the question of empowerment. Theory into
Practice, XXXI (3):Summer 1992.
Horton, R. & Hanes,S.1993. Philosophical Considerations for Curriculum Development.In
Environmental Education. ERIC Bulletin. Clearing house for Science, Mathematics a11d Environmental
Education. http://w.w.w.ericse.org/Bu11etins/SEB93-4.html.Date accessed: 15 Jun e 2005.
Johnson, D.1995.The challenges of educational reconstruction and transformation in South
Africa. Comparative Education, 31(2):131-141.

Kelly, A. 2009. 771e CurriC11l11m: 77zeory and practice. London: Sage.

Lotz, H. & Olivier, C. 1998. Clarifying orientations to learning programme development within
the OBE curriculum framework and the Learning for Sustainability Curriculum 2005 Pilot
Project in Gauteng and Mpumalanga. Unpublished paper presented at the O utcom es Based
Education Internatio nal Symposium,Vista University, 17- 18 N ovember, 1998.

McCowan,T. 2009.Towardsan understanding of the means end relationship in citizenship

education.Journal ef Curriculum Studies, 41(3):321- 342.

McDon ald,]. 1992. Curriculum discourse and the question of empowerment. Theory into
Practice, XXXI (3):Summer 1992.

CH 30
APT
ER
McDonald,J.B. & Purpel, D.E. 1987. Curriculum and planning:Visions and metapho rs.J oumal
of Curriculum and Supervision, 2(2):179-192.

Osberg, D. & Biesta, G. 2003. Complexity, representatio n and epistemology of schooling.

In B. Davids,T. Fenwick, L. Laidlaw, E. Simmit & 0. Sumara (eds). Proceedings of the 2003
Complexity Science and Educational Research coriference. Edmo nto n, AB: University of Alberta.

Pinar,W 1988. Introduction. In WF. Pinar (ed.). Contemporary Curriculum discourses. Scottsdale:
Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Pinar,W 2004. Wfiat is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawre nce Ea rlbaum Associates.

Pinar , W & Grumet, M. 1976. Towards a poor curriculum. D u buque, IA: Kendal/Hunt.

Popkewitz,T. 2009. Curriculum study, cur riculum history, and cur riculum theory: the reason
of reason. }Mirnal of Curriculum studies,Vol. 41(3):301- 319 .

Posner, G.J. 1988. Models of curri culum planning. In L.E. Beyer & M.WApple (eds). The
Curricuhim: problems, politics and possibilities.Albany: State University of New York Press.
R eid, W 1981.The deliberative approach to the study of curriculum and its relation to critical
pluralism. In Lawn Martin & Barton Len (eds). RethinkingCurriculum Studies. London:
Croom Helm.

Schiro, M. 1978. Curriculum for better schools:The great ideological debate. N ew Jersey: Educational
Technological Publications.

Schubert, WH. 1986. Curriculum - perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: MacMillan
Publishing Company.

Schwab,W 1973.The practical:Translation into curriculum. School R evieiv, 81:501-522.

Schwab,W 1993 .T he Practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. C11rric11l11111

Inquiry, 13(3) :239- 265.

Schwartz, M. 2006. For whom do we write curriculum ? Jouma/ of Curriatlum Studies, Vol.
38(4):449-457.

Slattery, P.2006. Curriculum Development in the Post-modem Era (2 nd edition). New York: Routeledge.

Smith, M.K. 2000.'C urriculum theory and practice' the encyclopaedia of informal education,
www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.Accessed on 12 February 2012.

Stanley, L. & W ise, S. 1993. Breaking out agai11: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. Londo n:
R outeledge.

Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introdudionto Curriculum Research and Development.London: Heinemann.

Van den Berg, 0. 1994.T he politics of curriculum change. In D.A. Costa & D. Meerkotter
(eds). Let tlze Voices be heard. Process and Practice in Education. CapeTown:Wyvern Publications.

Walkerdine,V. 1989. Femininity as performance. Oxford Review of Edi,cation, 15(3):267 - 279.

Weiner, G. 1994. Feminisms ill Education.. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Wexler, P. 2002. Essay review. Chaos and cosmos: Edu catio nal discourse and social change.
Journal of Cu"iculum Studies, 34(4):469-479.

31 CU
RRI
CUL
 CHAPTER 2

Looking back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
Shan Simmonds

Introduction
This chapter begins by alluding to some of the discoursesthat have been
influential in curriculum history. How these nuances became part of
curriculum reform globally and nationally is highlighted.T his background
sets the scene for and is testament to the broader socio- and historico- political
changes incurred by South Africa's natio nal cu rriculum. To capture some
of these prominent changes,this chapter looks back at the making of South
Africa's national curriculum statement. Mapping these landscapes involves
briefly considering curri culum reform pre-1994.Thereafter, four curriculum
policy cycles that have shaped curriculum reform within the democratic South
Africa post-1994 are alluded to.T he challenges, critiques and contestations
permeating curriculum reform are then engaged with to elicit their
hegemonic underpinnings.A stance for curriculum as inquiry is reflected on,
evoking perpetuating discours es beyond curriculum as po licy and practice and
toward an ignorance approach to curri culum reform.

Curriculum history
C urriculum history constitutes both social and intellectual history and
their interrelatedness (Popkewitz, 2010:181). Social histor y, on the one
hand, is conc erned with theorising curriculum in terms of institutional
and social changes in curriculum policy reform. Intellectual history, on
the other hand, theorises curriculum in terms of curriculum organisation
and ideas and the extent to which these have changed over time.Through
social and intellectual curriculum history theorising,'[t]he study of
curriculum history makes visible the grid of ideas, stories, and institutional
practices through which principles are generated about what is known,
done, and hoped for' (Popkewitz, 2010:182).

CH 32
APT
ER
Because of its social and intellectual co nstitu encies, curriculum history
cannot be simplified to specific facts or events. However, in its broadest
sense, it can reflect on pre- modern, modern and postmodern eras and how
these shaped curriculum reform.T he pre- modern era included religious,
indi geno us and domestic educatio n where informal curr iculum was
taught through religious leaders, society or home. Few occupied formal
curriculum, such as schooling and even literacy,and these minorities often
consisted of the aristocrats (Slattery,2013:19). In most respects, political and
religious leaders of societies determined who received formal educatio n
and what knowledge was important.
Modernismsaw a shift away from orthodox towards unorthodox forms
of knowledge and education. Curriculum was approached more liberally
thro ugh scientific-mathematic al and quantum revolutions as this shift took
place durin g the period of the Enlightenment (Doll &Trueit, 2010:580).
At this time, some countries in Africa were colonised which led to a
surge of European influence in the curriculum by way of missionary or
colonial education (Le Grange, 2010:18).African indigenous education was
predo minan tly abolished as a result and the curri culum comprised European,
foreign syllabi in schools (ibid.). T his European influence was concerned with
Protestantism and other confessional forms of religious schooling focused
on fostering moral and civic virtues in children (Popkewitz, 2010:182).The
struggles of African countries for independence from colonial rule started
after World War II and brought further curriculum reforms to redressnation
building politically, socially and economically.
Moder nisation also witnessed capitalist, industrial-based economy consume
curriculum reform globally because of the need to prepare citizens to be
participants in the economy due to the boom in global and national market
trade and economic development. Curriculum became the platform for
political leaders to foster the massification and marketisation of education
and promote nee-liberalism (Chapter 3).
Although it might be argued that aspects of pre-modernism and
modernism still influence curriculum reform in the 2P1 century, curriculum
theorists such as Pinar (2013) and Slattery (2013) are of the opinion that
postmodernism envisions a reco ncep tualised curriculum. A reconceptualised
curriculum imaginescurricula that foster (a) participation in the global
information revolution (not only technologically but also in terms of
the growing knowledge economy) and (b) indeterminacy, aesthetics,
autobiography, intuition, eclecticism and mystery (Slattery, 2013:24). In effect,
postmodern curriculum challenges conventional curriculun1 design and

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 33

 development by theorising curriculum as eve r- changing, ever diverse and
ever avant-garde.
T he next section of the chapter illuminates the curriculum history of the
South African national curriculum from pre-1994 onwards.

National curriculum in South Africa pre-1994

South African pre-democratic education was underpinned by a racist
and paternalistic notion of Christian National Education (CNE) that
required education systems (ethos, syllabus and so forth) to be embedded
in Christian norms and values with the intent to Christianise white and
non-white South Africans in a manner that would cultivate an Afrikaner
Christian culture amongst all citizens (N tsho e, 2002:63). For Makoelle
(2009:71), the Christian dogma underpinning the curriculum was
ironically un-Christian, as it promoted racial hatred through a separate and
unequal schooling system. R acial separation dominated and curric ulum
was designed on principles of white supremacy. Non-whites received an
education that was inferior: it did not prepare th em for 'technological,
engineering and scientific advancement' (ibid.), but rather for unskilled
labour.The ideology that non-white learners' career paths would not
involve national or international credence but rather local, tribal or
comm unity commitment prevailed (Reed, Gultig & Adendorff, 2012:169).
The Departn1ent of Education and Training (DET) and provincial
Departm ents of Education syllabi for non-white learners and white
learners espoused a top-down, authoritarian, teacher-centred, rote-
learning and non-context bound curriculum (Reed et al., 2012:171).
Often referred to as Bantu Education, the DET 's syllabus for non- whites
was initiated and implemented through the Bantu Education Policy Act
(1953).Although white learners also received a syllabus embedded in
behaviourism, conservative political stances and Christian ideals, Bantu
Education promoted more technical and vocational syllabi. Learners were
to engage with more practical ways of learning, often on standard grade
level and levels that did not encourage higher-order, abstract and self-
directed thinking skills (Reed et al., 2012:172), thereby preparing non-
white learners for the lower-class work force post-schooling years.
In revolt to Bantu Education, People'sEducation emerged in the 1980s
and 'promised liberation from an authoritarian and unequal education
system to one which could provide an alternative and a basis for a future
democratic system fulfilling the potential of its citizens' (Vally, 2007:41).
Also referred to as People's Education for People's Power, this resistance

34 CHAPTER 2:Lookn i g back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
to apartheid education was strongly grounded in the philosophies of
Paulo Freire (Reed et al., 2012:173). Freire's (1970) wo rk (especially The
Pedagogy of the Oppressed) was regarded as a form of consciousness raising
to advocate 'cr itical thinking and analyssi and altern ative governance
structures in education' (Vally, 2007:42) .T his mov e ment was underpinned
by political, social and economic incentives and thus was participated in by
a broad audience ranging from NGOs, parents,teacher an d student unions
and academics,for example. However,by the end of the 1980sand early
l 990s the direction of the momentum changed as co mmittees such as
th e National Education Policy Investigation (NE PI), National Education
C risis Committee (NECC) and the National Education Training Forum
(NET F), for example, considered alternatives to apartheid education (Reed
et al.1 2012:17 4). In effect, the discourse shifted from radical in terventions
focused on 'social engagement and democratising power relations, to one
which emphasised performance, outcomes,cost effectiveness and economic
competitiveness' (Vally, 2007 :4 2). Vally (2007 :43) argues that the shift of
discourse supported a 'technocratic framewor k for education related to issues
of economic growth and human resource development at the expense of
addressingissues related to social justice and redress.'T he desire for education
to create a skilled elite that could participate socially, econo mically and
politically on national and even global levels was a revolutionary response
to the deep discontent of apartheid education.T his led to the start of
curriculum reforms in 1994 when South Africa came under democratic
political leadership paving the way for curriculum reform post-1994.

Curriculum reform post-1994

According to Fataar (2006:642 ), curriculum reform in South Africa
between the early 1990s to the early 2000s took place within 'policy
cycles', each presenting a 'relatively distinctive political ensemble that vied
for the heart of Governmental hegemony in education' . Policy processes
were also briefly alluded to in the first chapter.T he first two cycles shed
light on the curr iculum review in late 1994 of the then still functioning
apartheid curriculum (DoE, 1995) and then the processes that produced
Curriculum 2005 (C2005) between 1994 and 1997 (DoE, 1997).T he
third curriculum policy cycle marked the Mi nisterial Review of C2005
in 2000 which led to the revision of the curriculum and the introduction
of a revised national curriculum, referred to as the National Curriculum
Statement (N CS), in 2002 (DoE, 2002). Following a task team report in
2009 on the shortcomings of the N CS, a fourth curriculun1policy cycle
saw the introduction of the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 35

 (CAPS) (DBE, 2011b).T he curriculum poli cy cycles must not be viewed
as a linear process or in isolation from the intertwined and permeating
socio-economic and political discourses that manifested during and in
response to curriculum reform in South Africa (these discourses are further
elaborated on in the next section).

First curriculum policy cycle

T he nature of the education system inherited by the first democratic
government in 1994 echoed the desires to redress the inequ alities of the
past.According to Chisholm (2003:269) andYoung and Kraak (2001:2),
Professor Sibusiso Bengu, the first Minister of Education under democratic
governance in South Africa (1994- 1999), needed to address challenges that
included: the high levels of adult and matriculant illiteracy,dysfunctional
schools and universities, discredited curricula, exclusion of the majority of
the population from anything beyond elementary education, illegitimate
structures of governance and school curricula that reinforced racial injustice
and inequality.In response to these challe nges, th e South African government
aimed to reorganise education in a manner that took into account:
• the social, economic and political needs of education and
curriculum,

• global competitive imperatives,

• a new philosophy to address remnants of apartheid policy and

practice,

• be neutral and comprehensive enough to be acceptable to wide

social layers, and

• provide a basis around which the system could be legitimately

reconstructed (Chisholm,2003:269; DoE, 2002:6- 8).

In an atten1pt to address these challenges and aims, new curricula needed

to be designed and developed.T he first attempt at a new curr iculum was
to revise the existing cu rriculum and this was done by way of purifying
the existing curriculum and not necessarily creating a curriculum that
was entirely unknown to the South African schoolin g system. R easons
for this could include the haste of Professor Sibusiso Bengu to redress
and infuse the curr iculum with the democratic ideals of the newly
elected South African government and the lack of time and resources to
devise and implement a novel curriculum.Therefore the curriculum was
merely purified.

36 CHAPTER 2: Loo king back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
Although 'purification' refers more directly to decontamination, sanitisation
or cleansing, for this chapter 'purification' is referred to in a metaphori cal
sense. Purification signifies promine nt or even permanen t change brought
about to make something more untaint ed.T his untaintedness does not
imply better or worse, but simply changed to some degree. During
curriculum reform, purification became evident in three distinct domains:
(l) the content in the curriculum (syllabus revision), (2) those involved in
developing the curriculum (multiple stakeholders) and (3) the principles
underpinning the curriculum (constitu tional underpinning).
The first domain prized content purification as the highest priority for the first
democratic government who came into political power in 1994 as it strived
to 'cleanse' Gansen, 1999a) the curr iculum currently implemented in South
African schools.T he nature of' cleansing' the curriculum involved addressing
offensive language, racial stereotypes, insensitivity toward diversity as well as
controversial and outdated content (Chisholm, 2005a:193; Fataar, 2006:646;
Hoadley, 2010:136;Jansen, 1999a:59).The committee elected was originally
instructed to review the History curriculum and this later led to a revision of
all curricula. R evising the History curriculum first was a historico-political
decision as the content did not represent the new democratic ideology and
because it portrayed a one-sided view of South Africa's social, economic and
political history.As a result, a 'virtual disappearance of history teaching from
schools' emanated in ' testimony to the deep aversion to the nature of history
taught under apartheid' (Chisholm, 2005a:199). It was only through the
curriculum reform of C2005 (the second curriculum policy cycle) onwards
that History was re-in troduced into the curriculum.This was due to the
significance of History to create a historical consciousness that reflected on
and embraced South Africa's histo ry as something to learn from and not
necessarily to aspire towards. In effect, History would become integrated across
the curriculum because of its desire to advocate and address nation-building
concerns and democratic values.
Across all cu rr icula, the revision process addressed the decisions by the elected
committee to remove inappropriate content that was outdated, inaccurate and
insensitive Gansen,1999a:59). However, revision and removal of content from
the curriculum was met with scepticism because of the limited time frame
(approximately four months, namely September to December) in which it
took place and the inability to acknowledge curriculum development as a
long-term process that involves more than the rearrangement or removal of
content (ibid.). As a result, aspects that were overlooked included revisions to
textbooks and assessment approaches, in-service training, and fostering a mind
shift amongst teachers, parents and other stakeholders.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 37

 Purification, through participation, also surfaced during the curriculum
reform processes and can be seen as th e seco nd dom ain of purification.
In this context, purification pertains to the shift from policy-1naking as
secrecy and authoritarianismunder the monopoly state to the inclu sion of
stakeholder and civil society participation (DoE, 2002:4; Cross, M ungadi &
R ouhani, 2002:172).The position of stakeholders, 'has its roots in the anti-
authoritarian logic of the liberation movements, which was suspicious of
the role of academic ' experts' disconnected from practice' (Fataar, 2006:646).
Stakeholders and members of civil society included, for example, school
governing bodies (SGBs), NGOs and activists (Chisholm, 2005a:197; Cross
et al., 2002:171).Although this form of participation was not prominent
in the first curriculum reform cycle, its underlying precis did permeate
in terms of the democratic principles underpinning the curriculum, for
example inclusivity, diversity and social justice.The second curriculum
policy cycle would be witness to the first time curriculum which was
informed by stakeholder participation (DoE, 2002:4). Even though
this approach read as appealing, many problems came to the fore.These
problems included the dilemma faced by the Department of Education of
how to accommodate the various stakeholders, where to accommodate
them and why or why not to accommodate them, further addressing the
challenges faced by curriculum as a social product (Chisholm, 2005a). Often
overlooked or undermined were the teachers and the crucial role they
played in the curriculum reform.Teachers had to make the shift towards a
new curriculum and one way to do that was to include them in the process
of knowledge construction so that they would be able to be accountable for
teaching and learning (C ross et al., 2002:185).
Integrated, underpinned and intertwined within curriculum development
during the reform process were the Constitution (South Africa, 1996),
values and nation-building principles (DoE, 2002:6-13).As a third domain,
purification pertains to the aspirations of the curriculum to embrace the
ideals of a democratic and not an apartheid government in every facet of
the curriculum (Fataar, 2006:645).Although the first cycle of curriculum
reform took place before the formal adoption of the 1996 South African
Constitution, this stance still prevails (even if implicitly) due to the
ration ale envisioned for an anti-apartheid syllabus.
T he 1996 Constitution (South Africa, 1996) and the Manifesto onValues,
Education and Democarcy (DoE, 2001) were key in this regard.'The Constitution
expresses the nation's social values and its expectations of the roles, rights and
responsibilities of all citizens in a democratic South Africa' (DoE, 2002:8). In
particular the aims of the Constitution are to (DoE, 2002:7):

38 CHAPTER 2: Loo king back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
 • Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on
democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.

• Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of
each person.

• Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which

Government is based on the will of the people and every citizen
is equally protected by law.

• Build on a united and democratic South Africa able to take its

rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.

J uxtaposed to the aims of the Constitution (1996) are the ten fundamental
values of the Constitution as exp ressed in the Manifesto on values, Education
and Democracy (DoE, 2001).T hese values are: democracy,social justice
and equity, non- racism and non-sexism, ubuntu (human dignity), an
open society, accountability (responsibility), respect, the rule oflaw and
reconciliation (DoE, 2002:7).The Constitution al aims and values were
infu sed in and across th e cur riculu m and became part of the explicit as
well as the implicit curriculum. A more embedded and implied curr iculum
reform was ini tiated, which changed not only curr iculum content or
knowledge but the attitudes, skills and values envisaged for school children
and the future adults and citizens of South Africa.
The purification of curriculum development had positive intensions, but,
as is depict ed here, purification does not always mean that change for the
better eman ates. In anoth er way, although the intention of the government
was to 'cleanse' th e syllabus, improve and increase stakeholder par ticipation
in policy making as well as have th e C onstituti on and other democratic
principles underpin curriculum developm ent, many counter conflicts and
challenges came to the fore.

Second curriculum policy cycle

C2005 (Curriculum 2005) was the first 'new' post- apartheid curriculum
that was implemented during the term of office of Prof. Kader Asmal as
Minister of Education (1999- 2004). C2005 was strongly informed by a
move towards an in tegration of training and education , academic and non-
academic practices, skills, attitudes, values and knowledge. Integration was
und erstoo d, in this context, as politic al, economic, social and pedagogical
and was underpinned by principles of Outcomes-Based Education (OBE)
and social justice (Hoadley,2010:136- 137). R ather than a content directed
syllabus that was prescrib ed, C2005 strived for a curriculum developed in

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 39

 consultation with teachers (Reed et al., 2012:175).
OBE, a term coined by William Spady (1995), an Australian educationalist,
was in troduced in South Africa in 1997 as part of C2005 (Cross et al.,
2002:178-179; Hoadley,2010:136). OBE was profoundly influenced by
a labour and economic discourse and was viewed as a product oflabour's
needs and their demands for a skills-based curriculum that produced
competencies, namely discrete, generic, demonstrable performances and
measurable skills required by the learner (Fataar, 2006:647; Hoadley,
2010:137). One example is the view of the National Training Board (NTB)
that g rowth in South Africa required technology and such technologies
needed a workforce literate in mathematics and science as well as a
partic ular attitudinal profile characterised by flexibility, versatility, pro blem
solving abilities and tean1 work (Cross et al., 2002:176). In effect, the
OBE curriculum was co mp rised of Learning Outcomes and Assessment
Standards designed from critical and developmental outcomes. Critical and
developmental outcomes were derived from the aims and values of the
Constitution to 'describ e the kind of citizen the education and training
system should aim to create' (DoE, 2002:11).The seven critica l outcomes
envisage learners who will be able to (DoE, 2002:11):
• Identify and solve problems and make decisions using critical
and creative thinking.

• Work effectively with others as members of a team, group,

organisation and community.

• Organise and manage themselves and their activities responsibly

and effectively.

• Collect, analyse, organise and critically evaluate information.

• Communicate effectively using visual, symbolic and/or language

skills in various modes.

• Use Science and Technology effectively and critically showing

responsibility towards the environment and the health of others.

• Demonstrate an understanding of the world as a set of related

systems by recognising that problem-solving contexts do not
exist in isolation.

The five developmental outcomes envisage learners who are able to (DoE,
2002:11):
• Reflect on and explore a variety of strategies to learn more
effectively.

40 CHAPTER 2: Loo king back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
 • Participate as responsible citizens in the life of local, national
and global communities.
• Be culturally and aesthetically sensitive across a range of social
contexts.
• Explore education and career opportunities.
• Develop entrepreneurial opportunities.

Evident in the critical and developmental outcomes (DoE, 2002) are the
ideals of a labour and economic discourse (Cross et al., 2002; Hoadley,
2010).This is further articulated in the definition of O BE given by the
Department of Education:
The South African version of outcomes-based education aimed
at stimulating the minds of young people so that they are able to
participate fully in economic and social life. It is intended to ensure
that all learners are able to develop and achieve to their maximum
ability and are equipped for lifelong learning (DoE, 2002:12).

Included in the OBE curriculum were distinct characteristics for learners,

teachers and teaching-learning. On the one hand there was a shift from
fundamental pedagogies to progressive pedagogies, from behaviourist to
constructivist approaches to teaching-learning, towards learner-centeredness
and making allowance s for local,hidden, previously silenced knowledge
and everyday realities ofl earners to surface (Chisholm, 2003:270; Chisholm,
2005a:194; C ross,et al., 2002:179; Hoadley,2010:137). On the other hand,
OBE inroduced an entirely new vocabulary with the intention that by
changing the meanings of words and terminology used ' their associations with
the past or unpleasant experiences are to be broken' (Chisholm, 2005a:197).
Atten tion to this vocabulary is important as it marks the intensity of the
changes brought about to the curriculum in its design, development and
implementation as well as to identiti es of the people involved (Fullan, 2001).
In particular,'teacher' became 'ed ucator' and 'student' became 'learner' and this
vocabulary was reinforcedand explained by definitions of'the kind oflearner
that is envisaged' (see D oE, 2002:8) and 'the kind of educator that is envisaged'
(see DoE, 2002:9). For example, the type of educator envisaged includes one
who is 'qualified, competent, dedicated and caring' (DoE, 2002:9).To some
extent, new roles and attitudes for being a learner (as oppose d to a student)
and being an educator (as opposed to a teacher) did not only have grammatical
implications but also social, cognitive, en1otional and / or identi ty related
in1plications, especially when the implications of these were not considered
(Fullan, 2001). O verall, the new vocabulary included '66 specific outcomes,

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 41

 assessment criteria , phaseand progranune organisers, range statements,
performance indicators, and expected levels of performance' (Chisholm,
2005a:196-197).The three OBE terms co1nn1only used will be defin ed.These
are: Learning Area, Learning Outcome and Assessment Standard.
A Learning Area, formally known as a Subject,' is a field of knowledge,
skills and values which has unique features as well as co nn ec tion s with
other fields of knowledge and Learning Areas' (DoE, 2002:9).There are
eight Learning Areas from Grades R- 9 and each Learning Area addresses
' the relati onship betwee n hum an rights, a healthy environment and
social justice' (DoE, 2002;10). For Grades 10- 12, 'Learning Area' is not
the vocabulary used. R ather 'S ubject' is used, with post-1994 intentions
that view a 'Subject' as ' dynamic, always responding to new and diverse
knowledge, including knowledge that traditionally has been excluded
from the formal curriculum ' (DoE, 2003:6). Learning Outcomes are
derived from the critical and developmental outcom es and describe what
knowledge, skills, val ues and attitudes learners should have acquired,
demonstrated and been able to do by the end of an academic period (week,
month, term, or year) (D oE, 2002:14). More generally,
[al set of learning outcomes should ensure integration and progression
in the development of concepts, skills and values through the
assessment standards. Learning outcomes do not prescrib e content or
method (DoE, 2002:14 ).

According to the Department of Education (DoE, 2002:14) Assessment

Standards:
... describe the level at which learners should demonstrate their
achievement of the learning outcome(s) and the ways (depth and
breadth) of demonstrating their achievement. They are grade specific
and show how conceptual progression will occur in a Learning Area
[or Subject and from grade to grade]. They embody the knowledge,
skills and values required to achieve learning outcomes. They do not
prescribe method.

It is clear that the OBE curriculum principles and terminology brought

about radical changes to the South African education system in various
domains, such as teaching-learning and assessment, for example.T hese
changes have been experienced and theorised in different ways resulting in
OBE as a floatin g signifier because of its multifaceted con notations across
vario us doma ins (Chisholm, 2003:271). Malcolm (1999), Mohamed (1998)
and Odora-Hoppers (2001) have defended OBE for its learner-centredness

42 CHAPTER 2: Loo king back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
and for challenging Eurocentric and rationalist assumptions of school- based
knowledge for example.Alternatively,critics of OBE have emphasised
the short coming s ofl earner- centredness; the complex, confusing and
contradictory language associated with OBE; ill- preparedness of teache rs
and lack of resources;the borrowing of OBE from international countries
without considering the cont extua l changes that need to be made; the
focus on instrumentalism through what a learner can demo nstrate in a
particular set of outcomes,and the overlooking of the magnitude of an
entire re- eng ineerin g of the education system that is required to support
OBE (Chisholm, 2003; Christie, 1999; Cross et al., 2002;Jansen, 1998;
1999a; 1999b; Jansen & C hristie, 1999; Muller, 2001). OBE was a key
aspect of curriculum production, im plementation and consumption not
only for C2005 in 1997 but also for the review of C2005 in 2000 and
the implementation of the R evised National Curriculum Statement (NCS)
in 2002. In fact, even with the revision of the NCS in 2009 (DBE, 2009)
and the implementation of the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement
(CA PS) in 2012 (DBE, 2011b), OBE still remains a highly contested and
debated issue (Hofineyr, 2010).

Third curriculum policy cycle

This curriculum policy cycle is underpinned by what this chapter calls
'a period of doubt' as various role players claimed that C2005 was failing
education.Amongst th ese soc ial actors was Helen Zille (the then Minister of
Education in the Democratic Alliance-controlled Western Cape), the media
and academic circles (Fataar,2006).T he problem with C2005 was generally
viewed as being 'primarily concerned with addressing what has been
perceived as an implementation crisis' and the priority response to this was
'proposing measures to deal with it' (Cross et al., 2002:183).Areas of concern
are the poor conceptual progression in literacy and numeracy at grade levels,
absence of everyday or general knowledge, as well as too much emphasis
on facilitation and group work and not enough on explicit teaching and
learning, often resulting in teachers not knowing what to teach and how
to teach and assess what they have managed to teach (DBE, 2009:12). In
response to this outcry, a Ministerial Committee was appointed in 2000 to
review C2005 with ProfessorLinda Chisholm as the chairperson (Chisholm,
2000). Memb ers of the R eview Committee were appointed in their
individual capacity, not as stakeho lder representatives, and this caused tensions
with social and political actors such as the unions, as they felt marginalised
(Fataar, 2006:654).The Review Committee was co mp rised of sub-groups
to give particular attention to key dimensions, such as stru cture and design;

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 43

 learning support material; teacher training; provincial and district support;
implementation and the infusion of human rights, and inclusivity across the
curriculu m (Chisholm, 2005a:196; Fataar, 2006:655).
T he sub-groups of the R eview Committee were embedded within
the brief given to them, instructing them to review C2005 in terms of
its structure and design, teacher orientation, training and develop111ent,
learn ing support materials, provincial support to teachers in schools,
im plementation time-frames, to simplify the complexity of the
curri cul um an d to ens ure a stronger human-rights content base within
the existing outcomes-based framework (Chisholm, 2005a:196; DoE,
2002:5). Underpinning the brief set out to the Review Committee
was the instruction for the committee to weigh the operational realities
critically against the strategic intent so as to avoid the implementation
crises experienced in 1997 with C2005 (Cross et al., 2002:183).The
R eview Committee's report (Chisholm, 2000) was made available for
public comment and underwent further revision once comment had been
received and was th en presented to the Council of Education Ministries in
June 2000 (Chisholm, 2005a:196; DoE, 2002:5).
Although it was not in the brief of the R eview Committee to review
OBE (Cross et al., 2002:183; Fataar, 2006:655), OBE critique did surface
within the shortcomings identified because of its embedded nature in the
curriculum. In general, several shortcomings were identified and these
included: a skewed curriculum and design structure with complex and
sophisticated language; an overloaded set of new terminology that was
difficult to understand; over-design in outcomes and under specification in
content; failure to promote sequence,progression and pace between grades
and learning areas; neglect of conceptual development; policy overload;
lack of alignment between curriculum and assessmen t policy; inadequate
training for teachers; no follow-up support to teachers, too much emphasis
on outcomes without stating what is needed for the outcomes to be
achieved; lack oflearning support materials, and shortages of personnel and
resources to implement and support C2005 (Chisholm, 2000, 2005a; Cross
et al., 2002; DoE, 2002; Fataar, 2006).The R eview Committee put forward
certain proposals to strengthen the process of implementation of the revised
curriculum and these included (Cross et al., 2002:184; DoE, 2002:5):
• A revised and streamlined outcomes-based curriculum
framework that promotes integration and conceptual coherence
within a human rights approach

• Simplification of language

44 CHAPTER 2: Loo king back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
 • Reduce curriculum design features to three, namely Critical and
Developmental Outcomes, Learning Outcomes and Assessment
Standards

• Align curriculum and assessment

• Improved teacher orientation and training, learning support

materials and provincial support

• A management process to phase out C2005 and phase in a

revised curriculum.

The short co mings highlighted and the proposals put forward by the Review
Committee were approved by the Council of Education Ministers in July
2000 (DoE, 2002:5). R esulting from this process was th e constr uction of
a Revised National Curriculum Statement.As a draft it was made available for
public comment and then implemented in schools from 2002 (DoE, 2002:6).
The R evised National Curriculum Statement became referred to as the
National Curriculum Statement (NCS) and perceived by the Department of
Education as ' not a new curriculum but a streamlining and strengthening
of Curriculum 2005' as it 'keeps intact the principles, purposes and thrust
of C2005 and affirms the commitment to outcomes- basededucation'
(DoE, 2002:6). On 12 May 2004 Ms Naledi Pander succeeded Prof Asmal
as Minister of Education. In her term (ending 10 May 2009), she oversaw
the implementation of the NCS (2002). Under her tenure, a process was
started to indentify the challengesfacing the NCS.These came under furth er
investigation in the fourth curriculum policy cycle, when Mrs Angelina
Mot shekga came into office on 11 May 2009.

Fourth curriculum policy cycle

A fourth curriculum policy cycle emerged in the South African
curric ulum in July 2009 when a panel of experts was appointed by Mrs
Angelina Motshekga (Minster of Basic Education since May 2009) to
investigate the shor tco min gs of the implementation of the NCS (2002).
In retrospect, Mrs Angelina Motshekga became the first minister within
the Department of Basic Education when the Department of Education
became two departments in 2009, namely the Department of Basic
Education with Mrs Angelina Mot shekga as minister and the Department
of Higher Education and Training with Dr Blade Nzimande as minister.
The Ministerial R eview Committee consulted teachers across the nine
provinces of South Africa as well as parents, teacher unions, school
management and academics (R eed et al., 2012:188). Eigh t primary

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 45

 recommendations brought forward in the Task Team review of the NCS
(2002) and accepted by the Department of Basic Education, included
(DBE , 2009:62- 67):
1. A coherent, clear, simple five-year plan to improve teaching and
learning across the schooling system that is widely communicated
and focused on the improvement of learner performance.

2. Overall the policies must be clear, succinct, unambiguous

and provide measurable and essential learning knowledge.
Design features of OBE will only feature as part of the general
aims of the curriculum. Learning Programmes, Learning Areas
and Subjects at all levels must all be called Subjects to ensure
simplicity, clarity and consistency. The subject documents will
be arranged around knowledge (content, concepts and skills) to
be learnt, recommended resources and learning and teaching
support materials, recommended pedagogical approaches and
assessment requirements.

3. The role of subject advisors as school-based subject experts needs

to be affirmed with a specific job description and performance
plan.

4. Teacher workload and administrative burden needs to be

taken into consideration (see Chisholm et al., 2005b). Teachers
should have only a single teaching file and no duplication of
administrative work.

5. One consistent set of terminology and grading descriptions for

assessment to ensure consistency andclarity. Grades 3 and 6 must
do regular external, national systemic assessment of Mathematics
and Home Language and all grades in First Additional Language.
The number of projects must be reduced to one project per year,
per subject and learner profiles that serve as separate formal
compilations of assessment must be discontinued.

6. Subjects in the Foundation Phase and the Intermediate Phase

need to change. The Foundation Phase must accommodate the
teaching of English as a First Additional Language and as a result
have four subjects. Transition between Foundation Phase and
Intermediate Phase can alleviate overload by having only six
subjects in the Intermediate Phase.

7. Learning and teaching support materials must be developed and

aligned with the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements.

46 CHAPTER 2: Loo king back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
 8. In-serv ice teacher training must be targeted and subject-specific
and address relevant focus areas such as the use of textbooks and
training in subject discipline content for example.

The Task Team's recomm endation s were accepted by the minister on

20 O ctober 2009 and formed the draft policy docum ent that would be
influential in the development of the 'new' cur riculum (DBE, 2009). More
specifically Mrs Angelina Motshekga stated,
To improve implementation, the National Curriculum Statement
was amended, with the amendments coming into effect in January
2012. A single comprehensive Curriculum and Assessment Policy
document was developed for each subject to replace Subject
Statements, Learning Programme Guidelines and Subject Assessment
Guidelines in Grades R- 12 (DBE, 2011b:3).

The curric ulum was named National Curriculum Statement Grades R-12 and
included the following core documents:
1. the newly developed, single co mprehensive Curriculum and A ssessment
Policy S tatement (C APS) for each schoo l subject;
2. the policy document on national policy pertaining to the programm e
and promotion requirements; and
3. the policy document on National Protocolfor A ssessment (DBE, 201 l b:3).
On 24 January 2011, Mrs Angelina Motshekga invited 'stakeholder bodies
and members of the public to comment on the draft poli cy document'
(DBE, 2011a:6). The invitation for comments was until 11 Feb ruary
2011. By 12 September 2011 the Minister of Basic Education appro ved
the im plemen tatio n of National Curriculum Statement G rades R- 12 (DBE,
201l b:3). Furth erm ore, the curriculum changes through the National
Curriculum Statement Grades R-12 were due for implementation between
2012 and 2014 (DBE, 201l b). Implemen tation per grade is as follo ws
(DBE, 201l b:3):
• January 2012 Grade R - 3 and Grade 10
• January 2013 in Grades 4-6 and Grade 11
• January 2014 in Grades 7-9 and Grade 12.
Although the National Curriculum Statement G rades R- 12 is still in the
early stages of its implementatio n, some initial contestations towards it
have surfaced.These include the move back to a syllabus curriculum and
a prescribed curriculum stipulating when and what pedagogical content

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 47

 knowledge should be taught. Aspirations for creativity, professionalism
and contextual considerations are suppressed as a result of this one-size-
fits-all approach. Emerging stances for and against a curriculum of this
nature persist.An advantage of such a cur riculum could be that it generates
accountability amongst teachers because it stipulates what needs to be
taught and when. How teachers teach remains their auto nomo us decision.
However, a disadva ntage could be that teachers' integrity is questioned
as th eir professionalism and creativity are predeter mined in terms of
what they should teach and when. Curriculum specialists are, no doubt,
attentive of the current curriculum reforms and will monitor the successes
and pitfalls closely thro ugh curriculum theorising,inevitably,making
suggestions that could pave the way toward a fifth curriculum policy cycle.

Ministerof Education: Pro fesso r Sibu siso Bengu

(1994-1999)
st
1 POLICY CYCLE • Revise pre-1994 syllabus:
Purification Content (purify for sexist, racist
discourse language) Stakeholders (greater
participation) Principlesunderp
inning curriculum
Comple telynew curriculum called C2005, imple
(democratisation)
mented in 1997: based on outcomes-based
2nd POLICYCYCLE education (OBE)
C2005 and OBE ne w
d iscourse ped
ago
gica o f Educ ation:Professor Kader Asmal
Minister
(1999-
l 2004)
focu
Ministerial committeeappointed to review
sno
C2005 in 2000simplifica tion of language
tp
enhanced
3rd POLICY CYCLE res
coherencethrough
R/NCS disc ourse crip
integration
tive
reductionof
currriculum design
features align
curriculum and
assessment
improved
Minister professional
of Education: Mrs Ang elina Mot shekga
(2009-)
developmen t for teachers
Ministerial
management committeeappointed
process for to
review in and
phasing NCSout in 2009
4th POLICYCYCLE NCS single,coherent
is developedandclearyear plan
NCS-CAPS teacher's administrative
implemented from 2002 Minister duties and
di scourse workloadreconside
of Edu cation:Ms Naledi Pander red
subjectschanged
(2004- 2009) in foundation and
intermediate phases LSM in lin e
with currriculum developed
professional development for teachers
FIGURE 2.1 A timeline ofcurriculum reform inSouth Africaafter 1994
more subject-specific CAPSis
developed and implementedfrom 2011
48 CHAPTER 2: Loo king back on curriculum reform
in South Africa and beyond
Curriculum reform: challenges, critiques and
contestations
The curriculum reform processes have endured (and are still enduring)
various trials and tribulations.As has already been alluded to, through
South Africa'scurriculum history landscapes, some of the key controversies
include: curriculum as political symbolism, curriculum as a social practice,
and the place of OBE in the curriculum.

Curriculum as political symbolism

For Jansen (2001) there have been clear shifts of perspect ive and
circumstance regarding the making of the National Curriculum Statement
since the early 1990s.These shifts regarded curriculum as symbo lic when
positioning policy, placing policy within frameworks and implementing
policy. In particular,Jansen (1999a; 2000) asserts that policy making
is underpinned by 'policy as political syn1bolism' . Policy as political
symbolism is most evident through the emphasison the politics of
transition of policy and the lack of consideratio n for practice, app licability,
budgetary considerations and context (Cross et al., 2002:172).As a result,
the curriculun1 change that came about represented predominantly
symbolic change as it priori tised the politics of transition.The politics
of transition were prioritised from the first curriculum policy cycle to
revise the inherited apartheid curriculum and remove what the newly
elected democratic government perceived as racial and offensive language
that did not adhere to their democratic vision. Simply removing the
problem (offensive language,for example) but not engaging with it and
not considering the implication s for contextual factors and practice are
reasons to perceive policy as political symbolism. In addition, Cross et al.
(2002) argue that the problem lies deeper than not engaging with it.They
insist that 'very often in educational reforms political concerns are made
to prevail over educational and pedagogical concerns in order to mediate
conflicting interests in the political domain' (Crosset al., 2002:186). In
turn, when policy is viewed as political symbolism, a curriculum as policy
position emanates and a 'fundamentally political statement that reflects the
struggles of opposing groups to have their interests, values, histo ries and
politics dominate the school curriculum' (Chisholm, 2005a:194) is enacted.
For as long as the national curriculum resides within governn1ent, it will
remain in the political domain and will need to take cognisance of political
symbolism and ideologies.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 49

 Curriculum as a social product
Another continuous discourse in cur riculu m reform from the first
cur riculu m policy cycle was the social influ ences in the form. of
lobbies,voices and interest groups and their involvement in the overall
development and design of the curr iculun1 as well as curriculmn
pedagogical content knowledge. In the domain of the social co nstru ction
of the curriculum, there is a dynamic interaction between context and
agency that resultsin profound tensions, co ntradictions and paradoxes
in a manner that causes power relations that impact on and shape the
curriculum (Chisholm, 2005a:195). Social forces have particular viewpoints
on what pedagogical content knowledge should be included in the
curriculum, where it should feature and for what purposes. As opposed
to curriculum as po licy Qansen, 1999a; 2000; 2001), curr iculum as a
social product (Chisholm, 2005a) results from the contestations between
social forces and not the product of any one such social force, which also
makes it a messy and turbulent process. In anoth er way, prominent social
forces are the vocational lobby,environmental lo bby, history lobby, local
universities and NGOs, teacher unions and the conservativeChristian
lobby (Chisholm , 2005a).T hese social forces do not necessarily have all
their desires met in the curriculum , nor are their desires excluded; rather
they are negotiated on various levels.Such levels include: (a) taking
into consideration the direct interest of social forces, (b) not taking into
consideration the direct interests but acknowledging how these interests
manifest in other social forces, and (c) alternatively acknowledging how the
interests of social forces are mediated by the broader goals and visions of
the Constitution (South Africa, 1996) and overall principle s underpinning
the curriculum (Chisholm , 2005a:204- 205). Curriculum as a social
product becomes further complicated from within and between the social
forces involved. Examples of this are experienced between the Department
of Education and teacher unions when at different times in the process
these social forces are in agreemen t and at other times not (Chisholm,
2005a:205).T he process of cur riculum production through social
constru ctio n is key, as it shows up the complicated nature of involving
multiple stakeholders through an intended bottom- up approach toward
curriculum reform rather than an authoritarian one.

50 CHAPTER 2: Loo king back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
The place of OBE in the curriculum
To engage further with what has already been mentioned in the curriculum
policy cycles above, the place of OBE in the curriculum is contested .The
growing discontent of OBE to engage with pedagogical content knowledge,
take cognisance of various school contexts and bring about progression
(both within and across grades and learning areas/subjects) have been major
critiques Gansen, 1999b; Reed et al., 2012). Although the critiques of OBE
are known, whether OBE is still a foundational or guiding principle of
curriculum development in CAPS (DBE, 2011b) remains ambiguous.A
possible reason for this co uld be that CAPS (DBE, 201lb) is underpinned
by OBE curriculum design principles that negate behaviourism and
advocate for constructivist teaching-learning, whilst the pedagogical content
knowledge and arrangement thereof do not represent OBE principles. A
patchwork of OBE such as this still gives rise to the question: Is OBE dead?
(cf. H ofineyr, 2010).
Explicit use of non-OBE terminology such as objectives and aims,
reintroduced by CAPS (DBE, 2011b), has implicitly indicated a shift away
from OBE. In addition the Task Team Report (DBE, 2009), that reviewed
the NCS (2002), supported a move away from OBE based on its aspiration
to include clear pedagogical content knowledge, address the overuse of
group work and re-introduce textbooks and other teaching-learning
support material in the curr iculum.
What remains evident is that the curriculum currently in implementation
(DBE, 201lb) presents a content-driven, knowledge-based curriculum
that can be associated with Eisner's rationalist orientated typology (Reed
et al., 2012).These illustrate characteristics unlike OBE.To some extent
they reiterate Makoelle's (2009:79) discontent with OBE as it reflects
an instrumentalist curriculum that 'lacks a focus on true individual
emancipation' and fosters rigid thinking because of its managerialist and
adrninistrativist structure. As a result, an OBE curriculum is 'manufacturing
empty products, citizens with little or no capacity to put forward any critical
challenge to the political status quo, and who will likely believe firmly in
capitalist consumerism at the expense of individual autonomy' (ibid.).
Although these controversies have their own arguments, the philosophical
orientations underpinning curriculum reform should be theorised in
juxtaposition to political and social dimensions, as these often shape
curriculum. In effect, whether OBE sho uld be a guiding principle
underpinning curriculum development and design is ultimately the
predisposition of political, social and economic forces.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 51

 Beyond curriculum as policy and practice: towards
curriculum as inquiry
Young and Kraak (2001) refer to the notions of'policy maturation' and
'policy slippage'.T hese authors are of the opinion chat policy slippage is
evident in the making of the National Curriculum Statement because the
curriculum was initially introduced as a policy of maturation (Young &
Kraak, 2001:11). Policy matu ration implies that 'some kind of steady state or
ideology- free period has been reached' (ibid). As the arguments presented in
this chapter indi cate, this cannot be the case. Although curriculum reforms
occur and although these represented democratic ideologies in various
forms, policy slippage was evide nt because of the power relations and social
interests involved in its development and implen1entation (Muller, 2001;
Young & Kraak, 2001).Young and Kraak (2001:11) posit that policy slippage
is a significant phase in any cur riculum reform as it is a 'reminder that the
contradictions do not go away and the debate between ideals or theory
and practice continues although it may take different forms'. Further, that
even the best policy intentions have short comings and that these need to be
engaged with critically and innovatively rather than be ignored.
Firestein's (2012) theo ry of ignoran ce proves insightful when curriculum
reform is something that curriculum scholars must engage with. Firestein
(2012:6-7) defines ignorance in the context of science as,
. .. the absence of fact, understanding, insight, or clarity about
something. It is not an individual lack of information but acommunal
gap in knowledge ... where the existing data don't make sense ...
This is knowledgeable ignorance, perceptive ignorance, insightful
ignorance. It leads us to frame better questions, the first step to
getting better answers.

Approaching curr iculum reform through Firestein's (2012) theory of

ignorance encourages an inquiry and exploration that does not only
ask what has changed in the curriculum but also why it has changed.
Curriculum as in quiry breaks the closed-ended cycles that lead to merely
answers and delineates knowledge constructions through asking more
questions and generating different types of knowledge and understanding
to ask even more questions. For Firestein (2012:11) this stance is impe rative
because 'questions are more relevant than answers' as they 'can generate
whole new fields of inquiry and can prompt changes in en trenched
thinking'. A warped view of curriculun1 reform occupies space in the
minds of those who are subsumed by questions such as:'T he cur riculum

52 CHAPTER 2:Lookn i g back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
has changed again and what changes do I need to adjust to this time?'
Rather curriculum reform that is underpinned by curriculum as in qu iry
'requires having faith in uncertainty,findi ng pleasure in mystery and
learning to cultivate doubt' (Firestein, 2012:17).

Conclusion
What is unlikely to change is the continuing need for theoretically
informed critiques of policy that point to alternatives to what is
often experienced as the given nature of the status quo as well as
an awareness on the part of those who develop such critiques of
the social and political constraints on any attempt at radical change
(Young & Kraak, 2001:16).
However, what can change is how curriculum reform is theorised and the type
of questions that are asked. R ather than seek answers for what has changed
in the curriculum, engage in a discourse that asks questions that contemplate
why curriculum has changed. Curr iculum reforms in South Africa, from the
early 1990s to the early 2000s, are evidence of the persistence and passion
of the Department of Education/ Department of Basic Educatio n to engage
with curriculum development and implementation, despite the challenges
and scepticism it has endured. Nonetheless,it remains for curriculum scholars
to embrace curriculum reform as an inquiry that theorises the complexity of
curriculum change and that goes beyond the comfort zone of what is known,
so as to (re)imagine and (re)envision the field of Curriculum Studies.

RE FE RE NCES
Christie, P 1999. OBE and unfolding policy trajectories: lessons to be learnt. In:J.Jansen, & P
Christie, (eds). Changing the amiculum studies on outcomes-basededucation in South Africa. Cape
Town:Juta. pp. 279- 292.

Chisholm, L. 2000.A Sourh African curriculum for the twenty first century: report of the
review Committee on Curriculum 2005. Presented to the Minister of Education, Professor
Kader Asmal. http: / / w,vw.polity.org.za / polity I govdo cs/ repo rts/ education/curr ic2005 /
curric2005.htm. Date of access: 14 April 2012.

Chisholm, L. 2003.The state of curriculum reform in South Africa: the issue of Curriculum
2005. InJ. Daniel,A.Habib & R . Southhall (eds). State of the nation. South Africa 2003 - 2004.
CapeTown: HSR C P r ess.pp. 268-289.

Chisholm, L. 2005a.The making of South Africa's National Curriculum Statement. Jouma I ef

C urriculum Studies, 37 (2):193- 208.
C hisholm , L., H oadley , U. , Kivulu, M., Brookes, H., Kgobe, A., Mosia, D., N arsee, H. & R ule, S.
2005b. Educator workload in South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 53

 Cross, M., Mun gadi,R. & Rouhan i, S. 2002. From policy to practice: curriculum reform in
South African education. Comparative Education,38(2):171-187.

Department of Education. South Africa. 1995. Whjte paper on education and training. Pretoria:
Government Printers.
Department ofEducation. South Africa. 1997. Curriculum 2005. Life long learning for the
21" century. Pretoria:Government Printers.

Department of Education. South Africa. 2001. Manifesto on Values, Education and Democracy.
Pretoria: Government Printers.

Department of Education. South Africa. 2002. National Curriculum Statement (NCS). Grades
R- 9 (schools) policy: Overview. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Department of Education. South Africa. 2003. National Curriculum Statement (NCS). Life
Orientation. Grades 10-12. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Department of Basic Education. South Africa. 2009. Report of theTaskTeam for the review
of the implementation of the National Curriculum Statement. Final Report. October 2009.
http:/ / www.info.gov.za/view/Down1oadFileAction?id=123634.Date of access: 14 April 2012.
Department of Basic Education. South Africa. 2011a. Government Gazette.Vol. 547, No.
33952. 24 January 2011. Preto ria: Government Printers.
Department of Basic Education. South Africa. 2011b. Government Gazette.Vol. 555, No.
34600. 12 September 2011. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Doll,WE. & Trueit, D.L. 2010. Modernism. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Curriculum
Studies.Vol. 1. London: Sage Publications. pp. 579-584.

Fataar,A. 2006. Policy networks in recalibrated political terrain: the case of school curriculum
policy and politics in SouthAfrica.Joumnl of Education Policy, 21(6):641-659.
Firestein,S. 2012. Ignorance:how it drives science. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Freire,P.1970. Pedagogyof the oppressed. London: Penguin Books.
Fullan, M. 2001. The new meaning of educational dMnge (3rd edition). NewYork:Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Hoadley,U. 2010.Tribes and territory: contestation around curriculum in South Africa. In
F.WPinar (ed.). C11rric11/11m studies in South Africa: intellectual histories & present circumstam:es.
NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 125- 176.

H ofineyr,J. 2010. Outcomes-based education is dead ... Long live OBE.Business day. http:/ /
www.businessday.czoa./ Articles/ Content.aspx?id= l 19873. Date of access: 12 April 2012.
Jansen,]. 1998. Curriculum reform in South Africa: a critical analysis of outcomes-based
education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28(3):321-331.
Jansen,J. 1999a.The school curriculum since apartheid: intersections of politics and policy in
the South African transition. journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (1):57-67.

Jansen,]. 19996.Why outcomes-based education will fail: an elaboration. In J.Jansen & P

Christie (eds). Changing the curriculum studies on outcomes-based education in South Africa. Cape
Town:Juta. pp. 145- 156.

54 CHAPTER 2: Looki ng back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
Jansen,]. 2000. Framing education policy after apartheid: on the politics q.f non-reform in South African
Education, 1990-2000.Johannesburg: Centre for Development Enterprises.

Jansen,]. 2001. Rethinking education policy in South Africa:symbols of change,signals of

co nflict. In A. Kraak & M.Young (eds). Education in retrospect: policy and implementation since
1990. Pretoria: HSRC. pp. 41-58.

Jansen,]. & Christie, P. 1999. Changing the curriculum studies on outcomes-based education in South
Africa. Cape Town:Juta.
Le Grange, L. 2010.African curriculum studies, continental overview. In C. Kridel (ed.).
Encyclopaedia ef curriculum studies.Vol. 1. London: Sage Publications. pp.18- 22.
Makoe lle,T.M. 2009. Outcomes Based Education as a Curriculum for Change:A Critical
Analysis. In H . Piper,J. Piper & S.Mahlomaholo (eds).Ed ucational researchand transformation i11
South Africa. Potchefstroom: Platinum Press.pp. 71-80.
Malcolm, C. 1999. Outcomes-based education has different forms. In:J.Jansen & P. Christie
(eds). Changing the curriculum studies 0 11 outcomes-based education in South Africa. Cape Town:
Juta. pp. 77-113.
Mohamed, H. 1998.The implementation of OBET in South Africa: pathway to success or
recipe for failure. Education Practice, 1 :3-16.

Muller,]. 2001. Progressivismredux: ethos, policy, pathos. In A. Kraak & M.Young (eds).
Education in retrospect: policy and implementation since 1990. Pretoria: HSR.C. pp. 59-72.
Ntshoe, I.M. 2002.The impact of political violence on education in South Africa: past, present
and future. Current Issuesin Comparative Education 2(1):62-69.
Odora- Hopp ers, C.A. 2001. Indigenous knowledge systems and academic institutions in South
Africa. Perspectives in Education, 19(1):73-85.
Pinar,W F. 2013.The reconceptualisation of curriculum studies. In DJ Flinders & S.J.Thornton
(eds). The curriculum studies reader. NewYork: Routledge. pp.149-156.
Popkewitz,T.S.2010. Curriculum, history of. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia ef wrric11l11111
studies.Vol. 1. London: Sage Publications.p. 181-188.

Reed,Y, Gultig,J. & Adendorff, M. 2012. Curriwlum: organising knowledge for the classroom (3rd
edition). CapeTown: Oxford University Press.
Spady, W 1995. Outcomes-based education: critical issues. American Association of School
Administrators, USA: Breakthrough Systems.
Slattery, P. 2013. C11rricu/11m development in the post-modem era.Teaching and learning in an age ef
accountability (3rd edition). New York: Routledge.
South Africa. 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa as adopted by the
Constitutional Assembly on 8 May 1996 and as amended on 11 October 1996.
Vally, S. 2007. From People's Education to neo-liberalismin South Africa. Review efAfrican
Political Economy, 111 :39-56.

Young, M. & Kraak,A. 2001. Introduction. In A. Kraak & M.Young (eds). Education in retrospect:
polic}' and implementation since 1990.Pretoria: HSRC. pp.1- 16.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings 55

 CHAPTER 3

Curriculum and ideology

Anne Becker and Petro du Preez

Introduction
The relati o n between the state and education, the purpose of curriculum
and the content of curr iculum have been extensively explored since the
beginning of teaching and lear ning.Aristotle (2007:78) posited that 'the
citizen should be moulded to suit the form of governm ent under which
he [sic) lives'. Msila (2007:146) therefore rightfully argues that education
and curriculum are never neutral acts. Education and curriculum within
the nation-state1 do not develop in a socio- historic vacuum. Curr iculum
has historic ally been developed and is still globally developed parallel to
ideologic al modes of rationality serving particular soc ial, political and
economic interests.T his has been explored in Chapters 1 and 2.
Since colonialism, ed ucation and curriculum in South Africa have been victim
to legislators influenced by ideologies structuring political,social, econ omic
or cultural power relations.Wh en cu rriculun1 and education are influenced
and structured according to global or local ideological interests and power
relations, it results in the reproduction of power and therefore has particular
consequencesfor the resource distribution within a society (Apple, 1979:17).
Colonial and apartheid education constructed a divided South African society,
preserving the master-servant relationship between different ethnic groups in
an attempt to control and protect power and privilege (Msila, 2007:149).
In the first section of this chapter we will explore the meanings related
to th e con cept 'ideology' and the relation ship 'curriculum and ideology'.
In the last section of this chapter we explore the global influence of neo-
liberalism on the marketisation of education and curriculum and illustrate
this by means of the post-apar th eid curriculum.

Ideology
C urriculum Studi es con tinually explore what is, or ought to be, validated
by society as worth w hile to teach and learn. Curriculum Studies therefore

56 CHAPTER 2: Looki ng back on curriculum reform

in South Africa and beyond
have to turn to philosophy in exploring assumptions regarding what is
or ought to be regarded as worthwhile knowl edge to be included in
teaching and learning (Schubert, 2010:231). Since Plato (2007:16) posed
that we have no adeq uate knowledge of what is good or worthwhile to
teach and learn, questions regarding what is good and worthwhile remain
unanswered, as the recent denials of all fou ndational, transcenden tal and
universal tr uths by post-struct ionalism illustrate (Chapter 1).
The link and difference between philoso phy and ideology lies within the
continual questioning and amwering of what is wor thwhile and good.
Philosophy is about questions and ideology is about answers (Maier-
Katkin, 2010:78).Arendt (1966:159) argues that an ideology 'claims to
possess either the key to history,or the solution for all the " riddles of the
universe" or the intimate knowledge of the hidden universal laws which
are supposed to rule natur e and man [sic]' . Ideologies have persuasive
power, because they appeal to the exper iences, desires and needs of a
majority/ minority of humans (Arendt, 1966:159). Ideology not only fills
the gap between the authority of leadership and people's belief in that
authority, it also validates authority and domination (Ze us, 2003:205).
Destutt de Tracy originally coined the concept ideology as a 'science of
ideas' (Zeus, 2003:204). Ideology as th e 'science of ideas', however, distorts
social, political and economic relations through an idealist fram ewo rk by
means of language (Z eus, 2003:204).The hegemony in herent in ideologies
is constructed through language and discourse, controlling meaning
and understanding and constituting a worldview (Apple, 1979:154;
Deem & Brehony,2005:219). Marketised rhetoric used in education
such as ' marketing strategies', ' business plans,' 'line managers,''delivery,'
and 'products,' for example, control the meaning and understanding of
curriculum and education within the boundaries of neo-liberalism serving
economic interest (cf. Bridges & Jonathan, 2003:129).
Ideologies such as liberalism, neo- liberalism, nationalism, conservatism ,
racism and Marxism have globally shaped curriculum and education over
n1any decades serving particular interests and maintaining relations of
power and domination.

The relation 'curriculum and ideology'

When a specific ideology is accepted and validated by the state or
society as the answer to their needs and desires,the nature (defining of
curriculum), the elements (goal, knowledge, methods of teaching and
knowledge) and the process of cu rriculum are defined (Dillon, 2009:343)

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 related to the relevant ideological assumptions. Apple (1999:9) argues
in this regard:'H ow we think about something n1akes a considerable
difference in how we act'.
The nature of curriculum is explo red by questioning the definitions,
concepts and theories regarding curriculum. Defining the nature of
curriculum through an ideological lens inevitably results in specific
int erests served, the constitution of social constructs and modes of
rationality. Q uestioning and defining the nature of curriculum is a
subjective and interrelated process, whic h has a direct impact on the
defining of the elements of curr iculum and the boundaries for the
discourse and processesregarding curriculu m.
Exploring the nature of curriculum concerns questions such as: How is
curriculum defined?There are multiple and contradictory answers to this
question (Dillon, 2009:344).The contradictory defining of the nature of
curriculum directly influences the elements of curriculum.The elements of
curriculum point to the frame of reference within which we give meaning
to who and what teacher and child are, what knowledge is regarded as
meanin gful, how we teach and learn, the context of teaching and learning
and the aim of teaching and learning (Dillon, 2009:344).
Scholars defining the nature of curriculum within a marketised empir ical-
analytical paradigm (see Chapter 1 for positivism) describe curriculum as
a production system consisting of a structured set of experiences aimed
at pre-designed learning outcomes (Posner, 2009:254).They regard
curriculum as a value-free system of delivery and production framed
within neo-liberalism (Bridges & Jonathan , 2003:132). Definin g the
nature of curriculum as a system of delivery and production , results in
the defining of children as mere products in a production system.The
educational relation between teacher and child is diminished to that of
a 'worker and raw-material' managed by adnunistrators prescribing the
most effective metho ds to be used during the process of production (Au,
2011:27).The aim of education is reduced to the qualification function of
curriculun1, namely to provide skills, knowledge and understandings which
would allow children to 'do somet hing' (Biesta, 2009:39-4 0).
Critical curriculum scholars such as Apple (1979:155), in the tradition of
neo-Marxism and in an attempt to move beyond ideological reproduction,
define the nature of curriculum as political and ideological (Posner,
2009:259) . Critical scholars argue that curriculum is organised, controlled
and paid for by government.The curriculum is therefore, as part of a set of
political institutions, very valuable in the reinforcement and reproduction

CH 58
APT
ER
of meta- narratives and ideologies (Apple, 1999:13). From the critical
perspective, the result or aim of curriculum cannot be preordained
as curriculum itself is regarded as the result of co nstant struggle and
compromise on uneven playing fields (Apple, 1999:11).The educational
relation between teacher and child is envisaged as a d emocra tic process in
which teacher and child simultaneously teach and learn (Freire, 1993:53).
Teacher and child should continually, in a democratic educational relation,
reflect upon power, knowledge and ideological assumptions. Curriculum
content is chosen for its potential to develop critical consciousness among
children and aims to sensitise them to the ills of society and how to alleviate
it and not reproduce it (Eisner, 2009:283). Apple (1999:16) proposes that
discourse and theorising about curriculum should combine questioning
'about' and 'across' eco nomy and culture in its complexity.Defining the
nature of curriculum as political and ideological by critical scholars points
to emancipatory interestsbeing promoted but simultaneously poses political
and economic boundaries and the danger of the reproduction of ideological
assumptions (Becker, 2013:155).
Som e postmo dern scholars such as Aronowitz (in Zeus, 2010:203) have
suggested that the concept 'ideology' sho uld be abolished in curr iculum
conceptualisation. O ther scholars such as Zeus (2010:203), however,
pose that a discursive understanding of ideology critique has potential as
an analytic tool in curriculum and education. Pinar (2012:1), in similar
fashion, defines curriculum as 'complicated conversations' characterised by
informed communication.Within the postmodern defining of the nature
of curric ulum, curriculum is conceptualised as intimately related to human
experience. In this regard, Slattery (2013:298) argues that curriculum
encompasses all formal and informal life experiences that contribute
to the growth of the student , society and values. By the confessing of
multiple narratives, the delineation and interrogation of multiple meanings,
understanding and ideological assumptions are laid bare (ibid.).The nature
of curriculum, from the postmodern perspective, is therefore understood
to be a responsible and compassionate engagement between teacher:child2
in search of multilayered understanding (Becker, 2013:156).Teaching and
learning as in terpreta tion of text is dialogic, complex and multilayered
and includes teacher-child-community-society in a hermeneu tic
circle, continually questioning and exploring different meanings and
understandings (Slattery, 2006:281).Within a postmodern defining of the
nature of curriculum , ideological assumptions are questioned and new and
multiple understandings as to ho w we see ourselves,curriculum, society
and democracy are advocated for.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Ideological assumptions about what knowledge is regarded as meaningful
and worthwhile to teach and learn, human needs and desires and the
answers to 'the riddles of the universe' (Arendt, 1966:159) influence the
defining of the nature of curriculum, the elements of curr iculum and
the discourse within and around curriculum and educa tion. Ideologi cal
assumptions are, however, not only implicit in curri culum documents but
also present within the hidden and null curriculum.

Embedded assumptions in curriculum

Ideological assumptions are not only relevant to the defining of the nature,
elements and process of the official curriculum, the policy docume nts and
educational structures and institutions. Ideological assumptions are also
prevalent in the implicit subliminal messages em bedded in curriculum
and educational structures. Curriculum does not only concern the subject
knowledge required for a particular qualification, but also contains implicit
knowledgeabout dominant beliefs,valu es and behavio urs embedd ed in
society and in institutio nalised life Gansen, 2009:172- 173).T he curricul um
is thus tangible with regard to course outline and subjects, but also
in tangib le in terms of ideological discursive patter ns and content (ibid.).
Discursive pattern s shape the understandings of who and what we are of
everyone involvedin teaching and learning.
The learning of implicit knowledge embedded in deliberate practices and
organisational structures are referred to in curriculum theory as the hidden
curriculum (Boostrom, 2010:439).The hidden curr iculu m is th e subliminal
message within curriculum. It is hidden as it is not includ ed in institutional
statements of expected learning outcomes and may not even be perceived
by teacher and child as intended outcomes (Boostrom, 2010:439). Such
subliminal messages normalise behaviour, expectations and rewards
within an educational or school context (Slattery, 2013:301).The hidden
curriculum is an important part of the socialisation function of education
and curriculum.
The socialisation function of education is concerned with the way in
which children become part of particular social, cultural and political
orders (Biesta, 2009:40).T his broader socialisation is influenced by
the meta- narratives of society and community (Du Preez, 2012). Such
meta-narratives influence how we see ourselves, and our understandings
regarding society, community and democracy (cf.Apple, 1999:206- 207).
The socialisation function of curriculum should, however,be in balance
with the subjectification function of education .T he subjectification

CH 60
APT
ER
function of curriculum is concerned with the ways in which education
impacts on the individual (Biesta, 2009:40). Subjectifi.cation is not about
'slotting in' individuals into existi ng cultural, political and social ideological
orde rs but about resisting suc h orders (ibid.:40). Subjectification is about
the freedom to disrupt hegemonic, embedded knowledge.
T he balanc e between the socialisation and subjectification function of
curr iculum is furthermore influenced by the null curri culu m.T he null
curriculum refers to all ideas, topics, authors, text and controversial issues
left out of the curriculum (Slattery, 2013:303).The null curriculum is a
direct result of assumptions about what should be regarded as worthwhil e
knowledge to be included in teaching and learning. Ideological
assumptions regarding which knowledge is validated for inclusion in
the curriculum also relate to the defining of the nature and purpose of
curriculum and education. T he null curriculum protects privilege and
power by broad educational exclusions with respect to social class, race
and gender (Quinn, 2010:614). If the socialisation function of curriculum
is controlled by ideolo gical assumptions by means of the hidden and
null curriculum, the subjectification function is affected. Without the
opportunity to explore multiple views on being and knowledge, teacher
and child cannot resist po litical, social or cultural orders of power
and dominance.

Marketisation of education
Liberalism, in a quest for social progress, has saturated educational theory
more decisively than any other ideology (Apple, 1979:18). Liberalism is
rooted in the intellectual and individualist moveme nt ema nating from the
Enlightenment. In recent years, however, liberalism has been criticised for
losing its revolutionary spirit of origin and lacking the capacity to change
soc iety (Gutek, 2009:231, 234). Curriculum influenced by liberalism
emphasises individualism, citizen and constitutional education, rationality
and the power of reason, and is process-orien tated towards evolutiona ry
change and progress (ibid.: 231, 234). Liberalists advocate for the right of
reasonable individuals to weigh all options and evidence rationally and
make autonomous choices (ibid.:231, 234,237,239).
Neo-liberalism, premised on a rethinking and reassertion of classical
liberalism, became influential during the 1980s. Despite criticisms of the
growin g neo- liberal influenc e on education and curriculum, education has
globally adopted a neo - liberal corporate and survival rhetoric (Masschelein,
2001:12).The influence of neo-liberalism on society and the marketisation

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 of education are not unique to South Africa. It is a glo bal phenomenon.
Market-related reasoning in the structuring of curriculum is also not
a recent phenomenon. Since the beginning of teach ing and learning,
educational scholars argued that knowledge useful in ' mo ney- making'
sho uld be regarded as worthwhile. In this regard, Aristotle (2007:79) for
exampl e, argued:'And therefore our fathers admitted music into education,
not on the ground either of its necessity or utility, for it is no t necessa ry,
no r ind eed useful in the same manner as reading and writing, which
are useful in money- making, in the management of a household, in the
acquisition of knowledge and in political life .. .'
T he application of market principles to education is framed within the
context of democratic accountability (Brid ges and Jonathan, 2003:127).
Accountability has globally becom e an integral part of educational systems
and teaching and learning (Biesta, 2004 :233). T he rise of democratic
accountability is also part of a much wider transformation of society towards
a culture of' auditing' (ibid.:233).T his social transformation should be
understood within a context of ideological and economic transformations,
against the background of the rise of neo-1.iberalism (ibid.:236).
In general discourse, accountability refers to ' being answerable to' but in its
narrow sense, accountability refers to the duty to present au ditable accounts
(ibid.:235).The financial logic of accountability has been transferred to
a managerial context and from within a manag erial context it is applied
to ed ucation as a democratic and professional demand (ibid.: 235 - 236).
Accountability within a managerial context is character ised by customer-
orientated relations driven by efficiency and cost-effectiveness (ibid.:2 36).
T he financial and man agerial meta- narrative of accountability thus
influences how we see ourselves within the educational context and how
we understand education and curr iculum .We see ourselves as ' co nsum ers'
and assume that cur riculum, when structured within a financial and
managerial logic, will distribute resources fairly according to effort (Apple,
1999:207 ).
Within a managerial context of democratic accountability,Bridges and
Jonathan (2003:129- 130) point to four principal claims used by advocates
of marketised education.These arguments rest on a mixtu re of empirical
claims and points of principle (ibid.:1 29). In the first place they argue
that the failure of state- co ntrolled systems globally points to the failure of
natio n- states to provide proper educatio nal struct ures to societies. Secondly,
they argue that restructuring educatio n in accordance with market systems
will provide the most cost-effective way of delivering education.The neo-

CH 62
APT
ER
liberal emphasis on freedom of choice for consumers and clients points
to the third claim that education, schools and the curriculum should be
struct ured to accommodate the freedom of choice of parents and children
as consumers of education.T he last claim is that the inherent competition
within a market system of education provides the incentive for schools to
perform optimally.
T he influence of these assumptions on the defining of the nature, elements
and process of curriculum will be explored next.

Freedom of choice as the common good

The human rights value of freedom is strongly emphasised within neo-
liberal and marketised education and speaks to the desire for autonomy and
economic needs. Multiple individual and independent choices are stated to
produce the 'best' aggregate judgem ent for society and education (Bridges &
Jon athan, 2003:131).The assumption is thus that the sum of individual choices
made in self- interestwill be in the best interestof society as a whole (ibid.).
Choice and accountability, paramount in a market-related curr iculum
should, however, not be conflated with democracy. Democracy concer ns
the public deliberation in the best in terest of societies and communities,
not individuals (Biesta, 2004:237). Accountability in a democratic society
sho uld be concerned with responsibility towards others and not self-
interest serving individual needs and desires (ibid.:242 ).
Free choice within the boundaries posed by neo- liberalisrn further more
occurs between pre-determined options.The critique on the limited
and narrowly defined choices presented within neo-liberalisrn, reveals
an ignorance of the structural reasons (protecting power and privilege)
for such choices (Gershon, 2011:540). Freedom of choice in this context
actually describes freedom to act in self-interest on the calculation of risk
and opportunity involved within predesigned means and ends (ibid.:540).
Predesigned choices aimed at profit and prosperity always involve actions
which disadvantage some, with a concomitant increase in the inequality
between rich and poor (ibid.:540).Neo-liberalism fails to understand the
connection between the 'production' of humans within predesigned (free)
choices and the reproduction of an unequal society (Apple, 1999:208, 211).
Parents and children, as the customers or clients of education, are not
concerned with the unequal distribution of non-positional advantages
in marketised education.They will naturally seek to advance their own
interests and positioning at the expense of other children (Bridges &

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Jonathan , 2003:132). N eo- liberalists argue th at by making the market the
social barometer of human worthiness,politics will be eliminated. This,
however,disregards th e fact that the markets are, in fact, a form of politics
(Apple, 1999:208). Economic power and privilege are therefore not only
protected, but also rep roduced within the nee-liberal em phasis on the
freedom to choose self-interest.

A marketised understanding of the nature of curriculum

Critiqu e on the application of market-related principles within an
educational and curr icul um context points to concerns regarding the
defining of the nature of curri culum. The production and commercial
language used to define education and curr iculum reduces schoo ls to
production lines and education to a comm odity (Bridges & Jonathan, 2003,
132). Schools are entrepreneurial serv ice providers for pre-determined
market-related qualifications (ibid.:128). It furth ermore turns intrinsic
values and human and moral relations into instrumental ones (ibid.;
Chapter 4). Efficiency and accountability are driven by specific market-
related objectives (outcomes).T he educational process becomes a scientific
process driven by pre-determined end- points (Au, 2011:27).
T he relation between education and a market-orientated society is,
however,a reciprocal one.The learnin g principle has been adopt ed as
a corporate, political and social structu ring and constitutive principle.
Learning has become the organising principle of societies, im plying that
members of society are defined as 'permanent lear ners' (Masschelein,
2001:2). Concepts such as the 'learning society,"the learning organisation',
'the learning nation', and even the 'learning democracy' (cont rolled by
accountability and efficiency) illustrate this (ibid. :4).The reciprocal relation
between education and neo-liberal societies results in learning being
understood as the struc turing and organising principle of society, education
and curriculum. Neo-liberalists expect education and the curr iculum to
play a pivotal role, not in the transformation of society trapped by market
rationality, but in the reproduction of market rationality.

The influence of the marketisation of education on the

elements of curriculum
T he elemen ts of curriculum describe the relations, activities, purpose and
knowledge constructed in and through curriculum.We will briefly explore
how the purpose, relations and content of curr iculu m are influenced by
the marketisation of curriculum.

CH 64
APT
ER
The purpose of teaching and learning
The reciprocal relation between education and a neo-liberal society has as
result that learning becomes the organising principle of education, society,
organisations, nations and democracies.T his is reflected in the emphasis on
the efficient pedagogical competence expected of teachers; on how we teac h
and learn to the detriment of what we teach and learn and who teac hers and
children are (R uiz, 2004:274).The emphasison 'learning' reflects the e mp hasis
on curriculum development as a process and the continual measurement
of outco mes. How teachers teach effectively is crucial to the measurin g of a
teacher's worth in the classroom and is measured in (un)successful outcomes.
Pedagogical literature speaks about a learner as someone who has to
acquire knowledge, attitud es, valu es, skills and abilities.These are selected
with a view to providing what is considered necessary for placement in the
employment market (ibid.:274).What children are and what they should
and could become in service of the market- orien tated society have become
the main purposes of educatio n.

Structuring economic relations

Social transformation as a result of nee -liberalism, increasingly shifts
relations betwe en people towards relatio ns betwee n things (Apple,
1979:154).This shift is multilayered and complex. On a macro-level, the
relation between state and citizen has changed from a po litical relationship
to an economic relationship in which the state is the provider of educatio n
and taxpayers the consum ers of educa tion.T his has changed both the role
and identit ies within the relationship,as well as the term s on w hich they
relate (Biesta, 2004:237). N ew terms are reco nfigured within the context
of quality assurance and accountability (ibid.:237).T he relationships
constru cted between the state, educational authorities, parents, children and
teachers are, inevitably,all str uctu red in the san1e fashion.
On a micro- level the educational relationship between teacher and child is
redu ced to a technical relation.Teacher and children are reduced to being a
part in an efficient scientific management and delivery system. Efficienc y is
assessed by means of standardised and objective tests.T he increased control
over teacher and child and the disregard for equal difference result in a
distortio n of the educational relationship between teacher and child.
Standardised tests,aud iting and measuring effici ency, are based upon
an inter-related processof decontextualisatio n, objectification and
commodification (Au, 2011:36).The underlying assumption is that
standardised tests can be applied universally, fairly and objectively to

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 individuals (ibid.:36).T he validity of standardised tests thus denies
individual difference (ibid.:37).T he child is reduced to and quantified as a
number and assessed on a scale between normal and deviant (ibid.:36,37).
Children are objectified and reduced to 'decontextualised numerical
objects for comparison' (ibid.:27). Chapter 7 explores this in more detail.
Defining the nature of curriculum on market- related principles produces
econo mic relationships, which undermine the hope of democracy and the
ethical and educational relationship between teacher and child.

Knowledge validated as worthw hile

A society framed as a 'learning society' does not regard the production
and management of goods as cen tral but focuses on the production and
management of knowledge. Knowledge is regarded as a 'raw material' to
be used and re-organised for individual and collective survival within a
market reality (Masschelein, 2001:4).The knowledge deemed worthwhile
for individual and collective survival and advancement within a market-
orientated curriculum is math ematical, scientific and technological
knowledge. Being competent in maths does, however, not aid moral and
ethical judgment and the ability to think critically.The inability of young
people to think critically and act with compassion is a serious liability for
any democracy (Atmore,Wray & Godsell, 2011:173).
The advancing and survival rhetori c of marketised education have
many subliminal messages for teacher and children. Problem-solving
competencies, for example, embody salvation themes of hope for the
future (Popkewitz, 2009:304).T he problem-solving abilities of children
are assumed not only to play a role in their own future but also society's
collective future.This implies that the themes surrounding problem solving
are cultural and societal ideological themes related to a perception of
what such success in a future constructed society will entail (ibid.:304).
Popkewi tz (ibid.) argues that the notion of problem solving is not about
hope but about combating fear regarding the future. Fear about the future
is controlled by structuring order in society and classifying conduct,
knowledge and skills based on ideological assumptions.
Problem- solving abilities embrace notions of liberal and neo-liberal
understandings of agency. They are concerned with conceptions and
choices of how an individual should live and what choices an individual
should make in order to live a predesigned 'successful' life (ibid.:304 ). The
problem-solving skills and notions of agency assumed by a marketised
curr icul um are circular in nature. Individual agency and autonomy are

CH 66
APT
ER
advocated for, while social , econo mic and political boundaries structu red
by nee-liberalism dictate that individuals have to engage with nee-liberal
concepts of agency and identity (Gershon, 2011:538).

A value-free curriculum?
During a debate with Skinner on behaviourism, R ogers (Rogers &
Skinner, 1956:1061) explained the link between purpo se and premise in
any human endeavour by arguing that in any scientific (pure or applied)
endeavour there is a prior subjective purpose or end which the endeavour
is perceived to serve.This subjectivevalue may lie outside of the endeavour
but always guides the process.The subjective premise and values deter mine
the goals, choices, methods and ends regarding the endeavour (ibid.:1062).
In exploring curriculum , any research, any analyses and all questions are
an engagement with values (Biesta, 2009:35). The emphasis on efficiency,
accountability and performance in a marketised curriculum has given
rise to a culture of performativity in education. Within this culture
means become ends in themselves and outcomes, as indi cators of quality,
are mistaken for quality itself. Education and curri culum have become
evidence-based endeavours. T he question we should thus ask is:'D oes the
curr iculum measure what we value or value what we measure?' (ibid.).
The assumption that the technical approach to curriculum theorising is value-
free is highly contested.Words and concepts used in curriculun1implicitly
and explicitly express values. Efficiency is a value - it is an instrumental value
(ibid.).Words and concepts describing children and parents as 'co nsumers',
educa tion as a 'delivery system', and schools as 'service providers' explicitly
and implicitly shrink all educational relations to that of consumer and supplier
(Waghid, 2010:207). Instrun1ental values expressed through words and concepts
say something about the future society, the curriculum envisaged and about the
process by which it perceives to reach that future.
T he neo- liberal values such as freedom of choice, individualism, self-
reliance and enterprise, which are, ironically, presented within a frame of
democratic accountability, are in conflict with social democratic values such
as equality and collaboration (Bridges & Jonathan , 2004:134).T he values
of the market are not com patible with the values of cormnunity, expressed
by Noddings (in Bridges & Jonathan , 2004:134) as values developing good
persons and a caring community.Education for [demo cratic] values should
be based on [democratic] values (Ruiz, 2004:277).
The conflict between neo-liberal and socio-democratic values has been
prevalent in the post- apartheid curriculum since its ince ption during the

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 early 1990 s.The initial approach to social and econo mic development
in post-apartheid South Africa, as ' people-centred', was int roduced by
the newly elected government by means of the R eco nstructio n and
Development Programme (RDP) after the first democratic elections
during 1994 (Christie, 2008:91). By the end of 1996, and in a glo bal
climate of neo-liberal capitalism, the redistributive agenda was, however,
replaced by neo- liberal macroeconomic programmes such as th e Growth,
Employment and R edistribution (GEAR) programme and the New
Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) agreement. South Africa's
development was now anchored in the global neo-liberal capitalist
economy and partnerships with the international economic community
(Christie, 2008:91- 92).
T he influence of this shift on the post-apartheid curr iculum will now
briefly be explored.

Post-apartheid curriculum
After the first democratic elections in 1994, the newly elected
governn1ent committed itself to provide education to all; 'to open the
doors ofl earning' for all children of South Africa (Christie, 2008:72) .
T he explicit aim of the post-apartheid curriculu m during its inception
in the early 1990s, was furthermore to guide a new generatio n to a new
beginning in which South Africans will live as free, equal and dignified
partners. Asmal (2011 :271 ) states that much of his work on the Manifesto
(2001) and the RNCS (2004 ) was inspired by his personal experiences
of exclusion and his antipathy towards humans being excluded from
humanity.Both the Manifesto (2001 ) and the R NCS (2004) place the
promotion of constitutional inclusiv e democratic values at the centre
of its vision. It is assumed that educatingf or these values will ensure a
democratic national identity and promote nation-building (Chisholm ,
2009:316).
Since 1996 and in line with programmes such as GEAR and the NEPAD
agreement, the labour market became an integral partner in the shaping
of cur ricul um and the defining of the nature of curriculum (R amrathan,
2010:122). Economic thinking has since become the mode of rationality
in South African education (Skinner, 1999:125). Skinner (1999:119) argues
that both representatives of comm ercial interests and government regarded
the solution to South Africa's economic problen1s and future economic
and social development as th e prin1ary function and purpose of education
after 1994.

CH 68
APT
ER
This perception is reflected in the perceived nature and purpose of
education as alleviating poverty and aiding economic growth.The defining
of the nature of curriculum as marketised, naturally also points to the
selectio n of skills and competencies that ' critical outcomes' in the OBE
support (ibid.:119). Skills and competencies relevant and 'useful in money-
making' (Aristotle, 2007:79) and a competitive economy are paramount.
This is reflected in the emphasison mathematics and science to the
detriment of social sciences and the arts (Atmore et al., 2011:176).
Teaching and learning in South Africa, driven by market-related values,
have shifted educational relations to n1eans and ends.The relation between
teacher and child is reduced to a producer-consumer relation (Waghid,
2010:202). It is a contractual agreement governed by means and ends.
Drawing on his experience of working with students,Waghid (ibid.:202)
argues that South African students have become 'consumed with a market-
orientated "logic" oflearning'. Formal qualifications are linked to some
external gain such as opportunities to earn a better salary or opportunities
for better employment prospects. Students want to be marketable in the
workplace. They strive to be problem solvers who calculate, order and
direct actions into an envisaged future in which they are regarded as
marketable commodities.
The economic purpose of the curriculum, framed within market
principles furthermore manifests in the growing marketised rhetoric of
the curriculum such as: the cu rriculum 'aims to produce learners' (DBE,
2011:5). Schools are regarded as 'delivery' and 'production' systems for
future employers and tertiary education (DBE, 2011:5; Motshekga, 2011:1).
A linear and closed conception of curriculum is furthermore clearly
illustrated by the focus on accountability, technical efficiency in teaching
and learning, and the continual assessment of outcomes (DBE:10-11;
Motshekga, 2010:2,4).
The curriculum revisions published in NCS- CAPS (2011) are also
prescriptive about how and what teachers should teach, diminishing the
role of teachers to managers of prescribed processes. It provides 'details on
what teachers ought to teach and assess on a grade-by-grade and subject-
by-subject basis' (Motshekga, 2010:2; cf.Au, 2011:31). Aims, content
and assessment requirements are 'spelt out' and aligned to 'available tinle
allocations per subject' (Motshekga, 2010:2).Teaching and learning are
efficiently structured within a managerial system of production and delivery.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 (Un)locking the doors of learning?
Despite the socio-economic development programmes set in motion by
government over the last twenty years, poverty in South Africa remains
endemic and chronic (Christie,2008:97). So uth Africa, furthermore , remains
one of the most unequal societies in the world (Christie, 2008:95).The South
African society can thus safely be defined as unequal and poverty stricken.
It is important to note that although poverty and inequality are perceived
to be the same thing, there is a very impo rtant difference between the two
concepts (ibid.).A society can be unequal but have no poverty or can have
widespread poverty but still be fairly equal (ibid.). D evelopment and economic
growth can furthermore reduce poverty while increasing inequality (ibid.).
This happens within a global, capitalist and neo-liberal framework when the
benefits of economic growth are not distributed equally (ibid.). Equal effort
and freedom of choice do not manifest in equal distribution of resources and
wealth (cf.Apple, 1999:207). Humans do not always make their living under
the conditions of their choice (Bauman, 2001:7).
Access to education and the quality of ed ucation play key roles in growing
poverty and inequality in South Africa.Although more children in South
Africa have access to education, not all have equal choices regarding the
quality of education. Harley and Parker (1999:196) predicted that OBE
and Curriculum 2005 would eventually benefit previously 'white' (middle-
class and rich) schools most.This projection seems to be accurate.The rich
purchase education that will expand their future choices and possibilities
open ing to their children, while the poor have limited choices as to quality
education (cf.Bridges &Jonathan,2003:128).T he growing gap in the quality
of education provided to poor and rich children in South Africa has resulted
in South Africa having two school systems: rich and functional schools and
poor and dysfunctional schools Gansen, 2011:112).This severely affects the
reduction of poverty and the realisation of an equal society.
The assumption that curriculum, when structured within a financial and
managerial logic, will distribute resources fairly according to effort (Apple,
1999:207), disregard the economic and social positional (dis)advantages
within a marketised system. It also masks the reproduction of inequality
and poverty (Bridges & Jonathan,2003:131). Different levelsof wealth
and poverty in South Africa influence the resources for education and the
supply of education. Possible future economic engagement, or the lack
thereof (especially in rural areas), determines the value placed on schooling
(Christie, 2008:106). Poor children are furthermore still excluded from
tertiary education, because of high costs and low quality of schoo ling

CH 70
APT
ER
available to them (Verwey, 2011:127). Soudien (2010:43) there fore
contends that the post-apartheid curr iculum has now given a macro-
character to discrimination.
In the hope of attaining equality in a market-related envi ronment, policy
makers are continually tabling multiple policies and revisions to the
curriculum, and standardised tests have been int roduced to aid efficiency.
Fears that many children and teachers do not fit into the categories,
predesigned by benchmarks or achievements, are managed by holdin g
ed ucation, teachers and children accountable (DBE, 2010:11). Input s are
strictly con trolled in the hope that the outcomes will reflect the economic
restructuring of the South African society.The very policies and revisions
which target teacher and child for inclusion, however, differentiate, divide
and cast out the teacher and child who cannot, through historical and
present socio-economic positioning, choose to inhabit the spaces provided
for the 'good' teacher and child (Popkewitz, 2009:305).
The relational boundaries set by a managerial accountability approach
are structural and epistemologic al.A marketised curriculum framework,
assumes all knowledge to be value free and objective (Slattery, 2006:235).
We, however, argue that knowledge can never be value free. Ideologic al
assumptions determine the way people live and know the world. It
saturates how people act and relate to themselves and others (Bauman,
2001:10). Making the markets the barometer of human worthiness
implicitly renders the poor child as ' un- wort hy' . Poor people are rendered
powerless by structural, epistemologic al and relational boundaries.T heir
voices are silent as they struggle with a sense of agency, influencing how
they act in, on and with the world (Christie, 2008:101).
In South Africa colonial and apartheid legacies still significantly impact
on the unequal subject positioning of teacher:child (Christie, 2008:87).
In not deconstructing the historical 'baggage,' and ideological assumptions
regarding how we see ourselves and how our unequal positioning affects
equality, the post-apartheid curriculum perpetuates historical forms of
discrimination, makes teacher and child complicit in exclusionary practices,
and exacerbates economic and class inequality (Soudien, 2010:43;Au,
2011:30, 39).The explicit aim of the post- apartheid curriculum to guide
a new generation of South Africans towards a free, equal and dignified
society is made impossible by the implicit and explicit nee-liberal values
serving economic interests, saturating the post-apartheid curriculum.
The post-apartheid curriculmn has 'delivered' South African teachers
and children to a marketised neo-liberal curriculum, objectifying them

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 as nobodies in need of management and control. By categorising parents,
teachers and children as 'c onsumer s', 'suppliers' and 'producers', the
educational experience becomes a calculated means-end process.

Conclusion
Ideological shifts in society, education and curriculum do not appear out of
the blue. Such shifts happen over a period of time when dissatifsaction with
circumstances and changesin circumstances prompt new directions (Bridges
& Jonathan,2003:137). Ideological shifts are then presented as addressing
specific needs and desires,or perceived as the answer to problems resulting
from changing circumstances.Such shifts always influence education and
curriculum, because education is the social practice, which simultaneously
reflects and restructures ideas and circumstances (ibid.:138).
Ideological assumptions have historically influenced, and are still globally
influencing the defining of the nature, the elements and the process of
curriculum. Ideological int erests, power and dominance are all reflected and
contested within and around curriculum. Understandings, structured by
ideology, are reflected in the intended curriculum and by means of subliminal
messages conveyed by means of the deliberate structuring of processes
and positioning around and within curriculum and education al structures.
Socialisation is directly influenced by the hegemonic meta-narratives expressed
in both the intended and unintended curriculum. Contesting ideological
assumptions within and around curriculum by means of subjectification,
is rendered impossible when the null curriculum excludes knowledge and
opinions from the curriculum, therefore limiting opposing views.
Liberalism has saturated education more than any other ideology (Apple,
1979: 18).T he rnarketisation of education serving neo-liberal interest has
partly developed because of the tension between liberal individualism
serving self-interest and the quest for social justice and equality.The neo-
liberal assumption that structuring curriculum on market principles will
balance the rights of the individual and an equal society has, however,
only reproduced inequality and emphasised self-interest.Within the
reproduction of inequality and poverty, all ed ucational relations are
furthermore reframed in a financial and managerial logic.

EN DNOTES

1. Nation-state describes a political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly

by a people sharing acommon history and/or culture, and/ or languagewithin a specific
geographical space.The nation-state replaced the feudal and authoritarian systems during the

CH 72
APT
ER
 Enlightenmen t period following Locke's p roposalsfor the separation of powers.The nation-state's
existence was justified by the protection it would provide to the natural and individual rights ofits
citizens and resulted in the birth of popular sovereignty (lshay, 20 04:94; Becker, 2013;60).

2. Teacher:clhdi is the contextualisation of the relation self:other in education and curriculum.The

relation self:other describes the multilayered and complex self in relation(s)(Becker, 2013:26).
Self:ot her/teacher:childsimultaneo usly represents the specific of human ity and our shared
human it y in non-lineartime and space (ibid.).The constituting of the ethical relation self:other/
teacher:child is a result of the invitation from self to an other to enter a dialogic relation in order
for self to be responsib ilit y for self:other/teacher:child (cf. Bauman, 1994:74; Becker, 20 13:27).

REFERENCES

Apple, M.W. 1979. Ideology and Ci trriculum.London: R o utledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Apple, M.W 1999. Power, Meaning and Identity: essays in critical educationalstudies. New York:
Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Arendt, H. 1966. The Origins ofTotalitarianism. Cleveland:T he World Publishing Company.

Aristotle. 2007. Liberal v. Mechanical Edu cation . In R. Curren. Philosophy ef Education.An

Anthology. M alden: BlackweU Publishin g Ltd . pp 77-82.
Atmore, E., W ray,D. & GodseU, G. 2011. Education. In M. Du Preez (ed.) Opinion Pieces by
South African thought leaders. R osebank: Peng uin Boo ks.
Au, W 2011.Teaching under the new Taylorism: high-stakes testing and the standardisation of
the 21" century curriculum. In Curriadum Studies, 43(1 ):25-4 5.

B aum an, Z. 1994. Post-modem Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publi she rs.

Bauman, Z. 2001. The Individualised Society. USA M ald e n: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Becker,J.A. 2013. Curriculum and intra-dialogic spaces:consciousness and becoming in identity

construction based on human rights values. Unpubli shed PhD. Potchefstroom: NWU.

Biesta,G. 2004. Education, accountability, and the ethical demands: can the democratic
potential of accountability be regained? In Educatio nalTheory. 54 (3). 233-250.

Biesta, G. 2009. Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the
question of purpose in education. In Educ AsseEvalAa . 21. 33-46.

Boostrom, R. 2010. Hidden Curriculum. In C. Kridel (ed.) Encyclopaedia efC urriculum Studies.
(Volume 2) pp 439-4 40.

Bridges, D. & Jonathan , R. 2003. Education and the Market. (In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith , P.
Standi s h (eds). T11e Blackwell Guide to the PhilosophyefEd11catio11. Malde n: Blackwell Publishing.

Chisholm , L. 2005.The making of South Africa's National Curriculum Statement. In]oumal ef

Cimiculum Studies. 37(2):193-208.

Christie, P. 2008. Changing schools in South Africa. Op ening the doors ef /earning.Johannesburg:
H einemann Publishers (Pty) Ltd.

Deem, R. & Brehony,K.J. 2005 . M anageme nt and I deolo gy:The case of ' New Managerialism '
in H igher Education. Oxford R eview ef Educatio.n31(2):217- 235.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Department of Basic Education. 2001. Manifesto on values, education and democracy. Pretoria:
Department of Education.

Department of Basic Education. 2002. Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9
(Schools). Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Basic Education 2010. Delivery Agreement for outcome 1: Improved quality of
basic ed ucation . Pretoria: Departme nt of Education.

Department of Basic Education. 2011. National Curriculum Statement (NCS). Curriculum

and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). Pretoria: Department of Education.

Dillon,J.T. 2009.The questions of curriculum. In Journal ef Curriculum Studies. 41 (3):343-359.

Du Preez, P. 2012. Unpacking images and metaphors of female curriculum leadership through
memory and nostalg ia as narrative nuances. Paper presented at the American Education
Research Association confe rence, April 2012,Vanco uver Convention Centre, Canada.
Eisner, E. 2009. Five basic orientations to the curr ic ulum. lnj.D.Jansen & U. Hoadley.
Curriculum: Organising Knoweldge for the Classroom. CapeTown: Oxford University Press.

Freire, P. 1993. Pedagogy efthe Oppressed. N ew Yo rk:T he Continuum Publishing Company.

Gershon, I. 2011.' Neo-liberal Agency.' Jn Current At1thropology. 52(4):537-555.

Gutek, G. L. 2009. New Perspectives on Philosophy and Ed11catiot1. N ew J ersey : Pearson Edu cation
Inc.

Harley,K. & Parker, B. 1999. Integrating Differences: Implicatio ns of an Outcomes-based

National Qualifications Framework for the R oles and Competencies ofTeachers. In ]. Janse n
& P Christie (eds) Changing Curriculum: Studies i11 Outcomes-based education in South Africa.
Kenwyn:Juta & Co Ltd.

Ishay,M.R. 2004. The History ef Human Rights. From A ncientTimes to the Globalisation Era.
Los Angeles: California Press.

Jansen,J.D. 2009. Knoweldgein the Blood. C onfronting Race and the Apartheid Past. Stanford.
Stanford University Press.

Jansen,J. D. 2011. South Africa's Education System: How can it be made more productive?
In M. Mbeki (ed.) Advocatesforchange. Ho1v to overcome Africa's challenges.Johannesburg: Pan
Macmillan South Africa.

Kraak, A. 1999. Competing Education & Training Policy Discourses:A 'Systemic' versus
'Unit Standard' Framework. In J. Jansen. & P. Christie (eds) Changing Curriculum. Studies in
Outcomes-based educati on in South Africa. Kenwyn:Juta & Co Ltd.
Maier-Katkin, D. 2010. Stranger from abroad. In Hannah Arendt & Martin Heidegger.
Friendship and forgiveness. NewYork:W.W Norton & Company, Inc.
Masschelein ,J. 2001.The Discourse of the Learning Society and the Loss of Childhood.Journal
ef PhilosophyefEd ucation. 35(1):2-18.
Motshekga, A. 2010. Statement by the Minister of Basic Education, Mrs Angie Motshekga, MP
on the progress of the review of the National Curriculum Statement,Tuesday6 July 2010.
http:/ / www.education.gov.za/ ArchivedDocuments/ArchivedMediaStatements/

CH 74
APT
ER
M o tshekga, A. 2011. Budget Vote speec h - 2011/2012 F/ Y.'A delivery-driven basic education
system' by Mrs Angie Motshekga, Mini s ter of B asic Ed ucation, 13 April 2011. http: / / w ww.
ed ucation.gov. za/ N ewsroom/ Speec hes.Accessed on 3 May 2013.

Msila,V. 2007. From Apartheid Education to the R evised National Curriculum Statement:
Pedagogy for Identity Formation and Nation Building in South Africa. NordicJournal of
African Studies. 16(2):146-160.

Plato. 2007.Turning the Psyche. In R. Curren. Philosophy of Education.. An Anthology. Malden:

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Pinar,W F. 2012. What is curriculum theory? (2 nd edition). NewYork: Routledge.

Popkewitz,T.S. 2009. Curri culum study, curri culum history, and curriculum theory: the reason
of reason.j ournal qf C11rriculum Studies, 41 (3):301- 319 .

Posner, G. 2009. Models of Curriculum planning. In J D.Jansen& U. Hoadley. Curriculum:

Organising K noweldgefor the Classroom. CapeTown: Oxford University Press.
Q uinn, M. 2010. Null Curriculum . In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Curriculum Studies
(Volu me 2): 613--<>14.

R uiz , PO. 2004. Moral education as pedagogy of alteri ty.Journal of Moral Education. 33(3):
271-289.

Ramrathan, L. 2010. From Response to Theorising; Curriculum genesis in South Africa from
the Perspective of Critical Incidence Autoethnography. In WF. Pinar. Curriculum Studies in
South Africa. IntellectualHistories& Present Circumstances. N ew Yor k: Palgrave Macmillan.
R ogers, C.R. & Skinner, B.F. 1956. Some issues concerning the contro l of human behaviour.
Science, New Series. 124(3231)N ovember.30 :106 7- 1066 . Date of access:8 J uly 2011.
Schubert,W H. 2010. Curriculum Inquiry. In F.M. Connely, M. Fang He,J. Phillion (eds). Tlte
Sage Handbookof Curriculum and Instmction. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Skinner,]. 1999. Critical O utcomes: Political Paradoxes. In ]. Jansen & P. Christie. (eds)
Changing Curriculum. Studies in O utcom es- based education in South Africa. Kenwyn:Jut a
& Co Ltd.

Slattery, P 2013. 3rd edition. Curriwlum Developmentin the Post-modem Era. New York:
R outledge.

Soudien, C. 2010.'What to teach the natives':A Historiography of the Curriculum Dilemma

in South Africa. In WF. Pinar. Curriculum Studies in South Africa.. IntellectualHist ories & Present
Circumstances. N ew York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Verwey, L. 2011. Perspectiveson poverty in a democratic South Africa. In M. Du Preez. (ed.)
Opinion Pieces by Soutl, African thought leaders. R ose bank: Penguin B ooks.
Waghid ,Y. 2010.Toward Authentic Teaching and Learning in Post-Apartheid South Africa: In
Defence of Freedom, Friendship and Demo cratic C itizenship. In W Pinar (ed .). Curriculum
Studies in South Africa. Intellectual Histories & Present C ircumstances. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Zeus, L. 2003. Discourse and Critique: outlines of a post-structural theory of ideolo gy.Journal
of Education Policy. 18(2):203-214.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 CHAPTER 4

Curriculum and moral debates:

On virtue education and
multicultural integration
Yusef Waghid

Introduction
Nowadays, as has been the case since Elizabeth Anscombe (1958) revived
virtue ethics by condemning Kantian deontology (an action is right as it
can be universalised in light of rationality) and utilitarianism (an action is
right as it makes the greatest number of people happy), theories of virtue
education are in vogue and integrated in curriculum theory.That is, in
curriculum theory, virtue education is framed within the boundaries of
virtue ethics that advocates that moral virtue is a practice that is important
in the exercise of a person's balanced life experiences (Krisjansson,
2013:22).Virtues are character strengths and are situated in actions
such as compassion, integrity,fairness, tolerance, selflessness, discipline,
dependability, reliability, loyalty, trustworthiness, forgiveness, respect and
determination (Krisjansson, 2013:26).And, virtue education is understood
as that form of moral education that foregrounds righteo us character in the
good life (Krisji nsson, 2013:25).
In light of the aforementioned explication of virtue education, I shall argue,
firstly, as to whether curriculum theory should continue to integrate virtue
education considering the charge that virtue education is too paternalistic,
conservative and individualistic.An important manifestation of virtue
education is that of' multicultural integration' - another important debate
in curriculum theory - for the reason that the latter constitutes instances in
which virtues may or may not be exercised.
Secondly, the term 'multicultural integration' reflects abstractions such as
diversity, difference, inclusion and recognition, and has been valorised in
curriculum theory in many countries in the late 20th century (Kymlicka,

CH 76
APT
ER
1995:15). Its promin ence in curr iculum theory was enhanced by the social
movements of immigrants who began to situate themselvesin countries
different from their origin in attempts to recreate the societies from which
they came with the hope that their ways of life can still be replicated in the
receiving countries. Callan (2013:18) avers that as immigrants in tegrated
in societies, they began to overlook their language, relax the boundaries of
their ancestors' religion, establish marital relations beyond the group, move
in to multi-ethnic suburbs, and exceed the educational successes of their
parents, and they actually became subjected to stealth assimilation - that is,
having been integrated into the societies without even knowing it (Callan,
2013:13).
My concern is not so much as to wh eth er people were subjected to
integration or stealth assimilation, but rather whether the attendance to
multicultural integration in cur riculum theory remains justifiable. Hence,
secondly,I shall argue as to w heth er curricul um theory should remain
attentive to the abstractio ns of multicultural integration, in particular if
diversity, difference, inclusion and recognition remain justifiable to the
domain of curriculum theory considering that multicul tural int egration
in the form of assimilation has been accused of demeaning and
misrecognising people (mostly immigrants) (Taylo r, 1992:25).

Virtue education and the myths of paternalism,

conservatism and individualism
Taking my cue from Pinar (2004:8), curriculum theo rising is action that
involves educational experience - that is, action that involves human
subjectivity, academic knowledge and society (Pinar, 2004:11). More
specifically, educational experience that is instigated by intellectual
jud gment, critical thinking, self- reflexivity and virtue ethics constitut es
human action that can be couched as curr iculum theorising. My
interest in curriculum theory relates to th e practi ce of virtue ethics as
constitutive of educational experience aimed at both self-realisation and
democratisation , referred to by Pinar as projects of social and individual
subjectified reconstruction (2004:8).T hus to talk about virtue ethics
in curr iculum theory, I specifically refer to the unfolding of virtue in
education al experience determined by human subject ivity,knowledge
and society.Wh at follows from this elucidation of curriculum theory,is an
understanding that virtue education is constitu tive of cur riculum theory
and hence, to use the notion of virtue education in cur riculum theory, is
to illustrate the manifestation of virtue ethics in educational experiences of

77 CU
RRI
CUL
 people albeit in formal educational institutions such as schools or informal
conversations that offer educational opportunities for those engaged in
conversations.

Virtue education as constitutive of curriculum theory

On the importance of virtue education
Virtue education foregrounds the role of virtuo us character in enhancing
the good aspects in life (Arthur, 2010:21).When a person focuses on
vir tues such as com passion, considerateness, and self-respect, he or she is
concerned with exercising good aspects in life. Now if paternalism implies
that curriculum theory insists that learners should internalise virtues of
good character under the pretext that such virtues are in their best interests,
then curriculum on virtue education is said to be undesirable.
What follows, offers some form of critique of the aforementione d form
of virtue education. Carr (1991:262) argues in defence of curriculum
theory incorporating virtue education as it is as importan t to teach
young children honesty, tolerance and fairness as it is to teach them
mathematics and science, since not all children will develop an interest
in the aforementioned subjects, but they do, however, require an interest
in honesty or fairness. If one assumes that curr iculum theory on virtue
education merely coerces learners to acquire good character and that they
(learners) are indoctrin ated, then it is erroneously conceived that virtue
education unfolds unconsciously and subliminally without considering
that learners have the capacities to consciously reflect on virtues they are
expected to engage with .That is,learners still have conscious choices to
make about the virtues they are told to internalise. And, to presume they
are coerced into something they might find objectionable is to ignore their
capacities for conscious reflection on the virtues of, say, honesty, tolerance
and fairness. It is inconceivable that one can indoctrinate learners with
virtues of honesty and fairness as if honesty and fairness are mechanical
prescriptions to which learners simply respond. In fact, for teachers to
share with learners the virtue that it is better to be honest than dishonest
is not a prescription that they are expected to internalise. R ather, it is an
act of virtue that they should intentionally consider and deeply reflect
upon - a matter of evoking learners' potentialities and maximising their
(learners') capacities for choice and not what that choice ought to be.So,
when learners - through virtue education - are n-iade aware of vir tues and
have a choice to decide on internalising virtues, such an action cannot be
considered as undesirable on the basis tha t it lends itself to indo ctrination

CH 78
AP
TE
and prescription. Instead,opportunities have been established for them
to consciously use their potentials an d to consciously and intentionally
make choices. For this reason I concur with Carr (1991:269) that teachers
abdicating their professional responsibilities such as to initiate learners
into virtue education, would be tantamount to them failing to hold their
nerve. By implication, to accuse virtu e education of being paternalistic
is unfair and not reason enough to withdraw it from cur riculum theory.
My potential critic might assert that the aforementioned argument on
virtue education is couched in a language of rationality and does not
allow any form of engage1nent with the emotional aspect of virtues. My
understanding of virtues is that character strengths are both constituted
by what understandings one conceivessomething to be (that is, a
matter of rationally scrutinising something or a situation), as well as
what feelings (or emotions) engender particular actions. For instance, a
teacher might encourage a learner to be honest for the reason that her
(a teacher's) understanding of honesty has both a reasonable (she justifies
the implications of dishonesty) and emotional attachment - a matter of
acting caringly in the interest of learner enactments. H enc e, making an
argument for virtue education as not being paternalistic is informed by
both reasonableness (rationality) and emotion.T he two constituent aspects
of virtue education cannot be separated. MacIntyre (1999:43) posits that
acting caringly (that is, virtuously) in educative relations is concomitantly
linked to doing things with justification (reasons) and emotion, that is, out
of a deep concern to evoke the potentialities oflearners.

Contesting the conservatism associated with virtue education

Virtue education is often charged with being too conservative and that has
no place in curriculum theory as it cannot nurture critical and independent
moral choosers (Krisjansson, 2013:29). Often conservatism is associated with
practices suppo rting the status quo and not being amenable to any form
of radical change but rather to remain in line with what exists - hence ,
'conservative' virtue education is charged with not being able to engender
critical learners who can make autonomous moral choices. If one considers
that education today is mostly associated with a technicist, instrumentalist
and what-works methodology (Arthur, 2003:114), then retaining the
status quo would hardly remain desirable for curr iculum. theory aimed
at countenancinginstrumentality (Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5). It would even be
more unacceptable for curriculum theory today to persist with technicist-
instrumen talist approaches to education that have in any case proved so
catastrophic for education in several developing countries, most notably those

79 CU
RRI
CUL
 co untries that adopted indefensible forms of outcomes-based education
like South Africa. O utcomes-based education has not only been technicist
but actually subjected pedagogical activities in schoo ls to implausible
rn.ech anical manoeuvrings that stifle critical, autonomous learning. And to
accuse virtue education of wanting to uphold the status quo is not only to
deny the role virtue education can play in provoking learner criticalityand
independence of thought, but more importantly to deny virtue education
from undermining technicist, instrumentalist forms of education w hich
in any case would domesticate any form of radical and progressive change
in education.Virtue education in the curriculum has and should continue
to remain concerned with producing righteous persons who do not only
perform the right actions, but perform them for the appropriate reasons and
from the right motives such as knowing them, taking intrinsic pleasure in
them and deciding that they are morally worthw hile (Krisjansson, 2013:30).
Of course it would be conservative,then, to actually deny virtue education
its rightful domain in curriculum theory.

Virtue education as a social practice

It seems rather odd to find fault with virtue education on the grounds
of it being too individualistic and therefore not capable of engendering
social change.T his criticism does not hold water as Aristotelian ethics,
which informs most of virtue education in curriculum theory today, has
never been blind to the social. For Aristotle (1985), virtues are human
excellences necessary to realise human flourishing and happiness; not
ignoring that human wellbeing is constituted by the societal structures
in whic h individuals are situated such as the family, friends and other
social and public spheres. In fact, the very idea of a virtue is a character
strength which an individual happens to exercise in relation to others.
Although acting justly and compassionately might be individual acts that
must be activated, these acts are extended to concerns of society. For
instance, a person has compassion for other persons who might experience
vulnerabilities and then extends his or her compassion towards the
vulnerable. Similarly,for an individual to act justly implies that he does so
out of societal concer n that all humans must be afforded opportunities to
enjoy, say civil liberties such as housing, health care and education.Virtuous
acts are individual character strengths that extend to societal concerns. In
this regard I disagree with Krisjansson (2013:31) who posits that virtues are
first activated in individual enco unter s and only later extended to societal
interests.When virtues are activated through individual actions, they are
done so in relation to others. In other words, virtues are not first acted out

CH 80
AP
TE
individually, then socially,as if individuals firstly rehearse virtues before
testing out its public desirability.T he very co upling of virtue and education
makes redundant the view that virtues are by nature individualistic.
Education in the Aristotelian sense is a social practice and its connection
with virtue merely accentuates its social dim ensions. Hence, the charge
that virtue education cannot deliver on its promise of cultivating social
change is unwarranted, to say the least.And to suspect vir tue education in
curriculum theory of reifying individual learner attributes separated from
societal contexts would be to ignore that issues such as gender, citizenship,
democracy,class, and power relations (taught in virtue education) have
everything to do with society.
Thus far, I have argued that virtue education in curr iculum theory does
not have a paternalistic, co nservative, and individualistic bias. O n the
contrary, virtue education aims to expose learners to character strengths
and evoke their potentialities to make choices about what would be
desirable or undesirable for society; to perform appropriate actions for
justifiable reasons; and to act virtuously in the interest of societal conce rns
vis-a-vis human wellbeing and the procurement of justice and a better
life for all. For now, virtu e ed ucation in curriculum theory is necessary
and educational institutions such as school s cannot prematurely stunt its
implementation based on unfounded claims.

Multicultural integration as constitutive of

educational experience
Rights to recognition and accommodation for cultural (ethni c) min ori ties
are invoked to explain the distinctiveness of multicultural integration
(Callan, 2013:15). Under multicultural integration then, the focus is firstly
on rights with attention to virtues and, secondly, on what is referred to
as the politics of recognition and difference (Kymlicka, 2002:327). In
this chapter my interest is in multicultural integration with attention to
cultural pluralism (diversity and difference) and group-differentiated rights
(recognition and inclusion ).When diversity and difference are ignored ,
such as demea ning traditional people's sexual orientations and disabilities,
then such people are excluded, marginalised, silenced, or assimilated. The
demand for multicultural integration relates to the recognition of peoples'
different identities without being stigmatised, and which accommodates
(includes) rather than excludes peoples' differences (Kymlicka, 2002:327).
Considering that curriculum theory encompasses an examination of
educational experience, it then follows that multicultural integration can

81 CU
RRI
CUL
 be most appropriately instantiated through educational experience and
day-to-day life experiences in educational institutions (Callan, 2013:16).
And this implies that curriculum theory ought to be open to difference,
a willingness to learn from. other people whose life worlds might be
different from one's own, and, when appropriate, re-constitute common
institutions with them on the basis that they do not become compromised
in the process through assimilation (Callan, 2013:16).Too often curriculum
theory misrecognises and refuses to accommodate minorities' claims, as
has been the case in Canadian society where multicultural integ ration
has actually show n its face as a deplorable form of assimilation, refusing
to recognise and accommodate what are considered by the host country
as unworthy minority practices (Kymlicka, 1998:56).This point deserves
some attention as it tends to be understated in curriculum theory vis-
a- is multicultural integration . It also begs the question: How should
multicultur al integration be integrated in curriculum?

Towards a curriculum of multicultural integration

Reasonableness as an instance of curriculum
Firstly, curriculum theory cannot be prejudiced towards cultivating modes of
conduct that reflect only the hegemonic culture of the dominant political,
cultural and economic groups that are often not the minority groups
albeit immigrants or ethnic groups indigenous to the society.Of course,
all groups should contribute towards making the society in which they
live a just and decent place for everyone but this does not mean at
the expense of marginalising the traditions, languages or religions of
minorities. In any case, as aptly remarked by Callan (2013:20), to insulate
oneself so as to avoid cultural contamination implies con tempt for fellow
citizens as exclusion of others weighs against mutual understanding and
respect that people ought to have for one another. For instance, often
minorities complain that their faiths are threatened because of state
schools advocating the beliefs, customs and traditions of the dominant
culture at the expense of shunning minorities' cultures. Now, if the reason
for the establishment of segregated (own) schools is to avoid cultural
contamination from the dominant public (state) schools, the possibility
that segregated schools become insulated is real and then multicultural
integration might be thwarted. And, then the criticism waged against
segregated schools not contributing to nation building seems justified
as, in such instances, bringing such schools into contact with difference
and diversity wo uld presumably not be possible. For example, religious

CH 82
AP
TE
schools, albeit Catholic, Judaic or Islamic, would not remain only insular,
but mutual understanding and respect for diversity and difference might
not necessarily be aspects of multicultural integration such schools would
advocate, considering their bias towards the homogeneity of their own
groups - that is, lea rning about diversity can be done theoretically but
experiencing diversity would perhaps not be possible as segregated schools
are often resilient towards their homogenous groups. In this regard, I
agree with Callan (2013 :20) who posits that those who come from ethnic
minorities are denied adequate opportunity for civic integration unless
they are recurrently exposed to forms of social engagement with those of
majority comn1unities. However,it would be equally reckless to assume
that segregated schools might provide or cultivate notions of citizenship
education - that is, teaching learners about belonging and rights, their due
consideration in order to contribute towards nation building. Such schools
might well contrib ute towards nation building but to give multicultural
integration its rightful pedagogical space in curr iculum theory might not
necessarily be possible at segregated schools.
Secondly,curriculum theory cannot be blind to teaching learners
transformative capabilities to contend with the challenges of multicultural
integration, especially in countries where people have suffered indignity
and gross violations of human rights, torture, genocide and expulsion . ln
a way, curriculum theory ought to be concerned with teaching people
to undermine and avoid possibilities for inhumanity and suffering. Often
human rights violations occur as a consequence of one group of people
wanting to suppressand even eliminate another people just for being different
- a situation that militates against multicultural integration. Multicultural
in tegra tion recognises the other and the other's differences with out the
possibility that the other should remain subjected to repression and control by
the dominant. In other words, multicultural integration wants to con tribute
to hun1an flourishing by building comm unities of difference and, hence,
it cannot be oblivious about teaching people virtues.The point is that
multicultural in tegration cannot be oblivious to virtues or what some, like
Noddings (1992) and Slote (2007), would refer to as the ethics of care. Both
Noddings and Slote accentuate the reciprocity involved in caring relationships
which involve a displacement of human self-interestor engrossment in
the other person. Like virtue education, the ethics of care addresses the
importance of empathy (emotion) playing a crucial enabling role in the
development of a genuinely altruistic concern or caring for others.T his will
make it possible for learners, for instance, to adopt the points of view of other
learners and teachers deliberately - a matter of acting with reasonableness.

83 CU
RRI
CUL
 Democratic justice and curriculum
I now want to show how curriculum theory can gain from teaching
people virtues of'recognisability' and ' grievability' that hold the promise
of multicultural int egration. Human flo u rishing, for Butler (2004:22), is
about establishing recognisable relationships with others through political
co mmunity (.inter d e p e nd e nt relationships) and ethical responsibility on the
one hand, and through recognising that human interdependent relations
are nurtured on the basisof understanding one another's enco un ter
with grief on the other hand.Thus, for her, when one experiences
and recognises one another's grief or loss,not only are relationships
intertwined but also directed to an acknowledgement of what it means
to be and act humanely (Butler, 2004:23). If people fail to recognise one
another's difficult lived experiences, they remain unknowable to oth ers
in ways that might enhance the potential for hum an rights violations
such as discrimination, oppression and marginalisation, and violence.
Her compelling notion of the 'recognisability' of others and their
differences is connecte d to the idea of 'grievability', such as that others
like oneself can experience loss,trepidation and diffic ul ty that deserve
one 's acknowledgement. And, through the recognition of a shared sense
of grief that all humans experience or might experience, not only will
our moral understandingof what it means to be human be expanded, but
our responsibility towards ot hers as interdep endent members of a global
comm unity will be enacted. If curriculum th eory envisages to co ntribut e
to human flourishing (and it should), it needs to cultivate in people also the
moral virtues of' recognisability' and 'gr ievability' that might teach them to
countenance actions that mitigate human flourishing and, by implication,
multicultural integration.
Thirdly,curriculum theory in and about multicultural integration also aims
to instil in people the virtues of democratic justice. A plausible account
of democratic justice relates to the co mp elling work of Amy Gutmann
(2003:26-27), who argues that the concept involves three interrelated aspects:
• the capacity to live one's own life as one sees fit, consistent with
respecting equal freedoms of others - to treat people with equality;
• the capacity to contribute to the justice of one's society and one's
world;
• the capacity of individuals to live a decent life with a fair chance to
choose among their preferred ways of living - all aspects of demo cratic
justice that cannot be delinked from multicultural integration.

CH 84
AP
TE
Put differently, if multicultural integration were to materialise in pluralist
societies, then democratic justice as respect ing the equal freedoms of others
to contribute to the attainment of justice for all, and to be capable of living
a decent life according to one's choices,ought to be a desirable practice
to pursue.
This can happen in the followings ways: Firstly, if one learns to respect the
freedoms of others as being equally as important as one's own, then one
recognises that others have similar liberties to live their lives according to
what they see fit. So, when learners are taught to respect the freedoms of
other lear ners (say from their neighbo uring countries or from cornn1unities
that are different from their own), they do not become agitated when
others present points of view perhaps different from theirs - they respect
the views of others. However, this does not mean that they necessarily
agree with everything others have to say.T hey also have the right to
question, under mine and refute the judgments of others.
At least the possibility of learning is there when learners begin to critically
scru tinise one another's views in an atmosphere of mutual respect for one
another's different or, at times, conflicting judgments.W hen learners respect
one another equally, they are said to be critical, because criticality demands
that we give due consideration to the views of others. Equally respecting
the rights of others in order to gain more insight and under standing of the
other, amounts to recognising that others have a legitimate voice which
needs to be heard and which they can couch in a discourse apposite to
their dispositions. O nly then would the possibility of critical learning be
enhanced. In this way, learning to recognise different and often conflicting
judgments of others seems to be a way in which to maximise learner
criticality.This is so because critical learning has some connection with
considering the merit of the conflicting views of others - that is, whether
these views make sense and whether they have been justified enough.
Secondly, to learn how to contribute to the justice of one's society and
the world has some connection with critical learning (Chapter 1 and 5).
One cannot claim to be a critical learner if one 's learning does not resuJt
in some forn1 of action which can potentially contribute towards the
achievement of democratic justice. I cannot imagine how learners could
be critical if their learning does not cause them to act anew - they need to
act with a sense of justice to others. Likewise, lear ners cannot be critical if
their learning does not contribute towards their advocating for a just world
- for instance , the reduction of extreme and unacceptable levels of poverty
on the African continent.This does not mean that they merely call for

85 CU
RRI
CUL
 recognition and respect of o ther 's rights (whether civil, political and social)
within a critical learning agenda. Instead, they also stress the importance
of taking responsibility for the rights of others - a matt er of taking others'
rights seriously or accepting responsibility for the rights of others without
merely privileging their own actions (Callan, 1997:73). For instance, people
who champion the right to employment also consid er as import ant the
responsibility of others to meet the needs of those who are jobless. Such an
und erstanding of justice could potentially extend the mere recognition of,
and respect for, other's rights to a position whereby we assume app ropriate
responsibility for the rights of others.
Thirdly, to learn what it means to be decent or civil (to be democratically
just) has some connection to being critical.To show civility involves
demonstrating what Stephen Macedo (1990) refers to as a sense of'public-
spiritedness' - that is, demonstrating a conscio us awareness of others and
recognising that they have to be respected on acco unt of their difference.
However, enco untering one another's difference do es not mean that one
merely listens to what others have to say without subjecting their truth
claims to critical scrutiny. Lear ners also questio n on e anoth er's stori es
with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of the texts of their lived
experiences. Questioning and undermining the views of others does not
necessarily mean that one is disrespectful towards others. R ather, critically
questioning people's unjustifiable assumptions about others is to treat them
with respect (Fay, 1996). In this way, one demonstrates a sense of decency
(civility) - one is democratic ally just and therefore critical.
In essence, when learners are initiated into the spheres of democratic
justice, they learn to recognise equally the freedoms of others, to
con tribute towards private and public justice, and to be decent. In this
way, th ey learn to be critical because criticality is linked to the realisation
of a democratically just society on the grounds of having been exposed
beforehand to texts which may enhance the possibility of achieving
democratic justice. In a way, multicultural integration cannot be realised
if learn ers are not taught the virtues of democratic justice - that is, it is
though a realisation of democ ratic justice that defensible multicultural
integration can be possible.

Cosmopolitanism and curriculum

Finally, curriculum theory in and about multicultural integration needs to
be concerned also with a cosmopolitan agenda. So, the question remains:
how can cosmopolitanism contribute to the cultivation of multicultural

CH 86
AP
TE
integration? Cosmopolitanism recognises the rights of others to 'universal
hospitality'. Simply put, others have the right to be treated hospitably.
For Benhabib (2006:22),'hospitality is not to be understood as a virtue of
sociability, as the kindne ss and generosity one may show to strangers who
come to one's land or who become dependent on one's act of kindness
through circumstances of nature or history; hospitality is a right that
belongs to all human beings as far as we view them as potential participants
in a world repu blic'. Such a right to hospitality imposes an obligation
on democratic states and their citizens not to deny refuge and asylum to
those whose intentions are peaceful, particularly if refusing them would
result in harm coming to them (Benhabib, 2006:25). So, if the intention s
of immigrant communities are genuine (peaceful and dignified), it would
be considered their right to be treated hospitably, and democratic citizens'
obligation to ensure that these immigrants enjoy such a right.
What does such a cosmopolitan approach to educat ion entail? Firstly,
considering that cosmopolitanism involves the right to temporary residence
on the part of the stranger whom we confront in our own indigenous
contexts (Benhabib, 2006:22), it follows from this that public schools cannot
deny access to children of immigrant communities. In most cases, in South
Africa, they are not refused. However,some children are excluded in sub tle
ways, co nsiderin g that the language of instruction, for instance, is not in the
mother tongue of these immigrant children. In fact, in South African black
townships some African children find it difficult to cope with non-mother
tongue instruction in public schools.And, taking into account that local
school children find it difficult to cope with a different language, it would
be extremely challenging for immigrant children to adapt to the public
school life in their country of temporary sojourn.What cosmopolitanism
thus demands is for immigrant children to be taught initially in their mother
tongue before they are integrated into the broader public school life. Or,
alternatively, they should simultaneously learn the language of instruction
and be supported to do so.The point I am making, is that one sho uld not
take for granted that people with immigrant status would fit naturally into
the public structures of their adopted countries or countries of temporary
residence.T hey have to be initiated gradually into social and public life on
the basis of a sense of obligation on the part of democratic states. Failing to
do so, for example, denying inunigrant children gradual access into public
schools and thus depriving them from developing and exercising their
capacities, would amount to treating others unjustly.
Secondly,'the right to have rights' prohibits states from denying individuals
citizenship rights and state protection against murder, extermination,

87 CU
RRI
CUL
 enslavemen t, deportation and other inhumane acts such as persecution
(whether political, cultural or religious) (Benhabib, 2006:25). Of course,
one has to acknowledge that humans are capable of injustices and crimes,
and that one way of dealing with such a situation is to acknowledge its
possibility, thu s recognising that injustices are possible and that such injustices
can be committed against people - that is, recognising the humanity within
people and their propensity for doing injustice. But the concern here is
more to find a solution for the inhumane acts perpetrated by human beings
who have impoverished themselves by perpetrating acts of injustice and
inhumanity. And, the answer lies in recognising the 'right of (people] to
have rights'. If immigrant children wish to wear their head scarves in public
schools, following 'the right to have rights' notion, these children cannot be
discriminated against if they wish to do so.Asking these children to remove
their scarves,which they might consider as important to their religious and
cultural identity,would be a matter of treating them unjustly on the grounds
that their right to be different would be undermined.
Hence,cosmopolitanism and its concomitant agenda of hospitality which
ought to be afforded to other human beings (especially from immigrant
communities) in many ways com plement the duties and responsibilities
associated with the activities of democratic citizens. Unless co untriesand their
peoples recognise the rights of others to be treated with dignity and respect,
without suppressing their rights, the achievement of justice will remain remote
from the minds and hearts of people. Multicultural integration can do much
to promote cosmopolitan norms such as acting hospitably towards others as
well as recognising the rights of others to have rights, which would inevitably
consolidate and extend democratically just actions.
My defence of cosmopolitanism as an instance of multicultural integration
seems to have only moral value and that all citizens would not necessar ily
benefit from the rights granted by nation-states. In other words, immigrants
and other marginalised communities do not politically/ legally have access
to righ ts - a situation, in turn, that would result in a violation of others'
rights. Of course one way out of such a predicament would be to argue that
universal human rights discourses ought to be coupled with a cosmopolitan
conception of multicultural integration. In other words, universal human
rights might provide a theoretical underpinning for cosmopolitan
multicultural integration. For instance, it might be quite apposite to claim
that a Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as advocated by the United
Nations) might be one way in which marginalised 'citizens' in particular
nation-states might be secured political/legal entitlements.Although such a
view may seem to be untenable because human rights cannot logically be

CH 88
AP
TE
a theoretical underpinning for cosmo politan multicultural integration on
the grounds that human rights disco urses are located within a universalist
frame of reference, in contrast to that of multicultural integration, which
is located within a more particularist frame (Kiwan, 2005:37) , I tend to
hold the view that justice for all'citizens' would reasonably be sec ured if
universal human rights could be used by nation states to engender defensible
forms of cosmopolitanism. In this way, unlike Kiwan, the implementatio n
of h uman rights discourses might not necessarily be conceptually distinct
from cosmopolitan multicultural integration, and the conflating of human
rights with citizenship might not be as conceptually incoherent. In fact, a
Universal Declaration of Human Rights might enhance the empowerment
and active participation of individual citizens in the context of a multicultural
community. Such a view makes sense on the basis that if marginalised
'citizens', particularly immigrants, are granted 'hospitality' on the grounds
of a Universal Declaration of Human Ri ghts (for instance, that they cannot
be excluded from political participation), the chances that cosmo politan
multicultural integration be realised would seem highly likely.T his is so,
because a Universal D eclaration of Human Ri ghts would obligate nation-
states to respect the rights of all citizens.

Conclusion
In defence of a curriculum of cosmopolitani sm, I have raised and
elucidated on two pertinent moral debates that co nstitut e curri culum
theorising: the attendance to both virtue education and multicultural
in tegration. I have argued that curriculum theory cannot expunge the
value of virtue education as the criti cism that virtue education is too
paternalistic, conservative and individualistic is not a legitima te one.
T hen, I have argued that curriculum theory ought to remain resilient in
its objective to promote diversity, difference, inclusion and recognition,
especially in light of not excluding what is other and different. My
suggestion would be that curriculum theorising would do much more than
wh at it is currently doing if virtue education and multicultural integration
were to be cultivated in curriculum through cosmopolitanist lenses.

REFERENCES
Anscombe,G.E.M. 1958. Modem moral philoso phy. Philosophy, 33(1 ):1- 19.
Aristotle. 1985. Nicomad 1ea11ethics, trans.T. Irwin. India n apolis: Hacket t Publishi ng.
Arthur,]. 2003. Education with charade,: 17ie moral economy ef schooling. London: R outledge-
Falmer.

89 CU
RRI
CUL
 Arthur,]. 2010. OJgood character: Exploration of virtues and values in 3- 25 year-olds.Exeter:
Imprint Academic.
Ben habib,S. 2006.The philosophical foundations of cosmopo litan norms. In R. Post (ed.).
Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Butler,J. 2004. Precarious life:Th e powers of mourning and violence. London:Verso.

Callan , E. 2013. Multicultural integration as stealth assimilation. Proceedings of Annual
Conference of Philosophyof Education Society of Great Britain. Oxford: New College.
22-24 March, 12-21.
Carr, D. 1991. Educating the virtues: Essays on the philosophical psychology ef moral developmentand
education. London: R outledge.
Fay,B. 1996. Contemporary philosophy ef science. Oxford: Blackwell Publi shers.
Gutmann,A.2003. Identity in democracy. Prin ceto n & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Kiwan, D. 2005. Human rights and citizenship: an unjustifiable conflation? journal ef Philosophy
ef Education,39(1):37-50.
Krisjansson, K. 2013.Ten myths about character, virtue and virtue education - plus three well-
founded misgivings. P roceedings of Annual Conference of Philosophyof Education Society
of Great Britain. Oxford: New College. 22-24 March, 22-38.
Kymlicka,W 1995. Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kymlicka,W 1998. Finding our way: R ethinking etlmoc11/t11ml relations i11 Canada. Toronto: Oxford
University Press.

Kymlicka,W 2002. Contemporary political philosoplry:An introduction (2nd edition). Oxford: O,rford
U niversity Press.

Ma cedo, S. 1990. Liberal virtues: Citi zenship, virtue and community. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Maclntyre,A. 1999. Dependent rational ani111als:J,V/1y human beings need the virtues.Illinois, Peru:
Open Court.
Noddings, N. 1992. TI1e challe11ge to care in school.sAn alternative approach to education. NewYork:
Teachers College Press.
Pinar, WE 2004. J,V/iat is curriwlum 77,eory? Mahw ah, New Jerseyand London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Slote, M. 2007. 77,e ethics ef care and empathy. London: Routledge.
Taylor, C. 1992. Multiwlt11ralis111 and the politics of recognition. Princeton, NJ: Prin ceto n Univer;ity
Press.

CH 90
AP
TE
 CHAPTER 5

Curriculum development:
processes and contexts
Geesje van den Berg

Introduction
Many schools of thought exist wit h regard to curriculum development
and approaches vary in different co ntexts. Like curriculum, curriculum
development can be viewed from different perspectives, which are
strongly influenced by the dominant worldview and context in which the
curriculum is developed (Chapter 1). Posner (2012) describes the wide
variety of approaches to curriculum planning as a set of diverse responses
to questions of curriculum planning. In order to understand curric ulum
planning more fully, we must examine not only different curriculum
planning questions but also different curr iculum planning perspectives.
These, in turn, are influenced by ideological questions, which in a sense
determine the formulation of the questions as well as the priorities
addressed in the questions (Chapters 3 and 4).These are broad frameworks
of thinking referred to as orientations or philosophical frameworks, as
indicat ed above.
Curriculum, as pointed out in Chapter 1, is a construct that is influenced
by many institutional and ideological positions and often operates within
defined systems and systemic parameters. Curriculum development, as with
most other actions in education, is not performed in isolation from other
actions, but is part of continuous processes of planning, implementing and
evaluating learning experiences - all based on the ideological and structu ral
nature of the society and the context. Curriculum development can refer
to planning, implementation and evaluation of curricula on different levels:
large-scale curr icular reform (Chapter 9), making changes to one's year or
term planning, or on a micro level with regard to one's own lessons.
The continuous process of improving teaching and learning is highly
complex and therefore challenging to allocate a general description to.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 In Chapters 1 and 3 it was pointed out that approa ches to curriculum
are often linked to particular ideological and / or theoretical positions and
orientations that deter mine approaches to curriculum development. In this
chapter a broad definition of curriculum develo pment will be provided
as a departure point, followed by an exploration of the relation between
curriculum development and curriculum design.T hereafter, tec hnic al and
non- technical approaches to curriculum development will be discussed and
specific theories will be presen ted as examples of these varied approaches.
Througho ut the chapter, critical commentary will be provided about
the vario us approaches.Toward the end, the significance of a socially
constr ucted curriculum theory will be discussed and several visions and
imaginations for the advancement of curric ulum development and making
will be posited.

Defining curriculum development

Ascribing a fixed definition to curriculum development is challenging,
because the notion is influenced by various cont exts. In an attempt to
contextualise the term, it is helpful to consult a broad understanding of
curriculum (Chapters 1 and 2).This understanding of curriculum is not
limited to a mere description of learning contents, but includes the sum
total of learning opportunities provided and can includ e aspects th at affect
learning processes directly and indirectly,such as teaching methods and
styles, our views of and interactions with stu dents, and the ways in which
assessment and evaluation are done (Chapter 2).
Curriculum development, based on such a broad understanding, can
therefore be seen as a continuous process,whi ch is cont ext specific, flexible
and adaptable. In this regard, Hl ebo witsh (2010:203) states that,
(t]he curriculum development process ... is organic and comprehen-
sive in its outlook. It makes it clear that any determination about
how to teach has to be done in relation to what gets taught and
that any determination about what gets taught has to be understood
in relation to wider learning purposes and accompanying learning
effects.

Curriculum development is a cru cial aspect of the broader domain of

Curriculum Studies and entails processes and actions related to curr iculum
design, implementation and evaluation; as well as who is involved, and
which processes an d procedures were followed (Ornstein & Hunkins,
2009). Although some curriculum workers might prefer a more structured
or technical approach to the curr iculum development process (Tyler, 1949),

CH 92
APT
ER
othe rs might prefer a more process orientated approach (Stenhouse, 1975).
Yet an other group might prefer a critical, deliberative approach (Freire,
1970).T hese approaches are influenced by various theoretical traditions and
therefore differ greatly in terms of the processes under pinning it. These will
each be described in more detail below. However, it is important to fust
clarify the relation and difference between curriculum developm ent and
curr iculum design, since the latter has an influence on how curriculum
development is co ncep tualised.

The influence of curriculum design on curriculum

development
Curriculum design refers to the way the cur riculum is conceptualised
and arranged in its major components, such as content, resources,
student activities and assessment, to provide direction to the curriculum
development process (Thornton, 2010).Wh en designing a curriculum, the
educational and professional co ntext should be clearly defined.This can
include a number of factors, such as the current or prevailing educational
or social ideology, history,culture, politics, economy, students, teachers and
parents, commerce or industry, professional bodies, exami nation boards and
funding bodies (Chapters 2 and 3). In addition, several design types should
be considered.T hese, according to Thornton (2010), include: school subj ect
designs, Dewey's design, social designs, designs based on personal relevance,
intellectual development designs, and hidden designs.
In terms of school subject designs, the in1portance of school subjects, given
the social and economical context, is of importance.Thornton (2010), for
example, referred to how the 18th century classic curriculum and the way
sch ool subjects such as Latin and ancien t Greek were arranged to prepare
an elite group of students for university, had to be reconsidered in the wake
of the 19th century massification of education and the changing needs of
students.
Dewey's conceptualisation of the school as an embryonic community
where experiential learning should be incorporated in the traditional
curriculum also had implications for curriculum design (Thornton, 2010).
For him the bo rders between traditional subjects were too rigid and
therefore he promoted integration of subjects. H e, for example, suggested
that the three Rs (reading, writing, arithmetic) not be regarded as separate
enti ties, but be learnt in the context of other subjects for it to lead to
authentic learning experiences (T ho rn ton, 2010).

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Social designs emp hasise the role of the cur riculum in serving the social
interests of society (Thornton, 2010).The inclusion of human rights,
democracy, HIV/Aids and computer education are examples of how the
curriculum is used to orientate students to social issues and priorities.The
notion of a socially const ructed curriculum theory, to be discussed later
in this chapter, also links to social designs. H ere the concept ' infusion' is
often used to describe how these social prior ities are integrated in the
curriculum (Du Preez, Simmonds & Roux, 2012).
Curriculun1 design in terms of personal relevance refers to the approach of
deciding what curriculum content should be mastered, and then allowing
the student to engage with the subject in whatever way that suits their
personal interest (Thor nton, 2010).The Plowden-orientated primary
schools and Mon tessori ed ucation approach are examples of curriculum
designs that focus on personal relevance.T he problem with this approach is
that progression of content s, moving from more simplistic contents to more
complex contents, is often overlooked, which might have dire implications
for how students progress (Thornton, 2010).
T he intellectual development discourse underpinning curr iculum design is
often considered the brainchild of Jean Piaget (Thornton, 2010). H ere the
question of progression again becomes important. Intellectual development
focuses on the extent to which a curriculum is designed so that students
can experience the value of conceptual build up (progression) and practical
reasoning to develop satisfying answers to questions (Thornton, 2010).
The hidden design underpinning curricula is not formally or explicitly
stated, but relates to the culture and ethos of the specific institution and
the society.'Hidden curriculum', a term credited to Philip W Jackson
(1968), has been present as an acknowledged element in education for
some time. For example,John Dewey (1938), in Experience and Education,
referred to the collateral learning of attitudes that occurs in schools, and
that this may well be of more long-ranging importance than the explicit
school curriculum. The learning associated with the hidden curriculum
is most often treated in a negative way, mostly because it is learning that
is smuggled in and serves the in terests of the status quo. However,in
similar vein to Smith (2000), we do need to recognise that the hidden
learning is not all negative and can be potentially liberating. Cornbleth
(1990) mentions that in as far as the hidden cur riculum enables students
to develop socially valued knowledge and skills, it is positive in its impact.
Closely related to the idea of the hidden curriculum is the concept of
the null curriculum, which focuses on what schools do not teach, thus

CH 94
APT
ER
giving students the message that these elements are not important in their
educational experiences or in society (Q uin n, 2010).
Curriculum design is of utmost import ance when curr iculum
developmen t occurs on any level; be it the micro, meso or macro level.
As highlighted above, we need to be conscious of integration, p rogression
and infusion when developing curricula, as well as the social co ntext and
learning experiences we intend students to be exposed to. Next, we will
turn to curri culum development.

Different approaches to curriculum development

Throughout history, curr iculum development processes have been driven
by an ultimate goal: to determine what knowledge and skills are important
in society and find the most effective way to teach them. It should be kept
in mind that although different th eo ries might assist curriculum developers
in systematically and transparently mapping out the conceptualisations of
teaching, learning and assessment; hum an aspects such as attitudes, values
and feelings should never be disregarded in the process.T herefore I agree
with Lunenbur g (2011) that theori es of curriculum development can
be defined as interacting parts that serve to direct actio ns.T hese theories
should be used as guidelines rath er than recipes,and should not substitute
professional and personal judgment on what a good approach to enh an ced
teaching and learning should be.
Curriculum development can be approa ched either in a technical or a
non- technical way, and most theori es can be classified leaning towards
one of these two categories (O rnstein & Hunkins, 2004). For the purpose
of this chapter, these categories should not be seen as dissimilar from the
product versus the process and praxis break-down of curriculum theories.
T he mor e technical approach, which began around 1900, focuses on
what specific subject matter studen ts learn and how it aligns with the
prescribed outcomes. It has been described by authors such as Neary (2003)
and Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) as being logical, efficient , focused on
intention and planning, and effective in delivering education. Followers of
this approach indicate that such a systematically planned programme can
be evaluated, while o thers question just how precise this evaluation will be
(Chapter 9).The non- technical approach, in contrast, has been referred to
as subjective, personal and aesthetic, and focuses on the student, on activities
and on effects (N eary, 2003; Slattery,2006; Ornstein & Hunkins,2009).
In what follows, I will explore three prominent approaches to curriculum_
dev e lopm e nt , e a c h c h aracterised by different theories, i.e. the product

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 (technical), process (non-technical) and praxis (non-technical) approaches.
Whereas the product approach loo ks at the outcomes, the end product,
the what; the process approach is concerned with the methods in the
curriculum development process, and the 'how' questions related to
it. The praxis approach is concerned with the extent to which action
and reflection forms part of the curriculum development process,and
particularly highlights 'why' questions. Within each of these approaches
there are a range of spec ific theories that could be used to develop a
cur riculum. Some of these theories will be unpacked in the approaches
discussed next.

The product approach to curriculum development

The theories to be explored below are all exan1ples of a product approach
that could generally be clustered within the technical realm. These include
the scientific method of Franklin Bobbitt, the Ralph Tyler rationale, Hilda
Taba's grassroots rationale, and the backward-development theory of
Wiggins and McTighe.

The scientific method

The scientific method, established by Franklin Bobbitt (1876- 1956),
began with the identification of specific activities that make up the lives of
students, resulting in the identification of broad general and more specific
objectives. Emanating from the industrial era, Bobbitt (1918) observed
factories to determine characteristics that increase social effic iency
and output, and applied these to his scientific method. Bobbitt further
argued that education that prepares students for life, is one that prepares
definitely and adequately for activities useful in the industrialised world.
How numerous and diverse these activities might be for different social
classes; the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge
that humans need will, according to him, be met by such an approach to
curriculum development. He further argued that the curriculum will then
be that series of experiences students should obtain by way of reaching
predetermined objectives (Bobbitt,1918). In line with industrial logic, these
curriculum objectives were stated in practical, precise and measurable terms
(Doll, 1993).

The Tyler rationa le

Ralph Tyler'stheory was first introduced in 1949. Influenced by the work
of Edward Thorndike and John Dewey,Tyler noted that students' interests
should be taken into account when selecting objectives.Tyler (1949), who

CH 96
APT
ER
showed an interest in Skinn er's behavio urism and Dewey's ideas with
regard to progressive education, focused on change in students' patterns
of behaviour. Like Bobbitt,Tyler placed an emphasis on the formulation
of behavioural objectives. He was of the opinion that the real purpose of
education was not to have the teacher perform certain activities but to
bring about significant changes in the students' patterns of behaviour, and
therefore curr iculum objectives should be aligned to achieve this purpose
(Tyler, 19 49).His technical -scientific theory has become so dominant
in curriculum studies , that it has become known as a metanarrative in
the curr icul um domain (Slattery, 2006). His rationale is based on four
principles:
1. to determine the school's purpose (objectives)
2. to identify educational experiences related to the purposes

3. to ascertain how the experiences are organised, and

4. to evaluate the purposes (Tyler, 1949).

Taba's grassroots rationale

Unlike Tyler, Hilda Taha (1962) believed that users of the curriculum, in
this case the teachers , should be involved in curriculum development,
and it is seen as a rational and orderly process as opposed to the industrial
logic that too often dominates cur riculum development theories.Taha
(1962), being described as far ahead of her time, has a number of novel
aspects within her theory: specificity in determining objectives and
content; learning experiences selected and organised in acco rda nce with
specified criteria; teaching strategies that specify a variety of methods and
technology; and an elaborate array of evaluative procedures and measures.
The theory, also known as the interactive theory, is fu rther characterised
by external factors that may affect its internal components. Such factors
include:
1. the nature of the community in which the school is located - its
pressures , values, and resources
2. the policies of the school district
3. the nature of a particular school - its goals, resources, and
administrative strategies
4. the personal style and characteristics of the teachers involved,
and
5. the nature of the student population (Lunenburg, 2011).

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Her cur ri cu lu m develo pment theory consists of eigh t steps.T hese include:
1. Identifying the needs of the students and the expectations of
society
2. Formulating the learning objectives

3. Selecting learning content based on the objectives

4. Organisation of the content by teachers in line with student
needs
5. Selecting learning experiences in relation to the content
6. Determining the actual learning
7. Determining what is going to be evaluated

8. Establishing how the effectiveness of the curriculum wil l be

determined (Taba, 1962).

The backward-development theory

The backward-development theo ry, advocat ed by Wiggins and McTighe
(2005), is a variation of task analysis, with distinct roots in Bobbitt (1918)
and Charters' (192 3) scientific method.This theory begins with a statement
of desired results, i.e.:
• What would we like to accomplish?
• What should students be able to do?
• What values and attitudes should they have?
• What skills should they be able to demonstrate?

These questions constitute the first stage of the curriculum decision

making process.T he second stage of curriculum decision making entails
the selection of content by curriculum developers; whilst the third stage
deals with narrowing down the content to sustainable knowledge. The
fourth stage, according to Wiggins and McTighe (2005), is to determine
how to evaluate success, by asking: what standards are necessary for the
studen t to be considered successful? The final stage in this process requires
the planning of educatio nal activities so that students can reach the
predetermi ned goals of the curriculum.

A critical reflection on the product approach

The cri ticisms toward this approach revolve around this approach's
propensity to be product-orientated, behaviourist, prescriptive,

CH 98
APT
ER
measuremen t fixated, oppressive, and socially unresponsive.T he theories
of the product approach all share a comm on strategy which could be
described as set ting up objectives, drawing up a plan to realise these
objectives, implemen ting the plan, and evaluating its outcome (Smith,
2000). In this dominant view of curriculum development, the focus is
primarily product-orientated and in this sense curriculu m enactment
results in a technical exercise. C urriculum development in South
Africa, too, has fallen victim to this simplistic approach to curri culum
development (C hapters 1 and 2) in as far as objectives and outcomes
becam e th e hege mo nic rhetoric as opposed to how the curriculum was
and should be conceptualised.T his product-fixated approach, as mention ed
above, is more influenced by the logic of the end product delivered
(students) as opposed to the process that enables learning and teaching. In
addition, Stenhouse (1975) alerts us to the fact that when this objectives-
based approach is used, it becomes a stick with which to beat teachers in
as far as the question of'what are your objectives?' is mor e o ften asked in a
tone of challenge than one of interested and helpful inquiry.
The product approach is deeply rooted in behaviourism th at - in curriculum
terms - results in the organisation and performance of certain activities by
teachers, so as to bring about changes in the students' patterns of behaviour.
To accomplish this, the formulation of behavioural objectives is vital.T hijs
and Van den Akker (2009) criticise this approach because of its propensity
to reduce complex development processesto a few steps, providing a step-
by-step guide to curriculum planning and development, with one intent
in mind: to alter patterns of behaviour.To alter patterns of behaviour
necessitates prescriptive measures. However, recent literature warns against
the use of theory that is overly prescriptive when developing curri culum
because it tends to reduce complexity and creates over-simplistic accounts of
multifaceted social issues that influence curriculum development (Gosling,
2009; H ussey & Smith, 2003, 2008; Maher, 2004). It also does not take into
account the unanticipated results that often occur when learning takes place.
This is because a fixation with pre-specified goals m ay lead both educators
and studen ts to overloo k learning that is occurring as a result of their
interactions, but which is not listed as an objective (Smith, 2000).
As a result of the industrial logic and behavioural underton e of product
approaches to cur riculum developmen t that overemphasise objectives as
oppo sed to processesof learning, mechanistic measurability of behaviour
and objectives become imperative (Chapters 7 and 9). Measurement in
this sense occurs on two levels: firstly, measurement through evaluation of
student lear ning and the extent to which objectives have been reached: and

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 secondly, measurement of teacher efficie ncy in delivering the curriculum
successfully. Regarding the first, this is problematic in the sense that it is
often very difficult to judge what the impact of particular experiences has
been . Learning might occur at a later stage, and sometimes it is years after
the event that one can only appreciate something that has been taught
in the past. In order to be measured, things have to be broken down into
smaller units or assessment standards. The result can be long lists of often
trivial bits of knowledge,skills and competencies. In turn, this can lead to
a focus on the parts rather than the whole. Assessment of stud ent learning
will receive extensive attention in Chapter 7. Regarding the measurement
of teachers, the focus is on examining what educators actually do in the
classroom. Performance appraisal becomes the discourse that holds teachers
acco untable for ensurin g that objectives are met.
The product approach has the propensity to be deeply oppressive because
of its inclination to deskill teachers (Apple, 2013) and objectify students
to uncritical products that must be delivered. In this context, the voices
of both the teacher and student are ignored, and the valuable learning
that can transpire when teachers and students interact and participate in
realising curriculum ideals is limited (Smith, 2000).This is so because
teachers and learners have no input in what is lear nt , how it is learn t and
why it should be learnt due to the prescriptive nature of the cur riculum in
a product approach. In short, this approach is oppressivein as far as it does
not provide teachers and students with the freedom to include authentic
life experiences that might enhance the meaning of what is to be taught.
Hlebowitsh (2010:204 ) states that,
... the act of curriculum development is tied to an administrative(and
patriarchal) impulse to impose unreasonable control and authority
on school teachers and school children. Such a criticism has had
a considerable following in the curriculum field and has led some
scholars to reject the term curriculum development as an oppressive
and imperialistic construct.

Authentic learning experiences and the inclusion of social visions that

directly influence the processof curriculum development are of utmost
importance for meaningful learning to occur.This requires that curriculum
development processesnot be developed outside of the classroom or
school co ntext, as is the case wi th a product approach. In addition, these
criticisms led to curriculum theorists that began to eJ1..rplore the value of
a non- technical, process approach to curriculum development (Knight,
2001). In such a p rocess approach, curriculum developm ent is considered

CH 100
APT
ER
a contin uous process (Sahlberg, 2006) in which more student -centred
approaches are valued.The process approach to curr iculum development
and some theories that underscore it will be discussed next.

The process approach to curriculum development

Stenhouse (2012) asks whether it is possible to conceptualise a curriculu m
development theory that transcends the logic of a product approach. In his
exploration of this question, he concludes that it is possible to develop a
cu rriculum that is committed to enable students to engage in meaningful
learning activities with built-in standards, witho ut being technocratic,
prescriptive and product fixated.
Two theories related to a non-technical,process approach will receive
attention next.These include Walker's process or naturalistic theory and
Weinstein and Fantini's humanistic theory. In these theories, strong links
are evident with the process approach as proposed by Stenhouse. Lawrence
Stenhouse advocated an inquiry-based approach to curriculum development
where teachers are central in curriculun1development processes that endorse
higher-order thinking skills and that honour diversity,as opposed to reducing
complexity (Cho &Trent, 2010). Moreover, his cu rr iculum vision was one
that was not concentrated on instruction and knowledge,but on the extent
to which students were granted an opportunity to think and interact through
curriculum enactment (Cho &Trent, 2010).

The descriptive theory

Walker (1971) presented his theory, also known as the 'process' or
'naturalistic theory', as based on three central elements:
1. Providing a platform where the beliefs or principles of the
curriculum developers can be voiced

2. Creating a space where the process of curriculum decision

making can be deliberated from available alternatives

3. Organising and structuring the curriculum development processes.

In accordance with Walker's deliberative intent, Stenhouse (1975) argues

for a curriculum development process that is open to critical scrutiny and
possible to translate into diverse practices.

The humanistic theory

Weinstein and Fantini (1970) proposed the humanistic theory, which links
socio- psychological factors to cognition and focuses on the group rather

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 than the individual, as they believe that most students are taught in groups.
The theory is concerned with the identification of students' details and
concerns rather than subject matter, and the former will then enable the
teacher to develop student -centred strategies for instruction in order to
meet students' needs.Teaching procedures should be develop ed for learning
skills, content, and organising ideas. Based on cognitive and affective
objectives,the teacher finally evaluates the outcomes of the curri culum.
Summarising the above, one can say that for proponents of a process
approach to curr ic ulum development, curriculum development is a
subjective exercise in which both teachers and students participate, and
where their judgtne nt to participate in curriculum development, to
interpret the curriculum, and to translate it into action are valued (Grundy,
1987). In this sense, teachers are given authority to participate and develop
professionally as opposed to merely being technicians of curric ulum
implementation (Grundy, 1987). Curriculum content is concerned with
enhancing understanding and interpretation in a holistic manner, rather
than pre-selecting a-contextual knowledge to be conveyed uncritically
(Grundy, 1987).The key focus is thus not on the content, or learning
outcomes, but on the student, which is more student-centred and aligned
toward a constructivist approach.

A critical reflection on the process approach

Critiques on the process approach are three-fold:
• It requires highly skilled teachers.

• It might lead to particularism in content knowledge that might

not be of global significance.

• It often does not give ample attention to the political, economical

and historical aspects that are deeply embedded in society.

R egarding the first critique, the major weakness of this approach is that
it rests upon the quality of teachers.Without a prescribed curriculum,
teachers who lack sufficient knowledge, skills and experience might
struggle, and the approach is dependent upon the cultivation of wisdom
and meaning- making in the classroom. If the teacher is not up to the task,
then there will be severe limitations on what can happen educationally.T he
repercussions of a weak teacher force have been discussed in Chapter 2.
In terms of the second critique, the highly subjective and socially
con textualised nature of a process approach to curriculum development

CH 102
APT
ER
poses the question of the relation between particularist knowledge
versus universalist knowledge in the curri culum. In this regard Chisholm
(2005:194) argues that
... education that remains focused on the local, known, and everyday
is not education, for at the heart of the educational endeavour
is a leading away from the known, familiar, and everyday into
universal processes. Denying access to these universal processes of
knowledge-creation is implicitly a denial of education. It echoes
the institutional perspective that education and the curriculum
are by definition 'constructed out of models of modernity and its
educational requirements, rather than solely out of ... [i]mmediate
interests or functional requirements'.

The last concerns the critiqu e that an approach to curr iculum

development that denies its symbolic nature and how institutional
practices, structures and experiences shape development process, does not
accommodate a critical, transform ative curr iculu m- making (Hlebowitsh,
2010). Denying the fact that a cur riculum ' ... is a fundamentally political
statement that reflects the struggles of opposing groups to have their
interests,values, histo ries, and politics dominate the school curr iculum ',
is naive and impervious to the complex interplay between society and
education (Chisholm, 2005:194).
Several scholars have responded to these critiques by proposing yet
another way to think of curriculum development, or as they would prefer,
'curriculum-making'.

The praxis approach to curriculum-making

The praxis approach to curriculum-making is also a no n- technical
response to the technocratic approaches that persist in dominating
curriculum theorising. Praxis - which refers to the transformative
prospects of reflection and action - focuses on bridging the gap between
theory and practice, strives toward a democratic decision making, and the
empowerment of people in the process (Bach, 2010). Paulo Freire was
the pioneer who introduced this concept to curriculum theorising and
closely linked it with critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy is based on the
assumption that teachers and students are agents of social change who
can, through reflection and action, problematise and challenge oppressive
experiences in their direct environment (McLaren & Crawford, 2010).
Curriculum-making that draws on the principles of critical pedagogy
consists of the following:

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 • Curriculum should be committed to the emancipation and the
empowerment of the marginalised
• Curriculum should critically challenge the reproduction of class
differences and racialised inequalities
• Curriculum should ensure that the agency of people is recognised
in relation to the historical context
• Curriculum should endorse a dialectical perspective that
challenges binaries such as individual versus society and theory
versus practice.

In this approach, curr iculum- making is thus a dynamic process that depends
on the dialectic relation between action and reflection. Next, theories related
to curriculum - making in the praxis tradition will be explored.

The deliberat ion theo ry

T he deliberation theory, which is sensitive to different contexts and
cultures, addresses the gap between complete freedom for students to
choose what they would like to learn and the prescripti on of learning
content.The theory suggests a deliberative process whereby the teachers
make known their ideas to the stud ents and toge th er th ey plan an
educational jo urney,constantly feeding back and adjusting this plan. In
this theory, curriculum development is nonlinear. Based on a blend of
modernism and postmoder nism, this appro ach draws on systems thi nking
and on feedback and adjustments, but also takes into account that reality is
subjective (O rnstein & H unkins, 2009). For example, Noye (1994) suggests
the following process for curri culum-making that is deliberative in intent:
• public sharing
• highlighting agreement and disagreement
• explaining positions
• highlighting changes in positions
• negotiating points of agreement
• adopting the decision.

The emancipatory theory

The emancipatory theory of curri culum- n1akingis based on Freir e's
problem- posing method that necessitates dialogue and a critical
participation between stud ents and teache rs to develop a consciousness
of th e world in which they find themselves (Posner, 2012).To realise this

CH 104
APT
ER
emancipatory theory the following process is suggested:
• Themes are generated that represent the reality of the education
and broader social context

• A group of educators, students and local volunteers engage in a

dialogue about these themes to develop materials for curriculum

• The curriculum materials are circulated amongst the group to

provoke critical reflection

• Ultimately, this results in action, which realises the ideal of the

praxis approach.

Pinar (2010:177) describes such an approach as 'currere':'... a complicated

conversation among teachers and students focused on texts and the concepts
they communicate in specific places at particular historical moments'.

A critical reflection on the praxis approac h and postmodern imp lication

for curriculum
In the same way that the previous approaches were subject to critique in
an attempt to move the field of Curriculum Studies and the curriculum
development theories underpinning it forward, so too is the praxis
approach criticised. Curriculum scholars such as Patrick Slattery and
William Doll challenge the idea that any metanarrative - be it a product,
process or praxis approach - receive preference and they argue for a
plurality of narratives to be considered simultaneously (Schubert, 2010).
Patrick Slattery, in addressing the question of curriculum development in the
wake of post- moder nism,argues that we need to change our view drastically
and think of curriculum and its making in the light of global concerns such
as diversity in terms of gender, religion, ethnicity and socio-political interests
(Miller, 2010). Curriculum-making, for him, should be reconceptualised in
terms of the global discourse of justice (Miller, 2010).Therefore,curriculum-
making '... must be approached from autobiographical, historical, socially,
culturally, and discursively contextualised perspectives and goals - and then
immediately questioned' (Miller, 2010:669).

Curriculum as socially constructed

The non-technical approaches to curr iculum development and curriculum-
making highly regard the social context in which curriculum is created.
Here the social context is not only the local or national context,but also the
global context. In addition, the social con text includes the lived
experiences of edu cation stakeholders, the political, economical and

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 historical context as well as how this unfolds in the education domain.
Catherine Cornbleth (1990) made a very valuable contr ibut ion to the
question of curriculum as processin relation to the social context in which
it manifests. Curriculum, for her, is what actually happens in classrooms,
that is, an on-going social process consisting of the communication
between students, teachers, knowledge and context (Cornbleth,1990).
By introducing the notion of context into the discussion of curri culum
development, Cornbleth (1990) postulates that economic and gender
relatio ns, for example, do not simply bypass the systemic or structural
context of curr iculum, but directly enter classroom practice.Throughout
this book, the extent to which the social context of South Africa has
influenced curriculum related processes is evident.
In a democratic environment, it is of the ut1nost importance that the social
context that shapes curr iculum should constantly be scrutinised. H ere a
praxis approach and post-modern perspectives on curriculun1-making can
be very beneficial to dismantle oppressive societ al constructs because, as
Gordon (2010:265) states,
... curriculum is profoundly political. The knowledge disseminated
in schools is not neutral because society ... is not neutral. The social
tension is, in part, because those who have accumulated wealth,
power, and privilege try to maintain their advantage, while those
having less ... struggle to change the rules so that they can acquire
a better life .. .

Curriculum-making: some visions and imaginings

In this section, I will briefly highlight some of the visions and imaginings
that might redirect curriculum- making in the future. Firstly, curriculum
development approaches and theories have had a significant impact on
teaching and learning worldwide. However, the current approache s might
not be totally suitable for our rapidly changing society and new approaches
that are flexible and open to technological advancements require urgent
attention.
Secondly, vital attempts to pursue post-modern perspectives to curriculum-
making should be considered so as to move the field forward and prevent
dormant meta-narratives from governing the discipline.
T hirdly,curriculum makers should seriously consider how policy
borrowing influences the way in which curriculum unfolds in South Africa
(Le Grange, 2010:21). In this regard, closer attent ion should be given to

CHAP 106
TER
5:Curr
how indigenous knowledge should not only form part of curriculum
content, but how it might influence curriculum-1naking processes
(Le Grange, 2010:19- 20).
Fourthly, cu rriculum- making in post-conflic t societies require different
ways of doing and thinking (Du Preez, 2014). Specific research to
explore this phenomenon is a dire need in the pursuit of furth ering the
Curriculum Studies discipline.

Conclusion
Despite the wide array of curriculum development theories that can
assist curriculum stakeholders to construct a curric ulum that can enable
meaningful learning spaces, there are also multiple curriculum design
elements to consider when constructing a curriculum. Curriculum-
making, in this context, is thus a com plex, multilayered undertaking that
requires a critical and deconstructive aptitud e. In addition, the ability to
identify future needs and align curri culum visions accordingly is of utmost
importance.T his requires that rigidity be cast aside and flexibility be
embraced. Imagination is key to realising these ideals.

REFERENCES
Apple, M. 2013. Co ntrolling the work of teachers. In DJ. Flinders & S.].Thornton (eds). The
curriculum studies reader (4 th edition). London: Routledge.
Bach,]. 2010. Praxis. ln C.Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia efmrricu/11m studies (Volume 2). London: Sage.
Bo bbit t, F. 1918 . T11e C urricu/im,. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Charters,WW 1923.Curriculum Constn,ction. C alifornia: MacMillan.

Chisholm, L. 2005.The making of South Africa's N ational Curr iculum StatementJourna/ ef

C urricu/im, Studies, 37(2) :193- 208.
Cho,J.&Trent,A.2010.Lawrence Stenhouse.In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia qf wrriai/11111
studies (Volume 2). London: Sage.
Corn bleth, C. 1990. Curriculum in Context. Basingstoke: Falmer Press.
Dewey],. 1938. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Doll,W 1993. A PostmodemPerspective on Curriculum. N ew Yo rk: NY:Teachers College Press,
Teachers College, Co lumbia University.
Du Preez, P., Simmonds, S. & R ou..x,C. 2012.Teaching-and- learning and curriculum
development for human rights education: two sides of the same coin.J ournal of Education,
55:83- 103.

CURRICULUMSTUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Du Pr eez, P. 2014. R econciliation through diaJo g i cal nostalgia in post-conflict societies:
a curr iculum to intersect. Compare:A Jouma/ ef C omparative and In.ternational Education,
44(1):117-135.

Freire, P. 1970 . Pedagogyef the oppressed. London:Penguin Books.

Gordon, B.M. 2010. Curriculum studiesin relation to the social context of education . In C.
Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia of curriculum studies (Volume 1) . Londo n: Sage.
Gosling, D. 2009.Learning Outcomes Debateh
. ttp:/ / www.davidgosling.net/ use rfiles/
Learning%20Outcom es%20Debate(1).pdfAccessed 12 September 2013.
Grundy, S. 1987.Curriculum:product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.
Hlebowitsh, P. 2010. Curriculum development. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia of curriculum
studies (Volume 1). London: Sage.
Hussey,T. & Smith, P. 2003.The Uses of Learn ing Outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education,
8(3):357 - 368.

H usseyT, . & Smith, P. 2008. Learning O utcomes:A Conceptual Analysis. Teaching in H igher
Education, 13(1):107-115.
Jackson, P.W 1968. Life in Classrooms. N ew York: Holt, R inehart & Winston.
Knight, P.T. 2001. Complexity and curriculum: a process approach to curriculum-making.
Teaching in Higher Education,6(3):369-381.
Le Grange, L. 2010. Continental overview of African Curriculum Studies. In C. Kridel (ed.).
Encyclopaedia ef curriculum st, dies (Volume 1). London: Sage.
Lunenburg, EC. 2011.Theorizing about Curriculum: Conceptions and Definitions.
International Journal ef Scholarly A cademic Intellectual Divesrity,13(1):1-6.
Maher,A. 2004.Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: Implications for Curriculum Design
and Student Learning. Journal ef Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 3(2):46-54.
McLaren, P. & Crawford,]. 2010.Critical praxis. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia ef a, rriculum
studies (Volume 1). London: Sage.
Miller,]. 2010. Postmodernism. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia ef curriculum studies (Volume 2).
London: Sage.
Neary, M. 2003. Curriculum concepts and research. In Curriculum studies in post-compulsory and
adult education. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Noye, D. 1994. Guidelines for conduction deliberations. In J.T. D illion (ed.). Deliberation in
Education and Society. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
O rnstein, A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. 2004.Curriwlumfoundations,principlesand issues (41h edition).
Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
Ornstein,A.C. & Hunkins, EP. 2009 . C urriculumfoundations,principles and issues (5m edition).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Pinar,W E 2010. Currere. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia efcurriculum studies (Volume 1).
London: Sage.

CHA 108
PTER
5:Curr
Posner, G. 2012. Models of curriculum planning. InY. Reed,J. Gultig & M.Adendorff (eds).
Curriculum: organising knowledge for the classroom (3rd edition). CapeTown: Oxford University
Press.

Quinn, M. 2010. Null Curriculum. In C. Kr idel (ed.). Encyclopaedia of curriculum studies (Volume
2). London: Sage.

Sahlberg, P 2006. Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. journal of Educatio11al
Change, 7(4): 259-287.

Schubert, W.H. 2010.Definitions and dimensions of Curriculum Studies. In C. Kridel (ed.).

Encyclopaedia of Curriculum Studies (Volume 1). London: Sage.
Slattery, P. 2006. Curricuillm development in the postmodern era. NewYork: Routledge.

Smith, M. K. 2000. Curriculum theory and practice. In The encyclopaedia efinformal education,
www.infed.org / bib lio / b- curric.htm . Accessed on 4 October 2013.

Stenhouse, L. 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heineman.

Stenhouse, L. 2012. A process model of curriculum. InY. Reed,]. Gultig & M. Adendorff (eds).
Curriculum: organising knowledge for the classroom (3 rd edition). CapeTown: Oxford University
Press.

Taba, H. 1962. Curriculum Development:17,eory and practice. N ew Yo rk : Harcourt Brace and

World.

Thijs, A. & Van den Akker,J. 2009. Curriculum in development. Enchede,The Netherlands: SLO -
The Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.

Thornton, SJ 2010. Curriculum design. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia of C11rricu/11m Studies

(Volume 1). London: Sage.

Tyler, R.W 1949.Basic Principles of Curriculum and lttstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Walker, D.F. 1971. A naturalistic model for curriculum development. School R eview,80(1):51-67.

Weinstein, G. & Fantini, M.D. 1970. Toward humanistic education. New York: Praeger.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe,J. 2005. Undersatnding by Design. Alexandria: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

CURRICULUMSTUDIES Visions and imaginings

 CHAPTER 6

Teaching, learning and

curriculum resources
Tony Mays

Introduction
The central argument of this chapter,is that implicit and explicit
assumptions about the nature and purpose of the curriculum influence
teaching and learning styles and, in turn, the ways in w hich resources
are selected and used. Often our practice is informed by habit and the
tendency to teach the way we were taught and/or the way we have
taught in the past. U nless we consciously examine the assumptions that
underpin the choices we make in practice, we are likely to keep doing the
same things in the same ways. For example, a mathematics teacher dreads
teaching the concept of fractions because her learners always struggle
with the concepts. She then teaches fractions again in the same way as she
has always done; and again her learners struggle to master the concepts
involved. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: fractions are assumed
to be difficult to teach and to learn, and experience then confirms these
assumptions. This chapter proceeds from the belief that if we question our
assumptions, and if we change our practices as a result, then we might well
have a more positive experie nce.The argument that is built in this chapter
is strongly influenced by a series of curriculum workshops that were held
in 1996 (Luckett, 1996).These workshops built on the thinking of Jurgen
Habermas (19 29) and explored the ways in which assumptions about
the purpose and nature of education were likely to influence practices
in teaching.This kind of exploration has proved useful for thinking both
about what might be taught and how it might be taught (Mays, 2008;
Slabbert, De Kock & Hattingh, 2009). In a world in which the costs of
education are rising, the benefits are being questioned and students can
increasingly access information about ahnost anything at any time for free,
the 'what?' and 'how?' to teach seem like important questions to revisit.

CHA 110
PTER
5:Curr
What kinds of assumptions are we talking about?
Entire books have been written about the ideas introduced here. In the
space of a single chapter, cannot possibly do justice to the sophistication
of the thinking that has evolved. N onet heless, it is believed useful to
provide a very broad frame of reference and the reader can then fill in the
details later.

Assumptions about being and knowing

We begin with what we assume about the nature of being (these are called
on tological assumptions, assumption s about being). Consider the following
two extremes:
• Everything is known and predetermined by God, Fate, Destiny,
Ancestors . . . who / which define purpose.
• Nothing is known nor predetermi ned nor predictable ... there is no
purpose.
Wh ere we find ourselves in relation to the above extremes is likely in turn
to influence what we assume about knowing (epistemological assumption s,
assumptions about knowing) as illustrated in the following table.
TABLE 6.1 The link between ontological and epistemological assumptions

Everything is known and predetermined by Knowledge is fixed,objective and unchanging

God,Fate, Destiny, Ancestors ... who/which
define purpose

Nothing is known nor predetermined nor

predictable ... there is no purpose Knowledge is uncertain, fluid and dynamic

Table 6.1 posits that the assumptions we make about the nature of being
influence our assumptions about the nature of knowing. It further suggests
that these assump tions work within a continuum rather than as absolute
points of reference: we may, for example, assume some things to be more
fixed or fluid than others (consider your own knowledge of what it means
to be a 'good' person versus your knowledge of what constitutes a 'good'
mobile phone, for example).

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Assumptions about educating
The next level of the argument suggests that our assumptions about being
and knowing will influence what we assum e about the nature and pur pose
of formal education.T his is illustrated in Table 6.2.
TABLE 6.2 What we assume about the purpo
se of education (educational assumptions)

Everything is known and Knowledge is fixed, objective and Transmission

predetermined by God, Fate, Destiny unchanging
... who defines purpose

! 1
Nothingis known nor predetermined Knowledge is uncertain, fluid and
Transactio n

Transformation
nor predictable ... there is no dynamic
purpose Transcendence

T able 6.2 suggests that if we find ourselves tending towards the notion that
the nature of being is predetermined and that there is a body of knowledge
that is fixed and can be learnt, we are likely to see the purpose of formal
education to be the transmission from one generation to the next of the
knowledge that 'we' value. (This, of course, raises questions about who
selects this valued knowledge and why.) This kind of thin king was arguably
the dominant discourse in Western philosophy from about 500 BCE to t he
late 18th century and was influenced by the writings of thought leaders
such as Plato (427 - 347 BCE) , St Augustine (354 - 430 BCE), Locke (1632 -
1704), Hume (1711 - 1776), Kant (1724 - 1894) and Hegel (1770 - 1831).
Arguably, it finds its counterpart in Eastern philosophy in Confucianism.
Ornstein and Hunkins (2004:33- 34) characterise this kind of thinking
as idealist and concerned with issues such as the following: the search
for truth and values that will stand the test of time; a focus on reasoning,
intui tion and revelation; an emphasis on moral and spiritual reality; and
knowing as a process of rethinking the laten t ideas that are already present
in the mind.
However,this is not to say, of course, that all people think in the same way
at the same time.T here are differences in focus and emphasis among the
thought leaders we have already mentioned and there were also those who
were already beginning to think son1ewhat differently, for example Aristotle
(384 - 322 BCE), Aquinas (1225 - 1274) and Descartes (1596 - 1650).T he
latter thinkers introduced to the discourse a focus that has come to be
termed 'realist' and which Ornstein and Hunkins (2004:34) suggest has the

CHAP 112
TER
6:
following characteristics: objects and matter come to be known through
the senses and through reason; a focus on logic and reason; an emphasis
on leading a purpose-driven rational life of moderatio n; and knowing as a
process that emanates from engagement with both science and art.
The following quotations from Plato and Aristotle illustrate this divergent
thinking.
• In Book 23 of The Republic, Plato asks:'What advantage can there be
in possessing everything except what is good, or in understanding
everything else while of the good and desirable we know nothing?'
• In comparison, in Book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics,Aristotle remarks:
'Good itself will be no more of a good by being eternal; for a white
thing is no whiter if it lasts a long time than if it lasts a day ... It is
puzzling to know what the weaver or carpenter will gain for his
own skills from knowing this Good Itself, or how anyone can be
better at medicine or leadership from having gazed on the Idea Itself'
(Appelbaum &Thompson 2002).
Despite the difference in emphasis, there is a sense here that some things
at least are ultimately knowable through processes of reflection, experience
and/or reason and this has led to curriculum approaches that could be
called perennialist or essentialist - a focus on the kind of knowledge that
stands the test of time. (At the time of writing this was a hot topic of
debate in the UK, where the Secretary for Education had promulgated a
proposed new school curriculum that appeared to have a strong 'back to
British basics' underpinning philosophy.)
The industrial revolution, an explosion of scientific and technical discovery,
and the painful experience of two world wars caused us to question some
of our taken-for-granted assumptions and ushered in a more transactional
and pragmatist way of thinking, probably best characterised in the
writings of John Dewey (1859 - 1952).The characteristics of this way of
thinking can be summarised as follows: a conce rn with change, process
and relativity; knowledge seen as a process that is constantly changing; an
emphasis on problem solving and pattern-finding; a greater emphasis on
'how' rather than 'what' to think; truth not seen as absolute but requiring
proof in relation to facts, experience and/or behaviours; and a process of
reconstructing experience according to the scientific method (O rnstein &
H unkins, 2004:34-35).
This way of thinking tends to lead to curriculum approaches that are
progressive rather than perennialist. However, there are often swings back

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 and forth in terms of the emphasis that is placed on these approaches
towards the development of the curriculum.We haveseen such swings in the
development of the national school curr iculum in South Africa,as explored
in Chapter 2 of this publication. However, these swings in emphasis do raise
a very interesting question: who makes the decisions about what is valu ed
and should be included in the curriculum?T his concern is co nsistent with
one of the most frequently cited assertions from the curriculum theorist Basil
B er nstein (1977) who observed that decisions about curri culum tended to
reflect the power relations in society at that time.
It can be argued, for example, that the dominant discourse of Scientism
and Positivism(the notion that all searches for truth and understanding,
and all problems to be solved, can be addressed tho ugh the application
of the scientific method) have effectively closed other ways of knowing
and the addressing of spiritual and social needs that require these other
ways of knowing.T his has led to a call for 'cognitive justice' and an
acknowledgement of these other ways of knowing (Visvanahtan, 2009). It
has also led to critiques of the limitations of a narrowly focused 'scien tific
approach' to curriculum development more generally,given the complexity
of human endeavour and the impossibility of accurate ly predicting the
future for which the curriculum hopes to prepare learners (Kliebard, 2004).
This then suggests the need for not one single approach to cur riculum
development but rather 'a series of perspectives on cu rriculum that are at
once empirical, interpretative, criti cal, eman cipatory' (Pin ar, 2004:155).
In other words, decisions about the curriculum are not neut ral and will
tend to reflect the power relations in a particular society at a particular
time.A transformational education agenda is therefore concerned about
surfacing the hegemonic voices that have shaped the curriculum of the
day and seeks to ensure that other voices are also heard. In Africa, a large
part of this discourse stems from the enduring legacy of the colonial past.
We are concerned with how the curriculum can also reflect the needs,
aspirations and indigenous knowledge of Africa generally and of South
Africa in particular.This approach is informed by a comm unitarian mindset
and is consistent with the African philosophy of ubuntu which emphasises
the greater good of a co nn ec ted society and meaning-making through
interpersonal and contextual relationships (Higgs,Vakalisa, Mda & Aussie-
Lumumba, 2000; Coetzee & Roux, 2002; Nsamenang &Tchombe, 2011).
However, a more extreme position is possible in which the focus is on
the individual rather than on society,and the ability of the individual to
transcend the limitations of any single way of knowing.This may possibly

CHAP 114
TER
6:
call for us to accept that there are some thin gs that we do not and cannot
'know'. Such approaches tend to have a personal rather than a social
emancipato ry agenda and an existential drive charac terised by:
• a stress on individualism and personal self- fulfilme nt
• in dividual choices about what is truth and the criteria for detennining
truth
• developing consciousness about the freedom to choose and the
meaning and responsibility for one's choices (Ornstein & Hunk ins,
2004:37).
Although we have briefly introduced these issues separately, in practice we
tend to move between them depending on the context and the focus of
our thinking and behaviour at a particular time.

Assumptions about teaching and learning

Our assumptions about being, knowing and curriculum purpose influence
one another and in turn affect our assumptio ns about how people learn
and hence how we should teach (pedagogic assumptions), as illustrated in
Table 6.3 below.

TABLE 6.3 What we assumeabout learning and teaching (pedagogicassumptions)

Ontological Epistemological Educational Pedagogic

assumpt ions assumpti on s assumption s assumption s
Everything is known Knowledge is fixed, Transmission Behaviourism
and predetermined by
God,Fate, Destiny... !
objective and
unchanging !
!!
who defines purpose Transaction + Cognitiv ism
!
Nothing is known nor
Knowledge is
uncertain, fluid and
!
Transformaiton + (Socio)
predetermined nor
predi ctable ... there is
no purpose
dynamic
!
Transcend ence
Constructivism

!
+ Connectivism

T here are many ways in which assumptions about teaching and learning
shape practice and the experience of practice, in turn , informs our
assumptions. For the purposes of this discussion, we will again identify four
points on a continuum of practices.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 A behavio urist p erspective

We will begin with a behaviourist perspective.T here are various schools

of thought which might be termed 'generally behaviourist' . However,
they seem to proceed from a number of shared assumptions.T he key
assumptions seem to be that learning resuJts in changed behaviours that
can be observed and that these behaviours can be shaped by factors in the
exter nal environment such as rewards and punishments: we tend to do more
of the things for which we are rewarded and fewer of the things for which
we might be punished. B. E Skinner (1904 - 1990) is often credited with
formalising this kind of thinking in an educational context, particularly
learning as a ' conditioning' process.It is not difficult to see that if we
proceed from a belief that there is a fixed body of knowledge that can be
transmitted and must be learnt, we might be predisposedto assumptions
about learning and teaching.These value obse rvable performance (such as
ge tting the 'right' answer) and reward the antecedent behaviours that seem
to lead to that (such as diligent study and rote learning of facts).
However, exper ience tells us that:
• learners do not always lear n the things we taught or intended to teach
• they do not always learn what they learn and demonstrate that lear ning
in a tangible form immediately (and possibly never)
• sometimes they seem to learn things other than or in addi tion to what
we had planned to teach.

Cognitivism

How much does the average person remember from their schooling,
for example?What do they remember from their earlier studies?The
chances are that most people recall only the skills they practise and the
knowledge that they actually use on a regular basis (and there now seem
to be physiological reasons for this as discussed below). Furthermore, the
average person probably remembers broad concepts that are related to one
another more easily than isolated facts.T here seems to be more going on
than meets the eye.T his has led to a body of work that has been loosely
labelled Cognitivism. It is conce rn ed with what happens in the 'black box'
of the mind during the learning processand the relation between inputs,
outputs, and shor t- and long- term _ memory retention. It has informed
classroom practices such as chunking information, rehearsing and the use
of mnemonics as memory aids.

CHAP 116
TER
6:
The work of Jean Piaget (1896 - 1980) provides some additional insight
here. In his work with children, he observed that children tended to engage
with the world in particular ways at particular stages of their development.
He focused on the cognitive development of children. He posited that
children construct an understanding of the world around them, then
experience synergies or discrepancies between their current understandings
and their experie nces.This leads to processesof assimilation (experience
reinforces their understanding and/o r modifies it only slightly) and
acconun odation (experience causes them to modify their understanding
in order to make sense of and to accommodate the new experience).
Moreover, with some variation, children tend to develop their ability to
accommodate certain kinds of concepts and understandings at different
stages of their development.This then suggests that there is a cognitive
process going on which may or may not result in observable behaviour. It
also suggests that meaning is actively cons tr ucted and not somet hing that is
learnt passivelyand then performed in some way.
Both of the approaches discussed above place emphasis on the parent or
teacher to provide a structured learning experience and would tend to
suggestthat all learners will learn the same content, in the same way, at the
same pace. Most school and university co urses seem to be designed with
this assumption in mind: content is broken down into subjects that are
further broken down into what are assun1ed to be manageable chunks of
information - typically in 40- to 60-minute periods of teaching and learning.
When the period ends, learners must stop thinking about one thing and start
thinking about something else. Experience tells us, though, that this works
only for some learners and only for some of the time. For some learners the
pace may be too slow; for others it may be too fast; and others, again, wo uld
have been more interested and motivated to explore somethi ng tangential to
the prescribed curriculum. Both approaches outlined above therefore seem
like useful but insufficient guidelines for evolving practice.

A constructivist approach

Two further dimensions in helping us understand how people might learn

things concern the central role of language as well as the ways in which
we can sometimes achieve more difficult things when we have help from
a more capable other.This suggests an approach informed by the work of
Lev Vygotsky (1896 - 1934). It proposes that people learn best when they
can interact with and receive support fron1 one another: learning is thus
socially constructed . Killen (2000:xvii-xviii) notes that there are several
different interpretations of constructivist approaches but points to the work

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 of Snowman and Biehler (2000) who suggest that what a person 'knows'
is actively constructed by the individual and, therefore, what is known by
one person can never be simply 'transferred' to another person. In addition,
how people understand things and, hence, what they know is heavily
influenced by their cultural context.T his calls for teaching approaches that
emphasise interaction and dialogue.
Killen (2000:xix- xxi) argues that this implies pedagogical approaches
that foreground the need for four key pedagogic strategies.We need to
'scaffold' to provide learners with enough help to complete a task and
then gradually decrease the help as they become more able to work
independently.We need to use realistic learning contexts so that learners
can make a co nn ec tio n between what they are learning and the real world
outside of the classroom.We need to enc ourage learners to engage with
multiple perspectives: knowledge is co nstru cted and it is conteste d. Finally,
we need to build on learners' prior learning an d expe rience.

Connectivism

This kind of approach may be further extended. A few years ago, a teacher
friend sent the author a text message asking what important event had
taken place in July 1969: it was a question in a radio show quiz con test.
T he author guessed and verified using a textbook (but, today,wo uld
probably 'google' it).This reflects a slightly different approach to finding
knowledge: an approach mediated by technology and a social network.
George Siemens (2004) suggests that this constitutes a new approach to
learning which he calls ' conn ecti vism'. In a global knowledge society in
which information is ever-changing and accessible in mul tiple forms from
multiple sources, a connectivist approach is attractive. However, it raises all
sorts of interesting questions about how we validate truth and the quality
of our sources in order to have meaningful discussions.
T here is obviously danger in the over-simplification of complex
understandings. One is that we distort the meaning; another is that we
create an artificial set of either/or boundaries that, in reality, do not exist.

Teaching pract ice and learnin g approaches

Teachers need to make time to reflect upon their own practices.What

kinds of approaches regularly inform classroom practice?Teacher s might
come up with ideaslike the following: my teaching is int entio nal and I set
lesson outcomes;I allow time for reflection, for learners to work through
ideas in their minds; I embrace change - what worked yesterday may not

CHAP 118
TER
6:
work as well today - there is always so mething new to learn so I try new
approaches in the classroom.
H aving identified a set of common practices like the above, it might then
be useful to map and group them in relation to the kind of broad learning
approaches we have discussed and also to think about when we tend to use
these different approaches.The author considered a set of activities he had
recently designed and used in a workshop setting. He came up with the
analysis illustrated in Table 6.4 below.

TABLE 6. 4 Analysing one's typical teaching practices

Typical practices Associated pedagogic Lesson phases in which this

theories practice is most prevalent in
my practice
• Intentional Behaviourism Most often at beginning and
• Syste matic end
• Repetitive
• Evidential
• Summativelyactive
focused on product
• Observable
• Positively reinforced
• Individualised Cognitivism Core: often individual/ pair/
• Internal group/ individual
• Multiple approaches
• Formatively active focused
on process
• Socially enriched (Socio) Constructivism Creating space for proble m-
• Hermeneutic based and self-directed
• Product and process learning that might well
• Holistic continue beyond the
• Intrinsically motivated classroom if the learners
discover something of interest
to them
• Seeking to know more Connectivism Extension/homework
• Knowing where > knowing
what: people, places and
things
• Creating and co-creating
networks of meaning
• Learning all the time
• Embracing change

Table 6.4 illustrates that a teacher may well draw upon different
learning theories for different purposes at different times. Being aware
of one's typical practices, and how and when one uses them, opens up

119 CURR
ICUL
UM
 the possibility of trying something different nex t time, to move from
ineffective to effective teaching or from good teaching to great teaching.
For example, we might consider adopting a dialogic approach to help
studen ts to surface and question their taken-for-granted assumptions (R ule
& Harley, 2005;Wolfe & Alexander, 2008).We might even take this a
step further by actively helping students through a process of questioning
their taken-for-granted assumptions,or what Jansen (2009) refers to as
' knowledge in the blood', through conversations that deliberately seek to
create 'dissonance' and the ' disruption' of received assumptions.
R eflection on such issues can give rise to some interesting debates. For
example,Woolfolk (2007:515- 516) argues that there is no one right way
to teach and differen t learners will likely benefit from different approaches
at different times. In co ntrast, Slattery (2006:48-49), a curriculum
specialist with a postmodern perspective, suggests there is more than ample
evidence that 'modern' teaching practices are no longer appropriate in
a postmodern world. Interestingly,Slatte ry argues for a wider range of
teaching and learning activities and asserts th at 'Socratic dialogue that seeks
understanding, respect, and synthesis rat her th an predetermined answers
will be the hallmark ...' (Slatt ery,2006:111).
Where do you sit in this debate? H ow and why is all this important? Well,
we have suggested that our assumptions, whether or not explicit, shape our
practice. Let us explore what this might mean in a little more detail.

How do assumptions shape practice?

Imagine that you find a resource on the intern et that provides a very
attractive 10-point fact sheet on the key events in the transition from the
apartheid regime of the past to the democratic state of the present.You
decide to share this resource with three of your colleagues.
Teacher A says thank you, but she will not use it because' I like my learners
to find their own information and make their own decisions about what is
or is not im port ant' .
Teacher B says thank you and proceeds to make copies for all the learners
in his class. He then teaches a lesson based on the resource that comprises
5-minute expansions of each of the 10 points.
Teacher C says thank you too. She then has her learners work in groups
to consult newspaper archives and textbooks, and to draw up lists of what
they consider to be the ten most important events. She then distributes
the factsheet you provided and sets up a small group discussion and then

CHAP 120
TER
6:
a whole class discussio n on what the choice of events suggests about how
underpinning assumptions, mo tivatio ns, interests and stereotypes,etc. influence
people's decisions about what they perceive to be both true and important.
It is suggested that the scenarios above are realistic reflections of practice
and that both the selection and the use of resources to support learning
are influenced by explicit or implicit assumptions about the nature and
purpose of teaching and learning.T his co uld be extrapolated as show n in th e
following table.

TABLE 6.S The impact of different conceptions oflearning on practice

Decisions made regarding:

Communicating . Outcomes and . Outcomes and . Outcomes and
the curriculum content finalised content finalised content negotiated
before programme. before start but with learners before
Apply to all learners. programme offers start of programme.
. All learnersstart and core and elective • Continuous
options. enrolmentand
end at the same
time and follow . Continuous modu larisation
the same study enrolment. but same allows mult iple

. sequence.
Emphasis on
study sequence for
all learners. . pathways.
Emphasis on
providing . Emphasis on providing resources,
'finished'content providing resources not always complete,
through lectures/ and scaffolding to that reflect mu ltiple
printed materials/ enable learners to perspectives and
multimedia/ ICTs. construct their own inviting discussion
. Use of generic understandings, via email, website, in
tutorial letters through tutorial-in- small group contact
offering assignment print; 1-1 contact tutorials.
model answers/ tutorials; emails; . Emphasis on
provision of model tele-tutoring. formative feedback
answers to tasks. . Emphasis on on both individual
. In-course activities individual feedback and group tasks;
few or used on assignments. feedback as
to consolidate • In-course activities continuation of
memorisation of discussion.
content.
require learners
to construct and . In-courseactivities
. Tutor/materials demonstrate their favour discussion
developer seen as own understandin.g with others and
expert transmitting • Tutor/materials examination of
knowledge. developer seen as multiple viewpoints
scaffolding learning and multiple
opportunities. resources.

121 CURR
ICUL
UM
 Decision s made regarding:
Engaging with
the curriculum
. Assume that learners
have appropriate
. Enable reflection on
and developmeno tf
. Enable reflection on
and development of

•
study skills.
Learnersexpected to . metacognitive skills.
Learners expected . metacognitive and
social skills.

. master content.
Emphas is onrecall in
toconstruct own
understanding;
Learners expected
toco-construct
activitiesa,ssignments therefore concern knowledge with
and examni ations. with both product others; emphasis on
and process.
• Emphasis onproblem . process.
Emp hasison critical
identificationand analysisand open-
problemsolving in ended discussion.
activities,assignments
and examinations.
Appl ying what • Assessment by . Assessment by self • Assessment by self,
has been learnt
. tutors only.
Assessment tasks . and others.
Assessment tasks . peers and tutors.
Assessment tasks

. require recall.
Assessment tasks
require application
of knowledge in
requirereflection
and application in
include assignment
content tests; . authentic situations.
Variety of individual
congruent rea-l life
contexts.
examinations. assessment tasks, • Variety of assessment
including portfolios. tasks, including group
tasks.
Typi cal . Single prescribed . Prescribed and . No limits onresources
reso urces textbook. recommended consulted including
mixed resources; idiosyncratic
withintent to set up resources and
debates. resources co-
constructed as part of
the learning process.
Adapted from: Mays (2004:52)

Although perhaps more extreme in sub-SaharanAfrica for a host of historical

and current reasons,similar challenges regarding how to teach effectively are
evident elsew here in the world, as society adapts to the increasing availability of
and demand for inforn1ation enabled by the technology revolution. Laurillard
(2002; 2006) suggests that there is, consequently, a need to rethink the way we
teach in the new knowledge society, including adopting a more professio nal
research- based teaching approach that parallels the pro fession al approach the
sector has always adopted towards research; placing a greater emphasis on the
development of the long- term high-level cognitive skills of schol arship; and
utilising techn ology to promote n1eaningful interaction and engagement. As
indicated byTable 6.5, our underpinning assumptions will not only influence
our overall approach and preferred teaching strategies but they will also tend to
influence our choice and use of teaching and learning resources.

CHAP 122
TER
6:
Teaching and learning resources
Teaching and learning resources in clude a wide range of possible formats and
media. Professional communities of practice, our own experience, and the
prior knowledge and experience of our learners are all potential resources
to support teaching and learning.We can also draw upon a wide range of
ready-made printed, audio, video, multi-media and !CT-integrated resources
ranging from formal textbooks that have been through an exhaustive peer
review process to the reflective blog posts of someone whose individual
ideas we find inspiring. Access to the internet opens access to an abundance
of possibilities. However, in identifying appropriate resources to support
learning and teaching in active and meaningful ways, we are always presented
with one of the following three choices:adopt, adapt or create.
Adoptin g, for example, a textbook, has the advantage that we immediately
have access to a wealth of, hopefully credible, systematically organised
info rma tion. But it has the disadvantage that the authors probably did not
have our particular learners in mind when they were writing; so, examples,
language level and activities may not work that well for our particular
learners.The diverse contexts of teaching and learning in a co untry like
South Africa mean that teachers usually need to mediate the planned
curriculum by providing additional language support or different exan1ples
or constructing different kinds of activities for different learners.
In contrast, creating allows us to select and present content that speaks to
the inter ests, exper ienc es and needs of our particular learners, but many of
us lack both the time and the skills to do a really good job.
Adapting existing resources offers a middle ground; but often we are
constrained by copyright restrictions. Many teachers do not realise that
the default legal positio n on resources found on the internet, unless they
explicitly state otherwise, is full-rights- reserved copyright.That means, we
cannot legally duplicate, share or change them without first getting written
permission to do so (and probably paying a royalty fee).
Open Educational R esources (O ER ) can make a contribution to this
process by increasing both access and quality in an affordable way.
The concept of Open Educational R esources (OER ) was originally
coined during a UNESCO Forum on Open Courseware for Higher
Education in Developing Countries held in 2002. During a follow-up
online discussion, also hosted by UNESCO, the initial concept was further
developed as follows:

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Open Educational Resources are defined as 'technology-enabled,
open provision of educational resources for consultation, use and
adaptation by a community of users for non-commercial purposes.'
They are typically made freely available over the Web or the Internet.
Their principal use is by teachers and educational institutions to
support course development, but they can also be used directly
by students. Open Educational Resources include learning objects
such as lecture material, references and readings, simulations,
experiments and demonstrations, as well as syllabuses, curricula,
and teachers' guides. (Wiley, 2006)

Since that time, the term OER has become more widely used and the
subject of increasedint erest in both national policy making as well as in
institutional circles,as many people and institutions explore the concept and
its potential to contribute to improved provision of education around the
world (Butcher, 2011:23). Indeed, the recent Paris Declaration (UNESCO,
2012) urges governments not only to promote the notion of OER but
also actively to encourage the open licensing of all educational materials
produced wholly or partly with public fonds. It is no table that policy
requirements to this effect already exist in several co untries including the
United States,Austria and New Zealand for example (OER Africa,2012).
But what are O ER and why should we engage with them?

How are OER different from other resources?

It is important to note that resources released as OER remain the intellectual
property of their developers and are still subject to copyright.The key
difference is that in addition to asserting the right to be recognised as the
originator of the work that has been shared, the author/owner adds licensing
information that lets oth ers know how and under what conditions they
might use the resource, including whether or not it can be adapted or
remixed. Several open-licensing frameworks are available but among the most
robust and widely used in the education sector is the C reative Commons
framework (www.creativecommons.org).This framework provides for
licensing of resources across a spectrum of more or less restric tive conditions.
Importantly for education, a CCBY licence, for example, allows a teacher
to remix resources from several sources and adapt them, by including more
contextually relevant scenarios or activities and/ or translating the content
into another language, to suit the particular needs of particular groups of
learners.T he only requirement is that the teachers acknowledge their sources.
This possibility begins to addressa second question.

CHAP 124
TER
6:
Why engage with OER?
As campus-based provision comes increasingly under pressure for cost
and capacity reasons, more and more institutio ns and teachers are moving
away from lecture-based method s of teaching towards n1ore resource-based
forms of provision, including open, distance and e-learning provisio n.
The advent of OER opens up opportunities for engagement with a
wider range of learning resources from a wider range of sources and for
more collaborative development of learning resources, includin g resources
developed or reinvented by learners themselves. Engagement with and
suppo rt for such processescan, in turn, help staff to become better teachers
by actively engaging with curriculum and related materials development
rather than simply transmitting them (Butcher, 2011:13).
In initial engagements with academics one often encounters scepticism
about making educational resources freely available instead of exploiting
them commercially; but it quickly becomes apparent that there are large
numbers of educational resources that are not generating such additio nal
income. In a digital age, good material would probablyalready have
been copied and shared informally,anyway, and once digitised, the costs
of sharing more widely are comparatively negligible. More interesting
discussions arise when working with teachers to improve the quality and
depth oflearning for larger number s oflearners with better retention and
throughput.This is done by adapting or developing existing resources so
that they move beyond simply providing information towards developing
activities that call for active individual and social engageme nt and the
building of communities of learning and practice that access, in te rrogate,
remix what exists, and then share back refined or new understandings
(Brown & Adler, 2008; Caswell, H enson,Jen sen & W iley,2008; CHE, 2007;
Gunawardena et al., 2006; Strydom & Mentz, 2010).
Good practice in the development of resources for use in open and
distance learning has always recomm ended a similar departure point to
that of research, namely first to survey what already exists. In the case of
learning resources, it is then possible to decide what could be adopted,
what could be adapted and finally what needs to be created to meet
curriculum needs (CO L, 2005; R andell, 2006). Glennie, Harley and
Butcher (2012:287) observe that many practitioners are engaging with
OER as th ough they represented a completely new way of mediating
curriculum when, in fact, there exists a rich literature on resource-based
learning which can be drawn upon.

125 CUR
RICU
LUM
 The advent of OER makes the possibility of remixing and adapting much
easier.This process in itself, which has come to be known as 'the OER
life cycle' (Wiley, 2008), can be illustrated diagrammati cally as shown in
Figure 6.1.The processes that institutions go through in their engagement
with OER could lend themselves to and benefit from research in their
own right within the broad framework of decision- orientated evaluation,
for example.T hi s kind of evaluation research may be undertaken at any
point in a change process: needs assessment, progranm1e planning and input
evaluation , im plementation evaluation, processevaluation, outcome or
product evaluatio n (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006:444- 446).
T his ' O ER life cycle' can be presented as a diagram.

Find/Get

Understand
Create/Remix
OER

r
Research Localise/ Adapt

Share/
Use andRefine
Redist ribute (

FIGURE 6.1 The OER life cycle

Sou rce:Welch & Saide (2012)

T he formal conceptualisation of and engagement with OER is relatively

recen t but the growth in participation over the past ten years indi cates that
OER is a not a passin g phenom enon and therefore worthy of attention.
Here are some examples of websites where teachers can already access
useful openly-licensed resources to suppor t learning and teaching:

CHAP 126
TER
6:
• Classroom texts: workbook s for primary classrooms at http:/ /www.
education.gov.za/ WorkbookD ownload / tabid/ 643/ Default.aspx;
textbooks for secondary classrooms at http:// projects.siyavula.com/ .
• Lesson-level activities: http://www.tessafrica.net/
• Educational foundations and pedagogic content knowledge: http:/ /
www.oerafrica.org/ teachered
• Subject teaching and ICT integration: http:/ / www.avu.org/ AVU-
Programs-and - C ourses/ courses.html
• General: OER Commons, Folksemantic, Merlot,Temoa, DiscoverEd ,
Joru m.

Curriculum, technology and e-learning

There is a growing demand for just-in-time lifelong learning on the one hand
and spiralling costs of traditional higher education on the other, which militate
against the level of take-up of further and higher education forms of lifelong
learning that we think might be needed in a global knowledge society.At the
same time, the growing number of open access resourcesand OER available
suggests that the lengthy curriculum development cycles associated with
quality ODL (Open Distance Learning) provision in the past, will increasingly
fail to meet the needs of a new kind oflearner and society requiringjust-in-
time learning. However,as noted in the foregoing discussion, our selection and
use of resources for teaching and learning are influenced by the assumptions,
often implicit, that underpin our practice.The challenge would seem to be
to finally give effect to what learning theorists have advocated for many years
- greater learner autonomy and engagement. Possibly,we need to give more
thought to curriculum design and materials development (based on OER) at
the critical transition points - from home to school, from Foundation Phase
to IntermediatePhase, from primary to secondary, from schooling to further
education and training, from school to university, and from undergraduate to
post-graduate study.We probably need to adopt a more flexible, open-ended,
'good enough', curriculum-on-the-fly approach to cope with increasingly
heterogeneous and constantly evolving needs.
The combination of Web 2.0/3.0 and OER,informed by socio-constructivist
and postmodern assumptions, is challenging the ways in which 'the curriculum'
and'curriculum resources' are conceptualised: moving away from top-down
and highly structured processes and uses towards somet hing much more
open-ended, organic and multi-directional in which traditional teacher-
leamer, expert-novice roles are being redefined.We can consider, for example,

127 CUR
RICU
LUM
 the pervasive influence of Wikipedia and initiatives like the OER University
(making university coursesfreely available) and Coursera (accrediting learning
from multiple institutions). Consider also the emergence of Massive Open
Online Courses (MO O Cs) and the implications of designing a MOOC
for flower-arranging or brain-surgery or for human and social sciences and
education. How would the design of such curricula need to vary?
Laur illard (2006) has observed that although they use different ter ms,
educational theorists for the past 100 years or so have co nsistently argued
that deep, meaningful learni ng requires active stud ent engagement.
Arguably, this wo uld involve interactions between students and content,
students and other students, students and faculty and, when appropriate,
students and workplaces and/ or communities.T hese kinds of interactions
are illustrated in Figure 6.2 below.
. Information is freely available from multiple sources - learners
therefore need guidance to make discerning choices
4. Beyondthe • Learners can also access advice and support informally and formally
walls of th e outside that which was planned by the teacher - again learners need
guidance to make discerning choices
classroom
.Workplaces and communities provide opportunities to relate
theoretical and conceptual learning to practice - guided reflection is
important to maximise learning
• Peer mentoring - peers are guided to provide support and advice to
one another
3. Stru ctured
. Peer collaborative learning - working together on shared goals and
learning projects is important for some learning outcomes but requires careful
scaffolding and support
community
. Teacher acts as curators of content, facilitators and mentors with a
. deliberate strategy to encourage increasing learner autonomy
Interaction can be face-to-face or virtual, synchronous or asynchronous

. Activity-basedresources scaffold engagement with diverse concepts

and practices in increasingly complex and open-ended ways
2. Scaffolded
learni ng .
Resources may include text-based, audio, video, mixed media and
and various forms of JCT-enabled engagement such as interactive games
assessment and simulations
activities .
Assessment provides evidence of achievement of learning outcomes
and space for formative feedback to guide improved learning
• The learner is at the heart of the learning process as only individual
learners learn things (although they often learn thin gs more effectively
when working together they will not make exactly the same meaning
1. Leamer as one another)
I • Learning involves making meaning and developingnew skills then being
able to transfer thatmeaning and skillset into solving problems in new
contexts or exploring new challengesor imagining new possibilities ...
-

FIGURE 6.2 A model for online learning (adapted from Anderson, 2008:61)

CHAP 128
TER
6:
A diverse range of ICTs are now available to enable this interaction but
they need to be selected and utilised purposefully for this potential to be
realised. In an insightful paper on emergent learning and the affordances of
learning ecologies in Web 2.0,Williams, Karouso u and Mackness (2011:39)
caution:
... although social networking media increase the potential range
and scope for emergent learning exponentially, considerable
effort is required to ensure an effective balance between openness
and constraint. It is possible to manage the relationship between
prescriptive and emergent learning, both of which need to be part of
an integrated learning ecology.

In recent years there has been a growing recognition that the combination
of increasingly affordable access to th e internet and the growth in resources
made available und er an open licence, creates possibilities for new ways of
teaching which place greater emphasis on self- directed and peer-supported
learning, freeing the teacher from the roles of primary curriculum and
content provider and assessor to th at of curator, guide and co-learner
in a more open-ended journ ey of self-directed,lifelong knowledge
development (Berge, 2000; Oliver, 1999; Plomp 1999). H ase and Kenyon
(2001) suggest this represents an evolution beyond pedagogy (teaching of
children) and andragogy (teaching of adults) to heutagogy (self-directed
learning) as a guiding approach. How we respond to these possibilities,
however, is determined by our assump tions about the purpose and nature
of education and our role as educators.

Conclusion
In South Africa, and in African contexts, generally, experiences at
scho ol level will have been largely characterised by teacher-led and
content-driven approaches.T herefore, if one embraces a transactional
or transformative agenda informed by socio- constructivist approaches,
as much recent writing seems to suggest, learning pathways need to be
deliberately designed to gradually move the locus of power from teacher
to learner through communities oflearning to help learners ' to move to
mediated learning, without losing their ability to achieve situated learning'
(Kinross & McKenzie, 2009); and from an emphasis on rote learning to
one which foregrounds the process of reasoning , taking into account the
learner's local context. So we need to be concerned not only with what
supporting technologies and resources are being used in teaching and
learning and where, but also with how they are being used and whether

129 CUR
RICU
LUM
 there is a progression towards increasing student auto nomy in making
decisions about what, how, where and when to learn . As Kahn (2012) and
Ri chardson (2012) observe, recent work in the neurosciences suggests
that there is a physiological basis for what we learn and rememb er. So, no
two learners learn the same thing in quite the same way or at th e same
pace.T hey suggest that this implies that time- bound lesso ns and lec tu res
in which teachers deliver content are both unproductive and unn ecessary.
Technology allows for self-paced,self- directed, multi- grade peer-supported
learning, as well as access to teachers and expertise outside the walls
and time constraints of the traditional classroom. In such a world, 'the
curriculum' will evolve more organically,more quickly and more diversely
than we are accustome d to.T his means we constantly need to review
our assumptions about teaching, learning and the selection and use of
supporting resources.

REFEREN CES

And e rso n, T. 2008. The Theory and Practiceof Online Leaming (2 nd edition). Athabasca U niversity
Press. Access at: http:/ / www.aupress.ca/ index:.php/ books/ 120146. Accessed on 25/ 05 /2 013 .

Appelbaum, D. &Thompson, M. (eds). 2002. World Philosophy:An Exploratiot1 in Words and

Images.London: Vega .

Berge, Z. 2000. New roles for learners and teachers i11 on/i11e higher education. Baltimo re: University
of Maryland System, UMBC. Retrieved 29 September 2004.

Bernstein, B. 1977. Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 3:Toivardsa 11,eory of Educational Transmissions
(Primary Socialization, L mguage and Educati on). Lo ndon: R outledge & Kogan Page.
Brown, ]. S. & Adler, R . P. 2008 . Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long tail, and Leaming
2.0. EDUCAUSE review,]anuary/ Febntary 2008. Accessed at http: / / open.umich.edu /
oerto olkit/ references/ mindsonfue.pdf on 20 October 2012.

Butcher, N. 2011. A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources (O ER). Vancouver:

Commonwealth of Learning.

Caswell,T., Henson, S.,Jensen, M &Wiley, D. 2008. O pen Content and Open educational
resources: Enabling universal education . IRROD L, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2008 . http: / / www .ir rodl.
org / inde x:.p hp / irro dl / article/ view/ 469/ 1009. Accessed on 20 October 2012.

Coetzee, P. H . & R o toe,A. P.J.2002. Philosophy from Africa: A text with readings (2 nd edition).
Cape Town: OUP.

Methods in Education. (5 th edition).

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2000. Research
London and NewYork: R outledge- Falmer.

Commonwealth of Learning (COL). 2005. Creatinglearning materials for open and distance
learning: a handbook for authors a11d instructional designers.Vancou ver: COL downlo aded fro m
www.col.org. Accessed on 22 April 2008.

CHAP 130
TER
6:
Council on Higher Education (CHE). 2007. Higher Education Monitor No. 6,A Case for Improving
Teaching and Learning in South African Higher Education,October 2007. Pretoria: CHE.
Glennie,]., Harley,K. & Butcher, N. 2012. Conclusion: Reflections on Practice in:]. Glennie,
K. Harley,N. Butcher &T. van Wyk (eds). Open Educational Resources and Change in Higher
Education: Reflections from Practice.Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning.
Gultig,J. 2000. There is nothing so practical as a good theory: Re-thinking the role of theory and practice
in South African teacher education. Johann esburg: Saide and University of Natal.
Gunawardena, C. N., Oretgano-Layne, L., Carabajal, K., Frechette, C., Lindemann, K &
Jennings, B. 2006. New model, new strategies: Instructional design for building onJine
wisdom communities. Distance Education, 27(2): 217- 232.

Hase,S. & Kenyon, C. 2001. From Andragogy to Heutagogy.Accessed at: h ttp:/ / www.p sy.gla.
ac.uk/~steve/pr/Heutagogy.html.Accessed on 21 May 2013.

Higgs, P.,Vakalisa, N. C. G., Mda,T.V & Aussie-Lum um ba, N. T. (eds). 2000. African Voices in
Education. Lansdowne:Juta.
Jansen,]. 2009. Knoivledge in the Blood: Confror1ting Race and the Apartheid Past. Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press.

Khan, S. 2012. The One World School House:Education Reimagined. London: Hodder &
Stoughton Ltd.

Killen, R. 2000. Teaching Strategiesfor Outcomes-based Educatiot1. Lansdowne: Juta.

Kinross, C. & McKenzie,T. 2009. Facilitating the learning of wildlife management ethics
thro ugh online forum debate. African Journal of Di stance Education, 1 (2009):46-65.

Kliebard, H. M. 2004.The Rise of Scientific Curriculum-Making and its Aftermath. In DJ

Flinders & S.J.Thomton. The C11rria,[11m Studies Reader. (2 nd edition). New York & Abingdon:
R outledge-Falmer.

Laurillard, D. 2002. R ethinkingTeaching for the Knowledge Society. EDUCAUSE Review,

37(1),January / February 2002:16-15.

Laurillard. D. 2006. E-Learning in Higher Education. In P. Ash,vin (ed.) Cha11ging Higher

Education:11ie Development of Learning and Teaching. London: R outledge.
Luckett, K. 1996. C11rriwl11111 Development: Reflecting on Our Practice: SAAD C11rriculum
Development Workshops, 1996.SAAD.
Mays,T. 2004.'From policy to practice: an evaluation of the Unisa National Professional
Diploma in Education from the perspective of social critical theory.' MEd dissertation. Unisa.
Unpublished.

Mays,T. 2008.' Innovation in Programme Design: Running before we can walk in an honours
programme.' Paper presented at Nadeosa conference, 18-19 August 2008, University
of Pretoria, Groenkloof Campus. Available at: http:// www.nadeosa.orgz.a/ R esou rces/
R esourceSearchR esults/ tabid / 1522/mctl/ Details/id/ 37665/Defau1t.aspx

M cMillan,]. H. & Schumacher, S. 2006. Research in. Education: Evid ence-Based Inquiry. (6 th
edition. Intern ational edition). Boston: Pearson Education.

131 CUR
RICU
LUM
 Nsamenang,A. B. &T chombe,T. M. S. (eds). 2011. Handbook efAfrican Educational T11eories
and Pracitces:A Generative Teacher Education Curriculum.Bamen da, Cameroon: Human
Development Resource Centre (HD RC).

OER Africa. 2012. Policy Dev elopment and R eviewToolkit.Accessed at: http:// www.oerafrica.
o rg/ policy/ PolicyR eviewandD evelopment Ho me/ tabid/ 91 4/ De fault.aspx. Accessed on 20
O c tob er 2012.

Oliver, R. 1999. On-line teachingand learning: New roles for participants. Accessed at: http:/ / www.
rnonash.edu.au/groups/flt/1999/online.html. Accessed on 30 April 2014.

Ornstein,A. C. & Hunkins,F. P. 2004. Curriculum: Foundations, Principlesand Issues(4d' edition).

Boston: Pearson Ed ucation.

Pinar,W F. 2004.T h e R eco ncept ualization of Curriculum Studies. In D.J. Flinders & S.J.
Thornton. The Curriculum Studies Reader (2 nd edi tion). New York & Abingdon: Rou tledge-
Falrner.

Plomp,T. 1999. Higher Education for the 21" Century and the Potential ofICT. In H.W
Maltha,J.F. Gerrissen & W Veen (eds). T he Means and the Ends: JCT and Third TMirld Education.
Amsterdam: Nuffic.

R ande ll, C. 2006. Resourcesfor new ways ef learning:a mam"'I for developers ef learning resources.
Pretoria: Saide. Downloaded from www.saide.org.za.Accessed on 06 July 2006.

Richardson,W U.D. 2012. Wl,y School? How Education must change when Leaming and Information
are everywhere. NewYork:TEC Conferences, LLC..
R ule, P. & Harely,A. 2005. Case Eleven:The Leadership and Management for Change course
at the University of KwaZ ulu- Natal: quality cri ter ia and dialogic space. In T.Welch & Y.
Reed (eds). Designingand Delivering Distance Education: Quality Criteria and Case Swdiesfrom
South Africa.Johannesburg: Nadeosa.
Siemens, G. 2004. Cormectivism:A Leaming T11eory for the Digital Age.Accessed at: h ttp:/ /
www.elearnspace.org/Articles.connectivism.htm and ww,v.connectivism.ca.Accessed on
15 Febru ary 2013.

Slabbert,J. A., De Kock, D. M. & Hattingh, A. 2009. T11e Bra ve 'New'World ef Education - creating
a unique prefessionalism.Lansdowne:Juta.
Slattery, P. 2006. C11rriculu111 Develop111e11t in the Postmodern Era. (2nd edition). New York/
Abingdon: Routledge,Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Strydom,J. F. & Mentz, M. 2010. Soi,thAJ,ican Survey ef student Engagement- Focusing the
Student Experience on Success through Student Engagement. Pretoria: CHE.
UNESCO. 2012. 2012 World Open Educational R esources (O ER ) Congress, 2012 Parsi OER
Declaration. Accessed at: http:/ / www.unesco.org/ new/ fileadmin/ MULTIMED IA/ HQ / CI/
CI/ pdf/ Events/Paris%20OER %20D eclaration_01 .pdf.Accessed on 18 October 2012.

Visvanathan, S. 2009. T11e search for cognitive justice. Accessed at: http:/ / www .india-seminar.
com /2 009 / 597 / 597_shiv_visvanathan.h tm. Accessed on 25 May 2013.

Welch,T. 2012. 11,e OER Life Cycle. Pretoria: OERAfrica.

CHAP 132
TER
6:
Wiley, D. 2006.The current state of open education al resources. Blog. Iteratingtoward openness.
Accessed at: http:/ / openco ntent.org/ blog/ archjves/2 47. Accessed on Januar y 2011.

Wiley, D. 2008. http:/ / www.wikieducato r.org/ OER._Handbo ok/ educator/ OER _Lifecycle.
Accessed on 30 April 2014.

Williams, R., Karousou, R . & Mackness,J. 2011. Emergent team in g and learning ecologies
in Web 2.0. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12
(3):39-59.

Wolfe,S.& Alexande r, R. J. 2008. Argumentation and dialogic teaching: alternative

pedagogies for a changing world. Accessed at http:// www.beyondcurrenthori zons.org.
uk/ argumentation-and-dialogic-teaching-alternative-pedagogies-for- a-c hanging-world/.
Accessed on 25 May 2013.
Woolfolk,A. 2007. Educational Psychology. (10 th E ilition). Boston: Pearson Education.

133 CUR
RICU
LUM
 CHAPTER 7

Curriculum and assessment

Peter Beets

Introduction
Curriculun1 change, inspired by different agendas and aimed at
reconceptualising and restructuring the South African post-apartheid
education system, was introduced after 1994 to redress historical
inequalities. One of the key education priorities in the subsequent
curriculum transformation was to use assessment in such a way that
every South African learner could experience quality teaching and
learning. Many of the South African educational reforms, both in terms
of policy- making as well as in the practice of teachers, can be described as
assessment-led educational reform (Reddy, 2004:31). Driven by a growing
acceptance of, and compliance with, socio- co nstructivist teaching and
learning approaches that came with outcomes-based education (OBE), the
role of assessment changed from being dominated mainly by examinations
or tests at the end of school terms to an assessment regimen in which a
greater variety of more 'authentic' assessment activities were prescribed on
a continuous basis.
While these curriculum changes were new to most learners and teachers
in South Africa, assessment-based reforms are not new in education
internationally. Rh oten et al. (2000:2) cogently argue that what, in essence,
happen ed is that the purpose of assessment changed.Traditionally it was
used to measure learners' ability to recall facts, track their performance and
evaluate applicants; but now assessment is called upon to support learning
and judging the quality and equity of schooling. Furthermo re, assessment in
South Africa also became an integral component of the 'contract' between
government and educational professionals. Increasingly,teachers are expected
to conduct assessment according to prescribed subjectguidelines and in
compliance with related administrative requirements, which erode most of
the teachers' teaching time (Chisholm et al., 2005:183). International research
(H argreaves, Earl, Moore & Manning, 2001), too, indicates that teachers feel
'they are being caught between competing purposes of classroom assessment

CHAP 134
TER
6:
and are often confused and frustrated by the difficulties that they experience
as they try to reconcile the demands'.
In line with growing centralisation in education policy, accountability
increasingly dominates political and public thinking in education in South
Africa - the emphasis being on relative performativity and value for
money. One of the responses of government to this is the implementation
of annual national assessments (ANAs) and provincial systemic tests.This
use oflarge scale assessments, as Hamilton (2010-2011:47-48) suggests, is
based on unproven assumptions that its use will lead to improved teaching
and learning. The evidence from these assessments is further used by
policy-makers and other stakeholders to serve on the one hand a range
of information and accountability purposes, and on the other to inform
policy changes at different levels of the schooling system.
However, what remains compromised are the direct support to learners
in improving their actual level of development and how teachers use
the evidence from assessment to enhance their teaching. Ahlquist et al.
(2011:17) blame this situation on what they call hyper-accountability,
which is a vital tool of the neo-liberal agenda and is a data-driven system
used primarily to assess teacher effectiveness or the value teachers add to
learners' achievement. They further argue that standardised tests focus on
measuring mainly the basics (referring to basic content knowledge and
skills that require, chiefly, memorisation and recall) instead of focusing also
on critical thinking skills like analysis, application and problem solving.
Such emphasis will likely result in the narrowing of the curriculum, or
even dom esticating the minds of learners.The latter occurs when those
in authority regard their primary educational task as teaching conformity.
Instead of encouraging learners to explore freedom of thought, stimulating
reasoning and decision-making skills, the teacher uses the tin1e available to
focus solely on completing the curriculum requirements. Assessment, as a
result of such an approach to teaching, then focuses mainly on the learners'
ability to recall facts and not, for example, to apply their acquired insights.
In this chapter we will focus on the following:
• curriculum and curr iculum development in South Africa
• assessment
• links between cur riculum and assessment
• purposes of assessment
• rebalancing purposes of assessment.

135 CURR
ICULU
M
 Curriculum and curriculum development in South Africa
C urr icul um is co ncer ned with both content and process.While content
refersto what education departments and school communities want learners
to learn, process again refers to how the content is mediated and managed.
Curriculum, characterised by a balance of knowledge, skills and attitudes,
ought to be organisedin a logical and sequential ma nner, while making
provision for special-interest development and taking into account local
contexts. If we take into account the aims and objectivesof each school
subject, then curriculum ought to be forward thinking. It should provide
learners with those learning experiences that enable them to become
knowledgeable, self-directed, responsible individuals able to adapt to and
cope with a complex and rapidly changing world. If placed in the broader
context of the cross-curricular critical outcomes (derived from the South
African Constitution), the stated curriculum seeks to ensure the development
of sustainable human and environmental relationships, a sense of ethics and
social values that focuses on care and growth, a pride in our South African
heritage and a desire for continued learning and a positive self-in1age.
T he attainment of these learning aims and objectives is depende nt on a
broad range of content balanced with teaching th at focuses on produ ctive
pedagogies and a supportive resource provision and learning environment.
Assessment is in tegral to both teaching and learning and plays an essential
role in realising the embedded aims and goals of the curri culum , namely
learning and emancipation. But these initiatives are likely to fail, according to
Greenstein (2012:xi), due to the oversimplification, uneven impleme ntation
and inconsisten t monitoring of assessment. Added to this, and of even greater
im po rtance, is the nonin co rpo ration of quality assessment in the bluepr int,
although it is seen as an essential component of any formula for reform. O ne
of the central tasks for schools and teachers is, therefore, to reformulate the
curriculum by defining learning aims and objectives that show progressio n
and continuity; aligning objectives, instruction and assessment; and ensuring
that the latter incorporates validity, reliability and fairness.The impor tance
of this is illuminated by Jacobs' (2010:2) argument that 'We need to
overhaul, update, and inject life into our curriculum and dramatically alter
the format of what schools look like to match the times we live in'.This
requires an in- depth re-examination of tin1e-honoured assessment practices
characterised by assessments ofl earning at the end of teaching sections of the
curriculum, that consist mainly of selected-response questions testing lower-
level cognitive skills of memory and recall. Instead, with our current greater
emphasis on assessment for learning, assessment should be incor porated

CHAP 136
TER
7:Curr
into instruction, so that evidence gained can guide teaching and learning
decisions that will encourage learners to demonstrate higher-levelcognitive
skills like analysis, synth esis and creativity.
In the period before 1994, the South African government was in cen tral
control of the racially divided school curriculum, to ensure that the ideals of
apartheid were entrenched in education. Policies biased towards cen tralisation
emphasisedideological and oppressive aspects of an exclusive system of
ed ucation. In South Africa this led to an absence of quality education for
all. Gilmour, Soudien and Donald (2001:345) consequently argue that the
'curr iculum of the past was largely seen as a conveyor belt for the political
agenda of the dominant society'. On the one hand, progressive pedagogi es
(with an accompanying individualising thrust)supported a better quality
teaching and learning in the minority white and private schools (Muller,
2004:222). On the other hand, segregated black public schools were required
by law to teach a curriculum that sought to cultivate a sense of inferiority
in teachers and learners, with the sole requirement being bureaucratic and
political compliance Gansen, 2001 quoted in Ndimande, 2009:125).
During this period, assessment was exa mination- driven and norm-
referenced, and was used mainly for surnmative purposes (to determine
whether a learner passed or failed). Assessment focused primarily on recall
of content and was generally viewed as separate from teaching processes.
Consequently,learners experienced assessment as something that teachers
did to them and not with them.T he matriculation examination, each with
a separate examination board for the different racial groups, was the main
instrument that not only assessed the ability of the learner, but also gave
an indi catio n of the success of scho oling. Although education policies
reflected a centralised perspective, M uller (2004:222) argues that these
policies also had a 'low-key under-specified position on school- based
assessment', because the various education departments focused on the
matriculation examination ('the only systematic assessment instrument'),
while neglecting assessment in the rest of th e school system.

Making the link with assessment

Learner assessm ent is an integral part of the teachin g and learning process
and, as such, must be thoughtfully integrated in the planning and delivery
of curriculum.Assessment is the process of gathering valid and reliable
inform ation, using different context- appropriate approaches to determine
what learners' actual level of performance is in relation to what they ought
to attain eventually, through a variety of teaching and learning processes.

137 CURR
ICULU
M
 Learners require timely, constructive feedback and feed.forward to support
their learning. In guiding learners to close that gap between their actual
level of achievement and their potential level of achievement, teachers use
informal and formal assessment to scaffold and im prove learnin g.Teacher s use
multiple sources of information as part of on-going assessmen t to determine
where learners are along their zones of proximaldevelopment and what
the next step(s) in learning should be in order to close the gap. Apart from
the fact that the insights gained by teachers from learner assessment should
inform their own teaching, they are also ultimately responsible, both legally
and professionally,for reporting learner progress to relevant stakeholders.
In most instances, assessment should reflect the objectives of the
curriculum and the learner's ability to learn.T he teacher is the professional
who sho uld understand the factors influencing the measurement of
learning and should have a tho rough mastery of the subject content to
be tested, of writt en comm unication and of assessment techniq ues.T he
teacher is the one who translates the stated subj ec t go als into learning
objectives and selects assessment procedures to reflect the curric ulum
content designed to achieve those goals and objectives.T he teacher uses a
variety of procedures to identify differences in teaching methods, learners'
abilities, needs and learning styles, and then to factor it into the design of
assessments to ensure the most effective learning.T hese procedures are
supposed to be fair, just and equitable.T hey sho uld motivate learners; instil
confidence in their abilities to learn and succeed; test a variety of skills; and
must also comply with the requirements stated in the National Protocol on
Assessment (DoE, 2005).Assessment, therefore, has a key role in the process
of learning which learners follow - a role sometim.es more importan t than
teaching, as assessment is the process that will determine whether a lear ne r
is promoted or not (Brown, 2004-2005:81).R ealising this, it is not difficult
to understand how assessment eventually shapes and reshapes the enacted
curriculum.
In a related attempt to position assessmen t as a driver oflearning that will
prepare learners for the 21$t century, Greenstein (2012:37- 38) suggests a
number of other indicators of quality assessment:
1. Responsive assessment identifies [learners'] strengths and
weaknesses so that strengths can be built on andgaps and problem
areas canbeaddressed. Suchassessment is therefore learner focused;
monitors progress and is used to improve a learner's learning.

2. Assessment is integrated with instruction, meaning that teachers

can continually take the pulse of learners and respond to

CHAP 138
TER
7:Curr
 that rhythm directly. It is the basis for providing feedback,
and engaging learners. In this way, assessment becomes
instructionally purposeful; it is on-going and embedded in
learning; it is responsive to learner needs, identifies gaps and
guides interventions.
3. Assessment serves educational [aims and objectives] in a
practical manner by generating valuable information on a
comprehensive range of targets and standards. This is only
possible if a fully aligned system of standards (set per subject and
per grade), curriculum, instruction and assessment are in place
and evidence of learning is visible.
4. Multiple measurements are used to determine a learner's strengths
and weaknesses. They encompass and support the breadth and
depth of the curriculum. A variety of measures and methods will
be used that will also facilitate self-assessment.
5. Assessment necessitates the ability to distinguish between
measurement that involves numerical expression of data
and assessment that requires interpretation, judgment and
intervention. Such assessment will focus on providing usable
data for decision-making by both teacher and learner.
6. Assessment data are used to communicate to others. A range
of constituents is aware of assessment outcomes from multiple
methods and measures.

The criteria mentioned here, help to move beyond the rhetoric associated
with quality assessment. The criteria offer a way of starting to think how
assessment can become part of the pedagogy - the different strategies
teachers use in different combinations with different groupings oflearners
to effect and enhance learning outcomes. In this sense, assessment is not
a pro cess that is separate from and that happens after teaching has taken
place. Instead, it becomes the trigger mechanism that informs, guides and
drives both learner-focused teaching and learning.

The danger of systemic testing

Over the last decade, in academic, professional and political spheres, a great
deal of debate and serious discourse have emanated as systemi c assessment
started to impose itself on the schooling system. Both the Annual National
Assessments at the ends of Grades 3, 6 and 9 as well as provincial systemic
tests became barometers measuring the effectiveness of the implementation

139 CURR
ICULU
M
 of curriculum policies and the education system in general.T he current
emphasison th ese types of asses1snent is aimed at detennining school and
schoo l-system performance, but they do little to address the individual
needs of learners.Judgments made on the basisof the information gathered
are assessments too, but the assessments are mainly about the performance
of the group; not individual learners.
Amidst growing awareness of the complexity of contributing facto rs like
poor professional development of teachers, lack of efficient cu rriculum
support from the national and regional education departments, resource
ineq ualities and hasty cu rriculum revision, teachers in South Africa are
accused by both politicians and parents as being the primary culprits in
the poor performance of schools.While it is acknowledged that these tests
offer a much needed lens to gauge the quality of educational opportu nities
provided to learners, inte rnation al studies suggest that other serious
consequences emanate from teaching to these tests - ' red uced teaching time,
a narrowed curri culu m, limited opportunity to assess higher order thinking
skills, and decreased morale of teachers and [learners]' (Roach, Niebling &
Kurz, 2008; Smith & R ottenberg, 1991).A further warning comes from
Yates and Grumet (2011) when they argue that ' curr iculum is always
influenced by the events that shape our world, but when testing and bench-
marking preoccupy us, we can forget the world that is both the foundation
and object of curric ulum'.

Assessment for different purposes

Assessment is the process of gatherin g and interpreting evidence of learner
progress,mainly in terms of the stated curriculum for a particular grade to
make valid inferences about how a learner developed relative to identified
learning aims and how successful the teaching towards it was. How teachers
execute this process depends on the purpose of assessment rather than on
the specific met hod used to collect the evidence oflearners' performance.
Teachers design assessments for a variety of purposes and deliver them with
mixed results. Moss (2013:235) argues that some assessm en ts brin g learners
a sense of success and fairness while, in others, it strengthens perceptions
of failure and injustice.So, irrespective of the int ended purpose, classroom
assessments influence learners' future learning, achie vement and motivation
to learn directly or indirectly.
Assessment is one of the processes or strategies teachers use to tailor their
teaching according to the contex t of their learners' needs and their zones of
proximal development. One can view assessment from a number of different

CHAP 140
TER
7:Curr
perspectives: its purpose, its methods, its objectives, the evidence it offers, its
measurement accuracy and its relationship to activities outside the school.
However,while these aspects co nsider different pedagogical elements, they
are not mutually exclusive.T here is much overlap, and any given assessment
activity may fall into several of the perspectives mentioned above.The
danger is to regard one type of assessment as better than the other, as all
types of assessment have a place in the classroom as long as the assessment
can play a role in improving teaching and learning. Consequently, McMunn
(2000:6) argues that 'classroom assessment is an on-going process through
which teachers and Dearners] interact to promote greater learning'.
Classroom assessments are utilised by teachers to measure knowledge and
understanding of the learning goals set by the teacher, based principally
on the stated curri culum. During the school year learners are engaged
in a variety of assessm ents ranging from day-to-day informal classroom
assessments to the more formal - and policy-required - continuous
assessments (assignments, tests, practicals, mid-year examinations, etc.)
during and at the end of terms. At the end of a grade year learners sit
for examinations that determine, to a large exte nt, whether they will be
promoted to the next grade. In Grade 12, which is the exit level of the
schooling system, learners are given the government's high-stakes end-of-
year assessment that measures a learner's achievement of the governn1ent's
required standards at the end of basic education. Schneider et al. (2013:55),
however, warn that although it is often believed that each of the three
assessments that will be discussed are measuring the same construct
(government set requirements/standards),'the observed knowledge, skills
and processes measured may differ.When this occurs, teachers, Dearners],
and parents may receive mixed messages from each assessment source
regarding what the Dearner] sho uld actually be able to do. Moreover, the
ability of the teacher to summarise information either to assist learning or
to understand Dearner] progress may be hindered'.
The primary purpose of learner assessmen t is to facilitate the teaching/
learning process, which includes diagnosing learner strengths and weaknesses
(formative assessment) and making judgments/decisions about a learner's
progress (sumrnative assessment). In the latter process, a teacher uses the
results of assessment and other relevant information to make a decision
about the quality, value or worth of a learner's response during the learning
process or a learner's overall performance for placement and reporting
purposes. However, using assessments for the purpose other than for what
it has been designed, may have serious validity implications. For example, if
the purpose of a map skills test in Grade 10 geography was to determine if

141 CURR
ICULU
M
 learners can calculate the gradient of a slop e on a topographical map, then
the evidence gathered in the test cannot be used to determine whether a
learner successuflly completed the curriculum requirements for geography
for that grade at the end of the year. Most assessments that are part of the
normal assessment programme are seldom designed to address multiple
purposes and therefore cannot provide valid informatio n for both purposes
(Harnilton, 2010- 2011:48). Assessment takes place in different forms and
for different purposes in a complex educational landscape.Whatever the
combinatio n of form, purpose and context, and depending on the quality
of the assessment, assessmen t has the potential to contribute significantly to
the growth of learners and enhance the professionalism of teachers.T hree
purpo ses of assessment will now be discussed, namely summative assessment
(assessment ofl earn ing);formative assessment (assessment for learning), and
self-assessment and self- regulatio n (assessment as learning).

Summative assessment (assessment of learning)

Summative assessment is the most dominant assessment practice in South
African schools.The purpose of summative assessm ent is to determin e a
learner's overall achievement in a specific subject at a partic ular tin1e -
usually at the end of a learning process,school ter m or year.Summative
assessment is used as a culminating experience, giving informatio n about
a learner's level of mastery of content, knowledge or skills.T he evidence
oflearning is then used by teachers to make judgments on the learner's
achievement against curriculum ainls and standards.
T he socalled ' origin al' purpose of sumrnative assessment, according
to Danielson (2008:193), is that it certifies learn ers, mainly through
government-mandated high-stakes examinations. The results of these
examinations are typically used to make the following decisions about
the learner:
• transition from secondary to higher education (e.g. the
Matriculation Examination)
• completion of a course and the accompanying grade
• certification of the completion of advanced courses (e.g. different
level music courses) by external bodies (e.g. UNISA, Trinity
College, etc.)
• admission tofurther or higher education and training institutions-
the results of these examinations are used to grant or decline
admission to individual learners.

CHAP 142
TER
7:Curr
Also referred to as 'assessment ofl earning', summative assessment provides
a means of rating learners, or comparing them with one another.There is
also a perceptio n that it provides a transparent interpretation of evidence of
achievement across all audiences - including th e wider community, parents,
teachers, the learners themselves and outside groups like other education
institutio ns. Furthermore, summative assessment can also be used by other
education professionals, e.g. for the purposes of curriculum development.
Unlike formative assessment (also called assessment for learning),
summative assessment does not focus on feedback for improvement of
learning and teaching. Figure 7.1 below illustrates the processes involved in
summative assessment.

Formal Provides INTERPRETATION JUDGEMENT

EVIDENCE of in relation to: on learner's
school-based
assessment, e.g. learner's progress . Memorandum competence
exams, tests, orals, in terms of (norm- and REPORT
practical tasks, learning goals referenced) OR on the learner's
assignments, etc. • Assessment achievement
criteria
(criterion-
referenced)

FIGURE 7.1 The processes in summative assessment

Research on summative assessment, according to Danielson (2008:194-

196) indicates the following trends:
• Summative assessments are increasingly used to document levels of
performance of either an educational institution (e.g. a school or university) or
of individual teachers.The results of matriculants in South Africa, for
example, significantly determine the public perception of quality of
learning and teaching at specific schools, irrespective of socio-economic
context and local political legacy.T he schools performing below a
certa in level are classified as underperforming and are subjected to more
intense scrutiny and support programmes from their education district.
Likewise, by using the learners' results in specific subjects, patterns of
individual teacher effectiveness on learner achievement may be deduced.
• Another important feature of summative assessments is the locus of
control - ie. w ho designs and scores these examinations. Summative
assessm ents are mainly exte rnal. In South Africa the matriculation
examination papers are set by examiners from different examination
bodies and then marked by groups of markers (teache rs) selected and
employed by the same bodies. Even in this process, the appointment
of markers (amidst resistance from teacher unions) is in some

143 CURR
ICULU
M
 provinces also determined by the results of a 'sumrnative' competency
examination for teachers in the content and pedagogical content
knowledge of the particular school subject.
• The consequences of sumrnative assessments may be low or high stakes
for learners and teachers.The res ultsa learner obtains in the matriculation
examination, for example, will determine whether formal access to
a higher education institution will be granted. Similarly, with the
assessments being external, teachers 'may engage in non- functio nal
behaviour (from the standpoint oflarger purposes of education), e.g.
narrow ing the cur riculum, specifically teaching to the test, offer ing
unethical assistance to Qea r n e rs], etc.' (Dani elson, 2008:195).T here is
also a stro ng suspicion that learners who seemingly would not pass
the matriculation examination are guided, at some schools, towards
other learning paths, rathe r. On the other hand, in assessments where
the stakes are low for lear ners (e.g. mid-year subject assessments), the
tendency is that learners do not commit themselves to prepare for those
assessments ser iously.
T he effectiveness of sumrnative assessments depends on the validity and
reliability of the assessment activities. A close alignment of curriculum aims,
classroom instruction and the assessm en t format, for example, will increase
content validity and reliability. However, sumrnative assessment data are
generally obtained by giving tests, but the data cannot reflect the full range
of goals of lear ning. Furtherm ore, the accuracy of summative judgments
depends on the quality of the assessments and the competence of the
assessors (Moss 2013:235).
Linn (2000) makes the argument that there is only disputed evidence that
sumrnative assessm en t improves learning. Evidence of a positive impact
on teaching tends to be suspect as using examination data for high-stakes
school assessment, combined with the narrow base of the examinations/
tests used, seem to have a serious backlash effect on the curriculum and
on the practice of formative assessmen t. R easons for this, according to
Harlen (2003:10), are that 'teachers inevitably focus on what is tested
and, indeed, on the kind of learning that leads to test-taking success.T his
enco urages shallow, surface lear ning, rather than the deeper learning with
understanding that is important in education today'.
While the once-off nature of sumrnative assessments may present practical
(e.g. only testable knowledge and skills are assessed in the wr itten
examinations) and ethical (e.g. an inappropriate assessment format like
multiple choice questions is used to assess application of knowledge and

CHAP 144
TER
7:Curr
skills in unknown environments) difficulties for learners, teachers are also
affected negatively. The fact that teachers have no participation in the design
of high-stakes examinations, 'forces' many to prepare for the test rather than
focusing on deep learning and understanding. Black (2013:171) therefore
argues that 'external test pressureslower teachers' status, deprive them of
full ownership of their work, and undermine the development of their
own skills in assessmen t' .This exaggerated systemic focus on sumn1ative
assessment as one of the main measurable indicators of pe1formativity
and accountability, coerces teachers into playing 'the game' and forfeiting
the opportunity to reconcile the formative and summative purposes of
assessment in their own teaching practices.
Despite the perceived limited contribution that summative assessment
makes to teaching and learning, it remains important when making
decisions about the future of learners. Consequently,the quality of those
assessments (w hich are mainly the responsibility of teachers) remains an
important factor. One problem in developing summative assessments is that
policy developers of a mandatory cur riculum like CAPS (Curr iculum and
Assessment Policy Statement) do not always consider the assessment of the
stated learning aims and goals. For Black (2013:172) the resultant threat is
that 'those who design assessments may have to transform those aims into
concrete assessment activities so that, in effect, the implemented curriculum
is determined by the assessment agency - a power they may not be able to
exert'. Examination bodies like the DBE (Department of Basic Education)
and the IEB (Independent Examination Board) are such agencies who,
in the context of the matriculation exainination, control curriculum,
assessment and eventually instruction.With the examination guidelines that
focus on the aims of the summ ative assessment (matric examination) rather
than that of the curriculum, teachers will likely narrow the curriculum and
'teach to the test'.
However, research (Harlen,2004) found that ilie use of sununa tive
assessment by teachers may have both positive and negative impacts on
learners, depending on whether the teachers want to improve the quality
of their learners' learning.When teachers use their insights from sun11na tive
assessments for external purposes like the matriculation examination, learners
may develop a better understanding of what is expected in terms of required
knowledge, skills, examination techniques and the assessment crit eria.
Summative assessments for internal purposes, like term examinations, can
contribute to motivating learners as lon g as the feedback is developmental.
However,if it is used as rewards or punishment, it decreases learner
motivation to learn and harms learning itself.Teachers the mselves differ

145 CURR
ICULU
M
 in the way they respond to the results of external summative assessments.
Depen ding on the nature and the detail of inforn1ation available, teachers
will use the 'results' to change their pedagogy in order to enhance their
teaching and learning possibilities of their learn ers.Moss (2013:238) also
indicated that teachers benefit from being exposed to assessment strategies
that require learners to think more deeply as it may lead to changes in
teac hing that extend the range oflearners' learning experiences.
Another characteristic of summative assessment is that it consists of mainly
low- level recall and objective questions, regardless of the grade or subject
area.W here this is the order of the day, it impacts negatively on the
motivation of learners to do well. Likewise,even if teachers are exposed to
more effective assessment strategies, they often regard 'the realities of their
classroom environments and other external factors imposed on them as
pro hibi tive' (McMillan & Nash, 2000).
Despite the positive effects that summative assessment may have, we
can see the negative impact in the labelling of learn ers and teachers,
based on results that ignore context, the anxiety with which learners
await the results, the feelings of shame, em barrassment, guilt and anger
that publication of examination results produce and the political rather
than educational significance tapped from it. Even more worrying is the
argument made by Airasian (1988:97):'Wh en test results are the sole, or
even partial, arb iter of future educational or life choices, society tends to
treat test results as the major goal of schooling, rather than as a useful but
fallible indicator of achievement'.

Formative assessment {assessment for learning)

Formative assessment occurs through forn1al and informal assessment
activities throughout the teaching and learning process. It refer s to the
gathering and use of information about learners' on-going development
of knowledge, understanding and skills to inform teaching and, in so
doing, also the individual learning processes of lear ners.The UK- based
Assessment Reform Group adds another dimension to assessment for
learning by stating that it also seeks ' ... to identify where the learners
are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there'
(ARG, 2002). Forma tive assessment therefore reflects a view oflearning
in which assessment helps learners learn better, rather than just achieve a
better mark.
Using assessment formatively implies, essentially, the building of closer
relationships.At one level there is the need for a deeper commitment

CHAP 146
TER
7:Curr
and engagement between teacher and learner.Yet on another level there
is the requirement of a better alignment between curriculum, teaching
and learning. In both these levels of relatio nships, assessment serves as
the catalyst for the interactions between the different role players or
components mentioned here. Formative assessment, according to Butt
(2010:49), focuses on the interactions between learners and teachers in
the classroom as the learner is supported from one level of achievement to
the next in his or her development. Eventually,it is about how teaching
strategies and decisions impact on the level ofl earner growth, which
determines the quality of their educational experience.
This indicates a marked difference from summative assessment where
the tendency is rather to exacerbat e a dislocation between curriculum,
teaching, assessment and learning.The emphasis in summative assessment
is more of a static measure of learning in terms of a narrowed curr iculu m
(mainly aspects that can easily be tested). While summative assessment
focuses on Jeedout (moving from one grade to another or one type of
educational institution to another), formative assessment uses feedback
(about what happened in the assessment) and Jeedforward (what are the
next steps in the learning process) to suppo rt and direct the learner to
successfully attain the applicable lear ning objectives.
The key components of formative assessment are identified by Harlen (in
Butt, 2010:50) as follows:
• The evidence gained as learners do learning activities informs the
next steps in supporting the learning process.

• Judgement about the learner's progress is made in terms of the

specific learning goals which may vary for different learners or
groups of learners.

• As the lesson goals are explained to learners, they can become

part of the process of identifying the next steps towards the goals.

• The process is of using evidence gained from assessment to adapt

teaching for improved learning is a cyclical and ongoing process.

• No judgement of grade or level is involved; only the decisions of

how to best support a learner taking the next steps in learning and
supporting them to become self-regulated learners.

147 CURR
ICULU
M
 Figure 7.2 illustrates the processes as well as the sequence involved in the
formative assessment process.

LESSON GOALS

Identifying, planning
and discussing EVIDENCE OF
possible CHANGES LEARNING gained from
IN TEACHING and informal and formal
the NEXT STEPS in assessment tasks
LEARN ING

INTERPRETATION of
EVIDENCE in relation to:
• Memorandum (norm-
referenced) OR
• Assessment criteria
(criterion-referenced)

FIGURE 7.2 Processes in the formative assessment process

Formative assessment seeks to provide effective feedback which indicates

the existence of a 'gap' between the actual levels of the work being assessed
and the required standard. It also provides feedforward that specifies the
next steps in learning which will hopefully motivate the learner and lead
to ilnproven1ent.This reflects a belief that all learners can improve. For
Brookhart (2011:4) formative assessment is largely based on co nstruct ivist
learning theories and self- regulation theory as the emphasis is on ' Oe arners]
as formative decision makers who need information of a certain type
(descriptive) at a certain time (in time to act) to make productive decisions
of their own learning'.Teachers,especially in terms of their pedagogy, play
a criti cal role in the process. Butt (2010:50) consequently argues that the
formative impact of assessment will be minimal if teachers believe that
assessment simply means measuring what learners have been genetically
pre-determined to achieve. However, if teachers believe that learners can
improve and grow, and that they can scaffold them to reach their highest
possible levels of achievement, then assessment provides a vehicle for
enhancing learning. This is possible as formative assessment sets targets for
learners and provides feedback on progress towards those targets in ways
that foster more progress (Butler & McMunn, 2006:3).
Feedback enables learners to recognise their strengths as well as areas for
development, while feedforward creates the enviromnent to identify and

CHAP 148
TER
7:Curr
plan the next steps in their learning with their teacher.The success of the
formative process depends largely on the nature and quality of the feedback
and feedforward.Broadly, effective feedbac k should:
• be timely, specific and related to the learning and assessment intention
• be constructive and provide meaningful information to learners about
their learning in a variety of forms
• recognise improvements made over time in comparison to prior work
samples
• focus on the activity and correct misunderstandings
• value learner work and focus on the quality rather than the quantity
• identify and reinforce the learners' strengths
• provide informatio n about how they can im prove
• facilitate the development of and provide opportunities for self-
assessment and reflection during the learning process
• inform future teaching and learning opportunities.
Although a theoretical distinction can be made between formative and
summ ative assessme nt, in reality there are not different types of assessment,
but rather different purposes of assessment belonging to the si ngle broader
teaching, assessment and learning process. For assessment to be formative
(meaning assessment for learning), multiple summative assessments
need to be made to deter mine where the learner is.Taras (2005:468)
therefore holds the view that '[i]t is possible for the assessm ent to be
uniquely summative where assessment stops at the judgment. However,
it is not possible for the assessment to be uniquely formative without the
summative judgment having preceded it'.These ideas are illustrated by
Figure 7.3:
ASSESSMENT

Summative Formative
assessment assessment
( Summative judgment Suppo rting learnn
ig
)

Assessm ent for learning:

'... the process of seeking and interpreting evidencefor use by
learners and their teachers,to identify where the learnersare in their
learning, where they need to go to and how best to get there'.

FIGURE 7.3 Summative and formative elements of assessment for learning(Beets, 2007:69)

149 CURR
ICULU
M
 Self-assessment and self-regulation (assessment as learning)
For Boud and Falchikov (2007:3), a serious problem is that assessment in
schools focuses little on the process oflearning and how learners will learn
in situations in which teachers and examinations are not present to focus
their attention. As a result, learners do not develop their own repertoire
of assessment-related practices necessary to prepare them for the rest of
their lives. Furth ermore, Boud (2007:17) indicates that the fundamental
problem with assessm en t is the way it is conducted in most schools and
that it constructs learners as passive subjects.' ... Ue arners] are seen to have
no role other than to subject themselves to the assessment acts of others,
to be measured and classified.T hey conform to the rules and procedures
of others to satisfy the needs of an assessment bureaucracy: they present
themselves at set times for examinations over which they have little or
no influence and they complete assignments which are, by and large,
determi ned with little or no input from those being assessed'.
Assessment as learning, as a response to this limitation in school
assessment, is on-going and occurs when learners reflect on and monitor
their progress to inform their future learning goals.This 'longer-term'
purpose of assessment is inclusive of the processes invo lved in summative
and formative assessment.The difference is that - where in the case of
summative and formative assessment - the processes were mainly teacher-
or examination- body driven, in this case it is learner initiated, learne r
judged and sustained. In situatio ns where learners are exposed to effective
formative assessment, especially where there is quality feedback and
feedforward, they will develop over time an understanding of themselves
and accept responsibility for their education. Learners will start to use
personal knowledge to construct meaning in new contexts and ways
(Earl, 2003:25).They will monitor their own progress in an attempt to
be sure about what they understand and what they are still unsure of -
this is referred to as 'metacognitive knowledge'. Lastly,learners show the
ability to decide what to do next (choose a strategy to help themselves
to close the gap) especially when they are struggling - this is referred to
as a 'metacognitive skill'. So in contrast to the two previously discussed
purpo ses where the assessment is driven by agents outside the learner,
the learners themselves now operationalise and use the functions of
assessment to analyse their progress and to regulate their own developm ent
and growth.
Assessment as learning requiresthat learners take an active role in their own
learning and assessment.The ' underpinning principle of self-assessment is

CHAP 150
TER
7:Curr
that Uearners] are more responsible for and involved in their own learning'
(Weeden et al., 2002:73).T hey understand the learning (curriculum)aims and
objectives involved and from that, they generate personal learning goals that
link into the broader critical outcomes they are working towards. Pursuing
these aims and objectives independen tly (without the help of a teacher of
a knowledgeableother) is a complex process which requires learners to ask
themselves metacognitive questions as th ey actively reflect on th eir progress.
T hese questions initiate metacognitive processeslike individual reflec tion
and self-regulation which are social in nature, as reflection is to engage in a
conversation with oneself Metacognition is therefore the process of being
aware of one's own learning to the extent that one takes responsibility for it
by thinking about and monitoring it. Insteadof comparing one's performance
with that of others, the focus is now on one's own performancewhich will
most likely maintain motivation to learn (Stobart & Gipps, 1997:18).
Determining progressrequires regular informal and formal self and peer
assessment . Self-assessm ent is essential as it is very difficult for learners to
achieve a learning goal, unless they understand it and can assess what they need
to do to reach it (Black et al., 2003: 49).T he goal of the feedbackthey generate
is to develop their understanding of themselves and be sure about what they
understand (know) and what they are still unsure of.The insights developed
about a possible gap between the actual and desired levels of attainment inform
the self-regulated actions aimed at improving furt her learning.
Self and peer assessment provide learners with information on their own
achievement and prompt them to consider how they can continue to
imp rove their learning.T hey use criteria based on previous learning and
personal learning goals to make adaptations to their learni ng processand
to develop new understandings. In the process, lear ners ask questions
about their learnin g and use formal and informal feedback to help
them understand the next steps in learning. Comparison with others
in assessment for learning is almost irrelevant. Instead,as stated by Earl
(2003:25) ' the cri tical reference points are the Uearner's] own prior work
and the aspirations and targets for continued learning'.

Balanced assessment for more effective curriculum

delivery
Brundrett and Rh odes (2011:12) argue that our current era of
performativity in education is one in which the notion of the autonomous
professional has become redundant. It has been replaced by a 'state-imposed
regime based on the exter nal measurement of quality through an onerous

151 CURR
ICULU
M
 and burdensome system of inspection and testing'. Consequently, education
becomes subsumed in the process of ensuring the efficient functioning
of the social system.T he process of education which includes assessment
as integral to teaching and learning, is no longer - according to Marshall
(2004) - co ncerned with the pursuit of ideals such as personal growth,
development and autonomy, but with the means,techniques or skills that
contribute to the efficient operation of government in the world market.
It is, therefore,not strange to note that assessment has increasingly become
a burden for many a teacher and learner - it has become some thing that
is done to them for the sake of external non-educational needs and not a
process done with them in the interest of professional and personal growth
and development. In such a context, where assessment serves as a measure
of productivity, it becomes difficult to refocus on using assessment to
support learners to develop their full potential as they are exposed to the
aims and goals of the curriculum.
Balancing assessment ef, assessmen t for and assessment as le arning well,
is a key aspect of an integrative approach to enhancing assessment, i.e.
one which brings the many and various strands of assessment togethe r
in a co herent way, that addresses the desired goals and takes account
of opportunities and constraints in the setting concerned. Each of the
mentioned assessment purposes has their place and time, but the important
aspect is to get the balance right. In most South African schools today,the
purpose of assessment is mainly to contribute to the summative ' mark' in
the end. Assessment as learning in which the development of metacognitive
knowledge and skills becomes part of instilling a way of life to deal with
future learning challenges wi thout always the help of others, has not really
become a strong thrust in our education system.
In an attempt to rebalance the purposes of assessment so that the focus
is on maximum growth and development of learners and professio nal
efficiency of teache rs, Earl (2003:26) suggests an increased emphasis on
assessment for and as learning. Summative assessment or assessment of
learning still has a role to play when teachers want to see the cumulative
effect of their work in the teaching process, but that role becomes relatively
smaller. Now the emphasis shifts more to classroom assessment aimed
at enhancing the learners' learning through actions of the teacher (for
learning) and that of the learner (as learning).This suggested process is
illustrated in Figure 7.4 on the following page.

CHAP 152
TER
7:Curr
 Assessment
AS learning
Assessment
OF learning
Assessment Assessment
FOR lea rning
FOR learning
Assessment
AS learning
Assessment
OF learning

Traditional assessment:
.....
Preferred shift in assessment:
focus on assessm ent OF learning focus on assessment FOR and AS learning

FIGURE 7.4 Shi fting emphasis in classroom assessment

Conclusion
While there is widespread political enthusiasm for assessment- based
reforms in South Africa, many of the current uses of large-scale an nu al
national and systemic assessmen ts are based on unverified assumptions
about the extent to which they will actually lead to improved teaching
and learning. Likewise, the different purposes of assessment - formative
and summative - are only alluded to in the new CAPS documents. There
is no deep engagement with how these assessment practices can become
functionally part of productive pedagogies that may potentially realise
the curriculum aims and objectives in different subjects. Furthermore,
the longer-term purpose of assessment as learn ing has, up until now, not
become part of the teaching and learning discourse in South Africa. In the
process, more emphasis is placed on the 'measurabl e' num ber of assessment
activities that must be done, rather than what constitutes quality assessment
that will produce reliable evidence from which valid inferences can be
drawn to improve teaching and learning.
The dominance of summative assessmen t in our scho olin g system
does not only rnininuse the learning opportunities for learners, but it
also undermines the professional status of teachers. One can therefore
understand Peter 'L·mbm an's (2009:17- 18) caution:'Certainly testing has
come to define our approach to education, and test results have come to

153 CURR
ICULU
M
 define educational reality.It is hard to remember a tim e w hen tests weren't
the obvious way to measure our professional success.Was there a time when
curriculum was not " planned backwards" from tests, wh en tests did not
direct the curriculum as they " operatio nalized" performance objectivesand
learning outcomes?It is difficult to believe the extent to which we have
already entered the "soundbite" approach of the test-driven curric ulmn'.
But is there a way forward amidst the perceived stalema te sit uatio n?
Yes, for the sake of our learners who rightfully expect to be supported
effectively towards attaining their full potential and being prepared to
function in the 21st century, we will have to stand up against this hegemo ny.
However, amidst the realisation that nee-liberal policies will not cease to be
developed, we will have to take a stance for the rights of learners to learn
and teachers to teach.What is needed is an understanding that assessment is
integral to teaching and learni ng - it is a process that finds different ways at
different stages to operatio nalise instead of narrowing the curr iculum. Each
purpose,as discussed in this chapter, plays a crucial role in achieving that.
There is not one better than the other. Instead, to ensure assessment that is
fair, reliable and valid, each purpose is dependent on and informs the other.
Where the central role of formative assessment is seen as ' th e engagement of
learners in learning dialogues with one another and their teachers' (Black,
2013:176), it offers a fair space in which summ ative assessment can occur
to determine how well a learn er has progressed in a particular grade in the
school year.The ideal is to intertwine the purposes of assessment so that
they are mutually supportive rather than conflicting. Collectively, these two
purposes of assessment, together with a growing emphasison self-assessment
and self-regulation, will become part of functional and responsible
citizenship.
Assessment is unquestionably one of the most important teaching and
learning processesin formal education. It should, therefore, be placed
m uch higher on the schooling agenda and be prioritised as one of the key
pedagogical strategies to enhance teaching and learning. In the words of
Moss (2013:235):'What teachers assess - and how and why they assess -
sends a clear message to Ue arners] about what is worth learni ng, how it
should be lear nt, and how well they are expected to learn it'.

REFERENCES

Ahlquist, R., Gorski, P. & Montaiio,T (Eds).2011. Assault on kids: how hyper-accoun tability,
corporatization, de.fiat ideologies, and R uby Payne are destroying our schools. NewYork: Peter Lang.
Airasian, P. 1988. Measurement driven instruction: A closer look. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice,Winter, 6-11.

CHAP 154
TER
7:Curr
Assessment Reform Group. 2002. Ten Principles ef Assessment for Learning. Cambridg e:
University of Cambridge.

Black, P. 2013. Formative and Summative Aspectsef Assessment:Theoretical and Research Foundations
in the Context of Pedagogy. ln:J.H. McMillan (ed.) Sage handbook of research on classroom
assessment. pp. 55-70. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Boud,A. 2007. Reframing assessment as iflearning were important. ln:A.Boud & N.

Falchikov (eds). Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the longer term. London:
R outledge.

Boud, A. & Falchikov, N. 2007. RethinkingAssessment in Higher Education: Learningfor the longer
term. London: Routledge.
Brookhart, S.M. 2011. Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational
Meas,mment: Issuesattd Practice, 30(1):3-12.
Brown,A. 2004-05.Assessment for Learning. Leaming and Teaching in Higher Education, Issue 1.

Brundrett, M. & Rhodes, C. 2011. Leadership for quality and accountability in education. London:
R outledge.

Butler, S.M. & McMunn, N.D. 2006. A Teacher's Guide to Classroom Assessment: Understanding and
Using Assessment to Improve Student Learning.San Franc isco:Jossey-Bass.
Butt, G. 2010. Making assessment matter. London: Continuum.

Chisholm L., Hoadley,U., wa Kwulu, M., Brookes, H., Prinsloo, C., Kgobe,A., Mosia, D.,
Narsee, H. & R ule, S. 2005. Educator Workload in South Africa. Pretoria: HSR C Press.

Danielson, C. 2008.Assessment for Learning - For Teachers as well as Sn1dents. In: C.A. Dwyer
(ed.). The Future efAssessment: Shapi11g Teaching and Learning. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Dep artment of Education 2005. The National Protocol 011 Assessment for Schools in the General a11d
Further Education and Training Band (G rades R - 12). Pretoria: Department of Education.
Earl, L.M. 2003. Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learni11g.
T ho usand O aks : Convin Press.

Gilmour, D., Soudien, C.& Donald, D. 2001. Post-apartl,eidpolicy and practice: Ed1"'1tional reform
in South Africa. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.
Greenstein, L. 2012. Assessing 2 1" Century Skills:A guide to evaluating mastery and authentic
learning.Twin Oaks: Convin.
Hamilton, L.S. 2010-2011.Testing what has been taught: Helpful, high quality assessmenrs start
\vith a strong curriculum. American Ed11cator,Winter 2010-2011.

Hargreaves,A., Earl, L., Moore, S. & Manning, S. 2001. Learning to change:Teaching beyond subjects
and standards. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Harlen, W 2003. Enha11ci11g Inquiry through FormativeAssessment. San Francisco: Exploratorium.

Harlen,W 2008.Trusting teachers' judgment. In:S.Swaffield (ed.) Unlocking Assessment:

understandingfor ri;flection and application.Abingdon:Routledge.

155 CURR
ICULU
M
 Jacobs, H.H. (ed.). 2010. Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changingworld.Alexandria VA:
ASCD.

Linn, R. L. 2000.Assessments and Accountability. Educational R esearh

c er, 29(2):1-16.

Marshall,J.D. 2004. Performativity:Lyotard and Foucault thro ugh Searle and Austin. Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 18 (5):309 - 317.

M c M illan,J.H . & Nash, S. 2000. Teacher classroom assessment and grading practices decisionmaking
(Report). ERIC Docum en t reproduc tion Service NO. ED447195.

Moss, C.M. 2013. R esearch on classroom summative assessment. In:J. H . McM illan (ed.), Sage
handbook of research on classroom assessment. pp. 55 - 70. Los Angeles:SAGE.
M uller, ].2004. Assessmen t, qualifications and the National Qualifications Framework in South
African schooling. In: L Chisholm (ed.). Changing Class: Education and Social C hange itt Post-
Apartheid South Africa. Preto ria & London: HSR C Press & Zed Books.
Null,W 2011. Currimlum: From Theory to Practice. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Ndimande, B.S. 2009.'It Is a Catch 22 Situation':The Challenge of R ace in Post-Apartheid

South African D esegregated Schools. lnternatio1u,I Critical Childhood Policy Studies,2(1) :123- 139 .

R eddy, C. 2004.Assessment Pr inciples and Approaches. In:J. G. Maree &WJ. Fraser (eds).
Outcomes-based Assessment. Pr eto ria: H e in ema nn.
R oach, A.T., Niebling, B. C. & Kurz, A. 2008. Evaluating the alignm en t among curriculum,
instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications of research and practice. Psychology
in the Schools.

Schneider, M.C., Egan, K.L. & Julian, M.W 2013. Classroom Assessment in the context of High-
StakesTesting. ln:J.H. McMillan (ed.), Sage handbook of research on classroom assessmer1t. pp. 55-
70. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Smith, M.L. & Rottenberg, C. 1991. Unintended consequences of extern al testing in

elementary schools. Educational Measurement:issues and practice. 10( 4):7-11.

Stobart, G. and Gipps, C. 1997. Assessment:A teacher's guide to the issues. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.

Weeden, P., W in ter , ]. & B roadfoot , P. 2002. Assessment:Wl,at's in it for Sc/100/s? London:
Routledge Falmer.

Yates, L. and G ru met, M. (eds). 2001. World Yearbook of Education 2011: Curriat/11111 in Today's
World: Configuring K11owledge,Identities,Work and Politics. London : R o utledge Ta ylor & Francis
Group.

CHAP 156
TER
7:Curr
 CHAPTER 8

Curriculum leadership in
South African schools
Clarence Williams

Introduction
There is growing concern regarding the poor performanc e of South
African learners in in ternational and national tests. Millar (2013:9) refers
to the Annual N ational Assessment (AN A) tests as 'incisive indicators of
the crisis ofl earning and teaching' in South African schools. Similarly, the
Senior Certificate results are a perennial cause for concern.T his concern
is one of the facto rs that has resulted in a shift of attention to curr iculu m
leadership as a means of addressing some of the challenges prevalent in the
South African education system.
T here are many terms used to refer to the type of leadership that has an
impact on teaching and learning.T hese include learner- centred leadership;
learnin g- ce ntr ed leadership; pedagogical leadership, and academic
leadership. Instr uctional leadership and curriculum leadership are the
most commonly used terms and are often used in terchangeably.In this
chapter instructional leadership is regarded to have a limited scope insofar
as it focuses on the imp rovement of the teaching and learning within the
classroom context.The scope of curriculum leadership, conversely,exte nds
beyond the narrow confines of the classroom to ' the sociocultural and
political aspects of educational con ten t decision s: what is taught, to whom ,
and by whom ' (Ylimaki, 2012:305). By definition, the role of curriculum
leadership is expanded to include the notions of social justice and equity,
and not merely effective teaching and learning within the classroom
context. In this chapter th e co nce pt of 'instructional leadership' is thus
subsumed in the broader concept of 'curr iculum leadership'.
In general literature (e.g. Cardno, 2006:453; Hoadley, Christie &Ward,
2009:376), a clear distinction is drawn between direct and indirect
curriculum leadership.The former is generally referred to when direct

157 CUR
RICU
LUM
 and primary focus is exerted on teaching and learning, while the latter
is referred to when the focus is on ' big picture' issues like financial
management and learner discipline, which impact on teaching and learning.
T here is a contention that school principals' contribution to cu rr icul um
leadership tends to be indirect by ' creating the conditions of possibility
for teaching and learning, or the establishment of a form of organisational
containn1ent that enables teaching and learning and that sets a climate of
expectation' (Hoadley, Christie &Ward, 2009:376). Cardno (2006:453)
affir ms that it is the role of the school prin cipal ' to ensure that the structures
and processes create opportunities for leadership that enable the essential
work of the school to be accomplished'.Although school principals are
not directly involved in curr iculum leadership, they pay a crucial role in
ensuring the smooth functioning of the direct curriculum leadership and
ultimately the effectiveness of teaching and learning.
In the rest of this chapter an expositio n is provided of the theoretical
framework which forms the lens through which curr iculum leadership in
South Africa in the pre- and post-1994 periods is assessed.The expos ition
of curriculum leadership in the pre-1994 period corroborates the view
expressed by Simmonds elsewhere in this book that Christian National
Education, which prevailed in the pre-1994 era, was geared specifically
towards the establishment and maintenance of white domination over
the black majority. Curriculum leadership was an important mechanism
for ensuring this domination.The exposition of curricul um leadership in
the post-1994 period indicates that many of the vestiges of co nservative
Christian National Education persist and that these - together with the
dictates of nee-liberal policies of the post- Apartheid Governn1ent - form
major constraints to the actualisation of curriculum leadership that is truly
democratic and distributed. In the concluding section of this chapter a
possible way forward is indicated, taking due cognisance of the constraints
which exist in the prevailing circumstances.

Theoretical framework
T his theoretical framework is a sun1marised version of the framework that
is contained in Williams (2011) and is augmented by additional literary
references.
Traditionally an individualistic view ofleadership has dominated leadership
practices.T hisis manifested in what Elliott, Brooker, Macpherson and
Mclnn1an (1999:172) refer to as' ... traditional role- based leadership,
underpinned by notions of positional authority and exercised through "top-

CHAP 158
TER
8:Curr
down" governance'.Within this paradigm curriculum leadership is regarded
to reside primarily with school principals. More recently there has been a
shift to alternative leadership theories which place the focus on multiple
sources of leadership (Harris, 2005:xi). For Harris (2005:xi), this shift
represents a shift from the 'traditional transactional versus transformational'
dichotomy to a 'more sophisticated amalgam of theoretical lenses'. One of
these theoretical lenses is distributed leadership which claims that leadership
is not the exclusive domain of one individual, but resides in many people.
Whereas transactional and transformational leadership place emphasis on
the agency of the individual, distributed leadership gives prominence to
'the social dynamics that emerges from the combined agency of people
talking and sharing initiatives and responding to and building on these
proactively and creatively' (Woods, 2005:23). In this paradigm, multiple-
sourced leadership is regarded as behavio ur which facilitates 'collective
action towards a common goal' (Harris,2005:xii). Research done by Fullan
(2001) and Hopkins (2001) indicates that distributed leadership is the form
ofleadership most closely associated with improved learning outcomes.
This is affirmed by Harris (2003a:1) who states that there is a growing
recognition of the positive correlation between decisive and sustained
school improvement and distributed leadership.
Distributed leadership has a dual nature. On the one hand, it is characterised
by 'a strong framework of values, purposes and structures' (Woods, 2005:87).
There is a need for this framework that provides a sense of position and place
in an organisation, values and beliefs to relate to, and a common purpose.
According to Woods (2005:88), there is a need for 'the structural pathways
and signs that are the product of the cumulative organisational footprints of
past actions'.Wood s (2005:92) refers to this as firm framing which provides
structural support for democratic leadership.According to Taylor (2008:8),
the firm framing forms the regulative dimension ofleadership. This regulative
framework should not serve the purpose of bureaucratic compliance, but
should 'socialise learners and provide conditions conducive to learning'. On
the other hand, distributed leadership is characterised by flexibility making
allowance for changing circumstances and emerging contingencies.Woods
(2005:88) refers to this as free space which he defines as 'loose-structured
creative social areas w here hierarchy and assumptions of knowledge, norms
and practice are minimised'.Within this free space, creative interaction and
deliberative exchange are encouraged. Furthermore, within this free space
a rearrangement of power and a shift of authority within the organisation
occur (Harris, 2003b:75), and the power base and authority are diffused
within the teaching community (Harris, 2003b:77). For Woods (2005:92),

159 CUR
RICU
LUM
 the free spaces provide educators with the opportunity to shed the
impediments that prevent them from becoming self-actualising professionals,
and they provide arenas for the often marginalised teachers to impact on
curriculum matters. In this regard Ray, Clegg and Gordon (2004:324) aver
that the free spaces provide the teachers with an opportunity to challenge the
notion that those higher up on the hierarchical ladder are the only acceptable
'carriers of meaning' and 'producers of truth'.This emphasises the fact that
distributed leadership and hierarchical forms ofl eadership are not necessar ily
.incompatible.Distributed leadership is not meant to displace the crucial role
of the school principal, deputy principals and heads of department. In fact,
for distributed leadership to come to full fruition, the structural framework
provided by hierarchical forms ofleadership is a prerequisite (Fullan,
2003:22). More specifically, the hierarchical leaders have to affirm the rights
and agency of all role players to participate in decision-making; they should
provide a democratic milieu which is com mitted to the aspiration of truth
which is embedded in the ideas and ideals of the school; and they should
provide opportunities for deliberative democracy and reinforcement of the
importance of discursive rationality (Woods, 2005:93-103).
Using distributed leadership thus has epistemological implications for teachers:
instead of being passive recipients and implementers of revealed knowledge as
contained in official policies, they can become generators of new knowledge.
In order for this to actualise,Woods (2005:xxii) suggests the following
conditions: on- going dialectical relations between a rationalist epistemology
which accepts that certain truths are known and provide fixed parameters of
knowledge, and a critical epistemology which accepts nothing as axiomatic,
but subjects all knowledge to critique; the sharing of experience and
expertise amongst a network oflearners; and the creative application of newly
generated knowledge in practical situations. By allowing teachers to work as a
collective it provides them with a legitiinate source of authority. It challenges
existing assumptions about the nature of leadership, the context within which
it occurs, and the relationship between power, authority and influence.

Curriculum leadership in South African schools

pre-1994
In the pre-1994 era curriculwn leadership was used to legitiinate and
reproduce the dominant culture of Afrikaner nationalists by means of
Christian National Education.This found manifestation in a number of ways.
Up to 1994 the education syste1n in South Africa was characterised by
hierarchical and authoritarian relations. Decisions were made in the

CHAP 160
TER
8:Curr
highest echelons of the educatio n system. The climate in which educators
were compelled to operate was largely dog111atic and authoritarian.The
main purpose of this particular management style was to restrict wider
participation and to ensure political control by the top echelons of the
education departments (ANC Education Department, 1995:2).The problem
with this hierarchical and authoritarian approach is that it did not take into
consideration the contexts in which teachjng and learning were meant to
function. In the process, imtiative on the part of curriculum leaders was
stifled and uniformity promoted (Davids, 1990:16).The autho ritarian, rigid
bureaucracy and rule-bound hierarchy of the various education departments
were often replicated in inruvidual schools (Atkinson, Wyatt & Senkhane,
1993:4). Most of the power was vested in the school principals,and to a
lesser extent, the heads of department who monopolised the decision-
making function at school level where the curriculum leadersshowed little
appreciation for collaboration and team spirit.
The actualisation of successfitl teaching and learning was obscured by the quest
to ensure that schooling functioned according to strict rules and regulations,
and the unquestioning adherence to the instructions of departmental officials.
Curriculum leadership was visualised as a staff control and maintenance
function. School inspectors and subject advisors played a major role to ensure
the actualisation of Christian National Education (Williams, 1995:95- 96).T his
resulted in many schools in theWestern Cape regarding these state officials as
prescriptive and imposing state policy, intimidating and fault-finding, interested
in results only, and engaged in witch-hunts (Williams, 1995:95-96).This pfaced
school principals in an inviruous position.What was required of them was
adherence to the rules and regulations of the education department which
in most bfack schools were regarded as illegitimate by most staff members
and teacher organisations.The school principals in turn expected the same
subservience from the educators on the lower rungs of the school hierarchy.
Another feature of curriculum leadership in the pre-1994 period
was the gener al aversion that teachers experienced towards teacher
evaluation.Vario us factors were responsible for this state of affairs.
There was a perception that teacher evaluation rud not help to improve
the competencies of the teachers, but was used to identify faults and
sho rtcomin gs (Erasmus, 1987:30).Teacher evaluation was thus used as
a form of control (Aucamp, 1988:38).This, inevitably, led to feelings of
anxiety, intimidation, antago nistic relationships and a lack of trust.
The pre-service training of the teachers did not prepare them for
curriculum leadership. At most schools no provision was made for the

161 CUR
RICU
LUM
 staff developme nt of potential curriculum leaders.Teacher appointments
to leadership positions were based on consideratio ns like personality traits,
teaching experience and efficiency in the classroom.T here was seldom
induction or leadership and management training offered. Informal help
and 'trial and error' were thus seen to be the most important means of
developing the leadership and managerial skills of educational leaders
(Rampass,1987:169).The result was that many educational leaders became
self- made men and women or tried to emulate other educational leaders.
The neglect of the in-service training of educational leaders inevitably had
an adverse effect on the quality of curriculum leadership. Consequently
curricul um leaders tended to neglect what was suppose d to be their main
function, i.e. the facilitation of teaching and learning. Instead, undue
emphasis was placed on the division of work for each term, the estimated
rate of completion, the number of assignments and tests to be set for the
term, the length and form of the examination papers, and the procedure
of marking.Webb and Vulliamy (1996:301) regard this obsession with
administrative and routine-clerical work as well as budgetary concerns as
an attempt to 'validate flight from the curriculum '.
The role of the curriculum leaders during the pre-1994 period was to
facilitate the transmission of knowledge which consisted of a common
core of subject matter, intellectual skills and traditional values which
were intend ed to entrench Afrikaner hegemony.T he success of a school
was generally determined by its examination results which, in turn, were
dependent on the success with which pupils regurgitated the knowledge
which had been transmitted to them.This, in turn, resulted in the focus
on rote-learning, and not the development of critical thinking, reasoning,
reflection and understanding . Curriculum leaders were required to
maintain order and control which were regarded as prerequisites for the
transmission function.This encouraged relations which were characterised
by extreme forms of oppression (Levin, Moll & Narsing, 1988:142), and
the development of a teacher- centred and autocratic learning process
(ANC Education Department, 1994:68).
In South Africa not much research had been done on gender issues in
education, and even less on women in educational leadership. However,
enough evidence exists to indicate that although women formed
approximately two-thirds of the total teaching force, they were grossly
under- represen ted in ed ucational leadership positions (Greyvenstein &Van
derWesthuizen, 1992:271).To the ANC Education Department (1994:21)
this indicated the gross gender bias which existed in the teaching and
administrative hierarchy. Research done in South Africa (by Atkinson,

CHAP 162
TER
8:Curr
Wyatt & Senkhane, 1993:226- 227) indicated that male teachers resented
supervision by women and sabotaged their efforts, while female colleagues
and pupils often struggled to accept women in positions of authority
for varying reasons.T hey (Atkinson, Wyatt & Senkhane, 1993:228-229),
however, regarded the barrier of women's self-im age as psychologically the
most destructive.The lack of confidence in their own ability,the fear of
being perceived as assertive, the fear of failure and the absence of sufficien t
role mo dels all formed part of this barrier.
During the pre-1994 period, curriculum leadership was dominat ed by
traditional, individualistic leadership practices.The n1ain purpose of these
curriculum leadership practices was not to enhance teaching and learning
but to further the interests of Afrikaner nationalists through what was then
known as Christian National Education.

Curriculum leadership in South African schools

post-1994
One of the most important education policies to have been formulated
since 1994 has been the South African Schools Act of 1996, which
attempted to transform the governance and management of South
African public schools completely by in troducing site- based management.
However, in practice, site- based manag ement did not translate into
distributed leadership practices.The main factors responsible for thjs
failure to actualise distributed leadership are the continuing presence of
conservatism in the South African education system, an d the conservative
macro-economic policy of the post-apartheid South African government.
There is an unrealistic expectation that school principals should fulfil
both direct and indirect leadership roles. For example, school principals
are required to do classroom visitations regularly in order to provide
professional development support to educators and to assure quality of
the teaching and learning process (DHET, 2007:47).This is an unrealistic
expectation, as the school principals at historically disadvantaged schools
do not have sufficient human resources to make this possible, and school
principals generally lack the expertise to assess all the learning areas
and subjects.T he result is that this important task is sorely neglected in
South African schools. In a study done by Hoadley an d Ward (2009:30)
it was found that South African school principals generally spend only
16.2% of their time on overseeing teaching and the curriculum, and
2.8% on supervising teachers.T his means that they spend 19% of their
time on activities that are related to direct curriculum leadership, while

163 CUR
RICU
LUM
 they spend 24.6% of their time to discipline learners.This illustrates that
school principalsin South Africa are generally more involved in indirect
curric ulum leadership than in direct curr ic ulum leaders hip.Webb and
Vulliamy (1996:312) provide some justification for this state of affairs.
According to them it is unrealistic to expect school principals to be involved
in direct curriculum leadership:'T he expanding and diverse nature of
heads' work, together with increasing pressures in them to be cost effective,
competitive and measurably efficien t managers of their schools, mean that
it may have to be accepted that head teachers are likely to become chief
executives, rather than trying to run their organisations as operatives on the
shop- floor' (cf. Chapter 3). Consequently direct curriculum leadership will
continue to move down the list of priorities of school principals. However,
it is disquieting that school principals spend an inordinate amount of their
time (28.9%) on administrative and departn1ental reporting that have no
direct bearing on the improvementof the core business of schools, i.e.
teaching and learning.T hisindicates that the staff control and maintenance
function that prevailed in the pre-1994 era still persists.
W hile official departm ental documents propagate the implementation
of distributed leadership, in practice the notion of the school principal as
transfor mative leader remains entrenched .The shift from the individualist
has thus not taken place yet.The following example illustrates this point.
One of the most important departmental initiatives to actualise curricu l um
leadership has been the introduction of the Advanced Certificate of
Education: School Leadership, which is eventually meant to serve as
an entrance requirement for the position of school princip alship.Bush,
Kiggundu and Moorosi (2011:39) regard the introduction of the national
Advanced Certificate of Education: School Leadership as 'a bold and
imaginative decision, recognising the pivotal role of principals in leading
and managing schools'.The composition of the programn1e reveals that
great prominence has been given to curr iculum leadership. One of the
core modules (Manage Teaching and Learning) and three of the electives
(Lead and Manage a Subject , Learning Area or Phase; Plan and Conduct
Assessment; Moderate Assessment) focus on curriculum leadership.
Curriculum leadership also forms an integral part of other modules
(Leading and Managing Effective Use of ICTs in South African Schools;
Manage Policy,Planning, School Development and Governance; Lead and
Manage People; Manage Organisational Systems, Physical and Financial
R esources).An analysis of the specific outcomes and assessment criter ia of
these modules indicates that great prominence is given to transforma tio nal
leadership as a means of actualising effective teaching and learning.

CHAP 164
TER
8:Cur
In spite of the various pobcies aimed at democrati sing the decision-
making process, the authoritariani sm that prevailed before 1994 still
pervades the education system at macro and micro level.T he national
Department of Education (2003) refers to this as' ... the entrench ed
bureaucratic and hierarchical management practices' which had been
in herited from the pre-1994 era. Similarly, M atho nsi (2001) refers to 'a
see min gly in herit ed et hos of the old bureaucracy'. School principals are
only exhibiting a 'rheto rical commitment' to democratic deliberatio ns
(Grant, 2006:513). Grant (2006:525-6) attributes this to the fear of the
loss of power, scho ol cultures with deeply ingrained attit udes, values
and skills as well as ethni c and gender biases. Grant (2006) furthermore
ascribes it to a tendency whi ch emphasisesprincipal accountability.The
authoritarian ethos that prevails at many South African schools thwarts the
establishment of free space in which creative interaction and deliberative
exchange are enco uraged. According to Mathonsi (2001), schoo l leaders
are required to serve primarily an administrative role, without being
afforded the opportunity to apply their creativity and knowledge in the
decision-making process.
The tradition of non- participa tio n in the decision- making processat
school level on the part of the teachers persists in the post-1 994 period.
In recent years South African education has experienced the emergence
of a new dependence on academics and education consultants (Nxesi,
2001).Teacher s, for example, have been excluded from the curriculum
review process of2001 and from the development of the whole school
development policy.
In spite of a concerted effort to increase the appointment of women
in leadership positions since 1994 , the underrepresentation of women
in leadership positio ns in schools persists.Acco rding to the national
Department of Ed ucation (2005:43) the gender ratio has not changed
significantly from 1998 to 2005 in spite of the Employment Equity Act
No 55 of1998.This means that the old adage of'women teach and men
manage' still applies in South African schools.
It is imperative that school conditions are conducive to the implementation
of distributed leadership.T he lack of appropriate leadership development
opportunities for school prin cipals and teachers is a major debilitating
factor. According to Mosibudi Mangena (2002), the erstw hile Deputy
Minister of Education in South Africa, the successfulimplementation of
South Africa's progressive and globally competitive education policies is
dependent on 'adequately trained, motivated and dedicated personnel'.

165 CUR
RICU
LUM
 To Nxesi (2001:7) the fact that no nation al plan exists for teacher
development is due to the reluctance and failure to invest in 'human capital
in a skilled labour market such as education' . In respon se to th e pressure
of globalisation and the ideological shift toward nee-liberalism, the South
African Government has adopted a conservative mac ro- eco no mic policy.
The result is what Nzimande, as quoted by Nxesi (2001), refers to as a
maintenance budget in which no funds are allocated for transformatio n
and resources. Conseq uently the staff development progranun es which
are provided at provincial level are sporadic and often take the form of
crash courses to acquaint educators with some of the new policies they
are expected to implement.Workshops for leadership development are
generally geared towards school principals, based on a mistaken assumption
that those principals who atten d th e work shops would impart their newly
acquired knowledge and expertise co th e rest of the staff members.
T he contexts within which the majority of South African schools function
are generally not favourable for distributed lead ership.The attempts to
transform the South African education system since 1994 have resulted in
what has often been referred to as policy overload. Consequently educators
have generally become stressed and depleted, and increasingly lacking in
enthusiasm and discouraged (Williams, 2001:92).T he Natio nal Union of
Educators (2002:9) describes teachers as being ' pressurised, stressed, angry
and bewildered' . Furthermore, many historically disadvantaged schools are
generally regarded as being dysfunctional as confir med by,amo ngst o thers,
the erstwhile Minister of Education, Naledi Pande r (2004). Pressure is
placed on such schools to improve the ANA and Senior Certificate results,
often by authoritarian means.
To sum up: official education policy in South Africa in the post-1994 era
represents a shift from what H arris (2005:xi) refers to as th e ' transactional
versus transformational' dichotomy towards a commitment to a new
paradigm wh erein distributed leadership is given prominence. However,
in practice, the power base and authority have not yet become diffused
within the teaching community. Many constraints within the education
secto r have prevented this from being actualised. In the next section of this
chapter a possible way forward is suggested.

A possible way forward: Enabling curriculum

leadership through action research
As discussed earlier , the expectation of departmental officials was that the
in trod uction of site-based school management would result in improved

CHAP 166
TER
8:Cur
learner attainmen t/ s in Senior Certificate examinations andANA tests.
According to research done in Queensland,Australia school-based
management does not necessarliy result in improved learning outcomes of
the learners (Christie, 2005:4-5).This is confirmed byVan der Mescht and
Tyala (2008:223) who claim that little evidence exists to prove that school-
based management has any significant effect on teaching and learning, and
curr iculum practices in general. For school-based management to become
effective, ce rtain structural and cultural conditio ns have to prevail.The
structural conditions are 'the logistical arrangements and decisions that
need to be made to accommo date team work in a school' and the cultural
conditions refer to 'the cultur e and climate of a school, the less visible
norms and values that inform practice, and the resultant ethos that prevails'
(Van der Mescht &Tyala, 2008:224).
The structural support includes clear procedures, firm guidelines and
clear accountability lines (Van der Mescht & Tyala, 2008:224). 'T raditional
role- based leadership, underpinned by notions of positional authority and
exercised through 'top-down' governance' (Elliott, Brooker,Macpherson &
Mclnman, 1999:172) - which has become discredited in recent literature
- is required to establish these structural conditions. In most South
African schools, school management teams (SMTs) and other suppor t
structures are in place (Van der Mescht &Tyala, 2008 :236). However,
team management has not yet become entrenched even in many scho ols
whe re SMTs are operational (Van der Mescht &Tyala, 2008:237).What is
required for the establishment of what Elliott, Brooker, Macpherson and
Mcl nman (1999:174-175) refer to as transformative curriculum leadership
is the following interconnected and recursive processes: the enactment
of relevant constru ctivist and emancipatory activities, cr itical reflection,
and the development of creative supportive learning communities that
will be conducive to the development of emancipatory personal beliefs
and organisational structures.What is required for the actualisation of the
culture and climate required for transformative curriculum leadership can
be provided by what is commonly referred to as actio n research.
For the purpose of this chapte r the definition of action research that was
develo ped at a National Conference on Action Research held in Australia
in 1981 will be used (Grundy and Kemmis, 1982:84).According to this
definition action research is a number of interrelated activities that go
through the stages of planning, action, observation and reflection in order
to affect change in any aspect of schooling that is in need of change.
All role players in the area that is regarded as problematic are integrally
involved during the change process.

167 CUR
RICU
LUM
 An exposition of some of the most essential features of action research
follows.
Action research is dialectical in nature. In traditional research a gap exists
between the theory which results from the research of one or other external
agent (e.g. a lecturer or student at university or the educatio n planner at the
head office of a department of education) and the practice of the curriculum
leader.T his has led to distinctions which are referred to as the gap between
research and action, theory and practice, knower and known, and subject and
object. Basic to this problem is the idea that external agents are best suited
to conduct research on behalf of curriculum leaders.This leads to a linear
(top-down) relationship between the theory (of the external researcher)
and the practice (of the curriculum leader).An essential feature of action
research is its em phasison a dialectical relationship in whic h theory and
practice exercise a mutu al influence on each other.The ultimate aim of such
research is to develop a praxis of curriculum leadership in which theory and
practice are inseparable. C ade na (1991:64) describes praxis as the dialectical
relationship that exists between theory and practice, i.e. a relationship in
which 'theory informs practice and practice informs theory'.
Acting Further cycles(if
CYCLE2 , required)

Observing Planning
,
Acting
CYCLE 1
Re flecting

Observing Planning

Reflecting

Identifying and defining a problem

FIGURE 8.1 Action research cycles

Collaborative participation is regarded as a key feature of action research

(Carr & Kemmis, 1986:200).Various benefits accrue from educators
participating in curriculum leadership (Williams, 1995:146 ). Participation
in curriculum leadership is a form of leadership development: the more
educators participate in curriculum leadership, the better they are able to
do so. Participation stimulates the development of democratic attitudes and
qualities. Participation is also developmental insofar as it crea tes a co ntex t

CHAP 168
TER
8:Cur
in which self-identity, individualism , self-respect, self-assertiveness and
human dignity can be developed and maintained. In the process, the value
and worth, as well as the rights of the educators as curriculum leaders,
are recognised. When educators participate in cur ricul um development
processes, greater commitment, motivation and responsibility are ensured.
Participation facilitates the development and acceptance of innovative
curriculum theories and practices. In other words, participatio n enhances
the successful implementation of curriculum changes.
However, it is important that educators not only participate in curriculum
leadership, but that they do so collaboratively.W illiams (1995:148) suggests a
number of reasons for the use of collaborative participation. Only those that
are germane to this chapter are discussed here. Collaborative participation
provides all curriculum leaders with an opportunity to contribute different
expertise and unique perspectives towards the actualisation of the teaching
and learning aims of the school. It has an integrative effect insofar as it
promotes a shared curriculum vision and mission, and the acceptance of
collective decisions regarding cu rriculum implementation.As curriculum
leadersare required to be involved in the decision-making processregarding
the curriculum, it encourages decision- making by discussion rather than
by fiat.As curriculum leaders are expected to participate on an equal
footing, it encourages tolerance and respect for diverse views. In the process
it maximises the num ber of views and proposals expressed. It also allows
curriculum leaders to participate in a peer support network as opposed to a
superior-subordinate relationship with their hierarchical leaders.
Collabo rative participation does not imply equality of responsibility and
contribution as participation will ultimately depend on the position,
expert ise and qualifications of the various curriculum leaders.What is
proposed is equality insofar as all curriculum leaders will have an eq ual
opportunity to expressideas and to influence the decisio n- making
process.
Action research also has the potential to be emancipatory by contributing
to the identification, reduction and elimination of irrational and oppressive
structur es and situations in the scho ol - be they economic, social, political
or organisational.T he development of critical consciousness is regarded
as necessary for the transformation of a situation. A critical consciousness
is not possible if the educator is the victim of ' irrational or unjust habits,
customs, coercion, or bureaucratic systemization' (Kemmis, 1993:40). For
this purpose, action researchers must undertake to liberate the curriculum
leaders' creative potential and to foster skills and abilities.Thereby it

169 CUR
RICU
LUM
 will enable curriculum leaders to engage in the effort for more rational,
just, democratic and fulfilling forms of curr iculmn practice (Carr &
Kemmis, 1986:265). In the process, action research can contribute towards
the counteraction of systematic deskilling and disempowerment - as
mentioned earlier.This will take time, but action research has the potential
to start the emancipatory process.
Action research also empowers curriculum leaders to become self-directed
professionals as opposed to obedient functionaries of the state or school.
According to Cowan (1990:115), action research is empowering insofar as
it enab les curriculum leaders to reflect collaboratively on the experience
of their practice in an attempt 'to recognise, change and transcend the
structures which shape their practice'. In a similar vein Grundy and
Kemmis (1982:85) argue that critical action research has the potential to
create self-reflective and self-critical co mmuniti es of professionals who can
develop their own professional skills and resources. In this manner, it allows
cur riculum leaders to be agents of their own destiny.The collaboration of
curriculum leaders that are involved in action research is also a source of
empowerment. Another means of empowerment is the fact that critical
action research is knowledge-generating (Walker, 1991:167).This is in
direct contrast to the knowledge- applying model in which, according to
Ebbutt and Elliott (1984:124-125), curriculum leaders are only expected
to apply someone else's knowledge. A basic assumption of action research is
that curriculum leaders can generate their own knowledge on the basis of
their observations and reflections.
Closely related to the aforementioned feature is the cyclical (some times
also referred to as the recursive or iterative) nature of action research.The
mom en ts of planning, action , observation and reflection form the basis of
action research. Each of these will subsequently be dealt with.
The first step in the planning moment is the identification and clarification
of a situation or state of affairs which has to be changed or improved.
According to Carr and Kemmis (1986:110), a problem occurs when the
curriculum practice is inadequate to serve the purpose it is intended to serve.
T he second step in the planning moment is generally referred to as the
reconnaissance step. Elliott (1991:73) divides this step into two activities:
describing the facts of the situation; and explaining the facts of the
situation. It is necessary to gathe r data from various perspectives that will
contribute towards understanding the present practices as well as the
theories and curriculum values and beliefs that underpin these practices.

CHAP 170
TER
8:Cur
In step three of the planning moment, the general plan is formulated. Elliott
(1991:75) suggests that the general plan should contain the following, amongst
others: a statement of the factors that will be changed or modified to improve
the situation as well as the action required to bring about such a change or
modification; a statement of the negotiations that will be undertaken before
the proposed course of action is implemented; a statement of the resources
required to implement the proposed course of action; and a statement of the
ethical fran1ework which will govern access to and releaseof information.
During the last step of the planning moment, decisions are taken regarding
a time- table in which the proposed action is realistically structured as well as
the means that will be used to monitor the effects of the proposed action.
Action is the next mo ment in the action research cycle. During this
moment the actio n plan which was devised during the planning moment
is implemented. As far as possible, the action is guided by the general plan.
Cognisance sho uld, however, be taken of unforeseen social, political and
practical circumstances. T he implementatio n might also create unintended
side-effects which might make it necessary to do further reconnaissance so
that the cause of these side-effects can be determined.This, in turn, might
lead to modifications of the original general idea and the plan of action.
The educators should receive continuous feedback on their actio n. It is
thus not possible or advisable to separate the moment of implementation
from the moment of observation.
Observation is the third moment of the action research cycle.The purpose
of observing the action of an action research cycle is to collect data. Data
collection during action research is much more than merely mentally
collecting data which is a natural aspect of all curriculum practices. In
action research, the data collection is much more meticulous and focused
on a particular aspect of the curriculmn situation and it is recorded.There
are many techniques for monitoring the action of an action research cycle.
Each of these techniques has unique characteristics which satisfy particular
needs. Depending on the focus of the action research project and the data
required, the practitioners might decide on one particular technique or a
combination of data collection techniques. It is therefore important for the
curriculum leaders of the school to know the weaknesses and strengths
of each of these data collection techniques so that they can select the best
technique or combination of techniques for a particular situation.The data
gathered during the observation provide the basis for the next moment of
the action research cycle, namely reflection.T he data thus mediate between
the moments of action and reflection in the action research cycle.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Reflection involves making sense of the evidence gained by means of
the data-gathering procedures and from past experien ces. Reflection
entails analysis, synthes is, interpretation, explanation and concluding.The
reflection is an attempt to evaluate the action research process. Reflection
should be an interactive process that involves all participants. The different
perspectives should have a moderating effect on personal prejuclices and
attitudes.The reflection on the action should preferably not only take place
at the end of each action research cycle.T he reflection forms the basis
of replanning, further action, further observation and further reflection
through a succession of cycles - eac h time on a higher plane. Each
successive cycle builds on the strengths of the previous one in an attempt
to effect further improvement and understanding (Kemmis & McTaggart,
1984:13).T he four moments do, therefore, not form a complete, closed
cycle. Instead, the action research process moves through successive cycles
until the existing situation is improved or the problem solved. Some
problems might be satisfactorily dealt with after one action research cycle,
while others might require much more contin uous action research over an
extended period of time.The last part of the moment of reflection is the
comp ilation of a report of the main research findings.The purpose of the
report is to crystallise thoughts, to build coherence and to provide insights
for future action.
What is being proposed in this chapter as a possible way forward is in
contrast with the technicist approach of provincial education departments
that emphasise increased skills, greater efficie ncy and control, and better
test and examination results. Grundy and Kemmis (1982:85) reitera te this
point.To them, action research aims not at making the curriculum leader
more skilful, but at creating self- reflective and self-critical communities of
curriculum practitioners. One of the major advantages of action research is
that it takes cognisance of the context within which curriculum leadership
is exercised. Macpherson, Brooker,Aspland and Elliott (1998:76) regard
curriculum leadership as 'an artefact of the particular school context
within which it occurs and images of curriculum, organisational and
social factors, and the personal characteristics are important in shaping
curriculum leadership in that school context'.This means that curriculum
leadershipin each site is as unique as the context within which it occurs.
No preconceived recipe therefore exists that will address the unique
challenges faced in each context.What is required is an approach that is
contextually responsive. By involving the local role players in an attempt to
actualise successful teaching and learning, action research represents such an
approach.

CHA 172
PTE
R
Conclusion
For curr iculum. leadership to be transformed requires a two - p ronged
approach. On the one hand, the school principal and the rest of the
scho ol management team have to provide a sense of position and place
in the school, values and beliefs to relate to, and a co mmon purpose, and
to create the organisational structures to support the actualisatio n of the
scho ol's teaching and learning aims and objectives. On the other hand,
a concerted effort should be made to involve all ed ucators on the staff
in curriculum leadership by using action research .T his might mean that
the school management team will initially have to provide the rest of the
educators with considerable support and guidance. Experience in the
United Kingdom has revealed that it generally takes educators between five
and ten years to develop the style of discourse and the language required
for engaging critically with curri culum leadership (R aubenheimer,
1992/ 1993:67). In South Africa the prospects are even more daunting.
Externally impos ed curriculum changes have resulted in many curric ulum
leaders operating in a crisis management mode. Furth er more, the South
African education system is characterised by a strong conservative ethos;
financial resources to promote leadership development are lacking due
to the conservative macro-economic policy of the post-apartheid South
African government; and there are major inequalities between schools
serving advantaged and disadvantaged communities. Transformation is
seldom, if ever, affected by rational or by political arguments or by coercive
or dictatorial means. Action research holds the potential and promise
for lasting change and implementation of radically different curr iculum
leadership practices. Essentially it might help educators to wrest back
control of curriculum discourses which were appropriated by agencies far
removed from scho ols in the process of globalisation fuelled by nee-liberal
policies that have been foisted onto curriculum leaders.What is required
is a healthy idealism that accepts that educators can be emancipated and
empowered to become self-directed professionals as oppo sed to obedient
functionaries of the state.

REF ERE NC ES
African National Congress (AN C) Education Department. 1994. A policy framework for education
and training. Braamfontein: Macmillan.
Atkinson, R.R.,Wyatt,J.L. & Senkhane, Z.A. (eds.). 1993. The effective principal: School
management and leadership for a new South Africa, vol. 1. Fadliuitor's guide. CapeTown:Teacher
Opportunity Programmes.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Aucamp,J.P. 1988. Personeelontw ikkeling as taak van die skoolhoof van 'n sekondere skool
binne die Departement van Onderwys en O pleiding. Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation: Rand
Afrikaans University.

Bush,T., Kiggundu, E. & Moorosi, P. 2011. Preparing new pr in cipals in South Africa:T he ACE
School Leadership programme. SA Journal ef Education, 31: 31 - 43.

Cadena, E 1991.Transformation through knowledge - knowledge through transformation.

Convergence, 24(3):62-70.

Cardno, C. 2006, Leading change from within: Action research to strengthen curriculum
lea dership in a primary school. School Leadership and Management, 26(5):453-471.

Carr,W & Kemmis, S. 1986. Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Sussex:
Falmer Press.

Christie, P. 2005. Leading leam ing. C utting Edge Seminar 2. M elville: Matthew Goniwe School of
Leadership and Governance. 16 February. pp 2- 8.

Cowan, G.M. 1990.Action R esearch in the graphics classroom: Reflections of educational

change initiatives in two schools. Unpublished M.Phil. dissertation: University of the Western
Cape.

Davids, M.N. 1990. Changing classroom practice: Reflect ion s on two action research projects.
Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation: University of the Western Cape.

Department of Education 2003. Minister investigates scho ol governing bodies. A press

statem en t, 18 M arch. Available at ht tp:/ / education.pwv.gov.za/ Med ia/ statements%202003/
march2003/governing.hnnl.Accessed on 10 November 2006.

Departm ent of Education 2005. Teachers for tlze future: Meeting teacher slzortages to aclzieve educati on
for all. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). 2007. Occupational Specific Dispensation
(OSD). Educators. School-based. Office-based. Pretoria.
Ebbutt, D. & Elliott,]. 1984.Why should teachers do research. In W Flanagan, C. Breen & M .
Walker (eds). Action research - justified optimism or wisliful thinking. CapeTown: University of
Cape Town.

Elliott,]. 1991.Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Elliott , B., Brooker, R ., Macpherson , I. & Mclnman, A. 1999. Curriculum leadership as

mediated action. Teachers andTeaching:Theory and Practice, 5 (2) :171- 185.

Erasm us , M. 1987. Klasbesoeke as wyse van personeelontwikkeling. Unpublished M.Ed.

dissertation: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education.

Fullan, M. 2001. Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. 2003. T11e moral imperative of school leadership.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Grant , C. 2006. Emerging voices on teacher leadership. Educational Management Administration

and Leadership, 34:551-532.
Greyvenstein, L.A. &Van derWesthuizen, P.C. 1992. South African women in educational
management: An holistic approach. South African Journal of Education, 12(3):270-276.

CHA 174
PTE
R
Grundy, S. & Kemmis, S. 1982. Educational action research in Australia:The state of the art (an
overview). In S. Kemmis (ed.). The action research reader (3nledition).Victoria,Australia: Deakin
University Press.

Harris,A. 2003a. Introduction. In A. Harris, D. Hopkins, M. Had field,A. Hargreaves & C.

Chapman (eds). Effective leadership for school improvement. London: R outledge Falmer.

H arris , A. 2003b.Teacher leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris, D. Hopkins,

M. Hadfie ld,A. Hargreaves & C. Chapman (eds). Effective leadership for school improvemeut.
London: Routledge Falrner.

Harris,A. 2005. Foreword. In P.Woods. Democratic leadership in education. London: Paul C hapman
Publishing.

H oadley, U. &Ward, C.L. 2009. Managing to learn: Instructional leadership in South African secondary
schools. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Hoadley, U., Christie, U. &Ward, C.L. 2009. Managing to learn: Instructional leadership in
South African secondary schools. School Leadership and Management, 29(4):373 - 389.

Hopkins, D. 2001. School improvement for real. London: Falrner Press.

Kemmis, S. 1993.Action research. In T. Husen &T.N. Postlethwaite (eds). The international

encyclopaedia ef education: Research and studies. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R . 1984. The action research pla11ner.Victoria: Deakin University.

Levin, R., Moll, I. & Narsing,YP. 1988.The specificity of struggle in South African education,
in Education in the eighties. Proceedingsef the Kenton Co,!ference 1988, edited by S. Abrahams.
128-148.

Macpherson,I., Brooker, R ., Aspland,T. & Elliott, B. 1998. Putting professional lear ning up
front: A perspective of professional development "vithin a context of collabora tive research
about curriculum leadership.Journal of In-service Education, 24(1):73- 86.

Mangena, M. 2002. The role ef an educator formation in a globalised enviro11111e11t - c/rallengesa11d

opportunities.A paper delivered at the Independent Teachers' Union of South Africa on 11
July.Available at h ttp :/ / education / pwv.gov.:za/ M edia / M angena / j uly02/i tu sa.htm Accessed
on 19 September 2006.

Mathon si,V 2001. Transfom,ing governance and management ef education.71,e case for South Africa.
A paper delivered as the South African Democratic Teachers' Union Policy Development
Conference. Available at www .sadtu .o rg.:za/ press / speech es/ 2001/ 15- 5- 2001.0.htm . Accessed
on 3 February 2006.

Millar, C. 2013. Emphasis on assessments undermin es real teaching. CapeTimes,June 12:9.

National Union of Educators. 2002. Commitment by the NUE to appraisal.A press statement
on 18 November.Available at www.nue.org .za/ press.Ol. h tm. Accessed on 3 Fe bru ary 2006.

Nxesi,T. 2001. Education traniformation since 1994:An assessment.A paper delivered at the South
African Demo cratic Teachers' Union Policy Conference, 18 April.Available at W\>JW.sadtu.
o rg. za/ press/ speeches/2 001 / 18-4- 2001. 2.h tm . Accessed on 3 February 2006.

CURRICULUM STUDIES Visions and imaginings

 Pandor, N. 2004. Speech by Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor MP. at Cape Town Breakfast
Club,Table Bay Hotel, Cape Town, l 4 September 2004. Available at http:// www.info.gov.z/a
speeches/2004/04092116151001h.tml.Accessed on 8 September 2007.

Rampass, G. 1987. Staff management and communication as managerial tasks of the

department head of an Indian primary school. Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation: University of
South Africa.

RayT., Clegg S. & Gordon, R. 2004.A new look at dispersed leadership: power, knowledge
and context. In J. Storey (ed.). Leadership in organisations: Current issues and key tren.ds. London:
Routledge.

R aubenheimer, C.D. 1992/1993.An emerging approach to teacher development:Who drives

the bus? Perspectivesin Education, 14(1):67- 80 .

Taylor, N. 2008. Wliat'.5 wrong with South African schools? Presentation to the Conference What's
working in School Development.Jet Education Services, 28-29 February.

Van der Mescht, H. & Tyala, Z. 2008. School principals' perceptions of team management. South
African journal ef Education, 28(2):221-239.
Walker, M. 1991.Action research and teaching for People's Education. In E. Unterhalter (ed.).
Apartheid education and popular stniggles.Jo hannesburg: Ravan Press, 156-171.
Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. 1996.The changing role of the primary- school headteacher.
Educational Management & Administration, 24(3):301-315.
Williams, C. G. 1995.Towards the democratisation of instructional leadership in South African
schools: Current trends and future possibilities. Unpublished D.Ed. thesis: University of the
Western Cape.

Williams, C.G. 2001.A report of the preliminary investigation into the establishment ofa
leadership academy in the Western Cape. UWC Papers in Ed11catio11, 1 :91-4.

Williams, C.G. 2011. Distributed leadership in South African schools: Possibilities and
constrain ts. South African ]011rm1/ ef Education, 31(2):190-200.

Woods, P.A. 2005 . Democratic leadersl,ip in education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Ylimaki, R.M. 2012. Curriculum leadership in a conservative era. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 48(2):304-346.

CHA 176
PTE
R
 CHAPTER 9

(Re-)imagining curriculum evaluation

Petro du Preez

Introduction
Curriculum evaluatio n, as a process embedded in curriculum making, has
become a much contested area in recent curric ulum discourses.There are
ample, well-justified reasons for this. However, as this chapter will argue,
we need to reimagine the place of curriculum evaluation in contemporary
curriculum thinking because of its significance for curriculum reviews
and classroom-based curriculum adjustments. A curriculum review is the
result of curriculum reform based on societal change that aims to advance
the education circumstances in a country (Chapter 2 provides detail of
curriculum reform and review processes.) It entails asking fundamental
questions about the historical and ideological nature of education at a
particular place and point in time, and who benefited or are ostracised as a
result of this (Hoadley &Jansen, 2009:142).
In this chapter I will propose that instead of discardi ng th e co nce pt
'curric ulum evaluation' altogether, it might be useful to retain it and argue
for a reimagination thereof in terms of contemporary curriculum-making
discourses. It will be argued that curriculum evaluation, as a process
embedded in curriculum making, has the potential to assist teachers to
make informed contributions when consulted in a curriculum review
process. Such informed contributions might also assist teacher s in taking
ownership of curriculum transformations and avoid latency in curriculum
enactment. In th is chapter, images of the nature of curriculum evaluation
at vario us times and in various tho ught- spaces will be discussed; thus
exploring its origins in terms of hegemonic ontological positions in
education that directed the particular methodologies used to execute
curriculum evaluations.Toward the end, visions for the reimagination of
curriculum evaluation will be proposed.

177 CUR
RICU
LUM
 The culture that machined curriculum evaluation
Changes in the Curriculum Studies domain should always be co nsidere d
in relatio n to the histo rical, political, eco nomical and societal discourses
that shape people's reality at any given time (Chapters 1 & 2 offer more
detail on this).T he genesis of curriculum evaluati on sho uld, therefore,
also be considered with due consideration to the discourses under pinning
C urr icu lun1 Studies. Although a scholar like Doll (2008) rightly traces
the origins of Curriculum Studies back to the late 16th cen tur y,its
evolution as a field in its own right can be traced back to the early 20 th
centu ry in a tim e when control, management and measurement became
prominent discourses in the academic realm (Allen, 2010:196).The idea
of curriculum evaluatio n, which was born within this managerial culture,
is mostly orien tated toward the use of standardised methods of evaluatio n
(Schoonmaker, 2010:211) or appraisal testing (Hlebowi tsh, 2005 :183).
T hese methods strongly reflected the technological rationality of the
time that was characterised by the infiltration of scientific, business and
industrial techniques in to the ed ucation realm.
The curriculum theorist Ralph Tyler first suggested an evidence-
based approach as opposed to 'the use of tests as single- point appraisal
mec hanisms' as a means of curriculum evaluation (Hlebowitsh, 2005 :182).
In this context, curriculum evaluation was per ceived to be a way of
improvement based on behaviourally observable change (Pinar, 2009:169).
Employing rational approaches, this understanding of curri culum
evaluation involved mostly summ ative procedures that aim to determi ne
whether or not set objectives produce desirable behavioural change
(Schoo nm aker, 2010:208).Tyler's evidence-based response suggested
the use of formative procedures in curriculum evaluation that surpassed
quantitative paper-and-pencil tests, and suggested the use of a variety of
qualitative methods such as observations, questionnaires, interviews, and
other actual evidences (Hl ebowitsh, 2005:182).
Although Tyler nude a co ntr ibu tion to expanding the idea of curriculum
evaluation , we ought to remember that he was often criticised for
oversimplifying complex questions in the curr iculum domain (Kridel,
2010:908 ). Moreover, his suggestion of using not only summative
procedures in curriculum evaluations, but also fornu tive procedures, did
not challenge the uncritical accep tance of curricula and the mechanical
use of evaluations to improve upon accepted c urricula (Pinar, 2009:169). In
the instance where a curriculum is uncritically accepted and evaluation
becomes a mechanism of mere improvement, the process of curriculum

CHA 178
PTER
9:(Re
evaluation becomes a mechanism of social regulation and oppression
(Schoonmaker, 2010:211).T his is so because evaluation does not serve any
purpose to dismantle oppressive structures critically,but merely to 'improve
upon them', with the potential to furth er perpetuate such oppressive,
regulatory structures.
It seems that the inability of curriculum evaluation to bring about
profound change in the curriculum realn1 and to disrupt uncritically
accepted norms in the curriculum led to an apathy toward curriculum
evaluation in the study of curriculum (Hlebowitsh, 2005:xiii). However,
Schoonmaker (2010:211) argues that ' cur riculum evaluation ought to
emerge from critical questioni ng about the realities of the local situation'.
In this sense, curriculum evaluation is a reflective activity that aims to
question and problematise aspec ts of curr iculum - including oppressive,
regulatory notion s - so as to assure progress through transfonn ation and
emancipation (Hlebow itsh, 2005:181).T his understanding of curriculum
evaluation, which is very different from its original use, opens up the
way to explore it as a constru ctive process embedded in larger scale
curr iculum reviews.
One might consider whether it is not necessary to secede from using the
term curriculum evaluation due to its oppressive, regulatory historical
over tones and totally reconceptualise it to reveal its critical, transformative
and emancipatory potential. However, in similar vein to Lather (2007:118),
it could be argued that instead of jettisoning a term, it is sometimes useful
to retain it 'in order to both circulate and break with the signs that code
it' . Malabo u (2008, 2011), too, argues that we recognise the plasticity of
concepts and how they evolve over time in order to broaden and shift
their meanings. As a backdrop to the methodo logy I will use to unpack the
notion of curriculum evaluation and broaden the meaning attached to it,
I will draw on several of Malabou's (2008, 2011) ideas.
Malabou (2011:42) critiques Derr ida's Of Grammatology by asking 'why
has this grarnmatological project never come to fruition?' Amongst others,
she argues that ' the "failure" of grarnmatology was programmed ... by
grammatology itself' (Malabou, 2011:43). In postulating this, she believes
that '[t]he meaning of the word "grammatology" can only change, can only
cease referring to the history of writing and become the name of a real
science of writing if it is grounded in a deep change in the meaning of the
concept of writing itself' (M alabou, 2011:47). In addition, she argues that
ideology informs the meanings of concepts and can, inevitably,change their
meanings (it was illustrated above how curriculum evaluation received its

179 CUR
RICU
LUM
 repu tation through the ideology of managerialism).I would like to argue
that in the same way that grammatology has failed due to the meaning
attach ed to the concept, curriculum evaluatio n has failed as a result of the
n1eanings attache d to it.
Malabou (2011:41-6 6) applies the idea of plasticity of concepts in her
pursuit of regenerating the meaning of grammatology. Plasticity,as th e
opposite of rigidity, refers to the ability to evolve (M.alabou, 2008:5).
Etymolo gically, the word plasticity (from the Greek 'plassein') refers to the
capacity to receive form and to give form (Malabou, 2008:5). Plasticity
also relates to ' plastique' (French) which is an explosive substance capable
of causing violent explosions (Malabou, 2008:5).T he notion of the
plasticity of a concept is thus based on the principle that a concept can
create meaning, receive meaning, but can also annihilate meaning. In what
follows, I will identify and critically discuss some of the traditional signs
that regulate understandings of curri culum evaluation and that created
its dominant meanings.T his will be don e to illustrate the aptitude of the
concept for metamorphosis, in an attem pt to annihilate dominant meanings
attached to it, to transcend regulated understandings, and to open up new
pathways for reimagining curriculum evaluation.

Circulating and breaking with the signs that

traditionally code curriculum evaluation
T he managerial culture that permeated education discourses and awakened
the fixation with high-stakes testing and accountability as quality co ntrol
mechanisms, inter alia, gave rise to the 'judgment mentality' that many
uncritically converge to curriculun1 evaluation. In addition, it also gave
rise to the belief that curriculum evaluation is a linear, product-orientated
activity.In this sense, a curriculum evaluation is perceived to be a me re
judgment of a particular curriculum related event, or product, with the
aim to determin e the worth and quality of the event - or product - in
question, witho ut necessarily questioning the circumstances surrounding
the event.This signifies a once-off judgment procedure to identify and
rectify the event or product under investigation with the aim to improve it.
Although a judgment might intend procedural change, it remains fixated
mostly with the product itself. In this sense it might be flawed in that it
overlooks fundamental assumptions made about the event or product.
Thus, it might happen that the very nature of the event or product under
scrutiny is not question ed appropriately. It is exactly this characteristic that
codes curr iculu m evaluation as an oppressive, regulatory structure.

CHA 180
PTER
9:(Re
Apart from judgment, accountability and product-orientation as signs that
code curriculum evaluation, there is also a tacit belief that curriculum
evaluation and change is no t the work of the teacher, but the responsibility
of a curriculum worker outside of the direct teaching reahn.T his belief
is rooted in the traditionalist perspective that perceives the teacher as
im plemen ter of prescribed curricula without any influence on the process
of curric ulum development (Pinar, 2009).An understanding of curriculum
evaluatio n (and making) as detached from the teacher (and classroom) is
problematic, especially in terms of the ontological and epistemo logical
assumptions underpinning it.
Firstly, it reinforces a view of the nature of curr iculum evaluation as an
activity that is devoid of the context (classroom) and persons (teachers,
learners and other education stakeholders) that shape it (Horton & Hanes,
1993:2). Secondly - embedded in this isolated, independent nature - it
creates the idea that a curriculum can be evaluated (observed) without the
teachers' (observers') input (ibid.).The problem with this is that it reduces
the complexity of the human and natural world by artificially fragmenting
it (ibid. 3). In addition, it disempowers teachers by reifying them in the
process of curriculum making. It is also from this position that Kridel
(2010:908) critic ises Ralph Tyler's general curriculum theories and ideas
about curriculum evaluation.
Another problem with curriculum evaluation is that it is often inaccurately
equated with assessment of student learning. Carl (2009:139), for example,
argues that curr iculum evaluation is a phase in the process of curriculum
development that investigates the success and efficacy of a curri culum and
the effect it has on learners.Agrawal (2004:361) adds that evaluation has a
crucial role to play in the lear ning and teaching that take place in school s.
This phenomenon is also evident in Hlebowitsh's (2005:184) discussion of
the three principles of curriculum evaluation.
The first principle states that more than one appraisal instrument should be
used when a curr iculum is evaluated to assure the validity and reliability of
the evaluation.
The second principle suggests that whatever is evaluated should be taught.
This gives us the first indication that his conception perpetuates the
equation of assessment oflearning with curriculum evaluation.
The third principle, which emphasises this problem directly, maintains that
whatever is viewed as important in the evaluation should also be important
when assessment takes place, since the evaluation will determine the

181 CUR
RICU
LUM
 importance of something when futur e assessment takes place.When the
relationship between assessment ofl earning and curriculum evaluation is
understood in this way, the potential of curri culum evaluation to be a critical,
reflectiveactivity to empower and transform is reduced to an appraisal
mechanism.This appraisal mechanism seeks to determi ne whether learnin g
has taken place and, based on this,judgments regarding the effectiveness of
the curriculum and teaching methods are made with the sole aim to improve
and not necessarily to transform through critical reflection.T his is not to say
that assessm ent cannot play a role in curr iculum evaluation, it should just not
be totally equated with each other.

Changing images of curriculum evaluation

Now that we have explored three main signs that code curriculum
evaluation and that have probably contribut ed to its decline in curr iculum
discourses,specific methodologies of curriculum evaluation that have
initiat ed and perpetuat ed these signs will be discussed. More specifically,
curriculum evaluation as produ ct testing and curriculum evaluatio n as
grading practice will be discussed as dominant images of curr iculum
evaluation. The critique of curriculum evaluation from a reconceptualist
position will receive attention under the heading: curriculum inq uiry as
refo rm ative praxis.T hese discussions will be concluded with a proposal for
reimagining curriculum evaluation as an element of curr iculum making
that has the potential to assist teachers to engage with cur riculu m review
processes critically and lead transformation as self-informed, empowered
individuals. T his proposal will be made in line with Schoonmaker's
(2010:211) reasoning of curriculum evaluation as a p rocess of reflection
and critical questioning about the curriculum realities.

Curriculum evaluation as product testing

C urri culum evaluation as product testing is typically characterised by
summ ative processes of evaluatio n. Hlebowitsh (2005:183) states that '[t]he
purpose of a summ ative evaluation is to get feedback on the curriculum
experience at the completion of some logical phase of instructio n'.T he
wo rk of Welch and Walberg in the mid- 60s and 70s provides ample
examples of curr iculum evaluations that were quantitative and summative
in nature and which aimed toward testing curr iculum products. In one of
the evaluations they aimed to establish the effectiveness of a new Physical
Science curriculum (1970).T hey randomly selected 2 200 learners and
divided the sample into two groups of 1 100 each.The one group acted as

CHA 182
PTER
9:(Re
the ex perim ent al group that would 'receive treatment' (be exposed to the
new PhysicalScience curriculum) and the other as the control group (that
still followed the old Physical Science curriculum). Both the control group
and the experimental group were further divided into two groups of 550
each.This quantitative,experimental design is referred to as Solomon's four-
group design.This design is used especially in situations where cause-and-
effect is measured.This design has several character istics:manipulation (some
participants receive treatment), control (some participants do not receive
any treatment), and randomisation (takes place to assigned participants)
(Maree & Pietersen, 2007:149). In quantitative research,Solomon's four-
group design is useful in situations where researchers wan t to ensure that
the pre-test does not sensitise or influence the results of the post- test (Maree
& Pietersen, 2007:150). For that reason one of the experim ental groups and
one of the control groups do not take part in the pre-test.
In Welch and Walberg's (1970:608) study, the pre-test consisted of six
smaller stand.1rdised tests, each testing one of the following: ' physics
achievement, general understandi ng of science, knowledge of scientific
processes, attitudes toward physics, physical science int erest, and
participation in science activities outside the classroom'. One of the
experimental groups and one of the control groups had to complete
the pre-test; the remaining groups did not take part in the pre- testing.
T hereafter the two experimental groups were exposed to the new
curriculum for seven months whereas the control group continued with
the old curriculum. From their study,Welchand Walberg (1970:613)
concluded that the learners who followed the new cur riculum
(experimental group) scored better in the post-test, which indicates that
the curriculum was more effective. The study also indicated that the pre-
test in this instance did not sensitise the participants since there were no
significant differences in the post-test results of those who completed the
pre-test and those who did not complete it (ibid.).
If we reflect upon this example - with due consideration to the signs that
traditionally code curriculum evaluation - we realise the following: that
a product (the PhysicalScience curriculum) is judged in an a-contextual
manner, with no reference to teacher involvement whatsoever. Learners'
achievements (assessment of learning) play a significant role in the summative
evaluation of the curriculun1in this instance; should the curriculum consist
of any oppressive stru ctu res, these are not evaluated or reflected upon.The
entire process is merely done to provide a summative view of an aspect of
the curri culu m, to im prove on the current curriculum used, and in this sense
we can conclude that curriculun1evaluation is product testing orientated.

183 CUR
RICU
LUM
 Another, more recent, example of a predominantly quantitative approach
to curriculum evaluation can be found in the work of Agrawal (2004).
McMillan and Schumacher's (2001:533) notion of objectives-orientated
evaluation - as a process of selecting measurable objectives,selecting
instruments, selecting an evaluation design, collecting and analysing data, and
interpreting results - further epitomises this product- testing orientation. In
this approach, the products or outcomes of a curriculum are measured and
evaluated; not the processes underlying it (ibid.).

Curriculum evaluation as grading practice through process

C urr iculum evaluation as g rading practice co uld be seen as a further
development of Tyler's dictum on curriculum and curr iculum evaluation
as a formative, evidence- based practice.T his formative approach suggests
an on-going evaluation process that has a formative point of reference
(H lebowitsh, 2005:184) and that aims to give a process-like picture of
the quality of a curr iculum and elements of a curriculum.T hose who
ascribe to this approach are referred to by Pinar (2009:171) as co nceptual-
empiricists since they mostly rely on empirical methods of mainstream
social science to execute a cur riculum evaluation. Curriculum evaluation
as grading practice is exp erti se- and decisio n- or ientat ed in that it, firstly,
depen ds on the application of professional experti se to judge the quality
of curriculum related processes and resources. Seco ndly,it aims to describe
and assess curriculum change processes with the view to advise decision-
makers (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:532). Such an approach is typically
characterised by the followi ng steps: a needs assessment is done; programme
planning and input evaluation occur; the programm e is implemented and
evaluated as a process;and the outcome is evalua ted (ibid. :536).
Harper (1988) suggests one such model of programme evaluation for the
purpose of evaluating curricula. She states that curriculum change should
be a consultative, multidimensional process between curri culum developers
and decision-makers, and teachers should be encouraged to adopt the new
curriculum (H arper, 1988:18). Harper (1988:19- 20) justifies her model by
critiquin g the inadequate nature of quantitative methodologies to evaluate
curr iculum , especially those that depend too much on student achievement
or assessment, due to the limitations thereof and because it cannot provide
any process information about teaching practice and challenges in this
regard. She suggests a multidimensional evaluation model that employs
multiple quantitative and qualitative instruments (depending on the
purpose of the evaluation) on various moments in both summative and
formative stages (H arper, 1988:20).

CHA 184
PTER
9:(Re
In Harper's co ncept, we again see a lin ear processof planning evaluation
based on the curriculum developers' intents and the decision-makers'
information needs; designing of a process to develop a curriculum;
implementing the curriculum and formatively evaluating it; and adapting it
to implement the changed curriculum. Harper's model suggests evaluation
as a continuous, concurrent process of curriculum deve lo pment instead
of a parti cular step in the process of curriculum development. Harper
(1988:22) argues that, in the climate of accountability, her model is
exce ptionally useful in that it provides a variety of audiences (learners,
teac hers, decision- n1akers,curriculum developers, etc.) wit h relevant
infor mation about the curriculum and, therefore, saves tim e and money.
She adds that the information produced can be evaluated against teachers'
use of the curri cul um in classrooms. As a result, implementation problen1s
can be discovered and solved; and trends and issues that arise out of
using the cur riculum can be raised, which will give decision- makers
better insight into how the curriculum works in practice (ibid.). Harper
concludes her model by arguing that teachers should be researchers and
sho uld engage in the process of curriculum evaluatio n. However, at times,
she ascribes a very passive role to teachers - one in which they should
be initiated into change, adapt to change, impl eme nt chan ge, and work
towards the institu tion alisation, routinisation and continuation of change
(ibid. :18).
What is evident when studying images of curr iculum evalua tion, such as
the above, is that teachers are traditionally requir ed to conduct evaluations
to imp rove their instructional methodologies in order to en hance student
outputs. Curriculum designers use evaluations to judge and decide
upon important and lessimportant contents, and policy makers rely on
evaluations to establish the best practices possible to im prove educational
realities.T he problem is that participative curr iculum development
requires that teachers be able to contribute on all these levels.T his requires
a different way of conceptualising teachers' levels of participation in
curriculum evaluations within the wider context of curriculum review
and reform. R econceptualists provided us with yet another image of
curriculum evaluation - one that is participative in intent.

Curriculum inquiry as reformative praxis

The reconceptualist scho ol of tho ught rejected the use of the concept
curriculum evaluation, based on its oppressive, regulatory, historical
overtones and reconceptualised it in terms of critical theory to arrive at
curriculum inquiry as a reformative project based on reflection and action

185 CUR
RICU
LUM
 (praxis). R eco nceptualists co uld be described as inside rs to the education
realm, with a particular interest in the political and historical processes
that underpin curriculum and the ways in which the curr iculum could be
used to marginalise some (Pinar, 2009:172- 173).T hey completely reject
a technician's mentality and base their inquiry into the curriculum on
metatheoretical and philosophical methods with due consideration to the
historical co ntex t (ibid.). In addition, it draws on a wide array of disciplines
and approaches to explore curr icula (H e, 2010:213). Michael Apple's
Ideology and Curriculum (first published in 1979) is probably one of the best
examples of a social analysis and critiq ue of curri cula. He argued against
the technicist, manageria l ideologies that permeate curr iculum work (one
of these being cur riculum evaluation) and that maintain hegemonies in the
curriculum that legitimate power inequalities.
Curriculum inquiry as a reformative project based on reflection and action
is best articulated in South Africa by the curriculum as policy scholars
(Chisholm, 2005:194).These scholars in terpret curriculmn policy and
development focusing on the symbolic nature of the curriculum, the political
overtones thereof, and the contradictions between curriculum theory and
practice, and the connections between curriculum and identity (ibid.). In
referring to Jansen's work, Chisholm (ibid.) states that'... curriculum is
a fundamentally political statement that reflects the stru ggles of opposing
groups to have their interests,values, histories, and politics dominate the
school curriculum'. From this standpoint, a curr iculum evaluation is
reco nceptu alised in terms of curriculum inquiry for reform that does not
rely on traditional empirical methods, but on conceptual methods to analyse
the social symbols underpinning a curriculum.
Curriculum inquiry as a reformative praxis suggests that one cannot
accept anything on face value, but one needs to dismantle the structures
underpinning it in order to understand and translate its con1plexity. To
illustrate this, the following analogy could be used: If we were to take
a Rubik's Cube and describe it by merely looking at it, we might say
that it is a multicoloured cube, consisting of six square surfaces of which
each surface consists of nine smaller squares.This could be seen as the
traditional way of evaluating curriculum - it is often a superficial activity
that does not tell us much about the nature or workings of the curriculum,
but describe it from any one particular viewpoint.This one particular
viewpoint might, however, not be enough to tell us what the true nature of
a Rubik's Cube is.A reconceptualist will argue that we need to dismantle
the R ubik's Cube, i.e. take it apart, and discover its workings and inner
mechanics in order to describe it in all its complexity.To extend this

CHA 186
PTER
9:(Re
analogy to curriculum, we might say that traditional forms of curriculum
evaluations mostly enable one-dimensional,surface views of matters in
the curriculum; whereas a reconceptual view that aims to inquire to
reform, will require a multidimensional approach to unveil hidden and null
elements in a curriculum to transform a curriculum on a profound level.
An example of a reconceptual approach to curriculum inquiry is described
by Karseth and Sivesind (2011). In an attempt to explore alternative ways to
respond to global demands through the curriculum, they begin by politically
co ntex tualising forces that have influenced the formation of global policies in
relation to the Norwegian National Curriculum.Their holistic cu rriculum
inquiry leads them to conclude that global forces directly influence the
epistemology of a curriculum. Participatory research approaches and narrative
or autobiographical methodologies are also often employed in this tradition.
Leander and Osborne (2008) provide one such example in which they
used narrative inquiry to investigate how curriculum reform is enacted in
schools and how teachers construct their roles as curriculum leaders.Action
research approaches- which are essentially participatory, emancipatory in
intent and self-empowering - are also often used in this tradition as a form
of curriculum evaluation for continuous curriculum transformation from the
bottom up.The methodologies typically employed in this tradition enable
us to delve deeper into the complexities of curriculum and move beyond
a technicist evaluation of curriculum for the sole purpose of deciding what
learners or students should learn and what educators should teach.
Recent curriculum discourses suggest that it is time to move beyond a
reconceptualist perspective too. In an attempt to justify her move beyond
reconceptualism, Cary (2007:134) refers to Morrison who suggested that
grand unified theories such as traditionalism, conceptual-empiricism and
reconceptualism be left behind and that scholars of curriculum embrace the
difficult and uncomfortable field that may result.This suggests that we need to
reimagine and reinvent the field of curriculum and the path that it is creating
through continuous engagement with the questions and discourses that direct
the field.The late Michael Dummett (in Green, 2012:9) once stated:
The path constantly twists back on itself, so the direction it faces at
one stage is a virtually worthless clue to the direction in which the
eventual solution lies; but, as in a maze, the only way of reaching
the centre - the eventual solution to or dissolution of the problem -
is to advance along that twisting path.

In the remainder of this chapter, I will aim to present different perspectives

on curriculum evaluation as a process in curriculum review.In doing so,

187 CUR
RICU
LUM
 I will aim to further contribute to curriculum discourses by proposing
possible 'way stations on a path that would ultimately point in a different
direction' (Green, 2012:9).

Reimagining curriculum evaluation

Considering the discussions hitherto, it is clear that the evolutionary
images of curriculum evaluation are in line with the dynamic nature
of Curriculum Studies as a discipline.This ever-changing reality is an
asset to the discipline, because it prevents inertia in the scholarship of
Curriculum Studies through recognising the plasticity of elements within
the curriculum domain. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance to pursue
Morrison's (2004:487) plea of reimagining the discipline:
Novelty and originality are required to move forward the fields of
curriculum theory and development. However one may wish to
package it, the message is the same: move on; discover and invent
new worlds and new ideas.

Next, curriculum evaluation - especially in terms of its methodology -

will be reimagined by taking metastudies, thinking curri culum through
theory, and educational neuroscience as departu re- points.These departure-
points might at frrst appear somewhat distanced from cur riculum
evaluation and might even seem haphazard. However, again drawing on the
work of Malabou (2008, 2011), it will be argued that in order to reimagine
somet hing known to ultimately regenerate it, it is important that we do not
perceive of it atomistically. She proposes that we make sense of the known
in its proxinuty to other points in the network. R ealising the proxinuty of
a point to another point in a network, she argues, is not always easy since
we are often blinded by the power-structures that preserve the atomism
of particular points. In terms of curriculum evaluation, this means that
we cannot regenerate it if we do not consult beyond the confines of
Curriculum Studies scholarship.We therefore need to consult discourses
in the proximity of the scholarly domain of curriculum and use these as
departure-points to further our understandings: to reimagine, to reinvent
and, ultimately,to regenerate.

The role of metastudies in reimagining curriculum evaluation

From a monetary perspective a curriculum evaluation can be an expensive
exercise. It usually involves remunerating experts in certain fields to serve on
review panels and to conduct evaluations. I am of the opinion that institutions
very seldom consult the evaluation reports of others in their pursuit of

CHA 188
PTER
9:(Re
renewal. Partnerships in renewal processes are especially important in the
information age where we are bombarded with all sorts of information and
too often participate in the reproduction of existing information. Searching
curriculum evaluation on the World Wide Web quickly generates a wealth
of curriculum evaluation results with very diverse foci. One can therefore
rightly question, given the monetary implications of evaluations in the wake
of the information age, whether all curriculum evaluations are really needed
and whether one cannot in some instances consult the results of already
completed evaluations to reach new curriculum reform directions.
Initial teacher training institution s increasingly focus on including
knowledge, values and skills of basic research methodology in their
programmes to assist new teachers to processinformation and to contribute
to knowledge production in an ever- changing knowledge economy. In this
light, one can assume that newly graduated teachers will at least have certain
basic skills to interpret findings from curr iculum evaluations to inform
their practice and to provide informed commentary on suggested national
curriculum reform initiatives. O ne parti cularly useful research methodology
- which, in my opinion, does not receive enough attention in research
methodology classes- is metastudy designs. Metastud y designs have a
particular use in cumulating and integrating existing cur riculum evaluation
findings.T his approach is increasin gly being used in Social Science domains
to in tegrate research results in a particular specialisation area so as to
increa se the trustworthiness of the body of scholarship and to form a sound
evidence-based context for decision- making (Coo per, 2010:2).
Wh en exploring metastudy designs as way stations on the path to
curriculum renewal, it is important always to co nsider th e con tex t in
which the evaluation outcomes are to be applied. Our aim should always
remain to renew from the inside and not only assess from the outside in
order to enable profound reform.

The role of thinking curriculum through theory as evaluation

T he reconceptualist tradition in curriculum theorising introduced scholars
in the field to a very important working concept, i.e. praxis. Praxis as the
dialectic process of reflection and action creates a space where theory
and practice can intersect (Bach, 2010:680- 681). For curriculum scholars
such as Pin ar (2007), this dialectic process is of utmost importance for the
intellectual advance of the field of Curriculum Studies. Reid (2010), too,
emphasisesthe impor tant vision ary space created when philosophy and
theory are used to reimagine practices of Curriculum Studies.T he question

189 CUR
RICU
LUM
 that arises is: how do we then engage with the intersection of theory and
practice so that visionary spaces can emerge to assist us in the intellectual
advancement of the field of C urriculum Studies with particular emph asis
on curriculum evaluations?
Jackson and Mazzei (2012) proffer a research methodolo gy that aims to
transcend the narrow confines of analysing data from an interpretivist
tradition that uses methods such as codin g, clustering and thematising.
T hey argue for an approach in which data is tho ught through with theory
to enable multiple perspectives to emerge from the qualitative data.T hey
argue that when we 'plug' one text into another, we are situating ourselves
at the threshold where data is not'centered or stabilized, but used as brief
stopping points and continually transformed, and exceeded'; theory is used
'to turn the data into something different'; and the data is used 'to push
theory to its limit' (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012:6). Applying this methodology
to a curriculum evaluation can assist us in using a qualitative methodology
in an evaluation and simultaneously avoiding a typical conce ptual-
empiricist approach to an evaluation that can tend to treat an evaluation
in a reductionist fashion. In addition, this approach can give shape to
reflection using theory and action for improved practice.The theory used
can also assist those engaged with a curriculum evaluation to not fall in
the trap of merely improving upon accepted, oppressive curricula, but to
engage with curriculum on a more profound level.
Some might argue that such an approach requires sophisticated knowledgeto
conduct. However, I would argue that if we strive towards creating visionary
spaces that can assist us in the intellectual advancement of Curriculum
Studies, we need to rely on those who work closest with the curriculum,
i.e. teachers. In the current teacher-education environment with its ever-
increasing focus on research methodology, we can surely expect teachers to
engage with their core business on a more sophisticated level.

The role of educational neuroscience in reimagining

curriculum evaluation
Curriculum evaluations are often narrowly approached in as far as it
is evaluated in terms of its epistemology (curriculum content) and/or
methodology (methods of teaching, learning and assessment). One way to
move curriculum evaluation to the next level is to approach it holistically.
O ne way of defining a holistic curr iculum evaluation could be to evaluate
the ontology underpinning a curriculum and how this might influence
epistemologic al, methodological and axiological aspects thereof.Another

CHA 190
PTER
9:(Re
way could be an interdisciplinary ap proac h in which developments in
other disciplines are brought in line with curri culum to frame judgments
vis-a-vis curriculum trends and futures.Such a ho listic approach is
particularly impo rtant in the wake of the third millennium in which
rapid digital evolution in the information age requires a drastic revision of
pedagogy and what we deem as important knowledge (Levi-Montalcini,
2011:xxi).This social reality necessitates a different ontological outlook on
education and curriculum. No longer can the Victorian perspective of the
child as an object, a 'tabula rasa', manipulated by punishment and reward,
be maintained (Levi-Montalcini, 2011:xxi).This ontological shift will
inevitably influence what we deem important knowledge, values and skills,
how we learn and teach, how we organise the school environment, and
how we generally perceive schooling.
O ne example of an interdisciplinary approach to holistic curriculum
evaluation can be found in recent developments in neuroscience and its
application to curriculum (also referred to as ed ucational neuroscience). In
this regard, Battro, Fischer and Lena (2011:xviii) state that '[t]he promises of
neuro- and cognitive sciences for a better understanding of the underlying
basis of learning are developing rapidly. C ross-disciplinary research should
involveeducators and deal with real educatio nal practices'.
Next, I will briefly describe how I imagine neuroscientific developments
influence the way we think about curric ulum making and how this might
influence the questions we ask when we conduct curriculum evaluations.
Until the 1970s neuroscientists held the belief that the mature brain is
resistant to change because the regeneratio n of neural pathways is absent
following the critical period of growth in the early stages of infancy
(Chiew, 2012:33). R esearch in neuroscience, particularly in the field of
neuroplasticity, has proven this belief to be incorrect.T hese studies indicate
that the brain has a remarkable ability to adapt and regenerate new synaptic
connections: a phenomenon often referred to as the 'self-changing brain'
or 'neuroplasticity' (Chiew,2012:34). Chiew (2012:34) argues that '[t]he
emphasis of an enduring and ... self-organizing plasticity has bolstered
the wider appeal of a "learning for life'". Furthermore, developments in
neuroplasticity challenge dominant behavioural approaches to teaching
and learning that mostly perceive the learner as a clean slate to be filled
with knowledge (Battro, Fischer & Lena, 2011). In this regard we need to
ask questions pertaining to how theories of teaching and learning adjust
to the functional modifications in the connectivity of the brain that is, for
instance, influenced by exposure to digital techn ologies (Singer, 2011:97).

191 CUR
RICU
LUM
 This question inevitably leads to the next: to what extent can curriculum
development and content selection benefit from new knowledge in the
realm of neuronal circuit development during learning (Singer, 2011:97)?
N euroscientific research in terms of sleeping and teaching-learning has also
produc ed interesting questions to ponder. Cardinali (2011:110) concludes
that '[a]dolescents show a shift toward a more owl-like behavio ur and their
optimal time of the day is genera lly in the evening... By paying attention
to these facts of ch ronoeducation, schools can improve student learning
by creating a better connection between diurnal rhythms and the school
schedule'. On a systemic curriculum level,we might wonder about the time-
schedule of our curri culum and when we engage in which activities.
Perhaps a far-reaching, but nevertheless important, question to consider
given recent neuroscientific research, is whether secondary school cu rricula
should not be enacted in evening classeswhen adolescents learn optimally.
Asking these types of question in a curri culum evaluation context has
profound implications for how curricul um- making is construed. In my
opinion, such questions could facilitate a process of profound reflection
and critical questioning about curriculum realities, visions and futures that
surpass the narrow view of curriculum evaluation that has dominated the
field for so long.

Conclusion
Worldwide curriculum evaluations are condu cted by national qualification
frameworks and international review panels.We can thus not escape its
reality and necessity.What we can do, however, is regenerate the way in
which it is conducted so as to expand the field of Curriculum Studies
scholarship. In this chapter it was argued that curriculum evaluation, as a
process emb edde d in cu rriculum making, has the potential to assist teachers
to make informed contributions when consulted in a curriculum review
process. Images of the nature of curriculum evaluation at various times
and in various tho ught- spaces were discussed; thus exploring its origins in
terms of hegemonic ontological positions in education that directed the
particular methodologies used to execute curr iculum evaluations.Toward
the end, new visions for the reimagination of curriculum evaluation were
proposed.

CHA 192
PTER
9:(Re
REFERENCES

Agrawal, M. 2005. Curricular reform in schools: the importanc e of evaluation.J ournal of

Curriculum Studies 36 (3):361 - 379.

AJien, L. 2010. Curriculum change. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaediaof curriculum studies (Volume
1). London: Sage.

Apple, M. 1979. Ideology and Curriculum. New York: R o utledge.

Bach,]. 2010. Praxis. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia ef curriculum studies (Volume 2). London: Sage.

Battro,A., Fischer, K. & Lena, P (eds). 2011. The Educated Brain: Essays in Neuroeducatio11. UK:
Cambridge University Press.

C ardina li, D. 2011. Chrono education: How the biologica l clock influenc es the learn in g p rocess.
In A. Battro, K. Fischer & P. Le na (eds) TI1e Educated Brain: Essays in Neuroeducation.UK:
C amb ridge University Press.

Carl,A. 2009. Teacher empowerment through curriculum development (3rd edition). South Africa:Ju ta.

Cary, L. 2007. Curriculum Spaces: Discourse, Postmodern 711eory and Educational Research. New York:
Peter Lang.

Chiew, E 2012. Neuroplasticity as an Ecology of Mind. A conversation with Gregory Bateson

and Catherine Malabo u.]ournal of Conscious11ess St udies,19(11 - 12) :32 - 54.

Chisholm, L. 2005.The making of South Africa's National C urriculum Sta feme11t . Jo11rnal ef
Curriculum Studies 37(2):193-208.
Cooper, H. 2010. Research Sytithesis and Meta-analysis:A Step-by-Step A pproach (4 th ed itio n). Los
Angeles: Sage.

Dillon ,J. T. 2009.The questions of curri culum.Journalof Curriculum Swdies 41(3):343-359.

Doll,WE. 2008. Complexity and the culture of curriculum. Educational Philosophy and 71,eory,
40 (1):190- 212.

Flinders, D. &Thorn ton, S. (eds). 2009. T11e Curriculum Studies Reader. New York: R outledge.

Green, K. 2012. Michael Dummett. The Philosopher'sMagazine, Issue 57(2 nd Q uarter ), 9-10.

Harper,S.1988.A model for program evaluation. Education Canada, Fall:18-23.

He, M. 2010, Curriculum inquiry. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia ef curriculum studies

(Volume 1). Londo n: Sage.

Hlebowitsh, P. S. 2005. Designingthe school curria l111n. Boston: Pearson.

Hoadley, U. & Jansen,]. (eds). (2009). Curriculum: Organising knowledge for the classroom. South
Africa: Oxford University Press.

Horto n, R. & H anes, S. 1993 . Philosophical Considerations for Curriculum Development in

Environmental Education. Tize E nvironmental Outlook:2- 7 . An Information Bulletin from
ER IC/ CSMEE.

Jackson, A. & Mazz ei, L. 2012. T11inking with theory in qualitative research. Viewing data across
multiple perspectives. New York: Routledge.

193 CUR
RICU
LUM
 Jansen,]. 2009. Knowledge in the blood. Confronting race and the apartheid past.California: Stanford
University Press.
Karseth, B. & Sivesind, K. 2011. Conceptualising curriculu m knowledge within and beyond
the national context. In: L.Yates & M Grumet (eds).Curriculum in today's world: configuring
knowledge, identities, work and politics. R o utledge: NewYork.
Krid el, C. 2010.T he Tyler R ationale. In C. Kridel (ed.). Encyclopaedia of curriw lrm, st11dies
[Volume 2]. London:Sage.

Lat her, P. 2007. Getting Lost: Feminist Efforts toward a Doubled() Science. N ew York: State
Universityof NewYork.

Leander,K. & Osborne, M. 2008. Complex positioning:Teachersas agents of curr ic ular and
pedagogical re form. Journal ef Curriculum Studies, 40:23-46.
Levi-Montalcini, R. 2011. Foreword:Towards a new pedagogical and didactic approach. In
A. Battro, K. Fischer & P. Lena (eds.) The Educated Brain: Essays in N euroeducation. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
M alabou, C. 2008. What should do tvitli our brain? United States of America: Fordham University
Press.
Malabou, C. 2011. Changing d!/ference. England: Polity Press.
Maree, K. & Pietersen,J. 2007.The quantitative research process. In K. Maree (ed.). First stepsin
R esearch. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

McMillan,]. & Schumacher, S. 2001. Research i11 education: a concepttia f introduction (5th edition).
New York:Addison-WesleyLongman.

Schoonmaker, F. 2 010 . Curriculum evaluation. In C. Kridel (ed.). E11cyclopaedia ef c11rric11l11m

studies (Volume 1). London: Sage.
Singer,W 2011. Epigenesis and brain plasticity in education. In A. Battro,K. Fischer & P. Lena
(eds). The Educated Brain: Essays in Neuroeaucatio11.UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pinar,W F. 2007 . l ntelfectua f advancement through disciplinarity:verticality and liorizo11tality in
curriculum studies. R otte rdam: Sense Publishers.
Pinar,W 2009.T he R econceptualization of Curr iculu m Studies. In D. Flinders & S.T hornton
(eds). Th e Curriculum Studies R eader. New York: R ou tledge.
R eid,W 2001. Rethinking Schwab: Curriculum Theorizing as a Visionary Activity.J ournal ef
Curriculum and Supervision, 17(1):29-41.
Welch, WW & Herbert,]. 1970. Pretest and Sensitization Effects in Curriculum Evaluation.
American Ed11cational R esearchJoumal,7(4):605-614.

CHAP 194
TER
9: (Re
 CONCLUSION

Imaginative reflections (imaginings)

and future possibilities for
curriculum and Curriculum Studies
Petro du Preez & Chris Reddy

Flinders and Thornton (2013:209) state that as Curriculum Studies

'scholarship ages, its significance seems to emerge almost like the images
in a developing photograph. But with contemporary work we are still
guessing' and such guesses are for the most part articulated in future
visions set for the discipline.The chapters in this publication provide
various historical and contemporary images and, in many instances,
informed guesses, visions and imaginings have been shared. Similar to what
Byrne (2005:5-8) postulates, it is evident that these imaginings are mostly
concerned with how outcomes could have been different had different
actions been taken. Imaginings are often based on elements within one's
control, for instance how counterfactual thoughts and their relation to
causal thoughts have the potential to create alternative imaginings, as well
as how time and the sequence of events influence people's imaginings
in different ways. Curriculum and Curriculum Studies are complex,
particularly in view of how history (continuity) and contemporary
discourse (change) intersect.Within this disciplinary context marked by
the tension between change and continuity, imagination (or imaginings)
has thus become imperative as a perspective for renewal (Flinders &
Thornton, 2013).
Smith (2000) proposes some perspectives about curriculum that are
commonly foregrounded in curriculum theory and practice, namely
curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted; curriculum as
product to achieve particular ends; curriculum as process; and curriculum
as praxis. In the first two perspectives, education is the process by means of
which the curriculum and its aims are delivered and achieved. However,
the processes are complex and span a wide range of practical applications
and theoretical perspectives. Goodson (1997:181) points out that although

CURRICULUM 19
STUDIES 6
Visions and
 'curriculum is avowedly and manifestly a social construction', it is
paradoxically treated as 'a timeless given'. He further adds that the matter is
compounded by curriculum being treated as a neutral given, even when it
is seen to be embedded in an otherwise meaningful and complex situation.
The chapters in this publication challenge the perceived neutrality of
curriculum, particularly in terms of being politically neutral, value free and
timeless (in nature).
In South Africa, curriculum is largely realised through and represented
by policy documents. Curriculum policy represents concrete political
positions on and answers to the knowledge questions and processes
for education. Although processes of development often appear to be
academic and bureaucratic, and include public debates and participation,
they are, however, often deeply embedded in the political perspectives
and directions of the ruling party or government. Curriculum thus varies
from political jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and is also linked to political
perspectives that both guide practice and establish a political position.
Government has a strong influence on the process and product of
curriculum.This influence manifests in the process of writing curriculum
policy, which is an explicitly political process.
This is not unique to South Africa. In fact, curriculum discourse is
marked by an increase in central planning and control on a global level.
This increase in central planning and control is also linked to linear
implementation of ideas and one-size-fits-all, externally developed
curriculum. Curriculum discourse has seemingly been appropriated
by neo-liberal globalisers and education has been reduced to the
implementation of technocratic thinking. School knowledge has
increasingly been centralised in the restructuring of education in
Western societies (Brown et al., 1997). Coffey (2000) indicates that this
centralisation has led to the formulation and implementation of national
curricula, for example the United States of America, New Zealand and
South Africa share similar experiences. Curriculum, as a syllabus to be
transmitted with specified content and courses leading to examinations,
has become the dominant practice. It echoes the technocratic rationality of
curriculum as a body of knowledge and subjects with particular outcomes
that require technical expertise to implement and manage in the fashion
ofTylerian scientific curriculum management. In this publication, various
critiques have been posited in opposition to this reasoning. However,
it seems that much more needs to be done to stretch the boundaries of
traditional subjects and curriculum practices in order to transcend this
situation (Flinders & Thornton, 2013).This leads us to question how we

19S CONCLUSION
ought to think about Curriculum Studies to challenge such boundaries
and transcend the current status quo.
We imagine and suggest that more research needs to be conducted within
the context of discourse of Curriculum Studies on an international level.
The internationalisation of Curriculum Studies could be understood
in terms of the comparative study of international curricula and the
trends in Curriculum Studies as a discipline, and as a new discourse
that outlines the current and future directions taken by scholars in the
field of Curriculum Studies (Lee, 2010:500).The internationalisation
of Curriculum Studies as a new discourse in the discipline extends the
reconceptualist discourse that has marked the discipline since the 1980s
(ibid.). Internationalisation deepens our understanding of the discipline
through engaging with the intersections of local and global discourses
of the discipline. (Pinar, 2010:270). Pinar's theory of the horizontality
(global to local) and verticality (historical and future-orientated studies)
of the discipline forms the basis for this new discourse (Pinar, 2007).
Ontologically, the internationalisation of the Curriculum Studies discourse
assumes a social reality as a complex dialectic between local and global
forces.This dialectic is infinite in becoming and a forever-changing event
(Lee, 2010).Within this complex dialectic between local and global forces,
lies the potential mobility of the discipline to transcend its paradigmatic
confines (e.g. traditionalism, conceptual-empiricism and reconceptualism).
This mobility, or movement, ought to enable a transnational or a third
space of knowledge generation for the discipline (ibid.). In this space,
those who consider themselves Curriculum Studies scholars should
position themselves: it is their responsibility, not their choice (ibid.).This
new discourse is characterised by attributes such as the transdisciplinarity,
decentralisation and diversification of the discipline (ibid.).Topics that
are frequently addressed as part of the internationalisation of Curriculum
Studies discourse include indigenous resistance and renewal of 'imported'
curricula, a rejection of the promise of the 'one best curriculum', and
an expression of hope for change through community education (ibid.).
Scholars immersed in this discourse are also interested in multiculturalism,
gender, social justice and ecological sustainability (Pinar, 2010:270).
The authors allude to alternatives that are contextually relevant and
meaningful.They suggest a form of generative, process-linked creativity that
is located in agency.This agency is an ability to see beyond and develop
a perspective that transcends technocratic rationality. Greene (2007:562)
suggests that this agency is located in a cognitive capacity which she calls
'imagination'.She adds that imagination has been ignored and denied by

CURRICULUM 197
STUDIES
Visions and
 political and education leaders, who rather focus on outcomes and aims
as end products of the education processes.The authors further develop
alternatives that can be considered 'products of imagination', which link
imagination to the opening of possibility (Greene, 2007:562). Imagination
can provide new dimensions to what we do, plan and mostly would like to
do. It often serves as a trigger for alternative possibilities that might navigate
future research endeavours in the context of the internationalisation of
Curriculum Studies discourse. Byrne (2005:9) suggests that, in order to
enable such alternative possibilities, we should focus on what people do
not focus on when imagining, i.e. counterfactual impossibilities,something
beyond the limits of their beliefs, some remote or distant counteractive
alternatives to reality, as well as every event (not only the bad events), and
how it could be different.
As has been established in this publication, curriculum is a contextualised
process of interaction. It is linked to ideologies and practices, and represents
a dynamic engagement with policy that involves many different processes
and curriculum artefacts.These include history, materials, assessment,
ideological influences and curriculum evaluation. Clarke and Collins
(2007) use Weaver (1948) to distinguish between systems.Weaver worked
at a time when 'scientists' divided phenomena into two main categories
for investigation, i.e. simple and complicated, later called 'complex',
phenomena. Simple phenomena have few variables in their interactio ns,
and it is possible to predict possible outcomes fairly accurately. Complicated
or complex phenomena have many variables, and it is difficult to predict
or specify exact outcomes. Over a long period of time, outcomes can be
predicted within acceptable limits and even with some confidence - this is
called the point of emergence.As discussed in this publication, curriculum
is clearly a complex system involving the interplay between policy and
practice, as well as people and their agency in these emerging processes.The
influence of the ever-present and overarching context as well as the top-
down enforced thinking (externally imposed) in a time of transformation
and development is strongly reflected in the chapters.
It is therefore all the more important that our future imaginings be
informed by complexity theory, a theory deeply embedded in the
internationalisation of Curriculum Studies discourse. As Doll (2008:195)
argues, '[in] an open, living, far-from-equilibrium system (life itself),
an orderly disorder is the very source of creativity'. In the context of
curriculum, the characteristics of such a complexity theory include
networks, feedback loops, self-regulation, disequilibrium and nested nature.
Such a theory represents dynamic interactions that cannot be accounted

198 CONCLUSION
for by simple or complicated views and applications or renderings (Clarke
& Collins, 2007).This is in sharp contrast to viewing curriculum as simple
and linear, and from a technical perspective, i.e. curriculum as policy or
product.The field of Curriculum Studies transcends its parts so it cannot
be studied strictly in terms of a compilation of those parts and must
be studied at the level of emergence.This requires a broad view of the
construct of curriculum in order to accommodate and do justice to its
inherent complexity and to allow it to unfold as a complex process.
Current curriculum trends and future possibilities should be considered
within the context of the above discussion in order for Curriculum Studies
to be more responsive to the real needs of education. It should be able to
make relevant contributions not only to the field of education, but also to
the improvement of social, economic and political conditions. Davies and
Edwards (2001) argue that adding wings to a caterpillar does not make it a
butterfly, as this metamorphosis requires a series of complex developmental
interactions and processes. Similarly, curriculum should not be seen as an
end product that can be manipulated and engineered, but should rather be
dealt with imaginatively as a complex, interactive social process.
Returning to the internationalisation of Curriculum Studies discourse,
we would like to emphasise several future directions we believe ought to
be considered when engaging with the discipline.The above discourses
do, indeed, open up possibilities for curriculum at theoretical and
implementation levels and we propose some ideas for consideration
beyond this period and as future possibilities for the field:
• What exactly do we mean by the transdisciplinarity in Curriculum
Studies? Is it really novel to the discipline or have scholars always
engaged with the field in a transdisciplinary manner? Should
transdisciplinarity be foregrounded in the field?
• What does transdisciplinarity mean for the types of knowledge (or
content) that we include in a curriculum?
• What does transdisciplinarity mean for scholars and researchers who
engage with Curriculum Studies?
• And, most importantly, are we as Curriculum Studies scholars
heading in the right direction when we concern ourselves with the
internationalisation of the Curriculum Studies discourse?

CURRICULUM 199
STUDIES
Visions and
 REFERENCES

Brown, P., Halsey,A., Lauder, H. &Wells,A. Stuart. 1997.The transformation of Education and
society: An introduction. In A. Halsey. H. Lauder & A.Stuart Wells (eds). Education: Culture,
economy, society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, R. 2005. The Rational Imagination. How People Create Alternatives to Reality. Cambridge:
MIT Press.

Chisholm, L. 2005.The making of South Africa's National Curriculum Statement.Journal of

Cu"iculum Studies, 37(2):193-208.
Clarke, A. & Collins, S. 2007. Complexity science and student teacher supervision. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23: 160- 172 .
Coffey, M. 2000. Education and Soda/ Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Davies. M. & Edwards, G. 2001.Will the curriculum caterpillar ever learn to fly? In J.Collins,
K. Insley & J. Soler. (eds). Developing
Pedagogy. Researching Practice. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.

Doll,W 2008. Complexity and the Culture of Curriculum. Educational Philosophy and Theory,
40(1):190-212.

Flinders, D. & Thornton, S.(eds). 2013. The Curriculum Studies Reader {4th edition). NewYork
and United Kingdom: Routledge.

Greene, M. 2007.The artistic-aesthetic curriculum. In R. Curren (ed.). Philosophy of Educaiotn.

An anthology. USA, UK & Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
Goodson, L. 1997. The Changing C11rrimlum: Studies in Sodal Construction. New York: Peter
Lang.

Lee,J. 2010. International Research. In C. Kridel (ed). Encyclopaedia of Curriculum Studies

Volume 1. London: Sage.

Pinar,WF. 2007. Imellectual Advancement tlirough disdplinarity:Verticality and Horizontality in

Curriculum Studies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Pinar,WF. 2010. Curriculum Theory. In C. Kridel (ed). Encyclopaedia of Currimlum Studies
Volume 1. London: Sage.

Smith, M.K. 2000.'Curriculum theory and practice': the encyclopaedia of informal education.
www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

200 CONCLUSION
 IN DEX

Entries are listed iri letter-by-letter alphabetical order. B

Acronyms appear iri alphabetical sequence within the backward-develo pme nt theory 98
index. Bantu Educatio n 34
behavioural objec tives 97
A behaviourist perspective 99, 116
access to education 70 Bengu, Sibusiso 36, 48
accommodation 117 Bernstein, Basil 114
accountability 62, 63, 135, 165, 167 Bobbitt, Franklin 96,97, 98
action research, enab lin g curr iculum leade rship bureaucracies 22- 23, 150, 161, 165, 169, 196
through 8, 166-172 Butler,]. 84
Advanced Certificate of Education: School
Leadership 164 C
African National Congress Education C2005 see Curriculum 2005
Departm ent see ANC Education Calvinism12
Department Canadian society, multicultural integration as
Afrikaner Christian nationalists and culture 34, form of assimilation in 82
160, 162, 163 CAPS see Ct1rrict1l11111 and Assessment Polciy
agency and identity 66-67, 168 Statements
Agrawal, M. 181, 184 CCB Y (Crearive Commons Attribution)
American industrialisation 12 licence 124
ANAs see annual national assessments character strengths 79, 80, 81
ANC (African National Congress) Education Charters 98
Departme nt 162 Chisholm, Linda 43
annual national assessments (AN As) 135, 157, choice 63-64, 128
166-167 Christian National Education (CNE) 34, 158,
apartheid education 2, 34-35, 38, 56, 137 160,161,163
Apple, Michael 186 classroom
application of learning 122 beyond walls of 128
Aquinas, St T hom as 112 practice 106
archaeology of curriculum systems 23 CNE see Christian National Education
ARG see Assessment R eform Group cognitivism 116- 117
Aristo tle 56, 62, 80-81, 112, 113 comm on good, freedom of choice as the 63-64
Asmal, Kader 39, 45, 68 community, structured learning 128
assessment complexsystems 27, 28
activities and scaffolded learning 128 conceptual- empiricism184
and curriculum 7, 46, 134-156, 181-182 conditioning process 116
standards 42, 45, 100 Confucianism 112
Assessment R eform Group (ARG) 146 connectivism118
assimilatio n 77, 82, 117 conservatism 77-81, 163
assumptions Constitution (1996) 38-39, 40, 50
about being and knowing 111 constructivist approach 117-118
about educating 112-115 contents, progression of 94
shaping of practice by 120-122 context19,28, 118,137,172
about teaching and learning 115 continuity 3
Augustine, St 112 copyright restrictions 123
authority 25, 50, 57,100, 102, 160-161,163, Cornbleth, Catherine 106
165,166 cosmopolitanism and curriculum 5, 86-89

201 CUR
RICU
LUM
 Council of Education Ministries 44, 45 as social construct and field of study 11-31,
Coursera 128 105-106
Creative Commons 124 socialisation function of 60-61
Attribution Licence see CCBY licence studies/ inquiry,perspectives and approaches
Critical and Developmental Outcomes 45 of14-19
critical subjectification function of 60-61
curriculum theories 58-59 systems, archaeology of 23
learning 85 technocratic view of 15
perspectives and approaches 16- 17, 169 technology and e-learning 1.27 - 129
praxis 16, 103-104 theorising 77
criticality 86 theory,virtue education as co nstitutive of
cultural plu ralism 81 78- 80
cuhure that machined curriculum evaluation value-free 67-68
178-180 workshops 110
curriculum Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements
and assessment 134-156 (CAPS) 35-36, 46, 47, 51, 145
communication of 121 Curriculum 2005 (C2005) 35, 37, 39- 40, 43,
cosmopolitanism and 86-89 44,45,48,70
as 'currere' 13, 26, 105
and Curriculum Studies, imaginative D
reflections (imaginings) and fi.1ture data collection 171
possibilities for 195-200 decision making 120-121, 139,141,142,160,
definition of 4, 12-13 161,165,169,171,185
delivery, balanced assessment for more deliberation theory 104
effective 151-153 democratic
democratic justice and 68, 84-86, 106 accountability 62, 63
development 5- 6, 65, 91-109, 136-137 governance 2, 38-39
embedded assumptions in 60-61 justice and curriculum 68, 84-88, 106
engaging with 122 process of teaching and learning 59, 66
engineering 23-24 Department of
evaluation 8, 177- 194 BasicEducation 45, 46, 53, 145
hidden 60, 94 Education 41, 42, 45, 53, 165
history 32-34 Education and Training (DET) 34
and ideology 56-75 Higher Education and Training 45
implementation and regulation of24-26 Deputy Minister of Education 165
influence of the marketisation of education Descartes, R. 112
on the elements of 63-68 descriptive theory 101
as inquiry 4, 52-53, 185-188 DET see Education and Training under
instrumentalist 51 Department of
leadership in South African schools 157-176 De Tracy, Destutt 57
-making 106-107 Dewey,John 93, 94, 97, 113
marketised understanding of the nature of 64 dialogic approach 120
meanings of construct of 4, 12-13 disciplinary conte>.."t, engaging through vision
and moral debates 76-90 and in1aginings 1-10
of multicultural integration 82-89 discipline- based teaching and learning 15
null 61, 94- 95 discrimination 71
origins ofll-12 dominant discourses 24, 28
policy and systems 22-24
post-apartheid 68-72 E
practice 21-22, 27 economic relations, structuring of 65- 66
as reflective of power relations in society 114 education
reform in South Africa and beyond 32- 55 access to 70

INDE 202
X
 gender issuesin 162-163,165 G
incidental 11 GEAR programme see Growth, Employment
marketisation of 61.-68 and Redistribution programme
policy environment 2 grad in g practice through process, curriculum
quality of 70, 137, 143 evaluatio n as 184-185
transformation 2, 8, 62,103,159, 166--167, grammatology 179-180
173,182 Greene, M . 2, 5, 9
educational grievability 84
assumptions 112, 115 gro up-differentiated righ ts 81
experience, multicultural integration as Growth, Employment and Redistribution
constitutive of81-82 (GEAR) programme 68
neuroscience, role of in reimagining
curriculum evaluation 190-192 H
Eisner's rationalist orientated typology 51 harmony 25
e-learning and technology 127-129 Harper, S. 184-185
emancipatory theory 104-105 Hegel, G.Wf 112
empirical evidence 25 hermeneutic paradigm see inter pretivist
Employment Equity Act (No. 55 of 1998) 165 perspectives and approaches
English as a First Additional Language 46 History curriculum, revising the 37
Enlightenment 33, 61 Home Language 46
epistemological hospitality, right to 87
assumptions 111, 115 human flourishing 84
practice and representation 19 humanistic theory 101-102
equality 84 human rights 83, 86--88
essentialist curriculum approach 113 Hume, D.112
ethical relations 5
ethics of care 83 I
Experience and Education (Dewey) 94 ICT (information and communications
experiences technology) 121,123,127,128,129,164
authentic learning 93, 100 ideological pluralism 18
oflearners and teachers 26, 116 ideology 56--57
and curriculum 5, 15, 56--75, 179-180
F Ideologya11d Curricu/11111 (Apple) 186
factory model of schooling 23 IEB (Independent Examination Board) 145
Fantini's humanistic theory 101 ignorance, theory of 52-53
feedback 23, 27, 104, 121, 128, 138, 143, 145, imagination, role of in Curriculum Studies
147, 148-149,150,151,171 development 9, 107, 197-198
feedforward 138, 147, 149, 150 immigrant communities 87-89
feedout 147 Independent Examin ation Board see IEB
Firestein's theory of ignorance 52-53 individualism, myth of77-81
First Additional Language 46 information and communications technology
formative assessment 141, 143, 146--149, 150, see ICT
154 intellectual development discourse 94
Foundation Phase 46 interactive theory 97-98
frames of reference 27 Intermediate Phase 46
freedom of choice as the common good 63-64, interpretivist perspectives and approaches 16
78-79
free spaces 159-160 J
Freire, Paulo 35, 103, 104 Jackson, Philip W 94
Jansen,]. 3, 120
justice, global discourse of 105
just-in- time lifelong learning 127

203 CUR
RICU
LUM
 K 39,68
Kantian deontology 76 rnarketisation of education 61 9,71
knowledge marketised e mpiri cal-analytical paradigm 58 see
in the blood 120 also positivism
construction of 118, 160,170 Massive Open O nlin e Courses (MOO Cs) 128
and curriculum 6, 16, 19- 21, 24, 26, 27, 57, Mathematics 46
60, 102- 103, 196- 197 matric ulation examination 137, 142, 143- 145
indigenous 107, 114 McMillan, J.H. 126, 184
mapping ofll-12, 119 McT ighe,J. 96, 98
nature of 111,114-116 means-end relationship 24, 25
and skiU, metacognitive 150-151, 152 measurability of behaviour and objectives
validation of as worthwhile 66-67 99- 100, 139
meta- narratives
L in the curriculum domain 97, 105, 106
labo ur and economic discourse 4Q-4l, 68---<>9 of society and community 6 1
lan guage metastudies, role of in reimagining curriculum
and discourse 57, 173, 179, 188 evalu ation 188- 189
of instruction 87 Ministerial
Lead and Manage Committee 43
People 164 R eview Committee 45
a Subject, Learning Area or Phase 164 Minister
leadership in schools 7 of Basic Education 47
Leading and Managing Effective Use of ICTs in of Education 45, 48, 166
South African Schools 164 ministry of educatio n 3
learners 65, 150 minoriry rights 82
learning Moderate Assessment 164
assessment as 150- 151, 152, 153 modernist approach 33, 104 see a/soTyler, Ralph
assessment for 146-149, 152, 153 MOOCs see Massive Open Online Courses
assessment of 142 - 146, 152 , 153 moral debates and curriculum 76-90
experience 117, 118, 138 mother tongue, right to be taught in 87
online 128- 129 Motshekga, Angelina 45,47,48
as the organising principle of societies 64 multicultural integration
and teaching support materials 46 as constitutive of educational exper ience
unlocking doors of70-72 81-82
Learning and virtue education 5, 76-90
Areas 42, 46
Outcomes 42, 45, 139, 154 N
Programmes 46 National
Progralllille Guidelines 47 Curriai/11111 Statement Grades R-12 47-48, 52
Liberalism 61, 66, 72 Protocol for Assess111e11t 47National Conference
Locke,). 73, 112 on Action Research (Australia,1981) 167
National
M Curriculum Statement (NCS) 35, 43, 45, 46,
Makoelle,T.M. 51 47, 48, 51
Manage Protocol on Assessment 138
Organisational Systems, Physical and Training Board (N IB ) 40
Financial Resources 164 Union ofEducators 166
Policy,Planning , School Development and national curriculum
Governance 164 in South Africa pre-1994 34-35
Teaching and Learning 164 systems 24
Mangena, Mosibudi 165 National Edu cation
J\1.anifesto on v&lues, E d11catio11 and Democracy 38, Crisis Committee (NECC) 35

INDE 204
X
 Policy Investigation (NEPI) 35 pedagogic assumptions 115
Training Forum (NETF) 35 The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Frere) 35
national reconstruction and development 2 peer
nation building 82- 83 assessment 151
nation-state 72- 73 mentoring and collaborative learning 128,
naturalistic theory 101 169
NCS see C u rriculum Statement imder N ational People's Education (for People's Power) 34
- CAPS 4, 48, 69 perennialist curriculum approach 113
NECC see Crisis Conunittee under Natio nal performance appraisal and productivity 100,
Education 140, 143, 152
neo-liberalism 5, 8, 33, 58, 61-68, 71, 72, 154 personal relevance in curriculu m design 94
NEPAD agreement see New Partnership for philosophical stance 14-15
Africa'sDevelopment agreement philosophy and ideology 57
NEP I see Po licy I nvestigation under National Physical Science curr iculum 182-183
Education Piaget,Jean 94, 117
NETF seeTraining Forum under National Pinar,W 1, 77, 184
Education Plan and Conduct Assessmn e t 164
neuroscience 191-192 Plato 57, 112, 113
New Partnership for Africa's Development plurality of narratives 105
(NEPAD) agreement 68 policy
NGOs (non-governmental organisations) 35, 50 borrowing 106
Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle) 113 maturation 52
Noddings, N. 67, 83 sli p page52
non-governmen tal organisations see NGOs policy cycle
Nonvegian National Curriculum 187 first curriculum 36-39, 48, 49
NTB seeT rai ning Board under National second curriculu m 39-43, 48
Nzimande, Blade 45, 166 third curri cul um 43-45, 48
fourth curriculum 45-48
0 political symbolism, curriculum as 49, 186
OBE see Outcomes-Based Education Positivism 114
objectives- orientated evaluation 184 positivist perspectives and approaches 15- 16 see
observation 171 also Tyler , Ralph
ODL (Open Distance Learning) 127 post-
OER (Open Educational R esources) Apartheid Government 158
how different from other resources 123-124 -structuralism perspectives and approaches
reasons for engagement with 125-127 17-19
University 128 postmoderrust thoughts and ideas 2, 6, 21,
ontological assumptions 111, 115, 190 33-34,59, 104,105,106,120,127
Open poverty and inequality 70, 85
Distance Learning see ODL pragmatist way of thinking 113
Educational R esources see OER praxis approach to curriculum-making 95, 96,
O utcomes - Based Education (OBE) 39-42, 44, 103-105, 106
46,48,49,51,70,80,134 pre- modern era 33
own schools 82-83, 137 prescriptive measures 99
problem-solving competencies and abilities 66
p process approach to curriculum development
Pandor, Naledi 45, 48, 166 95,96,101-103
paradigms 14, 16 product
Paris Declaration 124 approach to curr iculum development 95,
participation,stakeholder 38, 168- 169, 185,187 96- 101
paternalism, myth of77-81 testing, cur riculum evaluation as 182- 184

205 CUR
RICU
LUM
 Protestantism 12, 33 Senior Certificate examinations and results
provincial Departments of Education syllabi 34 166-167
purification of curriculum development 36-39 separation 25
signs th.at traditionally co de curriculum
R evaluation , circulating and breaking with
Ramus, Peter 11-12 the 180-182
rationale 24, 25 Skinner's behaviourism 97
RDDA approach see Research Development Slattery, Patrick 105, 120
Dissemination and Adoption approach Slote, M. 83
RDP see Reconstruction and Development SMTs see management teams underschool
Programme social
realism 112-113 justice 39,80
reasonablen essas an instance of curric ulum practice, vir tue education as a 80-81
82-83 product, curriculum as a 50, 191
recognisability 84 reconstructivist ideology 16
reconceptualists 15-16 regulation 25
Reconstruction and Development Programme socially constru cted curriculum theory 94
(RDP) 68 socio-cons tructivist 127
reductionist approach 15 Solomon's four-group design 183
reflection 118, 150-151, 171-172, 179 South African Schools Act (No. 84 of 1996) 163
reformative praxis, curriculum inquiry as Spady, William 40
185-188 stakeholder and civil society participation 38, 39
regulative understandings 25 state and citizen, relation between 65
The Republic (Plato) 113 status quo 79-s80
Research Development Dissemination and stealth assimilation 77 see also multicultural
Adoption (RDDA) approach 15 integration
resources 122 Stenhouse, Lawrence 101
distribution of70 structural-functionalist assumptions 1
how OER are different from other 124 structuralism 17
use of120-121 subject advisors, role of 46
respect 85, 86 Subject Assessment Guidelines in Grades
responsibility,acceptance of for the rights of R-12 47
others 86 subjectified reconstruction 77
Review Committee 43-45 subjective premise and values 67
RevisedNational Curriai/11111 Statemetlt (RNCS) subjects, school 93
45,68 Subjects 46 see also Areas rmder Le arning
RNCS see Revised Natio11al C11rria,l1m1 State111e11t Subject Statements 47
summative assessment 137,141, 142-146, 149,
s 150,152,153,154
scaffo lded le arning 118, 128
scholarship 21 T
schooling as a site of cultural transmission 24 Taba, Hilda 97
school management teams (SMTs) 167 Taba's grassroots rationale 97-98
schools as com plex social institutions 3 TaskTeam 46, 47
Schumacher, S. 126, 184 Report 51
scientific method and principles of operation Taylor, Frederick 1, 12
1, 96 teacher
Scientism 114 -child relationship 65, 73
segregated (own) schools 82-83, 137 evaluation 161
self- training, pre-service and in-service 47,
assessment and self-regulation 150-151 161-162, 165
-learning 6 unions 50

INDE 206
X
 workload and administrative burden 46, 166 Courseware for Higher Education in
teachers Developing Countries (2002) 123
involvement of in curr iculum developme nt unification between means and ends 24, 25
97-98,165, 168- 169,181 United Nations 88
and knowledge construction 38, 189 Educational, Scientific and Cultural
pedagogical competence expected of 64, 185 Organization Forum on Open Courseware
quality of 102 for High er
teaching Education in Developing Countries see
and learning, purpose and facilitation of 65, UNESCO Forum on Open Courseware
162,181 for Higher
lear ning and curriculum resources 110-133, Education in Developing Countries
138 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 88-89
and learning resources 6, 123-124 utilitarianism 76
within a managerial system of production and
delivery 69 V
practice and learning approaches 118-120 values 67,71
technicist-instrumentalist approaches to virtue education and multicultural integ ration
education 79 5,76-90
technology and e-learning 127- 129 vocabulary and terminology 41-42, 44, 46,69
tests and testing, systemic and standardised Vygotsky, Lev 117
65-66,139-140,151- 154
thinking curriculum through theory as w
evaluation, role of 189-190 Walberg, H.J. 182-183
transactional way of thinking 113 see also Walker's process or naturalistic theory 101
De we y.John Web 2.0/3.0 127
transdisciplinarity 199 Weinstein's humanistic theory 101
Tyler, Ralph 1, 8, 16, 96, 178, 184 Welch, W.W. 182- 183
rationale of 15, 16,27, 96-97 Western Cape schools 161
Wiggins, G. 96, 98
u Wikipedia 128
ubuntu 114 World Wide Web 189
UNESCO (United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization) z
Forum on Open Zille, Helen 43

207 CUR
RICU
LUM