| Popis: |
Curriculum Mutters is, for me, a long overdue publication. Its genesis is due to the thinking of our colleagues in the Ministry of Education who wanted to encourage debate about curriculum, in particular with the current review of curriculum, and those at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research who recognised the need for such a publication. Both groups knew that many papers were being prepared for the Ministry and that these could be modified for more general circulation. The Ministry agreed to contribute to some of the production costs in the initial years while the publication was being established. It was with pleasure that I accepted the invitation to edit Curriculum Mutters, as I also felt there was a need for more debate on curriculum, and my pleasure has continued as I found many contributors very willing to share their ideas. While each of us has our own ideas about curriculum, I am confident this journal will raise issues we have not all considered, that will stimulate further thinking about curriculum in schools, early childhood services, and other areas of education, and will become a resource for the further study of curriculum theory and practice. However, curriculum matters are not merely subjects for academic study; they are central to the making of educational policy at government, institutional, and classroom levels. The curriculum determines what is taught and emphasised, and sometimes how it is taught. Indeed, one matter of interest to me is how a curriculum document might best serve these dual and sometimes competing purposes--representing government policy and guiding teachers. My aim in this editorial is to raise two matters--the purposes of education that underpin curriculum, and the related development processes. This is intended to complement the \work of other contributors who are considering more specific aspects of curriculum. Before starting on these two foci, it is germane to consider what is meant by the word curriculum. Most of my work has been in mathematics education. From that perspective my first inclination is to define terms--however, defining curriculum is difficult. Different people working in different contexts construct different meanings for the word, and many think of a particular form of curriculum as the total curriculum (for example, national curriculum, textbooks, school scheme, lesson plans, taught curriculum, learnt curriculum, or assessed curriculum). One definition that covers most of these forms is all planning for the classroom, though this leads to a discussion about whether the curriculum should focus only on what is to be taught, or also on how such topics are to he taught. In using the word planning in my definition, I am reminded of what Davis (1996, p. 273) wrote: ... an enacted curriculum is one that should be planned, but not predetermined. It involves a complex weaving of intended and chance happenings, of deliberate and accidental actions. At times the teaching is based on careful analysis and thoughtful decision: more often it is simply a consequence of the way the teacher stands in the world. Curriculum exists in both educational and societal environments, but the aspirations within such environments are not always well summarised by the aims of education; sometimes a broader paradigmatic statement can better serve this purpose. Beeby (1986) described these statements as "educational myths". He said: ... educational myths, if they are deep-rooted in the community from which they spring, are the very means by which an educational system matures. A myth is far more than a temporary view of 'reality'. It embodies ideals and aspirations ... And, if myths stimulate us to alter 'reality, the consequent practical changes then lead us to adopt new myths. (p. xvi) Within New Zealand education Beeby described the pre-1920 myth as "survival of the fittest", the period 1920-1935 as representing the movement from the survival of the fittest to "progressive" education, an(] the myth for the 1935-1965 era as being "equality of opportunity". … |
