Memorandum submitted by John Bangs, Assistant
Secretary, National Union of Teachers (NUT)
The National Curricula under consideration are:
COMMON FEATURES
Each of the National Curricula for the countries
considered includes an overarching philosophy of the curriculum
combined with subject or discipline related descriptors. In some
cases, such as South Africa and India, the overarching aspects
are considerably detailed and very specific to the particular
country and culture. In other cases, such as Sweden and England,
these aspects are less emphasised but are clearly intended to
be part of the make-up of the National Curriculum.
Each of the National Curriculum documents seeks
to be fully inclusive, and includes, for example, children with
special educational needs or children from minority groups as
applicable to the respective country.
Each of the National Curricula attempt demonstrably
to address social and cultural issues which are specific to their
country, but which would not necessarily be a factor in other
countries with a different social make-up.
KEY DIFFERENCES
Some curricula attempt to describe in detail
what, why and how particular subject matter should be taught.
The National Curriculum for India for example engages with descriptors
of pedagogical style best applicable to the subject matter being
taught. The National Curriculum for South Africa describes the
history of the apartheid and post-apartheid eras, and as a consequence
describes in detail what education should be about in a post-apartheid
era. The National Curricula for both countries contain considerable
detail therefore.
In contrast, the contents of the National Curricula
for Sweden and New Zealand are slim.
The Swedish curriculum focuses on values and
is slender on "content". The first sentence of the Swedish
curriculum, for example, says that "democracy forms the basis
of the national school system". In subject terms, the Swedish
National Curriculum is mainly described in terms of outcomes at
the end of primary and secondary schooling.
It is notable that the entire National Curriculum
for Sweden—both overarching statements on the background
to the curriculum and the individual subject content—is
roughly equivalent in length to the South African subject statement
for mathematics alone. The National Curriculum for New Zealand
amounts to fewer pages, in its entirety, even than the National
Curriculum for Sweden. The New Zealand curriculum is mainly based
around aims and values: there is very little specificity about
what should be taught.
Neither the New Zealand nor the Swedish curricula
contain stages of attainment which could be used for pupil assessment.
They are not assessment curricula.
The Indian National Curriculum is noteworthy
as, although it has little specificity on a subject basis, it
describes in detail an educational philosophy and its relationship
to India as a nation. It focuses on "peace" as a value
and philosophy and also describes pedagogic approaches.
The Finnish curriculum is perhaps the closest
in content to the English model in both its size with separate
curricula for primary and secondary schools which are of a similar
length to those in England. It has "overarching" set
of aims and values for the curriculum followed by subject orders
which describe what should be taught, and contain a set of stages
for assessment.
The Indian and South African curricula may be
a consequence of the challenges facing those particular nations.
As an example, the Indian curriculum is quite explicit in terms
of equality across gender, race, religion, and location in rural
or urban areas. The South African Curriculum responds to the apartheid
model of an education system, which was racially divided in terms
of provision and outcomes, and is therefore a very explicit "social"
model of education which attempts to address the inequalities
of the past and to ensure similar inequalities are not replicated
in the future.
Although the English, Indian and South African
models are very different, they seek to direct and effect from
the centre change in teacher practice. The Swedish and New Zealand
models require deep knowledge of the curriculum and pedagogy among
teachers. The Finnish model, while appearing to be similar to
the English Curriculum in detail and structure, is in fact conceptually
different.
It is worth comparing both the New Zealand and
Finnish Curricula which are ostensibly different. In fact, they
contain very similar conceptual approaches which are summarised
in the quotes from both national curriculum documents set out
below.
"The relationship between the New Zealand
Curriculum and the school curriculum
The New Zealand Curriculum sets the direction
for teaching and learning in English-medium New Zealand schools.
But it is a framework rather than a detailed plan. This means
that, while every school curriculum must be clearly aligned with
the intent of this document, schools have considerable flexibility
in determining the details. In doing this, they can draw on a
wide range of ideas, resources and models | The principles are
foundations of curriculum decision-making. They embody beliefs
about the nature of the education experience and the entitlement
of students; they apply equally to all schools and to every aspect
of the curriculum. Schools should be able to clearly demonstrate
their commitment to the principles and to articulate how they
are given effect in teaching and learning."
"The Finnish National Core Curriculum for
basic education—the formulation of the curriculum
The National Core Curriculum is the national
framework on the basis of which the local curriculum is formulated.
The education provider takes responsibility for the preparation
and development of the local curriculum. In the local curriculum,
decisions are made regarding the educational and teaching tasks
of basic education and the objectives and content specified in
the National Core Curriculum |
The curriculum may be formulated so as to include
a segment specific to the municipality or segments specific to
the region or school as decided by the education provider. The
coherence of the curriculum for basic education requires co-operation
among different teacher groups in drafting the curriculum. In
particular, the pupils' parents and guardians must be able to
influence the definition of the curriculum's educational objective.
The pupil may also be involved in the curriculum work."
The comparisons between the English, New Zealand
and Finnish Curricula, lead to some interesting initial conclusions.
The differences between them are not about whether they define
content or pedagogic approach, or whether they are assessment
curricula, or, indeed, whether they focus on values. The differences
are about whether the curricula trust teachers and local communities,
including pupils, to develop the curriculum according to a set
of national principles.
By and large, the three national curricula reflect
national priorities and national concerns. Not all countries have
national curricula. National curricula do not necessarily mandate
high levels of achievement amongst all pupils. Canada achieves
very high levels of both equity and pupil achievement and has
no National Curriculum. The United States has no National Curriculum
and has one of the greatest levels of inequity in pupil achievement.
The three national curricula indicate the state
of each government's relationship with the teaching profession,
schools and local communities. In New Zealand and Finland, teachers
and local communities are entrusted to develop the curriculum.
In England, the curriculum is used more to define and raise standards.
Trusting teachers and local authorities to develop the curriculum
is only implicit at best.
December 2008
| 
