Professional Learning Flagship Program: Leading Curriculum Change

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IntroductionThis review aims to inform the design and implementation of the Professional Learning FlagshipProgram: Leading Curriculum Change developed by the School of Education and the Centre forInnovation and Professional Learning at The University of Queensland for the Australian Institutefor Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) 1 . Accordingly, it addresses the key role componentsand required capacities of curriculum leaders in a context of curriculum change, and the nature of aprofessional learning process which would prepare lead teachers for this role.The review is organised in four sections:1. Curriculum change: Implications for leadership2. Research on professional learning3. The processes of leadership4. Conclusion and recommendations.The review has been informed by the work of AITSL represented in a number of documents:• Interim Standards for Professional Learning Programs (2010)• The Review of the AITSL Draft Standards for Professional Learning Programs (Lloyd andMayer 2010)• The Lead Teacher career stage in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (2011).• The review has also been informed by The Shape of the Australian Curriculum Version 2.0.(ACARA 2010).Throughout the review the aim is to identify the key needs for mounting a successful professionallearning program to develop teachers’ capacity for leading curriculum change. For this reason, whilethe review scrutinises research for its validity and usefulness, it differs from a standard research reviewaimed at identifying needs for future research.While an overwhelming emphasis in the literature on educational leadership focuses on the schoolprincipal, this is not the concern of this review. Rather, the review is motivated to contribute to thepreparation of lead teachers who meet, in its broadest sense, the aspiration of the AITSL NationalProfessional Standards for Teachers that:Inside and outside the school they initiate and lead activities that focus on improving educationalopportunities for all students.1 The author acknowledges the assistance of Janine Roberts and Han Le in the preparation of this review.1 Professional Learning Flagship Program: Leading Curriculum Change: Literature Review
Curriculum change: Implications for leadershipUnderstanding the process of curriculum change is necessarily based on concepts of the natureof curriculum. Hamilton’s claim that, ‘To create a curriculum is to systematise stored-up humanexperience’, is deceptive in its simplicity. A more comprehensive view of the curriculum process is onein which valued forms of knowledge are interpreted and reinterpreted through processes of conception,translation, production, and implementation (Gilbert 2010). Such a view is elaborated by Moreno:Curriculum is a socio-historical construction which is expressed through general systems ofknowledge characterization and hierarchy; these systems are in turn translated and transformedinto legislative and administrative regulations, academic achievement standards, textbooksand teaching aids, and the practice of teaching and learning in classrooms and schools(Moreno 2006, p. 195).This somewhat linear view needs to be combined with the recognition that curriculum specificationsare articulations of meanings in social practices. As Muller points out, this process does not ‘proceedor progress seamlessly nor is it an aggregate of incremental steps’; rather, ‘The embodiment in thecurriculum of the values and practices of any particular group is the result of a process of struggle,usually symbolic, although it is always also related to the broader field of power in society’ (Muller 2000pp. 10, 11). To see the curriculum in this way is to recognise that curriculum change is a process whichlinks to broader social contexts, and which calls up deep-rooted questions about school and society,issues recognised in the references to globalisation and technological, social and environmental changein The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority(ACARA) 2010, p. 5).The challenge of curriculum changeThe Australian curriculum is characterised in The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA 2010,p. 25) as a dynamic and futures-oriented document subject to ‘ongoing monitoring and review’, andupdating in the light of ‘review and evaluation data; new national and international knowledge andpractice about learning, teaching, curriculum design and implementation; and contemporary researchin discipline and cross-discipline areas’. Consequently, curriculum change is not a process limited to aperiod of time, but an ongoing and necessary part of the routine practice of schools.Observers have a generally pessimistic view of the experience of curriculum reform (Leithwood,Jantzi and Mascall 2002; McDonald 2003), and it is hard to deny McCulloch’s claim that ‘longerterm curriculum reform has generally failed to generate educational change of a fundamental kind’(McCulloch 1998, p. 1203). Some commentators have pointed to curriculum change as an erratic orfortuitous process dominated by fads and pendulum-like swings from one ideology or theory to another(Good, Clark and Clark 1997; Ravitch 2001).The range of factors which affect the success of curriculum implementation is as broad as educationitself (Sims and Sims 2004; Smith 2008). Table 1 from Altrichter (2005, p. 8) illustrates this range.Ellsworth has identified various causes of resistance to change, including cultural, social, organisationaland psychological barriers (Ellsworth 2000). McDonald reviewed three models of curriculum reform,the top-down approach of the ‘teacher proof’ curricula of the 1960s and 1970s (reappearing in somerecent standards bases approaches), the bottom-up approach of school-based curriculum developmentand the action research movement, and more recent approaches through collaborative partnerships ofschools, professional associations and other stakeholders (McDonald 2003). McDonald suggests thatthese approaches are limited in their modernist assumptions about knowledge and the role of studentsas consumers in a regulated institutional order, and that a more flexible and open approach is needed.An OECD analysis of curriculum reform in a range of countries identified a similar dichotomy which… reveal rather contradictory conclusions about the systemic reform endeavour. On the one hand,they reinforce the idea of the inter-connectedness of the different elements. On the other, someProfessional Learning Flagship Program: Leading Curriculum Change: Literature Review 2
Page 1 and 2: Professional Learning FlagshipProgr
Page 3: ContentsIntroduction ..............
Page 7 and 8: Table 1: Overview of factors affect
Page 9 and 10: This emphasis on capacity-building
Page 11 and 12: Much of the foregoing discussion is
Page 13 and 14: Features of successful professional
Page 16 and 17: p. 1051) conclude that, ‘Findings
Page 18 and 19: 2007; Gruenert 2005; Printy 2008; S
Page 20 and 21: RecommendationsProfessional learnin
Page 22 and 23: impersonal relationships• rationa
Page 24 and 25: • The organisational goals are di
Page 26 and 27: Table 2: Two views of teacher leade
Page 28 and 29: A range of specifications and stand
Page 30 and 31: In secondary schools, teacher leade
Page 32 and 33: 1. Stimulus for innovation — Why
Page 34 and 35: Table 4: Elements and processes of
Page 36 and 37: The education of Indigenous student
Page 38 and 39: ReferencesAinscow, M. (2005). Devel
Page 40 and 41: Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid Response
Page 42 and 43: Hall, R. (1997). Knowledge Use and
Page 44 and 45: Meirink, J., Meijer, P., Verloop, N
Page 46 and 47: Thorpe, R., and Gold, J. (2010). Le
Page 48: aitsl.edu.auFurther informationTele

Professional Learning Flagship Program: Leading Curriculum Change

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?