The last keynote address of SLF 2007 in the Clyde Auditorium at the SECC.
"
Common Futures, Different Pasts - Global Solutions to Curriculum Challange", Pasi Sahlberg
Curriculum is changing everywhere, not just in Scotland. No countries are getting this completely correct. We need to think deeply about how we reform our curriculum. Many of the countries in Europe have very different economies and histories which impact on their current developments. We are all part of a global economy, environment, security concenrs and more students in secondary and higher education so there will be similarities in the future. Another common trend is to see bigger and bigger schools. Also, there are more and more pupils who move from one school to another or from one country to another.
Internation studies such as PISA are used across many countries but there are many who misuse the results and the interpretation of these results. This is likely to be the case this December when the next set of PISA results are published.
Another driver for curricular is the perceived knowledge society. It is seen as a magic term and curricula are being realigned for whatever this might be. So what is the knowledge society? A few words used to describe the knowledge society are
- flexibility - the system must respond to new ideas and changes, but also in the school and the classroom to allow autonomy? Does our curriculum prescribe what is done in our classrooms.
- Creativity - it does not mean having more arts! It is much more about thinking about whether the school is a creative place to work and learn. Is there space to take risks?
- Ingenuity - not necessarily the same as innovation. Are our pupils good problem solvers.
- Learning - we all need to be part of a learning community.
Conversely, education policies often have different priorities:
- attainment targets - all teachers must work towards these targets. We put a high priority on test scores;
- leagues tables of accountability
- curricular uniformity
So what is happening there:
- G - lobal
- E - ducational
- R - eform
- M - ovement
This is an orthodoxy or movement which has not always led to the best education:
- higher standards - led to a centralised curriculum with an artificial autonomy in the school
- strong emphasis on literacy and numeracy - not always done for the right reason but so that they pass the test
- ICT - huge investment in some countries. In many places this is overspent but underused in learning
- aligned assessment - the things at the centre of the curriculum will be assessed or examined.
- consequential accountability
In these systems trust disappears. Teachers don't trust the system anymore because the system does not trust teachers.
How do we connect testing and the curriculum? Which drives which? Until recently there has not been a huge amount of evidence in thsi area. Recently some research from the United States where high stakes assessment is well embedded.
- content - how does this influence what is taught?
- formal - do they lackage what they teach for the testing?
- pedagogy - does this focus the teaching in a particular direction.
Wayne Au looked at this in 2007. About 1600 teachers were included in the studies. 69% contracted there study as a result of the assessment. 49% found that knowledge was reorganised to suit the assessment. 66% of studies found that teachers became more teacher centred approaches. This shows that high stakes assessment has an impact on what goes on in the classroom.
The conclusion - is this an overly pessimistic view of how we do education? Should there not be public accountability for what goes on in schools? Are our schools better or worse since we introduced target setting? Does the use of assessment for learning not raise attainment? Lots of questions and not many answers just now. Perhaps a time of reflection is required.
