In Pakistani society,teacher's participation in curriculum planning and decision making connected with curriculum is inconceivable.This also explains partly the cause of low( and irrelevant cramming in classrooms) educational quality.Curriculum planning and decision making is highly centralized.It is controlled by National/ Provincial Text Book Boards respectively at Center and provincial levels.Few years back Aga Khan Education board faced severe educational reaction during Musharraf regime in an attempt to introduce its own curriculum/examination system.The whole process is under strict bureaucratic control and there hardly exist any notion of teachers participation in curriculum planning and design,who in fact are the front stakeholders of the whole educational activity.The question should be reformulated.Can teachers be empowered to be part and parcel of curriculum design process in Pakistani education system? Ahmad Raza.

Thanks Raza sb. Yes, teachers' participation in curriculum planning and decision making at the national level is neglegible. I just wonder if there is a systematic engagement of teachers in curriculum planning and decision making at school level? If so, do we know how they engage and what they do?

Dear Riaz sb. I am afraid such a school does not exist.However,a model school be attempted but who will then sponsor that?

Hi, Riaz

In Jordan, curriculum planning and decision making is far from vast majority of teacher's participation. because curriculum planing is highly centralized and top down planning. teacher are just implement the curriculum policies and supporte the ministry of education by their feedback. Especially the experts or professionals teachers.

in this context, I see and I belief that teachers must engaged Seriously in a certain stages of curriculum planning or something to determine students' Interests، preference,and challenges.

when teachers engaged in his process they tend to adoption the educational policies and work hard to achieve the educational purposes

Thanks Ibrahim al-shara for sharing your experience from Jordan.

Thanks Emel for sharing your views.

Hi,

In Sweden, the National agency of education expected teachers to get involved in the last curriculum reform (2011). The process for curriculum dev. used a webb forum where anybody could read others thinking and suggestions.

However, when scrutinized the decision for the text in curr. dev. heavily dependent upon a couple of few experts. The democratic intentions while using the forum could be heavily critized.

Hi Lennart Rolandsson

Intresting to know about the use of technology to include all teachers in the process of curriculum reform. However, end result showing the dominance of a few experts is against the democratic intension as you have put it. Though it is important the national curriculum development is informed by teachers experiences, it has not happened in the history to the desired scale. One reaon for this could also be that it is very difficulut to involve all teachers in this process (though technology seems to be making it possible now). What I think is more important is that teachers themselves undertake curriculum planning and decision making at school level. They should engage with the state curriculum and its materials and adapt them to the specific needs of their students, school and community ouside. Hence, it becomes important to involve students and their parents in this process of school level curriculum development. What is you experience in Sweden if this happens in schools there? Or what is the practices of teachers with regard to curriculum development at school level in Sweden?

It hard to tell about teachers' practice while they probably do it so differently from teacher to teacher. They are allowed to interpret the curr. documents as long as it is not obvious they are doing it wrong ;-)

Ya, perhaps we need to systematically study teacher practices in order to know its nature.

In my experience as a principal of a primary school the role of curriculum planning and development at the school level is a critical step towards improving student achievement. I find that the greater the conversation is around curricula the more teachers want to engage with creating a curriculum to meet the specific needs of students.

While in Australia we are moving towards a nationally based curriculum (www.acara.edu.au) it is the responsibility of the schools to develop the instructional program. While we know that (a high quality) teacher is a critical ingredient to raising student achievement, it is the role of leadership to help facilitate school wide curriculum discussion around effective pedagogy.

I am an Assistant Principal in a primary school in Sydney. Teachers in our school do engage in curriculum planning and more so collaboratively which has enables them to take ownership of their units of learning as well as enhance consistency. This is valuable as everyone has different perspectives, experiences and ideas which together means we are creating engaging and authentic learning experiences for students. Well it is our aim :)

As Jake Madden said, we are moving towards a nationally based curriculum. Specific topics are allocated to grades to ensure coverage but how it is taught is chosen by stage teams. Our staff do a lot of backward mapping and project based learning.

Hi, I agree with Ibrahim al-shara's belief that teachers must engaged seriously in a certain stages of curriculum planning. Theoretically the process of curriculum planning and decision making is participative. In my practice we do curriculum planning and decision making with teachers' participation especially in the instructional level. We have curriculum committee and we do curriculum strategic planning. Four major areas in curriculum planning and decision making: objective, curriculum contents, teaching-learning approaches, and measurement and evaluation. Also, curriculum planning and decision making are aligned with school mission and vision.

In Quebec, the “official curriculum” for preschool, elementary, secondary and adult education is developed by the State (Ministry of Education). The official curriculum states the general aims of education, the theoretical orientations to knowledge and learning (epistemology and learning theory), and the organization of the programs of study (e.g. Mathematics, Language, Science and Technology, etc.) included in the curriculum. When it comes to developing the goals, objectives, outcomes and content of each of the programs of study, the State “borrows” teachers from the schools (on a 2-3 year “loan of service” to the Ministry) to do the job. They are grouped into teams of specialists (Math, Language, Science, etc.) and are supervised by educational consultants with expertise in curriculum development. The latter are hired directly by the Ministry to ensure fidelity to the theoretical orientations as well as inter- and intra-program consistency across the curriculum. The State also determines the summative evaluation parameters.

Once the first versions of the new programs of study are produced, they go through a “validation” process, where committees of teachers from schools across the province come together to review and give feedback on the programs, which then go back to the Ministry teams for revision.

However, while the State is responsible for determining the objectives and content of the programs (the “what” of teaching), it stays away from pronouncing on the pedagogical approaches used by teachers to implement the programs (the “how” of teaching). It also washes its hands of producing instructional materials (textbooks, learning scenarios, etc.) to be used to implement the program in the classroom. So decisions on how to implement and adapt the programs take place at the school level. School boards and schools have access to funding from the Ministry for local initiatives, such as professional development activities, or the development of learning scenarios and materials. But the process is long and arduous. Initially, some teachers are highly resistant to the new programs; others are keen to experiment; and a large number are interested but hesitant. It takes about 10 -15 years for the majority to come “on board”, mostly as a result of the proliferation of new textbooks and teaching materials to replace the old ones. (And of course by that time, the Ministry is considering revising the curriculum again …..)

Thanks Denise, for sharing. Fascinating reading! I will use your example as a case study when discussing with our ME and Agency of education.

Thanks Denise for sharing experiences from your part of the world. I just wonder what criteria is in place for selecting teachers from schools accorss the province? How many teachers are pulled out from schools for this purpose? Is selection of teachers based on grades they teach? May you please comment on these questions?

Hi Riaz,

The way it works is the Ministry of Education sends out a notice to all the school boards that they are looking for teachers who are interested in a 1-3 year “loan of service” to work on developing the programs of study for the new curriculum. They list the different programs of study (Math, Language, Science, Technology, etc.) and the roles that teachers can apply for (program coordinator or program writer). The school boards transmit the notice to the school principals, who notify their teachers about the openings. Any teachers interested can apply. What grade level they teach is not significant because there are production committees at all levels: pre-school, elementary, high school and adult education. A Ministry committee reviews the applications and makes the selection, trying to make sure that the selection is distributed to represent teachers from the remote rural areas as well as from the large urban centers. But in fact, almost any teacher who applies gets accepted, simply because not many teachers are interested in doing that kind of work, for the following reasons: (a) their salary remains the same (in fact they continue to receive their paychecks from the school board, and the Ministry reimburses the school boards for their salaries), so there is no “added benefit”; (b) there is a lot of travel involved (teachers have to travel from all over the province to meetings at the Ministry in Quebec City on a weekly basis); (c) the workload is heavier, the summer vacation time reduced; (d) most teachers are cynical about curriculum reforms, so it is only the few courageous and adventurous teachers who embrace change rather than fear it who apply. In terms of numbers, it’s quite large, but I don’t have exact numbers: in adult education alone, we were about 60 initially, but as the work progressed over the years, that number was reduced by about half; in the youth sector, the numbers are a significantly higher, since that’s where the majority of the population is found.

Thanks a lot. The reason for those who abstain from doing this task is quite clear. But, those who volunteer, I just wonder what drives them to do this arduous job. You have done it and you know many of those who have done it. May you comment on that driving force please?

Riaz, I really can’t comment on why other teachers chose to get involved in curriculum development (to be honest, I never asked any of my them!). But, if I allow myself to speculate, I think it might have to do with the “tension” that many teachers feel between “theory” and “practice”. It has been my experience (as a pedagogical consultant and a teacher trainer) that most teachers absolutely abhor anything of a theoretical nature (e.g. epistemology, learning theory, educational models, etc.), and will argue that such reflections are of no help whatsoever in planning what to do in the classroom the next day. Most of them also disparage their university teacher training courses, saying that nothing they learned in those courses prepared them for the reality of the classroom. Since curriculum development involves a considerable degree of rigorous analysis at the theoretical level, it does not attract a lot of teachers, or at least not the majority who prefer to be focused on the day-to-day realities of the classroom. The few who do choose to adventure into the domain do not share that abhorrence of theory. I myself love theorizing and have always experienced a strong link between theory and practice, where theory informs practice and practice informs theory. (But then, my first Master’s was in philosophy, and I remember a discussion I had with a like-minded administrator, where we concurred that curriculum development was like “philosophy in practice”). But perhaps I am just speaking for myself … :-)

Its illuminative. The term "philosophy in practice" is amazing. A brief elaborationof this term, if you like, would be of great value to me and perhaps others who may read this post. Thanks!

Well, come to think of it, I believe the term I actually used at the time was “applied philosophy” (but, at least in my mind, the terms mean pretty much the same thing). I guess I was referring to the fact that, when you are developing a new (or reformed) curriculum, one of the first things you have to think about is epistemology: what is knowledge, what do we mean by “knowledge”, what does it mean to know something, what are the objects of knowledge, etc. And then you also have to consider issues in philosophy of mind: e.g. the nature of mind, the nature of learning, mental representation, perception, memory, etc., and the related disciplines of philosophical psychology and cognitive science. And of course, there are a lot of different theories on these issues: rationalism and nativism, empiricism and experiential learning, behaviorism, cognitivism, connectionism, constructivism, social constructivism, enactivism, and so on. The first thing that curriculum developers need to settle on is a particular theoretical orientation to all these questions. And that’s where “applied philosophy” comes in. Once you choose a particular theoretical orientation to knowing and learning, you then have to translate it into a curriculum document that is thoroughly consistent with the theory. (Your curriculum is going to look very different if, for example, you choose a constructivist orientation as opposed to a behaviorist one. Your objectives will be different, your “content” will be different, how you organize the content will be different, your expected outcomes will be different, and how and what you will evaluate will be different.) So I guess that’s what I mean by “applied philosophy”: it’s a constant movement back-and-forth between theory and practice, and between action and reflection-on-action.

(Sorry, my elaboration wasn't all that "brief"!)

Its helpful. Thank you so much for sharing. I will get back to you if have a question.

Riaz, I'm curious about why you asked this question ... :-)

I asked this question because in my country teachers are hardly involved in curriculum development processes at the national level. Through asking this question from scholars of diverse countries and backgrounds I hoped to know not only that teachers were involved in curriculum development but more importantly about the mechanisms followed to ensure this engagement. These ideas can be reflected on and tested in my context perhaps some times in the future, I hope. So thank you again for sharing your ideas on this topic.

Considering Denise Morel' response "I really can’t comment on why other teachers chose to get involved in curriculum development (to be honest, I never asked any of my them!). But, if I allow myself to speculate, I think it might have to do with the 'tension' that many teachers feel between 'theory' and 'practice'."

One is led to infer the following dynamics:

(1) Teachers are not being asked enough by their schools and administrators to do classroom research and explore the tensions between 'theory' and 'practice'.

(2) Perhaps this is because administrators and active faculty in the process need to do a lot more in terms of getting staff motivated and involved in the process.

(3) Perhaps relevance is not as obvious to some staff and elucidation is to be proffered up by leaders.

(4) Finally, it is obvious to to many teachers early on in their careers that not making waves, not volunteering, and not pushing too hard for reforms (that are ignored by the powers that be) are the best ways to survive in a kingdom of academia at this junction in history.

I believe that advocacy must become a serious facet of teacher education from day 1 and administrators need to welcome it. However, throughout the world, top-down solutions are opted for in the name of expedience or whatever. Therefore, the instructor has less-and-less sense of efficacy at times.

In Quebec, there are a lot of bureaucratic levels between the teachers in the field and the Ministry of Education at the State level. Teachers answer directly to the school administration (principal and vice principal), but schools themselves answer directly to their school board (there are over 70 regional boards spread throughout the province), and the school boards answer to the Ministry. When the Ministry reforms the curriculum and develops new programs of study, teachers naturally perceive it as a top-down imposition (even though some of their colleagues participated on the development committees), and resent it. They resent it mostly because new programs necessarily require new teaching/learning materials (e.g. textbooks, lesson plans, electronic resources) to implement them in the classroom; without these, each teacher has to devise her own materials and lesson plans for every lesson, using whatever resources she can find. This adds a lot of extra time and effort to their existing workload, which they feel is already stretched to the limit. They are also highly protected by the provincial teachers’ union, which sets strict limits to the number of hours teachers can be asked to work and the kinds of responsibilities that can be assigned to them. And school administrators themselves vary in their commitment to the curriculum reform – some are pedagogical visionaries and others are simply businessmen – and so the amount of encouragement and support for professional development activities varies from school to school.

The deliberative curriculum is one way to engage all stakeholders. Wesley Null has written about this in his book Curriculum: From Theory to Practice. You can see an extensive review of this book below.

Article Curriculum: from theory to practice

I am actually investigating a similar area. My focus is do teachers want to be part of curriculum development in south Africa (SA). the following questions come up:

1. Teacher expertise in curriculum matters. In SA the majority of teachers are under qualified and simply practice what is given to them so in our context finding teachers capable enough to participate would be few and would mostly represent those privileged by apartheid and that would leave out the majority in the country.

2. In the SA context again representation would be a problem in terms of the multicultural dimension.

3. Challenges aside teachers should be part of the discourse and development since they are the most important of stakeholders as practitioner in the field.

This is my area of interest!

I have done som work in the archives about the development of computing curriculum. I noticed that a specific group of teachers (with interest of becoming authors of schoolbooks) were involved in the currciulum development process during the 70s and 80s. I studied a subject matter (computing) that was new at the time. In my study of today's involvement in curriculum development I have interviewed curriculum developers that been involved during the last decades and followed the work done by the Swedish national agency of education . It appears that the agency are contracting teachers becoming experts. In the curr development process these experts are the actual writers raising standards (content) of use for the actual documents. A position where you have do be grounded in what you believe is the core of the school-subject. Not always as easy as it seems as technology changes and others embrace other aspects of what is considered important for learningt the subject matter.

However you can approach the issue from another perspective where curriculum development is something that gains momentum in schools and society. Commonly is that industry is pushing for change. Something that is coming a lot lately as we can witnes how programming has reached the agenda of many countries. It is therefore of considerable interest to study how a national agency of education approaches the teachers' community trying to find exemplary teaching  with implications for how and what could be implemented into curriculum development.

In conclusion I agree it's a matter of theory and practice, where the national agency COULD invite teachers' in the curr development process bringing the teachers' expertise (the realization arena). However, they do not necesserely do that as technological knowledge is moving so fast and the curr developemt process is demanding (resources and time) if teacher's community is asked for opinions.

For further reading I would recommend the following. Especially the one from 2014 as it is based on empirical data

- Rolandsson, L., Skogh, I.-B., and Männikkö Barbutiu, S. (2016). Bridging a gap: in search of an analytical tool capturing teachers’ perceptions of their own teaching. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1, 1-14. Doi: 10.1007/s10798-016-9353-4.

- Rolandsson, L. and Skogh, I.-B. (2014). Programming in school: Look back to move forward. ACM Transactions in Computing Education 14, 2, Article 12.

Following

I agree with Dr. Kevin

I have completed my study and graduated. My thesis topic is: Teacher voice in the context of educational change.

Sadly, it was found that teachers lack the agency to contribute above classroom level because of lack of space to influence educational change. Moreover, in the classroom itself panoptic supervision erodes agency because teachers aim to please external bureucrats.

They are now following silently and robotically. the voice of the teacher in prerparation, content and delivery is decided elsewhere...

Dear Riaz Hussain

Realistically, teachers are not involved in curriculum development. To eliminate this issue, stakeholders and curriculum developers should consider teachers’ opinion.

The teacher can act on different levels of action regarding curriculum planning. At the Macro-curricular level it involves decision making and planning. Here, different perspectives such as institutional perspective, social needs and job offers are taken into account. It is a multidisciplinary work and culminates with a proposal or planning like a Pensum. At the Meso-curricular level we could consider the improvement and updating of academic programs (Syllabus). The teacher can reconsider about objectives, contents, teaching and evaluation strategies, depending on the macro and micro perspective. Finally generate a proposal to be implemented between teaching peers. Finally, at the Micro-curricular level, the teacher evaluates the local and temporary conditions and also makes decisions about objectives, contents, didactic and evaluative strategies to achieve educational competencies.

Presumably this happens, but the reality is that the teacher has no role at all in the curriculum.

Thanks Dr. V.V. Chandra Shekhar.

Excellent Answer Dr. Arturo Barrios.

The responses were very informative, particularly interesting to find that the issue of teacher involvement in curriculum making is a global phenomenon. What comes through is that the voice of the teacher should not be marginalised. it is this omission that creates resentment and the subsequent attitudes and feelings of demoralisation and demotivation. however, the question still arises: How can millions of teachers contribute to curriculum making and development at macro and meso levels given that most work within prescriptive paradigmns of teaching? this leaves their voices can only reach the upper echelons of power through proxy which again means that individual contribution is not possible. This leaves the space for teacher agency in their contexts of practice which is the most crucial space reimagining and reinterpretation of external documents is where teacher power resides for they know their contexts and learners best. .

Following.

Teachers are rarely involved during curriculum planning. There are supposed to be questionnaires sent to teachers in their different schools as a way of evaluating the curriculum. However, this does not happen during most reforms, they know about the change when it is time for implementation.

حسب التعليمات والقوانين تحديث المناهج في التعليم العام يجب المشاركة من قبل المعلم في التحديث المناهج لكن اغلب الدول لاتعتمد على المعلم في التحديث

Teachers should be involved in curriculum development and decision-making for the following reasons:

• 1. They are stakeholders.
• 2. They are equipped with knowledge of and competence in curriculum
• development.
• 3. They are the ones who implement the curriculum.
• 4. They should decide on matters that involve them and the students.

Yes, teachers in schools can participate in curriculum planning and decision-making by making observations on the curriculum to the relevant committees, and they can be involved in decision-making through consulting in school decisions

في كل الدول العالم نعم فقط العراق من خلال للجان في وزارة التربية