The Crisis of Curriculum Change

The second major initiative, besides the reassertion of traditional subject-centred curriculum, is the attempt to confine change initiatives within each school side. Here, the major carrier of this message is the so-called school effectiveness or school improvement movement. You will note that school, here, always appears in the singular, for each site is scrutinised for its improvement or effectiveness potential in isolation from other sites. The mythology of this form of change theory is that each school can be scrutinised for its improvement potential, and a new improvement profile can be drawn up and each school can then be improved. The fallacy, of course, is that each school stands in relation to other schools, and each school student population stands in relation to other school student populations. And, as can be clearly seen, one school may improve following change theory, but at the expense of all the surrounding schools. Once again, in the counter-reaction to the democratic period, the debate about schooling is confined within each site so that matters of general distribution with regard to equality of opportunity are effectively masked. In the same way, then, the progressive scholars who involve themselves in change theory can be in an ambivalent relationship to progressive movements and find themselves much closer to a broader conservative matrix of purpose.

The danger with singular-site school improvement and school change methods, and individual self-managing schools, is that they do not confront the problem of distribution of resources for schools generally. It is always possible to improve single schools by concentrating resources on them. The other side of that kind of a school change is school deterioration in the other schools that are starved by the improving school. What is needed is a holistic model of school change which aims at improving all schools. This, however, is not envisaged by the counter reaction against inclusive schooling. Just as school subjects were invented to internalise and limit the debate about school purposes, so singular-site school improvement strategies have been invented in ways that limit a general democratic debate about improving schooling. The general point I am making is that the timing of curriculum change has to be closely scrutinised. This is a primary lesson of the histories of education. At the moment, the timing for change initiatives is extremely problematic given the global forces that we have reviewed. It could well be that, in recent times, progressive forces should have been on the side of educational conservation time, rather than on the side of change. However, the pendulum is now swinging towards an increasing concern with the social downsides of market deregulation. This all leads to a new ‘third way’ emphasis on ameliorating social exclusiveness. We are, I believe, at a turning point, where progressive concerns with social inclusion are now back on the political agenda. The prospects for change may then be about to change in more hopeful directions.