The Swedish implementation and management of curriculum change and change processes were inter alia focused on the development of learners’ support systems to create the necessary path for the school managers to promote national development in 2005. The Swedish National Curriculum stated that the main objective of implementing and managing curriculum change and change processes in the schools was to promote pupils’ learning, sustaining achievements and performances and to support pupils’ moral, social and physical development as responsible citizens prepared to take an active part in a fully developing society following the changes which take place in technology (ICT), social dynamics, economic diversity and political dispensations (Schollaert & Leenheer 2006:29; National Council for Curriculum Assessment 2005: 18; Department of Education and Science 2005:53; Landy & Conte 2007:519).
Managing curriculum change and change processes in Sweden was based on the belief that a school manager who looked at ‘why’ there should be change, considered the fact that the school had the right vision shared by its entire staff. The school system had a sound internal and external orientation of managing curriculum change. It continually analysed itself as well as its
102
environment and communication lines. Furthermore, the Swedish experience illustrates a perfectly top-down and bottom-up movement in managing curriculum change (Heifetz & Linsky, in Schollaert & Leenheer 2006:29). It is also recorded that in Sweden pupils in schools were involved in every aspect of change management to accommodate trust and empower the learners to enable them to engage with change in an appropriate way. Tillman (2008:601) and Furnham (2005:65; Brower & Balch 2005:83) argue that leaders can win support by valuing followers. The selection of staff to teach at the schools was internally done which was not prevalent in some European countries (Schollaert & Leenheer 2006:41). A point that is relevant to note for this study is the top-down and bottom-up communication and the right shared vision in managing curriculum change and change processes. Kapur (2007:24; Van Niekerk & Van Niekerk 2009:5; Reeves 2009:5; Miller, Devin & Shoop 2007:28; Duffy & Chance 2007: 130) supports the idea of a shared vision in managing curriculum change and change processes. A shared vision in managing curriculum change and change processes is essential in a school (see paragraph 2.5.3.1 on the vision in leading curriculum change and change processes at the school level).
Complex educational change can only succeed if the people involved in the change processes understand why it is necessary to change the education system. To demonstrate this point, Schollaert and Leenheer (2006:27-33; National Council for Curriculum Assessment 2005: 18; Department of Education and Science 2005:53) present a practical scenario of educational concern in Sweden. In Sweden a lot of well-founded curricular changes in schools had been introduced on knowledge, learning and the mission of schools during the past. The changes in Sweden were basically supported by politicians and some renowned educational stakeholders involved in decision-making. However, many class teachers in the classroom context were resentful about the curriculum change and change processes which were implemented (see also paragraph 2.9 on the negative factors affecting the management of curriculum change and change processes). Tillman (2008: 601; Wahlstrom & Louis 2008: 458–95; Woolfolk, Hoy, Hoy & Kurz 2008: 821–35; Gopee & Galloway 2009:48; Cunningham & Cordeiro 2009:64) attest that change agents are resentful about the curriculum change if they are not fully involved in the planning and collegial decision-making processes or stages which focus on improving and achieving institutional goals for delivering quality education and learning performances and achievements in schools.
103
These new reforms in Sweden did not always have the intended effect because in some places the ideas reflected in the reforms were never communicated to the people that should have implemented the actual reforms. There was no communication about the reasons why curriculum change for schools was necessary (Schollaert & Leenheer 2006:48). Levin and McCullough (2008:2) claim that effective leadership in schools requires support from all the school role players in the school’s management as everyone’s support is required to take successful decisions on managing a new curriculum and the associated change processes (see paragraph 2.7.3 on leading curriculum change and change processes at the school level).
Many questions on how the change agents were going to implement the education reforms were posed in Swedish schools. The education reforms were based on the new perception of knowledge, but people in schools still failed to make substantial efforts to try to develop the school assessment systems regarding the processes of change in the curriculum (Schollaert & Leenheer 2006:48). McKee, Boyatzis and Johnston (2008:3) challenge managers of schools to become active participants in learning rather than passive readers of the text in managing planned curriculum change. The problem of implementing the planned curriculum change in Sweden became apparent in the transition from secondary to upper secondary levels. Learners at each level passed with the right grade but with insufficient basic knowledge acquired that created many difficulties in graduating successfully from upper secondary schools. In some instances, learners had the correct level of knowledge and skills, but did not do well in examinations. This resulted in insufficient performance, proving that knowledge, skills, performances and achievements in learning were absent (National Council for Curriculum Assessment 2005: 18; Department of Education and Science 2005:53; Schollaert & Leenheer 2006:27).
In summary, the management of curriculum change and change processes in Sweden was a success because many school managers looked at why there should be change. The managers considered the fact that the school should have a right vision shared by its entire staff. The top- down and bottom-up model in managing curriculum change and change processes was interchangeably applied to realise good results. This was evident because pupils in schools were involved in every aspect of change management to accommodate trust. The learners were empowered to enable them to engage with the change in an appropriate way. Negatively, the new education reforms in Sweden did not always have the intended effect because the ideas reflected in the education reforms never reached the people that should have implemented the
104
actual planned education reforms. Change agents in Sweden were not always involved in managing curriculum change and change processes. Consequently, the desired results of managing curriculum change and change processes were not achieved satisfactorily. It implied that meaningful and desirable change in managing curriculum change and change processes were not achieved. This is a big lesson that the basic school managers and class teachers in the studied basic schools in Mongu Township in Zambia should consider in managing curriculum change and change processes effectively if the desired results of improving the educational system are expected.
The management of curriculum change and change processes in Ireland is presented next.