Continuing on from this are reasons for the adoption of curriculum innovations. The decision to innovate may be a personal one, or it may be forced on the individual, either at departmental level or by the Head teacher. With either of these enforced adoptions, commitment to the
innovation is likely to "be low and failure probable. Conversely, a teacher may decide to innovate in isolation from his colleagues, hut this again leads to poor success prospects - because of a lack of the internal support that is needed to overcome the obstacles that inevitably arise.
Thus the characteristics of the adopting unit form the background against which the innovation is set and impose limits on the level of change that is likely to be achieved. vMiles (1964) describes this as an organization’s state of health, by which he means its ability not only to function effectively at present, but also its ability to develop and grow into a more fully functioning system in the future.
Socio-political Factors
"Teaching is a complex activity strongly influenced by the environment in which it takes place" (Hamingson, 1973)
These environmental factors, which are in a state of continuous interaction with the school, form a broad social, economic and political framework
within which everything else must operate. It has already been suggested in general terms that the way the curriculum reform movement has acted so far has affected society’s estimation of it and that this will in turn be reflected in its present and future development. For example:
"The perceived ’failure’ of some curriculum projects to bring about desired changes has led to a denouncement of
nationally developed projects and the recommendation of ’grass roots* development by local teachers, hopefully to ensure the level of commitment from them that would lead to effective implementation" (Cooper, 1977)*
Equally since innovation is a costly activity and one which can easily, but falsely, be considered as an extra frill, it is at the mercy of the country* s general economic condition. When times are hard it is
eminently disposable. In addition, environmental factors operate at a specific level, and help to determine whether individual projects
"succeed" or "fail". The range of these environmental factors, however, is so vast and the way that they combine so varied that comparatively little attempt has been made to study their influence.
One set of variables, which belongs partly to the characteristics of adopting units (2:4) , is the demographic characteristics of the
school and its immediate hinterland - the socio-institutional environment. This includes such features as the size of the school, the size of classes, the social background of pupils and their abilities and values. The
reactions of pupils are particularly important. Many innovations demand changes in the role of teachers and pupils, and where they do so, the
contract between teacher and pupils must be renegotiated. Students are not a clean slate, passively waiting for teachers to inscribe their will upon them (Wash, 1973); they have clear expectations concerning their own role and that of their teachers. Earth,(1972), for example, has studied an elementary school in the United States, where 40% of the
pupils were black and most came from families on welfare. The children, from their prior experience, saw school as a place where only two
conditions could exist: firm authoritarian order imposed by the teacher, or chaos. Such attitudes seem bound to lead to a rejection by pupils of attempts to introduce a permissive approach where students can choose their own tasks and participate actively in learning strategies. The crucial question, of course, is whether pupil expectations are formed principally by their school experiences or whether they have developed outside
(Whiteside, 1JJ8). The latter would be much more serious because it would greatly reduce the capacity of the schools for modification.
Little research, unfortunately, has been carried out on this issue, although Musgrove and Taylor (1969) found some evidence that changes in the nature of the school organization can lead to changes in the
expectations of pupils. On the other hand, Kohn’s work (1969) seems to imply that parent-child relationships can also be a major influence. Middle-class parents valued self-direction in their children and, there fore, encouraged such qualities as curiosity and self-control, while working class parents, stressed obedience, honesty and neatness - the
following of explicit rules laid down by someone in authority. Such ideas have obvious implications for the many new programmes which expect pupils
l
to exercise independent judgements, although much more research needs to be undertaken in this whole area.
Another major and increasingly important influence, now that it is penetrating further than ever before through the ability range, is the examination system. Any curriculum project must negotiate its existence with the Examination Boards if it is to have much hope of being adopted on a large scale. The project cannot hope to emerge wholly intact from such an encounter but it must endeavour to ensure that it maintains its
essential integrity. If it does, it can turn the examination system into a useful agent of change instead of the conservative influence that it is often accused of being.
1:6. Implementation Processes and Stages
Before a summary of the determinants of implementation can be made, one further complicating factor, which to a greater or lesser extent affects each of the four main groups of variables, needs to be considered. This is the developmental component of innovation. Certain aspects of this have already been mentioned during the discussion of Havelock1s three models. What is important here, however, is the fact that the
implementation process itself comprises several distinct stages, from the initial attempt to use the innovation at one extreme to its institutiona lization as a fully integrated part of the school system and subsequent further development at the other. Gross et al (1971) describe this as a complex dynamic process that shifts over time. Several attempts have been made to identify particular stages of implementation, including the following by Hall, Wallace and Dossett (1973). Once initial training on the characteristics and requirements of the innovation has been carried out they give four levels of use.
1. Mechanical - users are engaged in pilot use of the innovation.