Rosemary Webb and Graham Vulliamy from the University of York and Kirsti Häkkinen, Seppo Hämäläinen, Eija Kimonen, Raimo Nevalainen and Maija-Liisa Nikki carried out an analysis of the management of curriculum change and change processes in Finland in the York- Finnish Project on educational change in 1997. The writers report in their findings that centralised guidelines in Finland had a considerable impact on the management of curriculum change and change processes. The research was conducted in 6 schools in Finland. The researchers presented the paper on their research findings at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference from 11th to 14th September 1997 at the University of York.
The Finish class teachers supported their national policy by focusing on an intergrated school- based curriculum and pedagogies which, subsquently, resulted in active learning processes in the classroom. The researchers discovered that successful school managers support class teachers in managing curriculum change and change processes (Schollaert & Leenheer 2006:77). Rebore (2011:179) indicates that as an organisation a school needs well-qualified managers, teachers and support personnel to fulfil the mandate of change, which was the case in Finland. School managers are held accountable for what they do to support class teachers with regard to schools’ administrative and management affairs (Middlewood, Parker & Beere 2005: 27; Early & Weindling 2004: 78; Joubert & Bray 2007: xv). According to James et al. (2006a.101-118), it is against this background that policy makers at a national level and those in decision-making positions in schools should understand the fundamental need for time to allow individuals to do the changing.
The curriculum development in the two Finnish schools, Makilampi and Suvila, was a major factor enabling the school managers to lead the way in curriculum change and change processes in schools (Webb et al. 1997:2). The head teachers strongly supported the nature and content of the reforms and had already worked on the nature and content of the reforms several years. They set forth their ideals to plan what was required and to put elements of it into place prior to the publication of the curriculum structure for implementation. One of the set forth ideals
91
was supervision which aimed at improving the core business of managing curriculum change and change processes in schools with reference to classroom teaching and learning (Schollaert & Leenheer 2006:77; Wilson 2006: 236; Glanz 2006a: 33; Glanz 2006b: 57; Glanz 2006c:37, McKee, Boyatzis & Johnston 2008:3; Burke & Krey 2005:51; Chirichelo & Richmond 2007: vii; Larner 2004:37).
Webb et al. (1997:2) report that class teachers were able to draw on their previous experiences and practices of curriculum change to apply the new education reforms in order to develop further and promote their preferred curriculum practices. In addition, through supporting curriculum development in their schools, all the teachers were cognisant of the matters involved in trying to change their attitudes and practices (Webb et al. 1997:2). The class teachers at Makilampi and Suvila Schools believed that the process of transforming the curriculum and classroom organisation in a school in line with national policy was an endless process (see paragraph 5.3.2.4 on the management roles of the basic school class teachers). The structure of the new curriculum encouraged them to take the work forward that they already achieved (Webb et al. 1997:4).
Gopee and Galloway (2009:48), Cunningham and Cordeiro (2009:64) and Reeves (2009:26) claim that some class teachers in schools do not fully adhere to curriculum change strategies. Webb et al. (1997:3) also report that in Finland class teachers did not adhere to curriculum change strategies. Some of the studied Finnish schools were not committed to the ideals and practices that were promoted in the new curriculum. Some of the class teachers in the studied Finnish schools relied heavily upon the national and municipal curricula that were supported by the use of prescribed textbooks guiding them on what to teach and how to teach. As a result, the nature of the changes to be made and the processes to achieve them in the new curriculum caused considerable concern. Webb et al. (1997:4; Leithwood et al. 2008: 253–266; Landy and Conte 2007:519) offer explanations indicating there were no supportive staff relationships to help the teachers to cope with the changes. The staff at Villenkallio School, for example, lost confidence in implementing the curriculum change. Although the teachers at Villenkallio School were faced with the urgency for change, they experienced it difficult to cope with the change. They felt that they required practical curriculum support from the chief education officer responsible for the implementation of the new curriculum. Their experience indicates that school managers are required to adequately use the right change tools for the system to change (Christensen, Marx & Stevenson 2006:77). According to Webb et al. (1997:4) the
92
Finnish data also contained numerous examples of some class teachers at Villenkallio School that were prepared to incorporate some of the new ideas from the changed curriculum into their existing practices. However, they still wanted to maintain the content of the irrelevant curriculum.
There were also a few examples of improvement amongst class teachers at Vaara School where the changes contributed to class teachers' professional development in areas new to them. Additionally, the teachers focused on learning how to plan co-operatively resulting in class teachers developing pupil self-assessment in school project work (Webb et al. 1997:4). There were also examples of resistance to the education reforms. Class teachers at Vaara School intended to continue with the former policy on separate subject teaching, whole class instruction and the use of prescribed textbooks and the already prepared materials and tests for use in the classroom teaching and learning. Resistance to the education reforms which was observed amongst some class teachers at Vaara School is worth noting as resistance to education reforms is inevitable in managing curriculum change and change processes (see also paragraph 2.9 on the negative factors affecting the management of curriculum change and change processes and also paragraph 2.10 on managing resistance to curriculum change and paragraph 2.10.1 on strategies to reduce resistance in managing curriculum change and change processes).
The researchers discovered that two schools were leading the way in the implementation of the curriculum change and change processes in Finland in 1997. Both the head teachers of Suvila School and Makilampi School explicitly used new curriculum policy changes and classroom organisation in their schools to promote far-reaching changes (Webb et al. 1997:6; Reiss 2007: 53; Murphy 2007:74; Pellicer 2008: 51; Pryor and Pryor 2005: 7-8). Co-operation in the implementation of the curriculum change and change processes prevailed in Suvila and Makilampi schools. Co-operation was evident because class teachers' values and preferences were in harmony with the education reforms. Co-operation was encouraged by the innovative practices that were already being developed by the school management. Innovative class teachers at Makilampi School operated within the school to spearhead curriculum implementation and had a profound impact on the school. Class teachers' values proved to be a powerful factor in interpreting and implementing the changes. Core values, such as a commitment to a child-centred and experience-based integrated curriculum, were embraced by many teachers at Makilampi School.
93
In Finland, the class teachers at Makilampi School and Suvila School experienced great motivation and support as their work progressed at the forefront of valued practice (Webb et
al. 1997:6). Schools, as organisations, can adapt to environmental and cultural shifts, change
strategies and can be a source of innovative services and resources, and create an atmosphere of excitement and engagement with regard to change (Reeves 2009: 35). Tillman (2008: 601; Furnham 2005: 65; Brower & Balch 2005: 83) indicates that leaders who create conditions where staff are valued, can win the support of change agents. However, some individual class teachers could not understand the rationale for the education reforms and felt it was appropriate for them to follow the local curriculum. Webb et al. (1997:5-6) attest that such teachers believed that transformation undermined beliefs and challenged practices in the schools. Such class teachers felt insecure, as they were extremely uncertain about expectations and procedures. They felt that their sense of personal competence was challenged, and their identity undermined (Webb et al. 1997:8).
According to Webb et al. (1997:7), many schools were not in a position to manage imposed changes readily. In the studied Finnish schools, the curriculum reform was implemented by way of holding meetings with all the staff and working groups. The meetings were valuable because they helped them understand colleagues' perspectives and to feel ownership of the school-based curriculum change and altered processes (Webb et al. 1997:7-8). The Finnish class teachers valued the idea of the whole school and working-group meetings that were planned to discuss and produce the school-based curriculum change. Gopee and Galloway (2009:48), Cunningham and Cordeiro (2009:64) and Reiss (2007: 53) also state that some class teachers in schools value the idea of working together as a team to produce good results, but also mention that others prefer to work in isolation, which negatively impacts on the effective management of the classroom teaching processes.
The empirical research findings on the management of curriculum change and change processes in the UK were presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference as presented below.