East Asia is a vast area comprising many countries and therefore the researcher could not cover all the countries found in this region as exemplars for reference in the study. Thus, a few countries have been selected for this study to discuss how they successfully managed curriculum change and change processes.
Zhou (2006:9) presented a comprehensive report (summary) on the educational changes that some countries went through in the East Asian education system in a seminar-workshop held on the management of curriculum change from June 7th to 9th 2006 at a Philippine Social Science Council Resource Centre. The seminar-workshop investigated the need to revise and update curricula to respond to changes in the world. The UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE) and the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Regional Bureau for Education in Bangkok took the lead in developing a framework and guide for managing curriculum change.
The purpose of changing the curriculum was to improve the learning achievement in schools, to sustain curriculum implementation and management and develop the human resource sectors. For Zhou (2006:9), curriculum changes in the East Asian education systems became a priority for development of all countries in that region. Education changes were focused on issues that were motivated by economic concerns, social inclusion, and human resources for sustainable development. The desired education development in East Asia encompassed the needs and priorities regarding knowledge and skills of the society, the impacts of Information Communication and Technology (ICT), and the protection and preservation of cultural traditions by taking into account the impacts of globalisation on education and technological development.
109
Basic curriculum changes were launched in 1999 in China, East Asia and, subsequently, formulated in 2001. The adoption of curriculum change in China included: curriculum goals, standards, structure, content, process, evaluation and management. The experimentations with the basic curriculum changes were done in 2002. The overall implementation of the new curriculum was done in 2003/4, and further curriculum developments were done in 2006 (Zhou 2006:9). Zhou (2006:8) reports that situations pertaining to curriculum change in Eastern Asia were diverse. The curriculum changes in South-East Asia and South Asia were carried out and implemented according to plans put in place and recorded a dramatic improvement in learner achievements in learning.
For Burke and Krey (2005:51; Chirichelo & Richmond 2007: vii; Larner 2004:37) the quality of the desired change process required in a school to move towards quality education comes from the effective supervisory role that the school managers employ in managing curriculum change. Monitoring and evaluating of the curriculum changes in India, Philippines and Nepal in 2006, for instance, indicated an increased performance in learning. Many education changes were implemented in Cambodia, for example, where records of high performances and learning achievements in schooling were documented. Education changes were introduced in 1994 by the Ministry of Education in Singapore and were fully implemented in 1996 recording marked achievements in the management of curriculum change. Singapore was described as “sustained improvers” (Mourshe, Chijioke, & Barber 2012:7). In Singapore, the Committee of School Curriculum Evaluation and Systematic Review of 1999 made a 10-30% content reduction for easy implementation by 2000. McKee, Boyatzis and Johnston (2008:3; Burke & Krey 2005:51; Chirichelo & Richmond 2007: vii; Larner 2004:37) proffer that it is necessary to place more emphasis on mechanisms for supervision, monitoring and systematic evaluation of curricular changes and engaging the sustainability of curriculum change for sustained reform. It was imperative, regarding the sustainability of curriculum change, to consider an ongoing improvement of the curriculum change based on the monitoring results and feedback. The above discussed issues about monitoring and evaluating the curriculum changes were the basis for positive change in the curriculum in that region. They are significant to this study as well.
According to Zhou (2006:9) education authorities in South Korea tried to implement the 7th revised curriculum change but they were negatively met with serious opposition from teachers. The designed 7th revised curriculum change reflected a 30% reduction in the curriculum content in South Korea. Zhou also reported that common problems in the management of the
110
curriculum were experienced, namely centralised decision-making on curricula, irrelevance of learning content, neglect of life skills issues, over-loaded subject content, low teacher participation and lack of professionalism in curriculum management (Zhou 2006: 8-10). The sustainability of curriculum change was promoted through lifelong learning as a belief that indicated the long term strategy of learning and considering the school curriculum as part of a continuum of learning (Zhou 2006:12; EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005).
In the case of the East Asian education changes, Zhou (2006:12), the EFA Global Monitoring Report (2005), and Gregorio ( 2006:8) attest that capacity building of teachers for curriculum change was a key factor for the effective implementation of change. This was required for the entire management of the change project to function effectively. An overall evaluation of the East Asian education changes indicated that the teachers’ competencies and the knowledge which they possessed created the greatest impact on teaching and learning. Accordingly, the new curriculum change processes and class teacher continuing professional development (CPD) were closely inter-linked (see also paragraph 5.3.1.3 on continuing professional development). Good and effective leadership was also necessary for the management of curriculum change and change processes. Class teachers’ vital roles in curriculum change and change processes must never be underestimated because the class teachers were basically the “real actors, participants in decision-making, conveyors of curriculum philosophy, motivated designers and effective implementers, designers of curricular materials and classroom teaching approaches, lifelong learners for constant improvement” (Zhou 2006:12; EFA Global Monitoring Report of 2005; Gregorio 2006:8).
Understanding the content of the curriculum and the teaching and learning strategies to facilitate learning was critical in managing curriculum change and change processes in the East Asian education environment. In support of Zhou’s report (2006:12), Boyd-Zaharias and Pate- Bain (2008:41-44) claimed that developing professional attributes, commitment, responsibility and love for teaching and for learners, to improve human communications and learning to live together were paramount issues in managing the curriculum change and change processes in East Asia. Professional attributes and commitment are vital in schools.
Zhou (2006:12) and the EFA Global Monitoring Report of 2005 expressed the same viewpoints on the general trends in the curriculum change processes in East Asia. Increased consultations with the general public and experts at the local level helped to consolidate curriculum changes
111
in the region. Communicating decisions on educational changes and promoting policy changes about educational matters was crucial for effective implementation of curriculum changes in East Asia. Resistance in the implementation of curriculum changes may have stemmed from misunderstanding the changes in cases where the nation was not well informed about the developed policy changes. On the whole, there were greater improvements, performance and learning achievements where curriculum change and change processes were successfully managed in the East Asian countries.
In the studied East Asian countries, the mechanisms for supervision, monitoring and systematic evaluation of curricular changes and engaging the sustainability of curriculum change and change processes for sustained reform were stressed. Many projects were piloted, and training packages were prepared for the local curriculum in which each school was allowed to establish a school curriculum committee to spearhead the implementation processes. Good and effective leadership skills were necessary for the management of curriculum change and change processes. The East Asian education changes indicated that the class teachers’ competencies and the knowledge which they possessed created the greatest impact on teaching and learning.
The Australian Council of Educational Research, as cited by Zhou (2006:12) and the EFA Global Monitoring Report of 2005, as already referred to, indicate that there were problems that were encountered regarding the East Asian education system, which included centralised decision-making on curricula, irrelevance of learning content, neglect of life skills issues, over- loaded subject content, low teacher participation and lack of professionalism in curriculum management. Resistance in the management of curriculum change was recorded; therefore change agents must be given a chance to facilitate and support the change processes (Fullan 2007:5; Hoadley, Christie & Ward 2010:383; Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon 2004: 476). Resistance in the implementation of curriculum change and change processes may have stemmed, as already indicated, from misunderstanding the changes where the nation was not well informed about the developed policy changes (Zhou 2006:12).
How curriculum change and change processes were managed in the two studied schools in the USA is presented next.
112
3.4 THE MANAGEMENT OF CURRICULUM CHANGE IN TWO SELECTED