With this posting, I want to pick up on my presentation of
the various approaches to curriculum. I
have been basing my reporting on one account of such matters, that of Allan C.
Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins.[1] To date, I have described the first of their
listed approaches, the behavioral one.
This posting will look at the managerial approach. This, along with the behavioral approach, is
considered as one of three technical/scientific approaches. Here, we have an approach that emerged from a
behavioral view, but does not have that approach’s penchant for particular
curricular content – such as the 3Rs.
Instead, this approach places its emphasis on the bureaucratic authority
of managers such as principals and curriculum supervisors or specialists, both
at the school site and at the district offices.
The idea is that curriculum should be the product mostly of the work of
those who have the authority and expertise to make curricular decisions. It also places a lot of reliance on scientific
findings which emanate from those scholars who study curricular issues. While this reliance is present, followers of
this approach do not see themselves as theoreticians, but instead feel
comfortable with the role of practitioner.
They are the ones who actually work in schools and with teachers and
other staff members. Yet, in actuality,
most of the work this approach produces often comes down from district
offices. By and large, most of the
innovations that these folks have developed and initiated come from “downtown.”
Usually, such efforts are noted for their issuance of a plan
which is noted for stated, rational principles and a procedural component of
logical steps. Implementation counts on
authority. Unfortunately, funding does
not often have sufficient monies to conduct needed training or gather
sufficient information that would reveal the level of support such innovations
demand. This, by the way, is my personal
observation of such efforts based on my years of working for the Miami-Dade
school district, which Wikipedia ranks as the fifth largest in the nation.
This does not mean that the managerial approach does not
necessarily seek and solicit input from teachers and other lower ranked
employees. As a matter of fact, since
much of their literature produced by those who scholarly produce studies in
this vein point out the importance of such input, many of these practitioners
do seek such information as they develop their plans. They are told that they need to take into
account cultural factors that will affect their ability to successfully
accomplish their plans. But I must write
that they seem to underestimate how important it is to solicit such input in an
organic fashion. They may ask through
surveys what underlings feel, but these other staff members are not an integral
part in planning and evaluating what is developed. At least, that was my experience with such
efforts.
During the early 1990s, Miami-Dade embarked on a plan –
concocted downtown – known ironically enough as School Based Management/Shared
Decision-Making. The essence of this
plan was to institute at each school site a governing cadre of teachers to devise
particular policy for their school.
There was a lot of hoopla and, despite ample cynicism, the program began
with some in-service training and a lot of encouragement. What was missing was enough definitional
clarity: what were the authoritative
boundaries of such cadres? Each school
had the option of participating and each participating school submitted a model
of the structure it was going to put in place.
My school did participate and I was heavily involved in both devising my
school’s model and then later in providing leadership. I ended up chairing the main governing
committee for two years – voted in each year.
About a third of the way in my second year, I realized that we were not
in a position to institute a modest curricular change that had to do with the
sequence of our courses. Why? Because it would not be in congruence with
the other schools of the district, even though the change would have been in
sync with the rest of the state. Oh
well. This shared decision-making can
only go so far. The whole effort lasted
four years. Final verdict: it was a
failure, although certain benefits were derived.
Of course, the above example is only a sample size of one; therefore,
people cannot make a comprehensive conclusion from such a limited
experience. Perhaps the plan was good
and we were not up to the challenge. My
point, though, and it is bolstered by what Ornstein and Hunkins write, the
managerial approach tends to shift authority to ever higher levels of
authority. They report that the states’
bureaucracies are taking over ever more levels of control when it comes to
innovation and change. Of course, within
our federal system, the state governments are the ultimate sovereigns when it
comes to school issues – not even the central government can tell the states
what to do as long as the state is not violating constitutionally sanctioned
federal law (that includes US
Constitutional provisions). This
gives the state a lot of leeway, if it wishes to exercise such power, in determining
school policy within its public school systems.
Historically, many such prerogatives have been left to the local
districts, but with increased clamor for improvements, there has been political
pressure for the state governments to exert more control and this includes
issues involving curriculum.
Consequently, this approach to curriculum does not seem to be abating
any time soon. The only change is that
more of the decisions – plans – will probably be emanating from state capitals
as opposed to local, downtown offices.
[1] Again, I will base most of the factual accounts of
these approaches on the work of Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. See Ornstein, A. C. and Hunkins, F. P. (2004).
Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
No comments:
Post a Comment