Curriculum: Who initiates? Who determines priorities? Who is responsible for what happens? Lessons from Australia
Colin J. Marsh
|作者：||Colin J. Marsh|
|論文名稱(英文)：||Curriculum: Who initiates? Who determines priorities? Who is responsible for what happens? Lessons from Australia|
|英文關鍵字：||Curriculum initiatives; Curriculum priorities; Curriculum implementation; Responsibility for curriculum|
政治協商沒有極神聖規則。為了解某些過程，研究一般常被詢問有關課程決定的四個高度政治問題是中肯的。而這四個問題與發起（initiating）、決定（determining）、落實課程（implementing curriculum）、責任歸屬（who has responsibility）有關聯。
|摘要(英文)：||Curriculum decisions in Australia are largely the result of education decisions made at state and national (federal) levels. Although education is a state responsibility, in recent years the federal government has had a growing influence. It exerts influence in various ways such as by sponsoring or creating new programs, providing incentives for schools and providing disincentives/incentives for state education systems by withholding or not granting funds for particular programs.
Political bargaining has no sacrosanct rules. It is pertinent to examine four highly political questions commonly asked about curriculum decision-making to understand some of the processes. The four questions relate to initiating, determining, implementing curriculum and who has responsibility.
The federal government continues to take initiatives to develop new programs such as a national curriculum, national literacy and national benchmarks. The determination of policies is less clear. Although federal agencies attempt to wield influence through their financial incentives or disincentives, the directors of state education systems are still able to make major decisions about curriculum structures, quality standards, and assessment. Teachers and school principals continue to be the major persons responsible for the implementation of curricula. Responsibility for curricula can involve personnel at school-level and at system-level who monitor student achievements.
These four questions help us to unpack some of the complexities of curriculum decision-making. Not all decision-making in curriculum is ever reasonable or even wise. Many decisions are made which turn out to be short-lived but then others persist which continue for many decades and in turn become very difficult to overturn.
|參考文獻：||Apple, M.W. (1990) Ideology and Curriculum (2nd ed.), Routledge, New York
Apple, M. W. (1998) The culture and commerce of the textbook, in L.E.Beyer and M. W. Apple (eds) The Curriculum: Problems, Politics and Possibilities (2nd ed.), SUNY press,Albany, New York
Burnett, P. C. and Meacham, D. (2002) Measuring the quality of teaching in elementary school classrooms, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 2, 141 - 154
Caldwell,B.J. (1998) Strategic leadership, resource management and effective school reform, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego
Danielson, C.(2001) New trends in teacher evaluation Educational Leadership 58, 5, 12-15
Dawkins, J. (1988) Strengthening Australia’s Schools, AGPS, Canberra
Donmoyer, R.(1990) Curriculum, community and culture: Reflections and pedagogical possibilities. In J. T. Sears and J. D. Marshall (eds) Teaching and thinking about the curriculum, Teachers College Press, New York
Down,B Chadbourne,R Hogan, C (2000) How are teachers managing performance management? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 3, 213-222.
Easthope,C and Easthope, G. (2000) Intensification, extension and complexity of teachers, workload, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21, 1, 43-56
Education Victoria (1998) Schools of the Third Millennium: Self-Governing Schools, Education Victoria, Melbourne
Fullan, M. G. (1991) The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.) Cassell, London
Fullan, M. G. (1993) Change Forces, Falmer, London
Fullan, M. G. (2000) The three stories of education reform, Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 8, 581 -584
Glatthorn, AA Jailall, J. (2000) Curriculum for the new millennium. In R.S.Brandt (ed) Education in a New Era, ASCD, Alexandria, Virginia
Grove, K. F. (2002) The invisible role of the central office, Educational Leadership, 59, 8, 45-60
Hargreaves, A (1998) The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development with implications for educational leadership, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 35, 4, 315-336
Kennedy, K. and Hoppman, S. (1992) Curriculum policy structures in federal systems of government: The cases of Australia and Germany. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Kliebard, H. (1986) The struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893-1958, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston
Lawton, D. (1980) The politics of the school curriculum, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
Marsh, C.J. (1984) Producing a national curriculum, Allen and Unwin, Sydney
McMahon, A.(1994) Teacher appraisal in England and Wales. In L. Ingvarson and R. Chadbourne (eds) Valuing teachers work: new directions in teacher appraisal, ACER, Melbourne
Nelson, J. L. Palonsky SB McCarthy M. (2004) Critical issues in education: dialogues and dialectics (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill, Boston
Ornstein, AC, Hunkins, F. (2004) Curriculum foundations: principles and theory (4th ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Boston
Smyth,J, McInerney, P, Hattam, R Lawson, M. (1998) Teacher learning: the way out of the school restructuring miasma, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1,2, 95-110
Tanner,D, Tanner L. N. (1995) Curriculum development (3rd ed.), Macmillan, New York
Weekend Australian (1997) National English Literacy survey results, September 20, p.16
Louden, W. (2000) Standards for standards: the development of Australian professional standards for teaching, Australian Journal of Education, 44, 2, 118-134
Wragg, E. C. (1987) Teacher appraisal: a practical guide, Macmillan education, London.