Curriculum planning: prediction or response?

PRIMARY education; CURRICULUM

This article draws on evidence from a partnership action research project concerning curriculum organization in three English primary schools. Using a case-study of site visit planning, teaching and learning in an age 5-11 rural primary school, it argues that, despite major centralizing initiatives such as the English National Curriculum and OFSTED inspection systems, teacher planning remains a complex, variable and necessarily individualized activity. The teacher planning discussed has been highly commended through a local school inspection under the OFSTED system; but the teachers' organically influenced views of planning contrast with the more mechanistic written guidance from governmental and advisory bodies. Such centralized advice, driven by the assumption that educational improvement means 'raising standards', tends to model formulaic planning procedures which ignore evidence of how rich teacher thinking and planning can be in practice. The argument is made not simply to undermine nationally agreed curricula or inspection systems, but to advocate that policy-makers should build from teachers' natural diversities and avoid the overambitious, even dangerous task of attempting to standardize their planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Curriculum Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)