Course:EDCP562/Chapter 6

Curriculum Implementation and Sustainability.

Introduction

- Curriculum innovation 1960 had a flaw.

- Implementation in two ways: phase one 1995-1997 Fidelity & Mutual Adaptation.

- The second perspective 1997- present, how curriculum change can be seen as part and parcel of system.

Phase One: The Innovation

Factors that determine whether or not innovation was put into practice.

1. Behavior and Beliefs

- Superficiality of teacher learning

Four studies discussed:

Ball & Cohen

- Stating that after development sessions & workshops teachers do not gain from them.

Stigler & Hiebert (1999)

- Teachers can misinterpret reform and change surface features but fail to alter their basic approach to teaching.

Oaks (1999)

- “Turning point”, observed that educators rush to adopt new structures and strategies without considering the deeper implications.

Spillane (2004)

- Another study about behavior found that superficiality also existed in implementations even when there is a tri level solution; there was a lack in deeper understanding.

2. The Nature of the Innovation & Adoption Process

- Prescriptive teaching refers to direct approach to curriculum and instructions.

- Flexible models are likely to retained but are not substantial.

- Datnow (2002) found that prescriptive models get better short term result but do not last whereas, flexible models last longer but lack focus.

- WSR requires endorsement of the majority of staff.

3. WSR

In the 1990’s WSR model was design.

- WSR models are intended to provide proven school wide innovations to be adopted by schools to improve students’ achievements.

Phase Two: System Reform

WSR was not the solution for change.

The tri level solution was introduced:

- Tri level solution address: what would it take to have the school community, the district and the government leveled.

- England in 1997 designed a comprehensive strategy to improve literacy and numeracy.

- The cross city campaign for Urban School Reform (2005) case study.