It’s been really interesting to do a bit of studying and thinking around curriculum these last couple of weeks. Especially as in UK education news there has been so much noise about curriculum.
Last week ARK, an education business that run several Academies, recently announced that they are going to be selling their ‘Curriculum Plus’ to other schools…
And recently MP Nick Gibb has gone and put his foot in it again by announcing a new ‘model curriculum’ for music. But maybe it’s a good thing as amazingly he has pretty much managed to unite most of the music community in agreeing that this is a bit like moving deck chairs on the titanic- when you haven’t really got any money, time or in some cases music teachers to implement any curriculum, good or bad.
So what is a curriculum anyway?
Apparently literally translated from Latin it means ‘running’ or a ‘race course’ and also has something to do with racing chariots in Greece. I like the sense of movement, it gives to the word. Totally the opposite to a static model curriculum that can be packaged and sold.
There are several curriculum approaches
Approaches 1 & 2 seem to dominate in most areas of education. Approach 1 to me is things like an Edexcel A-level music syllabus. Both are a bit like ARK’s curriculum plus, something you can package and sell, it also makes me think of Ed Hirsch’s Core curriculum.that was becoming very popular back when Gove was Ed Sec. Although until I saw this diagram below I hadn’t realized that most ‘core curriculum’ models and discussions focus on the first circle and ignore the rest.
Curriculum as a process is more about what happens in the classroom- the interactions between students and teachers. This approach is far more experimental and fluid. I really like this approach but a problem with it is that’s its only as good as the interactions that take place and that mostly depends on the quality of the teacher. Also in the UK when you have to prepare for public examinations like SATs GCSEs and A-levels, the curriculum is already prescribed and usually there isn’t time for anything else.
Finally Curriculum as a praxis– “the curriculum itself develops through the dynamic interaction of action and reflection”(Smith).
This is how I like to think of curriculum. I don’t plan too much in advance of teaching something new. I see what works best in the classroom, testing things out and eventually developing something resembling a curriculum. Rarely are things written down. It’s “an active process in which planning, acting and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into the process’ (Grundy 1987: 115 in Smith).
For me curriculum is all about context, every lesson in a classroom is different and the curriculum needs to be fluid enough to allow for this.
Other References:
Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopaedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm
mydigitaled 
Thanks for sharing Steve – I enjoyed the extra explanation of curriculum. I also agree with you on “(it) is all about context, every lesson in a classroom is different and the curriculum needs to be fluid enough to allow for this.” This is active learning and exploration as long as the high-level objectives are met, why not build in time for being more active.
LikeLike