2.2 Conceptual Framework
2.2.4 Curriculum
The way the concept of curriculum is understood, defined and theorised has altered over the years and there remains considerable dispute about the meaning and definition of the term. In the early 1900s, curriculum was defined as a plan of action for implementation (Ramparsad, 2001, p.288). Curriculum is all of the teaching and learning activities that take place in a learning institution and is ‘understood to be more than syllabus documentation’ (Department of Education, 1994 p.67). Many definitions have been given for curriculum, but one that is useful to me in this study is from Grundy (1987) who proposed that curriculum is ‘a programme of activities by teachers and pupils so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends or objectives’ (Grundy, 1987, p.25). Grundy’s way of defining the curriculum suggests that teachers and learners are to be actively engaged in curriculum development. Grundy’s definition provides clarity concerning the work of the teacher as a promoter of an enabling environment that will evoke in learners various ideas that will lead towards the attainment of expected outcomes. What this means is that a curriculum is not merely a blueprint describing outcomes but includes theories about what learners and teachers must do and reflects the needs and interests of those it serves such as learners, teachers, community, nation, employers and economy (Department of Education, 1994, p.67).
The further education and training curriculum is an ‘integrated’, ‘outcomes-based’
curriculum designed amongst other things, to teach ‘high knowledge and high skills’
(Department of Education, 2003) to learners who may be gifted either manually or mentally or both. Such individual difference among learners may restrict progression and application of competency especially when teachers are either oriented towards mental knowledge than manual and vice versa. Also, since the further education and training curriculum places emphases on outcomes and competency, teachers are expected to competently play the dual function of educator and trainer. A class consists of learners with different interest, ability and needs, guided by high expectation on both learners and teachers, with teachers striving to pull all together to achieve competency in specified outcomes. The question is, whose interest is been projected in these specified outcomes statement?
Sub-concepts stemming from the general construct of curriculum are: curriculum policy and curriculum design. These are discussed separately below in order to distinguish them from the root term.
2.2.4.1 Curriculum Policy
Having defined curriculum, it is necessary to also define policy so as to understand their separate meaning and compare the definitions to see how they fit or co-relate. A policy is ‘government’s thinking’ or ‘definitive statement’ (Kirk, 1991, p.24). Putting these two concepts together means that a curriculum policy is a statement expressing what government thinks regarding education that is what education should seek to achieve and how to achieve it. This intention is communicated through the Department of Education as with the case of South Africa. In most cases curricula intentions are usually prescribed based on the designer’s perception of the society with less consideration for learners’ individuality (Hough, 1991, p. 9). Learners approach learning with their intrinsic principles, values, talents and needs. This requires that curricula statements are all encompassing, taking every learners need as priority.
Curriculum policy is a broad concept which is not confined to a list of subjects on a school time table, but is a comprehensive package covering complex issues such as how the society relates and responds to economic, political, philosophical, historical, traditional and even global issues. These issues influence government decisions about the direction of curriculum policy. Curriculum policy covers what ought to be taught and
learned in school and how the teaching and learning should be assessed. Curriculum policies are ‘hotly contested’ Ozga (2000.p.2) among various groups who have a stake in it as either a process or a product. Behind these views are beliefs which are also ‘hotly contested, and are polarised between those who think that education should serve the needs of the nation, and those who see it as primarily concerned with the fulfillment of individual potential’ (Moore and Ozga, 1991, p.3). There are those who argue that the national interest serves the best interest of the individual which is not always so. This is because national interest usually focuses on the promotion of both national character and national unity, which I consider philosophical than personal. Philosophical in the sense that, national goals are usually driven by philosophical ideologies created to a greater or lesser extent to foster socio-political and economic ends. The skills-based, outcomes- based, competency-based curriculum policy is technically tailored towards providing manpower for the labour market. For this reason, a curriculum policy loaded with philosophical concepts geared towards economic empowerment is pre-disposed to challenges from stakeholders especially if a group feels left out of the policy process (Moore and Ozga, 1991, p.3). For instance, the vocationalists working through the technical and vocational education and related initiatives may want their interest to dominate the curriculum. The government who is seen by the public as the provider of educational services and who is indebted to defend their political manifesto, may refuse to be left out, thus struggles to infuse political initiatives into the school curriculum, while the professionals in the field of education continue to insist on defending the academic domain. This power struggle over whose interest should dominate and who decides what should count as knowledge and how it should be taught and learned not only dis-empowers both the teachers and the learners but also expose the curriculum to socio- economic fluctuations.
The further education and training curriculum policy is not devoid of the above mentioned debate as it is faced with various contestations such as: who decides what should count as knowledge in the curriculum, how should it be taught and learned and, whose interest should drive the curriculum. Cross, Mungadi and Rouhani (2002) observe that during the formulation of the further education and training curriculum policy,
‘competing social movement social movements and political actors started fiercely to
take their positions in anticipation of what seem inevitable; the emergence of South Africa’s first democratic state. In the process, key principles and values for democratic policy process such as [….] redress, equity, representativity and accountability, were generated and internalised within the mass democratic movement’ (Cross et al, 2002, p.175). This statement presumes that the principles and values informing the further education and training curriculum policy were generated by the mass liberation movement and other allied associations. With various lobby groups angling to position their interest in the curriculum policy, the curriculum is pre-disposed to contestations thus influencing the curriculum design.
2.2.4.2 Curriculum design
In section 2.2.4.2, I presented a definition of curriculum as given by Grundy (1987) which in my opinion is suitable for my analysis of curriculum design. That definition describes curriculum as a learning activity, initiated in the classroom by teachers and learners. Grundy expresses the term curriculum design as ‘usually indicative of a technical interest’ (Grundy, 1987, p.27) because; it portrays a sequential plan that describes a step-by-step, meticulous approach to teaching and learning. The concept of curriculum design is an organised way of preparing knowledge and thus, creates an opportunity for re-assessing and evaluating what is predefined and set for onward transmission to learners (Grundy, 1987). However, designing a curriculum outside the implementation context is viewed by Grundy as disempowerment. The problem associated with such curriculum design is discussed in detail in the next section under theoretical analysis.