CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 20
2.2 CURRICULUM
2.2.6 Curriculum Differentiation Past and Present
All countries grapple with the tension between freedom of choice and social prescription in the design of their education system, ‘sometimes couched in the trade off between what is good for democracy and what is good for development’
(Muller, 2006:73). Each individual must be given an equal opportunity in the learning environment. They “should have the chance to develop and expand their knowledge to the best of their ability, and be given the chance to make the best use of their talents and capabilities as possible” (Allyson, n.d.).
The Norwood Report of 1943 (Goodson, 1993) conducted in the UK encapsulates the patterns of curriculum differentiation which had emerged through the evolution of education. The report revealed that the close association between the patterns of curriculum differentiation and social structure are explicitly linked to different occupational categories. Three clear groups of pupils emerged in the report. The first group are pupils who are destined for the learned professions; higher administrative or business posts would follow the academic tradition of a subject based curriculum, which is commonly associated with grammar schools. In the intermediatory group are ‘the pupil[s] whose interests and abilities lie markedly in the field of applied science or applied arts’, these would be fulfilled by the technical schools. The emphasis of the third group, the future manual worker, is on a
utilitarian and pedagogic curriculum; which makes “a direct appeal to interests whom it would awaken by practical touch with affairs” (Goodson, 1993:18). The Norwood Report emphasises that a differentiated curriculum supports the social and developmental needs of individual pupils.
The Framework Report (1993) of the National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI) deliberates the pros and cons of differentiation;
The strongest argument against education differentiation ... is , that providing different education experiences for various
37
children, we run the risk of offering an education that is better for some (that is, of higher quality) than for others: that is, it runs the risk of producing inequality. In a society such as South Africa, which has gross social inequalities, education differentiation tends to accentuate them.
The strongest argument for education differentiation is that specialist skills require differentiation (of curriculum, perhaps of institution, probably of finance). Since such skills are said to be vital for an economy which aims to be competitive in world markets, education differentiation is said to be essential for development (Framework Report, 1993:21).
The Framework Report assumes that some kind of differentiation is inevitable and that the tension between social goods of equity and development needs to be dealt with;
More than any other aspects of the education system, differentiation highlights the potential tension between the values of equity and development. We assume that most significant policy players will agree that policy challenge is to find ways of maximising development while improving equity, to manage differentiation in such a way that social programme of education is not seriously compromised (Framework Report, 1993:21).
Muller (2006) maintains that the way to deal with the potentially undesirable side effects of differentiation is to manage and regulate them. The NEPI framework argues that managing differentiation is not doing away with it but it is the appropriate strategy for dealing with the tension between equity and development (Muller, 2003:10). The first step is to acknowledge the structural differences between
38
curricular subjects, “between their content, their content /concept linkage, pacing and progression requirements”. This requires the relaxation of the ‘one-size-fits-all’
of OBE and progressive pedagogy that infuses curriculum documentation (Muller, 2006:83). Thereafter the appropriate levels and progression paths can be found with the assistance of the professional knowledge community. “Only then will we be able to see what we expect our teachers to teach and our learners to learn ... a realistic reform of redress and equity of outcomes” (Muller, 2006:84).
The differential status of the various school subjects derive from their origins in the separate educational sectors (Goodson, 1993:4). Bank’s study ‘Parity and Prestige in English Secondary Education’ in Goodson (1993) highlights the close relationship between curriculum and social class. Bank’s noted that the academic curriculum was related to the vocations of the upper and professional classes. The curriculum relating to the vocations of the majority was slowly introduced, and as Banks notes,
‘as the proportion of children from the artisan and lower middle class homes increased it was necessary to pay attention to the vocational needs of these pupils and amend the “up till then” academic curriculum to subjects of a vocational nature’(Goodson, 1993:9). The subjects related to the majority of vocations were persistently viewed as being of low status, which stamped at an early age, the idea of class and inferior status on the pupil. “Viewed in this way, the notion of vocational training is not seen to advocate the underlying objective of education in preparing for vocations but rather the low status concern of preparing the majority for work”
(Goodson,1993:9).
The high status of academic subjects as an acceptance toward obtaining and securing desirable and professional jobs indicates the dominance of an academic curriculum. Eggleston in Goodson (1993) commented that “a new and important feature (of an academic curriculum) ... was the redefinition of high status knowledge that which was not immediately in vocation or occupation”, rather “the mark of a
‘gentleman’ than of a worker” (Goodson, 1993:27). The school curriculum “by the very criteria ... favoured the gentry’s style” (Goodson, 1993:7).
39