International trends in curriculum research

After the first PISA study was published in 2000 many European states were shocked. Many European countries – among them the Scandinavian countries and Germany – assumed that they had the most effective, fair and efficient school systems. But the PISA study showed that they were ranked below the average for the PISA countries. It became clear that the school systems did not perform as well as they were supposed and considered to do. <br/><br/>PISA-2000 became a chock for many European countries that can be compared to the Sputnik-chock in the 1950s. Like the Sputnik-chock resulted in comprehensive reforms of the western school systems (especially within natural science and mathematics), the PISA-study has also been followed by school and curriculum radical reforms. <br/><br/>The inspiration for the European reforms was taken in the so called accountability policy that during the 1990s had been developed in the USA. Accountability policy marks a change from control of processes to control of outcomes related to clear competence goals. Emphasis is put on the input and the output side of a simple input/output-model, while processes in the schools are leaved to the professionals, i.e. the teachers, the school principals and other resource persons of the school. This policy also marks a change from a predominantly attention to what the teacher teach (content) to what the students learn from the teaching (outcomes), or in other words from a content driven curricula to a competence driven curricula. <br/><br/>The reform policy is at the same time a centralization and a decentralization strategy: centralization at the input and the output side and decentralization of processes. The basic idea is that those responsible for the processes (principals and teachers) are held responsible for the outcomes. In the USA outcomes are related to economic incentives or rather to what is called punitive accountability, performance pay and completion among schools. The Scandinavian countries, other European countries and Ontario, Canada have deliberately avoided economic incentives despite pressure from employers unions and right wing political parties.<br/><br/>Three elements are in play in curriculum reforms. At the input side competence based learning goals and syllabuses, at the output side assessments and tests of learning outcomes and in-between the processes of school organization, class room management and teaching. <br/><br/>The Scandinavian countries as well as other European countries have during the latest 5-10 years developed clear competence goals at the input side of the model. They have also developed and introduced control systems – mostly as national test systems – at the output side of the model. Many countries are now in a process of revising and further developing their first generation competence goals as for instance Norway and Denmark. <br/><br/>It is debated whether a school system is better off with normal goals than with minimum goals. Normal goals are goals for what the students normally acquire while minimum goals are goals for what all students are expected to acquire. Minimum goals pay particular attention to weak or struggling students. The Scandinavian countries and some European countries (Germany, Austria) have implemented normal goals. In Germany despite recommendations from a board of curriculum experts that recommended introduction of minimum goals as a first step (Klieme et al., 2007), mainly because minimum goals to a higher degree than rule goals pay attention to weak students. Switzerland is currently in a process of implementing minimum goals. <br/><br/>At the output side of the model different kinds of control systems are implemented. In Scandinavia Norway and Denmark have introduced national test systems, while Sweden has introduced a corps of inspectors. Finland has in contrast to these Nordic countries no national test system or a corps of inspectors. Some countries (Norway, Denmark) have now initiated evaluation of their first generation goals as well of their national test systems.<br/><br/>A trend in international school reform policy seems to be a break with the New Public Management and accountability philosophy that has played a major role over the last two decades. It is probably too early to say that these strategies are abandoned, but it seems like a process of making these strategies more reasonable is commenced. Control systems like national tests are maintained, and publication of results is still in use except from few countries (Denmark) where the resistance to publication especially from the teachers union has been strong. The results are now most of all seen as a useful overall information about status in the school system, not as a tool for distribution of economic incentives. <br/><br/>This development in the view of goals and tests especially has gained influence from the point of view that better student outcomes are not a product of economic incentives or punishment. The rationale that economic incentives and punishments will improve schools and student outcomes rests on the idea that they can increase teachers’ motivation and will. But what does it help – so sounds the question – if the problem is not lack of motivation and will but lack of knowledge. This question leads to the third element in the input/output-model, namely the teaching processes. <br/><br/>It has become a strong trend in current school reform processes to pay much stronger emphasis on the processes in the schools than it was the case in the early versions of the accountability strategy. While the key to motivation is not seen in economic calculations but in the chance for the teachers to be a part of successful and improving schools attention is directed at soft steering mechanisms like culture, leadership and shared purpose.<br/><br/>The key efforts are now concentrated on strong teacher education oriented at professional practice, upgrading skills of existing teachers, and capacity building. It means that much attention is directed at support strategies. Some countries concentrate on the education of support resources in the schools such as curriculum supervisors (how to break down national goals to learning goals in the class room) literacy and numeracy supervisors, and supervisors for differentiated instruction, self directed learning, and creative and entrepreneurial teaching. Also we see teachers supported by government initiated development of inspirational material to differentiated instruction in diverse class rooms, to the teaching of basic knowledge and skills, to student oriented teaching, and to class room management. (OECD, 2011, 2012)<br/>¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬<br/><br/>Klieme, E., Avenarius, H., Blum, W., Döbrich, P., Gruber, H., Prenzel, M., . . . Vollmer, H. J. (2007). Zur Entwicklung nationaler Bildungsstandards - Expertise Retrieved from http://www.bmbf.de/pub/zur_entwicklung_nationaler_bildungsstandards.pdf <br/>OECD. (2011). Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf <br/>OECD. (2012). Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for Japan<br/> Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/49802616.pdf <br/><br/>

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.