The word curriculum is often associated with a set of rules to follow. A set of formats to include. A set of biased and , arguably, knowledgeable formulated ideals. The home page of the new National Australian curriculum states:
What does this mean? What the “students SHOULD learn”….
This term is static, its lifeless, its “play dough gone hard”. In the 21st century when students and teachers are able to access each other in every planet in the world in an instant, they are expecting much more than static..they want an ongoing, flexible, relevant, challenging, motivating curriculum laced with creativity and imagination.
But the question remains who determines this curriculum and its content, fluid or static? Who puts the full stop at the end of a curriculum statement.
For many, the answer is the national and local politicians who determine the content in relation to global relationships and national interest.
Is it the Boards of Education, who in their “infinite” wisdom and knowledge impart their expectations on the local school teacher and their students.
Is it the local school who, as evident in Finland, imparts the concepts of what is needed and best suits their community?
Whatever the organisation, the puzzle remains why so many varied international curriculums? And why the persistence to follow specific and identifiable curriculums purely based on cultural similarities?
Curriculum is an aspect of education which will continue to intrigue the many and varied stakeholders but the challenge is to find the “holy grail” of curriculum. The contributing factors to the many levels of curriculum i.e. local, state, national, international and global will remain a non-comforming mystery for many years I can assure myself. I just wonder when the “Curriculum Tongues of FIre” will come down upon the “heads of the curriculum script writers” in all countries so as we can speak a similar language we can all understand which has opportunities for all students to succeed.