Curriculum capers

Another meeting, another surreal experience. This one was about curriculum development, and was about as enlightening as you would expect. The objectives are supposed to be research-based, needs-driven, and international-standard-focused. It will be an iterative, cyclical process, proceeding step by step in a circle of continuous improvement. Good luck.



Circular motion of spinning head?

Five years ago, an internationally-renowned institution with thousands of schools in dozens of countries, was running a standard-focused tight ship of a program. After numerous run-ins with management, this organization pulled out. For another example, a business program running independently within the university was run as an adjunct program with a tier-1 university in the USA. After 2 years of butting heads, the university was kicked out, and run as in in-house program. The next iteration will be the replacement of all expat teachers in the program with indigenous faculty.


At least two recent precedents exist, which had a standards-focused, high quality of educational excellence, and both were replaced because they did not toe the company line. Why should we expect that this time around, with something developed completely in-house, the process will produce something different? That is actually the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.



Circling the drain?


Some of the issues I predict for this caper concern assessment, accountability, and attainability. Currently, all assessment materials and protocols are produced on a sister campus. That content and the responsibilities it is concerned with have been wrangled over for years. It is a political contest that I do not see will be won any time soon. To have a needs-driven, outcome-focused curriculum requires an independent assessment regime. If assessment does not follow the learning path, then the learning has no purpose. I have talked about this in a previous blog.

Accountability is something I have talked about in more than a few blogs. The presenter talked about having objectives associated with each level: when we describe a student as a level 4, there is a consensus on associated level descriptors. Of course, that means that there are entrance as well as exit expectations. To graduate means that students show mastery over coursework. To enter means that students possess the needed prerequisites. To assess means that students will demonstrate genuine ability that cannot be manipulated during the testing. Currently, grades are assigned on the basis of generosity, not fairness. Teachers are evaluated on the basis of lack of complaints, not on actual teaching ability. Graduation is determined many times through political force rather than on documented evidence. These are practices that must change, or the curricular accountability is a farce.

The presenter said that the research and the feedback on curricular effectiveness would be determined by the end of the next academic year through a top-down/bottom-up process. Research would be carried out, and the outcomes manifest would be implemented. Cases in point: an informal survey of teachers who attended the meeting were asked “how many of you received an email informing you of today's meeting?” Less than 50% actually got the email; they knew about the meeting through an informal network. Seriously, why bother with the technicalities of a research process, when basic communications can't even be counted upon? How about setting out attainable objectives? Can we get keys for our lockers? Can we have an efficient system for evaluating teacher professionalism, rather than requiring teachers to stand in line after a presentation to sign for attendance for a period of time longer than the presentation itself, as what happened today?



Research follows the plan

The research atmosphere that I have intuited about this place is that research outcomes have already been determined. Research follows practice, not the other way round. The research itself would be conducted (1) to justify existing practice, and (2) to give the pretense of research credibility for international standards (# of PhDs, # of papers published, regardless of quality). The research would be done with results expected tomorrow, and implemented without question the following day.

When I first arrived, I saw this happening with frustration and irritation. Now, I laugh, and say to myself, “Good luck on that, mate! You're gonna need it!”