Developing an Alternative Localised Curriculum Discourse

Author(s):

David Leat(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

03. Curriculum Innovation

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 08, Local Curriculum Development and Role of Collaboration

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-24

09:00-10:30

Room:

K4.16

Chair:

Jan van den Akker

Contribution

There is a move in some countries, including England, towards less curriculum control by government. This stands in contrast to a national curriculum which may be universally applied in all schools within a state/country. National curricula tend to use either content (subject mastery) or process (skills) based models (Kelly, 2009). More localised curricula have the potential to be more issue and problem centred with a wider concern about learning outcomes of the whole child/student (Sobel, 2004). However marketisation and globalisation typified by the PISA 'effect' on national policies have discouraged teachers' creativity and curriculum innovation (Au, 2007, Alexander, 2012) This paper is concerned attempts to create an educational 'ecosystem' in which there are increased affordances for teachers in developing a more localised, issue-centred curriculum.

For more than 25 years the author plus colleagues have worked promoting innovative pedagogies but we have come to realise that innovation has to encompass curriculum change and associated assessment strategies. As a result we have, through both funded and unfunded activities, promoted more localised curriculum development, highlighting inquiry and project based learning drawing upon community resources (Leat, 2017). Along the way we have encountered a significant range of people with compatible, if not identical, ideas. In our work we have been conscious of ecological models of education and particulary that developed by Hodgson & Spours (2013), drawing on Bronfenbrenner (1979) which identifies 5 system levels that pertain to coherent educational provision.

The micro - the space in which learner identity is developed through relationships with family, friends and teachers;
The meso - essentially the school and its staff;
Exo 1 – this level is not directly experienced by the young person but it has direct impact on their experience and includes community traditions and institution arrangements such as transition and accreditation;
Exo 2 – 'The exo 2 system level comprises the regional economic landscape and labour market, employers, training providers and their organisations, regional agencies and networks, including local authorities, further and higher education institutions, specialist vocational provision and wider travel-to-learn/earn patterns' (Hodgson & Spours, 2013, p. 217);
The macro – reflects both national and international political level.

Having concentrated previously on the micro and meso level we have consciously begun to address Exo 1 and 2. Currently the macro is beyond our reach.

One small incident has been a turning point in this evolution. We held a small reception for a pedagogic coach, visiting from the US in 2013/14 and we were very struck by the animation evident as our guests met and chatted with like-minded people and that some were swapping emails and mobile phone numbers. This resonated with our theorised knowledge of the importance of social capital (Field) and networking (Castells, 1996).

Thus in addition to our normal function of conducting funded research projects we have made networking a deliberate element of our work. This does have an added bonus in that our research grading in the UK uses 'impact' as one element of the evaluation. This paper reflects a meta-project which ties together our other funded projects and represents, more than any single project, our moral purpose as researchers.

Research Questions:

1. How do curriculum activists benefit from localised networking?

2. What is the potential wider impact on curriculum in local schools of the networking?

Method

This is an ethnographic case study of an emergent network of education activists and innovators over the course of 20 months in which 3 major events and several smaller ones were organized and there were ongoing research and development projects which drew in various network members. Data include: Field notes; Records of attendance and presentations at the events; Interviews; Project and event documents (e.g. Event Fliers and Guide to Community Curriculum Making) Research and funding bids Network maps Email lists and bulletins We have a great deal of data and our questions are relatively broad, so we have been selective in how we have approached analysis. We have focused on the 3 major events and the larger projects that have been interleaved with them: 1. 'Education Otherwise' a general conference (June 2015); 2. 'Community Curriculum Making' a project consultation and dissemination event (July 2016); 3. 'Learning City' an event including international speakers to explore practical steps in developing coherence in more innovative curriculum within the locality (March 2017). We have conceptualised these as critical sites or hubs where contacts have been made, ideas and words exchanged and internalized, and imaginations stimulated. So we have looked at these sites as starting points. from where effects materialise or focal points where ideas converge and crystallise. We have used the other data sources, such as interviews, emails and documents to trace possible causality and elaborate our explanations. Much of the data will be presented as annotated network diagrams which show the way in which people, ideas and language are connected and disperse. Where possible we have sought participant validation from our network partners. We are conscious however that our efforts have limited effects in the face of a performative policy context (Ball 20??) so we will also present some evidence on the constraints on such curriculum innovation.

Expected Outcomes

Our field notes, network maps and other data show: 1. There is an increased connectivity in the local innovation networking, so that more activists know more other activists; 2. This increased connectivity has led to small informal collaborations, funded projects and one larger initiative; 3. The university is a 'sleeping giant' with much to offer curriculum innovation through influence, credibility, funding and activity (especially relating to widening participation in higher education and tackling educational inequality). 4. There is strong value in developing an alternative curriculum discourse to that offered by the government national curriculum as this validates the efforts of some activists/teachers and provides another language to talk about their curriculum. Our judgement is that 3 years ago locality based curriculum innovation was less than the sum of its parts, but that networking has seen progress on this front, with people using the term 'community curriculum making'. This alternative discourse is however completely overshadowed by the official national curriculum discourse. 5. Some innovative curriculum projects and schools have achieved a higher profile as a consequence of networking; 6. Networking has the effect of making a wider range of opportunities, resources and ideas available to a wider range of schools. 7. Digital technology is a powerful magnet/lever in attracting schools to embrace curriculum innovation as it legitimizes activity An important outcome of this deliberate networking approach is that we are approached by partners with proposals and furthermore we are finding it somewhat easier to find partners and settings for research projects. We are seen as givers as well as takers. We believe this is crystallised in LeDantec's significant phrase about the 'work before you do the work'. The networking is ongoing work that prepares the ground for projects in general.

References

Alexander, R.J., (2012) Curriculum freedom, capacity and leadership in the primary school, Available at: http://www.robinalexander.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Alexander-Nat-Coll-curric-capacity.pdf. Au, W. (2007) High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis, Educational Researcher, Vol. 36 (5), pp. 258-267. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. 1., Oxford: Blackwell. Field, J. (2003) Social Capital, London: Routledge. Hodgson, A. & Spours, K. (2013), Tackling the crisis facing young people: building ‘high opportunity progression eco-systems', Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 39 (2), pp. 211-228. Kelly, A.V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice 6th Edition, London: Sage. Leat, D. (2017, in press) Enquiry and Project Based Learning: Students, School and Society, Abingdon: Routledge. LeDantec, C. & Fox, S. (2015) "Strangers at the Gate: Gaining Access, Building Rapport, and Co-Constructing Community-Based Research." In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. Vancouver, BC, Canada — March 14 - 18, 2015: 1348-1358. Sobel, D. (2004) Place-based education: Connecting Classroom and Community, Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.

Author Information

David Leat (presenting / submitting)

Newcastle University

Education

Newcastle

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.