Self-developed curriculum adds efficiency to education

Self-developed curriculum adds efficiency to education

By Bambang Sugeng

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The 1994 school curriculum passed by the
government prescribes a national load of 60 percent to 70 percent
and a local load of 30 percent to 40 percent. This curriculum,
developed by experts, is based on sound visions and missions
which carry the principles of link-and-match, local orientation
and vertical and horizontal flexibility.

This type of curriculum always has a tendency toward conflict
between the prescribed national and local loads. Where the
national share is kept in its correct proportion, it will
facilitate a conducive learning-teaching processes to achieve the
predetermined educational objectives. On the other hand, when the
national content overrides the local load, there is the fear this
will harm local educational innovations.

One current innovation is for education management to be
oriented toward learners' needs and characteristics. The
curriculum can convey whether an education management has
fulfilled this requirement. A curriculum may be relevant or
redundant depending on whether it reflects the requirements of
local needs and characteristics. At least four parties are
involved in the design and implementation of a curriculum.

First, the students, especially in high school and university,
play an important role in the design and implementation of a
curriculum. The students' characteristics should be well-
reflected in a modern school curriculum. Particularly in the case
of nonacademic activities, which are designed to supplement the
curriculum, where students often become invaluable resources of
input. Any curriculum planning which ignores the specific
capabilities of the students for whom it is planned will often
experience serious difficulties during the implementation stage.

Second, the teachers takes a major role in almost all phases
of curriculum design and implementation. The curriculum can be a
great success or a dismal failure depending on the teachers. They
are the key people who alone can make the curriculum achieve what
it was designed to achieve. For the teacher, a curriculum is not
so much what is found in the printed guide book, as what the
teacher makes of it in the classroom. It a teacher's adaptation
of the curriculum to meaningful learning experiences that really
counts. Teachers should use the printed curriculum merely as a
general framework, and must feel free to express their teaching
strategies and techniques in the way that can best help make them
a success in the classroom.

Third, the community, which includes students' parents, has a
part in curriculum management. In certain school settings,
parents who take active interest in the school's day-to-day
affairs may exert a great influence in the success of the school.
It can be surprising what happens when parents are consulted in
the design and implementation of a curriculum. Not all parents
understand how school systems work. However, they do have common
sense and ideas which, when well adapted, may elevate the quality
of the school curriculum.

Fund raising, homework, problem students and extracurricular
activities are some of the areas which will not be such a heavy
burden to the school management and staff if parents are brought
into the process. All these have a direct impact on the design
and implementation of a school curriculum.

Finally, the government has a place in the design and
implementation of a school curriculum, by drawing up national
policies, syllabi and examinations. In more modern countries,
this role may not be as significant. For example, in the United
States each state enjoys the freedom to experiment with its own
curriculum and examinations, and even within each state school
districts can pursue their own programs within certain limits set
down by the state Board of Education.

Of the four components mentioned above, the students and
teachers are the ones who are directly related to the school. The
parents play a role in supplying additional services and
facilities, and the government has a part in drawing up the
curriculum for national policies.

The need for a core national curriculum is by no means
irrelevant. Indeed, it is an educational innovation seen
throughout out the world that a nation needs to have some kind of
core curricula. In Australia, for example, it is stated that the
government accepts the responsibility for ensuring that all
students have access to a balanced and relevant core curriculum.
A core curriculum guarantees all students experience a common and
essential education necessary for them to be able to function
effectively in society.

As such, it is reasonable that any core or national curriculum
would set broad goals and leave the instructional implications to
individual schools. The Australian core curriculum, for example,
states the essential features of eight learning areas that must
be adopted by all Australian schools. These eight areas of study
are English, mathematics, science, social studies and
environmental technology, arts, foreign language and
health/physical education.

If, however, a core curriculum exceeds what it is supposed to
prescribe, certain complications will most certainly occur at the
ground level of individual schools. And the one to suffer the
most from this excess of control is teachers and students. These
are the parties most directly related to curriculum management.

In the first place, it must be admitted that the national
curriculum tends to be drawn up more out of under-the-table
processes, rather than from on-the-spot observations of empirical
practices. The top-down scheme often leaves out details which are
different from place to place. This is why Brown, et al, points
out that "educational administrators sometimes lose touch with
what is happening in actual classrooms and need this important
element of feedback from the teachers to keep them informed".

It is another fact that the excessive pressure of the load of
the national curriculum tends to restrict teachers' creativity in
managing classroom activities. It is not uncommon to find
teachers who are so overly concerned with the curriculum
requirements that they must sacrifice their teaching creativity.
When this happens, the well-intended purposes of the national
curriculum deteriorate into the mere act of fulfilling formal
requirements.

In the end, it is teachers and classroom activities which come
to mind when talking about the national curricula. It is thus
important that individual schools be given adequate freedom to
function in designing and implementing the school curriculum.
There are at least four steps which will allow individual schools
to self-develop their curriculum.

First, school teachers must be given more say in the design
and implementation of the school curriculum. It is a fact that
more and more schools have better quality human resources, thanks
to the various scholarship programs that grant teachers access to
continuing education. These teachers must be given the trust and
responsibility in the academic management of the school. With
some reserve, Print says it is school teachers who should become
core members of a curriculum development team. Eventually, these
teachers should be aided by "outside bodies", such as university
staff consultants, school councils, community members, teacher
unions, parent organizations and education departments.

It is high time that this "dream team" be given a serious
thought. It is high time to cease treating teachers merely as
consumers of prescribed curricula and rightly allow them to
become decision makers in the design and implementation of school
curricula.

Second, the alumni of the school must be given a share of the
responsibility. No reference has yet mentioned a place for school
alumni in curriculum management. In fact, these individuals
possess, in their own way, an insight into how relevant a
curriculum is to the demands of the working world. In an era
where relevance and professionalism are two important
considerations for the development of a sound curriculum, alumni
are invaluable sources of information. Though with a different
theme in mind, Alwasilah (The Jakarta Post, July 26, 1999)
correctly voiced the importance of problem and career-oriented
curricula in facing the present social and economic situations.
If this is the case, the role of alumni in curriculum management
becomes obvious.

Third, action research activities must include curriculum
management as one of its priorities. Through its plan-act-reflect
cycle, action research is an efficient strategy by which
longitudinal studies such as curriculum development and
implementation can be approached.

Through its built-in accumulative aspect, action research
efficiently monitors and evaluates the implementation of a
curriculum, as compared to the plan-tryout-implement procedure
most other research studies have. Current references abound with
evidence demonstrating that curriculum studies are best
approached through action research.

Finally, professional conventions can be used as an effective
venue for the development of school curriculums. At the high
school level as well as at the university level, teachers have
professional organizations. Some schools or departments even have
professional organizations related to their particular fields.
These bodies also hold conferences not only on academic affairs,
but also on the administrative aspects of their education
management.

Curriculum may be seen as relevant or redundant depending on
whether it reflects the requirements of local needs and
characteristics.

It is the teachers and the groups and bodies related to
schools that can best ensure the curriculum's links and matches
are relevant, and provide vertical and horizontal flexibility.
The branches of the Ministry of Education are responsible for
ensuring there are adequate facilities for schools, while at the
same time easing theirs grips on the implementation of the
schools' curricula.

The writer is a senior lecturer in the Department of English
Education at the Teachers Training Institute in Yogyakarta.