Curriculum Frameworks. How can the development

There are numerous stakeholders unconcerned in education who claim to have the right to contribute to the development of the curriculum from: parents, students, the government, professional educators and employers. The government, educational and business sectors all have interests In common regarding the development of the curriculum; but they also share differences, each sector envisions a different ideal curriculum. Some of these Ideals tend to focus on their political stance, demographics, and particular interests; in retrospect the stronger political clout they project the larger influence they will have n the curriculum.

This Ideology can be further argued In a way that each sector of stakeholders could be seen to not only to have a particular Interest in the curriculum, but also a tendency to push their own political backings into their ideals and blame some of the other politically opposing stakeholders for the failings and Ineffectiveness of schools progress. This causes potential tensions between stakeholders. Internal stakeholders such as teachers and students are argued to be vital stakeholders who require a larger influence as they hold the closest interaction with he curriculum.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Thomas (2011) puts forward teachers to be curriculum designer’s as well as work with other contributing stakeholders to exhume the knowledge resources held in local communities. He draws on idea of localism and being advocated by the Coalition government, going further than current central education policy. Hancock (2013) suggests that the freeing of colleges and giving autonomy to educators has given some rightly deserved power back to these stakeholders.

It can be said that knowledge is power, the White paper (2010) emulates that the continual sis of quality for new entrants to the teaching profession is needed; graduates falling to achieve at least a 2:2 degree should not be provided funding for Initial teacher training by the Department for Education. Referring back to strong political clout and demographics, the increased amount of intelligence educators maintain the more power they possess to contribute a larger influence on the curriculum development, In turn projecting their political stance.

This Is an example of the ‘Off tensions and power struggles emerging between stakeholders to nave the largest influence on the curriculum. Bates (1989) supports this and adds that whichever sector emerges as the predominant force in significant measure, can be seen as the political products of power struggles. Williwaws Article (2013) emulates that teachers are constantly under various pressures whilst teaching; in addition to being criticized ‘pushy parents’ who complain about the teacher’s performance in school without understanding these constant pressures.

Williwaws has said that the parents should celebrate teachers for pushing up the standards and contact POSTED whom are an external stakeholder in education with any concerns they may have. Thomas (2012) is in agreement as there are dangers of overly narrowing definitions of teacher quality and this could in turn contribute to undermining the possibilities for stakeholders to engage with one and another. Cash (2003), Harvests (2003), Ball (2004), Bring et. Al. (2009) cited in Thomas (2012) say that the undermining of teacher autonomy during the period 1988 – 2010 is well established among educationalists.

Burke and Grooves (2003) In the curricular contests held and won in any context ay be lost in another or overridden; opening up the possibility of widening the gap between each stakeholders definitions of curricula, this could be considered as tokenism. Hart (1992) cited in Lead & Reid (2012) talks about his ladder of evaluating young people’s participation in decision making, the ladder has eight rungs the first three are: manipulation, decoration and tokenism, Hart argues that these factors could indicate the risk of young people falling short to exploitation.

Crud’s (2001) cited in Lead & Reid (2012) affirms the doubt between stakeholders as to who is allowed to speak and contribute and who will listen to them, or whether asking for a contribution listened to or not is a Just a simple polite gesture to cover themselves against a potential confrontation of non-inclusively. Another example of this is supported by Bernstein (1977) cited in Lead & Reid (2012) stating student views on curriculum can be ignorant with little status and few rights. They also state that the some research has been conducted around the voice of students in schools.

A growing concern is reflected in the research for the need of a student voice in the placement of the curriculum, emphasizing the benefits of accommodating this voice to the other stakeholders. In conclusion, Bates (1989) offers the idea of a complex web of social, political and economic influences which shape the construction of educational knowledge cannot be explored adequately by focusing on any one sector or interaction. For the curriculum to develop appropriately the process should include wider economic, social and political view points across the board not only acting on the dominant driving forces.

Courtney (2013) expresses that the policymakers do not always take into consideration and listen to what educators have contributed; there is a fear that for many teachers this will lead to rote-learning and teaching to the test, which will squeeze out creativity and critical-thinking as mentioned in question 1 . Thomas (2011) agrees with and states that the coalition government ambition for schools and teachers present challenges concerning teacher identities. Also it is argued that accountability driven by attainment score added to absence of teacher support may