© Curriculum Foundation1 Part 1 So first we’d better look at some technical/historical stuff. (As usual, it’s not too heavy – so don’t worry!) Part 1 So

© Curriculum Foundation 1

Part 1

So first we’d better look at some technical/historical stuff.

(As usual, it’s not too heavy – so don’t worry!)

We need to understand a bit about the evaluation process before we start.

In his 1949 book, Ralph Tyler is credited with changing the view of curriculum from static to dynamic. It is worth thinking about this because, 60 years later, it is still significant.

Previously, the curriculum was seen as ‘given’ and static. If the students did not learn the intended things, then it was clearly their fault. Or the teacher’s fault (some things haven’t changed!).

There was little thought given to the curriculum itself. Tyler is credited with changing that view (although, in the UK, Hadow saw the curriculum as a process rather than as a set of outcomes in 1934). Tyler’s focus was on objectives.

Did you recognise this man?

Probably not! Not many people do. It’s Ralph Tyler who wrote a seminal book about educational

evaluation in 1949.

© Curriculum Foundation

Tyler saw the curriculum as a set of programmes designed to bring about the learning objectives, so saw the need for a constant process of evaluation in terms of those objectives.

He suggests that “curriculum planning is a continuous, cyclical process – an educational instrument that needs to be fine tuned”

The willingness to change programmes in order to ensure that objectives are met shifted the paradigm of the curriculum as static. The approach had the advantage of enabling national expectations to be aligned with students’ needs (Does that sound familiar? Do you recall Unit 3??)


Learning objectivesProgrammes

designed to achieve these objectives

Programmes implemented

Programmes evaluated


This process can be shown as a model


In this model, programmes are designed to meet objectives and are then evaluated. As a result of this evaluation, appropriate changes are made to the programme. The curriculum therefore evolves in relation to the evaluation and so is not static.

This is, essentially, a formative model of evaluation.

The evaluations were based upon data from the assessments that were made in terms of the learning objectives. These data were obtained through formal testing of the students. This was an era of tests and data analysis.

So, again, you may think that little has changed!


Do you see any drawbacks to this approach?

Formative sounds good …

The quantitative test data will be reliable and easy to analyse …

So, what’s not to like?


Did you recognise this man? He did see some things not to like, and his approach to evaluation changed the approach away from tests.

It’s Lawrence Stenhouse who founded the Centre for Applied Research in Education (CARE) at the University of East Anglia in 1970.

Stenhouse saw the reliance on test data as limiting, and his approach was to look for information about a range of learning beyond the tests. His focus was also on the process of curriculum, and so the data he was interested in was derived from the people involved in the curriculum process itself – the teachers and the students – not just test data. This was a more ‘ethnographic’ approach to evaluation – and to education itself - and one which prevailed for some time.

This approach valued the qualitative perceptions of participants and so moved away from the more quantitative approach of test data.


The approach is set out in this 1975 book. This moves the focus away from the narrow realm of pre-set measurable outcomes and to the wider range of learning that occurs where learning environments are rich and where teaching and learning are flexible.

It was a way of looking at the sort of learning we have been talking about throughout these Units; a way of considering the roots as well as the leaves.

It was an approach that took account of the wide potential for growth and learning that goes beyond any set of objectives.


The approach could be represented as a model:


Jean Rudduck (did you recognise her??) explains the centrality of teachers in Stenhouse’s approach.


But two things happened in Britain that took the focus away from the curriculum process and from teachers, and put the focus back on a narrow range of measurable outcomes.

Can you guess what they were?


No prizes for recognising this famous person.

It’s former HMCI, Chris Woodhead.


The introduction of school league tables put the emphasis firmly back on test scores. And on a particularly narrow range of test scores : SATs and GCSE A*-C grades. Do you remember the quote from the Australian White Paper?

‘Ofsted came in with its own set of evaluation criteria for every aspect of education. These criteria are changed with every successive inspection framework, but essentially set the agenda not only for evaluation but for education itself. The surprising thing is that these criteria are developed within Ofsted without any national consultation or agreement. In other countries, these are matters of intense public debate – and rightly so given their importance.’


So, if Ralph Tyler put the emphasis on formative evaluation and Lawrence Stenhouse put it on the curriculum process, the impact of Ofsted and league tables is to create a public system that focuses on the summative.


In many ways, Ofsted and league tables have made us much more aware of the need for evaluation of the education process – and this is good. At the same time, they have taken evaluation down a particular track, and some would see it as a rather narrow track.

Of course there must be external criteria by which education can be judged, but to be valid these criteria must take account of local circumstances. There must also be a balance between the sort of national criteria set up by Ofsted and the local aspirations of school communities. And if Ofsted is to set up national criteria, then these should be a matter of national debate and agreement. Only then can we have a fully effective system of evaluation that takes account of wider perspectives.

One wider perspective was put forward in 2004 by Prof Emma Norland (there’s another picture identified!) Her model identifies four stages of the evaluation process. She points out that we need a starting point, a benchmark, before our new programme starts to measure progress. She also points out that at first we can only consider the process because there will not have been time for the impact to come through into outcomes. The process moves from formative to summative as the programme matures.


Documents

© Curriculum Foundation1 Part 1 So first we’d better look at some technical/historical stuff. (As usual, it’s not too heavy – so don’t worry!) Part 1 So