Political Ideology Within School Curriculum

8/11/2019 Political Ideology Within School Curriculum

1/18

The content of school curriculum has always been the subject of controversy and considerablepublic attention in countries we have studied. This chapter examines the political dynamicsaround the construction of official school curriculumthat is, curriculum developed by gov-

ernments or other sanctioned authorities for standard use in schools across a state, province, orcountry. The first part of the chapter provides a context for the discussion by describing the scope andnature of political discussion and decision making in government. The chapter then uses a frameworkbased on the work of Young, Levin, and Wallin (2007) to examine the factors and processes that affectcurriculum decisions. Examples drawn from the authors experience and the literature are used toillustrate these dynamics. The chapter concludes with an extended example.

7

1CURRICULUM POLICY ANDTHE POLITICS OF WHAT

SHOULD BE LEARNED IN SCHOOLSBEN LEVIN

Item: A plan to remove calculus from the Ontario Grade 12 mathematics curriculum draws

protests from high-tech companies and university engineering departments despite support fromuniversity mathematics departments who understand that participation rates in advancedmathematics have been falling significantly and the proposed change would actually improveoverall mathematics learning.

Item: The Ontario curriculum for Grades 1 to 8 contains more than 3700 specific and gen-eral expectations for teachers and students to cover. Assuming a 200-day school year, this is morethan two curriculum goals every day for 8 years. Although these expectations are grouped undera much smaller number of key learning goals, teachers want the number of specific expectationsreduced while other groups are lobbying to include new areas as essential objectives.

Item: The Ontario high school curriculum already has 270 possible courses even thoughstudents only have a maximum of 12 options during their 4 years of high school. However, thereare constant requests for new courses, such as womens studies, Black history, environmentalawareness, workplace safety, entrepreneurship, and a variety of others.

01-Connelly-45357.qxd 9/19/2007 8:48 PM Page 7


2/18

In this chapter, curriculum is defined as anofficial statement of what students are expectedto know and be able to do.The informal or unof-ficial curriculum, despite its importance, is not

discussed in this chapter. Nor does the chapterdiscuss issues of how local jurisdictions use pol-icy to inform classroom instruction (what isactually taught), how and what teachers teach, orwhat students learn as a result. These are veryimportant issues that are discussed elsewherein this handbook. Because many curriculumquestions are as much about teaching practiceas about curriculum documents, debates overappropriate teaching methods are an essentialpart of the politics of curriculum and so are alsopart of the discussion in this chapter.

UNDERSTANDING PUBLICPOLICY AND POLITICS

This chapter is primarily about politics, but pol-itics in relation to public policy. There are many,many definitions of both termspublic policyand politics. Public policy is about the rules andprocedures governing public sector activitywhat they are and how they are made. It can bethought of as either a subset of the study of gov-

ernment or an element in the study of variouspolicy fieldshealth, education, justice, socialwelfare, transportation, and so on. Policy studiestend to focus on the processes through whichpolicies are created and the effects of such poli-cies once in place.

Policies govern just about every aspect ofeducationwhat schooling is provided, how,to whom, in what form, by whom, with whatresources, and so on. The application of theseterms to curriculum is evident. Curriculum con-cerns what is taughta fundamental aspect ofschooling and thus of public policy.

Policy studies sometimes give short shrift toquestions of politics, treating policy creationand evaluation as an intellectual activity basedprimarily if not solely on the actual content ofthe policies. In reality, though, policy is inextri-cably connected to politics and the attempt toseparate them is unhelpful to understanding oraction.

The role of politics in policy is troublingand misunderstood by many educators, whofeel that education is a matter of expertise andshould be beyond politics. The apolitical or even

antipolitical view of many educators is nothelpful because it takes attention away from thereality that politics is the primary processthrough which public policy decisions are made.

Even the choice to use a supposedly nonpoliticalmechanism such as markets is a political choice(Plank & Boyd, 1994).

Some definitions of politics focus on for-mal processes of government, such as elections,political parties, and division of powers. Otherdefinitions, closer to my understanding, arebroader, seeing politics as extending beyondformal processes to include a wide range ofinformal influences and larger social processes.Political processes operate even in the mostauthoritarian societies, though their forms differ

depending on political culture and institutions.One of the most enduring definitions of politicsis Lasswells (1958),Who gets what? This defi-nition can be applied to every setting, from acountry to a school or classroom.

Politics is about power. Since not all can havewhat they want, the question is who does getwhat they want and who does not. Tinder(1991) describes a political system as a set ofarrangements by which some people domi-nate others (p. 162). In every setting, fromclassroom to country, political influence is usu-

ally highly unequal, and those who have the leaststatus tend also to have the least influence onpolitical decision making.

Every education policy decision can be seenas being, in some sense, a political decision.However, this does not mean that every educa-tional issue will be the subject of intense publicdiscussion and political lobbying. Indeed, mostpolicy decisions in education, including curricu-lum decisions, are made with little or no publicattention. Sometimes these decisions are con-troversial and highly political within the organi-zation itself. A subfield of education politics,micropolitics, developed to examine some ofthese small scale political interactions (e.g., Ball,1987; Hoyle, 1982). But whether controversial ornot, education policy decisions, because theyinvolve questions of public choice and concern,are essentially political in nature (Manzer, 1994).

A substantial body of research and scholar-ship in education addresses issues of policy for-mation and implementation from a variety ofconceptual positions. Examples of these differ-ent perspectives can be found in handbooksor collections such as Hargreaves, Lieberman,

8 MAKING CURRICULUM



3/18

Fullan, and Hopkins (1998) and Bascia,Cumming, Datnow, Leithwood, and Livingstone(2005). The education policy literature could bestrengthened if it were better linked to the larger

literature on public policy and politics, althoughthe latter has more sophisticated frameworksand modes of analysis (for an overview of thiswork see Howlett & Ramesh, 2003; for a partic-ularly insightful discussion see Dror, 1986).

Most frameworks for understanding poli-tics and policy formation address similar topics.Central features of any analysis include the insti-tutional setting and structure around decisions(e.g., Crowson, Boyd, & Mawhinney, 1996), howissues come to be on the political agenda (e.g.,Kingdon, 1994), and the processes through

which decisions are made in the face of differentpoints of view (e.g., Ball, 1990). Attention mayalso be given to the process of implementationwhat happens to policies after their officialadoption. Implementation became a moreintensive focus of attention starting in the late1960s as analysts began to realize that policiesdid not always produce the intended results(e.g., McLaughlin, 1987; Wildavsky, 1979). Inone comparative study of education reformpolitics, Levin (2001) used a typology of origins(where policy comes from), adoption (from an

idea to a decision), implementation, and out-comes (results, intended or not, of decisions).However any such categorical system is only adevice, since in practice political processes arehighly interactive. The discussion in this paperuses a heuristic framework drawn from Young etal. (2007), who propose analyzing political deci-sions in terms of five overlapping categories:issues, actors, processes, influences, and results.

How Government Works:An Inside Perspective

Curriculum politics should be understood aspart of the overall process of government andespecially the influence of politics. The dynam-ics of government are not well understood bymost people outside of governmentfor thatmatter, also by many people who work ingovernmentand many of the scholarly dis-cussions of policy and politics do not reflectthe realities of government to any substantialdegree. The first part of this chapter describessome of these features as a prelude to a discus-sion of curriculum politics and policy.

I have spent half my career as a senior officialin government, working closely with politiciansand political staff as well as civil servants todevelop and implement education policy agen-

das. My research and academic workthe otherhalf of my careerhave also given me theopportunity to work closely with politicalleaders and senior officials and to observe polit-ical decision making in several other countries.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, politicsin my experience is an intensely rational activity.However, the premises behind political rational-ity are different. Politicians are no more self-serving or indifferent to evidence than are educatorsor civil servants. Understanding the politics ofcurriculum requires an understanding of the

factors that affect elected governments and espe-cially the powerful constraints that limit bothunderstanding of what to do and capacity to act.

These dynamics are illustrated through thefollowing six general assertions; their implica-tions for curriculum politics are developed later.In my view these dynamics apply to all electedgovernments, even though political structures,cultures, and practices can differ substantiallyacross jurisdictions. For example, the UnitedStates system of checks and balances has differ-ent features than do parliamentary systems such

as the United Kingdom, Australia, or Canada.Politics may look different in decentralized orfederal states than in unitary states. But whateverthe form, elected governments are subject topressures and constraints based on voter prefer-ences,election timing,and the views of key inter-est groups. In other settings, where electionsdo not exist or are not particularly meaningful,political dynamics might look quite different.However, as illustrated by the overthrow of total-itarian regimes in various countries in the lastcouple of decades, every government has to paysome attention to the views of elites of variouskinds, even if not to citizens more generally.

Voter Interests Drive Everything

Everything in government occurs in theshadow of elections. Although stakeholder viewsdo matter, as will be discussed later, governmentunderstanding of the views of voters in generalmatter much more. Every government is think-ing all the time about how to improve itsprospects for being reelected, which means try-ing to do what voters want. Some people find this

Curriculum Policy and the Politics of What Should Be Learned in Schools 9



4/18

cynical, but it is hard to see what else politicianscould do. After all, concern for reelection islargely about doing what most people want, andpresumably people elect governments for pre-

cisely that purpose. A government that does notsatisfy enough people will be tossed out of office.It seems unlikely that voters would like govern-ments better if the latter had the so-calledcourage to do what is unpopular. From the view-point of those elected, doing the unpopular isprecisely how a government gets defeated in thenext election. The British cabinet minister in thewonderful British TV series Yes Ministeralwaysreacted with dismay when his chief civil servant,Sir Humphrey, called for taking a courageousstand, since this inevitably meant doing some-

thing that would get him into serious trouble.Voters exercise a double standard around

government. When individuals want a govern-ment to do something that may not be very pop-ular, people talk about governments needing tohave political will. However when a governmentdoes something people do not like, whetherpopular or not, it tends to get labelled as ideol-ogy rather than political will.

Governments do attempt to shape as wellas respond to public opinion. Sometimes theywant to give the perception of action even when

they are not doing much, and sometimes theywant to give the perception that changes are lesssignificant than they really are so as to reduceopposition. Rhetoric is a vital part of politics(Edelman, 1988; Levin & Young, 2000), and gov-ernment statements of intention or announce-ments of action cannot always be taken at facevalue. They have to be read through the lens ofpolitical communication.

It is also important to remember that votersare not necessarily very interested in every publicissue; and even if voters are interested, they maynot be knowledgeable. There are too manypublic issues for even the most committed citi-zens to know about beyond the most superficiallevel. People have lives to carry on, and publicaffairs are inevitably only one partand formany, not a very large partof those lives. Thismeans that citizen knowledge of and attention toissues can be very limited. Hence, there is pres-sure on politicians to communicate in verysimple messages. As one political leader told me,If I cant explain it in 25 words or less, peoplestop listening. At the same time, voters can caredeeply and feel strongly about issues about

which they know very little. For example, peoplemay have strong views about something likeglobal warming without having any significantknowledge. Education policy is particularly sus-

ceptible to this situation as pretty well everyonehas some experience of schooling and thereforeopinions about how it ought to work. Researchin social psychology (Kiesler & Sproull,1982) hasshown that people are very susceptible to gener-alizing on the basis of a few rather unusual cases.

Still, it would be a mistake to believe that gov-ernments are about only image and impression.They are usually genuinely concerned about theresults of their actions and policies. They dobelieve that their policy goals will make societybetter. They do want to fulfill their commit-

ments to voters, and programs and policies arethe means of doing so. They do not set out tomake a mess of things any more than schoolsset out to have high numbers of dropouts orunhappy parents. Moreover, a mistaken policycan create very large political costs. Voters dotend to toss out of office governments whoseperformance is disappointingas virtually alleventually are.

Governments Have LimitedControl Over the Policy Agenda

Although every government comes to officewith a set of policy ideals or commitments, thereality is that much of what governments attendto is not of their own design or preference.Governments have to be in whatever busi-nesses (the plural is deliberate here) people seeas important.

Governments try to do everything all at oncebecause that is what citizens and voters requireof them. The presence of diverse and conflictinggoals means that governments are pulled, oftenstrongly, in different directions at the same time.Policies may be contradictory or incoherent asgovernments try to maintain political credibilityand social harmony by softening the edges ofwhat they do or by giving a little bit to many dif-ferent and even competing agendas. In these cir-cumstances, clarity of purpose is not necessarilya virtue in that it can exacerbate divisions thatcannot easily be reconciled.

Government agendas are certainly shaped inpart by political commitments, party platforms,and the views of key political leaders. Govern-ments do try to keep a focus on meeting the

10 MAKING CURRICULUM



5/18

commitments they made when elected. However,they are also influenced, often to a much greaterextent, by external political pressures, changingcircumstances, unexpected events, and crises.

As soon as a government is elected, variousgroups try to influence its agenda in accord withtheir own. This is in many ways the essenceof the political process. It means that politiciansare constantly bombarded with requests ordemands to do things, stop doing things, increasefunding, decrease funding, pass legislation,repeal other legislation, and so on. As popula-tions have become better educated and betterorganized, the number and intensity of the pres-sures on politicians has risen.

Nor are people necessarily reasonable or

consistent in their demands; as Arrow (1970)pointed out long ago, public preferences do notnecessarily line up in rank order. The samepeople who demand more services from govern-ments may also demand lower taxes. Those whoin one year argued vehemently in favor of reducedgovernment spending might the following yearbe just as impassioned when pointing out thenegative consequences of the reductions. Inregard to education, people can be in favor ofmore testing and more creativity or of tougherstandards and more individualization at the

same time. People can and do hold inconsistentbeliefs, but political leaders must do their best toaccommodate these inconsistencies in some way.

Unanticipated developments can also affectpolitical agendas. When the unexpected hap-pens, whether an economic downturn, a naturaldisaster, or some other new development, gov-ernments must respond in some way, even ifthat means taking attention and resources awayfrom other activities that were high on the pri-ority list. As Dror (1986) puts it, there is at anygiven moment a high probability of low proba-bility events occurring. In other words, surprisedominates (p. 186). Examples of such surprisesabound, from 9/11 to SARS, from a sudden rise(or fall) in oil prices to the unexpected death ofa key political leader or a street revolution. Manyevents can render carefully developed plans nulland void in an instant.

While some of the pressures on governmentrelate to very important, long-term issues,short-term details can also be very important.One cannot assume that the former will alwaysbe more important than the latter. Very smallitems can turn into huge political events. In the

private sector, 95% customer satisfaction isoutstanding; in the public sector, 5% of clientscomplaining can lead to a political disaster. Forexample, a single instance of a problemsay a

child in public care being abused or injured or apatient dying in a hospital waiting roomcanundermine an entire system that may actually beworking reasonably well and divert attentionand resources from activities that are reallymuch more important.

Governments are particularly susceptible toissues that take on public salience throughthe media (Levin, 2004a). Most people get theirinformation about public events from the massmedia; an issue that is played up in the mediaoften becomes something that a government

must respond to, even if the issue was no part ofthe governments policy or plan and even if themedia report is inaccurate or misleading. Mediacoverage is itself motivated by a number of con-siderations, but long-term importance to publicwelfare is not necessarily one of them (Edelman,1988, 2001; Neuman, Just, & Crigler, 1992).Indeed, novelty is an important requisite for themedia in order to sustain reader or viewer inter-est, so governments are likely to be faced with anever-changing array of issues all of which sup-posedly require immediate attention.

The significance of the media is also illus-trated by the consistent finding that where peoplehave first hand knowledgesuch as of theirown schools, hospitals, or child care centerstheir satisfaction level is higher than for thesystem in general, where their prime source ofinformation may come through often negativemedia coverage.

There Is Never Enough Time

Governments are in some sense responsiblefor everything. Government leaders have to makedecisions about a vast array of issuesfromhighways to the environment, from financial pol-icy to education, from health to justice systems.And, as just noted, they are likely to face anunending set of other pressures on their energyand attention. In parliamentary systems, cabinetmembers not only have responsibility fortheir own area of jurisdictionwhich can beenormously complicated and fraught with diffi-cultiesbut are also supposed to participate incollective decision making on a wide variety ofother matters facing the government. Each issue




6/18

has to be considered not only in terms of itssubstance, but also from the standpoint of publicattitudes and political implications. The nature ofpolitical life is such that there is no respite from

these demands. A politician may leave her or hisoffice, but almost every social encounter will alsolead to new pressures or requests. Politicians havelittle opportunity for a private life.

There is, consequently, never enough time tothink about issues in sufficient depth. The polit-ical world is a relentless parade of events, issues,and required decisionsfew, if any of which,can be put off for sober reflection. Some senseof this pace is captured in the TV programThe West Wing, except that the real situation isgenerally more messy even than this portrayal,

with more simultaneous demands and pres-sures being handled. Senior government leaders,both politicians and civil servants, work undertremendous time pressures in which they areexpected to make knowledgeable decisionsabout all the issues facing them within veryshort timelines and without major errors. This isimpossible, but it is nonetheless what citizensexpect from their leaders.

The result is that important decisions areoften made very quickly with quite limitedinformation and discussion. This is not because

politicians necessarily like making hurried oruninformed decisions, but because there is noalternative to doing so. There is an unconfirmedstory from a large country that illustrates thisdynamic. The Minister of Education went to seethe Prime Minister with two major policy pro-posals. The Prime Minister told the Ministerof Education that he could have one only andcould pick which one. That is how the countryended up with a very powerful policy change.

The pressure of multiple issues is also one ofthe reasons that policy implementation tends toget short shifted. As soon as one decision hasbeen made there is enormous pressure to get onto the next issue. Even with the best intentions,it is hard to get back to something from monthsago to see how it is progressing since meanwhileso many other issues have arrived on thedoorstep demanding immediate attention.

During my time in government, I have oftenbeen amazed not by how many things wentwrong, but by how many decisions turned outreasonably well, considering the circumstancesmultiple contradictory pressures, insufficient

time, inadequate knowledgeunder which theywere made.

People and Systems Both Matter

Much of what a government does is shaped bythe individuals who happen to occupy criticalpositions, regardless of their political stripe. Anypolitical party is likely to contain a wide range ofviews and positions; in statistical terms, thewithin-group variance in ideas in a party is likelyto be much larger than the variance between oneparty and another. So the individuals who cometo hold certain positions are important. Presidentsin republican systems are of course powerfulexamples; who the president is matters as much

or more as his or her party affiliation. The sameapplies in parliamentary systems. Some ministerscarry quite a bit of weight in Cabinet and can gettheir way on important issues, while others havedifficulty getting their colleagues to support anymajor policy thrust. Some politicians are quitepragmatic and willing to reshape policy in light ofchanging pressures or public preferences, whileothers are deeply committed to particular valuesand work hard to promote and implement acourse of action over years even in the face ofsubstantial opposition. Some Cabinet ministers

or key political operatives understand and useresearch, while others may be ignorant or evendismissive. Some politicians are superb publiccommunicators, while others are not.

The nature of government systems also mat-ters. The roles of various departments and centralagencies, the relative power of individual minis-ters vis--vis central government, the way inwhich issues come to decision-making bodiessuch as a Cabinet, and the kind of informationthat accompanies them are all important in shap-ing the way policies are constructed and deliv-ered. Some governments stripped away much oftheir internal analytic capacity in the 1980s and1990s as part of the effort to reduce spending,limiting their ability to design and implementeffective policy. Similarly, more checks and bal-ances in a system tend to make decisive actionmuch more difficultfor better or worse. NewZealand in the late 1980s implemented very dra-matic changes in overall public policy veryrapidly because it had few such restraints(Boston, Martin, Pallot, & Walsh, 1996); a similardegree and rapidity of change in federal states




7/18

with divided powers such as in the United States,Canada, or Australia is hard to imagine.

A Full-Time Opposition Changes EverythingImagine how different any workplace or

job would be if there were people whose full-timejob it was to oppose publicly everything beingdone. Imagine also that they could use less thanscrupulous means of doing so and that there wasa tendency for people to believe their criticismsahead of any other explanations. Might that notchange the way people went about their work?

Yet that is precisely the situation facing everyelected government. Oppositions are there tooppose. They will work hard to show how gov-

ernment actions are wrong, venal, or destructive.In doing so, they will not generally be particu-larly concerned with balance or fairness in theiraccounts. Governments have to think at all timesabout the worse possible construction that couldbe put on any action since just such a view willinevitably be put forward by the opposition.

While many people decry negativity inpolitics, politicians use this strategy not neces-sarily because they like it, but because they thinkit works. If voters believe negative portrayals andvote accordingly, then political parties will use

them. If conflict is what attracts public attention,then conflict is what politicians will create sincepublic attention is what they must have. A politi-cian friend once told me that he got far morepublicity and recognition from a certain publicrelations gesture that he knew was rather narrowthan from any number of thoughtfully articu-lated policy papers, so the public relations gesturewould continue.The problem is that over time anemphasis on the negative can certainly increasevoter cynicism about politics and thus worsenour politics. Imagine what would happen to anyother industrysay the auto industryif themajor players ran endless ads attacking eachother on the basis of poor quality, shoddy busi-ness practices, or safety violations. Public confi-dence in the industry would be badly undermined.Yet that is in large part how political communica-tions work today in some countries.

Beliefs Are More Important Than Facts

Researchers are often convinced that policyought to be driven by research findings and

other empirical evidence. Educators may believethat education policy should be based on theirknowledge and experience. From a politicalperspective, however, evidence and experience

are not enough to drive decisions, and they maybe among the less important factors. I havehad politicians tell me on various occasions thatwhile the evidence I was presenting for a partic-ular policy might be correct, the policy was notwhat people believed, wanted, or would accept.

For politicians, what people believe to be trueis much more important than what may actuallybe true. Beliefs drive political action and votingintentions much more than do facts. Witness thestrength and depth of public support for variousmeasures that clearly fly in the face of strong evi-

dence. Many people continue to believe, in spiteof compelling evidence, that capital punishmentis a deterrent for crime or that welfare cheating isa big problem. Others are convinced that amal-gamating units of government saves money, thatfree tuition would substantially increase accessi-bility to postsecondary education for the poor, orthat retaining students in grades will improveachievement even though in all of these cases astrong body of evidence indicates otherwise.Where beliefs are very strongly held, politicalleaders challenge them at their peril. As Marcel

Proust (1913/2004) put it,

The facts of life do not penetrate to the sphere in

which our beliefs are cherished . . . they can aim

at them continual blows of contradiction and

disproof without weakening them; and an

avalanche of miseries and maladies coming, one

after another, without interruption into the

bosom of a family, will not make it lose faith in

either the clemency of its God or the capacity of

its physician. (p. 212)

A FRAMEWORK FORUNDERSTANDING CURRICULUM ISSUES

From this discussion of government and politicsgenerally, the discussion now shifts to focus oncurriculum decisions and politics. The discus-sion is organized in terms of the frameworkdescribed earlierissues, actors,processes, influ-ences, and resultsrecognizing that these, likeany other categorical framework, are intellectual




8/18

organizers only and that actual events do not fallinto neat categories.

Issues: Scope of the Politics of Curriculum

Elements of Curriculum

Most curricula are organized around at leasttwo levels of objectivesvery general or broadgoals and then much more specific learningactivities and objectives. Curriculum documentsand policies may also endorse or support,explicitly or not, particular teaching and learn-ing practices. These relationships have them-selves been changing over time as a result ofgrowing knowledgefor example, increasing

awareness of the importance of teachers assess-ment practices (Black & William, 1998).

Curriculum politics and policy choices arealso increasingly related to larger issues of schoolchange and improvement and to varying theoriesof what it is that shapes the outcomes of educa-tion. At one time there may have been a commonsense assumption that curriculum was central tothe enterprise, in that what was taught is whatwould be learned. Decades of experience witheducational change have made it evident that thesituation is much more complex. There is a sub-

stantial debate as to how important formal edu-cation as a whole is in shaping student outcomes,with some arguing that socioeconomic statusand other nonschool factors are by far the mostimportant influences on outcomes while othersbelieve that what happens in schools can play animportant role (Levin, 2004b).

As governments have attempted to supportlarge-scale educational change (Fullan, 2000),curriculum has become less an activity in itsown right and more one element in a morecomprehensive approach to education change.In many jurisdictions with centralized curricu-lum, review and renewal processes have beenaltered to be more consistent with wider educa-tion programs. In other settings curriculumhas been a prime vehicle for realizing widerchange (e.g., Luke, 2004). The United States is aparticularly interesting case in that there is anational education reform strategyNo ChildLeft Behind (NCLB)that is based largely ondemanding curriculum standards, yet curricu-lum is controlled mainly at the district or evenschool level, creating some substantial disjoint-edness. The implicit theory of action in NCLB is

that accountability requirements can be theprimary drivers of improved educational prac-tices and of improved results, a belief that isextraordinarily contentious and has prompted an

enormous political debate in the United States.The politics of curriculum can be thought of

as involving two kinds of discussions. The firstconcerns the overall shape of school curricula:what subjects will be included (or excluded),how much of each, and at what stage of studentseducation. Examples would include debates overwhether literacy or mathematics are getting asufficient share of the school day and school year,whether sex education or religion should be partof the curriculum, when students should firststudy a foreign language, or the degree to which

they should be required to study music orphysical education.

The second kind of debate is over the contentof particular subjects. People will disagree overwhat should be included in each subject andwhat should be included at various age levels forstudents. Should spelling be taught explicitly?If so, when? How much of their own countryshistory and geography should students learn asopposed to that of other countries? Should allstudents learn algebra? Should all studentsoranybe required to study Shakespeare? These

debates take place not only in the most obviousareas, such as what is taught in history or stud-ied in literature and at what age, but also in areasthat might be thought to be more objective, suchas science or mathematics. For example, shouldglobal warming be a part of science curriculum?

In addition to the content of specific subjects,schools are seen as the place where children willbe inoculated against all social ills or taught allthe virtues from street proofing to AIDS, anti-smoking, drinking, and drug abuse education.Schools are expected to prevent bullying, obesity,and anorexia while also eliminating racism andpromoting equity in all its forms. In many casesthese topics cut across the formal school curricu-lum, so who provides what instruction and whencan be an important curriculum issue.

Some of these discussions are a matter ofpragmatics. There simply are not enough hoursand days in 12 years of schooling to accommo-date all the areas people want children todevelop. A Canadian public opinion poll a few

years ago found that people wanted more ofevery subject in the school curriculum, but didnot want a longer school day or year (COMPAS,




9/18

2001). So debates take place about the relativeimportance of science or economics or the artsor physical activity in the competition for scarceschool time. These discussions can be intense in

part because they are often led by people with astrong personal interest in the decision.

A second set of arguments, often much morevitriolic, occur when curriculum debates occurdue to disagreements on important value ques-tions. Because schooling is seen as so fundamen-tal to the development of our children,it can turninto a battleground for wider social disputes.Thus people will disagree about whether particu-lar content should be part of school curriculumat all. Sex education is one obvious example, butsignificant philosophical or value disagreements

are also expressed in many other areas. There canbe deep-seated arguments about the content ofhistory and literature curricula, such as howmuch attention in these subjects should be givento minority groups or to dissidence. Peoples fun-damental ideas about their country get expressedin disputes over the role of first languages forimmigrant students or around curriculum aboutvarious forms of diversity and human rights. Anyissue that is politically contentious can also turninto a curriculum dispute. Recent debates in theUnited States and elsewhere about evolution

provide another example in which differences inreligious beliefs get expressed in curriculum pol-icy disputes. Even in fields such as literacy andnumeracy there are in some places bitter disputes,such as the reading wars and math wars. Thesedebates are sharper because they embody deeplyheld views not only about the nature of educationbut about essential life values.

As mentioned, an important element ofthe politics around education is that everyonehas gone to school, so just about everyone has afeeling of being knowledgeable and a personalresponse to educational issues. The same wouldnot be true of health care or environmental pol-icy or energy policy. Peoples own school experi-ence, whether primarily positive or negative,deeply affects their views about education pol-icy. One important result of the universal expe-rience of schooling is that adults, like children,tend to see curriculum as a collection of subjectsand topics without necessarily requiring coher-ence or integration across the curriculum.

Another significant feature of curriculum pol-itics is that in many cases questions of contentcannot be separated from teaching practice.

Many of the most heated issues in curriculumfor example, whole language or constructivistmathematicsare as much about teaching meth-ods as they are about curriculum content. On the

other hand, there are occasions when the wholeconcern is about the content of curriculumdocuments with little attention to pedagogy. Forexample, debates about whether particular topicsshould be included in history curriculum or cer-tain books in literature courses may be entirelyabout what appears in the official document;what teachers do if and when they teach the con-tent may be of little concern in the political arena.

These comments on the scope of curriculumpolitics reinforce the claims earlier in the chapterabout the multiple influences on political debate

and decisions. Some of the issues around cur-riculum are largely symbolic, while others maybe deeply connected to the fundamental pur-poses and activities of schooling. Politicians andgovernments must try to deal with all these com-peting demands in a way that appears to reflect atleast a modicum of coherence and concern forthe longer-term welfare of education.

ActorsWho Is Involved?

Curriculum politics involve a wide range

of participants. An important first questionis where the authority over curriculum rests.Education governance typically involves somecombination of national, local, and schoolparticipation; and in federal systems, educationgovernance will have a fourth (and often pri-mary) level at the state or province. The divisionof powers and responsibilities across these levelsis quite variable from one country to another. Inmost jurisdictions, final authority over curricu-lum rests with national or subnational govern-ments. In many federal systems it is provinces orstates that control curriculum. In a few situa-tions curriculum authority is largely locatedwithin individual schools.

The central role of governments inevitablybrings into play a range of both political andbureaucratic elements. Although a cabinet usuallyhas a single person charged with responsibilityfor education, many other political leaders mayalso have views; and if curriculum decisions gothrough a political vetting process, they may besubject to all sorts of political influences includingpreferences of individuals. An individual in a keyposition can either shape or hold up decisions if




10/18

determined enough. For example, a powerfulcabinet member or political advisor may be ableto insist that a particular element be added to ordropped from a proposed curriculum.

A second important element of governancestructure is the institutional role of elected laypersons as against civil servants or experts.Countries vary significantly in how much author-ity lay people have in shaping education policyvehicles range from elected ministers to localschool authorities to school councils or govern-ing bodies involving parents and others. Eachof these forms will bring different dynamics tocurriculum politics. Depending on national gov-ernance arrangements, schools or districts havevarying degrees of controlfrom almost none to

quite substantialover the formal curriculum.Whatever the formal control system is, in

almost all settings, schools have some influenceif only through the choice they are able to makeas to which courses and programs are actuallyprovided and the amount of attention that isgiven in the day to day life of the schools toparticular subjects or topics. High schools, forexample, have to choose which optional coursesto offer. Elementary teachers and schools typi-cally make important decisions about curricu-lum emphasis, especially whereas is often the

casethe formal curriculum has more elementsto it than can be taken up in most classrooms.Schools or districts also often decide on theareas of the curriculum that will be the subjectof professional development.

The main education stakeholder groupsteachers, principals, senior administrators, andelected local authorities where they existarealmost always involved in curriculum reviewsand decisions. Subject matter experts fromschools and universities typically play a centralrole in the curriculum formation and reviewprocess and may also be very involved in publicdebates. Indeed,a central dilemma in curriculumformation is the balance between subject matterexpertise and larger perspectives on the role of agiven topic in the overall school program. Notsurprisingly, those associated with each subjector topic will advance its importancewhich, itmust be pointed out, is often linked with theirown employment prospects and importance. Ofcourse scientists or music teachers or tradesper-sons also genuinely believe that their field isimportant for students, but one cannot ignorethe role of self-interest in these debates.

Postsecondary institutions often have a pow-erful influence on school curriculum, especiallyin secondary schools, through the setting ofentrance requirements to their institutions. Since

secondary schools often see themselvesand arewidely seen by students and parentsas prepar-ing students for further study, the schools mayfind themselves quite constrained by require-ments set by tertiary institutions. On the otherhand, views about school curriculum expressedby the tertiary sector may not be particularly wellgrounded in evidence but may rest on the beliefsof individuals holding key roles. It is particularlythe case that experts tend to believe that allstudents need more of their subject and at ahigher level.

Since, as noted earlier, schools are widely seenas playing a central role in the socialization ofchildren and young people, a wide range ofinterest groups may be involved in curriculumpolitics depending on the issue. For example,business groups often have strong views aboutvarious aspects of secondary curriculumasillustrated in the example later of calculus inOntario. Various industries will try to promotesubjects and programs that support their labormarket needs. Within government, other depart-ments may put pressure on the education min-

istry for their favorite causessuch as innovationunits promoting the use of technology or cul-ture ministries promoting the arts.

In the wider society, many groups want thecurriculum to reflect particular issues andperspectivesfor example, the desire to includethe language, history, and literature of variousminorities and indigenous peoples or the ongo-ing debate about the role of the arts, or views onthe place of foreign languages, or education forentrepreneurship, or the pressure to embodyreligious views in school curricula.As will be dis-cussed in the next section, curriculum processesdo not necessarily provide very much directopportunity for input from various interests. Asusual in political processes, those bodies that arebetter organized and financed or whose concernsare more deeply felt will tend to be much moreactive and may have disproportionate influence.

Curriculum can also be influenced signifi-cantly by other policies. Student assessmentpolicies in education may shape curriculumdecisions, especially where assessment policiesare not linked to curriculum. In all settingsassessment practices can be important drivers of




11/18

what is actually taught. Where assessment iscarefully linked to curriculum, this may not be aproblem. However where assessment is discon-nected from curriculum, the implications may

be problematic. The requirement for high stan-dards measured by tests and school ratings inNCLB in the United States are affecting teach-ing practices. That effect will only be positive ifschools and teachers understand the standardsand if the tests are carefully aligned to appropri-ate curricula and teaching methodsconditionsthat are very hard to achieve in a highly decen-tralized education system.

ProcessesHow Are CurriculumPolicy Decisions Made?

Curriculum decision processes depend ongovernance systems discussed earlier. Jurisdic-tions normally have well-developed formalprocesses for creating and revising curricula.Typically these processes involve bringingtogether groups of experts and sector represen-tatives to draft the elements of a new or revisedcurriculum. Teachers of the subject will often bein the majority, with representation from post-secondary subject experts as well. The processesare often organized and to some degree directed

by government officials from ministries of edu-cation. Typically a curriculum review or renewalprocess would include examining the existingcurriculum, gathering data as to the strengthsand weaknesses of current arrangements, con-sidering various ideas for changes, and trying toarrive at consensus on recommendations for thenew curriculum. Sometimes a new curriculumwill be created and released to the system, whilein other cases it may be released initially on apilot basis and then revised to a final version.Altogether curriculum processes can be quiteextensive, sometimes taking several years fromstart to completion. However, if substantialauthority is vested at the level of the local school,curriculum development or renewal is likely tobe much more informal and ad hoc, as noschool will have the resources or capacity toundertake these larger processes.

Expertise in a subject areaand even exper-tise in teaching the subjectdoes not necessarilyequate to expertise in constructing a curriculum.By definition experts know more and caremore about their subject than will most teachers.The danger in an expert-dominated curriculum

development process is that the product will besomething that can be used effectively only bypeople with high levels of expertise, but the real-ity of almost all schools everywhere is that most

teachers of a subject, especially in elementaryschools, will have only a limited background inthat subject. One danger in curriculum develop-ment then is the production of curricula thatare not readily usable by ordinary teachers. A col-league once described a high school mathematicscurriculum as, It was developed by the six bestteachers in [the province] and they are aboutthe only ones who could teach it successfully.Interest groups can and do promote ever-higherstandards for their subject and then use thosestandards to argue for more time in the school

schedule as well as for more teachers, higherqualifications, and more resources.

This example illustrates the importance ofviews about the relationship between the for-mal curriculum and real teaching and learningpractices in schools. The gap between the two hasbeen well known at least since the time of JohnDewey. Many curriculum experts agree that for-mal curricula may have only a vague relation-ship to actual teaching and learning practices(e.g., Cohen & Spillane, 1992). Various effortshave been made in the last few decades to produce

curriculum in ways that would have a greaterimpact on studentsreal experiences. These effortsrange from so-called teacher-proof curricula, inwhich teaching practice is built into the curricu-lum at a high level of specificity, to attempts toconnect new curricula with professional develop-ment so as to change teachers practices. Howevergiven the nature of schooling and teaching, withvery large numbers of teachers of quite variedbackgrounds in highly varied contexts and withconsiderable autonomy in their daily practice,central attempts to circumvent these limitationsare unlikely to be successful. More is said later onthe issue of implementation of curriculum.

The expert-dominated approach to curricu-lum development is changing as experts nolonger have quite the same political legitimacythey once did. An increasingly better educatedand more vociferous public is demanding greaterinput in all areas of public policy. Governmentsare therefore moving away in many areas ofpolicy development from reliance on experts infavor of greater involvement of average citizens.Governments (and indeed nongovernmentalorganizations) are much more inclined today to




12/18

use various forms of open consultation andopinion gathering as part of policy formation. Incurriculum policy this trend can be seen in theincreasing degree of nonexpert participation.

Curriculum review parties are now more likely toinclude parents or students or non-educatorssuch as business representatives. As discussed inthe next section, these changes in compositioncan have significant implications for the ways inwhich curriculum processes unfold because theywill bring different and more diverse interests tothe table.

Curriculum review groups do not do theirwork in a vacuum. Sometimes these processesproceed relatively smoothly, but they can also behighly contentious. Where important disagree-

ments exist about curriculum there may beintense lobbying by various interests as to whoshould be named to a working group. Althoughthese processes are not often documented, someinteresting accounts do exist of the politics ofcurriculum review. For example, Evans andPenney (1995) provide an analysis of discussionin England about the physical education curricu-lum, outlining the debates that occurred withina curriculum committee. More such accountswould be valuable in understanding these pro-cesses more fully.

A further consequence of expert input is theclash between experts with competing viewsfor example, those who favor new pedagogicapproaches versus advocates of traditional con-tent organization and teaching. Mathematics is agood example, pitting advocates of the NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)standards or their equivalent against advocatesfor traditional approaches to mathematics. Theclash of expertise is often a subject of mediainterest as well, with each side in a dispute seek-ing to marshal experts to support its position.

Curriculum formation may also be linked tomuch more public political processes. Publicdebates around curriculum issues can occursimultaneously with official processesas, forexample, when public interest groups are awareof and try to influence the outcomes of the offi-cial process by lobbying for particular changes.Or public debate and concern can lead to anofficial process as the system tries to respondto public concerns, as is evident in debatesabout issues such as global warming or the placeof indigenous peoples. Or debate can erupt

following a formal proposal as various interestsmobilize to change a recommendation they donot support, as in the case at the end of thischapter.

InfluencesWhat Shapes Decisions?

The earlier part of this chapter outlined therange of factors that influence government deci-sions in general, from ideology to lobbying topersonal beliefs to media attention. The sameinfluences will apply to curriculum decisions.One essential tension in curriculum decisions,as already noted, is between expert opinionand concerns of key interests or of the generalpublic. Political leadership will take account of

expert opinion, but will inevitably take muchmore interest in public opinion and particularlythe views of opinion leaders in key sectors orconstituencies.

Even where the curriculum process isdominated by experts there may be substantialdisagreement on what to do. Teachers may seecurriculum issues quite differently from post-secondary disciplinary experts. The latter mayfocus on the need for high level skills in their ownarea, whereas teachers may be more concernedwith a curriculum that will work for students

with widely varying skills and interests. Advocatesmay want more topics at higher levels, whereasclassroom teachers may push for exactly theopposite. In some fields, teachers of the subjectare themselves deeply divided on key curriculumand teaching questionsfor example, in theirviews about integrated versus subject specificcurricula or in their views on the importance oflearning names and dates in history. Teachers alsohave varying opinions on issues such as the rele-vance of fields, such as gender studies as opposedto more traditional disciplinary boundaries, oron the value of project work.

A stark example of the level of disagreementthat can arise over curriculum issues is thedebate in the United States over the best waysto teach reading. The National Reading Panelreport in 2000 made a set of recommendationsaround literacy instruction that immediatelybecame highly contentious. In a vigorous andoften acrimonious public debate (e.g., Allington,2002; Coles, 2003; Schoenfeld, 2006), variousparticipants not only proposed quite differentapproaches, but also in many cases attacked each




13/18

others understanding of the evidence andsometimes raised issues of personal integrity.

The Role of Research

Research has increasing importance in influ-encing education policy as a more educated pop-ulation is more inclined to want evidence aboutpublic policy issues. This growing interest isevident in many areas of public policy, such ashealth or environment or energy, where claimsgrounded in research form an important part ofpublic debate. My strong impression is that edu-cation policy debates make more use of empiricalevidence than ever before. The growth of variousresearch networks in and across countries as well

as the creation of new vehicles for sharing anddisseminating research are indicators of this shift(Levin, in press). In school practice too there isgrowing interest in the use of evidence to guidedecisions about teaching and learning practices(e.g., Bernhardt, 2003; Marzano, 2003).

The interest in research does not, however,mean that there will now be a direct link betweenresearch results and policy choices; the latter willalways remain the result of political processes,and research will play a role in and throughbroader social and political processes (Levin,

2002, 2005). The commitment to evidence isshown in that all sides in the political debate,even those whose theoretical stance is to see evi-dence as being largely the handmaiden of politi-cal ideology, do attempt to bring evidence to bearwhenever possible and do use it to legitimate andsupport their own theoretical positions. Clearlyresearch is used to bolster predetermined posi-tions, but any careful thought will show thatempirical evidence can also shape and changepublic and professional views on importantquestions. One needs only to think of examplessuch as retention in grade, tracking in secondaryschools, or the impact of socioeconomic statuson school outcomes to see how our ideas aboutschooling have been influenced by research. Tosay that these ideas have not transformed prac-tice does not negate their significance any morethan the fact that many people still smoke shouldbe taken to mean that the research on the effectsof smoking has had no impact.

There are important barriers to the use ofresearch in curriculum policy. Most impor-tantly, in many areas of curriculumprobably

in most areasthere is not enough knowledgeto guide policy or practice sufficiently; and quiteoften, existing knowledge is not available in aform that speaks effectively to the real problems

and issues of policy and practice. However, evenwhere there is a substantial body of knowledge,research evidence will not trump political pres-sures. Instead, it may play an important role increating or legitimating such pressures.

The role of research is especially difficultwhere the research evidence is equivocal or ispresented by partisans as being equivocal. Whencontradictory research findings are the subjectof public debate, as has been the case in areassuch as reading and mathematics teaching, citi-zens are likely to be confused and to revert to

their fundamental beliefs whether supported byevidence or not. Given the growing significanceof research, advocates for various positions areincreasingly likely to try to draw on research tosupport their positions.

An interesting question is the degree to whichcurriculum review is actually informed by dataand evidence. Curriculum review will generallytake account of emerging knowledge in the fieldunder discussion precisely because the processhas so much expert participation. More recently,inkeeping with a general trend in education toward

using student assessment data, curriculum reviewmay include data on student outcomes, both forthe curriculum overall and for particular groupsof schools or students. However, regular use ofstudent outcome data to guide education policy isstill not standard practice everywhere. Nor do cur-riculum working groups necessarily pay carefulattention to research as part of the work. Evenexpert processes are susceptible to a preference forinterest bargaining instead of evidence.

Edelmans (1988) concept of condensationsymbols is a useful tool in thinking about cur-riculum politics. Edelman argues that even rela-tively small instances become highly symbolicas they seem to embody, or condense, a rangeof beliefs and values in a particular case. Theexample below of calculus in the Ontariocurriculum provides a good illustration of thisidea. It is possible to think of many others. Forexample, a columnist writes an article pointingout that Canadian students cannot name most ofthe countrys prime ministers, a point which getstranslated into a signal of all that some peoplefind wrong with contemporary education, such




14/18

as its supposed focus on learning process with-out content or its embracing of multiple insteadof traditional values. As noted in the earlier partof the chapter, even small incidents can turn into

significant political issues if they press the rightbuttons for enough people.

Results

It has been at least 20 years since it becameevident that there is a large gap between produc-ing a curriculum and the experience of studentsin the classroom. A substantial body of research(e.g., Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003; Wilson,Peterson, Ball, & Cohen, 1996) shows how farclassroom practice can be from new curricula

and how little impact a change in curriculumcan have on teaching practice. The more signifi-cant the proposed change, the more likely it isto have limited adoption. Working practicesof teachers are shaped primarily by day to dayrealities of their workplace, their habits, andtheir views about what is practical. Insofar ascurriculum changes do not pay attention tothese realities they further limit their chances ofhaving an effect.

Research has helped develop understandingof the factors that do shape implementation.

Fullans (1991) work has been particularlyimportant and influential. However, these con-siderations may still not be well integrated intoformal curriculum processes, as it is still com-mon to find accounts of some new program thatwas carefully developed only to fall far short inthe implementation stage. As this chapter hasillustrated, issues of implementation and resultsare often marginal to the entire curriculumprocess.

A CASE EXAMPLE:CALCULUS AS A CONDENSATION SYMBOL

The patterns described in this chapter can beillustrated by an example drawn from my ownexperience.

For many years the province of Ontario had5 years of high school while almost all otherCanadian provinces, like United States, had 4

years. Although at one time the 5th year hadbeen primarily for a relatively small number ofuniversity-bound students, over time Grade 13

became a normal part of the high school systemfor most students. The elimination of this extra

year had been proposed several times, but it wasonly in the 1990s that the Ontario government

finally moved to a 4 year high school systemconsistent with other Canadian provinces andUnited States. Over a period of 6 or 7 years, theentire high school program was reshaped, includ-ing new curricula in every subject. Toward theend of the process, when many of the key cur-riculum decisions were being made, the govern-ment of the time had a focus on high standards,so for some subjects, including mathematics,most of what had been in the 5 year high schoolcurriculum was compressed into 4 years. Thechanges in the high school program and cur-

riculum were also being made at the same timeas many other controversial changes, so thewhole atmosphere in education in the late 1990swas highly conflictual; teachers were quiteunhappy with the state of things, which spilledover into their views about curriculum.

The former 5 year mathematics curriculumhad provided substantial opportunity forstudents to take advanced level courses in spe-cialized areas such as calculus. The new curri-culum for the 4 year program did not providethe same opportunity. As a result of pressure

from some university departments such as engi-neering and physics and from some employersas well as some passionate and vocal teachers,calculus continued to be included, but it becamepart of a larger advanced mathematics course inGrade 12. The debate over the role of calculuswas loud, public, and often framed as loweringstandards in mathematics, a criticism to whichthe government was highly sensitive.

Shortly after the new high school curriculumwas in place, the Ministry of Education beganto review the various components as part of aregular curriculum review cycle. In 2003, highschool mathematics was reviewed using a newprocess with wider participation. The reviewcommittee was made up of Ministry staff,including mathematics experts, working withvarious partners including teachers and post-secondary math experts. Ministry curriculumcommittees do not, however, typically includecommunity or employer representatives.

One of the many issues in front of this com-mittee was a concern about calculus. Enrollmentin advanced mathematics courses was droppingsteadily because students found them very hard




15/18

due to so many topics in a limited time. At thesame time, university mathematics departmentswere expressing concern in that the time allowedfor calculus in the new course was not sufficient

and resulted in students being inadequately pre-pared. The consensus of the university mathe-matics departments was that they would preferto do their own teaching of calculus.

Late in 2004, the curriculum review grouprecommended, based on all its discussions andconsultations, the elimination of calculus fromthe Grade 12 mathematics curriculum and thereorganization of the advanced mathematicscourses.

Before finalizing these recommendationsfor presentation to senior managers and the

Minister, the Curriculum Branch sought feed-back on their proposals. Very quickly a publicuproar began. The primary impetus for theconcern came from three sourceshigh schoolteachers of calculus, university faculty in engi-neering and physics, and some well-knownleaders of high tech industries. Several promi-nent people wrote letters to newspapers express-ing great concern, while many others alsoexpressed contrary views in public. Examples ofthese concerns include the following:

Head of UW [University ofWaterloo] Slams Math Plan

Ontarios high school graduates are already

slipping in their math abilitiesand the

governments decision to drop calculus from the

high school curriculum puts these students in

even more peril says the president of the

University of Waterloo.

David Johnson has written Education Minister

Gerrard Kennedy, warning of the universitys

great concern if calculus is dropped from mathcourses next year, as Is planned.

The Record, 2005, December 23

When It Comes to Calculus,

An Artificial Tree Is Preferred

. . . But while university math types are in favour

[sic] of taking calculus out of high schools, [a

local professor] acknowledged engineering

schools arent.

The engineering schools expect first-year

students to come in with a grasp of certain

calculus concepts, he said, and they are not set up

to make the required teaching adjustments as

easily as math departments are.

Perhaps feeling the heat over the dumbing-down

charges, a spokeswoman for education minister

Gerard Kennedy said this week nothing had been

finalized and only certain sections of high school

calculus were being removed from the

curriculum.

The Standard, 2005, December 23

Scrapping Calculus Course Opposed:Its Crucial for Science . . .

. . . [The] chair of University of Western Ontarios

math department wants the government to offer

an optional course with a significant portion of

calculus so strong students can be enriched. It

enables them to come to university with a

reasonable sense of what its about, [he] said. His

department teaches first-year calculus to a broad

range of students from science and social science

programs.

The Observer(Sarnia), 2006,

February 23

It was clear almost immediately that this wasnot an argument the government or Ministrycould win, even though the proposals made bythe review were logical and could well be in thebest interests of students mathematics skills.Although only a very small proportion of theadult population ever studied calculus, and evenfewer use it in their daily lives, it became clearthat calculus was symbolic of advanced skillsand global competitiveness in the Ontario econ-omy. People might not want to learn calculusthemselves, but many apparently regard it asessential for their children. At the same time, thestatus quo ante was untenable in light of drop-ping enrollments and unsatisfactory outcomes.

The Minister decided to convene a new processto look at the calculus issue. The governmentseducation platform had included a commitmentto create a new Curriculum Council made up ofparents, students, and employers as well as edu-cators as a way of managing some of the tensions




16/18

in curriculum described earlier in this chapter.Due to pressure of other commitments, thispromise had not yet been acted on when the cal-culus debate erupted early in 2005. The Minister

saw the calculus debate as an opportunity to testthe ideas behind the Curriculum Council.

He therefore announced a new review group.This process would be more sensitive to the var-ious public views than was the original, expert-dominated process. The Ministry put together asmall team to review the status of calculus.Unlike Ontarios standard curriculum reviews,which involve large teams and take a year ormore, the calculus review team had only fivemembers, was not dominated by people fromthe school system, had a very specific mandate,

and had a short timeline. It was led by a highlyrespected mathematics professor who was alsodeeply involved in the applications of mathe-matics in industry. The group included a seniorexecutive of a high tech company, an educator, ahigh school student, and a parent, so it washeavily weighted with nonexperts. The groupwas asked to look at the recommendationsof the review team, but also to consult withemployers and others so as to assess based oneconomic realities the appropriate role for cal-culus. The Ministry was asked to prepare an

analysis of the uses of mathematics in theOntario labor force so that we could have rea-sonable evidence on real requirements ratherthan supposition. Because of the need to havedecisions in time to shape student coursechoices for the following year, the group wasgiven a very short timeline for its work.

This process unfolded reasonably well espe-cially given its rather ad hoc nature and shorttimeline. The team met with a variety of inter-ested parties, looked at the evidence on course-taking patterns, and wrote a report with a seriesof recommendations, all of which were acceptedby the government. They found a useful com-promise that would preserve calculus withoutreverting to the prior set of course offerings thatwere clearly not working well. The acceptance oftheir report also ended the public debate.

At the same time, the process revealed somechallenges for further development of this alter-native approach. One intention of the task forcehad been to root the discussion more deeply inevidence on the place of advanced mathematicsin the Ontario economy. How many workersused calculus and for what purposes? That would

help root school curriculum choices in real

information instead of mythology. It turned outto be very difficult to reorient the discussionin this way. From a political point of view, theestablished interest groups were highly vocal

and largely uninterested in such evidence.A goodexample would be university business schoolsthat may require calculus either for admission oras part of their own program of studies eventhough it is rarely used by actual managers inbusiness. Industry groups, who might have beenable to exert some influence over the debate, werelargely uninterested and unwilling to take thetime either to provide evidence or to participatein discussions. The working group itself had ahard time keeping its attention on economic evi-dence as well since it was subject to the same pres-

sures to manage demands from interest groupsand since, not surprisingly and especially given itsshort timeline, it began looking very early on forcompromise solutions.

CONCLUSION

Although curriculum is a fundamental part ofthe framework of schooling, curriculum deci-sions and choices are shaped in large measureby other considerationsideology, personal

values, issues in the public domain, and inter-ests. Curriculum decisions are often part of amuch larger public debate that often extendsbeyond education to larger questions of publicgoods.

These dynamics tend to be poorly under-stood by most educators, who tend to believethat education policy choices can and shouldbe made on the basis of educational expertise.When processes are put in place without ade-quate regard for the real drivers of decisions,the likelihood of poor decisionsthat is, deci-

sions that fail to produce the intended resultsincreases. Political processes are driven byinterests, and particularly by the most vocalinterests. Finding ways to mediate intereststhrough different processes and uses of evi-dence will remain a challenge, though one worthpursuing.

REFERENCES

Allington, R. (2002). Big Brother and the nationalreading curriculum: How ideology trumped

evidence. New York: Heineman.




17/18

Arrow, K. (1970). Social choice and individual values(2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ball, S. (1987). The micro-politics of the school.London: Methuen.

Ball. S. (1990). Politics and policy making ineducation: Explorations in policy sociology.London: Routledge.

Bascia, N., Cumming, A., Datnow, A., Leithwood, K.,& Livingstone, D. (Eds.). (2005). Internationalhandbook of educational policy. Dordrecht,Netherlands: Springer.

Bernhardt, V. (2003). Data analysis for continuousschool improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye onEducation.

Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box.Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 39148.

Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1996).Public management: The New Zealand Model.

Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford UniversityPress.

Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy andpractice: The relations between governance andinstruction. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review ofresearch in education(Vol. 18, pp. 349).Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L.(2003). Resources, instruction, and research.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,25, 119142.

Coles, G. (2003). Reading the naked truth: Literacy,

legislation and lies. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

COMPAS. (2001). The educational experience: State ofthe nation. Q2, Public Opinion on Education. ACOMPAS/National Post Poll with SupplementaryQuestions for Global Television [Electronicversion]. Ottawa, Toronto, Canada: Author.

Crowson, R. L., Boyd, W. L., & Mawhinney, H. B.(1996). The politics of education and the newinstitutionalism: Reinventing the Americanschool. London: Falmer.

Dror, Y. (1986). Policy-making under adversity. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Edelman, M. (1988).Constructing the political

spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Edelman, M. (2001). The politics of misinformation.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Evans, J., & Penney, D. (1995). The politics of

pedagogy: Making a national curriculum inphysical education.Journal of Education Policy,10, 2744.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educationalchange(2nd ed.). New York: Teachers CollegePress/OISE Press.

Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform.Journal of Educational Change, 1, 528.

Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., &

Hopkins, D. (1998). International handbook of

educational change. Dordrecht,Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying publicpolicy(2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

Oxford University Press.Hoyle, E. (1982). Micropolitics of educationalorganizations. Educational Management andAdministration, 10, 8798.

Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1982). Managerial responseto changing environments: Perspectives onproblem sensing from social cognition.Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 548570.

Kingdon, J. (1994). Agendas, alternatives and publicpolicies(2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who gets what, when,how. Cleveland, OH: Meridian.

Levin, B. (2001). Reforming education: From originsto outcomes. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Levin, B. (2002). Knowledge and action in educationpolicy and politics. In A. Sweetman & P. deBroucker (Eds.), Towards evidence-based policyin Canadian education (pp. 115). Montreal,Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queens UniversityPress.

Levin, B. (2004a). Government and the mediain education.Journal of Education Policy,19, 271284.

Levin, B. (2004b). Students at risk: A review ofresearch. Report to The Learning Partnership.Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.thelearningpartnership.ca/policy_research/

studentsatrisk_by_Ben_Levin.pdfLevin, B. (2005). Governing education. Toronto,

Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Levin, B. (in press). Good times ahead: An argument

that things might be getting better. In C. Sugrue(Ed.), The future of educational change. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Levin, B., & Young, J. (2000). The rhetoric ofeducational reform. International Journal ofComparative Policy Analysis, 2, 189209.

Luke, A. (2004). After the marketplace: Educationalresearch, accountability and evidence-basedpolicy. Australian Educational Researcher, 9, 4373.

Manzer, R. (1994).Public schools and political ideas.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University ofToronto Press.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools:Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience:Lessons from policy implementation. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171178.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of theNational Reading Panel: Reports of thesubgroups. Washington, DC: National Instituteof Child Health and Human Development

Clearinghouse.




18/18

Neuman, R., Just, M., & Crigler, A. (1992). Commonknowledge: News and the construction of politicalmeaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Plank, D., & Boyd, W. L. (1994). Antipolitics,

education, and institutional choice: The flightfrom democracy. American Educational ResearchJournal, 31, 263281.

Pressley, M. (2005). Balanced elementary literacyinstruction in the United States: A personalperspective. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A.Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone (Eds.),International handbook of educational policy(pp. 645660). Dordrecht, Netherlands:Springer.

Proust, M. (2004). In search of lost time: Swanns way(Vol. 1, C. K. Scott Moncrieff, Trans.). New

York: The Modern Library. (Original workpublished 1913)

Schoenfeld, A. (2006). What doesnt work: Thechallenge and failure of the What Works

Clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviewsof studies of mathematics curricula.Educational Researcher, 35, 1321.

Tinder, G. (1991). Political thinking: The perennialquestions(5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power.Boston: Little, Brown.

Wilson, S., Peterson, P., Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1996).Learning by all. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 468476.

Young, J., Levin, B., & Wallin, D. (2007).Understanding Canadian schools(4th ed.).Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Nelson Thomson.



Documents

Political Ideology Within School Curriculum