Does Decision Making About the Intended Curriculum Take Place at
the National, Regional, or Local Level?
Depending on the education system, students’ learning goals
are set at different levels of authority. Some systems are highly
centralized, with the ministry of education (or highest authority
in the system) being exclusively responsible for the major decisions
governing the direction of education. In others, such decisions are
made regionally or locally. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses.
Centralized decision making can add coherence and uniformity in curriculum
coverage, but may constrain a school or teacher’s flexibility
in tailoring instruction to the needs of students.
Exhibit 5.2 presents information for each TIMSS 1999 country about
the highest level of authority responsible for making curricular decisions
and gives the curriculum’s current status. The data reveal that
35 of the 38 countries reported that the specifications for students’
curricular goals were developed as national curricula. Australia determined
curricula at the state level, with local input; the United States
did so at both the state and local (district and school) levels, with
variability across states; and Canada did so at the provincial level.
In recent decades, it has become common for intended curricula to
be updated regularly. At the time of the TIMSS 1999 testing, the official
science curricula in 31 countries had been in place for less than
a decade, and more than three-quarters of them were in revision. Of
the seven countries with a science curriculum of more than 10 years’
standing, four were being revised. In Australia, Canada, and the United
States, curriculum change is made at the state, provincial, or local
level, and some science curricula were in revision at the time of
testing. The curricula in these three countries were relatively recent,
having been developed within the 10 years preceding the study.
The development and implementation of academic
content standards and subject-specific curriculum frameworks has been
a central focus of educational change in the United States at both
the state and local level. In science, most states are in the process
of implementing new content or curriculum standards or revising existing
ones.(2) Much of this effort has been based on
work done at the national level over the past decade to develop standards
aimed at increasing the science literacy of all students.
The two most prominent documents are the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Research Council’s
National Science Education Standards (NSES), both of which
define standards for the teaching and learning of science that many
state and local educational systems have used to fashion their own
curricula.(3) All but four states now have standards
in science.(4)
In all 13 states that participated in TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking, curriculum
frameworks or content standards in science were published between
1996 and 2000 (see Exhibit
5.3). Four states detailed the standards for every grade including
the eighth grade, seven states detailed them by a cluster or pair
of grades that included the eighth grade, and two states reported
the eighth grade as a benchmark grade at which certain standards should
be met. Most states provided standards documents to guide districts
and schools in developing their own curriculum, while some states,
such as North Carolina, developed a statewide curriculum for all schools
to use.
Exhibit 5.4 presents information about the curriculum of participating
districts and consortia. Of the eight districts that participated,
one reported that it used the statewide curriculum in all schools
(Guilford County); five had a district-wide curriculum that supported
the state-developed frameworks or standards (the Jersey City Public
Schools, the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Montgomery County,
the Naperville School District, and the Rochester City School District);
and two had a curriculum developed at the school level (the Academy
School District and the Chicago Public Schools), with Chicago also
offering an optional structured curriculum district-wide. Each participating
consortium indicated that all or most of its districts developed their
own curriculum at the district level.
| 2 |
Glidden, H. (1999), Making Standards
Matter 1999, Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. |
| 3 |
Smith, T.A., Martin, M.O., Mullis,
I.V.S., and Kelly, D.L. (2000), Profiles of Student Achievement
in Science at the TIMSS International Benchmarks: U.S. Performance
and Standards in an International Context, Chestnut Hill, MA:
Boston College. |
| 4 |
Key State Education Policies on K-12
Education: 2000 (2000), Washington, DC: Council of Chief State
School Officers. |
