�� 

PROGRESSIOStrengths and weaknesses of the previous century influencing the curriculum reforms of the 21st century

I. Uiseb

Instructional materials designer

University of Namibia

Windhoek, Namibia.

e-mail: iuiseb@unam.na

Abstract

The ultimate aim of this article is to provide a basis for forming broad

and generalisable perspectives on reforms in education and in

particular on curriculum reforms.

This article discusses the curriculum reform process in general.

Critical viewpoints are given as to why curriculum reforms reoccur

in many countries with new role players on board. It refers to three

countries were curriculum reforms have taken placed recently

namely Namibia, South Africa and Slovenia. The discussions are

based on my studies of the educational reform processes of these

countries. I also read various other relevant literatures in order

to gain wider perspectives as possible on curriculum reforms in

general. Furthermore, the article provides strategies for minimising

the reoccurrence of curriculum reforms. Recommendations

include, among others, that everyone be kept aware of and be well

prepared for the curriculum changes, are made. The policymakers

are sensitised to focus on the process of implementation and on the

issues relating to money, resources and time.

INTRODUCTION

Curriculum reforms are carried out frequently in many countries. Presumably this means that there are problems to be solved. The frequency of reform proposals would seems to

I. Uiseb

�0

indicate that previous reforms did not remove the problems they were intended to solve and the desired end results have not been obtained.

Bourke (1994, 1) notes that the term ‘reform’ is typically used to refer to changes instituted from above. The implication is that only government decision-makers can reform education. This begs the question: Are governments always able to reform or make education better? On many occasions, the changes implemented by governments are worse for at least some groups. Various examples in this regard are cited later in reflections on curriculum reforms in some countries. Curriculum reforms are typically top-down reforms but experience has shown that their impact is limited. Contrary to the aforesaid, Elliot (1998, 17) said that the curriculum reforms of 1960’s were teacher-initiated. The intervention of the state in curriculum development is frequently justified in terms of the failure of teachers and their associations to improve educational standards in schools. However, the bottom line is that the curriculum reforms could be initiated by various stakeholders in education and not only by the governments.

To prevent curriculum reforms from returning again, and again with new players repeating the failure, a massive system-wide effort is required that engages parents, communities, policymakers and other stakeholders in education.

This article provides reflections on curriculum reforms in Namibia, South Africa and Slovenia as alluded to earlier. It discusses the role of policy makers in curriculum reforms as well as on the possible problems caused by the implementation of a curriculum. The author will attempt to provide possible solutions or suggestions to the problems encountered wherever possible. In the end some guidelines, which need to be taken into consideration when curriculum changes are envisaged, are given.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF REFORMS AND THE RATIONALE FOR REFORMS

When curriculum experts talk of curriculum reform, they in fact refer to curriculum change. Therefore curriculum reform and change could be used interchangeably. ‘Curriculum change is a generic term that subsumes a whole family of concepts such as innovation, development, and adoption. It includes changes that can be either planned or unplanned’ (Marsh 1999, 130). The planning and preparation of the reform process usually consumes considerable time and energy. It is so because of the consultative process with the stakeholders and setting of the workable framework for the reform process. If the planning phase is underestimated, the success of the curriculum reform process might be severely jeopardised. Hence, as the saying goes, if you fail to plan the reform process you plan to fail. Predictably the curriculum reform during 1960’s failed because it was unplanned.

Various literatures mentioned various kinds of reforms in education:

• Curriculum reforms• Curriculum changes• Curriculum enrichment

Strenghts and weaknesses of the previous century influencing the curriculum reforms . . .

�1 

• Curriculum improvement• Educational reforms.

Most of these reforms are similar or synonymous but could also be explained as being different from each other in many ways. All of them call for a re-visit, restructuring and re-visioning of the entire curriculum design and development process.

Mcneil (1990, 218–219) cited the following kinds of changes and difficulties in implementing them:

• Substitution: One element may be substituted for another already present, for example, substituting a new textbook for an old one.

• Alteration: Alteration occurs when a change is introduced into the existing material in the hope that it will appear minor and thus be readily adopted.

• Perturbations: These irritating changes are disruptive, but teachers can adjust them within a fairly short time.

• Restructuring changes. These changes lead to some modification of the system itself.

• Value orientation changes. These are shifts in the fundamental value orientations of participants.

Sometimes reforms necessitate a re-looking and rethinking of both the theory and practice of curriculum in broader perspectives. Presumably any kind of reform or change is being made because of the needs and demands in a particular country. The various needs that might cause curriculum change could be based on economical, technological, and socio-political imperatives. Changes in political and economic power relations in countries could also lead to demands of new changes in educational policies and curriculum reform in particular. Other factors that influence the curriculum reforms are the globalisation and international trends. The emergence of curriculum 2005 of post-apartheid South Africa could be regarded as an example in this context. It is a result of harmonious interaction with international ideas while it is adapted to local needs and interests. Policies, as they move from international, national levels and regional levels, are reshaped in each stage and processed to suit local circumstances.

However, sometimes curriculum changes are also brought about due to the emergence of a new government; at independence of countries; global changes in education; and amendments in constitutions, education acts and curriculum policies. In Namibia and South Africa curriculum reforms were necessitated by the emergence of new governments subsequent to the demise of the apartheid structures.

The question is, what are the indicators for curriculum reform? Besides the reasons cited above, the following could also be some reasons that different stakeholders based justification for curriculum reforms:

• The current curriculum is neither cost-effective nor cost-efficient for government.• The teachers are not qualified enough to implement the curriculum successfully.

I. Uiseb

�2

• The aims are not attending to the holistic development of learners.• The content knowledge of the curriculum is not relevant for preparing learners for

everyday living or future employment.• The content is too much and focuses on memorisation rather than understanding and

mastering.• The curriculum is not preparing learners to be able to survive in the global competitive

job market.• It is not accommodating enough for all types of intelligence.

The curriculum reform movement of 1960's, at least initially, was much about teacher development as it was about changing the content of education. (Elliott 1998, 22). I agree with the aforesaid because there will be no curriculum development without teacher development. It seems that in today's curriculum reform process more emphasis is placed on the content and very little on the preparedness and readiness of the implementing agents of the envisaged curriculum change.

THE ROLE OF POLICIES IN BRINGING ABOUT CHANGES IN CURRICULUM

How curriculum translates policy into practice depends on the particular design or model adopted. It must be noted that explicit curriculum refers to the syllabus and other curriculum documents, which set out the aims and objectives, as well as programmes of work. Within these documents, a policy may either be made explicit or implicit. These documents are often explicit rather than implicit to factors regarding the presentation and interpretation of the curriculum and include teaching and learning methods and approaches, assessment and resource development.

Curriculum change may be conceptualised as a continuous process of adaptation of educational policy, goals, content, methods and structures to economic and social change. Resistance to change is part of this dynamic process of increasingly continuous curricular renewal.

Curriculum policy change is increasingly shaped by broad processes of consultation of stakeholders on the nature and direction of change perceived to be necessary or desirable. Such dialogues foster more commitment from both educational and non-educational actors involved at all levels and gives all those involved a sense of ownership of the changes. Furthermore, this type of process fosters trust among stakeholders and contributes to the reinforcement of political will to support the policy changes. However, in undertaking broad-based consultation and policy dialogue, curriculum developers are sometimes confronted with contradictory views on education and the direction it should be taking.

Resistance to new policies often appears at the source of the curriculum renewal process, i.e. at the level of policy formulation. The greater involvement of stakeholders brings in a broader range of opinions, views, interests and expectations, which may

Strenghts and weaknesses of the previous century influencing the curriculum reforms . . .

�3 

often be conflicting. Managing conflicting opinions (vested interests) and different interpretations about the desired direction of policy change can be a real challenge.

Resistance may also be encountered during the various phases of implementation of a new policy. Such resistance may arise from parents, teachers, and education administrators, and may be due to a range of issues often related to doubts about the sincerity of the consultation process, lack of participation in the process of consultation, or to a concern with the appropriateness of the new learning content, or of the impact the new contexts and methods may have on the quality of learning achievement. Participation and confidence in the consultation processes may be limited in some rapidly changing contexts where several ministries, or different parts of the Ministry of Education, are conducting simultaneous consultations without much coordination and collaboration.

The articles on education in the constitution of countries, education acts, and curriculum policies play a vital role in the curriculum reform process. These are essential documents to consult and to refer to when curriculum issues are discussed. The policies should be developed to suit the needs of a particular country. Moreover the curriculum policies should be developed to be consistent with the envisaged curriculum reform. The premise is that if the curriculum and classroom do not reflect the reform policy, then the desired curriculum change will not take place, nor will education be in a position to act as a change agent.

In the formal education systems, the curriculum translates policy into guidelines for educational practice. In the Namibian context, the Broad Curriculum interprets the reform policy as a set of guiding principles to inform all curriculum development in the formal education sector.

In the Namibian context, the reform policy is based on the tenets of access, quality, equity and democracy and education is located in a learner-centred education epistemology and pedagogy. Learner-centred education was essentially selected as an approach to education that is most closely able to reflect the reform policy and to translate it into practice.

Proposals for transformation of education and training in South Africa first emerged during the civil society policy activities that led up to the 1994 elections. The emergence of the vision for education and training was a systematic umbrella in a system of life-long learning that would articulate adult basic education and training, formal schooling, and learning programmes for out-of-school children and youth.

The approach of reconstruction adopted by the new Ministry of Education after the 1994 elections drew a sharp distinction between policy formulation and implementation. The new constitutional dispensation vested the national Department of Education with the responsibility for developing norms, standards, frameworks and national policies for the system as a whole, while provincial departments are responsible for the implementation and service delivery within these frameworks. The Department of Education has focussed on developing a series of ideal-type blueprint policy frameworks for the areas outlined in White Paper One.

I. Uiseb

��

Gultig et al., (2002) cited the following critique with regard to the educational reform in South Africa. The frameworks have given no attention to the context of implementation and how the new vision could be put in place in the profoundly unequal school context that apartheid left behind. In many ways these policy proposals represent Western schooling and by perusal of these proposals, it is judged to be the best international experience. The Department of Education has assumed little or no responsibility or accountability for how these policies might be delivered. The policy proposals are lacking in detail and specifics as they have no clear equity or redress provisions. Moreover, there is no attempt at strategic planning or analysis of the point of engagement to transform what actually exist. There are no realistic mechanisms for how policies may be taken in schools. I am of the opinion that the new policies do not deal adequately with significant issues of implementation.

At this juncture, I would reiterate that curriculum is both a product and a process. The product encompasses the broad curriculum document, syllabi and policies, while the process entails the planning, implementation and evaluation of the curriculum inside and outside the classroom.

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CURRICULUMREFORM

The implementation of a curriculum reform is the process of putting curriculum into operation. At this point, one actually activates the curriculum. Reforms can be conceived by policymakers and can be planned in the Ministries of education by experts and administrators. Fortunately or unfortunately, the teachers and principals must implement reforms.

This is a very delicate task that the teachers are tasked with. Therefore it is imperative that the teachers as implementers be involved right from the designing and developmental stages of a curriculum. This will empower teachers to implement the curriculum willingly and with few problems. Some mistakes that are made in the initial planning and designing process come to the fore mostly only during implementation phase. The curriculum design must begin with a concern for the individuals who are most concerned with that curriculum namely students and teachers.

Implementing a curriculum is probably the most challenging step in the curriculum development process. Since there are so many factors that work in the a classroom, educators find it difficult to strike the right balance that will ensure that all the right ‘ingredients’ are mixed together to ensure success. Some of the ‘ingredients’ that educational planners know as playing a very important part in the implementation process, are the training of teachers, availability of and access to resources, educational support services, principal and support services, parental support and involvement in learners’ schooling.

The nature of implementation, particularly in the curriculum arena, requires

Strenghts and weaknesses of the previous century influencing the curriculum reforms . . .

�� 

restructuring and replacement, meaning that changes have to be made to the way things used to be, or used to work. It requires adjusting personal habits, and existing curricula and syllabi. It means shifting educators from current programmes to the new programmes, something that is often met with great resistance. The ease with which a curriculum leader can trigger such behaviour changes in staff depends on the quality of the initial planning and the precision with which the steps of the curriculum development have been carried out up to that point.

Seymour Sarason (1990, 13) suggests that educational reform fail because those in charge of the effort have little understanding or a distorted understanding of the culture of schools. Often those tasked with curriculum development and implementation, are outside the school. Their ignorance of what it takes to successfully implement the curriculum in schools often results in failure. I concur with this suggestion because many curriculum developers involved in the planning and development process believe their jobs are done when they have a curriculum on paper. A curriculum can look very good on paper, but if the people and the structures within which it has to be implemented are not ready for it, all the hard work on the curriculum becomes virtually nothing. Curriculum developers must plan how effectively a curriculum should be implemented.

Sarason also suggests that there are two kinds of basic understanding essential for the implementation of a curriculum:

• Information regarding organisational change as well as how people learn new knowledge.

• Information about particular social institutions such as schools and understanding their context.

In order to implement a curriculum successfully, curriculum practitioners must understand the nature of the context within which the curriculum is implemented, know the traditions that operate in the schools, understand the power relationships in the school, and know how staff members define themselves and their roles in the school.

All these factors exist in schools and they play a dynamic part in how well we can implement change in the school settings. Teachers often find that curriculum developers think that having a very good curriculum document on paper will naturally ensure effective implementation. This is a dangerous assumption to make because my experience is that commitment to change only follows when those involved in the change process feel competent that they can handle the change. Trying to seduce teachers into commitments before they are good at something is to set them up for disappointment, because trying out something new is always awkward and is often accompanied by anxiety.

There is number of factors that must be considered when dealing with the process of curriculum implementation. One such a factor that comes to my mind is the issue of teacher readiness and willingness to implement the curriculum. Here one has to consider if the teachers are appropriately qualified to work with this particular curriculum reform. How willing are they to implement the new ideas into their classrooms?

I. Uiseb

��

Another factor may be the availability of material resources for the teachers to implement the curriculum activities. Are there enough textbooks, libraries, laboratories, etcetera? How big are the classrooms, how many learners are there in the classroom? What is the teacher-learner ratio? Other considerations may revolve around the time allowed to implement new ideas, the support services from the school administration as well as the government.

Inadequate in-service education ties closely with the aforementioned concerns. The need for new competencies highlights the need for appropriate in-service training offered over a sufficiently extended period of time. In some instances considerable dependence is placed on formal teacher training of teachers which might not be geared towards achieving the desired outcomes. In most instances, there is no indication that a group of teachers had acquired the full set of competencies needed to fully implement the reform.

There is no doubt in my mind that implementation is the crux of the curriculum reform process. If the people are not ready and do not receive the support that will help them to implement the new ideas effectively, the whole process will be an exercise in futility. To implement a curriculum takes time and it is at this stage curriculum reformers are trying to win people over and to influence their attitudes sufficiently for them to change their ways. However, it is probably the most difficult thing to do. To be able to get this to happen, there is number of things that curriculum reformers will have to do, or will have to be flexible about.

One such thing is to let the teachers know and believe that the changes are not due to a perceived incompetence on their part. If teachers feel undervalued, or feel that what they are doing is not regarded as useful, they certainly resist the change. Teachers have to be sensitised that the changes have come about due to some emerging needs and developments in the world.

The teachers will do what they value. Curriculum reformers must help teachers to value what they do and not to bombard them with criticism about how incompetent they are. Of course, there will always be those who will not pull their weight, but most teachers do and they need to be recognised and rewarded for that.

The societies must take a keener interest in the daily practices of the people who are responsible for the development of our most valued resources, our children. The government ministries of education must take care of teachers, value them, nurture their talents, and reward their good work. Then they too might exceed expectations, both individually and collectively and then presumably the stage is set for successful implementation of a curriculum reform.

REFLECTIONS ON CURRICULUM REFORM IN SLOVENIA

The Republic of Slovenia is a relatively new and small country which became independent in 1991 upon the disintegration on Yugoslavia. Today according to the

Strenghts and weaknesses of the previous century influencing the curriculum reforms . . .

�� 

Central Intelligence Agency (1999), Slovenia exhibits the highest per capita gross domestic product of all transition economies of the region.

Basic education statistics show that one in ten of the population completed higher education; basic education is completed by about 30 per cent of the population; a further 40 + per cent completed vocational education; about 17 per cent of the population does not complete basic education.

Consequently, Slovenia has been going through a period of intense professional, public and political concern about the role education should play in a democratic polity based on a market economy which needs to be internationally competitive; about the role the state should play in national education provision; and about the extent to which the curriculum should embody new values. Changes to the education system should be based on the common European heritage of political, cultural and moral values reflected in human rights, the rule of law, pluralistic democracy, tolerance and solidarity. (White Paper on Education in the Republic of Slovenia 1996).

An ambitious programme of curriculum reform in general, vocational and adult education sector has been set into motion. There was a consequent need to develop methods to enable expert evaluation to be carried out on the quality and effects of these reforms over the next five or six years. The Slovenian Institute of Educational Research as an independent research institution based in another European country with a mature democratic system has been commissioned to assist with developing an appropriate evaluative framework for use by the National Evaluation Commission and its sub-committees. This commission was fully supported by the Ministry of Education and Sport.

The two key policy documents consulted were The White Paper, Education in the Republic of Slovenia and Guidelines to Curricular Reform. Numerous other documents have also been consulted or referred to, including several reports and papers related directly to educational provision and change in Slovenia, together with a wide variety of reports, academic articles and books on aspects of curriculum reform and its evaluation.

Such material gives a sound basis for developing an evaluative framework. Seemingly there was a clear public account of the aims and values of Slovenian curricular reform on the one hand, while on the other hand, some important lessons from other national systems including those, like the UK that have undergone radical reform in recent years, have been adduced. Some of the material consulted provided conceptual clarification of the related issues, for example the role of self-evaluation by schools in quality assurance, the implications of global economic changes for teaching and assessment and practices.

The values on which the Slovenian curricular reforms are based have been made explicit in the White Paper. They are summarised in the prefaces to Guidelines to Curricular Reform as: human rights, pluralist democracy, tolerance, solidarity and the rule of law and were listed later in the document as:

I. Uiseb

��

• The individual and his or her development• Freedom and responsibility• Equal opportunity• Tolerance and solidarity• National identity• Knowledge as a value.

These values provide a clear statement of the perceived ethical and political foundation on which reform is being built. Remarkably, there was a political concern about the role state should play in education provision. The standpoint was that the changes to curriculum should be based on common European heritage of political, cultural, and moral values reflected in human rights, the rule of law, pluralistic democracy, tolerance and solidarity. It is commendable to have the framework of a curriculum that is based on value statements for curriculum to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of learners.

The Slovenian National Evaluation Commission perhaps needs to identify more precisely the relative strengths and weaknesses of the previous system in order to know and make clear what is to be preserved of that system as well as what to change.

The Commission needs to give thought to what role the curriculum plays in practice in a democracy and how the central aim of developing young people’s political and social awareness capacities is incorporated into curriculum reform.

Last but least, attention must be paid to criteria, which can evaluate the relative effectiveness and the management of change at the institutional and sub-institutional levels.

REFLECTIONS ON CURRICULUM REFORM IN SOUTH AFRICA

One of the key strategic and symbolic challenges of the new democratic Government of South Africa was the rapid transformation of the school curriculum. The new envisaged curriculum was intended to serve as an instrument for new political vision. In a nutshell, the new curriculum would unite all citizens as equals in a democratic and prosperous South Africa. The old curriculum had been used to divide races and to prepare different groups for dominant and subordinate positions in social, political and economic life.

On 24 March 1997, the former Minister of Education, Professor S. M. E. Bengu announced that much needed curriculum reform in South Africa would culminate in a completely new curriculum entitled Curriculum 2005 and its underlying philosophy of outcomes-based education. (Pretorius 1998, 497)

This curriculum initiative became national policy for all schools with implementation thereof in Grade 4 as from 1998 and is based on the principles of outcomes-based education. This approach is aimed at bringing about a paradigm shift from a content-

Strenghts and weaknesses of the previous century influencing the curriculum reforms . . .

�� 

based transmission mode to a competency-based one. Curriculum 2005 was intentionally introduced to redress the political and educational injustices of the past.

A shift in focus on the role of various stakeholders in education was advocated. Educators had to change from being primary suppliers of knowledge to facilitators, while learners had to assume much responsibility for their learning. Major changes were also made in assessment, grouping of learners and curriculum content. The new approach was surrounded by considerable controversy from the outset. Jansen (1998, 3)

The initial implementation of the new curriculum was fraught with the following practical problems:

• Educators, particularly in rural areas, did not have access to training materials.• In-service-training initiatives failed due to lack of trained facilitators and moreover

it was hampered by financial constraints.• The terminology of the new approach was inaccessible to many educators.

The Curriculum 2005 model is strong in integration and weak on conceptual coherence or progression. It over-emphasises connective relations and fails to provide structured guidelines for sequence, progression, and pacing for higher order cognitive skills. Content knowledge is conspicuous by its absence in the Curriculum 2005 policy documents. This is largely so, because Curriculum 2005 designers, in line with one understanding of outcomes-based philosophy, have taken excessive care not to prescribe content. Teachers are expected to generate content on their own. The danger is that this can mean that a teacher may think that because the curriculum is not content-based then 'any content' is fine. This clearly not only compromises the range, depth, and quality of learning in all learning areas, but also compromises the transformation agenda of Curriculum 2005.

Given the problems surrounding curriculum 2005, a Review Committee was proposed and was established in 2000. The Review Committee subsequently made incisive recommendations while retaining strong support for the principles of outcome-based education. It seems that South Africa is engaged in damage limitation or is performing U-turns rather than undertaking strategic reviews.

Outcomes-based education is pre-occupied with the development of means to achieve pre-specified outcomes or ends. The challenge is to design the curriculum so systematic that the goals it seeks to attain can be met.

Both in Namibia and South Africa it is evident that there are commitments to a specific traditional instructional practice that stood in the way of moving on to new forms of instruction. Such a common barrier is a commitment to the textbook as a primary mode of instruction. Indications are that textbooks are more an important part of the learning process from the perspective of teachers than from the perspective of students. Such prior values and beliefs would have to change for the reforms to flourish.

I. Uiseb

�0

SOME CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE AND DURING THE CURRICULUM REFORMPROCESS

The curriculum reform process must be based on sound guidelines which reflect key principles and best practices clarity, accountability and consistency that in turn will counteract the barriers towards reform. A systematic perspective is of great importance and care must be exercised to see to it that no important factor is ignored. The search should not be for one key ingredient; the search should be for the inclusion of all of the essential ingredients and putting them together in a manner that takes full account of the systematic nature of the situation. By so doing, barriers will be overcome and the desired reforms actually put into practice.

Following are some of the guidelines that need to be considered when curriculum reforms are envisaged. Due to lack of some of these guidelines the curriculum reforms in many countries have failed. There are various stakeholders in the curriculum reform process and each one has to play a pivotal role in ensuring successful end results of this process.

(a) Before the curriculum reform

The communication channels must be kept open whenever a curriculum reform is designed and implemented. The implementers should not be caught by surprise. If that happens be assured the surprises will not be implemented. Public understanding of and confidence in the curriculum reform should be increased in order to ensure that curriculum reform plan is part of a comprehensive community-wide plan for education. Involvement of all people concerned, including learners, parents, general public, and professional staff in the planning groups are of utmost importance. The decision making must be shared with all those who want a share. Keep everyone aware and well prepared for the change. Remember that awareness leads to interest which leads to involvement which then leads to commitment. The potential tensions of prospective and genuine conflicts of interests which a new curriculum must address and negotiate should be made explicit.

(b) Teaching staff

To respond effectively to the changes occurring in today’s classrooms, principals need to have a working knowledge of curriculum processes. Principals must play a key role in monitoring teaching and learning progress. If the curriculum is to improve, teachers must be committed to the significance of self-improvement or retraining. Teachers and learners should review their concepts on teaching and learning in daily classroom practice thus empowering themselves to overcome the limitations of schooling of the past and become more progressive. When working with teachers to implement

Strenghts and weaknesses of the previous century influencing the curriculum reforms . . .

�1 

curriculum reform, educational planners must make extra efforts to ensure that spaces and timeframes, within which the reforms have to be implemented, are changed as well.

(c) Government and politicians (policymakers)

The policymakers should focus on the process of implementation and make money, resources and time available. Any major change process must be well resourced to allow time for ongoing professional development for all teachers. If the educational aims underlying the curriculum reform are to be fulfilled, it is important to be very clear about which aspects of the previous system need to be conserved and which must be changed. It is important to decide on the extent, level and type of consultation exercises, which will be needed to assist with establishing a sense of ownership of the reform and to take account of suggested modifications before they become unmanageable pressures. Political factors, coherent values and underlying purpose of curriculum reform as articulated through different dimensions of reform should be made clear.

(d) Curriculum practitioners

Needs assessment should be conducted to best ascertain the perceptions, concerns and desires of each of the stakeholders in the curriculum reform process. Curriculum reformers should take the data regarding learners’ social and cultural factors, the nature of pre-knowledge and learning process, and other societal factors into consideration. The continuity within the curriculum should be ensured by establishing a common curriculum language and by setting the course content for each subject. Avoid careless curriculum addition as it might create problems later; careful curriculum subtraction is harder now but eliminates problems later. The various reforms in all aspects must be integrated in one major reform policy in order to be consistent and to avoid contradictions. Evaluation and feedback should normally occur at each step in the curriculum reform and implementation phases. The curriculum reform process should be gradually implemented.

(e) Curriculum reviewers

The curricular review process should not be commissioned in response to pressures and perceived problems, but should rather be a planned reviewing procedure. If the recommendations of curriculum review committees are specific, then changes and revisions will be straightforward. If some recommendations are vague, they may need discussion or clarification prior implementation. The tryout and pre-testing of a curriculum is an important step in the curriculum reform process.

I. Uiseb

�2

CONCLUSION

Curriculum reform is an essential characteristic of education in the contemporary century. Curriculum reforms could be seen as a society’s adaptation process or response to changes occurring within the education system or in society at large. Due to the development of knowledge-based information societies and globalisation, education is undergoing widespread reform worldwide. Therefore, curriculum reforms are sometimes inevitable and sooner or later each country will be faced with curriculum reform.

Curriculum reform is a social process and as the learning experiences of human beings develop so does the need arise for curriculum reforms as well. Neither is curriculum static but is ever evolving.

Political transformations in countries, societal values and norms have got direct or indirect influences on curriculum reform process. Among many agendas of education reform movement, there is an important request on curriculum reorganisation for school improvement and scholastic achievement. It is evident that curriculum reform is not easy but is rather indeed a challenging process.

Before the curriculum reform process commences, familiarisation with what it involves is imperative. Secondly, all the elements that would be affected in one or other way should be identified and lastly the extent to which they would be affected analysed. I wish that each country become mature in curriculum reform process so that failures and repetition of failures could be eliminated.

REFERENCES

Bourke, S. 1994. Some responses to changes in Australian education. Australian Educational Researcher 21 (1): 1–18.

Curriculum 2005: Lifelong Learning for the 21st century. (A user’s guide). Elliott, J. 1998. The curriculum experiment: meeting the challenge of social change. Buckingham:

Open University Press.Gultig, J., U. Hoadley and J. Jansen. 2002. Curriculum: from plans to practices. Reader. Cape

Town, Oxford University Press.Jansen, J. D. 1998. Why education policies fail. Indicator South Africa 15 (1): 56–58. Oxford

University Press.Marsh, C. J. 1999. Curriculum: alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Upper saddle River, NJ:

Merrill.Mcneil, J. D. 1990. Curriculum: a comprehensive introduction. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Harper

Collins.Pretorius, F. 1998. Transforming teacher education in South Africa for the democratic era.

Prospectus 28 (3): 491–506.Saunders, L. Evaluation of curriculum reform in Slovenia: Towards a framework. Available at:

www1.worldbank.org/education/globaleducationreform. Accessed on: 15 March 2006.Sarason, S. B. 1990. The predictable failure of educational reform. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.White Paper on Education in the Republic of Slovenia. 1996.