Schwab's “Practical 4” and its Corroboration in Recent History

Schwartz, Henrietta

doi:10.1080/03626784.1984.11075940

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, limited implementation of curricula is widely regarded as a major drawback (e.g., Babin, 1981;Fullan & Pomfret, 1977;Krawchenko, Paradis, & Sommerfeld, 1979;Saylor et al, 1981;Schwab, 1983) and, in this respect, the measure of control supposedly afforded by the administrative model may be partly illusory. A number of writers have alluded to the administrative model's disregard for the diverse needs of students and the differing instructional skills and educational views of teachers (Crittenden, 1988;Schwab, 1983;Schwartz, 1984;Short, 1983). Moreover, despite its attention to geographic uniformity, this model is characterized by piecemeal revision of curricula, and this limits overall program balance (Short, 1983).…”

Section: Iohnsonmentioning

confidence: 95%

Reconsidering curriculum development: A framework for co-operation

Johnson¹

1993

Interchange

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AaSTgACT: Conventional approaches to curriculum development employed in western countries have proved to be unsatisfactory. Much of the literature as well as the practice of curriculum development have focussed on two traditional stances w the administrative and grass-roots models --and neither has been able to accommodate concurrently the theoretical and practical objectives, skills, and needs of central administrators, teachers, and curriculum specialists. In this paper, a brief examination of the characteristics, prevalence, benefits, and major shortcomings of these two models provides a basis for describing an approach that may better fulfil the multiple and competing demands of educational administrators and users. The article elaborates upon and defends a theoretical plan for involving administrators and educators in co-operative curriculum developmerit, and specifies additional organizational requirements and constraints which would need to be dealt with in order to effect its intent.K~YWORDS: policy making, administration, centralization, decentralization, school-based, constraints, Australia, Canada In many respects, curriculum development approaches employed in Canada, Australia, Britain, and other countries over recent years have been unsuccessful. Many of the difficulties have stemmed from continued reliance upon inadequate models of curriculum production. Educational policy-makers need to consider alternative slrategies for the development of school curricula in order to capitalize upon the strengths and minimize the undesirable characteristics of current approaches. This paper advances and defends a plan for revising curriculum development policy in locations which have long adhered to administrative and grass-roots models, thereby providing a basis for renewed discussion of curriculum development strategies.Many contributors to the literature on curriculum development have focussed upon problems associated with the conventional models. Some have offered conceptualizations --in most instances, compromise plans --to guide efforts

show abstract

Section: Iohnsonmentioning

confidence: 95%

Reconsidering curriculum development: A framework for co-operation

Johnson¹

1993

Interchange

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Schwab's “Practical 4” and its Corroboration in Recent History

Cited by 1 publication

References 3 publications

Reconsidering curriculum development: A framework for co-operation

Reconsidering curriculum development: A framework for co-operation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About