Feedback: Introduction: Satisfactory an adequate introduction and definition of basics Knowledge of Topic: Satisfactory good in places, fairly clear

ar throughout Organisation & Structure: Good well linked from section to section Understanding of Main Ideas: Good mostly a good grasp of the pros & cons of different approaches. In need of some elaboration in places Quality of Argument Satisfactory Mindful of the problems, though these are only partially resolved Clarity of expression/technical language: ok Sources used: v full Overall: A useful investigation. The ideas to be developed from the differing perspectives would benefit from further elaboration

A critique of models of curriculum planning and their relevance to primary education in the 1990s. There have been a variety of curriculum models proposed in theories but the main models that will be looked at in this dissertation I will describe as social concerns-based, content or subjectbased, objective-based and process-based; and compare these with the National Curriculum that was made law in England, in the 1998 Education Reform Act. In order to understand these models, it is important to look at a definition of curriculum. A curriculum has been defined in various ways which has resulted in such diversity of models and theories being produced, according to whatever definition is chosen, for example an organised set of formal educational or training intentions1 This may lead people to think of the curriculum as a syllabus, i.e. the document seen in school due to the use of the word formal in the definition, which has been a traditional view of the curriculum. The above definition focuses on the teacher which they are to do something or teach something pre-planned to the children An alternative way of looking at the curriculum is one that focuses on the child. Curriculum theory is linked to education theory i.e. a curriculum should reflect a person or group of peoples view on what are the purposes of education. Therefore some of the child-centred educational theories that have been applied to primary education, especially since the Plowden report in 1967 have resulted in the curriculum being seen as looking more at the development of the child. Curriculum is planned intervention in the interaction between development nad experience2 This definition does allow for the possibility of growth and change in the curriculum but still describes the curriculum as something that is planned. Sociologists and some other education theorists have also claimed that there is also another curriculum that is present in the day to day life of the school which is unplanned. This curriculum (which could constitute another possible curriculum model as such) has been referred to as the hidden curriculum that I believe can affect how the other models are viewed. The hidden curriculum is Those things which pupils learn at school because of the way in which most of the school is planned and organised; but which are not in themselves overtly included in the planning or even in the consciousness of those responsible for school arrangements3

1 2

Pratt D (1980), p4, Curriculum Design and Development, Janovich HB Blyth WAL (1984), pvii Development, Experience and Curriculum in Primary Education, Croom Helm 3 Kelly AV (1989), p11 Curriculum: Theory and Practice, Harper and Row

For example children of a particular ethnic origin may feel that they are inferior to other children in terms of representation in books and the attention paid to them, or the way they are spoken to, however unintentional it is by the teacher The hidden curriculum alerts us to the way in which a pupils values enter the official curriculum too4 Thus childrens opinions of themselves may affect all their other learning experiences and this has led to theorists calling for the significance of the hidden curriculum to be recognised, therefore being part of what constitutes the curriculum In this wider view curriculum becomes all the planned and intended programme of a school including what is not consciously designed but forms part of the schools ethos and unwritten assumptions5 I would like to argue that no curriculum can be value-free especially if there is a hidden curriculum present in schools, where children will inevitably pick up values and/or make value judgements How we conceive of curriculum is important because our conceptions and ways of reasoning about curriculum reflect how we see, think, talk about, study and act on education made available to students6 The construction of the curriculum will be affected by values because educational experts, governors, headteachers and teachers will all have their own views as to what should and not should be in the curriculum and these are value-judgements. The values in the curriculum may be picked up and learnt by children, or children may have their own values that they have chosen to adopt which affects their view of the curriculum being presented to them. The curriculum designer must develop priorities to guide the selection of tasks to be performed and these decisions are guided by value commitments to society in general and learners in particular7 The values must come from somewhere i.e. society and the individuals themselves. For instance a value-judgement on what should be in the curriculum may reflect what society considers should be in the curriculum. One of the views of education has seen its purpose as passing on the culture of the society thus societys needs will be catered for in the curriculum. This view creates the idea of a model of curriculum planning which I have referred to as socialconcerns based. If a society wants its culture, norms and values to continue (in order for that society to survive), these norms and values must be transmitted to the next generation. Education is seen as a way of doing this through the curriculum. A society would also want its younger members to be prepared for adult roles within it therefore a curriculum would be influenced by the kinds of jobs that the society would want; and contains the learning and knowledge necessary for doing those jobs. Curriculum is after all a way of preparing young people to participate as productive members of our culture8 There have been extreme cases where the curriculum has been used as tool for producing members of society in certain roles. In some communist societies, where those who have had certain religious or political concerns that were not in the curriculum, have been persecuted. Or in
4 5

Sockett H (1976), p33 Designing the Curriculum, Open Books Blyth WAV (1984), p28 Development, Experience and Curriculum in Primary Education, Croom Helm 6 Cornbleth C (1990) p12 Curriculum in Context, Falmer 7 Pratt D (1980), p10 Curriculum Design and Development, HB Janovich 8 Taba H (1962), p10 Curriculum Development, Theory and Practice, HB Janovich

the USA in the early 1960s where it was hoped that by producing a curriculum that had an emphasis on physics and other sciences more children would pursue astronautical careers or create new developments that would enable the nation to either catch up or take the lead from the USSR in the field of space research. In British society today it is perhaps not so extreme but there are definite societal influences i.e. political, economic, religious and other pressue groups (as well as influences from within education itself e.g. HMI Educational Research etc) on the curriculum. The use of Information Technology in the National Curriculum is becoming increasingly significant and it would seem that as society is becoming more technological, it is reflected in the curriculum Today the spirit of scientific, technological society shapes the curriculum it emphasis notions of precision, promptness, material gain, competition and co-operation9 Another example of influence on the curriculum, in religious education in the National Curriculum where it states The religious education syllabuses must reflect that the religious traditions are in the main Christian10 This would indicate to children that Christianity must be of significance to have so much emphasis on it compared to other religions and the above statement indicates how a view from society can influence the curriculum. However, is a curriculum based on societal concerns a good thing? D Pratt has stated that Curriculum is valid if it helps to meet a human need11 The problem is that there are many concerns or needs in society it is very difficult to try and decide which should be addressed in the design of a curriculum and which are not so important. Also, how should they be structured is helping to preserve the environment more important than finding ways to have a better economy? Even if we believe that the content of a curriculum should be based on the culture of society, it will be impossible to assert what that culture is and therefore what the content of the curriculum should be12 A curriculum model based on societal concerns assumes that it is right for the curriculum to be the way through which the culture of a society is passed onto the next generation. The wider society has a legitimate interest in how children are taught and brought up since they are members of the wider society13 Sociologists would see the curriculum models has being an agent of social control where people are stratified into different roles in society as a result of the educational process. How a society selects, classifies, distributes, transmits and evaluates the educational knowledge it considers to be public reflects both the distribution of power and principles of social control.14 Is social control a truly ethical purpose for education?

Orlosky D, Smith BO (1978), p172 Curriculum Development, Rand McNally Pring R (1989), p106 The New Curriculum, Cassell 11 Pratt D (1980), p47 Curriculum Design and Development, HB Janovich 12 Kelly AV (1989), p38 Curriculum Theory and Practice, Harper and Row 13 Dearden RF (1979), p18 Problems in Primary Education, Routledge and Kegan Paul 14 Reid I (1986), p75 The Sociology of School and Education, Fontana
10

Some child-centred theories see education as having a different purpose, where the child is free to learn whatever he/she chooses. This question of individual concerns or interest will be looked at later on, especially in the process-based curriculum model; but in order to understand the problems of the social concerns-based model it is necessary to look at what is educational knowledge or what actually is the content of the curriculum. In Western schools, the curriculum has traditionally been seen as a pre-determined group of subjects which arose from forms of understanding of bodies of knowledge that had been developed from Plato onwards and pupils in primary education as well as secondary education were expected to learn and reproduce it Knowledge is a pre-existing truth or reality out there to be discovered and verified by experts, therefore knowledge can be communicated or given to pupils who can then reproduce it15 This is a view that sees knowledge as static it has already been known and is to be communicated to children. A particular theory of knowledge will determine a view of the curriculum and the description of knowledge given above has come to be known as the contentbased or subject-based model of curriculum planning. The theorists who have this view have then differentiated the curriculum into subjects or types of understanding. Paul Hirst in Knowledge and Curriculm in 1968, distinguished seven areas Formal language and mathematics, the physical sciences, moral awareness and judgement, aesthetics, philosophy, religious experience and our awareness of our own and other peoples minds16 There have been a variety of theories dividing knowledge into categories and a variety of words used to describe them such as forms of understanding, disciplines, subjects but they are in agreement that knowledge is in a sense divisible in terms of timetabling in the curriculum. It is usually in secondary school that subjects are taught distinct from each other. However it is the HMI Curriculum Matters and other reports leading to the introduction of the National Curriculum have all divided knowledge into subject areas for the primary curriculum as well, these being mathematics, language or English, science, technology, history, geography, music, art, religious education and physical education. Many theorists say that knowledge should not be seen as this in terms of the curriculum We must be aware of inert ideas, that is to say ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilised, tested or thrown into fresh combinations17 In other words it is difficult to get a balanced all round view of knowledge if it differentiated into different subjects. However it could be argued that even without an official division of knowledge a curriculum would naturally have different areas of understanding. Differentiation is already there at least embryonically in the teachers concern for number work, the understanding and relating of shapes, the classification of objections, the observation of living things, the exposure to certain kinds of nursery rhymes, the enjoyment of music, the acquisition of artistic skills18 Another concern about this model is that it assumes that knowledge is already there, it is predetermined. In the twentieth century it could be argued that knowledge is different from that which would have been learnt in the fifteenth century; for example it is only in this century that

15 16

Cornbleth C (1990), p185 Curriculum in Context, Falmer Taylor PH Richards CM (1986), p24 An Introduction to Curriculum Studies, NFER-Nelson 17 Whitehead AN (1932), p1, The Aims of Education, Ernest Benn 18 Lawton D et al (1978), p136 Theory and Practice of Curriculum Studies, Routledge

mankind has been travelling through space. It is possible that argue that knowledge will also be different in the future as societies continue to change. Curricula must provide for the continuous re-interpretation of presently accepted knowledge and for the rapid incorporation of new discoveries 19 Linked with this is the idea that knowledge can change or be perceived differently by each individual learner, or in other words, knowledge changes according to individual experiences. A traditional subject or content-based curriculum model could be seen as meaningless unless a child can relate to his/her own experiences and particular circumstances. There is a wide difference between providing children with their entitlement to access a wide range of knowledge and forcing them to learn facts and information in isolation from meanings and experiences in their lives20 This has led to the development of a process-based curriculum model but there has also been a focus in educational theory on objectives; and those in favour of objectives based models have not questioned that there should be content in the curriculum, but that objectives should gain precedence over the content. Content is important but to derive purposes from a given body of knowledge no matter how well organised is to put the cart before the horse21 Knowledge in the curriculum has no meaning unless something is actually supposed to happen as a result of it. In other words, it is not enough for a teacher to say I am teaching mathematics to this class today, a teacher should have a clear picture of what he/she is trying to get the pupils to do. Content is only important in so far as it brings about intended outcomes22 The idea of using objectives in the curriculum is generally credited to Franklin Bobbits The Curriculum in 1918, but it was the work of Tyler in 1932 who proposed that teachers should be clearly stating what they wished the children to attain and Bloom in 1956 writing a Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in which he divided the objectives into cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains; that objectives were seriously looked at as concerned with producing a change in the behaviour of the learner. The most useful form for stating objectives is to express them in terms which identify both the kind of behaviour to be developed in pupils and context of area of life which this behaviour is to operate23 However, later theorists (including those in favour of an objectives-based model) found that looking for a change in behaviour was inadequate in that there were certain areas of learning where a change in behaviour would not be an indication of whether a child has learnt or not Understanding, appreciation and knowledge can not be fully translated into clear cut observable behaviours capable of measurement24

19 20

OECD (1960), p19 OECD Curriculum Improvement and Educational Development Barber M, Graham D (1993), p35, Sense, Nonsense and the National Curriculum, Falmer 21 Richmond WK (1971), p36, The School Curriculum, Methuen 22 Wheeler DK (1967), p39, Curriculum Process, University of London Press 23 Kelly AV (1989), p57, Curriculum: Theory and Practice, Harper and Row 24 Taylor PH, Richards CM (1986), p64, Introduction to Curriculum Studies, NFER-Nelson

Nevertheless for some areas of learning for example physical education, by watching a child, a teacher may be able to note whether a child has achieved a behaviour objective such as the child will be able to do a half-turn or not. Humans outward behaviour gives some evidence to others, thus enabling others to know what they are thinking, feeling or doing educationally this means that pre-specifying behavioural objectives may be feasible for isolated physical and practical skills25 A curriculum model based on behavioural objectives would seem to assume that the purpose of education is to change the behaviour of the learner. Due to the fact that there are such a variety of theoretical curriculum models, it would appear that education is too complex to be reduced to one purposes and this would make the behaviour-objectives-based model unsatisfactory. the basic assumption on which the models rests is that the end of education is to change behaviour26 Many educational theorists, especially in America, whilst recognising the limitation of behavioural objectives did not feel that it was appropriate to abandon an objectives-based model. Objectives were redefined as instructional objectives which did not specify an expected change in behaviour but concepts / skills that the pupils were expected to learn. Eisner also defined another area of objectives as expressive where that which was learnt from instructional objectives could be used in other areas. An instructional objective state what the pupil is expected to learn, whereas an expressive objective is for circumstances in which the codes and skills acquired in instructional contexts can be used and elaborated27 This seems a practical ways of utilising the content of the curriculum and it would challenge teachers professionally so that they would have clear purposes for the lessons instead of vague ideas A clear statement of objectives helps to select from vast areas of knowledge, that which is realistically necessary for creating some valid outcome28 It would also seem to be natural because if one is a teacher, one is therefore trying to do something and to get pupils to achieve something whatever age, so it does seem logical to state intentions If an activity is a learning activity there must be logically some achievement29 It would also make it easier for teachers to evaluate their own and pupils efforts it they have some criteria against which to judge. It may also help in passing on information to other teachers because there would be a clearer progression and could, in theory, save time as most of the written work is in a sense, already done, in the curriculum However, in practice, the model does not seem operational a clear example being the National Curriculum in the United Kingdom today where each subject curriculum is a series of educational aims and objectives in the programmes of study and especially the attainment targets. Having to write out for each individual, their attainment in each target has increased the paperwork and had the opposite effect of saving time. It may (and some educators claim this)

25 26

Dearden RF (1976), p23, Problems in Primary Education, Routledge and Kegan Paul Wheeler DK (1967), p36 Curriculum Process, University of London Press 27 Orlosky D, Smith BO (1978), p150 Curriculum Development, Rand McNally 28 Sockett H (1976), p38 Designing the Curriculum, Open Books 29 Taylor PH, Walton J (1973), p10 The Curriculum: Research, Innovation, Change, Ward Lock

lead to the teacher just teaching entirely towards the attainment targets, which results in other purposes of education being overlooked. If teachers are pressurised to specify their behavioural objectives, they will teach narrowly to the test rather than broadly educate the result is teacher and pupil threatened30 An objectives-based model has the same problems as content or subject-based model because it also seems unethical in that having objectives means that teachers are pre-specifying how they want their pupils to be, thus denying them choice If attempts to reduce education to a scientific activity it assumes that it is legitimate to mould human beings according to certain clear-cut intentions without making any allowance for their own individual wishes or interests 31 To put it another way, the child-centred approach to education is ignored because the childs concerns and the childs freedom to choose are not catered for. The objectives-based model is also assuming, as with the content-based model that knowledge is pre-determined or encourages a pre-determined response. In creative areas of the curriculum, this is just not possible, it is a contradiction in terms of what creativity is: Pupils are assumed to have learnt when they have acquired the intended knowledge objects32 This is not to say that there is not a place for content or objectives in the curriculum but that a curriculum model based on either of these (and a social concerns-based model too) do not seem to have taken sufficient account of the children themselves. Hence the development of another curriculum model which has come to be known as the process-based model of curriculum planning. It focuses on the individual child and sees knowledge as something that the child can choose to understand in the light of his/her own experience and change it accordingly; based on principles in the curriculum that provide a framework as such for teaching. Educational purposes should be framed in the terms of the processes which we regard as able and advises us to select the knowledge content of the curriculum in relation to its likely contribution to the development of the pupil33 So to clarify this, knowledge is not something static to be received but more subjective. Such a view is not led to the extreme view of the process theory in education, where children are left entirely to their own devices. This is very idealistic but may be cruel in todays society because if a child does not choose to learn anything about the world around him/her, they will not be able to cope with adulthood. It would be fine at the beginning of a completely new world, but not for primary education in the 1990s. However the process model does deal with the problem of knowledge being pre-determined by focusing on the individual and their concerns (as in a childcentred approach to education) which can also help a child to make sense of any knowledge either the child discovers or is imparted. Organised material has no intrinsic worth until man does something with it as a result of experiences in which development is learnt34 Another problem with this theory is that it is not very practical in everyday classroom life. It minimises the significance of assessment so that it will be very difficult to help a child have learning that is in a progressive sequence and this is essential in developing a childs mental, cognitive abilities. It is also very demanding on teachers and anyone involved in curriculum
30 31

Dearden RF (1976), p24 Problems in Primary Education, Routledge and Kegan Paul Kelly AV (1989), p57 Curriculum: Theory and Practice, Harper and Row 32 Cornbleth C (1990), p16 Curriculum in Context, Falmer 33 Kelly AV (1989), p84 Curriculum Theory and Practice, Harper and Row 34 Wheeler DK (1967), p37 Curriculum Process, University of London Press

planning because if knowledge is subjective and taking account of new discoveries that can alter it, the teachers and curriculum planners will have to constantly change their own personal grasp of concepts and skills, alongside the children. This model assumes that teachers will be refining and deepening their own understanding and judgement of concepts, principles and criteria which brings problems of teacher competence35 Nevertheless this model of curriculum planning does seem to be more suited to primary education due to the fact that it focuses on the individual, id does not put knowledge into sharply differentiated categories that may confuse the child and it seems to have at its heart, a more ethical purpose for education than simply pushing children into certain roles for adult society or moulding a child through pre-specified objectives. The primary schools attitude should therefore be one of widening opportunities rather than preparing for particular roles36 Out of the four different models examined there is not one perfect model that truly reflects ideal educational purposes and can be achieved in the everyday school. The National Curriculum as an example has limitations in both its division of knowledge into subjects for the primary curriculum and its use of objectives which are too prescriptive, illustrating the complexity of designing an ideal curriculum model. The present National Curriculum model is too over prescriptive until primary schools are able to concentrate their attention on teaching young children how to learn instead of an over emphasis on facts and content, then pupil attainment will not rise37 The Dearing report which has come out in the past year has recommended a slimming down of the curriculum with standard assessment in mathematics, English and science only, but this is an indication of how certain areas of knowledge come to gain precedence over others in the curriculum according to value-judgements, Also there are still attainment targets and programmes of study so there is a still a strong focus on objectives in the primary curriculum. In short, the individual concerns of the child are still largely ignored and there is still a view of knowledge that sees it as pre-determined, to be imparted to the children in infant and junior schools across the country. So the National Curriculum in the United Kingdom is not an example of an ideal curriculum model. There has been a lot of confusion in curriculum theory (which I also found whilst undertaking this essay) with the use of words such as meant and ends being interchanged and if one is to have an operational curriculum model it is important to have clear definitions of what is meant by content, objectives, principles etc PH Taylor and CM Richards attempt to solve this The subjects studied or activities provided are the means through which worthwhile purposes may be achieved. The intended ends of studying subjects the different ways of learning which they help to develop, the skills and capacities engendered by the learning experiences are the objectives of the curriculum, not the overall purposes which the curriculum is intended to achieve38 Bearing this in mind, in order to propose an alternative model, it would be necessary to be aware that education cannot be value-free. Sociological research about the hidden curriculum provides evidence that values are inevitably inherent in school that is the curriculum itself and in the

35 36

Taylor PH, Richards CM (1986), p68, Introduction to Curriculum Studies, NFER-Nelson Dearden RF (1976), p31 Problems in Primary Education, Routledge and Kegan Paul 37 Barber M, Graham D (1993), p41 Sense, Nonsense and the National Curriculum, Falmer 38 Taylor PH, Richards CM (1986), p5 Introduction to Curriculum Studies, NFER-Nelson

reality of the classroom; pupils are picking up views from the teachers and whether or not it affects their educational development, the values are still there. The shape and content of the curriculum are ultimately determined by the values that direct our efforts39 Therefore an ideal model would have to take into account all the advantages and disadvantages of each of the other curriculum models. WAL Blyth has attempted this in what he terms as an enabling curriculum. It must provide additional equipment that arises through the development beyond the powers of the human organism as such, development that can only arise through a systematic process of construction of reality, strengthened by awareness of widely accepted forms of understanding and endeavour. It must also provide opportunities for the expansion and reflective scrutiny of experience within a social context that ensures development and experience are social and individual40 In other words, it must take a view of knowledge that seems it as something important from the past but to be relative to each individual child and subject to change. As indicated previously there may be a differentiation in knowledge that is natural, in which case it is not necessary to produce rigid subjects at primary school level; as AN Whitehead puts it There is only one subject mater for the curriculum and that is life in all its manifestations41 The knowledge may be shaped according to a social concern for its culture to be passed on, in order for its survival, but not to the extent where it discriminates against particular views in society, by saying that only one is right; or enforces a curriculum that pushes children into certain social roles. It is necessary for the child to learn something in order to participate as an independent adult member of society. I believe that an ideal model will take individual and social concerns into account when determining the content which will reflect important concepts that have been developed in the past, whilst leaving opportunities open for changes in that knowledge. The curriculum should have clear purposes For curriculum planning to be rational, ends have to be clarified42 However it should not be to the point where a pupil and a teachers freedom are restricted therefore these educational purposes should be more in the form of principles than prescriptive objectives. But the danger here is that they will be too vague objectives may be appropriate in some cases, e.g. where children are learning certain physical skills. Principles may be appropriate for children learning basic concepts and skills in the primary school. Research by J Piaget and J Bruner have indicated that children develop in certain ways in the early years of their life and if children are given freedom in the sense that their education is entirely focused around their own concerns, without some kind of guidance (based around procedural principles in the curriculum); this development could be hampered because there may not be a natural sequence or progression in their learning. The curriculum of a particular area of knowledge should be determined by the understanding that can be achieved of the underlying principles that give structure to this knowledge43

39 40

Pring R (1989), p57, The New Curriculum, Cassell Blyth WAL (1984), p49, Development, Experience and Curriculum in Primary Education, Croom Helm 41 Whitehead AN (1932), p10, The Aims of Education, Ernest Benn 42 Taylor PH, Richards CM (1986), p65, An Introduction to Curriculum Studies, NFER-Nelson 43 Stenhouse L (1975), p15, An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, Heinemann

WAL Blyths definition of an enabling curriculum is the closest to an ideal curriculum model that I have come across in this research, but this enabling curriculum does not indicate how it will actually work out in practice. In short, the problem is finding some kind of practical compromise between educational purposes that are focused on the concerns of society and educational purposes that are focused around the individuals concerns and designing an operational curriculum accordingly. There is not a clear-cut solution and it appears that the only way to find an ideal model for primary education in the 1990s is to combine the positive elements of all the different curriculum models proposed in theory.

Bibliography

Barber M/Graham D (1993), Sense, Nonsense and the National Curriculum, Falmer Burgess RG (1986) Sociology, Education and Schools, Batsford Blyth WAL (1984) Development, Experience and Curriculum in Primary Education, Heinemann Cornbleth C (1990) Curriculum in Context, Falmer Dearden RF (1976) Problems in Primary Education, Routledge and Kegan Paul Eggleston J (1977) The Sociology of the School Curriculum, Routledge and Kegan Paul Frazier A (1980) Values, Curriculum and the Elementary School, Houghton Mifflin Goodson IF/Ball SJ (1984) Defining the Curriculum, Falmer Herrick VE/Tyler R (1950) Towards improved curriculum theory, University of Chicago Press Hooper R (1971), The Curriculum, Oliver & Boyd Hirst P (1974), Knowledge and the Curriculum, Routledge and Kegan Paul Illich I (1971) De-Schooling Society, Marion Boyers Jenkins D/Shipman M (1976) Curriculum An Introduction, Open Books Kelly AV (1980) Curriculum Context, Harper and Row Kelly AV (1986) Knowledge and Curriculum Planning, Harper and Row Kelly AV (1989) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, Harper and Row Lawton D (1975) Class, Culture and the Curriculum, Routledge and Kegan Paul Lawton D/Chitty C (1988) The National Curriculum, Bedford Way Papers, Institute of Education Lewey A (1977) Planning the School Curriculum, UNESCO Macdonald J/Anderson DW/May FB (1965) Strategies of Curriculum Development, CE Merrill Milburn/Goodson/Clark (1989) Re-interpreting Curriculum Research, Falmer Moon B/Murphy P/Raynor J (1989) Policies for the Curriculum, Open University Press Moore R/Ozga J (1991) Curriculum Policy, Pergamon Musgrave PW (1973) Knowledge, Curriculum and Change, Angus and Robertson OECD (1960) Curriculum Improvement and Educational Development, OECD Orlosky D/Smith BO (1978) Curriculum Development: Issues and Insights, Rand McNally Peters RS (1973) The Philosophy of Education, OUP Pluckrose H (1988) School a place for children? , Franklin Watts Pollard A/Bourne J (1994) Teaching and Learning in the Primary School, Routledge Pratt D (1980) Curriculum Design and Development, HB Janovich Pring R (1989) The New Curriculum, Cassell Reid I (1986) The Sociology of School and Education, Fontana Richmond WK (1971) The School Curriculum, Methuen Skilbeck M (1984) Evaluating the Curriculum in the Eighties, Hodder & Stoughton Sockett H (1976) Designing the Curriculum, Open Books Stenhouse L (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, Heinemann Sutherland M (1988) Theory of Education, Longman Taba H (1962) Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice, HB Janovich Taylor PJ/Richards CM (1986) An Introduction to Curriculum Studies, NFER-Nelson

Taylor PH/Tye KA (1975) Curriculum, School and Society, NFER Taylor PH/Watson J (1973) The Curriculum: Research, Innovation and Change, Ward Lock Tyler R (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Chicago Press Wellington JJ (1986) Controversial Issues in the Curriculum, Basil Blackwell Westfield College (1983) Education 2000, CUP Wheeler DK (1967) Curriculum Process, University of London Press White J (1982) The Aims of Education Re-Stated, Routledge and Kegan Paul Whitehead AN (1932) The Aims of Education, Ernest Benn