Int. J. EducationalDevelopment, Vol. 10, No.4, pp. 253-267.1990 0738-D593/90 $3.00 + .

00
Printed in Great Britain Pergamon Press pic

TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT:

A MODEL AND FIELD STUDY IN TANZANIA
KEITH F. PUNCH and ELIAS L. M. BAYONA

Department of Education, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia 6009

Abstract- This paper outlines a model for teacher participation in curriculum development, and
reports reactions to the model based on a large scale field study in Tanzania. The model comprises
six principles of curriculum development, five levels of decision-making with teachers represented
at every level, and national guidelines for the process of development. A representative sample of
teachers, curriculum developers, school inspectors, school heads, ministry officials and teacher
educators reported strong support for the model in all its aspects. However, while developing a
curriculum development model and establishing that there is widespread support for it may be
necessary conditions for success, they are not sufficient. The paper therefore concludes by
anticipating likely implementation problems and how they might be resolved.

INTRODUCTION is given in Bayona (1988). The model, which is

The issue of teacher participation in curriculum
development is clearly important in any
educational system, but particularly in the case
of a developing country such as Tanzania. This
paper does not consider the desirability of such
participation, accepting instead that powerful
arguments exist for it, and that the weight of
opinion is in favour of it (Bayona, 1988). Given
its desirability, the questions considered here
are under what framework should it be
introduced, and what is the reaction of teachers
and others involved to that framework?
This paper proposes a model for teacher
participation in curriculum decision-making
and development, and reports the results of a
large scale field study with teachers, administra-
tors and curriculum developers in Tanzania,
testing their reactions to the model. Developing
the model, and demonstrating support for it,
are important first steps in the question of
curriculum reform - but they are only first
steps. While necessary, they are not themselves
sufficient, as is discussed in a later section.
Although the field study was conducted in
Tanzania and references throughout the paper
are to the situation in Tanzania, the model itself
is designed to have general applicability,
especially to education systems in Africa and
elsewhere similar to those in Tanzania.
A full description of the basis and procedures
for deriving the model, and of the model itself,
summarized here, is based on a review of three
literature bases - curriculum and curriculum
decision-making, the role of teachers in
curriculum development, and education and
curriculum development in Tanzania. This
review defines common curriculum concep-
tions, establishes the desirability of teacher-
participation in curriculum development, and
analyses the Tanzanian situation.
The review indicates a general concensus on
three dimensions: that participation in curricu-
lum decision-making needs to be broadly based
and should represent relevant .features of
society and culture, the learner and the learning
process, and the content of the disciplines; that
participation should develop around identified
levels of curriculum decision-making, and
should make use of relevant groups of decision-
makers at every level; and that participation
includes assigning specific roles. to different
levels, and establishing mechanisms for liaison
and reaching a consensus between: levels.
The model is greatly influenced by three
approaches: Goodlad and Richter's (1966)
conceptual system for dealing with problems of
curriculum and instruction; Lawton's (1980)
partnership rationale for determining and
controlling the school curriculum; and Skilbeck's
(1984) situational analysis based on the school-
based curriculum development approach. It has
three major aspects. First, six principles are
established to underpin a participatory curri-

253
254 KEITH F. PUNCH and ELIA S L. M. BAYONA
culum development policy. Second, and in
terms of administrative arrangements, five
levels of curriculum development are delinea-
ted to enhance teacher representation at each
level, featuring a two-way communication
system between the centre and schools. The
'bottom-up' administrative orientation and
attendant linkages , together with the redistribu-
tion of roles at all levels is designed to tap
expertise and experiences more effectively.
Third, the model incorporates a six-step
national framework for engaging in curriculum
development. This is intended to guide
participants, in their respective facilitating
teams and project groups, through a cyclical
'process as they undertake practical curriculum
development activities. Before these three
aspects of the model are outlined, a brief
overview is given of curriculum development in
Tanzania at present.
EDUCAnON AND CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT IN TANZANIA
Educational aims and objectives in Tanzania
are centrally determined and regulated - there
is no process which allows for the participation
of all relevant parties . The aims and objectives
stated in the policy of Education for Self-
Reliance in 1967 were politically determined.
There was virtually no involvement of teachers ,
curriculum developers, students, educational
administrators or the public in the formulation
of this policy. Even as late as 1984, the broad
aims of education in Tanzania remained the
same as those originally outlined by Nyerere in
1967. Since then the government has only
elaborated those aims and objectives, rather
than reviewing them .
Responsibility for developing the curriculum
for schools, teacher education colleges and
technical colleges is vested in the Institute of
Curriculum Development, as defined by
Parliament in the Institute of Education Act.
The Institute was first established in 1963as the
Institute of Education . .It was then part of the
University College of Dar-es-Salaam, which
subsequently became the University of Dar-es-
Salaam (Mmari , 1975). From 1963 to 1974 the
Institute ' was charged with co-ordinating
education and curriculum development pro-
grammes between the university, teacher
education colleges, and the Ministry of
Education. Specifically, the Institute was
intended to serve as a focus for the study of
education and as a professional centre for
teachers. It was also expected to provide further
training for teachers in educational research
and evaluation, to provide advisory services and
information on new teaching methods, experi-
ments and research findings, to prepare
syllabuses in collaboration with schools and
colleges, and to advise the Ministry and the
University on matters relating to standards of
teacher training and examinations (Institute of
Education, 1982).
In fulfilling these functions, the Institute was
caught between two bodies potentially in
conflict, the University and the Ministry. There
was also some overlap and confusion with
respect to the role of the Institute and that
of the Directorate of Curriculum Development,
which was then located in the Ministry of
Education. As a result , it was agreed in 1975
to establish an independent Institute of
Education, which would act as a parastatal
organisation under the direction of the Ministry
of Education. Since then the Institute has
ceased to be part of the university, and operates
as an independent entity. The specific responsi-
bilities of the Institute are presented in the 1975
Institute of Education Act. These have not
changed , although the Institute was re-named
the Institute of Curriculum Development in
1987.
The Institute of Curriculum Development
exercises its functions through a system of
panels and boards, which handle curriculum
development both vertically and horizontally.
A subject panel deals with subject matter from
primary through to secondary and teacher
education levels. Panels are also responsible
for initiating, planning and developing the
curriculum for their subjects at these levels.
Specifically, subject panels are charged with the
'formulation of subject goals; selection of con-
tent , teaching methods and learning strategies ;
writing syllabuses, text-books , and teachers '
guides; conducting seminars , workshops and in-
service training for teachers ; and preparing
relevant teaching and learning materials '
(Institute of Education, 1982, p. 16).
Membership of subject panels includes
curriculum developers , who are resident at the
institute , nominated teachers , teacher educa-
tors, university lecturers , and educational
administrators. All members , except the
curriculum developers , are nominated by
 TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 255

respective subject curriculum developers. There specific objectives and teaching-learning strate-
is no established formula for representation. gies for each topic, basic equipment and
Individual curriculum developers have exclusive facilities required for every topic or group of
rights to choose anybody they regard as suitable topics, and the list of major text-books and
to join subject panels. This arrangement gives reference books and materials for that syllabus.
no clear access to teachers or any other Once the subject syllabus and any curriculum
interested persons to participate in panel materials produced by the Institute of Curricu-
sessions. lum Development have been approved by the
The deliberations and decisions of subject Ministry of Education, they become official
panels are not regarded as final, even though in government documents. The Ministry of
most cases panel members wish to see their Education then assumes responsibility for
decisions implemented immediately. All plans, disseminating material to schools and colleges
decisions and curriculum products generated by and for supervising its implementation. The
panels have to be ratified by Curriculum Institute of Curriculum Development has no
Boards, before being forwarded for approval to direct links with schools and colleges. Dissemi-
the Commissioner for Education at the Ministry nation of curriculum materials is done in two
of Education. Curriculum Boards are respon- ways. First, syllabuses are mailed directly to
sible for co-ordinating curriculum decisions and schools, although a few are made available to
activities horizontally, at primary, secondary, bookshops for purchase by private or part-time
and teacher education levels. Therefore, there students. Second, text-books and other educa-
are three Curriculum Boards. The Secondary tional supplies are distributed by the Tanzania
Curriculum Board, for example, is charged with Elimu (Educational) Supplies Ltd. Schools
ensuring that different secondary curriculum have to notify their requirements to the
subject panels all work within the aims and Ministry of Education, which in turn places
objectives ofsecondary education. At the same orders with Tanzania Elimu Supplies, or
time the board has to compare different alternatively authorises schools to order their
syllabuses, books and curriculum materials requirements direct.
produced by different subject panels to check Curriculum implementation is strictly con-
for possible overlap between different subjects, trolled from Ministerial headquarters by two
to compare standards and to ensure uniformity means. First, the materials are prescribed and
of syllabuses. their utilisation is obligatory down to the
Curriculum Boards are comprised of senior smallest detail. Fidelity is monitored by
bureaucrats including representatives from the curriculum developers who visit schools for
Examinations Council and Inspectorate, and research and feedback purposes. Curriculum
Ministry Officials from the relevant director- developers are not school inspectors, but their
ates. The Director of the relevant level in the observations regarding teachers' implementa-
Ministry of Education (primary, secondary, tion of the curriculum are reported back to the
teacher education) chairs the Curriculum Ministry. Second, the curriculum is controlled
Board. No school teachers or regional educa- through the Inspectorate. According to the
tional officials are represented on them. Ministry of Education, the Inspectorate is a
Curriculum packages sent to schools for 'professional wing whose job is to inspect,
classroom use bear the same format throughout evaluate and advise the Commissioner for
the country. As an example, the secondary Education on the best ways of implementing
curriculum is diversified into four major national educational objectives' (Ministry of
vocational alternatives (known as 'biases' in Education, 1984a, p. 12). The Inspectorate was
Tanzania). Specialization in these biases starts established in 1977to perform four functions-
at Form 3, when students are required to major evaluating progress made in education, advising
in one bias only, with its respective subjects. on the best ways of implementing the education
Each subject forms an independent and policy, raising the standard of learning and
separate syllabus which is disseminated in the teaching in the classroom, and ensuring the best
form of a booklet. Each syllabus opens with a use is made of available human and material
brief introduction outlining objectives for that resources.
subject and level. This is followed by a matrix School inspectors are selected from among
with details of prescribed topics and sub-topics, the most highly qualified teachers in the country
256 KEITH F. PUNCH and ELIAS L. M. BAYONA
who must have taught for a period of at least five
years. On appointment, they undertake a three
month course in education and management,
curriculum development and evaluation, and
techniques of inspection. They are headed by
the Chief Inspector of Schools. Apart from
school inspectors stationed at the Ministry of
Education headquarters, there are seven
inspectorate zones around the country. Each
zone is headed by the Zonal Chief Inspector of
Schools who reports directly to the Chief
Inspector at the Ministry. Ideally, the Inspec-
.torate aims for a full inspection of each school
annually. However, reports from the Ministry
of Education show that this target has never
been achieved in practice since the Inspectorate
has shortages of staff, transport facilities, and
other resources (Ministry of Education, 1984b).
Evaluation of the school curriculum in
Tanzania is largely a function of testing and
examinations . The National Examinations
Council of Tanzania, established by Act of
Parliament in 1973, is the sole body which sets
and marks final examinations and awards
certificates for all school subjects (Ministry of
Education, 1984a). Since promotion from one
level of schooling to another is very competi-
tive, national examinations feature extensively
in the minds of students , teachers and parents.
Students and teachers tend to concentrate
most of their effort and resources solely on
preparing for final examinations (Mwobahe ,
1975; Nyerere, 1967; Ministry of Education ,
1980). Teachers are not involved in the final
examinations, except where a few of them
might be appointed to supervise examination
sessions in their schools. Likewise, very few
teachers are nominated by the Examinations
Council to help in the marking of examination
papers. Overall , the process of examination and
assessment by the National Examinations
Council, and the curriculum evaluation policies
of the Institute of Curriculum Development
remain far removed from most teachers in
the schools (National Institute for Productivity,
1976).
It is against the background of this highly
centralized system in Tanzania that the
principles, administrative arrangements, and
process guidelines for a participatory curricu-
lum development model are now outlined.
THE MODEL
The principles
Democratic ownership and control of the
school curriculum . Neither teachers at the
periphery, nor curriculum specialists at the
centre , are capable of solving all of the
problems pertaining to the curriculum of a given
school. The centre and the periphery are
therefore interdependent in deriving and
implementing curriculum programmes. This
mutual dependence requires equality in owner-
ship and control of the school curriculum, and
will reduce teachers ' alienation - observable
in Tanzania - from the process of translating
national educational aspirations into appropri-
ate curriculum priorities . In order to achieve
effective involvementand encourage partnership
in curriculum development within schools and
across external levels in the education system,
governance of the curriculum needs to be highly
democratic and open .
Sharing of curriculum responsibilities. Equality
in curriculum ownership and control implies
readiness . for, and equality in, accepting
responsibility for curriculum outcomes. When
the curriculum is owned and controlled from
one location (schools or centre) , responsibility
for implementation tends to be disjointed. This
principle requires that responsibility for major
curriculum decisions be shared equally between
teachers and other curriculum development
participants, from school to national level.
Allowance for flexibility in curriculum de-
velopment. Day to day curriculum development
activities are inevitably influenced by different
cultural , environmental and other local factors.
No matter how pervasive a given curriculum
problem may be , there are likely to be as many
possibilities for solving it as there are different
local situations. The practice of constraining
teachers across all localities to utilise the same
syllabuses, textbook s and teaching-learning
methodologies, as is current in Tanzania, is
necessarily at some point in tension with unique
regional and local realities. Such curriculum
development systems and approaches tend to
assume that the schools in respective countries
are more alike than they are dissimilar.
Examples such as Tanzania show that in reality
the reverse is true. The principle of flexibilityin
 TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN CURRI CULUM DEVELOpME NT 257

curriculum development is especially cogent if ive is to tap expertise and experience more
curriculum relevance to local needs, associated effectively so that curriculum developed can
with teacher participation in curriculum deci- include experiences , activities and content
sion-making, is to be achieved . generated in the school as well as in the external
environment. This approach does not signify
Professional grow th of teachers in curriculum the abolition of central curriculum developers,
dev elopment. The success of curriculum deci- nor does it imply the redundancy of centrall y or
sion-making and development depends on the externally developed curriculum ideas and
professional growth of teach ers in this field so materials. Rather , it allows for a broad er view
that a curriculum development system requires of the curriculum to become operational, as
a practical formula for advancing teachers' well as encouraging broad participation in
professional competencies. This includes both curriculum development in order to tap the
pre-service training and school based pro- local experiences and content, particularly
grammes for preparing teachers for effective those available in the general community, that
participation in curriculum development , and currently appear to be neglected in highly
for continuing their involvement. centr alized systems. In Tanzania , at present,
development of each of the five curriculum
Building the necessary resources support base. components-aims, content, methodologies ,
Educational technology and resources are teaching-learning aids and assessment pro-
essential in curriculum development. Successful cedures-is undertaken exclusively at the
curriculum development requires adequ ate central Institute of Curriculum Development.
materials, equipment, information , personnel, By contrast , this model facilitates initiatives,
time and space, and these resources are through which curriculum development can be
required at each level of the system. Tanzania's extended to involve relevant community
curriculum development resources are located' members in partnership with teachers and
at the Institute of Curriculum Development , in curriculum developers.
Dar-es-Salaam. The model requires the estab- The model recognises teaching-learning
lishment of a resources unit at each of the five situations at the classroom level as the chief
levels. source for curriculum development in the
school, as well as beyond. Classroom level
Curriculum continuity and co-ordination. curriculum development includes all curriculum
Curriculum decision-making and development decisions and activities directly associated with
involving the participation of the entire teaching-learning interaction between teachers
population of teachers , schools and other and learners. This may involve classroom
institutions is likely to result in uncoordin ated as well as non-classroom teaching-learning
divisions and excessively diversified practices experiences planned by the teacher or school. It
unless measures for their rationalisation are may also be restricted to one class and one
built into the curriculum process. Curriculum teacher or incorporate several classes and
development processes should therefore include teachers within the school.
in-built mechanisms for continuous monitoring , The active engagement in curriculum de-
feedback , consultation and evaluation, within velopment by teachers and stud ents at the
and across all levels of curriculum development. classroom level requires a classroom level
This requires a curriculum development infra- curriculum development facilitating team - a
structure which includes permanent administra- small but stable group representing teachers of
tive linkages and facilitating establishments one class level. The role of this team should be
within and between all levels. one of co-ordinating and facilitating major
curriculum development activities taking place
A dministrative arrangements at the instructional level. While teachers are
In this model, participator y curriculum constantly making decisions in their classrooms
development operates at five levels-class- about lesson content, teaching style, the
room, departm ental, school, regional and motivation of the class and so on , some
national. These are linked by facilitators and decisions, ideas and activities generated by one
facilitating teams established at each level, and class may overlap with those of other classes.
featuring two-way communication . The object- Some of these may prove potentiall y worth-
258 KEITH F. PUNCH and ELIAS L. M. BAYONA
while to analyse and develop for use by other
classes or at different levels of curriculum
development. All these decisions and activities
need to be co-ordinated for effective implemen-
tation and resource utilisation. Development
teams at classroom level are basically organised
to fulfil this role and to interpret curriculum
objectives into appropriate instructional pack-
ages, identify and solve problems, be respon-
sible for curriculum innovation, and identify
and apply relevant assessment and evaluation
strategies.
Teachers and students at classroom level may
not be able to solve all their curriculum
problems or to put all their ideas into action.
Participatory decision-making should enable
them to analyse situations so that they are in a
position to judge which of their problems,
needs, interests, ideas and suggestions could be
best handled at this level and which ones might
be forwarded to departmental or other levels of
curriculum development.
Departmental level curriculum development
encompasses a larger number of staff sharing
the same subject interest than at any other level
in the school. It is at this level that the school can
obtain the most representative view of a subject
in relation to school curriculum policy. In this
model, departmental level curriculum develop-
ment is introduced formally and made a
permanent feature of school departments. This
reflects the view that subject teachers be
engaged in development activities which
promote and facilitate the subject disciplines in
relation to the entire school curriculum. By
contrast, teachers in Tanzania rarely get
involved in curriculum development-curricu-
lum packages come to schools from the centre,
with departments acting as clearing houses.
Because of the large number of teachers
potentially available and the many curriculum
issues which might arise in a single department,
the model provides for a small permanent
team to co-ordinate and facilitate curriculum
activities at the departmental level. This
departmental level curriculum development
team would be co-ordinated by the Head of
Department in liaison with the school based
curriculum development master. Specifically,
departmental level curriculum development
should translate the subject into local school
curriculum, build departmental resources and
engage in subject-based research projects.
Curriculum problems at the departmental
level cannot be solved in isolation from
decisions made at other levels. Problems
encountered in one department might also be of
interest to other departments. In this model,
provision is made for unresolved or extra-
ordinary departmental issues to be presented to
other levels for consideration at a more broadly
based forum. Here the heterogeneous nature of
committees and the availability of more time for
deliberation allows for detailed consideration of
the increased complexity of issues placed before
decision-makers at the higher level. All
teachers in their departments, however, will
have had an opportunity to deliberate upon
such issues initially, and should feel involved in
decisions made, including those to forward
unresolved problems to yet broader levels.
School level curriculum development has two
roles. On the one hand, it provides a means
through which curriculum development activi-
ties based in the school are co-ordinated. On the
other, it represents curriculum decisions and
mediates the intentions of society to the school.
In education systems similar to that of
Tanzania, societal aspirations represented at
the school level are likely to be those initiated at
national and regional levels. As in the case of
previous levels, a permanent team is required at
school level to co-ordinate and facilitate school-
based curriculum development. This team
would be led by a qualified and experienced
curriculum developer.
The model provides for a permanent school-
based curriculum development position to
facilitate development in each school. Because
neither the head of school nor the assistant head
is capable of co-ordinating curriculum develop-
ment in the school with the degree of
sophistication proposed in the model without
support, individual schools or a group of
neighbouring schools should be staffed perma-
nently with qualified and experienced curriculum
development personnel. In this way, curriculum
expertise currently concentrated at the centre
may be redeployed to schools where the
expertise is most needed, and curriculum
development advisory services can be made
permanently and continuously available to
schools for support and problem-solving. This is
to be compared with the part-time and
disjointed services currently available only from
the national headquarters.
School-based curriculum development per-
sonnel should not be involved in teaching,
 TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 259

except when demonstrating some methodology Curriculum development in the schools

or technique to teachers. As professional necessarily has to be related to external levels.
curriculum developers, their expertise is best Decisions made at regional and national levels
utilised in curriculum planning, staff develop- will influence decisions in schools, and vice
ment and the enhancement of participation in versa. Mediating societal needs by means of the
curriculum development in the school. Working school curriculum requires that elements of
closely with heads of schools and particularly society and representatives of schools co-
with the other teams, curriculum development operate in making explicit such needs and the
personnel can facilitate the following functions: schools' ability to implement them. Logically,
(a) translate societal curriculum decisions therefore, the contribution of school-level
and intentions into curriculum policy. curriculum decision-making to meeting the
needs of society does not end in schools. In this
(b) establish, co-ordinate and strengthen model, the contribution of teachers to the
curriculum development at classroom external environment is realised through
level, departmental level and school specific linkages and explicit representation of
level. schools at regional and national levels.
(c) promote systematic curriculum develop- The model seeks to institutionalise regional
ment in the school within the framework curriculum development, again in stark contrast
proposed in the model. to the present situation in Tanzania. This
(d) initiate and co-ordinate individual and requires several curriculum developers, led by a
team-based commitments in curriculum regional curriculum development director, to
research and evaluation throughout the be permanently recruited at a regional level,
school. and an infrastructure to be created to enable
curriculum development to take place in the
(e) initiate and co-ordinate innovatory cur- regions. Regional level curriculum develop-
ricular activities in the school. ment plays three major roles-it provides the
(f) provide ready and continuous specialist mechanisms for interpreting national curri-
advice and staff development with respect culum aspirations and directives into more
to theoretical and practical curriculum specific curriculum intentions, particularly
issues of concern to teachers. tailored to meet regional needs and contexts; it
allows for decision-makers to co-ordinate
(g) establish a system for generating and
curricula, and assume responsibility for working
classifying curriculum materials and other
towards and maintaining consensus in curricu-
resources; and establish a school's curri-
lum development programmes conducted by
culum development information and
different schools within a region; and it provides
resources unit.
linkage to, and direct representation of the
(h) establish links and joint curriculum region at, the national level.
development activities with neighbouring As for previous levels, curriculum develop-
schools, through co-ordination with fellow- ment at regional level is conceived of as a joint
school-based curriculum development effort between members of the regional
personnel. curriculum development team. This team is
(i) liaise with curriculum developers at comprised of permanent regional curriculum
regional and national levels in order to developers, representatives of schools (both
promote and follow-up developments in teachers and school-based curriculum develop-
curriculum development; and represent ment masters), and other appropriate local and
the interests of their schools to a national regional participants.
curriculum development network. Specifically, curriculum development at this
level would fulfil the following functions:
(j) identify and analyse curriculum develop-
ment problems in the school; plan (a) interpret and modify national curriculum
strategies for solving them, and liaise with priorities, guidelines, directives, sylla-
internal and external curriculum decision- buses, and similar documents to meet
makers to solve or manage problems as with relevant regional specifications!
they arise. contexts.
260 KEITH F. PUNCH and ELIAS L. M. BAYONA
(b) select and produce supplementary curri-
culum materials for schools in the region.
These may include information such as
booklists, bibliographies, charts, films
and laboratory chemicals and equipment
lists.
(c) engage in systematic approaches to
developing new local social and environ-
mental resources, for example, regional
history curriculum materials, traditional
technical and production skills, regional
game reserves and other heritage.
(d) provide incentives to teachers in the
region to stimulate them to acquire
further knowledge and skills in curriculum
development. This includes support for
continuous training programmes in aspects
of curriculum development through in-
service courses, seminars, regional study
tours and study groups for teachers.
(e) ensure permanent regional curriculum
development resources, support and
feedback system. This may require the es-
tablishment of teachers' centres, teachers'
curriculum development associations,
regional curriculum journals and news-
letters.
(f) establish permanent regional curriculum
research and evaluation programmes in
order to identify problems and questions
with relevance for curriculum develop-
ment in the region.
Just as it is necessary for decision-makers at
previous levels to relate to broader levels, so
it is with regional curriculum development.
Regional issues of national concern need to
be forwarded to the national level when
considered appropriate by regional teams.
At the national level, it is intended to
avoid radical administrative restructuring which
might destabilise existing programmes. The
model takes advantage of the strengths of
existing administrative arrangements and pro-
poses reforms which are congruent with existing
structures. In Tanzania, for example, the
facilities and functions of the Institute of
Curriculum Development substantially remain
as described in the Institute's Act of 1975.
Therefore, subject panels continue to be active
in initiating and carrying out subject-related
curriculum development activities.
An important change proposed at the
national level is that of substantially represent-
ing teachers and regional participants on
subject panels and on the newly formed
national curriculum development team. The
model provides for subject panels to maintain a
balance between centrally appointed teachers,
and teachers elected by their colleagues through
local curriculum development facilitating teams.
Similarly, the national team automatically
includes representatives from regions and
schools through regional teams.
Through this form of representation, curricu-
lum development at the national level ceases to
be the exclusive preserve of curriculum
developers located at the centre. Rather, it
becomes a joint endeavour between school
teachers and other participants with representa-
tion occurring from the classroom to national
levels. Inthis way, development at the national
level is directly influenced by issues brought
forward from local and regional curriculum
development teams.
The national curriculum development team
would perform the following functions:
(a) establish participatory decision-making
links with political and national forums
engaged in formulating and monitoring
the national educational policy.
(b) provide the arena for joint professional
interpretation of the nation's educational
policy into appropriate national educa-
tion aims and objectives.
(c) plan and develop the national curriculum
guidelines.
(d) give a focus to curriculum improve-
ment through sponsoring and conducting
research, promoting and evaluating con-
temporary teaching-learning strategies,
as well as promoting ideas in the field of
curriculum development in general.
(e) provide expert advice and advanced
literature on various specializations within
the curriculum field.
(f) establish links and protocols for acquiring
curriculum materials, audio-visual aids,
and other technical facilities which cannot
be locally or regionally obtained.
(g) improve the professional standards of
curriculum development for teachers,
regional and local curriculum develop-
ments by establishing national pre-service
 TEACHER PARTlCIPATION IN CU RRIC ULUM DE VELOPMENT 261

Sttp J Sltp 2 Sttp 3

SITUATIONAL DEVEWPMENT
ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIES

CONTINUOUS
ASSESSMENT
AND
EVALUATION

MONITORING DISSEMINATION ASSEMBLING

FEEDBACK, AND OR
ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION DESIGNING
AND OF mE
EVALUATION SOLUTION PROGRAM

Step 6 Sttp 5 Sltp 4

Fig. 1. National Guide for Curriculum Development : the six step curriculum process.

and in-service training programmes.
(h) facilitate national and international curri-
culum development links among all levels
in the country and institutions abroad .
(i) identify and analyse curriculum develop-
ment problems in the country, plan
strategies for solving them , and participate
in schemes for solving specific problems
at every level.
The curriculum development process
Curriculum development incorporating teach-
ers and others from all corners of the country
requires a frame of reference to unify and guide
participants at all levels in working with
curriculum processes. This is necessary for two
reasons . First , in situations like Tanzania,
education and curriculum policies alread y
subsume nationall y unified practices. Second ,
since a majority of participant s are not profes-
sionally conversant with processes of curriculum
development, an overarching frame work is
essential for the successful implementation
of the model . The guidelines will not only
lead participants through important stages of
decision-making , but will also provide a basic
orientation to curriculum development. In this
way, an entire participato ry curriculum de-
velopment system can achieve uniformity of
appro ach, consensus of common goals, consis-
tency of decision-making and feedback of
results. Skilbeck's situational analysis model
(1984) provides a suitable rationale for
the national guideline s for development in
Tanzania and similar contexts. The framework ,
shown in Fig. 1, encourages sequential planning
and processing of curricu lum activities. Steps
are logically interrelated, each step providing
the necessary input for accomplishing the
succeeding step, and all steps forming part of
one curriculum development process.
Unlike some curriculum development pro-
cesses which are based on the objectives model,
the proposed process is different in two ways.
First, determining curriculum objectives or
intentions is not the conventional initial step in
developing or revising the school curriculum .
Neither do objectiv es remain fixed in accord -
ance with their original formulation. Objectives
are derived from an analysis of the pre vailing
situation, and are subject to periodic review as
the situation or nature of the probl em changes .
Second , the strength of this process is inbuilt
evaluation. This ensure s necessary data are
obt ained and analysed at each step of the
process, in order to utilise effectively all
possible input s, as well as to guide , inform and
validate curriculum decisions and activities
which follow them .
262 KEIrn F. PUNCH and ELIAS L. M. BAYONA
The need for situational analysis applies
across all the five levels of curriculum
development, and the list of factors to be taken
into account in the analysis should be as
exhaustive as possible. Examination of politi-
cal, economic, sociological, philosophical ,
student and parental problems, and other
factors enables curriculum decision-makers to
obtain relevant data upon which to base
decisions. By way of example , the political and
economic policy expressed in the Arusha
Declaration and the policy of ESR in Tanzania
reflect the direction of the country to employ
educational development as part of a broader
social policy. These ideologies foreshadow the
kind of society and values to be developed and
the financial, material and human resources to
realise these policies. Political statements such
as these are relevant sources when determining,
reviewing or revising the school curriculum .
Another Tanzanian example concerns the
medium of instruction. Problems are to be
expected when children from their tribal
language backgrounds are exposed to Kiswahili
as their medium of instruction on first coming to
school. There are also possible effects on the
learning characteristics of students upgrading
from the Kiswahili medium in primary schools
to the English medium in secondary schools,
when they can hardly write or speak an English
sentence. Decisions to use any language for
teaching have direct repercussions on the
curriculum and require sound analyses of real
situations before being effected.
Essentially, the six steps in situational
analysis capture the fundamental curriculum
development activities . However, in reality it is
likely that not all curriculum decisions and
activities will be encapsulated in the six steps at
anyone time. Moving from one step to another
in practice may not be as linear as it implied in
the process. Often , participants have to engage
in other 'supplementary' activities. In order to
demonstrate the relationship between major
and supplementary steps , Fig. 2 illustrates how
curriculum participants might be involved when
interpreting the national guidelines for curricu-
lum decision-making. The trial stage , for
example, is advocated because it assists
curriculum developers to appraise at an early
stage whether or not a new curriculum product
is likely to be effective when implemented.
Therefore, it supplements the curriculum
development process by revealing deficiencies
in the product before the curriculum is officially
disseminated systemwide. This avoids the waste
of scarce resources and maximises the chances
for effective implementation.
Where and when supplementary steps can be
effected involves decisions and judgment by
participants who face specific real-life situa-
tions . It is fundamental to the implementation
of this model that , through comprehensive
analysisof the situation in step one , and through
constant validation by means of evaluation, as
well as close attention being given to the check
points indicated in Fig. 2, no supplementary
steps should be omitted when evidence shows
that such steps are necessary to the curriculum
endeavour in its context.
TANZANIAN REACTION TO THE
MODEL
Obtaining reactions to this model was achieved
by conducting a field study in Tanzania. A sample
of 300 respondents was chosen from four
regions and 20 secondary schools representing
six target groups-200 secondary school
teachers , 20 curriculum developers, 15 school
inspectors , 26 heads of secondary schools, 23
Ministry officials and 16 teach er educators. All
institutions and establishments in the current
education system directl y related to the second-
ary school curriculum were represented in this
sample. They included secondary schools,
colleges of education, regional education
officers, Institute of Curriculum Development,
the Inspectorate, the National Examinations
Council, the Department of Education (Uni-
versity of Dar-es-Salaam), and the Ministry of
Education headquarters. Time and resource
constraints on data collection prevented a larger
sample , since data were collected personally.
But the sample is representative by region for
teachers and by position for other groups .
An instrument was especially designed for
collection of the data. It sought teachers' own
opinions and assessment of their knowledge and
skills in curriculum development, and gathered
teachers' personal opinions regarding teacher
participation in curriculum development. It also
collected respondents' reactions to each of the
three dimensions of the model. Participants
were asked to respond in terms of four basic
questions-the extent to which the model was
'understood' , 'agreed with' , 'considered practi-
cable ', and 'recommendable' . Each research
 Step I Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Yes

-
Is problem Are Are Disseminate

-
Yes No
'A' Yes Make a Develop resources objectives and Assemble/ Is trial- out and Evaluate
Analyse
situations - solvable
at this
commitment r-- strategies r- and
materials
r- functions
cLear to
I- design
program
necessary ""- impLement
the
"- program

;J
!
level available all .proqrorn

~
Problem
A
~ No ~ No
Yes
Problem
Are you aware
of Levels or
Refer
problems to
I Secure resources and
B Yes materials Identify
~
institutions I-- other levels/ respondents

~
Problem tho t can soLve institutions
C this problem
+ ~
Conduct necessary Conduct
trial-out o
I
~
orientation
No Or
H I- ~
Re-Analyse

~ ! No
Refine the
program
o
z
I
Is survey
necessary
(solution)
z
yes!
8::0
I ::0

~
Determine data to be
gathered

Identify
! t:I
m
I
~
respondents

!
~
Develop instruments

I and conduct surveys

Compile and
!
analyse I
I data I

Fig. 2. National Guide for Curriculum Development: major and supplementary steps
N
e.;
264 KEITH F. PUNCH and ELIAS L. M. BA YONA

Table 1. Teachers' reasons for favouring participation

No. of respondents
Reasons stating the reason

Participation would enable teachers to solve curriculum

problems promptly; and to apply corrective measures at
appropriate times 180
Participation would help to bridge the gap and relieve tension
between teachers and authorities, since major curriculum
reforms can be decided co-operatively 170
Participation would enable teachers to become duty conscious
and committed to the curriculum and its implementation 168

Participation would enable teachers to become more

conversant with the curriculum policy and intentions 161

Participation would encourage and motivate teachers to

innovate and apply their own initiatives in implementing the
curriculum 148
Teacher participation is necessary because teachers are more
familiar with students' needs and local teaching-learning
environment than curriculum developers at the centre 130

Participation would open the way to searching for and assessing

alternative strategies in teaching and evaluating students in
Tanzania 93

station was visited personally and the respon- "in each case.
dents were briefed about the study. The The reasons given by teachers, in response to
response rate was 97%. Only the main features an open question as to why they should
of the results are summarized here, full details participate in curriculum development, are
being available in Bayona (1988). summarized in Table 1.
Most teachers in Tanzania have not taken any The outstanding feature of these results is the
training in curriculum development. Only 23% commonality in the opinions of teachers. Not
have had some training in this field and nearly only did the majority of teachers endorse the
all of these have acquired this training from notion of teacher participation in curriculum'
overseas. At the time of the field study , the only development, but there was also a great deal of
option for curriculum studies within Tanzania common ground in their reasons for this
was available at the University of Dar-es- endorsement. The fact that teachers offered
Salaam . Graduates with this option were these reasons independently, in response to an
normaUy being posted to institutions such as the open question, demonstrates that there is a
Institute of Curriculum Development. In terms remarkable awareness of the importance of
of the need for knowledge and skills in teacher participation in curriculum develop-
curriculum development 77% of teachers ment among teachers in the field. Therefore,
strongly agreed and a further 20% agreed that although a majority of Tanzanian teachers lack
qualifications in the curriculum field arc a training in the curriculum field, they are aware
necessary requirement for classroom teachers. of this need, and are very willing to participate
Similarly, there is overwhelming support by in curriculum development.
teachers for the need to participate, the need for The second section of the analysis considered
flexibility and the willingness to participate in the extent to which the six respondent groups
curriculum decision-making and development. understood the model , agreed with it , perceived
More than 95 % support by teachers is recorded its practicability and recommended it for
 TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Table 2. Responses to principle 2
Curriculum
Teachers developers
(N = 197) (N= 20)
Understanding 3.33 3.70
Agreeing 3.32 3.65
Practicability 3.19 3.10
Recommendability 3.47 3.50
*One-way ANOVA test for significance of difference between group means.
Tanzania. They were asked about each of the
sixprinciples, about the administrative arrange-
ments, and about the model's curriculum
development processes. The results were very
clear. Firstly, there were no substantial
differences between the six groups in their
responses. Secondly, there was overwhelming
support by all groups for the principles,
arrangements and processes of the model-
they were very much understood, agreed with,
seen as practical and recommended for
Tanzania. A typical result is shown by the four
responses to the second principle (sharing of
curriculum responsibilities), shown in Table 2.
In each case four point response scales were
used ranging from 'Yes, completely' (scored 4)
to 'No, not at all' (1) for understanding,
agreement and practicality, and from 'Strongly
recommend' (4) to 'Strongly not recommend'
(1) for recommendation for Tanzania. With this
direction of scoring, the closer the group mean
was to 4.0, the more totally the group under-
stood the particular aspect of the model, agreed
with it, approved its practicality or recom-
mended it, as the case may be. As Table 2 shows,
all of the group means on all of the items are very
high. This pattern of responses was repeated for
all aspects of the model, and indicates the very
strong support for the model. As would be
expected, the degree of support is equally as
clear when the frequency distributions of
responses are analysed (Bayona, 1988).
Despite this very strong level of support,
however, some objections were raised.
Throughout the questionnaire, where respond-
ents disagreed with an item, or found it
impractical, they were invited to give reasons.
Those reasons were categorized and analysed.
They are important, not because of the
frequency with which they were given (for each
265
School Heads of Ministry Teacher
inspectors schools officials educators
(N = 12) (N= 26) (N= 21) (N = 16) Significance*
3.50 3.50 3.66 3.37 N.S.
3.25 3.34 3.28 3.20 N.S.
2.91 3.00 3.47 3.18 N.S.
3.41 3.42 3.47 3.18 N.S.
component of the model, less then 4% of
respondents disagreed or found the item
impractical), but because they suggestissues that
need to be carefully considered in planning im-
plementation of the model. The most commonly
cited reasons for objection were, in order,
constraints of time and economics, teachers' lack
of competence in curriculum development
(including the lack of relevant literature) and
the role of various pressure groups. The first
raises questions of policy, and underlines the
need for resource allocation in curriculum
change. The second confirms teachers' earlier
responses, that they feel unqualified in this area
and would welcome further training. The third
relates to the question of community participa-
tion, and underlines the need for systematic
consultation and involvement of interested
parties, as outlined in the next section.
IMPLICATIONS
Major change in curriculum development
cannot proceed without a model of the new
structure and arrangements. Thus developing
the model and establishing support for it are
necessary first steps in curriculum development
reform, but they do not guarantee its success.
Its implementation would require careful
planning and consideration, with particular
reference to four main issues.
The first concerns policy relevant to legisla-
tion and training. Curriculum policy in
Tanzania is centralized. The model, on the
other hand, requires that curriculum responsi-
bilities, currently held by the Institute of
Curriculum Development and the Ministry of
Education headquarters, be shared across the
five levels, and among teachers and curriculum
266 KEITH F. PUNCH and ELIAS L. M. BAYONA
developers. This cannot be achieved unless a
new curriculum regulation is established. As
with the current curriculum policy, a new policy
has to be officiated by Act of Parliament,
and the necessary legislation enacted. There-
fore, the current Institute of Curriculum
Development Act requires amendment, and
the legislation institutionalising curriculum
development functions and personnel at different
levels requires enactment. Policy regarding
training relates to teachers' professional qualifi-
cations and advancement in the curriculum
field, and the pool of available expertise in
curriculum development in the country. The
current training policy requires amendments to
include provision for the attainment of relevant
qualifications by teachers, teacher educators,
and curriculum developers. Definite policy
decisions need to be effected for the provision
of some qualifications within the country, and
staff acquiring other qualifications from over-
seas. Also, policy decisions are required
defining different levels of professional attain-
ment in this field and the accompanying
responsibilities and remunerations. All this
cannot be planned and effected unless the
training and staff development policy is revised
incorporating the curriculum field.
The second concerns resources for curriculum
development, which currently in Tanzania are
concentrated at the centre. They include
curriculum experts, supporting personnel,
funds, and infrastructure such as printing
equipment, laboratories, seminar and work-
shop facilities, vehicles and so on. System-wide
adoption of the proposed model implies
investment of similar resources at the local and
regional levels. Such an investment would be
required not only for facilitating participatory
curriculum development, but also for providing
a working environment which professionally
stimulates and motivates teachers and other
local participants to engage in curriculum
development. Implementing the model calls for
the expansion of the country's material and
advisory support services. To achieve this,
investment in resources such as local and
regional teachers' centres and curriculum
development information centres, is necessary.
The general point is that the resource
implications of the model need to be carefully
assessed.
The third involves the question of authority.
By introducing functions and participants at
different levels, the model implies a redistribu-
tion of some autonomy and powers to
individuals and teams. In theory, this might
seem practicable. In reality, however, indi-
viduals or teams might hold conflicting
aspirations. Relations between individuals and
teams might be constrained because of
aspirations in power and authority. While the
model allows for a clear definition of roles, it
does not rule out differences in attitudes and
aspirations among participants or levels.
Therefore, there arises the need for individuals
to change their attitudes and some traditions.
This will not be achieved automatically with the
introduction of the model. Practical implica-
tions of this kind have to be critically analysed
and understood by all participants, both before
and during the implementation of the model.
Reactionary attitudes and practices, especially
those reflecting current authority and power
structures may not be eliminated simply by
declaring new roles and levels. Skilbeck notes
with respect to this view that:
the definition of roles in school curriculum development
cannot be assumed to be a fairly simple matter of relating
tasks and responsibilities to particular position holders
and class teachers in the school. . . . The move towards
greater participation challenges older assumptions about
authority and requires us to redefine authority
relationships .... In curriculum development, where
particular kinds of professional expertise are very
important (e.g. subject matter specialisation; pedagogi-
cal expertise; organisational skills; selection; adaptation
and creation of materials; assessment and evaluation)
the exercise of responsibility by authority figures is a
delicate matter. There is usually, in undertaking
curriculum development, the need for an appraisal of
structures for decision making and the allocation and
exercise of roles and, generally, for a clear understanding
by all concerned of the lines of decision and
responsibility for them. It is more important that
agreeable and productive relationships characterise
decision making and that the work itself is successful,
than that perfection is achieved - or sought - in the
structures themselves.
(Skilbeck, 1984,pp. 242-243)
A fourth point concerns possible strategies
for implementation. It is appropriate for
interested countries to study this model with
respect to their national contexts and establish
their own strategies. It would be unrealistic to
attempt applying the model hastily and in full
prior to a comprehensive situational analysis of
any national context for which the model is
intended. The flexible nature of the model
enables it to be adjusted or implemented in a
planned and ordered but incremental fashion as
 TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
the situation may require. For example,
implementing the model may start with only the
training of school-based development person-
nel and only for a specific level of schooling
(primary or secondary). In some countries
efforts might be devoted to establishing and
strengthening regional centres before applying
the model at school level. It would be wrong if
the support demonstrated by the field study
motivated administrators to embark upon
instant and wholesale application of the model
without first critically analysing the model's
nature and its implications. Similar considera-
tions apply to teachers in schools, especially in
countries such as Tanzania where changes in
curriculum development are supported by some
form of political pressure.
An implementation programme might there-
fore proceed in three general stages. The first
would involve interpreting and promoting the
model. For this purpose a representative
national task force would be appropriate which
would develop the model for general use, and
design specific implementation programmes. It
would also conduct national orientation pro-
grammes, introducing the model first to
educators, then to the general public. In the
second general stage, the task force would
concentrate on planning and developing pro-
grammes based on feasibility studies and
situational analyses for different regions and
communities, again involving widespread par-
ticipation. The outcome of this work would be a
provisional master plan for implementation of
the model. In the third general stage, pilot
programmes would be conducted and assessed.
It is important to note that this is a general
model, the implementation of which would give
rise to numerous specific issues. It is during the
second and third stages that these specific issues
would come to the surface and would need
full consideration. Only after appropriate
modifications, based especially on the pilot
programmes of stage three, would the task force
then be in a position to recommend the overall
plan to the Ministry of Education.
267
In other words, implementation would need
to proceed without undue haste, and with
careful monitoring and attention to participa-
tion at all stages. While this model has
concentrated on teachers' participation in
curriculum development, its implementation
would need to involve the wider community.
The community is an important source of
curriculum material, and an outcome of
decentralized curriculum development involv-
ing teachers more fully would be greater access
to community curriculum resources.
REFERENCES
Bayona, E. L M. (1988) Administrative Arrangements for
Teacher Participation in Curriculum Decision-making
and Development. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Univer-
sity of Western Australia.
Goodlad, J. I. and Richter, M. N. (1966) The Development
of a Conceptual System for Dealing with Problems of
Curriculum and Instruction. University of California,
Los Angeles.
Institute of Education (1982) ACT: 1975 Institute of
Education Handbook. Institute of Education, Dar-es-
Salaam.
Lawton, D. (1980) The Politics of the School Curriculum.
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Ministry of Education (1984a) Basic Factsabout Education
in Tanzania. PrintpaklMTUU, Dar-es-Salaam.
Ministry of Education (1984b) Educational System in
Tanzania Towards the Year 2000: Recommendations of
1982 PresidentialCommission on Education as approved
by the Party and Government. Adult Education Printing
Press, Dar-es-Salaam.
Ministry of Education (1980) Inspectors' Report. Ministry of
Education, Dar-es-Salaam.
Mmari, G. (1975) The Changing Role of the Institute of
Education, Studies in Curriculum Development, Vol. 5,
pp. 1---6. Institute of Education, Dar-es-Salaam.
Mwobahe, B. L (ed.) (1975) Challenge of Education for
Self-Reliance in Tanzania. Institute of Education, Dar-
es-Salaam.
National Insitute for Productivity (N.l.P.) (1976) Feasibility
Study into Curriculum Development, Research, Evalua-
tion and Dissemination. N.I.P., Dar-es-Salaam.
Nyerere, J. K. (1967) Education for Self-Reliance. National
Printing Company, Dar-es-Salaam.
Skilbeck, M. (1975) School Based Curriculum Develop-
ment. Extracts from SBCD and Teacher Education,
mimeograph for private circulation, reprinted with
permissionof Curriculum Development Centre, Canberra.
Skilbeck, M. (1984) School Based Curriculum Develop-
ment. Harper and Row, London.