Technically speaking school curriculums are administrative documents, which include goals of teaching, desired information and skill levels, teaching methods, time needed for teaching/learning as well as actions needed from pupils and lastly evaluation of their learning. In theory, curriculums are based on values and norms of each society and they are built on a vision for future needs. Curriculums change as new information comes along, through transforms of political tendency and paradigm shifts. For instance Finnish basic education’s curriculum reform from 1994 was partly based on an analysis about quick change in economic environment. Finland was recovering from a deep recession caused by the collapse of Soviet Union. It was then that school system’s function concerning upbringing was recognised in a more profound way (to aid families in the midst of financial problems) and the need for lifelong learning was brought up, so that swift changes in the society wouldn’t cause too much disturbance.
Moreover, it’s possible to perceive from the school curriculums whether societies appreciate first and foremost that an individual is adapted to the society or are individual personalities taken more into account. Naturally it isn’t as black and white, due to the fact curriculums may involve many elements. In any case in Finland curriculums have transformed from emphasizing ‘collective good’ to ‘individuality’ and religious ‘lutherian morale’ to ‘rationality’ (whatever that in any given moment might be).
Another aspect to look at curriculums is to investigate how well they translate to real life scenarios. In Finland equality is an important factor in curriculums and in principle, they are neutral documents in which gender isn’t present, but girls and boys are rather treated as equal pupils. In that context equality is defined as equal rights and obligations for girls and boys covering family life, education, job market as well as broader society. Lahelma (1992) has been inspecting school curriculums and according to her pupils always represent a gender as well — despite of school’s agenda. And one can wonder, whether pursuiting creativity, spontaneity and responsibility means same things for girls and boys. Lahelma emphasizes how gender neutral curriculum always get ‘genderalized’ in a reality where teaching practices and educational content differentiate boys’ and girls’ lives according to a social hierarchy between the two genders. As it’s also been studied through several school textbook analyses that textbooks are connected first and foremost to masculine experience. It’s then a paradox to think that curriculums somewhat aim for equality and neutrality, yet real life school teaching scenarios could make pursuing them difficult. I’ll look school textbooks more into detail in later posts.
Comments and thoughts welcome.