Participation in Curriculum Development

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

DURING the past two decades increasing prominence has been given to participation by teachers and laymen in curriculum development. The literature in this field has been, and continues to be, extensive. Much of the writing thru 1945 consisted of descriptions of local practices in teacher and lay participation, or statements of theory which justified widespread participation from the standpoint of a democratic philosophy. In the past decade more attention has been given in the literature to the specific outcomes of participation. However, the increase in the body of theory is substantial. Benne (10) suggested that the values of cooperative planning in education reside in its being a method of democratic management and control in a context of changing functions and responsibilities; that cooperative planning is a basic aid to instruction with increased valid learning outcomes; and that it provides a new subjectmatter and skill sorely needed in our society. Benne and Muntyan (11) presented a discussion of curriculum change in the framework of human relations. Sharp (49) proposed that curriculum development programs in which teachers play the central role can become the best method for their re-education. Adams and Dickey (1); Bartky (8); Boardman, Douglass, and Bent (13); Briggs and Justman (14); and Spears (52, 53) were the authors of recent books on supervision which gave considerable attention to group methods and participation in curriculum development as a basic supervisory theory, supplemented by many technics for securing involvement. Van Til (56) stated that the idea of all people affected by curriculum change participating in the planning is a difficult concept to implement. The chief problems are the release of creative energy, clear communication, the use of the scientific method, and the participants' feelings of security. Trillingham (55) reported his findings from questionnaires sent to a number of California school systems. He found that successful practice from the field indicates that good morale is built upon many day-today relationships and procedures which combine to provide leadership, production, and understanding. Practices included the provision of good communication, participation in policy making, and the sharing of responsibility for implementation. The relationship of participation to administrative policies was pointed out by Cherry (15) and Rogers (46). They proposed guide lines for administrators in initiating, maintaining, and evaluating programs of educa-