Abstract
Recent reviews of the curriculum development programmes initiated both in Britain and the United States suggest that they have largely failed to achieve their objectives. This failure has been seen by many to be the responsibility of the centre periphery (CP) model on which most of these programmes were based. In this paper it is argued that the criticisms made of the model fail to distinguish between two distinct stages of curriculum development—materials production and materials distribution. It is suggested that it is the latter which has failed, because the CP model, in Britain at least, has not been implemented effectively. Analysis of this weakness indicates that the problem lies mainly in the existing support agencies which tend to function in isolation, insulated one from another. It is argued that a more articulated pattern of curriculum development would be possible in both Britain and Australia if there were greater institutional overlap between these agencies and if curriculum development were rationalised on a national basis. Suggestions are made as to how this might be effected against a background of innovatory experience both in Britain and Australia.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
