Some would argue that teachers are probably the most adaptable profession that exists. We twist and turn to meet expectations of students, parents, leadership and changing political views on how a good school is supposed to look like.
A national curriculum change is one of the aspects teachers have to adjust and adapt to. New school research pop up all the time and politicians responsible for curricula tend to go with the latest wind.
I keep wondering if sometimes the changes are done for the purpose of changing rather than for the purpose of making the school better. The words are different but is the contents really that much different?
When words are concerned I share the same frustration as is presented in the article Læreplansjangeren ødelegger læreplanene , published in Aftenposten January 3, 2013. Parts of the curricula often contains so many words that the purpose and aims are difficult to grasp, even for teachers who’s work have to build on what’s written in these curricula. With the growing demand on parents to participate in and follow up schoolwork regarding purpose and aims, shouldn’t the curricula be written in a language that everyone could understand? Who are the curricula written for?
Curriculum changes that clearly and precisely describes what students should learn, in a language that can actually be understood, by others than the bureaucrats writing it, is most welcome!