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!
