Curriculum Is Central in Defining the Nation - Literature review Example

Curriculum is Central in Defining the Nation Student’s name Institution Introduction The curriculum employed by a nation is a fundamental aspect that offers a definition of its goals, objectives, and mission and how it intends to achieve those stated objectives and goals. It is important for a nation to define its objectives and aspirations in order for it to formulate a curriculum that is then aligned towards the achievement of those objectives. Bernstein asserted that the way in which society transmits, selects, evaluates, distributes and classifies knowledge is a reflection of the distribution of power and principles of social control (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, 93). This paper will seek to analyze the parameters of curriculum design and how they define the nation. Twommey summarized the benefits of a federated system of government into six aspects which can also be applicable to the benefits of a curriculum in defining the nation. The six fundamental aspects which help a curriculum define a nation include; politics, justice and diversity, customization of policies, competition, creativity and cooperation (Brennan, 2011, p.270-271). The paper selected six peer reviewed journal articles on aspects of economics, sociology, and politics and the Melbourne declaration which is the guide for the Australian syllabus in an examination of how the Australian curriculum defines the social, political, and economic objectives and aspirations of Australia through education. Literature Review Politics is usually concerned with the sustenance or development of economic and social systems which are deemed to be for the greater good of the society. The contemporary curriculum is however aimed at making the learner an independent thinker and not one that merely conform. This goes against generalized assertions such as rules help to maintain social order and prevent conflict. While asserting the negative aspects of conflict, Apple (2010, p.78) argues that insulating the school from political participation results in schools that are unresponsive to community needs. The evolving nature of globalization of economics and politics has called for more government involvement in education curriculum, though this is not on the whole positive. While Giddens in Cornell, (2006, p.248) asserts that power is not a necessarily noxious phenomenon and that domination is part and parcel of society, aspects of curriculum politicization such as funding being tied to policy implementation of the federal government do not bode well for the curriculum. The economics of the contemporary world have meant politics plays a greater role in the curriculum since politicians and government control important funding (Brennan, 2011, p.261). Justice and diversity are a part of the social fabric of the nation which every nation that is multiethnic, multiracial or multi-religious aims to attain. The curriculum offers the nation a means through which issues of choice and diversity may be addressed. Apple (2010) asserts that the curriculum plays a significant role in the education and training of learners in aspects of social inequality and how to respond to this. He goes on to assert that the curriculum is critical in the development of political socialization through incidental learning which result into less social conflict. The advent of the economic crisis has however resulted into a situation in which economic considerations and efficiency have come to override the social objectives of social cohesion, equity and choice (Brennan, 2011, p.268). There are three main features of justice and diversity which are deemed critical for any curriculum; the historical production of equality, participation and common schooling, and the interests of the least advantaged. Connell (1993, p.43-45) suggests that any curriculum depends on the interaction between the three elements if it is to come up with successful social outcomes. One of the reasons for the formulation of national or federal curriculums is usually the need for the customization policies geared towards the achievement of economic and social outcomes. There has been a marked increase of government participation and even the taking control of the process as opposed to the past when the process was mainly left to education technocrats (Brennan, 2011). Coleman in (Connell, 2006, p. 242-243) argues that the modern paradigm of curriculum formulation is part of a long term historical development in which the primordial, natural environments are replaced by a purposively constructed one. Yates (2009, p. 30) asserts that curriculum is a selection of the knowledge and purposes of its culture. The shifts in the physical and social environments have led to the emergence of new corporate actors and the deconstruction of old systems. As such the curriculum now defines the nation in response to these new realities which call for federal actors as opposed to state or vocational, federal examination such as NAPLAN as opposed to state exams. All of these are aimed at dealing with the changing socioeconomics of the contemporary world. Competition in the contemporary world has had a profound impact on how the curriculum is structure in order to make the nation more competitive. Brennan (2011, p.274) has argued that while curriculum is aimed at achieving competition on economic grounds, the globalization of curriculum in which aspects of curriculum are borrowed and implemented wholesale for instance in the commonwealth results in the effects of such action canceling each other out. Hartley and Ranson in (Rizvi, 2010, p.100) agree with Brennan’s assertions. They asserted that Britain which used to be the secret garden of attuning the curriculum to national economic competitive interests. The formulation of the curriculum in Australia as in any other developed nation is driven by the need to produce persons with innovative and entrepreneurial dispositions that can compete effectively in a globalized environment. Yates 2009, p.30-31) asserts that curriculum the wide over have had to shift radically in order to address competitive realities since the 1960s and 70s. He also asserts that the rise of economic powerhouses such as Singapore and Malaysia whose rise is founded on education has resulted into the curriculum being deemed an important and critical driver of a nation’s objectives and aspirations. Creativity and innovation are currently one of the most fundamental aspects that are sought after by the developing nations. One of the educational goals as set out in the Melbourne Declaration is the bringing up of persons that are confident and creative particularly in the aspects of enterprise and innovation (Brennan, 2011, p.263). With greater focus on innovation and creativity, there has developed a conflict between the sciences and the social sciences. Apple (2004, p.93) advocates for a pragmatic approach in dealing with changes in curriculum geared at enhancement of economic outcomes which conflict with social outcomes. Rizvi (2010, p.100) citing the instance of Singapore argues that curriculums which have been forced on only fostering economic aspirations of the state have proven to be deficient since they lead to an erosion of the social aspects which are just as important. He thus argues that pedagogies to be employed as formulated in the curriculum play a fundamental role in the determination of the achievement of the socio-economic and political goals of the state. Cooperation is linked to the aspect of social cohesion and hegemony which are propagated by the education curriculum. Apple (2004, p. 77) argues that an understanding of the relationship between the curriculum and cultural and economic production, it is important to have a good comprehension of aspects of ideology as related to hegemony. He goes on to assert that the old bourgeoisie interest in exploring and enhancing social and intellectual capacities while unsuccessful in the past has now become part of the modern consciousness of the contemporary curriculum. Connell (1993) in his discussion of curricular justice also emphasizes on the importance of cooperation in driving national agendas. He cites the aspects of involvement of the socioeconomically disadvantaged, emphasis on citizenship and equality as important aspects of hegemony which determine the attainment of the social objectives of the nation state. It is asserted that it is only through cooperation involving practitioners, the disadvantaged that systematic access can be enhanced for better social cohesion (Connell, 1993, p.52-53). Conclusion This literature review sought to establish the centrality of curriculum in defining the nation. Through an analysis of curriculum design and its aspect the paper determined the importance of the curriculum in the achievement of a state’s objectives. The paper established major areas of agreement among different scholars on the aspects of economic, social and political objectives of a curriculum. Changing socioeconomics including aspects of globalized competition and issues of disadvantaged groups have been established to be common and fundamental in curriculum formulation. The author s are however divided on how much the government ought to be involved and on aspects of whether the school curriculum ought to be driven by economic concerns. The balance between the social and economic aspects of the curriculum is also a subject of debate with the authors in disagreement. The authors however are in agreement on the importance of the curriculum in driving national objectives, mission and aspirations. As such the curriculum is deemed as the epitome document that defines the nation state. References Apple, M. (2004) The Hidden Curriculum and the Nature of Conflict. In Ideology and Curriculum (3rd ed) pp. 77-97.  New York: Routledge. Brennan, M. (2011) National curriculum: A political-educational tangle. Australian Journal of Education, 55 (3), 259 – 280. Connell, R. (2006). Northern theory: The political geography of general social theory. Theory and Society 35, no. 2: 237–64 Connell, R. W. (1993). Curricular Justice. In Connell, R. W. Schools and Social Justice pp, 43-56. Sydney: Pluto Press. Rizvi, F. &Lingard, B. (2010). Curriculum, Pedagogy and evaluation. In Globalizing Education Policy pp. 93 – 115. New York: Routledge. Yates, Lyn (2009) From curriculum to pedagogy and back again: knowledge, the person and the changing world. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17 (1), 17 – 28. Read More