Deliver
"Learning Outcome
To compare and contrast curriculum strategies of other nations.
This book edition began with the observation that the field of curriculum development is a vital
educational function in every nation. Leaders in all countries share the task of preparing future citizens
with the knowledge and skills needed for survival and growth. All cultures, even the most primitive ones,
have something akin to a school, a mechanism for preparing the young for the future. Through rituals,
rites of passage, stories, and the passing down of vital information, the culture is preserved and
enhanced.
After just fifteen years of the 21st century, it is obvious that the arrival of new communication
technologies and the resulting new global economy challenge many of the basic assumptions of the
modern world. Each nation, in its own manner, seeks to adjust to global interdependence and a brand
new set of premises about how things work. Nowhere is this need greater than in education because
education is the process for renewal in all societies. To confront the pressing problems of the world
economy, security, resource allocation, and national development, education stands at the center of
decision making in all nations. As Singapore has stated so eloquently in its Education Vision Statement,
“Thinking School; Thinking Nation.”
In educational systems throughout the world, the curriculum development function is the critical piece
of an emerging puzzle. How can nations design and develop educational programs that promote their
preferred values and aspirations? How can leaders of any nation clarify these values; understand
capacity, limitations, and governance issues; and still restructure schooling for the desired effect? The
paradigms presently held in curriculum are the scaffolding for communication, research, and practice.
And, as Bruce Joyce observed, “educational procedures are generated from general views about human
nature.”
It is interesting to note that the process of education is not defined the same way in all countries.
Education in China (Jiao Yu) means to give birth. In Japan, Education (Kyolka) is nurturing. In the United
States, Education (the curriculum) is defined as “the race.” In cultures where religious influence is
strongest, Education is defined as “awakening (Buddhism), “sacred knowledge” (Hinduism) or “the path”
(Taoism). In the vast majority of Muslim nations, Education is equated with acquiring religious
knowledge.
In the second decade of the 21st century, curriculum leaders in western nations have been clinging
tenuously to an older set of concepts that are rapidly losing value. At the core of these notions is the
idea that education is about knowledge acquisition. In today’s world, this premise no longer holds up.
Communication technologies are presenting the world with many new options to retrieve, process,
assess, store, and apply knowledge. Digitized information bits fly around the Earth, accessible to all,
even nonreaders. Education can no longer be just about acquiring such knowledge because a knowing
person is no longer distinguished. Governments are trying to distinguish the difference between
learning and being learned, and it is in the interest of all nations to do so quickly. Specifically, the
primary problem for all nations is to connect the education process with globalization and the new
world order. The new communication technologies that are so admired are a means to an education,
not the end.
Nations at Work
In his important study of British education, Fifteen Thousand Hours (1979), John Rutter concluded that
special features and functions of a school can have a direct impact on student achievement. Your author
believes his insightful longitudinal study also establishes a more general working premise about
curriculum work:
The manner in which education is organized will determine the kind of learning that can take place.
Take Rutter’s finding to the next level and beyond, and it is probable that how nations organize and
deliver education for their citizens will largely determine that nation’s future. In the second decade of
the 21st century, citizens have only just begun to recognize the importance of education, and especially
the curriculum design function, in national development. Schools “program” students for some
anticipated future. If a national education program is accurate in its perceptions of the future, it will
arrive at that future with functional citizens and a positive national destiny. If that nation has misjudged
or misunderstood the trends leading to that future, and has programmed its future citizens for
obsolescence or behavioral dysfunction, that nation will fail to develop properly and may even perish.
Decisions about education being made in the United States and throughout the world are of vital
importance in this new age. As one African adage states, “as the crab walks, so walks its children.”
In the United States, as in other nations, political leaders, business interests, and educators are working
to identify and bring about a preferred future. The Common Core movement, currently being pursued in
the United States, represents a somewhat dramatic departure from over a century of professional
knowledge about teaching and learning. As one of a very few nations with a de-centralized education
system (states’ rights), leaders are attempting to “cobble together” a set of guiding standards that will
make citizens more competitive in the 21st century. The curriculum being projected is a highly
structured affair and will use computer-delivered tests to monitor student progress. That progress will
be defined by pre-determined learning standards and nothing else will matter. There will be very little
room for error in this transition as the vast majority of state educational systems break down their
education standards to implement the new national design for learning in math and English/language
arts.
Without question, the stakes are very high for the United States. Getting a new system in place that will
prepare young persons for the future will determine the standard of living and even national security.
For this reason, leaders of the Common Core movement must keep the goal of “international
competitiveness” in view. It has been said that innovations in schools have a “half-life” of two years. It
will take that long to get the pieces in place!
Under the influence of the many new technologies and an ever-interdependent global economy, basic
truths and old paradigms are breaking down throughout the world, and the lines between nation-states
are blurring. Every country is struggling to answer four traditional curriculum questions:
What is our curriculum?
Who controls our curriculum?
How will our curriculum be delivered?
What will be the outcome of our curriculum?
These four questions form a relevant structure for understanding all education in the 21st century.
Using these traditional questions, students of the education process can group, compare, contrast, and
assess the work of nations, states, districts, and even individual schools. Whether a curriculum is
exclusive or mandatory, for example, will explain the kind of human resources (human capital) available
to a country 15 years into the future. Whether the curriculum is state-controlled, controlled by religion,
commercial/proprietary, or self-directed will make a huge difference in the product or outcome.
Whether delivery is found in a school setting, on a jobsite, systematically delivered by computer, or self-
accessed by the learner is of importance. Whether the vision of education is general or highly specific
reveals a great deal about the curriculum experience. All curriculum work begins with a vision. The
vision shapes the process and determines the outcome.
In the section that follows, a number of nations will be described in terms of their needs, focus,
organization, and projects in education. Like the United States, they are working to re-design their
education system. Your author has been privileged to have worked as a curriculum planning consultant
in most of these countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America. In witnessing the work of these
nations in defining their educational systems, it is noteworthy that the curriculum tasks are similar in
each nation. The outcome of such work in each nation, however, is very different depending on their
respective visions and the instruments used to make things happen.
Global Perspectives
As you, the reader, might imagine, the vision and programs of education around the world are quite
disparate. One can easily extrapolate from these assessments and see the same phenomenon when
comparing advantaged districts and the poorer school districts in their own country. The range of such
curriculum planning activity and concern, worldwide, is from very basic to futuristic. Some nations, like
Singapore, can articulate their visions clearly, while so many others nations cannot. It is true, as the
African educator Mantengu Katululu observed, that “an old field is easier to cultivate.” The majority of
nations do what they have always done.
The majority of the world’s 195 nations are underdeveloped and dreadfully poor. Like Cambodia,
discussed in Chapter 1, they lack strong, educational organization structures, or they suffer recurring
wars (equatorial Africa) or cyclical national disasters (Bangladesh). Most underdeveloped nations lack a
substantial education infrastructure of any kind, and advanced planning by leadership for a preferred
future is nonexistent. Progress has been scanty in many of these countries since they received their
freedom in the 1960s from colonialism.
The wealthiest nations on Earth, by contrast, are engaged in a process to adjust to new world forces and
keep or improve what they have. Since the early 1980s, the world economy has been directly affected
by new technologies, communication, and work patterns. Those nations that correctly navigate their
way to a preferred future will survive and flourish.
The efforts of poor counties such as Sudan, El Salvador, or Afghanistan are constantly overturned by
unanticipated events (systems breaks). Governments change regularly, civil wars erupt, forces of nature
intervene, and budgets are always thin or dependent on outside sources. Teachers in such nations are
often the last student to reach the tenth grade. Classes can be huge. And, if there is a vision of education
and its role in the future of that nation, it is borrowed from the successful 19th century French or
English models.
Pakistan
In the case of some underdeveloped nations, social values creep into the planning process and influence
the distribution of scanty resources. Pakistan is one such nation where visioning is not active. Your
author’s Pakistani colleague, Dr. Zakia Sarwar, writes this about her nation, “the lessons of a growing
knowledge base, the developments in technology, and the increasingly globalized perspective have not
yet been appreciated.” Dr. Sarwar describes Pakistan as an educational system of rote learning and
students regurgitating from worn textbooks, in classes that sometimes approach 150 students. In a
nation that “has not seen education as a critical need, much questionable content has crept into
classroom materials . . . to the extent that racial hatred is often nurtured by the curriculum.” “Our
system,” she writes, “has been captured by religious fervor. It is like a terminally ill patient.”
Pakistan is a 65-year-old nation with a traditional but largely dysfunctional education system. Religion
and poverty combine to retard growth of even a general literacy program in this 6th most populous
nation on Earth. An out-of-control birthrate promotes a population that increased by 27 million in the 4-
year period from 2007–2011. Wars, conflict, political unrest, and a high rate of illiteracy combine to
make long-range planning for the improvement of education unlikely in the near future. The nation is
unstable and so is its process for preparing the young for the future.
Like many other poor and fundamental Muslim nations, Pakistan has a vastly different definition of
education than any western nation. Article 31 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
mandates that the education system ensures “the preservation, practice, and promotion of Islamic
ideology in accordance with the Holy Qur’an and the teachings of the Holy Prophet.”
Pakistan’s last National Education Policy, 1998–2010, aimed at the attainment of universal primary
education and a literacy rate of 70% by 2010. Under the plan 45,000 new primary schools and 30,000
secondary schools were to be built. The plan projected raising the allocation for education from 2.2% to
4% of the GNP. Under this plan there was to be a major shift toward scientific and technical education
by encouraging communication technologies in all public sector institutions. Partnerships between the
public and private sectors were to be encouraged.
Unfortunately, the war in neighboring Afghanistan, a change of leadership in the national government,
and an unreliable source of financial support from western nations (the United States), contributed to
the downgrade of these planning aspirations. All of these events, these “breaks,” couldn’t have come at
a worse time for a nation where 60% of the citizens are under 18 years of age.
South Africa
South Africa began to reconstruct its educational system in 1994 following the end of Apartheid.
Apartheid, or the separation of persons by race, mandated separate and unequal school systems for
whites and non-whites. Throughout the 1980s, young persons in South Africa physically attacked the
schools as a symbol of the apartheid government, and by the 1990s there was a great shortage of
buildings and teachers in the reborn nation. Some young black students had never attended school until
the end of apartheid.
As apartheid laws were lifted in the 1990s, the South African government addressed the task of creating
a nonracial school system from the two previously separate and unequal systems. Religion, language,
and community values were all issues in South Africa, as was the whopping 23.5% of the national budget
needed for the reconstruction of the education system. Some 26,000 individual schools in the new
South Africa began the task of creating a reformed system and a new curriculum that would enroll 12
million students. Twenty years later, the task of rebuilding that education system is still being addressed.
In South Africa, the national Department of Education provides a framework for school policy, but
administrative responsibility lies with the provinces and with locally elected school boards. Education is
compulsory from age 7 to 15, and there are three levels of education including college. From the mid-
1990s to 2005, the passing rate for all students rose from 40% to over 68%. Still, with a national illiteracy
rate of about 24% in the general population, much is still to be done.
The largest challenge for educational planners in South Africa, as in so many other developing nations, is
in the poorer population areas of the country. South African schools in the KwaZulu-Natal region
account for 40% of all the educational facilities in the nation. Fee-free programs, a National Schools
Nutrition Programme, local school gardens, and HIV-Aids awareness programs are conducted in these
most underprivileged schools. For its part, the national Department of Education has emphasized the
use of new technologies in these formerly disadvantaged schools, and it is implementing FOCUS schools
(a kind of magnet program) to address work-related issues in the country.
As can be seen from these two examples, very different purposes are being promoted in many
underdeveloped countries. Your author believes that a study of such nations would reveal a kind of
hierarchy of purpose in these nations. Most basic in these poorer nations is an effort to pull together the
resources needed for learning. Unfortunately in most poor nations, education is not perceived as the
most essential social service, and help from outside sources is unreliable.
At a second level, if adequacy of material has been met, a literacy curriculum is established and
enhanced to the highest degree possible. Such systems are usually traditional in every sense of the
word, and they may provide the nation with the leaders and public officials capable of operating the
governmental apparatus. In such nations, however, the schools are not connected in a meaningful way
to the national prosperity or destiny but rather to a class of citizens.
At a third level, in underdeveloped nations, there is an effort to make education work for the nation. In
the following examples, Vietnam and Brazil begin to take control of education and make it work for their
people.
Vietnam
Many nations, like Vietnam and Brazil, are attempting to move beyond a marginal education system and
make schools an engine for national economic development. Vietnam represents a very interesting case
of development in education systems. Following four exhausting wars with France, the United States,
Cambodia, and China, the nation found itself financially depressed and in need of restructuring almost
all basic institutions. During the past two decades, Vietnam managed to establish a substantial
educational structure and is poised to explore the use of new technologies to effectively educate its
youth.
The Vietnam Educational Act of 2005 established the definition of education in this way:
To train the Vietnamese people who develop fully, and who can obtain moral conduct, knowledge,
health, aesthetic sense, and work, be faithful to the ideal of independence of the nation and socialism,
develop and foster personality, virtue, and competence of citizens meet the requirements to build and
defend the nation.
Traditionally, the Vietnamese operated a Chinese-Confucian system of educating that existed until
freedom was obtained from the French colonial government. At this time a broader “United States
model” was employed in the south part of the country and a communistic (Marxist-Leninist) model was
employed in the north. After war and reunification in 1975, the Communist system was applied
throughout the country. Literacy, under the new system, is now reported to be 94% for all persons over
15 years of age.
Geography challenges educators in Vietnam since secondary schools are not found in many of the
mountainous tribal regions. Unlike neighboring Cambodia, however, nearly 24% of Vietnamese (20
million) have Internet access, and educational and government leaders are exploring how this tool might
be used to make secondary education universal in the country. This possibility of applying 21st century
technology to a 19th century problem may result in the nation being able to “jump over the 20th
century” by eliminating the need to provide the very expensive infrastructure (school buildings, teacher
training institutions, books, and so forth.) This effort is moving forward at a slow pace.
Education in Vietnam is organized into five distinct levels: pre-primary, primary, intermediate,
secondary, and higher education. Children may enter level one as early as 18 months of age, and
primary education begins at age 6. Secondary education is only grades 10–12. In order to graduate from
secondary schools, an examination is held in each of six subjects: Vietnamese literature, foreign
languages, mathematics, and three other subjects chosen each year by an Educational Board.
Because of the Confucian heritage, education in Vietnam is very exam-oriented and teaching methods
very traditional. Because the Vietnamese schools have a practice of keeping students together
throughout their education, strong group bonds are formed among students but few personality
characteristics are developed or expanded. Many graduates are unable to find appropriate employment
or transfer credits to overseas universities as a result of poor accreditation at the university level. Only
around 5% of all college-age students in the nation attend higher education in Vietnam.
While now unified, the north and south ends of Vietnam seem on different courses for the near future.
In the south, commerce flourishes and technology has become a tool for education and outreach to the
world. In the north, by contrast, leaders from the past still impose a kind of paternal leadership on the
people and their educational programs. To the credit of these leaders in Hanoi, where the Minister of
Education and Training (MOET) is located, more than 7,000 schools have been built and a unified
curriculum has been established in the nation. Twenty-two million children now attend school at the
primary level, and literacy has risen to 94% among adults.
Curriculum leaders in Vietnam address issues such as establishing quality assurance, using technology in
schools, securing accreditation for higher education, introducing modern teaching methods in schools,
increasing the number of qualified teachers in the nation, and securing a reliable resource base for
education. Despite so many challenges, leaders now seem confident that education will lead this nation
into the global age with greater participation among Asian nations.
Brazil
Brazil represents another largely underdeveloped and inefficient educational system. In a society with
9% illiteracy (14.6 million), the focus of schooling has remained basic. School attendance is around 91%,
but like South Africa and Vietnam, remote populations are not being fully served. Approximately four
million potential students, mostly in the northern parts (Amazon basin) of the country, do not attend
school. Achievement in the schools is generally low with only 26% of ninth graders attaining the
expected level in language and only 14% attaining grade level expectations in mathematics. Brazil is a
vey large nation, physically speaking, and sponsors some 200,000 individual schools.
The government of Brazil is concerned with the effectiveness of the schools because the nation has the
world’s 6th largest economy but a less-than-adequate workforce. The nation spends about 5% of its GNP
on education, about the same as the United States and Great Britain. It is the belief of the Ministry of
Education that technology can help the nation overcome its education deficiencies and physical
remoteness. Recently, broadband Internet was placed in 52,000 schools, and the government
distributed some 600,000 computer tablets produced by Intel in Brazil. The model technology center in
the nation is located in Portal Brazil, a suburb of Rio de Janeiro.
Larger Developing Nations
Another stage of curriculum development work can be observed in the larger nations of Russia, India,
and China. In these three examples, the governments have begun to actively use their schools to foster
preferred national development. Each nation employs complex multi-year educational plans to attain
desired goals for their country.
Russia (Soviet Union)
During the Cold War years between 1960–1990, the Soviets used Five Year Plans to move from point-to-
point in their national development. These highly detailed plans produced scientists, engineers, artists,
athletes, and made the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) a world leader in space exploration,
medicine, and military ventures. In particular, Russia employed an unusual tool for promoting academic
development—the academic village—and the Novosibrisk center demonstrated the power of focusing
efforts.
In the 1950s, the Soviet Union sought to encourage development in the region of Siberia. Entire
collectives of scientists were moved from Moscow and Leningrad to Novosibrisk, and a new Town of
Science was located 20 kilometers to the south and named Akademgorodok. The new town soon
became the educational and scientific center of the region. Ultimately, 35 research institutes, 16
institutions of higher education, a state university, a medical academy, and a large science library were
constructed along with apartments, hospitals, and hotels. At its peak of influence, 65,000 scientists and
their families lived in “Academy Town.”
While the Soviets produced many mathematicians and scientists under their regular Five Year Plans, the
effort at Akademgorodok paid major dividends in promoting the national economy. Since the work
conducted was pure and fundamental, not simply for military purposes, the area soon was chosen as
sites for the USSR Academy of Agriculture and the USSR Academy of Medicine as well. Currently, the city
population stands at around 100,000 persons. As such, the Russian effort demonstrates the power of
focus in educational planning.
India
In addition to Russia, India and China are nations that are rapidly developing by using schools to
promote their preferred futures. India is a country of over one billion persons, a third of whom are
functionally illiterate. While government-supported tertiary education promotes an exaggerated image
of technical accomplishment to the world, the overall condition of the public Indian education system is
dim. Plagued by poverty, overcrowding, poor healthcare, and low income, government support of
schooling in India is low even among under-developed countries.
Government schools in India educate about three fourths of all students in primary schools, and some
Indian children are privately educated at the secondary level. Article 45 of the Constitution of India
guarantees all students a full 10 years of education but, in reality, few pupils achieve that goal since 48%
of all Primary students drop out of school and only 28% of public school students make it to the 11th
and 12th grades.
Literacy in India, defined as reading and writing in any language, is around 74%, although that rate is
much higher for males than females. Around 304 million Indians are illiterate, with the highest rate
found in rural areas and among females. A hard core of Dalit (oppressed underclass) never attend
school.
Government funding for education, aided by international programs like the World Bank and UNICEF,
has been directed toward the primary level and has shown success in opening 160,000 new schools
since 1994. Targeted in legislation to equal a 6% share of the GNP, the contribution to education has
been in steady decline since the year 2000 and is now below 4%. A full 30% of these government funds
are earmarked for higher education institutions. Even so, according to UNESCO, India has the lowest
public expenditure on higher education per student in the world.
Education is delivered at three levels: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Around one tenth of the
students in India have a higher education experience of some type. Despite this systemic attrition, India
has the third largest higher education system in the world after the United States and China.
The issues for Primary and Secondary schools are predictable and numerous. Overall, facilities in the
nation are substandard with many lacking even roofs and drinking water. Accreditation of schools is
focused on facilities rather than academic achievement. Teachers, for the most part, are untrained and
recent surveys have documented enormous absenteeism among teachers and a general “shirking” of
traditional responsibilities in the classroom. Materials are in short supply and record keeping of all kinds
is, at best, irregular.
The private school sector is only slightly improved and much of that advantaged condition can be
attributed to urban locations where facilities and teachers are more plentiful. Private education has
mushroomed wherever the government control is lacking. The curriculum, in the public and private
schools, is dominated by rote learning and newer technology is severely limited in most schools.
Higher education in India is overseen by the University Grants Commission, a body that enforces
standards and accredits institutions. Some 20 central universities, 215 state universities, 16,000 colleges,
and 100 “deemed” colleges make up the higher education system of 10.5 million students. Three
universities, the Indian Institutes of Technology, have been recognized as being among the top 200
universities in the world by the Times Higher Education List.
There is some good news in India as far as curriculum planning is concerned. As a Soviet satellite in the
1950s, India began to use Five Year Plans to push their economy forward. In 1951, Prime Minister
Jawaharial Nehru inaugurated the Indian Institute of Technology. The Minister envisioned “India’s City
of the Future,” a place where scientists could get away and produce ideas and programs that would lead
the nation’s development (much like the Soviet city of Akademgorodok). The city of Bangalore in the
state of Karnataka (today called Bangalulu) was selected as the location for this vision.
Among the achievements of this heavily funded center over the past 60 years have been a science
center, an Indian space program, and a nuclear weapons program. Bangalore is best known to the rest
of the world as a center for technology housing 15 major education and research centers including the
Indian Institutes of Technology. Five of these institutes, located throughout the nation, have been rated
in the top 10 science and technology universities in Asia. In 2011, India passed legislation to add five
more Institutes throughout the country. Americans know of Bangalore, of course, because of its
influence on computer services.
Three steps are credited for India’s economic “miracle.” First, the Indian Ministry of Information and
Technology formed an umbrella group of agencies to deal with IT comprised of university, business, and
government personnel. Second, a software technology park was developed where business,
government, and academia could meet and work together. Finally, the government reached out to the
global Indian diaspora to keep contact with those working on IT projects abroad. Communication with
this group has been excellent.
If the public and private schools of India contributed to this “bunching of resources approach,” it would
be found in 1) 30% of the educational budget going to higher education, 2) a disproportional number of
college students from traditional high status groups (Brahmans) in India, and 3) the consolidation of
private education, universities, and the new IT industry in just the four-state area along the coast. In a
word, a new state-within-a-state was created by both circumstance and planning. A final factor, perhaps
most important, was the creation of premier educational facilities (Indian Institutes of Technology)
focused on STEM (science, technology, engineering, medicine) themes. Credit can be given to active
participation of professional societies in engineering and other areas for these valuable institutions.
In 2005, the Prime Minister of India (Manmohan Singh) constituted a new National Knowledge
Commission to serve as a “think-tank” for national development. Specifically, the NKC is charged with
advising the Prime Minister on policy issues and reforms needed to make India even more competitive
in the knowledge industry. In the education sector, reform ideas were solicited in areas of research and
intellectual property legislation. The idea of institutionalizing a sort of “sensor” for national
development promises to pay dividends as India competes in the new global economy.
China
While China has become a 21st-century economic power, it is still nevertheless a developing nation,
using education in a systematic fashion to design and promote its visions of the future. As the world’s
largest Communist nation, China has made dramatic changes in its national institutions since the
repudiation of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). By tying the advancement of education to the goal
of economic modernization, China has demonstrated competence in social engineering using curriculum
planning. The Chinese government has understood, from its earliest days, the power of education.
As a nation, China houses one fifth of the world’s population in a country 17 times larger than France.
Since 1950, literacy among the young and middle aged population has risen from 20% to nearly 95%.
The country now offers nine years of compulsory education to all youth, with elementary and junior
high school enrollment at nearly 95% of those eligible.
China’s education system is dedicated to five purposes:
Developing good moral character
Developing love of the motherland
Literacy and intellectual development
Healthy bodies
Interest in aesthetics
China began the modernization of its educational system following the death of leader Mao Zedong. In
1978, leader Deng Xioping outlined the four modernizations that included agriculture, industry,
technology, and defense. These four areas were projected to make China a great economic power by
the early 21st century. This planning commitment would require great advances in science and
technology that, in turn, required a revamped education system. Because higher education in China had
been “shut down” during the Cultural Revolution, education at most levels had to be re-designed.
Creating a system to serve 69 million students, representing 56 ethnic groups, with most living in rural
areas was a challenge; a vast and varied school system was called for. Over 800,000 primary schools
have been established or reestablished in the nation since 1978.
Over a period of two decades, the curriculum in the People’s Republic of China was made universal,
attendance for nine years of schooling compulsory, and an examination system to insure quality was
installed. Vocational and technical schools were also established as part of the “two-legs” policy.
Governance of education in China rests with the national authorities, but management of local
programs has always been a role for the local Communist Party in each community. In terms of
curriculum work, these local members oversee expenditures, hire teachers, establish rules, develop
curricula plans, and organize activities in the community. Moral training may also be conducted under
the supervision of Party members.
Children may begin pre-primary school in China at age 3½ years. They enter primary school at age 7 and
attend 5 days a week, 9.5 months per year. The Primary curriculum includes Chinese, mathematics,
physical education, music, art, and instruction in nature, morals, and society. Students are expected to
do work around the school grounds. Teamwork, love of the country, selflessness, love of the Party, and
respect are stressed. A foreign language, usually English, is introduced in the third grade.
Chinese and mathematics, the “Big 2,” account for 60% of class learning time. Morality and ethics are
subjects mandated by the Minister of Education.
If China has had a secret approach to such a rapid development of its high quality education programs, it
would be found in the exams, key schools, and study abroad policies. Exams are used to sift the vast
population and establish quality controls in desired areas such as math and technology. The
reestablishment of “key schools” means that some schools receive superior resources and may recruit
superior students. Finally, because the school population is so large, China has effectively used overseas
institutions of higher education to train many of their leaders. Nearly 20,000 students, for example,
study in the United States each year for advanced and specialized academic training. When finished,
they return home to China.
In 2010, China unveiled a new 10-year plan to promote what is being called a “learning society.” The
plan promises universal pre-school education and a modern system that will make China rich in terms of
human resources. The plan also promises to rid the nation of illiteracy among the young and middle age
groups by 2020.
Implementation of the educational reform plan will follow the already-established Five Year Plans (FYP),
and will be under the direct supervision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China
(CPC). Already, the Central Committee has ordered local parties to engineer desired changes.
Developed Nations
In the developed industrial world, a number of nations have moved beyond simply tying education to
national destiny and are, in addition, attempting to fully adjust to the forces of the 21st century. The
question for these nations is “where do we go from here?” Singapore, France, Japan, Scotland, and the
United States are sample nations at this level of development.
Singapore
Singapore, an island nation located just south of Malaysia, is best known in education for its world-class
test scores. Granted independence in 1965, Singapore has become the leader in mathematics
achievement following implementation of a four-step plan for development.
In the beginning, like other developing nations, this small nation struggled to survive and to create a
unitary education system. Once established, the nation’s education system improved efficiency,
implemented tracks so that technically trained persons would provide for further national development,
and established close ties to industry.
Using these connections and planning avenues, Singapore focused on communication technologies and
the upgrading of teaching capacity. Finally, in recent years, Singapore has made education a
collaborative effort between business and education.
Singapore schools are conducted in English—thought to be the world language for commerce. Control of
schools is under the direction of the Ministry of Education which allocates funding from a national
budget that dedicates approximately 20% to education.
France
The French trace the roots of their education system to the time of Charlemagne (742–814 a.d.), and the
modern form of lécole republicane (Republican School) to the 1880s when mandatory attendance to age
15 was enacted by the Minister of Public Education. The French education system today serves 15
million students and the nation boasts a literacy of 99 % throughout the country. The dropout rate in
France is less than 20% of those who attend secondary education. Higher education is free.
The three-tier French system (primary, secondary, tertiary) is a national system, free to all, and all
teachers are civil servants of the nation. Thirty-five “academies” (like states) administered the education
programs. All schools follow a common calendar, and secondary school (lycée) is dominated by passing
exams to earn the “baccalaureat.” The exam, covering mastery of eight or nine areas, is required for
graduation and is used also for college entrance.
In a word, France has a highly traditional system of education, based on knowing and examinations,
which is both stable and copied by developing countries throughout the world. French education
produces quality scholars and has high educational attainment. But in France, there is unease because
this system that has served the nation so well for centuries is failing to prepare the nation for a
technological future and a global economy. Unemployment and underemployment are problems, and
the large number of recent immigrants to France also seem outside of the process, in terms of
successful school performance. Many citizens of the nation wonder if their schools are still doing a good
job.
Japan
Education was an essential tool for Japan following World War II. Superimposing an American model of
educating on the traditional Japanese society produced a highly efficient hybrid educational system for
nearly 40 years. Today, Japan educates more than 90% of the school age population through high school
and enrolls about 2.5 million students in colleges and universities. International tests scores in Japan are
among the highest in the world.
Traditional Japanese education employed Buddhist and Confucian teachings adopted from China in the
6th century. Scholars were developed through a rigorous examination system (merit), but the system
was sometimes “compromised” by various power groups. During the late 19th century, foreign scholars
were imported to add academic emphasis at the university level and in military academies. Soon after,
such scholars were sent away, and the Japanese system became closed. Following the defeat of Japan in
World War II, reforms were made in education to “democratize” the system.
Japan maintains a three-tier system of elementary, middle, and high school. Schools run year-round on a
trimester system with a minimum of 210 days. Oddly, despite extensive examinations, students are not
grouped by ability, and the curriculum is balanced (broad) rather than narrow.
Japan has always sought to instill respect for the society and an orderly life. Schools stress diligence,
organized study habits, and self-criticism. Correct attitudes and moral development (character
development) are standard in all schools. Critical thinking is not a concept that is highly valued in Japan.
The curriculum, until recently, has been textbook-dominated and test directed. Students start serious
study in pre-school, attend “cram schools” on their own, and compete under highly competitive
conditions for success. Such competitive conditions have led to problems such as bullying (Ijime),
general violence in schools, and the need for increased disciplinary activity. Many reports of declining
respect for teachers in Japan are found in the literature of Japanese education.
As a developed nation with a powerful economy, Japan seeks to transition from a model of education
such as that found in the 1980s that “fed” talent to corporations to a newer model of education that
taps into the skills and talents of all people. A very flat economy in the 1990s, however, left many
citizens believing that the education was failing the nation. Economic conditions in the early 21st
century have placed further pressure on educational leaders in that nation. How to tie the schools to the
new global economy and to absorb the relentless pressures of the many new communication
technologies are immediate concerns for Japanese educators. Relevance of the curriculum and the
governance role of the Ministry of Education are also constant educational issues.
Scotland
Scotland has a long history of providing universal public education to its citizens. The Scottish Education
Act of 1696 established the first national system of education in the world. Education became
compulsory for all children between ages 5 and 13 in 1872. Literacy among men and women in Scotland
is 99%. Today, children in Scotland may attend nursery school at age 3, start primary school between
ages 4 and 5, remain in primary school for seven years, and then spend 4–6 years in secondary school.
The curriculum of the secondary school is rigorous but distinctively broad compared to other developed
nations. Religious education, for example, is mandatory for all public school students. Practical subjects
such as computer usage, technical studies, and drama are woven into the total offering. The purpose of
the curriculum for students between ages 3–18 is “to enable all children and young people to become
successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens, and effective contributors to society and
at work.” Schools in Scotland are owned and operated by local authorities.
Upon completion of secondary school, students in Scotland take examinations to qualify for higher
education. Higher education in Scotland has been established for centuries, and it is characterized as
being more broad than English, Welsh, and Irish systems. Early entry into college is possible for
“advanced highers.”
Scotland, like other developed nations, is struggling to adjust to a post-industrial world economy, and
has suffered high unemployment for years. In 2002, the Scottish Executive (national offices) opened a
“national debate on education” to further define the curriculum. Defining values, establishing principles
for curriculum design, and defining curriculum levels more closely have structured this on-going national
discussion. Each year a national “Learning Festival” is held in Glasgow, attended by every teacher and
educational leader, to stimulate new thinking about schooling.
Much of the discussion about education in Scotland has been concerned with how education matches
up with the national economy and the new global economy. One primary initiative resulting from these
talks has been a decision to develop a closer relationship with the People’s Republic of China. A new
language emphasis in school and an increased exchange program is laying a foundation between the
nations. In the mind of Scottish officials, some European nations will become “favored” trade partners
with the emerging economy of China, and Scotland would like to be in such a role in the future.
The United States
The United States of America possesses an educational system envied by much of the world. Without
question, it has been the dominant education system during the whole of the 20th century. Now,
however, Americans are struggling to confront unflattering test scores and a disconnect between school
and work. The country has not embraced technological delivery of the curriculum. Like other nations,
the United States is attempting to reform its system.
From this nation’s earliest days, Americans have been providing educational services as a right of
citizenship. Public education operates from the primary through graduate school with taxpayer support
and a budget approaching 1.5 trillion dollars. Each year, each student in the United States public school
system is funded at over 10,000 U.S. dollars. American educators operate with one of the world’s most
wealthy support systems.
During the 19th century, American educators built a significant infrastructure for free and universal
education through grade 12. Additionally, a massive public system of higher education was established
and developed, complementing a private university system. In the 20th century, most work in
curriculum was concerned with adapting a traditional content curriculum to a diverse student
population. Despite numerous challenges, American schools have adjusted to change and provided all
students with a high quality educational experience.
American education is quite unique in the world in its general design of decentralized control.
Education, according to the American Constitution, is a residual right reserved for the individual states.
There is no “national” curriculum, and most operational resources are provided from state and local
sources. While similar, each state has the right to define education as they wish as long as the
curriculum does not violate the rights of all citizens as defined by the U.S Constitution (primarily the First
and Fourteenth Amendments).
America’s planning for education has always been futuristic and, beginning in the 1960s, the literature
on education in the United States began to project dramatic social changes to come by the 21st century.
In the subsequent 50-year period, the United States has changed immensely because of wars, the onset
of new technologies, immigration patterns, and the new global economy. By 1980, many serious calls for
the reform of schools in the United States began (see Chapter 8).
Over a 15-year-period from 1980–1995, numerous public and private commissions met and wrote
reports calling for a more direct and responsive education system. Schools were generally perceived as
obsolete, expensive, inefficient, divisive, irrelevant, racist, and a host of other unpleasant things. The
early call by the business community in America for reform encouraged state legislatures to develop
new curricula, standards of achievement, and tests measuring outcomes. These changes were instituted,
and school learning became more highly focused.
Unfortunately, the issues of excellence and equity are not so easily compatible. An odd pattern emerged
placing academic rigor side-by-side with compensatory programs. Budgets were oddly skewed by special
pleading from various pressure groups and legal mandates from the courts. Legislators hopped in and
out with demands for political-ticket items like charter schools and teaching religious beliefs in the
classroom.
Just at a time when true reform seemed within the reach of American educators, the Internet became a
public instrument (May 1995) and began to challenge most basic assumptions about how education is
conducted. As the world economy became global, defining the curriculum in schools became much
more difficult. The cost of implementing a transition to new technologies in schools was difficult, even
for the largest economy on Earth. Local schools, under state supervision, simply did not have the
“vision” to absorb the many changes confronting them. As early as 2005, technology use in the United
States schools began to decline, and the thrust to connect American students to the outside world
diminished.
As in all of the other developed nations on Earth, the decisions that the United States is making about
education today will define its immediate economic future. We are living tomorrow’s past. While
America has achieved the world’s highest computer penetration in schools, there has been a total
institutional failure to see the Internet as an innovative curriculum delivery device. An instrument that
can individualize learning for each and every student continues to be utilized, in most schools, like a
substitute teacher. Any effort to activate learning, and apply it to work in the new global economy, will
necessitate a complete redesign of the curriculum and its delivery system in the United States. Ironically,
80% of all educational expenses in American school systems fund facilities and teachers salaries. New
technologies in schools could free up significant national resources for other pressing needs.
In addition to becoming “modern,” schools in the United States must continue to be responsive to one
of the world’s most diverse cultures. Each subgroup in the United States has its own set of aspirations
for schools, and curriculum leaders must find ways to re-define the schooling experience to satisfy all
clients. Failure to do so will certainly lead to additional lawful challenges to tax support for schools, and
an increase in the trend to fund private education, homeschooling, charter schools, and proprietary
education outlets. The schools operate in an “open system,” and decisions must be both thoughtful and
backed by logic.
The current effort to implement a Common Core of standards is America’s response to national planning
found in the schools of other countries. Positive results of centralized planning in places like Singapore
and India are observable. Whether this Common Core effort in the United States can maintain
momentum is in question as of this writing, due to the high costs associated with securing appropriate
technologies. Only 43 states are on board, as of this writing. It is likely others will disconnect before
2015.
There can be no doubt that the Common Core initiative is extremely important to the United States, its
economy, and to the quality of life for its citizens. It is unfortunate that so much of the decision making
that has led up to this initiative has been based on commerce rather than education.
Finally, your author believes it may be necessary to amend the United States Constitution in order to
redefine the role of the national government in reforming education. While there is some safety in a
broken-front approach to change in education, whether it is led by state government or selected
businesses, the stakes are entirely too high to leave educational design to chance. The very destiny of
the nation rests on a solution for tying the educational process—the curriculum—to the world of work.
Without greater control, the federal government can only observe and support schools with earmarked
monies.
In Review
In reviewing how underdeveloped, developing, and developed nation are using education to create their
preferred future, it appears that there may be at least three distinct stages of design and decision
making. In underdeveloped nations, most effort goes into creating a basic structure for promoting
literacy in the population. In this majority of all nations, planners are simply trying to find resources to
build schools, train teachers, and secure learning resources. Such efforts are often disrupted by famine,
war, or general instability in the governance structure of the nation-at-large. Without intervention, such
nations will first establish an elite path in education and then struggle to do what can be done for the
general population. Literacy is the first general goal, whether it is designed to foster religion, civic
behavior, or political ends.
The developing nations, such as South Africa, India, Vietnam, and China, often have to restructure
education following turmoil. It is noteworthy that all of these countries are young in comparison to the
most developed nations. In the case of these four examples, there are major success stories as the “lift
and take-off” (Rostow, 1960; Boulding, 1966) occurs. Buildings are built, teachers are trained, literacy
rises, and the general structure of an educational “system” emerges as resources are applied. In the case
of China (Key Schools), South Africa (Focus Schools), and India (technology sectors), there is obvious
excellence in spots as the “bathtub is slowly filling up.” These nations are bunching resources for specific
goal attainment, and they are moving forward.
Developing nations are often handicapped in structuring their systems by variables such as especially
poor regions (South Africa), traditions of class and caste (India), sheer scale (China and India), religious
or political beliefs (Vietnam), or governance issues (Pakistan). The great advantage for these nations
who are still in the process of developing their educational programs is their flexibility; they can adapt as
they go forward. They are not so invested in comparison to developed nations. Efforts can be “bunched”
for greater effect in dealing with special populations or needs. In these nations, there is time and
opportunity to think “outside of the box” (Vietnam and Brazil technological delivery).
The developed nations of the world, small in numbers and large in influence, face a totally different
problem in re-programming education for a preferred future. These nations invested heavily in
infrastructure and processes that cannot be easily reversed. Education in the United States, for instance,
is an institution about 15 times larger than the military. Things that are being done today have often
been done in the same manner for generations. The logistics of any large-scale change are burdensome.
In addition, social commitments to human rights and Constitutional guarantees tie the hands of policy
makers, particularly in democracies. The systems are fixed, committed, and inflexible.
Ironically, a special kind of problem for developed nations today is that their education systems have
served them so well in the past. Japan, for instance, has recorded some of the highest student
achievement in the world with its “hybrid” system of organization and procedure. The decline in
whatever efficiency exists in the Japanese system is, ultimately, a result of its success. Being able to
connect learners with the new world economy, instill traditional values, and solve governance issues will
require more than tinkering for all such developed nations.
France presents a stunning case-study of a nation at the pinnacle of knowledge-based education at a
time when knowledge is too abundant. Like many of the world’s developed systems, France is running a
system developed in another age, for a different future. The superior academics that the schools
produce find that employment is elusive beyond the world of school. The graduates will have to unlearn,
in the words of Carl Rogers, in order to participate in a rapidly changing and technological environment.
The United States has many of these same problems. While operating the most expensive system of
education in the world, American schools suffer lower-than-expected achievement and are grossly
inefficient. Efforts to foster academic excellence are in competition with equality issues in the public
schools. Currently, there really is no substantive connection in the United States between the schooling
process and working in the new global economy. There is no answer, at present, for the issue dealing
with the new and large immigrant populations. And, there is very little understanding of how the sea of
new technology in the United States can be used to curb costs and tailor learning to special purposes. In
short, there is no national vision, the starting place for a nation’s development.
In smaller but nonetheless developed nations, like Scotland and the Cayman Islands, one can see the
opportunity to make significant adjustments in shorter periods of time and at less cost to the systems.
Scotland can call together every teacher and educational leader each year at a Learning Festival in
Glasgow (SETT) to discuss policy and priorities in that nation. The simple application of resources to a
priority program (linking to China) can be done without great effort. Similarly, the Cayman Islands can
use its size and wealth to an advantage by adopting technological delivery of its curriculum; there is no
longer a penalty for being geographically isolated in today’s new interactive education world.
The emerging hierarchy of curriculum tasks for educators throughout the world is tied directly to the
purposes of the educational systems they serve. In the beginning, precious resources must be collected
to build a foundation of buildings and teachers and materials. Such a beginning program strives to
promote literacy of its population. Further development of this literacy might be defined by political,
civic, or religious purposes.
Following achievement of a foundational literacy, however, the nation will tend to direct learning to the
traditional patterns of scholarship, following models provided by historic 19th century systems such as
that of France or England. The more pragmatic systems such as those found in the United States, Japan,
or the former Soviet Union can also guide development. These models present the developing nation
with a tested way of proceeding. Unfortunately, the paths offered from the most established countries
are costly and possibly obsolete.
Finally, both the developing and the developed nations face the task of defining their country’s values
and tailoring the basic programs to those ends. When a country’s citizens begin to understand that
education is the tool to create the preferred future, they begin to organize their education systems for
action (see Figure 10.1).
Their vision of the changes being experienced in the 21st century will determine their success in moving
toward a future.
Borrow resources and secure grants to meet change (underdeveloped nations).
Export graduate students and import foreign scholars.
Form multi-nation partnerships.
Provide for heavy expenditures (GNP share) on education.
Upgrade teaching capacity.
Incorporate extensive applications of technology in schools.
Create a standards commissions.
Create a national education “think tank.”
Emphasize examinations to discover/develop talent.
Create technical support systems for education.
Establish principles and specifications for curriculum design.
Involve professional societies in planning education.
Encourage business and education partnerships.
Form umbrella groups of participating agencies.
Focus on STEM subjects.
Create multi-year education development plans.
Legislate education development policies.
Encourage diaspora (world networks of nationals).
Bunch resources for special purposes.
Cluster academics and create academic “parks.”
Create special schools (Key schools, Focus schools).
Encourage local control of curriculum development.
Support and fund compensatory efforts.
Redefine national education standards.
Employ a “broken-front” development strategy.
Figure 10.1 Twenty-Five Strategies for Educational Reform in the Global Era
Extrapolation to Local Conditions
The reader will note that as your author speaks of nations (macro level) and their efforts to use
education to shape their destiny, the same explanations could be used to describe the efforts of
community schools and state education programs at home (micro level). It is obvious that in most of the
world’s nations, it is often a struggle to just simply construct and maintain a universal education system
regardless of the curriculum. This is also true in most of the school districts of the United States. The
number of school systems with the time and resources to plan for the future is small.
As schools and districts develop beyond an infrastructure, their values and priorities will determine
which programs, from many possibilities, are given the most support. Many districts in the United States
have “show schools” or “model programs” while maintaining an otherwise average curriculum in other
schools. Such curriculum preferences can trigger issues of local governance and control, leading to
general instability and frequent changes in leadership. Like the underdeveloped and developing and
developed nations described in this chapter, school districts are regularly interrupted in their work by
events and crises. Only leadership can keep them on their path to improvement.
But in the study of the great curriculum programs, whether at the school, community, state, or national
level, those educational agencies with a vision emerge and are universally superior. Clarity of values, or
philosophy if you prefer, is the critical element to an otherwise mechanical and deductive process of
curriculum development. Clarification of purpose is the most important task in curriculum work.
If nations, like India and China and South Africa, can “bunch” their resources for special effects, so can
local schools, districts, and states. The price of such a development strategy must always be weighed
against the critical values promoted by the schools. Egalitarian values within democratic nations like the
United States make favored programs or uneven strategies much more difficult. Gaining balance in this
area, that is, promoting purposeful change while safeguarding fairness, is the immediate task for the
United States.
Once schools become established with a full array of resources and programs, leaders must look ahead
to assess the effect (not efficiency) of their efforts. The premise of this chapter—that the organization of
education determines its ability to promote specific kinds of learning—poses a challenge to all
educational leaders. We must design our curriculum carefully, so that it serves our students fully. We
must have a shared vision of the preferred future. We must follow a timeworn path to reach our goals.
Summary
Education is a critical function in local, state, and national development. When the curriculum is
visionary and accurate, the community, state, or nation is well served. By contrast, a faulty or
dysfunctional educational program can threaten the well-being of any educational agency or nation. The
manner in which education is organized, based on its vision or purpose, will determine the kind of
learning that can take place within a country. And, this learning will determine the kind of citizens a
country will have in the future.
This chapter has used national education reform (the macro level) to illustrate the sequential process of
improving education. In this new global age, all nations are acting to adjust to novel conditions, and can
be compared by how they answer four traditional curriculum questions. The same is true of local schools
in your communities."