Curriculum design at a crossroads : a comparative approach to re-evaluating knowledge frameworks

THE NEED FOR CURRICULUM REFORM is often galvanised through recourse to changes in the world of work and society; where new technologies, global movement and economic agendas perennially shift expectations for students and teachers (Stoer & Magalhaes, 2004). It is against this backdrop of globalisation that the Tasmanian Department of Education has initiated curriculum change, based on a model of learning that centralises thinking in the curriculum (Eisner, 1991). This thinking curriculum has resulted from extensive consultation with interested stakeholders, and the publication of many policy documents (Watt, 200S). This curriculum design will be compared to the framework that the International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO) has proposed for their Middle Years Programme. This programme is becoming increasingly well known in Australia, as educational providers respond to the globalisation of education (Whitehead, 200S) by using a tried and tested international curriculum. The central element of this programme is the personal project, through which students demonstrate their performance in an area of choice and that demands initiative, engagement and a thorough critical evaluation of the product. This analysis of curriculum frameworks includes asking difficult questions about the implementation of the frameworks, and the realities of classroom interactions that could mediate curriculum design through negative feedback (Kreisberg, 1992). It is worthwhile to note that the Middle Years Programme (MYP) is a 'sandwich' course between the Primary Years Programme (PYP), and the International Baccalaureate Diploma. As such, it serves to lead students from the primary years onto rigorous pre-university training that the IBO have made sure is recognised internationally by leading universities (IBO, 2006).