Loading...
3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- Curriculum autonomy policies: international trends, tensions and transformationsPublication . Almeida, Sílvia; Sousa, Francisco; Figueiredo, Maria PachecoThis book is based on the International Seminar “Curriculum Autonomy Policies in Europe: Trends, Tensions & Transformations”, which was held at Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, on January 25 and 26, 2019. Besides including a set of papers that were presented in that context, this publication includes texts from other relevant authors who have conducted research on the topic under discussion – curriculum autonomy. This topic has received attention from many researchers, with different theoretical perspectives.
- Editorial introductionPublication . Almeida, Silvia; Sousa, Francisco; Figueiredo, Maria PachecoThis book is based on the International Seminar “Curriculum Autonomy Policies in Europe: Trends, Tensions & Transformations”, which was held at Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, on January 25 and 26, 2019. Besides including a set of papers that were presented in that context, this publication includes texts from other relevant authors who have conducted research on the topic under discussion – curriculum autonomy. This topic has received attention from many researchers, with different theoretical perspectives. In the first decades of the 20th century, which were marked by the predominance of a technical perspective, the conceptualization of curriculum autonomy tended to be limited to the idea of adapting the means to the ends, the latter being usually regarded as instrumental to the satisfaction of societal needs. But by the end of the 1960s, when the first wave of re-conceptualization changed Curriculum Studies, such relation between means and ends was questioned, and the idea that curriculum autonomy may also entail the ends became increasingly accepted. Later on, the consolidation of Critical Theory strengthened this tendency, by contesting the assumption that the ultimate aim of curriculum construction should be to fulfill the needs of society, by uncovering relations between curriculum and interests pursued by different sectors of society, and by legitimating emancipatory ways of dealing with the curriculum. Postcritical approaches also reject a conceptualization of curriculum autonomy as permission to perform technical procedures in adapting curricula whose aims are taken for granted. The concept of curriculum autonomy is not even central in the latter approaches, which emphasize that changing the curriculum requires understanding it from multiple perspectives, which emerge from different identities, related to gender, race, sexual orientation, and other factors. Accordingly, for Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, and Taubman (1995), curriculum change depends on issues of identity and power.
- Exploring parent and student engagement in school self-evaluation in four European countriesPublication . Brown, Martin; McNamara, Gerry; Cinkir, Sakir; Fadar, Jerich; Figueiredo, Maria Pacheco; Vanhoof, Jan; O’Hara, Joe; Skerritt, Craig; O’Brien, Shivaun; Kurum, Gül; Ramalho, Henrique; Rocha, JoãoThe purpose of this paper, which is part of a three-year EU Erasmus+-funded study titled ‘Distributed Evaluation and Planning in Schools’ (DEAPS), is to provide an analysis of policies, structures, processes, supports and barriers that exist to enable or inhibit the involvement of students and parents in school evaluation in four European countries (Belgium, Ireland, Portugal and Turkey). Document analysis was used for this study and some 348 peer-reviewed articles, and 28 national and transnational policy documents were included in the analysis. Based on this review it would be reasonable to suggest that the student/parent voice agenda around evaluation in schools remains, by and large, aspirational. It is extolled in policy but in practice is mainly tokenistic with very little evidence of impact on the work of schools. In light of this, it is argued that government and school-level policies and strategies need to be reconsidered to enhance students’ and parents’ engagement in school evaluation. As a first step, significant further empirical research on the limitations on and conditions necessary for stakeholder voice in education is required.