Curriculum development
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Curriculum development

on

  • 3,630 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,630
Views on SlideShare
3,630
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Curriculum development Curriculum development Document Transcript

    • 1 THE CONTEXT OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN KENYA Ruth N. Otunga and Charles Nyandusi Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya Abstract Curriculum development is both a technical and social process. In order for the process to proceed effectively and efficiently, the context in which it is carried out must be considered. This paper discusses the context of curriculum development in Kenya by considering six major factors that influence the curriculum development process in Kenya. These are: political forces, the socio-economic context, the cultural context, the ICT context and the networking context. Introduction Curriculum development may be generically conceived as an amalgamation of various processes employed in the pursuit of certain set goals in a school system. It covers the entire spectrum of curriculum construction. This ranges from initial conceptualization and planning to design and implementation to evaluation and revision. Curriculum literature abounds with models of curriculum development. Each of these models advocates procedures and strategies that are presumably most effective in developing curriculum. However, curriculum development models appropriate for one situation may be impractical in another. This is because the curriculum is a social construct and diverse societies do not hold universal views (Hopkins, 2001). It is therefore important to consider context when developing curriculum. Curriculum context Much of the literature on curriculum context deals with context relevance (Tyler, 1949; Bonser and Grundy, 1988; UNESCO, 2000). Context relevance is concerned with the fidelity of the curriculum to its stated goals. The premise here is that the stated goals are a true reflection of what society expects from the school system.
    • 2 This paper will however, view context from a slightly different perspective. Context here is concerned with the environment in which the curriculum is developed. In other words, context is the summation of the factors that influence the curriculum development process. The contextual focus for this paper will be the public school curriculum of Kenya. Kenya : A brief educational introduction Kenya attained independence from British rule in 1963. The country inherited its education system from the British colonial education system. Since independence, the government of Kenya has continually sought to modify the curriculum to achieve context relevance. This has been done through two major avenues; One, periodic commissions constituted by the government to look into aspects of the school system and suggest better policy and practice. Two, constant curriculum development programmes handled by the Ministry of Education and related agencies (Shiundu and Omulando 1992, Kinuthia, 2009). This paper will dwell more on the second avenue. The Ministry of Education in Kenya is responsible for centrally providing educational services in the country. The ministry’s vision is “to provide quality education for development” while its mission is “to provide, promote and co-ordinate lifelong education, training and research for Kenya’s sustainable development” (Ministry of Education, 2008). To achieve its vision and mission the ministry has several departments and directorates and a number of Semi-Autonomous Government Agencies (SAGA) under its auspices. For curriculum matters, the mandated SAGA the Kenya Institute of Education (KIE) (Ministry of Education, 2008). Curriculum Development in Kenya
    • 3 The Kenya Institute of Education (KIE) is the national educational research and curriculum development centre in Kenya. Its functions include: 1. To conduct research and prepare syllabuses for all levels of education, below the university level. 2. To conduct research and prepare teaching and evaluation materials to support any syllabuses, including the preparation of books, teachers guides, mass media programmes and materials 3. To conduct in-service and workshops for teachers and teacher trainers who are involved in carrying out experiments and trials of any syllabuses and teaching materials. 4. To conduct seminars on any syllabus and teaching materials for inspectors of schools and teacher trainers. 5. To conduct orientation programmes for field officers and to keep them informed of the developments that are taking place in the school and teachers’ college curriculum. 6. To develop and transmit programmes through mass media to support the developments that are taking place in education. 7. To prepare distance education courses for students, teachers and the general public. 8. To conduct courses, seminars and orientation programmes for the guidance of teachers and educational administrators. 9. To conduct educational research in Kenya. 10. To publish and print educational materials (KIE, 2009). The Kenya institute of Education works closely with other related agencies and organizations in curriculum development. These include the Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC) which is responsible national public examinations, the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) which represents teachers at KIE, the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards which is responsible for curriculum supervision and quality control, the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) which handles teacher recruitment, promotion and placement, and religious organizations whose views are sought regarding the teaching of religious education and other ethical-moral issues in the curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2008). The Curriculum Development process at KIE follows a cyclic pattern as shown below:
    • 4 (Source: KIE) Factors Influencing Curriculum Development in Kenya A number of factors that influence curriculum development are discussed here. These are not all the factors; they are just those deemed to be most salient in characterizing the Kenyan curriculum context. Neither are these factors discussed in any order of importance. As a matter of fact most of these factors overlap and converge at some point. These factors are very broad, so they will be presented here only in outline form. Monitoring, evaluation and improvement Needs assessment Policy formulation National implementation Pre- testing/piloting/phasing -in Syllabus development and approval Development of curriculum support materials Preparation of curriculum implementations Curriculum design
    • 5 Political forces In The Politics of the School Curriculum, Dennis Lawton observes that curriculum development is about selecting “the most important aspects of culture for transmission to the next generation. One of the of the crucial questions to ask is the political question: “who makes the selection”(Lawton, 1980. p.6). In Kenya, as elsewhere, politics occupy a central place in the daily affairs of the nation. The political class seeks to control and manipulate the polity, either overtly or covertly. Education is normally a covert tool in the stratagem of the political class (Freire, 1972). The influence of politics in curriculum development in Kenya is best seen through the formation of various education commissions, committees, and working parties. Since independence, there have been seven major commissions on the school curriculum. The composition of these commissions is largely oblivious of expertise in curriculum; rather, it mostly exhibits political connectedness. Moreover, the findings and recommendations of most of these commissions are implemented at the discretion of the ruling elite. In most cases, these commissions end up being just grand academic exercises since their recommendations are never adopted (NtarangwI, 2003) Due to the centralized, all powerful nature of the politics in Kenya, most decisions on education are top-down. Such a power-coersive approach does not aurgur well especially for curriculum development which should ideally be a deliberative, consultative, and participatory exercise (Mutch ,2001) It must be noted here that the government of Kenya, through the ministry of education, has devolved some powers in the education sector to the grassroots. These include the hiring of teachers and, to some extent, the financing of educational infrastructure through the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) (Ministry of education, 2004). However, all matters pertaining to curriculum are still centrally controlled by the Ministry of Education and its agencies, mainly KIE, the
    • 6 Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards and the Kenya National Examinations Council. Obviously, in such a scenario, teachers feel left out. Their voice is seldom heard since their participation in the whole process is superficial. The teachers’ role is narrowed to implementation of curriculum. However, as Fullan (1991) notes, the implementation of curriculum innovations is bound to be unsuccessful if teachers are not involved in the entire process of curriculum development. Socio – economic context The current population of Kenya is estimated at 36 million with an annual population growth rate of 2.3% of the total population, 60% are youth under 30 years (UNESCO, 2008; World Bank, 2008). This necessitates that the government allocates over 30% of its annual budget to education (Kinuthia, 2009). Despite such a seemingly huge budgetary allocation to education, curriculum development is still poorly funded (KIE, 2006). This is because most of the funds in the education sector go for recurrent expenditure at the expense of research and development. In the last seven years, the government has embarked on Education for all (EFA) initiatives by introducing free primary Education (FPE) in 2003 and free Secondary Education in 2008 (Ministry of Education, 2004, Oketch & Rolleston, 2007). Ideally, these are two giant steps in the right direction. Realistically, however, achieving both is giant challenge of the county. Kinuthia (2009) outlines four factors that illuminate this challenge and its implication on curriculum development. 1. When FPE was introduced, the enrollment significantly rose from 5.9 to 7.2 million. However, most schools were not equipped to handle such large numbers in terms of number of teachers, physical classroom space, and learning resources. This scenario replays itself in the Free Secondary Education programme. Obviously, it jeopardizes effective curriculum implementation.
    • 7 2. In 1998, the government instituted structural adjustment programmes recommended by the World Bank and IMF. A direct consequence of this was a freeze on the employment of teachers by the Teachers Service Commission. This resulted in a significant shortage of teachers. Since 2003, the government has made efforts to address this shortage. However, to date, there is a need for over 60,000 teachers to fill the gaps in the school system. 3. The government reliance on donor funding means that local priorities are not necessarily dealt with. As already noted, research and development activities are less funded than administrative and recurrent costs. Thus, for instance, teachers are paid salaries to implement the same old curriculum. 4. Some socio-cultural practices and absolute poverty in many areas in the country affect full participation of learners in the school system. Although enrollment rates have improved, especially for girls, many communities still hold back their children either due to cultural reasons - like the presumed vanity of educating the girl-child, or economic reasons - like engaging the children wage learning activities to supplement the family income. Cultural context Although Kenya is a unitary state, it comprises over 42 ethnic groups. Each of these groups has its own unique cultural identity which it guards jealously. The centralized nature of the Kenyan curriculum may not always accommodate the diverse cultural norms of the population. Still on ethnicity, Kenya has a history of ethnic tensions. The most recent and worst manifestation of these tensions was experienced just before and after the 2007 general election. The inter-ethnic violence that followed the election virtually changed the social, cultural, political, and economic landscape of the country. Invariably, this had implications on the curriculum.
    • 8 There are now calls for the inclusion of peace of education, with a strong component of conflict resolution, in the school curriculum. Instructively, a new core subject, Life Skills, was introduced in the curriculum in January 2009. This subject is supposed to deal with, among others, the concept of living together harmoniously. This is notwithstanding the fact that there are already subjects like Social Studies in the primary school, and Religious Education and History and Government in the secondary school which deal with similar if not the same themes. Instead of tailoring single subjects to ensure cultural context relevance, the entire curriculum should be transformed “to give children, youth and adults the type of quality education that promotes appreciation of diversity, richness, and dynamism of our cultures...” (UNESCO, 2000, p 27). ICT context The role of ICT in education cannot be over emphasized. The world is going the digital way, and education is at the forefront of this journey. Yet Kenya is still lagging behind. According to Kinuthia (2009), computers were introduced in Kenya in the 1970s and the internet became available in 1993. By March 2008, only 7.9% of the population had access to the internet. While the number of internet service providers continues to grow, access is still limited, especially in the rural areas. Kenya has close to 20,000 secondary schools of which only about 15% have electricity and only about 500 schools have computers albeit with limited internet access. In the secondary school sector, out of about 4000 schools, 65% are connected to electricity. Only about 750 schools have an average of 10 computers each although internet connectivity is limited (Kinuthia, 2009).
    • 9 Another challenging factor in the ICT context is the preparation of teachers. Few teachers in the school system in Kenya are computer literate, and even fewer can competently use a computer as a teaching resource or a tool for instruction (Kinuthia, 2009). Thus all efforts towards integrating ICT in the curriculum must be comprehensive enough to provide the requisite infrastructure and prepare teachers adequately to use it effectively. The legal context of curriculum development The legal mandate for Curriculum development in Kenya’s public school system is vested in the Kenya Institute of Education. This is spelt out in the Education Act, Cap 211 of the Laws of Kenya. KIE’s legal status as a Semi-Autonomous Government Agency (SAGA) is defined in Legal Notice No. 105 of 1976, with amendments made in Legal Notice No. 144 of 1980 and Legal Notice No. 126 of 1984 (KIE, 2009). The legal mandate of KIE is limiting in several aspects. Firstly, since it operates as a SAGA under the Ministry of Education, its funding is majorly from the Ministry’s allocations in the national budget. Such funding caters mainly for recurrent costs and very little goes to curriculum research and development, which is the core function of KIE (KIE, 2006). Secondly, the KIE sources most of its technical personnel from a sister agency, the Teachers Service Commission (TSC). In essence, such officers remain employees of TSC, and hence work according to the TSC Code of conduct and terms and conditions. Such a situation is problematic. KIE needs to have its own personnel, loyal to it and no other employer, and working under its terms and conditions (KIE 2006). Thirdly, while KIE is mandated to develop the curriculum, yet another sister agency, the Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC), has the legal mandate to carry out a very
    • 10 crucial aspect of curriculum evaluation: examinations. One of the most telling indicators of the incongruity of this situation is the fact that KNEC produces syllabuses just as KIE does. And since examinations are such a crucial component of schooling in Kenya, teachers at times find the KNEC examination syllabus more preferable to the more comprehensive KIE syllabus. This could explain why, for instance, a non-examinable core subject in the school curriculum, Physical Education (P.E) is largely ignored in practice. Fourthly, the curriculum that KIE develops for the school system is supervised by officers from the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in the Ministry of Education. It is a case of giving birth to a baby and letting a neighbour nurture it. The competency of the Quality Assurance and Standards Officers in curriculum supervision may be compromised by their lack of training specifically in curriculum development. To streamline the functions and activities of the KIE, there is need for re-defining its legal status to give it more power over curriculum development. A useful starting point would be to change it from a SAGA to a fully fledged state corporation. (KIE, 2006). Networking and linkages We have already noted that in developing curriculum, the Kenya Institute of Education works closely with other organizations. It has also emerged that at times some of these organizations’ activities compete against rather than complement those of KIE. The case for harmonizing this situation has already been stated. However, there are other linkages that could directly benefit the curriculum research and development efforts of the KIE. Kenya boasts over 10 schools of education in both public and private universities. All these schools have, in their libraries and archives, thousands of publications containing data and empirical findings on diverse curriculum issues. If only these findings could find their way to the KIE, some of the energy and resources
    • 11 used in KIE’s own curriculum research and development activities could be saved. Even more important, there is an urgent need for formal collaborations between curriculum researchers in institutions of research and higher learning and KIE. Another linkage that is missing in the KIE network is that of employers. In 2001, a study on the perception of employers in Kenya on the relevance of the school curriculum to employment was carried out. The study found out that employers are dissatisfied with the preparedness of school graduates for the world of work. Further, the employers indicated a strong willingness for participating in curriculum development, but they haven’t been involved. (Nyandusi, 2001). Conclusion In discussing the context of curriculum development in Kenya, a number of factors that influence the Curriculum Development process have been considered. These include the political, social –economic, cultural, ICT. Legal and networking contexts. In order for curriculum development in Kenya to proceed efficiently and effectively, these contextual factors have to be taken into account. References Bonser, S.A and Grundy, S.J. (1988) “Reflective deliberations in the formulation of a school curriculum policy” Journal of curriculum Studies. Vol. 31(1), pp 83-97 Freire, P. ( 1972) Pedalogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin. Fullan, M. (1991) The new meaning of education change. Ann Arbor, MI: Braun- Brumfield inc. Hopkins, D. (2001) School improvement for real. London: Routledge Falmer. KIE (2006) KIE strategic plan. Nairobi: KIE KIE (2009) Functions of KIE. Retrieved June 9, 2009 from http://www.kie.ac.ke/about/functions.php
    • 12 Kinuthia, W.(2009). “Eductaional development in Kenya and the role of ICT” International Journal of Education and Development using ICT. Vol. 5, No. 2(2009) Lawton, D.(1980) The politics of the school curriculum.London: Hodder and Stoughton Ministry of Education (2004) Development of education in Kenya. Nairobi: Government printer. Ministry of Eductaion (2008) About the Ministry. Retrieved June 9, 2009 from http//www.education.go.ke/resources.htm Mutch, C. (2001) “Contesting forces: The political and economic context of curriculum development in New Zealand”Asia Pacific Education review Vol. 2, No 1, pp 74-84 Ntarangwi, M. (2003) “The challenges of education and development in post–colonial Kenya” Africa development 28 (3& 4) pp.211-228 Nyandusi, C. (2001) “Perceptions of employers on secondary school graduates general workplace competencies” Unpublished M.phil thesis, Moi University Oketch, M. and Rolleston, C (2007) “Policies on free primary and secondary education in East Africa: retrospect and prospect” Review of Research in Education vol. 31pp.131-158. Shiundu, J.S. and Omulando, S.J. (1992) Curriculum: Theory and practice in Kenya. Nairobi: Oxford Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago press. UNESCO (2000) Dakar framework for action. Paris: UNESCO UNESCO (2008) UIS statistics in brief. Retrieved June 9, 2009 from http:stats.uis.unesco/table viewer/document aspx? WorldBank (2008) Kenya-data and statistics. Retrieved June 9, 2009 from http://web.worldbank.org/pk:356509,00.html