The document discusses various models of curriculum development, including Fullan's partnership model, Schwab's inquiry-based model, Tyler's objectives-focused model, Taba's order-based model, and Wheeler's cyclical model. It then describes a Jewish day school's use of a partnership model for its curriculum project, where each school appointed a coordinator to oversee development based on the school's mission and input from teachers. The project consultants provided training and feedback to help the coordinators and teacher teams develop the curriculum according to Tyler's 4-stage model.

1. Session 2 - Curriculum
Development: Priorities and
Challenges

2. Session content
• Feeding back on meetings with Heads of Kodesh/JS about
the development of the JS curriculum in their school
• Looking closely at different models of curriculum
development
• Comparing and contrasting these models
• Exploring the process of curriculum development
• Addressing the challenges of curriculum development
• Looking at the role of stakeholders, especially teachers, in
the relevance of curriculum development.

3. Feeding back on meetings with Heads of Kodesh/JS about
the development of the JS curriculum in their school

4. Looking closely at different models of
curriculum development
• Fullan’s (1999) Partnership Curriculum Model - involves
collaborative relationships between school stakeholders on
the one hand and external curriculum developers on the
other. In Fullan’s terms, such partnerships involve “across
boundary collaboration.” Fullan offers the “lessons” that
curriculum change is multi-dimensional and is most
effective when collaborative partnerships are employed.

5. Looking closely at different models of
curriculum development
Schwab has argued that instead of focusing on the
substance of a discipline, its basic concepts and
findings, the curriculum should also, if not primarily,
teach the syntax of a discipline, its methods of
discovery and justification. In this inquiry-based
curriculum students would learn the tools of
investigation and critical assessment that have been
used by scholars to discover new knowledge (Schwab,
1982).

6. Schwab (1982) Model of Curriculum
Development…
Schwab recognized that designing such a
curriculum would be a complex process involving
scholarly discussion and debate. This process,
which Schwab called “curriculum deliberation,”
engages representatives of the essential
ingredients of curriculum in dynamic discussions
about how best to translate theory into practice.

7. Schwab (1982)…
He called these ingredients “commonplaces”—
teachers, students, subject matter, and milieu. Since
there is no one right way to teach a discipline, the
creation of practical pedagogic wisdom requires the
“art of electic,” which can be defined as the process
that integrates and applies the most compelling and
relevant theories created through the dynamic
engendered by the four commonplaces curriculum
deliberations.

8. Tyler Model of Curriculum
Development– 1940s
• The Tyler Model, developed by Ralph Tyler in the 1940’s, is the
quintessential prototype of curriculum development in the scientific
approach. One could almost dare to say that every certified teacher in
America and maybe beyond has developed curriculum either directly
or indirectly using this model or one of the many variations.
• Tyler did not intend for his contribution to curriculum to be a lockstep
model for development. Originally, he wrote down his ideas in a book
Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction for his students to give
them an idea about principles for to making curriculum.

9. The brilliance of Tyler’s model is that it was one of
the first models and it was and still is a highly
simple model consisting of four steps.
•Determine the school’s purposes (objectives)
•Identify educational experiences related to
purpose
•Organize the experiences
•Evaluate the purposes

10. Taba Model of Curriculum
Development
The Taba Model was developed by Hilda Taba
(1902 – 1967), an architect, a curriculum theorist,
a curriculum reformer, and a teacher educator.
She was born in the small village of Kooraste,
Estonia. Taba believed that there has to be a
definite order in creating a curriculum.

11. Taba Model of Curriculum
Development
• Hilda Taba is the developer of the Taba Model of
learning. This model is used to enhance the thinking
skills of students. Hilda Taba believed that there must
be a process for evaluating student achievement of
content after the content standards have been
established and implemented. The main concept of
this approach to curriculum development is that
teachers must be involved in the development of the
curriculum

13. The Wheeler Model (1967)
The Wheeler model of curriculum development (1967), or
cyclic model, asserts that curriculum should be a continuous
cycle which is responsive to changes in the education sector
and makes appropriate adjustments to account for these
changes. It focuses on situational analysis: the context in
which the curriculum decisions are taken is considered
important, as this is believed to help make the most effective
decisions. This model is comprised of five interconnected
stages:

14. The Wheeler Model (1967)
•Aims, goals and objectives
•Selection of learning experiences
•Selection of content
•Organisation and integration of learning
experiences and content
•Evaluation

15. The Wheeler Model (1967)
Once the cycle has been followed once, it begins again at step one and
continues onward to continuously improve the curriculum in the face
of any changes that may have been imposed or come about naturally. It
is different from other models in that ‘selection of learning
experiences’ comes before ‘selection of content’: it specifically gears
the content in the curriculum to learners, where most models follow
the opposite structure. Wheeler viewed evaluation as particularly
important, stating that ‘[e]valuation enables us to compare the actual
outcomes with the expected outcomes […] [without it] it is impossible
to know whether objectives have been realized, and if they have, to
what extent’ (Wheeler, 1976, cited in Carl, 2009).

16. The Wheeler Model (1967)
While Wheeler’s approach, like other cyclical models,
has been popular in teaching practice for its flexibility
and relevance to learners in particular situations, it is
not always practical to use because of time constraints.
Undertaking a detailed situational analysis that
Wheeler advocates is a time-consuming process that
can be difficult to put into practice in the hectic
conditions in modern educational practice.

17. Comparing and contrasting these models
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg6fsbIdAzw
•Take a few minutes to compare and contrast
other Curriculum Development models.
•EG - Fullan (1999), Schwab (1982), Wheeler
(1967)

18. Read the document
entitled…
‘The Project’ – as we will
explore the development of this
Curriculum project

19. Exploring the Process of Curriculum
Development in a Jewish Day School (Eli Kohn
2004)
• Firstly, the political impartiality and ideological neutrality
built into the nature of Bureaus, as communal organizations,
did not allow for the development of curricula according to
specific ideological positions (Schremer and Bailey 2001).
• Since it is common to find teachers with different ideological
backgrounds in the same Jewish day school – a single
curriculum pack could not accommodate these differences.

20. Exploring the Process of Curriculum
Development in a Jewish Day School (Eli Kohn
2004)
• Secondly, as Floden (1997) pointed out, a gap often exists between
the knowledge base of some teachers and that required in order to
teach a new curriculum. Given that teachers, in Jewish day schools,
are not party to the writing of ready-made curricula, they do not
always understand their rationale or some of the content.
• Teachers, in addition, often reject curricula designed by external
authors, not so much because these constitute external intervention,
but because of their incompatibility with the teachers’ individual
teaching standards (Schremer and Bailey 2001).

21. Exploring the Process of Curriculum
Development
The Process of Curriculum Development Adopted in this Project
• Based on our research of the pros and cons of the various curriculum
development models, as described above, we decided to adopt a
“partnership” model as the basis of our work.
• In this model, each participating school appoints a curriculum coordinator
to oversee the process of curriculum development in the school. The
actual writing of the curriculum is the responsibility of each individual
school. In some schools, the writing is carried out by the curriculum
coordinator himself. In others, it is carried out, under the supervision of the
curriculum coordinator, by groups of teachers familiar with the material
and standards of students at particular grade levels.

22. Exploring the Process of Curriculum
Development
• We emphasize that, even when there is one official curriculum writer in a
school, he/she will involve teachers in the process at every stage of the
work. As described above, the “ownership” component of the process is a
very important aspect of its development.
• In our model, the role of the curriculum expert, in this case, consultants of
the Lookstein Centre, is twofold. Firstly, the consultant trains the
curriculum coordinators to become curriculum writers and supervisors.
This is achieved by a series of professional development seminars, which
we will describe below. Secondly, the consultant critiques and provides
meaningful feedback on the material produced by the curriculum writer or
team from each particular school. The process also allows for collaboration
between schools particularly during professional development seminars.

23. Following the basic guidelines of Tyler’s model, the
participants in this project were presented with a 4-Stage
model for curriculum development.
1. Definition of the School’s Ideal Graduate: What belief system do we wish
them to have? What values do we want them to have? What do we want the
students to know in terms of Jewish knowledge by the time they graduate?
What skills do we wish them to have for the study of Jewish texts? Each school
was asked to determine these questions using the School’s particular Mission
and Ethos Statement. The issues were presented under five headings:
• Beliefs and Philosophies
• Behavioral Characteristics
• Jewish Knowledge
• Skills in Jewish Learning
• General Knowledge
2. Definition of subjects to be taught and time allotted to them.
3. Definition of overall goals for each subject in terms of content, skills and
values.
4. Definition of annual and semester goals for each subject at each grade level

24. On completion of these stages, we would then deal
with Tyler’s four objective-models for evaluation and
assessment.
The Stages of Curriculum Development in the Partnership Model
The stages in the curriculum development process are based on the
seminal work of Tyler (1949) in his book Basic Principles of Curriculum
and Instruction. Tyler presents four questions that should guide
curriculum development:
• What are the educational goals the school strives to attain?
• Which educational means, available to the school, are necessary to
bring about the attainment of these goals?
• How can these means be organized more efficiently?
• How should the attainment of goals be evaluated?

25. Addressing the challenges of curriculum
development
Challenge - Time
• Many Jewish state schools make the time for Jewish education by
extending the school day by one hour or more. Some Jewish schools
have addressed this issue by extending the number of days in the
school week from five to six, making school compulsory on Sundays.
The majority of mainstream centrist orthodox Jewish day schools,
however, try to keep the teaching week to five days. The result is that
often relatively little time is devoted to Jewish studies and Hebrew in
these schools.

26. Addressing the challenges of
curriculum development
• When examining curriculum models in order to compensate for the relatively few
hours available for Jewish studies in UK schools, some institutions have opted for
integration. Zeldin (1998) and others have put forward powerful arguments for a
single unified curriculum in which deliberate efforts are made to bring Judaism
and the culture of modernity in contact with one another.
• Zeldin charts a variety of structural ways in which this can happen in a school
context, referring to them as co-ordination, integration, and interaction. The
constraints of the national curriculum mean that at best, interaction is what
usually takes place in British day schools. Interaction, according to Zeldin, is
where there are separate opportunities for Jewish and general learning, plus
times when deliberate efforts can be made to bring the two together.

27. Addressing the challenges of
curriculum development
Challenge - Different Orientations
‘We are wasting our time if we think that students will achieve
any fluency in Hebrew textual skills. We have to focus on
these texts in English and emphasize the values that emanate
from the texts and their relevance to students in today’s age.’
‘Why should a student, just because he is personally not
observant of all mitzvot, be robbed of appreciating the
nuances and deep readings of the Biblical text. He gets a top
notch and rigorous English and Science education-why not a
challenging and probing Jewish education as well?’

28. Addressing the challenges of
curriculum development
Schremer and Bailey formulated four composite profiles of teaching
ideologies into which teachers of Bible studies could be classified. They
include: focus on values and ethics, focus on text study, focus on Bible
identification and continuity and focus on the value of Bible study itself.
WHAT IS YOUR ORIENTATION/IDEOLOGY?
• Focus on Values and Ethics
• Focus on Text Study
• Focus on Bible Identification and Bible Continuity
• Focus on the Value of Bible Study Itself
• Holtz’s Orientations (Eg Contextual Orientation)

29. Looking at the role of stakeholders, especially
teachers, in the relevance of curriculum
development.
• “This has been much more than a curriculum development process. It has been a
professional development process as well.” One teacher commented: “This
process has enabled us to talk with each other, perhaps for the first time, about
why we are teaching what we are teaching. We will be better teachers because of
it.”
• As the process is based on a partnership between coordinators, teachers and
consultants, we asked the teacher respondents to assess their level of
involvement in the process. Responses to this question varied greatly. In some
schools, coordinators involved teachers throughout the process while in others, it
was the coordinator who wrote most of the curriculum material and only
involved teachers in the implementation process. These coordinators expressed
the desire for more teacher involvement, but noted that this was impeded by
scheduling and union pressures. Interestingly, teachers who were less involved in
the curriculum writing still felt, on the whole, that the curriculum development
process was effective.

30. Looking at the role of stakeholders, especially
teachers, in the relevance of curriculum
development.
• There was general consensus that the curriculum consultants played a
pivotal role in the process. Their contribution was deemed to have
contributed significantly to the positive impact of the project.
• The level of involvement of the school principal in the process seems
to have played a major role in the relative success of the
implementation process by the school. In general, schools whose
principals played an active role in both supporting and actively
involving themselves reported that this factor had a very positive
impact on the project. On the other hand, coordinators and teachers
whose principals were less involved reported difficulties in
implementation.

31. What other roles can teachers play in the
relevance of curriculum development?