Does Decision Making About the Intended Curriculum Take Place at
the National, State, or Local Level?
Depending on the education system, students’ learning goals
are set at different levels of authority. Some systems are highly
centralized, with the ministry of education (or highest authority
in the system) being exclusively responsible for the major decisions
governing the direction of education. In others, such decisions are
made regionally or locally. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses.
Centralized decision making can add coherence and uniformity in curriculum
coverage, but may constrain a school or teacher’s flexibility
in tailoring instruction to the needs of students.
Exhibit
5.1 presents information for each TIMSS 1999 country about the
highest level of authority responsible for making curricular decisions
and gives the curriculum’s current status. The data reveal that
35 of the 38 countries reported that the specifications for students’
curricular goals were developed as national curricula. Australia determined
curricula at the state level, with local input; the United States
did so at both the state and local (district and school) levels, with
variability across states; and Canada did so at the provincial level.
In recent decades, it has become common for intended curricula to
be updated regularly. At the time of the TIMSS 1999 testing, the official
mathematics curricula in 29 countries had been in place for less than
a decade, and more than half of them were in revision. Of the eight
countries with a mathematics curriculum of more than 10 years’
standing, five were being revised. In Australia, Canada, and the United
States, curriculum change is made at the state, provincial, or local
level, and some mathematics curricula were in revision at the time
of testing. The curricula in these three countries were relatively
recent, having been developed within the 10 years preceding the study.
The development and implementation of academic content standards
and subject-specific curriculum frameworks has been a central focus
of educational change in the United States at both the state and local
level. There has been concerted effort across the United States in
writing and revising academic standards that has very much included
attention to mathematics. Much of this effort has been based on work
done at the national level during this period to develop standards
aimed at increasing the mathematics competencies of all students.
Since 1989, when the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)
published Curriculum and Education Standards for School Mathematics,
the mathematics education community has had the benefit of a unified
set of goals for mathematics teaching and learning. The
NCTM standards have been a springboard for state and local efforts
to focus and improve mathematics education.(2)
All states except Iowa (which as a matter of policy
publishes no state standards) now have content or curriculum standards
in mathematics, and many educational jurisdictions have worked successfully
to improve their initial standards in clarity and content.(3)
In all 13 states that participated in TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking, curriculum
frameworks or content standards in mathematics were published between
1995 and 2000 (see
Exhibit 5.2). Four states detailed the standards for every grade
including the eighth grade, seven states detailed them by a cluster
or pair of grades that included the eighth grade, and two states reported
the eighth grade as a benchmark grade at which certain standards should
be met. Most states provided standards documents to guide districts
and schools in developing their own curriculum, while some states,
such as North Carolina, developed a statewide curriculum for all schools
to use.
Exhibit
5.3 presents information about the curriculum of participating
districts and consortia. Of the eight districts that participated,
one reported that it uses the statewide curriculum in all schools
(Guilford County); five had a district-wide curriculum that supported
the state-developed frameworks or standards (the Jersey City Public
Schools, the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Montgomery County,
the Naperville School District, and the Rochester City School District);
and two had a curriculum developed at the school level (the Academy
School District and the Chicago Public Schools), with Chicago also
offering an optional structured curriculum district-wide. Each participating
consortium indicated that all or most of its districts developed their
own curriculum at the district level.
