Teachers as curriculum‐makers: the case of citizenship education in Dutch schools

Abstract

Due to socio-political issues in Dutch society, citizenship education (CE) became obligatory by law in the Netherlands in 2006. Schools were to decide on their local CE curriculum. This contribution intends to open up the black box of school-based curriculum-making efforts for CE. It reports on a four-year study in four schools for secondary education. In each school, teachers designed (parts of) their CE curriculum with guidance during weekly coaching sessions. The central question is, what are the professional experiences and results of teachers who are involved in guided school-based CE curriculum-making? The qualitative data set comprised of interview and focus group data as well as artefacts such as CE-activities designed by teachers. Findings show teachers' preference for broad and integrated approaches to CE, and that teachers needed guidance not only to improve their CE-knowledge and design abilities, but also to increase their socio-political skills for school-wide implementation. These results are discussed in view of the current tendency in the Netherlands to define CE in a more centralised and content-specific manner and in doing so limiting the space for teachers as curriculum-makers.

Preparing culturally literate citizens through dialogue and argumentation: Rethinking citizenship education

“…Teachers' agency, that is, the degree to which the teachers feel accountable towards the enacted curriculum, plays an important role within educational reform initiatives, related or not to citizenship education (Leeman et al, 2020;Schweisfurth, 2006;Severance et al, 2016). Through actively participating in all phases of a design-implement-evaluate design cycle, our teachers enacted the designed curriculum based on their own perceptions and felt challenges regarding the existing local curricula and ways of introducing the dialogic lesson sequences as an integral part of their every pedagogical practice.…”

The 5Ps of Holistic Policy Development: A Way Forward for Engaging Teacher Educators?

“…Australia and the United States appear to privilege the image of teacher as curriculum implementer from a policy perspective, whereas Hong Kong and Singapore promote the image of teacher as a curriculum maker (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992; Craig & Ross, 2008; Leeman et al, 2020). The curriculum implementer image stamps the teacher role on teachers, predestining what they should know and do (and say—[i.e., scripted curriculum]), whereas the curriculum maker image respects the qualities of the person in the teacher role (Hansen, 2017) and the decisions made by that teaching professional.…”

Responsive curriculum development for professional education: Different teams, different tales

“…These stakeholders are not obviously familiar with, or trained to technically develop, curricula and manage the associated social–political processes. However, it is unknown if, and if so, which, guidance might be needed both in schools and professional practice at all levels of the involved organisations (Leeman et al, 2020).…”

“…These stakeholders are not obviously familiar with, or trained to technically develop, curricula and manage the associated social-political processes. However, it is unknown if, and if so, which, guidance might be needed both in schools and professional practice at all levels of the involved organisations (Leeman et al, 2020). In summary, time-consuming and inflexible curriculum development approaches, the lack of agency and the absence of sufficient practical support do not seem to support curriculum developers in terms of being able to carry out the complex task of curriculum development.…”