Who Should Control Curriculum?

"Who should control curriculum?" In this essay I will aim to discuss who has the right to control a child's curriculum. There are many arguments based on who should actually control the curriculum, whether it's the parents, children, teachers or the government; of who should have the full control of the curriculum.

I will conduct my research by using journals and books to help me point the overview arguments for and against on who should control the curriculum, this will give me a difference of opinions, arguments and suggestions based on this matter. As well as looking at what some of philosophers think about this issue as well. Many philosophers will argue that a child has the rights to learn whatever he or she pleases in school. Children should not be made to feel that they have to learn specific subjects, which might not be an interest to them. If they do not want to learn then they should be given that freedom to do so. This essay will also demonstrate how the curriculum is seen from a philosophical perspective.

I will investigate this matter further, which will give me the opportunity to come to a conclusion on who has the rights to have a say on a child's education or who has the self-control on the curriculum itself. This subject could be considered a debatable topic as there are various disagreements on a child's school curriculum and these examples will be discussed further, so that it concludes to an overview point on what it means to control the curriculum.

The national curriculum was a significant educational Reform Act, passed down by the government in 1988 and this particular legalisation was followed in all schools. In this present day, the national curriculum is still being practised throughout England and Wales, except for Scotland and Northern Ireland, in which these countries have different laws, in which they abide so therefore, the curriculum does not apply to these particular countries.

ARGUENT FOR PARENT

Having our parent's involvement has always been a custom and tradition, to the extent that our parents controlled what type of education we received and which institute they placed us in. This has always been the case as our parents knew what the best thing for us. Parents acted as the provider and nurturer for their children in several of ways, such as; upbringing, accumulating responsibilities and monitoring the well-being of their children and so forth according to (Suissa, 2010). Parents would aim to send their children to the best of schools, as in favour for parental rights (Gereluk, 2010) argues that "parents have a natural right to raise their children in a particular way congruent with their norms and values" (cited in Bailey, 2010: 126).

ARGUENT AGAINST PARENT

However, it is argued against that it could be the possibility that a parent may have the upmost contribution on their children's education, but overall, it may not be the case that parent's have complete control on their child's education. As it is argued that children need to be autonomous, responsible and learn to make decisions for his or her self. This may not be the case always, but parents should be aware that children also have rights; for example "it is not a mere preference that children should be exposed to different experiences in order to secure autonomy, but a necessity" (Gereluk, 2010, cited in Bailey, 2010: 131). In addition, "parents do not own their children, so no right can be based on this" (Honderich, 2005: 233).

ARGUENT FOR CHILDREN

Depending on the child's age, if a child is in a nursery, then they should be given the opportunity to play if that's what they prefer or desire. They should not be made to read if they do not want to. But if a child is old enough to know what he or she wishes then that child should be given the right and freedom to decide and select what they prefer to learn, as this allows independency and the ability to exercise and become an autonomous member of society. It may be argued that it should not be permissible, to force children in believing that they must take specific subjects in order to succeed in life, as this restricts the freedom of options; in fact, it could be better for children to be given the rights to be taught whatever subject they prefer or desire. Dr Marples argues similar concept to this stating that "a child has interests in being able to formulate her own values and 'life-plan' and this is no less true were she to have no interest in any such matter" (Marples, 2010: 2). Suissa states "that children need some sort of guidance in order to flourish" (Suissa, 2010 cited in Bailey, 2010: 103), and makes her argument clear that children need room to grow, so that they are able to understand the choices they can create in order to live life to the fullest as autonomous people. Brighouse and Swift both agree with Suissa by stating that "The principle of autonomy says that every individual should have the internal resources and skills necessary rationally to evaluate and revise her own commitments and practices" (Brighouse and Swift, 2006:82-3).

ARGUENT AGAINST CHILDREN

Nonetheless, Suissa also argues against that if a child is not autonomous individuals then it can lead to problems within our society by stating that "on one view, a strong commitment to individual autonomy leads to the conclusion that society is not morally justified in intervening in the educational development of the individuals. Thus any form of education imposed on the child constitutes a form of oppression." (Suissa, 2010 cited in Bailey, 2010: 102). This can subserviently mean that a child's personal autonomy is being limited from them, as they are not given the freedom to express one's desire and the opportunity to be and progress as an autonomous individual, and the ability or will to make choices for themselves.

ARGUENT FOR TEACHERS

White argues that "in England before 1988 it was theoretically teachers who decided their schools' aims and curriculam" (White, 2004: 20). This advocates the concept that teachers, occupied power and control of the education system, as before the 1988 educational reform Act, which came to force by the government. Pre-1988, teachers coordinated and controlled what each child learnt in school and this contextualises that the structural outline they laid in classroom meant that the lessons were planned in advanced, as teachers knew exactly, what type of subjects they preferred to teach and the capability of achieving within the desired subject. This also meant

...