Purpose, focus and voice? Lessons from a curriculum development advisory committee

ABSTRACT

The curriculum development process is complex and developing a worthwhile process to support curriculum inception is a valuable endeavour. This paper explores the experiences of the curriculum development process through the lens of an expert advisory committee charged with developing a post-primary curriculum for publicly managed schools in line with their ethos and the national lower post-primary curriculum. The research employed semi-structured interviews with a group of curriculum developers (n = 10) involved in this curriculum development process. Following thematic analysis, four primary themes were identified: Purpose of the Advisory Committee, Focus of the Curriculum Expression, Balance of Voice, and the Role of the Curriculum Lead. These themes offer insights into the complexities of the curriculum development process including the importance of focusing, not just on the teacher’s voice, but also on the conditions that support teachers to engage fully with such processes. The findings also highlight the importance of embracing strategic leadership and democratic practices throughout this process and how the perceived focus of curriculum needs to be explicitly considered so as to unearth hidden assumptions of the curriculum developers. This study contributes to the broader understanding of how curriculum development can be enhanced to meet the needs of diverse stakeholders.

KEYWORDS:

• Curriculum development process
• curriculum
• values
• values education

Introduction

Curriculum is considered contentious in terms of definition and delineation and difficult to define (Schubert 1986). Curriculum is often reflective of the cultural and political zeitgeist of the society in which it has been written for (Turunen, Määttä, and Uusiautti 2012). Different people understand curriculum in different ways, with Thijs and van den Akker (2009) describing curriculum as a web of integrated and aligned activities. Stenhouse (1975) furnishes us with a succinct definition of curriculum stating, ‘a curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principals and features of an educational proposal in such a form that is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice’ (Stenhouse 1975, 4). Research outlines that values and curriculum cannot be seen in isolation and are generally considered symbiotic and ‘the curriculum reflects what we value as a nation and what we seek for our young people’ (Gillies 2006, 25). Values are therefore intertwined and influence curricula and are reflective of the values of the society we live in (Abbott 2010; Cairns, Gardner, and Lawton 2013; O’Brien et al. 2023). The role of values in curriculum should reflect the transformative nature of contemporary society, in order to meet the needs of the students (OECD 2021). Values and attitudes are increasingly being included in education curricula globally and schools have been seen as a vehicle for instilling values within the next generation (OECD 2021; O’Flaherty and Mccormack 2022; Priestley et al. 2021) with the curriculum seen as a vehicle for transmitting the school’s values into daily practice (Bosevska and Kriewaldt 2020).

Set against this context, this paper aims to explore the curriculum development process and is framed by the following research question, how do the advisory committee experience the curriculum development process? In the next sections, some relevant international literature on the curriculum development process will be presented. Subsequently, the national context for curriculum development in the Republic of Ireland (referred to as Ireland in this study) will be described followed by some discussion of the specific context for the study. The methodology, findings and discussion will then be outlined.

Curriculum development process

Scholars have approached the curriculum development process in many different ways (Du Preez and Simmonds 2014; Lau 2001). Tyler (1949) describes curriculum development as a technical production procedure in contrast to Stenhouse (1975) who sees it as a process that is socially constructed, non-linear and reflective of various contexts and sites. Freire and Ramos (1970) suggest curriculum development as involving critical reflection, problem posing and dialogue (Freire and Ramos 1970). More recent literature has described curriculum making as an interplay between a variety of actors, contested spaces, and power relations that are framed by contextual factors (Priestley et al. 2021). These actors can be represented by cultural, political or epistemological stances or a combination of all three (Slattery 2013). Therefore, curriculum can be influenced by many factors such as politics, culture, history, economy, technology, religion as well as educational forces, outlining the broad and complex nature of curriculum development (Soto 2015).

Curriculum is often developed over a long term by subgroups, guided by a curriculum developer and an expert group consulting on the process (Bens, Kolomitro, and Han 2021). The group is charged with making decisions about what is to be taught within the subject or subjects (Soto 2015) and such selections are informed implicitly or explicitly by values (Gillies 2006). The content can be charged by the input of these expert(s) in their chosen area (Boyle and Charles 2016) with a variety of views on what the curriculum should look like (Goodson 2013). Seaman and Nelsen (2001) note it is the role of the curriculum developers to focus their interests on students’ needs and interests. Consultation is vital for curriculum development (Goodson 2013) and the planning of curriculum is ‘a multi-level multi-sector process wherein several interlocking variables and parties interact in complex ways’ (Atai and Mazlum 2013, 390).

Curriculum development is a result of communication and interaction between a variety of stakeholders such as academics, professional organisations and networks (Minogue 1983), however, the effect each stakeholder exerts differs (Lau 2001). Research points to the fact that curriculum development is more likely to succeed with robust consultation with teachers, parents, and other invested bodies (Fullan 2012). Further, it has been argued that the success of curriculum development depends largely on teacher involvement in the process and requires active engagement by teachers in their role as curriculum makers (Alsubaie 2016; Bradfield and Exley 2020; Priestley and Biesta 2013; Priestley and Philippou 2018; Priestley et al. 2021). However, it is noted that ‘Irish teachers lack ownership of curriculum’ (McCormack and Gleeson 2012, 104).

Central to this process is the teacher, leading to effective achievement of educational reform (Fullan 2012; Handler 2010). Teachers who engage in curriculum development activities acquire key professional skills including the ability to develop professional collaborations that advance student-centred learning experiences (Shawer 2010, 175). To achieve a ‘high-quality’ curriculum, it is fundamental that teachers acquire the appropriate skills and knowledge to complement the process. To enable a successful curriculum development process, development of a coherent structure is seen as a basis for curriculum success (Pietarinen, Pyhältö, and Soini 2017). However, a lack of coherence has been documented in the literature as an inhibitor to the curriculum reform process (Chan 2010; Kelly 2009). Fullan and Quinn (2015) offer a coherence framework to bring about change in schools providing a scaffold to drive effective leadership, identifying four key areas to create a dynamic, customisable road map to bring about effective change towards coherence, including focusing direction, cultivating collaborative cultures, deepening learning, and securing accountability. Having a concrete purpose, shared vision, and stable decision-making process, as well as alignment with the curriculum are factors that contribute to the successful and coherent implementation of a curriculum in schools (Beane 1995; Pietarinen, Pyhältö, and Soini 2017; Sahlberg 2011).

Some relevant national context

The Education Act (Government of Ireland 1998) created a legal governance entity for schools in Ireland, where the guardian of the ‘characteristic spirit’ of a school is a person or entity known as the ‘patron’. In the case of publicly managed schools, the state is the patron. The primary responsibility of the patron is to safeguard the ‘characteristic spirit’ of the school (Government of Ireland 1998, S.15(1)). The term characteristic spirit is a synonym for ethos throughout this paper (McCormack, O’Flaherty, and Liddy 2020). Section 30(2)(d) of the Education Act (1998) recognises the legislative position of patrons in the implementation of a patrons’ curricula which aligns with the specific values underpinning the ethos as determined by the patron and reflective of school type (Renehan 2014). The landscape of post-primary education in Ireland consists of an ‘immense variety’ of school types (Colton 2009). How schools present their patrons’ curricula is dependent on the school type. Patrons’ curricula range from religious education programmes in denominational schools to more recent broader ethical, values and multi-belief programmes in multi-denominational schools. Religious Education (RE) as a subject can be one (among many) ways for schools to express their ethos, with the patrons adopting full autonomy as to how the RE programme is delivered (Meehan and Laffan 2021). This is often the case in voluntary secondary schools, that are privately owned, mainly under religious management (Raftery and Hout 1993). The hegemonic and symbiotic relationship between religion and education is largely unique to Ireland in comparison to its European counterparts (Irwin 2015). The genesis of the Irish Constitution in 1937 saw the Roman Catholic Church enter into a symbiotic relationship with education (Clarke 2012) and most Irish post-primary schools were established by the Catholic Church (O’Flaherty et al. 2018). Up to recent decades, Ireland was predominantly a mono-cultural society with the school system largely owned and controlled by the Catholic Church (O’Brien et al. 2023). The Church saw education as a pathway for the ‘transmission of the Catholic cultural heritage’ (Clarke 2012, 482).

Publicly managed schools

The establishment of vocational schools in the 1930s saw schools presented under the governance of local education authorities that were publicly owned. In 2013, these Vocational Education Committee (VEC) schools were restructured into 16 Education and Training Boards (ETBs) under the Education and Training Board Act (DES 2013) the largest publicly managed sector in Irish education (Banks, McCoy, and Shevlin 2013). Education and Training Boards (ETBs) schools comprise of primary and post-primary schools. Community National Schools (CNSs) were established in 2008 under the patronage of ETBs and are Ireland’s first state, multi-denominational primary schools (Irwin 2015). Set against a context where Ireland as a country has experienced the most intensive and sudden migration patterns among all OECD countries (Taguma et al. 2009), the lack of ‘core values’ underpinning the publicly managed school sector was apparent with more emphasis placed on structural systems (Liddy, O’Flaherty, and McCormack 2019; McCormack et al. 2019; O’Flaherty et al. 2018). This intensive migration is reflected in the landscape of Irish society, which has seen a significant shift from being largely culturally and religiously homogenous to one characterised by growing diversity and pluralism (Darmody and Smyth 2017). Considering this shift of diversity and the rapid changes in cultural, religious and ethnic pluralism, reflecting on values, teaching and learning within the publicly managed education sector is important (McCormack, O’Flaherty, and Conboy 2023; O’Flaherty et al. 2018). It is only in the last 10 years that publicly managed schools have reflected on the core values that will support and underpin the ethos of their schools (McCormack, O’Flaherty, and Conboy 2023). The sector began to develop more coherence with regard to ethos and the role of the patron resulting in the Education and Training Board Ireland (ETBI) Patrons’ Framework on Ethos (2022) which clearly outlines the position of publicly managed schools (ETBI 2022; McCormack, O’Flaherty, and Conboy 2023). One of the primary aims, as outlined in the Patrons’ Framework on Ethos (2022) is to furnish Education and Training Board (ETB) school communities and other relevant stakeholders ‘with a common understanding of the ethos of the ETB school sector’ (ETBI 2022, 5).

Goodness Me, Goodness You! (GMGY) is a ‘multi-belief and values curriculum’ that is a curricular expression of the ETB ethos at the primary level (NCCA 2018, 8). The curriculum at the primary level places greater emphasis on diversity and active citizenship in a pluralist society than that of the post-primary curriculum (Faas and Ross 2012). While publicly managed schools have particular responsibilities in a democratic society and engage with a variety of beliefs and values (McCormack et al. 2019) – no such curricular expression of ethos was in place for publicly managed post-primary schools. A comprehensive body of research outlined that although ETB post-primary schools are officially ‘multi-denominational’ in reality, there is evidence of a Catholic habitus across the schools (Liddy, O’Flaherty, and McCormack 2019; McCormack et al. 2019; O’Flaherty et al. 2018) with the legacy of the church evident even today (Faas, Smith, and Darmody 2019; McCormack, O’Flaherty, and Conboy 2023). With the implementation of the ETBI Patrons’ Framework on Ethos (2022), ETB schools now are furnished with a scaffold to understand the core values that underpin the work they do. This along with the research outlined above, provided a segue for the ETB sector to reflect on how they wished to express their ethos through a curricular expression in post-primary schools. It is within this context, that this paper set out to explore the experiences of curriculum developers as they devised a curricular expression on ethos for publicly managed schools.

Context for the advisory committee: ETB curriculum expression on ethos

An accelerated process of curriculum reform began in the assemblage of lower post-primary education in 2011 with the development of the Junior Cycle Framework (Dempsey, Doyle, and Looney 2021), thus providing schools with more agency and flexibility regarding curriculum development, which is a common feature of the Junior Cycle reform (Gleeson 2022). Following on from the GMGY! curriculum in ETB Community National Schools, the proposed development of a curricular expression of ethos in post-primary ETB schools was proposed for the first three years of post-primary education in line with the Junior Cycle Framework (2015). The launch of the ETBI Patrons’ Framework on Ethos in 2022 offered a significant milestone for publicly managed, multi-denominational schools in providing clarity around their identity and values (McCormack, O’Flaherty, and Conboy 2023). It was this process that prompted the development of a curricular expression of ethos of the sector for use at Junior Cycle¹ (DES 2015).

An expert advisory committee was selected considering their areas of expertise, as curriculum development is often designed by expert subgroups (Bens, Kolomitro, and Han 2021). The structure of the advisory committee was designed to emulate the concept of a community of practice. A variety of interpretations of communities of practice present challenges to the application of this concept (Blankenship and Ruona 2007; Boylan 2010) and a range of models have been developed and evaluated. Due to such variability, Etienne Wenger, one of the original scholars to investigate this field, and his colleagues, Richard McDermott and William Snyder, built on previous work identifying and describing Communities of Practice (Wenger 1999) by specifically providing a common foundation to address their evolutionary development (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002). Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) identify a community of practice as ‘groups of people who share a concern, set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis’ (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002, 4). The advisory committee (n = 12) comprised both internal (ETB representation) and external members who were selected based on their expertise. As such, it was vital that an experienced cohort of individuals worked collaboratively within this process to oversee the design and development of a curricular expression of ethos. As per the terms of reference circulated to the advisory committee in advance of their first meeting, this community of practice were constituted to develop a curricular expression of ethos with careful consideration for its rationale, purpose, and audience. They were also required to provide meaningful and constructive feedback on the curriculum content.

Methodology

This paper set out to explore, the experiences of curriculum developers in the curriculum development process of a curricular expression of ethos for publicly managed schools and is framed by the following research question: How do the advisory committee experience the curriculum development process? The research design is informed by the interpretivist paradigm, which lends itself to the existence of multiple experiences and realities that may be interpreted differently to facilitate descriptions or complex nuanced findings (Dumas and Anderson 2014). A qualitative methodological design was adopted to permit a deep exploration of the context and limitations within that context (Bryman 2012). Semi-structured ‘responsive interviewing’ was implemented allowing for the interviewer to tailor the questions depending on participant responses (Rubin 2012, 79). This allowed the researcher freedom to explore specific answers (Bryman 2012) providing a systematic approach for the participants, with the format remaining mainly conversational (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2018).

Methods and participants

Members of an expert advisory committee who were involved in the curriculum development process were invited to volunteer for a semi-structured interview. A total of 10 out of 12 members agreed to participate. The interviews explored the experiences of curriculum developers involved in the development of a curricular expression for multi-denominational publicly managed schools in line with the Framework for Junior Cycle (2015), with questions focused on the participant’s philosophy of education, perceptions of curriculum and experiences of the curriculum development process. Interviews were audio and video recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview respondents were all members of the advisory committee in the curriculum development process, occupying a variety of roles within the organisation and external to the organisation. Interview respondents were both male (n = 4) and female (n = 6) comprising of internal ETB members (n = 6) and selected external members (n = 4). The internal members occupied a variety of leadership positions and the external members comprised of a teacher (n = 1), National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) member (n = 1) and academic members (n = 2).

Data analysis

The interview data was analysed using inductive thematic analysis, that is, understanding the data generated by this research rather than previous research on the topic (Braun and Clarke 2012). Because more than one researcher was involved in the analytic process, coding was collaborative and reflexive, ‘designed to develop a more nuanced reading of the data’ (Braun and Clarke 2019, 594) that was scaffolded around the premise of active and reflexive researchers (Braun and Clarke 2019). All three members of the research team engaged with the data analysis to mitigate bias. Implementing the six-step framework for thematic analysis provided a framework for data engagement, coding and theme development (Braun and Clarke 2021) compatible with the researchers’ ontological and epistemological positions (Braun and Clarke 2006). The transcripts were studied, with the researchers familiarising themselves with the data, followed by a systematic coding of the data where initial themes were generated from the collated data. These themes were then developed and reviewed collaboratively, following a refining, and defining of named themes.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this research was granted by the authors’ relevant University Research Ethics Committee in compliance with ethical procedures for human subject’s research. Participants were contacted via email and were purposively sampled as they were members of the advisory committee (Bryman 2016). Informed consent was obtained from all participants who engaged in the semi-structured interviews with pseudonyms applied to maintain confidentiality and the stipulation that participants were free to withdraw from the study at any stage. The primary researcher was a member of the advisory committee, ‘embedded in a shared setting’ with the research participants (Floyd and Arthur 2012, 173). Therefore the risk of bias, where the interviewees may relay socially desirable answers to questions was a possibility (Fowler Jr and Cosenza 2009). In order to mitigate this, a member of the research team who was not involved in the advisory committee conducted the semi-structured interviews.

Results

Analysis of the data led to the identification of four primary themes: the meaning and purpose of the advisory committee, the focus of the curricular expression, the balance of voice and the role of the curriculum lead.

Purpose of the advisory committee

The first theme relates to the perceived purpose of the advisory committee in the context of the development of a patrons’ curriculum for publicly managed post-primary schools in Ireland. Members expressed differing perspectives and understandings regarding the purpose of the committee and what they were tasked to do – with differences emerging between internal and external members. The internal members perceived the advisory committee’s primary purpose was to provide guidance, advice, expertise, decision-making, and shape the curriculum. This was highlighted in the following quotes:

This group would provide guidance and makeup [for] the lack of expertise in … curriculum development … advise the wider patron bodies about what such a course should look like. (M2)

Shape how the curriculum is going to work. (M6)

They are charged with making decisions as to what’s going to be taught. (M3)

The external members of the advisory committee viewed their role as slightly different, believing they represented a different voice and perspective. This was highlighted in the following quotes:

We are meant to represent somewhat of a different voice or to bring something together. (M9)

A sounding board really for teasing out ideas for bringing draft documents of a drafted curriculum to them. A group to whom you could go and help you refine and redraft and move things along. Very much a working group, an active group. (M10)

Reflective of the above, some members believed that ‘everybody wasn’t coming from the same place’ (M1), with internal members having a different perspective on the purpose of the advisory committee. This was mirrored by another participant who noted:

The people who are actually within that nucleus of [internal participants] have perhaps a slightly different concept of what the function of the advisory committee is … not everyone’s there for the same reason. (M9)

Some believed that committee members brought with them their own perspectives and agendas to the advisory committee. These agendas were based on, for example, their views on values education, patronage, and religious education. As a result, some were perceived as sticking to this agenda throughout the process as reflected in the following quotes ‘When people are in this process, they nearly put on the coat that I’m here for this purpose, don’t move outside of it and stick to their own lane’ (M7) and ‘I did try and, all the time, look at the overall piece and bring the patron’s piece’ (M4). This was deemed to shape, inform and influence both the process and the final curriculum developed as evidenced by the following quote from an external member ‘ … there were [patron] perspectives brought, in terms of that need to hold onto the core message and make sure it never got lost or diluted’ (M7).

Focus of the curriculum expression

During the early stages of the curriculum development process, it became clear that members of the advisory committee had differing perspectives on the intended purpose and focus of the curriculum. The lack of a clear identity at the outset of the process meant that members struggled to see what the focus of the curriculum was, as reflected in the comments by one internal member of the group stating that ‘this course needed to be rooted and have a clear identity from the onset’ (M10). This lack of clarity led to difficulties in reaching consensus on the curriculum’s purpose, with one member of the group acknowledging that the committee had to go back to the ‘storming’ phase after attempting to proceed directly to the ‘norming’ stating ‘we formed and went straight to the norming and had to go back and do the storming’ (M1). The storming phase of the curriculum development process was characterised by tensions related to the curricular expression of the ethos of publicly managed schools and its relationship with Religious Education (RE). These tensions primarily revolved around the identity of the curriculum, with one member, for example, highlighting that the curricular expression was not meant to replace RE, ‘this course is not a substitute for RE’ (M4). Others pointed out the gaps in the implementation of RE and the fragmented nature of RE provision in publicly managed schools and the potential role of this curricular expression in this.

[this curriculum fills] a gap that needs to be addressed. (M8)

Some schools are just doing a mishmash [of RE], and it was very much down to individual teachers around which bits they pick and choose to do. (M2)

The data indicated that a discourse with regards religion and the place of religion was dominant within the advisory committee, with members noting how religion still has a strong influence over publicly managed schools and within the advisory committee.

Religion is still a very dominant voice on the group. (M9)

It’s almost like religion or religiosity is an overarching value. (M9)

I was perhaps somewhat surprised by how much religion still plays a part there. Even though we’re talking about state [publicly managed] schools. (M9)

The dominant discourse with regard to the importance of religious education was evident in the development process. Despite tensions related to the curricular expression of the ethos of publicly managed schools and its relationship with religious education, there was a clear assumption among members of the committee that religion would be an integral part of the curriculum.

… it was always assumed [religion] would be an important strand. (M2)

Not talking about ‘religion’ within a curriculum like this is just not a runner. (M9)

I imagine the answer lies in the hegemonic relationship between education and religion that still exists in Ireland. (M2)

On realising these assumptions, the advisory committee discussed and addressed concerns about the lack of a clear rationale for the curriculum in question (during the ‘storming’ phase). They agreed that religious education (RE) would be included but as a section of the curriculum rather than the focus. The group decided on three equally weighted strands for the curriculum, with one focused on religion and beliefs. Reflective of the context, there was also a shift towards a more multi-denominational approach to religious education and belief, moving away from a faith-based approach.

We decided on three equally weighted strands (one around religion and beliefs). (M2)

… moving away from a faith-based approach to religion and belief and moving towards that more pluralist approach to belief. (M9)

Curriculum lead

The data analysis revealed that the role of the curriculum lead was considered crucial in maintaining the project’s momentum during the ‘storming’ phase with a number of members referring to the level of preparation observed ‘Good preparation, good structure to the agenda, good facilitation’ (M7) and ‘I actually feel the way the meetings were managed and organized was actually one of the major strengths’ (M7). The data outlined that the curriculum lead was perceived to do a significant amount of work between meetings to keep the group aligned and on track. One member noted that these efforts were helpful in moving the project forward, while another acknowledged the hard work done by the curriculum led to realign the group and get the project back on course.

These [unscheduled individual] meetings helped to keep the ball moving. (M3)

X did a huge amount of work in the background to align everyone back in, then we were able to get going again. (M1)

It seems that the ‘in-between’ meetings, where the curriculum lead worked with individual committee members to clarify and align their views, were perceived as a significant part of the curriculum development process and benefited the overall outcome. Members noted that these meetings helped to improve the draft work and bring it to another level.

A lot of in between meetings they’d say, ‘Would you have a look at this first before I send it to the rest of the group?’ Then we do a bit of work in it together and bring it to another level. (M10)

As the group met, X would come back, and they would tease out these things … I think they worked hard to clarify that. (M4)

I didn’t envisage the amount of contact there would be between meetings between the leader and various committee members which was a great benefit to the process. (M2)

These findings highlight the role of the curriculum lead in maintaining the curriculum’s momentum during the ‘storming’ phase.

Balance of voices on the committee

The final theme identified from the data explores the balance of voices on the committee. The interviewees outlined that this process was a collaborative and consultative process that allowed all voices to be heard with members stating, ‘ … I thought it was really consultative, really open, and all voices were heard’ (M4) and ‘ … this curriculum development was a collaborative process and consultative process’ (M10). Some did feel however that the voice of curriculum development experts and academics was dominant throughout the process stating that ‘ … there were dominant voices from academic and from curriculum’ (M4) and ‘ … the academic and the curriculum experts are the dominant voices’ (M2). The curriculum development experts and academics were aware of their contribution and influence (and potential dominance). For example:

I was conscious of my potential to be a dominant voice because of my experience. (Number removed to support anonymity)

I was conscious of dominant voices, dominant perspectives, and sometimes an implicit narrative that becomes evident where there’s nearly an expectation that certain voices will interject, or certain voices will have something to say. (M7)

The academic perspective was considered to have added ‘richness’ to the curriculum (M5) and a ‘broader understanding and expertise’ (M6). However, it was noted by others that academics sometimes ‘push the boat out too far’ (M5) and lead the process down unproductive ‘rabbit holes’ (M8). Examination of the data also revealed that the internal representations on the advisory committee were often focused on ensuring the programme’s alignment with the patron’s needs and goals with one member suggesting ‘there was a strong voice in terms of the patron there and that it didn’t just become another [curriculum], but that it was very clearly a patron’s program for the sector’ (M4).

The teacher’s voice within this process was deemed to be an isolated one. With one sole teacher representative on the committee, it was noted that ‘we should have had maybe more than one teacher’ (M6). This was mirrored by the teacher representative who stated ‘ … I did feel on the committee there should have been another teacher there from a [publicly managed] school’ (number removed to support anonymity). The struggles of day-to-day school life on top of the curriculum development process were emphasised as impacting on this teacher’s capacity to engage fully with the committee:

I wasn’t comfortable … online … I was under a lot of pressure with school trying to get time off  … the same classes were being taken from me for this meeting it really frustrated me because I hadn’t seen that class for five or six sessions. (Number removed to support anonymity)

Discussion

Drawing on insights gleaned from the data and relevant literature, in this discussion section three interrelated issues in contemporary curriculum development are explored: hidden assumptions and biases within the curriculum development process; dominant and less dominant voices within the process; and the role of the curriculum lead.

Assumptions within the curriculum development process: the place of ‘forming, storming and norming’

Firstly, the data identified the impact of assumed and unquestioned societal values on the curriculum developers and curriculum development process. Despite tensions related to the ethos of publicly managed schools and its relationship with religion and religious education (Clarke 2012; Irwin 2015), there was an apparent assumption that RE would feature in the curricular expression, despite this being deemed ‘multi-denominational’ and for use in publicly managed post-primary schools. The initial lack of clear understanding of the purpose and focus of the advisory committee may have exacerbated this further. While the advisory committee was selected to represent a different voice, they continued to be informed and influenced by dominant societal values (Gillies 2006). This perhaps reflects the continued place of a ‘catholic habitus’ as largely normalised and unquestioned within the life of publicly managed schools in Ireland (McCormack et al. 2019) and Irish society (Neary, Gray, and O’Sullivan 2018). Given the strong link between societal influences/values and curriculum development (Soto 2015; Turunen, Määttä, and Uusiautti 2012) this is perhaps unsurprising but poses problems for publicly managed schools within diverse, democratic societies (Hoggett 2006). This highlights the importance of proactively addressing and establishing a common understanding amongst advisory committee members regarding the focus of curriculum, as well as allocating time to explore the assumptions and biases curriculum developers bring to the process (Priestley and Philippou 2018). Therefore, it is about ensuring ‘forming, storming and norming’ are given time within the curriculum development process so that any assumed, implicit biases/values can be explored, acknowledged, and problematised. Having a diversity of stakeholders at the table reflective of the curriculum being developed is also essential.

Dominant and quieter voices within the curriculum development process: supporting teacher voice

The data outlined that the curriculum development experts and academics were perceived to dominate the discourse while other members of the committee were presented as being less dominant. The strong voices of curriculum developers and academics is mirrored in the literature. The impact of ‘unbalanced power’ on the curriculum development process outlining that strong-established members adopt a powerful position with teachers’ voice being less dominant (Hart 2002; Scanlon, MacPhail, and Calderon 2020). However, the voice of teachers in the curriculum development process is significant (Baş and Şentürk 2019; Doll 1996). Although there is growing support for the input of teachers (Baş and Şentürk 2019; Carl 2009) challenges to their inclusion in the process have been identified (Alsubaie 2016; Carl 2009; Gleeson 2010). Infrastructure needs to be in place for teacher voice to be supported, and to move beyond tokenism (Mulenga and Mwanza 2019). In order to do so, we need to ensure the correct conditions are provided to support teachers to engage. Resources such as time, release from teaching and support from school management all constitute conditions to support teachers throughout this process. Resources are also required to provide adequate training to support teachers as they engage in this process, allowing for greater ownership and to create a level playing field (Alsubaie 2016; Baş and Şentürk 2019; Heikkilä 2021).

The role of the curriculum lead

The data outlined the significance of the curriculum lead in the development of this curricular expression. Findings suggest that the person charged with leading, played a crucial role in shaping the direction of the curriculum development process. Not only was this role limited to meetings, but a significant amount of in-between meetings were held with members of the team to support the process. Previous literature acknowledges the role of the curriculum lead (Bens, Kolomitro, and Han 2021; Johnson 2001) and suggests that a conductive, dynamic, and supportive leadership style is symbiotic with the curriculum development process (Khan and Law 2015). The significance of adopting a clear strategic leadership structure with effective meeting practices benefits and enables the curriculum development process (Bens, Kolomitro, and Han 2021). A coherence framework, explicitly selected and adhered to by the curriculum lead can provide a model for practice that supports effective leadership in guiding the development and implementation of the curriculum development process by cultivating collaborative cultures and focusing direction (Fullan and Quinn 2015). Interviewees alluded to the democratic processes that were implemented throughout the curriculum development process, processes that are highly recommended, allowing for all stakeholders to participate in the process (Hayward 2000).

Concluding remarks

This paper explored the experiences of an advisory committee charged with developing a curricular expression on ethos for post-primary publicly managed schools. The findings presented shed some light on important considerations for supporting the curriculum development process. Firstly, it is fundamental to create conducive conditions to enable teachers to actively participate and engage with the curriculum development process. This necessitates providing support, time, adequate training and ensuring that they have support from their school leaders to appropriately engage with such processes. Additionally, the role of the curriculum lead is worth reflecting on. Adopting a democratic landscape where collaboration and collective voice are encouraged are considered pivotal factors in driving successful curriculum development. Finally, to reflect the landscape of publicly managed schools it is important that a pluralist approach is adhered to in the development of a values-led curricular expression. This process needs to pay cognisance and provide time to explore the assumptions and biases of the curriculum development team. The insights gleaned from this paper offer the potential to inform and enhance the curriculum development process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Niall Mulpeter

Niall Mulpeter is a PhD scholar in the School of Education, University of Limerick. Niall is currently an Educational and Policy Development Officer with Education and Training Boards Ireland. He has a primary degree in Music and Religious Education and a Masters in Music Education. Niall has worked in a variety of educational settings including formal post-primary education and the teachers support services. His research interests include curriculum development, values education and communities of practice.

Orla McCormack

Dr Orla McCormack is an Associate Professor in the School of Education, University of Limerick. Orla is a qualified science teacher and has worked in higher/teacher education for over a decade. Orla's teaching and research interest focus on curriculum, curriculum change and reflective practice and she has led a number of national and international projects in this area.

Joanne O’Flaherty

Dr Joanne O'Flaherty is an Associate Professor in the School of Education, University of Limerick and Research Lead for the Ubuntu Network (www.ubuntu.ie). She has a primary degree in Physical Education and English. Joanne has worked in a variety of educational settings, including the formal post-primary sector and the NGO sector, before joining the University of Limerick faculty. Her research interests include teacher preparation, social justice education and social and emotional learning and she has published in these areas.

Notes

1 The Framework for Junior Cycle was introduced in 2015 with the intention of providing greater flexibility and agency to schools/sectors to develop curriculum to reflect local needs (DES 2015).