THE MAL‐ADMINISTRATION OF INNOVATION
| Published date | 01 February 1978 |
| Pages | 187-199 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009797 |
| Date | 01 February 1978 |
| Author | R. MORGAN |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XVI, NUMBER 2 OCTOBER, 1978
THE MALADMINISTRATION OF INNOVATION
R. MORGAN
Recent reviews of the curriculum development programmes initiated both in Britain and
the United States suggest that they have largely failed to achieve their objectives. This
failure has been seen by many to be the responsibility of the centre periphery (CP) model
on which most of these programmes were based. In this paper it is argued that the
criticisms made of the model fail to distinguish between two distinct stages of curriculum
development—materials production and materials distribution. It is suggested that it is
the latter which has failed, because the CP model, in Britain at least, has not been
implemented effectively. Analysis of this weakness indicates that the problem lies mainly
in the existing support agencies which tend to function in isolation, insulated one from
another. It is argued that a more articulated pattern of curriculum development would
be possible in both Britain and Australia if there were greater institutional overlap between
these agencies and if curriculum development were rationalised on a national basis.
Suggestions are made as to how this might be effected against a background of innovatory-
experience both in Britain and Australia.
Ample evidence of the disillusionment with the curriculum renewal
programmes in Britain and the United States has recently been provided
by Stenhouse1 and MacDonald and Walker.2 Their reviews of the present
state of affairs, which analyse the various types of models being used
and suggest alternative modes of approach for future enterprises are
typical of the reappraisal now going on. This consciousness has clearly
been sharpened in the past few years by the mood of economic stringency
in both countries and the consequent pressure for public accountability
in educational spending. Although the present atmosphere of gloom may
be ill-founded in the long term, in that we may still be standing too
close to the situation to focus clearly on the results so far obtained, there
is little question about the poverty of school response in terms of project
adoption. In 1971 in Britain, after an expenditure of £5.75 million on 123
projects, it was found that schools had committed less than one percent
of their budgets on these projects.3
By
1976,
it had reached roughly
3
percent.4
In the United States a finding of one of the national evaluations made in
1973 claimed:
more than S200 million in educational research has produced 'little evidence
of . . . significant impact in classrooms'.5
In the investigation of the causes of this failure some have concluded
that the nature of the model used with these innovations is the basic
problem. The most pervasive of these has been the so-called CP type.
This is now very much under attack and other modes of innovation are
being preferred. Following a retrospective look at curriculum development
RON MORGAN is Senior Lecturer in the Centre for Curriculum Studies, University of
New England. He holds the degrees of B.A., Cert.Ed. (Bristol) and M.Ed. (Manchester).
Prior to his present appointment Mr. Morgan was Head of the Curriculum Studies
Department at Madeley College of Education, U.K.
To continue reading
Request your trial