The Impact of Government Regulation on Curriculum Development

Introduction

Thesis: Government policies and regulations impact the development of a districts curriculum politically and socially. State mandates, policies, and standards control what happens in instructional organizations.

Historically, the evolution of curriculum development has been influenced by various philosophical and pedagogical paradigms. The early 20th century's progressive education movement was led by John Dewey, who called for experiential learning and democratic schooling (Dewey, 1938). By mid-century, however, the focus in education was on essentialism and standardization (Ravitch, 2000). All told, curriculum development has continually shifted in response to societal needs and political pressures. The advent of policies like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in the early 2000s marked a significant turn towards accountability and standardized testing, fundamentally altering the dynamics within instructional organizations (Ravitch, 2010). These historical assumptions and shifts provide a foundation for understanding the current philosophical stance on curriculum development.

The conceptual position that government mandates and policies dictate educational practices can be observed in the way these regulations have evolved within the literature and their practical implications in schools. Apple (2004) and Au (2009) have argued that state mandates and standardized assessments often serve political and economic agendas, rather than purely educational goals. This perspective can be seen in the implementation of policies such as NCLB and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which focus on standardized testing as a means of accountability (Apple, 2004; Au, 2009). These legislative acts have dictated the curriculum and impacted teacher evaluations, school funding, and student outcomes, thereby reinforcing the control that politicians have over educational content and practices by those in power (Hursh, 2007).

In practical terms, these policies have led to a narrowing of the curriculum, where subjects like art, music, and physical education are often marginalized in favor of tested subjects such as math and reading (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). This shift has significant implications for educational equity, as schools in underprivileged areas are disproportionately affected by these mandates (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014). Moreover, the emphasis on high-stakes testing can lead to teaching to the test, where the richness and breadth of education are sacrificed for higher test scores (Au, 2007). This trend affects the quality of education and perpetuates social inequities, as students from marginalized communities are often left with a limited and superficial educational experience (Darling-Hammond, 2010). These real-world impacts show the need for a better examination of how government policies shape curriculum development and the implications for educational practice and social justice.

Conceptual Position and Evolution

The conceptual position that government mandates and policies exert significant control over educational practices is well-supported by a substantial body of literature. Apple (2004) has extensively critiqued the ideological underpinnings of educational policies by arguing that these policies reflect socio-political and economic agendas that have little to do with actual education. Apple (2010) shows how curricular decisions are part of power plays and power dynamics that serve to maintain existing social hierarchies. This perspective is supported by Au (2009), who contends that high-stakes testing, which is a common feature of many government policies, standardizes education in a way that perpetuates inequality.

In the context of historical and philosophical paradigms, the shift from progressive education to a more standardized and test-oriented approach represents a significant evolution. Progressive education, influenced by John Deweys (1938) ideas of experiential learning and democratic education, focused on the holistic development of the child and the cultivation of critical thinking skills. However, with the rise of neoliberal policies in the late 20th century, there was a marked shift towards accountability and standardization, epitomized by NCLB and later, ESSA (Hursh, 2007). These policies mandated standardized testing as...

…practices. Policies like No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Race to the Top (RtT), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) were implemented with the aim of increasing accountability and imroving educational outcomes. However, these policies have also faced substantial criticism for their unintended consequences, including the narrowing of the curriculum, perpetuation of educational inequities, and the undue pressure placed on students and teachers.

The literature shows that while high-stakes testing and accountability measures were intended to ensure quality education for all, they have often reinforced existing social inequalities and limited the breadth of educational experiences. Scholars like Apple, Au, and Darling-Hammond help to provide critical insights into how these policies serve broader political and economic interests, rather than purely educational goals. Their work emphasizes that there is a clear need for a more equitable and holistic approach to curriculum development that addresses the diverse needs of all students and values a wide range of subjects beyond those included in standardized tests.

From my perspective, a reimagined approach to curriculum development should prioritize social justice and equity, ensuring that education serves as a vehicle for empowerment and opportunity for all students. This involves addressing socio-economic challenges, integrating a diverse and holistic curriculum, and involving educators in the policy-making process. In doing so, we can create an educational system that better prepares students for the world by helping students to become better critical thinkers, more creative, and with greater social-emotional skills.

Ultimately, the goal of education should be to cultivate well-rounded individuals who are equipped to contribute positively to society. This requires a shift from the current emphasis on standardized testing and accountability towards a more inclusive and supportive approach that recognizes and nurtures the potential of every student. It is incumbent upon all stakeholderspolicymakers, educators, parents, and the community at largeto work together to achieve…