Curriculum Autonomy in the Education Systems of Portugal and Canada

Oliveira, Isabel M. J.; Ferreira, António Gomes

doi:10.1590/2175-6236122955vs02

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

OTHER THEMES • Educ. Real. 48 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-6236122955vs02 copy

Curriculum Autonomy in the Education Systems of Portugal and Canada

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Many authors argue that autonomy is nonexistent in a centralized education system, given that it is a characteristic of decentralization, whereas schools in a decentralized education system have more autonomy. The researchers compare the level of curriculum autonomy granted to schools in a centralized system (Portugal) and to those in a decentralized system (Canada), based on interviews and content analysis of those responsible for the administration and organization of schools. It appears that, in the Portuguese case, there is some school autonomy, essentially centered on the collective, although teachers do not recognize or take ownership thereof. In the Canadian case, autonomy is granted on an individual basis to each teacher.

Keywords
Autonomy; Decentralization/Centralization; Curriculum; Education Systems

Portugal	Canada (Ontario)	Inferences
“It’s the Ministry of Education who defines the curriculum [...]”. DP-B / “[...] we have to comply with the curricula […] It’s formatted for a country [...]” (DP-G).	“[...] everything is already in terms of subjects per grade, there’re specific expectations and there’s overall expectations per subject, per grade [...] those are already set out from the province of Ontario” (DC-A).	The curriculum, in both countries, is determined at the central level.
“[...] teachers’ associations play an important role when the programme itself is being drawn up” (IP-B).	“[...] when they’re [ministry of education] developing or upgrading curriculum, they have many focus groups” (SC-B)	Schools in both education systems are not the creators of the curriculum.
“[The school] [...] actually has little autonomy […]” (IP-B). “[...] it’s the Pedagogical Council that defines [...]” (DP-A).	“So, the syllabus [of secondary curriculum] is planned by the consultant at the Board who gives us our course profiles and says here are the units of study that you must teach [...]” (DC-F)	There is some local autonomy in defining the curriculum.
“[...] we are the ones who actually define them [optional subjects] [...]” (DP-E).	“[...] we, as a school, have autonomy in terms of what elective credits that we offer [in secondary schools] [...]” (DC-F).	The school has some autonomy in defining the curriculum.
“[...] schools want a lot of autonomy and then when it comes to implementing it, they don’t want autonomy because [...] it takes a lot of work and responsibility [...]” (DP-G). “[...] it is very convenient for a lot of people to want to reclaim autonomy and then when you give it to them, they don’t know what to do with it, or they don’t know how to implement it” (DP-G).	“[...] having it [curriculum] centralized ensures that all of our students, regardless of where you are, they’re going to benefit from the curriculum and that [...] they’re all going to be working with the overall expectations [...]” (DC-F).	There are some contradictions in the Portuguese case. Tacit acceptance of the level of curriculum autonomy of the school, in the Canadian case.

Portugal	Canada (Ontario)	Inferences
“How do we deal with it? In a pragmatic way, in a very direct way: what we do depends on the human resources we have [...]” (DP-F).	“[...] that’s [the selection of the electives] based on student interest, and it’s based on teacher interest as well” (DC-F).	Influence of teaching staff’s interests in curriculum decision-making.
“[...] the squabbles begin between departments, between disciplinary groups, which is it? who loses, who wins […]” (DP-G).	[Not referred to]	Internal constraints/conflict.
“[...] there’s a legislative strait-jacket that subject to compliance with programs, obliges [teachers] to inform at the end of the year […] how far they reached in the teaching of the subject […]” (DP-G).	“[...] they [courses] are still attached to some sort of curriculum policy document. So, you might take [...] civics at one school and I might take [...] world history that would cover the same kind of topics, right. But they would all still be bound by the same curriculum” (SC-B).	Curriculum autonomy given to teachers by the respective Ministries of Education.
“[...] all pedagogical measures […] are discussed and approved by the Pedagogical council under the proposal of the school principal, of disciplinary groups, or proposals that arise even in the Pedagogical council” (DP-G).	“[...] the teachers use their professional judgement [...] to unpack that [the curriculum] and to deliver it” (SC-A).	Collective versus individual teacher autonomy.
“[...] all the articulation and preparation work is done at disciplinary group level, or at department level afterwards, and at the pedagogical council level. So, between these 3 levels [...]” (DP-G).	“[...] it’s really left up to teachers as to whether or not they want to do that [work collaboratively]. It can’t be mandated” (DC-C).
“[...] it is one of the serious problems [...] more and more education professionals know the textbooks better and the programs less” (DP-B).	“[...] it’s up to the individual teachers to figure out how they are going to implement it [curriculum]” (DC-E).	Teachers’ knowledge and management of the curriculum.

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - Faculdade de Educação Avenida Paulo Gama, s/n, Faculdade de Educação - Prédio 12201 - Sala 914, 90046-900 Porto Alegre/RS Brasil, Tel.: (55 51) 3308-3268, Fax: (55 51) 3308-3985 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
E-mail: educreal@ufrgs.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Editora responsável: Lodenir Karnopp