CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND ACADEMIC STANDARDS

A LECTURE DELVERED BY PROFESSOR OLUSESAN OMIDIJI AT A

WORKSHOP OF ACADEMIC PLANNERS IN NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES
(CODAPNU) AT NUC H/Q, ABUJA ON 13TH JULY, 2011)
Protocol:

I sincerely thank the organizers of this workshop for giving me the opportunity to be part of this
discussion on curriculum and academic standard through

CODAPNU.

My interest in academic

standards evolved from an over 30 years lecturing experience in our University system where I have
noticed tremendous growth in student population, number of curricular, emergence of state and private
Universities, all happening in the midst of stress to quality delivery and standard sustenance. I have
observed resistance to the introduction of other ways of assessing quality because academics are
basically conservative. I have made my view known regarding the issue of academic standard, quality
delivery and career in some fora and can therefore only thank the organizers of this workshop for
providing me with another opportunity to make a contribution. I am constrained to approach the
concept of curriculum and academic standards as if they are two issues because in separate terms they
are big topics. But in real terms they are twin issues in academic delivery. There is no standard without
a curriculum and no useful curriculum can there be without clear standards.
CURRICULUM AND ITS DEVELOPEMENT
Almost all universities taught the so-called seven liberal arts. The most important of these were the first
three, called the trivium: grammar (what would now be called reading and writing), rhetoric (literature
and more complicated kinds of writing), and logic. While learning these, students might also study some
or all of the other four, called the quadrivium. These were mathematical and scientific subjects:
arithmetic (what would now be called number theory), geometry (number relations), music (proportions
and harmonies), and astronomy. Some students also studied theology, which was considered the highest

and most profound subject, since it was the study of God and his works. When they had successfully
completed their studies, students became masters.
Most classes in medieval schools were taught as lectures in which the teacher read a text aloud and
commented on its important or difficult passages, while the students followed along, often with a copy
of the text. Other classes were organized as discussions in which both masters and students asked
questions and prodded one another to provide and support their answers. These were often very lively
meetings, and students greatly enjoyed the engaging atmosphere of the classroom. Education and
literacy rhymed and philosophers emerged through thinking.
Curriculum Theory And Practice
The organization of schooling and further education has long been associated with the idea of a
curriculum. But what actually is curriculum, and how might it be conceptualized? We will hereby
explore curriculum theory and practice and its relation to informal education.
The idea of curriculum is hardly new - but the way we understand and theorize it has altered over the
years - and there remains considerable dispute as to its meaning. It has its origins in the running/chariot
tracks of Greece. It was, literally, a course. In Latin curriculum was a racing chariot; currere was to
run. A useful starting point for us here might be the definition offered by John Kerr and taken up by Vic
Kelly in his standard work on the subject.
Kerr (1983, 1999) defined curriculum as, 'All the learning which is planned and guided by the school,
whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school.
This gives us some basis to move on - and for the moment all we need to do is highlight two of the key
features:
Learning is planned and guided. We have to specify in advance what we are seeking to achieve and
how

we are to go about it.

The definition refers to schooling. We should recognize that our current appreciation of curriculum
theory and practice emerged in the school and in relation to other schooling ideas such as subject and
lesson.
In what follows we will look at the four ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice:
2

1.

Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted; lecture delivery, avenue of

communication, interaction and feed back, scheme coverage and syllabus adherence.

2.

Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students product- professional

attainment,
knowledge demonstration, confidence in information attainment, eligibility
to practice, parent- teacher acceptability

3.

Curriculum as process-teaching/learning facilities, quality control; market acceptability.

4.

Curriculum as praxis. Assessment of performance or application of skill: the practical side

and application of curriculum process such as a professional skill, not its theory.The overall
demonstrable ability to confirm the value of curriculum through practice.

In view of the modern approach to educational delivery the above descriptions challenge the organized
delivery approach (AS PRACTICED IN THE UNIT COURSE SYSTEM) without necessarily
conflicting with it for as long as the values of curriculum are not compromised.
It is helpful to consider these ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice in the light of
influential categorization of knowledge into three disciplines: the theoretical, the productive and the
practical.

THE 3 DISCIPLINES OF KNOWLEDGE; CURRICULUM THEORY

THE
THEORETICAL

SYLLABUS

THE PRACTICAL

PROCESS

THE PRODUCTIVE

PRODUCT

Here the links become clear - the theoretical body of knowledge to be transmitted in the
first is that classically valued as 'the canon'; the process and praxis models come close
to practical deliberation; and the technical concerns of the outcome or product model
PRAXIS
mirror elements of Aristotle's characterization
of the productive.
Is curriculum synonymous with the syllabus? No.
The theoretical.
Syllabus, basically means a concise statement or table of the heads of a discourse, the contents of a
treatise, the subjects of a series of lectures. In the form that many of us will have been familiar with, it is
3

connected with courses leading to examinations. Teachers talk of the syllabus associated with, say, the
WAEC/SSCE exam. What we can see in such documents is a series of headings with some additional
notes which set out the areas that may be examined.
But that is not the limit of a curriculum
A syllabus will not generally indicate the relative importance of its topics or the order in which they are
to be studied. In some cases, those who compile a syllabus tend to follow the traditional textbook
approach of an 'order of contents', or a pattern prescribed by a 'logical' approach to the subject, or consciously or unconsciously - the shape of a university course in which they may have participated.
Thus, an approach to curriculum theory and practice which focuses on syllabus is only really concerned
with content. Curriculum is a body of knowledge-content and/or subjects. Education in this sense, is the
process by which these are transmitted or 'delivered' to students by the most effective methods that can
be devised (Blenkin et al., 1992).
Wherever curriculum is equated with a syllabus they are likely to limit their planning to a consideration
of the content or the body of knowledge that they wish to transmit. 'It is also because this view of
curriculum has been adopted that many teachers in primary schools may regard issues of curriculum as
of no concern to them, since they have not regarded their task as being to transmit bodies of knowledge
in this manner. The productivity content of curriculum takes its meaning far above that of a simple
syllabus. Productivity is the source of curriculum development while content alone and not even order
defines a course syllabus.
Curriculum theory as product
The dominant modes of describing and managing education are today couched in the productive form.
Education is most often seen as a technical exercise. Objectives are set, a plan drawn up, then applied,
and the outcomes (products) measured. It is a way of thinking about education that has grown in
influence in the United Kingdom since the late 1970s with the rise of vocationalism and the concern
with competencies. Thus, in the late 1980s and the 1990s many of the debates about the National
Curriculum for schools did not so much concern how the curriculum was thought about as to what its
objectives and content might be.
In The Curriculum Bobbitt (1928) wrote: The central theory of curriculum is simple. Human life,
however varied, consists in the performance of specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one
that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities. However numerous and diverse they
may be for any social class they can be discovered. This requires only that one go out into the world of
4

affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs consist. These will show the abilities, attitudes,
habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need. These will be the objectives of the
curriculum. They will be numerous, definite and particularized. The curriculum will then be that series
of experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining those objectives
Thus the objectives of a curriculum should be:
a.
to establish ability
b.
to alter attitudes
c.
to form habits
d.
to create appreciations
e.
provide knowledge
Tyler (1949) in particular, shared Bobbitt's emphasis on rationality and relative simplicity of the
approach to curriculum. His theory was based on four fundamental questions:
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?
Like Bobbitt, Tyler also placed an emphasis on the formulation of behavioural objectives and reasoned
that since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to
bring about significant changes in the students' pattern of behaviour, it becomes important to recognize
that any statements of objectives of the school should be a statement of changes to take place in the
students (Tyler 1949)
We can see how these concerns translate into a nicely-ordered procedure: one that is very similar to the
technical or productive thinking set out below.
The curriculum content
Step 1: Diagnosis of need
Step 2: Formulation of objectives
Step 3: Selection of content
Step 4: Organization of content
Step 5: Selection of learning experiences
Step 6: Organization of learning experiences
Step 7: Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it.
5

The attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has
considerable organizing power. Central to the approach is the formulation of behavioural objectives providing a clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results
evaluated.
Issues in curriculum theory and practice.
1. The first is that the plan or programme assumes great importance. The plan defines the
objectives. So we may define curriculum as: A programme of activities (by teachers and pupils)
designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends
or objectives (Grundy 1987: 11).
The challenge to the concept:
Such programmes inevitably exist prior to and outside the learning experiences. This takes much
away from learners. They can end up with little or no voice. They are told what they must learn
and

how they will do it. The success or failure of both the programme and the individual

learners is

judged on the basis of whether pre-specified changes occur in the behaviour and

person of the learner (the meeting of behavioural objectives). If the plan is tightly adhered to,
there can only be limited

opportunity for educators to make use of the interactions that

occur. It also can deskill educators in

another way. It has the capacity to turn educators

into technicians.
2. Second, there are questions around the nature of objectives. This model is hot on measurability.
It implies that behaviour can be objectively, mechanistically measured.
The challenge to the concept
There are always some uncertainties about what is being measured. We only have to reflect on
questions of success in our work. It is often very difficult to judge what the impact of particular
experiences has been. Sometimes it is years after the event that we come to appreciate
something of what has happened. For example, most informal educators who have been around
a few years will have had the experience of an ex-participant telling

them in great detail

about how some forgotten event (forgotten to the worker that is) brought about some
6

fundamental change. In order to measure, things

smaller units. This can lead to a

have to be broken down into smaller and

focus in this approach to curriculum theory and practice on

the parts rather than the whole; on the trivial, rather than the significant. It can lead to an
approach to education and assessment which resembles a shopping list.

When all the items are

ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something. The role of overall judgment is
somehow sidelined.
3. Third, What do educators actually do in the classroom. Much of the research concerning teacher
thinking and classroom interaction, and curriculum innovation has pointed to the lack of impact
on actual pedagogic practice of objectives.
The challenge to this concept
The teachers simply get it wrong - they ought to work with objectives. The difficulties that
educators

experience with objectives in the classroom may point to something inherently

wrong with the

approach - that it is not grounded in the study of educational exchanges. It

is a model of curriculum

theory and practice largely imported from technological and

industrial settings.
4. Fourth, there is the problem of unanticipated results. The focus on pre-specified goals may lead
both educators and learners to overlook learning that is occurring as a result of their interactions,
but which is not listed as an objective.
The value of the issue .
This is a simple and rational approach to curriculum theory and practice, and the way in which it
mimics industrial management have been powerful factors in its success. A further appeal has
been

the ability of academics to use the model to attack teachers.

There is a tendency, recurrent enough to suggest that it may be endemic in the approach, for academics
in education to use the objectives model as a stick with which

to beat teachers. 'What are your

objectives?' is more often asked in a tone of challenge than one of interested and helpful inquiry. The
demand for objectives is a demand for justification rather than a description of ends... It is not about

curriculum design, but rather an expression of irritation in the problems of accountability in education
(Stenhouse 1974)
So how do we move forward?
Curriculum as process
We have seen that the curriculum as product model is heavily dependent on the setting of behavioural
objectives. The curriculum, essentially, is a set of documents for implementation. Another way of
looking at curriculum theory and practice is via process. In this sense curriculum is not a physical thing,
but rather the interaction of teachers, students and knowledge. In other words, curriculum is what
actually happens in the classroom and what people do to prepare and evaluate. What we have in this
model is a number of elements in constant interaction. It is an active process and links with the
practical form of reasoning set out by Aristotle.
Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with an ability to think critically, -in-action, an
understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them, and a proposal for action which
sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter.
Guided by these, they encourage conversations between, and with, people in the situation out of which
may come thinking and action. They continually evaluate the process and what they can see of
outcomes.
Two things that set our thinking apart from the model for informal education are:
1.

The context in which the process occurs ('particular schooling situations');

2.

The fact that teachers enter the classroom or any other formal educational setting with a more
fully worked-through idea of what is about to happen.

These expressions and understandings have formed the basis of conceptualization of curriculum theory
and practice as proposed by Stenhouse (1975) who defined curriculum as;
an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in
such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice'.
Like a recipe in cookery.

A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment.
The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment. Similarly, a curriculum should be
grounded in practice. It is an attempt to describe the work observed in classrooms that it is adequately
communicated to teachers and others. Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste. So
can a curriculum. (Stenhouse 1975). But what about the manner in which the dish is served?.
This perhaps is why we are here to explore ways of assessing our recipe and if necessary, vary it
according to taste and ask that we be well served.
We also need to reflect on why curriculum theory and practice came into use by educators (as against
policy-makers). It was essentially as a way of helping them to think about their work before, during and
after interventions; as a means of enabling educators to make judgments about the direction their work
was taking.
So what are the essential components/foci of a curriculum.
The three broad areas/components and their composite parts as proposed by Stenhouse (1975) are
provided below. This is based on a process model.
In Planning

In Emperical Study

In Relation to justification

Principle for the selection of

content - what is to be learned and
taught

Principles on which to study and

evaluate the progress of students

Formulation of the intention or

aim of the curriculum which is
accessible to critical scrutiny.

. Principles for the development of

a teaching strategy - how it is to be
learned and taught

. Principles on which to study and

evaluate the progress of teachers.

Principles for the making of

decisions about sequence

Guidance as to the feasibility of

implementing the curriculum in
varying school contexts, pupil
contexts, environments and peergroup situations.

. Principles on which to diagnose

the strengths and weaknesses of
individual students and
differentiate the general principles
1, 2 and 3 above, to meet
individual cases.

. Information about the variability of

effects in differing contexts and on
different pupils and an
understanding of the causes of the
variation

Stenhouse, 1975.
It is inferable from the process model above that
1.

A curriculum is a particular form of specification about the practice of teaching. It is not a

package of materials or a syllabus of ground to be covered. It is a way of translating any
educational idea into a hypothesis stable in practice. It invites critical testing rather than
acceptance

2.

Any proposal, even at school level, needs to be tested, and verified by each teacher in
his/herclassroom. It is not like a curriculum package which is designed to be delivered almost
anywhere.

3.

Outcomes are no longer the central and defining feature. Rather than tightly specifying
behavioural objectives and methods in advance, what happens in this model of curriculum
theory and practice is that content and means develop as teachers and students work together.

4.

The learners in this model are not objects to be acted upon. They have a clear voice in the way
that the sessions evolve. The focus is on interactions. This can mean that attention shifts

from

teaching to learning.

A process approach to curriculum theory and practice, tends towards

making the process of learning the central concern of the teacher. This is because this way of
thinking emphasizes interpretation and meaning-making. As we have seen each classroom and
each exchange is different and has to be made sense of (Grundy, 1987).
It is also possible for some problems to arise from process approach to curriculum development.
First, for those who want some greater degree of uniformity in what is taught, this approach to the
theory of curriculum, because it places meaning-making and thinking at its core and treats learners as
subjects rather than objects, can lead to very different means being employed in classrooms and a high
10

degree of variety in content because the process model is essentially a critical model, not a marking
model.
Secondly, it cannot be directed towards an examination as an objective without loss of quality, since the
standards of the examination then override the standards imitated in the subject. This does not mean that
students taught on the process model cannot be examined, but it does mean that the examinations must
be taken in their stride as they pursue other aspirations. And if the examination is a by-product there is
an implication that the quality the student shows in it must be an under-estimate of his real quality. It is
hence rather difficult to get the weak student through an examination using a process model. Crammers
cannot use it, since it depends upon a commitment to educational aims. (Stenhouse 1975: 95).
Here we come to the basis of evolution of continuous assessment in curriculum implementation.
Third, there is the 'problem' of teachers. The major weakness and, indeed, strength of the process model
is that it rests upon the quality of teachers. If they are not up to much then there is no safety net in the
form of prescribed curriculum materials. The approach is dependent upon the cultivation of wisdom and
meaning-making in the classroom. If the teacher is not up to this, then there will be severe limitations
on what can happen educationally.
Fourth, we need to look back at our process model of curriculum theory and practice and what we have
subsequently discussed, and return to Aristotle and to Freire. The model we have looked at here does
not fully reflect the process explored earlier. In particular, it does not make explicit the commitments
associated with phronesis. And it is to that we will now turn.
Curriculum as praxis (Curriculum in practice).
Curriculum as praxis is, in many respects, a development of the process model. While the process
model is driven by general principles and places an emphasis on judgment and meaning making, it does
not make explicit statements about the interests it serves. The praxis model of curriculum theory and
practice brings to the centre the process which makes an explicit commitment to emancipation and
freedom of thought.. Thus action is not simply informed, it is also committed. It is praxis.
Praxis In Process

11

Curriculum as praxis
Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with a personal, but shared idea of the good and a
commitment to human emancipation, an ability to think critically, -in-action an understanding of their
role and the expectations others have of them, and a proposal for action which sets out essential
principles and features of the educational encounter. Guided by these, they encourage conversations
between, and with, people in the situation out of which may come informed and committed action. They
continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.
In this approach the curriculum itself develops through the dynamic interaction of action and reflection.
'That is, the curriculum is not simply a set of plans to be implemented, but rather is constituted through
an active process in which planning, acting and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into
the process; at its centre is praxis which is - informed, committed action.
How might we recognize this?
First, we should look for practice which does not focus exclusively on individuals, but pays careful
attention to collective understandings and practices and to structural questions. For example, in sessions
which seek to explore the experiences of different cultural and racial groups in society, we could be
looking to see whether the direction of the work took people beyond a focus on individual attitudes.
Second, we could be looking for a commitment expressed in action to the exploration of educators'
values and their practice. Are they, for example, able to say in a coherent way what they think makes for
human well-being and link this with their practice? We could also be looking for certain values especially an emphasis on human emancipation.
Third, we could expect practitioners committed to praxis to be exploring their practice with their peersinteractions.

They would be able to say how their actions with respect to particular interventions

reflected their ideas about what makes for the good, and to say what theories were involved.
Curriculum as the boundary between formal and informal education
Jeffs and Smith (1990; 1999) have argued that the notion of curriculum provides a central dividing line
between formal and informal education. They contend that curriculum theory and practice was formed
within the schooling context and that there are major problems when it is introduced into informal forms
of pedagogy.

12

However, process and praxis models of curriculum also present problems in the context of informal
education. If we look back at our models of process and compare them with the model of informal
education presented above then it is clear that we can have a similar problem with pre-specification.
One of the key feature that differentiates the two is that the curriculum model has the teacher entering
the situation with a proposal for action which sets out the essential principles and features of the
educational encounter. Informal educators do not have, and do not need, this element. They do not enter
with a clear proposal for action. Rather, they have an idea of what makes for human well-being, and an
appreciation of their overall role and strategy (strategy here being some idea about target group and
broad method e.g. detached work).
The other key difference is context. Even if we were to go the whole hog and define curriculum as
process there remain substantive problems. As Cornbleth (1990), and Jeffs and Smith (1990, 1999) have
argued, curriculum cannot be taken out of context, and the context in which it was formed was the
school. Curriculum theory and practice only makes sense when considered alongside notions like class,
teacher, course, lesson and so on. You only have to look at the language that has been used by our main
proponents: Tyler, Stenhouse, Cornbleth and Grundy, to see this. It is not a concept that stands on its
own. It developed in relation to teaching and within particular organizational relationships and
expectations. Alter the context and the nature of the process alters . We then need different ways of
describing what is going on. Thus, it is no surprise that when curriculum theory and practice are
introduced into what are essentially informal forms of working such as youth work and community
work, their main impact is to formalize significant aspects of the work.
What is being suggested here is that when informal educators take on the language of curriculum they
are crossing the boundary between their chosen specialty and the domain of formal education. This is
not undesirable. There will be formal interludes in their work, appropriate times for them to mount
courses and to discuss content and method in curriculum terms. But we should not fall into the trap of
thinking that to be educators we have to adopt curriculum theory and practice. The fact that so many
have been misled into believing this demonstrates just how powerful the ideas of schooling are.
Education is something more than schooling.
Curriculum implementation

13

A curriculum, however well designed, must be implemented if it is to have any impact on students.
Although this is obvious, there are thousands of curriculum documents now gathering dust on storeroom
shelves because they were never implemented or because they were implemented unintelligently. The
obvious importance of curriculum implementation has not necessarily led to widespread understanding
of what it entails or of what is problematic about it. Implementation can be assisted by identification of
framework.
A 'curriculum framework' can be defined as a group of related subjects or themes, which fit together
according to a predetermined set of criteria to appropriately cover an area of study. Each curriculum
framework has the potential to provide a structure for designing subjects and a rationale and policy
context for subsequent curriculum development of these subjects. Examples of school-oriented
curriculum frameworks include 'science' (including, for example, biology, chemistry, physics, geology)
and 'commerce' (including, for example, accounting, office studies, economics, computing, mathematics,
history etc).
The teacher who works at developing a varied combination of instructional modes of teaching is moving
strongly to becoming a flexible teacher, and most likely to becoming a very effective one. We tend to
prefer particular teaching and learning modes for a variety of reasons. It is less than professional to
remain in a state of inertia with regard to a few modes when there are a number of exciting options
available. Just some of the possibilities are listed below.
Overview of eighteen alternative teaching and learning modes/tools in curriculum
implementation.

Constructivist learning

Debates

Demonstrations

Direct instruction

14

Discussion

Field work

Independent study

Inquiry

Cooperative learning

Learning centres

Lectures and presentations

Mastery learning

Oral reports

Practice drills

Project learning

Small group brainstorming

Questioning

Simulations and role plays

15

Conclusion
We have explored four different approaches to curriculum theory and practice:
Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted.
Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students - product.
Curriculum as process.
Curriculum as praxis.
For a conclusion and in inclusion. Who are we to be here?
1.

The liberal educators.

2.

The scientific curriculum makers

3.

The developmentalists

4.

The social meliorates (the menders)

16

ACADEMIC STANDARDS
Academic standards are public, written statements of expectations.
Good teachers have always had standards for their students but only they knew what they were. Parents
and administrators did not have any way of knowing what was required of students or whether standards
were applied differently to different groups of children or even to different individuals within a class.
In standards-based learning, academic standards are written in published documents. Parents, students,
and teachers can ask whether their school is helping students reach the agreed-upon benchmarks: Does
the school offer algebra in grade 8? Can students achieve the science standards with the lab equipment in
the school? Do students write enough in their classes to achieve the writing standards?
Another difference with the use of written standards is that they apply to all students -- from the collegebound valedictorian to the special education student. Supporters of standards claim that without them,
schools become a selection and sorting system: 20% of students always do well, and the rest can find
manual labor that doesn't require much educational achievement.
Supporters of standards, however, seek to help 100% of students operate in a world in which different
kinds of jobs are created all the time. Twenty years ago, most people didn't know that the Web existed,
let alone that in 2011, there would be thousands of jobs for "Web masters."
Because we don't have "standard" students, it will take some students longer than others to achieve the
required proficiency. Standards supporters believe that given the right opportunities, every child has the
ability to learn. It is not the case that some kids will succeed while others are doomed despite the efforts
of educators. Those who use standards want to move from a system that believes the inputs are fixed
(i.e., kids either can do it, or they can't) and the outcomes vary as a result (those who can, make it and
the others drop out), to one where the inputs vary (some need more time and different teaching) and the
outputs are fixed (everyone meets the standard).
In the nine months of a school year, students are generally expected to learn a fixed amount -- if they
don't, then they missed it. In a standards-based system, however, the standards are fixed, but students
can take a longer or shorter time to learn what they need to reach them. They can't go past the
benchmark points without demonstrating the knowledge and skills written in the standards documents.
17

Academic standards need not be uniform all over he country as regions, states, local government and
even cities and localities can evolve and enforce their own standards. For as long as the other standards
do not abuse the rights of the locations or erode the national values, communities can set their own
academic statements of standards for their schools.
What are these statements? What do they mean?
Standards describe the goals of schooling, the destinations at which students should arrive at the end of
the unit or term or semester. For example, most standards expect students graduating from college to be
able to write for different audiences in different formats -- things such as reports, instructions, literary
criticism, and persuasive and reflective essays -- and to demonstrate a command of standard written
English.
Note that the standard doesn't prescribe how to get the students to this destination -- that is determined
by the curriculum. Standards do not prescribe any particular curriculum: National standards don't mean
that local ability to choose teaching materials and methods are compromised. Standards indicate what
students should know and should be able to do at specific levels or grades. The teacher can choose
whatever curriculum he or she finds appropriate to help the students meet the standards.
Standards are the WHAT of education while curriculum and instruction are the HOW.
Two kinds of standards are identified -- content standards and performance standards.
1.

Content standards indicate what students should know and should be able to do. For example,
students should be able to write and speak for a variety of purposes and for diverse audiences,
using conventional grammar, usage, sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling.

2.

A performance standard measures how well a student's work meets the content standard. A
performance standard has levels (4, 3, 2, and 1; or advanced, proficient, novice, and basic) and
frequently examples of student work are provided for each level. Performance standards are
essentially the same as rubrics. Rubrics describe what student work must consist of to get a
certain score. Rubrics or performance standards list one of the characteristics of student work -18

for example, problem-solving in mathematics or persuasive writing in English/language arts. All

examples of problem-solving or persuasive writing, no matter what the topic, should contain
these characteristics.
Other frequently-asked questions

What do standards have to do with my classroom?

How have standards developed since they began in the early 1990s?

Any other perspective?

What are the benefits of academic standards?

How can standards help students to learn better?

What do critics of standards have to say?

How do we standardize passage through college?

What do standards have to do with my classroom?

Standards guide what is taught in your classroom. In the core subjects -- English/language arts,
mathematics, science, and social sciences -- any classroom activity should be aligned to standards. This
applies to every level, not only the benchmark grades where students are tested for promotion.
Making expectations clear is important, especially for average- to lower-functioning students who may
not always take the initiative regarding their work or know how to aim for those goals without any
guidance.
Standards make the most difference in which activities you choose for your students. Students need
tasks, assignments -- work -- that gets them to the standards, not activities that they find easy. Most
students say they prefer work that challenges them -- work that makes them stretch, rather than "slide
by" and potentially be bored.
A visitor to a standards-based classroom should see a lot of high-level activity -- questioning, reflecting,
analyzing, doing experiments, discussing, writing -- and one important addition: a scoring guide 1 on the
wall for any major assignment. This scoring guide will have been written by the teacher and students
together and posted before the students begin the assignment. It will set out for the students exactly what
19

work that gains the highest score consists of (6, or 4, or "advanced") and what low-scoring work would
be.
How have standards developed since they began in the early 1990s?
The first standards to be developed (in the USA) were mathematics standards, written by members of
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (All math teachers can become members of
the NCTM.) To write the standards, the NCTM formed committees of teachers and university professors
of mathematics and math education. They then circulated drafts of the standards to any member of the
NCTM who wished to read and comment on them. The process of writing, circulating, rewriting, and
recirculating took eight years, until the NCTM standards were published in 1989. The NCTM recently
revised their standards in "Standards 2000."
Other academic disciplines followed the same model as the NCTM, but they were aided by federal
funding. At the 1989 educational summit, Congress adopted eight educational goals and provided
funding for the development of standards in major academic disciplines. Professional associations
submitted proposals to write standards in history, geography, science and the arts. Other academic
disciplines, including English/language arts, used their own association funds to develop standards. All
of the documents went through rigorous public review, and at least one of them -- the history standards
-- was severely criticized by public leaders.
Because the United States is a country where education policy is set mostly by states and local schools
rather than by the federal government, most states also embarked on their own standards-setting
processes. In most cases, there isn't much variation from the national standards, although in
mathematics, Virginia, California, and Arizona rejected the NCTM standards and wrote "traditional"
standards, meaning an emphasis on skills and mathematical procedures rather than on problem-solving
and the ability to understand mathematical theory.
Standards are currently the staple of educational conversation. Textbook and test publishers claim that
their products are aligned with national and state standards. States are trying to align curriculum
frameworks and assessments to their standards, sometimes without much success: it is impossible for a
norm-referenced test to align with standards. Norm-referenced tests tell you how well students achieve
compared to each other, but standards mean that student progress must be compared to the standard,
not to how well or poorly others do.
20

Difference Between Standards-Based and Norm-Referenced Systems

Believe some students are naturally smarter than Believe virtually all students can "get smart"
others.
through effort.
Content subject matter varies with different groups Content subject matter is the same for all groups
of students.
of students.
Assessments compare what students know to what Assessments compare what students know to
other students know.
standards and benchmarks.
No objective criteria to deploy resources students Resources are deployed as needed for all
who need the most often get the least.
students to meet standards -- students who need
more get more.
Professional development episodic -- one-time Professional development focuses on improving
workshops.
instruction so all students meet standards.
What are the benefits of academic standards?
Standards provide a focus for reform efforts -- all students must reach them. And teachers can see how
well they are doing by looking at their progress towards standards.
Focus is one of the greatest benefits of standards; publication is another. Everyone can see what the
schools are aiming to teach and what students must learn. What must be learned isn't a secret, kept for a
small portion of the student population and hidden from the rest. Done well, standards can be an
important tool for equity: if all kids are required to meet the standards, all schools must work to make
students reach them, not just schools which have a majority of middle class students.
Because standards provide a focus, they provide a yardstick for evaluating all aspects of schooling. Is
this a good textbook? It is if it provides opportunities to meet the standards. Is this a worthwhile staff
development workshop? It is if teachers learn techniques for getting students to standards. And so on.
All resources, materials, schedules, personnel assignments, should be judged by this criterion: if we do
this, will our students achieve the standards?
How can standards help students to learn better?
Ideally, students learn better in a standards-based environment because everybody's working towards the
same goal.
21

Teachers know what the standards are and choose classroom activities that enable students to achieve
the standards.
Students know the standards, too, and can see scoring guides that embody them. The students can use
them to complete their work.
Parents know them and can help students by seeing that their homework aligns with the standards.
Administrators know what is necessary to attain the standards and apportion resources and buy
materials to ensure that students are able to reach the prescribed standards. Schools communicate the
standards to parents via newsletters, etc.
What do critics of standards have to say?
Critics of standards tend to fall into three major camps: One group worries that standards will force
teachers to "teach to tests" and focus on rote learning rather than on more creative and individualized
education. Another group is concerned about where standards are set: too high, and low achievers
(particularly in disadvantaged communities) will become discouraged and drop out; too low, and high
achievers will not be challenged properly. The third group has no objection to standards per se, but
believes that they should be set by local school boards, not by federal or state authorities.
This section provides the framework for operational course systems aligned with standards as has
been adapted variously for Nigerian Universities.
The focus of academic standard application while observing strong affiliation with curriculum practice
must observe the rules set to minimize under/over -utilisation of content. It is in this regard that the
structure which determines the manner of passage through the curriculum (the college/school) must be
asserted and sustained. Quality may de defined in quantity terms, while content is observed in process.
Thus, the evolution of the Unit Course system in higher education despite its many opponents has stood
the test of time because of its flexibility to time and type. Its application as a tool in standard sustenance
agrees with the concept of pace, ability flexibility and content. Its broad operations will be given below:
The Unit Course System

22

 This is a series of course requirements focused towards the award of a university degree and

which

satisfy the need to expose students to a broad base training so that the student is widely exposed to
many subject areas. It is a curriculum-based concept.
The course system breaks courses into units of defined quality which reflect the depth and

volume

of the lecture content.

The system allows students to progress at their own pace with wide flexibility.

The unit course system: The essentials.

Minimum number of prescribed units to be carried is specified. Sessional academic loads that
describe students status are provided.
Maximum number of units to be carried are specified
Period of degree is flexible but limits are provided.
Optimum number of units required to graduate is specified
Specification of compulsory university courses
Specification of faculty compulsory courses
Specification of departmental compulsory courses.
Non compulsory courses broaden scope & enhance quality.
Useful Terms
A COURSE UNIT: a series of approximately 15 -16 one-hour lectures, or tutorials or 15/16 x 3hour laboratory or field practical classes, or an equivalent amount of assigned study, or a
combination of the above.
COMPULSORY COURSE: a course which must be registered for & passed before degree is
awarded. It could be departmental, faculty or university.

23

 ELECTIVE COURSE: a course which must be registered for & examined but may not be
passed as degree requirement.
OPTIONAL COURSE: a course which may be taken to make up minimum requirement.
PREREQUISITE COURSE: a course which must be taken before a higher level course.
A MAJOR: a subject area in which the student intends to obtain a single honours degree
UNIVERSITY COURSE: a course that must be registered for & passed before degree is
awarded but is not counted towards degree classification (gst courses)
AUDITED COURSE: a course attended by a student with permission of lecturer or HOD but
is not examined in.
University Compulsory Courses; Arts -Based Students
Course Code

Course Description

No. Of Units

GST 201

General African Studies I

GST 202

General African Studies II

GST 214 (or FSC 103)

Basic computer concepts

GST 105

Use of English I

GST 307

Entrepreneurial skill

Total

10

University Compulsory Courses; Science-Based Students.

Course Code

Course Description

No. Of Units

GST 201

General African Studies I

GST 202

General African Studies II

GST 102

Philosophy and Logic

GST 105

Use of English I

2
24

GST 307

Entrepreneurial Skill

Total

10

University Examination Grading System

Marks (%)

Letter Grade

Grade Points

70 100

5.00

60 69

4.00

50 59

3.00

45 49

2.00

40 44

1.00

0 - 39

0.00

Degree Classification Scheme

CLASS

CGPA

First Class

4.50 - 5.00

2nd CLASS UPPER

3.50 - 4.49

2nd Class Lower

2.40 - 3.49

Third Class

1.50 - 2.39

Pass

1.00 - 1.49

Some Examples Of Courses And Their Expected Unit Loads

Faculty/ College Course

Mode Of Entry/Number Of Years For Course

25

5 YRS (UME) 4 YRS (UME) 3 YRS (A/L)

Faculty Of Arts; All Courses

128

96

Faculty Of Education; All Courses

128

96

Faculty Of Law

194

159

Faculty Of Science; All Courses

Industrial Chemistry

160

Faculty Of Social Sciences; All Courses

Business Administration

128

96

128

96

141-144

106-108

Mode Of Entry/Number Of Years For Course

5 years

4 YEARS

3 YEARS

Accounting

147

111

International relations & personnel management

142

106

Finance

138

102

141 144

106 - 108

Faculty Of Social Sciences;

All Courses

Faculty Of Environmental Sciences

Urban & regional planning

176

144

104

Building

162

126

90

Quantity Surveying

172

136

98

Architecture

168

128

84

Estate Management

182

139

26

Determination of academic standing.

GOOD STANDING: A student is in good standing as long as his cumulative

GPA) and

semester GPA) are not below 1.00.

WARNING: A student shall be given a warning if his GPA is below 1.00 for the 1st time. A
student whose CGPA is below 1.0 but whose GPA is at least 1.00 will be

placed on warning.

PROBATION: A student shall be placed on probation if his sem. GPA is below 1.00 for 2
consecutive semesters. A student whose CGPA is below 1.00 for 2 consecutive

semesters but whose

GPA is at least 1.00 will be placed on probation. A student whose CGPA and GPA are below 1.00 at any
time is placed on probation.

WITHDRAWAL. A student who has had 2 previous probations on account of sem. GPA being
at least 1.00 despite CGPA being below 1.00, but whose CGPA is below 1.00

for the 3rd time will

be asked to withdraw..

A student who has been on probation on account of both sem. & CGPA being below
and whose sem. GPA is again below 1.00 will be asked to withdraw.
Calculation Of Grade Point Average. (Use a worksheet)
Students name(s) ..
Matriculation number
First semester
Course Code

Units

Grade

Grade Point

FSC 101

FSC 102

12

FSC 103

27

1.00

FSC 104

FSC 105

15

GST 102

TUT = 14

TUP=14

SUM

44

SEM. GPA = 44/14 = 3.14; ACADEMIC STANDING; Good Standing

Second Semester
Course Code

Units

Grade

Grade Point

CHM 101

CHM 102

PHS 101

PHS 103

CSC 102

MAT 101

GST 105

TUT = 18

TUP=7

SUM

SEM. GPA = 7/18 = 0.39; Semester Academic Standing:

Probation

CUT = 32; CUP 21; CGP = 51

CGPA = 51/32 = 1.59: Sessional Academic Standing: Probation

First Semester

Second Semester
28

Course Code

Units

Grade

FSC 101

CHM 101

FSC 102

12

CHM 102

FSC 103

PHS 101

FSC 104

PHS 103

FSC 105

15

CSC 102

GST 102

MAT 101

GST 105

SUM

TUT = 14

Grade Point Course Code Units

TUP=14

44

SEM. GPA = 44/14 = 3.14

GSD

SUM

Grade

Grade Point

TUT = 18 TUP=7 7

SEM. GPA = 7/18 = 0.39

PBN

CUT = 32; CUP 21; CGP = 51

CGPA = 51/32 = 1.59: STATUS = PBN

Maximum Duration For Programmes

Programme

Minimum No. Of Units

Maximum No. OfMaximum No. Of Sessions

Duration

Reqd

Semesters

3 YEARS

96

10

4 YEARS

128

12

5 YEARS

160

14

6 YEARS

192

18

Like all standards, every aspect of above specifications are subject to adjustment and modifications by
each academic estab of duration, number of units, conditions for academic establishment.
29

The

specifications required number of units, duration, conditions for academic standing may vary, but the
calculation of grade point average is sacrosanct. Conditions for academic withdrawal, readmission,
transfer from one programme to another, study leave etc will be established by each establishment. But
they must be well advertised to the students and must not be far from the optimum.
THANK YOU ALL AND GOD BLESS

30

REFERENCES
Ahearn, E. M. (2008). Standards-based IEPs: An introduction. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from
http://www.uscharterschools.org/specialedprimers/download/ieps_ahearn.pdf
Blenkin, G. M. et al (1992) Change and the Curriculu,, London: Paul Chapman.
Ns to suit the circumstance of each educational establishment.Bobbitt, F. (1928) How to Make a
Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, knowledge and action research, Lewes:
Falmer Press
Cornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context, Basingstoke: Falmer Press.
Curzon, L. B. (1985) Teaching in Further Education. An outline of principles and practice 3e, London:
Cassell.
Dewey, J. (1902) The Child and the Curriculum, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education, New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. W. (1985) The Art of Educational Evaluation, Lewes: Falmer Press.
Foreman, A. (1990) 'Personality and curriculum' in T. Jeffs. & M. Smith (eds.) (1990) Using Informal
Education. An alternative to casework, teaching and control? Milton Keynes: Open University
Press. Also in the archives.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.
Holbrook, M. D. (2007). A Seven-Step Process to Creating Standards-Based IEPs. Retrieved January 4,
2010 from http://www.projectforum.org/docs/SevenStepProcesstoCreatingStandardsbasedIEPs.pdf
Kelly, A. V. (1983; 1999) The Curriculum. Theory and practice 4e, London: Paul Chapman.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heineman.
Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Walsh, J. M. (May-June 2001). Getting the "big picture" of IEP goals and state standards. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33, 18-26.

31