The Forms and Use of Alternative Curriculum Development Strategies: Policy Implications

Curriculum development in its institutionalized forms has undergone considerable rethinking since the 1960s. A great part of the book-length literature on curriculum, over 400 volumes appearing in the 1970s alone (Schubert 1980), reflects this trend, as does much of the material in curriculum journals (Walker 1980). Alongside Educational Leadership, which is in its fifth decade of publication, four new journals were started during this period to deal with expanded curriculum thought: Curriculum Inquiry in 1968, originally published under the title, Curriculum Theory Network; Journal of Curriculum Studies in 1968; Journal of Curriculum Theorizing in 1978; and Curriculum Perspectives in 1980 (Connelly and Elbaz 1980). Some of this rethinking of curriculum development is a result of having to reflect more accurately changes taking place in society and in educational structures and practices during this period. Other rethinking is a result of initiatives taken by curriculum development specialists to improve the technical knowledge base of their work and the effectiveness of their professional practices. Ultimately both kinds of rethinking are required if educational policies, organizations, and the curriculum itself are to be conceived and managed with informed, enlightened, and proficient leadership. From time to time it is necessary to take stock of the technical knowledge base available to specialists in curriculum development and to update the conceptions and practices related to this activity. It is the purpose of this article to address this particular goal with respect to one of the most important policy-related issues in curriculum development-that of choosing an appropriate curriculum development strategy. A curriculum development strategy is identified simply as a set of procedures designed to accomplish the curriculum development task. Many different sets of such procedures are possible and have been utilized. The task of curriculum development itself is a bit more difficult to define. For the