Prospects (2014) 44:527–546

DOI 10.1007/s11125-014-9326-x

OPEN FILE

The curriculum debate: Why it is important today

Juan Carlos Tedesco • Renato Opertti • Massimo Amadio

Published online: 22 November 2014

Ó UNESCO IBE 2014

Abstract This article highlights some of the key issues in current discussions around
curriculum, such as values education, inclusive education, competency-based approaches,
soft and hard skills, and scientific and digital culture. It starts with the assumption that
quality education for all is necessary to achieve social justice, and it looks at curricula as
resulting from a process that reflects a societal agreement about the what, why, and how of
education needed for the society in the future. Given the crucial tasks facing education
systems—they must impart values to achieve a more just and inclusive society, must
provide a variety of learning experiences to train a competent and active citizenship, and
must ensure quality and equity in learning outcomes—the article argues that educators
should first rethink the role of the school curriculum and ensure a wider policy dialogue
around curriculum design and development.

Keywords Curriculum
Competences
Inclusive education
Values
Skills
Social

justice

The current debates on the purpose and role of education are linked to various visions of
society, or imaginaries, which should be convening and be achievable. At the core of these
imaginaries lies the effort to construct a more just society. Increasingly, education is
viewed as a necessary condition if such visions are to be achieved. At the same time,

J. C. Tedesco
National University of San Martı́n, C.P. 1650, San Martı́n, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
e-mail: [email protected]

R. Opertti (&)
M. Amadio

UNESCO IBE, C.P. 199, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Amadio
e-mail: [email protected]

123
528 J. C. Tedesco et al.

however, we are seeing the spread of citizens’ strong distrust in governments’ capacity to
shape and implement long-term educational policies, and in the ability of the education
system to respond effectively to contemporary challenges and problems. This skepticism is
particularly evident in the questioning of political actors, media, families, and international
evaluators. The education system is criticised because of the considerable remaining gaps
in the universalisation of essential skills and knowledge (one of the main functions of
education) and the persistent inequalities in the social distribution of those foundational
skills and knowledge. The quality of education is often questioned, especially as it is
increasingly measured by students’ results on national and international assessments. The
traditional organization of the teaching and learning process and content are increasingly
perceived as outdated with regards to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values (the
competences) needed to live in an ever-changing world and a century that is filled with
uncertainties, but also opportunities.
The dilemmas that societies face in sustaining and ensuring the welfare of their pop-
ulations contrast strongly with the ability of the education system to respond in regards to
the what, why, and how of education. Thus, we observe a significant dissociation between
the political and social demands of education and its provision. The functioning of the
school system is increasingly questioned by international and national assessments that
tend to take the place of the curriculum in the teaching and learning process (Savolainen
and Halinen 2009) and ‘‘make judgements’’ about its effectiveness.
One consequence of the tension between society, the political system, and education is
the ‘‘guilty victim’’ logic that prevents or hinders policy solutions to problems in education.
External actors are dissatisfied because they feel that the education system is affected by
conservatism, corporatism, and little sense of responsibility for results. Internal actors take
defensive positions. Their discourse tends to focus on the conditions and inputs required to
ensure successful teaching and learning processes. The assumption that education can only
produce the expected results within a society where certain conditions of social inclusion
are met paves the way towards a certain fatalism and leaves no room to advance inclusive
education proposals. Moreover, the excessive focus on conditions and inputs is often
accompanied by rhetorical statements about education as a right and a public good,
statements that do not take into account the reality of educational institutions and
classrooms.
In a context characterized by serious concerns and incessant claims, giving a convincing
purpose to education and learning must become a priority in the effort to redefine the
ultimate goals pursued by national societies. The education and learning processes that are
to be promoted cannot be envisaged only in terms of prescriptions and norms without
reference to the actual circumstances. It is also essential that the renewed significance
given to education and learning raises the enthusiasm of teachers, families, and commu-
nities, and encourages students to engage with their learning.
Within this conceptual framework, the curriculum can be considered as a means to
provide content and coherence to education policies. Instead of being viewed simply as a
collection of study plans, syllabi, and teaching subjects, the curriculum becomes the
outcome of a process reflecting a political and societal agreement about the what, why, and
how of education for the desired society of the future. The consensus reflected in the
curriculum can potentially provide a reference framework for putting learner welfare and
development at the core of the education system. This framework can also help strengthen
the links between education policy and curriculum reform, and respond more effectively to
the expectations and demands of youth and society.

123
The curriculum debate: Why it is important today 529

In this article, we do not cover the wide array of pending challenges and complex issues
that currently preoccupy education authorities, educators and society at large. Rather, we
briefly address some issues to emphasise the importance of the curriculum and its rele-
vance to supporting more democratic and inclusive social imaginaries. In the first section
we address the debate on the purpose of education for societies involved in a process of
rapid and constant transformation that increasingly generates tensions and uncertainties. In
the second, we focus on certain elements of the current discussions—often controversial—
about the school curriculum. In the last section we share some concluding remarks.

Education: What type of values for what kind of society?

Social justice and the ‘‘why’’ of education

We base this article on the assumption that building a more just society is an ideal that
could (and should) guide the behaviour of social actors, particularly those involved in
educational processes. This point of view is based on recognizing that quality education for
all is necessary to achieve social justice in an information and knowledge society.
Theoretical discussions about justice currently occupy an important place in the fields of
social sciences and political philosophy. This is not surprising, since the need to build more
just societies has increased due to the heightened risk of injustices produced by the new
capitalism and the general spread of demands for democracy, respect for human rights, and
recognition of cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and gender identities.
From a curricular perspective, the link between education and social justice can be
analyzed in terms of both contents and attitudes. In The Society of Equals, Pierre Ros-
anvallon (2011) recalls the ‘‘paradox of Bossuet’’ to describe the current situation
regarding social justice. In this paradox, human beings deplore in general what they accept
in particular. This apparent schizophrenia is also reflected in the evidence, widely docu-
mented by surveys and testimonies from different countries, that people strongly reject a
society which causes unprecedented levels of inequality, and meanwhile accept the
mechanisms that produce these inequalities. For educators, the most interesting aspect of
Rosanvallon’s approach lies in his attempt to analyse the epistemological and cognitive
dimensions of this apparent contradiction in citizens’ behaviour. His analysis shows that
when they consider global affairs, people rely on facts, data, and objective information.
When they assess particular situations, however, they consider individual behaviours and
choices. An example of such dualism is the approach that many families have towards the
education system. While they criticise the unfair nature of segmentation within the school
system, they individually avoid any measure intended to promote a more equitable dis-
tribution of enrolment, which might affect their decision to enrol their children in schools
their ‘‘equals’’ attend. In Chile, for example, subsidies to private schools largely determine
family decisions concerning where to enrol their children; they also promote segregation
within the education system, and reinforce the strong relationship between the family’s
socioeconomic background and school quality (Garcı́a-Huidobro and Corvalán 2009).
In Latin America, during the last decade egalitarian and inclusive imaginaries have
gained ground in collective representations of governments and citizenry, despite the
continuing strong presence of social inequality and equity gaps in the education system
(UNESCO PRELAC and SEP 2012). The widespread perception that we are far from
achieving quality education for all and the existence of major disparities between public

123
530 J. C. Tedesco et al.

and private offerings are elements of the context within which many families make edu-
cational choices for their children that lead to higher levels of segregation.
The paradox of Bossuet reveals the pedagogical challenge of designing strategies to
overcome the dichotomy between general adherence and particular rejection. The chal-
lenge is to design learning experiences that lead individuals to understand that a particular
situation includes (or should include) general principles and situations—or, conversely,
that adhering to a general principle implies (or should imply) a resulting personal
behaviour. In either case, the key point is that these learning experiences, intended to
generate such an important cognitive shift, require great efforts in terms of reflection, along
with constant adjustments in values, attitudes, and behaviours. In short, achieving high
levels of adherence to justice is, ethically and cognitively, a very demanding objective.
A short look at the history of education shows that, in traditional schools, adherence to
and appropriation of values such as national identity or respect for elders and cultural
traditions were associated with a number of rituals largely borrowed from religious
practices. The patriotic symbols and traditions were considered sacred and adherence to
them could not be modified. Adherence to justice, however, cannot rely on these ideas.
Generating adherence to justice in the knowledge society means being able to manage
large amounts of important information and their ethical implications, and having a strong
core of universal values that reinforce meanings and practices regarding justice.
The link between knowledge and ethical values has held educators’ attention for a long
time. We see that knowledge itself does not necessarily make good people. On the other
hand, we also know that ethically fair behaviour requires adequate information and
knowledge. What is new, from this point of view, is that we are overcoming the traditional
dissociation between the cognitive and the emotional dimensions in the teaching and
learning process. The student’s welfare, which is key to achieving relevant and sustainable
learning, requires a synergy between cognitive, emotional, and social aspects, as the person
and personality are not divisible into parts abstracted from the whole. For example, the
Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE 2013) states that the curriculum must include
plans describing the main goals and principles of student welfare services, and that student
welfare is the concern of all those working in the educational community.
Likewise, recent contributions from neuroscience suggest that evaluation is a core
feature of brain activity. The architecture of the brain is made up of the ‘‘cognitive and
motor brain’’ and the ‘‘emotional brain’’ (Marina 2011). Without reference to value or a
capacity to understand and evaluate stimuli, a system cannot learn or remember. In order to
learn, it is necessary to prefer some stimuli over others. Value systems and emotions are
seen as essential for the selection work of the brain. The Western philosophical tradition
has accustomed us to distinguishing and separating the mind from the body, the cognitive
processes (reason) from the emotions (the passions), even though it could be more
appropriate to try to explore and understand their interrelationships, i.e., the emotional
nature of cognitive processes and the cognitive nature of emotions (Pons, de Rosnay, and
Cuisinier 2010). This implies the challenge of combining cognitive development with the
emotional dimension, to avoid education being reduced solely to the instructional process.
This approach makes it possible to place current discussions about concepts such as
emotional intelligence and competency-based curriculum in the context of a pedagogical
proposal that recovers the main purpose of education, the reason why we educate. It is
essential that educational processes and curricular proposals be meaningful to students in
order to engage them with their learning, allowing them to mobilise their reference
frameworks—values, norms, and attitudes—to address challenges and daily life situations.

123
The curriculum debate: Why it is important today 531

The cognitive and ethical effort required to coherently relate my general values with my
particular behaviour has a specific significance today: to generate the necessary adherence
to justice, to comply with the goal of learning to live together.

Education, values and religion

There is an ongoing debate on values education with a view to strengthening its purpose
and presence in educational policies and curriculum proposals. We will focus on three of
the key points in this debate. The first is the need to define renewed approaches that ensure
cultural and social integration. The second, related to the first, is the recognition that the
social and education models of secular integration, which ignore, or do not teach about, the
diversity of faiths in society (the historical case of France) or which allow each group to
live according to their respective faiths without creating links between them (the historical
case of the United Kingdom), do not achieve effective integration into society or protect
diversity.
The third is comprehensive citizenship education (Lenoir, Xypas, and Jamet 2006),
which means promoting values education as a cross-cutting dimension that permeates the
diverse purposes and contents of learning. We will try to illustrate these points, making
reference to the relationship between education and religion.
The discussions about the links between education and religion have a long history, with
different connotations depending on the context in which they took place. However,
despite this long record, the debate continues. Its forms and contents shift constantly, and
today we are witnessing a new stage, where the place that religion and its institutions
occupy in culture and society has changed and, consequently, also the way the school
manages, or should manage, the tensions that this link generates.
First of all, it is necessary to avoid any attempt to homogenise or universalise the
contents of this debate. Rather, it is essential to place it in its historical, cultural, and
political context. Originally, at least in the Western Catholic world, the discussion was
focused on religion as curricular content. The compulsory public school emerged as a
social space that sought to overcome religious, ethnic, or, in some cases, linguistic par-
ticularism. In several countries, laicism was the typical expression of this vision of edu-
cational policy, mainly based on the principle that the public sphere should not be divided
according to religious beliefs, which were to remain within the realm of private decisions.
From this point of view, laicism was associated with religious neutrality, freedom of
conscience, and, in political terms, it reflected the growing process of secularisation.
The debate on laicism, which took place during the late nineteenth century and early
twentieth, is quite well known. Since then, there have been profound cultural changes that
have not followed linear trends or occurred in accordance with the predictions of analysts.
On the one hand, data from international surveys show that the power of institutionalized
religion is declining. On the other hand, religion seems to be increasingly important for
young people. The erosion of religious beliefs due to the progress of education, as
anticipated by classical sociologists, is far from being empirically verified. This phe-
nomenon may be seen among the European population, but not in the United States, or
among European young people of immigrant origin. They tend to integrate religion as an
important dimension of their cultural identity and as a reaction to the lack of educational
and employment opportunities in societies where they feel like foreigners in relation to the
dominant cultures. The case of Latin America is also different. In this region, religion has
been associated with both progressive youth movements and reactionary conservatism.

123
532 J. C. Tedesco et al.

This issue has complex dimensions, and in this article we refer only to formal education.
Stated as concisely as possible, we see support for the original idea according to which
laicism aims to promote universal values over religious particularisms. However, we
should discuss the appropriateness of promoting those common values without taking into
account the religious dimension of individuals. Unlike traditional laicism, a renewed
approach would see it as a curricular domain that contributes to transforming the public
school into an institution that accepts and welcomes people from a wide variety of societal
backgrounds and that promotes social cohesion through knowledge of and respect for
diversity, rather than by ignoring or being indifferent to it.
To a large extent, the debate on the purpose and role of the public school is part of a
more comprehensive discussion on the universalism of public policies. Traditionally, the
public school was the quintessential representation of an integrating and homogenizing
universalism—i.e., equal treatment and the provision of the same education for every
child—and was based on different variants of the welfare state. Given the large equity gaps
and the explosion of diversity, this kind of universalism no longer seems to be a sustainable
solution. The alternative might be a different and inclusive universalism that seeks to
establish effective integration through a close interface between a set of universal and
binding value references and the particularities of groups and individuals. We understand
that this renewed universalism implies developing a new historical pact among the political
system, society and education and, necessarily, rethinking the role of the school as a
socializing agent.
It is also important to highlight that this debate tends to focus on public schools
managed by the state. In several contexts, however, the terms of the debate on the teaching
of religion in private schools managed by different churches or their representatives are
still too limited. From this point of view, in our opinion, the teaching of religion within a
spirit of tolerance of, respect for, and understanding of diversity is a valid requirement for
private schools. The education system has the ethical obligation to ensure that every
educational institution, private or public, complies with universal values, and not to
encourage or allow the practice of any kind of reduced universalism.
What does this mean? It means that the teaching of religion(s) should be offered in the
context of an education aimed at forming people and citizens who are respectful of human
rights and of cultural, religious and gender diversity, who have a sense of solidarity, and
who are also active advocates of peace and dialogue in conflict resolution. From this
perspective, it would not be acceptable, for example, to promote values that incite one to
view the other as an enemy or a threat. Within the framework of building more just
societies, it is essential to educate citizens and elite leaders who are ethically convinced
and committed to social justice, respect for human rights, peace, and solidarity.
In terms of public policies, it can be argued that democratic ethical education is a
fundamental task of the school, whether it is managed privately or by the state. The state
has the obligation to provide direction and supervise the different educational provisions so
that this mandate is fulfilled. The need to strengthen ethics in education also applies to
state-managed institutions. Nevertheless, the contents of the traditional laicism, which
implies an abstraction from social contexts and demands, are no longer a force able to
guide democratic citizen behaviour. The secularisation process has greatly advanced in
society, even though the ethical challenges we face are unprecedented. Following the view
of Habermas, citizens today are facing issues whose moral implications greatly exceed the
traditional political dilemmas of the past. Modifying the human genome or not, radically
changing our consumption habits in order to sustain social development, and reflectively
and consciously practicing solidarity in order to enable social inclusion for all citizens:

123
The curriculum debate: Why it is important today 533

these are extremely demanding ethical challenges. If it is to face these challenges, the
whole education system has to identify the ethical and cognitive experiences that could be
designed in order to contribute to the moral reserves of society and specifically to the
development of an individual’s moral capacity.
In the end, we should admit that both public and private schools face a common
challenge: to strengthen their capacity to impart core values in order to attain one of the
pillars of education in the twenty-first century: learning to live together.

We are all special

The debate on inclusive education is increasingly framed in the context of rethinking the
responsibilities, role, and functions of education systems. The most traditional approach
tends to view the education system as a service provider mainly in formal settings, and
characterised by a wide range of institutions, actors, and programmes that do not neces-
sarily work in a coordinated way under a common long-term vision. Its effectiveness is
understood and measured mainly by looking at rates of access and survival, and increas-
ingly at the results of national and international assessments, which are becoming policy
drivers under the slogan ‘‘examine, assess, and compare’’ advocated by multilateral
agencies (Kamens and Benavot 2011).
It is assumed that all the diverse educational provisions will together contribute to
equalizing opportunities and result in expanded and democratic access to education.
Access-oriented policies prioritise investments considered necessary in areas such as
physical infrastructure and supplies (e.g., textbooks, computer equipment) to support the
learning process. Reforms are primarily evaluated in terms of the share of GDP spent on
education, and/or improvements in the working conditions of teachers and school opera-
tions. Investments and better salaries are key, but often the results that they are expected to
produce are not attained. Evidence from the comparative analysis of educational reforms
suggests that it is not sufficient to improve conditions and inputs in order to achieve better
results—although it is still certainly necessary. It is also critical to support these
improvements with a renewed vision of the what and how of education. A clear example is
Latin America, where investments and education expenditures have increased substantially
in most countries during the last decade, while the general trends in educational outcomes
have not improved (Albornoz and Warnes 2013).
Under this traditional view of the education system, inclusive education is a set of
interventions and programmes—frequently uncoordinated and lacking a holistic perspec-
tive—focused on specific sectors of the population, such as women, indigenous peoples,
those with special educational needs, the displaced, and the extremely poor. This approach
basically implies compensating for differences among groups and implementing remedial
actions with a focus on reducing disparities. There does not seem to be a great concern for
redefining educational opportunities and learning by elaborating curriculum proposals
based on the specific profiles of the different groups. The focus of these policies seems to
reflect a sort of cultural amnesia and the neglect of individuals as the protagonists of their
own learning.
In contrast to this traditional view, we hold that education systems should be increas-
ingly conceived as facilitators of learning with the aspiration to achieve more just and
inclusive societies. The idea of facilitation is mainly related to the ‘‘full range of learning
opportunities available in a country, whether they are provided or financed by the public or
private sector (including religious, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations)’’ (World Bank
2011, p. 5). The education system has to promote learning that is relevant to society and

123
534 J. C. Tedesco et al.

individuals, but it should also stress the acquisition of a set of values and universal
references that strengthen citizenship and society and, at the same time, enable and protect
the expression of diversity.
We would argue that the education system should be based on the commitment to
provide every student with a personalized opportunity to learn. Personalizing education
does not imply individualized student plans that are detached and abstracted from a col-
lective learning environment with other peers; rather, it entails mobilising all the potential
within learning environments in a variety of contexts. Personalising education means
respecting, understanding, and building upon the uniqueness of each person within col-
laborative environments viewed as learning communities, where all are needed and all
support each other.
According to Marc Tucker (2011), the education systems that seem to be more suc-
cessful are constantly concerned with providing all students a real opportunity to learn
without leaving anyone behind, mobilising each student’s learning potential, and providing
learning experiences relevant to individuals and society. His analysis of the best-per-
forming education systems shows that their curricular proposals are able to motivate,
challenge and encourage the development of life and citizenship competencies.
Building an effective inclusive system requires substantial changes in mindsets, cul-
tures, policies and practices. The challenge consists in moving from traditional systems,
where only a few students learn, to new systems—viewed as facilitators of learning
opportunities—where all students need to learn at high levels (Schleicher 2011). The focus
on learning, a central feature of inclusive education systems, requires linking three ele-
ments: (i) a high quality of knowledge that teachers share with students in the different
learning areas and related disciplines (i.e., the pursuit of excellence not only in the tra-
ditional ‘‘hard’’ areas of knowledge); (ii) a wide range of opportunities to learn and apply
knowledge competently (openness to society and real-life problems); and (iii) an emphasis
on values and attitudes that show appreciation of freedom, solidarity, peace and justice,
among other core values.
It is not just a matter of advocating generically and rhetorically for inclusion, investing
more resources in infrastructure and equipment considered as necessary, adjusting the
curriculum, or changing the training and professional development of teachers. Rather,
above all, inclusive education implies openness, willingness and being convinced and
convincing others of the necessity to respect, understand, and support the diversity of
students’ profiles and needs in order to democratize and enhance learning opportunities,
processes and outcomes. Among other key aspects, it implies that educators are convinced
about, and hence actively promote, inclusive practices in collaborative learning
environments.
Inclusive education can then be considered a cross-cutting principle of the organisation
and functioning of education systems. It is a way to reinforce the purpose and compre-
hensive framework of social policies through a gradual shift: from seeking to equalise
through a homogenising approach to pursuing inclusion through personalisation that takes
into account the diversity of students (Ainscow and Miles 2008; Frandji and Rochex 2011).
This customised approach is based on the conviction that we are all special and we need to
be supported. Therefore, inclusive education cannot result in separation, segregation, or
stigmatisation of provisions and learning environments. Further, it cannot entail adjusting
learning expectations to the socioeconomic characteristics of students. Ensuring that
education is personalised requires comprehensive frameworks that clearly define common
visions, goals, and outcomes for diverse populations and groups.

123
The curriculum debate: Why it is important today 535

Inclusive curriculum, schools and teachers

Proposing inclusive education as a lever for changing the education system should rely on
policies and strategies that contribute to its effective implementation in school. In light of
this challenge, experiences worldwide seem to show that the triad of inclusive curriculum,
schools, and teachers is a way of enhancing the universalism of education policies in order
to provide each student with a personalised opportunity to learn (UNESCO IBE 2009,
2011).
The intended curriculum is an educational policy instrument that defines the learning
that is relevant to society and individuals, but in itself is simply a document that sets
objectives, contents, and expected outcomes. To some extent, it represents for the edu-
cation system what a constitution is for a democracy (Jonnaert, Ettayebi, and Defise 2009).
The intended curriculum requires an educational institution that is able to implement it
and to organise learning opportunities and processes adapted to the diversity of students.
However, the institution itself risks being too prescriptive if it cannot convince and commit
its actors. Hence the need for teachers who can implement the curriculum, translate into
practice the intended objectives, prioritise learning and content areas, and adopt teaching
strategies and evaluation criteria that respond to each student’s uniqueness. In addition, the
teacher alone cannot personalise education if the curriculum and educational institutions
are not friendly. Thus, the triad mentioned above may be a response of education policy to
the constraints of a prescribed curriculum (i.e., decided at the central level without regional
and local roots), an institution merely executing policies (top-down approach) and a
willing, but isolated, teacher.
A curriculum that aims to respond to the diversity of expectations and needs of the
entire student population requires schools that develop their educational offerings while
paying attention to the diversity of students’ contexts and capacities. It also requires
teachers who can organise a learning process that takes into account and respects each
person’s characteristics and needs. Therefore, an inclusive education public policy can be
described as the permanent search for the intersection points among the curricular pro-
posal, the school conception, and the teacher’s profile, role, and practices. Teachers must
be supported and have a clear understanding of the why, what, and how of education for
all—a role played by a curriculum focused on the person and learning—within the
framework of an institution with pedagogical leadership, vocation and teamwork practices.
Countries around the world increasingly organise basic, primary, and secondary edu-
cation into cycles around curriculum frameworks (De Armas and Aristimuño 2012). A
curriculum framework is a technical tool that sets the parameters for developing other
curricular documents, such as study plans and syllabi; it is also the outcome of a social
agreement regarding the national priorities for education and the aspirations for the future
society (UNESCO IBE 2013). An example of a structure in cycles is the Basic Education
Programme in Africa, a UNESCO initiative that aims to support the implementation of a
compulsory and integrated nine-year basic education cycle with a competency-based
approach (UNESCO IBE, UNESCO BREDA, and GTZ 2009). In this case, a major
challenge is overcoming the gaps between an intended system of universal primary edu-
cation and an elitist system of secondary education that essentially remains based on
models and patterns imposed during the colonial period.
Curriculum frameworks are a way to define and give coherence to the curriculum
development process, in the form of documents that establish parameters within which the
curriculum must be developed. Among other components, they include statements related
to the underpinning principles and core values, general objectives, expectations for

123
536 J. C. Tedesco et al.

learning achievement, and guidelines for organising both the teaching and learning process
and assessment methods—assessment of, for, and as learning.
A curriculum framework provides a coherent and sequenced set of guidelines and
national standards that enable and support the development of the school curriculum. This
development process should reflect local realities and challenges while providing an open
and wide perspective of the world and the national society. Countries with good results on
international tests combine a curriculum framework, which defines what is to be learned,
with autonomous schools, which decide how to achieve that learning (Kärkkäinen 2012).
Elaborating an inclusive curriculum framework at the national level, which provides
guidance and support, can make the curriculum more relevant and flexible at the regional
and local levels, as well as in each school.
An inclusive curriculum framework is supported by collaborative learning environ-
ments. It has three roles. It facilitates the coordination and implementation of an integrated
and holistic approach of social policies targeting improvements in social justice, cohesion
and inclusion. It focuses on promoting children’s emotional and cognitive development
and social welfare in a holistic manner. And it seeks to effectively include children from
diverse ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, promoting socialisation processes
and heterogeneous learning environments in the context of a society that accepts and
appreciates diversity as a value for coexistence. For an inclusion-oriented school, every
child matters, as it is permanently creating the conditions and promoting the processes that
provide all children with an effective opportunity to learn. Therefore, schools must identify
and make effective use of the available resources in order to help develop the learning
potential of each pupil and student.
Curriculum frameworks and schools in turn should be supported by a teacher who is
fully convinced of the benefits of inclusive education and empowered to make decisions
about implementing it in the classroom. This requires that teachers participate effectively
in the curriculum development process, be accountable for their inclusive practices and be
encouraged and supported by the education system as a whole. It also requires addressing
inclusion and diversity as cross-cutting dimensions in teacher training programmes. Issues
related to diversity and inclusion should not be regarded as ‘‘thematic units’’ to be added to
the curriculum. Quite to the contrary, it is crucial that teachers better understand these
issues in order to care for learners comprehensively and provide all of them with effective
opportunities to learn. Findings from neuroscience and cognitive psychology can pro-
gressively inform teaching and learning processes and can lead to a more personalised
education based on inclusive principles and guidelines.

Training areas and curriculum approaches

Competency-based approach: Opportunities and challenges

During recent decades, in many national contexts, the focus of attention and concern has
gradually moved from access to education and the necessary inputs to the outcomes of the
educational process. These outcomes are increasingly defined in terms of generic or cross-
cutting competences that students should have acquired by the end of their general edu-
cation, so they can succeed in further studies, develop personally, and gain employment
and be included in a knowledge society. Several organisations, including partnerships and
consortia, have developed and proposed different frameworks of competences; these may
be called key competences, core competences, life skills, or 21st-century skills. They use a

123
The curriculum debate: Why it is important today 537

variety of approaches, groupings and terminologies, which can sometimes lead to ambi-
guity and uncertainty.
In the context of the European Union (EU), for example, competence is defined as ‘‘a
combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes appropriate to the context’’, and key
competences ‘‘are those which all individuals need for personal fulfillment and develop-
ment, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment’’ (EPC 2006). The EU reference
framework sets out eight key competences for lifelong learning: communication in the
mother tongue, communication in foreign languages, mathematical competence and basic
competences in science and technology, digital competence, learning to learn, social and
civic competences, sense of initiative and entrepreneurship, and cultural awareness and
expression. Competence in fundamental basic skills of language, literacy, numeracy, and
information and communication technology (ICT) is seen as an essential foundation for
learning, and learning to learn supports all learning activities. In addition, the European
reference framework includes a series of ‘‘themes’’—in principle, cross-cutting compe-
tences—that play a role in all eight key competences, i.e., critical thinking, creativity,
initiative, problem-solving, risk assessment, decision-taking and constructive management
of feelings.
Many of the competences contemplated in the EU framework are included in other
reference frameworks. However, there are variations in the classification and in the
importance attached to each competence. Some frameworks propose the four ‘‘C’s’’:
communication, creativity, collaboration and critical thinking. Others classify the com-
petences as either cognitive, personal, or interpersonal. In addition, reference frameworks
may include a number of personality attributes and qualities sometimes defined as ‘‘soft’’
skills, such as integrity, empathy, responsibility, flexibility, leadership, etc., which are
deemed necessary for employment and are valued by employers in addition to professional
competencies or ‘‘hard’’ skills, which we discuss below. Except for ICT-related compe-
tence or digital literacy, few of these competences are entirely new to educators; most have
long been taken into consideration.
The increased emphasis on generic or cross-cutting competences is not limited to EU
and OECD countries. A rapid assessment of curriculum frameworks and policies in
countries from all regions in the world, compiled by the UNESCO IBE (Amadio 2014),
shows that almost 90 countries—including some sub-federal entities—refer to generic
competences in their general education curricula. Competence in communication (mother
tongue and foreign languages) and social competences are the most frequently highlighted,
followed by problem-solving, creativity, digital competence, and numeracy. Almost half of
the countries make reference to civic competence, collaboration, critical thinking, and
entrepreneurship. They place slightly less emphasis on literacy (often implicitly included in
communication), basic competences in science and technology, information processing and
management, and learning to learn. It is important to note that the IBE analysis focused on
cross-cutting competences, those presented in curriculum-related materials as the expected
result of the whole process of learning across specific subjects or disciplines, and did not
take into account references to competences within some specific disciplines, such as basic
competences in science in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, or biology.
Another interesting aspect is the presence of cross-cutting or transversal themes in
curriculum documents of at least 70 countries. These themes are generally conceived as a
pedagogical means intended to connect programmatic content across disciplinary bound-
aries, promote a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary approach, enrich the curriculum
without overloading it, facilitate cooperative learning and address issues relevant to stu-
dents’ lives; in several cases they support the development of key competences. In

123
538 J. C. Tedesco et al.

addition, in general lower and upper secondary education cross-cutting themes should
promote teamwork among teachers from different disciplines and facilitate collaborative
approaches to planning learning experiences that reinforce the collective responsibility for
students’ learning. Cross-cutting themes cover a wide array of topics and issues, such as
values education, civic and citizenship education, health education, education for HIV and
AIDS prevention, human rights education, ICT, gender equality, and environmental edu-
cation—in several cases related to sustainable development issues. Environmental edu-
cation is the most frequently mentioned theme in curriculum documents (in more than 50
countries).
Within the scope of this article, we cannot refer to all the complexities and pending
challenges in relation to the competency-based approach; nor can we analyse the various
ongoing discussions and contrasting views around curriculum reforms that have adopted
this approach. Instead, we briefly highlight some aspects that we believe deserve closer
attention.
In general, it is recognised that many of these key competences or 21st-century skills
convene and support each other. They are viewed as being transferable to some extent,
even if it is not yet clear the range of contexts through which these competences may be
transferred and how learners can be supported in transferring cognitive and ‘‘non-cogni-
tive’’ competences across different disciplines (Pellegrino and Hilton 2012). There seems
to be a consensus on the main competences that students should acquire, although similar
terms can be interpreted in many different ways depending on the context. For example,
Lai and Viering (2012) observe that there is no unanimous agreement on the definition of
‘‘critical thinking’’ or a widely accepted definition of ‘‘creativity’’, and in the European
context the interpretation given to the term ‘‘attitudes’’—one of the main components of a
competence—can be very different in each country (Gordon, Halász, Krawczyk, Leney,
et al. 2009). ‘‘Learning to learn’’ is certainly a fundamental competence, but there is still
some uncertainty about the best way it can be acquired and how to assess its attainment
(Gordon et al. 2009). In their analysis focusing on OECD countries, Ananiadou and Claro
(2009) found that almost all the countries participating in the survey recognise the rele-
vance of 21st-century skills, and most countries reported that these skills are integrated
across the curriculum, although it has not been possible to obtain clear answers about how
they define these skills.
It is frequently recommended that a cross-curricular approach be adopted for the
development of key competences, although some of them tend to be seen as closely related
to traditional disciplines or ‘‘core’’ learning areas—such as languages, mathematics, and
sciences. Also, certain competences can be considered more important or fundamental than
others as they likewise support learning in the different curriculum areas. Returning to the
example of the EU framework, Gordon et al. (2009), studying its implementation, found
that four competences—communication in the mother tongue, communication in foreign
languages, mathematical competence, and basic competences in science and technology—
tend to be anchored in traditional disciplines, while the others, along with the ‘‘themes’’,
are seen as transversal competences or skills. They also found that the distinction between
the two groups is not very clear.
The majority of studies and analyses focusing on generic competences/skills agree that
the most important challenges relate to their practical implementation and assessment.
Defining the role and place of competences within the traditional discipline-based cur-
riculum and how core subjects and other subjects should contribute to their development is
still an open and controversial issue (Voogt and Roblin 2010). It is also evident that very
sophisticated implementation strategies and profound changes will be required in both the

123
The curriculum debate: Why it is important today 539

organisation of the teaching and learning process and the professional development of
teachers, as it is unlikely that teachers can support students in developing competences that
they have not acquired themselves.
The assessment of key competences (or 21st-century skills) is another critical issue. The
necessary implementation of new assessment systems is extremely challenging and
potentially burdensome, as Oliver Rey (2012) illustrated in the case of France. ‘‘Non-
cognitive’’ skills, personal qualities, and attitudes have an influence on the learning pro-
cess, but they are rarely taken into account in assessments at either the national or inter-
national level. Furthermore, the concept of competences implies a range of contexts in
which they could be utilised, and requires an assessment not far removed from ‘‘real life’’.
In his analysis of key competences assessment policies in EU countries, David Pepper
(2011) notes that current assessment tends to concentrate on the ‘‘traditional’’ compe-
tences—languages, mathematics, and science—and the associated disciplines in a limited
range of contexts. The main focus is on knowledge and skills, while the assessment of
other transversal competences is much more limited and sporadic. Pepper (2012, p. 2) also
underlines the risk of distorting the curriculum by assessing only a few competences, as
well as the danger of distorting the same competences, if only some of their components
are assessed.
There are also several pending challenges in the case of cross-cutting themes, above all
with regard to their implementation. Quite often, teachers have to deal with an already
congested curriculum; how can they find enough extra time for the transversal themes that
require high levels of engagement and interaction with both their students and other
teachers? Teachers, as well as students and their parents, may perceive these themes as
add-ons that are not truly relevant, especially if the learning from these themes is not
formally assessed. In addition, the well-rooted disciplinary structure of the curriculum and
the discipline-based qualifications of teachers (primarily at the secondary level) may create
a powerful barrier to the adoption of an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approach.
Instead of taking a position in favour of or against the competency-based approach, we
believe it is more productive to underline at least three significant aspects related to the
what and how of education. The first of these is the necessity to adopt and develop a
holistic approach to learning, one that considers not only academic knowledge, cognitive
development and skills, but also the ‘‘non-cognitive’’ dimensions—attitudes, values,
emotions and personal qualities, as the importance of the latter is increasingly recognised
(see, for example, Brunello and Schlotter 2011; Levin 2012). The second is the need to
consider the applied dimension of knowledge, since not only is what we know important,
but also what we can do with that knowledge. And the third: if the development of
competences is to be effectively promoted, it is necessary to entirely rethink the traditional
disciplinary structure of the curriculum, the organisation of learning experiences, the
teaching approaches and the assessment systems.

The debate around ‘‘soft’’ and ‘‘hard’’ skills

The concept of ‘‘soft’’ skills is frequently used to refer to those competences related to
civic engagement that go beyond the traditional cognitive and academic dimensions. At
first glance, one may be tempted to believe that something ‘‘soft’’ is easier to teach and to
learn than something ‘‘hard’’ and, therefore, less relevant and less prestigious. For this
reason, among others, achievements in mathematics and sciences are systematically
assessed—but not those in ethics and social commitment. Nevertheless, teaching and
learning to respect others, developing strong adherence to social justice and to values such

123
540 J. C. Tedesco et al.

as solidarity and peaceful conflict resolution, or changing consumption habits to contribute

to protecting the environment, is likely to be ‘‘harder’’ than teaching and learning the
theorem of Pythagoras. Learning this set of values and attitudes demands more time and
different teaching strategies; it also mobilises more personality traits and requires modi-
fying representations that have a strong emotional significance.
Our major concern lies in this apparent dichotomy between ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘soft’’, which
informs the decision-making process involved in elaborating educational policies and may
lead to the dissociation of the ethical dimension from the cognitive dimension, as well as
the emotional dimension of citizenship agency. The division between cognitive, emotional
and ethical aspects is associated with the division between hard and soft sciences, and is
based on the assumption that some knowledge is more valuable than other knowledge.
Certain consequences of this approach are learning processes that are disconnected from
values, and a curriculum strongly influenced by multiple interpretations of what might be
understood as ‘‘hard’’ knowledge. Rather than the hierarchical organisation of knowl-
edge—a complex and sensitive issue, what matters is providing students with the oppor-
tunity to access and enjoy different and complementary learning experiences that help
them develop as whole persons and become responsible citizens. This might be related to
the concept of ‘‘indispensable basic’’, which Coll and Martı́n (2006) mention when
referring to the essential learning which, if missed, can negatively affect the students’
personal and social development and their projects of life, exposing them to social
exclusion.
Analyses of the cognitive requirements of contemporary society have underlined the
need to teach and learn at least two main capacities. The first one is the ability to abstract,
since we live within a context overloaded with information. The second one is system
thinking (or ‘‘complex systems thinking’’), which can enable us to better understand the
complex nature of our reality. History shows that teaching these abilities without ethical
contents may be dangerous for democratic coexistence and the moral reserves of society.
Inversely, promoting democratic values without scientific information and knowledge may
lead to a superficial and purely formal adherence to rules. In both cases, the comprehensive
civic and citizenship education that enables people to critically reflect and be proactive
based on evidence is being distorted.
In the domain of curriculum, the division between cognitive, emotional, and ethical
aspects is linked to the division between hard and soft sciences, or between scientific
disciplines on the one side, and arts and humanities on the other. It seems clear that the
countries making more progress in education design their curriculum proposals on the basis
of a diversity of learning experiences connected to the demands and expectations of society
and to students’ motivations. Recent analyses of this issue show that the reductionist and
dichotomous approach is obsolete. Science and technology have expanded well beyond the
sphere of economic production and nowadays permeate all domains of life. This techno-
logical omnipresence reveals its social nature. Inversely, social life today requires that
people know how to manage and master technologies, and know what they can be used for.
In short, it is imperative to get away from the binary opposition between the ‘‘soft’’ and
the ‘‘hard’’. This kind of reasoning, which simplifies and distorts problems, may cause
diagnostic mistakes, leading to strategies that are insufficient to attain educational policy
goals. But getting away from this binary logic will require recognising that we are facing
complex and delicate tasks and challenges. We are facing challenges inherent in the
productive structure (e.g., the trends towards growing economic inequality, precarious
employment, and concentration and privatisation of the research and development

123
The curriculum debate: Why it is important today 541

capacity), which tend to promote social fragmentation, xenophobia and the weakening or
even erosion of what connects people to each other.
In order to face these challenges, we can rely on the same elements that many sectors of
society use to promote the construction of more just societies. In this sense, we cannot
reduce the challenges to sectoral, scholastic, or pedagogical issues. Supporting the
development of systemic abilities (neither hard or soft) implies a strong cognitive, ethical
and emotional engagement, as well as rigorous work that will lead to the identification of
learning experiences—in the sense that Dewey defined this concept—which students
should experience throughout their educational trajectory. The difficulty and complexity
should not paralyse us; rather, they should motivate us to make a greater effort and avoid
the naı̈ve optimism teachers tend to show.

Scientific culture or digital culture?

Most of the recent literature on pedagogy and education policy revolves around themes of
digital culture and its place in the curriculum at different educational levels (Pelgrum and
Law 2003). This issue is being widely investigated and discussed and hardly anyone
questions the need to universalise access to information and communication technologies
(ICT) and to learn how to use them. Digital literacy is conceived as a right and govern-
ments are allocating very large amounts of money to buy computers and other techno-
logical devices and develop the connectivity infrastructure essential to use these devices
fully.
Less agreement, however, exists around the meaning of digital culture. The first anal-
yses of this issue considered digital culture to be a revolution, associated with values
including democracy, creativity, freedom, solidarity, participation, and tolerance. The
initial widespread optimism of those who were promoting the expansion of this culture is
no longer unanimously shared today, and more skeptical voices are being heard, drawing
attention to a complex reality. On the one hand, we are witnessing phenomena such as the
intensive use of information technologies to propagate fanaticism, violence, racism, and
other expressions that greatly differ from the original vision. On the other, the available
evidence indicates that no technological determinism can explain the behaviours and
values associated with the use of ICT. The ways that social actors use these devices depend
on how they envisage their development. ICTs need an ideological and pragmatic
framework in order to make clear their purpose and specific mission.
In parallel with this discussion about digital culture, the future and the sustainability of
present production and consumption patterns are being roundly debated. Societies face
challenges like climate change. The economic growth of the Southern countries is gen-
erating a significant increase in the demand for energy, which currently can only be met by
massively exploiting fossil fuels—the main factor contributing to global warming. This
warming will affect the poorest regions of the planet, with droughts and disastrous floods.
Health risks, food crises, and governance crises are foreseeable in light of present devel-
opment patterns. These challenges require the utmost efforts in terms of both research and
the promotion of a scientific culture among citizens in order to encourage more reflective
discussions and decision-making that carefully consider the magnitude of problems.
Paradoxically, the growing importance of science and technology in society is not
mirrored by an increase in young people’s interest and involvement in scientific activities.
Environmental care and protection is a matter of concern, but far too few young people are
entering scientific careers and too few policies are being developed to improve the quality
of science teaching in basic and secondary education. Today, scientific literacy is an

123
542 J. C. Tedesco et al.

essential component of citizenship education, and its importance should be reflected in

decisions about the allocation of resources, research, and teacher education.
The education system faces the challenge of promoting the development of these two
‘‘cultures’’, the scientific and the digital, as complementary areas contributing to a com-
prehensive citizenship education. They are different but they are not in opposition. In fact,
the reverse is true. We argue that the debate about digital culture would have a different
connotation if we put it in the context of developing a scientific culture. It is not about
young people becoming skilful users of digital devices; rather, it is about giving a social
purpose to such skills beyond the merely technological and purely individualistic ones. We
need an ultimate purpose and vision for what we do with technological devices. Therefore,
a central objective is promoting a culture that allows us to better understand the challenges
confronting society and the debates around the strategies to cope with these challenges.
Southern and Northern countries are making significant financial investments to equip
educational institutions with technological devices. We do not see the same attention and
level of funding in investments to improve the teaching and learning of sciences. However,
the future of the planet does not depend on which key we should press on a computer. It
depends far more on understanding the challenges of inclusive social development and
behaving like responsible and proactive citizens who share a sense of solidarity.

Some final reflections

In a national and global context permeated by uncertainties and often by disappointments,

the education system needs to be transformed profoundly, if it is to effectively offer each
and every student the opportunity to learn in a framework of universal values and refer-
ences. The education system itself is not only legitimised by the investments made to
improve learning conditions and ensure universal access to education. Three imperatives
for education systems are imparting values to achieve a more just and inclusive society,
providing a variety of learning experiences for a competent and active citizenship, and
ensuring quality and equity in learning outcomes. They require rethinking the role of
curriculum.
The curriculum, understood only as study plans organised around disciplines with lists
of goals and contents, does not seem to be helping renew our vision of the education
system as a facilitator of learning opportunities. On the other hand, it may constitute an
important catalyst, if people also see it as the outcome of a process that engages the
citizenry and reflects a society’s aspirations and vision for its future, one to which a
diversity of institutions and actors are committed, that focuses clearly on the what, why and
how of education. It is therefore necessary to ensure a wider policy dialogue around
curriculum design and development, and to actively involve actors who have traditionally
not been as deeply involved, for example, parent organisations, business chamber repre-
sentatives, trade unions, community leaders, and representatives of organised civil society.
The curriculum as an instrument for legitimising education policy can provide a
foundation for and be a carrier of principles and guidelines intended to democratise edu-
cational opportunities in terms of processes and outcomes. From this perspective, we
suggest at least five issues that may be relevant for the curriculum debate.
First, to conceive the curriculum as a core element of educational change implies,
among other things, recovering the narrative on utopia and education that is often mini-
mised when too much attention is concentrated on the conditions for learning and too little
on processes and engagement in learning. Certain principles or central ideas are needed to

123
The curriculum debate: Why it is important today 543

articulate the complementary role of education as a cultural, social and economic policy
intended to achieve more just and inclusive societies. In this sense, we believe that the four
pillars of education set forth in the Delors report (Delors et al. 1996)—learning to know,
learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together—should be revisited and
understood as a desirable and feasible vision guiding the educational process. Among other
reasons to reaffirm the principles the report advocated is the fact that they are still current
and pending duties of education, and should contribute to redefining the priorities of
education systems.
Second, if education policy is based on the principle of education as a right and public
good, curriculum proposals would have to clarify what is understood by quality education
for all. In particular, what conditions and processes are required to ensure that the
dimensions of justice, equity and inclusion are the main organising principles of curric-
ulum development? Quality is the outcome of a process. It cannot be promulgated and
should not be interpreted only on the basis of the results of national and international
assessments—a trend that is expanding and consolidating. Quality implies a holistic vision
of the education system and a comprehensive curriculum approach, comprising processes
and results. Also, quality does not mean only having good documents that reflect an
innovative vision—for example, the competency-based approach. Rather, and above all,
quality entails ensuring the necessary conditions to effectively translate the vision into
teaching practice and into the concrete organisation of the learning process.
Third, in a globalised world, those developing curricula should increasingly seek the
complex but necessary balance between integrating universal values and respecting the
diversity that characterises national societies. To meet the challenge of achieving a diverse
and inclusive universalism and making ‘‘learning to live together’’ a reality, the curriculum
proposal must recognise that universal values are critical for people to live according to
their beliefs and life styles, while respecting those of others. Diversity may reinforce civic
coexistence by integrating the richness of the faiths and affiliations in a universalistic frame
of values. Effectively incorporating diversity into curriculum development as a reference
criterion will require revising educational goals and strategies and also assessing approa-
ches and instruments that are frequently conceived of independently from the students’
heterogeneous profiles.
Fourth, the interplay between global and local is an important aspect in curriculum
development processes and sometimes leads to a confrontation between opposing educa-
tional visions. As we know, economy, commerce, finance, migration movements, and
communication technologies have extended to a global scale. Contrary to what happened
in the past, contemporary curriculum reforms increasingly make reference to transnational
models—for example, the 21st-century skills—and to international surveys such as the
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), whose results are even inter-
preted as an indicator of competitiveness in the global market. Tensions between the global
and the local have a strong impact on the curriculum debate, when it comes to defining
educational goals and contents. It is clear that the main priority is basic education—which
includes (or should include) democratic citizenship education (Cox 2010; Cox, Jaramillo,
and Reimers 2005). Without it, students cannot progress in their education and gain access
to the knowledge that citizens need to successfully integrate into the local society. But
most of the contemporary and future challenges go well beyond national borders, and it is
critical that basic education also ensures access to the knowledge that helps students
behave responsibly and competently as global citizens.
Finally, the curriculum faces the challenge of ensuring that students take the leading
role in their learning, recognising that we are all special—i.e., the current broadened

123
544 J. C. Tedesco et al.

conceptualisation of inclusive education. This recognition requires, on the one hand, a

more personalised education to enable all learners to reach their full potential (respecting
their pace of progress), and, on the other, paying more attention to student welfare and to
social and emotional learning in addition to cognitive development. As guiding criteria,
personalising education and student welfare opposes the separation between ‘‘soft’’ and
‘‘hard’’ knowledge, the narrowing of learning experiences to those that can be easily
measured, as well as the prevalence of teachers as knowledge transmitters and of sum-
mative assessments. The personalising of education provides a range of opportunities to
promote the skills people need to live in the 21st-century knowledge society and foster the
pedagogical use of ICT, linking digital literacy and scientific culture. It should be
recognised, however, that introducing a competency-based approach and ICT involves
rethinking the curriculum structure and objectives, the approach to teaching and learning,
and the assessment systems within the framework of a holistic vision of education.

References

Ainscow, M., & Miles, S. (2008). Making Education for All inclusive: Where next? Prospects, 38(1), 15–34.
Albornoz, F., & Warnes, P. (2013). Educación en América Latina: más gasto, >mismos resultados? [Edu-
cation in Latin America: More spending, same results?]. Blog entry, Jorge Werthein blog. http://
jorgewerthein.blogspot.com/2013/01/educacion-en-america-latina-mas-gasto.html.
Amadio, M. (2014). A rapid assessment of curricula for general education focusing on cross-curricular
themes and generic competences or skills. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global
Monitoring Report 2013/2014, Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all. Geneva: UNESCO
IBE. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002259/225939e.pdf.
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competencies for new millennium learners in
OECD countries. OECD Education Working Paper No. 41. Paris: OECD.
Brunello, G., & Schlotter, M. (2011). Non cognitive skills and personality traits: Labour market relevance
and their development in education and training systems. Discussion Paper No. 5743. Bonn: Institute
for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Coll, C., & Martı́n, E. (2006). The prevalence of the curriculum debate. Basic learning, competencies, and
standards. The curriculum in the spotlight. PRELAC Journal, 3, 6–27. Santiago: UNESCO Regional
Bureau of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Cox, C. (2010). Informe de Referente Regional 2010. Oportunidades de aprendizaje escolar de la ciu-
dadanı́a en América Latina: currı́culos comparados [Regional Reference Report 2010. School
opportunities for learning citizenship in Latin America: A comparison of curricula]. Bogotá:
CERLALC.
Cox, C., Jaramillo, R., & Reimers, F. (2005). Education for democratic citizenship in the Americas: An
agenda for action. Washington, DC: Department of Sustainable Development, Inter-American
Development Bank.
De Armas, G., & Aristimuño, A. (2012). La transformación de la educación media en perspectiva com-
parada. Tendencias y experiencias innovadoras para el debate en Uruguay [The transformation of
secondary education in a comparative perspective: Trends and innovative experiences for the debate in
Uruguay]. Montevideo: UNICEF.
Delors, J., et al. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Report of the International Commission on Education
for the Twenty-first Century. Paris: UNESCO.
EPC [European Parliament and Council] (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Doc. 2006/962/EC. Official
Journal of the European Union. Brussels: European Union.
FNBE [Finnish National Board of Education] (2013). Social welfare services. Helsinki: FNBE. http://www.
oph.fi/english.
Frandji, D., & Rochex, J. Y. (2011). De la lutte contre les inégalités à l’adaptation aux «besoins spécifiques»
[From fighting against inequalities to adjusting to ‘‘specific needs’’]. Éducation & formations, 8,
95–108.
Garcı́a-Huidobro, E., & Corvalán, J. (2009). Barriers that prevent the achievement of inclusive democratic
education. Prospects, 39(3), 239–250.

123
The curriculum debate: Why it is important today 545

Gordon, J., Halász, G., Krawczyk, M., Leney, T., et al. (2009). Key competencies in Europe: Opening doors
for lifelong learners across the school curriculum and teacher education. Network report no. 87.
Warsaw: Center for Social and Economic Research (CASE).
Jonnaert, P., Ettayebi, M., & Defise, R. (2009). Curriculum et compétences: Un cadre opérationnel [Cur-
riculum and competencies: An operational framework]. Brussels: De Boeck.
Kamens, D., & Benavot, A. (2011). National, regional and international learning assessments: Trends among
developing countries, 1960–2009. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(2), 285–300.
Kärkkäinen, K. (2012). Bringing about curriculum innovations: Implicit approaches in the OECD area.
OECD education working papers no. 82. Paris: OECD.
Lai, E. R., & Viering, M. (2012). Assessing 21st century skills: Integrating research findings. Vancouver:
National Council on Measurement in Education.
Lenoir, Y., Xypas, C., & Jamet, C. (2006). École et citoyenneté. Un défi multiculturel [School and citi-
zenship: A multicultural challenge]. Paris: Colin.
Levin, H. (2012). More than just test scores. Prospects, 42(3), 269–284.
Marina, J. A. (2011). El cerebro infantil: la gran oportunidad [The child’s brain: The great opportunity].
Barcelona: Planeta S.A.
Pelgrum, W. J., & Law, N. (2003). ICT in education around the world: Trends, problems and prospects.
Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.) (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable
knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pepper, D. (2011). Assessing key competences across the curriculum—and Europe. European Journal of
Education, 46(3), 335–353.
Pepper, D. (2012). KeyCoNet 2012 literature review: Assessment for key competencies. European Schoolnet
and Key Competence Network on School Education (KeyCoNet). Brussels: European Commission.
Pons, F., de Rosnay, M., & Cuisinier, F. (2010). Cognition and emotion. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.
McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (Vol. 5, pp. 237–244). Oxford:
Elsevier.
Rey, O. (2012). Les défis de l’évaluation des compétences [The challenges of competency assessment].
Dossier d’actualité veille et analyses, 76. Lyon: Institut français de l’éducation.
Rosanvallon, P. (2011). La société des égaux [The society of equals]. Paris: Seuil.
Savolainen, H., & Halinen, I. (2009). De la educación inclusiva al currı́culo inclusivo [From inclusive
education to inclusive curriculum]. Discussion paper on curriculum and inclusion. Geneva: UNESCO
IBE.
Schleicher, A. (2011). Educación: Una inversión estratégica con altos logros [Education: A strategic
investment with high achievements]. Paper presented at the conference organized by the Center for
Educational Studies of the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, 18 April, Santo
Domingo.
Tucker, M. S. (2011). Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for education reform.
Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy.
UNESCO IBE [International Bureau of Education] (2009). Defining an inclusive education agenda:
Reflections around the 48th session of the International Conference on Education. Geneva: UNESCO
IBE.
UNESCO IBE (2011). Interregional and regional perspectives on inclusive education: Follow-up of the
48th session of the International Conference on Education. Geneva: UNESCO IBE.
UNESCO IBE (2013). Herramientas de formación para el desarrollo curricular: Una caja de recursos
[Training tools for curriculum development: A resource pack]. Geneva: UNESCO IBE.
UNESCO IBE, UNESCO BREDA [Dakar Regional Bureau for Education] & GTZ [Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Internationale Zusammenarbeit] (2009). The Basic Education in Africa Programme (BEAP): A
policy paper—Responding to demands for access, quality, relevance and equity. Eschborn, Germany:
BREDA/UNESCO IBE/GTZ.
UNESCO PRELAC [Regional Education Project for Latin America and the Caribbean] & SEP [Secretariat
of Public Education of Mexico] (2012). Situación educativa de América Latina y el Caribe. Hacia una
educación para todos en 2015 y más allá [The state of education in Latin America and the Caribbean:
Towards Education for All by 2015 and beyond]. Paper presented at the Third Extended Meeting of
PRELAC, Mexico City, 29–30 January 2013. Santiago: UNESCO Regional Bureau for Education in
Latin America and the Caribbean.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2010). 21st century skills: Discussion paper. Report prepared for Kennisnet.
Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.
World Bank (2011). World Bank Group education strategy 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank.

123
546 J. C. Tedesco et al.

Juan Carlos Tedesco (Argentina) is currently a professor of educational policy at the National University
of San Martı́n, in Buenos Aires, and an international consultant in education. He previously served as
minister of education of the Republic of Argentina and as director of UNESCO IESALC, OREALC, IBE,
and IIEP Buenos Aires. He has published many studies and articles in the field of education.

Renato Opertti (Uruguay) is a programme specialist at the UNESCO IBE in Geneva, in charge of its
Curriculum Services to Member States Programme. He previously served as Coordinator of Educational
Reforms (Secondary and Teacher Education) in Uruguay and as an international consultant in areas relating
to research in education, poverty and childhood, educational policies and curriculum. He has published
many studies and articles in the field of social policy and education.

Massimo Amadio (Italy) is a senior programme specialist at the UNESCO IBE in Geneva, in charge of the
Clearinghouse and Information Management Programme. During the 1980s, he worked in several Latin
American countries, supporting bilingual intercultural education initiatives and teacher training projects. He
has collaborated with diverse international organizations, including UNICEF, FAO and the World Bank, and
has published and/or edited many studies and articles in the field of education.

123