Proposal for a Curriculum Review Cycle Fitting the Moldovan Context

3. A proposal for a curriculum review cycle fitting the Moldovan context

Abstract

This chapter summarises the analysis presented in Section 2. It presents a proposal for a curriculum review cycle that reflects good practice internationally and fits the Moldovan context. Drawing on international research and experience, as well as Moldova’s own efforts in curriculum reform it addresses six key questions for designing and implementing a curriculum review. To illustrate this, a basic example of a curriculum review cycle at the primary education level is included.

The proposal will also be of interest to other countries seeking to adopt a more planned and cyclical approach to curriculum review.

A proposal for a curriculum review cycle fitting the Moldovan context

This chapter presents a proposal for a curriculum review cycle that reflects good practice internationally and fits the Moldovan context. The proposal aims to provide Moldova with guidance and practical considerations for adopting a planned and cyclical approach to curriculum review. To illustrate this, a basic example of a curriculum review cycle at the primary education level is included (see Box 3.1). The proposal was presented to the MoER and CWG, allowing for validation and refinement based on their feedback.

Defining the key purpose(s) of a curriculum review

• The MoER should clearly define and prioritise the key purpose(s) of the curriculum review. This is essential to ensure focus in the curriculum review process and to align ambitions with the education system’s capacity for curriculum design and implementation.

• The MoER should consider making the improvement of curriculum resource quality a key purpose of the current curriculum review. Enhancing the rigour, focus, coherence and clarity of subject curriculum frameworks and other curriculum resources could significantly increase their quality and usability, thereby supporting more effective teaching and learning.

• The MoER should ensure strong leadership to determine and prioritise the purpose(s) of the review. While evidence from monitoring and evaluation of curriculum implementation and stakeholder views may suggest the need for pursuing multiple curriculum changes, strong leadership by the MoER is crucial to decide which purpose(s) to prioritise.

Determining the scale of curriculum reviews

• Moldova should consider adopting a sequential approach to curriculum review by levels of education. This could make the review less challenging to manage (than when using an integrated approach to curriculum review) and support stronger quality assurance of curriculum resources. It would also allow Moldova to spread opportunity costs over a longer period – an important consideration given the country’s limited budget and capacity for curriculum design and implementation.

• Ad hoc, subject-based curriculum reviews could still be allowed when necessary. As Moldova strengthens its curriculum monitoring and evaluation, emerging evidence may justify timely, targeted revisions to specific subjects without waiting for the full review cycle to conclude.

Clarifying the main outputs of the review

• Moldova should define the main curriculum outputs at the start of the review cycle to focus and plan the review effort. These may include the National Curriculum Reference Framework, subject curriculum frameworks, non-mandatory pedagogical guidelines and assessment guidelines, and the planned digital curriculum resources.

• For the current curriculum review, Moldova should – as planned – simplify and clarify the subject curriculum frameworks, and develop separate, non-mandatory pedagogical guidelines and assessment guidelines. This should include reviewing and consolidating existing assessment guidance documents into a single, coherent document aligned with the revised curriculum.

• Digital curriculum resources should form an integrated part of Moldova’s curriculum review cycle and action plan. This would help ensure their revision in future curriculum reviews and maintain their alignment with the curriculum.

Planning and operationalising the curriculum review cycle

• Moldova’s curriculum review cycle should ensure ample time and other resources for activities that support curriculum analysis and planning, redesign, preparation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Past curriculum reviews have sometimes lacked adequate resources for these phases.

• Moldova should develop a costed action plan covering the entire curriculum review cycle to guide the process and monitor progress against review purposes and milestones. This plan should be based on well-defined review purposes that determine the initiatives and activities to be included.

• Moldova should continue to engage in expert consultations for the redesign of curriculum resources and their piloting in future curriculum review cycles. This will ensure that teachers and other stakeholders have opportunities to provide feedback on draft curriculum resources, enhancing their quality and user friendliness.

• The MoER should ensure a rigorous quality assurance process for all new draft textbooks. This may require reviewing and updating existing procedures for textbook approval to ensure these support a robust review process. The establishment of the National Council for Textbook Selection is a promising step toward strengthening textbook quality assurance in Moldova. The MoER should closely monitor the effectiveness of the Council and take additional measures as needed.

The MoER is also considering leading the development of the textbook content of selected subjects, i.e. with the support of curriculum experts. Trialling this approach could help in deciding whether to continue and possibly expand this (more centralized) approach to curriculum development in future curriculum review cycles.

Additionally, the MoER may consider opening the competitive process for textbook development and publishing to international service providers. This could broaden the pool of qualified developers and publishers and contribute to enhancing the overall quality of curriculum resources.

• The MoER should ensure student assessments and examinations are aligned with the curriculum. It should consider:

  • Developing and implementing the planned online student assessment platform, while considering the inclusion of 21st-century competencies embedded in the curriculum (e.g. digital competence, critical and creative thinking), beyond easily measurable competencies.

  • Investing in capacity development and communication activities, targeting teachers, school leaders, students and parents, to promote the effective use of the online assessment platform.

  • Developing and disseminating a coherent national assessment framework that integrates the various assessment instruments and ensures their alignment with the intended learning outcomes of the curriculum.

• Curriculum-based professional development initiatives should form the core of the implementation phase. The mentor system, a large-scale professional development initiative, has significant potential to help teachers improve their practice in line with the new curriculum. To address concerns regarding consistency of mentor quality, Moldova should consider:

  • Establishing clear expectations for mentors and ensuring a consistent selection process.

  • Providing continuous training and self-learning resources to ensure all mentors have a deep understanding of the new curriculum and possess the skills to support teachers in adapting their teaching.

• The measures MoER has taken to strengthen curriculum monitoring and evaluation should be sustained and built upon in future curriculum review cycles.

• While recognizing that monitoring and evaluation serve multiple purposes – throughout the entire curriculum review cycle, Moldova should initiate the monitoring of curriculum implementation early in the implementation phase to identify good practices and enable timely adjustments.

Defining the length of the review cycle

• The MoER could consider establishing a curriculum review cycle lasting approximately 10 years. However, a flexible approach is advisable. A slightly longer cycle may be appropriate for lower secondary education than for primary and upper secondary levels if a grade-by-grade curriculum roll-out is maintained. More complex and ambitious curriculum reviews may likewise warrant longer cycles. Ad hoc subject-based reviews could still help address immediate needs.

Governance of the curriculum review

• The MoER should consider establishing a curriculum review body. First, this could allow for consolidating and further developing the available curriculum expertise in the country – thereby directly responding to the call for action of the Education Development Strategy 2030. Second, having a specialised body at an arm’s length of the MoER to fulfil a (semi-) autonomous, “neutral” role may be helpful considering the often conflictual and political arena of curriculum review. Third, such a specialised body may help strengthen the much-needed quality assurance of curriculum resources.

  Under this arrangement, the MoER would retain responsibility for the overall vision, goals and purposes of the review, and its implementation. The proposed body’s mandate would focus on analysis, curriculum redesign and support for planning. The body could be hosted by NACE or the National Institute for Education and Leadership.

• Moldova should continue a strong stakeholder process in future curriculum reviews. This is important as Moldova’s teachers, school leaders, curriculum experts and other education stakeholders are central to the system’ capacity for curriculum design and implementation. Engaging stakeholders, ideally early on, can help enhance their understanding of the desired curriculum changes and support for the curriculum review process.

Box 3.1. An illustrative example of a curriculum review cycle at the primary education level

It is recommended that Moldova adopts a sequential approach to curriculum review by level of education. This could make the review less challenging to manage (than when using an integrated approach to curriculum review) and support stronger quality assurance of curriculum resources. It would also allow spreading opportunity costs over a longer period – an important consideration given Moldova’s limited budget and capacity for curriculum design and implementation. A sequential approach would involve launching three separate curriculum review cycles – one each for primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education – on a staggered basis. For example, the review cycle for the primary education level could begin and be followed by the lower secondary education cycle several years later, which in turn could be followed by the upper secondary education cycle later.

Each curriculum review cycle would be evidence-informed, planned and cyclical in nature. It is suggested that the cycle span approximately 10 years, which would help to ensure ample time and other resources for each of the main phases of the review (analysis and planning, redesign, preparation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation). However, this indicative duration should be applied flexibly: for example, a slightly longer cycle may be appropriate for lower secondary education than for primary and upper secondary levels if a grade-by-grade curriculum roll-out approach is adopted.

The example below of a curriculum review cycle at the primary education level is aimed to illustrate what a curriculum review cycle could look like in practice. This example is illustrative and would require further adaptation depending on government priorities. For instance, Moldova may choose to begin implementation in Grade 1 with a limited number of subjects and phase in the remaining subjects in the subsequent year.

Phase 1: Analysis and planning

The analysis and planning phase could begin with a curriculum analysis, understood as a systematic process for examining and evaluating the curriculum’s intended goals and purposes, content, pedagogical approaches, assessment strategies and overall effectiveness. This analysis would draw on evidence from the ongoing monitoring of curriculum implementation and evaluation studies of the previous curriculum review, relevant national and international literature, and engagement with education stakeholders and experts. This analytical process, together with a series of stakeholder consultations, would support the proposed curriculum review body in identifying possible review purposes, expected curriculum outputs (e.g. resources), and in developing a costed curriculum review action plan covering the full duration of the review cycle.

While the proposed curriculum review body would play a central role during the analysis and planning phase, the MoER would retain responsibility for determining the overall vision, goals and purposes of the review, and for reviewing and endorsing the curriculum review action plan. This action plan is the key output of the analysis and planning phase and could be finalised within the first year of the cycle (Figure 3.1).

Phase 2: Curriculum redesign

In the curriculum redesign phase, the curriculum review body would lead the redesign and updating of all curriculum resources. These may include the National Curriculum Reference Framework, subject-specific curriculum frameworks, and non-mandatory pedagogical and assessment guidelines. Using accessible and user-friendly language is critical to support their effective use by teachers, students, parents and other stakeholders. The curriculum review body could continue the practice of engaging expert groups, such as subject working groups, that support the revision of subject curriculum frameworks and related pedagogical guidelines and assessment guidelines. The NACE would play a key role in updating the assessment guidelines. Draft curriculum resources would be reviewed by curriculum experts, teachers and selected stakeholders, and piloted in a sample of schools. Feedback from this piloting would inform subsequent revisions. As a final step in the curriculum redesign phase, the curriculum review body would review and endorse all draft curriculum resources. Endorsed resources would be submitted to the Minister for formal approval. Resources that are not endorsed would be subject to further revision.

The curriculum redesign phase is expected to last two to three years.

Figure 3.1. Example of a possible curriculum review cycle at the primary education level

Source: Developed by the authors of this report.

Phase 3: Preparation for implementation

During the curriculum redesign phase, some preparative activities could already be initiated to lay the groundwork for the implementation of the curriculum. Preparative activities may include the dissemination of the subject curriculum frameworks, pedagogical guidelines and assessment guidelines. A key preparatory activity is the development and quality assurance of paper-based and digital textbooks. Sufficient time should be allocated for this.

Moreover, it will be essential to raise awareness among teachers, school leaders, students, parents and other education stakeholders regarding the curriculum review. Communication efforts could focus on the timeline, rationale and purposes of the review, and the nature of the curriculum changes. A further critical activity in the preparatory phase is the revision of student assessment and examination frameworks and resources to ensure continued alignment with the new curriculum. This work includes the planned development, and in future cycles, the updating of an online student assessment platform.

Phase 4: Implementation

The implementation phase would focus on the grade-by-grade toll-out of the new curriculum and may include a continuation of some preparative activities. Curriculum-based professional development initiatives would form the core of the implementation phase. Key activities may include capacity development of teachers and school leaders through targeted workshops, online training modules, school-to-school collaborations and ongoing mentoring support provided through Moldova’s newly established mentoring system. The implementation phase would also involve the distribution of new textbooks and sustained communication efforts to raise awareness and support among teachers, school leaders, students, parents and other education stakeholders.

The implementation phase is expected to last five to six years.

Phase 5: Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring of curriculum implementation should begin early in the implementation phase to allow for identifying both effective practices and emerging challenges. Activities may include ongoing monitoring, reviews and evaluation studies. These should assess not only the extent to which the curriculum review purposes and student learning outcomes are being achieved, but also other important outcomes such as teacher well-being. In addition, these should examine implementation processes (e.g. the implementation and effectiveness of the mentoring system) to enable timely adjustments where necessary.

However, monitoring and evaluation serve multiple purposes throughout the entire curriculum review cycle. For instance, the continuous analysis of standardised student assessment data and findings from school evaluations provides valuable insights. Together, these and other monitoring and evaluation activities can inform improvements at classroom, school, and national levels, and support evidence-informed planning of future curriculum review cycles.