Bjarnason revisits goals behind Iceland’s 1999 school curriculum

In a column published by Morgunblaðið, former education minister Björn Bjarnason recalls the aims of Iceland’s 1999 school curriculum and argues that clear learning goals help students, parents and teachers.

His column responds to an article published in the newspaper the previous week by Halldór Skúlason, the father of a 10th-grade student. Skúlason compared the 1999 curriculum with the 2011 version, saying the greater influence of the current curriculum had broadly coincided with poorer educational results. He proposed returning to the earlier curriculum while working on improvements.

Bjarnason says Skúlason’s argument matches comments he has heard from teachers, who sometimes consult the 1999 curriculum for its clear goals and guidance. As education minister, Bjarnason set the direction for the curriculum work published that year, and says its purpose went beyond revising instructions for teachers: it was intended to clarify expectations, strengthen the position of students and parents, and better connect the stages of education.

For the first time, curricula for preschools, compulsory schools and upper secondary schools were developed at the same time. The aim was to create continuity, with each stage building on what students had learned and preparing them for the next. Bjarnason says it is essential for people to know the direction of study and how its stages fit together.

Jónmundur Guðmarsson led the work, which involved nearly 300 people and amounted to about 33 person-years. Bjarnason says it was completed within a reasonable timeframe, with general agreement on the different stages and how they were carried out. He says his assessment of the project as a smooth example of major public administration work has not changed.

Bjarnason says detailed curricula were intended to ensure schools faced the same defined expectations and to make their work more transparent to students, parents and local authorities. Clear requirements were also meant to support teachers, including those teaching students of different ages together in small schools. In his view, a curriculum must spell out what students are expected to learn, rather than rely only on broad promises about desirable qualities and skills.

The common requirements still allowed room for choice. The curricula set requirements for 70 per cent of students’ time in ninth and 10th grade, leaving the rest for learning linked to students’ interests, local employment, their surroundings and nature. Bjarnason also pointed to information technology as a way for small schools to offer a wider range of studies.