1 Introducing Transformative Curriculum Leadership 20/11/25

1. The Purpose and Rationale for the Book

Chapter 1 establishes why transformative curriculum leadership is needed in contemporary schooling. The authors argue that schools face increasing pressure from accountability systems, bureaucratic standardization, and managerial control. These pressures reduce curriculum to a technical process of delivering mandated content.
Henderson & Gornik contend that this technicist orientation limits teachers' agency, restricts students’ intellectual development, and sidelines ethical and democratic purposes of education.

They position their book as a response to these conditions. The chapter asserts that curriculum leaders (teachers, administrators, instructional coordinators) must reclaim the intellectual, moral and democratic dimensions of curriculum work. Curriculum, they argue, is not simply a set of state standards or textbook guidelines—it is a moral and political project involving choices about human development, society, and values.

Their goal is to provide a theoretical model and practical tools for a leadership approach rooted in:

  • ethical reflection,

  • democratic participation,

  • personal and collective growth,

  • professional autonomy,

  • authentic learning.

2. The Central Idea of “Transformative Curriculum Leadership”

The authors define transformative curriculum leadership as a holistic, moral, democratic, and inquiry-driven approach to curriculum decision-making. It differs fundamentally from traditional curriculum administration, which is often:

  • hierarchical,

  • compliance-driven,

  • efficiency-oriented,

  • standardized.

Transformative curriculum leadership involves:

  • Deep inquiry into purposes of education, not just tasks and procedures.

  • Shared responsibility across teachers, students, parents, and community members.

  • Moral and ethical judgement, not simply adherence to rules.

  • Democratic dialogue and participatory decision-making.

  • Personal transformation of leaders themselves.

  • Critical reflection on social and cultural contexts shaping schooling.

The chapter emphasizes that curriculum leadership is not about power over others, but power with others—co-constructing meaning, direction, and improvements in learning.

3. Three Curriculum Paradigms

The conceptual heart of Chapter 1 is the presentation of three paradigms that structure how educators think about curriculum. These paradigms represent different philosophical and practical stances, and each leads to different forms of leadership.

A. The Standardized Management Paradigm

This paradigm is dominant in many school systems.
Its key characteristics include:

  • curriculum as a bureaucratic product to be delivered;

  • instruction designed to meet predetermined outcomes;

  • reliance on tests, data metrics, and compliance mechanisms;

  • emphasis on order, efficiency, predictability, and control;

  • leadership defined as managing, monitoring, and enforcing standards.

This paradigm aligns with industrial-era models of schooling and assumes that learning is uniform and measurable. Henderson & Gornik critique this paradigm for stifling teacher creativity, narrowing learning, and ignoring diversity and democratic purposes.

B. The Constructivist Best Practice Paradigm

This paradigm shifts from transmission to student-centered learning, aligning with cognitive and social constructivism.
Its features include:

  • learners actively constructing knowledge;

  • inquiry-based learning and experiential methods;

  • teachers as facilitators and designers of learning environments;

  • emphasis on process-oriented assessment rather than standardized testing;

  • focus on authentic understanding over rote memorization.

Although more progressive than the first paradigm, Henderson & Gornik argue that this paradigm still often focuses too heavily on technique (“best practice”) and insufficiently on deeper ethical and democratic curriculum questions.

C. The Curriculum Wisdom Paradigm (The Transformative Paradigm)

This is the paradigm the authors advocate and develop throughout the book.
It integrates three strands of educational purpose:

  1. Personal Purpose – developing self-understanding, emotional and ethical awareness, reflective identity formation.

  2. Social Purpose – building democratic participation, community engagement, equity, and social responsibility.

  3. Subject-Matter Purpose – helping learners understand and apply disciplinary knowledge in meaningful ways.

Curriculum wisdom emerges when educators engage in “wisdom-based problem solving”, making decisions that balance:

  • personal growth,

  • democratic ideals,

  • disciplinary rigor.

This paradigm positions curriculum work as interpretive and moral, not merely technical.

4. The Influence of Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigm Theory

The authors use Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigms from the philosophy of science to explain how educators operate within inherited frameworks without always being aware of them.
Kuhn’s concept helps clarify that:

  • curriculum decisions are shaped by deep assumptions, not simply procedures;

  • real change requires a shift in worldview, not just new strategies;

  • conflicting paradigms lead to conflict in educational reforms.

This theoretical grounding prepares the reader to understand that transformative curriculum leadership is, by necessity, paradigm-changing work.

5. The Concept of Currere

A central theoretical idea introduced in this chapter is William Pinar’s concept of currere—the reconceptualist idea that curriculum is a verb, an autobiographical journey of meaning-making.

The chapter explains the four moments of currere:

  1. Regressive – reflecting on the past;

  2. Progressive – imagining possible futures;

  3. Analytical – examining the present critically;

  4. Synthetical – integrating past, present, and future into coherent professional action.

The authors argue that curriculum leadership must be autobiographical and reflective—leaders need to examine their own histories, values, and experiences in order to lead ethically and authentically.

Currere is introduced as:

  • a tool for personal transformation,

  • a method for understanding one’s teaching identity,

  • an approach for examining the moral dimensions of educational decisions.

6. Leadership as a Collaborative, Democratic Practice

The chapter insists that curriculum leadership should not be an administrative function restricted to principals.
Rather, it is:

  • distributed across teachers, students, and community members;

  • collaborative, relying on shared problems and shared solutions;

  • dialogic, grounded in communication, listening, and negotiation;

  • ethical, rooted in care, justice, and respect.

Henderson & Gornik argue that the very notion of “leader” should be decentered—leadership is an activity, not a role.
The chapter shows how teachers, students, parents, and administrators can jointly enact transformative leadership.

7. Overview of How the Book Will Develop the Model

At the end of the chapter, the authors outline the structure of the entire text:

  • Part I addresses conflicting paradigms and the challenge of curriculum standards.

  • Part II elaborates four core curriculum processes:

    1. designing,

    2. teaching,

    3. evaluating,

    4. organizing.

  • Part III explores sustaining transformative leadership through local learning communities and broader engagement with society and public values.

This preview shows that transformative leadership is both conceptual and practical, combining theory with methods.

8. Key Insights from Chapter 1

  • Curriculum decisions are always moral and political, not just technical.

  • Transformative leadership requires paradigm awareness and chosen alignment with democratic educational values.

  • Educators must engage in autobiographical reflection (currere) to understand and transform their practice.

  • A wisdom-oriented curriculum balances personal, social, and academic development.

  • Curriculum leadership is collaborative, not hierarchical.

  • The ultimate purpose of education is the development of wise, reflective, socially responsible human beings.