[[alternative]]Study on the present operation of Curriculum Development Committee in junior high schools

[[abstract]]The thesis of the paper is the ideas about the operational status quo of Committee of Curriculum Development in junior high schools by analyzing both native and foreign documents while coming up with the conclusion and some suggestions to be references for the educational reform policies is followed. By applying the quality and quantity considered research methods, such as document analysis, questionnaire survey, and interview, the conclusion goes as followed. First, school members don’t have thorough cognitive understanding about Committee of Curriculum Development generally. Besides, their will to know the committee better is not well-emphasized. Second, the operational status quo of the committee is established based on “Essentials of Nine Year Consistent Curriculum for Junior High and Elementary Schools.” The term of office of best-known members, the conveners of each learning fields, the directors and leaders of teaching affairs, and principals, is one year. Besides, members come into being mostly by recommendation; schedules of meetings are often held at common null curriculums or scheduled temporarily, so most meetings are not held regularly. However, the interaction between conveners and the committee is supposed to be close. Policies are usually carried out by mediation between teachers and each office. The teaching affair centers play a critical role in operation. Third, the committee works better in distributing the number of learning classes for each learning fields and planning developmental in curriculum than evaluating teacher’s professional growth in curriculum development. Principals, administrative and committee members have more positive viewpoints toward its operation than teachers do. But members think the operation of the committee helps teachers more both in curriculum and teaching than non-committee members. Meanwhile, the committee also provides different international opportunities of learning fields. Fourth, that teachers have no full understanding toward the committee, lack of proficiency of “curriculum development” and professional knowledge about other learning fields is the filter in operation. They are not able to provide any ideas about curriculum plans and teaching goals for other learning fields. There are also problems that parents and communities lack concern of it, teachers elected as the members are not well reward, the policies of government don’t go well with the need of school, and school members still suspect about the function of the committee. What’s worse, the insufficient communication and introduction about the committee makes the committee not well known by school members and the leaders hold negative attitude toward the operation of the committee. The conclusion of the paper comes up with some ideas as the references for the board of related affairs. Education administrative institution should authorize flexibility for the human resources of school, give the members positive reward, reinforce the monitors and development of each school, and provide related support and resources to ensure the quality of the committee in operation. Schools have to make the organization of members to be multiple, promote the representatives of members and the professional level of members by life-long education, provide members and teachers with access of dialogue to reinforce the understanding to each other, establish one professional curriculum developmental research group to be responsible for the learning fields at school, and arrange meetings of the committee as part of the schedule, inducing this into school administration by systemizations. Teachers should shape the image of learning organization to promote the professional standard and accept the ideas of change to correspond with the trend of educational reform.