A further observation is important. Planned learning is defined by curricula goals and
evidenced by the achievement of these. Many mass education systems are based on the
assumption of linear progression through successive grades where what is taught and
learned in one year is extended and deepened at the next. In principle this cumulative
model of learning ought to result in higher and higher levels of achievement through the
school system. The evidence from achievement studies and from the raw score
performance of students in many systems is disquieting. Failure to master large
proportions of the curriculum at a given level is widespread and is demonstrated by the
fact that significant numbers of students score at levels obtainable by chance on
multiple choice tests even after several years of instruction. In the IEA science study
the bottom 20% of 14 year old students in Ghana, Nigeria, the Philippines and
Zimbabwe scored close to these levels (Postlethwaite and Wiley 1991). It would not be
surprising to find similar results at younger ages. Some recent small scale research on
mathematics achievement in Shri Lanka seems to suggest that mathematics
achievement in a sample of schools at grade 6 and 7 is little better than that in grade 5
when similar test items are administered. Achievement data requires careful
interpretation but these kinds of results will not surprise examiners in many countries
who are accustomed to performance figures on public examinations which indicate
little achievement gain amongst large numbers of candidates. If curricula in successive
grades are based on the assumption of mastery of the lower levels of which many
students have at best a poor grasp, then later learning problems are inevitable. Far from
being progressive, learning may become more of a cycle of cumulative ignorance
where at each level smaller and smaller proportions of what is supposed to be learned
have actually been mastered.
In many countries there are subjects which are passed by small proportions of
candidates, sometimes as few as 1020%, after completing an educational cycle. Where
the assessment tests are technically well conceived, the problems must reside in a
combination of ineffective teaching and unrealistic curriculum goals. In such
circumstances it must be attractive to identify curricula goals which are within reach of
the majority of children in typical schools with typical teachers. It is then possible to
emphasise those learning outcomes that are thought to be essential to all or most of the
school population, and to concentrate resources on their achievement. Contrary to
popular opinions, curriculum development of this kind, which emphasises mastery of
learning goals, does not lower standards. The achieved standards in many school
systems are already low and setting goals that are demonstrably unattainable to the
majority is often the cause of poor performance. The objection that lowering over
ambitious-achievement goals would hamper the level of achievement of the most able
students can be countered through the introduction of express promotion streams. This,
incidentally, would result in a release of school places that could be made available to
those not currently enrolled. Curricula reforms of the kinds suggested are a
precondition for successful implementation of automatic promotion. In systems where