Strategic Curriculum Leadership in Implementing a Bilingual (English–Kreol Morisien) Medium of Instruction using (d) Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory 19/11/25

This article examines the strategic curriculum leadership required to implement a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien Medium of Instruction (MoI) in contexts where learner populations include low-ability and linguistically vulnerable students. Using Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory (2003), the discussion highlights leadership actions that support adoption, reduce resistance, and build sustainable instructional change. The analysis positions the school leader—principally the headteacher or rector—as the catalyst who shapes teachers' perceptions, orchestrates capacity building, and constructs systems that enable equitable implementation.

1. Introduction

Changes in medium of instruction are among the most complex reforms in education because they influence identity, pedagogical practice, assessment, teacher preparation, and parent expectations (Ball, 2012; Shohamy, 2006). In multilingual societies such as Mauritius, introducing Kreol Morisien (KM) alongside English is not merely a linguistic adjustment; it is a curriculum transformation that affects teaching strategies, textbooks, assessment design, and classroom interaction patterns.
Strategic curriculum leadership is required to ensure that the reform addresses the needs of low-ability learners, who often benefit most from mother-tongue–based instruction but are simultaneously most vulnerable during transitional phases (Cummins, 2000; Heugh, 2017).
Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations (DoI) theory provides a robust framework for analysing how principals and curriculum leaders guide teachers and stakeholders through the stages of awareness, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation.

2. The Innovation: Bilingual English–Kreol Morisien Instruction

The adoption of a bilingual MoI is classified as a complex, systemic innovation. It demands coordinated change in:

  • Curriculum materials (bilingual textbooks, translanguaging activities)

  • Instructional methodology (scaffolding, translanguaging pedagogy)

  • Assessment formats (allowing responses in KM and English)

  • Teacher training (bilingual literacy, second-language acquisition)

  • School ethos and language culture

For low-ability learners, bilingual instruction enhances conceptual understanding, reduces cognitive overload, and strengthens literacy development (UNESCO, 2016). However, without structured leadership, teachers may resist due to beliefs about English as a prestige language, concerns over workload, or uncertainty about KM’s academic legitimacy.

3. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory as a Leadership Framework

Rogers’ (2003) theory posits that innovations spread through five stages:

  1. Knowledge

  2. Persuasion

  3. Decision

  4. Implementation

  5. Confirmation

The strategic curriculum leader must guide all stakeholders across these stages, recognising the presence of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.
The principal’s role is not merely administrative but cultural, symbolic, instructional, and relational (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2016).

4. Applying Rogers’ Stages to Bilingual MoI Reform

4.1 Knowledge Stage: Building Awareness and Understanding

The principal initiates the reform by providing accurate, research-based information about bilingual instruction. Strategies include:

  • Workshops illustrating benefits for low-ability learners (Cummins, 2000; Heugh, 2017).

  • Demonstrations of translanguaging strategies.

  • Sharing successful MoI cases from similar multilingual contexts.

Leadership action emphasises the relative advantage of bilingual MoI—clearer comprehension, better participation, and reduced dropout among weaker learners.

4.2 Persuasion Stage: Influencing Attitudes and Reducing Anxiety

Resistance is common among teachers who fear:

  • Loss of classroom control

  • Extra workload

  • Decline in English proficiency

  • Parental dissatisfaction

  • Weak assessment alignment

The principal must facilitate emotional support, dialogue, and collaborative sense-making through:

  • Small-group discussions with early adopters

  • Peer coaching

  • Opportunities for teachers to trial bilingual strategies

  • Parent sensitization programmes explaining the cognitive science behind mother-tongue instruction

Positive persuasion focuses on the innovation’s compatibility with students’ linguistic realities.

4.3 Decision Stage: Collective Commitment and Policy Alignment

Here, the curriculum leader ensures:

  • Formation of a Bilingual Curriculum Committee

  • Alignment of lesson plans, schemes of work, and assessment rubrics

  • Agreement on how English and KM will be used in different subjects

  • Formal adoption of bilingual practices in school development plans

The principal acts as a democratic leader, ensuring teachers feel ownership of the decision, which increases adoption rates (Fullan, 2016).

4.4 Implementation Stage: Practising, Adapting, and Supporting Teachers

Implementation is the most challenging phase. Strategies the principal uses include:

  • Pilot classrooms led by highly motivated early adopters

  • Classroom-based coaching and professional learning communities

  • Provision of bilingual resources, dictionaries, visual aids, and adapted textbooks

  • Scheduled peer observations to normalise bilingual techniques

  • Ongoing assessment monitoring to ensure low-ability learners benefit

Leadership must emphasise trialability and observability—teachers need to see successful bilingual lessons and experiment without fear of failure.

4.5 Confirmation Stage: Institutionalising the Change

To secure long-term adoption, the principal focuses on:

  • Data-driven evaluation showing improved learner engagement, literacy, and comprehension

  • Celebrating teacher successes publicly

  • Embedding bilingual strategies into induction programmes

  • Continual refinement of materials and assessments

  • Ensuring policy coherence with national MoI regulations

Confirmation transforms the innovation from an “experiment” into a permanent component of the school’s curriculum identity.

5. Strategic Considerations for Low-Ability Learners

5.1 Differentiated Bilingual Pedagogy

Low-ability students require:

  • Scaffolded vocabulary bridging between KM and English

  • Visual supports, sentence starters, bilingual glossaries

  • Formative assessments in KM to check conceptual understanding

  • Gradual transition strategies toward content-area English

5.2 Inclusive Assessment Practices

Assessments must allow:

  • Responses in either language without penalty

  • Oral, project-based, and multimodal assessments

  • Rubrics that focus on understanding rather than English-only accuracy

5.3 Building Self-Efficacy

Using KM increases students’ sense of competence, reducing anxiety and promoting classroom engagement (Bandura, 1997).

6. The Principal as Strategic Curriculum Leader

Throughout these stages, the principal acts as:

  • Vision Setter – articulating the purpose of bilingual education

  • Instructional Leader – modelling expectations and monitoring teaching

  • Cultural Leader – affirming KM as a legitimate academic language

  • Change Agent – reducing resistance through empathy and clear communication

  • Resource Provider – ensuring teachers have materials, training, and time

  • Evaluator – examining evidence and sustaining quality over time

This multifaceted leadership ensures that bilingual MoI not only diffuses across the school but becomes embedded in practice.

7. Conclusion

Introducing a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien MoI demands strategic, evidence-based curriculum leadership. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory provides a powerful framework for understanding the adoption process and planning leadership actions that move the school from awareness to institutionalisation. For low-ability learners, such reform is not simply pedagogical but deeply equity-driven, enabling them to access learning in a language that supports cognitive development while preserving English as a global lingua franca.

Effective principals leverage communication, collaboration, and teacher empowerment to ensure bilingual instruction becomes a sustainable, high-quality, and inclusive educational transformation.

References

(Accessible academic references suitable for article-style writing)

  • Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. Routledge.

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman.

  • Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

  • Fullan, M. (2016). The New Meaning of Educational Change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.

  • Glatthorn, A. A., & Jailall, J. M. (2016). The Principal as Curriculum Leader: Shaping What Is Taught and Tested (3rd ed.). Corwin.

  • Heugh, K. (2017). “Mother-tongue based bilingual education: Evidence and practice.” UNESCO Working Papers.

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

  • Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge.

  • UNESCO. (2016). If You Don’t Understand, How Can You Learn? UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report.

Strategic Curriculum Leadership in Implementing a Bilingual (English–Kreol Morisien) Medium of Instruction using (c) Kotter’s Eight-Step Change Model 19/11/25

Changing the medium of instruction (MOI) from English to a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien (KM) model represents a major pedagogical, socio-cultural, and organisational reform. In contexts where students possess low academic ability or limited proficiency in English, the need for a structured, research-based change management process becomes even more critical. This article analyses how strategic curriculum leadership can guide this transformation using Kotter’s Eight-Step Change Model, integrating insights from bilingual education research, linguistic justice, and school leadership theory. Emphasis is placed on the principal’s role as change agent, curriculum leader, and advocate for equity.

1. Introduction

In multilingual societies such as Mauritius, the current educational debates increasingly acknowledge the mismatch between learners’ home languages and the school’s medium of instruction. Research consistently demonstrates that learning in the mother tongue enhances comprehension, cognitive development, and learner confidence, particularly among low-ability learners (Cummins, 2017; Heugh, 2011). Transitioning from an English-only MOI to a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien approach requires strategic curriculum leadership, clearly articulated policies, and culturally responsive implementation.

Kotter’s (1996) Eight-Step Change Model offers a widely accepted framework for managing large-scale school reforms. When applied to curriculum redesign and MOI transformation, it provides a structured pathway for building urgency, mobilising stakeholders, designing new practices, and sustaining change.

2. Establishing a Sense of Urgency

Strategic curriculum leaders must first articulate why maintaining English-only instruction disadvantages low-ability students. Key urgency messages include:

  • Learning barriers: Studies show that English-only instruction in early years lowers comprehension and widens achievement gaps (Ball, 2011).

  • Equity and inclusion: Using KM supports linguistic accessibility for disadvantaged learners (UNESCO, 2016).

  • National policy alignment: MOI reform aligns with contemporary multilingual and decolonial educational agendas.

  • Pedagogical efficiency: Bilingual scaffolding reduces cognitive load (Sweller, 2011).

The leader must present data—reading levels, failure rates, diagnostic assessments—to demonstrate that the status quo is no longer viable for low-achieving learners.

3. Forming a Powerful Guiding Coalition

Successful bilingual curriculum change requires a cross-disciplinary coalition comprising:

  • School leaders and heads of departments

  • Language teachers (English and Kreol Morisien)

  • SEN coordinators and literacy specialists

  • Parent and community language representatives

  • Ministry advisors or external bilingual-education experts

This coalition should reflect linguistic diversity and provide authority, expertise, and legitimacy to drive reform.

4. Creating a Vision and Strategy for Curriculum Change

Strategic curriculum leadership involves articulating a vision that frames bilingual MOI not as a lowering of standards, but as pedagogical strengthening. The vision may include:

  • A bilingual MOI model where KM is used for conceptual understanding, and English for academic literacy development.

  • Dual-language lesson planning, where translanguaging becomes a scaffold rather than a “last resort”.

  • Curriculum adaptation for low-ability learners using simplified texts, KM explanations, bilingual glossaries, and structured language progression.

The strategy should specify timelines, pilot phases, learning resources, and professional development needs.

5. Communicating the Change Vision

According to Kotter, communication must be “frequent, multi-channelled, and aligned with leader behaviour.” Examples include:

  • Stakeholder briefings for teachers, parents, and school boards

  • Demonstration lessons showcasing effective bilingual pedagogy

  • Policy documents outlining curriculum expectations

  • School assemblies emphasising pride in Kreol Morisien and multilingual identity

Leaders must model translanguaging acceptance and reassure teachers that KM integration is academically legitimate.

6. Empowering Staff and Removing Barriers

Common obstacles include teacher resistance, fear of lowered standards, lack of bilingual materials, and low confidence in teaching KM. Strategic leaders must:

  • Provide training on bilingual pedagogy, translanguaging strategies, and KM literacy development (García & Wei, 2014).

  • Supply bilingual teaching materials, visual aids, and modified assessments.

  • Reform timetable structures to allow co-teaching or language-support periods.

  • Ensure teachers understand that the aim is not replacing English, but strengthening learning through KM.

Removing psychological barriers—such as the stigma historically attached to KM—is central to this stage.

7. Generating Short-Term Wins

To maintain momentum, leaders must identify quick, visible successes within the first year. Examples include:

  • Improved comprehension scores in pilot bilingual classes

  • Increased classroom participation among low-ability learners

  • Successful KM-supported literacy interventions

  • Positive teacher testimonies from early adopters

Short-term wins provide evidence that bilingual MOI enhances learning and reduces failure rates, countering scepticism.

8. Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change

Once initial successes are visible, curriculum leaders must continue refining systems:

  • Expand pilot bilingual classrooms to additional grade levels

  • Revise schemes of work to integrate bilingual objectives

  • Develop a bilingual assessment policy

  • Strengthen teacher collaboration and cross-linguistic planning

  • Introduce academic KM resources such as dictionaries, grammar tools, and reading books

This stage ensures that progress does not regress under pressure and that practices become embedded.

9. Institutionalising Bilingual MOI into the School Culture

For change to endure, new practices must become part of the school identity. Leaders should:

  • Align bilingual MOI with the school’s mission and values

  • Celebrate linguistic diversity during school events

  • Recruit teachers with bilingual competencies

  • Integrate bilingual expectations into teacher appraisal

  • Embed translanguaging as an accepted pedagogical norm

Institutionalisation ensures that bilingual MOI survives leadership turnover and external policy fluctuations.

10. Conclusion

Administering MOI change from English to a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien model represents a transformative curriculum reform with profound implications for learner equity, school culture, and instructional practice. Kotter’s model provides a structured pathway for leaders to navigate resistance, align stakeholders, and sustain long-term change. Ultimately, strategic curriculum leadership in this context becomes a moral and professional imperative—centred on linguistic justice, pedagogical effectiveness, and the right of all students, including those with low ability, to learn in languages they understand.

References

  • Ball, J. (2011). Enhancing learning of children from diverse language backgrounds. UNESCO.
  • Cummins, J. (2017). Bilingual education and cognition: The interdependence hypothesis. Routledge.
  • García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Heugh, K. (2011). Theory and practice of language-in-education models in Africa. In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (Eds.), UNESCO.
  • Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
  • Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76.
  • UNESCO. (2016). If you don’t understand, how can you learn? Global Education Monitoring Report. UNESCO Publishing.

Strategic Curriculum Leadership in Implementing a Bilingual (English–Kreol Morisien) Medium of Instruction using (b) Lewin’s Three-Stage Change Model 19/11/25

The transition from an English-only medium of instruction (MOI) to a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien model represents a significant pedagogical, cultural, and organisational shift. Effective implementation requires strategic curriculum leadership grounded in systematic change theory. This article analyses how principals and educational leaders can utilise Lewin’s Three-Stage Change Model (Unfreeze–Change–Refreeze) to guide bilingual MOI reform, particularly in schools serving low-ability learners, who are most affected by MOI barriers. Through strategic visioning, collaborative planning, and evidence-informed decision-making, principals can create conditions for sustainable bilingual curriculum transformation that enhances equity, inclusiveness, and academic achievement.

1. Introduction

Medium of instruction reforms are widely recognised as deep-structure changes that affect pedagogy, curriculum alignment, assessment practices, teacher competencies, and school culture (Fullan, 2007; Hornberger, 2009). In contexts where English remains the dominant instructional language, students of low literacy levels often struggle to access content knowledge, resulting in academic underachievement (Cummins, 2000). Introducing a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien MOI can significantly improve conceptual understanding, engagement, and language development—but only if implemented through coherent strategic leadership.

The principal, as the curriculum leader, plays a pivotal role in guiding MOI change by shaping vision, mobilising teacher collaboration, and ensuring curriculum coherence (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2016). Lewin’s (1947) Three-Stage Change Model provides a structured framework through which educational leaders can manage the complexity and sensitivity of bilingual MOI transformation.

2. Conceptual Framework: Lewin’s Three-Stage Change Model

Lewin’s model outlines three interdependent stages:

  1. Unfreeze – preparing stakeholders for change by challenging existing beliefs and practices;

  2. Change (Move) – implementing new strategies, behaviours, and structures;

  3. Refreeze – institutionalising new practices to ensure long-term sustainability.

This classical model remains highly relevant in MOI reforms due to its emphasis on culture, behaviour, and system stability (Burnes, 2004). Strategic curriculum leadership is required at each phase to maintain coherence and ensure that reforms support low-ability learners.

3. Strategic Curriculum Leadership and the “Unfreezing” Stage

The first stage requires creating readiness for change. In MOI reform, this involves acknowledging the limitations of English-only instruction for low-ability learners and building consensus around the benefits of bilingual learning.

3.1 Diagnosing Learning Barriers

Low-ability learners frequently lack foundational literacy in English, resulting in difficulties in conceptual learning, classroom participation, and assessment performance (Benson, 2012). Strategic leaders initiate diagnostic reviews using:

  • baseline literacy assessments

  • learner profiles

  • classroom observation data

  • consultation with teachers and parents

These data help establish the need for reform.

3.2 Building Awareness and Willingness

Resistance is likely when teachers are accustomed to English-only instruction. The principal’s role is to:

  • Facilitate workshops explaining the cognitive advantages of mother-tongue bilingual education (Cummins, 2001).

  • Present research demonstrating that mother-tongue scaffolding enhances content comprehension.

  • Model an inclusive vision: bilingualism as a resource, not a deficit.

3.3 Creating Collaborative Structures

Curriculum leaders establish curriculum committees, bilingual task forces, and teacher learning communities to involve stakeholders in co-constructing the reform. This aligns with Glatthorn and Jailall’s (2016) emphasis on collaborative curriculum leadership.

Outcome of Unfreezing: Collective understanding that the current MOI system disadvantages low-ability learners and that bilingual instruction can address equity gaps.

4. Strategic Leadership During the “Change” (Move) Stage

This stage involves implementing the bilingual English–Kreol Morisien curriculum in a systemic manner.

4.1 Professional Development and Teacher Capacity Building

Effective bilingual MOI requires teachers to be confident in:

  • translanguaging strategies

  • culturally responsive pedagogy

  • structured bilingual lesson planning

  • code-switching techniques that support conceptual transfer

The principal ensures ongoing training, coaching, and mentoring. According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), professional learning is the strongest predictor of successful curriculum change.

4.2 Curriculum Alignment and Instructional Materials

Strategic curriculum leadership ensures:

  • Lesson plans that integrate Kreol Morisien as a scaffold for English instruction

  • Development of bilingual glossaries and learning aids

  • Alignment of assessment tasks with bilingual instruction so low-ability learners are not disadvantaged

Curriculum mapping ensures coherence across subjects.

4.3 Supporting Low-Ability Learners

Bilingual reforms particularly benefit this group by:

  • Reducing cognitive overload

  • Increasing comprehension through first-language activation

  • Improving confidence and participation (Heugh, 2013)

Leaders establish differentiated instruction, remedial support, and regular formative assessments.

4.4 Monitoring and Feedback

The principal uses structured monitoring cycles:

  • classroom walkthroughs

  • teacher reflection logs

  • student performance tracking

  • bilingual assessment data

This aligns with continuous improvement models in curriculum leadership (Print, 2020).

5. The “Refreezing” Stage: Institutionalising the Bilingual MOI

Refreezing ensures sustainability and prevents regression to English-only practices.

5.1 Policy Consolidation

The principal formalises:

  • bilingual MOI policies

  • school-level guidelines for translanguaging

  • bilingual assessment framework

  • documentation of instructional standards

5.2 Strengthening School Culture

Bilingualism becomes a core school value through:

  • celebrating students’ Kreol Morisien literacy achievements

  • recognising teachers who demonstrate exemplary bilingual pedagogy

  • embedding bilingual resources in the school environment

This solidifies teacher identity and commitment to the reform.

5.3 Long-Term Evaluation and Data Use

Strategic leaders establish ongoing evaluation systems to measure:

  • literacy gains

  • subject-matter comprehension

  • teacher proficiency in bilingual instruction

  • student engagement patterns

Evidence ensures that the reform continues improving learning outcomes for low-ability students.

6. Conclusion

Implementing a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien medium of instruction represents a transformative curriculum reform requiring deliberate and strategic educational leadership. Principals, functioning as curriculum leaders, guide the school through the unfreezing, change, and refreezing stages by building consensus, nurturing teacher capacity, supporting low-ability learners, and institutionalising new pedagogies. When grounded in Lewin’s Change Model and supported by robust professional development and continuous monitoring, bilingual MOI reform can substantially enhance learning equity and academic success.

References

  • Benson, C. (2012). The role of language of instruction in promoting quality and equity in education. UNESCO.
  • Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002.
  • Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
  • Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. California Association for Bilingual Education.
  • Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
  • Glatthorn, A. A., & Jailall, J. M. (2016). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested (3rd ed.). SAGE.
  • Heugh, K. (2013). Literacy and bi/multilingual education in Africa: Recovering collective memory and expertise. International Review of Education, 59, 49–67.
  • Hornberger, N. (2009). Multilingual education policy and practice: Ten certainties (grounded in Indigenous experience). Language Teaching, 42(2), 197–211.
  • Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153.
  • Print, M. (2020). Curriculum development and design. Routledge.

Strategic Curriculum Leadership in Implementing a Bilingual (English–Kreol Morisien) Medium of Instruction using Fullan’s Educational Change Model 19/11/25

This article/post examines how strategic curriculum leadership can effectively guide the transition from an English-only medium of instruction to a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien model, particularly in contexts where significant proportions of students demonstrate low academic ability. Drawing on Fullan’s Educational Change Model, the discussion highlights leadership actions required during initiation, implementation, and institutionalisation. The post argues that bilingual MOI reform must be grounded in cultural relevance, teacher capacity-building, curriculum redesign, and system coherence, especially in multilingual postcolonial societies such as Mauritius.

1. Introduction

Medium of Instruction (MOI) reform is among the most complex forms of educational change due to its deep implications for identity, accessibility, pedagogy, and assessment. In Mauritius, the inclusion of Kreol Morisien alongside English reflects broader sociolinguistic realities and global movements toward mother-tongue-based multilingual education (UNESCO, 2016). However, successful implementation depends not on policy text alone, but on strategic curriculum leadership capable of driving change across the school system.

This article applies Fullan's (2007; 2021) Educational Change Model to illustrate how principals, curriculum leaders, and policymakers can lead a smooth, equity-oriented transition, especially for low-ability students who are disproportionately affected by MOI barriers.

2. Theoretical Framework: Fullan’s Educational Change Model

Fullan conceptualises educational change as a non-linear, multidimensional process, comprising three interrelated phases:

  1. Initiation (adoption of new practices and decision-making)

  2. Implementation (putting new practices into action)

  3. Institutionalisation (embedding the changes into long-term culture and structure)

Fullan’s model emphasises capacity-building, moral purpose, collaborative cultures, and systemic alignment. It offers a robust framework for analysing MOI reforms, which inherently involve language, pedagogy, identity, politics, and community dynamics.

3. Strategic Curriculum Leadership in MOI Reform

Strategic curriculum leadership refers to the principal’s and system leaders’ ability to set direction, mobilise people, redesign curriculum, and coordinate structures to support improved learning outcomes (Glatthorn, Jailall & Jailall, 2017; Bush, 2018). For a bilingual MOI transition, this leadership must be intentional, culturally grounded, and evidence-informed.

Below, Fullan’s phases are applied to this reform.

4. Applying Fullan’s Model to the Bilingual MOI Transition

4.1 Initiation Phase: Setting the Foundation for Change

4.1.1 Establishing a Moral Purpose

Strategic leaders must articulate why bilingualism matters:

  • English alone restricts comprehension for low-ability learners (Heugh, 2011).

  • Kreol Morisien enhances cognitive access, reduces anxiety, and increases participation (Adone & Baker, 2018).

  • Bilingual instruction promotes equity and culturally relevant pedagogy.

This rationale must be communicated clearly to teachers, parents, and policymakers.

4.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Consultation

MOI changes without consultation often produce resistance. Leaders should facilitate:

  • Dialogues with teachers’ unions, parents, and community groups

  • Workshops on benefits of bilingual pedagogy

  • Engagement with linguistic experts and curriculum developers

Fullan (2007) emphasises that ownership emerges from participation, not imposition.

4.1.3 Resource Planning

Leaders must identify:

  • Teacher proficiency in Kreol Morisien and bilingual instructional strategies

  • Needs for materials, bilingual textbooks, and assessment tools

  • Professional development plans

  • Curriculum models where Kreol supports comprehension while English supports global literacy

Strategic planning at this stage determines implementation success.

4.2 Implementation Phase: Leading Instructional and Organisational Change

This is often the most challenging period, especially in linguistically diverse classrooms with low-ability students.

4.2.1 Building Teacher Capacity

Fullan argues that capacity-building is the core driver of change, not accountability mandates.

Leadership actions include:

  • Training teachers in bilingual pedagogy and translanguaging strategies (García & Wei, 2014)

  • Workshops on literacy development in both languages

  • Coaching and peer collaboration cycles

  • Classroom modelling by instructional leaders

Special attention must be given to teachers who themselves were not educated in bilingual systems.

4.2.2 Curriculum Redesign and Instructional Materials

Strategic curriculum leaders must oversee:

  • Creation of bilingual teaching guides

  • Development of Kreol Morisien terminology for academic subjects

  • Inclusive curriculum materials accessible for low-ability students

  • Alignment of MOI with assessment policies

Fullan (2021) warns that reforms fail when curriculum and assessment are misaligned.

4.2.3 Supporting Low-Ability Learners

The transition must directly address the needs of students with low academic proficiency. Evidence from multilingual education research suggests:

  • Stronger early literacy emerges in mother tongue instruction (UNESCO, 2016).

  • Bilingual scaffolding reduces cognitive load (Cummins, 2000).

  • Kreol Morisien can function as a linguistic bridge to English literacy.

Leaders should implement:

  • Differentiated instruction

  • Small-group bilingual literacy support

  • Use of Kreol Morisien for clarifying complex concepts

  • Continuous formative assessment to monitor progress

4.2.4 Monitoring and Feedback Mechanisms

Fullan emphasises that successful change requires continuous, non-punitive monitoring.
Leaders should conduct:

  • Classroom walk-throughs

  • Teacher reflection sessions

  • Learner progress tracking

  • Data-driven adjustments

Monitoring ensures coherence and responsiveness.

4.3 Institutionalisation Phase: Sustaining and Normalising the Change

4.3.1 Embedding Bilingualism into School Culture

Strategic leaders must nurture a school identity that celebrates multilingualism.
This involves:

  • Visible bilingual signage

  • Bilingual assemblies and school events

  • Normalising Kreol Morisien as an academic language

4.3.2 Policy Integration and Long-Term Stability

For reforms to endure, they must be institutionalised through:

  • Long-term MOI policy documents

  • Budget allocations for materials and training

  • Inclusion in teacher evaluation frameworks

  • Continuous curriculum review cycles

4.3.3 Developing Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)

Fullan (2007) emphasises the importance of collaborative cultures.
PLCs enable teachers to refine bilingual practices, share successes, and collectively problem-solve.

4.3.4 Scaling Up and System Coherence

Sustainability requires coordination between:

  • Ministry policies

  • National curriculum bodies

  • Teacher training institutions

  • School leadership teams

System coherence ensures that bilingual MOI becomes a normalised and effective instructional reality, not a temporary initiative.

5. Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

5.1 Linguistic and Ideological Resistance

Some stakeholders may perceive Kreol Morisien as less “prestigious” than English.
Leadership must use evidence to counter misconceptions and communicate the equity and cognitive benefits.

5.2 Teacher Preparedness

Limited teacher proficiency or confidence in Kreol Morisien may pose barriers.
Ongoing training and coaching are essential.

5.3 Curriculum Complexity

Translating and adapting materials require significant time and resources.
Pilot testing and phased rollouts are recommended.

5.4 Assessment Alignment

If high-stakes assessments remain English-only, reform will lose credibility.
Assessment policy must evolve in parallel.

6. Conclusion

Strategic curriculum leadership, informed by Fullan’s Educational Change Model, provides a powerful frame for implementing bilingual MOI reform. For low-ability learners, bilingual instruction can democratise access to learning, improve comprehension, and support literacy development. However, such gains depend on strong instructional leadership, teacher capacity-building, community engagement, and long-term institutionalisation. In Mauritius and similar multilingual contexts, bilingual education is not merely a linguistic shift—it is an equity-driven transformation requiring coherent and sustained leadership.

References

  • Adone, D., & Baker, P. (2018). Kreol Morisien and language education in Mauritius. Routledge.
  • Bush, T. (2018). Leadership and Management in Education. Sage.
  • Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power, and Pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.
  • Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
  • Fullan, M. (2021). Leading in a Culture of Change (Updated ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  • García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Glatthorn, A., Jailall, J., & Jailall, G. (2017). The Principal as Curriculum Leader: Shaping What Is Taught and Tested (3rd ed.). Corwin.
  • Heugh, K. (2011). Theory and Practice in Language Education in Africa. Cambridge University Press.
  • UNESCO. (2016). If You Don’t Understand, How Can You Learn? Global Education Monitoring Report Policy Paper.


Strategic Curriculum Leadership and Change Models 18/11/25

1. Introduction

Strategic curriculum leadership has become a critical dimension of effective school improvement and educational transformation. In an era marked by rapid technological, social and policy shifts, curriculum leaders—principals, heads of departments, instructional coaches, and policymakers—must look beyond routine administration to engage in strategic visioning and proactive change management. Strategic curriculum leadership synthesises long-term planning, evidence-based instructional decision-making, and the ability to guide institutions through complex changes (Glatthorn, Jailall & Jailall, 2017). This article explores core features of strategic curriculum leadership and major models of educational change that support sustainable curriculum development.

2. Strategic Curriculum Leadership: Core Features

Strategic curriculum leadership refers to the intentional, future-oriented actions taken by educational leaders to design, implement, monitor and continually improve curriculum processes. The concept integrates strategic management principles with instructional leadership.

2.1 Vision-Driven Curriculum Planning

Effective leaders articulate a clear vision that aligns curriculum goals with the broader mission of the school and national educational priorities. Vision-building creates directional coherence, ensuring that learning outcomes, assessment frameworks and pedagogical practices reflect shared aspirations (Fullan, 2016).

2.2 Collaborative Curriculum Decision-Making

Strategic leaders construct collaborative cultures, where teachers contribute to curriculum planning, interdisciplinary alignment and assessment design. Distributed leadership improves ownership and reduces resistance to change (Harris, 2013). A culture of professional dialogue becomes essential for continuous improvement.

2.3 Data-Informed Instructional Choices

Data from student performance, national examinations, classroom assessment and learner needs drive strategic decisions. Using quantitative and qualitative evidence, leaders identify gaps, redesign units and differentiate instructional pathways (Marsh, Pane & Hamilton, 2006). Data literacy is now a required leadership competency.

2.4 Capacity Building and Professional Learning

Strategic curriculum leaders invest in teachers' professional growth through coaching, mentoring, and training in new pedagogies such as inquiry-based learning or digital literacy. According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), systematic professional development improves teacher efficacy and curricular fidelity.

2.5 Ensuring Coherence and Alignment

Leaders ensure vertical and horizontal alignment—curriculum structures, learning outcomes, instructional resources and assessment systems must reinforce one another (Glatthorn et al., 2017). Misaligned systems produce fragmented learning experiences.

2.6 Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation

Strategic curriculum leadership involves ongoing evaluation mechanisms—classroom observations, curriculum audits, feedback loops—to ensure curriculum relevance, quality and responsiveness to learner diversity (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2018).

3. Strategic Curriculum Leadership in Practice

The principal’s role is central. Glatthorn et al. (2017) describe principals as “curriculum leaders who shape what is taught and tested”, requiring them to:

  • Establish curriculum priorities

  • Manage curriculum review cycles

  • Facilitate curriculum committees

  • Integrate technology and innovation

  • Advocate for resources

  • Lead change processes

This leadership is inherently strategic because it requires anticipation of future demands—such as digital competencies, global citizenship, ethical literacy and socio-emotional learning.

4. Curriculum Change Models Supporting Strategic Leadership

To lead curriculum transformation effectively, leaders rely on change theories. Several well-established models guide implementation and sustainability.

4.1 Fullan’s Educational Change Model

Michael Fullan’s model is among the most influential frameworks.

Key Components (Fullan, 2007; 2016):

  • Initiation – generating the need for change

  • Implementation – mobilising teachers, resources and professional learning

  • Institutionalisation – embedding change into the culture

Fullan emphasises the human dimension: capacity building, relationships, motivation and moral purpose. Successful curriculum reform requires shared meaning and collective commitment.

4.2 Lewin’s Three-Stage Change Model

Kurt Lewin’s foundational model proposes:

  1. Unfreezing – preparing the organisation for change

  2. Changing/Moving – implementing new practices

  3. Refreezing – stabilising the new system

In curriculum contexts, unfreezing helps teachers recognise the limitations of existing practices, while refreezing ensures sustainability through policies, routines and professional norms (Burnes, 2017).

4.3 Kotter’s Eight-Step Change Model

John Kotter’s model provides a comprehensive strategic process:

  1. Create urgency

  2. Form a powerful coalition

  3. Develop vision and strategy

  4. Communicate the vision

  5. Empower action and remove barriers

  6. Generate short-term wins

  7. Sustain acceleration

  8. Anchor change in culture

Kotter (2012) emphasises communication and symbolic leadership. Curriculum leaders use this model when rolling out new assessment frameworks or 21st-century learning competencies.

4.4 Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory

Rogers (2003) explains how innovations spread in a social system through:

  • Innovators

  • Early adopters

  • Early majority

  • Late majority

  • Laggards

Teachers adopt innovations at different speeds. Strategic leaders must identify opinion leaders, provide differentiated training and support slower adopters.

4.5 The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)

Developed by Hall & Hord (2015), CBAM focuses on teachers’ personal and professional concerns during curriculum change.

Components:

  • Stages of Concern (awareness → collaboration → refocusing)

  • Levels of Use

  • Innovation Configurations

CBAM helps leaders tailor support for teachers at different stages of change, improving curriculum implementation fidelity.

4.6 Kotter & Cohen’s Emotional Change Framework

Kotter and Cohen (2012) highlight the emotional side of change—fear, anxiety, hope, excitement. Strategic curriculum leaders use storytelling, modelling and symbolic actions to inspire motivation.

5. Integrating Change Models into Strategic Curriculum Leadership

Strategic leaders often combine models:

  • Fullan for moral purpose and capacity building

  • Kotter for structured implementation

  • CBAM for understanding teachers’ concerns

  • Rogers for managing innovation diffusion

  • Lewin for organisational re-stabilisation

For example, when implementing a competency-based curriculum, leaders might use Kotter’s urgency and coalition-building, CBAM to support teachers, and Lewin’s refreezing to stabilise assessment practices.

6. Challenges in Strategic Curriculum Leadership

Strategic curriculum change faces obstacles:

  • Teacher resistance or fear of new expectations

  • Limited resources and professional development

  • Poor communication

  • Policy misalignment

  • Overloaded curriculum standards (Schmidt & Prawat, 2006)

  • Inconsistent monitoring

  • Cultural mismatch with imposed reforms

Effective leaders must navigate these systemic complexities with empathy, adaptability and evidence-based decision-making.

7. Conclusion

Strategic curriculum leadership is a multidimensional practice integrating vision, collaboration, data-driven decision-making and ongoing capacity building. Coupled with robust educational change models—Fullan, Kotter, Lewin, Rogers and CBAM—leaders can guide schools through sustainable curriculum transformation. The future of educational leadership requires strategic foresight, ethical responsibility and a commitment to learner-centred innovation.

References

  • Burnes, B. (2017). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood Studies: The Foundations of OD. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Learning Policy Institute.

  • Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

  • Fullan, M. (2016). The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. Jossey-Bass.

  • Glatthorn, A. A., Jailall, J., & Jailall, J. K. (2017). The Principal as Curriculum Leader: Shaping What Is Taught and Tested (4th ed.). Corwin Press.

  • Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles and Potholes (4th ed.). Pearson.

  • Harris, A. (2013). Distributed Leadership: Friend or Foe?. Educational Management Administration & Leadership.

  • Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.

  • Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2012). The Heart of Change. Harvard Business School Press.

  • Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making in Education. RAND Corporation.

  • Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. (2018). Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues (8th ed.). Pearson.

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

  • Schmidt, W., & Prawat, R. (2006). Curriculum Coherence and National Control of Education. American Educator.

Glatthorn et al. (2019) and Fullan (2016)'s work on Strategic Curriculum leadership 18/11/25

1. Glatthorn, Jailall & Jailall (2019): Strategic Curriculum Leadership

Glatthorn et al.’s Curriculum Leadership: Strategies for Development and Implementation (5th ed., 2019) is one of the most influential texts in curriculum studies. Their contribution is foundational because they frame curriculum leadership as both technical and strategic, involving long-term direction, collaborative planning, and continuous improvement.

a. Curriculum Leadership as Strategic Direction

Glatthorn et al. argue that curriculum leadership is not simply curriculum management. Instead, it must be a strategic enterprise that:

  • anticipates future societal and educational needs;

  • uses evidence to guide decisions;

  • aligns curriculum aims with teaching, assessment, and institutional mission.

They stress that curriculum leaders must establish a clear, coherent vision that provides direction for teachers and ensures unity across subjects and grade levels. This vision should guide policymaking, resource allocation, and professional development.

b. A Systems Approach to Curriculum Development

The authors emphasise a systemic approach, where curriculum design, development, implementation, and evaluation form an integrated cycle.
They propose models for:

  • curriculum planning committees,

  • stakeholder involvement,

  • school-wide curriculum mapping,

  • instructional alignment,

  • continuous curriculum review.

Strategic leaders must analyse needs, prioritise improvements, and maintain coherence across the curriculum system.

c. Collaborative and Participatory Leadership

For Glatthorn et al., effective curriculum leadership is shared.
They stress:

  • teacher involvement in curriculum decisions,

  • collaborative planning structures,

  • team-based curriculum writing,

  • opportunities for shared problem-solving.

This participatory strategy builds capacity, reduces resistance to change, and ensures that the curriculum is realistic and teachable.

d. Emphasis on Curriculum Coherence and Alignment

A major contribution of Glatthorn’s work is the concept of curriculum alignment—ensuring that learning outcomes, instructional strategies, assessments, and resources are in harmony.
Misalignment leads to curriculum fragmentation, poor outcomes, and teacher confusion.
Strategic curriculum leaders therefore:

  • align curriculum with standards,

  • create coherent learning pathways across grades,

  • ensure assessment validity.

e. Continuous Evaluation and Improvement

Their model emphasises ongoing curriculum evaluation loops using data, teacher feedback, assessment results, and community needs.
Improvement is cyclical, not a one-time event.
Strategic leadership requires staying attentive to shifts in technology, student needs, and workforce requirements.

2. Fullan (2016): Educational Change as a Strategic Leadership Process

Michael Fullan’s The New Meaning of Educational Change (5th ed., 2016) is one of the most authoritative sources on educational change and organisational transformation. Although not exclusively about curriculum, Fullan’s insights deeply shape the understanding of strategic curriculum leadership.

a. Change Leadership and Moral Purpose

Fullan argues that strategic educational leadership must be grounded in a strong moral purpose—improving learning and equity for all students.
Curriculum leadership, therefore, cannot be reduced to documents and plans; it must address inequality, learner diversity, and social change.

Leaders must inspire commitment through:

  • clarity of purpose,

  • modelling ethical behaviour,

  • ensuring fairness in curriculum provision.

b. Understanding the Complexity of Change

Fullan’s work highlights that educational change is not linear but complex, unpredictable, and dependent on human relationships.
Strategic curriculum leaders must:

  • anticipate resistance,

  • understand school culture,

  • manage competing interests,

  • build momentum gradually.

Effective change requires understanding the system, not merely imposing reforms from above.

c. Building Capacity Rather Than Mandating Reform

Fullan emphasises that change fails when leaders focus on “innovation adoption” instead of capacity building.
His model stresses:

  • teacher professional learning,

  • collaborative cultures,

  • opportunities for experimentation and reflection,

  • leadership development.

Thus, curriculum leaders must invest in teacher learning and create the conditions for sustainable implementation.

d. The Power of Collaborative Cultures

One of Fullan’s most influential ideas is that collaborative cultures drive improvement.
Successful curriculum change requires:

  • shared decision-making,

  • peer support,

  • open communication,

  • collective problem-solving.

He argues that strategic leaders must deliberately shape these cultures through structures such as professional learning communities (PLCs).

e. Coherence as the Core of Strategy

Fullan (2016) introduces the Coherence Framework, which is now widely applied to strategic curriculum leadership.
It consists of four components:

  1. Focused direction (vision and priorities)

  2. Collaborative cultures

  3. Deepening learning (pedagogical improvement)

  4. Accountability (internal and external)

These components help leaders build a shared understanding of what matters and how to achieve it—essential for curriculum alignment and strategic improvement.

f. Strategic Communication and Transparency

Fullan argues that leaders must communicate constantly, explaining:

  • the purpose of curriculum changes,

  • expected benefits,

  • roles for stakeholders,

  • timelines and expectations.

Poor communication undermines even well-designed curriculum reforms.

How Their Contributions Combine

Together, Glatthorn et al. (2019) and Fullan (2016) provide complementary understandings of strategic curriculum leadership:

Glatthorn et al. (2019) Fullan (2016)
Focuses on curriculum processes and systems Focuses on change dynamics and leadership
Provides practical models for curriculum planning, alignment, evaluation Provides theory of change, culture, moral purpose
Emphasises structure, coherence, design Emphasises people, relationships, culture
Curriculum leadership is technical + strategic Change leadership is moral + cultural

Combined, they show that successful curriculum leadership requires both strong structures and strong relationships, both coherent design and effective implementation, and both strategic vision and collaborative culture.

References

  • Fullan, M. (2016). The New Meaning of Educational Change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.

  • Glatthorn, A. A., Jailall, J. M., & Jailall, J. K. (2019). Curriculum Leadership: Strategies for Development and Implementation (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)