How binding are curricula?
There are some teachers who always say: 'We have to do this and that now because it's on the curriculum.'
Our professor always says that the curriculum is more of a guideline that can be varied, but not a legally binding requirement.
In the curriculum, at least the areas to be treated (if necessary). Teachers may deviate from the subject, supplement it and may also take the subject in different order. The fact is that everything in the curriculum should be communicated to students.
The curriculum at least covers the areas to be treated. To what extent this is done in individual cases and how many hours are spent on it depends on the teacher and the class. And, of course, the teacher has a playroom, as he lets the contents of the curriculum come into the lessons.
In the case of topics which are generally expected at the end of the year, the teacher will also have to incorporate them. Especially when it is built in the following year.
The curricula are more a guideline than a must. I know some teachers, some old-aged people who have already explained this to me. This is also not legally binding – that is why parents have no success if they are opposed to it or if they do not think that certain things have been accepted – I have already experienced that. Most curriculum or curricula are far too much for a school year – this is also due to the fact that the creators in the ministries generally do not know how it actually goes in schools, and only have the theory in mind, but not the human … e.g., that there are disputes and anger, or illnesses or a class that is generally low in performance and needs to leave everything in order. Many teachers also do not only teaching according to plan: excursions, project days, films, further media use etc. are long since firmly part of teaching, which the officials in the capitals do not seem to know.