Cycle One - What is Curriculum? What is its Purpose?

What is Curriculum? What is its Purpose?

            In reading the various articles and book excerpts, I was struck by how new curriculum theories may not actually be new at all.  John Dewey asserted, in 1902, that in order to have meaning, lessons should connect with the child’s personal life and experiences.  Such real world applications are exactly what are now being emphasized in our district.

            This way of teaching is in sharp contrast to the way I was taught while attending public school in the 1960s and 70s. Our instruction was based on textbooks and memorization. The teachers fed us information, and there was very little collaboration with fellow students. We were not taught problem-solving and thinking skills, but were made to fill in the blanks on worksheets. Sadly, many teachers still teach that way, because, I assume, it is what they know, and it keeps the students busy.
            I teach in an International Baccalaureate (IB) district. The IB way of teaching revolves around unit questions designed to encourage children to think. It is the hope that students will learn to see things from a global perspective and become “inquiring, knowledgeable, and caring young people” as well as “lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right” (IBO.org). Through IB training, I have learned a way of teaching that fits very nicely into Dewey’s philosophy that real world connections are essential for successful learning.

            William Schubert’s article, Perspectives on Four Curriculum Traditions, gives in depth descriptions of four different theories of curriculum. The first, Intellectual Traditionalist, emphasizes a liberal arts curriculum and teaching the great works in all the subjects. Although I understand the argument that all but the top, college-bound students may not relate to the great works, I also believe in exposing students to beautiful or historic things they otherwise would not learn about. In fact, I was raised this way. My parents dragged me to museum after museum to see art, as well as historical and scientific displays. Even though I was sometimes detached and not as interested as I felt I should be, I am so thankful now that I had these experiences. I teach in a school where 70% of the students qualify for free and reduced lunches. Most of those children would never be exposed to the great works if not for school. While I don’t believe the Intellectual Traditionalist is the best curriculum theory, I also see its benefits as part of a child’s overall education and I what I would consider important to a child becoming a well-rounded and knowledgeable adult.

            Although I agree with the Social Behaviorist’s complaint about textbooks being ineffective and no better than textbooks of the past, I take issue with its emphasis on teaching what students need to know to become a “successful” person. My question is, whose definition of success are we supposed to use? Is success defined as high income? Happiness? High social status? This criteria seems to be too subjective to be valid.

            The Experientialist and Critical Reconstructionist theories seem to align the most closely with Dewey. They suggest that students learn best when their interests and concerns are met by the curriculum. It is true that my at-risk students may often be much more concerned with the problems they are experiencing at home than with academics at school, so I do need to keep that in mind when I plan and deliver my lessons; if the curriculum seems meaningful to their lives, they will be much more likely to buy into what the lesson has to offer.          

In his speech, Ken Robinson asserts that school curricula are putting too much emphasis on university entrance and not enough emphasis on creativity. He states that “We’re educating children out of their creative capacities.” Certainly, that is an issue, but I think the problem is not as easily fixed as he might think. Politics have played a huge part in stripping funds from schools. The core subjects are pushed because a school’s standardized test scores are vital to its survival. I think most educators would agree with Robinson’s concern, but, unfortunately, politicians, most of whom have never taught, have schools’ hands tied. On another note, Robinson said that public schools do not teach students to dance. He is wrong because our high school does offer dance class as an elective for our students!

Sharon Otterman’s article, A Struggle to Educate the Severely Disabled, made me think. While I can understand parents’ despair and need for hope when faced with educating a child such as Donovan, I was also struck by how little progress the school was able to make with him. I thought again of the unrealistic demands combined with the financial constraints imposed by politicians on public schools. When I think of all the programs being cut, while at the same time, the inordinate amount of money that must be invested into programs for the severely disabled,  I have to wonder if it is all worth it. If schools are forced to invest so much time and money into such students, adequate funding needs to be provided.

Resources:     
Standardized Tests Hurt Kids and Public Schools: Teachers, Parents Take a Stand Against Corporate-Backed Test Regime.
 This article discusses how various organizations are encouraging parents to have their children opt out of taking standardizeds tests as a way to use civil disobedience to protest state standardized testing. The groups feel that the pressure for schools to produce high scores on such tests is taking the richness out of public schools' curricula.
 Making Connections, Strategy Guide
Put out by the National Council of Teachers of English, readwritethink.org is a website full of  engaging lesson plans and other resources.