Curriculum is the plan we implement to take a journey
through learning. There are many types
of curriculum and many methods to implement them, but how do we know which one
is best? There is data, of course, but anyone
can swing data to show that their curriculum works. Ken brings an interesting point, in that we
are all born creative. but with curriculum, it deprives our students of being
creative. If this is true, then what is
the purpose? We teach our students to do
what is right, to get the right answers, to NOT do wrong. “If you are not
prepared to be wrong, you will never come up with anything creative.”
(Robinson, 2006)
How can we chose a curriculum to create a plan for us (not
creative, in itself) if we cannot even know for what exactly we need to prepare
our students for. When they graduate,
there will be technology that we cannot even currently imagine. We are currently preparing our students for a
world where their future jobs may not even exist yet. “The unpredictability is extraordinary…we
don’t know what the world will be like in 5 [years]” (Robinson, 2006) so how
can we plan for 15 or even 20 years from now?
If we can use our students’ natural inquisitive nature and
teach through authentic lessons in which they pose their own questions and
guide their own learning, is the only purpose of having a curriculum due to the
standard requirements given to us? As
Dewey suggests, “abandon the notion of subject-matter as something fixed and
ready-made in itself, outside the child’s experience.” (Dewey, p.109) How can we do this when we have intense
pressure on test scores at both the state and national level?
Dewey says that textbook and teachers, together, present
subject matter as it is viewed by the specialist. “Such modification and revision as it
undergoes are a mere elimination of certain scientific difficulties, aid the
general reduction to a lower intellectual level.” (Dewey, p.118) Does it reduce intellect because the
information is given to students and not discovered by them? If that is the case, how to do we expect to have
the resources and materials to let the students authentically learn about such
things. If students were learning about
the relationship between the sun, Earth and moon, how would many of those big
ideas be taught without information given by a “specialist?” There are some things they could learn
individually: moon phases, daylight, and seasons just by observing the world
around us. But how would the students
understand that seasons are causes because the earth is on a tilt and that
other parts of the world do not experience seasons like we do today, without a
textbook or other source of information?
How would you learn about tides in the ocean and how they correlate to
the moon without living near the ocean? Learning about such things that you
haven’t actually discovered or experienced, how would that lower intellectual
level?
There are many perspectives on the purpose of curriculum and
how to implement it. Schubert
bring up some interesting points. I find
myself to have beliefs that are a hybrid of the social behaviorist and the
experientialist. “Babbit pointed out that conceptions of need can be derived
scientifically, by survey methods. He
said that we must re-make curriculum in every generation by asking what
successful people do, and more importantly what they need to know in order to
do it. “(Schubert, 1996, p.4) I believe
that if we have a curriculum to plan the journey of learning for our students
it should relate to the time and the students.
Therefore, it makes sense to constantly adapt and “re-make” curriculum
to meet the students needs. But, if we
are looking at successful people, who determines who “successful people”
are? We would first have to define
successful. Some people become
“successful” due to scamming and illegal operations. This would then mean that if successful
people are drug dealers, we should recreate curriculum to teach the students of
the ins and outs of successful dealers so we can prepare them for future
employment.
As for the social behaviorist route of thinking of having
standards and benchmarks done at the state and national level, so if students
move they will be prepared at another school. Although they wouldn’t need to have the same
curriculum per se, there should be some standards to ensure that teachers are
making sure their students are learning what is to be expected. How would teachers be assessed if there were
no common standards? Today, technology
makes access to appropriate research so easy to grasp that it is possible to
tailor-make curriculum to fit any configuration of local, state, and national
needs. (Schubert, 1996)
With all of that being said, I am more confused about what
the purpose of curriculum is than I was last week. The reading prompted more questions than they answered. If curriculum hinders creativity and intelligence,
why is it is something that districts across the country seek and require?