Problems in American Education - Part 12: What is Curriculum?
I have a feeling I am going to get some disagreement on this one, especially since my position is going to sound very liberal; but I have gotten at least one question about it in the comments sections, so I think it is time to address the subject.
The word, “Curriculum,” refers to what is taught in schools. I don’t think too many will argue with that. It’s when you go beyond that simple definition that you get into trouble with people, especially at a time when liberal interpretations are considered part of the problem rather than accurate definitions. When the “back-to-basics” movement started nearly half-a-century ago, the idea was to strip down what schools offered to children in order to get at the core essentials. A closer look at what happened showed that there was also a basic distrust implied in regard to what schools could and should be expected to do - what parents and others wanted them to do.
The conservative base that subscribed to “back-to-basics” indicated that they did not want teachers messing with the values of their children and that the way to insure the kind of teaching they wanted was to strip away the opportunities for that to happen. It was a freedom-of-choice argument once again that suggested a subtle but strong desire of proponents to keep the “softer” disciplines more in the hands of parents and less in the hands of teachers and educators in general. Reading, writing, and arithmetic, in the opinion of these people, were the only legitimate courses of study and they asserted that the others, with the possible exception of science, should be soft-pedaled if not eliminated altogether. As a self-proclaimed social studies (as opposed to history) teacher, people like me were particularly seen as targets representing what was wrong with education. These people defined “curriculum” as simply a course of studies and they wanted to severely limit the number of those core offerings, especially when the list went beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic.
We used to debate this issue endlessly when I was in graduate school studying curriculum design, my major course of study. I argued then and still do now that the definition implied above is terribly shortsighted and that it does more harm than good in stabilizing school program offerings. It’s a cliche, I know, but children are like sponges. They soak up everything that comes into contact with all of their senses when they go through the learning process. So much of that process, of course, takes place outside of school, but to say that we should ignore the comprehensive nature of the learning process while they are subject to the schoo environment is, to me, irresponsible.
My definition of curriculum is not just the published program of studies. It is all learning experiences that take place under the umbrella of the school environment, from the time kids get on the buses in the morning until the time they get off in the afternoon, and sometimes more. While schools can control the various parts of this field in only varying degrees, I believe that we are still responsible for everything that happens to children while they are under our care. What happens on the bus, in the hallways, in the cafeteria, and even in the lavs is part of my definition of curriculum. Why? Because children are constantly learning while in those places. We must pay close attention to them and see to it that they are the healthiest possible learning environments they can be.
This is clearly a whole-child interpretation of the purpose of education and I don’ t shrink from that label. We are accused of trying to be all things to all people, and that criticism is somewhat accurate; but it is hard for anyone to deny that such focus in the support of our children is necessary in the complex society in which we live. If not the school, who else will attempt to deal with the whole child. Absentee parents and single parents are sometimes not in a position to do so. Social agencies are overwhelmed and underfunded. Churches seem to reach a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. You can say that these situations should not exist, but that simply avoids the question. They do.
Before I am accused of writing something I did not write, I want to explain that I am not pushing for a particular slant on what is taught. Quite to the contrary, I steadfastly believe the the school has no right to propagandize a particular moral, ethical, or social position in its curriculum offerings. I do have strong personal opinions, but I take great personal pride in the fact that I do not believe students ever really knew what they were. Instead, they were given the tools to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions with ever greater maturity of approach as time passed. Sure, they made mistakes in logic and, in some cases, even in common sense, but those tools they were offered helped them to do a better and better job as they learned how to think.
That process of thinking cannot be taught simply by emphasizing the basics. One of the key goals in middle level education, for instance, is to challenge students to move from the concrete thinking of a child to the abstract thinking of an adult. Yes, this can sometimes be aided by the teaching of good literature, but there is much more to it than that - and sometimes an effective process aimed at that goal takes place in the cafeteria, the hallways, the social studies classroom, or even as part of a disciplinary action in the office of the principal or assistant principal.
The word, “Curriculum,” refers to what is taught in schools. I don’t think too many will argue with that. It’s when you go beyond that simple definition that you get into trouble with people, especially at a time when liberal interpretations are considered part of the problem rather than accurate definitions. When the “back-to-basics” movement started nearly half-a-century ago, the idea was to strip down what schools offered to children in order to get at the core essentials. A closer look at what happened showed that there was also a basic distrust implied in regard to what schools could and should be expected to do - what parents and others wanted them to do.
The conservative base that subscribed to “back-to-basics” indicated that they did not want teachers messing with the values of their children and that the way to insure the kind of teaching they wanted was to strip away the opportunities for that to happen. It was a freedom-of-choice argument once again that suggested a subtle but strong desire of proponents to keep the “softer” disciplines more in the hands of parents and less in the hands of teachers and educators in general. Reading, writing, and arithmetic, in the opinion of these people, were the only legitimate courses of study and they asserted that the others, with the possible exception of science, should be soft-pedaled if not eliminated altogether. As a self-proclaimed social studies (as opposed to history) teacher, people like me were particularly seen as targets representing what was wrong with education. These people defined “curriculum” as simply a course of studies and they wanted to severely limit the number of those core offerings, especially when the list went beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic.
We used to debate this issue endlessly when I was in graduate school studying curriculum design, my major course of study. I argued then and still do now that the definition implied above is terribly shortsighted and that it does more harm than good in stabilizing school program offerings. It’s a cliche, I know, but children are like sponges. They soak up everything that comes into contact with all of their senses when they go through the learning process. So much of that process, of course, takes place outside of school, but to say that we should ignore the comprehensive nature of the learning process while they are subject to the schoo environment is, to me, irresponsible.
My definition of curriculum is not just the published program of studies. It is all learning experiences that take place under the umbrella of the school environment, from the time kids get on the buses in the morning until the time they get off in the afternoon, and sometimes more. While schools can control the various parts of this field in only varying degrees, I believe that we are still responsible for everything that happens to children while they are under our care. What happens on the bus, in the hallways, in the cafeteria, and even in the lavs is part of my definition of curriculum. Why? Because children are constantly learning while in those places. We must pay close attention to them and see to it that they are the healthiest possible learning environments they can be.
This is clearly a whole-child interpretation of the purpose of education and I don’ t shrink from that label. We are accused of trying to be all things to all people, and that criticism is somewhat accurate; but it is hard for anyone to deny that such focus in the support of our children is necessary in the complex society in which we live. If not the school, who else will attempt to deal with the whole child. Absentee parents and single parents are sometimes not in a position to do so. Social agencies are overwhelmed and underfunded. Churches seem to reach a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. You can say that these situations should not exist, but that simply avoids the question. They do.
Before I am accused of writing something I did not write, I want to explain that I am not pushing for a particular slant on what is taught. Quite to the contrary, I steadfastly believe the the school has no right to propagandize a particular moral, ethical, or social position in its curriculum offerings. I do have strong personal opinions, but I take great personal pride in the fact that I do not believe students ever really knew what they were. Instead, they were given the tools to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions with ever greater maturity of approach as time passed. Sure, they made mistakes in logic and, in some cases, even in common sense, but those tools they were offered helped them to do a better and better job as they learned how to think.
That process of thinking cannot be taught simply by emphasizing the basics. One of the key goals in middle level education, for instance, is to challenge students to move from the concrete thinking of a child to the abstract thinking of an adult. Yes, this can sometimes be aided by the teaching of good literature, but there is much more to it than that - and sometimes an effective process aimed at that goal takes place in the cafeteria, the hallways, the social studies classroom, or even as part of a disciplinary action in the office of the principal or assistant principal.
posted by Friar4 at 5:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home