Chapter 2 of Mullen, as have the introductory weeks of the two curriculum courses I am taking this semester, got me thinking about the very definition of curriculum, something I had taken for granted, not thought about much at all. I think we all, to some extent, think that Algebra I is in 9th grade, Shakespeare must be read a few times in high school, chemistry is necessary but not until about junior year, and the five-paragraph expository essay must be a high school staple. And this is curriculum. But is there more to it than that? And who made these decisions, and what forces perpetuate them? When and why did so many non-academic componenents enter the picture and how much of that has to do with changes in our broader culture? And how will we negotiate changes going forward?
Being asked by Mullen to "envision curriculum as a text to be analyzed" appealed to the English teacher in me, but also challenged what I thought I knew. Her notion of a "hidden curriculum" was also interesting. Who knew curriculum was so mysterious, but of course it is. As an example, the notion of rewards going to conformists (14) is something I have always been vaguely concerned with but never really thought of as part of curriculum. I have debated with colleagues who give "participation" grades (really thinly-veiled behavior grades) how and why they do this, but maybe the answer is obvious. They want to reward the student who helps them manage the classroom and punish the one who doesn't.
I also found this quote, not Mullen's but quoted from Thornton extremely provocative: "... it is still tacitly assumed that everyone is heterosexual until proven otherwise" (15). What amazing and provocative questions this raises about a curriculum that is inviting and inclusive vs. one that, to some or many students, clearly isn't about me - whatever non-mainstream category, sexual, religious, ethnic or otherwise, I may belong to. I mean it seems to me that for years much of our curriculum goes far beyond Thornton's assumption and makes this one: "... it is still tacitly assumed that what is white, male, and European or American is more important than what is not." Certainly parameters have to be established --students can't study everything-- but these decisions have consequences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I teach pre-school so I don't give grades for participation. But I have to ask you - don't you think participation is more about getting the students engaged in their own learning and taking some ownership of it than it is about clasroom management? Maybe that is nieve(how do you spell check the comment?)of me. I see what you mean about the punishment - I was (am?) a big nerd and did realy well in school as a kid but was etremely shy and definitely would have suffered if participation was part of the grade.
Who said that what we teach when we teach it is the right time to teach it? I understand a lot of stuff, but this curriculum design has my head spinning.
Post a Comment