A Curriculum Haiku

The cart leads the horse
Bureaucracy and test scores
Why can't we just teach?

There's a Lot to this Curriculum Thing

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.

Public Ed. Primer

I actually expected more surprises than I found in A Public Education Primer, especially after the introduction implied that it contained facts of which many would be "unaware." I did find it interesting to note that the U.S. stood out from most G-8 nations in not having a national curriculum or exam. I wonder how inability to master the national curriculum is handled in the many countries that do have one. Are students retained, do they drop out? etc. Colleagues of mine like to joke (only half kiddingly) that with most of our tests you HAVE to pass... unless you don't. The joke emphasizes their frustration about the fact that we give lip service to standards but don't hold anyone to them. The SRA option for those who cannot pass the "must-pass" HSPA is an example. Another fact that caught my attention, although I had heard it before, is the staggering number of people who leave the teaching profession - nearly 50% - before the completion of their first five years. I would have to see this number in comparison to other professions for it to have meaning, but I can't imagine it could be that high in most. I also think it would be intteresting to know if this number is comparable in nations that value education more than we do.