Curriculum is essentially a guideline which helps (or should help) school districts understand what students are expected to know and by what means they are supposed to obtain that knowledge. According to Wiggins and McTighe, curriculum "refers to the specific blueprint for learning that is derived from desired results"(5-6). Generally speaking, the curriculum that I have seen (and I have not seen all of it that I probably should have !) is primarily a list which tells teachers what they have to teach. This list provides the structure for our whole school year as we try to march our way through all the given tasks. I rarely see any mapping of how to acheive a specific desired performance like Wiggins and McTighe discuss. If curriculum were really based more on the model that Wiggins and McTighe outline, it would undoubtedly guide learning more effectively. I suppose that what I'm saying is that what curriculum is and what curriculum should be are non necessarily synonymous.
Teachers need to be the primary force involved in writing curriculum. Somebody who is not in the classroom cannot possibly sit down and know what will work to motivate and educate students to move toward a desired end. Likewise, a social studies teacher cannot effectively write curriculum for the mathematics department. The teachers involved in writing school curriculum need to be knowledgeable in their content area and able to bring effective teaching strategies to the table. Within my district, there is a big push for UBD and if that is the way that a particular district is moving, those participants on the curriculum committees need to be trained on how to use this method. Finding the correct combination of qualified teachers, supervisors, and administrators is essential in creating effective curriculum.
The question of who should control curriculum is really the hardest one for me to answer. After reading the chapters from SCI, it is obvious that politics has a lot to do with education and that is probably never going to change. While my personal beliefs are that school districts should control their own curriculum, I do understand why governement has to be involved (although I don't necessarily agree that they need to be involved in the ways that they are). For instance, students coming from all parts of the country need to have a somewhat similar basis for education for a couple of reasons. First, as a country, we want to make sure that our youth is receiving the best education possible and without some governmental guidelines and regulations, there would be no assurance that that would happen and no conformity. Also, with so many students attending colleges and universities in different parts of the country, it makes sense to try to at least have some basic guidelines that hold true from state to state and district to district. Having said that, I do believe that is up to specific school districts to find and use the type of curriculum that works best for them and that helps them work towards their mission statement while addressing state standards. Let's face it, what works for an upper middle class school district in the suburbs is not going to work for an Abbott district in the city. This is why plans need to be individualized to a certain extent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I completely agree with you about how most curriculum seems to look. Mine is an outline of "stuff", mostly vague, that I should "cover" during the school year. For the most part, I used it during my first year, but now, to be completely honest, because I had no hand in designing it or see no gainful purpose in using it for myself, I haven't looked at it in almost 2 years. Scary....but if curriculum were designed as it were proposed in the readings, I think it would be more beneficial and useful to teachers and the students.
Post a Comment