Curriculum

Not sure what, specifically, your problem is, Juan. Obviously, nobody "owns" a curriculum. Ideally, the curricula in public schools are fluid and flexible, changing slightly with changing times. I say "slightly" because there is, of course, a core curriculum which consists basically of the so-called 3 Rs plus computer lietarcy in today's society. Beyond that, curricula should be adjusted to the needs of the specific population.

That these curricula do change subtly over time is easy to see for anyone who went to school in the 1950s, as I did. We don't have penmanship classes in the schools any more, for one example. In my day the Palmer Method was the norm and you could get a failing grade no matter how pretty and legible your cursory hand was if it didn't follow the dictates of Palmer. The sciences curricula -- physics and organic chemistry, in particular -- have been updated. In my dad's time, for example, I understand that it was taught that an atom is the smallest possible particle and cannot be divided or split. Tell that to nuclear physicists today!

But your second paragraph makes me wonder whether you are really speaking of 'curriculum' or of the social and administrative structure of public schools. Going from prison cell to prison cell, rather than from classroom to classroom, has nothing whatever to do with the curriculum being taught in thise 'prison cells.'

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your specific concerns?

here i go
interesting layout and input..

overt and hidden curriculum as agents for reproducing the achievement gap and creating a homegenous, mainstream, Protestant social clones...that is my
beef...and then, having administrators and a xenophobic history reign supreme, even though intellectual midgets created our protocol..we stick to it...

we have the wrong curriculum..the wrong desired outcomes..and it takes..it really does take....a certain outside of the box critical consciousness to be even remotely aware of what I am talking about..

does this make sense to anyone?

Re: here i go


Some.

But, again, you're not really talking about curriculum per se but, rather, the manner of its presentation. There's no doubt that large portions of xenophobia and chauvinism are present in what we teach about American history. This is the fault of the administrative powers that never enter a classroom (the school committees locally and boards of education at the state level) and of the textbooks which these gentry authorize. It seems to be criminal for a textbook to convey anything about American history which could be construed as even marginally critical of our glorious past.

For a good teacher there are ways around this. When I was teaching American History at the secondary school level (mostly grades 10 through 12) I would try to present all the facts covered by the textbook from a multicultural "minority" point of view. Thus, the Colonial period was seen through the eyes of slaves; the westward expansion movement was covered from the point of view of the Plains Indians and so on. I paid particular attention to the concerns of immigrants and the changing ethnicity of immigrants over the years. This is what a teacher can do. The textbook ain't gonna do it for ya.

When I taught English Language Arts, I stressed writing exercises and would never downgrade a student's work because he used street English. To make sure the student would be able to function in the general social setup, however, I would point out that there are alternate ways of expressing the same idea, some of which are generally more acceptable.

The problem really isn't the curriculum. The problem is that so many teachers today don't know the subject matter they are teaching. The recent over-emphasis on paedagogy at the expense of knowledge of one's subject is partly to blame here. Young people are graduating from colleges and going into teaching, knowing everything there is to know about how to teach and about child psychology and the philosophy of education, but they have no firm grounding in the subject matter they are expected to teach. That's what saddens me.

Like what my teacher always says: to dance in chains.
Chains in whatever form and whatever degree are inevitable, the problem is, IMHO, given the condition of still being acceptable, what should we do together with those chains.

(In China the situation is just the opposite to Andrew's description of education in the U.S, while most Chinese teachers are only concerned with the subject they are teaching.)

JB PLEASE ELABORATE...explain...i like where you are going

the cult of curriculum..well...andrew makes a good pt...wow my hand hurts...but, ....

the linear..scope and sequence..the horizontal and vertical integration...the massive atomic digestion of so much crap...do we really need all the subjects we get forced to take? If I fail Algebra, why is that important? Ok, I will not graduate..but why is this the case? Curriculum should not only just reflect the story of the OTHERS..BUT , should reflect the COMMUNITIES....THE SPECIFIC communities where the schools are located...otherwise, its KRISPY CREME with a beanie....