As I was reading Eisner's article about the three curricula that all schools teach, the first thing that struck me was the significance of the Implicit Curriculum. Specifically the line: "After all, the westward movement is studied for only a few weeks in the fall of the fifth grade, but the impact of school structure does not cease until one leaves graduate school" (95). It seems crucial to think about how the places we teach in and the way we structure our teaching might affect students learning as much as the content and skills we are teaching. This implicit curriculum is often somewhat unintentional in schools. It's easy to accept the structure of the classroom and the school as something that has always existed, without interrogating what effect it is having on our students and our curriculum. However, it seems that if attention is paid to these implicit structures, they could become a useful tool. If we are explicit about what are school systems structure is teaching, (whether intentional or not), and adapt the structure so it aligns more with our intentions, the implicit and explicit curriculums could begin to meaningfully align.
The new BC curriculum seems to be addressing this, at least a little bit. The focus on the core competencies of thinking, communication, and personal and social skills and responsibilities may be an attempt to address and make intentional some of the aspects of the implicit curriculum that has always existed in schools.
A second place in the article that made me stop was the introduction of the idea of the null curriculum, or the idea that "what schools do not teach may as important as what schools do teach" (97). I think this idea is a difficult one to grapple with. There is not enough time to teach everything, and decisions have to be made all the time about what topics and ideas to include in the classroom, and which to leave out. What I take away from this idea of the null curriculum, is the importance of thinking critically about how and why we are making those decisions. Are we leaving something out of the explicit curriculum because it's difficult to teach, or because it's less important than something else? And are we including something because it is important, or because it's always been included. I think it's important to carefully consider everything we are choosing to teach, and all the things we cannot teach because we're making that choice - even though there are no easy answers or perfect solutions to these difficult choices.
I think the new BC curriculum is addressing this by relocating some of these choices to the individual teacher, instead of making all the choices centrally. Because the new curriculum is less prescriptive about what is taught, each teacher must make more difficult decisions themselves. Hopefully this means that, collectively, more thought will go into these decisions each and every time they are made.
The new BC curriculum seems to be addressing this, at least a little bit. The focus on the core competencies of thinking, communication, and personal and social skills and responsibilities may be an attempt to address and make intentional some of the aspects of the implicit curriculum that has always existed in schools.
A second place in the article that made me stop was the introduction of the idea of the null curriculum, or the idea that "what schools do not teach may as important as what schools do teach" (97). I think this idea is a difficult one to grapple with. There is not enough time to teach everything, and decisions have to be made all the time about what topics and ideas to include in the classroom, and which to leave out. What I take away from this idea of the null curriculum, is the importance of thinking critically about how and why we are making those decisions. Are we leaving something out of the explicit curriculum because it's difficult to teach, or because it's less important than something else? And are we including something because it is important, or because it's always been included. I think it's important to carefully consider everything we are choosing to teach, and all the things we cannot teach because we're making that choice - even though there are no easy answers or perfect solutions to these difficult choices.
I think the new BC curriculum is addressing this by relocating some of these choices to the individual teacher, instead of making all the choices centrally. Because the new curriculum is less prescriptive about what is taught, each teacher must make more difficult decisions themselves. Hopefully this means that, collectively, more thought will go into these decisions each and every time they are made.
Thanks for this intriguing and well-written response, Erika! I appreciate your thoughtful commentary. I'd like to point out one other element that could help decide what is included in the curriculum -- that is, student curiosity, interest and choice. There is more room given for that in the new BC curriculum!
ReplyDelete