TE 818: Theme 2: The History of Curriculum in the United States

Reading through Schubert's perspectives on curriculum, I immediately identified with the Intellectual Traditionalist. For a moment I thought it was because it was the first one I read, and I linked it to the hypochondriac who believes his/her symptoms match every illness in the book. As I read through the others, I found, as Schubert said, that I was a "blend" of probably two other perspectives, but the main ingredient was that of the Intellectual Traditionalist. The place where I found I most related to the Intellectual Traditionalist was where the textbooks were concerned. I told myself that I didn't consider myself an elitist, unless you count where I try to stay away from textbooks as much as possible because I find them so limiting, particularly in Reading, and I won't even go into how embarrassingly outdated our Science textbooks are. I have been with my district for ten years, and they were already old when I got here. Reel it back in, Lupita. "Too many teachers do not know or appreciate the depth and breadth of their subject, so how can we expect them to inspire others to immerse themselves in it?" (Schubert, p.2). I know that because I am a good reader and writer, I put on a great show for my students when teaching these subjects. I had to develop a better understanding of Texas history and Science in order to put the same effort into those areas, and Math, well, let's say it's a work in progress, and I can tell the difference in my classroom. Where the Social Behaviorist was concerned, I clearly understood the point of hanging on to old courses and/or teachings..."Fish Grabbing with the Bare Hands and Saber-tooth Tiger Chasing with Fire." Times and needs change and we must change with them. Also from the Social Behaviorist's perspective, I related to the "what" and the "how" comments about curriculum as I have gone through a number of trainings where this was reiterated after our district adopted a new curriculum. What also struck me here was the discussion about a needs assessment. I'm assuming someone in Texas put one of these together to develop our TEKS. And they have obviously re-re-revisited that needs assessment many times as our TEKS are now "college readiness" based. I seemed to have a lot to say about the Social Behaviorist quoting Bobbit..I get it, except that by the time their assessment is over, the students who would have benefited most from the assessment are probably out of high school and on not-to-college, or are pursuing the jobs and/or degrees of the previous needs assessment. The students who will receive the instruction based on the new needs assessment will be yrs down the "ladder, " and by the time they reach the job/college world, the results of a new needs assessment will be on the horizon. In other words, there is a HUGE gap between needs assessments and implementing the results to those who would truly benefit from it. The last tidbit I will include about the Social Behaviorist, I'm beginning to think I might swing this way after all, is the discussion about "[T]he multitude of handbooks, encyclopedias, journal articles, synoptic texts, and research reports that exist make it inexcusable that research is not a stronger basis for curriculum development" (Schubert, p.5). I wonder if the idea of a tailor-made curriculum is too daunting for the policy makers. It's interesting that teachers end up tailoring the curriculum to meet the needs of our students on a daily basis. Schwab also makes mention of how educators are only brought into the picture for developing assessments and for evaluation (p.125). In reading the Critical Reconstructionist's reply to the Second Questioner, I began to wonder…would I be perpetuating educational injustices were I not seeking my master's degree? I mean, I would then only be exposed to whatever professional development came down the pike, and I would be responding to my social environment. I believe myself to be a rather intelligent person, and to some extent, I can see having run into some research on the whole thing, and I do see inequities in the system. Finding teaching materials in Spanish alone will suffice. But how time would be lost in the long run?

I have spent a lot of time on this, and I can obviously provide support for each of the perspectives. I will end my observation of Schubert's article by focusing on his reference to Dewey and not to become a "card-carrying" anything. I know it's not the same, or maybe it is, but this is what I think about when we attend a professional development session. There is an underlying pressure to implement every aspect of the training every day in every subject. This is entirely too overwhelming for any teacher. I say, take the best of each training and work with that. After all, if you pay close enough attention, they all tend to overlap one another. Also, do what works best in your classroom and for your students. That ALONE might require you to change your approach from year to year.

I saw in Popkewitz and Schwab's articles that Labaree's idea of education being a "public good" was present. Schwab says "...for societies do not exist only for their own sakes, but for the prosperity of their members as individuals as well" (p.28). So yes, we want students to be able to serve society, but Schwab also emphasized meeting the individual's needs so that they can help out with the public good. Popkewitz was a little more direct, I believe. "These technologies linked public objectives about good health and the moral order of the social body with individual personal health and well-being" (Popkewitz, p.185).

In general, I found Popkewitz's History of Curriculum a difficult read. I did relate to his citing Thorndike that the purpose of education "was to shape the mind and the spirit so the individual can be responsible for her or his progress and trustful of her or his future" (Popkewitz, p.183). I made an instant and personal connection to this. I do believe that we are all responsible for where we allow our education to lead us. I found the establishment of a curriculum in the United States interesting, and did I understand this correctly...the use of the word "all" doomed curriculum to inequities from the onset? And as a final chuckle, I can see Paul Rabinow's (which fittingly I read as "Rainbow" at first) and the whole "education is aesthetic." I have to think about how to make my lessons "look pretty" every day so that I can keep kiddos engaged and interested.