Skip to main content

week 5

Before: I always saw curriculum as being designed by the teachers and for the teachers. Curriculum for
me was something that was to aid teachers creating lessons in the classrooms and to show teachers
what they should teach. When I was in middle school/high school in Calgary, I always saw curriculum as
something that is constantly changing, and as something that required the voices of multiple teachers. I
thought that curriculum was written by the teachers as some of the teachers that taught me had actually
written the textbooks that we used. I believe that the curriculum must always be changing because,
much like with all teaching, nothing ever stays the same.

After: After reading the article I have realized that how I see curriculum is not what curriculum actually is.
For the most part, curriculum is not designed for the teachers and this is very overlooked by the
government. Education is a highly political act and what is implemented into the curriculum highly
reflects this. With figures of administration and the government sitting on the board of education
contributing to what is learned, with them being much larger in numbers than acting teachers,
very little of what the people in the classrooms want in the classroom is left out. We saw this through
last friday’s lecture in the case of the Ontario sex ed education. With the majority of educators and
students being in demand of the newer curriculum, it is strange that the largest change in this
curriculum actually came from the newly elected government. It really shows us how the voices of
teachers are respected among the education community. This worries me because teachers know the
best of what happens in the classrooms and it should be up to the teachers to write what they are going
to teach.


Popular posts from this blog

social efficiency

a)The ways in which you may have experience the Tyler rationale in your own schooling?

I have experienced the Tyler rationale throughout my own schooling, most notably in my grade
10 social studies course. In this course the teacher was focused the most not on the learning of the student
but instead on what we were supposed to know based off of the curriculum. For that teacher she saw
school as seeking to attain the knowledge as told through the curriculum, something that me and my
classmates did not agree with. This was even further supported through the ways in which she taught us.
While some teachers try to integrate education through many experiences, she instead taught us through
handouts all for the sole purpose of adhering to the curriculum. Because she organized these experiences
through handouts she attempted to streamline the education process into something that fit everyone,
something that is impossible to do. Through her methods she tried to determine if these purposes were

First ECS blog post

Kumashiro defines common sense as ways of thinking that “reinforce certain ways of thinking, of identifying, and relating to others…” When in relation to the American education system Kumashiro notes that this common sense, while it can have good qualities, also includes “ways that comply with different forms of oppression (including racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, colonialism, and other ‘isms’).” Yet common sense is not something that is static but instead it is something that is constantly moving. With the effort of educators society will be able to not only adapt to old ways of common sense but also create new ones that work in the favour of everyone. It is important to pay attention to common sense because common sense is something that is all around us. Whenever we act or see others acting, more often than not we take these actions for granted. Because this common sense is so ingrained into our society it is very hard to change them. As educators it is important that we s…