Response to Hilda Taba's Model of Curriculum Process

I had some questions in regards to Taba’s model.  There are many elements that I really like about it.  I was quite surprised to see how teacher based it was.  Olivia and Gordon state, “Hilda Taba believed that curriculum should be designed by teachers rather than handed down by higher authority” (p. 110).  I interpret that statement in two ways.  The first is that teachers should be involved in the development of the curriculum.  I agree.  Teachers know schools best.  They work in them, they work with the kids and families.  They know them really well.  If you take teachers out of the equation when you are developing curriculum then you miss a key element that creates a disconnect.  

Oliva and Gordon then went on to state: "she felt that teachers should begin the process by creating specific teaching-learning units for the students in their schools rather than by engaging initially in creating general curriculum design." (p. 110)  This is where I got confused and a little concerned and perhaps I need further clarification.  How much freedom did Taba believe that teachers should have in terms of deciding curriuclum?  Complete control?  Where would accountability fit in here?  Could a teacher who loves math then decide to give most of her attention to mathematics and little to social studies?  Could another decide that literacy needs to focus on poetry and ignore persuasive writing?  Could key math concepts be dropped in favor of more 'fun math' (more symmetry and less division?)  What affect would a teacher's personal views and life missions have on the classroom?  Could a social change PETA advocate push her agenda in the classroom without regard for the child of a cattle rancher in her class?  Would parent and community guidance be disregarded?  Perhaps I sound too pessimistic here?  As I looked at the 5 step model on p. 111 (Fig. 5.3) I didn't seem to find that accountability piece that I saw in Tyler's model.  If everything is teacher driven, what would we lose out on?  

My understanding of the history of curriculum development is that there have been many variations of influences on curriculum.  There has been a range of educators, subject specialists, political advocates, community groups, politicians, psychologists and many others who have contributed.  For myself, a blend of these balance each other out.  While I am not a fan of a government driven, completely top down model, I don't know that a completely teacher driven model isn't the answer either.  I would worry too much about inconsistencies in the education of our children. 

Curriculum Connections?

Yesterday I had a very interesting conversation with one of my colleagues.  We were discussing the grade 3 & 4 Social Studies Curriculum in NB.  I teach the English to FI Grades 3 -5.  I had a conversation that day with a grade 4 student who didn't seem to understand what a Prime Minister was.  Having taught the grade 3 curriculum I knew that Prime Minister would have been covered in levels of government in grade 3 social studies.  I did figure out eventually that the word she was looking for was 'mayor' (which also would have been covered in grade 3).  My colleague and I wasn't surprised that this student couldn't recall the word 'mayor' because she remembers when the social studies curriculum was changed a few years back.  She was at the introductory meeting.  She remembers that there was a re-thinking of outcomes and that grade 3 would focus on "My Province" and grade 4 would focus on "Explorations" (expanding across Canada).  She asked the question to the advisor where "my city" would be taught.  The answer she was given was, "in grade 2".  She asked for clarification because the k-2 curriculum is not Social Studies, it's You & Your World, a combination of Social Studies, Science and Health.  The last Social Studies bit that is focused on is "community" which is not the same as "my city".  The advisor had no answer for her.  So what ended up happening is that the children make a jump in their realm of knowledge from "Community" to "My Province" and really don't get that orientation into "My City".

What bothered me the most upon hearing that was the seeming disregard of the curriculum that is already in place that sets up a student for success in grade 3.  The advisor who is giving inservice to implement a new curriculum had no idea that there is no such thing as grade 2 social studies in NB, nevermind the knowledge of what Social Studies type outcomes would have been addressed in the You & Your World Curriculum.  It makes no sense! How does this happen?  If we are supposed to keep building upon a child's foundational knowledge with the curriculum that we present, how can their previous common knowledge and experiences be ignored?  Why are we missing this step?  

It is so frustrating!  It makes me wonder what other areas in the curriculum get re-shuffled and re-aligned and in the midst of the process key pieces of foundational information get dropped.  From what I have read from our discussion boards I this probably exists elsewhere along the continuum, in other curricular areas and grade levels.

What I can take from this conversation, now that I have had a day or so to reflect, is the knowledge that perhaps I can do something about it.  Maybe not today, but continuing to work on this degree and build my own knowledge base in the area of curriuclum will allow me to be someone who could dialogue about these issue and help to bring about change.  One thing that I have picked up in our readings is how spotty a discipline curriculum studies is.  There appears to be a lot of disagreement in a lot of areas, from the definition of the word "curriculum" to what best practices and models of curriculum there are to follow.  There aren't as many people out there as I thought who have trained in curriculum and are really qualified to make decisions in matters of curriculum.  Taking this level of study and interacting with other teachers across the country gives me hope that perhaps in the future these inconsistencies in curriculum would be corrected.

Where does our curriculum come from?

When I first began this degree program I was very curious as to who wrote the NB curriculum and how they decided which direction to take it in.  I noticed that a colleague of mine (one of our district math mentors) was listed as an author on the Math 4 curriculum.  When I asked her about it, she said, “Yes, geometry, that’s me”.  She shared that part of the process is being knowledgeable about the lastest math research and dialogue in the field.  This concept was reinforced to me in Oliva and Gordon’s text in Ch. 2 when they referred to curriculum being a product of its time, Axiom 2 (Oliva and Gordon, Developing the Curriculum, p. 23). 

Another colleague of mine was involved in the process of creating the Music Curriculum in NB for K-5.  She shared with me (some time ago) about the work that was done to build upon foundational skills of music in the curriculum and grow them each year.  I can see this reflecting Axiom 6, “curriculum development is basically a decision making process” (p. 29).  She, and other music teachers have the knowledge and experience in the field of music to determine which skills are most important to know (basic knowledge of music) and how to grow them in our schools.

Knowing teachers who have actually been involved in the process of creating curriculum documents has taken away some of the mystery of how we arrived at the documents we have.  I am glad to know that teachers have been part of the process, that they can look to the document and say, “yes, that’s me”.   This relates to the Null reading where he describes the sources that Ralph Tyler believes curriculum devlopers should ‘take into account.  He explains for example, that curriculum makers should draw upon the knowledge of learners, the insight of subject specialists…”(Null, Inquiring into Curriculum, p. 480).  Both of these ladies are specialist teachers in their field.  They have practical classroom experience in teaching their subject area.  Conversations with them and the credits inside the curriculum documents has led me to believe that the government does take the work of our teachers and acknowledge their expertise in the field into account when creating these documents.

Further reflections on Wren and Wren

Wren and Wren's chapter, The Capacity to Learn (2003) had an interesting take on Learning Disabilties (pp. 256-258).  Since New Brunswick is a fully integrated province I've had experience with working on SEP's (Special Education Plans) with countless students.  This year I've been involved with the construction of two Modified programs for two of my homeroom students.  Wren and Wren concluded that "A learning disability, then, is a matter of degree. A serious inadequacy in one or more of what Sternberg calls metacomponents, performance components, or acquisition components of intelligence makes it difficult for a person to learn failry specific knowledge and skills.  Thus LD are characterized by significant variation not just among individuals but within an individual's cognitive abilities and acquired skills." (258)  The also point out the misguided notion that any student who experiences a "discrepancy between actual and expected achievement" (257) could be identified as having a learning disability.  This is one of my frustrations with the SEP process.  There are any number of reasons that a student may be underperforming (including lack of motivation) and because we monitor on the difference between where they should be and where they actually are in terms of curricular outcomes, many students have ended up having an SEP.  More recently, the NB government has overhauled the SEP process, calling many of the accommodations 'universal', but it still remains that there are students who are capable of reaching expected curricular outcomes that are on an SEP.

Now, the students I previously mentioned who ended up on modified programs this year truly have difficulty with processing and learning.  Our job has been to find out where they are on the spectrum of outcomes and adapt their program accordingly.  This is a very arduous process involving reading psychologist reports, old report cards, benchmark testing, SST meetings (Student Service Team) etc.  It is worth it in the end because the students are the ones who are benefiting from this work.  Their program meets their needs.  It isn't a matter of not being able to learn,  it is a matter of not being able to learn as rapidly as the rest of the class (these students are 2 years behind in some areas).

My question as a general classroom teacher revolves around teacher training and knowing curriculum.  In light of full inclusion, how is a teacher with very little background and training in special education expected to just know how to peg a student's abilities on the curriculum spectrum and create appropriate learning goals?  I'm very fortunate that I have an excellent colleague in our school's resource teacher.  I also benefit from having taken a certificate course in Resource & Methods myself, but prior to that I felt like I was being thrown off the boat and treading water.  One of my main motivations in furthering my education in curriculum is to understand how best to meet the needs of my students who have special learning needs in terms of the curriculum that we present to them.  I believe in the value of education for all and I want to be part of the dialogue that ensures that all are getting the best and most appropriate education that we can provide for them.

Gestalt Psychology

This week's reading by Wren and Wren (2003) explores theories of learning and the impact that they have had on educators and education.  There was one section in this reading that jumped out at me:

"About the time that behaviorism was becoming the dominant theory of learning in the United States, three German psychologists, Max Wetheimer, Kurt Koffka, and Wolfgang Kohler, were arguing that learning involved "emergent" properties that are not reducible to its elements.  Like the early rationalist philosophers, these theorists argued that novel problems cannot be solved simply by applying existing knowledge or behaviour patterns to new situations, no can the way data are organized be explained entirely in terms of the data themselves.  Instead, they argued, learning takes place thanks to the learner's understanding of the entire situation."  (p. 248)

Yes!  This is exactly what I have been thinking about behaviourism for so long (though said in a much more academic way).  While it is true that you can use elements of behaviourism to encourage key behaviours, behaviourism does not explain ingenuity of thought.  Behaviourism cannot explain innovation.  We do not simply act in a certain way because we are conditioned to do so.  Now, I have a name for a theory of learning that I can align myself with, Gestalt Psychology. 

I want to explore this theory of learning and behaviour further.  It is interesting to me that this theory hearkens back to the work of Aristotle and Plato, that we are still wrestling with the how of learning.  How can higher level thinking be explained?  When reading the Encyclopaedia Britannica online about Gestalt Psychology (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/232098/Gestalt-psychology), it did not surprise me to read, "Gestalt psychology was in part an attempt to add a humanistic dimension to what was considered a sterile approach to the scientific study of mental life."(retrieved May 14, 2014).  Being able to relate to this approach continues my own personal theme of discovery of humanism and education.  It confirms that I have strong beliefs in this regard.  I wish to continue to explore different themes of humanism, learning and education as I proceed with my own academic work.

A Humanist

I have never considered myself to be a humanist before, but this term keeps coming up with philosophies and figures that I identify with (such as Sukhomlinsky, existentialists like
Søren Kierkegaard and Progressivism).  I decided to look into just what a humanist is and what they believe.  The online dictionary at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanist defines a humanist first as "a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.".  Upon further reading, I found that modern humanists generally deny the existance of God.  They are primarily concerned with humanity being on top (so to speak).  This isn't me.  I value very much my own personal relationship with God.  I then recalled Desidarius Erasmus.  He was a humanist who was also a key figure in the Reformation.  Though Erasmus was critical of the Catholic Church, he remained a Catholic and held on to the notion of free will (which I do as well, though I am not Catholic).

This led me to read up on Christian Humanism.  Christian humanism believes in social justice.  It roots itself in the concept of Imago Dei (that humans are created in the image of God).  Many prominent Christian Humanists are people that I relate to and admire, such as Tony Campolo, St. Francis of Assisi, and the current Pope Francis.  
 
So what does this mean for me as an educator?  I teach in the public school system.  I have never shared my faith with my students (nor do I plan to).  It is something that is very personal for me, that I even hesitate to write about now in this journal, knowing that someone else will be reading this (I try to keep any sort of religion or politics out of my professional life).  What I can say is that I have a heart for the marginalized of society.  This is where I relate to Tony Campolo who developed programs for 'at risk' youth.  As well, what I admire in Pope Francis is his heart for all of humanity and concern for the poor.  I am someone who sees value in all of humanity.  I particularly have a heart for special needs children.  I have worked very hard to be knowledgeable about different kinds of syndromes and diagnoses so that I can do my best in helping create and implement a relevant and meaningful program for my students who face those challenges in their education.

I also have a heart for the poor, having worked in some very poor neighbourhood schools.  I see education as being one of the catalysts in which the children from these neighbourhoods can better themselves, looking towards a future that is brighter than the dim cycles that their families are currently caught in (teenage pregnancies, high school (and even middle school) dropouts, drug and alcohol abuse,  and dependance on government assistance).  As an educator, I need to meet these children where they are at, dissect the curriculum and present it in a way that is meaningful and relevant to them.  This is no easy task when you teach in a community that finds little value in education and suspicious of teachers (and professionals in general).  

Reflecting on my introduction to Sukhomlinsky

"He believed, for instance, that no matter how erudite a teacher, or how clear his presentation of the material, he could not be a good teacher unless he could understand and relate to the needs of each pupil, unless he could relate to the inner worlds of his charges." (A. Cockerill, 1999,  p. 11-12)

Alan Cockerill's account of the life of V.A. Sukhomlinsky was my first introduction to this educator.  What he described was a hard-working man, dedicated to educating the whole child.  Two things stood out to me while reading about Sukhomlinsky's short life.  The first I take from this quote above.  This quote articulates the conflicting educational ideologies that I find value in.  I consider myself to be scholastic.  I value knowledge and education.  I find ignorance challenging.  I also will admit to being a snob of sorts, sometimes having little patience for those who don't know basic things (simple Canadian geography, the difference between you're and your, or how to count change - those sorts of things).  This aspect of me is tempered by the fact that I have mingled with some very highly academically oriented people who probably find me ignorant of things they consider to be common knowledge.  The other ideology that I have gone back and forth with in my career is how much to put value on learner centred education.  I have learned that you have to know your students and the world in which they occupy to really understand them, how they think and where they come from.  The value I now place on knowing and educating the whole child supersedes the need I have to impart knowledge on my students.  I still want to do both.  How can you be both academic and learner-centred?  It seems like two opposites that pull at each other.  But perhaps they can co-exist.  Perhaps you can inspire children in knowledge and still place value on truly knowing the student? 

The second part of Sukhomlinsky's life that really struck me were the tragedies that he faced during the Second World War.  He was first seriously wounded, almost losing his arm.  He then returned to the classroom, where he worked with children and families who had been impacted by the war.  He then had to face the most devastating news of all: the death of both his wife and child at the hand of the Gestapo.  Sukhomlinsky could have let tragedy overcome him and dwell in hate.  He did the opposite.  He channeled his grief into his work, finding purpose in his students.  Sukhomlinsky said, "Work, work and more work - in that I found at least some degree of relief from my grief...Even now I wait every morning for the children.  With them is my happiness." (quoted from Cockerill, p. 14).  This reminded me very much of the movie, The Pianist (2002).  Set in Warsaw during WWII, it tells the story of acclaimed pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman, who survived the Nazi occupation of Warsaw in hiding.  These stark and accurate tales of humanity's atrocities are emotionally imapactful.  We often glorify and romanticize the wars of the past.  It makes me wonder who would I be were I to survive something just as horrific?  I think about teachers who recently have faced tragedy, such as the staff of Sandy Hook Elementary and then return to the classroom.  Would I be one of them?  Would my love for the children be enough to step foot back into the classroom again?  I don't know.  I would like to think so, but I really don't know.

Reflecting on Writing my own Teaching Philosophy

I had a difficult time putting into words my philosophy of education.  I know that there are certain things that I value as an educator.  I value community.  I value academic appreciation.  I value diversity and culutre.  I value the students.  I value a safe learning environment.  I value success.  I value hard work and effort.  To actually get started and write all of this out in a meaningful way really stumped me.

I asked a few people around me what they thought about who I was and what I brought to the classroom.  My EA described me as caring and compassionate, firm but not strict.  She said that I was someone who was easy to get along with but not one that was easy to pull something over.  My Vice-Principal described me as caring and creative.  She said that I was hard-working and responsible.  She said that I was responsive too; someone who can 'roll with the punches' so to speak.  My husband said that I have changed who I am as a teacher since he's known me (14 years).  He said that I care much more about the emotional education of the child now than I did when I first started.  He thought that perhaps, I now have a language for it and a means to teach emotion labelling. Though I cared about my students' well-being earlier in my career, I probably concentrated more on being effective at lesson planning and classroom management skills.  Through the years as I have gotten a handle on the basics of teaching, I'm able to delve deeper into educating the whole child, not just meeting the academic needs of the child.  He said that he thought I was probably a very good teacher, though he's never had the opportunity to see me teach in the classroom.

This caused me to think about those before me who I consider to be a 'good' teacher.   What kinds of characteristics do they have in common?  What message do they send, simply by being the educator that they are.  I thought about Sandy, a kindergarten teacher I volunteered with before I was a teacher myself.  She was patient, kind, firm and very positive.  I thought about Sue, a grade 4 teacher at a school I once worked with who was encouraging and again, very positive.  I thought about Heather, a resource teacher I worked with in an inner city school.  She was extremely patient, encouraging and empathetic.  I thought about JoAnn, another grade 4 colleague who refused to give up on any student, no matter how challenging they may be.  I started to see a pattern and I started to see how I've taken cues from these women and implemented them into my own personal style of teaching.  I strive to be like them: positive and caring, patient and determined, encouraging and empathetic.  I can look back now and see how these values have affected who I am as an educator, enabling me to define my own philosophy.

Response to Dr. Sam Crowell

Dr. Crowell's lecture on developing a personal educational philosophy challenged us to live within the question, grappling with it, never answering it completely.  He reminded us that we remember the teachers more than the subjects: how they treated us; what was said individually; what type of person they were etc.  I would have to agree with him.  There are two teachers that stick out in my mind from my elementary years that are a stark contrast to one another.  My third grade teacher I remember as a yeller.  She was a desk dumper too.  I was scared of her.  I was scared to the point where I didn't want to ask her to use the washroom for fear of getting yelled at.  Though she may have accomplished her goal of having a compliant student in me, I was quiet to begin with.  I think she would have been a more effective teacher for me to work towards building a safe classroom environment that would have brought me out of my shell a little bit more.  My fourth grade teacher was a very kind, gentle man who was very encouraging to us all.  He told bad jokes.  He was interested in hearing what was going on in our lives outside of school and celebrated our successes.  I remember at my second report card I went from a C+ in math to an A and I thanked him for it.  He said not to thank him, he didn't give it to me, I earned it.  That really stuck with me.  When I think about my own classrooms now as a teacher, I do my best to ensure that my classroom environment is more like my own fourth grade class.  I want my students to feel a sense of belonging.  I want it to be  a place where they can feel safe to learn.  One of the comments I received a number of times this year is how calm my classroom is.  The students are engaged in learning.  Even when there is disruption, they respond well to it, wanting to protect the atmosphere that we have created together.

I really liked Dr. Crowell's use of the word "grappling" in terms of discovering our educational philosophy.  Grappling reminds me of mountain climbing, the grappling hook securing onto a foothold as we work our way up through a challenging terrain.  Teaching is like that.  We have moments where it is very steep going and challenging.  We face students with all sorts of backgrounds and behaviours.  We have administrative expectations of surveys and paperwork to deal with.  There are moments that I have found the challenge to be too much and thought about leaving the profession completely.  I remember when I was teaching at an inner city school over 10 years ago; I almost quit.  My class was very difficult and they didn't know any other way of life.  They were bullied, so they bullied.  They threw desks and chairs and climbed the walls.  Their parents thought nothing of coming down to the school and yelling at you.  And just at the moment when I thought that I couldn't complete the term I had a co-worker come to me with words of encouragement. She wanted to point out the successes I had had with the class.  There was a girl with selective mutism that was talking to me, the first adult outside of her family ever that she would speak to.  I had a mother write me a note to say how much her daughter loved coming to school this year.  And I noticed a boy in my class who didn't love anything about school at all was attentively listening to me read 'James and the Giant Peach'.  This is what success in teaching sometimes looks like.  We don't necessarily reach a large summit.  We find a moment to hold on to.  11 years later that class still resonates with me.  I still think of them when I contemplate who I am as I teacher.  Did I do my best for those kids?  What lessons did I learn from those kids that still impact me today as an educator?  These are questions that I still grapple with from year to year as I encounter new situations in teaching.  We need to be constantly changing and growing as educators to be the best teacher that we can for these kids.