"What is meant by 'curriculum'?" Reflection

Throughout Eisner’s, “The Three Curricula That All Schools Teach,” I found myself in agreement with the descriptions of the three curricula. Eisner mentions how students who graduate from secondary school spend 12,000 hours in school settings, which is a considerable amount of time for their exposure and compliances to the goals of the curriculum. 

When Eisner retold his experience in a school in San Fransisco and how the students had full comprehension of the smiley faces and goldenrod tickets, it made me realize how dependent not just children, but humans are to reward systems. Reflecting on the number of teacher strikes in the last couple decades, we can see that while many of us are passionate to become teachers, it would be tougher to consider the profession long-term if we didn’t receive any monetary benefit from it. On that note, while we as teachers enjoy much of what we do, if the consequences outweigh the benefits, then motivation and dedication dwindle, leading to unsuccessful teaching. Similarly, students who feel disconnected to the content would never want to do work unless they are provided an incentive, such as early recess time, bonus marks, or positive assessment results. At the same time, Eisner discusses how the implicit curriculum also prepares children for the workforce through forcing them to complete tasks that lack intrinsic motivation. Examples of this include math drills, paragraph writing, and even exams. This immediately made me think of the average chef preparing meals. While there is room for creativity in a chef's line of work, for the most part their day-to-day is constant. From these two curricula, I was able to understand how school not only develops students’ educational skills, but also expands their mentalities and soft skills to survive in the, “real world.” 

Before I read this article, I assumed that the curriculum was solely for educational purposes, shaping the common knowledge of a population. By the end of the article, however, I realized that the curriculum’s advancements and evolution serve a more political purpose for the direction of a nation. The phrase on page 92, "function follows form", really stood out in that sense. However, this was immediately refuted since the author states that "what schools teach is not simply a function of covert intentions: it is largely unintentional." Given the contradiction in successive sentences, I can only understand that the curricula of schools is both political and reactionary, and it is through a combination of both agendas that explains why each generation of students learn such differing content.

In connection to the BC curriculum, this goal is evident. We had discussed the differences between the BC curriculum and American curriculum (through NCTM, not by state). While both nations, Canada and the United States, are largely similar, the goals of the curricula were very different. The American curricula was more vague in terms of accountability for content, but more suited for standardized test preparation. The BC curriculum however, included a significant amount of terminology about identity, inquiry, respect, indigenous ways of knowing, community, connection, etc. which highlighted the societal goal of becoming more empathetic and aware citizens. The soft skills and curiosity were more emphasized in the BC curriculum, which reflects how we are seeking to become better problem solvers as a society. This is particularly important given Canada's role in the G7, as our nation is a global leader in many domains.

Finally, in terms of the null-curricula, I remembered our early classes in the Orchard Garden. In regards to the EDUC 450B reading by Sharon Kallis on backsourcing, I think it's important to continue to reflect on why policy-makers for schools do not prioritize that type of learning and why there are important knowledges that are being lost.