Cycle four and the related readings have brought a lot of issues to the surface for me as an educator. I am not sure that it’s as easy to answer how should curriculum be generated? as one might think after reading the Tyler piece. Nor do I think that many people outside of the realm of education understand the politics that play into curricular decisions as exposed by Shorto. Nonetheless, as an educator, it’s easy to see Ralph Tyler’s influence on education today, as well the almost unfathomable amount of political maneuvering involved in designing curriculum.
When I think about the question how should curriculum be generated? I automatically think about who should be involved in generating curriculum. For me, the Shorto article was an illustration not only of what to avoid when generating or creating curriculum standards, but also that there are a lot of people who want their views and opinions to be expressed through public education. I was angered that the Texas State School Board was so transparently biased. While I would never argue that making curriculum decisions can be completely devoid of bias, it concerns me that a politically slanted and narrow agenda is being endorsed by the most influential school board in the country.
I have had the opportunity to teach in Texas as well as in Michigan. Reading the Shorto article this week made me sad for public education across America. When I began teaching in Houston almost eight years ago, I didn’t realize the incredible possibilities there were relating to curriculum. I was simply handed teachers manuals for math, reading, science, and social studies and told to follow the manuals. It wasn’t until I moved to Michigan that I realized how flexible, responsive, and better curriculum could be when teachers, administrators, community members and even students are all an integral part of generating curriculum.
Unfortunately, I feel like the pendulum in Michigan is swinging more towards the direction that Texas has gone. Rather than people that actually work in the classroom being part of developing curriculum, individuals far removed from the realities of the classroom are making decisions without teacher input. Many school districts throughout mid-Michigan have been forced or strongly encouraged to become part of the MiBLSi (Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative) grant. This grant essentially forces districts to use a “Core Reading Program” as well as adopt some sort of literacy screener like the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) or AIMSweb which offer little to no incite into how to meet student needs. While large publishing companies like Pearson say that their programs and “screeners” are “research based,” reading researchers like Richard Allington call these “screeners” examples of educational malpractice!
In the almost four years that I have been in Michigan, I have seen districts abandon their teaching for programs like Scott Foresman’s Reading Street or consider programs like Open Court, a scripted reading program used in many Houston public schools. I realize that there are numerous areas that are in dire need of improvement throughout education. I am incredibly concerned however when many states, Michigan included, are taking advice from a state like Texas. Perhaps in generating curriculum and in regenerating curriculum, we should realize we don’t necessarily need to abandon everything. But instead, we should look at the weaknesses as well as the strengths in our current curriculums and use our strengths to help improve our areas of weakness.
In the end, I am not sure that I agree with everything Ralph Tyler said throughout the chapters we read. I wouldn’t say that I disagree with Tyler, as much as I would say that I think that Tyler was writing about curriculum development at a time when testing hadn’t yet become such a driving force, when teachers felt a greater sense of autonomy in their classrooms, and when students were coming to school with a different skill set.
Ultimately, I thought Tyler was arguing that the curriculum should develop thinking skills, social attitude, interests, and help students acquire information. With that in mind, I think the most effective way to achieve these goals is to develop curriculum at a more local or district level. If we strictly create national curriculums that cannot possibly tap into every student’s various experiences and needs, there will be many children left behind. As the Shorto article highlights, when people far removed from the classroom make curricular decisions, the results can be devastating not only for one state’s students, but potentially for many students across the country. I think that it is teachers in the classroom and community member that interact with students in their everyday lives that are ultimately the ones that are most capable of designing curriculum that aligns with core standards and meets student needs.
