Analyzing the Curriculum
by George Posner
pp. 33-40
Chapter Two discusses the context in which curriculum is created. The author reminds the reader that curriculum is created as a response to a particular need, problem or situation, and prompts us to bear those factors in mind when analyzing a specific curriculum. He poses several questions to consider when reviewing curriculum:
· Where does a curriculum come from?
· Who develops the curriculum?
· How are curricula affected by social, political, economic, or cultural situations? (Posner, p. 33)
He emphasizes that if one understands the historical context, players involved in writing the curriculum, and their foremost concerns when writing the curriculum, one will be better able to understand and objectively analyze the curriculum.
Posner directs the reader to firstly consider what he calls the ‘cast of characters.’ He instructs us to closely examine the writers of the curriculum documents, while acknowledging that it may require a little digging on the part of the researcher to determine the exact identity of the curriculum writers. He quotes Schwab (1971), who suggests that five viewpoints should be represented in the writing of any curriculum:
1. the learners
2. the teachers
3. the subject matter
4. the milieu
5. the coordinator
He describes each of these roles, suggesting that having a person(s) to represent each of these interests would constitute the ideal writing team. He suggests that researchers look for ‘blind spots’ in the writing team (p. 35).
Posner then encourages the reader to delve into the reasons behind the development of the curriculum. He says it is necessary to find the driving force behind the call for new curriculum documents because it is only by understanding this background that the researcher can properly assess the curriculum. He suggests that the researcher look for the underlying problem and its accompanying assumptions that were the impetus for curriculum change. Some examples are presented: the drug education program in US schools, and A Nation at Risk, the 1983 report from the National Commission on Excellence in Education, and M: ACOS, another US national education initiative. Posner describes the historical context, the political and social climate of the time period and demonstrates how certain curriculum items were addressed and others ignored because of the underlying assumptions during that particular time period.
Posner’s overall message in Chapter Two is to view curriculum as a product of a particular context.
by George Posner
pp. 33-40
Chapter Two discusses the context in which curriculum is created. The author reminds the reader that curriculum is created as a response to a particular need, problem or situation, and prompts us to bear those factors in mind when analyzing a specific curriculum. He poses several questions to consider when reviewing curriculum:
· Where does a curriculum come from?
· Who develops the curriculum?
· How are curricula affected by social, political, economic, or cultural situations? (Posner, p. 33)
He emphasizes that if one understands the historical context, players involved in writing the curriculum, and their foremost concerns when writing the curriculum, one will be better able to understand and objectively analyze the curriculum.
Posner directs the reader to firstly consider what he calls the ‘cast of characters.’ He instructs us to closely examine the writers of the curriculum documents, while acknowledging that it may require a little digging on the part of the researcher to determine the exact identity of the curriculum writers. He quotes Schwab (1971), who suggests that five viewpoints should be represented in the writing of any curriculum:
1. the learners
2. the teachers
3. the subject matter
4. the milieu
5. the coordinator
He describes each of these roles, suggesting that having a person(s) to represent each of these interests would constitute the ideal writing team. He suggests that researchers look for ‘blind spots’ in the writing team (p. 35).
Posner then encourages the reader to delve into the reasons behind the development of the curriculum. He says it is necessary to find the driving force behind the call for new curriculum documents because it is only by understanding this background that the researcher can properly assess the curriculum. He suggests that the researcher look for the underlying problem and its accompanying assumptions that were the impetus for curriculum change. Some examples are presented: the drug education program in US schools, and A Nation at Risk, the 1983 report from the National Commission on Excellence in Education, and M: ACOS, another US national education initiative. Posner describes the historical context, the political and social climate of the time period and demonstrates how certain curriculum items were addressed and others ignored because of the underlying assumptions during that particular time period.
Posner’s overall message in Chapter Two is to view curriculum as a product of a particular context.
4 comments:
I am curious as to what constitutes the curriculum writers today in Ottawa. Anyone know? Who decided who is involved? Is it a group of interested parties, disgruntled teachers? I have just emailed my friend who is revamping the entire math curriculum for Toronto Catholic School Board to see who is involved.
Jacquie
For a research team to find true blind spots wouldn’t the researches need consultation from an outside source? If it were a ‘blind spot’ then they would need an external consultant to look at the curriculum and use them as a sounding board to see how effective the curriculum is. I feel that having that dialogue will strengthen it, and make it more suitable for the time period, cultural climate etc. and reduce and eliminate any ‘blind spots’. Ultimately, an external source is required to look at the curriculum objectively.
Nick,
Would the external consultants be from outside education, like someone from industry? I think that a political person would only see the "blind spots" that they were interested in. I ialways thought that someone who teaches lets say high school physics should have a say in what is taught in middle school physics since they would know where the weaknesses are.
Jacquie
Jacquie.. I agree, or how about a physicist from a local lab. I believe that there is no room for politics in the education system although it is very unrealistic as they fund it, direct it, and when voters complain, change it.
Post a Comment