Curriculum Development and Change:
I realize there are many approaches to curriculum development and change; before reading these two chapters, I thought the change and development of curriculum are easy but it is not. There are many reasons for that, one of it is dynamics of the nature of curriculum and due to the nature of curriculum development that usually involve collective activity and processes, it complicates it further. Through these activities, I can sense the methodology of changes open to all,because how it takes palce is always at issue, for there is no one right way to go about it and it is beneficial or not is always open to questions.
We don’t have to go further evaluating the process, enough to say if we look at different terms involve in curriculum development. It is complicated as it involves interpretation of terms and every interpretation depends on own views. For example, diffusion and dissemination which to me conveys the same meaning, however looking at the term and application of them, I realize it is related to culture and very much involve with the practitioner perspectives. I put it in mind as terms and implications. That’s why the application must be based on prevailing norms.
At one point, I can see it as Irony though it is called a planned activity. It has its own committee which consist of experts from 6 areas but still, the process to develop is hectic, well, it is not a one man’s show. The reason is that it involves lots of interaction and involvement from society,schools, parents and students. Furthermore, for a curriculum to be adopted, it needs evaluation and supports. I can see hierarchy involves, anyway, does curriculum development has top down or bottom up approaches?
Various responses against NCLB shows how much they values the First Amendment which is related to Freedom. It is shown towards their commitments on preserving the freedom of control on school, everybody has right to access the education and lastly, it is a reflection of though standard are created by federal still, the empowerment is on local school because they will implement the policy. From it, it has synergy relationship between the sides. This is the beautiful part of curriculum development in America that I can compare to my own country.
Curriculum Planning: Levels and Participants
When reflecting back NCLB development, I wonder if it was created hurriedly without proper planning, because first, local school must abide by the rules and regulations in order to continue receiving federal financial aids. That depends on schools’ AYP. Though in this book, specifically it mentions at Micro Level, teachers have power to mould the curriculum based on his own perspectives, however, it tends to rupture everything off because later will result in losing federal financial aids. NCLB depends so much on standardized assessments, that when I reflect back is not suitable for Democratic and Liberal society that focus on equality and justice when education is a right to every citizen. Though teachers maybe be able to interpret and use the curriculum creatively but it does not worth because at the end the focus will be on preparing students to meet the standard that can be derived by achieving high scores in the standardized examinations provided. What about the constructivist approaches like Scherer mentioned which focus on teachers seek and value students’ points of views, lessons are structured to challenge students suppositions and critically teacher plan lessons around ideas? What will happen to Dewey’s ideas that students will be able to make sense and see the relation between this subject and the other subjects? I can sense the focus of NCLB is more on measurement that can be reflected back on Positivism. Are we moving back to the old days?Unless NCLB can offer alternatives for school to fulfill the goals by letting local schools to decide.
The Paideia Proposal vs A Critical Review of The Paideia Proposal:
In page 160, paragraph 6, it mentions, “ The innermost meaning of social equality is: substantially the same quality of life for all. That calls for: the same quality of schooling for all.” Anyway, I am thinking that yes, everybody should get proper education but not everybody can receive the same quality education. Is NCLB trying to achieve the same quality of schooling for all by impending the goals through standardized examinations? Though it mentions in the paragraph 11 that “ there is no acceptable reason why trying to promote equality should have led to a lessening or loss of quality but in my opinion, I am not running for Utopian dream. Or is it me the one that betray the ideal of what Horace Mann put which is “ Education is the gateway to equality” ? I just put it as a challenge that Dewey put us through to think and strive towards it. I can say, Paideia is an ideal and Noddings puts it to down to earth by refuting the premises and secondly, put a reality if the proposal was implemented. It is not the target to have classless education because NCLB is another Paeideia. Is not it the same when every school is judged by the fixed standards that is closely applied to the academically talented which is reflected through standardized examinations?
I will definitely consider our kids legitimate interest in our educational planning. I share the same vision with Nodding because he believes that education must have the personal interests and talents of the students who study them, and how skillfully they are laid out against the whole continuum of human experience. I just could not accept Paeideia’s writer notion that believes students minds to be filled equally with the same quality material? Was he saying kids come in empty?
Tags: Against Paiedeia, approaches to curriculum development, change in curriculum, Critical Review of The Paideia Proposal, curriculum development, curriculum planning, First Ammendment and NCLB, NCLB and curriculum development, Paideia Proposal