Teacher should play more active role in gearing the society to realize that education belongs to us, to everybody. We must participate, aware of the changes because the effects are upon our future generation. Everybody has its own share in it. Education does not belong to those who have shares in national contract of printing textbooks nor to the experts that rarely come down to observe/ realize what is really happening in the classrooms or simply manipulate statistic results to convince society that changes are needed , nor to the politicians that use education matters/issue to raise support in order to pursue their political ambition.

I learn from you to loathe the classroom control/management term. That is the biggest epiphany. After this, I don’t have to be afraid anymore because it is parallel with learning philosophy and secondly, I think now, I dare to defend my belief because that is what I learn and understand. I just don’t want to be a teacher that follows and accept everything because that is not me anymore.
Though teachers in my society are highly respected but again, after looking at it closely, sooner or later the trend is deteriorating because the roles of teacher are suppressed just to merely follow and accept what politicians say. Are they more equal than us? I believe the society is changing its good perspective towards teacher because society does not see teachers as powerful force that is dynamic. Society does not see teacher as a unique force that can reform the surrounding from within. Teachers’ voices are unheard.
I learn that curriculum is not a simple stuff; rather it is unique and complicated. It goes through various stages of evolution in society. It is highly influenced by historical events and changes in the society. Not just that, to create and implement a new curriculum will take years because of so many processes in it. Evaluation though might be the final process in curriculum changes but it can be a beginning, because through evaluation, the curriculum is improved and will be changed to a new form.

Lastly, I learn about philosophy differences between Western and Islam in building up its own education system, thus make me appreciates further the differences as something that is embraced upon not something that is afraid of or neglected. I think both can live together because everything is started from differences in perspective in worldviews.

Indeed, I enjoy this class as it gives new perspectives on my own life.

Teacher should play more active role in gearing the society to realize that education belongs to us, to everybody. We must participate, aware of the changes because the effects are upon our future generation. Everybody has its own share in it. Education does not belong to those who have shares in national contract of printing textbooks nor to the experts that rarely come down to observe/ realize what is really happening in the classrooms or simply manipulate statistic results to convince society that changes are needed , nor to the politicians that use education matters/issue to raise support in order to pursue their political ambition.

I learn from you to loathe the classroom control/management term. That is the biggest epiphany. After this, I don’t have to be afraid anymore because it is parallel with learning philosophy and secondly, I think now, I dare to defend my belief because that is what I learn and understand. I just don’t want to be a teacher that follows and accept everything because that is not me anymore.
Though teachers in my society are highly respected but again, after looking at it closely, sooner or later the trend is deteriorating because the roles of teacher are suppressed just to merely follow and accept what politicians say. Are they more equal than us? I believe the society is changing its good perspective towards teacher because society does not see teachers as powerful force that is dynamic. Society does not see teacher as a unique force that can reform the surrounding from within. Teachers’ voices are unheard.
I learn that curriculum is not a simple stuff; rather it is unique and complicated. It goes through various stages of evolution in society. It is highly influenced by historical events and changes in the society. Not just that, to create and implement a new curriculum will take years because of so many processes in it. Evaluation though might be the final process in curriculum changes but it can be a beginning, because through evaluation, the curriculum is improved and will be changed to a new form.

Lastly, I learn about philosophy differences between Western and Islam in building up its own education system, thus make me appreciates further the differences as something that is embraced upon not something that is afraid of or neglected. I think both can live together because everything is started from differences in perspective in worldviews.

Indeed, I enjoy this class as it gives new perspectives on my own life.

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?

Looking at Tyler’s Rational Linear Approach, I am glad when he mention that his book is not a curriculum manual, however, I found the name to be funny because I understand “Linear” as 1,2,3 and similarly when it comes to curriculum development, it is a process of progressing. I am thinking of this after looking at figure 3.2 that starts with Objectives, followed by selecting learning experiences,then organizing learning experiences and lastly evaluation. In my case, there are many times that I tend to start my class by teaching, evaluating my teaching and the objectives will come last. There are times as well that I teach based on what my students want. However, I agree very much with him when he emphasizes that evaluation involves getting evidence about changes in the behavior of students but at the same time, I am thinking, will the curriculum then will have tendency to be in behaviorism philosophy of learning rather than constructivism?Tyler also stress that it should not be focus only on test but must be opened to other techniques such as interviews,observations,questionnaires and etc.

I think Walker’s Deliberative Approach is more suitable for a diverse team as it allows creativity, resolutions of curriculum problems that involve mutual agreement between participants and at the same time it encourages communication among planners. Also, I believe two head is better than one, thus the product will be better. It is worth to mention that his naturalistic is suitable to apply to any level of curriculum development because it does not follow a linear. Importantly, consensus is based on mutual and rational discussion.I like Eisner’s Content of Curriculum when he emphasizes curriculum should be a wide variety of specific sources be given equal consideration with traditional academic disciplines. I think this can create balance. It is balance because it will always be constructed based on students,society and subject’s needs. Thus, it contributes to the dynamism of curriculum development.

Due to that, shallowing and narrowing the meaning will circumscribe the nature of curriculum itself. It comes from a long,diverse and complex history. Understanding curriculum will be distorted if we make the definitions rigid as it means we will neglect the up and down of its development or curriculum history. Sigmund Freud put emphasis on understanding past history of his patients to develop a big picture in order to understand what contributes to the ailment, what about curriculum which is so vast and deep.

The fallback of neglecting curriculum history is that we will neglect the intellectual and spiritual growth of curriculum. As I mention in my first week epiphany, that curriculum is dynamic, so it does have elements of growth that I mention previously. This lead to my believe that curriculum can appear as a living human being due to elements of growth that it has. Can I say curriculum becomes enrich as societies develop? I think it is, as in curriculum history we will see the changes that happen to curriculum that contributes to its dynamic. Progressive nations will have a dynamic and complex curriculum that will cover many aspects of their life, as progressive and modernism can be attributed to complexities and dynamic. Both of these attributes show there are elements of blended and intertwined perspectives and thoughts adopted into education system that particular nations preferred over.

Curriculum history is one way understanding the past. Understanding the past does not mean we have to follow the ways that previous generations outlined as the suitability and compatibility of their methods can be questioned. Importantly, I notice even they themselves could not solve the problems that they faced. However, we still look at their solutions to the problems so that we can take whatever good and leave whatever bad for us to reflect. Thus it will be the best way to understand the present day situation as we know the origin,the root of the problems.

I believe we must teach students according to what suits them best, according to the compatibility and suitability of present day situation and at the same time to prepare them for future. Learning and understanding curriculum history will tell us what is compatible and suitable for them after we reflect the pros and cons of every elements within curriculum. I will prefer subject matter mastery as it helps me to understand and memorize deep but at the same time, I just can’t imagine myself sitting in a class with drilling and rote learning as they will bore me to death. Boredom is not a choice for nowadays quality education as we are not preparing our students for clergymen/women. Our society is not a dogmatic anymore compared to hundred years ago. My dad used to bring me to hunt as a past time hobby but it does not mean that I have to bring my son to the same playing field again 17 years later. However, I do understand that spending time with my son by doing various activities like swimming or playing table tennis can help to maintain the relationship as well.

That is the goal of learning curriculum history and understand them as everybody of us wants to choose and to be involved in developing now and future generation based on what we believe/perceive. They believe they can do that best through education system. That is a faith in curriculum.

When I reflect back on Sputnik achievement by communist realm( Russia), Americans felt the achievement by the “other side” was hurtful. Americans believe their curriculum that is based on democracy value must be superior than the “other side” that implement communist system. Anyway,if we think critically, was it a total failure on behalf of American curriculum? If we think critically, it is not a failure but rather a challenge to compete and to improve education system to be better.

The main thing is that there is something we can learn from them.