Avoiding the Crossfire

One of the biggest challenges I foresee in my classroom is the ability to maintain a relevant classroom. And, this being a course about curriculum development, I saw no better place to raise my concerns about the topic.

Often times the curriculum changes to reflect new understandings or radical social changes that have taken place. An article by C.H. Hedson, “Curriculum Changes During the Progressive Era,” reflects this idea. Hedson explains how basic curriculum reform first really took place with the helping hand of Education celebrity and hot topic John Dewey, who decided that the curriculum ought to encompass more than just basic knowledge concerning literacy and arithmetic. With the help of two fellow scholars, Bobbitt and Charters, The Cardinal Principles report was published in 1918. As the article explains,

The Cardinal Principles report in 1918 confirmed this expansion of the curriculum to “educate for life.” The seven objectives were as follows: (a) health, (b) command of fundamental processes, (c) worthy home membership, (d) vocation, (e) citizenship, (f) worthy use of leisure, (g), ethical character. With such broad aims, there was little in life that would not be considered a subject for the school curriculum. (67).

So it would seem that the consensus reached was that the curriculum has a responsibility to not only educate students about their subjects, but also about the world around them and how to interact. Though the terms from the 1918 report may seem outdated (I can only imagine the difference between worthy use of leisure now and then. I wonder how “worthy” Dewey might consider a Netflix marathon), the consensus remains. Surely, it is the school's place to teach children far more than just the ABC's.

So far we've established two things. One, that the curriculum needs to stay relevant to be engaging. Two, that it is the school's place to teach beyond basic knowledge and into life skills. Though that may seem like common sense to a lot of my fellow Education students, it is an important point to make. It's worthwhile to establish a baseline of thought for where this blog's headed. Strap on your helmets and have a cardiologist on speed-dial, because we're about to dive headfirst into the heart of the issue!

Lately I've been seeing plenty of posts and news articles talking about Ontario's proposed updated sex ed curriculum. A brief Facebook search produces results like this group on Facebook which, though extreme, seems to has a message that resonates with enough people. And the issue isn't confined to Facebook, either. Sun News recently aired this piece which for the most part blasted the new curriculum. From my understanding, both the host and the guest are professionals in the field of talk radio. The part I'd like to focus on in the video takes place almost right away, around the 0:45 mark. A quote on the screen appears in favour of revamping the curriculum, insisting that the old curriculum (last updated in 1998) was out-of-date and that can be dangerous. The hosts disagree, the younger of the two joking that he was married in 1998 and the older one, saying he'd been married longer, didn't think he'd need to read the “new manual.”

Incase I haven't been transparent enough, let me be abundantly clear: the purpose of this blog was not to comment on the content of the new curriculum. Not even a little bit. Instead it is to look at the approaches and apprehensions to a proposed curriculum and assess what happens when something continues to be outdated, and the controversy inherent in implementing new things.

Another example of this would be in Colorado, where proposed curriculum changes to history classes caused an uproar when parents and students alike saw the changes as censorship instead of actual history.

I really wish I had the time alotted to talk about this for much longer, the word count at the bottom of the screen indicates that it is time to wind down. It is easy to get lost in the technical application and forget that the practical is usually a whole lot messier. The difference from theory to practice can, and might, be a much more delicate endeavor. As a future teacher, I wonder how curriculum changes with affect the way I teach. How difficult is it to navigate the waters between satisfying parents and giving children ample education? How critical are we allowed to be of proposed curriculum changes? All of this is certainly important to talk about (and I'm sure will be talked about plenty) in the days, weeks, and years to come.