Introduction
This week as we pondered what exactly curriculum is and how it has developed or evolved in the past century, I am intrigued by who really sets the present curriculum. For this reflection, I will use Doll’s definition of curriculum which states it is the “formal and informal content and process by which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills and alter attitudes, appreciations and values under the auspices of that school.” We know that the Ministry of Education sets the curriculum as they state the following: The prescribed learning outcomes set the learning standards for the provincial K to 12 education system and form the prescribed curriculum for British Columbia. They are statements of what students are expected to know and do at the end of an indicated grade or course.
Schools have the responsibility to ensure that all prescribed learning outcomes in each IRP are met; however, schools have flexibility in determining how delivery of the prescribed learning outcomes can best take place. It is expected that student achievement will vary in relation to the prescribed learning outcomes. Evaluation, reporting, and student placement with respect to these outcomes are dependent on the professional judgment and experience of teachers, guided by provincial policy. (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/plo.php)
This raises two questions, one being who provides input (both directly and indirectly) to the ministry and secondly, how much autonomy do teachers really have? Due to the time constraints of contacting the government and going through the bureaucratic red tape especially during job action, I have elected to pursue an answer to my second question. So how much of our curriculum is dictated by individual teachers? The sub-question of whether this is good thing will be left for you to decide. To provide adequate research I decided to use an upcoming department collaboration time to assess the learning that goes on at my school.
Part 1: Predictions
Note: I am writing this paper in two separate sittings as in between I am involved in two interesting exercises during our school’s implementation day. The first exercise involves me and another curriculum leader guiding our department in planning a scope and sequence for grades 7-9 in English, English Writing, Social Studies and Social justice. Our end goal is to have courses based on ‘big ideas’ rather that the content driven nature of the Integrated Resource Packages. The students will still be expected to demonstrate all the prescribed learning outcomes but in a form that involves more inquiry based learning across the entire Humanities spectrum. This would be considered more Transaction than Transmission if you were following Miller and Seller. Now I state that I am writing this in a different organization format (pre and post implementation day) as I want to test my hypothesis of how closely teachers at my school follow the PLO’s. With no disrespect intended, I believe that many of the staff, when posed with the task of putting a finger on the big picture, will still be stuck in the regular ‘old school’ (pardon the pun) way of chunking the content and planning the year along the borders of the textbook.
The second task involves the same teachers to brainstorm a final summative project for the humanities area that assesses a different curriculum: Gardner’s Six Facets and the SD No. 23 Attributes of a Learner – a higher level skills assessment that would make Bloom happy. In this case we will need to think outside of the box or more ‘Steve Jobsesque’ if I may. Will it be similar to past summative assessments and resemble our final exams which we have eliminated this year? Will it include a larger framework? I find myself looking at the FoRSE matrix and wondering how broad a spectrum the teachers will cover in thinking about this new aspect of our schools curriculum. What values will come across? Will the students be engaged?
Part 2: The Aftermath
I know this carried the same suspense as revealing a winner on a reality TV show but the wait is over. When faced with the task of going over the curriculum as a group, it was easy to see who were covering the content and who were looking at the deeper understandings. For example, breaking down the Social Studies 9 curriculum and basing it on one idea – Revolution – shows that teachers could get away from the standard content. There were also some quiet, blank look teachers who were happy to see the courses summarized into simple ideas that they still felt comfortable teaching. Going back to how the Ministry states that the school has flexibility over how the IRPs are met and that teachers have control over the assessment and evaluation of the PLOs, I did determine that although our school is now on the same page, we haven’t been for years and teachers still have a large amount of control over the what and how of the curriculum. It would appear to me that the variation of what is going on in one classroom or school to the next is immense. No one ever visits my classroom to see if I am teaching certain things or more importantly, if the students are learning those things. There are no provincial exams to monitor learning in middle school and standardized tests may not be the um...er...most ‘authentic’ assessment of learning. We are professionals and I assume then that trust put into teachers is enough for all involved in the education process to sleep at night.
The second task of building a new ‘presentation of learning’ as it has been termed at my school had mixed results. I guess saying ‘think outside the box’ needed clarification as one teacher spent time finding the picture on the right and showing the rest of the group. Our group had difficulty with how students could demonstrate the deeper understandings and 21st century skills in a presentation. Some were suggesting that rolling a dice in a mock-civilization activity could dictate their grade while others couldn’t get away from current practices of multiple choice tests based on information rather than learning. One group did start to expand the purpose to include the community and the form/design included original ideas. This is our first year where we have decided as a staff to eliminate our usual final exams in the last week of the school year and create a new assessment of learning so I suppose I knew this would be a difficult task especially when my eyes have been opened so much to curriculum issues since starting this masters course.
Conclusion:
Teachers do have significant autonomy over both what and how they teach students. This is crucial if we want to continue to improve the educational system. Beyer and Apple state that ‘meaningful curriculum reform must occur within those institutions, and by those people, most intimately connected to the lives of students: teachers, administrators...’ and I agree that educational professionals are in the best position to know what the students need to succeed. Teachers need autonomy to truly cater to certain students needs. In a world that is constantly becoming more regulated and where life is becoming more dictated, teaching is one area that needs to stay open to individuals making choices and decisions. However, this can make things difficult for some involved as accepting variation when choosing teachers or schools for their children can be stressful. People don’t accept chance when it comes to education. Will you get the teacher who is eager, knowledgeable, fair, interesting, patient, dedicated and engaging or will you get the teacher who is just getting a paycheque? Will both of those teachers ensure that the Ministry curriculum is met? Will both of those teachers meet the values of society that Beyer and Apple speak of?
Field trips or videos, technology or chalkboards, discussions or solo work or collaborative learning, experiments and hands on or textbooks, assignments or tests – there are so many teacher variables. I know in my school that there are teachers that I would prefer my child to learn from. However, it is a preference and we are entitled to our thoughts. If there was a teacher that did not meet the requirements of the Ministry, I would not want them teaching and I fear that they still would be. Can we authentically measure the informal content of curriculum? Does the Ministry have requirements on the hidden aspect of curriculum? Does the formal outweigh the informal content if the Ministry can’t adequately prescribe its content?
Teachers do have autonomy and I stand by that whether this is appropriate or not is a personal choice. So, what do you think?
Resources
Beyer, Landon E. & Apple, Michael W. (1988). The Curriculum: Problems, Politics & Probabilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/plo.php.%20%20%20Oct.%2010, 2011.
Cookson, P. W., & Schneider, B. (1995). Transforming schools. New York: Garland.
Doll, R. C. (1989). Curriculum Improvement: Decision Making & Process, 7th Ed. Boston, MA: allyn and Bacon.
Miller, J.P. & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: Perspectives & Practice. Toronto : Copp Clark Pitman.
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/plo.php
No comments:
Post a Comment