For this week’s reading assignment, we were asked to read and think about the multiple curriculum definitions on Leslie Owen Wilson’s website and see how Kumashiro’s idea of common sense applied to the definitions. During the lecture, we explored those definitions a little more in depth and were shown a short video of “Dangerous Minds” where we had to identify the types of curriculum we saw.
After those activities, I came to the conclusion that curriculum is everywhere; we are aware of some types, unaware of others and the other ones are just common sense, as they are “so obvious”. For example, in the definition of overt, explicit and written curriculum we can read the following words “is simply that which is written”, where the adjective simply implies the noun simple, which leads us to think of common sense. In another definition, the one of null curriculum, the author sides with Eisner’s statement as what message the board/educators and sending to students when they decide which subjects are worth teaching and which ones we need to excluded because they are not “as important”. I found the internal curriculum and the electronic curriculum to be the most interesting ones in the list since it is individual-based, meaning it is different from one person to another. It shows how different we are and how we each retain different information during the same lesson. I am currently learning about the electronic curriculum in my ECMP355 class and how we need to each develop the sense of “right”, “wise” and “correct” in the online community.
We also were assigned to read the “teaching for social justice” on wikipedia. From my reading, I retained that it is not so good to try and instil values onto people, they have to discover their own things to value and it is something that should not be forced upon someone. Teachers also need to learn and not only teach in the classroom. When it comes to equity, it is important to not make the assumption that equal means the same. That is where I came up with the following statement: “We are all different, we are all unique, we are not the same. We are equals which means that we are not better than anybody else”.
On the same note, the anti-oppressive education definition implies that teachers who want to teach against oppression have to be constantly challenging it. There are common sense ways of engaging into “education” which contributes to oppression and that is something we do not want to be promoting as preservice and regular teachers. We have to constantly be critical in order to explore the multiple facets of things, we need to aim for difference, uneasy and controversial. What are your thoughts on values, curriculum and anti-oppressive education?