Hello again!
I have to admit, I enjoyed the Shiro reading more this week than probably any other week. The "plays" and tables did a great job pulling everything together in my opinion!
I think the most reasonable place to start is with the Curriculum Life History (starting on page 244 of Shiro). I'm curious, first and foremost, what yours looks like but also if you have changed your views, why? This idea of changing ideologies over time is fascinating to me.
Associated with the above question is your positionality toward the relationship among the ideologies. What is it? Does it change like ideological beliefs (if so why)?
Lastly (for now maybe), Noddings starts her final chapter with a discussion of Common Core. Understanding that this question is intimately tied to ideological beliefs, is there a need for/room for/utility in a national curriculum? Either way, with respect to the issues that we've discussed in this class, why?
Thoughts friends?
I am also comforted to know that one's ideological tendencies can fluctuate. As a calculus teacher, there were days where I felt very scholar academic and others where my classroom was incredibly learner—centered. As I grow in my practice,I am sure that I'll probably gravitate to one ideology, but I hope that I continue to value the various ideologies. There are inconsistencies in holding to opposing ideologies. People grow, life is messy and rarely do we fit into nice, neat boxes. It would be easy to label ourselves with one ideology, but I think that we would eventually become paralyzed if we fail to consider other perspectives.
ReplyDeleteVoting + blogging about curriculum = fun
Delete#blogthevote
I have definitely evolved ideologically. I still remember the first time I sat in Stacy Reeder's class as an undergrad and really THOUGHT about what it means to "teach" someone or about what mathematics is. I was, once, a "train them for college," "they don't need a calculator" person... graduate studies particularly (M.Ed. and now this) have helped me articulate what I feel the true meaning of education is ("democracy" and "prepare for life") as well as given me a fire for standing up for what I believe in and the words to articulate it meaningfully.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking a lot about my Curriculum Life History and I can definitely see changes over time. As an undergrad, I think I would have probably would have been primarily a scholar academic with some LC tendencies. During my work on my M.Ed., I was exposed to some theory based in social reconstructionism, so I began to see my ideas expand that direction. As a teacher, I feel like I bounced around a lot like I mentioned earlier. With all of this fluxuation, I think that I am growing and becoming more comfortable in my own curricular skin. Like Melissa, I feel more informed to speak intelligently and respectfully about my beliefs on curriculum.
ReplyDeleteNoddings chapter resonated really well with me this week. She says, "If we value our democracy, we will remember that it is perpetually a cooperative work under construction" (p. 157). I think this is vital to remember as we grow in our work as educators. There's always more to learn and to help others discover.
I don't think either of us answered your question - sorry! Ok - so is there "a need for/room for/utility in a national curriculum?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe? I'm not sure. At some level, I think that a national vision for schooling can be a good thing as long as it isn't prescriptive. What I don't like is the standardization that comes along with a national curriculum... what I'd like better is more of a national "goal" and let schools/teachers decide how that goal will be met. "Prepare students to participate meaningfully in our democratic society," maybe. Then each school/district could decide - what does that mean? How does it shape the vision of our classrooms? Of our relationships with students? etc, etc
I've been thinking on this for a day or two now and I'm settled on "maybe" as well. One of the great aspects of democracy that Noddings has spoken about over the course of the semester is choice. Part of me says that there should be a set of national goals we are striving towards (national aims?) that excludes strict standards. On the other hand, giving districts choice in what they teach and how it is enacted also sounds very democratic.
DeletePart of the issue is fear. Do we trust those in power to make the right decisions that "the rest of us" are expected to follow? The other part of the issue is the in the contrast between accountability and responsibility. Do we hold schools accountable to meeting a national curriculum? Or, do schools feel a sense of responsibility to their students, communities, and themselves to teach to the best of their ability while trying to meet the goals of the curriculum?
I'm going to keep pondering this one!