Class 3: January 21, 2008

It was interesting to discuss different approaches to curriculum after discussing the Kliebard metaphors. The articles by Klein and Prideaux shared multiple curriculum design approaches, the details of some appearing in Olivia’s curriculum development model.

The way to construct a curriculum must be grounded in the purpose for it, a fundamental echoed by Tyler in the first of his four key questions about curriculum design. Purpose may be found, as Olivia’s model shows, in student and social needs. Given that, the question, “Whose need is more important, that of the student or that of society?” naturally arises. Olivia's flowchart suggests that such a question leads to a “philosophy of education, including beliefs about learning.” Did the approaches Klein discussed say in any way if the student or society is more important? Not really. The social reconstructionist or self-actualizationist may argue for the development of society through the humane development of the student, but the measurer may say that it is in the student’s best interest to be trained for the reality of the workforce. Maybe someone would say it should be the other way around and present an argument that would support the claim. Regardless, it’s the philosophy behind the model that signifies the degree of importance of either student or society in a model.

It is apparent that curricularists like the language of metaphor to couch their subject. Yet, regardless of how many metaphors there might be for curriculum, there are essentially only a few realities at work: social (societal) and personal development and well being, and occupational skill. Those categories are broad, but for what else does one need an education? What’s the purpose of acquiring specialized knowledge? Marshall McLuhan might ask the question, “What does education enhance?” and he may extend that question further to ask, “What does curriculum enhance?” The answers to those questions will be at the same time the individual and society. So, the purpose of curriculum comes back to Olivia and specified needs.

People who call themselves citizens of a society have an obligation to ask the question, “Who determines the needs of society and how are they determined?” Is curriculum really just political text, a reflection of the political will of the day? If this is so, then it will also be a reflection of the business interests of the day, since policy makers listen to those who control or influence economic entities. Does society have the collective will to make pubic domain curricula more humanistic, a perspective Paulo Freire espoused? Or is society so consumed with materialism and survival that it ignores a potentially better way to educate? Why is the production model the default? Are the real key players who perpetrate the myth of the production model the universities? It would hardly make sense since universities provide the rich environment for learning and growth. Some would disagree, perhaps saying that researchers care little for the welfare of the students who come to a university earnestly to better themselves so that they may provide a quality life and environment for themselves and maybe a family to grow. What might Marshall McLuhan say?

The McLuhan video was captivating; the idea that the things people create are extensions of themselves is interesting. However, since McLuhan was a catholic religious man, he must have considered what is written in the bible about God giving people the wisdom to accomplish their work. The Bible’s book of Isaiah talks about the wisdom given by God to people to accomplish the work of harvesting (Isaiah 28: 23-29). If, then, to be able to harvest, people made tools, does it mean that the tools were extensions of themselves or of God? Was it not God, through the gift of wisdom, who inspired people to create their tools? God worked through Jesus to bring about salvation. Was, then, Jesus a tool God created to deliver a message to humanity? What might McLuhan say? What might Thomas Aquinas have said?

McLuhan’s idea of people creating tools that in turn shape them is telling. An article in The New York Observer (http://www.observer.com/node/47336) talks about a corollary to the aphorism “the medium is the message”, the corollary being, “the user is the content.” We are, to some degree, shaped by the media which we consume. This need not be a bad thing, but it does support the idea that our tools can shape us.

Last bit. Might there ever be a unified-field theory of curriculum? (See http://www.observer.com/node/47336, unified-field theory of the arts.) To develop such a theory, one may, like McLuhan, go back and look at the primitive structures of society (Space Odyssey, Class 1). What kind of society do we want? Laissez-faire or communism? Why? What kind of system supports the common good? Could there ever be a Camelot of curriculum? What would a "just" curriculum look like?