Class 6: February 11, 2008

Some fine discussion tonight, as usual. Of the two articles, Goodson resonated with me more, and that's because of the strong social agenda of a private school. As we discussed, and as was written in the article, private schools can be a rite of passage for a privileged class. That being said, I'll pull a quote from McNeil, "... in the hands of a good teacher, nearly any center can lead to powerful ideas." This, of course, referred to an instructional focus. But in another context, perhaps it can mean that great things can be possible with any student population, so long as there is an effective teacher at the helm. Teachers need to know what to act on, but as or more importantly, they need to know when and when not to act to promote student learning.

I wanted to let my Tylerian views be heard, especially after what I posted last week and because of the Goodson article. We all know that curriculum design is big picture stuff, and I think Tyler's four questions are fundamental. This is not to say other approaches to design aren't credible; in fact, they are necessary. The best approch to curriculum design is agruably an ecletic mix of different approaches - kind of a postmodern juxtaposition of techniques - to serve the needs of diverse student populations.

Denis' work, (Six Postmodernisms in Search of an Author, and Postmodern Educational Technology) presents ideas that need to be seriously considered when looking at the big picture. To get a handle on Denis' ideas, one needs to become a little like McLuhan and think right down to the bottom. "In the beginning..." there was Curriculum, and It was good! I have stated in class and here on the blog that curriculum is purposeful, and in a postmodern binary and simultaneous sense, this means that its purpose is intended and chosen; it is sent and received, and what is sent and what is received is measurable by Ellsworth's gap. Obviously, what is received is subject to the values of the receiver more than those of the sender. If the sender is broadcasting classical music but the receiver prefers to tune into rock, then the gap is big. If the sender broadcasts cartoons and the receiver can't get enough of them, then the gap will be non-existent. Having said that though, how did the interest in rock or cartoons come to be? In what environment were the preferences sown and/or grow?

If the classroom environment is the soil for the seeds to grow (coming back to my identification with the Kliebard gardener metaphor), then the environment - space, content and teacher - is the curriculum. This is made clear through Goodson, and reflects the old saying "children learn what they live." And, don't we all?