Class 7: February 25, 2008

I have really only one thing to say... wow! However, for the sake of my grade, I will continue. Vallance, Toepfer and Chambers, all on the same night, with a final course (dessert!) of the textbook review. The last activity tied together all the readings: aesthetically (as a work of art), the book was dead; there was a unifying center in the book - stupidity (92 bandaids, 14 fish in a bag, curriculum outcomes listed with the content); and, the book was devoid of Canadian content. What more could one ask of a proposed Canadian textbook? I must remember, we live in a postmodern, postnational society. Hence, I ask, "What is a nation understood to be today?" Might it be be membership with Facebook or Secondlife? What about a continous querying of the oracle Google, dispenser of all truth to the global village?

The Readings

Vallance's article was striking because of the critical theory it presented. By this I mean that looking at curriculum as a work of art involves a way of being critical of what is being observed; the concept of connoisseurship. What the article tells me is that as a teacher, I need to consider students as individuals, viewing the artifacts they produce - their works of art - as unique to them. It is here where I think about assessment and evaluation, and why I commented on it. How can we expect someone to produce works in paint, just becuase that is what the curriculum demands, when he/she is a gifted sculpt- or/ress? It is a problem when conforming to a mandated curriculum is outside the scope of one's natural talents. And such a problem is exacerbated by teachers who continue agree with the curriculum police about the necessity to put gasoline into the tank of a vehicle that is designed to run on diesel fuel. How's my technique, Dianne?

Toepfer's conclusion underscores the student as individual. To plan with the audience in mind is essential. Jaime's animal video clip was heart wrenching and speaks to the idea of a unique curriculum for everyone. Granted, the resources required to fund an education system that would allow the enactment of such a philosophy are great, so we do our best to, in words that Jason spoke to me one day, hit the middle of classes we teach.

Chambers' article is poignant for Canadian curricularlists, calling into question the concept of universality, a workable public education system and curriculum for everyone. Can one be constructed? Some may think so, but I think the concept of universality is akin to the bell curve: it will work for the 68% in the middle, but not so such for the extremes. It's worth noting that satisfying the middle 68% would do well for any politician, but to draw tax dollars from the full 100% to satsify the 68% is problematic - just look at the way the system works today.

I think a national education office in Canada, similar to the US department of Education, could do us good. It would homogenize the basics. It is arguable that this flies in the face of postmodern theory and multiple voicing, but regardless of who speaks, at a conceptual level, it's pretty tough to get more than one colour juice from a box of standard oranges. 1 is 1 is understood by everyone; symbols don't change conceptual meanings. There's a lot of curricula that's already pretty homogeneous across Canada - like math (the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol [WNCP] and Ontario are quite similar), which makes it esay to teach math in different provinces. This, however, isn't the greatest reason to have a national education office. Like Denis said in class, think of the moeny that could be saved if education were managed nationally. Make 13 offices into one. Why not? This could be a serious election issue; but, Quebec might balk.