1

Catherine Golitzin
Dr. Francis Lynch
TEC 614
8 November 2017

The Curriculum Studies Reader Reflections

George S. Counts, "Dare the School Build a New Social Order?"

In this article, Counts calls for teachers to seize power in society, because they are in a

unique position to influence society for the better. Up until this point, the corrupt institutions of

finance and government have done a poor job of raising up American citizens. Counts protests

against the "slave psychology" that he says has " dominated the mind of the pedagogue more or

less since the days of ancient Greece" (46). (As a side note, I wonder whether this is true do

teachers generally have a slave psychology? If so, has it existed since the days of ancient

Greece? To me, it seems that education is first and foremost a collaborative endeavor, between

teachers, students, parents or guardians, school counselors, and administration, to name only the

main stakeholders. Teachers must be cooperative, but do they think of themselves as slaves?)

Counts proposes that teachers be the main architects in crafting "the most humane, the most

beautiful, the most majestic civilization ever fashioned by any people," in contrast to the myriad

social problems which he outlines, highlighting the stark contrast of global poverty and wealth.

He believes that it is America's destiny to be the global leaders in forging this society, but that we

"stand confused and irresolute before the future" (48). As an antidote, he argues, we can build

this civilization in our schools. "If the schools are to be really effective, they must become

centers for the building, and not merely for the contemplation, of our civilization.... We

should...give to our children a vision of the possibilities which lie ahead and endeavor to enlist

their loyalties and enthusiasms in the realization of the vision" (48). I would be interested to read

about schools that accomplish this. I have heard of remarkable schools such as Lumiar schools
 2

and Sudbury schools, and would like to learn more about their pedagogy and, if possible, observe

them directly.

Elliot W. Eisner, "Educational Objectives: Help or Hindrance?"

Eisner writes a cogent criticism of blind faith in educational objectives, also known as

curriculum. His first point is that the "amount, type and quality" of learning that takes place in

classrooms is always unpredictable, especially when there is stduent interaction. Next, he points

out that not all subject matter is amenable to measurement, particularly the creative subjects,

such as art and creative writing. Additionally, he comments that "what is most educationally

valuable is the development of that mode of curiosity, inventiveness, and insight that is capable

of being described only in metaphoric or poetic terms" (111); that is, the most important

outcomes of education are human qualities that cannot be measured. I wonder what Eisner would

have to say about today's Common Core State Standards, which have been adopted in many

states across the country. I have heard many in education praise the new standards for

encouraging collaboration between students and even freeing the teacher to approach a particular

subject as she sees fit, in contrast to the scripted curriculum of earlier years. Would Eisner say

that the CCSS assess the creative subjects in an acceptable way?

Paulo Freire, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"

Paulo Freire writes a philosophical treatise starting from the premise that within the word

are two dimensions: reflection and action. "To speak a true word is to transform the world"

(147). Thus, education, by virtue of its dialogical nature, must occur between two persons.

Education, being dialogue, is incompatible with oppression. "Dialogue cannot occur between

those who want to name the world and those who do not wish this naming between those who

deny other men the right to speak their word and those whose right to speak has been denied
 3

them. Those who have been denied their primordial right to speak their word must first reclaim

this right and prevent the continuation of this dehumanizing aggression" (147). In this way,

Freire introduces a social justice element to his discussion of education. In essence, Freire uses

this concept to justify a "relevant" curriculum co-created with the people. "The starting point for

organizing the program content of education or political action must be the present, existential,

concrete situation, reflecting the aspirations of the people" (151) I have found that University of

San Francisco does this quite effectively, with its emphasis on social justice at every level of the

university. Although I am not majoring in the Masters of Teaching for Social Justice per se, I do

feel quite prepared to work as an educator for social justice in my community. I recently attended

a lecture on the Hilltop Campus by lecturer David Stovall from the University of Chicago, who

specializes in critical race theory and spoke about his experience community organizing for

equitable public schools in Chicago. This was essentially his main point: that any action in

politics or education must be relevant to the actual situation of the people concerned.

Furthermore, Freire goes on to discuss the importance of deconstructing oppressive societal

systems in order to understand the other and for dialogue to take place. "In order to communicate

effectively, educator and politician must understand the structural conditions in which the

thought and language of the people are dialectically framed" (151). Again, USF is doing a good

job of preparing me in this field. Finally, I noticed several parallels between Freire and Parker

Palmer in the following areas. "We must realize that the aspirations, the motives, and the

objectives implicit in the meaningful thematics are human aspirations, motives, and objectives.

They do not exist 'out there' somewhere, as static entities; they are occurring" (153). Like Palmer,

Freire rejects the post-Enlightenment panacea of objectivism, and points out that all truths reside

in human beings.
 4

Maxine Greene, "Curriculum and Consciousness"

Greene writes a very abstract article on curriculum and consciousness, her main point

being that the individual, in our case the student, will only be in a position to learn when he is

committed to act upon his world (164). She makes a point that I disagree with: [The desire for

orientation in a changing, unfamiliar, disordered and uneasy world] is surely not satisfied when

the instructional situation is conceived to be, as G.K. Plochmann has written, one in which the

teacher is endeavoring with respect to his subject matter, to bring the understanding of the

learner in equality with his own understanding. Described in that fashion, with learner

conceived generically and the system to be taught as preexistent and objectively real, the

instructional situation seems to me to be one that alienates because of the way it ignores both

existential predicament and primordial consciousness (164). As if this werent a mouthful

existential predicament refers to the individuals curse to make sense of his world, while

primordial consciousness refers to an experience of systems before being aware of their

existenceI take issue with Greenes refutation of the objective reality of subject matter.

While perhaps Plochmanns statement reminds one of antiquated models of teaching and

learning, where the object is mediated by an experta form described and refuted by Parker

Palmerone cannot escape the reality of the subject matter, called the living subject by

Palmer, with which teacher and student alikeall called knowerscan enter into relationship.

Frankly, I see Greenes preoccupation with orientation as completely abstract and invented by the

human mind. Perhaps I am missing something, but this vision of teaching and learning seems

joyless and not rooted in anything objectively real.

Wayne Au, "High-Stakes Testing and Curriculum Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis"

 5

Wayne Au investigates the relationship between high-stakes testing and the development

or change in curriculum in a metastudy across dozens of classrooms all over the country. He

finds that in the presence of a high-stakes testing environment, there is a "narrowing of

curriculum," and "nontested subjects [are] increasingly excluded from curriculum content" (294).

Au's findings confirm the meaning of the phrase, "teaching to the test:"

Despite some researchers' claims to the contrary, the findings of this study suggest that

high-stakes tests encourage curricular alignment to the tests themselves.... The findings of

this study further suggest that the structure of the knowledge itself is also changed to

meet the test-based norms: Content is increasingly taught in isolated pieces and often

learned only within the context of the tests themselves. (296)

However, Au does find a surprising counterpoint to this trend. "The data suggest that in a small

number of cases, high-stakes testing was associated with an increase in student-centered

instruction, content integration, and subject matter expansion" (296). However, I posit that this

"association" may be coincidental, due to the rise of student-centered pedagogies and content

integration in education as a whole. The article appears to have been written in the later years of

the 2000s decade, prior to the adoption of the CCSS, which support these trendsbut

nonetheless, in certain areas, schools have already been adopting these, even as high-stakes

testing has been implemented. Thus, there may be a coincidental relationship or even a

correlation, but not a causation between these two events.

Elliot Eisner, What Does it Mean to Say a School is Doing Well?

Eisner offers a well-written, intriguing article on what he believes are the true measures

of a school's success. His measures take the form of questions, one of the first being: "What are

some of the deeper problems of schooling? One has to do with the quality of conversation in
 6

classrooms. We need to provide opportunities for youngsters and adolescents to engage in

challenging kinds of conversation, and we need to help them learn how to do so. Such

conversation is all too rare in schools" (329) In regards to this issue, I wonder whether Eisner

would be satisfied with the changes due to the CCSS, which emphasize discussion and

collaboration in the classroom? Furthermore, he asks: "What kinds of problems and activities do

students engage in? What kind of thinking do these activities invite? Are students encouraged to

wonder and to raise questions about what they have studied?" (331) These questions echoed the

concept of authentic assessment, or designing projects similar to situations students may face in

the real worldwhich is a concept that both has been emphasized in my teacher preparation

program, and resonates with me strongly. Next, Eisner asks: "Are students introduced to multiple

perspectives? Are they asked to provide multiple perspectives on an issue or a set of ideas?"

(331) Again, I wonder whether he would be satisfied with the progress made on this issue due to

the CCSS, which requires students to offer and examine multiple perspectives on every issue,

whether studying the experiences of marginalized groups in social studies, or debating different

ways to solve a math problem. One of the most intriguing sets of questions is the following.

What opportunities do students have to work cooperatively to address problems that they

believe to be important? Can we design schools so that we create communities of learners

who know how to work with one another? Can we design schools and classrooms in

which cooperating with others is part of what it means to be a student? Do students have

the opportunity to serve the community in ways that are not limited to their own personal

interests? Can we define a part of the school's role as establishing or helping students

establish projects in which they do something beyond their own self-interests?... To what

extent are students given the opportunity to work in depth in domains that relate to their
 7

aptitudes? Is personal talent cultivated? Can we arrange the time for youngsters to work

together on the basis of interest rather than on the basis of age grading? (332)

It is here that I am reminded of schools that are accomplishing this right now, such as Mission

High in San Francisco. I am inspired to learn about other schools that are actively teaching

cooperation, guiding students toward community service, and developing students' talents and

interests. Finally, I enjoyed one of Eisner's last questions: "Can those of us who teach think about

public education not only as the education of the public in the schools (i.e. our students), but also

as the education of the public outside of our schools (i.e. parents and community members)?"

(333) I can only answer an emphatic Yes! stemming from my experience coordinating religious

education at my church. It is necessary to educate parents and community members, because

family is often, if not usually, the main foundation in a child's life. It is certainly worth our while

to educate family and other community members in addition to our actual students.

William F. Pinar, The Reconceptualization of Curriculum Studies

Pinar describes the three subcategories of curricularists operating in 1977: the

traditionalists, the conceptual-empiricists, and the reconceptualists. Traditionalists are generally

field-based former school people, focused on conventional wisdom and the schools. They are

"less interested in basic research, in theory development, in related developments in allied fields,

than in a set of perceived realities of classrooms and school settings generally" (169). On the

other hand, conceptual-empiricists approach curriculum from a so-called objective, social

sciences standpoint. Lastly, the reconceptualists are also social scientists, but differ from the

conceptual-empiricists by virtue of their "value-laden perspective" with "politically

emancipatory content. That is, in contrast to the canon of traditional social science, ...a

reconceptualist tends to see research as an inescapably political as well as intellectual act" (172).
 8

To me, it seems that the reconceptualists are closest to the faculty at University of San Francisco,

where an emphasis on social justice characterizes my teacher education program. For example,

Pinar's explanation of the issue reconceptualists take with including bits and pieces of socially

relevant curriculum echoed articles we discussed in the class on "Teaching for Social Justice:"

That is why an elective or two on Marx in high school social studies classes, or the

teaching of autobiographical reflection in English classes, bring indifference and often

alarm to most reconceptualists. That "plugging into," "co-opting" it was termed in the

1960s during the student protests, accepts the social order as it is. What is necessary is a

fundamental reconceptualization of what curriculum is, how it functions, and how it

might function in emancipatory ways. It is this commitment to a comprehensive critique

and theory development that distinguishes the reconceptualist phenomenon. (173)

Now, 40 years after this article was written, some progress has been made. The CCSS emphasize

inclusion of multicultural perspectives, but there is still much more progress to be made. In

particular, advocates for the LGBT community call for inclusion of relevant studies into school

curriculum. I wonder what our next steps are in California to ensure equity in our schools'

curricula: should the so-called Western canon, including history and literature in particular, be

dropped entirely, or should it be kept and taught alongside myriad other perspectives?

To me, there are only three options when faced with the knowledge that "what is

necessary, in part, is fundamental structural change in the culture:" one can conform, escape, or

transform the dominant culture (173). In the 1970s, reconceptualists did not seem to have a

viable alternative to "plugging into the extant order." This is one of the main differences between

then and now. Rather than opt out and focus on private schools, or conform to oppressive cultural

and social structures, social justice advocates, especially scholars of critical race theory, work
 9

tirelessly to transform the social order. To me, this is the best (and perhaps only true) option to

someone who sees the problem and has a conscience for those most affected by it, which is

students in our public schools.

Finally, I would like to note the change in thought governing research-based practices.

Today, incorporating research-based practices is a given for any educator in the public system; it

is taught explicitly to pre-service teachers. Yet 40 years ago, the situation was much different:

"There remains, of course, the notion that research has implications for classroom practice, but it

is usually claimed that many years of extensive research are necessary before significant

implications can be obtained" (170).

Elaine Chan, "Teacher Experiences of Culture in the Curriculum"

Chan's intriguing article discusses the ethics of imposing one's values as a teacher or a

school on students whose parents espouse conflicting values, through an examination of an

overnight school field trip taking place through a public school in Toronto. Almost a third of the

students involved were not allowed to come, due to family restrictions or responsibilities, such as

working in a store, acting as a translator, picking up younger siblings, or beliefs about the

unsuitability of overnight trips for girls. Surprisingly for Chan, most of these students were

content with their parents' decisions to keep them back from the trip. One of Chan's colleagues

suggested that, "perhaps the sense of self-esteem gained from contributing in more important

ways to the well-being of the family contributed to their sense of identity in a more significant

way than the freedom to take part in a school trip" (352). The central question of the article is,

"What are the ethics of introducing beliefs and ideas, and engaging students to support these

perspectives, when their parents would be opposed to them?" (354).

 10

This same question pervades the school context here in Northern California, about

thirteen years after this article was written. Specifically, a heated issue is teaching about people

who identify as genderqueer. Personally, I believe that the rights and roles of parents to raise

their children should be respected first and foremost. This is because children are required to go

to school until a certain age by law, and so it would be unethical to educate children in a set of

values that is opposed to those espoused in their family. As a philosophical basis for this

argument, I believe it is worth mentioning that public schools are an agency of the state

government, and just as the Enlightenment philosophers wrote four hundred years ago, so the

social contract mandates that schools act in the interests of citizens. However, Chan highlights

the complexity of the issue by pointing out that,

While it may be perceived as "culturally-sensitive" to accommodate for the parents'

wishes, it may also be perceived as culturally-sensitive to raise the awareness of the

students involved by highlighting and addressing the differences in perspective. This

approach might be likened to Ali's (2004) argument for the importance of acknowledging

potentially sensitive issues by raising them such that they may be explored and discussed.

(357)

As such, I agree with Ali, because it seems to me that the most ethical option is to teach children

about certain controversial issues, without forcing them to adopt a values stance one way or the

other.
 11

References

1. Flinders, D. J., & Thornton, S. J. (2004). The Curriculum Studies Reader. New York, NY:

Routledge.