A couple things caught my attention last class. A few were on topic and a few are kind of following a tangent that may (or may not) be clearly aligned with the topics of EDUB 7560.
Lana’s discussion question of “Are we analyzing curriculum too much?”
The discussion of to who (or what) do people pledge allegiance in different countries?
Are we analyzing curriculum too much?
I guess my first question for Lana (and the rest of you) would be “who are you defining as we?” If you are placing only traditional classroom teachers in that group of “we” then I agree, classroom teachers, especially those in survival mode or in the first few years of teaching, don’t have the time or energy left to engage in the philosophical questions of the Null curriculum. Their days are full enough with prep, extra-curricular activities, making connections with students (for isn’t that the purpose of teaching?…but that’s for another post), and marking stack of papers.
However, if the “we” referred to above is meant to include us, a group of educators who have made the decision to study curriculum at a higher level, then I believe it IS our responsibility to contemplate these questions. If not us, then who else? By joining the program are we not committing (or at least attempting) to consider these tough questions, propose solutions, research answers, and make strive to make changes to the inadequacies of the system?
Pledging Allegiance to the _____________.
I found the discussion about Discover Canada quite interesting. It was odd that much of what the creators of Discover Canada deemed important a group of graduate level thinkers didn’t know. Perhaps they should poll Canadians to gather what information they feel is most important for inclusion. This would at least give the new Canadians more knowledge that is in line with current Canadian thought.
I also found it odd that an immigrant applying for citizenship of a country needs to recite an Oath or Pledge of Allegiance but a born and raised citizen never needs to recite anything. Do any other countries make children of a certain age recite a pledge or oath? How many Canadians right now would feel comfortable reciting the oath? Should Canada integrate a citizenship program into elementary school? Middle school? High school? Or does the provincial curriculum documents effectively 'citizenize' us already?
On the same train of thought (but slightly less on topic) I’ve always hated it when I hear US Presidents say “we must return to the ideas and values of our founding forefathers.” Why? Who made them God? Were those not the same people that legalized slavery? Why does everyone think that they had it all figured out? Just a thought………..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I will answer my question of "we".....It's a bit abstract, but bear with me.... The people in our province that make curriculum documents are a collaboration (atleast as far as I know) of teachers, government employees, specialists, consultants, "experts" of the field. So, should we as the general public not acknowledge and respect their decisions? Surely, they sat around just like we did in class and discussed null curriculum and probably had many debates about what and how and why certain things be published in these documents. I am just suggesting that these groups must be intelligent enough to think about what we were just discussing in class. Like the document I read, we can't decide what has been left out until we understand the intentions. Perhaps if we had listened in on those meetings of curriculum designers/makers, we would understand why various aspects were left out. I think if "we" as a class sat down and made a curriculum document and tried as hard as possible to make the "perfect one", we would take the criticism a little harshly considering the people that are criticizing us weren't around to hear our discussions. I don't think curriculum documents are made in a one hour session and we should trust our fellow colleagues and their judgement sometimes. (It's kind of like the government, we constantly criticize them, but we don't know what issues they discuss behind close doors. They probably talk about everything they are critiques on, but have logical reasons not to act on it.)
ReplyDeleteRyan, I liked your questions you posed about the oath. My own personal answer for "How many Canadians right now would feel comfortable reciting the oath?" would be "probably not". Not that I have anything against the Queen, I just don't believe in "worshiping" people - only God. In Discover Canada, under the Oath, it says "we profess our loyalty to a person". When I read that it caught me off guard. I though, "What? We do?" I also wondered how many people know this. But it's probably not as big of a deal as I'm making it out to be. I think maybe it's the wording that I disagree with.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your question about why new citizens have to know the oath, but most Canadian-born citizens have neaver even heard it! Interesting!
As for what is left out of the curriculum, I think one of the problems is that times are always changing...and fast. When you think about all of the changes that affect our lives in the span of even just one year, and compare that with how often a new curriculum is written, there is a huge difference! So maybe a curriculum seems to be including important aspects of life when it is written, but maybe two years later some of the content (or what is left out) might not be as appropriate. Just a thought.
Lana....i agree completely. In my discussion i was placing "us" in the same category as the people that were involved in the collaborative effort to create the curriculum documents. That is, assuming that someday soon some of us may actually be doing that. You are right, i think day to day teacher need not lose sleep over the null curriculum....it is people's jobs to research, worry, and finally decide what is important and what isn't. Perhaps some of us may be those people some day!
ReplyDeleteHey Ryan, I was just reading Lana's blog and I saw your questions about citizenship in your posted comment. Once someone arrives in Canada, they have to reside here for at least 3 years before they are eligible to apply for citizenship and take the test. However, I don't believe applying for citizenship is mandatory. From what I understand, individuals who have resided in Canada for at least 3 years can either choose to apply for citizenship, or continue to reside here with a permanent resident visa, provided they continue to extend it when it nears expiry.
ReplyDeleteThanks Chelsea...that certainly clarifies why Discover Canada seems to have no "survival tips." If people have been living in Canada for a minimum of 3 years then they have probably figured out how ot survive (ie, transportation, time zones, banking procedures etc).
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming (hoping)that Canada has other social programs in place to support immigrants. It shouldn't be necessary to include that information in a citizenship test.
Hey ryan...good point on the "us"...more people need to challenge in a constructive way what happens in our schools...informed teachers with a critical appreciation for the concepts of curriculum are important...i was laso certainly too busy keeping myself from drowning at various parts of my career to not really give it a lot of thought...in the latter part of my career i was lucky to have great colleagues and we would often discuss curriculum issues...not sure where that thought is going but wherever you work you will probably find people such as yourself that are interested in promoting a dialogue about issues such as we discuss
ReplyDelete