Page 409, Yesterday's Curriculum Today
"As for curriculum, the Councils of the Future, instead of
assuming that every subject taught today is taught for a reason,
should begin from the reverse premise: nothing should be included in a
required curriculum unless it can be strongly justified in terms of
the future. If this means scrapping a substantial part of the formal
curriculum, so be it.
This is not intended as an "anti-cultural" statement
or a plea for total destruction of the past. Nor does it suggest
that we can ignore such basics as reading, writing and math. What it
does mean is that tens of millions of children today are forced by
law to spend precious hours of their lives grinding away at material
whose future utility is highly questionable. (Nobody even claims it
has much present utility.) Should they spend as much time as they do
learning French, or Spanish or German? Are the hours spent on
English maximally useful? Should all students be required to study
algebra? Might they not benefit more from studying probability?
Logic? Computer programming? Philosophy? Aesthetics? Mass
communications?
Anyone who thinks the present curriculum makes sense is invited
to explain to an intelligent fourteen-year-old why algebra or French
or any other subject is essential for him. Adult answers are almost
always evasive. The reason is simple: the present curriculum is a
mindless holdover from the past.
Why, for example must teaching be organized around such fixed
disciplines as English, economics, mathematics, or biology? Why not
around stages of the human life cycle: a course on birth, childhood,
adolescence, marriage, career, retirement, death. Or around
contemporary social problems? Or around significant technologies of
the past and future? Or around countless other imaginable
alternatives?
The present curriculum and its division into air-tight
compartments is not based on any well thought out conception of
contemporary human needs. Still less is it based on any grasp of the
future, any understanding of what skills Johnny will require to live
in the hurricane's eye of change. It is based on inertia - and a
bloody clash of academic guilds, each bent on aggrandizing its
budget, pay scales and status.
This obsolete curriculum, furthermore, imposes standardization
on the elementary and secondary schools. Youngsters are given little
choice in determining what they wish to learn. Variations from
school to school are minimal. The curriculum is nailed into place by
the rigid entrance requirements of the colleges, which, in turn,
reflect the vocational and social requirements of a vanishing
society.
In fighting to update education, the prognostic cells of the
revolution must set themselves up as curriculum review boards.
Attempts by the present educational leadership to revise the physics
curriculum, or improve the methods for teaching English or math are
piecemeal at best. While it may be important to preserve aspects of
the present curriculum and to introduce changes gradually, we need
more than haphazard attempts to modernize. We need a systematic
approach to the whole problem.
These revolutionary review groups must not, however, set out to
design a single all-purpose, permanent new curriculum. Instead, they
must invent sets of temporary curricula - along with procedures for
evaluation and renovation as time goes by. There must be a
systematic way to make curricular changes without necessarily
triggering bloody intramural conflict each time.
A fight must also be waged to alter the balance between
standardization and variety in the curriculum. Diversity carried to
its extreme could produce a non-society in which the lack of common
frames of reference would make communication between people even more
difficult than it is today. Yet the dangers of social fragmentation
cannot be met by maintaining a highly homogenous education system
while the rest of the society races towards heterogenity.
One way to resolve the conflict between the need for variety and
the need for common reference points is to distinguish in education
between "data," as it were, and "skills."
No comments:
Post a Comment