Response to Eisner "What is meant by 'curriculum'?"

(1) The first place I paused in this article related to the claim that most people will not have jobs in their lives that will be intrinsically interesting or provide the intrinsic motivation required to participate in that activity (pp. 90-91). If I'm honest, I share(-d?) that belief in some capacity. In reconsidering this belief, I do think that there is some truth to it. There are many jobs that people just do because they need money. And these jobs do not (in themselves) foster a rich, intellectual experience. However, I got sad when Eisner claimed that school prepares people for this experience. That I didn't/don't want to believe. While I can see that the schooling experience can privilege delayed gratification, it saddens me to think that all of a student's learning experiences are extrinsically motivated. Maybe this is because I enjoy learning and think that this stuff can be fun; however, it is unfair and a bit arrogant to presume that my liking something is grounds enough for other people to like something too.

As a teacher candidate, this idea encourages me to build on an idea from our assessment class. How can I use assessment to motivate students? I would like to explore this idea more and learn how to motivate students in an effective, authentic, non-star-chart way. (Or whether I can even do that!).

Also, I cannot help but wonder how technology can/will/does affect the content of this claim. More and more jobs that can get automated do seem to get automated. However, they are not automated out of respect for human flourishing (I presume it's a money thing). Maybe this should be a good motivator for teachers and teacher candidates to adapt the learning experience. I am not sure how that might look or what it should look like; however, I cannot help but think that this is an opportunity -- an invitation? -- to reprioritize student experience in their 12,000 hours of state-mandated education.

(2) The next place I stopped was when Eisner concluded that "the cultivation of imagination is not a utopian aspiration." (p. 100). This, I feel, is given a lot more attention now -- and in some cases, I grant, lip service -- than it might have in the past. Nonetheless, this is an area where I feel that growth has been made in formalised schooling.

A few examples have made me think that imagination and cross-hemisphere activities are taking place. This might look like mandatory music lessons in schools or mandatory design classes in middle school (this was the case in some Australian independent middle schools as well as the school where I had my first school visit). What used to be considered electives, these schools do claim to find value in them and force students to engage in these activities. (And, yes, it might be worth noting that in making it mandatory that other values are being taught.) Furthermore, I look at the MYP framework and its interdisciplinary units. These units are designed to promote creative thinking and synthesise information from seemingly different areas.

This second stop actually leads me into my response about how the BC curriculum connects with Eisner's ideas. First of all, yes, schools teach all sorts of things: said, unsaid, and intentionally unsaid. The local curriculum does not (cannot?) escape those features. Not only is the curriculum considered what we explicitly teach content-wise in our classrooms, the curriculum also enforces cultural and behavioural expectations (the 'hidden' and 'null' curricula). As Eisner mentioned in the article, not all of these things are bad. But it is important to be aware of them and that they exist. This means that Curriculum is much broader than might have been anticipated. 

This connects to the BC curriculum in a few other ways. One, schools have their unique cultures. This can have varying effects. In one instance, I've operated in a school culture that is demanding, where students border on disrespectful. In another, I've operated in a school culture that is demanding yet supportive. Each place has its own culture and, I might argue, varying aspects of its own curriculum. (They all had schedules and mandatory classes and the like, so those are similarities.) Secondly, the primacy in the BC curriculum of the curricular competencies wants to speak to some of Eisner's ideas. The explicit curriculum is requiring students to develop thinking skills and engage in activities that explore place, stories, and First People practices. These seem like attempts to shift the focus (or broaden the focus) from the what of learning to how these ideas are expressed and practiced.