Politics of Curriculum

Politics of Curriculum: Origins, Controversies, and Significance of Critical Perspectives
Authors: William F. Pinar and C.A. Bowers

This article offers excellent opportunities for personal and professional reflections. The implications of the research identified in the article are encased in the current movement to transition our classroom instructional strategies to a 21^st century context.

The constructivist approach to instruction answers the “critical perspective” of asking educators, as consumers of educational research, to critically analyze the research, its implications for instruction and most importantly, its implications for the student we are preparing for the 21^st century. Critically thinking teachers who believe in their personal efficacy are better able to create critical thinking students who can be 21^st century problem solvers. We need to create students who possess the skills to anticipate problems, analyze multiple solutions and apply their understandings in circumstances such as those generated in the ecological crisis.

The parallel hierarchy of schools and society support the need to create classroom environments which provide the learning student with more opportunities to control their own destiny. The statement “Alienated labor is reflected in the student’s lack of control over his or her education…” is evidenced each day in most classrooms. However, we need to question why the status quo is protected and why many of our educators take harbor in mediocrity. The identified textbook issue is one manifestation of this issue.

The author challenges the current educational system which functions to “…privilege certain sets and orders of knowledge over others.” As a profession, we extend the “Matthew Effect” sustaining instructional programs which reserve the more complex, thought provoking and challenging content for the most capable students and, as a result, expand the achievement gap for the students not evidencing the same level of academic success. Is the achievement level of our students a product of their learning or a product of our teaching?

The author discriminates between the official curriculum and the hidden curriculum. He even addresses the issue that those who challenge the status quo, through oppositional behavior, are referenced in psychological terms such as “disruptive” or “deviate.” How can we be a profession that promotes reflection, change, and best practice if the only students (and teachers) we define as successful are those who function successfully within the current system? By design, we protect the status quo, discouraging critical thinking by our students and our teachers. We have created a professional environment which respects mediocrity and challenges ingenuity. What would be the result if diary mapping, a strategy providing teachers with a systematic opportunity for identifying the divide between the written curriculum and the hidden curriculum, became the basis for professional reflection for change efforts?

There is a political piece of the curriculum puzzle, but classroom teachers can control their own acceptance of its influence. Changes at the classroom level, which embrace 21st century skills and are based in reflective practice hold the most promise for making necessary changes in our profession. We can prepare for the future, one student at a time.