At a recent Curriculum Coaches’ meeting I was asked, “Why do teachers tend to associate the word curriculum with a teacher manual?” After spending the last several years on the other side on the interview table, asking potential teachers about the ways in which they teach curriculum to elementary aged students, I continue to be amazed that the words curriculum and teacher manual are used interchangeably! I have noticed this not only with prospective teacher candidates, but also with my fellow colleagues who have been in this profession for years. Personally, I feel the term curriculum entails an extensive and limitless quantity of ideas, which may be difficult to define within a simple dictionary definition. It is a much more complicated and complex notion. Is the root of the confusion amongst teachers? How did it come to be that “curriculum” is often found in teacher guide?
As an early elementary teacher, I quickly learned that “curriculum” could not always be found in teaching guides or manuals. My teacher edition of Saxon Math doesn’t tell me how to teach a child that refuses to participate in my math lesson, except for his occasional inappropriate outbursts. I am almost positive that the teacher manual for Harcourt Brace doesn’t address what to do with children that tease other children for their limited reading abilities. Even though social skills in a school setting may not be a mandated “curriculum” from the state, it is an especially real concept that is taught during school hours. Additionally, according to the Common Core Standards, which 45 out of the 50 states have adopted, instruct teachers on which English Language Arts and Mathematical Standards to teach students according to grade level, yet it seems to be missing a plethora of “curriculum” concepts, besides academics, that undoubtedly need to be addressed between the school hours of eight and three!
Where are the standards for self-help abilities, social skills, or even proper conversational skills? As a first grade teacher, I am mandated to teach seven year olds to “compare and contrast the adventures and experiences of characters in stories,” yet they can’t put their own pants on the correct way let alone politely ask for help. Are we limiting “curriculum” to strictly academic concepts? Is it unimportant to wear your pants the correct way? According to research, “The extent to which children and adolescents possess good social skills can influence their academic performance, behavior, social and family relationships, and involvement in extracurricular activities.” If this statement is true, why are we only focusing on academic-based curriculum found in a teacher manual?
This brings me to Donovan! What is important for Donovan and other students with severe disabilities to learn in an educational setting? According to Donovan’s mother, Michelle Ford, her son should “spend more time working on his practical challenges, like his self-abusive habit of hitting himself in the face…” As an educator, I tend to agree with Donovan’s mother. Donovan needs to learn skills that will assist him with his own self-improvement and growth. Time spent on working towards minimizing self-abuse will meet this goal. How about teaching coin identification? Should her son’s teachers even be required to teach him how to identify coins when it is known that he will never use this skill? Identifying coins just may be a waste of time in this situation. Just as important as identifying an individualized “curriculum,” the school and Donovan’s mother need to work together in order to best meet the student’s needs. Personally, I believe that this applies to most students. “It takes a village to raise a child” and even more so to educate a child based on specific needs.
Noddings wrote, “To provide an equal quality of education for all of our children does not require identical education for all.” In the case of Donovan, I found this to be obviously accurate. However, this statement led me to consider the curriculum for my typical developing students. As a society, we should realize that one size does not fit all, yet teaching is almost a one size fits all concept. Hmm? Is “liberal education an inappropriate ideal for general education…?” Should students receive an education that meets their specific needs, capabilities, and interests? I once read On Being a Teacher by Jonathan Kozol. It encouraged me not only to open my mind to issues that I haven’t spent much time considering, but also to rethink my own personal judgments of our education system that I have acquired over the years. Specifically, Kozol’s chapter entitled “Secret Records,” surely sparked my interest. Initially, I thought that Kozol seemed a bit paranoid about the danger of students’ cumulative files. He writes, “It grants a great deal too much power to a small number of people to affect the present lives and future hopes of far too many” (44). But after reading this section, I begin to think about the documentary, Waiting for Superman. Both On Being a Teacher and Waiting for Superman addressed the issue of students’ cumulative files and how the files are used to track students and determine their educational futures. I am not sure if I have been naïve or ignorant about this subject because I teach at the lower elementary level, but this book definitely opened my eyes and questioned our education system. Should we rethink the “curriculum” within our school systems? My answer is absolutely! There are numerous deficiencies with the curriculum that we utilize in this country. However, I will be the first to admit . . . I do not have a solution!
