As I read and watched the material for this first
lesson, I was keeping in mind the main questions of what is curriculum and what
is its purpose. As a definite "Type
A" personality I love structure, tradition, and curriculum, but despite my
traditionalist viewpoint I am also an advocate of modern instruction and
classroom teaching that goes beyond the textbook. I often find that these aspects of my normal
personality and the teacher I strive to be are in constant conflict. But is it the field of education itself that
is the conflict or is it me? If asked to
list characteristics that describe who I am as a person you would find the
words traditionalist and realist. These
large pieces of who I am often come into conflict with my profession as an
educator where the words idealism and theory run rampant. I often wonder if I am alone in this constant
tug of war because of my own personality traits or is it the profession itself
that can’t make up its mind.
In the
Otterman article, the question of the purpose of curriculum was brought up with
the issue of severely cognitively impaired students, inclusion, and curriculum. Again, I have conflicting views of this
issue. The educator side of my brain
says that inclusion is an educational method that provides all children equal
opportunities to learn and grow in an educational setting. In theory, ideally, a severely cognitively
impaired student in a general education classroom could still gain valuable
social and functional skills for life beyond school. At the same time, the practical and realist
side of me believes that time may be better spent for a child such as Donovan
from the article in teaching them more functional daily life skills rather than
the causes of the Civil War. Evidence
that Donovan’s inclusion is not working is seen in the fact that the young man has
learned virtually nothing in the 15 years through the public education system;
a fact that is both upsetting but yet not shocking.
The
Ken Robinson video brought up the topic of creativity in schools and in
curriculum. This topic, while it seems
like a no-brainer, is also full of conflicting viewpoints. While most educators understand the
importance of creativity in the classroom and the value of exploration in the arts
in theory, there are real world factors to consider. State mandated curriculum, lack of resources,
as well as a need for structure in the school setting can sometimes stifle creative
freedoms. As a teacher who values moving
beyond the textbook, I know that I have spent countless hours putting together creative
lesson plans, only to have them fail miserably in actual practice. There is a need for creative thinking and
exploring while at the same time, teachers are held accountable for student
test scores on curriculum content.
John
Dewey’s writing brought up a lot about how education is full of theory and that
we can often find a great deal of things that are wrong with institutions such
as education, but being able to figure out how to fix them is the problem. No one has all the answers and most of
educational ideas are theory. This is
the hard part for me in education.
Educators are constantly being asked to tackle new and exciting
theories/ideas about how we should teach in our classrooms and run our
buildings, yet the theories change from year to year. Nothing has time to get put into place or
become solid structures before we are changing their shape. As a traditionalist I have trouble with
implementing a new idea that will become “the wrong way to do things” merely
five minutes after I try it out.
The
final Schubert article made perfect sense with the entire idea of my blog
post. He asked the question of do we, as
educators, have to choose one side of the argument or the other; progressive
education versus traditional education?
This is exactly my dilemma. John
Dewey said not to choose a side and to continue on without a direct path, but
this strategy goes directly against my Type “A” personality where I must have a
path to follow. Floating along between
paths causes great internal conflict.
That is where I am as a professional.
I am part progressive educator and part traditional educator, and I am
not sure that it is only me that is conflicted; I think it may just be the profession
itself and although it sometimes frustrates me personally because I consider
education today so unstable, having such a malleable profession is a large part
of what keeps me intrigued, on my toes, and prevents me from getting bored each
day.
