“Conservative Modernization” v. “Postmodern Curriculum Development” & Currere
I imagine a dialogue between Apple & Slattery would entail an explanation of their beliefs followed by some conversation about the differences between the two. If this factitious dialogue were to occur I believe it would be exciting to be a spectator because they are both so dedicated to their beliefs concerning educational policy. Please find some highlights below:
Michael W. Apple would begin his explanation citing that the educational policies that are promoted by a merger of rightist groups, also known as the forces of “conservative modernization”, have successfully convinced Americans that we can improve our schools by opening them to the free market. Throughout this movement toward marketization we are provided with a new means of evaluating schools: schools becoming factories whose aim is producing ONLY increased test scores. In other words, a student’s worth can only be based on testing. This movement necessitates an alliance of strong state models of accountability, standardized testing, and marketization.
The No Child Left Behind passed by the Bush’s administration, seems to accurately describe how the forces of conservative modernization enact their agendas. Apple questions does this agenda aim to fix the current problems? It is not coincidence that the four basic principles of NCLB align with the agendas of the four main groups, neoliberals, neoconservatives, authoritarian populists & the managerial/new professional middle class, responsible for the conservative modernization. This act specified reforms to please each of these groups, assisting all of them strengthen their rightist agendas. The NCLB Act should add to its title: NCLB except those who were historically and continue to be disadvantaged. It must also be noted that “conservative modernization” may have great intensions, however falls short in our unequal society.
Patrick Slattery would obviously have a differing opinion focusing on postmodern curriculum development and currere. Slattery prefers to speak to the disconnect between personal history and education. Slattery states that, “postmodern curriculum development today investigates narratives that will develop student-centered connections for long-term memory and individual enhancement.”
Traditional curriculum development programs have been devoted to organized goals, measurable objectives and assessment. Slattery’s perspective of education says we should not be focused on the functionality of students once finished with the educational system, but rather as an interdependent group of citizens. Slattery’s view does not look at the educational system as a factory, but rather an autobiographical and phenomenological experience. In addition, postmodern development, the method of currere, should challenge teachers to begin with their individual experience and interconnectedness of all experiences.
BUTLER BLOG
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Blog #4: Chapter 2 Our Introduction to Slattery...
Currently in my Regular Education classes I am teaching about the election of 1800 and my advanced classes are studying the War of 1812. For the past two years we have utilized a textbook by Holt, called
As a social studies teacher, this chapter was really interesting to me in various ways. I find it difficult to embrace both authors, Apple & Slattery, idealistic views of education. Other difficulties I have are that sure I would love to take my kids to battle sites or where MLK was shot, but the state of Ohio has limited that by their implementation of state standards and high stakes testing. I did not enter the teaching profession to teach history as facts to be memorized, however in the "educational trends" have forced me to step away from the teachings of facts and mold a student's mind so they can pass that test.
Overall, I am having trouble understanding why we are reading perspectives on curriculum when we as teachers have no control over curriculum? State and now national governments have unfortunately done that for us. Therefore, shouldn't we be focusing on how to make the information relevant to students and using the standards given to us to find creative ways to present the information?
Slattery opens the chapter historical interpretation from two perspectives "one viewing it a progressive series of distinctly separate and chronological events on a time line and the other as a progressive experience of interrelated occasions, with the past and future embedded in the existential present reality." The "present reality" for middle school students is who fought when, what did she say about me, my boyfriend did this or that and the list goes on and on. Obviously not our reality.
I definitely agreed when Slattery brought up the destructive consequences when hegemonic structure dominate. At the high school, the school experiences are all organized about sports. IF they are failing your class the coach comes and pleads with you to raise his grade so he can play at the "big game" on Friday, even though he has a 7% in a class.
Slattery ends the chapter by saying "history of curriculum in the postmodern era must be recounted and understood from this autobiograplical perspective" and "our accountability must be to human person and not to tests and measures", sounds to me like its been a while since he has been in a classroom or a district meeting.
In Chapter 3, Slattery discussed the ideas of both autobiography and currere. I was unformilar to the concept of "currere", obviously as someone in education I know what curriculum. It was interesting to look at curriculum in a different form. I learned that currere means to run and describes it as over a racecourse. I feel that is a perfect explanation for education today (probably not the way he meant it) but with the birth of state standards/core standards, we are limited as teachers as are the students. In order to "properly" prepare as a teacher we must recognize that we need "make it through all the curriculum is taught in order to prepare for the state tests". Therefore, courses are merely snapshots of numerous topics, rather than allowing teachers to draw out many experiences from students in order for them to develop their autobiographies.
On a closing notes, I think Slattery is an "interesting" person. I will leave it at that :)
As a social studies teacher, this chapter was really interesting to me in various ways. I find it difficult to embrace both authors, Apple & Slattery, idealistic views of education. Other difficulties I have are that sure I would love to take my kids to battle sites or where MLK was shot, but the state of Ohio has limited that by their implementation of state standards and high stakes testing. I did not enter the teaching profession to teach history as facts to be memorized, however in the "educational trends" have forced me to step away from the teachings of facts and mold a student's mind so they can pass that test.
Overall, I am having trouble understanding why we are reading perspectives on curriculum when we as teachers have no control over curriculum? State and now national governments have unfortunately done that for us. Therefore, shouldn't we be focusing on how to make the information relevant to students and using the standards given to us to find creative ways to present the information?
Slattery opens the chapter historical interpretation from two perspectives "one viewing it a progressive series of distinctly separate and chronological events on a time line and the other as a progressive experience of interrelated occasions, with the past and future embedded in the existential present reality." The "present reality" for middle school students is who fought when, what did she say about me, my boyfriend did this or that and the list goes on and on. Obviously not our reality.
I definitely agreed when Slattery brought up the destructive consequences when hegemonic structure dominate. At the high school, the school experiences are all organized about sports. IF they are failing your class the coach comes and pleads with you to raise his grade so he can play at the "big game" on Friday, even though he has a 7% in a class.
Slattery ends the chapter by saying "history of curriculum in the postmodern era must be recounted and understood from this autobiograplical perspective" and "our accountability must be to human person and not to tests and measures", sounds to me like its been a while since he has been in a classroom or a district meeting.
In Chapter 3, Slattery discussed the ideas of both autobiography and currere. I was unformilar to the concept of "currere", obviously as someone in education I know what curriculum. It was interesting to look at curriculum in a different form. I learned that currere means to run and describes it as over a racecourse. I feel that is a perfect explanation for education today (probably not the way he meant it) but with the birth of state standards/core standards, we are limited as teachers as are the students. In order to "properly" prepare as a teacher we must recognize that we need "make it through all the curriculum is taught in order to prepare for the state tests". Therefore, courses are merely snapshots of numerous topics, rather than allowing teachers to draw out many experiences from students in order for them to develop their autobiographies.
On a closing notes, I think Slattery is an "interesting" person. I will leave it at that :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)