Un-Standardizing Curriculum was originally published 20
years ago, a time when some districts began a conflicting series of order to
teach arts to the kids, while at the same time enforcing a fixed curriculum of
math and English. Social studies, gym, and others would have to be worked in
somehow. Both authors were classroom teachers, and both saw the results of
saddling the teachers with an impossible curriculum; the students lose all
motivation and classroom management becomes impossible.
In the first
chapter the authors discuss the benefits of a standardized curriculum and the
need to include the students’ identities. Judith Carmona says she was held back a grade when
she immigrated to the USA (a standard practice for non-English-speaking
students) and that none of the teachers spoke or understood Spanish. However,
thanks to her own efforts, she eventually got into a humanities program for
gifted students, where much of the learning was self-reflective. Christine
Sleeter, however, had it a little better growing up; her father was a doctor,
and her teachers encouraged the students to engage in greater discussions of
what they read. Now here was have the gap in learning; for some students, what
they learn at school means nothing at home, and it can be even harder to teach
low-income students and/or minorities. I also have to wonder if the
self-reflective seminar type of learning is any good students in Japan or China,
where learning is often done by rote.
In the second
chapter, the authors discuss the teacher’s belief about knowledge and how that
can either advance or hold back the learning. They give an example of a 4th
graders studying Native American mythology and customs (kind of like what I did
in 4th grade) which the teacher hopes will encourage balanced
understanding. She will assume that the students will gain respect for Native
American culture (and by culture, I mean the combination of religion, lore,
language, and economy) and help end racist views. But is she glossing things?
The students learn about the people, but what about the abuse they suffered? Do
they learn how the Anglos slaughtered the buffalo as a means to control the Sioux
and Blackfoot? Do they learn how the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Seminole were
forcibly relocated? Do they learn why the towns of Nassau and Suffolk counties
have Native American names, but the tribes are mysteriously no longer there? Do
they learn how the tribes of the Northeast were all murdered? In the end, the
teacher’s effort at cultural inclusion is more like “we’re so bloody nice
because we learn about it,” yet the students don’t know how bad the tribes have
it today.
After reading this
book, I have to wonder if the cultural biases can effect all subjects, not just
English and social studies. Mathematics is all about numbers, not people, but
what about the illustrations? If the math book for 3rd graders uses
photos of White children only, what does that tell the kids who are not? Will
they get the message that they don’t count? If it uses the example of mom and dad
+ three children = five people in the family, what does that mean to a kid with
only one parents? Even if you are racially inclusive, watch out for photos in
the illustration. How many kids in the photos are overweight, have braces,
crooked teeth, Down’s Syndrome, etc.
