Individual Presentation or Panel Title

Disrupting the deficit model

Abstract

As curriculum graduate students have their eyes opened towards the possibilities of curriculum reform, they join the conversation against “inert ideas” (Whitehead, 1967, p. 13) and “the ways in which [schools] serve the interests of the corporate society rather than those of growing boys and girls” (Greene, 1978, p. 75). This dialogue has been long with many attempting to focus schooling back to a movement centred on children, however with more reliance on other faculties such as educational psychology, those devoted to curriculum studies begin to find themselves on the outside looking in.

Addressing student engagement or high school completion has fallen into the hands of educational psychology to address the deficits children apparently bring with them. Deficits that cause them disrupt their (and others) schooling experience. But what if it is the air we breathe in schools that is causing this disconnection and disruption? What if curricular outcomes are leaving “voids in educational programs that withhold from students ideas and skills that they might otherwise use” (Eisner, 1985, p. 378)?

The null curriculum or the experience of neglect becomes perpetually omitted in that by neglecting the role of the curriculum, its’ missing presence is solidified (Aoki, 2005). The blame has been removed from the ones who decide what to teach and is now borne by students’. Turning to a medical model to fix them, to ensure they sit in place with their minds forced open, we risk the conditions that ought to promote flourishing instead are artificial (Montessori, 2013).

References

Aoki, T. (2005). Spinning inspirited images. In Pinar, W.F. & Irwin, R.L. (Eds), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki. (pp. 413-423). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of Learning (1st ed.). New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Montessori, M (2013). A critical consideration of the new pedagogy in its relation to modern science. In Flinders,D.J. (Ed) The Curriculum Studies Reader, 4th ED (pp. 19 - 31). New York: Routledge.

Whitehead, A. N. (1967). The aims of education and other essays (1st ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group.

Presentation Description

There ought to be a return to curriculum theory to inform practice and the schooling experience for our children. Instead of using a medical model and a book filled with disorders, curriculum needs to return to the dialogue. It is time to rethink standards and outcomes and shift our focus on to the schooling experience with respect to the curriculum.

Keywords

curriculum; reform; null curriculum; high school completion; deficit models; flourishing; economic model; student experience;

Publication Type and Release Option

Event

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 

Disrupting the deficit model

As curriculum graduate students have their eyes opened towards the possibilities of curriculum reform, they join the conversation against “inert ideas” (Whitehead, 1967, p. 13) and “the ways in which [schools] serve the interests of the corporate society rather than those of growing boys and girls” (Greene, 1978, p. 75). This dialogue has been long with many attempting to focus schooling back to a movement centred on children, however with more reliance on other faculties such as educational psychology, those devoted to curriculum studies begin to find themselves on the outside looking in.

Addressing student engagement or high school completion has fallen into the hands of educational psychology to address the deficits children apparently bring with them. Deficits that cause them disrupt their (and others) schooling experience. But what if it is the air we breathe in schools that is causing this disconnection and disruption? What if curricular outcomes are leaving “voids in educational programs that withhold from students ideas and skills that they might otherwise use” (Eisner, 1985, p. 378)?

The null curriculum or the experience of neglect becomes perpetually omitted in that by neglecting the role of the curriculum, its’ missing presence is solidified (Aoki, 2005). The blame has been removed from the ones who decide what to teach and is now borne by students’. Turning to a medical model to fix them, to ensure they sit in place with their minds forced open, we risk the conditions that ought to promote flourishing instead are artificial (Montessori, 2013).

References

Aoki, T. (2005). Spinning inspirited images. In Pinar, W.F. & Irwin, R.L. (Eds), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki. (pp. 413-423). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of Learning (1st ed.). New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Montessori, M (2013). A critical consideration of the new pedagogy in its relation to modern science. In Flinders,D.J. (Ed) The Curriculum Studies Reader, 4th ED (pp. 19 - 31). New York: Routledge.

Whitehead, A. N. (1967). The aims of education and other essays (1st ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group.