Reflections on Eisner

Moments that made me think:

• If you are not careful with how you use external rewards, extrinsic motivation will replace intrinsic motivation
• How the traditional school system actually emphasizes comparisons and competition, in addition to reinforcing obedience and mindless routines: extrapolating from this, the industrial era public school is a hegemonic structure that aims to produce compliant students that will never achieve the level of organization necessary to rebel against the status quo
• The subjects offered, or not offered, at schools may have more to do with tradition and political interests than for actual "greater good"; the lack of offerings in law, for example.

So then, what is curriculum? On one hand, as educators, we would like to think that we have carefully distilled what absolutely must be passed along during compulsory education. On the other hand, is it merely a reflection of traditional biases and entrenched professional interests? Maybe, the real answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Indeed, I think the BC provincial curriculum does aim to address the objections raised by the author. There are offerings of philosophy and law under social studies now, for example, which negates the "null curriculum" problem. Self-advocacy and self-regulation are explicitly stated as a part of the core competencies. Speaking of relevancy for students, financial literacy has been hugely emphasized. However, I do not think that I can comment on issues pertaining to implicit curricula without having access to an actual timetable.