Response to Eisner

    I really enjoyed this article. There were several 'stops' for me personally. For instance, early on in the article, with regards to children answering questions from their teachers, he says that "children compete for a place in the sun." Now that's pretty funny if you ask me, which may have been the intention, but also I wonder if maybe he was thinking about young elementary school students. Even then, there are definitely younger students who don't necessarily feel much gratification from answering questions correctly in class. And then high school students, who are much more skeptical of the school system, and who are definitely aware of both the null and implicit curriculum, they may feel even less enthusiastic about the school's reward systems. Having read the rest of the article, and then revisiting this thought, I believe you could categorize a student's lack-of-faith in the school system as an unintended consequence of implicit curriculum. That's not at all to say I think implicit curriculum should be "hidden" from public awareness. It might actually be pretty neat to teach high school students to be mindful of implicit curriculum and its effects (actually, such a class is a part of the null curriculum).

    Overall, I very much respect Eisner’s balanced take on these concepts. One analogy I found particularly apt was his analogy comparing the school system to a road created by a well-trod path. I think this not only highlights the utilitarian focus of schooling, but also the fact that the formulation of our school system is the result of generations of trying to meet the needs of the day, while also building on top of a pre-existing foundation. This is a helpful reminder for me personally as I can tend towards an attitude of “everything is broken and we need to start over.” It’s certainly important to consider the practicality involved in making any changes to such well-established institutions. As Eisner also points out, there are undoubtedly “real-world” benefits to how we organize and structure our schools, even if some of it seems outdated to me. And I can’t remember if he mentions it specifically, but he certainly hints at the fact there are both positive and negative implications inherent in any formulation of a school system. The concept of the null curriculum is perfect for illustrating how it is in fact impossible to have a school which isn’t lacking in one respect or another. That being said, we can certainly always do better. 

    Looking through the posted BC Curriculum overview, I was first reminded of how incredibly vague and non-committal these types of government documents can be. It’s like they’re just latching onto a handful of keywords, repeating them over again to appeal to some sense of conventional wisdom. Two such key words are “inquiry” and “competency.” I do think that the idea of inquiry-based curriculum is pretty well in line with the thoughts of Eisner, especially his point on educating kids about how to pursue and investigate their own interests. So that’s potentially a move in the right direction, but I also think that any mandated teaching philosophy is bound to run the risk of being abused and becoming a bit of a crutch. Competency-based curriculum on the other hand, to me sounds much more in line with a very traditional approach to school, which again has its pros and cons. 

    Truthfully, I feel as though there is much more to say about this article. And I wish I had the time and capacity to respond to more of it here. I will definitely be on the lookout for his book and would love to read the rest of it one of these days. On that note, it amazes me that people have been thinking so deeply about these issues for so long, especially in considering the dates of some of the publications cited by Eisner. For instance, in 1938, Lewis Mumford writes that “pervasive instrumentalism places a handicap upon vital reactions which cannot be closely tied to the machine” - I mean, that's just good stuff (it sounds like something the Bene Gesserit would say, and I wonder if Frank Herbert read much Mumford...). Again, I think the age of these publications speak to how the roots of our education system are quite deep, and substantial change takes substantial time and also probably a steadfast rejection of complacency. I think the ideas of explicit and null curricula essentially go hand-in-hand and are certainly worth thinking about. To me however, the implicit curriculum deserves more consideration, and I find myself particularly interested in how we might re-structure and re-organize our schools to realign the implicit curriculum with our educational goals.