Cycle 1: What is Curriculum? What is its Purpose?

Reading about Donovan was very difficult for me. I used to really not think much about curriculum, schooling, or even education in general. I had a vague idea that someday, I would probably have kids, and they would attend whatever the local public school was. That's what I did (though my parents probably looked at the schools when they bought their house, as they already had all 3 of their children), and I turned out fine. But then I began my MAED, and the more I learned, the more I realized: I hate the current system.

It seems completely out of whack, to me, that it is not educators, parents, or even the students themselves who are deciding what they should learn, but lawmakers. Sure, educators develop the specific curriculum, but it is lawmakers, through federal and state learning standards, legislation like No Child Left Behind, and standardized tests, that are determining what each and every child should learn. As if all children are the same, or should be the same.

Reading about Donovan was just one more brick to add to my argument for individualized instruction. And I don't mean the “individual education plans” that my local public school uses. In those IEP's, they slightly modify the curriculum that all the children go through, so that a student can be something approximating successful. No, I mean that every child should be learning what they actually need and want to learn, rather than what a lawmaker has decided.

If I were Donovan's mother, and had all the money I needed to do this (I realize this is hardly ever the case, but one must start somewhere, and where better than the ideal?), I would begin by never putting Donovan in public school. At least, not at first. I would hire a specialist to work with Donovan one on one, if I was unable to do it myself. We would work on mastering the simplist of skills. Skills that Donovan would need to get through life. How to push a specific button when he needed something. Perhaps one for changing (or later, maybe even bathroom?), one for food, one for drink, a panic button for emergencies, maybe a button for sleeping. Of course, not all the buttons would be able to be learned at once, but those would be the first set of goals.

At the same time, Donovan would get at least twice daily therapy. Physical therapy, to help him gain control of his movements, music therapy, to try to connect to his brain, and art, to let him color, and hopefully create another kind of connection.  For example, this art and music lesson might be a good one for a child like Donovan.  Of course, it would have to be modified, but he would be able to listen to the music, close his eyes (even if they were open, with his impaired vision, it might not matter), and draw what the music sounds like to him.  No, he wouldn't be able to do the final steps, but just actually doing something would be beneficial, and at some point, some neural connections would be created.

Having stated that I think that Donovan did not belong in a public school setting, I find myself perhaps changing my mind, due to this article.   "[Online Learning] does not prepare a person with a disability to go out into the world, and it does not help persons without disabilities to recognize the presence and contributions of those who may look, think, or act differently from them," (KosAbility: Vouchers, Parental Choice, and Students with Disabilities; Deejay Lyn).  While the author does concede that online learning frees a child with disabilities from being bullied, it doesn't prepare them to cope with that behavior for the rest of their lives.  Yes, children bully other children, but they learn that behavior from the adults in their lives, which means that adults bully other adults.  And isn't it far better to learn how to deal with hurtful behavior from others, when you are safe at home, in your parents' care, than "out in the world"?  Yes, a child like Donovan will never be able to be self-sufficient, but many children with disabilities will.

This is a tricky case, but ultimately, I think it comes down to being a balancing act.  How to teach a child like Donovan to interact with other human beings (group/public school setting) versus how to give him the resources and support he needs, which I really feel requires a one on one relationship.  It seemed like Donovan's school was working on this balance, by having an aide with him all of the time, but I am concerned about such an aide's qualifications.  Do they have an advanced degree in education?  A psychology degree? A degree or qualifications in physical therapy?  I think the likely answer is no, to all three, but it seems to me, that in order to be truly successful, Donovan's aide would need at least that many qualifications.

I can see the value in having a child like Donovan in a school setting: other kids and the teachers are providing stimulation that he can't receive at home. However, I really don't see the benefit in trying to teach him about seeds, fruit, and juice, if the teacher cannot even tell if Donovan even noticed. It seems to me, that first, Donovan must be taught to respond.

A case like Donovan's truly is a difficult one, and very sad. But making him go through the motions (or not) of learning academic content, just to provide parental hope? It doesn't make sense, to me. Certainly, if a child progresses and it can actually be determined when he or she notices something, efforts should be made to include some kind of academic content, with an emphasis on discovering the clues to when the child has grasped an idea. The school that Donovan was attending seemed to be heading in the right direction, but I think too little was done, too late.

Now, I'm not saying that a child should only learn academic content they will actually use later in life. For one thing, a child that actually knows what they want to be when they grow up (and not change their mind another dozen times), is very rare indeed. I was close to that, as a child. I spent my early years knowing I wanted to be a veterinarian when I grew up. In high school, I realized I preferred my animals alive and healthy, and decided I wanted to be a zookeeper. Today, I am a music teacher, but I have a small farm of chickens, ducks, goats, alpaca, my horse, some pet birds that live inside the house, and a couple of fishtanks. So while I'm not a veterinarian, I'm kind of like a zookeeper.

There were a lot of classes I took, that I really don't remember much from. I can't remember much of anything from calculus, I'm nearly clueless how to diagram a sentence, or identify the different kinds of sentences (volunteering in a 3^rd/4^th split class has taught me a lot of how much I don't remember), history is mostly a blank, and I don't remember how to multiply DNA in a sample of tissue. These are all skills or knowledge I learned in school, some very young, others as late as high school or college. But I haven't used them, so I have forgotten it. Does that mean that I should not have learned those things? Not necessarily. I know that I gained other skills from learning those things. Life skills, like writing, focusing, and how to learn. Could it have been more meaningful? I think so.

I have to agree a lot with Dewey, that education has to start with the child. It has to begin with their innate and developed interests and skills. If my teachers had let me learn about the history of music, or animal care, and slipped into this, the context of what was going on elsewhere in the world, I would likely have learned and retained a lot more. I would have cared. With my own students, they begin lessons because they want to play violin. We start with some very easy songs, but I like letting the students choose which ones they will play on any given lesson. Once they get near the end of their first book, they get to choose what kind of music they want to play. Often, they pick music from movies, or from pop culture, and this music is often much more difficult than the next song they would have played if they continued with classical music. But they are motivated to learn that song, so their playing ability soars through the roof as they learn to master complex rhythms, weird notes, and more complicated technique.

I see myself as a bit of a blend of the four curriculum traditions, as nearly every teacher does. I am like Dewey and the experientialists, in that I think education should begin with the child. I am like the intellectual traditionalist, in that I find great value in the classics. As a child, I always loved Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, and several other classic novels. When given a choice, I would often choose those. If my teachers had offered to teach me how to write using Sense and Sensibility, or diagram one of her sentences, I think I would have jumped at the opportunity. In college, I loved learning how to analyze chords using Bach's chorals, and someday, I might study Mozart's scores to learn how to compose. My children will definitely be encouraged to take on these classics, but I stray from the intellectual traditionalist, in that I will not force them on my children (or students).

I am like the social behaviorist, in that I find the skills of tomorrow very important for our students to be learning today. Children need to be taught what they will need to succeed in life; things like how to do laundry, cook, type, or garden. But most importantly, they need to know how to interact with others in a productive manner, including skills like interviewing, apologizing, and even proper email etiquette. Some of these things are taught in school, many should be taught at home, but oftentimes, they're not, and I see many adults that do not have these basic life skills. Rather than make these skills part of an implied curriculum, I think they should be explicit, like when schools offered home-ec.

The critical reconstructionist came as a surprise to me. I had thought that was when students were asked to create connections and big ideas between seemingly separate facts and skills, to reconstruct their knowledge. I had never heard of them being about activism and righting wrongs. I think this is important, and I see the need for it, but it's not my passion. It doesn't personally speak to me. Maybe it's because that I used to try to be an ecological activist, but I just got worn out. Instead, I've decided to focus more on my world. Perhaps it is selfish of me, but I find more value in focusing on my little farm, my husband, my learning, and eventually, my kids.

So, with a student like Donovan, as with any other student, it has to begin with the experientialist and social behaviorist. Begin with what Donovan is actually capable of, and teach him behaviors that will be essential all his life. From there, you can try to incorporate the great works or classics, even if only in the form of being read to, watching, or listening to. Eventually, it would be great to help Donovan to become an activist for people with disabilities; however, it seems unlikely that he would ever be able to get there. A high-functioning disabled person, like Temple Grandin or Helen Keller, can learn to become activists, as they both did.