Schiro (2008), holds that there are four schools of thought, or ideologies, that have developed in modern and historical educational pedagogy regarding the ultimate end goal of education: scholar academic ideology, social efficiency ideology, learner centered ideology and social reconstruction ideology. These four ideologies hold contrasting end goals of education.
Scholar academics believe that the end goal of education is to impart the accumulated, specialized knowledge of the academic disciplines to students. Within this school of thought, there is a hierarchy of academic experts (e.g., researchers), those who disseminate the findings of the academic experts (e.g., teachers) and those who learn the subject (e.g., students).This model is seen in both K-12 and higher education within community colleges and universities. (Schiro 2008)
In contrast, social efficiency theory holds that the end goal of education is to ensure that students become mature, fully functioning members of society. This model also contributes to curriculum development in K-12 programs (e.g., MiBLSi efforts), and often becomes the focus of education when students, especially those with cognitive disabilities, are seen as lacking the ability to succeed in higher education under a scholar academic model. (Schiro 2008)
Learner centered ideology is often seen in preschool curriculum models and some forms of non-traditional education (e.g., montessori schools). This model holds that students should grow and develop in accordance with their innate combination of strengths and weaknesses. This model contrasts with the previous two theories, in that it is not focused on imparting knowledge of a discipline nor with bettering the community as a whole; simply with benefitting the individual. (Schiro 2008)
Finally, social reconstruction ideology holds that the end goal of education is to repair society as a whole by refining our values and beliefs based on mistakes made previously by society. Subscribers to this theory hold that our current society is inherently flawed and will not survive unless our current difficulties are improved upon by education. (Schiro 2008)
It is impossible to state that any of these four models holds the key to education. Rather, I would argue that the end goal of education should incorporate tenants of each model. Ultimately, education should focus on strengthening both the weaknesses and strengths of the individual students in order to benefit the individual as well as society. Through this hybrid model, students should receive instruction in order to become as proficient as possible within each of the academic disciplines and they should also receive instruction that will benefit their social and emotional behaviors. It goes without saying that curriculum should be continually improved upon in order to avoid repeating the previous mistakes of society.
When discussing the end goals of curriculum, it behooves the consumer to consider who should have the authority to decide the curriculum content in public schools. Should parents have influence? Should administrators, teachers, academic scholars or politicians have the most influence? Additionally, who should have the final say to resolve disputes about controversies in curriculum?
Ultimately, I believe content decisions should be a combined effort. Currently, politicians are elected by parents, teachers and administrators and they are charged with the duty to represent the beliefs of the public. In an ideal world, these politicians could be trusted to represent their constituents with fidelity, and therefore develop curriculum with significant influence from the research findings of academic scholars. Although flawed, this seems to be the best way for the interests of all parties to be fairly represented.
Throughout history, and especially in recent times, there have been debates regarding the content of curriculum. Parents have most often challenged school districts regarding content that is seen as contrary to religious beliefs (e.g., evolution) or content that may have religious connotations (Stolzenberg 1993). Given that public education is provided by the government, the judicial system has been given the ultimate decision power. Judicial decisions are handed down after significant consideration of research and precedent. Provided that government officials do as they are charged and represent the beliefs and opinions of the majority of constituents with fidelity, this is the correct solution.
Even when curriculum decisions and disputes are resolved by impartial parties and conform to the interests of the majority, it is an impossible task for public education to conform to the beliefs of every family. Therefore, parents who do not agree with mainstream curriculum content decisions retain the right to withdraw their children from public education.
Sources:
Schiro, S. 2008. The Curriculum Ideologies. Curriculum Theory (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing).
Stolzenberg, N. 1993. He Drew a Circle that Shut Me Out. Harvard Law Review 106 (3): 581-667.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOkay, here's what I meant to say: I think Schiro shares your view that a complete curriculum will incorporate elements of each of the curricular ideologies. And that seems like the right view to me, too. But it does leave some of the most interesting or pressing questions unanswered. How should the various goals of the ideologies be balanced? If any of of them come into conflict, which one is more important? Say for instance that you are faced with a choice between cutting funding for a creative arts class or for an AP physics class (or vocational training class). Are some of the aims generally more important than others? Big questions!
Delete