I would like you to move into the political arena of curriculum and curriculum development. Part of your previous discussion on subjects has overlapped into this issue, but I would like you to explore the issue in a more focused manner.
To that end I have the following questions as prompts:
Which players or constituents of the school should control, dictate, or have input into the curriculum–the state (i.e., politicians and others at the state department), parents, administrators, teachers, students (now there’s a novel thought!), tax payers, business and industry, pressure groups, professional organizations?
How do we deal with the differential status among areas (subjects/grade levels/etc.)–academic and vocational; core and the arts; elementary, middle and high school; introductory levels and advanced levels?
How should curriculum respond to changing social needs? Or should it? Is or should curriculum be a constant (a perennialist notion), or a continually evolving expression of children and mileau (a progressive notion)?
I do not intend that each of these questions will be addressed by any of you–they are fodder for you to use as best you can. But I do want you to both state positions and perspectives and, as important as the first point, discuss or defend the underlying rationale or beliefs you have for that position.
As always, I look forward to reading your thoughts and perspectives!
Three separate interactions with colloquy questions
-initial post plus one response to colleague or response to others’