Ct898 Olson 1a Artifact

Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper Educators choose this career for a variety of reasons, and with that variety of reasons comes a variety of opinions. No philosophy is wrong or right, as those are what make us individuals as educators. Each different teaching style and personal beliefs help shape our classroom and the different learning experiences students get through their educational career. Without these differences in beliefs education wouldn’t be fun and exciting. While my beliefs are different than those I work with, I respect them and their ideas and try to learn from what they’re doing and see what can help enhance my own work. As I finish this course I reflect back on what I’ve learned and how it’s helped to shape and define what my beliefs are in my classroom. The first paper that I wrote for this class, I compared the theorists John Dewey and Maria Montessori because I felt they were very similar in their ideals, but different in their approaches. I focused on the position each theorist placed on the learner, the teacher, and subject matter. Within both Dewey’s and Montessori’s theory of curriculum, they both position the learner as an individual, and within each individual is a “power”, or interest, that drives them. They both agree that these interests everyone possesses should be the focus of each individual’s education. While both theorists believe in the individual and the power within each, they don’t agree on what type of individual the learner is. Dewey believes that the individual is a social individual, one who has his own interests but needs to work and communicate with others to be successful. Montessori believes that the individual is a sole individual, one who is self-paced and works alone. Dewey believes that the teacher is a part of the learning experience and is there to observe the child’s interests and help guide them in understanding curriculum, connecting it back to their individual interests. “The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form

certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences” (Dewey, 2013). He believes that only through continual observation of these interests can a teacher truly see what the learner is ready for and what material the student could work most readily and fruitfully. In his theory the teacher still chooses the curriculum and what the learner works on, but bases it on the learner’s interests, that the interests observed will show the state of development the child has reached. Montessori believes that the child should not be pushed forward, but that the child’s interests drive the learning. She views the teacher as an observer, that children will learn and correct their own errors by teaching themselves. Both theorists view subject matter as being transferable and relatable through hands-on learning. “The true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, not literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child’s own social activities” (Dewey, 2013). Dewey believes that the child’s individual interests are what should connect and drive the learning. Montessori believes that children should learn by doing, that this empowers children to have skills which can be transferable through the learning process and their lives. Both theorists’ ideas on subject matter are present within schools today- project based learning, which is a reflection of John Dewey, and Montessori schools, which continue Maria Montessori’s beliefs. My understanding of each theorist and their method hasn’t changed since writing the first paper, as I understand the principles behind both. I continue to value the characteristics of student interests, real-world application, skills being transferable, and using critical thinking skills that both theorists characterize in their models, but I have a strong belief in the social aspect and the teacher as a guide that Dewey advocates. After continuing readings for this course and researching other theorists, I have a greater respect for Montessori and her ideas of the

students learning from their own mistakes. I think this skill is essential in a student’s learning, and I’m wondering how I can bring skills like this into my classroom. The second paper that I wrote during this course focused on an issue within curriculum. My biggest issue with curriculum was with the standards that I teach and the Prepared Graduate Competencies, which are “The preschool through twelfth-grade concepts and skills that all students who complete the Colorado education system must master to ensure their success in a postsecondary and workforce setting” (Colorado Department of Education, 2017). I noticed that the standards are not aligned through the vertical progression and that not all of the “required” concepts and skills are present across all grade levels. For example, the skill to “use language appropriate for purpose and audience” is present in grades preschool through fifth grade, and then doesn’t appear again until the eleventh grade. It suggests that this skill is not important or shouldn’t be touched upon in sixth through tenth grade or the last year before entering the “realworld”. In addition to the skills and concepts not being present within each grade level, the grade level expectation for each skill does not progress in a linear way. If the state has deemed these to be necessary skills and concepts for all ages in school that must be mastered before leaving, why are they not present in every grade level? “For the field to become vital and significant to American education it must nurture each ‘moment,’ it’s ‘internal dialectic.’ And it must strive for synthesis, for a series of perspectives on curriculum that are at once empirical, interpretative, critical, emancipatory” (Pinar, 2013). My beliefs and attitudes regarding curriculum alignment stem from my move out of the charter school and into public education, from a traditional setting into a student-centered setting. At the charter school we followed Core Knowledge Curriculum, which didn’t align to our state standards, and that was okay. Now that I’m in the public schools, we adhere to these state

standards. It’s difficult to follow these standards and create curriculum from them when they don’t align. Even though I had an extremely tiring and difficult year, I feel as if I came out as a better teacher. However, this is not always the outcome, and if this disconnect is hard on a teacher for planning purposes and effects the value of their teaching, imagine what this does to a student who switches schools during the year. The student would be behind and their education suffers while they try to play catch up and learn the previously taught content while trying to learn the new content in the classroom. I believe that education and curriculum should be a building block. What is taught in third grade should not be ignored in fourth grade, but should be built upon to continue the learning and further it for years to come. My stance on the curricular issue of standards has not changed. If anything, it has only gotten stronger in my continuation of this course and makes me wonder if standards could be changed or updated to reflect the changing times. “Learners are rarely given the opportunity to make sense and meaning of their own ‘life-worlds’ by examining their own experiences. Therefore, curriculum seems abstract and distant to learners” (Greene, 2013). Since students aren’t able to connect with the curriculum and teachers might not always be able to make sense of the standards, it might be one reason there is such a drastic gap in learning. If standards were more transferable and reflective of a skills application, it might be a start to closing some gaps. “There must be consistency across educational objectives, students’ learning experiences, and outcomes” (Tyler, 2013). Each individual has their own philosophy on education. I feel that if I were to write down my educational philosophy it would look a lot like John Dewey’s “My Pedagogical Creed”; a bullet-point list stating my beliefs on each aspect of education, including goals, standards, role of the teacher and learner, and ideal curriculum. I want to be flexible in my teaching, to use a

variety of curriculum theories so that I can meet the needs of all students. I believe that there needs to be a balance between teacher-led and student-led instruction. As much as I would love to have a fully immersed student-led classroom starting from day one, it’s not realistically possible. There has to be teacher-led instruction so the students have an idea of what is expected of them, a frame work, and they need to be taught certain new skills in each grade. I believe that the teacher should be a guide, a facilitator, in the student’s learning. I believe in a hands on approach to learning that centers around student choice. I believe that students should be empowered to have skills that are transferable through the learning process and life, that what is “most educationally valuable is the development of curiosity, inventiveness, and insight” (Eisner, 2013). I believe that students should be provided opportunities to express themselves in ways that utilize their critical thinking skills; that allowing this freedom enables student to create a growing intelligence and connect to the world. I believe that curriculum should be a flow, a continuation of itself every year. “Curriculum segments, parts, sequences are arbitrary chunks that, instead of being seen as isolated units, are seen as opportunities for reflection. In such a frame, every test, paper, journal entry, can be seen not merely as the completion of one project but also the beginning of anotherto explore, discuss, inquire into both ourselves as meaning makers and into the text in question” (Doll, 2013). I believe that if curriculum is to be truly valuable, there should be a range of depth and complexity to it. Having richness in curriculum, having layers, allows all students to have equal opportunities to learn the material. “One must continually be exploring, looking for different alternatives, relations, connections” (Doll, 2013). I believe that curriculum should be rigorous, that it should be challenging while promoting a commitment to explore. Rigor solidifies the richness of the curriculum and promotes relations. It’s the glue that holds a

curriculum together and makes it worthwhile. When rigor is removed from curriculum, it suggests that learning and discovery are unimportant. I believe that as the world changes, curriculum needs to change and move in a more horizontal construction, “speak to the manner in which diversifying perspectives are brought upon current day issues and concerns” (Hlebowitsh, 2013). Curriculum should be able to connect the “classics” to today’s world. I believe that objectives are beneficial for setting guidelines, but are a hindrance to learning. The instructional process is “dynamic and influenced by numerous outside factors like student interests, teachable moments, and personal interactions- these factors make setting measurable specific goals impossible” (Eisner, 2013). Not all desired outcomes are measurable, and nor should they be. Too much of the learning takes place as curriculum is presented and not all objectives can be known until instruction is completed. I believe that teachers, students, and education in general, should have a growth mindset, be open to change, and willing to explore new ideas together. The implementation of my beliefs has been an ongoing process. I am just starting my sixth year as a teacher, so some of my beliefs are still developing and some will change. At my second school, where I spent three years of my career, my beliefs were not valued. I was working in a charter school that followed a very strict Core Knowledge Curriculum, that based all professional development and data off test scores, and believed in a teacher-led classroom. In this environment I was not able to put theory to practice without being reprimanded by parents or administration. Having switched schools last school year, it’s now easier for me to put theory to practice because I have an administration that full-heartedly believes in me and my beliefs, and am teaching in a school that has similar beliefs that I do. While I am now in a school that has similar beliefs as myself, I had a really tough transition last year and struggled to adjust to this

new environment and break old routines and habits. I had spent the previous four years in a teacher-led classroom and was expected to switch to a student-led classroom, which I had never had experience with, while developing my own curriculum. As much as I thought I was changing and was moving towards a student-led classroom, it seemed as if my efforts never matched what was expected. Two months into the year I was asked to meet with an instructional coach to help me reach these goals. When we returned back from winter break it all began to click and I felt, reinforced by my evaluator, as if huge improvements were made. The district in which I work has all staff and students take an Emergenetics Profile. This profile shows you where you put your most energy and where your behavioral preferences lie. When I took the test last year my results came back as being 46% structural. Looking back, I can now see why this environment was so hard for me to adjust to, even if I believed in its benefits. I want students to have a say in their learning and make it important to themselves, so as a result of my beliefs and the work I accomplished last year, I’m continuing those efforts through the goals I set for myself each school year. This year my goal is to continue working towards a less teacher-centered classroom and more student-centered one. In addition to that, I would like to work more on collaborating with students on the development and creation of assessments outcomes. I’ve already started to continue the work I did last year and expand on it this year by having students help create classroom rules, help create what they wish their rubrics to look like, have choice in the materials presented, and choose their own learning goals. I feel through these efforts I will continue to expand on my learning while helping students develop skills. “Becoming open to another genre of work does not mean loss of one’s capacity for critical reflection. Nor does it mean, necessarily, loss of intellectual identity” (Pinar, 2013).

References Colorado Department of Education (2017). Reading, Writing, and Communicating Academic Standards. Retrieved from https://www.cde.state.co.us/coreadingwriting/statestandards Dewey, J. (2013). My Pedagogic Creed. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (Fourth Ed., pp. 33–40). New York, NY: Routledge. Doll, W. (2013). The Four R’s- An Alternative to the Tyler Rational. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (Fourth Ed., pp. 215-222). New York, NY: Routledge. Eisner, E. (2013). Educational Objectives- Help or Hindrance. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (Fourth Ed., pp. 109-116). New York, NY: Routledge. Greene, M. (2013). Curriculum and Consciousness. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (Fourth Ed., pp. 127-138). New York, NY: Routledge. Hlebowitsh, P. (2013). Centripetal Thinking in Curriculum Studies. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (Fourth Ed., pp. 223-234). New York, NY: Routledge. Pinar, W. (2013). The Reconceptualization of Curriculum Studies. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (Fourth Ed., pp. 149-156). New York, NY: Routledge. Tyler, R. (2013). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (Fourth Ed., pp. 59–68). New York, NY: Routledge.