The Three Curricula That All Schools Teach - Discussion Post

Eisner’s explanation of what could be (in terms of implicit curriculum) were far more exciting that his evidence of the existing curriculum. Specifically, his explanation of schools cultivating initiative made me stop. The ability to guide my own learning, the awareness to plan rich and meaningful days, and the capacity to define intrinsically motivated goals are essential skills that were absent during my high school experience. I speculate that schools designed to cultivate initiative would also cultivate these essential skills, giving rise to generations with a far stronger sense of identity and purpose.

Generally, his description of the implicit curriculum of most schools seems to align with the true, intended curriculum that most public schools aim to teach, namely preparing students for a monotonous workforce.

The idea of a Null curriculum also resonated. So many of the most meaningful books and subjects I’ve engaged with as an adult were absent in high school. Any formal introduction to psychology or spirituality was absent; two subjects that I feel could have an extraordinary effect on a teenager’s capacity to appreciate alternate perspectives. Why don’t high school’s teach Jung?

As teachers in BC, we have tremendous autonomy in our classroom. Although we are confined to a specific explicit curriculum, we can choose (almost any) implicit curriculum. It is in this way that teachers can dramatically affect the next generation. Personally, I believe we need to leverage this opportunity to give students the capacity for critical, independent thought, ideally inspiring aspirations beyond the monotonous workforce.