On the spectrum of potential approaches to curriculum, farthest
from the technical end of the continuum lies the reconceptualist approach. It is so far down that conceptual road that
some curricular scholars don’t consider it an approach at all. But for our purposes, it is. Other scholars, according to Ornstein and
Hunkins,[1] view it
as an extension of the humanistic approach.
The reason some curricular experts dismiss this approach lies mostly in
the fact that it does not address curricular development issues; it’s solely into
content. The curricular workers who
adopt it shy away from technical matters associated with development. Initially, then, this approach engenders some
controversy.
The argument that holds it to be an approach has been based
on the claim that it addresses the social, economic, and political aspects of
education – not just curriculum – and its focus is not limited to schools, but all
of society. As such, its advocates
emulate those who follow the academic approach in that they concentrate their
subject on the abstract and shun the more practical side of curricular
work. This steers their attention away
from curricular development, per se. The effect for those who toil in the fields
of education, away from the halls of academia, is that they are prone to see
such study as impractical. Their
challenges are to design, maintain, and evaluate curricular components at
actual school sites, not to ponder the social conditions of the day. But to those who do deal in theory, the
contributions of the reconceptualists are much appreciated, especially among
other reconceptualists. Hence, there is
a divide in the education world between practitioners and theorists – a divide,
I might add, not limited to the affairs of education.
But reconceptualists do have their supporters among the
practicing minions. They tend to take a
postmodern perspective when going about their jobs. They argue that curricular work demands a new
consciousness. To them, there is no one
way to view curriculum development and they, along with their fellow practitioners,
need to embrace a more open and interactive perspective. They tend to emphasize that development
should be the product of communal efforts, not limited to the work of
specialists. And here we encounter our
initial aim in this review of approaches; that is, curriculum work should be
transformed from what it generally tends to be.
Those other approaches, reviewed over the last five postings, are to
varying degrees more technical. Instead
of striving for well-managed processes in which the authorized specialists run
through their preconceived processes and logical sequential steps – a favorite
target here is Tyler’s model of curriculum development previously described
under my treatment of the behavioral approach – curriculum workers should not
only allow, but also encourage chaos. More
specifically, they should invite all the stakeholders – students, parents,
teachers, administrators, other members of the community, academia, etc. – into
the process and let them thrash out a strategic plan for a school. The postmodern eye looks for open systems,
not closed ones; it appreciates inclusiveness and representation, not special
expertise that always seems to have hidden agendas. For many, this will seem uncomfortable and
reconceptualists would recommend that such discomfort emanates from limited
mindsets. Some might add that these are mindsets
springing from interests not necessarily limited to the concerns of educating
youth in the most viable, productive way and in the interests of the students
and of the community.
And this leads one to that segment of reconceptualist thought
that tends toward the political. For
these pedagogues, the aim is emancipation from the norms, conceptualizations,
and ruling interests that are in place to protect the powerful, be they in an
economic, political, or any other realm of authority, such as the spiritual. This calls not only for change, but for
transformative change. Oppressive power
relations are not just a matter of brute authoritarian controls, but also of
subtle sociological and psychological controls.
Those in power control the mechanisms of socialization and with them,
the modes of communicating what the powerful deem to be prudent and moral. To break such control from cases that are
overt to cases that are tacit and shrouded, emancipating education has to be
transformative; that is, not only changing what is known and believed by
students, but what they end up believing should be. The assumption among reconceptualists is that
what exists in our schools mirrors what exists in our society: a static and oppressive reality. Want to hear an expression of this view? Review the rhetoric of the Bernie Sanders’ candidacy
for president. Such a review will give
you a sense of what it would be like to feel the “Bern” in terms of running our
schools.
Pioneers in this tradition were George S. Counts, Harold O.
Rugg, and Harold Benjamin. They started
curricular work that among their followers has been noted for their more
emotionally charged arguments. These
arguments have been organized and they compose a fairly discernable ideology –
to varying degrees, among its adherents, following the ideas of Karl Marx – and,
as such, the ideology attacks inequality and discrimination based on class,
gender, race, religion, nationality, age, and sexual preferences. The adherents target what they see and define
as miseducation and oppression. To their
critics, many reconceptualists suffer from myopia in that they oversimplify and
overgeneralize oppressive aspects of any society and underappreciate meaningful
policies that address them.
In terms of change, there is a lot to derive from the
reconceptualists. Their call for
transformational change is welcome.
Along with this type of change, their call for inclusion is seen as
supportive of the efforts many change agents exert. It should be pointed out, though, that not
all curricular workers who call for transformational change are
reconceptualists. One can say that
reconceptualists are transformational change advocates with an attitude. This might be overstating the case a bit, but
one can detect this strident tendency when one attends their gatherings and
listens to their speakers. Of course,
one should not over generalize or dismiss what reconceptualists have to offer
due to the belligerence of some (many) of their spokespersons and followers. In terms of finding reconceptualists in your
local school, perhaps you will find one or two of them holding teaching positions,
but do not be surprised if you do not find any.
This ends my review of the educational approaches Ornstein
and Hunkins offer. The approaches have
been the behavioral, the managerial, the systems, the academic, the humanist,
and the reconceptualist approaches. This
one and the last five postings have provided a description of each of
them. The aim is to arm potential change
agents with a bit of knowledge as to the potential, curricular biases among
educators they might encounter at the school site or the district office.
[1] Again, I will base most of the factual accounts of these
approaches on the work of Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. See Ornstein, A. C. and Hunkins, F. P. (2004).
Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
No comments:
Post a Comment