Curriculum development and reform requires an understanding of current unmet needs in the school. The task of designing curriculum becomes more complicated as the needs of various educational stakeholders are assessed (a group consisting of students, society and subject matter). The needs of each stakeholder vary and are multifaceted, and each stakeholder wants priority over another. I question whether the problems in education might stem from one of the following two possibilities: 1) we are trying to accommodate too many “needs” of too many stakeholders, or 2) we are not addressing enough of the “needs” of each stakeholder. (I put quotes around needs because I believe that we live in a day and age when needs are often confused with wants. The types of needs may be real – such as physical, sociopsychological, educational- but the degree to which they are to be met may be unrealistic). The debate of balance in the curriculum is an interest debate: Do societies needs have priority of individual needs? Will individual needs naturally address societal needs? How are subject matter needs discovered and determined? Is it possible to address each type of need equally?
After determining the needs to be met comes the responsibility of determining how to meet and address those needs. The organization and implementation of the curriculum is a whole new battle. (By the way, when we speak we often say “a whole nother”. I mentioned that to someone a few weeks ago, how even the smartest and best educated people say that even though it is wrong. Sure enough, I was told that I was wrong and that “nother is a real word. After convincing them that it is not a real word, I was told that I must misunderstand people because nobody would say “a whole nother”. Within a few minutes the person arguing against me used the phrase naturally and I won the debate. Sorry, that had nothing to do with what I was writing about… but it’s pretty interesting!) Anyways, the issue of coverage creeps up over and over when discussing curriculum. When should content be taught in general terms and when must we dive deep? Can we really separate it out and say that elementary schools are to be taught a mile wide and an inch deep and middle and high schools will deepen our knowledge? Is it possible to have both breadth and deepness in the same course during the same year? In arguments of coverage, I tend to side with the theory of going deep. The question I have had as of late is “What do we consider “deep learning”?” “How deep is too deep?” We can receive the same results from spreading ourselves too wide as we can from diving too deep if we are not careful and mindful of the overall learning experience.
I look forward to the day when I can work with others to address the complications of forming the basis of a curriculum and organizing it. I do wonder, however, how much of the complications could be avoided by a willingness to clarify our needs, distinguish them from wants, and discard that which is not necessary for the overall purposes of student achievement.
