Arguing for a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of curriculum: From oppression to liberation

Arguing for a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of curriculum: From oppression to liberation

Abstract:

In order to vitiate the oppressive power of instruction that has traditionally failed to recognize the agency of marginalized groups throughout America’s history, the entire notion of a curriculum must be revisited and subsequently redefined. The redefinition of curriculum is an ambitious endeavor to say the least; still, it is an exigent. And in arguing for a redefinition, I hope to draw attention to not only the negative aspects of curriculum past and present, but also the positives in order to (re)conceptualize curriculum so that it will function as a tool for positive, equitable social change.

The word curriculum, according to the Encarta North American Dictionary, denotes the subjects taught at an educational institution, or the topics taught within a subject. Ralph Tyner in Specific Approaches to Curriculum Development says of curriculum development: it is a practical enterprise—not a theoretical study. It endeavors to design a system to achieve an educational end and is not primarily attempting to explain an existential phenomenon (18).” The metaphysics of Tyner’s argument are as follows: a curriculum is developed in response to a problem, as a way to diagnose the symptoms of the problem, and ultimately cure them. Neither of these definitions touches on the nuances and complexities, not to mention the controversy that the notion of curriculum foments for parents, students, teachers, and curriculum theorists alike. I would argue that this definition of curriculum is too sparse and that a more comprehensive definition of curriculum should discuss curriculum as a tool for oppression and maintenance of the hegemonic social order, or conversely, curriculum as a tool of liberation, or both. For me, curriculum is analogous to a proverbial double-edged sword; that is, it is a tool that can be used to extricate or incarcerate depending on the intent of its creator. I feel that it is necessary, in order to arrive at an adequate definition of curriculum, to trace curriculum development throughout American educational history, from 1895 onward. This is a necessary move, in order to generatively discuss how it is defined at present, and, what it should be and why going forward.

1. This paper argues that Curriculum Theory is a contested terrain? Why is this so? More specifically, why would there be a fight about what should and what should not constitute curriculum?

2. Is it possible for a curriculum to be intrinsically oppressive? Why or why not?

paradigm shift curriculum_CSM.pdf Download paradigm shift curriculum_CSM.pdf

Curriculum and Power