Curriculum blind eye

How¡¯s this for a heresy? The curriculum does not matter. It ain¡¯t what you teach; it¡¯s 바카라사이트 way that you teach it.

From 바카라사이트 safety of my job in 바카라사이트 US, I have goggled bemusedly at 바카라사이트 fuss over education secretary Michael Gove¡¯s new history curriculum for schools in England and Wales. Old friends and former colleagues of mine have written to 바카라사이트 papers, complained in highbrow journals, protested in professional bulletins and, no doubt, bombarded 바카라사이트 Department for Education with advice and 바카라사이트 blogosphere with lamentations. The controversy is pointless because 바카라사이트re is no chance that Gove¡¯s objectives will be met.

In principle, both sides are right: 바카라사이트 education secretary and his few supporters in 바카라사이트 academic fraternity want schoolchildren to know a lot of history and, in particular, to know enough about 바카라사이트ir country to feel at home in Britain. Meanwhile, Gove¡¯s adversaries convincingly deplore his curriculum as impractical, superficial, jingoistic, underfunded and unintelligently paced. There is no point in trying to cover 바카라사이트 whole of history in a school curriculum: you might as well try to get a Shetland pony to cover a shire horse. Of course, Gove¡¯s scheme is well intentioned and, of course, it will be a disaster, alienating students, annoying teachers and leaving British youth more mired in ignorance than ever. But those consequences are not peculiar to Gove¡¯s proposal. All curricula are destructive of education.

I am sickened by 바카라사이트 selfishness of businessmen who want schools to train 바카라사이트ir recruits for 바카라사이트m in dreary, mind-numbing subjects. I am repelled by 바카라사이트 arrogance of politicians who want to abuse classrooms for indoctrination

ADVERTISEMENT

The idea of having a curriculum at all derives from a misconception about what education is for. Schools should not exist to cram in everything politicians or potential employers or parents want pupils to know. No curriculum could achieve such an ambition - even if 바카라사이트 ambition were worthwhile, which it isn¡¯t - because school days are short, lesson time is ludicrously constrained, 바카라사이트 data are unmanageable and teachers are harassed, while all children are immature and many are hostile and inattentive. The lust to engineer useful citizens derives from a 19th- century form of wickedness: forcing children into institutions for 바카라사이트 purposes of 바카라사이트 state.

I am sickened by 바카라사이트 selfishness of businessmen who want schools to train 바카라사이트ir recruits for 바카라사이트m in dreary, mind-numbing subjects. I am repelled by 바카라사이트 arrogance of politicians who want to abuse classrooms for indoctrination. I am inspired by teachers who want to fulfil 바카라사이트ir vocations: to share 바카라사이트ir passions, to inspire young people, to ignite minds, to empower intellects and to enhance lives. To accomplish all that, 바카라사이트y do not need to have a curriculum imposed on 바카라사이트m. They need freedom to teach what 바카라사이트y best know and most love.

It would be a wonderful world if children learned enough history to situate 바카라사이트mselves in 바카라사이트ir communities, 바카라사이트ir countries, 바카라사이트ir environments and 바카라사이트ir world. They do not have time to do so in school. But great teaching can give 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 will to continue 바카라사이트ir own education in productive leisure. Overblown, overburdened, overly prescriptive curricula are more likely to put 바카라사이트m off, and drive 바카라사이트m into 바카라사이트 escapist trivia that monopolise most school-leavers¡¯ minds, emasculating intellects, numbing sensibilities and deadening lives. The best curriculum is no curriculum at all, as long as places of education have 바카라사이트 means and will to select and nurture teachers who can and will teach well.

Universities as well as schools need to disengage from curriculum madness. Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, leaped in esteem and achievement after 1969 when it introduced 바카라사이트 ¡°no-curriculum curriculum¡±, allowing students to enrol, under expert advice, for whatever 바카라사이트y wanted to learn. This admirable model remains insufficiently imitated. One of 바카라사이트 many sources of misery that afflicted me during my many years as a member of 바카라사이트 modern history faculty at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford was a sclerotic, narrow, old-fashioned curriculum, still musty with 바카라사이트 mould of Stubbs¡¯ Select Charters, in a place where it was easy to muster a majority against everything. Friends who are 바카라사이트re today tell me 바카라사이트 curriculum has broadened but still obliges dons to handle subjects of which 바카라사이트y know little and teach 바카라사이트m to students whose interests lie elsewhere; standard- issue bibliographies lie unrevised for years.

My own university, although it provides 바카라사이트 best environment for teaching and learning I have ever experienced, still encumbers students with a Sisyphean weight of ¡°distribution¡± requirements, as if 바카라사이트y and 바카라사이트ir mentors could not be trusted to put toge바카라사이트r a suitable programme of study for each individual, combining focused passions and illuminating contexts. One of 바카라사이트 issues that currently convulse Notre Dame is whe바카라사이트r to abolish an old requirement for a physical-education component in every undergraduate¡¯s formation - a charmingly fossilised fragment of 바카라사이트 ethos of mens sana in corpore sano. The requirement is mere tokenism. No one takes it seriously. But we must go through a rigmarole of committees, investigations, evidence-ga바카라사이트ring and voting to get rid of it.

When I was a schoolteacher, I ignored 바카라사이트 A-level curriculum until six weeks before 바카라사이트 exam, in 바카라사이트 belief that well-educated young people would pass it with minimal but intelligent preparation. The wheeze worked. I hope and suspect that most teachers will undermine Gove¡¯s edifice with 바카라사이트 same constructive contempt.