“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.” ~ Lao Tzu

“As an idea, curriculum stems from the Latin word for race course, referring to the course of deeds and experiences through which children grow to become mature adults.” ~ Wikipedia

If talk about a school curriculum today, very often the curriculum that we are talking about is more akin to that described by the Wikipedia quote above. There is the idea that all the things that need to be taught in a school are to be done as if all the students and teachers are participating in a good old-fashioned Ben Hur-like, Roman chariot race.

That there is a race to complete the syllabus is not a doubt. The race is governed by a deadline which is usually an artificially imposed time limit. That time limit is signified by the semestral examinations or the even more important schedule of international examinations. Learning becomes a sprint although many will say that the current school system of learning is more of a marathon. Actually it is not one sprint, but many sprints.

In such an environment, little time is given to real learning where there is serious effort made at concept-building, deep understanding and building on what has already been learnt. Everything is compressed because the conveyor belt of learning in modern schools keeps moving faster and faster. As more things are seen to be essential to learning are added on, less time is given for everything to be fixed on that conveyor belt of learning. The conveyor belt is then speeded up to accommodate more parts. Learning in such a school environment is a real race. But unfortunately, real learning cannot be done in this manner.

A more accurate analogy for learning is that given by Lao Tzu above. Learning is very much an organic growth experience. It takes time. It takes nurturing. If it is an organic experience then it accepts that the starting point is different for each one of its participants. When time and care is given, the outcome is a completeness and a wholesomeness of the student. Is it a surprise that the product of a system that is harried and rushed is far from that? They tend to look like a product at the end of a race; tired and exhausted or one indistinct from another. Just mere clones to keep the economy going.

Today’s schools are blessed with connections to the outside world. Where at one time, the only connection a school had was perhaps the telephone in the administration office, today students and teachers can even have access to the internet to connect with the world. Yet, schools today, especially in Singapore, are perhaps one of the most disconnected places to be.

The disconnection stems not from the lack of physical infrastructure. It is actually, in spite of the availability of good communications infrastructure. Much of the disconnection is of a human nature. At the intellectual level, the “learning” that takes place is often devoid of connections with true deep understanding. Superficial knowledge is the norm as that is what is required for the written examinations.

The disconnection in school is especially true with regards to the meaning of the school experience itself. School by definition should be a place where learning takes place. But what is the meaning of the learning that takes place for the students themselves. One is reminded of this funny graphic below:

While funny, yet if we are to look at it seriously, how many of our students in our schools understand the full meaning of it? How many of them understand the real meaning of the equations that they have been asked to solve? Here, I do not mean just their being able to solve the equations because the equations can be solved merely through knowing the mechanical routine. What do they really mean for these students? Students routinely solve equations and other problems in school without understanding the meaning of what they have learned (except that they are needed to do well in the high stakes written examinations)? Little attempt is made at meaning-making. This disconnectedness is not limited to just Math.

Is it a surprise then that many students do not “connect” with the “learning” that goes on in the schools. Often we say many of these students chose to disconnect and begin to become “problem” students but the reality is that perhaps little is done in schools to make that connection for the students. The students’ decision not to participate in the “learning” in school is precipitated by the teachers not making great effort to make that connection for them. Far too often they are told that they need to “learn” so they can get a “good job”. Very uninspiring isn’t it?

For the teachers, the disconnection is from their own traditional role as curriculum directors and developers. Teachers too find little meaning about what being a teacher entails. Some (many?) live the lie that they are preparing their young charges for the workplace but then again as I have indicated in my other posts, this is far from true as the skills taught and pushed for in schools today is rarely consistent with what the employers want.

So what we have in schools today is a disconnect that is all too often unnoticed or ignored. Yet today, we want our schools to be connected to the world through the internet when perhaps the most important connections should be within the more intimate confines of the schools themselves.

Charlotte Danielson (1996) pointed out teaching is not a random activity. It must have clear purpose. In other words, a teacher must be goal directed.  There are times when the students are also involved in these goal setting. This happens when the class behaves as a community of learners.

In instructional goal setting, the teacher must, as Danielson pointed out, among others, set goals which are “worthwhile and represent learning central to a discipline as well as high-level learning for the students.” This is to prevent learning becoming nothing more than a trivial pursuit game. It must have importance to the students.

Instructional goals must be spelt out clearly and they must be stated in terms of what students will learn. This may be concerned with skills, thinking, in addition to knowledge and understanding.

Instructional goals should also be measurable. This does not imply only the use of traditional pen-and-paper examinations. Alternative modes of assessment become important to measure the differing skills, thinking and conceptual understanding that the student is supposed to learn. Teachers and students alike must be clear what is the learning that is supposed to take place and how this earning is going to be measured or assess. It is even necessary sometimes for teachers to show how the assessment is to be done through samples of student work.

Instructional goals should also reflect that diversity of skills and abilities of the students under the teacher’s charge. A one size fits all approach is an injustice to the learners. It will also mean that the teacher does not take into account the differing levels of the students. The instruction will therefore be skewed toward either the better or weaker students or  the teacher may choose to adopt what the teacher considers to be the median level to accomodate the different learners.  All three option will mean that no one student will be taught according to his level which is against all known pedagogical principles. It makes teaching a farce.