Response to "Three curricula all schools teach"

The first thing that made me stop was reading that critics of schooling pointed out that schools fostered compliant behaviour over initiative. This was surprising to see because just last night, I was doing my readings for EDST 401 that focused on the purpose of schools. These readings had a central theme of the purposes of schooling since the 18th-19th centuries, being that of conformity and generating citizens who were ready for an industrialized world. Interestingly, this article seems more optimistic about it, as it views these practices less so as a result of direct intent, and more so unawareness from the people planning curricula. Regardless, the same ideas were being reinforced; in this article, examples were given such as reward systems implicitly teaching compliancy, or planning a curriculum out of tradition which perpetuated predictability and stability - all common themes with what I saw in my recent EDST 401 readings.

Another stop-and-think moment I wanted to highlight was when the reading started to question heavily on "why" things were, specifically in the literal curricula and its null counterpart. An inquiry, reflective thinking was taking place - I could see these processes that were discussed in my EDUC 450 readings happening in real time, so there are more connections being drawn here. In the EDUC course, the reading was on being a reflective thinker and its necessity in order to adapt in an ever-changing world, and I could see these ideas being put to practice here. If we are in a world of markets, why is the required curriculum not including economics? Similarly, if we live by the laws of our societies, what is it simply relegated to being an optional elective that students could choose to take? It makes me think of when I went through the provincial curriculum in the mid-2010's; in my Law 12 class which was designed to be a survey course, we learned of the many types of laws, how laws and justice were carried out in our society, and more - all very practical things that would benefit everyone in our society! The funny thing is, I chose to take it because "the teacher was better", not because of some utilitarian curricular ideal. While I came for that, I stayed for the valuable, relevant lessons. While there is further room for inquiry in whether it should be a mandatory course, there are good points made in the article about injecting the ideas into existing mandatory courses in order to enrichen the curriculum.

As a final note, I have to applaud the article for making the three types of curricula clearly defined - we have the explicit one that comes to mind first, an implicit one, and a null curriculum which could be subdivided into explicit and implicit categories, much like what the article has done. It made me consider that indeed, the curricula can have ripple effects. Perhaps one policy or approved method of teaching has changed in the explicit curriculum - then the implicit things being taught would be changed too. With these two curricula changed, so too does the list of things falling under the null curriculum. Before, I only considered the explicit as "curriculum" while the others were entities undescribed by the same term. Thinking about those entities as curricula as well would serve us well in knowing the full picture of what is being taught and mandated, and lead to informed inquiries and decisions.