CURRICULUM: THE TORAH OF TEACHING

The following is another excerpt from my auto-biographical tome: TEACHING IS HELL


Some people say to destroy all the lawyers; I saw destroy all the curriculums. One of the most over-rated facets of teaching has to be the reliance on a printed detailed curriculum. In twenty-one years of teaching social studies the only times I looked at curriculums were when I wrote them. If I taught American History I knew the subject matter inside out. I knew the important events and people in our country's heritage. The last time I checked, the Civil War still began in 1861 and Louisiana was still purchased in 1803. It would seem to me that any knowledgeable professional educator would be familiar with U.S. history and plan his lessons accordingly.
Why do we need a curriculum telling us that on day seventy-three of the semester we will all in lock step review the details of Congressional Reconstruction, with the guide pointing out exactly how we should talk about the Freedman’s Bureau, 1866 Civil Rights Act, 13th Amendment, Thaddeus Stephens, and so forth. As an educated professional I already know the important figures, events and concepts of the Reconstruction era; why do I need a HISTORY FOR DUMMIES curriculum guide to enlighten me?
Unfortunately, curriculums are designed for rookies or inexperienced (or incompetent) educators, who are relatively unfamiliar with the academic territory. They are handed the bibles of learning and don't have to think for themselves at all. Everything for them to teach on any given day is printed out for them, and they can all march lock step together with no thinking, creativity or knowledge required. Principals can also fire veterans and hire rookies to fill their places. It does not matter if the novices have no background in the subjects they teach, since they all can be handed curriculum guides.
The curriculum impinges on academic freedom, as the teacher should have the right to teach important events not covered in the scholastic Talmud, or eliminate unimportant items enumerated in the Holy Book. Curriculums enable administrators to more easily write up negative observations, as the meistersupervisors can claim that your lesson did not stick close enough to the curriculum. Or they can allege that your lesson was just the opposite, and merely regurgitated the curriculum. If they're out to get you they can come at you from either direction.
In 1983 I was given per session pay after school to help write a new European Studies curriculum, even though there was nothing wrong with the old one. I suppose the only difference involved inserting a five minute required dosage of reading and writing into each lesson. Each topic came with a lesson plan so that any illiterate or warm body could teach it. On a Marxism lesson I inserted the following off the top of my head: "Students will read a five minute teacher prepared summary of Das Kapital.” For a session on the Reformation I put down, "Students will read a five minute teacher prepared summary of Will and Ariel Durant's THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION. I emulated this feat in numerous topics and nobody ever said anything or appeared to notice. The absurdities ended up in the curriculum. So much for the value of curriculums.