I’ve always been against the use of any type of curriculum that isn’t chosen expressly by the learner themselves, but I found myself wanting to explain why I felt that way. What was so irredeemable about externally mandated educational plans? This is the answer I came up with.
A curriculum is stagnant. It’s created as a solid, linear plan, detailing what facts, theories, and formulas an individual should know and in what order they should learn them. It’s designed by people other than the learners themselves, it’s based on the idea that there is one core body of knowledge and set of skills that hundreds (or thousands, or millions) of children should all have, and that they should all learn it at the same age. It doesn’t grow with the individual, it doesn’t bend or adapt. It exists as a series of check marks, a string of benchmarks and numbers that have little to do with what’s actually best for the learner, what they care about, their unique strengths and quirks and ways of being in the world.
True, deep, and meaningful learning can never be contained in something so stifling as a standardized curriculum.
There are some words and phrases I go back to again and again to describe my own life learning experience. My learning was always authentic, I say, because it was always learning that felt relevant and interesting. It was personalized, unique to me and what I wanted and needed at any given point. It was flexible, because I could always choose to learn different things in different ways with different people.
This kind of learning is pretty much the exact opposite of a pre-packaged curriculum. It’s learning that is constantly evolving and changing as the learners themselves evolve and change, alongside their family and communities. It’s the ultimate in authentic, personalized and flexible learning, better in my mind than any faddish new curriculum or teaching methodology that’s taken those terms as handy buzzwords.
theartofmadeline
romaincrisis
prguitarman
gracieabrams
