Why is this topic the way it is?

I always had questions in my mind when I started teaching in 1993 about Maths education. I always asked, 

• Why is this topic the way it is? 
• What is the purpose of maths? 
• How do I teach this topic? 
• How do I reach out to everyone?

 I was very suffocated in the traditional national curricula which never answered these questions. I later moved to a Free Progress, non-examination, set up. However, the ordeal of getting all answers on my own was too much. The structures were dissolved but since nothing replaced them except an expectation of relationships, it was as difficult as the traditional schools. It is when I came to the International Baccalaureate (Iborganization, n.d.) school and worked in creating the middle school curriculum that was independent to the school, that things fell into place.

 We created a curriculum that was an amalgamation of the best practices in education. And I found the true base for education, to learn the best practices as a toolkit with an attitude of empowerment with safety net or the teacher to find his or her own roadmap.

 “Raewyn Connell (1997, p. 1) describes the school curriculum as ‘the most difficult area of educational study—where the theory of knowledge meets the practice of classrooms in complex and turbulent ways”. (Ewing, 2013, p.6.). As I reflect on my story, I can see that I was a part of two distinct periods of curriculum development, both complex in their own ways.

Traditional

This was largely the period when curriculum had only 1 role and that was evaluation of students. We were with traditionalists and “considerations such as evaluation, supervision” (Pinar, 1978) were most important. The curriculum theory was completely given by the department of education. However, when it comes to administration of curriculum, I can further divide this period into two sub-phases:

 

i.               No influence

This was the time when I had no influence over the design of curricula. What to teach and how to teach was all controlled by the management of the school. “The traditional scheme is, in essence, one of imposition from above and from outside” (Dewey, 1938, p.5.) summed up the state of affairs completely. I had to teach the content as given and everything had to be covered in the given time for the examination. This was most suffocating as here I found the roots of fear of Maths developing.

 

ii.              Some influence

This was the phase where the curriculum as given by the board. However, the delivery was a space where a lot of freedom was given. What to teach was fixed. However how to teach and also who to teach was open. For example, for some of the students who were very weak in the subject, I was able to develop IEP (Individualized Education Plans) and that was very satisfactory. The students were not afraid of any subject as the ‘student’ was more important than the ‘subject knowledge’.

 

Progressive

This is the phase where curriculum, its design as well as delivery gave a lot of space for individualised work from my end. I would again divide this in two sub-phases:

 

i.               Free Progress

This is the phase of complete freedom at the Mirambika Free Progress school (Free Progress School, n.d.). Curriculum, delivery and style was all on us. There was a huge safety net too for failures. Building relationships was the base for all the work in the system. “Narrative inquiry” was a norm for the community (Mike, 2012)

 However, as we realized slowly, it was hard for freedom is not easy to handle unless one has developed a strong sense of discipline and dedication. I would often go into a comfort zone and give up.

ii.              International Baccalaureate

I have kept this for the last for this is where all fell into place. All the experiences that I had before. This is not any of the IB structured programs. But a program that we created independently for the middle school. It included exposing teachers to best educational practices, creating a loosely held structure to practice it with lots of reflections and there was an exam at the end of it. The school believed that, “Using a wide variety of techniques, teachers encourage learning by delivering content in creative and impactful ways. Whole-group instruction, individualized attention, experiential education and using a global lens, are methods that provide teachers with avenues for success in the curriculum process” (Meier, K.s, n.d.). There was freedom to innovate with safety net, however with clear boundaries that gave a lot of room to breathe.

This is where the relationship with the curriculum was finally very active. Keeping the learner at the heart of the work, the practices were adapted, readapted and taken forward. There was no ideology or dogma surrounding the work. Building a learning centred relationship was the most important part of the work. The curriculum as well as delivery could be modified. Hence finally I came to be a teacher who could create lessons that were differentiated enough to cover almost all the students. The model I took for the same was Brain Based learning by Eric Jensen.

Hence overall the curriculum met the needs of the students. There were outliers however, the approach of the school was to never give up. For example, when a student, who was not able to grow and achieve some depth in any area of curriculum, was discovered to have a talent for photography, the school head pulled out all stops to help him further. We excused him from classes so he could work on it and gave him extra time to catch up with studies when he participated in competitions. Finally, he made his mark in it and his portfolio was rated very high by the IB examiners.

Yet there were obstacles to student learning. Since the school was owned by a private businessman, profit was the bottom-line. Hence the pressure from parents was enough to influence our relationship with the students. A student once told me, “You get paid out of the money that my dad gives to the school. You don’t have the right to tell me what to do”. While cases such as these were rare, however, they did happen.

The second obstacle was us, Indians and our own educational upbringing. When I observed the expats working, they would be able to create a task within minutes while it would take me few days! I had to do a lot of unlearning before I could be a lifelong learner myself.

And that finally gave me the basis for my work in Teacher Education. “One of the key elements to success in teacher education is to make learning a site for inquiry” (Chan, E.Y, 2012). I constantly strive for “strive for synthesis, for a series of perspectives on curriculum that are at once empirical, interpretative, critical, emancipatory” (Pinar, 1978).

 

References:

1.     239Mike, O. (2012, September 16). A short video interview with Prof. Jean Clandinin. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnaTBqapMrE (9:57)
Chan, E.Y. (2012). The Transforming Power of Narrative in Teacher Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (3), 111-127. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1724&context=ajte

2.     Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone Book, Simon and Schuster. Retrieved from http://ruby.fgcu.edu/Courses/ndemers/Colloquium/ExperiencEducationDewey.pdf

3.     Ewing, R. (2013).  Curriculum and Assessment: Storylines. (2^nd Edition).  Australia and New Zealand: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://lib.oup.com.au/he/Education/samples/ewing_curriculum2e_sample.pdf

4.     Free Progress School. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.mirambika.org/Pgcw01.htm

5.     Iborganization. (n.d.). International education. Retrieved from https://www.ibo.org/

6.     Meier, K.S. (n.d.). Role of Teachers in the Curriculum Process. Retrieved from http://work.chron.com/role-teachers-curriculum-process-5344.html

7.     Pinar, W. (1978). The Reconceptualisation of Curriculum Studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10:3, 205-21.

Retrieved from: http://daneshnamehicsa.ir/userfiles/file/Resources/8-2%29%20Ideologies/ARTICLE_William%20Pinar.pdf