Commercial, Curriculum?

Generally when I sit down to write I have some idea as to what I want to say, and where it is going to go, but today this is not the case. However, I feel like this work is hanging over my head and I have the time now to get it done, and so I guess I am going to see where it ends up. Unlike the feelings some expressed in class, I have never had a problem pushing that publish button. Ideas are just words and thoughts, and I am not certain they were ever really mine in the first place (but that is the subject for a whole other blog).

Yesterday I was watching TV (this is not surprising to anyone who knows me) and within an hour I had seen the same commercial about six times. Each time I saw it, it struck me that this too connects with everything we have been talking about in class, and so now it is my turn to reflect upon a commercial. The commercial I saw was for Dentyne. With exceptionally annoying background music, it shows a variety of different scenes involving human contact and events. As each scene plays out in a couple of seconds, it labels each interaction with a computer descriptor; for example the hug between two people is “transfer complete,” the celebration of the winning goal is “friend request accepted,” and the final kiss is “instant message.” The commercial ends with the tag line, “Dentyne, make face time.*!”

As the commercial ended the first time my initial thought was, though annoying, this is clever marketing, and doesn’t this connect with many of the discussions around McLuhan? Then as the commercial was replayed four or five or six times during the course of the show, the marketing aspect behind its concept began to dawn on me more; this company was using phrases that in actuality require no human contact and giving them entirely new meanings. This is a tactic that is very clever, it changes the meaning of the words and their implications. What a great way to sell gum; what great marketing.

And it was this thought that led my mind to make the great leap to curriculum (and I haven’t quite landed yet, which is why I don’t know where all of this is going to take me). But the thought that came to my mind after seeing this commercial the first time, and then all the subsequent times, was how much of curriculum comes down to marketing? And then, who is doing this marketing, and for whom?

As the discussions in class and through the blogs continue, I am beginning to realize that my own personal definition of curriculum is becoming less important, if not entirely irrelevant. This is not to say that what I do in my classroom is not important. Nor is it to say that I do not need to question my own practice, why I do what I do, and be critical in my thinking. This, in fact, has never been more important, as I am beginning to understand how much greater this role of curriculum actually is, and how unless I am willing to become politically involved on many levels (which today I am not) I have very little control over curriculum and its potential (both positive and negative) in schools today.

I have long known how lucky I am to be a teacher in Manitoba. I have also been very grateful for the freedom I have in my classroom as an English Language Arts teacher, as the learning outcomes of the curriculum are so broad, almost anything can be applied as subject matter, and demonstrations of learning are endless. Though my gratitude in these areas to those who came before me is not something I take for granted, what has been is that all of this could easily change at any moment. The curriculum as I know it could be completely redefined with a change in government, school board, administration, or even by a group of parents.

Which brings me to the topic I have been trying to avoid; curriculum as a definition of power, and then back to that commercial, marketing. The small group discussion around Kincheloe led to conversation regarding certain school practices, curriculum, and the distribution of power. While discussing the new Arts curriculum, Chris very aptly pointed out that regardless of its content, this new curriculum is a document, and not a guide. The difference, upon implementation, is that a document is meant to be upheld and enforced, whether or not we as teachers agree with the content or changes made, as opposed to a curriculum guide, which allows each individual teacher to choose to what suits his/her in the classroom. Chris also cited a historical context when this occurred in relation to government changes, which I recall appreciating hearing at the time, but do not remember now.

Reminded of this perspective, I cannot ignore the fact that curriculum is a point of power, and the powers that be, or as Howard has referred to them, “the gods of education” (albeit in a slightly different context) have put forth curriculum which teachers are expected to uphold. However I may define curriculum, it still comes to me in the form of a document. Given this fact, which I would still prefer to ignore, my definition of curriculum seems suddenly limited to something which can be contained in a document. And while this document may be written by a group of teachers and others who are often respected, which was also pointed out in our discussion, it still remains a document which I am expected to teach in my classroom.

As if this is not enough of a revelation for me, the discussion also included the role of parents and their potential to affect change within a school and influence its culture (does this count as curriculum?). Catherine told the story of the microwaves in her school in her blog last week, and the topic resurfaced with discussions around Oh Cananda, Hatikva (the Israeli National Anthem), and religious practices in our schools today. Groups of parents can have tremendous power as to what happens in schools, at times with little or no say from the teachers involved. While I have no doubt that the majority of parents really do care about their children and their schools, parents have the ability to be loud, persuasive and persistent; they also do a lot of the fundraising. This aspect opens up another dimension to the definition of curriculum, money. Where does money fit into the definition of curriculum? Social standing and classes aside (if that is possible), does money play a part in how curriculum is defined or developed?

Somehow, all of these thoughts and questions then bring me back to the Dentyne commercial; how is curriculum marketed? Is curriculum a commodity which is ultimately “sold,” by and to teachers, students, parents? Is curriculum meant to be a matter of “hocking knowledge?” Has it ended up this way?

So this is where I have ended up for today (a day later than I began). Rereading my thoughts, I realize that these are not new ideas. They are things I have known somewhere, but was really happier ignoring. But when I really allow myself to look within, I know that this curriculum is important stuff; it impacts my life and my classroom every single day.

I guess this is just another beginning, or maybe I am somewhere in the middle. There is also a paradox to these understandings; in recognizing my powerlessness over the “education gods” (at least at this point in my career), I also recognize the strength of my individual voice within my teaching practice. I accept that with this voice comes a great responsibility to be diligent and mindful in my practice. On the other hand, I also must acknowledge that until I am ready to take a more active role in the creation of curriculum (whatever that may be) I have to respect the work of those who have come before me, and those who are doing this work today. I can begin to do this by striving to be both an open-minded individual and a critical pedagogue.