Curriculum Redefined
Curriculum is one of those great terms we throw around as educators yet, as anyone who has researched the term knows, there is no commonly accepted, single definition. Nonetheless, it has been my experience that most educators prefer a very broad interpretation of the word that includes both intended and unintended outcomes encompassing learning happening both inside and outside of the classroom. However, I think how we use the word nowadays may be changing our practical definition. Here’s why I think so.
‘Curriculum mapping’ is something that is increasingly common in our schools. (In fact, accreditation standards at most international schools now require articulated horizontal and vertical curriculum links and this has been a big focus in many schools lately.) Curriculum mapping, however, really only intends to map the formal, intended curriculum. Simplistically speaking, it doesn’t attempt to deal with some of the intangibles of education. Rather it focuses on mapping what the teacher is going to teach, how it will be taught, when lessons will be delivered and how learning is going to be measured. All this is done with view of allowing the aggregation of all the teachers’ mapping to comprise the school’s ‘mapped curriculum’.
With the term ‘curriculum mapping’ becoming an increasingly common in our schools, and with everyday conversations filled with people talking about mapping their ‘curriculum’, I think our practical interpretation of the word curriculum has changed. It has narrowed and today some teachers might assume that if it doesn’t show up on the curriculum map, then it is not ‘curriculum’. What I am suggesting then is that subtly our professional understanding of curriculum is changing.
And this is a problem. Schooling is much more than just the formal curriculum and we must guard against our focuses becoming too narrow.
I think instead we should be talking about programmes, of which ‘curriculum mapping’ becomes a subset. (While I would prefer we keep with the idea curriculum is broader than just what is mapped, I am conceding the current usage of the term makes this very problematic.) Programmes, at nowadays, may allow for a much broader interpretation and open us up to thinking about education more holistically. The use of the word ‘programme’ allow us to put extra and co-curricular activities, the hidden curriculum, values education, and many of the intangible elements that go into an international education back into the discussion. While I feel strongly that academics remain a foundational core activity for schools, this does not mean that our job starts and ends there. We should never let academic outcomes define us as international educators. Instead, all the ‘stuff’ happening outside of the formal curriculum that both attracted many of us to education in the first place and will define graduates of international schools well into the future should be receiving a lot of attention.
And on this note, if indeed much of the value of an international education is derived beyond the limits of formal, academic curriculum then might mapping be appropriate outside of the formal curriculum domain too? Are we not remiss if are we leaving this ‘stuff’ to chance and not applying the same rigor as we might with academics?
