Response to Eisner (2002)

 Two points in Eisner (2002) that stood out to me are the discussion of competition, both in the explicit and implicit curriculum, and the idea that much of what schools teach is unintentional. First, I've often wondered why we categorize groups of students, classes, or even people as "statistically normal," assuming their outcomes should fit a bell curve (Eisner, 2002).  If everyone grasps the material and applies the knowledge effectively, couldn't we all achieve strong outcomes? Why don't we use a graph like exponential growth to represent student achievement? Regarding competitiveness, I used to believe that grouping students by ability level made sense, as it would allow teachers to manage a more focused group and provide instruction at the appropriate level. This approach is still common in Special Education and English Language Learner (ELL) classes. However, when Eisner asked, "Why should students whose background or genetic makeup is advantageous be rewarded in this public way? Is it the case that the less able are less honorable or less worthy?" I began to see the flaws in that system (Eisner, 2002). It inherently privileges students from stable, higher socioeconomic backgrounds, reinforcing societal inequalities. Additionally, segregating students in Special Education or ELL programs undermines the goal of inclusive education. Socialization with same-age peers is crucial for all students.

Eisner (2002) also emphasizes that much of what schools teach through the implicit curriculum is unintentional, and this reminds me of BC's recent decision to ban cellphones in schools. In recent years, we have also seen changes like more relaxed dress codes, the inability to deduct marks for late work, and the shift toward using a proficiency scale rather than letter grades, especially for younger students up to grade 9. What do these policies say about our education system, both individually and collectively? It is important to consider how students interpret these changes. How can we, as teachers, create trust and model positive behaviours for students, while aligning with these provincial regulations?

The BC Provincial Curriculum emphasizes both Curricular and Core Competencies, signaling to the wider public that schools are focused on teaching both academic knowledge and essential soft skills. With technological advances accelerating, teaching skills that help students navigate new, unfamiliar situations is increasingly critical. Overall, I believe these updates are both necessary and beneficial, and the message is well-received. I used to be confused by the fact that schools and districts can decide their own assessment methods for these competencies, but now I see the value in this flexibility. It underscores the idea that assessments should not be standardized but should instead be adapted to the unique context of each school.