​In Tyler’s outline on obtaining objectives from subject specialists he mentioned that subject specialists have been criticized for being “too technical”.  Tyler proposed that this is largely because when they were designing curriculum objectives they were asking the wrong question: “What should be the elementary instruction for students who are later to carry on much more advanced work in the field?”  I often find myself questioning aspects of the curriculum, for example prior to the new BC curriculum changes, grade 9 math students were expected to learn circle geometry.  As a teacher, I could not explain to my students why they needed to learn circle geometry, other than they would need it in order to understand more complex math concepts in future math courses.  Since grade 9 math is a required course that every student is to take, I feel that the curricular objectives should be focusing on providing students with strong foundational math skills that are relevant to everyday living.  Tyler said that the question subject specialists should be asking when designing curricular objectives is “What can your subject contribute to the education of young people who are not going to be specialists in your field; what can your subject contribute to the layman, the garden variety of citizen?”  I agree that approaching subject specific objectives from this perspective would produce curricular objectives that are better suited for student needs. 
I enjoyed reading the first chapter of Tyler’s book, I found it thought provoking and intriguing to think about how and where curricular objectives are produced.  I was quite surprised to learn from the Halvorson reading that it was Tyler’s book that lead to the No Child Left Behind revolution.  On the topic of subject specialists forming curricular objectives Halvorson says that Tyler’s message was “conflicted in approach [that] On the one hand, Tyler acknowledges the importance of scholarship in forming objectives, and on the other hand, he subordinates the uniqueness of disciplinary knowledge to broad functions of inferred generalizations, such as critical thinking and creative skill.”  I struggle to see Halvorson’s perception of this statement as a ‘conflict’ in approach, as when I read it I understood that Tyler was providing the curriculum designer with multiple perspectives to showcase the point that there are numerous sources to consider when deciding curricular objectives.
On the topic of designing curriculum objectives I propose the question shift to not only thinking about what the objectives are but who decides them.  Should teachers have more autonomy in designing curricular objectives?

​Both Bobbitt and Dewey’s articles spoke of what they believed education should look like.  Bobbitt sought to define curriculum objectives in terms of social shortcomings, whereas, Dewey viewed education as the social processes an individual must undertake, and the school as the social institution in which these experiences could be had.  Both of these articles were written in a very similar time, Bobbitt’s in 1918 and Dewey’s in 1929, however their ideas were different.  Even though they had differing views, one thing that stood out to me is the fact that both Bobbitt and Dewey spoke very confidently in their beliefs.  With multiple viewpoints on education, how do we know whose ideas are the ‘right’ ones to follow?  Early in my teaching career I believed that there was a single educational model which was superior to all other models, but now I realize that there is value to having multiple models for students to choose from, such as: public schools, Montessori schools, Outdoors schools, Waldorf schools, and more.  Although there are such choices, in order for a student to move on to a post-secondary school, a student must graduate from a high school which follows the government mandated curriculum.  This is where I feel the system needs to change.  Perhaps as Cochran-Smith and Lytle mention in their book ‘Inquiry as a Stance’, the issue needs to be addressed starting at the University level, because as it stands our current model of High School is a set of hoops that students need to jump through in order to get into post-secondary schools.  So my question is how can our education system offer a variety of educational choices, such as Independent Schools, yet still ensure that students are able to attend post-secondary schools?

​“Why do I have to learn this?  When will I ever use it in real life?”  These are the questions echoing off my classroom walls.  In my first year of teaching these questions always flustered me, I would spend hours in my spare time trying to relate each Achievement Indicator to a real life example.  I wanted to be able to answer my students swiftly and confidently, I wanted to be able to shut down any doubt that they had about the meaning of their education.  To combat this I had posters listing the types of jobs that require a knowledge of math and science, I created math problems and science inquiries on real life experiences and I had students’ interview family members on their daily uses of math.  But, if I’m being totally honest, I didn’t always have the answer. 
Then one day I had an epiphany, it isn’t about what students are learning, it is about how students are learning.  Kieran Egan in ‘What is curriculum?’ explores this very shift from a historical standpoint in which he outlines a change in the definition of curriculum over time from what is to be learned and in what time frame, to how curriculum should be learned.  The truth is, a student may in fact never use much of what they learn in their adult life, but it is the skill set that they obtain through learning the material that they will carry with them for life.  So now when a student asks me “When will I ever use this in real life?” my answer is honest “You are right, you may never have to know this specific fact in ‘real life’, but you will use the skills you are obtaining through the process of learning, which include but are not limited to: problem solving, perseverance, time management, stress management, social skills, leadership skills and reliability.”  No student has ever argued this answer, they are in total agreement, and they finally understand why they are learning what they’re learning.  While I am happy that I can finally satisfy the students’ questions, I become concerned with the fact that the students did not already know this.  This is where I’d argue curriculum is failing our students.
 Cochran-Lytle and Smith say that the education system hasn’t changed in over a century, and that it is high time the emphasis on fact memorization be removed.  While I have been telling my students that their education relies on the skills they learn through education experiences, the curriculum has not truly reflected this.  This is where I feel the curriculum needs to shift towards including more dialog on how students learn.  Egan says the definition of curriculum has had too much emphasis on what in the past, and that although there has been a shift towards how it is more important that we find a balance between the two.  The new BC Curriculum mandate is certainly a step in this direction, in which the numerous Achievement Indicators have been reduced to overarching themes called ‘Big Ideas’ which are broken down into specifics as ‘Content’.  This reduction in what the curriculum is to cover was much needed, but it is the addition of the ‘Curriculum Competencies’ that is the most exciting part of the new curriculum.  It outlines how students will be learning and demonstrating their learning, while still allowing for the freedom of the teacher to interpret.  
The new curriculum also includes the addition of indigenous knowledge.  As a white woman with no indigenous heritage, I worry about both what to teach and how to teach indigenous content.  My instinct is to lean towards a ‘move to innocence’, a concern that Tuck and Yang say is a step in the wrong direction for the decolonization of indigenous peoples.  While I am in unfamiliar territory on how to address the indigenous curriculum, I think that this addresses a third feature of curriculum, and that is who the curriculum is for.
So after all this reflection, what is curriculum?  Curriculum is ever changing; curriculum needs to be debated on, questioned, and changed to reflect the needs of society.  Curriculum is both what and how students learn, and it is also who the learning is for.  So what is your curriculum?