Eisner's Three Curricula

When Eisner described the implicit curriculum, I found it interesting that he did not argue that the existence of this curriculum was necessarily negative. That we are teaching students to be compliant and competitive, to be extrinsically motivated, to function according to a timetable, etc. are not necessarily bad things, according to Eisner, as these traits may be useful and required in the real world. Eisner was not trying to prove whether these traits were "educational vice or virtue" but rather that it is important that we are conscience that these are the things which are being taught. It seems that the new B.C. curriculum is very reflective of this idea. The new curriculum makes the skills we are teaching students much more explicit. It puts these skills at the forefront of curricular planning, even ahead of what Eisner would consider to be the explicit content. I think this is a move in the right direction as it will allow us to make more conscious and active decision about what kinds of skills we are trying to teach.

I think B.C.'s new curriculum is also reflective of Eisner's description of the null curriculum. The new curriculum represents a fairly drastic change in the focus of educational goals. This upsetting of tradition is important as it causes us to question what we are choosing to include and why. Eisner's criticism in relation to the null curriculum was that we are choosing what to teach based on tradition, not based on what we have decided is important and useful in the modern world. The new curriculum (hopefully) reflects more conscious educational decisions.