Curriculum as Praxis - Friere

Friere's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" is an interesting and ideologically infused read. Friere asserts that it is the duty of the education system to infuse a spirit of inquiry and activism into students. Friere states that "the true word - which is work, which is praxis - is to transform the world." His goal is to create dialogue and justice. This is admirable, and I am sure there was no malice in Friere's mind when he wrote - there are, however, problems.



Friere's goal to liberate and eliminate class distinction through the education system is Utopian and unrealistic. An examination of human existance, from the extermination of the neanderthal, in prehistory to the construction of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Europe, and America, tells us that humans do seek to dominate eachother. The intellectual in all of us can identify ethical minefields in the establishment, expansion, and consolidation of every human enterprise. These breaches of ethics and morals reveal an innate desire to gain, control, and dominate. To change human nature seems an unrealistic goal for an education system.



Proof of this point exists in the practical application of Friere's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed". University students of education laud the moral fibre of Friere, then proceed into the profession and accomplish almost nothing pertaining to emancipation of the masses.

Topic - Based Curriculum

I am currently teaching Social Studies 9 as designed by the Ministry. I am becoming more and more frustrated with the 'wish-washy' nature of the course. The course is designed with entirely thematic units bearing such obtuse titles as "Change", "Time", and "Causality". I tried to follow the guide, I really did, but alas, I have deviated significantly. Rather than teaching flowery concepts, I have decided to teach ancient history. This has resulted in a fairly dramatic deviation from the curriculum guide. I have come to loath "Social Studies" because of the inherent vagueness. It is supposed to be a fusion of sociology, history, geography, phsychology, geology, and language arts, but this seems a lofty goal. In attempting to accomplish a great deal of conceptual learning, much is lost. Having taught History 10, 20, and 30, I can attest to the fact that students are not keenly aware of causality, change, time, sociology, psychology, or any of the other themes or concepts as articulated in Social Studies 9. I would like to see a directional shift toward more of a topic - based approach. I remember discussing topic-based curricula in North Battleford and immediately thinking about my SS 9 course. Topic-based curricula make the purpose of the course more clear and make evaluation more accurate. In making goals simpler and more attainable, you actually accomplish more. I think Tyler would approve.

A Brief Critique of Tyler

After reading Tyler, I was left wondering how to define the purpose of education. It seems to me that to design a curriculum based upon purpose is impossible because of local variations. The purpose of education is certainly unique to each small region and each micro-economy. For example, to define the purpose of education in a jurisdiction the size of Saskatchewan is nebulous to say the least. Students in the jurisdiction of Saskatoon Public and students in Black Lake exist in vastly different social, political, and economic contexts. This makes it impossible for the Ministry of Learning to design objectives and evaluative criteria that are relevant for both student bodies. This is only one example of the myriad of 'mini-worlds' within our province.

This is not to say that Tyler's Ratonale has no place in curriculum design. Merely that his approach may be too generalistic to suit a group of people as diverse as Canadians. While purpose and evaluation are important, they are peculiar to region. I believe that Tyler's rationale does not pay sufficient heed to the human element of the educative process.