After Brad's presentation on Cynthia Chambers article, I was thinking about how we all view the world from our own "place" in society, and wondering about the question, "How do we construct a provincial curriculum to give voice to all of these different places?" I will get back to this in just a minute, but first...
As I read through Johnson's article that was handed out last class, "Burt Lancaster is Apache: Hollywood's shocking reel Indians", I couldn't help feeling defensive. The main reason is probably that I LOVED the movie Avatar. I thought it was brilliant. So, my arguments are probably completely biased but here I go anyway:
"The Vatican frets about its creed of nature worship." First of all, I'm not sure what is wrong with "worshiping" nature - don't we want to have a clean world in which to live? Don't we preoccupy ourselves these days with sustainability and living "green"? Second, (and as a Christian) I didn't find this offensive either. In my mind I spent most of the movie seeing this "nature worship" as a metaphor for God. Perhaps it wasn't meant that way by James Cameron, but does that matter? The point is that we all experience things differently due to our "places" in life.
"U.S. Conservatives condemn it as anti-military eco-liberalism." It's just a movie. It is one person's point of view. I'm sure if the movie had the opposite spin (the "Americans" taking over this fresh land and defeating the Na'vi) the "eco" people would be in an uproar. Again, it's just a movie. It's just art. It's up for your own interpretation.
"The Na'vi aliens on Pandora are clearly patterned on North American natives, or more specifically their Hollywood stereotype - noble savages in braids and riding bareback with bows and arrows. And as in Dances With Wolves, their messiah is a white man who goes native". Once again, I am probably biased because I am not of Aboriginal descent. When I was watching the movie I thought it was a brilliant way of showing what it must have been like for indiginous people (both in Canada and the U.S., as well as all round the world) to be "invaded" by a group of people who thought they were both stronger and superior. The article pointed out that North American natives were "misrepresented" by putting feathers in their hair and doing a "war whoop". I can understand the frustrations of being misrepresented. But then I was thinking that perhaps James Cameron wanted to get his point across, and thought that this was the best way in which to do it. Maybe the general public do need to be "hit over the head" with "obvious" similarities in order to get it. Had he been more discreet in his portrayal, maybe the story wouldn't have had as much resonance. Of course the "white man" coming in on his high horse and saving everyone is a little chiche. Actually, a LOT cliche. But I still think the point was made very nicely. And, again, it is art. It is one person's representation. It is up to us how we choose to interpret it.
I think the same can be said for curriculum. First, it is written by one group of people. I would hope that the people who make up the team would be from a variety of different cultures, backgrounds, experiences, etc. This would help to make it more authentic. But, it is still the point of view of one group of people. And these people cannot help where they come from and how they think about things. They are defined by their "place" just as much as the rest of us. Second, we all have the opportnity to interpret these curriculum documents based on our own "places". Some of us will see one document as lacking in certain areas based on our place, and others may see the same document as full and rich based on their place. I think that it is most important that curriculum be flexible enough to be adapted/shaped to fit where we are, while still providing a sense of unity among all "places".
Going back to the white man on the horse saving the day image again, we have to remember who this movie is coming from. It is produced in Hollywood, by Americans. Of course they are going to make themselves the hero of the story. Who wouldn't? If a movie was made by Canadians, they would probably be presented in a flattering light. If a movie was made by Pakistanis, they would probably be the heroes. If Native Americans had made the movie Avatar, the hero would most likely have been one of the Na'vi people. We have to remember that everything that is made by people is going to have a personal spin based on our own biases, beliefs, values and experiences. How can we say that someone else's expression is wrong? So I think when we are looking at curriculum in terms of how it fits with our own place in society, it is really up to us (the teachers) to make it fit. We cannot control who wrote it and how it was written. We can control how we choose to interpret and implement it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are absolutely right, Ashley. Teachers should be able to interpret the curriculum from their own "Place". However, the problem comes when all of the students in your class interpret that differently. So, how do you ensure that every student in Manitoba has the same education? Perhaps it is okay that they don't. Every teacher should be able to interpret the curriculum, come up with a plan, and deliver the lesson. It reminds me of the movie, "Where the Wild Things Are". The teacher in the scene is discussing the energy in the sun and says that eventually the sun will run out of energy, die and the world will become black. The little boy interprets this as very soon and tells the monster friends that the sun is dying. I thought that was funny. I wonder how many times stuff I say is misinterpreted like that! Anyway, I think it is important to give the teachers some freedom of interpretation, but then they need to also realize that as they interpret it, so will the students. Every student in Manitoba could be getting a different perception of information.
ReplyDeleteYes, teachers definitely interpret curriculum in their own ways as they see it from their "place." I can appreciate Canada's history of curriculum research through autobiography and narrative, as us teachers must explore who we are to see what we are brining to the classroom. We teach from what we know and have experienced. This ultimately biases what we choose to teach and how, as well as what we leave out of the curriculum.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe that it is best to begin teaching once one has some life experience. I went straight through university after high school, then immediately into my first classroom. When in education, I realized that most people were older than me. Having had more life experience, the older teachers have a broader perspective to give their students, and the ability to better analyze the places from which they approach teaching and learning. Young teachers, although full of energy and enthusiasm, can be naive and unaware of how their life experiences influence their interpretation of the curriculum.
I agree with many of the points you raise in your blog, Ashley. In particular, I liked your concluding sentence "We cannot control who wrote it and how it was written. We can control how we choose to interpret and implement it". I agree with this statement the vast majority of the time - but then I think about teachers who might "interpret" the curriculum in a, for lack of a more precise term, wonky way. An example that comes to mind is James Keegstra who taught his students that the Holocaust didn't happen. But then, I suppose the question that could be raised is, why is my perspective that Keegstra is wrong "more valid" than his interpretation? This is the challenge I've always run into when thinking about postmodernism. I am totally for having people subscribe to differing views on religion, politics, teaching methodologies, the best recipe for stew, etc. But every so often you hear about someone who is totally out in left field, which makes me question how much freedom individuals should be given to interpret things, such as curriculum, through their individual lens. It would seem to be so much easier to have a line in the curriculum documents such as "you can choose how to interpret and implement curriculum...provided you are not a total wacko". But, I'm sure any pioneer in their field who advocated for new ideas, such as the first people to try out inquiry based learning, would have been considered "wacko" by some. You've given me lots to think about!
ReplyDeletegood comments from everyone. Teaching ELA i have realized that there was an concerted effort to integrate flexibility within the curriculum. Teachers can choose to teach reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing and representing from the "place" that best suits the teacher and students.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I am currently teaching a media/advertising unit with my Grade 9's. Last week (prior to surgery) i engaged them in a discussion regarding Tiger Woods. We initially discussed the "facts" or known events of his recent situation then leading into a discussion about the following topics:
a) do you feel let down by his action? why or why not?
b) is he a role model? why or why not? who asked him to be a role mode?
c) does he have a right to ask for privacy now?
d) should his sponsors keep him? Gatorade dropped him...was that right?
Finally, i asked them to pretend they were the CEO of proctor and gamble and they had to make the decision if they were going to keep him as the "Face" of their Gillette advertising campaign.
In this example, students were challenged to interpret the situation from their own time and place....no right or wrong answers as long as they justified their point of view.
Again, i realize that i'm spoiled in ELA but think that most current curriculum documents leave a lot of interpretation....do you not think?
hey ash...i am wondering if society can put a value on a teacher who comes everyday with an open and honest heart and teaches in a manner that is fair, and is non-prejudicial, and is inspirational, and is empathic, and has a world view, and can put their own structures and perceptions aside...priceless
ReplyDelete