Thus, from a very young age, not only did I notice the
disconnection between disciplines, but, also, the supposed
"superiority" of certain subjects over others.
As students we all knew, even though no one told us
(hidden curriculum), that there were core subjects (language, math and science)
and others (arts and physical education) that, well, you had to teach them or,
even worse, pretend as if you taught them because they were required by the
state.
The inferiority of some subjects juxtaposed against
the superiority of others was reflected in everything. For the “lesser”
subjects there were no exams, no homework, no assignments, no nothing. It seemed that we didn’t have to learn them,
the grades were no problem, either, as everyone got an A+.
The teachers who taught these subjects were also the
"victims" of these differences, that is to say, a warning from the
math teacher was not the same as a warning from the physical education teacher and
we all knew it, the principal, the teachers, pupils and parents.
Although, when I studied pedagogy at a university, I
was taught that education should be comprehensive
(oh, how well it sounded) and that all subjects were equally important, the
truth was that, once again, the words did not match the deeds.
The reality is that education has been replaced by job training and, in this sense, only
the subjects that are associated with the generation of money become important,
like math and science, while the others are viewed with reluctance, to say the
least.
But those of us who are linked to education cannot
forget that education should be a training system to build a free, fair and
egalitarian society; we cannot forget that true education must bring up wise,
kind and fraternal human beings.
curriculum is fragmented but then good teachers (and us magpies interested in everything) remix it using the fragmentation to talk about it and why.
ResponderEliminar