( The following is based upon an interview with High School English

Teacher Robert Baker PhD , at Solomon Schechter High School

in Teaneck, N.J.)

Written by Brian Pauly

As I contemplated my upcoming curriculum interview, I knew that I

harbored certain suspicions. After a modest amount of research, I was under the
distinct impression that the process of curriculum development and its
implementation, was a mysterious undertaking for which no one would take
responsibility. I believed that the teacher who is handed a curriculum, is much like
Joseph K. in THE TRIAL, by Franz Kafka. Joseph K. without having done
anything wrong is "arrested one fine morning," and he spends the rest of the novel
trying to understand why; only to discover that he just gets deeper and deeper into
this thick bureaucratic fog which he never overcomes, and in the end, he dies, "like
a dog!" In other words, Joseph K.'s quest for meaning and understanding brushes
up against a divinely indifferent, cruel and ambiguous universe.
I believed that a teacher who is handed a curriculum must experience the
same existential ambiguity that Joseph K. experiences in THE TRIAL. Who is
responsible for this curriculum, and what exactly does it signify? Is this the final
word? Or is there some negotiation involved? Is there some committee to meet with
that will explain the rationale and well thought out philosophy behind this
curriculum? Or will the teacher be left alone to fulfill a definitive sentence, and
manage an intractable document that must be adhered to in rigid detail; and at all
costs?
Like Joseph K. I sought answers to these questions. I was enrolled in a
Masters program for teaching High School English, and one of my courses was to
study curriculum development. I thought it would be informative to interview a well
established and respected High School teacher, in order to gain insight into his
understanding of the process of curriculum development and revision. Robert
Baker had been teaching English at Solomon Schechter High School for eight years.
I was curious to find out what level of understanding a dynamic and highly effective
teacher had about the roles of various people and groups involved in the curriculum
process.

When I asked Robert how the curriculum for his school is developed and
who develops it, he responded in a true Kafkaesque fashion, "That's hard to say,
ever since I have been at this place, there has always been a certain curriculum in
place. I would imagine that the department chairs in conjunction with teachers
develop the curriculum … I imagine some school officials, but I couldn't really say
with any certainty."
Imagine.
 But unlike Joseph K., Robert's uncertainty as to where the curriculum is
derived from, and how it is developed, did not lead to the same existential confusion
and search for answers that led to the demise of Joseph K. In fact the opposite
seemed to be the case. Rather than dwelling on the seeming arbitrariness of the
curriculum, Robert chose to charge forward and use that given curriculum as a
springboard into education. He likes the notion of being handed a curriculum, that
is in essence an outline and starting point, from which he can jump into the world of
literature and ideas. What makes it easier for him is that Robert is very happy with
the many excellent pieces of literature that are chosen.
He also added that the curriculum is somewhat flexible and he is always
adding his own choices into the mix. And in addition to that, he says that the
individual teacher does play a major role in the development and revision of the
curriculum in terms of his or her process of "transforming that given document
into the day to day activities and lessons; as well as taking the leadership to initiate
the basic tenor of the classroom." He says, " a teacher is free to teach what they feel
strongly about."
But when I asked him whether he felt this externally imposed curriculum
was an obstacle or catalyst for education, he had a mixed reaction. "It depends upon
the individual student. For some students something is clearly in the way of getting
their diploma. But for other students they seem to benefit from it … but it's a tough
call." This was the first point in the interview that Robert indicated that the
influence of the curriculum may not all be positive. Earlier in the interview when I
asked him about the "philosophy" of the curriculum, he had laughed. I got the
impression that either he had never thought about it, or he didn't think that there
needed to be one. However, he did acknowledge that much of the teaching was
grouped in a somewhat random way. For example: American Literature was taught
in the 10th grade, British Literature in the 11th, and World Literature in 12th. He
confessed that it seemed to be more of a superficial grouping rather than a reflection
of a well thought out educational philosophy. We discussed the idea of adding a
greater continuity to the educational process by teaching in thematic units where
the literature can be arranged not according to nation and time periods, but by
universal ideas and issues that all people and students go through. For example: if
High School students were taught a thematic unit concerning the transformation
from adolescence to young adulthood; that would give the daily pursuit of education
a driving force and focus to keep the students not only engaged in their own lives;
but in their educational processes that are now becoming a direct part of it. By
exchanging purpose for arbitrariness; lessons can over time have a progressive
coherency, and students can be given the time they deserve and the support they
need to reflect upon their own lives and learn to become thoughtful, engaged young
adults.
I decided to ask Robert what he would consider an ideal curriculum. I
thought this might lead to insight in regard to that "something" that is "clearly in
the way of getting their diploma." He said that a student centered learning would
be preferable with a small amount of students who are mature enough and
motivated enough to take on that responsibility. These students could do
independent study under the guidance and supervision of the teacher, and could
have an opportunity to discover and develop their own interests in more depth than
is commonly associated with a standard classroom. He said, "Let the curriculum
suit the individual needs, desires, and even lusts of a given student!" I think with
this statement Robert had answered what it is that "clearly stands in the way of
getting their diploma." An externally imposed, (one size fits all), and somewhat
arbitrarily derived curriculum; can easily become an obstacle that stands in the way
of a student's self discovery, self actualization and psychological maturity.
He said he would also keep a curriculum outline that would be similar to the
traditional model, but students would have great latitude and individual choice in
determining the selections of materials to be studied. Along with independent study,
students would also have a common communal experience where they would learn
together. This would both allow for a shared learning experience among students,
as well as give an appropriate educational outlet for those students who are not up
to the challenge of individual independent study, and feel more comfortable with the
traditional educational model.

When I then pressed Robert further about the meaning and philosophy
behind a curriculum, it seemed to strike him at that moment what exactly he had
been doing all those years. He said, The basic idea is that you teach people how to
read and write. Everything that you cover during the year is basically a vehicle to
teach students to read and write. It may as well be the TEMPEST rather than
MACBETH. Why it's MACBETH, I don't know. Is there some philosophical
reason that God or whomever chose to put it in the curriculum, I can't answer those
questions, it's beyond my feeble scope. Basically we teach students to be perceptive
readers, and good writers; good, clear, organized and fluent writers." It was a clear,
succinct, and rather pragmatic answer to a more abstract question of philosophy.
And it seemed to me, right on the money.
While Joseph K. waffled in an existential black hole in search of ultimate
meaning; Robert looked forward and let passion, interest, dedication and energy
guide the way. Although his relationship to the curriculum was somewhat
Kafkaesque, ( he could not answer what I thought were somewhat basic questions
such as where the curriculum comes from or why it comes at all), but unlike Joseph
K. who would have been absolutely confused by the given curriculum of life; it is
my impression that Robert's goal is to transform this curriculum that comes from
this "unknowable void," into a manifesto for empowerment and dynamic
engagement. He replaces the "existential fog" with heroic endeavor.
And lust.