Set curriculum

Not too long ago, I posted a quick argument against a set curriculum. This was actually my first time using the term. I provided a quick explanation, but I think that it would be best to provide a little more about the concept.

A set curriculum is pretty much what it sounds like. It is a rigid curriculum to which various students will be subjected. This form of curriculum goes through a process to develop and approve in some form. For this to work, the curriculum must be firmly established prior to any student being exposed.

The problem with this approach is that it can't accommodate individual needs. The time and effort to develop any curriculum is inhibitive of developing individualized curriculum. The rigidity ensures that teachers don't have the flexibility to improvise curriculum to address the inevitability of individual needs not being properly addressed.

A set curriculum can be developed at multiple levels. It could be developed by the federal government (common core), the state, the district, or even by the teacher. Regardless, the concept is essentially the same. The people developing the curriculum try to establish what is best overall for a group. In a vast majority of situations, the people developing the curriculum don't even know the students who will be subjected to the curriculum. On the rare occasions when the students are known, they are not known well.

Students end up being subjected to curriculum that doesn't even try to take their unique needs into consideration. This form of curriculum can only work if each student is consistently the same as all the others. The reality does not match the approach. A set curriculum guarantees that needs of students will consistently remain unmet. As a believer in both educational rights and individuality, I will always reject the idea of a set curriculum. This is an approach that will never serve students well.