Curriculum Critique

1.  Select a curriculum artifact that applies to your present or desired teaching context. Here are some possibilities:

  1. Standards document (e.g. a selection from the core curriculum)
  2. A unit plan (created by you, another teacher, a governing body (i.e. state or district), or professionally manufactured)
  3. A section from a textbook
  4. A formal assessment (e.g. a test or a rubric)
  5. An online curricular resource
  6. An “educational” video

2.  Describe the curriculum artifact (less than a page)

  1. Write a paragraph or two explaining what the artifact is, how it is used, what the objectives are, who created it, and who selected it to be used in your teaching context
  2. Write a few sentences explaining why you chose this particular curriculum artifact to analyze

3.  Answer the following questions about the curriculum artifact: (about 2 pages)

  1. “Who produced this document, resource, or Web site (if it is possible to tell)? Can you tell where the authors or producers are coming from?”
  2. “What is it trying to accomplish? What is its purpose?”
  3. “What key concepts does it use? What problems, issues, and points of view does it direct attention toward? What does it direct attention away from? Whose view of the world does it tend to support? Whose view does it undermine or ignore?”
  4. “Whose knowledge isn’t here, that could be here? What is left out?” (Questions taken from Sleeter, 2005, p. 37)

As you are considering these questions, think about your students or a possible group of students. Which of your students would be most likely to relate to the content and form of the curricular artifact? In other words, who would be most likely to see themselves in the artifact? Who would not?

4.  How could this artifact be made more inclusive of diverse students? (about 1-2 pages) Think about several students whose identity characteristics are underrepresented or not accommodated in this artifact. (You might consider, for example, race, social class, culture, language, gender, sexual orientation, exceptionality, religion, etc.) To make this task more manageable, you could choose one or two identity characteristics to focus on.

  1. Describe one major overhaul that could be made to make the artifact more inclusive. This question invites you to think big and idealistically, assuming there were no formidable obstacles – e.g. you had access to all the necessary resources and full reign to make curricular decisions.
  2. Describe three small ways you could make the artifact more inclusive. This question assumes that you don’t have all the time, resources, and authority to make major changes and are required to “use” this artifact. Given those constraints, what could you still do to move the artifact or your application of the artifact in a more inclusive, equitable direction?

Curriculum Critique Rubric

Project is due March 2.

5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Completion / Each section is answered thoroughly / Each section is answered, but one or more sections is lacking / Only two sections are completed / Only one section is completed / Minimal completion
Quality of writing / Writing is polished and error-free. The tone is professional. / Writing is clean and basically free from errors. The tone is professional. / Writing is clear and satisfactory. No major problems. / Writing has multiple errors and feels stilted or superficial / Writing is unacceptable
Quality of analysis / Responses reflect thoughtful analysis that shows complexity of thinking, and a well-constructed argument. Analysis is highly provocative. “Wow” factor / Responses show thoughtful, analysis that communicates sincere grappling with the questions / Responses are thoughtful, but lack depth or complexity / Responses are superficial / There is very little analysis.
Content / Response shows critical understanding of Sleeter text, ideological assumptions of the artifact are described, responses demonstrate awareness of multiple perspectives, identity characteristics, and alternative ways of creating curriculum. / Response mostly demonstrates level 5 understanding (described in the column to the left) / Response suggests misunderstanding of one or more criteria described in level 5. / Response suggests significant misunderstanding or misapplication of level 5 criteria. / Response is superficial and shows minimal effort to engage with level 5 criteria.