Sep. 21, 2026: What is meant by 'curriculum'?

Elliot Eisner’s article “The Three Curricula That All Schools Teach,” points to a thought-provoking argument about what is simply taught out of habit in academia. I have learned in my LLED 366 class that many schools repeat lessons and reuse books over the years because of financial budgeting. Until reading Eisener’s article, I never stopped to realize how this is reflected in STEM. He highlights how STEM is valued more over arts, and this was a perspective I agreed with as I experienced how STEM was expectationally harsher. However, when further reflecting on my biases, I began to realize how disproportionate the focus on STEM really is compared to arts. In truth, STEM is habitually seen as more difficult due to there being no other academic contenders. This is not to argue that arts have the potential to be more challenging, but it reinforces the idea that education neglects creativity in comparison to metrics. As schools prioritize numerical results, it takes away from the thinking that goes into the arts, and this is alarming as it actively prevents students from being nurtured multimodally.

Eisener also alludes to the concept of focusing on not just what schools are teaching, but also what they are not teaching. More precisely, educational systems implicitly lead students to conform to external expectations. With academic achievement being a focal point in schooling, there is a strong inclination for students to chase after metrics instead of looking towards their own passions. This stood out to me too, as I find it peculiar that there are views that certain institutions provide more valuable education than others, when they all inherently provide similar content. While I do think it is beneficial that students get the most out of their learning, and have an active goal to strive for, I also see how misleading and harmful these convictions can be if not accomplished. Instead, I believe there should be an increased attention on multimodal learning, such as through indigenous ways of teaching. 

When connecting Eisner’s ideas to the mandated BC Provincial Curriculum, he presents an idea that course subjects were menu items of sorts. This metaphor interested me, as much like a menu there are limited options. The student is presented with what seems like free will in their education, but they are really only being allowed to choose from what is available. By extending this notion, it follows that students are not truly products of teachers, but are instead the projected expectations put on teachers. This observation is striking, as it elucidates to the possibility that students are not truly being shaped by the content they learn. In essence, while students are still learning, due to the mandated BC Provincial Curriculum, Eisener demonstrates that this process is more akin to senseless replication.