Howida Moustafa

Dear Dr. Ali

It is my pleasure to write to you about what I have learned in my curriculum instruction
and development class. A few months ago, I had the chance witness your work in helping
construct and develop the curriculum for Zewail City Collage of science technology. I was
surprised that the process of constructing and designing a curriculum takes so much work,
searching and reading. I also noticed how much time you and your college spent discussing the
design and construction of the curriculum. Watching the process of constructing a curriculum
aroused my interest and inspired me to take this class.
What I will attempt is not instruction or a set recipe for designing curriculum. What I
want to do with this letter is to stimulate critical thinking about developing and constructing a
curriculum, specifically the need to reflect on the history of curriculum development. I will
attempt to share with you the readings that have influenced my thinking and helped spur my
reflections on the process of curriculum development and instruction.
Great educators like Dewey, Alder, Eisner, and Ornstein highlighted my understanding
that no single, best curriculum lies waiting for us to discover. I have become aware that any
artificially created dichotomy between society, child, and school has been more harmful than
helpful for curriculum development, and I have become aware that school, child, and society are
all crucial parts of shaping and reshaping the character and content of a curriculum.
To shape our ideas about curriculum development, we need a holistic understanding of
the three curricula that schools use. In his article, Eisner defined the three curricula (explicit,
implicit, and null) and changed the way educators think about curriculum. He defined the explicit
curriculum saying: teaching children to read, write, to figure, and to learn something about
the history of the country among them there is of course many of them are associate with the
explicit curriculum that the school offer to the students (Eisner, 2002, p. 87)
An explicit curriculum is the menu or list offered to students so they can choose what to
learn. It offers a basic principles of options. The implicit curriculum or the hidden curriculum,
however, differs. The hidden curriculum is set of expectation norms, rules, values, and skills that
a school culture imposes on children, expecting them to adapt to that culture (Eisner, 2002). The

implicit curriculum is an aim of the school to help students become mapper of their educational
journey (Eisner, 2002, p. 97).
While implicit and explicit curricula are both exciting, the null curriculum is by contrast
unexciting. There is something of a paradox involving in writing a curricula does not exist
ELL (There is something of a paradox involved in writing about a curriculum that does not exist.
Yet, if we are concerned with the consequences of school programs and the role of curriculum in
shaping those consequences, then it seems to me that we are well advised to consider not only
the explicit and implicit curricula of schools but also what schools do not teach. (Eisner, 2002, p.
97)
Learning about the three types of curriculum opened my eyes to the complexity and the
importance of curriculum development, to look at curriculum from different perspectives and
angles. I began to wonder what the best curriculum is, what should we teach in our school, and
why.
Moreover, to help us as educators become strategic thinkers, we must study the philosophy of
teaching to guide our understanding and develop our own philosophy. Without philosophy
educators are direction less, in how and what to organize implementing what we are trying to
achieve (Ornstein ,2011 , p. 5 ). Studying different philosophies of teaching is an eye opening
experience that helps us as educators to clearly identify our mission and sharpen our skills to be
well prepared and professional. Philosophies of education provide us with the framework for
implementing curriculum.
In our class discussion, I explored different dimensions of philosophies, and I came to
realize how each philosophy affects the development of curriculum. Studying the history of
educational philosophies inspired me consider what type of philosophy I should adopt. I liked
how the progressive philosophy focused on the child, not the content or teacher, and how it
defined knowledge as personal and individual discovery taking place through the process of
learning. On the other hand, I preferred how reconstructionism focused on creating a better
society through social reform. I also liked how essentialism focused on the intellectual and
moral, on the basic knowledge and basic training of reading, writing, and math, on how it

prompted the growth of the individual. I also saw how each philosophy affects the role of the
teacher. Now I understand why very few schools adopt a single philosophy (Ornstein, 2011, p.
7) because each philosophy has unique fundamental objectives.
I have come to the conclusion that, as a teacher, I will not adopt a single philosophy to
define my role as teacher. My philosophy will be a mix of these philosophies. I prefer, as a
teacher, to be the guide for solving problems as in the progressivism approach, but I will also
give my students explicit training in traditional values as advocated by the essentialism approach.
I will also serve as an agent of discovery in the reconstructionist approach. My role will go
beyond the limitations of each philosophy.
Exploring each philosophy helped me navigate my trip through the history of curriculum,
to discover how each educational philosophy and approach shapes the history of education itself.
When our teacher assigned the class to read the history of curriculum, I started to wonder how
reading the history of curriculum will affect me as an educator, why I should know and read this
history. The answer to these questions are in the first paragraph. The history of curriculum is like
an experiment laboratory, using different approaches, theories, and methods to test education.
The history shows us the results without doing the experiments over and over.
The history of curriculum highlighted three focal points around which curricula should be
developed. The first is school second is the child and the third is the society From the colonial
era through the twenty first century (no child left behind), curriculum has been based on these
three focal points. The history of curriculum has been influenced by politics and social events
around the world.
Finally I want you to know in this class I am going to participate in curriculum designing. I am
also going to explore the advantage and the disadvantage of different curriculums in the history. I
will also be reading about great educator and curriculum developer in the history such as Dewey,
Montessori, Alder, and Counts. In this class I will be learning more in depth about Deweys
ideas about learning in the light of the principle mental activity and Montessoris scientific
pedagogy, Tyler basic principle of curriculum and the learning experience.
Sincerely,

Howida

References
Marsh, C. & Willis, G. (2007). 4th Ed. Chap. 2. Curriculum history.
Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues (pp. 23-67). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Adler, M. J. (1982). The paideia proposal. In Flinders, D. & Thornton, S. (2013). The
Curriculum Studies Reader. New York and London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Counts, G. S. (1932). Dare the school build a new social order? In Flinders, D. & Thornton,
S. (2013). The Curriculum Studies Reader. New York and London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Dewey, J. (1902) The Child and the Curriculum & Dewey, J. (1915) The School and Society.
The University of Chicago Press.
Eisner, E. (2002). Chap. 4 The Three Curricula that All Schools Teach. The Educational
Imagination: On the design and evaluations of school programs (pp. 87-107).
Jackson, P. W. (1968). The Daily Grind. In Flinders, D. & Thornton, S. (2013). The Curriculum
Studies Reader. New York and London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Marsh, C. & Willis, G. (2007). Chap. 2. Curriculum history. Curriculum: Alternative approaches,
ongoing issues (pp. 23-67). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Noddings, N. (1983). The false promise of the paideia: A critical review of the paideia proposal.
In Flinders, D. & Thornton, S. (2013). The Curriculum Studies Reader. New York and London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Ornstein, B. (2011). Philosophy as a Basis for Curriculum Decision, in A. C. Ornstein, E. F.
Pajak, & S. B. Ornstein, Contemporary Issues in Curriculum. Pearson.