The McDonaldization of Curriculum
In sociology, there is a term called “McDonaldization” which describes a process “’by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world’” (Ritzer, 1993:1 in Keel, The McDonaldization of Society).
At a popular fast food chain (take your pick, but we’ll use McDonald’s, since it is in my title), one can get a burger in Maine, and the exact same burger in California. A large fry is a large fry, in Princeton, or in Miami. McNuggets are McNuggets, whether in Montreal, or Alaska. There is standardization: portion control, quality control… basically, lots of control.
Carr and Kemmis (1986) discuss curriculum “as a field… transformed… to [a field] concerned with making” (16). They further discuss curriculum as written by only those who are “qualified” to do so, who write curriculum in a vacuum, void of any classroom. It is only written by those who understand the shibboleth. In reality, curriculum has become not a guideline for teachers, but the teacher’s “Ideal Situation Handbook: The When, Where, and How.” It has become standardized. It has become controlled. There is a definite McDonaldization of curriculum, and, dare I say it, education.
What can we do about this? I guess there could be new curricular policy, but that could backfire, if sabotaged by those opposed (see my previous post). I don’t know… maybe it’s the only way…
posted by Matthew J. LaPine @ 11:39 AM
2 Comments:
It is true that in our society today, standardization seems to be the trend. However, I do not believe that standardization is the core of the problem. The real problem is the lack of quality in public schools throughout the nation. Many schools cannot get proper funding, because this funding comes from the community where the school is located. Usually, schools districts with higher income families get a large amount of funds. These schools can afford to buy quality, up to date materials and hire more qualified and “better” teachers. It is the school districts with the low income families where this cannot happen. The schools are not funded properly and are forced to have bad materials and unqualified teachers. I feel that standardization of schools is a perceived solution to this problem. However, the solution will not be effective, because not all students everywhere will learn the same way and want to learn the same thing. However, at this present moment in time, our school systems do not give all students equal opportunities. I believe that the current trend in standardization is a way to bridge the gap. However, I do not believe that standardization is the answer. We need to find a way to give all students equal opportunities while still catering to their individual needs.
This discussion about curriculum is particularly interesting to me because I am still unsure what the curriculum's purpose is in my district. I was handed a copy of "the curriculum" last year before I began teaching. The curriculum was written by teachers in the district, guided by the arts supervisor. I spent hours reading through the essential questions and the elements of music I was supposed to cover and the culminating projects I had to complete. However, once I began the school year, I did not pick up the curriculum again, except when I was ready to complete the projects with the students. No one ever questioned me regarding how I was implementing the curriculum. In my (limited) experience, the curriculum has not felt overly standardized. In fact, I found it helpful to read what my colleagues found to be the important concepts to consider including in each grade.
I think the term "McDonaldization" really comes into play when discussing the National or State Standards, or the administrators'expectations of what lesson plans should look like. For instance, I am completely frightened of turning in a Critical Pedagogy model for my lesson plan, because of the necessity for terms such as "objectives," "assessment," etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home