Implied Curriculum

¶ … Curriculum Within the modern cultural experience, classroom curriculum takes on a greater role than ever. As society continues to evolve, so must the classroom in order to maintain the rubric necessary -- to educate and prepare students for the challenges of the modern world. There remains a set of challenges, though, for educators, parents, and students alike.

With so much new information available, how does the modern school add important new subjects into the curriculum while not crowding the basics and diminishing the ability to provide important tools that each student needs? Thus, the political, social, and cultural changes, most especially those that have occurred since 1970, are in direct conflict with skills in reading, math, and science -- all of which show an uncomfortable stagnation in America's school systems (Erwin, 2004).

In many ways, though, the set of learning of objectives that are planned or guided by the school board of a given area, in other words the curriculum has both objective and subjective value for the modern learner. Most define the curriculum as the holistic or total learning experience provided by the school -- the cultural norms, methods, strategies, experiences, and of course, the content of lessons.

However, since we know that nothing in school exists in a vacuum, there is both an objective curriculum and an implied or subjective curriculum. The objective curriculum is easy to define; it focuses on the structure and materials that require mastery over the course of the educational experience. This is often measured through quantitative means -- tests, exams, standardized scoring, etc.

However, the implied or subjective curriculum may or may not be as articulated and focuses on culture, values, emotions, and preparation for the social aspect of teaching young people how to be valuable citizens (Kelly, 2009). In the objective curriculum, committees plan, purchase and implement standards. In the implied curriculum, which may affect the learner as much if not more than the objective curriculum, teachers may not plan the implicit nature of values, norms and cultural behaviors since each teacher is unique with their own set of values, norms and behaviors.

While the school may suggest "teach learners to be good citizens," the interpretation of this may fall well beyond an individual instructor's ability to conform -- in fact, this is so pervasive that one scholar noted "whether teachers intend to or not, they teach values" and other subtle messages about psychology, behavior and culture (Parkay, et al., 2010, p. 43). A prime example of the disconnect between curriculum and implied curriculum comes when one reviews most schools' physical education and athletic programs within the Secondary level.

The express or objective curriculum of physical education is typically a structured way to teach learners about the rules of sports, particularly lifetime sports, the importance of exercise and health, and the mechanics and rules of many games. This is designed so the learner can enjoy the world of sports, participate as an amateur, and contribute to a healthy lifestyle. The implied curriculum, however, is somewhat different.

This area of the curriculum teaches teamwork, following rules, sharing, empathy, strategy and personality traits like perseverance, tenacity, reasoning, the psychology of winning, and overcoming stress in order to follow a greater goal (Kelly and Melograno, 2004). The athletic program in most Secondary Schools has no real curriculum. Typically, it is a before or after school events that involves competitions between students from other, similar sized, schools.

Most programs, by necessity, spend 90% of the time honing skills than teaching rules or teamwork, typically most students already understand the basics of the sport prior to trying out for the team. The implied curriculum, though, is more about wining and being the best one can be; but often the idea of stress and competition, particularly in the popular sports of Football and Basketball, out shadows everything else.

This, in part, is due to the structure of the schools -- the big team sports are money makers, ways faculty and students can share in school pride, and the focus of many towns and cities as the competition between schools integrates the community and becomes far more than simple sports (Physical Education and Sports, 2011). One primary negative and disconnect between the programs focuses on the overall message engendered through athletic programs.

Is the message, for instance, to participate in a sport to hone the body as well as the mind (akin to Ancient Greece)? If this is the case, the swimming, tennis, cross-country, wrestling, and even baseball should receive support from the school.

Alternatively, is the idea of an athletic program to engender community support, goodwill, funding, and a way for coaches and players both to have the chance to further their careers into college or professional athletics? Indeed, the focus upon football and basketball in most of American schools is so rabid that it brings out radio and television coverage, band and cheerleading squads, concessions and funding for.