I agree, this paper and the book of Pinar entitled what is curriculum theory is a manifesto, that encourages educators to act within themselves.Our country's education system is declining because of it being a business primarily.

Divinia Joy Tuzon wrote:

According to my understanding, the article is basically about curriculum theory, emphasizing the Canadian curriculum in particular. I think one of the issues the author wanted to point out in the beginning is that though Canada and US seem to be the closest among all the nations, they are in fact two historically and culturally diverse countries, and their curriculum history would prove this. According to the author, the concept of public education is still being greatly supported in Canada. And I have to agree on this one. I have cousins there who are studying and though they are not enrolled at public schools, their parents would really attest that children there aren’t embarrassed to say that they study at public schools. Education there is well subsidized by the government. On the other hand, the article mentions that the No Child Left Behind policy of the US “punishes the nonperforming schools” and pressures the educators to comply with the political agenda in US. This is something vague to me as I consider the No Child Left Behind policy a constructive idea rather than a negative one. The article also stressed the role played by the politics in influencing our education nowadays. Market capitalism had been transforming schools as business where students and parents become clients while teachers take the role of service providers (Carson, 2006). This I think is one of the “nightmares” Pindar is referring too. And I must say I agree with this. I have observed for quite some time now the continuous increase in the tuition fee of students here in the Philippines particularly those taking up Nursing. The article was entitled “help without giving advice” because it emphasizes that educators nowadays have been bombarded with so many “advices” on how they can teach their students better. However, instead of helping our educators, the exact opposite happens. My favorite lesson in this article is that “There is a fine line and often there is no line at all between advice and control.” The concept of “help without giving advice” is the best contribution we can offer to our educators because it leads to self-mobilization and social reconstruction. Carson, T. (2006). "Help Without Giving Advice". Proquest Education Journals.

yeah, but I think its only a manifesto encouraging educators to act on what is happening. am I right?

Kriselda Manzano wrote:

Hi Joel, As i understand it, Pinar provided a way to resolve it by publishing What is Curriculum Theory? This book asks the educators to join in the long term project of currere to understand the historical present situation in hopes that this will ultimately lead to self mobilization of teachers and social reconstruction (Carson 2006). REFERENCE: Carson, T. (2006). "Help Without Giving Advice". Proquest Education Journals. silva731 wrote: can you site ways on how to resolve? as stated by Pinar? thanx Kriselda Manzano wrote: As I understand the article it focuses on Pinar’s effort to present the nagging reality of education in western countries, however he didn’t stop presenting the problem he provided a way to resolve it. Now a days, most of the schools in our country are also making a market capitalism out of education thus affecting the landscape of our learning. Pinar (2004) states in his article that the students and parents become the “clients” of the “business” at the same time the teachers are the “service providers”. This is happening in the Philippines maybe because western countries colonized us, thus influencing every aspect of our lives including our education system. Reference: Pinar, W F. What is Curriculum Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004

The book is organized as a collection of ten essays (divided into five sections), all woven together around a core set of themes, primary of which is the idea that curriculum is a “complicated conversation.” Those who are familiar with Pinar’s work will recognize many of these themes, for they have concerned Pinar over the course of three decades now – from his early work with Madeleine Grumet (Pinar & Grumet,1976) to his more recent work, influenced by cultural studies, on the intersection of gender and racial politics in America, particularly in the South (Pinar, 2001). This is not, however, a collection of essays that have been published elsewhere. It is new work, although it revisits some historical research that the author has presented elsewhere. It is, in my view, Pinar at his best, and moving in new and important directions. It is not possible for me to do an adequate job of covering the broad territory opened up by this text. It is rich in both argument and historical detail, and it resists reduction to a few key ideas. That is, I think, one of the books strengths; but it means that the book is not easily summarized. It is a complicated, and complicating text. Consequently, I want to limit my comments to some of the more salient concerns the book raises for curriculum scholars, teachers, and public intellectuals. (carlson, 2005)

Carlson, D. Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies. 2005

silva731 wrote:

yeah, but I think its only a manifesto encouraging educators to act on what is happening. am I right? Kriselda Manzano wrote: Hi Joel, As i understand it, Pinar provided a way to resolve it by publishing What is Curriculum Theory? This book asks the educators to join in the long term project of currere to understand the historical present situation in hopes that this will ultimately lead to self mobilization of teachers and social reconstruction (Carson 2006). REFERENCE: Carson, T. (2006). "Help Without Giving Advice". Proquest Education Journals. silva731 wrote: can you site ways on how to resolve? as stated by Pinar? thanx Kriselda Manzano wrote: As I understand the article it focuses on Pinar’s effort to present the nagging reality of education in western countries, however he didn’t stop presenting the problem he provided a way to resolve it. Now a days, most of the schools in our country are also making a market capitalism out of education thus affecting the landscape of our learning. Pinar (2004) states in his article that the students and parents become the “clients” of the “business” at the same time the teachers are the “service providers”. This is happening in the Philippines maybe because western countries colonized us, thus influencing every aspect of our lives including our education system. Reference: Pinar, W F. What is Curriculum Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004

So his work is more of a manifesto, an argument, making us aware why our education system is like this. That is why also Carson stated that it is Help Without Giving Advice because his works increases the awareness of educators thus, empowering them. I think no solution to the current situation is being suggested.

silva731 wrote:

The book is organized as a collection of ten essays (divided into five sections), all woven together around a core set of themes, primary of which is the idea that curriculum is a “complicated conversation.” Those who are familiar with Pinar’s work will recognize many of these themes, for they have concerned Pinar over the course of three decades now – from his early work with Madeleine Grumet (Pinar & Grumet,1976) to his more recent work, influenced by cultural studies, on the intersection of gender and racial politics in America, particularly in the South (Pinar, 2001). This is not, however, a collection of essays that have been published elsewhere. It is new work, although it revisits some historical research that the author has presented elsewhere. It is, in my view, Pinar at his best, and moving in new and important directions. It is not possible for me to do an adequate job of covering the broad territory opened up by this text. It is rich in both argument and historical detail, and it resists reduction to a few key ideas. That is, I think, one of the books strengths; but it means that the book is not easily summarized. It is a complicated, and complicating text. Consequently, I want to limit my comments to some of the more salient concerns the book raises for curriculum scholars, teachers, and public intellectuals. (carlson, 2005) Carlson, D. Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies. 2005 silva731 wrote: yeah, but I think its only a manifesto encouraging educators to act on what is happening. am I right? Kriselda Manzano wrote: Hi Joel, As i understand it, Pinar provided a way to resolve it by publishing What is Curriculum Theory? This book asks the educators to join in the long term project of currere to understand the historical present situation in hopes that this will ultimately lead to self mobilization of teachers and social reconstruction (Carson 2006). REFERENCE: Carson, T. (2006). "Help Without Giving Advice". Proquest Education Journals. silva731 wrote: can you site ways on how to resolve? as stated by Pinar? thanx Kriselda Manzano wrote: As I understand the article it focuses on Pinar’s effort to present the nagging reality of education in western countries, however he didn’t stop presenting the problem he provided a way to resolve it. Now a days, most of the schools in our country are also making a market capitalism out of education thus affecting the landscape of our learning. Pinar (2004) states in his article that the students and parents become the “clients” of the “business” at the same time the teachers are the “service providers”. This is happening in the Philippines maybe because western countries colonized us, thus influencing every aspect of our lives including our education system. Reference: Pinar, W F. What is Curriculum Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004

The article speaks of a curriculum theory. Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) defined curriculum tentatively: 'A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice'. He suggests that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery.
It can be criticized on nutritional or gastronomic grounds - does it nourish the students and does it taste good? - and it can be criticized on the grounds of practicality - we can't get hold of six dozen larks' tongues and the grocer can't find any ground unicorn horn! A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment. The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment. Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice. It is an attempt to describe the work observed in classrooms that it is adequately communicated to teachers and others. Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste. So can a curriculum. (Stenhouse 1975: 4-5)

Thus, in my own opinion, incorporating technology in the context of curriculum is one of the ingredients in a recipe or styles of acquiring knowledge in education. Such, I disagree on commenting it as a ‘nightmare’. At present, the use of computers and other technology is essential, since it makes both teaching and learning more efficient and effective.


Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) 'Curriculum theory and practice' the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

Yeah technology is good but i just think that the paper is telling us that eventhough there is technology we should not be mere technical managers of a programmed process. Educators are educators we used technology as an instrument but we should not depend solely on it. Pinar tells us that quality content given by educators is still of utmost importance.

yvette wrote:

The article speaks of a curriculum theory. Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) defined curriculum tentatively: 'A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice'. He suggests that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery. It can be criticized on nutritional or gastronomic grounds - does it nourish the students and does it taste good? - and it can be criticized on the grounds of practicality - we can't get hold of six dozen larks' tongues and the grocer can't find any ground unicorn horn! A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment. The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment. Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice. It is an attempt to describe the work observed in classrooms that it is adequately communicated to teachers and others. Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste. So can a curriculum. (Stenhouse 1975: 4-5) Thus, in my own opinion, incorporating technology in the context of curriculum is one of the ingredients in a recipe or styles of acquiring knowledge in education. Such, I disagree on commenting it as a ‘nightmare’. At present, the use of computers and other technology is essential, since it makes both teaching and learning more efficient and effective. Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) 'Curriculum theory and practice' the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

According to pinars article of "Help without giving advice", he calls in for curriculum reconceptualization by the use of "currere". This article shows significant information regarding curriculum and education via cultural and historical differences in the US and Canada in relation to curriculum education that still Canada utilizes the concept of public
education though he cant help the fact that education now is being transformed into a profit kind of business for some other people (e.g. politicians). Pinar offers this aticle to teachers who do not need advice anymore regardless of the agenda that comes in as guises to be aware that will lead to Self mobilization and self reconstruction.

"What is a curriculum theory?" - a multidimensional biography based on conceptual and preconceptual experiences. The method consists of four steps = the a.) regressive, b.) progressive, c.) analytical, and d.) synthetical. In the regressive step, one postulates and records one's educational experiences in the future. In the analytical stage, one describes one's present educational experience and then seeks the individuality and interrelationships of the three descriptions. In the synthetical stage, one attempts to extract the existential meaning of the present and integrate the three forms of intellectualization into a comprehensive whole that includes the physical self. This method allows for deeper and clearer understanding of the present by outlining the past, present, and future.

For further understanding of the concept, From the book of "Curriculum" by William Pinar "Currere" - the latin root of the word curriculum, concerns the investigation of the nature of the individual experience of the public, that we are better prepared to approach the contents of consciousness as they appear to us in educational contexts. It somehow shows that our mainstream educators who are influenced by the business world forgot that curriculum is an active process, a holistic life experience to become aware of the subjects. This kind of perspective protects the curriculum from common fragmentation of modernist pedagogies as it only focus on lived realities and socio political encounters. For those who are concerned with the political and economic dimensions of schooling, Currere taught us to guard against the tendency to allow the realm of the theoretical to overwhelm and erase the realm of the personal. This can be also said in the Philippines wherein our curriculum is being transformed in a new pedagogical treatment, by inreasing the commercialization of nursing education not primarily focusing on the quality of education. The respond of some politicians and other business man to address the increasing demand of nurses in the global market is to increase nursing schools, little they know that it will impact the foundation of nursing curriculum.

As i may say, pinar points out the topic about market capitalism that it brings reform to education and thus schools increasingly use business language in relation to their objectives. He clearly shows how the education is being dominated by business thinking (Carson 2006). It's an article to show the nagging reality on how education evolve in such a way it will affect the society and tomorrows future. This i may say a "nightmare" at present pointed by Pinar. But i may disgaree on this part being called a nightmare, As ive said before, change is painful. As you may see and experience, by the use of new pedagogical appraoch using new technology facilitates more learning and now being accepted as one of the components of the curriculum, though pinar is attesting on this kind of approach, theres no harm in using this as one of our teaching style if our goal is to provide and facilitate learning within the curriculum's context - this is only my pont of view.

His main suggestion to further address the issue is by using currere, that we should go beyond our past experiences that self should never be collapsed into subject matter that it should be cultivated in relation to learning process.

As i can observed, there is an increase in the numbers of nursing schools in the Philippines just to meet the demands globally, but the outcome shows the difference. Results is the only evaluation. In the past few years, the passing percentage rate of nurses in the Nursing Licensure Examination is only at 40% not even close to 50%. I always thought of meeting the demand of us nurses globally will not rely on out passing rate in the board exam, it should be on our foundation of knowledge and skills that our curriculum taught us.


References:

Curriculum: Toward New Identities By William Pinar, 1998

The Method of "Currere.", Pinar, William Frederick
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchV

alue_0=ED104766&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED104766

CHED making changes to nursing curriculum to address low passing rate. Retrieved August 19, 2008 from: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/92437/

I believe this can help and for further understanding:

Traditional models for curriculum theory describe human development as a sum of its parts, organized in a hierarchy leading to operational competencies. The reconceptualist Currere model, originated by William Penar.

Educational experience based on this reform requires autobiography, a review of the subject's educational experience; phenomenological description of the subject's present situation, his historical, social, physical life world; and a record of the subject's response, associations and intellections, to a literature work. The theory base for the Currere model is drawn from humanistic philosophy, phenomenology's emphasis on reciprocity of subjectivity and objectivity in the constitution of human knowledge, and existentialism's emphasis on the dialectical relationship of man to his situation.

The Currere model returns to the experience of the individual: its idiosyncratic history, its preconceptual foundation, its contextual dependency, and its innate freedom expressed in choice and self-direction. It reconstructs a pathway to the present choice by digging back to identify the encounters that led to it


Existential and Phenomenological Foundations of Currere: Self-Report in Curriculum Inquiry
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED104745&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED104745

silva731 wrote:

So his work is more of a manifesto, an argument, making us aware why our education system is like this. That is why also Carson stated that it is Help Without Giving Advice because his works increases the awareness of educators thus, empowering them. I think no solution to the current situation is being suggested. silva731 wrote: The book is organized as a collection of ten essays (divided into five sections), all woven together around a core set of themes, primary of which is the idea that curriculum is a “complicated conversation.” Those who are familiar with Pinar’s work will recognize many of these themes, for they have concerned Pinar over the course of three decades now – from his early work with Madeleine Grumet (Pinar & Grumet,1976) to his more recent work, influenced by cultural studies, on the intersection of gender and racial politics in America, particularly in the South (Pinar, 2001). This is not, however, a collection of essays that have been published elsewhere. It is new work, although it revisits some historical research that the author has presented elsewhere. It is, in my view, Pinar at his best, and moving in new and important directions. It is not possible for me to do an adequate job of covering the broad territory opened up by this text. It is rich in both argument and historical detail, and it resists reduction to a few key ideas. That is, I think, one of the books strengths; but it means that the book is not easily summarized. It is a complicated, and complicating text. Consequently, I want to limit my comments to some of the more salient concerns the book raises for curriculum scholars, teachers, and public intellectuals. (carlson, 2005) Carlson, D. Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies. 2005 silva731 wrote: yeah, but I think its only a manifesto encouraging educators to act on what is happening. am I right? Kriselda Manzano wrote: Hi Joel, As i understand it, Pinar provided a way to resolve it by publishing What is Curriculum Theory? This book asks the educators to join in the long term project of currere to understand the historical present situation in hopes that this will ultimately lead to self mobilization of teachers and social reconstruction (Carson 2006). REFERENCE: Carson, T. (2006). "Help Without Giving Advice". Proquest Education Journals. silva731 wrote: can you site ways on how to resolve? as stated by Pinar? thanx Kriselda Manzano wrote: As I understand the article it focuses on Pinar’s effort to present the nagging reality of education in western countries, however he didn’t stop presenting the problem he provided a way to resolve it. Now a days, most of the schools in our country are also making a market capitalism out of education thus affecting the landscape of our learning. Pinar (2004) states in his article that the students and parents become the “clients” of the “business” at the same time the teachers are the “service providers”. This is happening in the Philippines maybe because western countries colonized us, thus influencing every aspect of our lives including our education system. Reference: Pinar, W F. What is Curriculum Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004

Thanks. Indeed, quality content is of utmost importance in teaching and learning. it is dependent upon the cultivation of wisdom and meaning in education. I am trying to say that today, various types of instructional designs are utilized to cope up with the changing times and different cultures (article on multicultural pedagogies). In our exec class for example, the traditional way of teaching is being supplemented with other techniques, such as computer based.

silva731 wrote:

Yeah technology is good but i just think that the paper is telling us that eventhough there is technology we should not be mere technical managers of a programmed process. Educators are educators we used technology as an instrument but we should not depend solely on it. Pinar tells us that quality content given by educators is still of utmost importance. yvette wrote: The article speaks of a curriculum theory. Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) defined curriculum tentatively: 'A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice'. He suggests that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery. It can be criticized on nutritional or gastronomic grounds - does it nourish the students and does it taste good? - and it can be criticized on the grounds of practicality - we can't get hold of six dozen larks' tongues and the grocer can't find any ground unicorn horn! A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment. The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment. Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice. It is an attempt to describe the work observed in classrooms that it is adequately communicated to teachers and others. Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste. So can a curriculum. (Stenhouse 1975: 4-5) Thus, in my own opinion, incorporating technology in the context of curriculum is one of the ingredients in a recipe or styles of acquiring knowledge in education. Such, I disagree on commenting it as a ‘nightmare’. At present, the use of computers and other technology is essential, since it makes both teaching and learning more efficient and effective. Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) 'Curriculum theory and practice' the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

Additional Citations:

Teaching today is increasingly complex work where teachers find themselves caught in a triangle of interests and imperatives. This triangle requires teachers to be: (a) catalysts of the promises of opportunity and prosperity of the knowledge society; (b) counterpoints to the threats posed by the knowledge society to community, security, and the public good; and (c) casualties of the standardization imposed by the imperatives of the knowledge society (Hargreaves, 2003). How must teachers proceed with their work as educators within the professional
paradox and conditions of fragmentation created by the knowledge society?

The paradox of teaching in a knowledge society
“We are living in a defining moment of educational history when the world in which teachers do their work is changing profoundly….” So writes Andy Hargreaves (2003) in Teaching in a knowledge society, his most cogent critique, to date, of the current wave of overregulation and standardization in education, which neoliberal discourses defend as increasing equity and fairness while holding all students to the same high standards. As Hargreaves notes, we (postindustrial societies in the West) are living in knowledge economies that are driven by ingenuity, creativity, inventiveness, and the capacity to cope with rapid change. Schools in knowledge societies have to cultivate these qualities in young people for their nations to survive and stay competitive. But Hargreaves
also observes that while knowledge economies stimulate growth and prosperity they primarily serve the private good, and, in their relentless competitiveness and pursuit of profit and self interest, they fragment the social order and widen the wealth gap. Particularly disconcerting for public education, knowledge economies impose “soulless standardization” that leaves some students behind by eroding curricula
and pedagogies that build on the experience, language and cultural identity of these students, decreasing teachers’ autonomy of judgment, undermining moral vision and social commitment in schools, and derailing the very creativity, ingenuity, and flexibility that schools are supposed to cultivate. The paradox of teaching in a knowledge society is
that while schools and teachers are expected to create the human skills and capacities that enable knowledge economies to survive and succeed, they are also expected to teach the compassion, sense of community, and emotional sympathy that mitigate and counteract the immense problems that knowledge economies create (Hargreaves, 2003). The predominantly market oriented forms of life and practice at the heart of knowledge economies have, therefore, fragmented the work of teachers as never
before.

The method of currere
“Currere is a reflexive cycle in which thought bends back upon itself and thus recovers its volition”. (Madeleine R. Grumet, 1976b, pp.130‐131)

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards”. (Soren Kiekegaard, cited in Habermas, 2003, p. 4)

Formulated in the 1970s by William Pinar and other curriculum scholars as the Latin infinitive of “curriculum”—meaning ‘to run the course’—the concept of currere refers to an existential experience of institutional structures (Pinar, 1974b). The method of currere is devised to disclose and examine such experience “so that we may see more of it and see more clearly. With such seeing can come deepened understanding of the running and with this can come deepened agency” (Pinar & Grumet, 1976, p. vii).

Reference:

Journal of the canadian association for curriculum studies
Volume 4 number 2 winter 2006

Indeed, technology plays a pivotal role in education today. There is nothing wrong with incorporating technology in the context of our curriculum; it is actually maximizing the pedagogical approach educators use in imparting knowledge to their students. Technology is changing the way faculty teaches and students learn. As technological advances are introduced into the academy, students are more and more attracted by the promise and potential of technology for enhancing access and learning. Faculty, staff and administrators need to understand what technology can and what it cannot do. The National Education Association (n. d.) believes that technology is seen by some as the panacea for budgets cuts: some see visions of hundreds of students sitting in front of monitors, with talking heads providing cheap, mass education. Others see technology as a critical complement to the educational experience, opening more opportunities for the learner than can be encompassed by one campus. While both visions are possible, the first however is not particularly desirable. This is what the article teaches us. I agree that educators should only use technology as an instrument to complement their own teaching but they should not depend on it alone.

REFERENCE:

National Education Association. (n. d.). “Technology.” Article retrieved August 20, 2008 from http://www2.nea.org/he/techno.html

silva731 wrote:

Yeah technology is good but i just think that the paper is telling us that eventhough there is technology we should not be mere technical managers of a programmed process. Educators are educators we used technology as an instrument but we should not depend solely on it. Pinar tells us that quality content given by educators is still of utmost importance. yvette wrote: The article speaks of a curriculum theory. Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) defined curriculum tentatively: 'A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice'. He suggests that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery. It can be criticized on nutritional or gastronomic grounds - does it nourish the students and does it taste good? - and it can be criticized on the grounds of practicality - we can't get hold of six dozen larks' tongues and the grocer can't find any ground unicorn horn! A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment. The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment. Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice. It is an attempt to describe the work observed in classrooms that it is adequately communicated to teachers and others. Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste. So can a curriculum. (Stenhouse 1975: 4-5) Thus, in my own opinion, incorporating technology in the context of curriculum is one of the ingredients in a recipe or styles of acquiring knowledge in education. Such, I disagree on commenting it as a ‘nightmare’. At present, the use of computers and other technology is essential, since it makes both teaching and learning more efficient and effective. Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) 'Curriculum theory and practice' the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

Good morning everyone!

The article “Help without giving advice” talks about curriculum theory, focusing on Canadian and American being the closest among nations. As Pinar stated, there is an increasing faith in public education in Canada, enjoying a measure of trust and public confidence, while in America, market capitalism are now reforming the landscapes of education. Schools in America are now speaking and running in terms of “business language”, not necessarily focusing on the quality education every school has to provide.

Market capitalism, I believe, is currently happening right now in our country. The boom in nursing profession attests to that. As what Sir Gary has mentioned, there is a massive increase in nursing schools today and a huge number of nursing enrollees spiked up ever since the issue on “in demand” nurses was released. Every year, a growing number of nurses graduated and take the board exam, after that, thousands of new registered nurses were made but sadly, thousands were also jobless. I was thinking, is being jobless after passing the licensure exam the reward of four whole years I have spent I school? Nursing schools, especially those non-nursing schools but later on decided to cater nursing course, are now profit-oriented and business minded, I must say. They will do anything to attract new enrollees, new “customers”, for their business to boom, not entirely keeping their promise to provide quality education or to assure that their students will be able to go to the States after graduation. As CHED makes revisions in the current nursing curriculum, adding international subjects for the Filipinos to easily cope up with the culture in abroad, it came into my thinking that Filipino nurses are really not made for Philippines; we will soon be exports in other countries. And now I agree that not even passing all the examinations would make you competent enough. Why do we have to suffer this market capitalism? What happened to “quality education” the schools promise?