Three Curricula All Schools Teach

The first aspect of this article that stood out to me was that about competitiveness in the education system. When I was in high school, me and my friends would always compare our test scores with each other. This always felt like playing a sport, in which you have a drive to win, although it was more of a friendly game. I think that for some students competitiveness may be a good thing, to give them that little extra push to achieve marks. However, the motive behind this may be a little short-sighted. If kids are trying to get high marks due to wanting to one-up their friends, are they really studying for the right reason? Are they really learning? Competitiveness also has a dark side to it. Many students may feel inadequate if they do not perform well relative to their classmates, which could mess with their psychological well-being. As an extreme example, Japanese students who do not achieve high enough marks and as such are subsequently rejected from the top universities, may commit suicide due to the shame they feel, for not living up to expectations set by them or by others.

The overall theme of this paper was to look at what secondary schools (in the U.S.) teach, and what they do not teach, and the overall structure of the curriculum.  It never quite sat well with me that in B.C. we must complete an English 12 in order to graduate, yet no other grade 12 course was needed. Even further, it was the only provincial exam in grade 12, and was worth 40% of your final mark (at least it was when I took it in 2013). This caused me great stress as English was my worst subject, yet I had to take it, and universities placed a great emphasis on having a good mark in this particular subject, no matter what program you apply to. "Why were arts students not scrutinized by their math marks?" was my thinking. Was success in poetry a good indicator of a student's aptitude in post-secondary education?

It seems to be that the core subjects consist of language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science. Any other subjects are more fringe and are not guaranteed to be offered at every school. Yet it appears odd to me that astronomy is not taught as a science 11 or 12 course in the B.C. system, despite it being the study about the entire Universe. Instead, a small topic is inserted into the Earth Science 11 curriculum, but I don't think it does the subject justice. There is the option in the new curriculum to make the course yourself (as a teacher) under Specialized Science 12, but the issue of it not being offered at many schools still stands. I do admit that I am obviously biased regarding this topic, but to me it always seemed like the astronomy portion of general science courses is the one that teachers often gloss over and pay little attention to, and I just wonder, why? Perhaps the reason as to why I decided to major in astronomy was my yearning for a proper learning of what the subject really has to offer, since I was not given the opportunity in my secondary education.