1.

Based on the set of readings you chose, discuss how sociological and political perspectives on education
have impacted education.
2. In what ways have these perspectives impacted curriculum and instruction on the national level and also
local levels (thinking of your own educational context)?

Both sociological and political perspectives have had a large impact on education, and continue
to impact it today. In Michael W. Apple’s, “The Politics of a National Curriculum,” he discusses the
negative aspects of a national curriculum and how deeply it is influenced by politics. If we were to have
a national curriculum, Apple argues, there would be no way to keep politics out of it, because curriculum
is “always part of a selective tradition, and is someone’s selection, some group’s vision of legitimate
knowledge” (Apple, 2013). Conservatives are most typically, but not always, one of the groups in favor
of a national curriculum, because it is their goal to conserve certain ideals and promote certain values.
However, Apple worries that if we were to have a national curriculum in order to improve our
competiveness, the curriculum would also aim to return us “…to a romanticized past of the “ideal”
home, family and school” (Apple, 2013, p. 336). In sum, a national curriculum would be too biased, and
students would learn only the beliefs and values of the dominant group. Instead of keeping schools
accountable and more equal, it would create more inequality by ranking students in ways they have
never been ranked before, and would lead to a less inclusive environment (Apple, 2013, p. 339).
Sociological perspectives have also impacted education. Charles W. Eliot of Harvard University once
argued that “If democracy means to try to make all children equal or all men equal, it means to fight
nature, and in that fight democracy is sure to be defeated.” (Noddings, 2016, p. 200). He argued that we
should allow students choice in which classes they take, so as not to ignore their talents and interests.
However, others argue against this because it would “limit [students’] occupational choices” (Noddings,
2016, p. 200). It seems as though everyone has a different proposal for what curriculum should look like
in order to benefit both students and society—while some believe that we should require all students to
meet the same standards (Noddings, 2016, p. 209), others believe that “it is our responsibility to nurture
them, not produce a standard product” (Noddings, 2016, p. 207). Nodding’s vaguely concludes that we
should “…provide the sort of rich experience every good teacher and parent prefers. We [should] teach
the whole child” (Noddings, 2016, p.211).

In my school, as well as many schools nationally, we are required to use Common Core State
Standards when writing curriculum, as well as in our learning objectives. According to Noddings (2016),
the “standards” movement has a history and has been hotly debated for years. Although I agree with
many of the negatives of having these set standards, I do like using Common Core Standards selectively
for writing learning targets. I use them as more of a road-map—we should all meet these standards, but
often it will be in different ways. Additionally, my school has been impacted by the idea that we should
allow students to explore their own talents and interests while trying not to completely limit their future
choices. Our school recently built a career center which allows students to take core classes in the
morning, but go to the career center in the afternoon to learn things like precision engineering and
welding. Many schools nationally have also decided to offer options like this, to give students many
different options for their futures.
Apple, M. W. (2013). The politics of a national curriculum. In Sadovnik, A. R., Cookson, Jr., P. W., &
Semel, S. F. (Eds.), Exploring education: An introduction to the foundations of education (302-
315). New York: Routledge

Noddings, N. (2016). Problems of school reform. Philosophy of education  (4th ed.), (pp. 199-212).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press