As I worked through both Cuban (2001) and Tomkins (1981), I kept thinking about how often teachers say that education swings back and forth, and that many “new” ideas feel strangely familiar. These readings helped me understand why that feeling exists. Both authors show that teaching and learning are shaped by long-standing historical, cultural, and political forces, which makes meaningful change slower and more complicated than reform language often suggests.
In Cuban’s article, innovation is not presented as something inherently positive or forward-moving. Instead, I noticed how he describes reform as cyclical, with many initiatives reappearing in different forms over time. This made me reflect on how innovation in education is often more about repackaging ideas than truly rethinking practice. This connects to my definition of innovation as intentional and meaningful change, not change for the sake of appearances. Cuban also made me think about creativity, especially how reforms focused on efficiency or economic outcomes can unintentionally narrow what teachers are able to do creatively in their classrooms.
When it comes to teaching, Cuban highlights how much teachers are expected to adapt reforms that they didn’t create. I found this really relatable. In practice, teaching often means balancing new expectations with the needs of the students in front of you. Learning, in his work, is often treated by policymakers as something that can be engineered through reform, but Cuban’s historical perspective reminded me that learning is much more complex, shaped by relationships, context, and culture.
Tomkins’ article made me reflect on where our curriculum ideas come from in the first place. His discussion of foreign influence on Canadian curriculum helped me see innovation as something that is often borrowed and cautiously adapted rather than invented from scratch. This reminded me of learning about early schooling systems and how institutions like the Catholic Church shaped education based on societal values at the time. It also made me think about other readings I’ve encountered on literacy instruction, where reading practices shift in response to social and cultural needs rather than purely educational evidence.
In terms of creativity, Tomkins shows that centralized curriculum structures can limit experimentation, even though teachers still find small ways to interpret and adapt expectations. I see this often in classrooms, where creativity shows up in how teachers adjust lessons, respond to students, and problem-solve in the moment. Teaching, from Tomkins’ perspective, is deeply influenced by policy, certification systems, and historical norms, which reinforces my belief that teachers work within inherited structures rather than complete freedom. Learning reflects what society values at a given time, whether that’s citizenship, stability, or workforce preparation, rather than just individual development.
Overall, these readings reinforced my definitions of teaching and learning as contextual, relational, and adaptive. I think creativity and innovation in education often happen in quiet, everyday ways rather than through large-scale reform. We are constantly adjusting instruction, managing behaviour, and responding to students within systems that change slowly.
After reading both articles, I’m left wondering how much responsibility we place on teachers to innovate within systems that are historically resistant to change. I also wonder how Cuban and Tomkins would account for student disengagement, differences in age groups, and class composition when discussing reform. At what point does understanding educational history help teachers adapt thoughtfully, and when does it simply explain why meaningful change can feel so difficult to achieve?
References:
Cuban, L. (2001). Can historians help school reformers? [Review of the books The Failed Promise of the American High School 1890-1995 by D. L. Angus & J. E. Mirel, Moral Education in America: Schools and the Shaping of Character from Colonial Times to the Present by B. E. McClellan, & Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the American Curriculum, 1876-1946 by H. M. Kliebard]. Curriculum Inquiry, 31(4), 453-467.
Tomkins, G. (1981). Foreign influences on curriculum and curriculum policy making in Canada: Some impressions in historical and contemporary perspective. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(2), 157-166.
Comments
Post a Comment