In many ways, I have experienced the Tyler Rationale in my own schooling. The classes that first come to mind though are math. The way math classes were always structured were that we learned a concept, wrote a test on it, then moved onto the next concept. My teachers taught it one way only, the same way every lesson, regardless if it worked for the class or not. Being a student who was never the strongest at picking up math, I would have appreciated it if the teacher tried a different approach when the approach they were currently doing wasn’t working for me. It wasn’t till grade 9 when a teacher broke away from the Tyler Rationale and tried different approaches to teaching these concepts, and it was then math finally ‘clicked’ for me.

Unfortunately when using the Tyler Rationale there are some major limitations. First of all, it does not take into account any outside factors that might affect students learning. For example, if students have a different learning style or needs, those are not taken into account. It is also creating a more transmission based classroom where facts are presented, students are expected to know them, and then be able to regurgitate it on an exam. This limits students from be able to think critically, explore their own thoughts and ideas, and reflect which is also a large part in assessing students.

The Tyler Rationale also brings forward some potential benefits. The first one being that is has been used for a long time and has been proven to work. It provides an easy template for teachers where they know what needs to be taught, teach it, and then test it. However, even though this means less work for the teacher, taking the easier way is not beneficial. In my opinion, the limitations of the Tyler Rationale trump the benefits.

This weeks blog post is based off the “Introduction: The Problem of Common Sense” by Kumashiro. Ill be answering the following two questions: How does Kumashiro define common sense and why is it important to pay attention to common sense?

“Commonsensical ideas are often what help us make sense of and feel at ease with the things that get repeated in our everyday lives” (Kumashiro, 2009). 

Based off of this quote, Kumashiro defines ‘common sense’ as familiarity or the norm. It is so natural to us that it is something we do not question doing. In terms of schools, we never question why we are learning the way we are, because to us it is common sense. For example, it is common sense to split classes up by age level. This would be defined as ‘common sense’ because it is a norm we have been accustomed to. It is what feels comfortable and would most likely cause a great amount discomfort if we went against it.

“After all, common sense does not tell us that this is what schools should be doing; it tells us that this and only this is what schools should be doing.” (Kumashiro, 2009) 

Paying attention to common sense is important because it is something that often attaches itself to curriculum. However, common sense is not the factor that should create curriculum or reform. Common sense is something that we should constantly be challenging in order for us to create anti-oppresive education. I believe in doing this we can eliminated the “common sense” views and norms on gender, race, religion, etc.. When we eliminate those common sense believes in our schools, we are opening a much wider door for students to learn and explore not only education wise, but within themselves.

“Common sense is not what should shape educational reform or curriculum design; it is what needs to be examined and challenged.” (Kumashiro, 2009)

Work Cited:

Introduction. The problem of common sense (Kumashiro. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice, pp. XXIX – XLI).