POST #1
You have made a detailed analysis of an excerpt. It is noticeable that the ideas of Hirsch met numerous contradictions and Provenzo is one of its opponents. You mark out that Provenzo’s aim is not only to criticize the idea of the national curriculum but also to identify its weaknesses. However, in my opinion, it is possible that he is also trying to explain the difficulties which such program may face after its implementation. I came to this point after the following Provenzo’s words: “Whether the current curriculum in use in the schools across the country is adequate is, of course, open to debate.” With this statement, the author claims that the existent curriculum has some problems but at the same time it has several benefits. Further, he also claims that creating a curriculum is a difficult and longstanding process which requires a lot of attention. It means that Hirsch’s ideas are not completely wrong, they are not perfect just as the current curriculum. In that way, it would be relevant to understand and strengthen the weaknesses of both.
POST #2
You have made a profound analysis and point out that Provenzo is an opponent of Hirsch’s idea of the national curriculum. You also write that Provenzo is a passionate person interested in education. In my opinion, it is an important remark. However, do not you think that it is possible that Provenzo’s aim was also to show the readers that in spite of the fact that the current curriculum is sufficient, it also has some weaknesses? The ideas of Hirsch are also not perfect but at the same time, they have some strong points that could be included in the current national curriculum. It is possible that the other Provenzo’s point is to show that combined both ideas could improve and strengthen the whole educational …
