As you say, the TC model is not a curriculum. Not only that, it can stand in the way of curriculum and learning, through its insistence on groupwork and the ever circulating teacher-facilitator. The taboos against chalk, class discussion, facts, desks in rows, love of subject matter, and memorization are so bizarre that many teachers, new and old, spinning in daily vertigo, wonder what twisted and tilted world they have stepped into.

Then you have some “anti-constructivists” (to avoid referring to specific programs) who go so far as to deride creativity altogether. They believe teachers should follow scripts verbatim, and to do otherwise is to risk diminishing a child’s chance of “success.” Some of these believe their programs have “proven” more successful than any other, and that any teacher who chooses to teach in a different way is self-indulgently neglecting the children’s needs. It is amazing how they will lash out at any suggestion of a grey area or overlap between the two schools of thought.

The polarization in educational discourse is at times frightening. Yes, there should be explicit instruction, based on a curriculum! No, this does not mean the teacher has to follow someone else’s dictates regarding the arrangement of the desks, the teacher’s location in the room, or the specific words uttered. Those who love their subject (another taboo), and love teaching it, will bring many ideas to the classroom, based on and around the lesson, which they teach thoroughly and soundly. Yay for that!