I want to reinforce my premise before I go any further.
Some blog readers may be aware of a book entitled “The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs” by Elliot Eisner. Eisner says in any three schools there are actually 3 curriculums: the Explicit Curriculum, the Implicit Curriculum and the Null Curriculum. What schools are actually teaching are 3 things, even they say they are only teaching one. The explicit curriculum is when you go to a given school and the principal gives you the handbook and says this what we are about; this is what we do here. The implicit curriculum is the working assumptions that you can’t find anywhere written on a piece of paper, but are nevertheless prevalent all through the community in terms of how the school really functions. But that’s not all that a school teaches, the whole of what a school teaches includes what Eisner calls the null curriculum. This is what nobody is teaching, nobody is talking about and nobody is even thinking about, but it’s being taught by the fact that it’s not there. Eisner believes you have to look at all three to really judge a school.
Consider an example. You go to a certain school to learn about it and you see in their purpose materials that they say they teach the times table. This is the explicit curriculum. If you actually go in the classroom, what you find is that they believe in rote memorization. This is nowhere codified, but is clearly a working assumption since it is the method used in every Mathematics class you choose to visit. What’s the null curriculum? As an example, it may be grammar. You can look far and wide, and no one teaches grammar and apparently no one cares about it. The null curriculum message is that grammar doesn’t matter. It is taught by virtue of its absence.
So the question I am asking is this: if General Convention 2009 is a school, what is its null curriculum–KSH?