Kumashiro describes “commonsense” as what we think we ought to think, or what ought to be done—a kind of moral imperative. This imperative contributes to the problem with commonsense, specifically in the classroom, in two ways: it is difficult to recognize prescriptive ideas and therefore challenge them, and commonsense is comfortable—it feels right. Kumashiro suggests that commonsense is a perspective or norm masked in social pressure to conform, highlighting its pervasive and persuasive nature.

As teachers, we must guard against deferring to commonsense as it can be oppressive, a system or series of beliefs that maintain the status quo. We want to challenge the status quo instead of reproduce it in the classroom. However, Kumashiro notes that this is difficult and details their own experience faced with both American and Nepali concepts of commonsense education. Kumashiro describes the Nepali curriculum of the school they were at as, what Smith would call, “Curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted.” This kind of curriculum is typically set up as a course in which an examination follows. In fact, Kumashiro explains how the students in the Nepali class complained, and preferred a lecture/practice/examination approach because it was what they were use to—it was commonsense to the students. Curriculum as a syllabus is concerned with the content of the course, transmitting knowledge as efficiently as possible, and measuring the outcomes just as efficiently in examinations. The students feared that any activity or learning outside of the apparent syllabus was not necessary, and was even hindering their opportunity at doing well on the final examinations.

Comparing the curriculum models Smith discusses to what Canadian education deems as commonsense is not necessarily straightforward. For example, as most pre-service teachers prepare as undergrads, they are doing so via the syllabus model: knowledge is transmitted and they demonstrate understanding of said knowledge. In the education program specifically, the curriculum is much more of a product model: “detailed attention to what people needed to know in order to work.” This makes sense, of course, as preparing for teaching is vocational. However, if we follow Kumashiro’s pervasive definition of commonsense, then once teachers are in classrooms it would not be surprising if they teach similarly to the above models, reinforcing a commonsense belief about education. With that said, it is clear that there is an attempt to assess and challenge typical ways of learning/teaching throughout Canadian curriculum, starting with teachers. For example, each province has put forth a variation of the ADAPT model that looks awfully similar to Smith’s outline of curriculum as process:

“Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with an ability to think critically—in action—an understanding of their role and expectations others have of them, and a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter. Guided by these, they encourage conversations between, and with, people in the situation out of which may come thinking and action. They continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.”

The ADAPT model aims to provide an inclusive learning environment, prioritizing strengths and needs of students first. ADAPT is as follows:

Step 1: Accounts of students’ strengths and needs
Step 2: Demands of the classroom on students
Step 3: Adaptations
Step 4: Perspectives and consequences
Step 5: Teach and assess the match

I think Canadian curriculum is surely moved towards a model that is child-first, not focussed on efficiency of knowledge transmission and outcomes, but, instead, concerned with fostering an environment of learning, through different means, and catered to different and diverse learners. We ought to keep in mind that the model is only as good as the teacher; Smith warns, “If the teacher is not up to this, then there will be severe limitations on what can happen educationally” in the process model. It is not enough to create materials and curriculum focused on discovery, problem solving, or inclusion if the teacher is not on board. Instead, those “processes become reduced to sets of skills… the actions have become the ends; the processes have become the product”. What Smith warns about here perfectly reflects Kumashiro’s depiction of commonsense. It is up to teachers to challenge the status quo as an ongoing commitment in the classroom or else the new model becomes the same means to an end— a new commonsense approach that will subvert genuine learning instead of unleash it.