My Curricular Metaphor:
 Curriculum is the root system of a tree. It enables a strong trunk, branches and eventually buds, leaves and or needles to grow and develop. The roots (like curriculum) are essential to the life, growth and development of the tree over the course of its lifetime, and it fulfills many significant responsibilities. The root system establishes a solid foundation, provides the nourishment needed to feed the tree, extends support and strength while at the same time allowing for flexibility. This is exemplified when a tree sways in the wind or bends to grow toward the sun, encourages the growth of new root shoots to facilitate in the growing process, and lastly they adjust to environmental changes to withhold its structure and integrity. Curriculum, like the root system, also has many responsibilities to fulfill. It provides learners with necessary structures to use as a base upon which to build and develop further knowledge and understanding of the concepts being taught, contributes to the nourishment of knowledge, self-confidence, rigour and expansion of one’s skill set, promotes new learning opportunities, and accommodates for various learning styles and interests. Without a sturdy, grounded root system, or curriculum, it is difficult to support learner growth and advancement. Â
 My Teaching Context:
 At Fort St. James Secondary School my teaching content area further reminds me of the intertwined nature of a tree’s root system, as I teach various courses. Consequently, I seek guidance and structure from various arenas that support Social Studies 10, Career Life Education 10, and Career Life Connections 12. The specific curriculum I rely on, as set forth by the BC Ministry of Education provides structure while at the same time is open for individualization. Social Studies 10 curriculum I follow, includes the BC Social Studies 10 Curriculum, and  Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives: Social Studies K-12 Curriculum. Other areas I seek support from include Elders or Local Knowledge Holders (from the Nak’azdli Whut’en First Nation), First Nations Education Steering Committee (FNESC) and CIVIX Canada. For the Careers context, I use the BC Career Life-Education 10 Curriculum, and  BC Career Life Connections 12 Curriculum. To further support student learning and engagement I also use MyBlueprint, Career Compass, Education Planner BC, and Student Work-Safe. I believe the ministerial curriculum documents provide a strong framework with which I can build upon, using the additional aforementioned resources.Â
 Egan VS. Blade: As I See ThemÂ
 Egan’s and Blade’s viewpoints on what best constitutes curriculum could be seen as divergent. Egan, for example, argues from a constructivist standpoint supporting the notion that the what or the content needing to be taught is the most significant aspect that the curriculum and should be focussed on and built upon. In addition, he does not support how viewpoints or questions that focus on how the learner will learn best or how individual learning processes should be the building blocks of a curriculum. This notion is further supported by his statement that “curriculum is the study of any and all educational phenomena, [and] may draw on…external discipline[s] for methodological help, but the methodology doesn’t determine the inquiry (Egan,1978, p.16). Furthermore, Egan suggests that “what the curriculum should contain requires a sense of what the contents are for” (p.14), thus suggesting that specific curricular content would have taken into account the individual knowledge and skills that will be learned, rather than how they will be learned. Lastly, Egan suggested that if curricular content focused on how individuals each learn best, there will be a lag in the amount of knowledge gained, moreover, it does not provide a sound framework of content with which one can build upon, and instead, it leads to unclarity (p.14).Â
 Contrary to Egan’s article, Blade identified the individual’s learning processes and their voice as an integral part of curriculum development. Blade, who took a more deconstructivist approach, recognized that being trapped within the confines of a content-driven curriculum, actually “exclude[d] and limit[ed]…possibilities” (Blade,1995, p.129). Furthermore, he identified that those who traditionally held positions of power, within curriculum development, rarely regarded the individuals that worked directly with it and/or affected by it. His statement identified that in these situations the “truly critical voices [of learners and educators] in the discourse were…seen as antagonists by the major voices” (Blade, p.147), thereby acknowledging that former processes resulted in a loss of pertinent information that could have been useful in developing curriculum.Â
 I feel Egan’s and Blade’s viewpoints, regarding what curriculum should be focussed on, are equally significant. Although I sway toward Egan’s argument for the necessity of a strong and purposeful curriculum with clear and defined content from which to build upon, I am not as stringent. I recognize the need for individuality in learning. I prefer to follow a concrete curriculum and use it as scaffolding for future learning to build upon. However, I also integrate learner individuality to provide learners with the opportunity to demonstrate their learning process through individual measures and questioning. By following this process I believe it enables one to showcase their strengths while at the same time providing equity.
 References
Bishop/unsplash.com/photos/EwKXn5CapA4
Blades, D. (1997) Procedures of Power in a Curriculum Discourse: Conversations from Home. JCT, 11(4), 125-155.
 Egan, K. (2003) What is Curriculum? JCACS, 1(1), 9-16.