A great place to start with inspiring civic engagement is in one's own community. One of the goals of this curriculum is for students to understand how members of a community are addressing their challenges in order to provoke students to consider how they may be agents of change in their own communities. This makes me think of Oyler's (2012) description of Mr. Schultz guiding his students along a journey of individual growth and community activism by first asking his students the question, “what are some problems that affect you and your community?”. Being rooted in the challenges of one's own community is starting point for student activism that can inspire students be being focused on real-world issues that effect their daily lives. As Greene states, “We require curriculum that can help provoke persons to reach past themselves and to become” (p. 220). According to this goal, students may reach past themselves to become advocates of their communities.

This seems to assume that many learners will be Latinx, since students will make connections to the histories and cultures within Latin America that are "relevant to their lives". However, these experiences would be valuable for learners from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

Zhang (2007) promotes Confucius's idea of curriculum as sharing and highlights that curriculum started out as a conversation between students and teachers. This curriculum seems to support this view of curriculum as a shared experience since it has students open conversations with their "teachers", or their parents and guardians. Additionally, this sharing is rooted in the lived experiences of all people engaged in the learning process. Zhang points out the importance of this, explaining that, “If teaching is based on the lived experiences of teachers and students, the meaning of teaching will be found and promoted" (Zhang, 2007, p. 345).

Again, this curriculum is unique because, while it clearly uses a framework that is based on traditional structures of power and achievement (the Common Core), it approaches these parameters with flexibility and imagination.

This makes me think of hooks' (2003) conception of pluralism. She describes pluralism as the commitment to engage with another person or community, and a commitment to communicate with and relate to others. This curriculum seems to be pluralistic in that it encourages students to become aware of their own cultural traditions as well as the cultural traditions of others.

What are the backgrounds of the museum educators? What highlights and histories will they choose to share?

Again, this is very similar to the approach of Mr. Schultz outlined by Oyler (2012). Students begin by analyzing how they could improve their own community, then are provoked to action in assignments such as the one mentioned here in which older students write persuasive essays addressed to a local council person or the mayor.

This makes me think of Greene's (1993) perspective on imagination. She says that involvement with the arts has the potential to contribute to a reflectiveness that can lead to the creation of students' selves.

One strength of this curriculum is that it is able to go past what Luke (2012) describes as "official knowledge"; while in school contexts the political, cultural, and ideological parameters are of curriculum are determined by officials long before educators and students meet in the classroom, this curriculum is not constrained by the same limitations. Instead, this curriculum is "constantly evolving" and undergoing revision even as it is being implemented. The educator guide is referred to as a "living document", which signals that parameters are flexible rather than rigid. Additionally, the power dynamics of this curriculum are reminiscent of Oyler (2012) in that contributions made from those at the top of hierarchal structures of power are not the only contributions recognized as valid. The knowledge and experiences of students and interns are recognized alongside those of teachers and museum staff.