Review the historical foundations of curriculum and then discuss two movements that had a significant impact on high school curriculum in the 1800s and continue to have an impact today. Speculate on the reasons the movements had and continue to have an impact.

Review the historical foundations of curriculum and then discuss two movements that had a significant impact on high school curriculum in the 1800s and continue to have an impact today. Speculate on the reasons the movements had and continue to have an impact. Review Table 3.4 “Overview of Curriculum Theorists, 1918—present.” Considering that the textbook claimed that Tyler “…summed up the best principles of curriculum making for the first half of the 20th century,” discuss two theorists that you believe have made a significant contribution to curriculum development. Provide reasons and examples to support your response.57 3 Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to 1. Identify the differences between the various types of colonial schools and describe some European influences 2. Explain how democratic ideas contributed to the rise of public schooling during the national period 3. Describe the enduring contributions made by the 19th century European educators Pestalozzi, Froebel, Herbart, and Spencer 4. Explain how education evolved to meet the needs of the masses during the rise of universal education 5. Discuss the transition from the traditional, standardized curriculum to the modern curriculum 6. Explain the influence that behaviorism and scientific principles had on curriculum in the early to mid-1900s A knowledge of curriculum’s history provides guidance for today’s curriculum makers. We begin our discussion with the colonial period and proceed through the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Most of our discussion focuses on the past 100 years. The Colonial Period: 1642–1776 Curriculum’s historical foundations are largely rooted in the educational experiences of colonial Massachusetts. Massachusetts was settled mainly by Puritans, who adhered to strict theological principles. The first New England schools were closely tied to the Puritan church. According to educational historians, a school’s primary purpose was to teach children to read the scriptures and notices of civil affairs.1 Reading was the most important subject, followed by writing and spelling, which were needed for understanding the catechism and common law. Since colonial days, therefore, reading and related language skills have been basic to American education and the elementary school curriculum. Historical Foundations of Curriculum M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 57 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 58 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum Three Colonial Regions Schools in colonial Massachusetts derived from two sources: (1) 1642 legislation, which required parents and guardians to ensure that children could read and understand the principles of religion and the laws of the Commonwealth; and (2) the “Old Deluder Satan” Act of 1647, which required every town of 50 or more families to appoint a reading and writing teacher. Towns of 100 or more families were to employ a teacher of Latin so that students could be prepared to enter Harvard College.2 Except for Rhode Island, the other New England colonies followed Massachusetts’s example. These early laws reveal how important education was to the Puritan settlers. Some historians consider these laws to be the roots of U.S. school law and the public school movement. The Puritans valued literacy partly as a way of preventing the formation of a large underclass, such as existed in England and other parts of Europe. They also wanted to ensure that their children would grow up committed to the religious doctrines. Unlike New England, the middle colonies had no language or religion in common. George Beauchamp writes, “Competition among political and religious groups retarded willingness to expend the public funds for educational purposes.”3 No single system of schools could be established. Instead, parochial and independent schools related to different ethnic and religious groups evolved. Schools were locally rather than centrally controlled. The current notion of cultural pluralism thus took shape some 250 years ago. Until the end of the 18th century, educational decisions in the southern colonies were generally left to the family. On behalf of poor children, orphans, and illegitimate children, legislation was enacted to ensure that their guardians provided private instruction—for example, in vocational skills. However, the plantation system of landholding, slavery, and gentry created great educational inequity. In general, the White children of plantation owners were privately tutored, but poor Whites received no formal education. Unable to read and write, many poor Whites became subsistence farmers like their parents. The law prohibited slave children from learning to read or write. The South’s economic and political system “tended to retard the development of a large-scale system of schools. This education [handicap] was felt long after the Civil War period.”4 Despite the regional variations, the schools of New England, the middle Atlantic colonies, and the South all were influenced by English political ideas. Also, despite differences in language, religion, and economic systems, religious commitment was a high priority in most schools. “The curriculum of the colonial schools consisted of reading, writing, and [some] arithmetic along with the rudiments of religious faith and lessons designed to develop manners and morals.”5 It was a traditional curriculum, stressing basic skills, timeless and absolute values, social and religious conformity, faith in authority, knowledge for the sake of knowledge, rote learning, and memorization. The curriculum reflected the belief that children were born in sin, play was idleness, and children’s talk was gibberish. The teacher applied strict discipline. This approach to the curriculum dominated American education until the rise of progressivism. Colonial Schools Schools were important institutions for colonial society. However, a much smaller percentage of children attended elementary or secondary school than they do today. Town Schools. In the New England colonies, the town school was a locally controlled public elementary school. Often it was a crude, one-room structure dominated by the teacher’s pulpit at the front of the room and attended by boys and girls of the community. Students sat on benches and studied their assignments until the teacher called on them to recite. The children ranged in age from 5 or 6 to 13 or 14. Attendance was not always regular; it depended on weather conditions and on the extent to which individual families needed their children to work on their farms.6 M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 58 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 59 Parochial and Private Schools. In the middle colonies, parochial and private schools predominated. Missionary societies and various religious and ethnic groups established elementary schools for their own children. Like the New England town schools, these schools focused on reading, writing, and religious sermons. In the South, upper-class children attended private schools oriented toward reading, writing, arithmetic, and studying the primer and Bible; less fortunate children might attend charity schools, where they learned the “three R’s,” recited religious hymns (which was less demanding than reading the Bible), and learned vocational skills. Latin Grammar Schools. At the secondary level, upper-class boys attended Latin grammar schools, first established in Boston in 1635, as preparation for college. These schools catered to those who planned to enter the professions (medicine, law, teaching, and the ministry) or become business owners or merchants.7 A boy would enter a Latin grammar school at age 8 or 9 and remain for eight years. His curriculum focused on the classics. “There were some courses in Greek, rhetoric, . . . and logic, but Latin was apparently three-quarters of the curriculum in most of the grammar schools, or more.”8 The other arts and sciences received little or no attention. “The religious atmosphere was quite as evident . . . as it was in the elementary school,” with the “master praying regularly with his pupils” and quizzing them “thoroughly on the sermons.”9 The regimen of study was exhausting and unexciting, and the school served the church. As Samuel Morrison reminds us, the Latin grammar school was one of colonial America’s closest links to European schools. Its curriculum resembled the classical humanist curriculum of the Renaissance (when schools were intended primarily for upper-class children and their role was to support the era’s religious and social institutions).10 Academies. Established in 1751, the academy was the second American institution to provide education. Based on Benjamin Franklin’s ideas and intended to offer a practical curriculum for those not going to college, it had a diversified curriculum of English grammar, classics, composition, rhetoric, and public speaking.11 Latin was no longer considered a crucial subject. Students could choose a foreign language based on their vocational needs. For example, a prospective clergyman could study Latin or Greek, and a future businessman could learn French, German, or Spanish. Mathematics was taught for its professional uses rather than as an abstract intellectual exercise. History, not religion, was the chief ethical study. The academy also introduced many practical and manual skills into the formal curriculum: carpentry, engraving, printing, painting, cabinet making, farming, bookkeeping, and so on. These skills formed the basis of vocational curriculum in the 20th century. Colleges. Most students who graduated from Latin grammar schools went to Harvard or Yale University. College was based on the Puritan view that ministers needed to be soundly educated in the classics and scriptures. The students had to demonstrate competency in Latin and Greek and the classics. As is the case today, secondary education prepared students for college. Ellwood Cubberley writes, “The student would be admitted into college ‘upon Examination’ whereby he could show competency ‘to Read, Construe, Parce Tully, Vergil and the Greek Testament; and to write Latin in Prose and to understand the Rules of Prosodia and Common Arithmetic’ as well as to bring ‘testimony of his blameless and inoffensive life.’”12 The Harvard/Yale curriculum consisted of courses in Latin, grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, astronomy, ethics, metaphysics, and natural sciences. The curriculum for the ministry or other professions also included Greek, Hebrew, and ancient history. Old Textbooks, Old Readers The hornbook, primer, Westminster Catechism, Old Testament, and Bible were considered textbooks. Until the American Revolution, most elementary textbooks were of English origin or directly imitated English textbooks.13 Children learned the alphabet, the Lord’s Prayer, and some M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 59 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 60 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum syllables, words, and sentences by memorizing the hornbook, a paddle-shaped board to which was attached a sheet of parchment covered with a transparent sheath made from flattened cattle horns. When the New England Primer was published in the 1690s, it replaced the English primer. The first American basal reader, it would remain the most widely used textbook in the colonies for more than 100 years; more than three million copies were sold. Religious and moral doctrines permeated the New England Primer. The somber caste of Puritan religion and morals was evident as students memorized sermons and learned their ABCs through rote and drill: A— In Adam’s Fall We sinned all B— Thy Life to mend This book attend C— The Cat doth play And after slay . . . Z— Zacheus he Did climb the tree His Lord to see.14 In 1740, Thomas Dilworth published a New Guide to the English Tongue, which combined grammar, spelling, and religious instruction. It was followed a few years later by The School Master’s Assistant, a widely used mathematics text. Years later Noah Webster, an ardent cultural nationalist, wrote a letter to Henry Barnard (then Connecticut’s commissioner of education), in which he described the narrowness of the elementary curriculum and the limited use of textbooks: [B]efore the Revolution . . . the books used were chiefly or wholly Dilworth’s Spelling Books, the Psalter, Testament, and Bible. No geography was studied before the publication of Dr. Morse’s small books on that subject, about the year 1786 or 1787. No history was read, as far as my knowledge extends, for there was no abridged history of the United States. Except the books above mentioned, no book for reading was used before the publication of the Third Part of my Institute, in 1785. . . . The introduction of my Spelling Book, first published in 1783, produced a great change in the department of spelling. . . . No English grammar was generally taught in common schools when I was young, except that in Dilworth, and that to no good purpose.15 The National Period: 1776–1850 A new mission for education, which began to emerge during the Revolutionary period, continued throughout the early national period. Many leaders began to link free public schooling with the ideas of popular government and political freedom. President Madison wrote, “A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.” Thomas Jefferson expressed a similar belief when he asserted, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Life, liberty, and equality were emphasized in the era’s great documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the land ordinances in the 1780s (which divided the Northwest Territory into townships and reserved the 16th section of “every township for the maintenance of public schools”). The ordinances reaffirmed that “schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged” by the states. The federal government thus committed to advancing education while ensuring the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of state and local schools. As a result of these ordinances, the federal government gave 39 states more than 154 million acres of land for schools.16 By 1800, secular forces had sufficiently developed to challenge and ultimately reduce religious influence over elementary and secondary schools. These secular forces included the M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 60 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 61 development of democracy, the development of a strong federal government, emerging cultural nationalism, the idea of religious freedom, and new discoveries in the natural sciences. Rush: Science, Progress, and Free Education Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745–1813) represented this new era. In 1791, he wrote that the emphasis on the classics prejudiced the masses against institutions of learning. As long as Latin and Greek dominated the curriculum, universal education beyond the rudiments was wishful thinking. Education should advance democracy and the exploration and development of natural resources. “To spend four or five years in learning two dead languages, is to turn our backs upon a gold mine, in order to amuse ourselves catching butterflies.” If the time spent on Latin and Greek was devoted to science, this champion pragmatist continued, “the human condition would be much improved.”17 Rush outlined a plan of education for Pennsylvania and the new nation: free elementary schools in every township consisting of 100 or more families, a free academy at the county level, and free colleges and universities at the state level for society’s future leaders. Tax dollars would pay for the expenses, but the educational system ultimately would reduce taxes because a productive, well-managed workforce and entrepreneur force would result. (Thirty years later, Horace Mann would make the same argument when he spearheaded the common school movement.) Rush’s curriculum emphasized reading, writing, and arithmetic at the elementary school level; English, German, the arts, and, especially, the sciences at the secondary and college level; and good manners and moral principles at all levels. Jefferson: Education for Citizenship Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) had faith in agrarian society and distrusted the urban proletariat. A man of wide-ranging interests, which included politics, architecture, agriculture, science, art, and education, Jefferson believed that the state must educate its citizenry to ensure a democratic society. In “A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge,” introduced in the Virginia legislature in 1779, Jefferson advocated a plan that provided educational opportunities for both common people and landed gentry “at the expense of all.”18 To Jefferson, formal education should not be restricted to particular religious or upper-class groups. Public taxes should finance schools. Jefferson’s plan divided Virginia’s counties into wards, each of which would have a free elementary school for the teaching of reading, writing, arithmetic, and history. The plan also provided for the establishment of 20 secondary-level grammar schools, to which poor but gifted students could receive scholarships. The students in these 20 schools would study Latin, Greek, English, geography, and higher mathematics. On completing grammar school, half the scholarship students would receive positions as elementary or ward school teachers. The 10 scholarship students of highest achievement would attend William and Mary College. Jefferson’s plan promoted continuing education for the brightest students as well as equal opportunity for economically disadvantaged students. Neither Jefferson’s proposal for Virginia nor Rush’s proposal for Pennsylvania was enacted. Nonetheless, the bills indicate educational theorizing characteristic of the young nation. Coupled with Franklin’s academy and its practical curriculum based on business and commercial principles rather than on classical and religious principles, these bills promoted education aimed at good citizenship and social progress. Rush, Jefferson, and, to a lesser extent, Franklin proposed universal education and methods for identifying students of superior ability, who were to receive free secondary and college educations at public expense. Webster: Schoolmaster and Cultural Nationalist The United States differed from most new countries struggling for identity in that it lacked a shared cultural identity and national literature. In its struggle against the “older” M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 61 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 62 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum cultures and “older” ideas, the new nation went to great lengths to differentiate itself from the Old World and especially England.19 Noah Webster (1758–1843) urged Americans to “unshackle [their] minds and act like independent beings. You have been children long enough, subject to the control and subservient to the interests of a haughty parent. . . . You have an empire to raise . . . and a national character to establish and extend by your wisdom and judgment.”20 In 1789, when the Constitution became the law of the land, Webster argued that the United States should have its own system of “language as well as government.” Great Britain’s language, he argued, “should no longer be our standard; for the taste of her writers is already completed, and her language on the decline.”21 By the act of revolution, the American people had declared their political independence from England. Now they needed to declare their cultural independence as well. Realizing that a distinctive national language and literature conveyed a sense of national identity, Webster set out to reshape U.S. English. Moreover, the expression “American English” (as opposed to the British dialect) was coined by Webster. He believed that a uniquely U.S. language would (1) eliminate the remains of European usage, (2) create a uniform U.S. speech free of localism and provincialism, and (3) promote U.S. cultural nationalism.22 A U.S. language would unite citizens. However, such a language would have to be phonetically simple to render it suitable to the common people. As children learned the U.S. language, they also would learn to think and act as Americans. Because the books read by students would shape the curriculum of U.S. schools, Webster spent much of his life writing spelling and reading books. His Grammatical Institute of the English Language was published in 1783. The first part of the Institute was later printed as The American Spelling Book, which was widely used throughout the United States in the first half of the 19th century.23 Webster’s Spelling Book went through many editions; it is estimated that 15 million copies had been sold by 1837. In fact, it outsold every book in the 19th century except the Bible. Webster’s great work was The American Dictionary, which was completed in 1825 after 25 years of laborious research.24 Often termed the “schoolmaster of the Republic,” Webster helped create a sense of U.S. language, identity, and nationality. McGuffey: The Readers and American Virtues William Holmes McGuffey (1800–1873), who taught most of his life in Ohio colleges, also entered the debate on U.S. cultural nationalism. His five Readers were the most popular textbooks in the United States during his era; an estimated 120 million copies were sold between 1836 and 1920.25 McGuffey gratefully acknowledged U.S. “obligations to Europe and the descendants of the English stock” in science, art, law, literature, and manners. However, the United States had made its own contributions to humankind; they “were not literary or cultural, but moral and political.” The seeds of popular liberty “first germinated from our English ancestors, but it shot up to its fullest heights in our land.”26 The United States had shown Europe that “popular institutions, founded on equality and the principle of representation, are capable of maintaining governments” and that it was practical to elevate the masses “to the great right and great duty of self-government.”27 McGuffey’s Readers extolled patriotism, heroism, hard work, diligence, and virtuous living. Their tone was moralistic, religious, capitalistic, and nationalistic. The selections of American literature included orations by George Washington, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, and Daniel Webster. Through his Readers, McGuffey taught several generations of Americans. He also provided the first graded Readers for U.S. schools and paved the way for a graded system, which began in 1840. Along with his Pictorial Primer, many of his Readers are used even today in some rural, conservative, and/or fundamentalist schools (see Curriculum Tips 3.1). M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 62 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 63 19th Century European Educators Although widely criticized, European thought greatly influenced U.S. education. At the college level, German educators influenced the fields of natural science, psychology, and sociology; many of our research-oriented universities were based on the German model. At the K–12 level, progressive ideas from German and Swiss thinkers led to curricular and instructional methods that were psychologically oriented and considered students’ needs and interests. English models of schooling also affected U.S. education. The theme of reform characterized much of the era’s educational discourse. The limitations of the “traditional curriculum and typical school of this era were recognized by educational leaders in Europe and America, and many of the features that were now firmly established in [curriculum] theory and practice can be traced to the ideas of the men and women who were ahead of their time.”28 The traditional curriculum, which emphasized Latin, Greek, and the classics, became less popular. New pedagogical practices replaced rote learning, memorization, and corporal punishment. Pestalozzi: General and Special Methods Early U.S. education was strongly influenced by Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827), a Swiss educator. According to one educational historian, Pestalozzi “laid the basis for the modern elementary school and helped to reform elementary-school practice.”29 Pestalozzi maintained that education should be based on the child’s natural development. His basic pedagogical innovation was his insistence that children learn through the senses. He deplored rote learning and advocated linking the curriculum to children’s home experiences. Pestalozzi proposed a “general” method and a “special” method. The general method called for educators who provided children with emotional security and affection. The special method considered children’s auditory and visual senses. Pestalozzi devised the “object” lesson, in which children studied common objects such as plants, rocks, and household objects. Children would determine an object’s form, draw the object, and then name it. From these lessons in form, number, and sound came more formal instruction in the three R’s. William McClure and Joseph Neef—and later Horace Mann and Henry Barnard—worked to introduce Pestalozzi’s ideas into U.S. schools.30 Pestalozzi’s basic concepts of education Curriculum Tips 3.1 The Need for Historical Perspective All professional educators, including curriculum specialists, need an understanding of history to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and also to better prepare for the future. 1. The development of ideas in education is part of our intellectual and cultural heritage. 2. A truly educated person has a sense of historical context. 3. An understanding of various theories and practices in education requires an understanding of historical foundations. 4. An understanding of historical foundations in education helps us integrate curriculum, instruction, and teaching. 5. History illuminates current pedagogical practices. 6. In developing a common or core curriculum, a historical perspective is essential. 7. With a historical perspective, curriculum specialists can better understand the relationship between content and process in subject areas. 8. References to history, especially case examples, contribute to academic education’s moral dimension. 9. The history of education permits practitioners to understand relationships between what students of the past learned and what students now learn. 10. The study of education history is important for the purposes of education theory and research. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 63 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 64 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum became part of progressive schooling and later appeared in the movement for curriculum relevancy and humanistic curriculum. Froebel: The Kindergarten Movement Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852), a German educator, developed what he called “kindergarten” (children’s garden). He focused on the 3- and 4-year-old children and believed that their schooling should be organized around play and individual and group interests and activities. Froebel encouraged a child-centered curriculum based (like Pestalozzi’s) on love, trust, and freedom. Songs, stories, colorful materials, and games were part of the formal curriculum. The children could manipulate objects (spheres, cubes, and circles), shape and construct materials (clay, sand, cardboard), and engage in playful activities (build castles and mountains, run, and otherwise exercise).31 Together, these activities made up the learning environment and provided a secure and pleasant place where children could grow naturally. German immigrants brought the kindergarten concept to the United States. Margaret Schurz established the first U.S. kindergarten in Watertown, Wisconsin, in 1855. William Harris, superintendent of schools in St. Louis, Missouri, and later U.S. commissioner of education, was instrumental in implementing the idea on a broader scale. Kindergarten is now an established part of U.S. education. Many of Froebel’s ideas of childhood experiences and methods of play have been incorporated into current theories of early childhood education and progressive schooling. Herbart: Moral and Intellectual Development Johann Herbart (1776–1841) was a German philosopher known for his contributions to moral development in education and for his creation of a methodology of instruction designed to establish a highly structured mode of teaching. For Herbart, the chief aim of education was moral development, which he considered to be basic and necessary to all other educational goals or purposes. The chief objective of Herbartian education was to produce a good person who had many interests. Herbart argued that virtue is founded on knowledge and misconduct is the product of inadequate knowledge or of inferior education. Thus, he gave education a vital role in shaping moral character. In elaborating on his work on moral education, Herbart specified five major kinds of ideas as the foundation of moral character: (1) the idea of inner freedom, which referred to action based on one’s personal convictions; (2) the idea of perfection, which referred to the harmony and integration of behavior; (3) the idea of benevolence, by which a person was to be concerned with the social welfare of others; (4) the idea of justice, by which a person reconciled his or her individual behavior with that of the social group; and (5) the idea of retribution, which indicates that reward or punishment accrues to certain kinds of behavior. Drawing from his ideas on moral education, Herbart also specified two major bodies of interests that should be included in education: knowledge interests and ethical interests. Knowledge interests involved empirical data, factual information, and speculative ideas, and ethical interests included sympathy for others, social relationships, and religious sentiments. Herbart’s aim was to produce an educated individual who was also of good character and high morals. He believed that if a person’s cognitive powers are properly exercised and his or her mind is stocked with proper ideas, then the person will use that knowledge to guide his or her behavior. The person who lives and acts according to knowledge will be a moral person. In terms of organizing instruction, Herbart developed the concepts of curriculum correlation. These were to have a decided impact on education in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. According to the doctrine of correlation, each subject should be taught in such a way that it refers to and relates to other subjects. Knowledge would then appear to the learner as an integrated system of ideas that form an apperceptive mass—the whole of a person’s previous experience—into which new ideas could be related. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 64 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 65 Herbart believed that the subjects of history, geography, and literature were ideally suited as core subjects. Herbart also developed four pedagogical principles that were accepted enthusiastically and transformed into five steps by his followers; these became known as the Herbartian method: (1) preparation, by which the teacher stimulates the readiness of the learner for the new lesson by referring to materials that were learned earlier; (2) presentation, in which the teacher presents the new lesson to the students; (3) association, in which the new lesson is deliberately related to the ideas or materials that students studied earlier; (4) systemization, which involves the use of examples to illustrate the principles or generalizations to be mastered by the students; and (5) application, which involves the testing of new ideas or the materials of the new lesson to determine if students have understood and mastered them. Speaking of Herbart’s contribution to the instruction of teaching, John Dewey said: “Few attempts have been made to formulate a method, resting on general principles, of conducting a recitation. One of these is of great importance and has probably had more influence upon the learning of lessons than all others put together; namely, the analysis by Herbart of a recitation into five successive steps.”32 Herbart’s formal steps of instruction were applied to teacher training as well as adopted by classroom teachers. In theory, the teacher would prepare carefully by thinking of the five steps and asking: What do my students know? What questions should I ask? What events should I relate? What conclusions should be reached? How can students apply what they have learned? To a large extent, these principles still serve as the guidelines for today’s classroom lesson plan. His five steps also form the basis of what today’s curriculum theorists would refer to as the instructional or implementation phase of curriculum planning, or what the authors call curriculum development (see Chapter 7). Spencer: Utilitarian and Scientific Education Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) was an English social scientist who based his ideas of education on Charles Darwin’s theory of biological evolution and subsequently introduced the notion of “survival of the fittest.” Spencer maintained that simple societies evolve to more complex social systems, characterized by an increased variety of specialized professions and occupations.33 Because of nature’s laws, only intelligent and productive populations adapt to environmental changes. Less intelligent, weak, or lazy people slowly disappear. Spencer’s notions of excellence, social-economic progress, and intellectual development based on heredity had immense implications for education and economic outcomes. Spencer criticized religious doctrines and classical subject matter as unscientific and unrelated to contemporary society. He advocated a scientific and practical curriculum suited to industrialized society. Spencer believed that traditional schools were impractical and ornamental, a luxury for the upper class that failed to meet the needs of the people living in a modern society. Spencer constructed a curriculum aimed at advancing human survival and progress. His curriculum included knowledge and activities (in order of importance) for sustaining life, earning a living, rearing children properly, maintaining effective citizenship, and enjoying leisure time.34 These five purposes became the basis of the famous Principles of Secondary Education, published in 1918. The document proved to be a turning point by which progressive thought (focus on the whole child) trumped perennialist philosophy (focus on subject matter) in education. Spencer maintained that students should be taught how to think, not what to think. His notion about discovery learning, an offshoot of scientific reasoning, also influenced 20th century curricularists, including Dewey and his 1916 publication of How We Think and, later, essentialist disciplinary educators such as Jerome Bruner and Phil Phenix.35 In his famous essay “What Knowledge Is of Most Worth?” Spencer argued that science was the most practical subject for the survival of the individual and society, yet it occupied minimal space in the curriculum. Spencer reasoned that a curriculum should be constructed on the basis of what is useful and essential for promoting progress. In effect, he was suggesting an M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 65 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 66 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum educational program that would apply scientific knowledge and skills for an industrialized society (such as the one we live in today). Both John Dewey and Charles Judd were later influenced by Spencer’s thinking when they formulated a science of education 25 years later based on the methods of hypothesizing, finding facts, and making generalizations. Edward Thorndike, probably the best-known behavioral psychologist of the early 20th century, was also influenced by Spencer’s scientific theories—specifically, those involving Thorndike’s principles of learning and organization of experiences. Although many of Spencer’s ideas about religion, evolution, and social progress created a furor (and still do among some religious and political observers), the ideas suited his era, which was characterized by industrial growth and territorial expansion by Europe and the United States. The Rise of Universal Education: 1820–1900 During the early 1800s, the United States expanded westward. Life on the new frontier deepened America’s faith in the common person who built the new nation. Equality and rugged individualism were important concepts, expressed in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed by westerners, who believed all people of all classes were important. This kind of faith in the working person and in American civilization underscored to the frontier people the necessity of school.36 In the urban East, the lower classes, particularly immigrants, also valued free schooling and linked it to social mobility and the American dream. The upper-class establishment may not have had faith in the masses, but they reluctantly accepted the argument (of Jefferson, Rush, and now Mann) that mass education was necessary for intelligent participation in a political democracy and for economic growth of the country. Monitorial Schools The monitorial school was a European invention based on Joseph Lancaster’s model of education. It spread quickly to the U.S. urban centers, where the immigrant population was increasing, and to the frontier, where there was need for a system of schools. It was attractive in the 1820s and the following decades due to its economy and efficiency. Bright student monitors served as instructors. The teacher taught the lesson to the monitors (high-achieving students), who presented the material to their classmates. The instruction was highly structured and based on rote learning and drilling the three R’s. Proponents of monitorial teaching stressed that it was economical and kept all students busy while the teacher was occupied with a few students. The class was divided into smaller groups, with a monitor in charge of each group. The students were kept actively involved in practice and drill activities and moved at their own pace. Teachers were freed from some of their instructional chores. The monitorial system was considered “efficient.”37 The monitorial system deemphasized classical education and religious theory, stressed the three R’s and good citizenship, demonstrated the possibility of systematic instruction, acquainted many people with formal education, and made educational opportunities more widely available. Most important, it promoted mass education and tax-supported elementary schools.38 At the peak of its popularity, in the 1840s, it was introduced in some high schools and suggested (by educators and state agencies) for colleges. However, many people considered the monitorial system too mechanical. It also was criticized for using poorly informed students as instructors. By 1850, its popularity had waned. Common Schools The common school was established in 1826 in Massachusetts, when the state passed a law requiring every town to choose a school board to be responsible for all local schools. Eleven years M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 66 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 67 later, the state legislature created the first state board of education, and Massachusetts organized the public common schools under a single authority. Connecticut quickly followed its neighbor’s example.39 The common schools were devoted to elementary education, with an emphasis on the three R’s. Horace Mann spearheaded the movement, which was rooted in progressive thought. As a member of the Massachusetts legislature and later as the state’s first commissioner of education, Mann rallied public support for the common school by appealing to various segments of the population. To enlist the business community, he argued that “education has a market value” with a yield similar to “common bullion.” Industry’s aim and the nation’s wealth would be augmented “in proportion to the diffusion of knowledge.”40 Workers would be more diligent and productive. Mann also established a stewardship theory, aimed at the upper class, which stated that the public good would be enhanced by public education. Universal education would create a stable society in which people would obey the laws and increase the nation’s political and economic well-being. Mann told workers and farmers that the common school would be a great equalizer and a means of social mobility for their children. To the Protestant community, he argued that the common school would assimilate ethnic and religious groups, promote a common culture, and help immigrant children learn English, U.S. customs, and U.S. laws.41 Mann was convinced that the common school was crucial to equal opportunity and a national identity. The pattern for establishing common schools and their quality varied among the states, but the foundation of the U.S. public school was being forged. Schools taught youngsters of all socioeconomic and religious backgrounds, from age 6 to 14 or 15. Because individual teachers taught a variety of subjects to children of all ages, they had to plan as many as 10 to 20 different lessons a day.42 Teachers also had to try to keep their schoolrooms cool in the summer and warm in the winter (a responsibility shared by the older boys, who cut and fetched wood). Schoolhouses often needed major repairs, and teachers were paid miserably low salaries. New England state legislatures encouraged the establishment of school districts, elected school boards, and enacted laws to govern the schools. Although the common school had problems and critics, it especially flourished on the frontier, where the local one-room schoolhouse embodied the pioneers’ desire to provide free education for their children. The one-room schoolhouse eventually led to one of America’s most lasting, sentimentalized pictures—the “Little Red Schoolhouse”—in almost every community. “It was a manifestation of the belief held by most of the frontier leaders that a school was necessary to raise the level of American civilization.”43 This small school, meager in outlook and thwarted by inadequate funding and insufficient teachers, nevertheless fit with the conditions of the American frontier. It was a “blah” school, according to Abe Lincoln, but it was the kind of school in which the common person’s children— even those born in log cabins—could begin their “readin,” “writin,” and “cipherin.”44 It was a school local citizens could use as a polling place, meeting hall, and site for dances and other community activities; it was here on the frontier that neighborhood schools, local control, and government support of schools took a firm hold. Elementary Schools There was no consensus regarding an appropriate elementary school curriculum. Throughout the 1800s, the trend was to add courses to the essential subjects of reading, spelling, grammar, and arithmetic. Religious doctrine changed to “manners” and “moral” instruction by 1825. Textbook content was heavily moralistic, and teachers provided extensive training in character building. By 1875, lessons in morality were replaced by lessons in “conduct,” which remained part of the 20th century curriculum. More and more subjects were added to the curriculum: geography and history by 1850; science, visual art, and physical education by 1875; and nature study (biology and zoology), music, homemaking (later called home economics), and manual training by 1900. Table 3.1 shows this evolution of the elementary school curriculum. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 67 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 68 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum Secondary Schools The common school created the basis for tax-supported and locally controlled elementary school education. The U.S. high school was established on this base. By 1900, most children ages 6 to 13 were enrolled in public elementary school, but only 11.5 percent of children ages 14 to 17 were enrolled in public secondary schools (and only 6.5 percent graduated). As shown in Table 3.2, not until 1930 did the secondary school enrollment figure exceed 50 percent. By 1970, 98 percent of elementary-age children attended school, and 94 percent of secondary-age children did (with 77 percent graduating). The great enrollment boom occurred between 1850 and 1900 for elementary schools and between 1900 and 1970 for high schools. From the 1980s to 2010, enrollment percentages leveled off in the mid- to high 1990s. Academies In the early 1800s, the academy began to replace the Latin grammar school; by 1850, it dominated the school landscape. The academy offered a wide range of curricula; it was designed to provide a practical program for terminal students as well as a college-preparatory course of study. By 1855, more than 6,000 academies were teaching 263,000 students45 (more than twothirds of the period’s total secondary school enrollment). Table 3.1 | Evolution of the Elementary School Curriculum, 1800–1900 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Declamation Declamation Literary selections Literature Spelling Spelling Spelling Spelling Spelling Writing Writing Writing Penmanship Writing Catechism Good behavior Conduct Conduct Conduct Bible Manners and morals Manners Arithmetic Arithmetic Mental arithmetic Primary arithmetic Arithmetic Ciphering Advanced arithmetic Bookkeeping Bookkeeping Grammar Grammar Grammar Grammar Elementary language Oral language Oral language Geography Geography Home geography Home geography Text geography Text geography U.S. history U.S. history History studies Constitution Object lessons Object lessons Nature study Elementary science Elemenatary science Drawing Drawing Music Physical exercises Physical training Play Sewing Sewing Cooking Manual training Note: Italics indicate the most important subjects. Source: From Ellwood P. Cubberley (1920), The History of Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1920), p. 756. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 68 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 69 Table 3.2 | Percentage of Students Enrolled in Secondary School and College, 1900–2010 14- to 17-Year-Olds Enrolled in Secondary School 17-Year-Olds Graduating High School 18- to 21-Year-Olds Enrolled in College 1900 11.5 6.5 3.9 1910 15.4 8.8 5.0 1920 32.3 16.8 7.9 1930 51.4 29.0 11.9 1940 73.3 50.8 14.5 1950 76.8 59.0 26.9 1960 86.1 65.1 31.3 1970 93.4 76.5 45.2 1980 93.7 74.4 46.3 1990 95.8 85.4 48.5 2000 97.9 87.5 53.7 2010 96.5 86.0 60.0 Source: Based on Allan C. Ornstein. Teaching and Schooling in America (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2003); and Projections of Education Statistics to 2015 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2011). According to Ellwood Cubberley, the academy taught “useful things, [and] subjects of modern nature,” that prepared students for life, not just college.46 By 1828, the academies of the state of New York offered as many as 50 different subjects. In rank order, the top 15 were Latin, Greek, English grammar, geography, arithmetic, algebra, composition and declamation, natural philosophy, rhetoric, philosophy, U.S. history, French, chemistry, logic, and astronomy. By 1837, the state Board of Regents reported 72 different subjects.47 Academies tended to offer a traditional curriculum that prepared students for college. Elmer Brown writes that in the best academies, “the college preparatory course was the backbone of the whole system of instruction.” Although practical courses were offered, “it was the admission requirements of the colleges, more than anything else, that determined their standards of scholarship.”48 Paul Monroe concurs: “The core of academy education yet remained the old classical curriculum . . . just as the core of the student body in the more flourishing academies remained the group preparing for college.”49 The era of the academies extended to the 1870s, when public high schools replaced academies. The academies then served as finishing schools for young ladies, providing courses in classical and modern languages, science, mathematics, art, music, and homemaking. They also offered the “normal” program for prospective school teachers, which combined courses in the arts and science with principles of pedagogy. A few private military and elite academic academies still exist today. High Schools Although a few high schools existed in the early half of the 1800s (the first was founded in Boston in 1821), they did not become a major U.S. institution until after 1874, when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled, in the “Kalamazoo Case,” that the public could establish and support high schools with tax funds. Thereafter, high schools rapidly spread, and state after state made attendance compulsory. Students were permitted to attend private schools, but the states had the right to establish minimum standards for all. By 1890, the 2,525 public high schools in the United States had more than 200,000 students, compared to 1,600 private secondary schools, which had fewer than 95,000 M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 69 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 70 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum Curriculum Tips 3.2 Process of Historical Research The following suggestions provide guidance for conducting historical research: 1. Define a problem or issue with roots in the past, or attempt to recreate a historical event and give it meaning. 2. Use primary-source writings from the time of a historical event that relate to an event and were part of the context in which it occurred. 3. Use secondary sources (literature written after the event occurred) in which historians have interpreted the event. 4. Based on an examination of primary and secondary sources, recreate an event, life, or situation from the past and interpret it so that it has meaning for people today. 5. Use history, especially case examples or case studies, to add a moral dimension to your teaching. 6. Explain and interpret, but do not rewrite, history. Source: Adapted from Gerald Gutek, unpublished materials, January 1992. students. By 1900, the number of high schools had soared to 6,000, whereas the number of academies had declined to 1,200.50 The public high school system, contiguous with common schools, had evolved. As late as 1900, high schools were attended by only a small percentage of the total youth population. However, the presence of terminal and college-preparatory, rich and poor students under one roof showed that the U.S. public had rejected the European dual system of secondary education. Fifty years later, when the U.S. high school had fully evolved, James Conant argued for comprehensive high schools that served all types of learners and helped eliminate class distinctions. The comprehensive high school provided curriculum options for all students. High schools stressed the college preparatory program, but they also completed the formal education of terminal students. They offered a more diversified curriculum than the academies. Around 1900, high schools began to offer vocational, industrial, commercial, and clerical courses. Public high schools contributed to social and political reform. They produced a skilled workforce for an expanding industrial economy, and they assimilated and Americanized millions of immigrant children in U.S. cities. Summing up, then, the curriculum of the Latin grammar school was virtually the same at the beginning and end of the colonial period. Latin, Greek, arithmetic, and the classics were stressed. Academies introduced greater variation (e.g., courses for practical studies) into the curriculum. By 1800, a typical academy offered about 25 different subjects (the table lists the 17 most popular). Between 1850 and 1875, the peak period for academies, some academies offered as many as 150 courses.51 In rank order, the 15 most popular were (1) algebra, (2) higher arithmetic, (3) English grammar, (4) Latin, (5) geometry, (6) U.S. history, (7) physiology, (8) natural philosophy, (9) physical geography, (10) German, (11) general history, (12) rhetoric, (13) bookkeeping, (14) French, and (15) zoology.52 These courses had no real philosophy or aim except that most were college preparatory in nature, even though the original aim of the academy was to offer a practical program. After 1875, the number of high schools rapidly grew, and the number of academies rapidly fell. The curriculum and the variety in course offerings continued to expand, presumably making it easier for students to determine their interests and capabilities.53 (See Curriculum Tips 3.2.) The Transitional Period: 1893–1918 From the colonial period until the turn of the 20th century, the traditional curriculum, which emphasized classical studies for college-bound students, dominated at the elementary and secondary levels. The rationale for this emphasis was that the classics were difficult and thus were a good way to develop mental abilities. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 70 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 71 While helpful to students, the sheer variety of course offerings were inconsistent across districts. There was a growing need to bring some order and unity to curriculum, especially at the secondary level. According to two educators, the subjects taught, the time allotted to them, and their “grade placements” differed from school to school.54 As late as 1900, most children completed their formal education at the elementary level, and those who went on to secondary schools usually ended their formal education upon graduation. As of 1890, only 14.5 percent of high school students were preparing for college, and fewer than 3 percent went on to college.55 Hence, high schools were catering to approximately 15 percent of the student population. Reformers began to ask if elementary schools should offer two curriculum tracks, one for children bound for high school and one for children whose formal education would end at the elementary level. They also began to question high schools’ focus on preparing students for college, on mental discipline, and on the classics. Reaffirming the Traditional Curriculum: Three Committees With these unsettled questions as background, the National Education Association (NEA) organized three major committees between 1893 and 1895: the Committee of Fifteen on Elementary Education, the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies, and the Committee on College Entrance Requirements. These committees were to determine and bring order to schools’ unwieldy curricula. Their reports “standardized” the curriculum for much of the 20th century. In Cubberley’s words, “The committees were dominated by subject-matter specialists, possessed of a profound faith in mental discipline.” No concern for student “abilities, social needs, interest, or capabilities . . . found a place in their . . . deliberations.”56 The Committee of Fifteen. The Committee of Fifteen was heavily influenced by Harvard University president Charles Eliot, who had initiated vigorous discussion on the need for school reform, and by William Harris, then the U.S. commissioner of education, who believed in strict teacher authority and discipline. Both Eliot and Harris wanted the traditional curriculum to remain intact. The committee adopted Eliot’s plan to reduce the elementary grades from 10 to 8 and stressed the three R’s, English grammar, literature, geography, and history. Hygiene, culture, vocal music, and drawing were each allotted one hour per week. Manual training, sewing cooking, algebra, and Latin were introduced in the seventh and eighth grades. In general, the committee rejected the idea of newer subjects (see Table 3.1), the pedagogical principles that had characterized the reform movement of the European pioneers since the early 1800s, kindergarten, the idea that children’s needs and interests should be considered when planning the curriculum,57 and the notion of interdisciplinary subjects. They compartmentalized subject matter, and this compartmentalization has remained the norm. The Committee of Ten. Chaired by Eliot, the Committee of Ten was the most influential of the three committees. It identified nine academic subjects as central to the high school curriculum: (1) Latin; (2) Greek; (3) English; (4) other modern languages; (5) mathematics (algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and higher, or advanced, algebra); (6) physical sciences (physics, astronomy, and chemistry); (7) natural history or biological sciences (biology, botany, zoology, and physiology); (8) social sciences (history, civil government, and political economy); and (9) geography, geology, and meteorology (see Table 3.3). The committee recommended four different tracks: (1) classical, (2) Latin scientific, (3) modern languages, and (4) English. The first two required four years of Latin. The first program emphasized classic English literature and math; the second, math and science. The modern-language program required four years of French or German (Spanish was considered too easy and culturally and linguistically less important). The English program permitted four years of Latin, German, or French. The modern language and English programs also included literature, M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 71 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 72 Table 3.3 | Secondary School Programs and Subjects Proposed by Committee of Ten, 1893 First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year Latin 5 p.* Latin 4 p. Latin 4 p. Latin 4 p. English literature 2 p. 4 p. Greek 5 p. Greek 4 p. Greek 4 p. English composition 2 p. English literature 2 p. 4 p. English literature 2 p. English literature 2 p. German (or French) 5 p. English composition 2 p. English composition 1 p. 4 p. English composition Grammar 1 p. 1 p. 4 p. Algebra 4 p. German (continued) 4 p. Rhetoric 1 p. History of Italy, Spain, and France 3 p. French (begun) 5 p. German 4 p. German 4 p. Applied geography (European politicalcontinental and oceanic flora and fauna) Total 4 p. 25 p. Algebra Geometry Botany or zoology English history to 1688 Total 2 p. 2 p. 4 p. 4 p. 3 p. 33 p. French Algebra Geometry Physics History, English and U.S. Astronomy, 11/2 p. 1st 1/2 yr Meteorology, 11/2 p. 2nd 1/2 yr Total 4 p. 2 p. 2 p. 4 p. 3 p. 3 p. 34 p. 4 p. French Trigonometry Higher algebra Chemistry History (intensive) and civil government Geology or physiography, 2 p. 1st 1/2 yr Anatomy, physiology, and hygiene, 2 p. 2nd 1/2 yr Total 4 p. 2 p. 4 p. 3 p. 4 p. 33 p. Note: *p. = periods. Source: From Committee of Ten, Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies (Washington, DC: National Educational Association, 1893), p. 4. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 72 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 73 composition, and history. The Committee of Ten considered these two programs (which did not require Latin or emphasize literature, science, or mathematics) “in practice distinctly inferior to the other two.”58 In taking this position, the committee indirectly tracked college-bound students into the first two programs and noncollege-bound students into the latter two programs. To some extent, this bias reflected the committee’s composition: 8 of the 10 members represented college and private preparatory school interests. The committee ignored art, music, physical education, and vocational education, maintaining that these subjects contributed little to mental discipline. Two curricularists write, “The choice of these subjects and the omission of others from consideration was enough to set the course for secondary education for many years” and indirectly set the tone at the elementary level as well. The committee suggested that each of the nine subjects except Latin and Greek be taught at the elementary school level.59 At the time, few students went to college. Nonetheless, this college preparatory program established a curriculum hierarchy, from elementary school to college, that promoted academics and ignored most students who were not college bound. Today, schools offer vocational, industrial, or technical programs, but the academic program is still considered superior to others. The Committee on College Entrance Requirements. When the Committee on College Entrance Requirements met in 1895, it reaffirmed the dominance of college-preparatory curriculum in high schools, emphasizing college-admission requirements and classical subjects. Consisting mainly of college and university presidents, including Eliot, the committee recommended strengthening the college-preparatory aspect of the high school curriculum and made recommendations regarding the number of credits required in different subjects for college admission. The recommendations were reflected in the Carnegie Unit, a method of evaluating credits for college admission, imposed on high schools in 1909 and still used in most high schools. Harris and Eliot: Two Conservative Reformers From 1878 (when the Kalamazoo court decision provided for free public high schools) to 1900, education questions revolved around curriculum: What should be taught in elementary and secondary schools? Should high school be considered an extension of elementary school? Should the curriculum differ at the two school levels, or should it remain unbroken? Should the high schools be considered prepatory for college? If so, at what grade level should the secondary curriculum start college prepatory work? What curriculum provisions should be made for terminal students? If high schools offered two or more separate programs, would the result be a dual-track system? Should the same education be available to all students? William Harris (1834–1926) and Charles Eliot (1835–1909) dominated the reform movement during this period: Harris, the former St. Louis commissioner of education (1868–1881) and U.S. commissioner of education (1889–1906), was a traditionalist who subscribed to McGuffey’s moralism and Mann’s faith in free public schools. Harris wrote in 1871, “If the rising generation does not grow up with democratic principles, the fault will lie in the system of popular education.”60 He thought that U.S. common schools should teach morality and citizenship, “lift all classes of people into a participation in civilized life,” and instill “social order.”61 Whereas Mann saw the common school as a great equalizer and force for social mobility, Harris saw it as an instrument for preserving society’s customs and norms. Mann saw schools as key to a child’s growth and development, whereas Harris saw the school as one of many factors (e.g., family, playmates, church, community) in educating and socializing children. Harris saw schools as an extension of society, not as agents of change. Harris advocated a traditional curriculum: a mix of essentialism (five core academic areas) and perennialism (emphasis on the classics and moral values). Harris’s elementary curriculum was composed of mathematics, geography, history, grammar, literature, and art. (Mann also advocated music and art.) At the high school level, Harris emphasized the classics, Greek and M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 73 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 74 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum Latin, and mathematics. His curriculum was rigorously academic. Harris resisted the idea of a vocational or practical curriculum, arguing that all children should follow the same curriculum. The ideal was for each student to work with his or her mind, not with his or her hands. Education historian Lawrence Cremin states that Harris “consolidated the revolution Mann had wrought” but was “patently conservative.” Harris’s emphasis was “on order rather than freedom, on work rather than play, on effort rather than interest, on prescription rather than election, on regularity [and] silence,” and on preserving “the civil order.”62 Harris stressed rules, scheduling, testing, and grading. Harris argued that the curriculum would give poor children the same opportunities as wealthy children. However, his focus on the classics discouraged working-class students from attending high school. As president of Harvard University, Eliot played a prominent role in the shaping of higher education. He argued that, as late as the 1890s, 80 percent of U.S. colleges and universities had to organize their own preparatory high schools because public high schools were doing an inadequate job. Also, more than 80 percent of eligible youth did not attend high school. Eliot maintained that there was a huge discrepancy in purpose and quality “between the elementary schools and the colleges.”63 Although the elementary schools served a larger segment of the population, their curriculum was characterized by repetitive drill in grammar, spelling, and basic math at the expense of science, foreign languages, and advanced math. The curriculum had to be revamped, and pedagogical methods had to be changed from lockstep teaching, rote drill, and the memorization of facts to comprehension and problem solving. Eliot believed that elementary children were capable of pursuing subjects such as algebra, physics, and foreign languages. Sixty years later, in The Process of Education, Jerome Bruner similarly argued, “Any subject can be taught in some effectively honest form to any child at any stage of development.”64 Unlike most educators of his time, Bruner held that students can comprehend the fundamental principles and concepts of any subject at almost any age if they are taught properly. Eliot called on pedagogical experts to establish goals and standards for every subject, “even though not all children would study the same subjects or move at the same pace while studying them.”65 To some extent, he allowed for different rates and ways of learning; this is now called independent learning, continuous progress, or learning styles. Eliot saw “civilized society” as being composed of four layers: (1) the upper one, “thin” in numbers and consisting of “the managing, leading, guiding class—the intellectual discoverers, the inventors, the organizers, and the managers”; (2) a “much more numerous class, namely, the highly trained hand-workers” who function as “skilled manual labor”; (3) a populous “commercial class” consisting of those who engage in “buying, selling, and distributing”; and (4) a large class engaged in “household work, agriculture, mining, quarrying, and forestry.” Schools, Eliot argued, must offer programs to all four classes.66 The more progressive and democratic reformers saw Eliot’s class system as elitist and biased. Eliot argued for vocational and trade schools separate from high schools. He also maintained that elementary school teachers should sort children into tracks according to their abilities (as European dual-track schools do).67 Later, Eliot somewhat retreated from that position, but measurement and school efficiency advocates picked up on the idea of “vocational guidance,” based partly on testing,68 and advocated tracking secondary students into academic and nonacademic programs. Vocational Education In later years, the NEA would support the concept of vocational education. A 1910 report by the NEA’s Committee on the Place of Industries in Public Education advocated “manual activities” at the elementary level and “testing of children’s aptitudes as a basis for subsequent choice of specific pursuits either in vocations or in higher schools” and “manual training” for some high school students.”69 In 1917, the Smith-Hughes Act provided federal aid for vocational education related to agriculture, home economics, and the trades. Federal funds were to match state monies allocated M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 74 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 75 to school curricula in these three vocations. Business, labor, and farm groups hailed the act as a reform.70 They did not see the act as shunting lower-class children into second-rate, nonacademic programs. However, Jane Addams—and, to a lesser extent, Dewey and Kilpatrick—would see the promotion of vocational education as hindering the democratic common school movement. Addams was most concerned that immigrant children would be steered into such programs. Seventy-five years later, Michael Apple, Alfie Kohn, and Jeannie Oaks would similarly argue that working-class students were being placed in nonacademic vocational programs due to the class biases of middle-class educators.71 Within two years, the enrollment in vocational programs doubled. By 1918, 164,000 students were enrolled in such programs, the vast majority (118,000) in trade and industrial programs. By 1944, the total enrollment was 2.5 million, evenly distributed in agriculture, home economics, and trade and industry. By 1970, some 9 million students (26 percent of secondary students) were enrolled in vocational programs.72 By 2000, vocational education enrollment had declined to 20 percent,73 which reflected the growing criticism of tracking as well as the national push for postsecondary education. Yet vocational education has recently crept back into the national discourse under the term career and technical education (CTE), amidst growing college debt, high school disengagement, and demand for “middle-skills” jobs.74 Occupations like database administrators and medical technician require more than a high school degree, but not necessarily a four-year bachelor’s degree, an area CTE would aptly fill. Given the growth of electronic and health-related industries, CTE is seeing promise but requires major revamping. Pressure for a Modern Curriculum Among other factors, immigration and industrial development led a growing number of educators to question the classical curriculum and its emphasis on mental discipline. The scientific movement in psychology and education in the late 19th and early 20th centuries also played a role—particularly the pragmatic theories of Charles Peirce and William James; the social theories of Darwin, Herbart, and Spencer; and the pedagogical views of Pestalozzi, Froebel, Maria Montessori, and others. This movement rejected the mental-discipline approach and classic curriculum and emphasized vocational, technical, and scientific subjects. At the turn of the 20th century, education was strongly influenced by the ideas of Dewey and Francis Parker, the Gestalt psychology and child psychology movements, the learning theories of behaviorism and transfer learning, and the progressive movement in schools and society. Educators increasingly argued that the classics had no greater mental value than other subjects and that mental discipline (which emphasized rote learning, drill, and memorization) was not conducive to the inductive method of science or compatible with contemporary educational theory. Edward Thorndike, the era’s most influential learning psychologist, wrote, “The expectation of any large difference in general improvement of the mind from one study rather than another seems doomed to disappointment. The chief reason why good thinkers seem superficially to have been made such by having taken certain school studies is that good thinkers have taken such studies… . Now that good thinkers study Physics and Trigonometry, these seem to make good thinkers. If abler pupils should all study Physical Education and Dramatic Art, these subjects would seem to make good thinkers.”75 Flexner: A Modern Curriculum. By 1917, Eliot, a former advocate of Latin, was saying that Latin should no longer be compulsory for high school or college students.76 Abraham Flexner (1866–1959), a former teacher of the classics, contended that Latin had “no purpose” in the curriculum and that the classics were out of step with scientific developments.77 Flexner now argued that tradition was an inadequate criterion for justifying subject matter; society was changing, and educators also had to make changes in the curriculum. Watch this report on career and technical education (CTE). What do you think are some of the advantages and disadvantages of CTE? https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=3pVDGCuRWsQ M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 75 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 76 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum In his 1916 paper “A Modern School,” Flexner rejected the traditional secondary curriculum and proposed a “modern” curriculum consisting of four basic areas: (1) science (the curriculum’s major emphasis); (2) industry (occupations and trades of the industrial world); (3) civics (history, economics, and government); and (4) aesthetics (literature, languages, art, and music).78 Modern languages would replace Latin and Greek. Flexner concluded that a subject had little value in the curriculum unless a utilitarian argument could be made for its inclusion. Flexner’s concept of utility and modern subjects tended to resemble Spencer’s views on science and subject matter. The difference is that Flexner was attuned to the social and political climate of his time. Educators were willing to listen to his proposals. In 1917, the Lincoln School of Teachers College, Columbia University (while Dewey was teaching) adopted Flexner’s proposed curriculum; the school combined the four core areas of study, with emphasis on scientific inquiry. Dewey: Pragmatic and Scientific Principles of Education. The same year that Flexner published “A Modern School,” Dewey published Democracy and Education, one of his most influential (and cumbersome) books, which discussed all the elements of his philosophy.79 In the book, Dewey set forth the relationship between education and democracy as well as the notion that democracy itself was a social process that could be enhanced through the school. Dewey considered schools as neutral institutions that could serve the ends of either freedom or repression and authority; thus, the aims of education went hand in hand with the particular type of society involved. According to Dewey, subjects cannot be placed in a value hierarchy; study of any subject can promote a child’s development. Any study or body of knowledge was capable of expanding the child’s experiences and contributing to his or her social and cognitive growth. Traditional subjects such as Greek or Latin were no more valuable than music or art. At the same time, Dewey prioritized science, which he saw as epitomizing rational inquiry. Science, for Dewey, was another name for knowledge, and it represented the perfect outcome of learning—its consummation, “what is known and settled.” Dewey considered scientific inquiry to be the best form of knowledge for a society because it consisted of “special methods which the race worked out in order to conduct reflection under conditions whereby its procedures and results are tested.”80 Dewey’s emphasis on science was based partially in the work of Spencer, who believed science was the key to complete living, and to G. Stanley Hall, who started the child-study movement in the 1880s and 1890s and under whom Dewey studied when he was a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins University. With Hall, the child-study movement was both research based and systematic, whereby findings were supposed to be applied to the classroom. Although knowledge obtained from child-study research was rarely used by teachers, it formed the basis of the child development movement in the 1930s and 1940s that was spearheaded by Robert Thorndike and Arthur Jersild in the United States and Jean Piaget in Europe. Judd: Systematic Studies and Social Sciences. Charles Judd (1873–1946) was a colleague of Dewey. He headed the University of Chicago’s Department of Education when Dewey directed the lab school. With Dewey and others, Judd constructed a science of education based on finding facts and constructing generalizations and then applying them in decision-making and problem-solving areas. Whereas Peirce and James referred to this method as pragmatism, Judd referred to it as scientism in education. Judd was an evolutionist (who believed in Darwin’s theories of adaption and Spencer’s theories of survival) and believed the laws of nature should be used to educate the young. He used statistical research (which was then in its infancy) to determine the worth of curriculum content—that is, the extent to which particular content enhanced students’ ability to promote thinking and solve problems. By preparing students to deal with problems, not acquire or recall endless knowledge, he argued that students would be prepared to deal with the changing world and the problems they would encounter as adults. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 76 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 77 In Introduction to the Scientific Study of Education, Judd outlined “systematic studies . . . of the curriculum.”81 He emphasized reading, writing, and spelling based on words statistically shown to be used by successful adults. He also emphasized science and math problems applicable to everyday life. Utilitarian and pragmatic in philosophy, Judd urged that elementary students be exposed to “career education” to help prepare them for an occupation. At the secondary level, Judd recommended practical subjects with a vocational or technical orientation, not a “cultural” or elitist curriculum. For slower students, he advocated English, business math, mechanics or stenography, and office management. For average and superior students, he recommended science, mathematics, modern languages, and the social sciences. Judd influenced the next generation of theorists, who sought to apply scientific methods to curriculum development. This generation (sometimes called technicians) began with Franklin Bobbitt and Werrett Charters in the 1920s and reached its height of influence with Ralph Tyler and Hilda Taba in the 1950s. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. In 1918, the NEA’s Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education published the highly progressive Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. 82 Influenced by Herbart’s purposes, Flexner’s “A Modern School,” and Dewey’s Democracy and Education, the commission stressed the whole child (not only cognitive development); education for all youth (not only college-bound youth); diversified areas of study (not just classical or traditional studies); and common culture, ideas, and principles for a democratic society (not religious, elitist, or mental-discipline learning). The commission noted the following: 1. Education should promote seven aims: health, command of the fundamentals, “worthy home membership” (e.g., preparation for marriage, raising children), vocation, citizenship, leisure, and ethical character. 2. High school should be a comprehensive institution having the nation’s social and economic groups. 3. High school curricula should meet varied student needs—agricultural, business and commercial, vocational, and college preparatory. 4. Current educational psychology, psychological principles, and methods of measurement and evaluation should be applied to secondary curriculum and instruction. 5. U.S. educational institutions should function in conjunction with one another. High schools were assuming their modern curricular patterns: combining academic programs with several nonacademic programs. English, math, science, social science, and modern languages were being emphasized. Classical languages and literature were losing ground. Aims and subjects were becoming interrelated. Utilitarianism was replacing the idea of mental discipline. Students’ needs and interests were being considered. Schools were expected to serve all students, not only college-bound youth. The whole child was being emphasized, not just cognitive learning. Traditional education, which had long dominated U.S. education, was in decline. The Birth of The Field of Curriculum: 1918–1949 In the early 1900s, scientific methods of research, psychology, the child-study movement, industrial efficiency, and the progressive movement in society all influenced education. Curriculum now was viewed as a science, with principles and methodology, not simply as content or subject matter. The idea of planning a curriculum, rather than simply describing it in terms of subjects and the time allotted to them, appeared in the literature. Bobbitt and Charters: Behaviorism and Scientific Principles The idea of efficiency, promoted by business and industry, influenced Franklin Bobbitt (1876– 1956) and W. W. Charters (1875–1952). Frederick Taylor analyzed factory efficiency in time M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 77 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 78 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum and motion studies and concluded that workers should be paid on the basis of their individual output, and his theories influenced Bobbitt and Charters.83 Efficient operation of schools became a major goal in the 1920s. Efficiency often entailed eliminating small classes, increasing the student–teacher ratio, reducing teachers’ salaries, and so on, and then preparing charts and graphs to show the cost reduction. Raymond Callahan later branded this approach the “cult of efficiency.”84 Curriculum making became more scientific; teaching and learning were reduced to measurable behaviors and outcomes. Bobbitt’s 1918 book The Curriculum was possibly the first book devoted solely to curriculum as a science and to all its phases. Bobbitt’s principles of curriculum planning reflected an activities approach, “a series of things which children and youth must do and experience by way of developing abilities to do things well and make up the affairs of adult life.”85 To Bobbitt, curriculum should outline the knowledge important for each subject and then develop appropriate activities. Bobbitt set out to organize a course of studies for the elementary grades: “We need principles of curriculum making.”86 Bobbitt further developed his activities approach in the early 1920s in How to Make a Curriculum, in which he outlined more than 800 objectives and related student activities. These activities ranged from personal health and hygiene to spelling and grammar, and “to keeping home appliances in good working condition.”87 Bobbitt’s guidelines for selecting objectives can be applied today: (1) eliminate objectives that are impractical or cannot be accomplished through normal living, (2) emphasize objectives that are important for success and adult living, (3) avoid objectives opposed by the community, (4) involve the community in selecting objectives, (5) differentiate between objectives for all students and objectives for only some students, and (6) sequence objectives by grade level. Taken out of context, Bobbitt’s list of hundreds of objectives and activities, along with the machine, or factory, analogy that he advocated, was easy to criticize. Nevertheless, Bobbitt’s insistence that curriculum making was a specialty based on scientific methods and procedures was important for elevating curriculum to a field of study, or what he called a new specialization. Charters, too, advocated a behaviorist approach influenced by business notions of efficiency. He termed his approach scientific. Charters viewed the curriculum as a series of goals that students must reach. In Curriculum Construction, he discussed curriculum in terms of specific operations, such as those involved in running a machine.88 Charters argued that curriculum makers must apply clear principles in order to select materials that would lead to the achievement of specific and measurable objectives.89 He believed the state of knowledge at that time did not permit scientific measurement that would specifically identify the outcome of the objectives, but he set out to develop a method for selecting objectives based on social consensus and for applying analysis and verification to subject matter and student activities. Although he did not use the term evaluation during this period, he was laying the groundwork for curriculum evaluation. As initiators of the behavioral and scientific movements in curriculum, Bobbitt and Charters had a profound impact on curriculum. They (1) developed principles for curriculum making, involving aims, objectives, needs, and learning experiences (which they called activities); (2) highlighted the use of behavioral objectives; (3) introduced the ideas that objectives are derived from the study of needs (later called needs assessment) and that objectives and activities are subject to analysis and verification (later called evaluation); and (4) emphasized that curriculum making cuts across subject matter, and that a curriculum specialist need not be a specialist in any subject, but should be a professional in method or process. Bobbitt and Charters taught at the University of Chicago when Ralph Tyler was a graduate student in the department of education (Tyler was a graduate assistant of Charters). Tyler was highly influenced by Bobbitt’s and Charters’s behaviorist ideas, particularly the ideas that (1) objectives derive from student needs and society, (2) learning experiences relate to objectives, (3) activities organized by the teacher should be integrated into the subject matter, and (4) instructional outcomes should be evaluated. Tyler’s emphasis on evaluation as a M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 78 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 79 component of curriculum derives from Charters, who helped Tyler get appointed head of testing and evaluation at the Ohio State Bureau of Educational Research in 1929. (Charters became the bureau’s director in 1928.) Tyler’s four major curriculum components (objectives, learning experiences, methods of organization, and evaluation) are rooted in Bobbitt’s, and especially Charters’s, ideas. Kilpatrick: The Progressive Influence The rise of progressive education and universal education led to a backlash against the classical curriculum’s rigidity and rote memorization, the emphasis on tough subject matter, and a secondary curriculum standardized for preparation for college. Progressive curricularists emphasized the learner rather than subject matter and social processes rather than cognitive ones. The curriculum was organized around classroom and school social activities, group enterprises, and group projects (see Curriculum Tips 3.3). Student self-expression and freedom were major goals. In the 1920s and 1930s, Dewey warned against teaching that lacks a plan and simply allows students to respond according to their interests.90 Kilpatrick, a colleague of Dewey at Teachers College, Columbia University, attempted to merge the behaviorist psychology of the day with Dewey’s and Judd’s progressive philosophy. The blend became known as the “Project Method”91 (later called purposeful activity). Kilpatrick divided his methodology into four steps: purposing, planning, executing, and judging. His curriculum projects ranged from classroom projects to school and community projects. Two of Kilpatrick’s doctoral students applied his ideas in Missouri schools. One was Junius Merian, who called Kilpatrick’s projects “subjects of study” and organized them into four areas: observation, play, stories, and hard work.92 The second was Ellsworth Collings, who developed a curriculum around children’s real-life experiences. He urged teachers and students Curriculum Tips 3.3 Enriching the Curriculum The following suggestions combine Kilpatrick’s activities curriculum and Rugg’s child-centered curriculum. In general, the suggestions integrate elementary schooling with progressivist philosophy, which evolved during the first half of the 20th century. They are especially suited to schools and teachers who stress a student-centered curriculum. 1. Study each child’s cumulative record. 2. Compare achievement scores with ability indices. 3. Examine a pupil’s creative output for frequently used words, symbols, and topics. 4. Listen to pupils talk about themselves. 5. Provide a choice of activities. 6. If possible, visit each pupil’s home. 7. Help individual pupils learn as much as possible about their values, attitudes, purposes, skills, interests, and abilities. 8. Allow pupils to say what they think. 9. Encourage students to reflect on their beliefs and values. 10. Together with pupils, analyze their interpretations of their in-class and out-of-class experiences. 11. Organize class activities around individual or group study of problems important to the individuals involved. 12. Help individual students state their immediate and long-term goals. Share with pupils the information available about their present situation. 13. Clarify a situation’s limitations (in time, materials, and resources) with pupils. 14. Ask each pupil to formulate a plan of work. 15. Encourage each pupil to collect and share materials. 16. Arrange for students to collect information in out-of-class situations. 17. Use record keeping to help individual students organize their learning. Source: Based on Kimball Wiles, Teaching for Better Schools (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1952), p. 286. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 79 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 80 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum to present organized experiences or activities that were related and developmental in nature; one activity should lead to another. “The curriculum was continuously revised ‘on the spot’ by the joint action of pupils and teachers.” He believed that such a joint endeavor “would mean most for the children.”93 His projects resembled Merian’s four study areas but included more field trips and community activities. Kilpatrick’s project method, which he presented in his book Foundations of Method, was implemented mainly at the elementary level. Kilpatrick advocated giving children considerable input in determining the curriculum. Kilpatrick’s project method became part of the activity movement, but he argued that the difference was that his doctrine had “social purpose,” whereas the activity-centered curriculum had only “child purpose.” When forced to decide who should plan the curriculum, the child or teacher, Kilpatrick opted for the child, arguing that “if you want to educate the boy to think and plan for himself, then let him make his own plan.”94 In this respect, he differed from Dewey, who put greater emphasis on the role of the teacher. In Kilpatrick’s view, children had to learn to “search, . . . compare, . . . think why,” and make their own decisions.95 Teachers should guide rather than dispense knowledge. When Kilpatrick’s project method was eventually introduced into the high school curriculum, it was blended with social studies and the core curriculum.96 Concerned with social issues and part of the radical progressive wing (later to be called reconstructionism), Kilpatrick saw traditional education as reactionary. Along with other progressives such as Boyd Bode, Hollis Caswell, George Counts, and Harold Rugg, he criticized the Committee of Ten, which he felt had legitimized traditional systems of education. The Committee of Ten urged a compartmentalized and academic curriculum emphasizing Latin, language, and science. Kilpatrick argued for integrated subject matter and a general education emphasizing values and social issues. Whereas the Committee of Ten saw school as a place where students go primarily to acquire knowledge, Kilpatrick and his progressive colleagues saw school as a “community” in which students practiced “cooperation, self-government . . . and application of intelligence . . . to problems as they may arise.”97 The traditional practice of education focused on certain subjects, usually the three R’s at the elementary level and basic academic subjects at the secondary level. The basic teaching method was rote practice. In contrast, Kilpatrick and his followers saw education’s purpose as the child’s growth along social lines, not the mastery of content.98 The curriculum must derive from real-life experiences, not organized bodies of subject matter, and must take the form of purposeful activities. School was preparation for life; it had social purpose. The Twenty-sixth Yearbook In 1930, the National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE), an honor society headquartered at the University of Chicago, published its Twenty-sixth Yearbook in two volumes: Curriculum-Making: Past and Present and The Foundations of Curriculum Making. 99 The committee that developed the two volumes consisted of 12 members, including Rugg (the chairperson) and Bagley, Bobbitt, Charters, Counts, Judd, and Kilpatrick. Most of the period’s leaders of curriculum development were scientifically oriented and progressive. Many were affiliated with the University of Chicago, which emphasized this science of education. The yearbook’s first volume harshly criticized traditional education and its emphasis on subject matter, rote learning, drill, and mental discipline. It also offered a synthesis of progressive practices and programs in U.S. public and private schools. The second volume described the state of the art in curriculum making and outlined the ideal curriculum, which should do the following: 1. Focus on affairs of human life. 2. Deal with local, national, and international issues. 3. Enable students to think critically about various forms of government. 4. Foster open-mindedness. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 80 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 81 5. Consider students’ interests and needs and provide opportunities for discussion and debate. 6. Deal with the issues of modern life and society’s cultural and historical aspects. 7. Consider problem-solving activities and practice in choosing alternatives such as role playing, independent learning, and cooperative learning. 8. Organize problems and exercises in a graded organization. 9. Deal with humanitarian themes in a purposeful, constructive way.100 Harold Rugg maintained that educational committees or legislative groups should formulate the curriculum’s goals, materials, and instructional methods. Trained curriculum specialists should plan the curriculum and include “(1) a statement of objectives, (2) a sequence of experiences [to achieve] the objectives, (3) subject matter found to be . . . the best means of engaging in the experiences, and (4) statements of immediate outcomes of achievements to be derived from the experiences.”101 These four planning principles were later to become the basis of Tyler’s four organizing principles, as delineated in Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Rugg concluded that curriculum needed to adapt scientific methods that were needed “for specialization and for professional training.”102 Experienced teachers and curriculum specialists should work together to organize the content and materials within each subject area. The NSSE yearbook greatly clarified problems that curriculum workers were encountering and significantly advanced curriculum making. It had major influence in many school districts (large and small as well as city, suburban, and rural). Rugg and Caswell: The Development Period From the late 1920s through the early 1940s, a number of important books were published on curriculum principles and processes. Trained as an engineer, Harold Rugg (1886–1960) shared Bobbitt’s and Charters’s faith in a “science of curriculum.” In 1928, Rugg and Ann Shumaker coauthored The Child-Centered School. In an era that stressed student input in curriculum planning, the authors stressed the need for curriculum specialists to construct the curriculum.103 They also stressed the teacher’s role in implementing the curriculum and the need for preplanning. Rugg did not believe that a curriculum should be based on students’ input, needs, or interests. He believed that a student-directed curriculum would lack direction and logic. Rugg advocated cooperation among educational professionals, including teachers, administrators, test experts, and curriculum specialists from various fields. In the 1930s and 1940s, Rugg shifted his attention to the integration of history, geography, civics, and economics (often collectively referred to as social studies). Some of his ideas about labor history, unionism, and collectivism, compounded by his activities with the teachers’ union, resulted in a great deal of criticism from established groups. Like Counts and Dewey, Rugg also had an FBI file. During the period from the mid-1920s to the 1930s, most school districts and state education departments were developing curriculum guides. However, the selection of methods and activities was left to teachers. Hollis Caswell (1901–1989) wanted to shift emphasis from formulating a course of study to improving instruction. He envisioned curriculum making as a means of helping teachers coordinate their instructional activities with subject matter and students’ needs and interests. Caswell regarded courses of study as guides that teachers should use in planning their daily lessons, not as plans they should follow in detail. Caswell provided a step-by-step procedure for curriculum making. He and his colleagues presented seven questions that still have relevance: 1. What is a curriculum? 2. Why is there need for curriculum revision? 3. What is the function of subject matter? 4. How do we determine educational objectives? M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 81 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 82 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum 5. How do we organize curriculum? 6. How do we select subject matter? 7. How do we measure the outcomes of instruction?104 Influenced by Bobbitt’s definition of curriculum (“that series of things which children and youth must do and experience”), Caswell and Campbell maintained in their book Curriculum Development that the curriculum must consider “all elements in the experience of the learner.”105 They thought that the field of curriculum should incorporate philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Caswell saw curriculum as a process involving scientific steps of development, organization, instruction, and evaluation. Caswell and Campbell believed that the curriculum must address children’s interests, social functions, and organized knowledge. It should provide the proper scope and sequence of subject matter at every grade level. Scope was to represent broad themes such as conservation of natural resources, “worthy home membership,” and democratic living. Sequence depended on children’s interests and experiences. Subject matter should match the social functions and the learner’s interests; knowledge obtained should be measured. Eight-Year Study Although traditional subject matter and methods dominated most school curricula, the progressive movement was influential in certain parts of the United States, particularly Denver, St. Louis, and Winnetka (Illinois). Most high school teachers and principals were reluctant to implement progressive changes because the curriculum was (as it is today) test driven, textbook dominated, and directed by college-admission requirements.106 The Progressive Education Association launched the “Eight-Year Study” (1932–1940) to show that a new curriculum designed to meet students’ needs and interests was just as effective as one designed around traditional tests and college-admission requirements. As many as 30 progressive or experimental high schools and 1,475 graduates were compared to schools and students following traditional college preparatory tracks. The experimental/progressive group did as well as or better on cognitive, social, and psychological measures. The study led to several books—for example, by Wilford Aiken and Harry Giles.107 Tyler, a colleague of Giles, was a major participant in the project. Many of his ideas, later published in Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, stemmed from principles and ideas generated by the study (as well as the NSSE Twenty-sixth Yearbook). Although the idea of stating objectives in behavioral terms had been introduced 20 years prior to the study, the curriculum specialists behind the study introduced it on a national level. These curricularists grouped objectives into related categories. (Tyler and Taba later grouped objectives into these categories: (1) knowledge acquisition, (2) intellectual skills, (3) attitudes and feelings, and (4) academic skills or study habits.108 (See Curriculum Tips 3.4.) Members of the Eight-Year Study understood that evaluation must determine whether a curriculum’s objectives had been achieved. The study confirmed the need for comprehensive evaluation, including data on (1) student achievement, such as initial levels of mastery, performance on standardized tests, social and psychological skills, and creativity; (2) social–factors, such as social class, peer group, community patterns, and motivation; (3) teaching learning processes, such as classroom management, homework assignments, and student–teacher interaction; and (4) instructional methods, such as discussions, demonstrations, problem solving, and discovery. Taba and Tyler worked on the study’s evaluation team. In the 1940s and 1950s, Taba developed the idea of comprehensive evaluation in her work as chair of the ASCD’s Commission on Evaluation. She further developed the idea in her 1962 book, Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. Tyler elaborated his ideas on evaluation in his 1949 book, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. The ideas on curriculum making that the study developed did not filter down to the schools because teachers were not deeply involved in curriculum. As Dewey had stated 25 years before M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 82 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 83 the study, teachers often viewed “outside contacts and considerations” as “interferences.”109 Most of the study’s curriculum committees failed to include teachers and restricted them to examining classroom textbooks and materials or modifying curriculum guides developed by central district offices. The exclusion of teachers from the clarification of school goals and program objectives, the organization of subject matter and learning activities, and the evaluation process perpetuated traditional top-down curriculum making. Tyler: Basic Principles Although Ralph Tyler (1902–1994) published more than 700 articles and 16 books on curriculum, instruction, and evaluation, he is best known for his small 1949 book, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. 110 Originally written as a course syllabus for his students at the University of Chicago, the book has gone through more than 35 printings. In 128 pages, Tyler covers the basic questions that he believes should be answered by anyone involved in planning or writing a curriculum for any subject or grade level: 1. What educational goals should a school seek to accomplish? 2. What educational experiences are likely to lead to these goals? 3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized? 4. How can we determine whether a school’s goals are being accomplished?111 Judd’s and Dewey’s progressive social theories and Thorndike’s and Piaget’s learning theories strongly influenced Tyler. He also drew from behaviorists such as Bobbitt and Charters, having Curriculum Tips 3.4 Classifying Objectives Schools can translate their goals into objectives by grouping them into categories, which Tyler and Taba advocated. The following example of elementary social studies objectives, developed during the Eight-Year Study, has been updated from the South Bend school district for the 21st century. 1. Knowledge: Children will understand that a. people are more interconnected than ever and depend on each other; b. our world is dynamic and continually changing; c. events, discoveries, and inventions may have the potential to improve society or create problems at faster rates; d. people have established communities and governments to meet their needs; e. traditions, values, and customs are developed, passed onto, and adapted by new generations; f. people are affected by their geography; and g. individuals increasingly have the ability to shape their own lives and society. 2. Skills: Children need to learn how to a. interact with multiple sources of information and evaluate their validity; b. organize facts and form generalizations based on facts; c. discuss facts, make generalizations, and draw conclusions; d. think critically about events, discoveries, and inventions; e. plan, carry out plans, and evaluate the work; f. take responsibility; and g. develop values from which to judge actions as right or wrong. 3. Attitudes: Children need to be a. willing to accept responsibility and finishing a task; b. persistent in their efforts; c. willing to help others and cooperate for the sake of the group’s goals; and d. patient and tolerant of others different from themselves. Source: Based on the source: For Our Time: A Handbook for Elementary Social Studies Teachers (South Bend, IN: School City of South Bend, 1949), pp. 229–230. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 83 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 84 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum studied under the latter as a graduate student. Other contemporaries, such as Counts and Bode, also influenced Tyler’s philosophy and principles of curriculum. We might consider Tyler’s curriculum model an elaboration of Rugg’s four major curriculum tasks and a condensed version of the NSSE’s Twenty-sixth Yearbook. His model represents a rational, logical, and systematic approach to curriculum making. It emphasizes the learner’s needs, its principles are applicable in varying situations, and it prioritizes objectives. Tyler’s book has been highly influential because of its rational, no-nonsense, sequential approach. In just over 100 pages, he laid out a basic procedure, illustrated with easy-to-understand examples. Tyler provides students a series of concise steps by which to plan curriculum. Although Tyler does not specify the role of the teacher, supervisor, or principal in curriculum planning or the differences between curriculum and instruction, he shows how any school or school district can formulate goals and organize its means and resources to shape curriculum and instruction in the desired direction. Tyler offers a thoughtful and easy-to-follow method. Although critics have charged that Tyler’s model is lockstep, technocratic, and overly simplistic,112 it still works for many. Because it is easy to grasp, it serves as a starting point for curriculum students. A number of Tyler’s influential colleagues—such as Paul Diederich, Harold Dunkel, Maurice Hartung, Virgil Herrick, and Joseph Schwab—accepted many of his ideas and also influenced curriculum. In addition, many of his graduate students became prominent in the field,113 including Ned Flanders, David Krathwohl, Louis Rath, and Harold Shane. A number of his other students—Ben Bloom, Lee Cronbach, John Goodlad, and Herbert Thelen—were also his colleagues for many years. With the exception of Elliot Eisner, who is inclined toward qualitative and artistic factors in curriculum making, these colleagues continuously praised Tyler’s work in the professional literature. See Table 3.4 for an overview of theorists, including Tyler. Goodlad: School Reform John Goodlad (1920–2014) extended Dewey’s ideas of democracy and social activism and Tyler’s rational model of curriculum making. Like Dewey, Goodlad believed that philosophy is the starting point in curriculum and the basis for determining goals, means, and ends. In contrast, Tyler viewed philosophy solely as a filter for modifying the school’s goals and subsequently developing education programs. Whereas Goodlad advocated teacher involvement in modifying education’s goals and developing curriculum, Tyler was unclear about the teacher’s role. In fact, Goodlad maintained that schools should allow teachers to teach half-time and spend the rest of their time interpreting and modifying state goals and planning curriculum activities. As part of a school-renewal program, Goodlad advocated that researchers and teachers collaborate in developing and testing new ideas related to curriculum and teaching.114 In Goodlad’s view, schools should help individuals fulfill their potential but should also promote society’s goals. He writes, “Developing individuals to their fullest potential often has been argued as the antithesis of educating the individual to serve the state . . . Whatever the schools may be able to accomplish in promoting [individual growth and enlightenment], they are simultaneously required to instill a sense of devotion to the nation-state.”115 Dewey believed that education should socialize children and instill society’s values and norms. In Democracy and Education (1916), he stressed schooling for civic and moral responsibility. In In Praise of Education (1997), Goodlad argued that education is an inalienable right in a democratic society and that its main purpose is “to develop an individual and collective democratic character.” Teachers must inculcate morals and foster “skills dispositions and knowledge necessary for effective participation in a social democracy.”116 Early in his career, Goodlad launched a study of 260 kindergarten and first-grade classrooms in 100 schools in 13 states. In 1969, he reported his findings: Things were much the same as they had been 20 years before, when Tyler published his classic book on curriculum. “Teaching was predominantly telling and questioning by the teacher with children responding M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 84 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Table 3.4 | Overview of Curriculum Theorists, 1918–Present Theorist Purpose Principles Content Major Book Franklin Bobbitt (1876–1956) Curriculum as a science Emphasis on student needs Prepare students for adult life Clarify objectives Cost-effective education Grouping and sequencing objectives with corresponding activities Clarifying instructional specifications and tasks Basic three R’s in elementary schools Academic subjects in high school Subject matter and related activities planned by teacher The Curriculum, 1918 How to Make a Curriculum, 1924 Werrett Charters (1875–1952) Curriculum as a science Emphasis on student needs (and needs assessment) Bridging theory and practice in curriculum Curriculum process, described as job analysis Listing of objectives and corresponding activities Verification of objectives through evaluation Subject matter related to objectives Subject matter and corresponding activities planned by teacher Curriculum Construction, 1923 William Kilpatrick (1871–1965) School as a social and community experience Curriculum identified as purposeful activities Child-centered curriculum Child development and growth Project method, a blend of behaviorism and progressivism Teacher and student planning, emphasis on the student Emphasis on pedagogy or instructional activities: creative projects, social relationships, and small-group instruction Educating a generalist, not a specialist Integrated subject matter Problem solving Foundations of Education, 1926 Harold Rugg (1886–1960) Education in context with society Child-centered curriculum Whole child Curriculum specialist as an engineer Statement of objectives, related learning experiences, and outcomes Teacher plans curriculum in advance Emphasis on social studies The Child Centered Curriculum (with Ann Shumaker), 1928 Hollis Caswell (1901–1989) Foundations of education (history, philosophy, and culture) influence curriculum development Relationship of three major components: curriculum, instruction, and learning Student needs and interests Curriculum organized around social functions (themes), organized knowledge, and learners’ interests Curriculum as a set of experiences Curriculum guides as a source of teacher planning Teachers coordinate instructional activities to implement curriculum Subject matter organized in relation to student needs and interests Subject matter developed around social functions and learners’ interests Curriculum Development (with Doak Campbell), 1935 (Continued) 85 M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 85 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Theorist Purpose Principles Content Major Book Ralph W. Tyler (1902–1994) Curriculum as a science and extension of school’s philosophy Clarify purposes (objectives) by studies of learners and contemporary life, suggestions from subject specialists, and use of philosophy and psychology Student needs and interests Relationship between curriculum and instruction Curriculum as a rational process Using objectives to select and organize learning experiences Using evaluation to determine outcomes (whether objectives have been achieved) Vertical and horizontal relationship of curriculum Subject matter organized in terms of knowledge, skills, and values Emphasis on problem solving Educating a generalist, not a specialist Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, 1949 John Goodlad (1920–2014) Paulo Freire (1921–1997) William Pinar (1947–) Curriculum organized around needs of society and students Wide range of purposes, including cognitive, social, civic, vocational, aesthetic, and moral Realistic reform policies and programs Education as a means of shaping the person and society through critical reflection and “conscientization” Broaden the conception of curriculum to enrich the practice Understand the nature of the educational experience Reduce student conformity in classroom Constant need for school improvement School reforms frequently come and go and add costs to the system; teacher input is preferred. Standards and high-stakes tests currently drive school reform. Teachers use questioning and problemposing approach to raise students’ consciousness; understanding the hidden curriculum to raise awareness of social justice. Curriculum as a conversation that involves multiple disciplines Emphasis on active learning and critical thinking Involvement of students in planning curriculum content and instructional activities Need to align content with standards and highstakes tests Emphasis on questioning, problem posing, and critical thinking Student ownership of social problems Curriculum should be studied from a historical, political, racial, gendered, phenomenological, postmodern, autobiographical, aesthetic, theological, and international perspective. A Place Called School, 1984 What Are Schools For? 1989 Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1968 Understanding Curriculum (with William Reynolds, Patrick Slattery, and Peter Taubman), 1995 Table 3.4 | (Continued) 86 M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 86 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 87 one by one or occasionally in chorus.” Teacher talk and the textbook dominated classroom activities. “Rarely did we find small groups intensely in pursuit of knowledge; rarely did we find individual pupils at work in self-sustaining and inquiry. . . . We are forced to conclude much of the so-called educational reform movement has been blunted on the classroom door.”117 Goodlad pointed out that the curriculum reform movement of the 1950s and 1960s was led by university scholars with little practical experience in schools and little respect for teachers; researchers tended to ignore the realities of classrooms and schools.118 Fifteen years later, in A Place Called School, Goodlad and his colleagues reported the results of their studies of more than 17,000 students. They described widespread patterns of passive and rote learning. The findings include the following: 1. The classroom is generally organized as a group that the teacher treats as a whole; individual or small-group instruction is rare. 2. The emphasis is on classroom control and order. 3. Teachers check enthusiasm and excitement; the educational tone is flat and neutral. 4. Students passively listen to teachers, write answers to questions, and take tests; they rarely interact or learn from one another. 5. Little use is made of media, guest speakers, or field trips. 6. Instruction rarely goes beyond knowledge acquisition; little effort is made to motivate students to reflect, solve problems, hypothesize, or think creatively. 7. When teachers prioritize order and students prefer to do as little work as possible, the result is often minimum standards and expectations. 8. Overwhelmingly, secondary school students say that “good looking students” and “athletes” are the most popular students. Only 10 percent of secondary school students say that “smart students are popular.”119 Goodlad concluded that (1) the curriculum prescribed in most schools is ineffective because it has little relation to real events in society; (2) in most schools, there is a disparity between agreed-on goals and the actual program; and (3) students are treated as “passive recipients” of content, and teachers stress correct answers in their classroom instruction. At the end of his professional career, Goodlad stated that, over the past 100 years, education has consistently embraced the seven Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. As for school reform, he saw it reemerge in many national commission reports, such as A Nation at Risk, published in 1983, which employed “military language” in trying to link reform to the U.S. decline in the global economy. Goodlad contended that reformers have “tricked” the public by continually suggesting that “all schools are failing,” even though most parents rate their local schools relatively highly. Today, school reform has been narrowed to standards, especially issues of testing and accurate assessment of student outcomes. Test scores have become “the bottom line.”120 Pinar: Reconceptualizing Curriculum Theory William Pinar (1947–), who was part of a wave of “reconceptualists” (made up mostly of university curriculum professors), sought to take back the curriculum field in the 1970s from creeping bureaucratic and corporate influences. The national and neoliberal movement toward college and career readiness led to a narrowly prescribed curriculum that was associated with Ralph Tyler’s Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Reconceptualists argued that Tyler’s technical rationality lacked diverse voices and perspectives fundamental to curriculum development. At the same time, the influence of economists, corporatists, and politicians over curriculum matters grew significantly. They focused on student achievement and test scores rather than on critical and independent thinking, and university professors (as the traditional curriculum Watch this report on what teachers in Seattle’s high schools did to protest standardized tests. What would you do in their situation? https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=hl8wFzwCsZ0 M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 87 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 88 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum makers) felt increasingly powerless to stop them. Reconceptualists sought to counter these changes. Pinar proposed that the field focus less on developing curriculum and more on understanding it,121 in order to answer the ultimate question, What knowledge is most worth knowing? This required integrating more interdisciplinary forms of practice, such as “history, politics, race, gender, phenomenology, postmodernism, autobiography, aesthetics, theology, the institution of schooling, [and] the world.”122 By opening up the field, curriculum becomes a site for ongoing conversation on power, identity, and discourse that involves collaboration and multiple perspectives, rather than a field susceptible to monopolistic forces. Pinar defined the reconceptualist movement as a “critical exercise, descriptive rather than prescriptive, studying signs of education practice to discover what might have been, what still may be.”123 This exercise becomes increasingly important in the 21st century as curriculum becomes internationalized and the need for a more cosmopolitan conception of curriculum is needed in the United States.124 Pinar refers to this new conversation as part of the “post-reconceptualist” movement. School practitioners, however, typically do not understand Pinar’s need to “understand” the curriculum, and many write him off as a theorist whose ideas do not work in practice. Teachers, administrators, and other curriculum workers prefer blueprints that guide curriculum making. As such, Tyler’s pragmatic, rational, and technocratic approach has been widely adopted and continues to serve as the basis for curriculum in schools worldwide. Freire: From “Banking Concept” of Education to Problem Posing Paulo Freire (1921–1997) was a Brazilian educator who grew up amid poverty and dedicated his life to the struggles of the poor. His influential 1970 book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, advocated a critical consciousness aimed to empower would-be learners through awareness of the surrounding politics and through constant reexamination. This process liberates the oppressed while avoiding becoming oppressors themselves. Freire was perhaps best known for his attack on what he called the “banking concept” of education, in which teachers “deposit” information into students, who in turn retrieve, or “withdraw,” this knowledge when needed. He believed it controlled students’ thinking and action and stifled their creativity. Freire’s critique of this dominant model of education led to a more democratic approach, called problem-posing education, where “people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, of transformation.”125 In the end, leaders would come from common people who can see and address social problems in enlightened ways. Knowledge is power, and Freire understood that cultivating it was one way to emancipate the oppressed. He confirmed his observations from a global perspective in his later book, Learning to Question: A Pedagogy of Liberation, where he discussed the role of education in liberating the oppressed people of the Third World.126 Capturing the voice of not just Latin Americans, but the billion or so of those oppressed across the world allowed Freire to give victims an “inner strength to begin the arduous process of transcending a colonial existence.”127 Current Focus The Tyler model summed up the best principles of curriculum making for the first half of the 20th century. Many curricularists have used this model. In fact, many practitioners in schools consider Tyler’s model the basic way to create curricula. Currently, however, all traditional and technical models are being challenged. According to nontraditional and nontechnocratic scholars, we cannot reduce curriculum to a particular theory, plan, or definition, much less agree on what is acceptable or valid. Critics claim that “philosophies, theories, [and principles] are not determined only by static knowledge and empirical data. The world of subjectivity and art is considered just as valid as Aristotelian M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 88 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 89 logic and Newtonian science.”128 Given the postmodern world of relativism, there is considerable controversy regarding what is and is not objective and true. National interest typically governs the curricular emphasis in education as a result. Some critics of the educational status quo argue that schools need to be “liberated from institutional and capitalistic, [as well as racist and gender] indoctrination. Learners [should] no longer have an obligatory curriculum imposed on them. Schools and society should no longer discriminate and foster a class society based on possession of certificates” and standardized tests. Just as there is “an unequal distribution of economic capital and political power in society,” the schools provide “an unequal distribution of cultural/educational capital.”129 Current curricularists such as Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, Ivan Illich, Peter McLaren, and William Pinar hold such views. Others, such as William Doll, Eliot Eisner, Maxine Greene, and Herb Kliebard, are more moderate but still have rejected the scientific/rational model and most forms of traditional/ technocratic thinking. In the age of global competition, the curriculum has seen a renewed emphasis on accountability. High-stakes testing and common standards have focused the curriculum in a way not seen since the age of Sputnik. This is driven by employer demand for certain “21st century skills”; namely the ability to think critically and creatively, to collaborate, and to communicate, among other skills. Such fluid and dynamic skills will likely require a new approach to curriculum based more on inquiry, problem posing, technology, and students’ interests, rather than mere content proficiency. Whether school districts adopt such an approach, however, remains to be seen. On a more pessimistic note, according to Ornstein, knowledge, skills, and schooling have minimal impact in more than half the world.130 Opportunity is limited, and political instability and corruption run rampant. International report cards, grades, tests—and curriculum theories— are meaningless. Ultimately, power is tied to capital, equipment, and/or property. The dominant group controls one or more of these three economic factors. Without possessing any, a person can only offer labor, which keeps the individual in a subordinate role. It has been that way since recorded history and will continue through the 21st century and global village. There is, after all, little incentive for dominant groups to give up power. Conclusion From the colonial period to around World War I, curriculum was a matter of evolving subject matter. Some reform ideas concerned pedagogical principles of the mid- and late 1800s, mainly as a result of European influence and the emerging progressive reform movement of the early 20th century, but these ideas were limited to theoretical discussions and a few isolated, innovative schools. The perennialist curriculum, which emphasized the classics and timeless and absolute values based on religious and then moral doctrines, dominated for the first 150 years of our nation’s history. The idea of curriculum principles and processes began to take shape after 1900, and scientific principles and progressive philosophy were increasingly influential. Curriculum as a field of study—with its own methods, theories, and ways of solving problems—has made real advances since the 1920s. Most of the advances have taken place since Tyler wrote his basic text on curriculum. Discussion Questions 1. What are some of the differences between the various types of colonial schools? 2. How did U.S. democratic ideas contribute to the rise of public schooling during the national period? 3. How did the 19th century European pioneers of pedagogy influence the U.S. school curriculum? 4. How did education evolve to meet the needs of the masses during the rise of universal education? 5. How did the Committee of Fifteen and the Committee of Ten influence 20th century curriculum? 6. What influence did behaviorism and scientific principles have on curriculum in the early to mid-1900s? M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 89 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 90 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum Notes 1. John D. Pulliam and James J. Van Patten, eds., History of Education in America (Columbus, OH: Merrill, 2007); and R. Freeman Butts and Lawrence A. Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953). 2. Gerald Gutek, Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Education, 4th ed. (Columbus, OH: Merrill, 2005); and Butts and Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture. 3. George A. Beauchamp, The Curriculum of the Elementary School (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1964), p. 34. 4. Allan C. Ornstein and Daniel U. Levine, Foundations of Education, 10th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008), p. 165. See also S. Alexander Rippa, Education in a Free Society, 7th ed. (New York: Longman, 1992). 5. Beauchamp, The Curriculum of the Elementary School, p. 36. 6. Marvin Lazerson and W. Norton Grubb, The Education Gospel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004); Paul Monroe, Founding of the American Public School System (New York: Macmillan, 1940); and Samuel E. Morrison, The Intellectual Life of Colonial New England (New York: New York University Press, 1956). 7. Robert Middlekauff, Ancients and Axioms: Secondary Education in Eighteenth-Century New England (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963). 8. Elmer E. Brown, The Making of Our Middle Schools (New York: Longman, 1926), p. 133. 9. Newton Edwards and Herman G. Richey, The School in the American Social Order, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963), p. 102. 10. Morrison, The Intellectual Life of Colonial New England; and Joel Spring, The American School: 1642–2000 (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2001). 11. John H. Best, Benjamin Franklin on Education (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1962); Bernard Cohen, Benjamin Franklin’s Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); and Edmund S. Morgan, Benjamin Franklin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002). 12. Ellwood P. Cubberley, Public Education in the United States, rev. ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947), p. 30. 13. R. Freeman Butts, The American Tradition in Religion and Education (Boston: Beacon Press, 1950); and Gerald R. Firth and Richard D. Kimpston, The Curricular Continuum in Perspective (Itasca, IL: Peacock, 1973). 14. Paul L. Ford, The New England Primer: A History of Its Origins and Development, rev. ed. (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1897), pp. 329–330. 15. Henry Barnard, Educational Developments in the United States (Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Education, 1867), p. 367. 16. Cubberley, Public Education in the United States; and Merle Curti, The Social Ideas of American Educators (New York: Littlefield, Adams, 1959). 17. Benjamin Rush, A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools (Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1786), pp. 29–30. 18. Thomas Jefferson, “A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge,” in P. L. Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: Putnam, 1893), p. 221. 19. Merle Curti, The Growth of American Thought, rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1951). 20. Hans Kohn, American Nationalism: An Interpretive Essay (New York: Macmillan, 1957), p. 47. 21. Noah Webster, Dissertations on the English Language (Boston: Isaiah Thomas, 1789), p. 27. 22. Harvey R. Warfel, Noah Webster: Schoolmaster to America (New York: Macmillan, 1936). 23. Henry Steele Commager, ed., Noah Webster’s American Spelling Book (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1962). 24. Robert K. Leavitt, Noah’s Ark, New England Yankees and the Endless Quest (Springfield, MA: Merriam, 1947); and Richard M. Rollins, “Words as Social Control: Noah Webster and the Creation of the American Dictionary,” American Quarterly (Fall 1976), pp. 415–430. 25. William H. McGuffey, New Fifth Eclectic Reader (Cincinnati, OH: Winthrop Smith, 1857), p. 271. 26. William H. McGuffey, Newly Revised Eclectic Fourth Reader (Cincinnati, OH: Winthrop Smith, 1853), p. 313. 27. James M. Lower, “William Holmes McGuffey: A Book or a Man?” Vitae Scholasticae (Fall 1984), pp. 311– 320; and John H. Westerhoff, McGuffey and His Readers: Piety, Morality, and Education in Nineteenth Century America (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1978). See also Joel Westheimer, Pledging Allegiance (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2007). 28. William B. Ragan and Gene D. Shepherd, Modern Elementary Curriculum, 7th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1992), p. 23. See also Forrest W. Parkway et al., Curriculum Planning, 8th ed. (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2006). 29. Edgar W. Knight, Education in the United States, 3rd ed. (Boston: Ginn, 1951), p. 512. 30. Henry Barnard, Pestalozzi and Pestalozzianism (New York: Brownell, 1862). 31. Friedrich Froebel, The Education of Man, trans. W. Hailman (New York: Appleton, 1889). 32. John Dewey, How We Think (Boston: Health, 1910), p. 202. 33. Andreas Kazamias, Herbert Spencer on Education (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1966); and Valerie A. Haines, “Spencer’s Philosophy of Science,” British Journal of Sociology (June 1992), pp. 155–172. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 90 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 91 34. Herbert Spencer, Education: Intellectual, Moral and Physical (New York: Appleton, 1860). 35. See Chapter 4 for a discussion on Dewey’s How We Think and Jerome Bruner’s The Process of Education. 36. See Everett Dick, Vanguards of the Frontier (New York: Appleton-Century, 1940); and William W. Folwell, The Autobiography and Letters of a Pioneer Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1923). 37. Glen H. Elder and Rand D. Conger, Children of the Land: Adversity and Success in Rural America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). 38. L. Dean Webb, The History of American Education (Columbus, OH: Merrill, 2006); and Monroe, Founding of the American Public School System. 39. Frederick M. Binder, The Age of the Common School: 1830–1865 (New York: Wiley, 1974); and Wayne E. Fuller, One-Room Schools of the Middle West (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994). 40. V. T. Thayer and Martin Levit, The Role of the School in American Society, 2nd ed. (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1966), p. 6. 41. Lawrence A. Cremin, The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Man (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University Press, 1957); and Jonathan Messerlie, Horace Mann: A Biography (New York: Knopf, 1972). 42. Andrew Gulliford, America’s Country Schools (Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1985). See also Evans Clinchy, Rescuing the Public Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2007). 43. James H. Hughes, Education in America, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), p. 233. 44. Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1926), p. 19. 45. Theodore R. Sizer, The Age of Academies (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1964). 46. E. P. Cubberley, The History of Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1920), p. 697. 47. Edwards and Richey, The School in the American Social Order; and Jergen Herbst, The Once and Future School: Three Hundred and Fifty Years of American Secondary Education (New York: Routledge, 1996). 48. Brown, The Making of Our Middle Schools, p. 230. 49. Monroe, Founding of the American Public School System, p. 404. 50. Edward A. Krug, The Shaping of the American High School: 1880–1920 (New York: Harper & Row, 1964); and Daniel Tanner, Secondary Education: Perspectives and Prospects (New York: Macmillan, 1972). 51. Cubberley, Public Education in the United States; Edwards and Richey, The School in the American Social Order; and Allan C. Ornstein, Teaching and Schooling in America: Pre- and Post-September 11 (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2003). 52. Calvin O. Davis, Our Evolving High School Curriculum (Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: 1927); and David H. Kamens and Yun-Kyung Cha, “The Legitimation of New Subjects in Mass Schooling,” Journal of Curriculum Studies (January–February 1992), pp. 43–60. 53. David T. Hansen et al., A Life in Classrooms (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2007); and William A. Reid, “The Educational Situation as Concerns Secondary Education,” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision (Winter 2002), pp. 130–143. 54. Thayer and Levit, The Role of the School in American Society, p. 382. 55. Report of the Year 1889–90 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Education, 1893), pp. 1388–1389, Table 3.2. See also Ornstein, Teaching and Schooling in America: Pre- and Post-September 11, Table 5.1, p. 249. 56. Cubberley, Public Education in the United States, p. 543. 57. William G. Wraga, “Left Out: The Villainization of Progressive Education in the United States,” Educational Researcher (October 2001), pp. 34–39. 58. Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies, book ed. (New York: American Book, 1894), p. 48. 59. Daniel Tanner and Laurel Tanner, Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1980), p. 233. See also Milton Gaithers, American Educational History Revisited (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2002). 60. Sixteenth Annual Report of the Board of Education (St. Louis, MO: Board of Education, 1871), p. 28. 61. William T. Harris, Psychologic Foundations of Education (New York: Appleton, 1898), p. 282. 62. Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School (New York: Random House, 1961), p. 20. 63. Charles Eliot, cited in W. H. Heck, Mental Discipline and Educational Values (New York: Lane, 1909), p. 127. 64. Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 33. 65. Diane Ravitch, Left Behind: A Century of Failed School Reform (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), p. 31. 66. Charles Eliot, cited in Robert H. Bremmer, ed., Children and Youth in America: A Documentary History, 1866– 1932 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 114. 67. James B. Conant, Slums and Suburbs (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961). 68. R. Freeman Butts, Public Education in the United States: From Revolution to Reform (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978), p. 217. 69. Marvin Lazeron and Norton W. Grubb, eds., American Education and Vocationalism: A Documentary History, 1870–1970 (New York: Teachers College Press, 1974), pp. 83–84. 70. Butts, Public Education in the United States; and Isaac L. Kandel, History of Secondary Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930). 71. Michael Apple, Ideology and Curriculum, 3rd ed. (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2004), p. 19; Alfie Kohn, What to Look for in a Classroom (San Francisco: M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 91 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. 92 ❖ Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum Jossey-Bass, 2000); and Jeannie Oakes et al., Becoming Good American Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). 72. Decker Walker, Fundamentals of Curriculum (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace, 1990). 73. Digest of Education Statistics 2003 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 98, p. 130. 74. Howard R. D. Gordon, The History and Growth of Career and Technical Education in America, 4th ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2014); James R. Stone III and Morgan V. Lewis, College and Career Ready in the 21st Century (New York: Teachers College Press, 2012); The Project on Student Debt, Student Debt and the Class of 2013 (Oakland, CA: The Institute for College Access & Success, November 2014); Gallup, The School Cliff: Students’ Engagement Drops Over Time (January 7, 2013), retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/opinion/ gallup/170525/school-cliff-student-engagement-dropsschool-year.aspx; and Joe Nocera, “Filling the Skills Gap,” New York Times (July 3, 2012), p. A21. 75. Edward L. Thorndike, “Mental Discipline in High School Studies,” Journal of Educational Psychology (February 1924), p. 98. 76. Charles W. Eliot, “The Case against Compulsory Latin,” Atlantic (March 1917), pp. 356–359. 77. Abraham Flexner, “Parents and School,” Atlantic (July 1916), p. 30. 78. Abraham Flexner, “A Modern School,” Occasional Papers, No. 3 (New York: General Education Board, 1916); and Abraham Flexner, A Modern College and a Modern School (New York: Doubleday, 1923). 79. John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: Macmillan, 1916). 80. Ibid., p. 190. 81. Charles H. Judd, Introduction to the Scientific Study of Education (Boston: Ginn, 1918). 82. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, Bulletin No. 35 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1918). 83. Frederick W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper & Row, 1911). 84. Raymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). 85. Franklin Bobbitt, The Curriculum (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1918), p. 42. 86. Ibid., p. 283. 87. Franklin Bobbitt, How to Make a Curriculum (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1924), pp. 14, 28. 88. W. W. Charters, Curriculum Construction (New York: Macmillan, 1923). 89. Ibid., pp. 6–7. See also W. W. Charters, “Idea Men and Engineers in Education,” Educational Forum (Spring 1986), pp. 263–272, originally published in Educational Forum (May 1948), pp. 399–406. 90. John Dewey, “Individuality and Experience,” in J. Dewey, ed., Art and Education (Marion, PA: Barnes Foundation, 1929), p. 180. See also Kathy Hytten, “The Resurgence of Dewey: Are His Educational Ideas Still Relevant?” Journal of Curriculum Studies (May–June 2000), pp. 453–466. 91. William H. Kilpatrick, “The Project Method,” Teachers College Record (September 1918), pp. 319–335. 92. Junius L. Merian, Child Life and the School Curriculum (New York: World Book, 1920). 93. Ellsworth Collings, An Experiment with a Project Curriculum (New York: Macmillan, 1923). 94. William H. Kilpatrick, Foundations of Education (New York: Macmillan, 1926), p. 212. 95. Ibid., p. 213. 96. John McNeil, Curriculum: A Comprehensive Introduction (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1990); and Tanner and Tanner, Curriculum Development. 97. William H. Kilpatrick, ed., The Educational Frontier (New York: Century, 1933), p. 19. 98. Ellsworth Collings, Project Teaching in Elementary Schools (New York: Century, 1928). 99. Guy M. Whipple, ed., Curriculum-Making: Past and Present, Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing, 1930); and Guy M. Whipple, ed., The Foundations of Curriculum-Making, Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing, 1930). 100. Harold Rugg, “The School Curriculum and the Drama of American Life,” in Whipple, Curriculum-Making: Past and Present, pp. 3–16. 101. Harold Rugg, “Three Decades of Mental Discipline: Curriculum-Making via National Committees,” in Whipple, Curriculum-Making: Past and Present, pp. 52–53. 102. Ibid. 103. Harold Rugg and Ann Shumaker, The Child-Centered School (New York: World Book, 1928), p. 118. 104. Sidney B. Hall, D. W. Peters, and Hollis L. Caswell, Study Course for Virginia State Curriculum (Richmond: Virginia State Board of Education, 1932), p. 363. 105. H o l li s L . C a s w e l l a n d D o a k S . C a m p b e l l , Curriculum Development (New York: American Book, 1935), p. 69. 106. Ralph W. Tyler, “Curriculum Development in the Twenties and Thirties,” in R. M. McClure, ed., The Curriculum: Retrospect and Prospect, Seventieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 26–44; and Ralph W. Tyler, “The Five Most Significant Curriculum Events in the Twentieth Century,” Educational Leadership (December–January 1987), pp. 36–38. See also Louis Rubin, “Educational Evaluation: Classic Works of Ralph W. Tyler,” Journal of Curriculum Studies (March– April 1991), pp. 193–198. M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 92 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition. Chapter 3 Historical Foundations of Curriculum ❖ 93 107. Wilford Aiken, The Story of the Eight Year Study (New York: Harper & Row, 1942); and H. H. Giles, S. P. McCutchen, and A. N. Zechiel, Exploring the Curriculum (New York: Harper & Row, 1942). 108. Hilda Taba, “Evaluation in High Schools and Junior Colleges,” in W. S. Gray, ed., Reading in Relation to Experience and Language (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944), pp. 199–204; Hilda Taba, Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1962); Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949); and E. R. Smith and Ralph W. Tyler, eds., Appraising and Recording Student Progress (New York: Harper & Row, 1942). 109. John Dewey, “The Educational Situation,” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision (Winter 2002), p. 108. Originally published in 1906 as “Contributions to Education, Number III.” 110. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. 111. Ibid., p. 1. 112. Henry Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals (Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1988); Herbert M. Kliebard, “Reappraisal: The Tyler Rationale,” in A. A. Bellack and H. M. Kliebard, eds., Curriculum and Evaluation (Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1977), pp. 34–69; and James T. Sears and J. Dan Marshall, eds., Teaching and Thinking about Curriculum (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1990). 113. Marie K. Stone, “Principles of Curriculum, Instruction, and Evaluation: Past Influence and Present Effects” (PhD dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago, January 1985). Also from conversations by one of the authors with John Beck, April 12, 1991. 114. John I. Goodlad, “Curriculum Development beyond 1980,” Education Evolution and Policy Analysis (September 1980), pp. 49–54. 115. John I. Goodlad, What Are Schools For? (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1989), p. 36. 116. John Goodlad, In Praise of Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997). 117. John I. Goodlad, “The Schools vs. Education,” Saturday Review (April 19, 1969), p. 60. 118. John I. Goodlad and Frances M. Klein, Behind the Classroom Doors (Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones Publishers, 1970). 119. John I. Goodlad et al., A Place Called School (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984). 120. John I. Goodlad, “Kudzu, Rabbits, and School Reform,” in A. C. Ornstein, E. Pajak, and S. B. Ornstein, eds., Contemporary Issues in Curriculum (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2007), pp. 51–58. 121. William F. Pinar, William Reynolds, Patrick Slattery, and Peter Taubman, Understanding Curriculum (New York: Peter Lang, 1995). 122. William F. Pinar, ed., Contemporary Curriculum Discourses, 2nd ed. (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), p. xiv. 123. William F. Pinar and Madeleine R. Grumet, “Theory and Practice and the Reconceptualization of Curriculum Studies,” in M. Lawn and L. Barton, eds., Rethinking Curriculum Studies: A Radical Approach (New York: Croom Helm London, 1981), pp. 20–42. 124. William F. Pinar, “Introduction,” in W. F. Pinar, ed., Curriculum Studies in the United States: Present Circumstances, Intellectual Histories (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); and William F. Pinar, “Curriculum Research in the United States: Crisis, Reconceptualization, and Internationalization,” in W. F. Pinar, ed., International Handbook of Curriculum Research, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014). 125. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Continuum, 2000), p. 83. 126. Paulo Freire, Learning to Question: A Pedagogy of Liberation (New York: Continuum, 1989). 127. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 11. 128. Allan C. Ornstein, Pushing the Envelope: Critical Issues in Education (Columbus, OH: Merrill, 2003), p. 30. 129. Ibid., pp. 30–31. 130. Allan C. Ornstein, Excellence vs. Equality: Can Society Achieve Both Goals? (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2015); and Allan C. Ornstein, Wealth vs. Work: How 1% Victimize 99% (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2012). M03_ORMS0354_07_SE_C03.indd 93 10/19/15 8:23 AM Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues, Seventh Edition, by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pearson Custom Edition.

We Write Essays for Students

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper

Get Help Now!

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH AMAZON PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

The post Review the historical foundations of curriculum and then discuss two movements that had a significant impact on high school curriculum in the 1800s and continue to have an impact today. Speculate on the reasons the movements had and continue to have an impact. appeared first on Wise Papers.

Welcome to originalessaywriters.com, our friendly and experienced essay writers are available 24/7 to complete all your assignments. We offer high-quality academic essays written from scratch to guarantee top grades to all students. All our papers are 100% plagiarism-free and come with a plagiarism report, upon request

Tell Us “Write My Essay for Me” and Relax! You will get an original essay well before your submission deadline.