the field of gurriculum 547 - october 2015/textbook/c...' urriculum as a field of study has...

chapter

The Field of Gurriculum

O FOCUSING OUESTIONS1. Why is it necessary to understand the field of curriculum?

2. What approach to curriculum do most educators adopt? Why?

3. How do you define curriculum?

4. Why do most theorists define curriculum in terms of generic principlesor processes, not specific subject matter?

5. What fundamental questions guide the field of curriculum?

6. How do the foundations of education influence curriculum? Whichfoundation areas are most important? Why?

7. What are the differences between curriculum development andcurriculum desig n?

8. How can theory and practice be integrated into the planning ofcu rriculu m?

9. What roles do principals and teachers play in curriculum planning?

:''' urriculum as a field of study has been characterized as elusive, fragmentary,

and confusing. Certainly the field can be all that at times, but curriculum as a fieldof study is crucial to the health of schools and society. Whether we consider curricu-

lum narron ll as subjects taught in schools or broadly as experiences that individ-uals require for full participation in society, there is no denying that curriculumaffects educators, students, and other members of society.

Given the plethora ofbooks, articles, and treatises on curriculum, many people

in the field feel frustrated with the continuing confusion. Horvever, the field of cur-

riculum is not intended to provide precise answers but to increase our understand-

ing of its complexities. Curriculum results from social activity. It is designed forboth present and emerging purposes. Curriculum is a dynamic field l

Analvzing the concept of curriculum in a broad context illuminates what wemean br curriculum, what it involves, and who is invoh.ed and served by the cur-riculum. \\'e thus look at curriculum in tcrms of apProach (an orientation or per-

spective) anc-l definition. We also consider the relationshiPs and differences

bett een curriculum's foundations and domains, its theory and practice, and the

roles ..i F;rrticipants in the field of curriculum.1

2. CHAPTER 1 . The Field of Curricutum

Crrrriculurn Approaches

One's approach to curriculum reflects one,s perceptions, values, and knowledge. Acurriculum approach reflects a lolls/lc position or a metaorientation, encompassingcurriculum's foundations (a person's philosophy, view of history, view of psychol_ogy and learning theory, and view of social issues), curriculum domains (common,important knowledge within the {ield), and curricular theory and practice. An ap_proach expresses a viewpoint about curriculum,s development and design; the roleof the leamer, teacher, and curriculum specialist in planning curriculum; the cur_riculum's goals; and the important issues that need to be examined.

A curriculum approach reflects our views of schools and societv Bv under_standing one's curriculum approach, and that of one,s school or school jistrict, ltis possible to conclude whether one's professional yiew conflicts with the formalorganizational view.

Althor-rgh schools, over time, tend to commit to a particular curriculum ap_proach, many educators are not strongly committed to one approach. Rathea theyemphasize one approach in some situations and advocate other approaches inother situations. Curriculum textbook writers sometimes adhere to more than onecurriculum approach. Curriculum specialists, even curriculum students, need toexamine their approaches.

Curriculum approaches can be viewed from a technical/scientific ornontechnical,/nonscientific perspective. Technical/scientific approaches coincidewith traditional theories and models of education and reflect eitabrished, formalmethods of schooling. Nontechnical/nonscientific approaches have evolved aspart of avant-garde and experimental philosophies and politics; they tend to chal_lenge established, formalized education practices. These approaches are fluid andemergent.

The remainder of this section outlines five curriculum approaches. The firstthree may be classified as technical or scientific, the rast two as nontechnical and/ornonscientific.

Behavioral Approaeh

Rooted in the University of Chicago schoor (from Franklin Bobbitt and w w chariersto Ralph Tyler and Hilda Taba), the behavioral approach is the oldest and still thedominant approach to curriculum.2 Logical and prescriptive, it relies on technicaland scientific principles and includes paradigms, models, and step_by-step strate_gies for formulating curriculum. This approach is usually based on a plan, some_times called a blueprint or document. Goals and objectives are specified, contentand activities are sequenced to coincide with the objectives, and leaming outcomesare evaluated in relation to the goals and objectives. This curriculum approach,which has been applied to all subjects for more than 90 years, constitutes a frame ofreferer.rce against rvhich other approaches to curriculum are compared. Theapproach has also bee. calleci rosicar, concept.ar-empiricist, experientarist, rational-scientific, and teclnocr.rtic.l

The beh..rr-ioral al.rpr.ach startr'r-r * ith the i.lea rri etficiencl', influenced bv busi-ne\\.lr\l ir'trrLr-tr\ .rrrJ rht,.tie..tiirr n..lr.t.:en1r.rt thv,,rie: rri Freclerick lavlJr, rr.h,,

CHAPTERI . TheFieldofCurriculum . 3

analyzed factory efficiency in terms of time and motion studies and concluded that

each worker should be paid on the basis of his or her individual output, as meas-

ured by the number of units produced in a specified period of time. Efficient oper-

ation of schools became a major goal in the 1920s (Some critics have termed

Taylor's approach "machine theory.")Ensuring efficiency in schools often meant eliminating small classes, increasing

student-teacher ratios, hiring fewer administrators, reducing teacher salaries,

maintaining or reducing operational costs, and so on, and then prePadng charts

and graphs to show the resultant cost reductions Raymond Callahan laterbranded

this approach the "cult of efficiency."l The goal was to reduce teaching and learn-

ing to precise behaviors with corresponding measurable activities.

Bobbitt set out to organize a course of studies for ihe elementary grades: "We

need prhciples of curriculum making We did not know that we should first deter-

mine objectives from a study of social needs. . . . We had not leamed that [plans] are

means, not ends."s He developed his approach in the early'192Os in How to Make a

Curriculum, inwhich he outlined more than 800 obiectives and related activities to

coincide with predetermined student needs. These activities ranged from teeth and

eye care to keeping home appliances in good condition to spelling and grammar.6

Bobbitt's methods were sophisticated for his day; however, taken out of context, his

machine analogy and his list of hundreds of objectives and activities were easy to

criticize.It was left to Tyler, who took a number of Bobbitt's courses at the University of

Chicago, to recognize the need for behavioral obiectives thai were not so small or

lockstep. He combined basic techniques of curriculum, instruction, and evaluation

into a simple plan. Tyler advocated using a school's (or school disirict's) philoso-

phy "in making decisions about objectives." Tyler's approach combined behavior-

ism (objectives were important) with progressivism (the learner's needs were

emphasized). Tyler was influenced by Edward Thorndike, John Dewey, and the

"scientific movement of curriculum [makingl during ihe . . . ihirty years" prior to

his classic text.7

Today few educational behaviorists continue the tradition of Ivan Pavlov's and

John Watson's stimulus-response (S-R) iheories, but many formulate Precise obiec-

tives and evaluate programs according to those objectives, urging accountability

plans, outcome-based education, and standards-based education. Many still rely on

direct instruction, practice and drill, monitoring students, and prompt feedback. Be-

haviorism has evolved over the years to address the complexities of human learn-

inp it non, allows for research that investigates the mind's depths.S Mostbehaviorist

educators now perceive leamers as cognitive hdividuals functioning within a social

context. Individual students experience and respond to the same curriculum in dif-ferent l'avs, depending on their cultural interPretations and prior life activities. The

behavioral approach to curriculum, with its dePendency on technical means of se-

lecting and organizing curricula, is likely to continue to serve us well in the future.

Managerial Approach

Reminiscent of organizational theory, the managerial approach considers the

schtrtrl as a social system in which students, teachers, curriculum specialists, and

4. CHAPTER 1 . The Field of Cu rricu lum

administrators interact. Educators u.ho relv on this approach plan the curriculumin terms of programs, schedules, space, resources and equipment, and persomel.This approach adlocates selecting, organizing, communicating t,ith, and supen'is-ing people inr olr ed in curriculum decisions. Consideration is given to committeeand grotrp. ;.rLrces:es, human relations, leadership styles and methods, and decisionmaking."

.\rr rrft:h(r(rt of the behavioral approach, the managerial approach also relies ona plan, rational principles, and logical steps. It tends to focus on curriculum's su-pen.isory and administrative aspects, especially the organizational and implemen-tation process. See Curriculum Tips 1.1.

Advocates of the managerial approach are interested in innovation and inhow curriculum specialists, supervisors, and administrators can facilitate change.The curriculum specialist or supervisor (sometimes the same person) is consid-ered a practitionet not a theorist-a change agent, resource person, and facilitator.This person reports to an administrator and adheres to the school's mission andgoals. The school may resist or support change.10 If the school is innovative or re-form minded, then the school culture tends to create and sustain a culture forchange. If the school emphasizes the "three Rs" (reading, writing, and arithmetic),

CURRICULUM TIPS 1.1

The Role of the Curriculum Supervisor

Regardless of the curriculum approach, a cur-riculum supen,isor or specialist performs certainroles. Suclr a perron muql perform many important tasks \'\,ithin the school or school district.Some of these follon.

1. Help develop the school's or community'seducatiotnl goals.

2- Pln curriculunt with students, parents,teachers, and support personnel.

3. Coordinate or ev al:uate a student needs

surocy.

4. Design progronts of study by grade leveland/or subject.

5. Plan or sclrrrirrle c/nssrs; plan the schoolcalendar-

5. Develop or help staft to write behar:iorul

ol,jecti.,es for subject areas.

7. Prepare curriculu nr guides or teacher guidesbv grade lelel or subject area.

8. Formulate, or revise ,"csdr/ce l/r'rifs and unitplans.

9. Help select and e!alu.rte i,'rll,oots.10. Organize, select, or ord!,r instructional

materials and nr,li,t.11. Serve as a r.rsorrar,r.l.,r: i(rr teachers.

12. Obseroe teacht:F.rnd htrlel pre- andpostobseI\'ation coni!,rences.

13. Help teachers l/r:,]a,':a'r: iurncrlrr? in theclassroom.

14. Help redeiinr,'r :,.:,. :i.',1//lclrl.15. WorL r{ ith.t.ttt rn .. ,.:r'r(trf,rt:..

16. Encourage curri.uium i,,,,orr4fio,,, serre as.rchange aBent

17- Conclrct trr,-:,...:, ': ', s,,,rrcl and/or rvork h ithculricr.rlum i...-.,.rltants within the school.

18. Develo}. :titnd::.i: ior curriculum andinstructi..n.rl a. .;.:,.if 0t.

19. Coordinrtc .: : ..i't ;t{f deuelopnrnt

Programs20. W.,rl -. :: : -:.:'. :.'r.. subjectchair,. re-,,rrrce

perst nnt. :-cng .rnd technolog!spr,cinli::: :.J teachers within the :chtroi(and \-it,.\. :istrict).

CHAPTER 1 . The F;eld of Curriculum . 5

the curriculum specialist introduces plans accordingly. Managers communicate adesire for change or stability to subordinates (teachers).

The managerial approach is rooted in the organizational and administrativeschool models of the early 1900s, a period that combined a host of innovative plansinvolving curriculum and instruction that centered around individualization, de-partmentalization, nongrading, classroom grouping, and homeroom and work-study activities. It was an era when superintendents introduced school-districtplans to modify schools' horizontal and vertical organization. The plans'namesusually reflected the school district's name or organizational concept, as in "Batavia(NY) Plan," "Denver Plan," "Portland Plan," "Platoon Plan," and "Study HallPIan." Superintendents and associate superintendents were \.ery involved in cur-riculum leadership, often developing a plan in one school district and also imple-menting it in another. Many administrators combined managerial and curriculumleadership skil1s.11

The managerial approach became the dominant curriculum approach in the1950s and 1960s. During this period, principals were seen as curriculum leaders, in-structional leaders, and managers. Midwest school administrators and professorswith administrative backgrounds dominated the field of curriculum in setting poli-cies and priorities, establishing the direction of change, planning and organizingcurriculum, and instrulction.

These administrators were politicallv active. They used supervisory and cur-riculum associations and their respective journals and yearbooks as platforms fortheir ideas. Many, such as William Alexander, Robert Anderson, Leslee Bishop,Gerald Firth, Arthur Lewis, John McNeil, and J. Lloyd Trump, became curriculumprofessors at major universities; others became active as board directors and exec-utive committee members of professional organizations that had major impact oncurriculum, supervision, and administration. Many published curriculum booksthat expressed their managerial views.l2

These school administrators were less concerned about content than about or-ganization and implementation. They were less concerned about subiect matter,methods, and materials than about improving curriculum in light of policies, plans,and people on a svstemwide basis. They envisioned curriculum changes as theyadministered resources and restructured schools.

Manv of todav's ideas about school reform and restructuring derive from the1950s and 1960s: A current emphasis on state control reflects an earlier emphasis onIocal control. Many current plans related to school-based management and em-pol'erment are based on the previous era's career ladder, team teaching, and dif-ferential staffing models. Much of the new legislative and administrative supportfor improving curriculum and instruction is based on the changing roles of the su-perintenclent and principal as curriculum and instructional leaders that blossomeddr.rring the 1950s and 1960s.

Syste nrs Approach

I nran,rgeri.rl vien' that emphasizes organizing people and policies led to an empha-.i. ..n..rg.rnizing curriculum into a svstem. The organization's units and srrbunits

6 . CHAPTER 1 . The Field of Curriculum

are viewed in relation to the whole. The curriculum plan often entails organizationaldiagrams, flou, charts, and committee structures. Sometimes referred to ascurriculwn cngincarirg, the approach includes the processesby which en.gircers, suchas superintendents, directors, coordinators, and principals, plan the curricuhrm, thecurricrrlum's stages (der.elopment, design, implementation, and evaluation), andthe curriculum's sfrirctrires (subjects, courses, unit plans, and lesson plans).

Svstems theory, systems analysis, and systems engineering influenced the sys-tems approach to curriculum. School managers widely employ concepts developedbv strcial scientists when they discuss administrative and organizational theory.The milihrr', br-rsiness, and industry use the systems approach to ensure that peo-ple nr.lster the tasks they must perform.l3

ln the sYstems approach to curriculum, the parts of the school or school district.rre er.rmined in terms of their interrelatedness. Departments, personnel, equip-ment, antl schedules are planned to change people's behavior Lrformation is usu-,'rll\ communicated to administrators who consider choices.

\ school clistrict's organizational chart represents a systems approach, show-ing lirre-staff relationships of personnel and how decisions regarding special areas(1..S., cr.rrriculum, instruction, testing and evaluation, personnel, and budgeting).rre matle. ln large school districts (50,000 or more students), teachers, supervisors,and principals at the school or local level often seem distant from top administra-tion at the school-district or central level. In small school districts, the central officeis less bureaucratic (and less distant from the local level) because there are fewerlavers. Tn'o educators have written, "The organizational hierarchy of larger schooldistricts [is] cumbersome, and those with 100,000 or more students (0.01 percent ofall school districts) would have charts extending off the page. Most readers wouldhave difficulty understanding Ior following] these charts, not because they are ulr-knowledgeable" but because of the complex systems and hierarchical arrange-ments of large (city or county) school districts.l4

Rand Corporation developed one application of the systems approach that hasrapidly spread from government to business agencies. Called the Planning, Pro-grammir.rg, Budgeting System (PPBS), it integrates planning, programming, andbudgeting into the system's structure, functions, and capabilities. In our case, thesystem is curriculum.

Currently, many schools use a systelns approach, knownas total qtulity mnnnge-rnerrl (TQM), based on Ed Deming's 14 points for improving the system in whichpeople work. This approach, also drawn from industry represents a paradigm shiftemphasizing clieni priority (in our case, students), extensive data collection andanalysis, self-monitoring and inspection, collaboration, communication, coopera-tion, and team responsibility.ls

144ren applying TQM to curriculum development and implementation, partic-ipanls realize that their functior1 depends on acquiring and applying what is calledTtrofound knou,lcdge. Such knowledge is based on four components: systematic think-ir.rg, theorv of variation, thcorv of knowledge, and knowledge of psychology.Sr/slr,rrtl. lir,rkirr.l enalrles people to realize that their actions interact with others,actions and that the total organization entails the cl\.namic interaction of many sub-processes. The l,ll.,,r'1 .,i:,rIi rlitrrt rtcognizes that cr.trriculum actiYitv entails common

CHAPTER.I . The Fietd of Curriculum . 7

and special causes and effects. A school is a community in which people exhibit in_dir.iclual difi-erences. Thev must lear",. ."_;;:;;r",.."o,".ua", respect others,opinions, and reach a consensus. a..o.aing to *,"*fi;,;;;r:; ,;;i:possessed uy ,n" p*pr"'*iinirtr," ,y,ior*"iJ;:;"';Jii:,:.,?;,1t:"i:*::-?f;:::;i::::!::,y:::;,:::j;*;;,;gu',o, ov op,,,",,,,,g,;" i",,ti.ipoti.,n,na r"o,ningstand, respect, and *- a. ."tjjlIrilproach

succeisfully' irdividuals must underl

. . ":o:g" Beauchamp described the first systems theorv of,ru ta ted. fi ve eq,urry r mpo,tont .o,,po,",i,Ji';il#i :i ,.::T*lI" *-":l;;counseting, (3) cu,iculum, (4) instrui,-",

""Jol """i"r"iorl.il rrru.,y prof".ror" ot:,I;'llf [;:,T'#tff :'Jru",,

ao "ot

u""iiino "#i"'.r "r"ar components;

ort"., a"regut",,p";";; :?'",.::llTlj;lli.ilil*?;:H::mt*:*!ministrators view rheir leadership rof" * .f.i"nf _"""il.ilf. Crr.t"rtr*

"pu.iuf_fl:ffil"IJ;"ffi:i1TjXTj*:?:t';;;#;;T Jj .l,u,ud f i",d. *.h u,.t.,r"-1, i u.,.i"i;#il::::l:l,as subsvstems that help implement the cur-edL,cationdrawth;i;;;#l1U;:ili:"::jH,,Hi ji;ffi :$l;:::*on..ln any event. practi tioners shou ld,r","n,.n"r"irrr"."O,i.and applicable to the real world. - es are most helpful

Curriculum specialists lr,ho raltre,the s)stems approdch view curriculumbroadly and are concerned with curriculum irrr"" .of"iJ.,i,o the entire school orschool system, not iust particular suun.*, ".

g;;;iiuy I.! .'o,.,"".r,"a *i*, tnu_ory in which the curriculum is ;

the extent to wrricil;:;;;;."fi liT:*:;1il,,,:i:Tl.::::il..iU,,:m ".;Xization, the participants, needs and u"t,ri"s,

""J,rn"", "ll,,iio" a. _onitoring

ilLil;;"t''.* *sults Lo.g-term pr,*r"i t, r*"J',Jril.'.'r,'-tlt".,-. o. i.,.i,ru,.,trr

Acadenric ApproaehSometimes referred to as the ttr * * r

",r g", ;

" n i; ;;;;, :^:Tf

"' ""iiJ[ r.,

** ; ;ffi :Ji :, .I :"] ":i.,T

: Js\nthe\r.,,e maior posirions. trends. and .un."ii, ;;;r;l:;iJ; lhis approachtends to he hi\toricdl or philosophical ,.0, a l'[r*r "^*,u, l*,r, or practicdl.The di-cur.ion of curriculum devetopmenr i. ,,uuiiy ;;;,:;i. rheoreticat, dnd-"'il,::;;i:,:;l]

:J:11'il::':.,l"r''"r*s''';r"d^r li"'Jf,ou.,"o,-,,o,en, a aru J i - r, ,,";;;;;;, ;,. ffi

?'f"it,r'r: :

I ?r"#:ri^: ill X? Til H liret.r red tLr cu rriculum during this perioJexpandea tfre ,,lij i" ,,i,rO" _rnv trends

l:;::;:::lll,:i[l: j[JH::1 .n or ",no,. t*i,,.,,.,,,, i'""*,,r.,earnins,

ri,..,r," r oio..'i;;fi ,;##,":::1,;,Jjj Ii fi:::l;:i;;" .,o,_r,."';'I.Hll:il:il:,f*Jh;"."-'" opp.ou"r. ri";;;" il

" gramour. rhe

i,r n s u c h ",,r.*" uf w,r i"; ;:r^ H"IT: ji": :T:f.lil T#;:**;:*


Zais)le tended to overwhelm the beginning curriculum student, who usuallylacked sufficient background knowledge. But curriculum scholars continue to usethis approach when talking to one another Schubert and, more recently, JamesSears and J. Dan Marshall have reviewed how curriculum scholars have influencedcurriculum thought and shaped the field. The acquisition of the field's knowledgeand ideas are shown through doctoral study and mentorship.20

The academic approach has partly returned in the current focus on the natureand structure of knowledge as current curricularists address curriculum from a

postmodern academic perspective. Attention is now on understanding how knowl-edge can be constructed, deconstructed, and then reconstructed. As William Pinarhas noted, academics and schools must strive to comprehend the field of curricu-lum.21 However, it is doubtful that the academic approach will become popularamong practitioners.

The academic approach to curriculum addresses much more than subject mat-ter and pedagogy. Academics cover numerous foundational topics (usually histor-ical, philosophical, social, and political), thus presenting an overview ofcurriculum. They consider areas of study noi usually included in curriculum delib-eration and action, such as religion, psychotherapy, Iiterary criticism, and linguis-tics. To many educators, such fields seem very foreign at first. However, educatorsare beginning to realize the need to perceive curriculum as diverse discourse.Everyone involved in the academic approach to curriculum is in the "business" ofwords and ideas.22

Humanistic Approaeh

Some curriculum leaders contend that the preceding approaches are too techno-cratic and rigid. They contend that curricularists who try to be scientific and ra-tional miss the personal and social aspects of curriculum and instruction; ignoresubject matter's artistic, physical, and cultural aspects; rarely consider the need forself-reflectiveness and self-actualization among learners; and overlook the socio-psychological dynamics of classrooms and schools. This view is rooted in progres-sive philosophy and the child-centered movement of the early 1900s (firstspearheaded at the University of Chicago when Dewey, Charles Judd, and FrancisParker developed progressive teaching methods based on the student's natural de-velopment and curiosity).23

In the 1920s and 1930s, the progressive movement moved east and was domi-nated by Teachers College, Columbia University, and by such professors as BoydBode, Frederick Bosner, Hollis Caswell, L. Thomas Hopkins, William Kilpatrick,Harold Rugg, and Dewey (who was now at Columbia).2a This approach gainedfurther impetus in the 1940s and 1950s with the growth of child psychology andhumanistic psychology (which deals with valuing, ego identity, psychologicalhealth, freedom to learn, and personal fulfillment).

Mainly at the elementary school level, many curriculum activities haveemerged from this approach, including lessons based on life experiences, groupgames, Broup projects, artistic endea\.ors, dramatizations, field irips, social enter-prises, Iearning ancl interest centers, and homervork and tutoring stations (or

CHAPTERl . TheFieldofCurriculum . 9

corners). These activities include creative problem solving and active student par-ticipation. They emphasize socialization and life adjustment for students, as wellas stronger family ties and school-community ties. They are representative ofParker, Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Carleton Washburne's ideal school and the kinds ofcurriculum activities they put into practice. Such activities are still practiced inthe Parker School in Chicago; Dewey's lab school at the University of Chicago;Washburne's school district in Winnetka, Illinois; Kilpatrick's Lincoln School ofTeachers College; many other private and university lab schools; and some recentcharter schools.

Various developmental theories (e.g., those of Frederick Erikson, RobertHavighurst, and Abraham Maslow) and child-centered methods (e.g., those ofFriedrich Froebel, Johann Pestalozzi, and A. S. Neill) for curriculum derive from thehumanistic approach, which considers informal as well as formal curricula. Thisapproach considers the whole child, not only the cognitive dimension. The arts, thehumanities, and health education are iust as important as science and math.

Curriculum specialists who believe in this approach tend to put faith in co-operative learning, independent learning, small-group learning, and social activi-ties, as opposed to competitive, teacher-dominated, large-group learning. Eachchild has considerable input into the curriculum and shares responsibility withparents, teachers, and curriculum specialists in planning classroom instruction. Inschools that adopt this approach, curriculum leaders and supervisors tend to per-mit teachers more input into curdculum decisions, and the ideas of professionalcollegiality and mentor systems are more pronounced. Curriculum committees arebolfon lp instead ol top tloun, and stttdents often are invited into curriculum meet-ings to express their views.25

The humanistic approach became popular again in the 1970s as relevancv rad-ical school reform, open education, and alternative education became part of edu-cation's reform movement. Today, however, demands for educational excellenceand academic productivity have resulted in an emphasis on cognition, not human-ism, and on subjects such as science and math, rather than art and music. Neverthe-less, the humanistic approach may gain adherents as people come to realize theinterdependence of cognition and affect.26 Education must focus on both the per-sonal and interpersonal. This ra,,ill require overcoming a long tradition of regardingcognition as something separate from feeling. To be sure, the student's self-concept, self-esteem, and personal identity are essential factors in learning, whichinvolves social and moral, not just cognitive, aspects.

Recorrceptualisl Approach

To some curriculum scholars, the reconceptualist approach to curriculum largelyertencls the humanistic approach. Others argue that reconceptualism is concernedchiet"lv $-ith change and reform. Still others argue that reconceptualists lack anapproach l]ecause they lack a model for developing and designing curriculum.

Re.onceptualists focus on education's larger ideological issues. They investi-gaie and intluence society's social, economic, and political institutions. Reconcep-iu.rli>l: ,rre more interested in theorv than practical applications. Pinar has gone so


far as to state that the era of curriculum development is past.27 Pinar's vietvpointwould be considered impractical by a practitioner who has to deal u,ith theselection and organization of content. However, Pinar is not addressing practi-tioners, but other theorists-an example of the divide that exists between theoristsand practitioners.

Some curricularists who associate with the reconceptualists camp contend thatthere is no one precise, certain way to create curricula; curriculum development ismore like a communal conversation.28 Curriculum development is not a closed sys-tem, but remains open.

Reconceptualists are interested in curricula's interactions with political, eco-nomic, social, moral, and artistic forces.29 They see the school as an extension of so-ciety and students as capable of changing sociery Many reconceptualists see

current curricula as overly controlling and designed to preserve the existing socialorder and its inequalities.

Reconceptualists have brought greater diversity to curricular dialogue. Recon-ceptualism is rooted in the philosophy and social activism of such early reconstruc-tionists as George Counts, Harold Rugg, and Harold Benjamin.3o Like today'sreconceptualists, these scholars urged curricularists to rethink curriculum. How-ever, reconceptualists are more likely to speak in terms of inequality, discrimina-tion, and oppression for example, with regard to class, gender, and race.

Deflnition of Curriculum

What is curriculum? Vy'hat is its purpose? How does it affect students and teachers?By and large, the way we define curriculum reflects our approach to it. We canspecify five basic definitions of curriculum.

First, curriculum can be defined as a plan for achieving goals. This position,popularized by Tyler and Taba, exemplifies a linear view of curriculum. The planinvolves a sequence of steps. Today most behavioral and some managerial andsystems people agree with this definition. For example, J. Calen Saylor definescurriculum as "a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities for persons tobe educated."31 David Pratt writes, "Curriculum is an organized set of formal ed-ucation and/or training intentions."32 Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondi view curricu-lum as a four-step plan involving purpose, design, implementation, andassessment. The curriculum worker wants the plan's "intent" to be realized asfully as possible.33

Second, curriculum can be defined broadly, as dealing with the learner'sexperiences. By this definition, almost anything planned in or outside of school ispart of the curriculum. This definition is rooted in Dewey's definition of experienceand education and in Hollis Caswell and Doak Campbell's view from the 1930s

that curriculum is "all the experiences children have under the guidance of teach-ers."31 Humanistic curricularists and elementary school curricularists subscribe tothis definition, $,hich textbook writers have interpreted more broadly over theyears. Cene Shephercl and William Ragan state, "The curriculum consists of the

CHAPTER 1 . The Field of Curriculum . 11

ongoing experiences of children under the guidance of the school.,, It represents ,,a

special environment . . . for helping children achieve self-realization through activeparticipation within the school."3s Elliot Eisner describes the curriculum as a ,,pro-

gram" that a school "offers to its students," a "preplanned series of educationalhurdles and an entire range of experiences a child has within the school.,,36 CollinMarsh and George Willis view curriculum as all the "experiences in the classroomIthat are] planned and enacted." Howevet they note a difference between what theschool plans and what the teacher enacts.37

According to a third definitiory less popular than the first two, curriculum is asysfefl for dealing wiih people. The system can be linear or nonlinear. A linear sys-tem plots out the means to a desired end. In contrast, a nonlinear system permitsthe curriculum specialist to enter at various points of the model, skip parts, reverseorder, and work on more than one component at a time. Many managerial and sys-tems curricularists adopt this definiiion.3s

Fourth, curriculum can be defined as a field of stndy wtth its own foundations,knowledge domains, research, theory, principles, and specialists. Those who adoptthis definition tend to discuss curriculum in theoretical rather than practical terms.They are concerned with broad historical, philosophical, or social issues. Aca-demics often subscribe to this view of curriculum-for example, William Reid,Schubert, and the Tanners.3e

Finally, curriculum can be defined in tetms of subject rrnlfer (math, science,English, history, and so on) or content (the way we organize and assimilate infor-mation). We can also talk about subiect matter or content in terms ol grade leaels.People n ho adopt this definition emphasize the facts and concepts of particularsubject areas. Most U.S. school districts prescribe to this definition. yet, universitycourses in elementary and secondary school curriculum rarely are subject specific(e.g., on math or biology curricula); they emphasize generic principles of curricu-lum that cut across and encompass most, if not all, subjects.

The Challenges of Pefinition

Definitional debates take time and energy, but they address important curriculumissues. The language of curricularists is neither philosophically nor politically neu-tral.a0 Variations in the way curriculum is defined provide needecl scope and diver-sity. Ronald Doll points out, "Every school has a planned, formal acknowledgedcurriculum," but it also has "an unplanned, informal and hidden one,, that mustbe considered.ll The planned, formal curriculum focuses on goals, objectives, sub-iect matter, and organization of instruction; the unplanned, informal curriculumdeals rvith socio-psychological interaction among students and teachers, especiallytheir feelings, attitudes, and behaviors. We must realize the power of the hiddencurricr.rlum-that part of ihe curriculum that, while not written, will certainly belearned bv students. If we define curriculum too narrowly, we will overlook whatEisner has called the ruLll curricrLlum, subject matter and experiences that are nottaught.l2 Students may infer that what is omitted has little value. Subjects such asc-lance and law are often onlitted-

12 . CHAPTERl . TheFieldofCurriculum

Representation of particular cultures, too, is often omitted. Students may cometo dislike school because content they value is omitted or Biven lower status. Thepoint is, students leam much more than the explicit curriculum.

On the other hand, curriculum is not slmonymous with school experiences. Note\.erything that goes on in school can or should be discussed in terms of curriculum.

Eaekground lssues {or gefining lhe Field

Content or subject matter issues are relevant, too. Is it appropriate to talk about a

social studies or math curriculum or about curriculum in general? Are there prin-ciples of curriculum that apply to all subjects or principles thai apply only to spe-

cific subjects? Should subject matter be organized around separate disciplines orbased on interdisciplinary and core approaches? To n hat extent is subiect contenta matter of student, professional, or parental choice? Should it be determined bythe community, state, or nation? How should subjects be organized around be-havioral objectives, student activities, social or community values, future jobs?

Which content should be graded? What portion of subject matter should be classi-fied as general, specialized, or elective? What is the appropriate mix of requiredversus optional subjects? What is the appropriate stress on-{acts, concepts, andprinciples of subject matter? As Beauchamp writes, "The posture . . . one assumes$,ith respect to the content of a curriculum inevitably will be of great influenceupon . . . theory and planning."a3 Actually, that posture influences everything thatfollows, including der.eloping, implementing, and evaluating the curriculum.

Other issues are related to people. lVho are the maior participants? To what ex-tent should students, teachers, parents, and community members be invoh.ed incurriculum planning? Why are school administrators assuming greater roles in cur-riculum matters and curriculum specialists assuming fewer roles? What are theroles and responsibilities of researchers and practitioners in curriculum making?How do n e improve their communication?

!:i ! !r.l:r rn*ntal 0'uestions

ln 1930, a 12-person National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) committeel.readed b1'Harold Rugg formulated lS "fundamental questions" to serve as a ba-sis for "\,ieiving . . . the issues and problems of curriculum."al These questions cen-tered on subject matter; leaming; curriculum's guiding objectives, activities,materials, and outcomes; and school's role in American society. Table 1.1 presentsa set of questions developed more than 50 years later. These questions focus on theplace and function of subject mattet the methods and materials that facilitate learn-ing, the role of the curriculum specialist, and the relationships among curriculum,instruction, supervision, and governmental levels of curriculum making.

These fundamental questions help establish ra,hat Tvler called curriculum's"rationale," Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis later called its "purpose," and Schubertmore recentlv called the "paradigm" that governs inquiry in the field of cr-rrricu-lum.la By asking "What?" and "How?" curriculum specialists can delineate im-portant theories, conceFts, and methods in the fielcl.

CHAPTER 1 . The Field oI Curriculum . 13

TABLE 1.1 FUNDAMENTAL OUESTIONS ABOUT CURRICULUM

1s QUESTrONS,1987

1. How is curriculum defined?

2. What philosophies and theories are wecommunicating, intentionally or not, in ourcurriculum?

3. What social and political forces influencecurriculum? Which ones are most pertinent?Which impose limitations?

4. Horv does leaming take place? What learningactivities will best meet our learners' needs?

How can these activities best be organized?

5. \44:rat are the domains of curriculumknowledge? What types oI curriculumknowledge are essential?

6. Ii\trat are a curriculum's essential parts?

7. Why do changes in curriculum occur? Hondoes change affect the curriculum?

8. What are the curriculum specialist's roles andresponsibilities?

How is the curriculum best organized?

What are the roles and responsibilities of theteacher and student in organizing curriculum?

What are our aims and goals? Holr. do u,etranslate them into instrr.rctional objectives?

How do u'e define our educational needs?

Whose needs? How do we prio tize theseneeds?

What subject matter is most worth$,hile? Whatare the best forms of content? How do weorganize them?

How do rve measure or r.erify u,hat we aretrying to achieve? Who is accountable? For\\,hat and to whom?

What is the appropliate relationship betweencurriculum and instructien?-Cufficulum andsupen ision? Curiculum and &aluation?

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

1,1.

15.

Sorrrcer Allan C. Ornstein, "The Theory and Practice of Curric:ulnfi," Kappa Della Pi Record(Fall 1987), p. 16.

Foundations of Curriculum

Debate continues regarding curriculum's meaning, foundations, and knowledgedomains. Current knowledge concerning curriculum is "widely scattered" andeither "unknorvn or unread" by most who teach or practice curriculum.16 Somepeople belier.e that the field lacks purpose and direction because it has exten-si\.eh, "adapted and borrowed subiect matter from a number of [other] disci-plines," including its major "principles, knowledge and skills."17 This is basicallythe same criticism that Joseph Schwab made over 30 years ago u,hen he com-plained that the field was "moribund [because] it has adopted theories from out-side the field of education."a8 However, the field's lack of unity also suggestsflexibilitl and richness.

The foundations of curriculum set the external boundaries of the knowledge ofcurriculum and define what constitutes valid sources from which to derive thefielc-l s theories, principles, and ideas. Curriculum's commonly accepted founda-tions are philosophical, historical, psychological, and socia[. lCiltural, political,anrl economical foundations may be included within or apart from social founda-tions. ) Although curriculum writers generally agree on the four foundation areas,ie\r.ittenpt to analyze these areas in depth.

14. CHAPTER 1 . The Field of Curriculum

Herbert Kliebard claims that the field of curriculum is svnoPtic. Curriculumspecialists bring perspectives from other fields to bear on curriculum. They use

concepts, methods, and research tools of philosophers, historians, Psychologists,sociologists, economists, and Political scientists.49

Regardless of their approach, curriculum specialists rely on the foundation ar-

eas to study and practice curriculum. This text examines four foundation areas (in

four chapters) with the intention of presenting imPortant sources of informationfrom other fields that are Pertinent to curriculum.

Curriculum Domains

Whereas curriculum's foundations rePresent the field's external boundaries, cur-

riculum's domains define the field's internal boundaries-the accepted knowledge

presented in published articles and books. Although curriculum specialists Sener-ally agree on the foundation areas, they often disagree on curriculum's knowledge

domains. Many efforts have been made to determine these domains. However,

much literature on the subject is largely unread.s0

Beauchamp divided curriculum knowledge into planning, implemeitatio:r,and evaluation.sl Fenwick English viewed curriculum in term] of ideologicil(philosophical-scientific), technical (design), and operational (managerial) issues.s2

Edmund Short listed curriculum's domains as policy making, development, eval-

uation, change, decision making, activities or fields of study, and forms and lan-

guage of inquiry.s3Linda Behar established an empirical format for identi lyltg curriculum domains

(broad areas of knowledge based on the most influential curriculum textbooks over

a 20-year period) and flrrriculum practices (precise activities teachers and curricu-lum specialists engage in while inquiring about planning or implementing the cur-riculum). As many as 49 curriculum practices were validated and then rated inimportance by U.S. curriculum professors. These Practices were grouped into nine

curriculum domains: (1) curriculum philosophy, (2) curriculum theory, (3) curricu-

Ium research, (4) curriculum history, (5) curriculum develoPment, (6) curriculumdesign, (7) curriculum evaluatioo (8) curriculum policy, and (9) curriculum as a

field of study.5a

Allan Glatthorn describes seven types of curriculum: (1) recommended curriculnndelineated by scholars and professional organizations; (2) Toritten curriculum thatappears in state and school district documents; (3) tarSht curriculufil lhal leachers at-

tempt to implemenl (4) stLpported curriculltn that helps implement or deliver the

curriculum resources such as textbooks and computers; (5) assessed curricuhLm thatis tested and evalu ated; (6) lmrned curriculum, what the shrdents actually leam; and

(71 ltitlden arrriculunt, unintended curriculum.ll Traditionally, teachers have been

most influenced by leamed and assessed curriculum-making their curriculum de-

cisions on the basis of students' needs and responses to the taught cufficulum. Since

2000, the standards-education movement has resulted in school administrators be-

coming increasingly concerned with aligning the t'ritten curricttlum (content) withthe nsses"^ed carricdaz (especially as assessed through high-stakes tests).


erirriculum Development

We maintain that, of all domains of curriculum knowledge, curriculum deuelopmentand design (its theoretical or technical aspects) are most crucial in any curriculumtext. Analyzing curriculum in terms of development is the traditional and mostcommon approach to the field. The idea is to show how curriculum is planned, im-plemented, and evaluated, as well as what people, processes, and procedures areinvolved in constructing the curriculum. Such development is usually examined ina logical step-by-step fashion, based on behavioral and managerial approaches tocurriculum and rooted in scientific principles of education. Many curriculum textstoday use the terms derelopttrcnt and plan in their titles and thus reflect this think-ing. See Curriculum Tips 1.2.

Most curriculum textbooks offer some development model, outline, or plan.Starting with a philosophy or set of objectives, this model includes student assess-ment, content selection and organization, implementation, and evaluation. Thenumber of steps ranges from four (Tyler, Saylor and Alexander, Wiles and Bondi)to seven (Taba) or more (Doll). More concerned with standards, Glatthorn and

CURRICULUM TIPS 1.2

$teps in Curriculunr

The following questions are based on threestages of curriculum planning: development, im-plementation, and evaluation. The questions areessential in creating or revising curriculum. Theyhelp clarify cur culum planning in any subjectarea and at any grade level.

1. When the school system is developing a newcurriculum:a. Who determines priorities?b. Who develops the time line?c. Who assigns members to curriculum

committees?d. Who coordinates the efforts of curriculum

committees?e. Who devises the curriculum

development process?2. After the curricrrlum has been approved and

it is time to put it into }rLlce:a. Who decides on the materials and

activities?

Plann irg

b. Who determines how much money willbe needed?

c. Who decides what staff development willbe offered to prepare teachers to use thecurriculum?

When the school system wishes todetermine if the curiculum is meetingexpectations:a. Who decides how the curriculum will be

evaluated?b. Who is respor.sible for carying out the

evaluation?c. Who is responsible for reporting the

evaluation's results to teachers,administratols, school board members,and the public?

Sou,'c.; Michael C.rmpl.e-1. iu.1r C.rrr, and Douglas Harris, "Board Members Needn't BeExperts to Pla\. a !ital Rcrr. rn Curriculum," Ancrican School Board /oarnnl (April 1989), p. 30.

16. CHAPTER 1 . TheFieldof Curriculum

David Squires emphasize the need to align the curriculum with what is being

tested.56

All th"r" d"t "lopment

models attempt to show the relationship of curriculum

to various decisioni, activities, and processes' They provide guideposts The

models tend to be graphically or pictorially illustrated They show input' transfor-

mations, and outp-ut ind treat curriculum as a system composed of subsystems

Th"o."ti.ul and icientific, the development models are conceived in technical

terms. One must have knowledge of the field to fully appreciate and under-

stand them. Such models tend to ignore Processes that are not easily observed'

measured, or controlled. They someiimes ignore attitudes' emotions' feelings' and

belie{s linked to teaching and learning'

By adopting development modeli, curricularists tend to constrain curriculum

ct-,oicl". fney sJmetimei forget that the path to curriculum.development is strewn

with qualitaiive iudgments, concessioni to social and political realities' and the

,-,"ed to se.,,e diverse students and teachers. However, some curricularists argue

that being systematic doesn't preclude flexibility and that their models consider

multiple variables and permit choices

T'his textbook gives considerable attention to nontechnical models Doll notes

that postmodernisl often say that there are no universal principles; everything is

,"tutior-rut or contextual.ST Similarly, William Reid claims that we need to go be-

vond rational and logical methods and rethink the curriculum in terms of aesthet-

ics, morality, and sf,irituality.5s In contrast, technical models often discourage

change, which they treat as disruPtive and inefficient'

i syste- of clrriculum development can be open or close-d Open svstems

are dynamic and evolutionary; they develop through change' Closed systems are

static and unable to accommodate change Perhaps everyone involved should

think of curriculum development as an open system' a journey rather than a des-

tination.

*ur:ie r:lurn 0esign

Curriculum design refers to the way we concePtualize the curriculum and arrange

its major compoients (subiect matter or content, instructional methods and mate-

rialr, Ieu.ne, "^periences

or activities) to provide direction and guidance as we de-

velop the curriculum. Most curuiculum writers do not have a single or pure design

for c'urriculum. They are influenced by many designs and approaches; they draw

bits and picces from different de'igns'The way people design a curriculum is partly a product of their view of cur-

.icul.,m. Foi e*a-ple, thJse who view curriculum in behaviorist terms and favor

u fre"c.ib"d plun and set of learning outcomes will produce different curriculum

designs thanihose who view curriculum as a system of managing people and or-

gurli7i.lg p.o."drres. Those who view teaching and learning in primarily psycho-

iogi.ut i"rro" will present different curriculum designs than those rvho view it in

so?ial or political terms. Whereas curriculum development tends to be technical

and scieniific, curriculum design is more varied because it is based on curricular-

ists, r.alues and beliefs about education. If academic knowledge is paramount to a


curricularist, his or her design most likely will stress disciplined knowledge. If in-stead students' overall growth is central, the curricularist will design with thebroader context in mind. In general, curriculum design should provide a frame-work for planning what the curriculum will look like after curriculum development.

For most of the twentieth century, curriculum specialists who started out asteachers have been content oriented. They have emphasized the core academic dis-ciplines. Many people feel that we need designs that focus more on the studentand less on the content, but such designs have not gained wide acceptance. It is notlikely that schools will become more receptive to novel and radical designs in thenear future. After all, schools socialize students in accordance with a society,snorms and are, therefore, inherently conservative. Moreover, we as educators are inthe midst of high-stakes testing and standards, which emphasize knowledge andinformation-what most of us in the field of teaching simply call coafenf.

Other Curriculum Domains

Those who study curriculum and contribute to the professional literature mustconstantly deal with other curriculum domains. Opinions regarding what curicu-lum knowledge is essential vary among scholars. Carmen Rosales-Dordelly andEdmund Short assert, "The status of the body of curriculum knowledge has beendescribed by scholars in the field as amorphous, diffuse, incoherent, and fragmerr-tary. . . . Few advances have been made in conceptualizing the field."se perhaps onereason for the confusion is that much of curriculum design involves personal val-ues and context-dependent choices.

Most people rvould agree, however, that a curriculum text should include adiscussion of development and design. Behar's work helps establish the contentthat a curriculum text should contain because the domains she outlined were basedon assessing the most influential texts in the field over a 20-year period.a,0

?he Pianned and Unplanned Curriculum

What students learn in school extends beyond the planned (formal) curriculum.The planned curriculum translates the school's goals into the subjects that studentsare expected to leam, the measured objectives of the courses and lessons (oftenstated in the teachers' unit plans and lesson plans), and the subiect,s assigned read-ings. Hor.r'e!er, a school also transmits an wlplallned (int'ormal) c|rriculum, one thatis not intended or stated.61

Eisner also distinguishes between the planned and the operational curriculum.The P/rrrrrt,r? curriculum is developed after considering several options and is usu-alh-prep.-rred bv a curriculum committee of the school or school district. Thelt:tL,f ili..nil curriculum emerges in the classroom as a result of the actual situationanel requires that teachers make adjustments as needed,62

Then ihere is the hidden curriculum that arises from interactions among stu-dents anel bL.t\\'een students and teachers. Too often, curriculum texts ignore theptrrr'.,riu1 influence of the hidden curriculum, which is built around the peer groupan.l !rfien competes with the teacher's planned curriculum. It influences thinking

18 . CHAPTERl . TheFieldof Curriculum

and behavior in classrooms, sometimes even conflicting with the primary goalsand values of the school and larger society.

When teachers and schools put too much emphasis on grades, the hidden cur-riculum elevates correct answers o\rer understanding, facts over ideas, conformingbehavior over independent behavior, and getting on the honor ro11 over helpingothers. Critics argue that the hidden curriculum teaches students that "beating thesystem" or "l,ir.rning" is more important than anything else.63

As part of the socialization process, schools and society require that studentsconform and remain largely passive and compliant in the classroom. Students muststav in their seats, raise their hands and wait to be called on, line up as required,and so on. Children are socialized to follow rules and regulatior.rs.

Phillip ]ackson summarizes schools'hidden curriculum: "It is expected thatchildren will adapt to the teacher's authority by becoming'good workers'and'model students.'The transition from classroom to factory or office is made easierbv those rvho have developed 'good work habits' in their early years."6lJohn Holtalso describes the socialization process: The aim of teachers and schools is to createstudent "producers," rrot thinkers.6s Producers follow rules and conform to teach-ers' expectations. Thinkers raise questions, come up with novel answers, and grap-ple rvith ideas. In an era of curriculum standards and high-stakes testing, theemphasis too often is on fact accumulation rather than critical thinking.

As previously mentioned, Eisner also distinguishes between the irlplicil cur-riculum (n hat the school teaches as having cognitive and social value) and the nu11

curriculun.r (omitted content and values). For example, the public school curricu-lum generallv avoids topics dealing with death, sex, and spirituality. Schools alsomay neglect nonverbal and nonliteral thinking, such as "visual, auditory andmetaphoric . . . forms of expression."65 Omissions should arise from objective cri-teria, not ignorance or bias.

To some extent, the null curriculum goes back to William Reid's point that cur-riculum involves deliberate choices; educators are inclined to emphasize agreed-oncontent and perspectives and systematically omit others.67 For researchers, the cur-riculum can be viewed in terms ol colltent atmlVsis; that is, the attempt to sample,record, and justify the knowledge and information.6s Certain facts, ideas, and val-ues are represented and considered "commonly shared content"; the norms andrules that govern arc it plicit. Other data are omitted; this exclusion coincides withthe null curriculum.

Theory and Practice

A field of study involves theoretical and practical knowledge. By theory i^,'e meanthe most advanced viervs within a field. Theory often establishes the field's frame-work and helps researchers and practitioners analvze and synthesize data, organ-ize concepts and principles, suggest nert ideas and relations, and specLllate aboutthe future. According to Beauchamp, theorr-mav be defined as the knowledge,rnd statements that "give functional meaning b a series of events [and] take thei,rrr of definitions, operational constructs. assumptions, postulates, hvpotheses,


generalizations, laws or theorems." Curriculum theory involves "decisions about. . . the use of a curriculum, the development of curriculum, curriculum design andcurriculum evaluation."69

Good curriculum theorv describes and explains the concepts, principles, andrelationships that exist within the field. It also has predictive value; rigorous Iawsyield high probability and control. Good theory also prescribes actions to be taken.However, it is impossible to fully predict educational outcomes. Like other aspectsof education, curriculum involves judgments, hunches, and insights that are not al-ways conducive to laws, principles, or generalizations. Often, a curriculum doesnot emerge as a tightly regulated, concise set of enterprises but evolves as one ac-tion or choice that leads to another

Nonetheless, all curriculum texts should try to incorporate theory, to be sys-tematic in their approach, and to establish worthn'hile practices. As expressed byTaba, "Any enterprise as complex as curriculum requires some kind of theoreticalor conceptual frame ,ork of thinking to guide it."70

Fronr Tlreory to Praeti;e

The test of good theory is whether it can guide practice. Good practice, in turn, isbased on theory. By practice we mean applied procedures, methods, and skills. Suc-cessful teaching results in procedures, methods, and skills that can be effectivelyapplied in different situations.

People directly involved with curriculum must deal with practice. These peo-ple include administrators, supervisors, and teachers; curriculum developers andcurriculum evaluators; textbook authors and test makers; and individuals assignedto curriculum committees, accrediting agencies, school boards, and local, regional,state, and federal educational agencies. Theories should be workable for these prac-titioners, make sense, have explanatory power, and be applicable to the real u,orldof classrooms and schools. See Curriculum Tips 1.3.

According to Elizabeth Vallance, "Much ado [is] made about the split be-tween theory and practice in the dialogues and concerns about professional cur-riculum workers." The crux of the matter is to provide "practical answers to verypractical questions having to do with design, development, implementation, andevaluation of curricula." The distinctions between theory and practice are sec-ondary to Vallance because both aspects of curriculum focus on the "same cur-riculum problems."71

The problem is that most curricularists, including those who write textbooks,have difficultv fusing theory and practice. This is true even though many curricu-lum books emphasize "theory" and "practice"72 or "principles" and "processes.,'73Perhaps curricularists have difficulty connecting theory and practice because theirmethods of inquiry lend themselves more to theoretical discussions than to practi-cal matters.

Decker Walker notes that theory should provide a framework with which toctrnceptualize and clarify important problems and techniques. He states, however,that "curriculum theories. . . that are correct and complete to serve as. , . a basisior pr.1ctic.1l decisions do not exist." Educators, including curricularists, tend to

20 . CHAPTER 1 . The Fie d of Curriculum

Translating Theory

: - .:-:r- : ,,. ::; :uccessfullv blending cur--, --,- --: r.- .- :rd practice, n e must rccognize

7.- : - .: . .:::..ii t'.. Any attempt to merge:i.- :, :.J pr.tctice must be based ons:- - .. ---; :e rrf the professional literature.

1 -.;.',::::. :;:.-,rr.rlr1 1.,1715. (luriculum theodstsand praititioners need to identify and agreeLrn the major constructs, concepts, andquestions for discussion.

3- Cltik llt,' :oundncss ol c\isting llh oris.Existing theories need to be analyzed interms of their validity. accuracy..rssumptions, logic, coherence,qeneralizability, r,'alues, and biases.

.1. 1: . r,l r,?,1s. Fads and "hot topics" must not be::r:r.r.lucetl to practitioners under the guisea: -i :re'.., thL,(rr\, reform, or innovation.\\ hen ; Frtrtcssilrnal publication orconierc,nie tntr(rduccs n ne\r program ormethod, that prr.sram or method should beevaluated bei 'rt h.,rn.: a,i,'pte.l.

CURRICULUM TIPS 1.3

into Practice

5. Align tl1eory toith p/rcfics. Theory must beconsidered within the context of classroomsand schools; it must be readily applicable.

6. Test theory.lf a theory is credible and makessense, it must be empirically tested by hyingit in practice and by measuring the results. Atheory should first be applied on a smallscale and involve a comparison ofexperimental and control schools.

7. Interpret theory. A theory must be tested inrealistic situations. It must be evaluated inschools for at least one year and ideally forthree years.

8. Modifu theory; reduce lts complexify. At\eoryis a generalizable construct supported bylanguage or quantitative data. Nonetheless,theory must be modified from paper topractice, ftom the abstract to the concreteworld, and from complex concepts to layterms. When we put theory into practice, weinvolve many people and resources to makeit work. Theory must be modified to suitpeople if it is to move from idea to action.

embrace "theorv as an ideology," even though much of what they say is based ontheir philosophical or social lens and closes us to "other aspects of reality andother values."Tf

Practitioners, for their part, often neglect theory. Most teachers and principalsview theory as impractical and favor "how to" approaches. In shorL many theoreti-cians ignore the practitioners, and many practitioners ignore the theoreticians.Many theoretical discussions of curiculum are divorced from practical applica-tion in the classroom, and many practical discussions of curriculum fail to considertheoretical relationships.T5

Practice involves selecting strategies and rules that apply to various situations.Adopting the right method for the appropriate situation is not an easy task and in-volves a good deal of common sense and experience, Good curriculum practice in-cludes understanding the constraints and specifics operating within the school andcomprehending the school's priorities and the needs of the students and staff. Also,successful practitioners can develop, implement, and evaluate the curriculum.They can select and organize (1) goals and objectives; (2) subiect matter; (3) meth-ods, materials, and media; and (4) suitable leaming experiences and activities. Theyalso can assess these aforementioned processes.

CHAPTERl . TheFietdofCurriculum . 2l

One role for the curriculum specialist, what some educators call the ,,reflective

practitionet" is to generate dialogue between the theoretician and practitioner andestablish modes of collaboration that can benefit both groups.76

e urriculurn f ertifie ation

In most states curiculum lacks certification (specified requirements). This situationincreases the difficulty of defining and conceptualizing the field and agreeing oncurriculum courses at the level of higher education. The closest thing to certifica-tion is an endorsement or license (issued by the state department ofeducation, andsometimes by a city school district) as a supervisor or principal. We need peoplequalified to serve as curriculum generalists and specialists, both as resource agentsand decision makers. And we need people who can maintain a balanced curricu-lum in terms of goals, subiect mattet and learning actir.ities when special-interestgroups seek to impose their brand of education. Currently, minimum requirementsfor curriculum personnel vary within and between states, and curriculum pro-grams vary considerably among colleges and universities. Because there are no li-censing requirements or state or professional regulations, each school of educationusually decides on its own requirements for personnel and the courses it will offerto meet these requirements. The result is a proliferation of elective courses in cur-riculum programs and a lack of specialized and general agreed-on courses. Evenwhen curriculum course titles are similar, wide differences in content and level ofinstruction are common.

Ironically, the curriculum field is very unclear as to its curriculum. Althoughthere are many curriculum programs at the university level, there is little guaran-tee that people who graduate from such a program will know how to develop, im-plement, and evaluate a curriculum or know how to translate theory into practice.Some curriculum students (especially those in administration) may not have takencourses in development, implementation, or evaluation. No test or screening de-vice helps school systems or school board officials assess the abilities ofcurriculumpersonnel. This also adds to the problem of defining the roles and responsibilitiesof curriculum specialists and generalists.

Professionals are certified in such fields as teaching, counseling, school psy-chologv supervision, and administration. Job descriptions and related course re-quirements are defined. [n contrast, curriculum jobs are not well defined, and thereare fer,r. certification requirements or licenses. Curriculum positions are available inschools, universities, and local, regional, state, and federal education agencies,but rvitllout certification people other than curriculum experts can obtain thosepositions in some cases having been exposed to orlly one or two curriculum courses.

\lanv curriculum specialists who work in schools are certified in olller fields.Sinilarlr', most professors of curriculum have never been required to meet any stater-rr national standards or pass any certification tests with regard to curriculum.

The lack of certification weakens curricularists, role in the schools and theiriniluence at the university level. In still other cases, school principals who are ex-pected to be curriculum Ieaders may not have had more than one or two curricu-lunr ctrrirses .rt the university let el, because their certification reguirements often

22 . CHAPTERl . TheFieldof Curricutum

limit such courses to one or two. It also encourages local and state policy makersand legislators to develop and design the school curriculum; these nonexperts im_pose standards and approve programs in terms of goals, content, and subject mat_ter. This is especially true in large states such as California, Florida, Illinois, NewYork, and Texas, where pressure groups often influence standards, programs, andtextbook adoPtions. Because the field lacks professional certification, the responsi-bilities of curriculum leaders are vague and diffuse, and a strong and organizedconstituency is lacking at the school and university levels.

It would behoove the field's professional organizations (e.g., the Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development), leading curriculum journals (e.g.,lhe lournnl of Curriculum Studies and lLre lotLrnal of Curr icttl u n and Super-oislon), lead-ing curriculum professors (e.g., the "100 Professors of Curriculum,, at AERA), andPractitioners at the central school districts and state departments of education rvhodevelop curriculum to pressure local and state agencies to formulate curriculumpolicy and certification.

The Roles of the Currieulum Worker

Much has been written about the curriculum worker's roles and responsibilities.The term urricultrm uorker (used interchangeably with cutiuirun t4teruisot, arr-rictlult leoder, curriculunt coordinntor, and curriu um s1teclallsf) encompasses vari-ous educators, from teachers to superintendents. Anyone involved in curriculumdevelcrpment, implementation, or evaluation is a curriculum tyorker Actrrricultuttsupcli,lsor-usually a chairperson, assistant principal, or principal-usually worksat the school leyel. A curriculum leader can be a supen isor or administrator: achairperson, principal, or director or associate superintendent of curriculum. Acw'icttlun coordinntor usually heads a program at the school district, regional, orstate ler.el; the program may be a special government-funded program or a tradi-tional subject-area program such as a math or English program. Aarrricuhun spc-clrlisf is a technical consultant from the district level, a regional or statedepartment of education, or a university. A curriculum specialist proyides adviceor in-service assistance, sometimes in the classroom but usually at meetings, con-ferences, or staff sessions. Most of these terms, as well as the related responsibili-ties and functions, depend on the philosophy and organization of the schooldistrict (or state education agency) and the administration's personal preferencesand views.

There is further confusion regarding whether curriculum planning or devel-opment takes place at the local, state, or national level. In the past, emphasis oncurriculum development was at the school or school district level. Since the mid-1980s, the school reform movement has shifted some curriculum responsibilitiesto the state level, and there is serious talk of movement to the national level. Thestate and national testing and standards movement that began in the 1990s ancl ac-celerated in the twenty-first centurv encourages this reform notion of curriculum-(Most other nations have a national ministn.of education rvith major curriculumresponsibilities.)


In the past, curriculum roles were defined at the local level, and decisions togroom curriculum leaders were made at the subject chair's and principal's ler.el.Most school districts depend on teachers and supervisors to develop curriculum(usually without pay, unless they meet in the summer). Also, parents are includedin many curriculum committees at the school level. Staff limitations make it un-likely that the central o{fice of the school district will provide curriculum special-ists, especially specialists who aren't burdened with other responsibilities. C)nlylarge school districts can afford to have a curriculum department with a full staffofspecialists. In such school districts, most curriculum development takes place at thedistrict ler.el; teachers often complain that their professional input is minimal, con-sisting of nothing more than implementing predetermined, prepackaged materialsfrom the district office.

TlT e Currieulirm \A/orkcr's Hespons;bilit!es

What are a curriculum worker's responsibilities? Assigned responsibilities withinthe school structure are important, but they are unclear because different people(teachers, supervisors, principals, district personnel, and others) are usually ex-pected to serve as curriculum workers. Each position holder has different profes-sional responsibilities, needs, and expectations, and must make adjustments. Forexample, teachers must, of course, provide instruction, and principals must man-age a school and assist teachers.

The teacher works lvith supervisors and administrators as part of the curricu-lum team. Early identification of teachers rvho can serve as curriculum workers isessential for the teacher's growth and the school's (and school district's) vitality. Toclarify the responsibilities of curriculum workers:

7.

Develop technical methods and tools to carry out curriculum planning in theschool (school district or state agency).Blend throry buildingwith practice; obtain curriculum knowledge and apply itin the real wodd of classrooms and schools.Agree on what is involved in curriculum detelopment and desrgt, including therelationships among the curriculum's elements.Agree on tlre relationships among nrricultnl, itlstructiofl, and sap,'r?lslorr, in-cluding their interdependencies.Be a chorrye agent who considers schools within the context of society. Balancethe demands and views of the local community t^/ith state and national goalsand interests.Create a rrlsslor or goal statemelt to provide direction and focus behavior r,r,ithinthe organization.Be open to new crrriculum trends and thoughts. Examine various proposals andsuggest modifications. Do not fall victim to fads or particular pressure groups.Confer rvith parental, community, and professional groups. Develop skills inIruman relations and inruorkittg witlt ittdi'oiduals nnd groups.Encourage colleagues and other professionals to solue prot'cssiLltnl Tl,oltlans.Innrrr ate; becorne familiar with and use net / programs and ideas.

9.


Develop a program for continuous c,rrriculun deuelo1tmant, intplcnentntion, andeztaluation.

Balance different s ubject arens and grade leoels, and integrate them into the totalcurriculum. Pay close attention to scope and sequence by subject and gradelevel.Understand crrrrenl resesrch itr teaching and laarnlrrg, as well as new programsrelevant to target students.

The Siu.,enl's R0le

Student invoh,ement in curriculum planning can be traced to the ideas of Kil-patrick and Rugg, who were child- and activity-centered in outlining the roles andconcepts of curriculum making. Discussed freely in the 1920s and 1930s, the prem-ise of student involvement was to plan themes, units, lesson plans, and school proi-ects that allowed for considerable student input. Dewey, however, downplayed thestudents' role because he felt students would express interest in certain topics in or-der to please their teachers. In the final analysis, it was the teacher's responsibilityto plan and implement curriculum and to be "aware more than the children them-seh'es of \\,hat the children want and need."77

\{hereas Tyler did not cleady describe the student's role in Bnsic Prhtcipbs ofCurriculu t nnd lust,'Icflor, his colleague Taba was clear about student invoh,ement.According to Taba, curriculum making should start with "diagnosing the needs ofstudents."78 She considered curriculum "as a plan for learning." Therefore, knowl-edge of the students and their potential contributions had a "bearing on shaping

[the] curriculum." Since learning was developmental, the curriculum shouldproceed "only after some information is obtained regarding. . . ideas, forms ofthought, feelings, habits and skills of students."Te

More recently, Doll has spoken of student involvement in curriculum planningrelated to students' rights and the fact that students are the program's recipients.Students should be consulted at least "informallv in classroom and school activitiesIsincc they] offer important clues about actions to be taken."80 Peter Oliva feels str-rdents should participate in curriculum development, subject to "a number of yari-ables such as intelligence, motivation and knorvledge" and, most importantly, their"maturity." He distinguishes between input from high school students andyounger students.sl

The authors' view is that students are neither experts nor professionals, so theirrole in curriculum planning should be limited to providing information. Teachersr.vho encourage student or parental input in curriculum planning run the risk of re-ducing their influence and getting bogged down on tangental subjects.

Tire i*e*her and the {)urrieulum

Althor-rgh Doll viervs the curriculum expert primarily as a subject chair or principal,he is concerned rvith the teacher's role in planning and implementing the curricu-h.rm at the classroom, school, and district levels. In his opirrion, the tcacher shor-rldbe invoh ed "in everv phase" of curriculum making, irrcluding the planning of "spe-cific goals, . . . lraterials, content, and methirds. " Te.rcht rs should ha!e .r curricrrlum

10.

CHAPTERl . TheFieldofCurriculum . 25

"coordinating body" to unify their work and develop "relationships \^,ith superr.i-sors [and] other teachers" involved in curriculum.E2

Oliva has a broader view of the teacher's role. For him, teachers are the "pri-mary Broup in curriculum development." They constitute the "majority or the to-tality of the membership of curriculum committees and councils." Their role is todevelop, implement, and evaluate curriculum. In his words, teachers work in com-mittees and "initiate proposals, . . . review proposals, gather data, conduct research,make contact with parents and other lay people, write and create curriculum ma-terials, . . . obtain feedback from learners, and evaluate programs."83

Doll's and Oliva's views suggest a boriort ,/p approach to curriculum, in rvhichthe teacher plays a major role. Taba popularized the bottom-up view in her classictext on curriculum development.sl Rugg introduced the view that teachers must bereleased from classroom duties to "prepare courses of study, and assemble materi-als, and develop outlines of the entire curriculum." Later, Caswell and Campbellenvisioned teachers participating in curriculum committees at the school, district,and state levels during summers and sometimes to fulfill special assignments dur-ing the school year.8s

James Beane advocates a lesser role for the teacher. Although teachers mayemerge as curriculum leaders, the "maior responsibility of administrative and su-pervisory personnel should be to provide leadership and assistance in curriculumdevelopment and implementation." Other aspects of curriculum work, such as"budget development, grant writing, and interaction with school boards," shouldbe carried out by supervisors and administrators "in such a way as to facilitate cur-riculum planning." Nonetheless, the school district has the ultimate responsibilityto employ support personnel who have skill in curriculum planning, and such per-sonnel may include "teachers, school officials, and citizens."86

On the other side ofthe continuum, Glatthorn makes littie provision for teacherinput. He discusses the role of "coordinators" at the district level and that of prin-cipals, assistant principals, and chairs at the school level. He envisions a "teacherspecialist" as a member of a subject or grade-level team only at the elementarv-school level and in that case confined mainly to reading and math.87

Based on traditional theories of social organization and open systems and ourcurrent knowledge of effective schools, we see the teacher's role in curriculum mak-ing as central. We see teachers as part of a professional team, working with superr,.i-sors, administrators, and other colleagues at the school, district, and state level. Insmall ar.rd medium-sized school districts, parents also participate in curriculum com-mittees (although the authors have expressed previous resen ation). In our r.iew, theteacher sees the curriculum as a whole and sen es as a resource and agent: develop-ir.rg the crrrriculum in committees, implementing it in classrooms, and evaluating it as

part Qi a tecluical team. To guarantee curriculum continuity, integration, and unityacross subiects and grade levels, teachers must be actively involved in the curriculum.The erp.rgrign6sd lsacher has a broad, deep understanding of leaming, students'needsand inierests, and effective content, methods, and materials. The teacher (not the su-pen isrrr trr .rclministrator) has the best chance of implementing the curriculum at thecLr..r.pm L.r'el. Supervisors and administrators should act as facilitators by lendingsulipt\rt. a(rr)rriinating, and communicating with others in the school. The teachersho.;-J :1.r1 the major role in planning, implementing, and evaluating the curriculum.

26. CHAPTER 1 . The Field of Curriculum

The Principal and the Curriculum

Although there is consensus in the literature that the principal should be a leaderin curriculum and instruction, there is considerable disagreement regarding theprincipal's specific roles. Surveyed principals often say that they consider curricu-lum and instruction top priorities and recognize the need to spend more time onthese areas of development.s8

However, Glatthorn notes that "most experts who have examined school lead-ership [or the principal's role] have focused unduly on the principal as a leader ofinstruction, ignoring the role of curriculum leader."89 Given the national and statestandards movement, and the need to upgrade the curriculum to meet these stan-dards, school principals' attention has increasingly focused on curriculum, espe-cially on aligning curriculum with state standards and high-stakes tests, which canjeopardize schools' reputations as well as principals'and teachers'jobs.

Howevet data suggest that teachers do not view curriculum-instructionalleadership as a major responsibiliiy of principals, do not see much evidence ofsuch leadership on the part of principals, and are reluctant to accept principals inthis leadership capacity.e0 Often teachers believe that principals are incapable ofproviding such leadership and don't want their assistance in these technical ar-eas, which teachers consider more appropriate for peer coaching and collegialstaff development.el

Historically, principals have spent only about 15 to 20 percent of their time co-ordinating activities in curriculum and instruction (combined),e2 and have spentonly 3 to 10 percent of their time observing teachers in the classroom.g3 Principalshave contended that dealing with the school's daily operation, especially writingmemos, attending meetings, and speaking on the telephone, takes up most of theirtime.

Thelbert Drake and William Roe, who have been writing about principals for 30

years, also note a wide discrepancy between actual and desired amount of time onleadership tasks. Of the 14 most common tasks rated by school principals, curricu-Ium development was considered the second most important. But, on average, prin-cipals spent only 7.9 percent of their professional time on curriculum development.Two administrators have listed 74 items principals need to attend to in order to be-gin a school year effectively, none of which deal with curriculum or instruction.9l

Thus, principals look to assistant principals or chairpersons to meet responsi-bilities of curriculum, instruction, and program development.9s Most secondaryschool principals rely on other staff members (teachers and supervisors) to plan,implernent, and evaluate the curriculum. Principals must deal with many prob-lems and issues involving students, teachers, and parents. Curriculum gets pushedto the background.

Although the National Association of Elementary School Principals and theNational Association ofSecondary School Principals envision the principal as a cur-riculum and instructional leader, and this theme continually appears in their jour-nals (u,hich principals read), the realities of a principal's job do not permit a focus onthese leadership areas. Principals have the knorvledge and experience to know"u hat u.orks" in schools. Yet, many principals t.lke notice of curriculum only to thee\tent that it raises the level of leaming in their school or impro\.es test scores.


o Conclusion

We haue presetted dffirent definitions of curria um, discussed the relationship betweenctLrriuiuntfoundations qnd donains, illustratedhoto theory and plactice i terrelate withintlrc field of ctrrricultmr, and described the ctLrriuLhLrrr uorker's roles and responsibilities. IneJfect, tue haoe told readers that they con focus on approaclrcs and definitions, foundationsortd domains, theory nnd pmctice, of curriculun and ittstnrction. No one can fully integratethe field of cttrriulun. Ench itrdioltltal shottld consider dfurent det'initions, approaches,deoelopment nnd design tttodels, and curriculum roles.

o Endnotes1. Allan C. Ornstein, Edward Pajak, and Stacey

B. Ornstein, Contcfipottuy Issues itt Cwricultn, llhed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2007); and Jon Wiles,Curriculum Essentiols, 2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Ba,con,2005).

2. Franklin Bobbitt, T/?rl Curriculun (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1918); W. W. Charters , CurricLtlutttCotlsttuctiotl (New York: Macmillan, 1923); Ralph W.Tyler, Bnsic Principles of Cn'ricL un and lislruction(Chicago: Universitv of Chicago Press, 1949); andHildaTaba, Curyiculum Deoelopnent: Tlrcory aud Practice (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1962).

3. William Pinar, "Notes on the CurriculumField," Educationdl Reseatcher (September 1978), pp.5-12; William H. Schubert, Curricttlun BoLtks: TheFirst Eighty Yenrs (Lanham, MD: Universitv Press ofAmerica, 1980); and James T. Sears and J. Dan Mar-shall, eds., Teachitg and Thinkitg about Curticulum(New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia Uni-versity, 1990).

4. Raymond Callahan, Edlcaflol and the Cultof Efficiency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1962).

5. Bobbitt, Tle Curric ltolt,p.283.6. Franklin Bobbitt, Hoitt to Mnkt n Curriculutrt

(Boston: Houghton Mifilin. lo21r. pp. 11,28.7. Tyler, Basic Pritriltlts of Cto.t.iculum nnd In-

structio , p. 4.

8. Linda Darling-Hamnroncl and Jon Snyder,"Curriculum Studies anrl thr, Tr.lditions of lnquiry:The Scientific Traclition," in Philip nl Jackson, ed.,Hanclbook tyf Rcsenrclr .,rr C:o-tieulum (New York:Macmillan Publishing Ci-. 1991), pp. .11 78; andThomas Good .rnd Jerc E. Brophr', Lookr'lg ir Class/ootlts,9th ed. (Boston: Alirn an.1 Bacon,2003).

9. Andy Hargreare: ,rn.l Dean Funk, Sristofu-able Leadership (Inclianapoii:. I\: Iossey-Bass, 2005);Allan C. Ornstein, "The F:..: oi Curriculum: WhatApproach?" Hi.q/r -Sirii. : : ri r {pril Mav 1987),

pp. 208-216; and Edward Pajak, "Clinical Supervi-sion and Psychological Functions,".Jorl,? al ofCuricu-ltm and StLperoision (Spring 2002), pp. 189-205.

10. Michael Fullan, Leaclarship ond S stainabilify(Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,2005); and Den-nis Sparks, Leading Jor Resr/fs, 2nd ed. (ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2007).

11. Allan C. Ornstein, Tcr.ftlr& 4ud Schooling itlAnrcrica: Pre and Post Scptetnber 11 (Boston: Allyn andBacon,2003).

12. Leslee J. Bishop, Staff Deoelopment and tu-structiolnl lfiprot)enrcnt (Boston: Allyn and Bacon,1976); Cerald R. Firth and Richard Kimpston, TleCurriculun Cofitinutu,t il Percpecti-oe (ltasca, IL: Pea-cock, 1973); Robert S. Cilchrist, Llsillg Currcnf Curriculutn Detelopmenfs (Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development,1963); Arthur J. Lewis and Alice Miel, Superoision t'orlntpro.led h$tyltclio, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,1972); John McNeil and William H. Lucio, Super-oision: A Synthcsis of Thought and Action, 2nd ed.(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969); J. Lloyd Trump andDorsey Baynham, Focus on Change (Chicago: RandMcNally, 1961); and Glenys G. Unruh and William A.Alexandet lnno-oatit)fis in Secondary Educqtion, 2^ded. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971).

13. Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, Ret'ra-ftting Orga,izatiotls,3rd ed. (Indianapolis, IN: Jossey,Bass, 2003); and Bruce Joyce, Marsha Weil, andBeverly Showers, Models of Teaching, Tth ed. (Boston:Allyn and Bacon, 200,1).

14. Fred Lunenburg and Allan C. Ornstein,Ecittcatiornl Aduinistratiofi: Concepts a d Practices, sthed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,2008), p. 323.

15. Leo H. Bradley, Total Quolity Managene t t'orScftools (Lancaster, PA: Technomic, 1993); andWilliam G. Ortch; Theory Z: Horo Amcrican BusinessCnu Mctt the lapanesc Challenge (New York: AvonBooks, 1993).

28. CHAPTER 1 . The Field of Curricu lu m

16. Ceorge A. Beauchamp, Curriculum Tlrcory,4th ed. (Itasca,IL: Peacock, 1981).

17. Allan C. Ornstein, "Curiculum, Instruction,and Supervision-Their Relationship and the Roleof the Principal," NASSP Bulletin (April 1986), pp.74 81. See also Michael Fullan, Peter Hill, andCarmel Crevola, Brcnkthrolgh (Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press,2006), and Thomas J. Sergiovanni,Rrthitkittg Lentlcrshi1r, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press, 2006).

18. John Delvev Dcnroctacy ancl Edacatlor (NervYork: Macmillan,1916); Henry C. Morrisort,Tlr Pracfice ofTeaclti,tg it1 tlrc Sacotrlartl School (Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 1926); and Boyd H. Bode,Modcnt Educntiornl flrcories (New York: Macmillan,1927).

19. William H. Schubert, Curricrtlutrt: Pcrspecti--"c,

PnraLlign and Possilti/if.y (Nerv York: Macmillan, 1986);Daniel Tanner and Laurel N. Tanner, Crirriutlnn DeoelopnQ t: Tlrcory i'rtt) Practice, 2nd ed. (New York:Macmillan, 1980); and Robert S. Zais, Curriculunt:Pritrciples atrd Forudatlrrr,s (New York: Harper & Row,1976).

20. William H. Schubert et a1., "A Cenealogy ofCutriculum Researchers," Iowtul of Curriaiunr Tlteo-rizi,g (Vol. 8, 1988), pp. 137-183; and James T. Seanand J. Dan Marshall, "Generational Influences onContemporary Curriculum Thought," /o ur11nl ol Cur-riculun Studies (March-April 2000), pp. 199-214.

21. William F. Pinar, William M. Reynolds,Patrick Slattery, and Peter M. Taubman, L.lnderstantlingCarrlculalr (New York: Peter Lang,1995); and WilliamPinar, Cotttenrporanl Curric lutn Discources (New York:Peter Lang, 1999).

22. Maxine Greene, "Imagining Futures: ThePublic School and Possibilit,v," ,loartnl of CurriculuttrSf ridl.,s (March-April 2000), pp. 267 280; William A.Reid, "Rethinking Schwab: Curriculum Theorizing as

Visionary Activity," Iournal of Curricultotr and Superai-sion (Fall 2001), pp. 29 41; and Pinar, Conte tporaryC u rri c r r I tu n D isc ou rscs.

23. John Dewev, Tlrc Cltild ard thc Crrriculurn(Chica8o: University ofChicago Press, 1902); CharlesJudd, fltc Etolution of a Denoctotic Scltool SystemlBoston: Houghton Mifflin, 1918); and Francis W.P.rrktr, Tirlks ol Prrlago.qics (New York: Kellogg, 1894).

ll. Brrvd Bode, PlosrcssiL.e Educatiott il lhe Crcss-'.:- ,\er,, \'ork: Nervson, 1938); Frederick G.

l..:'.: Ir:i E i ,rr,,rr trtrtt Scltool Cwricrthu, (New York:'.1.: :.-r:r 1.:0r: Hollis L. Caswell, Progrnnt Making

- : - :. ::.i"r S,:/rotr/s (Nashr-ille, TN: George.. -:. - ..<:e ior Te.tchers, 1932); L. Thomas

'- :. -- .:-: T::']'e. E. \lendenhall, Aclti:.,ct 0tt t1t

thc Liicoltl Scltool (New York: Teachers College Press,Columbia University, 1934); William H. Kilpatrick,Foudatiotts of Metltod (New York: Macmillan, 1925);and Harold Rugg and Ann Shumaker, Tlre C/rilr/Ceirfcrcd Scltool (New York: World Books, 1928).

25. Michael Fullan, T/te Moral Ittrperatittc of ScltLtol

Leaderslrip (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2003);and Joseph M. Ciancola and fanice K. Hutchinson,TratlsJoruing the Culture oJ Scltttol Leadership: Htotllniz-ittg Our Practice (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,2005).

26. Elliot W. Eisr.er, Tlrc Kind of Scltools lNe Neerj( Portsmouth, NH: Heinemam, la98l.

27. Pinat el al., Uudcr st t1i1dit1 g C ut'ricultolt.28. Richard F. Elmore, Scltool Refornt frotn tle

ltlside Out (Cambridge, MA: Harvard EducationPress, 2004); and A. Thatcher, ed., Sprlifunlilq ntld thtCu rric ul tott (London: Cassell, 1999).

29. Yvonna S. Lincoln, "Curiculum Studies andthe Traditions of Inquiry: The Humanistic Tradition,"in P. W. Jackson. ed., Hotdbookof Research on Currictt/rui (New York: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 79-97; MilbreyM. Mclaughlin and Joan E. Talbot, Br/l/d1,,& Scftoo/-Based Tcncher Lcarii,tg Cotllluotilics (Ner,r. York:Teachers College Press, 2006); and Allan Ornstein,C/nss Corrlfsr Ed cation, luequnlity atd tlrc ShrirtkiugMiddle Clnss (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,2007).

30. Ceorge S. Counts, Dare the School Btrild aNeutSocial Order? (New York: John Dav, 1932); Harold O.Rugg. ed., Derrocracy ntd the Cuf icLtlunt (New York:Appleton-Century, 1939); Harolrt O. Rugg et al.,Anerican Life and tlt School Curricuhou (Boston: Ginn,1936), and Harold Beni4rr.in,The SnbaLToofh Curticu-lurr (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939).

31. J. Caylen Saylor, William M. Alexander, andArthur J. Lewis, Carria urt Platutirrg t'ot' Bttter Teich-itg ond Lenfirittg, 4th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehartand trVinston, 1981), p. 10.

32. David Pratt, Curriculun Desigtt nnd Dettelop-,1?r,/,f (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1980), p. 4.

33. Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondi, Carrrorlarl Dc-.)elop,nent: A Guile to Practic?, 6th ed. (Columbus,OH: Merrill,2002), p. 131.

34. Jolrn Dewey, Experielce ard Edlcatior? (NewYork: Macmillan, 1938); and Hollis L. Caswell anclDoak S. Campbell, Curric un Dczrclop,1tu,ri (NewYork: American Book Company, 1935), p. 69.

35. William B. Ragan and Gene D. Shepherd,Modefil Elohnttnrv Curriculunt, ,lth ed. (New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), pp. 3-4.

36. Eiliot \\'. Eisner, Thc Ellucntioiil I tagitratiotl,3rd ec1. (Columbus, Ohio: Merrill,2002), p. 26.

37. Colin J. Marsh and George Willis, Crirrlcrilrrrr:Alletnatilc Apprcnclrcs, O,r.goi,rg /sslcs, 3rd ed.(Columbus, Oll: Merrill,2003), p. 4.

38. David G. Armstrong, Curricltlurfi Todill(Columbus, OH: Merrill. 2003); Ronald C. Doll,Curric run lntprouenpilt: Decision Makiltg andProcess,9th ed. (Boston: All1,n and Bacon, 1996); and Peter F.

Oliva, Deaelopi,g tltc Cnrricttltun, 6th ed. (BostonlAllyn and Bacon,2005).

39. WilliamA. Reid, Curticulunt as lfistitutiolt n dPrnclicc (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1999); Schubert,Curricultor Perspectiec, Parntligtn and Possibility; and.Tanner and Tatner, Curricuhotr Derelopnent: Theorll

,10. Arthur W Applebee, Cun'iculun os Cottsert'a-ti{r,, (Chicago: Uni\-ersity of Chicago Press; 1996);and Ian Westbury et al., Teachittg as a Reflectil'e Pruc-licc (Nlahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000).

41. Dol| C rticulfin Intptottenrctt: Decision Mfik-il.qard Prortss, p.5. See also Barry NI. Franklin, Curri-ctllLu nnLl Cotrscqutttcc: Ilerbut M. Klicbard and thcPronrisc of Sclioo/ing (Nen, York: Teachers CollegePress, Columbia University, 2000).

42. Ersner, Thc Edrrcalional Inngitlafion.43. Beauchamp, Cu r riculLo'fi Theonl, p. 81.4,1. Harold Rugg, "Introduction," in G. M.

Whipple, ed., Thc Fotutlitions of CutriaLlun Makiry,T$,enty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society forthe Study of Education, Part II (Bloomington, IL:Public School Publishing, 1930), p. 8.

45. Tyler, Baslc Ptiltciplcs ol Cwtictthun and h-st,"r/.lio,r; Saylor, Alexander, and Lewrs, CwriculuntPlitlnilg iv Beltct Tenchitlg n d Lcnllir.g; and Schu-bett, Currictdun: Percpcc!ile, Pnrcdigm, antl Possibilitrl.See also Elliot W. Eisner, "Those lVho Ignore thePast," Iounlnl of Curriculnt Shrdlrs (March-April2000), pp. 313-357.

46. Carmen L. Rosales-Dordelly and Edmund C.Short, Cro.ticttlwt P rot'tssors Sytec i al ized Knowled ge(New York: Lanham, 1985), p. 23.

47. Oliva, Dctalopiug tltt Ctu t iculrurr, p.15..18. Joseph J. Schu'ab, "The Practical: A Lan-

guage of Curriculum," Scirooi Rt,i,lcir, (November1969), p. 1.

49. Herbert Kliebarcl, "Curriculum Theory asMetaphor," Tllaorv itltL) P,'r.ti.. (\Vinter 1982), pp.11-17; and Herbert Kliebarcl, "Problems of Definitionof Curriculrrm," /orr rud ,.i Cttrittltutt tntl Superoision(Fall 1989), pp. 1-r.

50. lVilli;rm \1. Rer nolils, "Comprehensivenessand N'lultidimensi(.n.riit\ in S\ noptic CurriculumTexts, " ,lotr lrr,il ,.t f :,' "r.-:,.:,,'i ,;rrr/ 5r+rr'raisioll (Winter1990), pp. 1S.,-l"l .rn.i r:rs ancl Nlarshall, "Gener-

CHAPTERl . TheFieldofCurricutum . 29

ational Influences on Contemporary CurriculumThought."

51. Beauchamp, CarricLrltn t T heo ry.52. Fenwick W. English, "Contemporary Cur-

riculum Circumstances," in F. W. English , ed.,FunLla-melttol Curriculwl Dccisiorrs (Alexandria, \A:Association for Supervision and Curriculum f)evei-opment, 1983), pp. 1-17.

53. Edmund C. Short, "Curriculum DecisionMaking in Teacher Ed.rcation," Jourull ofTeachcr Ed-ll.drio, (July-August 1987), pp. 2-12; and Ednrund C.Short, "Organizing What We Know about Curricu-lum," unpublished paper 1984.

54. Linda Behar, "A Study of Domains and Sub-systems in the Most InfluentialTextbooks in the Fieldof Curriculum 1970-1990," unpublished doctoraldissertation. Loyola Universitv of Chicago, 1992.

55. Allan A. Glatthorn, The Princiltnl ns Curriarlunr Leader,2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress,2000).

56. Clatthorn, The Prittcipal as Cuticrlnn Lentlt;and David A. Squires, Aliguittg anLl Billlciug thcStandards- Based Cwriorlun (Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press,2004).

57. William E. Doll, A Pt)st-MoLlent Pctslcctitt a

Curriculunt (New York: Teachers College Press,Columbia University, 1993).

58. William A. Reid, "Rethinking Schrvab:Curriculum Theorizing as a Visionary Activitl,,"lournal of Curriculrutt ard Suyteruisiott (Fall 2001),pp.2941.

59. Rosales-Dordelly and Short, Crrr,.l.rilrirr P,1)

fcssors' Specinlizcd Knoiolcdge, p. 22.60. Behat "AStudy of Domains and Subsvstems

in the Most Inlluentialler.tbools in the field oiCLrr-riculum 1970-1990."

61. James A. Beane et al., Curriculun Plnnnin,!and Delelopuvtlt (Boston: Allvn and Bacon, 1986); anclMarsh and Willis, Cutricul nt: Altenlati.\, Ap1trca7l125,Ortgoilrg lssrirs.

62. Fjsner, The Educatiotlil lmngiitdtia .

63. Alfie Kohn, "Fighting the Tests: A PracticalCuide to Rescuing Our Schools," Plti Dcltn krypanfianuary 2001), pp. 348-357.

64. Philip W. lackson, Lr/e irr Classrool/s (NewYork: Holt, 1968), p. 32. See also Philip lV. Jacksorl,The Pmctice of Teacltfug (Nelr,York: Teachers CollegePress, Columbia University, 1986).

65. fohn Holt, Hoiu Cltiklren Fail (Nerv York:Putnam, 196'1). See also John I. Goodlad,,4 P/rrrcCalled ScltLtol (New York: McGrau-Hill, 1984); andPeter Mclaren, lif itt School, Slh ed. (Boston: Aliynand Bacon, 2007).

30 o gH4p1g31 . The Fietd of Curricutum

66. Ersnel The Educatiotul lnaginntidt, l.t. 98.67. William A. Reid, Tirc Putsuif t)f Curricuhun

\r:.r oo.l. \I: -\bler, 1992).:: Ni,rrrs Krippendofil, Cotrttnt Anolysis: An ln-

' -:: :r,: :. itj -\l,rrrri/olqgy (Ber,erly Hills, CA: Sage,

cn. Beauchamp, Crilriaiuu Theory, p.58.7\).Iaba, Cu'tictltuu Dcl)eloplne t: Theonl nnd

rDr.n.ii.c, p.-113.71. Elizabeth Vallarrce, "Curriculum as a Field of

Pr,rctice," in F. IV. English, ed., FLudanrcttal Curricu-lrrtrt Dr,cisitrris (Alexandria, VA: Association for Super\ iiion .rnd Curricuhrnr Development, 1983), p. i55.

,l. lohn F. \lilier and Wavne Seller. Crrrricrrlrl/rr:i, ,.l .i1r. , j .rir,i P,,.liaa (\e\\. York: Longman, 1985);T.-,nner and T.rnner, Clrr-r'irrrlrrll Dfl'clolfircnt: Tlpory:,::. ir.iiii:i:.tnrl \\'iles and Bondi, Crrrrlcul fit DeL'el-al'l' li:._l Crlrlf ld P,?i_i1..

73. Doll, Cutri.uluu! lnlllrortenelt: Dccision Mnkir.q nrrri Proccss; antl Oli a, Dct'clolting tlte Cuticul n.

7-1. Decker \\,rlker, Frl,rr?drrc,/tals of Curriculunt(New York: Harcourt Brace, 1990), p. 200.

75. Anciv Hargreaves and Shawn Moore, "Cur-riculum Integration and Classroom Relevance: AStudr-of Teacher Practice," lo mnl of Ctu-ticulu t anlSuperoisiott (Winter 2000), pp.89-112; and AllanC. Ornstein and Francis P Hunkins, "Theorizingabout Curriculum Theorv," Hrg/r School lourunl(December-January lqSq L pp. 77-82.

76. Reba N. Page, "Common Sense: A Form ofTeacher Knowledge," lounnl of Curricuhnt Sfutlies(September-October 2001), pp. 525-533; and DianeY Silva, "Collaborati\'e Curriculum Encounters,"lortual of Curticulutn and Supcrrision (Summer 2000),

1.tp . 279-299.77. John Dewev, "Comments and Criticisms by

Some Fducational ieadert in (}rr Universities," inC. M. Whipple and L. C. Mossman, eds., Tle Acfirrllr7MoL,ein t,Thttty-'lhird Yearbook of the National So-ciety for the Study of Education, Part II (Blooming-ton, IL: Public School Publishing, 1934), p. 85.

78. Hilda Taba, Ctul,iculunt Dctrelopnrclf (Ne.rvYork: Harcourt, 1962), p. 12.

79. Ibid., pp. 12-1380. Dol| Cu'ric ntl lntproLlc tcnt: Decision Mak-

itc afid Proccss, p- 25.81. Oliva, D.iriopilrg tlt. C tricul llt,p.91.82. Doll, Cu'riculutt In4tt'oor:nent: Decision Mak-

irr.: nrrd Procc,ss, p. 33,1.

83. OIir a, Dri,e/t1;iir g t'lr Cwti.ulunt, p. 120.S-1. Taba, Crrn'icllritl1 Dllelop tttll: TlttLtnl nntl

:i C;i:rr r'11 and Carnpbell, Cttriculun DL'i,tlLt1t-: :rl Har,.rltl Rugg, "The Foundatiorts of Cur-

':-\i-rlin{ in C. \\'hipp1e, erl.,I/r. F. ,/,li?ii(,,?s

r.f Curric rutr Makinq, Twenty-Sixth Yearbook of theNational Society for the Study of Education, Part II(Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishers, 1930),pp.439-4,10.

86. James A. Beane, Conrad F. Toepfer, andSamuel J. Alessi, Cirrriculwt Planni:ag nttd Da opnrcnt(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1986), pp. 355,358.

87. Allan A. Glatthorn, Curriculutt Lcntlcrshiy(Clenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 1987), pp. 148-1,19.

88. Jo Blase and Joseph Blase, HanLlbook of tnstruc-tiowl LcaA:rship: Ho.o Slcccsit't Pritriplls Pro nteTcachittg nud Lcatlersli4, (Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress,2004); Cordon A. Donaldson, Crlti.'Ltting Lendcrsltip it1 Schools,2nd ed. (New York: Teachers CollegePress, Columbia University, 2006); and H. LymrErikson, Col.'.?l-BaseLl Ctn-ricultLn aud llstntttit)n(Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,2002).

89. Glatthorn, Tlrc Pt'itrcipal as Cwriarltn Lcnrlar,

P.21.90. Michael Fullan, Barrie Bennett, and Carol R.

Bennett, "Linking Classroom and School lmpror,,en1ent," Etlucitiotnl Lendc'ship (May 1990), pp. 13-19;Michael Fullan, Lettlitrg itt a Culturc of Chonge (SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001)i and Kenneth A. Strike,Ethical Learlershi1t ln Sc,lrools (Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press,2007).

91. Dale L. Brubaker, Rerltdllzing CurtialunLald(nhip,2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress,2004); ElizabethA. Hebert, T,lre Boss of ttuWholeSclrooi (New York: Teachers College Press, ColumbiaUniversit, 2006); and Cathy D. Hicks et al., WhatSuccessfltl Mt tberc Do (Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress,2005).

92. William L. Bovd, "What School Administra-tions Do and Don't Do," Cntutdiat AtlnLitistrotot-s(Apdl 1983), pp. 1-4; and James T. Scarnati, "BeyondTechnical Competence: Nine Rules for Administra-tors," NAS5P Bll/efn, (April 1994), pp. 76 83.

93. Daniel Duke, Sciroo/ Lendershi1t aud I sttitc-tiotnl lfitptooeDrc t (New Yorkr Random House, 1987);Forest W. Parkay, Eric J. Anxril, and Glen Hass,Curriculunt Plntt ittg A Co tetnPorary Apprcnch,9thed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2006); and RogerSoder, 7/rr Lattguoga ol Lcodership (San Franclsco:Jossev-Bass, 2001).

94. Be!erly Findley and Dale Findle),, "GearingUp for the Opening ot tht.school lear: A Cherk I isifor Principals." NASS? B lletir (Seprember 1998),pp.57-62.

95. Boyci, "What SchoolAdministrators Do andDon't Do"; and Ernestine Riggs and Ana G. Serafin,"The Principal as Instructional Leadet" NAS-S/, Bui-lc,lirt (Nolembcr I993), pp. 78-85. See.rlso Robin Fog-art\' .rnd Bri.irl Pete, F,1r, -Sirilf lloorrr hr C/rrssriroirr(Thou:anrl O,rks, CA: Corr{in Press.2007l

the field of gurriculum 547 - october 2015/textbook/c...' urriculum as a field of study has...

Documents