Curriculum

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Curriculum theory, research, and reform have long been informed by a question posed by Herbert Spencer in 1861: “What knowledge is of most worth?” This question has continued to be examined and revised through significant educational and curricular reform movements. As a result, the competing interests of teachers, administrators, academicians, politicians, parents, and other stakeholders have led to a struggle for control of the American curriculum.

There are four major U.S. curricular initiatives that can be identified in the history of curriculum development and reform: (1) academic rationalism, (2) the social efficiency model, (3) progressive education, and 4) social reconstructionism. While each of these movements experienced varying degrees of support and criticism throughout the twentieth century, they more often overlapped in terms of development. For example, the academic rationalist orientation, with its roots during the Enlightenment, focused on the “Great Books” as the foundation of the Western cultural tradition. The goal of this approach, which was very popular at the turn of the century, was to develop the student’s mind to tackle life’s ultimate purpose, which was seen as a quest for truth, beauty, goodness, and liberty. Academic rationalism, however, continued to have strong support throughout the century. Beginning in the 1920s and continuing into the 1960s with the space revolution, the social efficiency model emphasized the efficient nature of the curriculum through operationally designed skills and knowledge. John Dewey’s progressive education movement was especially popular during the first two decades of the twentieth century, and advocated a child-centered approach that allowed the curriculum to accommodate children’s natural interests, and thus grow directly from the interests of the child. Lastly, the 1930s saw the advent of the social reconstructionist conception which posits that the curriculum should stress the needs of society over the needs of the individual, redress social injustice, and serve as an agent for social change (Schubert, 1986).

Although each curricular orientation has been vital in the formation of American schooling, the most recent, and most controversial, has been social reconstructionism. One of the most prominent proponents of social reconstructionism was the Brazilian scholar Paulo Freire (1921-1997). In his seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), Freire argued that only through “conscientization” can people liberate themselves from political and economic oppression. According to Freire, conscientization is the process by which the individual achieves a deep awareness of the social and cultural reality that shapes his or her life, and of the individual’s ability to transform that reality (Freire 1970b).

A product of Freire’s work is the concept of critical pedagogy, which emphasizes that education be viewed as a political, social, and cultural enterprise. In order to appreciate the contribution of critical pedagogy to curricular reform, it is imperative to understand the undeniable relationship between curriculum theory, the power of capital, and the state. For example, in light of the focus on the global marketplace that developed in the late twentieth century, capitalist ideology continuously encourages the consumption of commodities as a mechanism to continue the cycle of accumulation. Within educational settings, this is evident in the push toward integrating corporate management pedagogies within the classroom. As a result, academic success is almost exclusively defined in terms of “capital accumulation and the logic of the marketplace” (McLaren 2002, p. 34). Looking at this phenomenon through a Marxist lens, capitalism diminishes the individual to a commodity that can be bought and sold in the name of profit.

Western society, through the school curriculum, teaches that success can only be achieved through intelligence, hard work, and creativity. This type of pedagogical approach affects teachers, middle-class students, and working-class students. Reforms were initiated in the late twentieth century to provide “teacher-proof state-mandated curricula,” which some see as reducing the role of the teacher to nothing more than a “semi-skilled, low-paid clerk” (McLaren 2002, p. 187). From this perspective, students who possess the dominant cultural assets (e.g., particular ways of talking, acting, and socializing) are rewarded, while those possessing cultural assets of the oppressed are devalued. As a result, the curriculum perpetuates the unjust system of inequality based on cultural capital. As Freire points out, however, this practice is not perpetuated by force (McNeil 1996). Instead, the dominant culture is able to exercise power over subordinate classes through hegemony. Thus, this domination is maintained through consensual social practices, social forms, and social structures.

Critical pedagogy also advocates an analysis of the “hidden curriculum,” or the unintended outcomes of schooling that transmit messages to students through the “total physical and instructional environment” (McLaren 2002, p. 212). The curriculum is inextricably linked to the issue of power not only by culture but also by gender. For example, teachers often allow boys to dominate classroom conversations and offer them more academic praise than girls. While few teachers would admit to intentional sexist ideology, such interactions perpetuate sexist behavior. As a result, girls are often more hesitant to contribute to class discussions. Research also shows that girls are less likely to view themselves as competent in mathematics and science, and by the time they reach high school they are far less likely than boys to enroll in advanced math and science courses (McLaren 2002). Furthermore, girls are more likely to attribute failure to personal factors such as competence and ability.

As a consequence, men and women continue to be affected by the sexist nature of the hidden curriculum well into adulthood. For example, men tend to speak more often than women and frequently interrupt them in both professional and personal settings. It is also more difficult for women to be regarded as experts in their chosen occupations, and they are far less likely to obtain positions of power and authority.

Curriculum, from a critical theorist’s standpoint, encourages teachers and students to foster democratic principles in order to question how the curriculum creates inequities between dominant and oppressed groups. Thus, the curriculum could help a society come to terms with its history, helping students understand the inequitable distribution of power and resources common to many nations. Encouraging students to value and articulate their own experiences of injustice are the first steps in creating a new social order.

To date, however, curricular reform in the U.S. that addresses inequity and injustice has been controversial and, at times, considered “dangerous” territory. However, to ignore these issues is to deny students a voice as active, reflective citizens. Just as the current educational system was “made,” it can be “unmade” and “made over” (McLaren 2002). The first and most important step is to remove the fear of questioning the unquestionable and realize the role that the curriculum plays in political, social, and cultural life.

SEE ALSO Education, USA; Pedagogy; Schooling in the USA

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aronowitz, Stanley, and Giroux, Henry. 1991. Postmodern Education: Politics, Culture, and Social Criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Counts, George S. 1978. Dare the School Build a New Social Order? Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (Orig. pub. 1932).

Freire, Paolo. 1970a. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Herder and Herder.

Freire, Paolo. 1970b. Cultural Action and Conscientization. Harvard Educational Review. 40 (3): 452-477.

Illich, Ivan. 1971. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row.

Kliebard, Herbert. 1995. The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893-1958. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

McLaren, Peter. 2002. Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McNeil, John. 1996. Curriculum: A Comprehensive Introduction. 5th ed. New York: HarperCollins.

Pinar, William, William Reynolds, Patrick Slattery, and Peter Taubman. 1995. Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. New York: Peter Lang.

Schubert, William. 1986. Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility. New York: Macmillan.

Spencer, Herbert. 1861. What Knowledge is of Most Worth? In Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. New York: Appleton.

Shelby Gilbert

CURRICULA

Life Adjustment

Educational methods changed significantly during the 1950s as Americans started to reap the benefits of a strong economy, with a job waiting for almost every able-bodied adult. To face this new, prosperous world, schools changed curricula. Teaching students "life adjustment" took precedence over the traditional skills of math, science, and reading. Schools emphasized mental, physical, and emotional aspects of a child's life. The humanities and life skills became the new focus of educators. Home-economics classes and government classes attained record enrollments as citizenship and managing the home and family became high priorities. Comprehensive high schools offered a wide variety of vocational training as well as numerous electives in such areas as photography, botanical care, and baby care. Audio-visual aids, modern laboratory equipment, and supplemental reference materials regularly enhanced education in the modern school system.

Higher Education

Universities and colleges, for the first tim e in decades, required philosophy as a general-education course to ensure a more liberal education. In March 1950 the New York Times reported that 34 percent of U.S. colleges required history, up from 18 percent in 1942. Science-based graduates decreased and home-economics graduates increased. Critics charged that the educational system had become soft and called for renewed emphasis on the hard sciences and mathematics.

EDUCATION: A BABY-SITTING SERVICE

Writer William Faulkner, speaking at Princeton University in March 1958, warned parents and educators that school were turning into "baby-sitting organizations."

BACK TO BASICS

Education should stress "the rigorous training of the intellect rather than the gentle cultivation of the personality. Courses in life adjustment and coed cooking will not do the job. Mathematics, languages, the natural sciences and history must once again become the core of the curriculum."

—Sen. J. William Fulbright speaking against lax curricula, January 1958.

Sputnik Rocks the World

In October 1957 the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, a small satellite that orbited the globe. Sputnik convinced Americans that Soviet scientific knowledge surpassed that of American scientists and that, as a result, the Soviet Union had developed the capacity to launch nuclear warheads at the United States from the Russian heartland. Suddenly, "life adjustment" took a backseat to national pride and security. Educators, government officials, and parents all laid the blame of "falling behind" on the quality of schools. The nation's educational system had become "too relaxed," "too lenient." It was now time to reverse the damage and return to the traditional studies of math, science, and reading. Quality education was perceived as vital to national defense. From all sides came demands for higher standards in schools and colleges, more training in science and mathematics, better provisions for gifted students, and more study required for all students. A strong curriculum-revision movement started in 1958 in the field of mathematics. Reformers also called for improved instruction in foreign languages as well as various revisions in curricula, teaching methods, and requirements. Educators suddenly found themselves facing a crisis.

Tracking

After stepping down as president of Harvard University, Conant, who had criticized the existence of a private school system earlier in the decade, devised a plan in 1958 to improve the nation's high schools. He developed a model school in which bright, average, and slow students all had specific educational "tracks" that they followed throughout their high-school careers. Each particular track would prepare students with similar abilities for a career. Through better planning and more parental involvement the education system, Conant contended, could be saved. Conant's plan closely resembled European models, in which students took periodic tests to advance. Failing a test condemned a student to a certain set of vocations, regardless of the student's personal wishes or professional aspirations.

Humanities

In 1952 the New York Times had reported a study that 90 percent of research funds at U.S. universities and colleges was being earmarked for physical and biological sciences. Educators expressed concerns about the lack of funding for the humanities and "soft" sciences. In 1956 the Council for Basic Education was founded to encourage the training of students in English, mathematics, science, history, and foreign languages. Those skills, the council contended, were undertaught. A year later educators reexamined those skills on a national scale, but, in the wake of Sputnik, humanities and social studies stood in line behind the sciences for support.

Meeting the Soviet Challenge

Noting the "Soviet challenge," President Dwight D. Eisenhower, during his 1958 state-of-the-union address, called for an expanded National Science Foundation program and new efforts by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to improve research and education in the sciences. A Gallup poll in April 1958 reported that high-school principals thought they were meeting the challenge and improving their schools' curricula.

Sources:

J. Ronald Oakley, God's Country: America in the Fifties (New York: Dembner Books, 1986);

Nathan M. Pusey, American Higher Education, 1945-1970: A Personal Report (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978).

CURRICULUM

CURRICULUM in most countries emanates from the national government, but in the United States control of public school curriculum resides with the states, and in practice much of the responsibility for developing curriculum is delegated to local school districts. In an official sense, then, in the United States it is not possible to speak of a national curriculum. If diversity with respect to what is taught is an obvious fact of life in American schools, however, it is possible to discern an American curriculum.

Perhaps the greatest influence on curriculum is a sense of what is appropriate to teach, which in the United States has traditionally been drawn from the Western intellectual tradition, which means such subjects as mathematics, history, English language and literature, and science. Such traditional subjects are often supplemented by subjects that reflect national concerns. For example, the United States is unique in including driver education in the high school curriculum. Other subjects that reflect national concerns, such as sexually transmitted diseases, race relations, alcoholism, drug abuse, and unwanted pregnancies, frequently find their way into the curriculum of U.S. schools. In fact, this sheer breadth of courses has often been a source of considerable controversy, with some critics charging that schools are undertaking responsibilities they cannot successfully address or are offering courses that in some sense intrude on the responsibilities of other social institutions such as the family.

A second major influence on the American curriculum has been the programs of the U.S. Department of Education, which usually originate in congressional legislation. Federal aid to education in the mid-1990s is about 10 percent of national public school costs, but the way in which such aid is distributed—with specific stipulations regarding how school systems can spend the money and frequent requirements that states match federal dollars, thus effectively multiplying the amount of money spent on federal programs—frequently has a large effect on the curriculum of schools. Perhaps the most visible example is the prominence of vocational education. Since passage of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, the federal government has supported vocational education and home economics. In 1958 the National Defense Education Act provided millions of dollars for mathematics, science, and foreign languages. Although many of the curriculum reform projects supported by that legislation achieved a certain measure of success, the effects on the American curriculum were not as long-lived as in the case of vocational education. Apart from these nationalizing tendencies, the curriculum is also subject to political influence in communities as well as state departments of education.

The 1960s saw a new wave of progressive education in the United States, and in general curricula opened in response to issues raised in the civil rights and women's movements. Then, in the 1970s, a "back to basics" movement gained momentum, with many states adopting minimum competency tests in reading, writing, and mathematics. These and other standardized tests gained increasing importance over the next three decades, spurred by the federal government's increased role in education, its attempts to gauge the success of its investment, and its goal of holding school systems accountable by requiring that they report scores publicly. In the mid-1980s, the issue of a shared national core curriculum became heated following the formation of the Core Knowledge Foundation by E. D. Hirsch, eventually leading the state governors to adopt, in 1988, the National Education Goals. Stressing math and science, Goals 2000 established shared standards in the different subject areas, provoking numerous controversies about what they should (and should not) include.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987.

———. The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them. New York: Doubleday, 1996.

Kliebard, Herbert M. The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893–1958. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987.

Marshall, J. Dan, James T. Sears, and William H. Schubert. Turning Points in Curriculum: A Contemporary American Memoir. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill, 2000.

Herbert M.Kliebard/c. w.

See alsoEducation ; Education, Higher: Colleges and Universities ; Multiculturalism ; Pluralism .

curriculum The curriculum comprises the subjects and courses taught in any educational institution. It is a formal statement, by the institution, of what is to be learned. In British schools, following the 1988 Education Reform Act, the curriculum is determined nationally and consists of a number of core subjects that must be studied by all school students. (see P. Wexler , Sociology of the Curriculum, 1991
.) See also HIDDEN CURRICULUM.

cur·ric·u·lum / kəˈrikyələm/ • n. (pl. -la / -lə/ or -lums ) the subjects comprising a course of study in a school or college. DERIVATIVES: cur·ric·u·lar / -lər/ adj.

curricula •ampulla, bulla, fuller, Müller, pula, puller •titular • Weissmuller • wirepuller •incunabula, tabular •preambular • glandular • coagula •angular, quadrangular, rectangular, triangular •Dracula, facula, oracular, spectacular, vernacular •cardiovascular, vascular •annular, granular •scapula • capsular • spatula •tarantula • nebula • scheduler •calendula •irregular, regular •Benbecula, molecular, secular, specular •cellular • fibula • Caligula • singular •auricular, curricula, curricular, diverticula, funicular, lenticular, navicular, particular, perpendicular, testicular, vehicular, vermicular •primula •insular, peninsula •fistula, Vistula •globular •modular, nodular •binocular, jocular, ocular •oscular •copula, popular •consular • formula • tubular • uvula •jugular •avuncular, carbuncular •crepuscular, majuscular, minuscular, muscular •pustular •circular, semicircular, tubercular •Ursula

curriculum •amalgam • Targum • begum •Brigham • lingam • ogham • sorghum •Nahum • Belgium • dodgem •Brummagem • stratagem • Rackham •Malcolm • Ascham • Beckham •welcome • vade mecum • stickum •dinkum • modicum • hypericum •capsicum • viaticum • practicum •Occam •hokum, locum, oakum •bunkum •alum, Calum, mallam, vallum •Pablum •Haarlem, Harlem, Malayalam, slalom •antebellum, cerebellum, elm, helm, overwhelm, pelham, realm, underwhelm, vellum •emblem • bedlam • peplum •exemplum • wychelm • Kenelm •Salem • velum •aspergillum, chillum, film, vexillum •Whitlam • clingfilm • telefilm •microfilm •asylum, hilum, phylum, whilom •column, olm, solemn •problem • golem • hoodlum • Ulm •incunabulum, pabulum •coagulum • pendulum • speculum •curriculum • cimbalom • paspalum •Absalom • Jerusalem • tantalum