A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements for
ED825 Curriculum Development
Capella University, December, 2000
By D.L. Jackson
Curriculum Reform in the 21st Century
The Purpose of Education.
Modern critics of the current education environment often point to poor test results achieved by American students in contrast to students in other countries. However, this is not a comparison that can be accurately interpreted without acknowledging the differences in the educational systems themselves. In China and Japan, for example, teachers are professionals who work in cooperative partnership in systems that weed out those students unable to achieve a certain standard. It is not uncommon for students to receive individual tutoring sessions after their long school hours. These students know that if they do not pass critical examinations, they will be unable to further their education in a tertiary institution. Additionally, there is little argument about the purpose of education. Education is set up for students to learn what others have deemed important for them to know. Unlike present arguments in America, the education paradigm emphasizes the educator and not the learner.
There are two sets of issues to be dealt with here, one social and the other intellectual. Cross-national studies show that teachers in other nations are treated as professionals -- for example, Chinese and Japanese teachers have their work days arranged so that they can collaborate with colleagues in the study of curriculum materials. Experiences that promote growth are designed into those teachers' professional lives, and they pay off. It is no accident that despite having many fewer years of formal schooling than their American counterparts, experienced Chinese elementary mathematics teachers tend to have a much deeper knowledge of mathematics and of how to help their students learn it. And, as we know, Chinese and Japanese students outperform ours by significant margins. (Schoenfeld, p. 18)
Re-examining the purpose of education as we enter the 21st century may help us redefine our curricular needs so that our system becomes globally and nationally viable. Although there have been many reforms implemented in the American educational system over the last 15-20 years, it is this author's opinion that any reform that does not adequately address the purpose of education is not, in fact, a good reform.
Despite the tremendous social-political investment that many societies have made in the schooling of their young; despite the rancor and debate over the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of our current educational institutions; despite the decades upon decades of research into learning and human development; and despite the plethora of theories dealing with cognitive, physical, social, emotional, or motivational development, we continue to operate as educational practitioners and researchers with virtually no coherent and comprehensive model of academic developments . . . Until we begin to articulate models of academic development that encompass hypothesized patterns in learning outcomes, as related to schooling, and that allow for systemic inquiry and evaluation of normal, intentional education, our understanding of the relationship between schooling and knowledge will remain undeniably constrained and regrettably fragmented. Moreover, judgements about educational effectiveness may become relegated to more superficial and short term ends. (Alexander, p. 34)
Much of what we now consider to be traditional education originated in the 19th century when students were grouped by age and each age level was assigned a particular grade. Because the students were grouped by age, it was assumed that the content could be delivered in a like manner for all children. "After eight or 12 years, students would exit the school having mastered the content assigned to each of the previous grade levels" (Eisner, p. 55). According to Toch, only a small fraction of students -- under 10% -- stayed in school beyond the elementary grades in that era.
By the turn of the century, Dewey proposed that school was to be used to create a better society (in Shrag, 2000) and to build communities (in Kahne, 2000). In other words, the children were offered a balanced curriculum including literature, history, and opportunities to explore challenging ideas. However, throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there appeared to be more of an emphasis on individual growth. Whereas the original idea had been for more of a collaborative, community-like experience from which to generate collective ideas, education was evolving into a grade level experience where all learners were expected to proceed at the same pace. However, there were notable exceptions. Carleton Washburne, (Ravitch, 2000), the superintendent of the Winnetak Public Schools got his teachers to develop individual learning programs so that students could receive appropriate instruction for their particular needs. The program was phased out, however, as other progressive educators of that era believed it too academic. According to Brooks and Brooks (1999), the fundamental notion of this belief is that students will learn on demand. While there are certain students for whom this process is applicable; there are many others for which it does not work. Although educators have control over what is taught, there is far less control over what the students actually learn.
Contrary to the system in Europe, American schools "never divided children between academic and vocational tracks at very young ages" (Shrag, p. 33). However, the education system was under pressure from industry to produce a trained work force to fill the numerous employment vacancies for unskilled and semi-skilled workers.
But never before has any society, particularly one with such high child poverty rates, educated such a disparate population from so many places, speaking so many languages, to such a high level of literacy and technical competence as this country is now trying to do. That itself is an awesome and entirely unprecedented challenge. We must act as if we can do it but there is as yet very little in any nation's history that provides clear indications of how it can be done, what it will take or whether, indeed, it can be done at all. (Shrag, p. 36)
It would seem, however, that rather than have one acknowledged educational goal, we should begin to look at multiple purposes of schools, one of which might include knowledge transmission, (Alexander, 2000). Lyotard (in Hurst, 1997) believes there is no single overarching or underlying system capable of revealing the true meaning of the many narratives because no historical panacea has yet accomplished its proposed goal. There are those who believe that the purpose of education should reflect a process (Alexander, 2000). That is, an acknowledgement that learning takes place before, during, and after the pre-12 school years as learning involves not only the individual but his/her social environment as well.
Brooks and Brooks (1999) describe the holistic and complex process of education and strongly suggest there are more ways of discerning achievement in education than by traditional paper and pencil assessments.
Learning is a complex process through which learners constantly change their internally constructed understanding of how their worlds function. New information either transforms their current beliefs or doesn't. The efficacy of the learning environment is a function of many complex factors, including curriculum, instructional methodology, student motivation, and student developmental readiness. Trying to capture this complexity with paper and pencil assessments severely limits knowledge and expression. (Brooks and Brooks, p. 3)
Education is a holistic endeavor. Students' learning encompasses emerging understandings about themselves, their relationships, and their relative places in the world. In addition to academic achievement, students develop these understandings through nonacademic aspects of schooling, such as clubs, sports community service, music, arts, and theater. However, only that which is academic and easily measurable gets assessed and only that which is assessed is subject to rewards and punishments. Jones and Whitford point out that Kentucky's original educational renewal initiative included student self-sufficiency and responsible group membership as goals, but these goals were dropped because they were deemed too difficult to assess and not sufficiently academic. (Brooks and Brooks, p. 7)
As it is now accepted that there are multiple types of intelligence, there should also be multiple types of assessment to deal with those skills. Interestingly, some minority cultures have always acknowledged the importance of all aspects of learning.
One of the most basic premises of African-centered education is that there is value in many ways of knowing that there is an essential African orientation to knowledge. The push for multicultural and African centered education should not be seen as a push to eradicate the best that European American education has to offer but as an expansion of the world's knowledge base. However, America's education system is traditionally Eurocentric, advancing the idea that the only kind of education that will lead to success in today's highly technological world must be grounded in the European orientation to knowledge. (Richardson, p. 197)
Kliebard (1995) discusses the common assumption that education is simply a preparation for what lies ahead. "For most of this century, school children have in effect been put on a waiting list to become adults, and the result has been their profound alienation and disaffection from schooling" (p. 198). Bobbitt (in Kliebard, p. 195) once claimed that education is for the 50 years of adulthood, not for the 20 years of childhood and youth. Certainly, the strength of a country's economics helps to dictate how long the average youth can expect to stay in a formal educational environment before being able to obtain viable employment.
Of course, there are many reasons as to why it is difficult to come to a consensus regarding the purpose of education in the 21st century. One reason may be that, in fact, a country's education system reflects its own culture. If that society is not clear in its own goals then its educational system will not be clear either. Another problem might be the alienation modern day life creates for the individual. Elliot (1991) describes an advanced modern society as one that is characterized by its unstable, widespread, discontinuous rather than incremental, change. In this type of society, the needs of human beings become increasingly complex which generates dilemmas for individuals and communities that are not easy to resolve.
Roederer (2000) goes even further by referring to individuals as being fragmented. These problems originated at the beginning of the industrial age when factories rendered the worker more and more an appendage while bureaucracies turned their officials into mere technocrats as they served the needs of others. Although we are arguably in another age - The Information Age - we are still subject to the vagaries of the corporate world.
As is often the case when parameters are not clearly delineated, the school system has suffered its own form of alienation. Because both individuals and society are fragmented in that there does not appear to be a Dewey-like community consensus, the schools have been asked to perform multiple roles, none of which are they able to perform to a satisfactory standard.
In their eagerness to demonstrate the omnipotence of schooling, state legislatures, state departments of education and even educators have indiscriminately assigned to schools responsibilities that cannot even remotely be accomplished by one social institution among many. Nevertheless, social problems of all sorts become incorporated willy nilly as the responsibility of the schools; the result is a curriculum without direction, coherence, or purpose. It is in this sense that questions relating to "meeting the needs of children and youth" operate not so much as legitimate questions to be answered but as slogan systems functioning to attract allegiances and build constituencies. (Kliebard, p. 199)
The ambiguity of the society can be reflected in other ways as well including the amount spent on research and development in education. A generally accepted but conservative amount to invest in research is 5% according to the President of Mattel, Inc. In contrast, the United States Federal Government spends about 0.01 percent of the overall education budget on research. To put this in other words, "last year a single pharmaceutical company spent more than six times the amount of money studying animal health than our entire federal government spent on educational research" (Schoenfeld, p. 17).
This fragmentation impairs appropriate political and or social action to change the course of the education system. As mentioned before, the school system has become almost aimless in its indecisiveness. Is it still following the traditional educator's paradigm where knowledge is imparted based on particular scope and sequence sets established in a bureaucrat's office? Has it become so entrenched in the accountability discussion that lessons plans are determined by the standardized examination? Is it still expecting children to learn at the same time and in the same way? Dewey once referred to this lack of focus as a "congestion in the curriculum" (Kliebard, p. 200).
In one recent examination of the modern American high school, for example, Powell, Farrar, and Cohen noted that over 400 courses were being offered in a single high school. The report drew attention to the self-conscious neutrality that governs the matter of what to study. (Kliebard, p. 200)
Eisner (1999) recognizes that although we are shapers of the environment, motivators, and guides, it is the students who make the meanings not the educators. Dultz (1999) offers three types of things that should be learned: (1) those that a student desires to learn; (2) those that are necessary to learn to survive in this world as a fully functioning human being; and (3) those that inspire us to be good members of the human race. Certainly, our current form of school organization supports a competitive environment that does not seem appropriate for the 21st century where cooperation and globalization are the goals.
An outspoken critic of irrelevant education reforms that ignore the needs for a radical shift in public and private perception of education, Ravitch (in Shrag, 2000) supports the case for well-educated teachers "who are eclectic in their methods and willing to use different strategies, depending on what works for which children" (p. 35).
Recognizing academic development as a first stage and that this development will, like all developmental areas, take place over a period of time in a variety of ways should help us to develop a curriculum relevant for the 21st century and so avoid the dreaded "lowest common denominator" (Goodson, p. 12) element found in aimless curriculum plans. An acceptance that, within the classroom setting, different strategies will be required and that the individual strategies employed will depend on the educator's knowledge of that local system will result in a more unified classroom environment. Dultz (1999) even suggested the use of two types of learning profiles.
One type would give an account of an individual student's learning needs, interests, and inclinations. Another type, a collective learning profile, would give an account of those elements for a group of students. The value of a collective learning profile is that it can identify the particular environmental and circumstantial conditions that a group of students have in common. (p. 47)
Current Research Trends.
One of the particularly difficult dilemmas surrounding education today is that while we are busy debating the validity and meaning of education in the 21st century, students are being taught in our schools. Findings and changes must all be implemented within an existing system that is far too cumbersome to accept substantial change easily.
We do know more about what holds education . . . back. There is the force of governmental interdictions, censoring both ideas and the personal lives of teachers and students. Our own definitions of professionalism preclude complications of selves and then we are asked for compliance and conformity … Behind these symptoms is the stultifying dream of uniting the nation through a common curriculum safe from any controversy. And then we are caught in a repetitive debate over whether schools and teacher education can or should be able to prevent eruptions of social violence. The old question of what schooling is for becomes utterly entangled with what it means to think about school . . . as part and parcel in the world. Somewhere between the dream of education and the nightmare of its daily grind, we lose and find teacher education. (Britzman[a], p. 201)
Be that as it may, research continues in many formats. Of particular concern to this author are two areas: brain research and learning theory. Of course there have been many other reforms throughout the years and many different theories but at the end of the day, a new curriculum will need to be based on an appropriate definition of education and to be supplemented by research that has been adequately checked for validity and reliability and then used in an on-site action research plan in order to be truly effective.
Weiss (2000) explains that many scientists waver on the application of brain-based research on learning to actual education. These scientists point out that brain-based research is not the same as research done within an educational environment. They also note that many of the initial neurological inquiries into learning were performed on animals and the extrapolation from animals to humans is tenuous at best.
To offset the arguments, educators and researchers must consider more collaboration and collegiality. If teachers are to improve their practice, they must then research and reflect on their own practice. As Goodson (1997) writes, "Why the hell should I need research? I can teach already" (p. 15) is an all too common reaction on the part of some educators towards research studies. However, education research and theory are critical to developing and improving practice.
We already know that when theory and practice are kept distinct, new teachers, when confronted with the challenge of action, will follow the lead of their own prior and current experiences to the exclusion of informed consideration of theory. For both new and veteran teachers engaged in classroom practice, theory is after all, only words, and actions speak louder. (Kahne, p. 381)
Current brain research has yielded the surprising news that, contrary to our old teachings, we do not always learn in incremental steps from easy to difficult. In fact, the brain appears to learn from a system referred to as "patterning". Caine and Caine (in Weiss, 1999) have found that the brain makes leaps of faith when learning and that there is an almost random order to the learning itself. It appears the brains adjusts itself to incorporate new knowledge into its repertoire. This has implications within the school environment as many lessons and/or units are designed and planned according to the "from simple to complicated" paradigm.
Renate Caine (in Weiss, 1999) has talked about the need for low stress environments as distinguished from either high stress or no stress which are both equally ineffective in promoting higher order, more complex thinking and creativity. In situations of high stress, memorization of isolated facts can be accomplished although that information will, most certainly, not be stored in long-term memory banks.
Another relevant brain research finding is that our bodies have high and low cycles of about 90 to 110 minutes each. When students are at the top of those cycles, they're more attentive. Energy levels drop at the bottom of the cycle. Jensen (in Weiss, 1999) suggests that educators "learn to ride with the cycles" (p. 21) for a more efficient learning environment.
In fact, in order for these findings to be adapted to the classroom environment, Vaidya and Zaslavsky (2000) suggest that academic faculty themselves will need to become learners as well as teachers by utilizing applied research techniques that apply educational theories to specific educational problems. A number of educators already incorporate action research into their daily practice.
Action research is deliberate, solution oriented investigation that is group or personally owned and conducted. It is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, and analysis, data-driven action taken and, finally, problem redefinition. The linking of the terms "action" and "research" highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge and/or improving curriculum, teaching and learning. (Johnson, p. 1)
There is a growing body of evidence of the positive personal and professional effects that engaging in action research has on the practitioner. Action research provides teachers with the opportunity to gain knowledge and skill in research methods and to become more aware of the possibilities for change. According to Johnson (1993), teachers engaging in action research attend more carefully to their methods, their perceptions and understandings, and their whole approach to the teaching process.
Unlike early developmental theorists who devised entire life change cycles based on the studies of Anglo-American males to the exclusion of other racial and ethnic populations, educators are beginning to broaden their research efforts to include other minority groups. Aguirre and Martinez (1994) report that "US society is renewing its interest in educational opportunity for racial and ethnic minorities. Not since the civil rights movement of the 1960s have we seen stirrings in this areas that seemingly promise some change in the relationship between educational institutions and ethnic minority populations" (p. 1).
More work will, of course, be needed in all areas of minority population studies but certainly there is considerable evidence, according to Butterfield (1994), that the learning styles of American Inuit and Native American students significantly differ from those of non-Natives. While Native students show strengths in visual, perceptual, or spaital information, non-Natives use words associations rather than mental images. Awareness of these differences incorporated into a rigorous teacher education program should help expand the repertoire of learning patterns the educators have at their disposal for creating environments of optimal learning for all minority populations.
General Education Reform.
To improve teaching, Schoenfeld (1999) suggests you need to understand it. Part of that understanding comes from the practical side and part from the theoretical. At different points in time there have been wide gaps between the two. At other times the gaps are less noticeable. Simon (in Goodson, 1997) examined the relationship between theory and practice in three periods: 1880-1900, 1920-1940, and 1940-1960. His research indicated a close correlation in the first and last groups. Arguably had the work been continued, there would be evidence of at least a growing need for greater cooperation between the two areas in today's world.
Calls for reform, particularly at the secondary level, are growing and coming from various quarters. Smerdon and Burkam (1999) suggest that many reformers advocate a move away from traditional, teacher centered direct instruction where students are passive receptors of knowledge toward more student centered understanding based teaching that focuses on exploration and experimentation. Popkewitz (2000) calls for a systemic reform in the US and states that "unless coherence and clarity is given in school policy and practice, the relative quality of the education offered to less advantaged students will be eroded" (p. 13).
In this section, the author will briefly address four areas of reform including: progressivism, restructuring, constructivism, and transformative education. One of the problems with each of these areas and, perhaps, the reason why none have taken absolute hold within the education environment is that, for the most part, they are theories. To be sure, some of the theories offer prescriptions for successful implementation within the classroom environment; however, the problem is that those techniques are largely for a "best-case" scenario within the classroom and, very rarely, is there ever a best case scenario day. Additionally, as has been mentioned previously, research indicates that teachers, whether novice or experienced, tend to educate students based on the way they themselves were taught. That research might indicate a more successful alternative becomes little more than a fleeting thought in the mind of the teacher at the moment of action. Unless the vagaries of individual teachers and the spontaneous nature of ups and downs within the classroom environment can also be incorporated into a teaching paradigm, this author sees little hope of success other than the traditional mantra "anything new works … for a while".
There is something fundamentally scary about pedagogy because pedagogy references the unknown. Despite our best authorial intentions, no guarantees mediate our private lesson plans or the public effects of the pedagogical encounter. More often than not, things do not go according to plan: objectives reappear as too simple, too complicated, or get lost; concepts become glossed over, require long detours, or go awry; and evaluation rarely delivers on its promise of closure. . . . In short, pedagogy is filled with surprises, involuntary returns, and unanticipated twists. . . . Enlightenment may well be our destination but the journey is fraught with creepy detours. (Britzman[b], p. 60)
Generally speaking the traditional educator centered classroom is shifting to the student centered system of learning which has implications for curriculum and educators. Van Dusen (1997) suggests that one implication is a recommitment to creating an ideal learning environment for students by using new technologies to address variances from the ideal. Van Dusen (1997) also explains that this transition will not happen overnight and that it must be accompanied by a complete institutional and professional commitment to incorporate research findings into professional development activities.
As Van Dusen (1997) continues to point out, the integration of technology into education is only beginning to be addressed and current research is still investigating successful teaching/learning models. However, seven recommendation are offered for the beginning of this integration:
The Progressive movement of the 1960s and 1970s helped to inaugurate a number of legislative programs; however, its downfall was the exaggerated concept of personal freedom. Student culture was celebrated which, according to Moore (1991) resulted in an infantile form of scholarship. Ravitch (in Russell-Chaddock, 2000) posited that the progressive movement went wrong when it had different goals for different groups of children. Some modern educators believe that all children should have the same goals but there should be the recognition that individuals will achieve those goals at different times. "They may need extra help to meet the same goals. They may need different materials. But the goals should be the same: to have a solid liberal education that allows people to make choices in their own lives" (Russell-Chaddock, p. 17).
Constructivism is a meaning making theory that maintains individuals create or construct their own new understandings or knowledge through the interaction of what they already know and believe and the ideas, events, and activities with which they come in contact.
Knowledge is acquired through involvement with content instead of imitation or repetition. Learning activities in constructivist settings are characterized by active engagement, inquiry, problem solving, and collaboration with others. Rather than a dispenser of knowledge, the teacher is a guide, facilitator, and co-explorer who encourages learners to question, challenge, and formulate their own ideas, opinions, and conclusions. (Abdal-Haqq, p. 1)
Brooks and Brooks (1999) suggests that two main criticisms have been leveled at constructivism as an educational approach. The first is that it is overly permissive whereby teachers abandon their curriculum to pursue the wishes of the students. The second criticism is that constructivist approaches lack rigor because educators do not demand an understanding of basic skills, information, and facts before allowing students to pursue their own ideas. These critics argue that it is the basic knowledge that will allow students to perform at high levels on examinations -- anything less is an abrogation of their rights as students within a formal learning environment.
On a practical level, constructivism is a theory of learning rather than a prescription for teaching and, generally speaking, is difficult and time consuming to do correctly. There is some evidence that teachers (Smerdon and Burkam, 1999) with less teaching experience use the technique more often and, interestingly, it appears to be used more frequently with the less able students. Because there is a growing emphasis on standardized tests, individual teachers may opt for more didactic methods in order to cover the necessary material within the allocated time period.
Restructuring is defined as "activities that change fundamental assumptions, practices and relationships, both within the organization, and between the organization and the outside world, in ways that lead to improved and varied student learning outcomes for essentially all students" (Conley, p. 3). Conley (1995) suggests that about 10-20 percent of American schools are involved in serious restructuring.
Cooperative learning strategies, project centered learning, schools within schools, block scheduling, advisor advisee programs, enhanced parental involvement, expansion of learning into the community and an increasing integration of vocational and academic curricula to fit the needs of diverse groups of students are all components of restructuring. However, it must be emphasized that the mere adoption of a project or a series of projects is not necessarily restructuring. Restructuring refers to the planned change of fundamental assumptions, practices, and relationships. Disconnected projects may be a first step according to Conley (1995) but they rarely lead to any real restructuring unless they are united by an overall plan.
Transformative learning is distinct in that the criticisms applied to constructivism will not work because the curriculum is designed as part of a collaborative process involving the teacher, the students, and any other adults who are involved. The curriculum itself is usually thematically designed and incorporates both rational and creative components. Mezirow (in Imel, 1998) cites centrality of experience, critical reflection, and rational discourse as the three common themes running throughout transformative learning. Members of transformative groups are first and foremost members of a community and all have responsibilities so that the group can function together and benefit from the synergy therein.
In summary, reform efforts have yielded a number of different classroom management and teaching style innovations which include the following:
Social learning experiences, such as peer teaching and group projects, particularly those that promote group construction of knowledge; allow a student to observe other students' models of successful learning and encourage him or her to emulate them; varying instructional models that deviate from the lecture format such as visual presentations, site visits, and the use of the Internet; varying expectations for students' performance, from individual written formats to group work that includes writing and presentation, interpretation of theatrical, dance, musical, or artistic work, and performance of actual tasks at a work site; choices that allow students to capitalize on personal strengths and interested; overt use of sociocultural situations and methods that provide authentic contexts and enculturation into an academic disciplinary community; course material that demonstrates valuing of diverse cultures, ethnic groups, classes, and genders. (Stage, Muller, Kinzie, and Simmons, p. 2)
Wasley (in Ervin, 2000) who was the lead investigator in the famous Bank Street College study which looked at reform efforts in more than 150 small schools in Chicago has made some conclusions. After studying the effectiveness of various education reform efforts for a decade and a half, "it's become more apparent to me that personalization, the adult-kid ratio, and the number of adults who are interacting with young people, has a profound effect on kids and how kids learn" (p. 3).
Curriculum Development.
Iannone (2000) and Schrag (2000) both argue that the progressivism of the early part of the century never actually left us as what we are left with in most classrooms cannot really be termed a curriculum as it appears to be an amalgamation of many different systems.
The progressives' major purpose was to drain the curriculum of academic content (language and literature, science and mathematics, history, the arts, and foreign languages) in favor of a roster of practical courses supposedly designed to equip the student for adulthood, centered on things like health, home, family, community, consumerism, personal development and yes, even group living, dating, and choosing a mate. (Iannone, p. 57)
Curriculum development can provide an ideal site for the melding theory and practice. James MacDonald (in Thomas and Schubert, 1997) wrote, "Theory in curriculum has an essentially heuristic role. Curriculum theory should be committed, not neutral. It should be committed to human fullness in creating, direction, and use" (p. 261).
Kliebard (1995) states that the defining of goals of schooling has become a kind of cottage industry in the United States and in many other countries of the world. All 50 states have adopted a list of goals. However, whether or not those lists are of any value is debatable. It appears that curriculum is seen to be irrelevant to the classroom teacher.
Curriculum is seen to be theory that is then supposed to be put into practice but the necessary mediating principles and procedures are either missing or ineffectual. Thus, proposed "methods" do not properly impact on teachers' thinking. Either the theory behind them, if any, is remote from their everyday modes of thinking and acting, or they amount to being mere recipes, in which pertinent theory is not thought out by the teachers themselves. (Tice, p. 46)
However, Kliebard (1995) claims that a study of curriculum review over the last 100 years does show a movement in the direction of expansion where each and every subject added to the curriculum is said to have been placed there for the betterment of the American students and, hence, American society. Educators may be put off by the standards of the curriculum document that are written in obtuse fashion. However, Thomas and Schubert (1997) encourage educators to rewrite any that will facilitate the education of the students.
Of course, some educators have seen everything including the "teacher-proof" syllabus which virtually dictated everything done inside the classroom leaving the teacher to feel little more than an educational technician.
The State, in prescribing a syllabus which was to be followed, in all subjects of instruction, by all the schools in the country, without regard to local or personal considerations, was guilty of one capital offence. It did all the thinking for the teacher. It told him in precise detail what he was to be each year in each "standard", how he was to handle each subject, and how far he was to go in it; what width of ground he was to cover; what amount of knowledge; what degree of accuracy was required for a "pass". In other words, it provided him with his ideal, his general conceptions, his more immediate aims, and his schemes of work. (Goodson, p. 11)
If that wasn't bad enough, the method of implementing change was through exhortation. Thomas (1997) refers to curriculum projects lying unused on bookshelves because the curriculum theorists do not know how curriculum becomes realized in a school setting. Rather than incorporating the knowledge of the individuals in the school, curricular projects were devised by outside sources and then provided to the school for their perusal and implementation after having little or no input in the project.
What is annoying to some educators is the persistent belief by some legislators and state level education policymakers that all students should be able to take the same courses and pass the same tests at the same time. Brooks and Brooks (1999) writes that "this contravenes what years of painstaking research tell us about student learning. Ironically, all this activity [preparing them for the examinations] prepares them for is hours of passivity. This extended amount of seat time flies in the face of what we know about how children learn" (p. 3).
It is, of course, not just the educators who are bemused at the curriculum foisted upon them by others. Many students arbitrarily choose courses that are not connected in any sort of plan to link with outside activities. It would seem then that the greater freedom allowed them in their choice of their courses worked against them because in the end they selected courses that were no more appropriate for their own needs than were those selected by educators before the advent of mega-elective choice.
By basing their curriculum in meaningful experiences and by not tying these experiences to a systematic and sequential examination of subject matter, the high school students, though engaged in each experience, did not connect these experiences and what they were learning from them to what they were studying in school. In some important respect, the freedom from curriculum guidelines and educational norms that the pre-service teachers found inspiring led to fewer connections to academic subject matter. (Kahne, p. 381)
Kliebard (1995) states that the most pervasive educational problems that schools face is the rejection of school knowledge on the part of students. He suggests that part of the problem derives from the assumption that the knowledge that schools purvey is for a remote point in the future. Even the better students, in an academic sense, are not fooled by such promises. "They simply tolerate what schools offer rather than rebel openly" (p. 98).
Early in the century there were certainly seminal texts that dominated the field. However, today there are multiple texts on various topics: historical, political, racial, gender, postmodern, institutional, and international. "Despite the language of winners and losers, none of the curriculum theories developed in this century has effectively "won over" the practice of schooling for any period of time, although elements of their proposal may have had influence through the use of educational artifacts" (Thomas and Schubert, p. 263). And so, curriculum theory awaits an identity for the 21st century.
Implications for Curriculum Reform for the 21st Century.
Current research indicates that for curriculum reform to be effective, it will need to be a comprehensive plan that includes allowances for the traditional individual nature of American educators. Although certain European countries, have been able to implement a "teacher-proof" curriculum, students in such areas know that schools are strictly educational institutions and, as such, are not expected to deal with the socialization aspects of the students. Education reform efforts of the 20th century have proved that piecemeal plans will not be effective.
Additionally, the new curriculum reform will need to originate within a cooperative setting so that major stakeholders are all involved including major and minor populations, students, community, educators, and legislators. Allen (1992) puts forth a compelling argument for the establishment of a national network of experimental schools.
There are at least three compelling arguments for the consideration of a national network of experimental schools. First, there are substantial alternatives that cannot be tried without some sort of commitment to a national framework. In other words, there are untried options available that become possible only with some sort of national coordination . . . Second, the economies of scale, particularly in the development of television and computer aided instruction, are possible only if there is a common framework that guarantees a student population large enough to reasonably amortize development coast . . . Third, we have tried almost everything else (and most things several times) and have been unsuccessful in making any substantial progress. (p. 48)
What makes Allen's suggestion unique is that he suggests a 75/25 split between the national government and local governments. "Up to two-thirds of the experimental school curriculum might be national and one-third reserved to the state and local districts, but the actual proportion is not as important as the concept -- that the curriculum responsibility be shared between local communities and the nation as a whole" (p. 67). Therein lies its genius, preserving the individuality that has uniquely defined Americans throughout history. By granting the local and state districts the right to determine at least part of the curriculum, the plan acknowledges the importance and relevance of local determination. In striving for a combination national/local syllabus teachers would be able to spend more time becoming professionals. Research could be conducted in classrooms because teachers would not have to constantly design curriculum, standards, etc. on an annual basis.
Allen (1992) also argues that the mobility of the American population is one of the unspoken problem areas within the education system. He states that because nearly 20% of the population move each year, this causes a huge disruption for the individuals as well as the school system because different school systems teach different subject and there is little continuity which is, according to Allen, one of the reasons for America's mediocre educational system.
Another historical issue has been the selection of what subjects need to be taught. The implied national curriculum includes: U.S. History, World History, Algebra, Geometry, American Literature, English, Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Postman (1996) criticizes these choices as largely irrelevant to the needs of students today. He suggests that the purpose of education should be multi-faceted and should incorporate the following ideas: 1) acknowledge the importance of the environment as we are all on the same "spaceship Earth"; 2) accept the importance of errors in becoming educated; 3) include a common core of knowledge pertinent to all races and populations, for example, the Second Law of Thermodynamics; and 4) investigation of the diverse ideas presented in art and history from a global viewpoint. Postman (1996) suggests that the following subjects are relevant to a new curriculum paradigm for the 21st century because they comply with the newly established education goals set forth earlier. The subjects would include but not be limited to: Archeology, Astronomy, Anthropology, Comparative Religions, Languages, and Science.
What these authors are proposing is a radical realignment of the nation's curricular goals to more adequately reflect the needs of the 21st century learner. These goals would acknowledge the process of learning and that for many students, learning will become a life-time endeavor. Acknowledging the importance of such realignment of thought with regards to curriculum, Shlain (1998) explains that our brains have already adapted to the new technological age and that we have to adapt our present-day institutions to accept a non-linear learning paradigm rather than the historical linear traditions that have shaped our governments and educational policies.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdal-Haqq, I. (December, 1998). Constructivism in Teacher Education: Considerations for Those Who Would Link Practice to Theory, ERIC Digest. Retrieved on November 27, 2000 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed426986.html
Aguirre, A., Jr and Martinez, R.O. (January, 1994). Chicanos in Higher Education: Issues and Dilemmas for the 21st Century, ERIC Digest. Retrieved on November 27, 2000 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed365206.html
Alexander, P.A. (March, 2000). Toward a Model of Academic Development: Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, Educational Researcher Online, 29(2), 28-34.
Allen, D.W. (1992). Schools for a New Century: A Conservative Approach to Radical School Reform, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Britzman, D.P.[a] (May/June, 2000). Teacher Education in the Confusion of our Times, Journal of Teacher Education, 51(93), 200-206.
Britzman, D.P.[b] (1991). Decentering Discourses in Teacher Education: or, the Unleashing of Unpopular Things, Journal of Education, 173(3), 60-81.
Brooks, M.G. and Brooks, J.G. (November, 1999). The Courage to be Constructivist, Educational Leadership 57(3), Retrieved on November 17, 2000 from http://www.ascd.org/otb/el/99/nov/brooks.html
Butterfield, R.A. (June, 1994). Blueprints for Indian Education: Improving Mainstream Schooling, ERIC Digest. Retrieved on November 27, 2000 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed372898.html
Conley, D.T. (June, 1995). Five Key Issues in Restructuring, ERIC Digest. Retrieved on November 27, 2000 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed344329.html
Dultz, R. (September/October, 1999). Designing a Learning Curriculum That Addresses a Young Person's Actual Learning Needs, Clearing House, 73(1), 47-51.
Eisner, E.W. (September, 1999). Performance Assessment and Competition, Education Digest, 65(1), 54-59.
Elliot, J. (1991). A Model of Professionalism and its Implications for Teacher Education, British Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 309-319.
Ervin, K. (November 15, 2000). Nova: Lower Numbers Mean special Teacher/Student Relationships, Seattle Times. Retrieved on November 26, 2000 from http://texis.seattletimes.nwsource.com.
Fogarty, R. (November, 1999). Architects of the Intellect, Educational Leadership 57(3), Retrieved on November 17, 2000 from http://www.ascd.org/otb/el/99/nov/fogarty.html
Goodson, I. (March, 1997). 'Trendy Theory' and Teacher Professionalism, Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 7-23.
Hurst, A. (May, 1997). Lyotard: Modern Postmodernist? South African Journal of Philosophy, 16(2), 51-55.
Iannone, C., (September 11, 2000). They'll Never Learn, National Review, Vol. 52(17), 57-59.
Imel, S. (1998). Transformative Learning in Adulthood, ERIC Digest. Retrieved on November 27, 2000 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed423426.html
Johnson, B. (March, 1993). Teacher-As-Researcher, ERIC Digest. Retrieved on November 27, 2000 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed355205.html
Kahne, J. (November/December, 2000). A Pedagogy of Collective Action and Reflection: Preparing Teachers for Collective School Leadership, Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 372-384.
Kliebard, H.M. (March/April, 1995). Why History of Education?, Journal of Educational Research, 88(4), 194-200.
Moore, R. (1991). New Departures (?), Arrivals pending: Curriculum, Theory and Practice, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12(1), 115-124.
Pillow, W.S. (June/July, 2000). Deciphering Attempts to Decipher Postmodern Educational Research, Educational Researcher Online 29(5), 21-24.
Popkewitz, T.S. (January/February, 2000). The Denial of Change in Educational Change: Systems of Ideas in the Construction of National Policy and Evaluation, Educational Researcher Online, 29(1), 17-29.
Postman, N. (1996). The End of Education, New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Ravitch, D., (May/June, 2000). Educational Initiative. American Heritage, Vol. 51(3), 61-63.
Richardson, E. (November, 2000). Critique on the Problematic of Implementing Afrocentricity into Traditional Curriculum, Journal of Black Studies, 31(25), 196-214.
Roederer, C.J., (June, 2000). Ethics and Meaningful Political Action in the Modern/Postmodern Age: A Comparative Analysis of John Dewey and Max Weber, South African Journal of Philosophy, 19(1), 75-95.
Russell-Chaddock, G., (September 26, 2000). Moving Beyond Good Intentions in School, Christian Science Monitor, Vol. 92(212), 17.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (October, 1999). Looking Toward the 21st Century: Challenges of Educational Theory and Practice, Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4-14.
Schrag, P., (October 2, 2000). The Education of Diane Ravitch, Nation, Vol. 271(1), 31-36.
Shlain, L. (1998). The Alphabet versus the Goddess, New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, Inc.
Smerdon, B.A. and Burkam, D.T. (Fall, 1999). Access to Constructivist and Didactic Teaching: Who Gets It? Where Is It Practiced?, Teachers College Record, 101(1), 30-35.
Stage, F.K., Muller, P.A., Kinzie, J., and Simmons, A. (1998). Creating Learning Centered Classrooms. What Does Learning Theory Have to Say?, ERIC Digest. Retrieved on November 27, 2000 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed422777.html
Thomas, T.P. and Schubert, W.H. (Spring, 1997). Recent Curriculum Theory: Proposals for Understanding, Critical Praxis, Inquiry, and Expansion of Conversation, Educational Theory, 47(2), 261-286.
Tice, T.N. (March, 1997). The American Curriculum, Education Digest, 62(7), 45-48.
Toch, T., (July/August, 2000). Empty Education, Washington Monthly, Vol. 32(7/8), p. 55-57.
Vaidya, S.R. and Zaslavsky, H.N. (Fall, 2000). Teacher Education Reform Effort for Inclusion Classrooms: Knowledge Versus Pedagogy, Education, 121(1), 145-153.
Van Dusen, G.C. (1997). The Virtual Campus: Technology and Reform in Higher Education, ERIC Digest. Retrieved on November 27, 2000 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed412815.html
Weiss, R.P. (July, 2000). Brain-Based Learning, Training & Development, 54(7), 20-25.