Hagenbaugh

Part I

In Response Paper #1, I compared the work of John Dewey and Ralph W. Tyler. My

main findings at the time were that John Dewey firmly believed that education evolves at the

intersection of a few factors; therefore, it is unnecessary to teach discrete and measurable

objectives for a world that already exists. In contrast, Ralph W. Tyler asserted that there is a

great need for specific aims and objectives. More specifically stated,

In the five articles which comprise “My Pedagogic Creed,” John Dewey presents

his beliefs on the definition, theory, and implications for education and its institutions. Central

to Dewey’s thinking is his belief that “Education...is a process of living and not a preparation for

future living.” He firmly believed that education was at the intersection of a human’s

psychological predisposition and his or her individual social context. To take either the

psychological or social from the equation, he argues, collapses the whole concept of education

as it would no longer be applicable or meaningful. In his view, curriculum, in certain senses,

writes itself. Through our participation in society, we are organically drawn to certain subjects

or tasks; when studied in depth, there is the opportunity to hone skills that are useful for the

present and future, education as the process of living.

Ralph W. Tyler felt that no matter the innate ability or nuance of the teacher, a

curriculum should consist of a set of clear educational aims and objectives. In Basic Principles of

Curriculum and Instruction, Tyler acknowledges the tensions between progressives and

essentialists source of objectives but does not engage in the argument. “The point of view

taken in this course is that no single source of information is adequate to provide a basis for

wise and comprehensive decisions about the objectives of the school. Each of these sources has

certain values to commend it. Each source should be given some consideration in planning any

comprehensive curriculum program” (Tyler, 2013). Tyler, it seems, is less concerned about
 Hagenbaugh

which objectives are used at a particular institution and goes on to detail the merits and

drawbacks of the different sources of objectives.

After further learning in curriculum studies and reading more curriculum theorists’

work, I see some astute observations in my work but also false correlations and assumptions,

especially with regard to Tyler. My understanding of Dewey is much the same as it was when

this paper was written; I simply have more context with which to consider his work. With Tyler,

however, I took the value he places on specific aims and objectives to mean alignment with

other theorists.

Response Paper #1 evidences three main misconceptions or misinterpretations

regarding Ralph W. Tyler - not noticing his flexible approach, falsely correlating his theory with

Franklin Bobbitt’s, and misinterpreting his book as a guide or manual. First, I underestimated

Tyler’s flexibility in Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, where he outlines “a rationale

for viewing, analyzing, and interpreting the curriculum and instructional program of an

educational institution” (Tyler, 59). He is very clear in pointing out that this book is not a

comprehensive guide or manual for developing curriculum. Rather, it is one way of developing

a curriculum if the student/creator so chooses. In each section of the text, Tyler provides

multiple points of view and acknowledges that there are a variety of ways of going about

developing curriculum with specific aims and objectives. For example, when speaking on the

source of objectives, he presents the view of progressives, essentialists, sociologists, and

educational philosophers. If read closely, it is clear that Tyler does not have a preference
 Hagenbaugh

toward one or the other, but instead puts emphasis on the function and relevance of those

objectives when thinking about who they serve.

As aforementioned, I falsely assumed that because Tyler believed in specific objectives

that his philosophy was similar to that of Bobbitt. “Tyler is less clear about the role of the

teacher and student in his concept of curriculum, but it can be surmised from the scientific

thinking displayed in earlier theorists, such as Franklin Bobbitt...one can see the scientific

thinking reminiscent of Bobbitt” (Hagenbaugh, 2017). Upon further examination, there are

distinct contrasts in the work of those two theorists - namely in how they position the learner.

Bobbitt is abundantly clear in Scientific Method in Curriculum-Making that the role of education

is to adapt the learner to existing society so that one may function and contribute to said

society. Tyler does not get this specific, choosing to entrust the educational institution to make

that decision and instead providing alternative options.

Part II

According to Paulo Freire, a self-proclaimed critical pedagogue, critical pedagogy is “a

type of pedagogy in which criticism of the established order and social criticism are essential.

Critical pedagogues want to question society in its understanding of the role that education

has. From this point of view, social critique is necessary if one does not want an upbringing and

education that contributes to the reproduction of inequality.” (Freire, 157) In Response Paper

#2, I examined the curriculum issue of frequently assessing students on standardized tests,

particularly students who attend high-poverty schools, and its relationship to “the reproduction

of inequality.” (Freire, 157)

 Hagenbaugh

Here I examined the practical ways in which critical pedagogy is received in schools:

Decades after critical pedagogy asserted itself as a major curriculum theory, we are

seeing some tenets in practice, both in public and private education. What is troubling though is

that there is a deep inequality in the students who are afforded the structures and skills to

question their education and those who are taught to meet prescribed standards of

performance by grade level. Even in my short eight years of teaching, I have experienced this

disparity throughout. At Chadwick International School, an exclusive PreK-12th grade

international school in Songdo, South Korea, students are encouraged to inquire and question

the world as it is. Much as Freire believed that the “word” alone was not enough for education,

when students move up to the middle and upper schools, they are required to meet certain

community service hours which are satisfied by a myriad of services. Currently at an open-

enrollment charter school in New Orleans, my students are not only discouraged from

questioning the curriculum, but are repeatedly tested and inadvertently shamed for their

performance against objectives they see as largely meaningless in their lives.

Yes, standardized test scores have improved since the charter renaissance began here in

2006. Yes, schools have higher grades on their report card issued by the Louisiana Department

of Education. What is largely ignored is what the students must endure for school choice and

the political debate surrounding it. At Firstline Schools, Inc., students begin the school year with

a number of diagnostic assessments: Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) in both reading

and math, Renaissance Learning’s diagnostic assessment in both reading and math, followed by

network-created diagnostics in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science.

This all happens within the first week of school. Throughout the school year, students have
 Hagenbaugh

weekly quizzes in Math, Science, and Social Studies, biweekly quizzes in English Language Arts,

monthly interim assessments by Achievement Network, and biweekly progress monitoring in

reading and math by Renaissance Learning. This is standardized testing at a minimum. For

students with IEPs or 504 plans, there are many more assessments. This begs the question:

why? To what benefit is this constant practice and culture of testing? More importantly, what

cost is paid by this practice?

My stance on the curricular issue of high stakes testing has developed over the course of

my teaching experience. I’ve vacillated among staunch opposition, appreciation, and landed

somewhere in between. My views on frequent high stakes testing have not changed, but

instead become substantiated in the course readings of Wayne Au. In High-Stakes Testing and

Curriculum Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis, Au (2013) outlines the three areas in which

high stakes testing has impacted curriculum: content control, formal control, and pedagogic

control.

The narrowing of curriculum “was the most prominent way in which ‘teaching to the

test’ manifested in curricula, as non-tested subjects were increasingly excluded from curricular

content.” (Au, 2013, p. 43) This finding was particularly poignant as one of the main

differences I’ve personally seen between high and low poverty schools is the diversity of course

options whether that be for the core curriculum or elective classes. I believe that every student

has an interest or practice that makes them “tick.” It’s deeply shameful that many students in

the United States may never find what speaks to them because of their lack of exposure. While

students at Chadwick School in Palos Verdes, California can choose between twenty elective
 Hagenbaugh

classes or create their own, students at Stella Worley Middle School in Westwego have one

option: physical education.

Au’s qualitative metasynthesis also found that the fragmentation of knowledge

“manifested in the teaching of content in small, individuated, and isolated test-size pieces, as

well as teaching in direct relation to the tests rather than in relation to other subject matter

knowledge (Au, 2013). If school is prepare one for life, as it is or life of the future, how is

individualizing content and skills meeting that goal? If students experience learning as discrete

and easy to manage, how will they react when assigned a research paper in college? They will

certainly be less prepared than that of their peers who were not as frequently assessed on high

stakes tests.

In terms of pedagogic influences “a significant number of participants in qualitative

studies reported that their pedagogy changed in response to high-stakes tests and that a

significant majority of the changes included an increase in teacher-centered instruction

associate with lecturing and the direct transmission of test-related facts.” (Au, 244) I, too,

adapted my instruction to meet the demands of high-stakes testing in my second year of

teaching. By the end of September, I was elated to have on the most well-behaved classrooms

in the school. Later, my Teach for America advisor astutely pointed out that my students were

so well-behaved because I was doing all of the work and thinking for them with my teacher-

centered instruction. At first glance, my classroom looked like a well-oiled machine - the

students executed the routines and procedures like a script, even students whose 504 plans

and IEPs claimed many behavioral and academic struggles. Upon further examination, I was

preparing myself for college and preparing my students to simply follow directions. Whether
 Hagenbaugh

intentional or not, high-stakes testing in a manner that puts more focus on teacher ownership

rather than student ownership of learning.

From reading his conclusion I see that Au interpreted this study as I did. “Considering

the body of research connecting high-stakes testing with increased drop-out rates and lower

achievement for working-class students and students of color, the findings of this study point to

the need for further analysis of how curricular control may or may not contribute to

educational inequality” (Au, 2013, p. 247). The study’s main findings were that high-stakes

tests resulted in curriculum aligning to the tests, thus narrowing the curriculum; content is

segmented and concepts are taught in isolation; and teachers tend to move to teacher-

centered instruction. However, there were other results that suggested the exact opposite of

these in a minority of cases. Though these findings were less frequent, it calls into question the

causation of these impacts on curriculum.

Part III

The experience of this class paired with eight years of classroom teaching has made me

realize that I do not fall into any one school of thought in curriculum theory. I found merits in

each and every course reading and theorist we covered, some having more than others. Dewey

inspired me to not limit my students to a world that already exists, but to prepare them with

the skills and habits necessary to operate in our present world and the evolved world they will

eventually live in. Tyler challenged me to be more flexible in my approaches to curriculum and

see that curriculum is complex, but its components are few. I found Eisner to be a compromise

to my intense ambivalence about curriculum, for whom it is created, how it is created, and the

impact it has on modern day society.

 Hagenbaugh

My philosophy of curriculum is that all humans can learn and curriculum should provide

a framework with which to help students navigate the learning experiences of life, its values

and its flaws. Though this statement is simple, the practice of implementing a curriculum

flexible enough to meet the needs of each learner and controlled enough to be measured is

quite complex. If such a curriculum existed, there would be much less debate about

curriculum’s functionality in modern day America.

In my homeroom of 32 students, students’ needs range from the practice of fine motor

skills in handwriting to advanced stages of inquiry. Years of troubled schooling have led

Marshaun (pseudonym) to a place where he hasn’t built the muscle memory of basic functions

of learning - elongated silent reading, writing on lined paper, and actively listening through

body language. Though Marshaun has no identified learning disabilities or exceptionalities, he

falls quite short of the accomplishments of his typically developing peers. To have a curriculum

that meets his current state of performance requires flexibility and not a “one size fits all”

approach. When stressed about his slow, yet steady progress, I think of Dewey’s assertion that

“Education...is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.” (Dewey, 35) The job

of the teacher and curriculum here is not to prescribe what Marshaun’s education should look

like, but instead to guide him in his exploration of and contribution to the world.

Different from Marshaun’s needs, the vast majority of my students are frequently

underestimated by teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders based on their

neighborhoods, parents, and societal stereotypes. Admittedly, they face pressures as ten-year

olds that I have never faced as an adult, and can easily fall victim to excuses whether made by

them or the stakeholders in their education. Curriculum in this case needs to respect my
 Hagenbaugh

students’ intellectual curiosity and capacity. No, they do not have their multiplication tables

memorized. No, they cannot effectively name examples of cities, states, countries, and

differentiate between the three. What my students can do is critically analyze texts for

universal themes and character traits. They are also quite gifted at making connections

between the different subjects in school and connects from these subjects to the real world.

For them, curriculum should set the stage for classrooms that foster their curiosity and validate

the adult roles they play in other aspects of their lives. My fear with these students is that they

are misjudged and not challenged in a way that pushes them to be their best selves. For them, I

appreciate assessment that or “proxies that predict performances that matter outside of the

context of school.” (Dewey, 2013).

To conclude, my conception of curriculum and teaching is ever evolving. As my teaching

practice has taken pieces of great teachers and great resources, my philosophy of curriculum

also draws from many places, but insists that curriculum is equitable and for all learners.
 Hagenbaugh

Works Cited

Au, W. (2013). High-Stakes Testing and Curriculum Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis. In The

Curriculum Studies Reader (4th ed., pp. 235-252). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bobbitt, F. (2013). Scientific Method in Curriculum-Making. In The Curriculum Studies Reader

(4th ed., pp. 11-18). New York, NY: Routledge.

Dewey, J. (2013). My Pedagogic Creed. In The Curriculum Studies Reader (4th ed., pp. 33-40).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Eisner, E. (2013). What Does It Mean to Say a School Is Doing Well? In The Curriculum Studies

Reader (4th ed., pp. 279-288). New York, NY: Routledge.

Freire, P. (2013). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In The Curriculum Studies Reader (4th ed., pp.

157-166). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hagenbaugh, L. (2017). C&T 709 Paper 1. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas.

Tyler, R. (2013). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. In The Curriculum Studies Reader

(4th ed., pp. 59-68). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hagenbaugh