A community of scholars in a field is renewed by its common history, its common basis of skills,

and its examination of commonly held problems. The expression of commonality does not
eliminate debate or disagreement, but it does set a foundation for divergences. This is what it
means to be a field. But in recent years, a new critical element has emerged that has openly
rejected the historic legacy of the curriculum field in the interest of proposing a vastly new
project for curriculum scholars. The effect has been schism. I argue that a new orientation in the
field cannot be accepted until it is properly reconciled along the lines of the inherited traditions of
the field. These are the burdens of the new curricularists, the traditions that they manifestly
reject without scholarly engagement. Increasingly, it is clear that the field has not undergone a
reconceptualization at all, but instead has been subjected to ideologically inspired criticism that
has resulted in miscasting the history and the tradition of the field for the purposes of
appropriating it.