Schiro, M - Curriculum Theory. Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns (2nd Edition 2013)

edition
2
curriculum
theory
edition
2
curriculum
theory
Conflicting Visions and
Enduring Concerns
Michael Stephen Schiro

Boston College
FOR INFORMATION: Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Publications, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
2455 Teller Road
or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any
E-mail: order@sagepub.com information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publisher.
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
United Kingdom
Printed in the United States of America
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 Schiro, Michael.
India
Curriculum theory : conflicting visions and enduring
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. concerns/Michael Stephen Schiro.—2nd ed.
3 Church Street p. cm.
#10-04 Samsung Hub Includes bibliographical references and index.
Singapore 049483
ISBN 978-1-4129-8890-2 (pbk.)
1. Education—Curricula—Philosophy. 2. Education—
Curricula—United States—Philosophy. I. Title.
LB1570.S333 2013
375′.001—dc23 2012003921
Acquisitions Editor: Brian Normoyle This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Editorial Assistant: Megan Koraly
Production Editor: Eric Garner
Copy Editor: Diana Breti
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Jennifer Gritt
Indexer: Rick Hurd
Cover Designer: Anupama Krishnan
Marketing Manager: Terra Schultz
Permissions Editor: Adele Hutchinson 12 13 14 15 16 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
❖ Brief Contents
Preface xv
Acknowledgments xxi
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Curriculum Ideologies 1

Chapter 2: Scholar Academic Ideology 15
Chapter 3: Social Efficiency Ideology 57
Chapter 4: Learner Centered Ideology 99
Chapter 5: Social Reconstruction Ideology 151
Chapter 6: A Comparative Overview of the Curriculum Ideologies 199
Chapter 7: Individual Perspectives on the Curriculum Ideologies 247
Appendix: Curriculum Ideologies Inventory 263

References 269
Index 279
About the Author 297
❖ Detailed Contents
Preface xv
Acknowledgments xxi
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Curriculum Ideologies 1

Your Beliefs About Curriculum 4
The Curriculum Ideologies 4
The Scholar Academic Ideology 4
The Social Efficiency Ideology 5
The Learner Centered Ideology 5
The Social Reconstruction Ideology 6
Historical Perspective on the Ideologies 7
Curriculum Workers 7
The Nature of the Curriculum Ideologies 8
Chapter 2: Scholar Academic Ideology 15
Scholar Academic Curricula 15
UICSM and SMSG School Mathematics 16
Man: A Course of Study 17
Curriculum and the Disciplines 19
Initiation Into the Disciplines 20
Grounding Curriculum in a Discipline 21
Drawing Upon the Discipline’s Knowledge 21
Priorities 23
Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge: An Assumed Equivalence 24
Education as an Extension of Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge 25
Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge: Global Considerations 25
Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge: Local Considerations 26
The Academic Disciplines 27
The Discipline as a Community 27
The Discipline as a Hierarchical Community 27
The Learning ↔ Teaching Dynamic of the Discipline 29
The Educative Process Within the Academic Community 29
Curriculum Issues 30
Classification and Selection of Disciplines 30
Curriculum as a Reflection of the Discipline 32
Curriculum Improvement 34
Historical Context 35
Aims 42
Knowledge 43
The Nature of Knowledge 43
The Form of Knowledge 43
The Origin of Curriculum Knowledge 44
Knowledge and Objective Reality 44
The Child 45
The Child as Mind 45
The Child as Memory and Reason 45
The Incomplete Child 45
Learning 46
The Learning ↔ Teaching Dynamic 46
Direction Within the Learning ↔ Teaching Dynamic 46
Transmitting and Receiving Agents of the Learning ↔
Teaching Dynamic 46
Learning Theory as Reflection of the Discipline 47
Lack of Concern With Formal Learning Theory 47
Many Theories of Learning 47
Learning to Parallel Inquiry 47
Readiness 48
Teaching 48
Teachers as Members of a Discipline 48
Teachers as Transmitters, Mediators, or Translators 49
Teaching Methods 50
Evaluation 52
Student Evaluation 53
Curriculum Evaluation 53
Concluding Perspective 54
Chapter 3: Social Efficiency Ideology 57
A Scientific Technique of Curriculum Making 57
Programmed Curriculum and the Behavioral Engineer 60
Programmed Curriculum 61
Behavioral Engineering 63
The Analogy 65
Objectives and Standards 66
Education 67
Scientific Instrumentalism 68
Social Orientation 68
Society 68
People in Society 68
Educating People to Live in Society 69
Education for a Better Society 70
Objectives 71
The Form of Objectives 71
Gathering Terminal Objectives 73
Acquiring Progressive Objectives 73
Atomism 75
Objective Reality 75
Causality 76
Ends, Means, and Instrumental Values 77
Social Reform 78
Utilitarian Education 79
Behavioral Psychology 80
Scientific Methodology 80
A Century of Forgetting 81
Accountability Movement: From Educational
to Administrative and Political Initiatives 82
Aims 84
Knowledge 84
The Nature of Knowledge 84
Knowledge and Objective Reality 86
Learning 87
A Behavioral Viewpoint 88
Assumptions About Learning 89
Readiness 90
The Child 91
Lack of Concern 91
The Child as a Worker 92
Individualized Programmed Instruction 92
Teaching 92
Role of the Teacher 92
Consequences 93
Evaluation 94
Reasons for Evaluation 94
The Nature of Evaluation 96
Objectivity and Atomization 96
Appropriateness of Evaluation 96
Chapter 4: Learner Centered Ideology 99
Ideal Schools 99
Ideal Schools for All Learners 100
A Learner Centered Curriculum 101
The Ideal School 104
The Learner-Centered School 105
The Activity School 106
The Organic School 110
The Integrated School 112
Learners 114
The Learner as Central Focus 114
The Nature of the Learner 115
The Growing Individual 116
The Learner in the Present Tense 116
Learning 116
Developmental Viewpoint 116
Learning Theory 118
Learning Leads to Knowledge 118
Teaching and Learning in Instructional Environments 119
The Person in an Environment 119
The Learning Environment 120
Structure of the Learning Environment 121
Teaching 123
Freedom, Individualism, and Shared Responsibility 124
The Curriculum: Unit of Work Versus School Subject 126
Scope 126
Sequence 127
Flexibility 127
Concern for the Whole Person 127
Movement From the Concrete to the Abstract 127
Responsibility 128
Aims 132
The Child 133
The Child as an Integrated Person 133
The Child as a Meaning-Making Organism 133
The Child’s Subjective Being 134
Learning 134
Learning as Natural 134
The Mechanics of Learning 135
Stages of Learning 136
Teaching 137
The Teacher as Diagnostician 137
The Teacher as Provider of the Environment
for Learning 138
The Teacher as Facilitator of Learning 139
Characteristics of the Teacher 140
Knowledge 140
Personal Meaning and Knowledge Construction 140
Knowledge and Experience 142
Knowledge as a Derivative Concept 143
Knowledge and Reality 144
Evaluation 144
Assessment for Growth 144
Standardized Objective Testing 145
Grading 146
Student Evaluation 146
Curriculum Evaluation 148
Chapter 5: Social Reconstruction Ideology 151
Highlander 153
Sixth-Grade Social Reconstruction Mathematics 155
Projects 156
Instructional Procedures 156
Start Where Students Are 156
Personal Experience 157
Intense Discussion 158
Follow-Up 158
Vision and Social Action 159
Academics 160
Society and Reconstruction 161
Social Perspective 161
Deep Social Structures 162
The Individual in Society 163
Society, Change, and Crisis 163
Reconstruction and Vision 163
Social Dynamics 166
Reconstruction Through Education 167
The School as the Institution of Change 167
Education as a Social Process 168
Educational Methods: Group Discussion
and Experience 168
Education and Language 169
Education and Social Change 170
Civic Responsibility 170
Education and Politics 170
Education and Socialization 171
Aims 176
The Child 176
Children as Social Agents 176
Children as Meaning Makers 177
Children in Society 179
Learning 179
Meaning Making 180
Meaning Structure 180
The Nature of Learning 181
Teaching 182
The Discussion Method 183
The Experience Method 185
The Teacher as Colleague 187
Characteristics of Teaching 187
Characteristics of Teachers 187
Knowledge 188
The Social Construction of Knowledge 188
Knowledge and Value 189
Knowledge and Reality 189
The Creation of Knowledge 190
Characteristics of Knowledge 192
Evaluation 192
Student and Curriculum Evaluation 192
Perspective on Increased Student Testing 193
Chapter 6: A Comparative Overview of
the Curriculum Ideologies 199
Comparative Summary 199
Aims Play 200
Aims Comparison 204
Knowledge Play 205
Knowledge Comparison 211
Learning Play 215
Learning Comparison 220
The Child Play 222
The Child Comparison 225
Teaching Play 228
Teaching Comparison 232
Evaluation Play 234
Evaluation Comparison 238
Other Parameters 241
Freedom 241
Time 241
Social Improvement 241
Multicultural Education 241
Teacher Education 244
Chapter 7: Individual Perspectives on
the Curriculum Ideologies 247
Curriculum Life Histories 248
Can People Believe in More Than One Ideology? 255
More Than One Ideology 255
Posture Toward Different Ideologies 256
Why Do Educators Change Ideologies? 258
Appendix: Curriculum Ideologies Inventory 263

References 269
Index 279
About the Author 297
❖ Preface
Intentions
Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns is intended to help both
experienced and preservice educators understand the educational philosophies (or
ideologies) they are likely to encounter in their everyday lives. To accomplish this, four
visions of what curriculum should consist of are presented and analyzed in a way that
will enable readers to reflect on their own educational beliefs.
Curriculum Theory goes beyond introducing educators to the conflicting visions
of education that exist today. It considers those visions in the historical context in
which they have developed over the last century—because concerns about education
are not new, and we need to realize that many of today’s new issues and “fads” are
related to enduring educational concerns that have long been debated. This book also
attempts to help educators understand how their own personal educational philoso-
phies have been shaped during their lives and how their beliefs might evolve during the
future span of their careers.
This book is not intended to introduce readers to advanced-level theoretical con-
cerns of curriculum theorists, except as far as those concerns are embedded in the
practical ideological viewpoints educators are likely to experience in their everyday
lives.
Organization
Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns is organized into an
introductory chapter, four main chapters that examine each of the major curriculum
ideologies, a chapter that compares the four ideologies, and a chapter that examines
the ways in which debate over the ideologies influences the personal lives of individual
educators over their life span. This organizational plan is illustrated in Figure 0.1.
Each of the four main chapters that examine a curriculum ideology is structured
in the same way. Each chapter (1) opens with a brief overview of the ideology;
(2) continues with a description of curricula that illustrate the ideology under discus-
sion; (3) examines the ideology’s educational vision, global assumptions, and concep-
tual framework while referencing descriptions of the curricula; (4) describes the
historical evolution of the ideology over approximately the last hundred years;
(5) examines in detail the ideology’s aims, view of children, perspective on learning,
concept of teaching, conception of knowledge, and beliefs about assessment; and
xv
xvi ❖ CURRICULUM THEORY
Figure 0.1 Organization of this book.
Introduction
Social Reconstruction
Scholar Academic
Learner Centered
Social Efficiency
Comparisons
Perspectives
(6) presents concluding perspectives on the ideology. This organizational plan is

illustrated in Figure 0.2.
Ideologies are not compared in the chapters in which they are discussed. Each of
the four main chapters provides readers with a sympathetic understanding of an ideol-
ogy from the perspective of educators who advocate that ideology, without reference
to other ideologies. However, each ideology’s underlying myths and assumptions are
made clear, and the hidden meanings in its use of words such as learning and knowledge
are closely examined—using critical analysis in the spirit of poststructuralism and
postmodernism. The four ideologies are compared in a separate chapter designed to
highlight their similarities and differences.
Readers are invited to visit www.sagepub.com/schiroextensionactivities, a Web site
devoted to this book. There instructors will find ideas on how to use this book in
teaching courses on curriculum. The extension activities on this site are designed to
allow readers to personally confront, reflect on, and extend their knowledge of cur-
riculum issues, as well as to experience current debates about education. These activi-
ties can be explored either alone or in the context of a class. For instance, debates
require group participation, while examination of Web sites, movies, simulations,
curriculum materials, and books and articles either can be pursued individually or can
provide the substance for rich group discussions. There is no expectation that any
Preface ❖ xvii
Figure 0.2 Typical organization of each main chapter.
Overview
Example
Global Assumptions
Historical Perspective
Knowledge
Evaluation
Teaching
Learning
Child
Aims
Concluding Perspective
reader will work through all of the extension activities related to a chapter, or that the
activities must be done only at the time that a chapter is read.
Personal Perspective
I first encountered the four curriculum ideologies described in this book when I was
teaching in public schools in the 1960s. I taught first in a high school, then in a middle
school, and finally in an elementary school. I was under constant pressure in these
schools to believe in and teach in accordance with several conflicting philosophical
viewpoints. In addition, during the 1960s I saw curriculum developers create very dif-
ferent types of curricula and argue about which curriculum ideology should be the
dominant one in schools.
Later, as a faculty member at Boston College during the 1970s, I witnessed faculty
members’ vigorous debate over whether we should orient our teacher education
xviii ❖ CURRICULUM THEORY
programs around the Scholar Academic or the Social Efficiency perspective. During
the 1980s, the faculty argued over whether the Social Efficiency or the Learner
Centered ideology should provide the underpinnings for our programs. During the
1990s, the debate was over whether the Learner Centered or the Social Reconstruction
perspective should be our guiding light. Now, during the first years of the 21st century,
we have “social justice” as our overarching educational theme at Boston College.
Over the last 40 years, I have observed that many educators either (a) hold the
belief that their ideology is the only appropriate one for schools and that all other
ideologies are enemies of education or (b) do not fully understand the nature of the
debate over educational purposes and methods and as a result are buffeted about by
each new educational issue and fad. Only rarely have I encountered educators who
fully understand and appreciate the range of ideological perspectives available, the
advantages and disadvantages of each, the implications of those perspectives for their
teaching, and the possible impact of those ideologies on their own personal philoso-
phies of education. Over the last 30 years I have attempted to help educators deal with
these issues. This book is my attempt to help a larger audience struggle with philo-
sophical issues I have seen many educators deal with on a daily basis.
Objectives of This Book

This book, like most books, is written with multiple goals in mind. Here are some of
the major objectives of Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns:
• To present readers with a clear, sympathetic, and unbiased perspective on the major
curriculum philosophies (ideologies, viewpoints, or visions for schooling) that have
influenced American educators and schooling over the last century. In so doing, this
book will hopefully stimulate readers to better understand their own beliefs and also
provide them with an understanding of alternate ways of thinking about the fundamen-
tal goals of education. Understanding one’s own curriculum beliefs and the range of
available ideological options can help educators more effectively clarify and shape their
own curriculum goals and empower them to make themselves into the kinds of educa-
tors they want to be.
• To inform readers of the origins of these curriculum ideologies, the major advocates
of these ideologies over the last century, the ways in which historical circumstances
can influence educational thought, and the ways in which these ideologies have
evolved over the last hundred years into their current form. In doing so, this book will
place our current educational debates and issues in a historical context of enduring
concerns.
• To provide readers with a model of how they can critically analyze educational move-
ments (using a poststructuralist perspective) and the main currents of curriculum
thought influencing American educational practice today. The model will demonstrate
how to analyze and question one’s thoughts and those of one’s colleagues, official poli-
cies and agendas, and new curriculum fads promoted by politicians, textbook salesmen,
school boards, curriculum consultants, and others attempting to influence schools. This
should enable readers to more effectively contribute to the public debate about educa-
tional issues.
Preface ❖ xix
• To carefully examine the way educators use language based on their own frequently
unspoken assumptions. For example, the word knowledge can mean understandings,
skills, meanings, or values in different educational communities, and this book will
highlight how these different meanings can profoundly influence educators’ thought
and instructional practice. It will also indicate the way in which language can influence
how we think about educational issues, what roles we believe we are fulfilling when we
instruct students or create curricula, and the power relationships we set in place among
teachers and students. This should help readers better understand disagreements about
curriculum that occur in schools, determine the ideologies and intentions of other
educators, speak in the language of other educators while conveying their own mean-
ings, and more effectively negotiate curriculum decisions with their colleagues, curricu-
lum committees, school boards, and communities.
• To demonstrate how curriculum beliefs are related to instructional practice and to pro-
vide intellectual perspectives and tools that will facilitate translation of curriculum ideas
into instructional practices.
• To highlight the complexities of curriculum work in a social context in which ideologi-
cal struggles dominate current educational discourse and in which educators are con-
stantly pressured to act in accordance with a variety of conflicting ideological
perspectives. Having an understanding of the ideological pressures exerted by society
and colleagues can help readers put those pressures in perspective and maintain their
own values, beliefs, and practices.
• To illustrate how curriculum workers’ philosophies can change over the span of their
professional careers and how the communities they work in can influence their cur-
riculum beliefs and practices. Hopefully this will enable readers to more easily accept
changes in their own evolving curriculum beliefs and to pursue new curriculum
initiatives.
New to the Second Edition

The major changes in the book are in Chapters 2, 4, and 6. Additional historical mate-
rial was added to Chapter 2 on the Scholar Academic ideology, the section on teaching
was reorganized, and a new subsection added on Teachers as Transmitters, Mediators,
or Translators. Major changes to Chapter 4, on the Learner Centered ideology, involve
the addition of several new sections, including the following: a detailed description of
a Learner Centered curriculum in operation in a classroom (on Pond Water), the ide-
ology’s developmental viewpoint, the relation between knowledge and experience, and
the nature and structure of the learning environment of the ideology (which includes
the following subheadings: The Person in an Environment; The Learning Environment;
Structure of the Learning Environment; Teaching; and Freedom, Individualism, and
Shared Responsibility). Several sections of the chapter have also been moved and reor-
ganized under new headings to add clarity to the chapter. A major change to Chapter
6, which compares the ideologies, involves the addition of seven new sections. Six of
these sections are plays in which four teachers, each of whom is an adherent of one of
the four ideologies, discuss their beliefs about enduring curricular issues and related
current “hot” curriculum topics, in ways that highlight the differences between the
xx ❖ CURRICULUM THEORY
ideologies. The seventh new section discusses differences in how each of the ideologies
takes advantage of the use of technology in curriculum and during instruction.
Ancillaries
Extension activities for each chapter are available online at www.sagepub.com/schiro
extensionactivities. In addition, the following additional activities are available at this
site:
• Curriculum ideologies inventory

• Scope, sequence, integration, and continuity simulation
• Columbus and knowledge simulation
Comments on extension activities for faculty teaching courses on curriculum are

also available at the site.
❖ Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the following people for reading the manuscript, providing me with valu-
able feedback, and helping me shape the book:
Rainy Cotti, Rhode Island College

Lawrence Lipsitz, Educational Technology Publications
Christina Wain, Boston College
I would also like to thank the following reviewers:
Alan Block, University of Wisconsin–Stout Marc Mahlios, University of Kansas

Judith A. Boccia, University of Massachusetts J. Dan Marshall, Penn State University
Lowell
R. D. Nordgren, Cleveland State University
David N. Boote, University of Central Florida
Caroline R. Pryor, Southern Illinois University
Audrey Dentith, University of Texas San Edwardsville
Antonio
William M. Reynolds, Georgia Southern
Doris Fromberg, Hofstra University University
Robert P. Green, Jr., Clemson University C. Matt Seimears, Emporia State University
Lars J. Helgeson, University of North Dakota Ruth De C. Silva, University of North Texas
Lesia Lennex, Morehead State University Gary Weilbacher, Illinois State University
Corey R. Lock, University of North Carolina at
Charlotte
xxi
1
Introduction to
the Curriculum
Ideologies
F or almost a hundred years, educators have been at war with each other over what
the nature of the American school curriculum should be. Underlying this war are
four visions of what the school curriculum should look like. These visions are based
on four curriculum ideologies—or curriculum philosophies—that advocate very dif-
ferent purposes for schooling and very different methods of achieving those respective
purposes.
These four visions of schooling have both stimulated improvement in American
schools and caused conflicts that have inhibited progress in the development of the
school curriculum.
The competition between the four visions of education has stimulated advocates
of each to develop increasingly powerful curricula, instructional methods, and research
bases. The result is improved instruction for children.
The competition between the four visions of education has also made it difficult
for educators and the general public to reach a consensus on the nature and purposes
of the American school curriculum. Seemingly irresolvable disagreements include the
reading controversies over whether it is more important to teach decoding (phonics)
or comprehension (whole language), the mathematics disputes over whether it is more
important to teach mathematical understanding or mathematics skills, and the history
conflicts over whether it is more important to teach knowledge of the past or to build
strategies for critically analyzing and reconstructing society in the future. These dis-
putes have recently become so fierce that they have become known as the reading wars,
the math wars, and the history wars. Inability to appreciate differences in vision for the
1
2 ❖ CURRICULUM THEORY
school curriculum and reach a consensus about critical philosophical and pedagogical
issues has made systematic improvement of the curriculum difficult.
Each of the four visions of curriculum embodies distinct beliefs about the type of
knowledge that should be taught in schools, the inherent nature of children, what
school learning consists of, how teachers should instruct children, and how children
should be assessed. Each vision has its own value system; its own purposes of educa-
tion; its own meanings for words (e.g., Does knowledge consist of understandings,
skills, meanings, or values?); its own heroes, whose beliefs it repeats; and its own vil-
lains, whose beliefs it rails against.
Within this book, these visions are labeled the Scholar Academic ideology, the
Social Efficiency ideology, the Learner Centered ideology, and the Social Reconstruction
ideology. Each ideology has a long history and has been known by a variety of names.
For example, at different times during the last hundred years, the Learner Centered
ideology has been called “progressive education,” “open education,” “child-centered
education,” “developmentally appropriate practice,” and “constructivism.” These ide-
ologies can influence people’s ways of thinking about curriculum in the same powerful
ways that their political beliefs can influence their stances on political issues.
The existence of these four ideologies causes difficulty for newcomers to the field,
who are usually unaware of them and, as a result, often have difficulty determining
how to philosophically orient themselves as subscribers to different ideologies pressure
them for their allegiance. The existence of these four ideologies also causes concern
among veteran teachers, who are frequently told by school administrators to embrace
one curriculum fad after another—fads that often require major revision of the con-
ceptual frameworks upon which teachers build their instruction. These curriculum
philosophies frequently cause disagreement among curriculum workers, particularly
curriculum developers, about what the nature of the curriculum they create and
schools adopt should be. The competition among advocates of these four curriculum
ideologies for influence on the school curriculum also causes concern—sometimes
leading to the formation of political initiatives—among members of the general public
who are interested in how their children and grandchildren are being educated, what
goes on in our schools, and the ways in which schooling is influencing children’s beliefs
and social orientation. The best example of these political initiatives is perhaps the
curriculum wars that took place in California between 1985 and 2000, during which
two groups with competing ideologies had each other’s favored curriculum programs
removed from the list of state-funded curriculum materials and replaced by their own
programs—after lengthy, well-publicized political battles (Becker & Jacob, 2000;
Jackson, 1997a, 1997b; Pearson, 2004; Schoenfeld, 2004; Wilson, 2003).
The existence of these competing visions of what good education consists of and
the corresponding lack of understanding regarding these visions among educators,
curriculum workers, and the general public causes confusion and discomfort among
Americans and within American education. As individuals, we are constantly disagree-
ing with each other—and with ourselves—about what we should be doing in our
schools. As members of politically oriented groups, we lobby state departments of
education over which textbooks or instructional programs should be used in
our states. As a nation, we issue one prestigious report after another, many of them
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Curriculum Ideologies ❖ 3
disagreeing with each other, about what the problems of American education are and
how those problems should be solved.
As a country, we have enriched our school curriculum in many ways by drawing
from the four ideologies. However, systematic improvement in our school curriculum
has been difficult, for we have been unable to settle on a single ideological orientation
or a negotiated compromise among ideological orientations, unable to set clear goals
for our schools, and unable to pursue those goals with single-minded determination.
The confusion in American education that results from a lack of perspective on
the four curriculum ideologies, ignorance about the nature of these four visions for
education, and the continuing disagreement among educators and the general public
over what the nature of the school curriculum should be disrupts the effectiveness of
educators as individuals and our schools as organizations (of supposedly cohesive
groups of people).
One purpose of this book is to provide readers a sympathetic perspective on these
visions of schooling based on a comprehensive understanding of the four curriculum
ideologies in the historical context in which they have existed over the last hundred
years. Another purpose of this book is to give readers perspective on their own phi-
losophies of education as they relate to the four curriculum ideologies that have had—
and are currently having—a profound influence on American schools. This book first
describes and analyzes each of the curriculum ideologies, then compares them, and
finally discusses the complex ways in which they influence the lives of individual edu-
cators over the span of their careers.
Perspective on and understanding of these curriculum ideologies can have several
benefits. First, when educators understand their own conceptual frameworks and the
range of ideological options available to them, it can help them to more effectively
clarify and accomplish their own curriculum and instructional goals. Second, when
educators have perspective on and understand the range of philosophical beliefs that
colleagues can hold, this can enable them to better understand the nature of curricu-
lum disagreements that inevitably take place in schools, be more accepting of others,
and more effectively work with people of differing opinions. Third, when educators
understand the way in which language is used differently in each of the four ideologies,
it can assist them in more effectively communicating and negotiating curriculum deci-
sions with colleagues, curriculum committees, school boards, and their communities.
Fourth, when educators have perspective on and understand the differences between
the curriculum frameworks influencing the current public dialogue about education,
it can facilitate their ability to more effectively contribute to the public debate about
educational issues. Fifth, when educators have an understanding of the ideological
pressures exerted on them by society and colleagues, this can help them put those pres-
sures in perspective and minimize—as warranted—their influence (Cotti & Schiro,
2004). In addition, when working with others on curriculum, if educators can
acknowledge and clarify the conflicts and tensions that exist among colleagues who
hold different beliefs about education and who use words in different ways to express
their beliefs, there arises the potential to enable those colleagues to better understand
and appreciate their differences and to more constructively work together (Block,
2010, pp. 523–527).
Your Beliefs About Curriculum

This book is about both the nature of American education and the beliefs individuals
have regarding the school curriculum. As a result, it is highly suggested that readers
complete a short inventory that allows them to visually graph their curriculum beliefs.
(The inventory and instructions for graphing its results are located in the Appendix.)
I recommend that you complete the inventory now, before reading further, and again
after you finish reading this book. The last chapter in this book discusses how and why
educators change their curriculum ideologies over time. Seeing how your beliefs about
curriculum change as you read this book will help you understand that chapter.
The Curriculum Ideologies

The Social Efficiency ideology, the Scholar Academic ideology, the Learner Centered
ideology, and the Social Reconstruction ideology are the names given to the curricu-
lum ideologies examined within this book.
The Scholar Academic Ideology

Scholar Academics believe that over the centuries our culture has accumulated
important knowledge that has been organized into the academic disciplines found in
universities. The purpose of education is to help children learn the accumulated
knowledge of our culture: that of the academic disciplines. Acquiring an understand-
ing of an academic discipline involves learning its content, conceptual frameworks,
and ways of thinking. Teachers should be mini-scholars who have a deep understand-
ing of their discipline and can clearly and accurately present it to children.
Scholar Academics assume that the academic disciplines, the world of the intellect, and
the world of knowledge are loosely equivalent. The central task of education is taken to be
the extension of the components of this equivalence, both on the cultural level, as reflected
in the discovery of new truth, and on the individual level, as reflected in the enculturation
of individuals into civilization’s accumulated knowledge and ways of knowing.
An academic discipline is viewed as a hierarchical community of people in search
of truth within one part of the universe of knowledge. The hierarchical communities
consist of inquirers into the truth (the scholars at the top of the hierarchy), teachers of
the truth (those who disseminate the truth that has been discovered by the scholars),
and learners of the truth (students whose job it is to learn the truth so that they may
become proficient members of the discipline).
The aim of education for Scholar Academics is the extension of their disciplines by
introducing young people into them. This involves making youth members of a dis-
cipline by first moving them into it as students and then moving them from the bottom
of the hierarchy toward its top. Extension of a discipline is accomplished through the
transmission of its knowledge and ways of thinking to students. The curriculum pro-
vides the means of this transmission, and it derives both its meaning and its reason for
existence from the academic disciplines. Scholar Academics’ major concern is to con-
struct curriculum in such a way that it reflects the essence of their discipline.
The Social Efficiency Ideology

Social Efficiency advocates believe that the purpose of schooling is to efficiently
meet the needs of society by training youth to function as future mature contributing
members of society. Their goal is to train youth in the skills and procedures they will
need in the workplace and at home to live productive lives and perpetuate the func-
tioning of society.
Subscribers to the Social Efficiency ideology believe the essence of learners lies in
their competencies and the activities they are capable of performing. Youth achieve an
education by learning to perform the functions necessary for social productivity.
Teachers manage instruction by selecting and using educational strategies designed to
help learners acquire the behaviors prescribed by their curriculum. Instruction is
guided by clearly defined behavioral objectives, and learners may require a lot of prac-
tice to gain and maintain mastery of skills.
Social Efficiency educators’ first job is to determine the needs of society (or
another more specialized client). The things that will fulfill these needs are called the
terminal objectives of the curriculum. Educators must then find the most efficient way
of producing a product—the educated person—who meets the terminal objectives of
the curriculum and thus fulfills the needs of society (or the client).
Social Efficiency ideologists believe the most efficient achievement of a curricu-
lum’s terminal objectives results from applying the routines of scientific procedure to
curriculum making. Central to Social Efficiency conceptions of scientific procedure is
the assumption that change in human behavior (that is, learning) takes place within a
fairly direct cause-effect, action-reaction, or stimulus-response context. This concep-
tion requires Social Efficiency educators to predetermine the relationships between
cause and effect, action and reaction, and stimulus and response, and to predict the
causes, actions, and stimuli (that is, the learning experiences) that will lead to the
desired effects, reactions, and responses. Thus, three things that play an important role
in the Social Efficiency ideology are the concept of learning (or change in human
behavior), the creation and sequencing of learning experiences (the causes, actions,
and stimuli which lead to the desired effects, reactions, and responses), and account-
ability to the client for whom educators work.
The Learner Centered Ideology

Learner Centered proponents focus not on the needs of society or the academic
disciplines, but on the needs and concerns of individuals. They believe schools should
be enjoyable places where people develop naturally according to their own innate
natures. The goal of education is the growth of individuals, each in harmony with his
or her own unique intellectual, social, emotional, and physical attributes.
Learner Centered educators believe people contain their own capabilities for
growth, are the agents who must actualize their own capabilities, and are essentially
good in nature. In addition, people are viewed as the source of content for the curricu-
lum; their ends are considered to be the appropriate ends for the curriculum.
This leads Learner Centered advocates to treat the concept of growth as the central
theme of their endeavors. Growth of learners in terms of their unfolding in conformity
with the laws of their being becomes educators’ objective. As a result, education
involves drawing out the inherent capabilities of people. It is a facilitator of healthy,
virtuous, and beneficial growth if what is drawn out is naturally coaxed out of people’s
innate abilities.
The potential for growth lies within people. However, people are stimulated to
grow and construct meaning as a result of interacting with their physical, intellectual,
and social environments. Learning is thus considered a function of the interaction
between a person and his or her environment. Because individuals’ interactions with
their environment are assumed to be unique to the individual involved in the interac-
tion, it is further assumed that the result of learning (the construction of meaning) is
also unique to the individual.
Learner Centered curricula are thus thought of as contexts, environments, or units
of work in which students can make meaning for themselves by interacting with other
students, teachers, ideas, and things. It is the job of educators to carefully create those
contexts, environments, or units of work, which will stimulate growth in people as they
construct meaning (and thus learning and knowledge) for themselves.
The Social Reconstruction Ideology

Social Reconstructionists are conscious of the problems of our society and the
injustices done to its members, such as those originating from racial, gender, social,
and economic inequalities. They assume that the purpose of education is to facilitate
the construction of a new and more just society that offers maximum satisfaction to
all of its members.
Social Reconstructionists view curriculum from a social perspective. First, they
assume that our current society is unhealthy. They believe its very survival is threat-
ened. Second, they assume that something can be done to keep society from destroying
itself. This involves developing a vision of a society that is better than the existing one,
a society in which its problems and conflicts are resolved. Third, they assume that
action must be directed toward reconstructing society along the lines suggested by the
vision.
Social Reconstructionists assume that education is the social process through
which society is reconstructed. They have faith in the ability of education, through the
medium of curriculum, to teach people to understand their society in such a way that
they can develop a vision of a better society and act to bring that vision into existence.
Because Social Reconstructionists view education from a social perspective, the
nature of society as it is and as it should be become the determinants of most of their
assumptions. They consider human experience to be shaped most powerfully by cul-
tural factors—and assume that meaning in people’s lives is determined by their social
experiences. They believe that truth and knowledge are based in and defined by cul-
tural assumptions.
As a result, Social Reconstructionists believe that there is no good individual,
good education, truth, or knowledge apart from some conception of the nature of
the good society. Since society is undergoing a crisis, it follows that the good person,
the good education, truth, and knowledge are also undergoing a crisis. The aim of
Social Reconstructionists is to rectify this situation by eliminating from their culture

aspects that they consider undesirable, substituting in their place social values that they
consider desirable, and by doing so to reconstruct their culture so that its members will
attain maximum satisfaction of their material, spiritual, and intellectual wants.
Historical Perspective on the Ideologies

Each of the curriculum ideologies has a history. Recognition of the traditions out
of which each grew gives an important sense of perspective. Although the origin and
evolution of each ideology provides a fascinating study in itself, this book will concern
itself with the ideologies only as they have existed since 1880. The Scholar Academic
ideology will be examined by exploring the period of curriculum development that
resulted from the work of Charles Eliot and the Committee of Ten in the 1890s, the
“new curriculum” movement of the 1960s, and E. D. Hirsch’s cultural literacy move-
ment at the end of the 20th century. The nature of the Social Efficiency ideology will
be explored by examining the tradition linking Franklin Bobbitt, Ralph Tyler, and the
Race to the Top Fund (and its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act). Tracing the
evolution of the Learner Centered ideology will lead us to an examination of the con-
tinuity of belief uniting the work of Francis Parker in the 19th century, the progressive
education movement in the first half of the 20th century, and the open education,
developmentally appropriate practice, and constructivist movements of the last 50
years. Examination of the Social Reconstruction ideology will include an investigation
of the tradition, publicly initiated by George Counts, that has evolved into the present
social justice movement. My intent is to help readers understand the ideologies within
the richness of the traditions out of which they grew rather than view them solely as
they are presently manifested.
Curriculum Workers
People who work on curriculum engage in many different types of endeavors. The
ideologies elaborated in this book are relevant to the endeavors of the following cur-
riculum workers.
Curriculum practitioners use curricula within the instructional arena and super-
vise its use in schools. Classroom teachers who plan instruction using social studies
textbooks, implement a reading program, or derive a science program from curricu-
lum ideas offered on a Web site are curriculum practitioners. School administrators
who make curriculum adjustments to meet state or national curriculum standards,
implement team teaching, encourage teachers to utilize a particular instructional
methodology, or insist on the use of a particular textbook series are also curriculum
practitioners.
Curriculum disseminators make known to curriculum practitioners the existence
of curricula and the proper methods of using them. A curriculum disseminator might
be a textbook salesperson, a school district subject matter specialist, a college professor
offering a methods course, or a workshop leader for a publishing company or profes-
sional organization (such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics).
Curriculum evaluators collect, examine, and assess data for the purpose of report-
ing on the effectiveness, efficiency, and worth of the endeavors and creations of other
curriculum workers. Curriculum evaluators might be employed by a private testing
service, the central administration of a school district, a government-monitoring
agency, a publishing company, or a curriculum development group. Their reports are
meant to aid in decision making concerning curriculum materials, student achieve-
ment, teacher effectiveness, and school accountability.
Curriculum advocates are educators and members of the general public who are
concerned about and attempt to influence what is taught in schools and how it is
taught. A curriculum advocate might be a parent attempting to influence the curricu-
lum decisions of his child’s school, a citizen trying to influence the curriculum deci-
sions of the state department of education, or a politician (perhaps a president,
governor, or legislator) attempting to implement her curriculum ideas through the
political process.
Curriculum developers intentionally create curriculum materials and strategies for
others to use in the instructional arena. The important ideas here are “for others to
use” and “instructional.” Curriculum developers can be textbook writers, teachers who
work on school curriculum committees, curriculum specialists who work for private
educational organizations, or concerned citizens who design instructional materials
for homeschooling.
Curriculum theorists examine the philosophical and ideological underpinnings of
existing curricula; study how curricula are used, disseminated, created, and evaluated;
study the endeavors and intents of other curriculum workers; speculate on what cur-
ricula should accomplish; probe the “whys” of their own examinations; and write
books such as this one, all for the purpose of contributing to the general body of
knowledge about effective curriculum practice, dissemination, advocacy, development,
and evaluation.
This book is about the ideological stances of all of these types of curriculum work-
ers. However, the curriculum ideologies described in this book can often be best
observed in the programmatic intents and endeavors of people as they engage in the
process of curriculum creation (or the planning of instruction). As a result, this book
will frequently focus on the endeavors of curriculum developers as though they typify
and represent the curriculum ideologies of a much broader spectrum of curriculum
workers. Thus, discussion of the beliefs of curriculum workers in general will often be
intertwined with descriptions of the particular endeavors of curriculum developers.
The Nature of the Curriculum Ideologies

In this book, the curriculum visions, philosophies, doctrines, opinions, conceptual
frameworks, and belief systems of educators are called curriculum ideologies.
An ideology is a collection of ideas, a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at
things, or a worldview that embodies the way a person or a group of people believes
the world should organized and function. It is “a certain ethical set of ideals, principles,
doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group
that explains how society should work, and offer some political and cultural blueprint
for a certain social order” (Wikipedia, n.d., ¶ 1). The word is also used to describe
how cultures [or subcultures] are structured in ways that enable the group holding power
to have the maximum control with the minimum of conflict. This is not a matter of groups
deliberately planning to oppress people or alter their consciousness . . . , but rather a matter
of how . . . institutions in society work through values, conceptions of the world, and sym-
bol systems, in order to legitimize the current order. Briefly, this legitimization is managed
through the widespread teaching . . . of ideas about the way things are, how the world
“really” works and should work. These ideas (often embedded in symbols and cultural
practices) orient people’s thinking in such a way that they accept the current way of doing
things, the current sense of what is “natural,” and the current understanding of their roles
in society. This socialization process, the shaping of our cognitive and affective interpreta-
tions of our social world . . . is carried out . . . by the churches, the schools, the family, and
through cultural forms. (Lye, 1997, ¶ 1)
Note, from this description, that the ideologies of particular groups carry cultural
impulses to dominate rival ideologies and control aspects of their culture (in our case,
education). Note also that particular groups replicate their ideologies by educating
(socializing, indoctrinating, acculturating) people to their beliefs by subtly attempting
to “orient people’s thinking in such a way that they accept” the ideology’s view of the
way things should be done, the ideology’s sense of what is natural, and the ideology’s
position on roles in society.
The consequence of this in our culture, in which adherents of four curriculum
ideologies vie for control over our educational system, is that proponents of each ide-
ology attempt to convert other people to their viewpoint as they assert that their edu-
cational perspective is the only proper, natural, and acceptable way of viewing the field.
These attempts result in constant pressure on teachers, educators, and members of the
general public to accept one ideology and reject the others. It is as though four great
magnets tug on all of us who are interested in education, pulling us in four different
directions. This has led to an ideological war in the U.S. that is being fought on two
fronts: the educational establishment and the minds and spirits of every American
concerned with what is happening in our educational system. This is not the way
things have to be. Certain cultures have allowed one ideology to completely dominate
the others, and other cultures have found a way to get the ideologies to cooperate
rather than compete with each other. But in America, at the beginning of the 21st
century, believers in each ideology view every person as a fellow member, a possible
convert, or an enemy. Therefore, educators and members of the general public who
have committed to one ideology feel comfortable and secure that their worldview is the
best one, while those who have not committed to one ideology feel constantly torn
between rival viewpoints. For those who do not have an understanding of the available
alternatives, this frequently leads to feelings of either self-righteousness or insecurity
and confusion.
There are two major reasons I use the phrase curriculum ideology in this book. One
relates to my choice of the word ideology rather than the more common term philosophy.
Ideology is used to distinguish between motives that underlie behavior and articulated
beliefs. This book is concerned about the former and not the latter. The problem
addressed by this distinction is that expressed intent (or philosophy) is frequently con-
tradicted by actual behavior. Educators dealing with curriculum are often not conscious
of the major assumptions underlying their actions, just as adherents of many political
groups are often not conscious of the motives and impulses that drive them to act
within the approved modes of behavior sanctioned by their political group. A distinc-
tion needs to be made between the visions, myths, doctrines, opinions, worldviews, and
belief systems motivating curriculum workers to behave as they do and the verbaliza-
tions that curriculum workers make. Thus, I use the word ideology.
The other reason behind my use of the phrase curriculum ideology relates to my
choice of the word curriculum. It is necessary to distinguish between the curriculum
domain, the instructional domain, the epistemological domain, the learning theory
domain, the psychoanalytic domain, the developmental domain, and so on, when dis-
cussing the endeavors of persons interested in curriculum. This is because people often
behave differently when working within these different areas of discourse, just as
teachers often relate differently to their own children and to their students. A person
often behaves differently when acting on (or thinking about) curriculum issues from
how he or she acts (or thinks) as a psychologist, parent, philosopher, or epistemologist.
The conceptual systems people use are often tied to the role in which they see them-
selves functioning. For example, educators often behave differently and use different
conceptual frameworks when they plan instruction and deal with curriculum issues
versus when they execute instruction and interact with children. Thus, curriculum
ideologies refer to people’s endeavors while they engage in curriculum activity or think
about curriculum issues. Curriculum ideologies do not refer to all beliefs systems of
people, or even to all belief systems related to education.
The description of the ideologies presented in this book emerged from an analysis
of the actions and beliefs of American educators (particularly curriculum developers)
regarding curriculum during the 20th century. This framework for examining teacher
beliefs is supported by the professional literature on curriculum positions in the U.S.
Table 1.1 shows the alignment of the classification schemes of nine recent curriculum
theorists. Almost all theorists have identified positions similar to the Scholar Academic,
Social Efficiency, Learner Centered, and Social Reconstruction positions. Two schemes
do not identify the Social Reconstruction position; however, this is not surprising,
because Social Reconstruction just reemerged as a distinct position in about 1990. For
example, in 1986 and 1987, Schubert distinguished only three positions, while in 1996
he revised his classification scheme to include four positions. Only one scheme does
not identify the Social Efficiency position. Four schemes distinguish two positions
where other schemes identify only one position. Note also that even though the terms
used to label positions may differ, the underlying positions are the same. Terminology
has frequently changed over the last century. For example, different labels for the
Learner Centered ideology in the U.S. have included child study (1890s), progressive
education (1910–1950), open education (1965–1980), developmentalist (1970–1990),
and constructivist (1990–present).
Table 1.1 Comparison of curriculum classification schemes.
Fenstermacher Zeichner Joseph et al.

Schiro (2013) Eisner (1974) McNeil (1977) Schubert (1996) & Soltis (1992) Posner (1992) (1993) (2000) Ellis (2004) Kliebard (2004)
scholar academic academic intellectual liberationist traditional & academic constructing knowledge humanist
academic rationalism traditionalist structure of the under standing centered
disciplines & connecting to
the cannon
social efficiency technology & technological social executive behavioral social efficiency training for social efficiency
cognitive behaviorist work and
processes survival
learner self humanist experientialist therapist experiential & develop- developing self progressive & child study
centered actualization cognitive mentalist and spirit learner centered
social social social critical social confronting society centered social-meliorist

reconstruction reconstruc- reconstructionist reconstructionist recon- the dominant
tionism structionist order &
deliberating
democracy
11
Two kinds of classificatory systems are useful in illuminating the differences

among educators (and members of the general public) who are interested in curricu-
lum. These systems are depicted in Figure 1.1. One classificatory system is designed to
map out the entire population of educators into a finite set of disjoint categories into
which any person can be uniquely classified. Figure 1.1a portrays this kind of classifica-
tory system, in which the entire population of educators is divided into four separate
categories—SE, SA, LC, and SR. Here, it is assumed that there is a great deal of uni-
formity within each category as well as a great amount of difference between catego-
ries. This kind of classificatory system is not useful in distinguishing between
curriculum ideologies. A classificatory system of ideal types that portrays a finite
number of positions representing the range of practices utilized by educators is more
useful. Figure 1.1b portrays this kind of classificatory system, which consists of four
ideal types—the four curriculum ideologies—that provide exemplars of the essence of
the four distinct curriculum worldviews of educators. Each ideal type is an archetype
that portrays an idealized model of a particular view of curriculum, with the individ-
ual practices and beliefs engaged in by educators being approximations of the ideal
types. In Figure 1.1b, educators (and members of the general public) interested in cur-
riculum cluster around the ideal types without having to behave exactly in accordance
with them—their distance from an ideal type in a particular direction being an indica-
tor of both how and how much they differ from that ideal type.
Figure 1.1 Classificatory systems.
LC
SE
Set of all
SE curriculum
LC
workers
SA SR
SA SR
a b
SE = Social Efficiency LC = Learner Centered

SA = Scholar Academic SR = Social Reconstruction
This study focuses on elaborating in depth the ideal types, which represent the
range of beliefs that have influenced American education over the last century, and
then comparing them. As a result, many of the variations on each ideal type are not
described, compared, or distinguished from each other. Thus, although Bruner’s struc-
ture of the disciplines approach, Piaget’s epistemological approach, the broad fields
approach, the correlated fields design, Mortimer Adler’s Academic Rationalism, and
many variations on the core curriculum approach are all closely related to the Scholar
Academic ideology, they are not separately described or compared, for the many ver-
sions of this general approach to education are best portrayed by the interpretation of
the Scholar Academic ideology herein described. The reader should note and compare
the ideal types herein delineated to currently emerging variations, as well as historically
influential ones.
The four ideologies presented in this book—the ideal types—have been chosen
because they represent the current range of beliefs among those interested in curricu-
lum, because each has clearly identifiable roots in and influences on American educa-
tion, because they offer dramatic alternatives to each other, and because they seem to
be prototypes around which educators cluster—the density of the set of all educators
in Figure 1.1b being highest around ideal types SE, SA, LC, and SR. Because the cur-
riculum ideologies represent ideal types abstracted from reality, and not reality itself,
even though educators will be spoken of as believing or behaving in accordance with
certain beliefs, it is difficult to find educators who exactly fit the characterizations; and
even though the expressed thoughts and observable behavior of most educators
approximate the characteristics of only one of the ideal types, many educators exist
whose behavior is a combination of the characteristics of more than one ideal type.
Activities designed to extend what is written here and provide additional insight into the
ideology are located on the SAGE website at www.sagepub.com/schiroextensionactivities.
2
Scholar
Academic
Ideology
C urriculum workers who use the Scholar Academic ideology view the formal
education that takes place in schools as a process of acculturating children into
society in such a way that they become good citizens. This involves teaching children
“the basic information needed to thrive in the modern world” as a culturally literate
adult (Hirsch, 1987, p. xiii). This “basic information” consists of the shared knowledge
acquired by educated adults within society. The shared knowledge includes the back-
ground knowledge that literate adults use to understand each other and events within
their world, as well as “the shared attitudes and conventions that color” their under-
standing of human interactions and events (pp. 14–15). This shared knowledge of
culturally literate adults is viewed as having been collected by and residing within the
academic disciplines found within colleges and universities. The academic disciplines
have names like history, physics, and mathematics. They represent the different areas of
study found in most institutions of higher education and include the knowledge base
associated with each area of study. It is the knowledge—“the information, attitudes,
and assumptions”—of the academic disciplines that forms the content of the school
curriculum (p. 127). In addition, when creating curriculum, Scholar Academic workers
assume the perspective of those who are knowledgeable about the discipline and act as
though they are members of a discipline.
Scholar Academic Curricula

Two curriculum development endeavors that flourished between 1950 and 1975 pro-
vide examples of the essence of the Scholar Academic ideology.
15
UICSM and SMSG School Mathematics

In 1951, Max Beberman formed the University of Illinois Committee on School
Mathematics (UICSM). UICSM was formed for a number of reasons: because it was
discovered during World War II that many Americans had a very poor understanding
of mathematics; because university faculty felt that incoming college freshmen were
poorly prepared to study college mathematics, engineering, and science; because the
content of school mathematics was outdated and included little mathematics devel-
oped after 1800; and because the content of school mathematics seldom focused on
mathematical ideas that university academicians considered important. The last two
reasons need to be viewed from the perspective that mathematicians redeveloped the
field of mathematics between 1800 and 1950, and that they were excited about and
proud of their “new math” that contained both new foundational content (such as set
theory) and new ways of thinking about mathematics (such as rigorous proof based
on a few underlying assumptions that relate a large number of associated ideas).
Max Beberman was a mathematics educator who was excited about the new math
and wanted to give schoolchildren a chance to learn what mathematicians had recently
discovered. He wanted the school mathematics curriculum to reflect the essence of
modern day mathematics. He was sure children could learn the foundational content
of the new math, such as set theory. He was also sure children could learn to rigorously
prove mathematical statements the same way mathematicians did—they would just
have to prove easier things.
Beberman went to professional academic mathematics to find out what the con-
tent of the new-math curriculum should be. Mathematicians told educators what
mathematics the curriculum should contain. Educators then figured out how to make
that mathematics teachable and learnable.
UICSM developed secondary school textbooks that both (a) included new math-
ematical ideas that mathematicians thought were important and (b) required high
school students to prove mathematical statements in the ways university-based aca-
demic mathematicians did.
Beginning in 1958, the work of UICSM was carried down to the elementary school
level when Edward Begle started the School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG). After
the USSR launched the first space satellite (Sputnik) in 1957, the National Science
Foundation (NSF) generously funded SMSG, because Americans became terrified that
Russian space superiority might threaten the national security, prosperity, and inter-
national influence of the U.S. (The terror resulting from the launch of Sputnik and the
federal government’s response of increasing spending on education and beginning
new educational initiatives was similar to what happened after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001.)
SMSG developed textbook prototypes that included ideas mathematicians
thought important. For example, set theory became one of the major ideas introduced
to primary school children in the new SMSG curriculum. Previously, set theory had
been taught only to mathematics university students. The new SMSG mathematics
curriculum also required elementary school students to prove mathematical statements
in the same way mathematicians might. For example, elementary school students now
Chapter 2 Scholar Academic Ideology ❖ 17
used the associative, distributive, and commutative principles to prove mathematical

statements.
The phrase “the new math” was coined to describe the mathematical content and
thinking processes UICSM and SMSG included in their curricula as well as the ideas
and ways of thinking mathematicians had developed over the previous 150 years.
If we were to look into a fourth-grade classroom to see how this new math was
being taught in 1965, this is what we might see. We might see a teacher at the front of
the room presenting students with a lecture on “if-then” thinking, after which she has
her students, sitting at their seats, do a set of problems from their textbook, such as “If
n + 6 = 17, then n = ___.” A few days later, this lesson is followed by a lecture on sets,
unions, and intersections. Then students do a page of exercises in which they use the
concepts of set, union, and intersection to complete problems involving hypothetical
(if-then) thinking (SMSG, 1962, pp. 327–339). While presenting her lectures on hypo-
thetical thinking and set theory, the teacher emphasizes that students should be very
excited, because they are studying in the fourth grade topics that she did not under-
stand until just recently and that prior to a few years before only mathematics majors
at universities studied.
A few days later, in this same fourth-grade class, we would see the teacher giving a
lecture on the distributive property of multiplication to her students, in which she
presents a proof for why 7 × 20 = 140. The proof looks like this:
7 × 20 = 7 × (10 + 10) Rename 20 as (10 + 10)
= (7 × 10) + (7 × 10) Distribute 7 over (10 + 10)
= 70 + 70 Multiply 7 and 10
= 140 Add 70 and 70 (SMSG, 1962, p. 346)
During her lecture, the teacher excitedly emphasizes that in doing proofs like this
students are learning to think like mathematicians, and that they should feel privileged
to have the chance to learn to think like mathematicians in the fourth grade, because
when she went through school she was not given a chance to think like this until much
later in her education. After the teacher’s presentation, the fourth-graders complete
exercises in their textbook in which they do problems similar to the one the teacher
provided as an example and write out each step in the manner she demonstrated
(SMSG, 1962, p. 347).
Man: A Course of Study

Man: A Course of Study (MACOS) is a social studies curriculum project that was
funded by the NSF between 1963 and 1970. Its intent was to revitalize the teaching of
social studies in Grades 5 and 6 by introducing children to the essence of the social
science disciplines of anthropology, ethnography, and social psychology (Education
Development Center, 1968).
Major social science scholars, including Jerome Bruner, Irven DeVore, Nickolass
Tinbergen, and Asen Balikci, helped create MACOS, designing their curriculum to
reflect the knowledge base, research findings, and styles of intellectual inquiry of
anthropology, ethnography, and social psychology. They constructed their curriculum
so that children could explore the same questions scholars in these fields ask, using the
same research methods scholars use. The major question MACOS explores is, what is
human about human beings?
Children explore human nature by studying salmon, herring gulls (Tinbergen),
baboons (DeVore), and Netsilik Eskimos (Balikci). MACOS did not produce a text-
book. Instead, it produced a wide array of exciting instructional materials, including
films, booklets, sound recordings, and instructional games.
MACOS contained many unnarrated films that presented raw data about
salmon, herring gulls, baboons, and Netsilik Eskimos. Children did not just passively
watch these movies, but they were to actively engage in observation, constructing
hypotheses, and discussing what they observed. Many films were dramatic and
showed such things as a Netsilik Eskimo child stoning a seagull to death and his fam-
ily celebrating his first kill that contributed to his family’s food supply (which raised
questions of how we get our food and the types of initiation rituals different cultures
contain).
MACOS produced many small student booklets that presented knowledge about
such things as innate versus learned behavior, natural selection, life cycles, and com-
munication. Children read the booklets as though they were research reports so they
could talk in the way that social scientists might about the films they watched. For
example, children read and discussed the booklet Selections From Field Notes, 1959,
March-August, Irven DeVore, Anthropologist, which presented actual field notes
recorded by DeVore as he observed baboons’ behavior in their natural environment.
They read Field Notes so that they could both discuss topics and think in ways similar
to DeVore when he used field notes, and take notes about films they watched on
baboon behavior in the same way that an anthropologist might.
The program contained academic games so that children could put themselves in
the roles of people they studied and ask questions that compared the experiences of
those people to their own experiences. (For instance, children played a seal hunting
game while studying movies of Eskimos hunting, killing, and eating seals.) The pro-
gram also contained sound recordings, such as those of baboons, which raised ques-
tions about communication among baboons and humans. And MACOS contained
many stories, plays, and songs of the Netsilik (such as The True Play of How Itimagnart
Got Kingnak: The Girl He Really Wanted) so that children could compare the messages
of Netsilik culture about such things as love and death to the teachings of their own
culture.
Since most elementary school teachers during the 1960s and 1970s had not stud-
ied anthropology, ethnography, and social psychology in any depth during college,
MACOS contained a teacher education program designed to help elementary school
teachers understand the knowledge base, research findings, and styles of intellectual
inquiry of these academic disciplines. The teacher training program consisted of intensive
summer workshops, in-service workshops, and a telephone hotline (which teachers

could call to ask questions of scholars about anthropology, ethnography, or social
psychology and of educators about how to handle difficult pedagogical issues that
arose as they were teaching).
If we were to look into a sixth-grade class to see how MACOS was being taught in
1970, this is what we might see. We might see a teacher leading a discussion with her
class about a booklet they are reading that contains DeVore’s field notes. The discus-
sion centers on how an anthropologist observes animal behavior, records it, and then
learns from his observations and recordings, and by inference how the students in the
class are to observe baboon behavior, record what they observe, and learn from their
observations by following DeVore’s model. Later the class reads a booklet called The
Baboon Troop, in which issues related to the ideas of living in groups, dominance, and
affectional bonds are introduced. The class then watches a film called The Baboon
Troop, which contains only the sounds of nature without any voice overlays, during
which students take “field notes” in the same way DeVore did. The teacher then leads
a class discussion in which the following types of questions are raised and in which
students answer based on their observations from the film and the “field notes” they
took during the film: “What is the advantage to baboons of living in troops?”
(Education Development Center, 1968, p. 32). “What problems would a lone baboon
have?” (p. 66). “If baboons are aggressive animals, what keeps them from fighting each
other?” (p. 35). What types of “affectional bonds” exist between the baboons? (p. 32).
After each question is discussed with respect to baboons, the teacher raises related
questions about humans: “What would you find hardest about living alone? What
advantages are there for humans living in groups? . . . What kinds of things do children
argue about? Why do some arguments not turn into fights?” (p. 66). How do people
show affection toward each other? What are some of the advantages of having friends?
We will now examine why these curricula are examples of Scholar Academic
endeavors and how they relate to current day educational activities.
Curriculum and the Disciplines

Curriculum workers who use the Scholar Academic ideology view curriculum creation
from the perspective of the academic disciplines. The induction of the child into an
academic discipline—each discipline representing one component of literate culture—
is the goal of each of their curricula. Scholar Academics create curricula by working
within the domains of their academic disciplines as though they are functionaries of
their disciplines. They attempt to make each curriculum an epitome of its parent dis-
cipline. The following statement by Whitefield (1971) gives the flavor of the way in
which Scholar Academics, and the creators of UICSM, SMSG, and MACOS, see the
world through the eyes of an academic discipline:
Initiation into the disciplines of knowledge, our vehicle for becoming fully human, is the
worthwhile activity for the curriculum of general education. It provides the base upon
which the person as a person can develop to realize his full stature as a free mind and as
a citizen. All this is not to imply that the individual and society are not important, but
they become, temporarily at least, secondary, as we endeavor to establish a framework . . .
for selecting kinds of learning experiences which will inculcate knowledge and abilities
of most worth. The curriculum must therefore draw upon analyses of the nature of
knowledge and the inherent human abilities it develops in order to determine its nature,
prior to analyses of society, the learner, and the learning process. The last three will at
least add very useful glosses to the framework, but should not determine it. . . . We
should therefore ground our curricular objectives in the distinctive disciplines of knowl-
edge, rather than in social needs, theories of personality, or in a national base knowledge
for “living in the modern world.” For it is the disciplines themselves which predetermine
these important factors, as well as our underlying ethical conception of what is good and
what is worthwhile. (p. 12)
The meaning of the following ideas found within this statement will now be exam-
ined to reveal foundational ideas that underlie the Scholar Academic ideology: initia-
tion into the disciplines; grounding curriculum in the distinctive disciplines; drawing
upon analyses of the discipline’s knowledge; and priorities among the disciplines,
society, the learner, and the learning process.
Initiation Into the Disciplines

Initiation of children into the disciplines of knowledge is the underlying
motive of educators working within the Scholar Academic ideology. This entails
introducing children into both the knowledge base of a discipline and the ways in
which academicians within the discipline think, feel, and communicate. On one
hand, this involves, as Whitefield says, initiating children into an academic disci-
pline at the level at which it is being taught—for example, helping 10-year-old
children understand and behave as 10-year-old novice mathematicians (SMSG) or
anthropologists (MACOS). On the other hand, it involves acculturating (or
inducting) children into an academic discipline in such a way that when they grow
up they will (if they have the potential and desire) become active members of that
discipline—for example, preparing a 10-year-old child to become a chemist, lin-
guist, or historian.
What is crucial here is that Scholar Academic developers create curriculum so
that children who encounter it will learn to think and behave the same way univer-
sity academicians do. This involves more than simply creating an educational pro-
gram designed to inform children about an academic discipline. The curriculum is
intended to initiate and acculturate children into a discipline, not merely to inform
them about a discipline. Scholar Academics try to create curriculum in such a way
that, for example, “the schoolboy learning physics is a physicist,” performing the
same types of intellectual activity the professional physicist performs (Bruner, 1960,
p. 14). This means that the curriculum must convey more than just the knowledge
of an academic discipline. It must also convey such things as the academician’s ways
of thinking and feeling. This was crucial to the curricula described at the beginning
of this chapter, as Jerome Bruner hinted in 1966 when he wrote about projects such
as SMSG and MACOS:
A body of knowledge, enshrined in a university faculty and embodied in a series of author-

itative volumes, is the result of much prior intellectual activity. To instruct someone in
these disciplines is not a matter of getting him to commit results to mind. Rather, it is to
teach him to participate in the process that makes possible the establishment of knowledge.
We teach a subject not to produce little living libraries on that subject, but, rather, to get a
student to think mathematically for himself, to consider matters as an historian does, to
take part in the process of knowledge-getting. (p. 72)
Curricula created by Scholar Academics do not embody just a back-to-the-basics,

get-tough, content-oriented approach to education. To think of them as such is to
misunderstand the educators’ endeavors, which are directed toward translating a dis-
cipline into experiences that acculturate children into the discipline by both teaching
them the discipline’s knowledge and enabling them to think, behave, and feel as mem-
bers of the discipline.
Grounding Curriculum in a Discipline

In grounding curriculum in a distinct academic discipline, Scholar Academics
attempt to construct curriculum so that it becomes a reflection of, or epitome of,
the academic discipline. The following description of the efforts of Scholar
Academic curriculum developers, such as those presented earlier in this chapter,
illustrates this:
When one talks with the initiators of such projects, particularly at the beginning of their
efforts, one finds that they do not begin by talking about the manner in which they would
like to change pupils’ behavior. Rather they are dissatisfied with existing curricula in their
respective subject fields, and they want to build something new. If pressed, they might indi-
cate that existing programs stress concepts considered trivial by those who practice the disci-
pline. They might also say that the curriculum poorly reflects styles of intellectual inquiry in
the various fields. Press them further, and they might say that they want to build a new pro-
gram that more accurately displays the “essence” of history, or physics, or economics or
whatever. Or a program that better transmits a comprehension of the elaborate and elegant
interconnections among various concepts within the discipline. (Atkin, 1968, pp. 28–29)
Developers conceive of their curricula as embodying a portion of a discipline.

They construct curricula so that they will reflect the nature of a discipline in such a
way that students coming in contact with the curricula will be exposed to the essence
of the disciplines themselves.
Drawing Upon the Discipline’s Knowledge

In formulating the substance of their curricula, Scholar Academics “draw upon
analyses of the nature of knowledge” within a discipline (as Whitefield says). In doing
so, they focus solely on what they perceive to be the intrinsic nature of the discipline.
King and Brownell, in The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Knowledge, emphasized
this in 1966 when describing programs such as SMSG and MACOS:
We can summarize the first task of any curriculum planning group, committee, or person as
the definition of the nature of the discipline of which the course or courses is a part. The
task can be accomplished by (1) establishing the most characteristic view and the range of
views of man and nature held by the members of the discipline; (2) describing the mode of
inquiry, skills, and rules for truth used by the discoursers; (3) identifying the domain of the
discipline and the aspect or perspective characteristic of it; (4) determining the key concepts
of the discipline; (5) characterizing the substratum languages and the particular terminol-
ogy and notation of the discipline; (6) noting the linguistic heritage and communications
network of the discipline; (7) setting forth the tradition and history of the idea of the disci-
pline; and (8) explicating the instructive character of the discipline. (pp. 187–188)*
As such, the initial endeavors during curriculum construction are grounded in an

academic discipline. The intent is for curricula to become re-presentations of what is
already known and accepted as authoritative within their disciplines. In designing cur-
ricula, “one of the first jobs of the curriculum maker, [is] namely to study the discipline
in a detail and manner which will allow him to characterize the variety of forms of
knowledge of the discipline” (Connelly, 1964, p. 111). Many educators working in
schools have neither the resources nor the training to do this. Instead, in designing
their curricula, they consult textbooks, memories of courses taken during their aca-
demic training, or other artifacts of an academic discipline accessible to them. For
example, Harvard Project Physics (1969) began when
Dr. F. James Rutherford, an experienced high school science teacher and administrator in
California, undertook the preparation of a trial draft of a new course text, based on a
widely used college textbook, Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science,
by Gerald Holton, Professor of Physics at Harvard University. (p. 5)
Whether a curriculum is designed by a scholar who has firsthand knowledge of a

discipline or by an educator who must rely on secondary resources, its origins lie out-
side the curriculum development process. The origins of Scholar Academic curricula
lie within their respective academic disciplines, and the developer’s first task is to con-
sult and gain an understanding of the discipline that the curriculum is to elaborate. It
is not the job of a developer to generate new academic knowledge for use in a curricu-
lum. The goal of the developer, as curriculum developer, is not to engage in basic
research. Rather, the developer’s job is to consult existing knowledge that has been
sanctioned by an academic discipline. Knowledge must be accepted by a discipline
before it can be used as curriculum content.
*From The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Knowledge by King, A. R. & Brownell, J. A., copy-
right © 1966. Reprinted with permission from Arthur R. King, Jr.
Priorities
Focusing solely on existing elaborations of an academic discipline while formulat-
ing the essence of a curriculum means that curriculum concerns other than those
embodied within the discipline itself are excluded from contributing to the develop-
ment of the essence of the curriculum. It means that the essence of the curriculum is
formulated (as Whitefield says) “prior to analyses of society, the learner, and the learn-
ing process.” In other words:
My thesis, briefly, is that all curriculum content should be drawn from the disciplines, or,
to put it another way, that only knowledge contained in the disciplines is appropriate to the
curriculum. . . . This means that psychological needs, social problems, and any of a variety
of patterns of material based on other than discipline content are not appropriate to the
determination of what is taught. (Phenix, 1962, pp. 57–58)
Scholar Academics make “subject matter,” which they conceive to be the essence of
the academic disciplines, their central concern while creating curricula. In doing so,
other concerns about society, the learner, and the learning process become of second-
ary importance. These other concerns, however, do have a role to play once the essence
of the curriculum is formulated—helping to put the essence of the curriculum into a
form suitable for use during instruction. But the priorities are clear: subject matter
comes first, and “the choice of curriculum content [subject matter] can be made inde-
pendent of instructional methods [the effect of applying concerns about student,
teacher, and milieu], but the choice of instructional method is dependent upon the
nature of the curriculum content” and becomes a concern of the developer only after
curriculum content is delineated (Beauchamp & Beauchamp, 1967, p. 80).
Two implications of this must be understood. First, Scholar Academics assume that
the subjects that are taught within the schools must be selected from among the academic
disciplines—that for every school subject there must be a corresponding academic disci-
pline (although for every academic discipline there need not be a school subject). It is
also believed that the specific subject matter taught within schools must be drawn from
among the academic disciplines and only from among them—that the content taught
within the schools must be selected from the knowledge bases of academic disciplines.
Second, Scholar Academics believe that the only demand that should be allowed
to influence the school program is the one that (as Whitefield says) “provides the base
upon which the person as a person can develop to realize his full stature as a free mind
[italics added]”—that is, the intellectual demands embodied within the academic dis-
ciplines that are concerned solely with the development of the intellect through the
pursuit of knowledge. Specifically, the immediate demands of physical, social, eco-
nomic, and political life are not to influence what occurs in schools. This means that
the school must protect itself from allowing its program to be influenced by special
interest pressures that insist that people, in addition to being intellectual creatures, are
also occupational creatures who work to support themselves, their family, and their
society, physical creatures who require good health to lead constructive lives, political
creatures who live within a family, community, nation, and world, social creatures
whose meanings are defined by their society and who must live within a society, and
religious creatures who are sustained through their lives by a faith and hope in some-
thing beyond themselves (King & Brownell, 1966, chap. 1). The school is to have as its
highest priority the cultivation of the human mind as expressed within the academic
disciplines, and the only demands that should be allowed to influence the school pro-
gram are those that support this priority. This means that schools are not to include
occupational, professional, vocational, technical, commercial, agricultural, business,
industrial, or homemaking training for children.
Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge:

An Assumed Equivalence
Underlying the Scholar Academic ideology is a belief that man’s essence is summed up
by his ability to think, to understand, to know, to reason, to reflect, to remember, to
question, to ponder—in short, to exercise the intellectual capabilities of his mind in his
endeavor to understand his world. It is believed that the fundamental human motiva-
tion that raises man above the lower animals is his search for knowledge and his ability
to use his intellect in that search. This intellectual perspective on man is assumed to
provide the basic motive underlying all educational endeavors: that education’s right-
ful purpose is, as Whitefield says, to “provide the base upon which the person as a
person can develop to realize his full stature as a free mind.”
Scholar Academics do not stop here. They make a further critical assumption.
They assume that there exists a loose equivalence between the world of the intellect,
the world of knowledge, and the academic disciplines.
The world of the intellect contains those ways of thinking, reasoning, understanding,
and reflecting that allow individuals to comprehend their world. It also contains the
institutionalized ways of knowing, remembering, questioning, and deliberating that are
passed from one generation to the next. For both the individual and the culture, “intellect
has become, through its organization of all that is known and its search for the unknown,
that best and perhaps only bridge to meaning” (King & Brownell, 1966, pp. 22–23). In
addition, the “intellect is man’s schooled power of knowing, of understanding” (p. 20). It
grows and develops only “according to the forms of the disciplines” (Phenix, 1964, p. 50).
The world of knowledge contains everything the individual has come to under-
stand and know about his world. It also contains all of the meanings that the culture
as a whole has accumulated over the centuries and preserved in its traditions. The
world of knowledge contains not only that which is known, but also such things as the
ways of knowing and postures toward knowledge that have been developed, codified,
and preserved by the culture. And knowledge is the very substance of the academic
disciplines. It is the embodiment of man’s intellectual achievements.
The academic disciplines are the consequences of the direct pursuit of knowledge
by individuals within the culture and the culture as a whole. They are the organizations
that gather, define, sanction, store, organize, and disseminate the culture’s existing
knowledge and ways of knowing. They encompass the organized accumulation of
civilization’s knowledge, the ways in which man generates knowledge using his intel-
lect, and the intellect’s systems of symbols and thoughts. The academic disciplines are
“the means by which men’s minds master nature and grasp ideas” (King & Brownell,
1966, p. 24). In general, academic disciplines consist of communities of scholars who
reside within institutions of higher learning. They bear names such as mathematics,
physics, history, anthropology, philosophy, and psychology.
In assuming that there is a loose equivalence between the world of the intellect, the
world of knowledge, and the academic disciplines, Scholar Academics also accept the
belief that the contents of these three areas are identical. In addition, and this is crucial,
they assume that those things not included in the academic disciplines are not worthy of
being contained in the world of the intellect or the world of knowledge, and vice versa.
Thus, the worlds of intellect, knowledge, and the academic disciplines are viewed as
roughly equivalent in terms of both what they include and what they exclude.
The consequences for schools and the school curriculum follow directly. The pri-
mary concern for schooling should be the development of the child’s intellect, which
involves the acquisition of knowledge, which in turn entails learning the content of the
academic disciplines. In addition, any “information” not sanctioned by an academic
discipline is not worthy of being called knowledge or worthwhile for the intellect to con-
sider, and thus not worthy of inclusion in school curricula or worthy of being taught
within schools. As King and Brownell phrase it, “The prime claim of the intellect [on the
schools], then, is best met in the schools when the disciplines of knowledge are the fun-
damental content of the curriculum—its resources and its responsibility” (1966, p. 37).
Education as an Extension of Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge

The central task of school education is thus taken to be the extension of the compo-
nents of the equivalence class containing the academic disciplines, the world of the intel-
lect, and the world of knowledge. They are to be extended both on the individual level,
through acculturation of individuals into civilization’s accumulated knowledge and ways
of knowing, and on the cultural level, through the discovery of new knowledge.
The school curriculum provides the means of acculturating the young into the
worlds of knowledge, the intellect, and the academic disciplines. The central concern
of the curriculum developer is the extension of these worlds by introducing the young
into them—for Scholar Academics believe these worlds are enlarged when new minds
acquire the knowledge they contain.
In addition, the theory of the nature of the equivalence becomes “the model for a
theory of curriculum” and curriculum creation (King & Brownell, 1966, p. 67). That
is, Scholar Academics’ conception of the nature of an academic discipline (and its
associated knowledge base and intellectual achievements) determines their conception
of what curriculum is, the subject matter it is to contain, and how it should be created.
This occurs on two levels: the global level, where the equivalence between knowledge,
intellect, and the disciplines ranges over the whole universe of knowledge; and the local
level, where the equivalence between knowledge, intellect, and the disciplines takes on
its particular meaning within each academic discipline.
Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge: Global Considerations

One of the striking characteristics of the modern view of the world of the disci-
plines, knowledge, and intellect is that there exist, as Whitefield puts it, “distinctive
[italics added] disciplines of knowledge.” There is not just one academic discipline.
There is not just one type of knowledge. There is not just one way of knowing.
Many separate, distinct academic disciplines exist, bearing such names as mathe-
matics, philosophy, history, anthropology, English, and biology. Each discipline is
autonomous, determining the nature of its own knowledge and ways of knowing. It
can be judged only according to its own criteria. Each is self-governing, and none is
responsible to any authority outside or beyond itself. There is no superior body of
knowledge or common way of knowing to which the disciplines are subordinate. The
academic disciplines reside more in a multiversity than a university.
The world of knowledge is viewed as consisting of a variety of distinct and discon-
tinuous clusters of locally organized knowledge and ways of knowing. It is not viewed
as homogeneous and uniform. Each of the diverse clusters of knowledge is uniquely and
intrinsically organized, and each is identifiable as an academic discipline. The plurality
within the world of knowledge thus parallels the plurality among the disciplines.
There are many different ways of constructing knowledge within the world of the
intellect. There are many distinct traditions of thinking and knowing in which a per-
son’s mind can be educated. The ways of understanding characteristic of axiomatic
mathematics, analytic philosophy, interpretative history, experimental psychology,
observational anthropology, and statistical economics are viewed as different. Each of
the many ways of knowing within the world of the intellect has been developed to its
highest level of refinement by an academic discipline, and each academic discipline has
its characteristic modes of reasoning that it teaches to its members. The plurality
within the world of the intellect thus parallels the plurality of the disciplines.
These beliefs in the autonomy of the disciplines and the plurality of disciplines,
knowledge, and intellect are supported by the theory of equivalence among the aca-
demic disciplines, the world of knowledge, and the world of the intellect. They are in
sharp contrast to pre-20th-century assumptions of the hegemony of philosophy over
the disciplines and the reliance on philosophy for the meaning of knowledge, and they
provide unique guidelines for curriculum making.
First, curriculum is viewed as consisting of separate subjects, each of which repre-
sents and reflects a single partition of the world of knowledge as represented by an
academic discipline. Second, responsibility for curriculum creation within each subject
belongs solely to representatives of the corresponding discipline who are acquainted
with its portion of the world of knowledge and the world of the intellect. No extradis-
ciplinary authority legislates behaviors appropriate for representatives of the disci-
plines to engage in while creating curricula.
Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge: Local Considerations

At the local level, curriculum development is an intradisciplinary affair. The
nature of each discipline dictates how educators are to create curricula that reflect the
essence of that discipline. That is, the nature of each discipline “can be used to reflect
back on each discipline in search of its clues for curriculum” (King & Brownell, 1966,
p. 95) in order to make the curriculum a reflection of the discipline “as the scholar
himself regards that discipline” (Cambridge Conference on School Mathematics
[CCSM], 1963, p. vii), as was attempted with UICSM, SMSG, and MACOS.
The members of each discipline have sole responsibility for that part of the school
curriculum that corresponds to their discipline. As members of their disciplines, they
create curriculum so that it reflects their conception of the nature of the discipline. As
a result, curriculum development at the local level becomes a provincial affair in which
the developer’s prime concern is the individual discipline his curriculum is to reflect:
The focus of attention in each of these [curriculum] projects is an individual discipline. Little
or no attention is given to the relationships of the individual fields to each other or to the pro-
gram of studies within which they must find their place. National committees in the fields of
chemistry, physics, and biology have proceeded independently of each other, the projects in
economics, geography, and anthropology are unrelated to one another. (Bellack, 1964, p. 27)
The Academic Disciplines

Let us now examine how educators working within the Scholar Academic ideology
view the nature of their disciplines. To convey the spirit of the conceptual framework
being described, the discussion is somewhat allegorical.
The Discipline as a Community

One of three basic descriptions has generally been used to define an academic
discipline: (1) a defined area of study; (2) the collection of facts, writings, and other
works of scholars associated with a well-defined area of study; and (3) a “community
of individuals whose ultimate task is the gaining of meaning” in one domain of the
world of knowledge (King & Brownell, 1966, p. 68). We will view an academic disci-
pline as a community of people in search of truth within one partition of the universe
of knowledge. As a community, each discipline has a tradition and a history; a heritage
of literature and artifacts; a specialized language, grammar, and logic for expression of
ideas; a communications network; a valuational and affective stance; and “territorial
possession” of a particular set of concepts, beliefs, and knowledge.
The primary reason for the existence of a discipline, the motivation drawing peo-
ple to participate in a discipline, and the cohesive force holding people together within
a discipline is the discipline’s search for truth. At the very core of each discipline is the
problem of self-extension through the pursuit of knowledge and truth. The central
concern of each discipline is its own growth, both in terms of the discovery of new
knowledge and thus the enlargement of its domain of inquiry (epistemic develop-
ment) and in terms of passing on to others that which is already known—thereby
enlarging both the amount and level of knowledge within the community making up
the discipline (community development). Academic disciplines are not static commu-
nities concerned only with preservation of “what was.” They are dynamic communities
concerned with their own extension into “what will be.” This was very much the case
with the discipline of mathematics that supported UICSM and SMSG.
The Discipline as a Hierarchical Community

Disciplines are viewed as hierarchical communities consisting of inquirers into
new knowledge, teachers of knowledge, and learners of knowledge. (See Figure 2.1.) At
the top of the hierarchy are scholars, who rule over the discipline as scholar-kings
much as Plato’s philosopher-kings were to rule over the Republic. It is their function
to search for knowledge which is yet unknown. At the next level of the hierarchy are
teachers, who disseminate knowledge that has been discovered by scholars and sanc-
tioned by the discipline. At the bottom of the hierarchy are students, who are neo-
phytes in their encounters with the discipline. It is their job to learn the discipline’s
knowledge so they may become proficient members of the discipline. The broken
horizontal lines separating the major hierarchical levels in Figure 2.1 indicate that the
boundaries between the levels of the hierarchy are not clear and precise and that there
is overlap between the categories of scholar, teacher, and student.
Figure 2.1 The hierarchical organization of a discipline.
Search for
Knowledge
Scholars
Teachers
Dissemination Students
of Knowledge
Within each category are many gradations of placement: from research scholars to
instructors, from university professors to preschool teachers, and from doctoral candidates
to nursery schoolers. The criteria ranking members of the discipline within the hierarchy
are intellectual ones involving the member’s ability to contribute to the extension of the
discipline and how much of the discipline’s knowledge the member has acquired. Members’
rankings are directly proportional to their prestige, which is in turn directly proportional
to how close they are to the hierarchy’s apex. Note that there are fewer members of the
discipline close to the hierarchy’s apex than to its base. Note also that scholars, teachers, and
students are all viewed as members of the discipline—all of them engaged at their own level
and in their own way in their discipline’s extension. As Bruner (1960) says,
intellectual activity anywhere is the same, whether at the frontier of knowledge or in a

third-grade classroom. What a scientist does at his desk or in his laboratory, what a literary
critic does in reading a poem, are of the same order as what anybody else does when he is
engaged in like activities—if he is to achieve understanding. The difference is in degree, not
in kind. The schoolboy learning physics is a physicist, and it is easier for him to learn phys-
ics behaving like a physicist than doing something else. (p. 14)
The Learning ↔ Teaching Dynamic of the Discipline

The dynamic of the discipline is inherent in the dual activity of “search for knowl-
edge” ↔ “dissemination of knowledge” present at all levels of the intellectual hierarchy,
as portrayed in Figure 2.1. The discipline as a whole and the members of the discipline
as individuals are constantly motivated in an upward direction in search of the
unknown, be they scholars in search of as yet unknown knowledge or students in
search of knowledge unknown to them but known to the discipline. And the discipline
as a whole and the members of the discipline as individuals are constantly motivated
in a downward direction to disseminate the known, be they scholars reporting to oth-
ers what they have discovered or teachers conveying what they have learned. The
knowledge of the discipline is viewed as having two characteristics: it can be learned,
and, once learned, it can be taught. “The distinguishing mark of any discipline is that
the knowledge which comprises it is instructive—that it is peculiarly suited for teach-
ing and learning” (Phenix, 1962, p. 57). Active members of the discipline—be they
scholars, teachers, or students—are viewed as constantly engaged in the dual activity
of learning ↔ teaching.
The Educative Process Within the Academic Community

Scholar Academics view education as a process of acculturating students into a
discipline, and thus into one portion of their culture’s knowledge base. They are con-
cerned with students’ acquisition of the discipline’s knowledge, ways of knowing,
attitudes towards itself, and traditions. They want to make students members of their
discipline by first moving students into the discipline and then moving them from a
lower to a higher level in its hierarchy.
The aim is to induct students into an academic discipline by giving them a par-
ticipant’s knowledge of the discipline rather than an observer’s knowledge about the
discipline, as was the case in the curricula described earlier in this chapter. Membership
in a discipline is the result of education within a discipline: one becomes a member of
a discipline by learning to participate in the discipline. The Curriculum and the
Disciplines of Knowledge hints at this when it proclaims, “The view of knowledge used
as the basis of this book places the increasing ability to participate in the discourse or
characteristic activity of the several disciplines of the curriculum as the focal point for
instruction” (King & Brownell, 1966, p. 79). Bruner (1966) suggests this when he
writes,
To instruct someone in these disciplines is . . . to teach him to participate in the process that
makes possible the establishment of knowledge. We teach a subject . . . to get a stu-
dent . . . to take part in the process of knowledge getting. (p. 72)
Because the disciplines are viewed as communities with lives of their own and
because education is thought of as acculturation into the academic communities, it is
assumed that “education for the discipline” is the same as “education for life” (Sizer,
1964, p. 132). Elementary school curricula within a discipline are developed with the
intent of preparing students for high school work in that discipline, and high school
curricula within a discipline are developed to prepare students for university work
within the discipline, and university study within a discipline is intended to prepare
the student for a life of study and work within the discipline.
Education in a discipline involves entering the discipline at a low level of the dis-
cipline’s hierarchy and working one’s way toward the top of the hierarchy. It involves
learning the knowledge of the discipline and teaching what one has learned to others.
And it involves dropping out of the discipline when one can no longer function as a
constructive member of the discipline.
A “territorial imperative” is constantly at work in two ways. First, education out-
side of the discipline is discouraged and frowned on. Potential members of the disci-
pline are not to be lost to “technical education” or “vocational education.” Educators
within the disciplines have no desire to share the domain of schooling with rivals. All
students are viewed as potential property of the disciplines and encouraged to pursue
a life dedicated to the search for knowledge within them.
Second, education within the disciplines involves the special cultivation of those
members of the discipline most likely to spend their lives within the discipline and
most likely to make contributions to the discipline. After a certain level of schooling,
students who show lack of interest in the discipline or who lack the ability to contrib-
ute to the discipline are largely ignored by Scholar Academics and encouraged either
to “drop out” of the academic community or to stabilize themselves at a particular level
within the hierarchy (perhaps by becoming elementary or secondary school teachers).
Curricula are designed to preserve the hierarchical nature of the academic community
by producing an intellectual elite through the selective promotion of students in such
a manner that increasingly more members of the discipline will exist at the bottom of
the hierarchy portrayed in Figure 2.1 than at the top of it.
Curriculum Issues
Thus far this chapter has described several characteristics of the Scholar Academic ideol-
ogy. It has shown how educators view curriculum from the perspectives of the academic
disciplines, how they view education as initiation into the disciplines and curriculum
creation as elaboration on a discipline. It has also discussed the equivalence between the
academic disciplines, the world of the intellect, and the world of knowledge and has
portrayed the nature of the equivalence at the local level by such phrases as “hierarchical
community,” “community with a tradition,” “extension through a search for and dis-
semination of knowledge,” “domain of inquiry within one partition of the world of
knowledge,” “education through acculturation,” and “acculturation into a hierarchical
community.” Three issues raised by this conceptual framework will now be examined:
classification and selection of disciplines (a global issue), having the curriculum reflect
the discipline (a local issue), and curriculum improvement.
Classification and Selection of Disciplines

The world of knowledge is not homogeneous and uniform but pluralistic.
Paralleling this pluralism is the multiplicity of disciplines, each autonomous unto
itself. There is no superior discipline governing all other disciplines. As a result, the
problem arises of identifying the separate disciplines, determining the nature of each,
and deciding on the relationship among them. This is called the problem of the clas-
sification of the disciplines. Paralleling this problem is that of the classification of the
world of knowledge: determining how the world of knowledge is to be broken up into
clusters, what the essence and value of each cluster is, and how the different clusters are
related to each other.
From the Scholar Academic viewpoint, it is impossible to determine what knowl-
edge should be taught in the schools until the world of knowledge is classified.
Similarly, until the problem of the classification of the disciplines is resolved, one can-
not determine which disciplines should be taught in the schools. Determination of the
school program is thus dependent on answers given to these problems. “The signifi-
cance of this set of problems to education is obvious enough. To identify the disci-
plines which constitute contemporary knowledge is to identify the various materials
which constitute the resources of education and its obligations” (Schwab, 1964a, p. 7).
The issue of classification arises (a) because there exist different ways of classifying
the disciplines and the world of knowledge, (b) because within any classification there
exist more disciplines and knowledge than there is room for in the schools, (c) because
inherent in different classifications are different conceptions of the nature of the well-
educated man, and (d) because within different classifications there are different
assumptions about which knowledge and which disciplines have the greatest value.
Solution of the problems of classification is crucial in determining the proportional
representation (including omission) of the different disciplines and knowledges within
the school program.
Classifications can be radically different. For example, Comte’s classification is
based on dependency relationships among disciplines (biology is dependent on chem-
istry, which is dependent on physics, which is dependent on mathematics, etc.), while
Aristotle’s classification is based on the distinction between theoretical (to intellectual-
ize), practical (to do), and productive (to make) types of knowledge.
Significantly different types of educational problems arise from different classifi-
cations. For example, under Comte’s classification, the issue of vocational education is
easily dismissed, while under Aristotle’s classification, it is difficult not to include voca-
tional education within the schools. Today the issue of vocational education can be
easily dismissed within the Scholar Academic ideology because the scheme utilized for
classifying the world of knowledge into disciplines is a hierarchical one that takes into
account primarily “theoretical” types of knowledge (in the Aristotelian sense of the
word) and that considers “practical” types of knowledge as dependent on and deriva-
tive from theoretical types of knowledge (in the sense of the Comtian interpretation).
Different classifications suggest significantly different solutions to considerations
such as what disciplines should be included in the curriculum, how much time should
be given to each discipline, and what disciplines “may be joined together for purposes
of instruction, what should be held apart, and in what sequence they may best be
taught” (Schwab, 1964a, p. 7).
Most educators, of course, do not bother themselves with questions about the clas-
sification of the disciplines or the world of knowledge. They unknowingly accept the
assumptions taught them by their disciplines, then argue the case for the representa-
tion of their discipline within the schools and design their curricula based on assump-
tions that they have not rigorously thought out, assumptions derived from the impulse
of their individual academic communities to preserve themselves and extend them-
selves (both with respect to community development and epistemological develop-
ment). However, conflicts often arise among disciplines as they compete for
representation within the school program. And these conflicts are often dependent on
assumptions about the classification of knowledge and are often argued, unknowingly,
around such assumptions. This was the case when more than 40 different subjects
taught in high school at the end of the 19th century were replaced by five subjects, each
representing academic disciplines, and the high school curriculum was standardized as
a result of the endeavors or the Committee of Ten, the many lectures of Charles Eliot,
and the first school reform movement within the Scholar Academic ideology that took
place between about 1880 and 1910. This was the case when Latin and Greek were
replaced in the schools by social studies, civics, and English language study between
1880 and 1950.
Curriculum as a Reflection of the Discipline

At the local level, educators work solely in their own disciplines. The major con-
cern of Scholar Academic developers at this level is to construct curricula that reflect
the essence of their discipline, for it is believed that curricula that accurately reflect
their respective disciplines facilitate acculturation of students into them. This was the
case with UICSM, SMSG, and MACOS.
Having the curriculum reflect the essence of the discipline it represents means that
the curriculum “(1) must be an epitome of the discipline; (2) must have an approach
and sequence in conformance with and in support of the discipline; and (3) must be
alike in fundamental concepts and mode of inquiry” (King & Brownell, 1966, p. 190).
Accompanying the concern that a curriculum should reflect the discipline it rep-
resents are assumptions such as the following: that the developer’s attention while
creating curriculum should be focused solely on the discipline (King & Brownell, 1966,
pp. 187–188); that the only source for curriculum content is the discipline itself
(Phenix, 1964, p. 51); that the sole criterion for selection of curriculum content is that
such content reflect the authentic structure of “the discipline in question as the scholar
himself regards that discipline” (CCSM, 1963, p. iii); that the curriculum “should be
determined by the most fundamental understanding that can be achieved of the
underlying principles that give structure to” or are inherent in the discipline (Bruner,
1960, p. 31); that questions about the relationship of curriculum to existing educa-
tional resources, teachability, and learnability are to be dealt with after the scope and
sequence of the curriculum are detailed (CCSM, 1963, pp. 2–5); that the needs of
children and society have little place in determining the content of the curriculum
(Fraser, 1962, p. 23); and that advice from social sciences such as psychology and soci-
ology on how to teach a discipline is to be sought only after the essence of the curricu-
lum is determined (King & Brownell, 1966, pp. 105–110).
Two problems that must be dealt with in determining the essence of an academic
discipline are deciding what the essence of the discipline actually is and coping with
the changing nature of the structure of any discipline.
Determining the essence of an academic discipline is not always easy. Frequently,
different perspectives exist. For example, is ecology summed up by the phrase “set of
antecedent-consequent events,” “structures and functions,” or “homeostatic mecha-
nism”? Perhaps each phrase provides a different view of the nature of ecology. Deciding
which position to take can pose a problem for curriculum developers, especially if they
create curricula as a team. The Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS), another
of the curriculum projects active during the 1960s, resolved its disagreements by frag-
menting into three commissions, each of which developed its own curriculum: the
green version (ecological), the blue version (molecular), and the yellow version (cel-
lular). Another example of choosing among different perspectives is deciding which of
the following best reflects a discipline’s essence: the discipline’s collection of ideas;
collection of facts; collection of concepts; collection of principles; collection of rela-
tions among facts, concepts, and principles; collection of patterns organizing facts,
concepts, principles, and relations among such; or collection of generalizations from
which the facts, concepts, principles, ideas, relations, and patterns of the discipline can
be generated.
In identifying the essence of a discipline, Scholar Academic developers must also
determine such things as how the discipline discovers new knowledge and how stu-
dents should learn the discipline, because “the structure, or logic, of each of the schol-
arly disciplines offers a way of learning the discipline itself ” (Foshay, 1970, p. 349) and
because “the disciplines themselves, understood as ways of making knowledge, not
merely as knowledge already made, offer suggestions about how they may themselves
be learned” (Schwab, 1962, p. 197). Note two assumptions here: that each of the many
disciplines has its own inherent learning theory and that there is thus not “a simple
theory of learning leading to one best learning-teaching structure for our
schools . . . but . . . a number of different . . . [learning theories] each appropriate or
‘best’ for a discipline” (Schwab, 1962, p. 197), and that children should learn the disci-
pline in a manner that parallels the way in which the discipline obtains new knowledge
and new ways of knowing (that is, children learning the discipline should engage in the
same type of activity as the scholar doing research; Phenix, 1962, pp. 64–65).
Scholar Academics must also deal with concerns such as making sure that the
medium used in delivering the curriculum reflects the medium used for inquiry and
the reporting of inquiry within the discipline and that the learning experiences consti-
tuting the curriculum are consonant with those experienced by practicing members of
the discipline.
A second problem faced by Scholar Academics is the refusal of the disciplines—as
vital evolving communities—to remain static. The disciplines are constantly growing,
and thus their natures are constantly changing. Unknown knowledge is discovered and
reorganized in ever more sophisticated paradigms. For example, in the 1890s the sub-
stantive structures of the scientific disciplines could be described as taxonomic, mor-
phological, classificatory, macroscopic, and static, while in the 1960s their substantive
structures were best described as microscopic, dynamic, structural, relational, and

functional. It is quite appropriate that 1890 curricula were different from 1960 cur-
ricula (such as SMSG math), and that 1960 curricula are different from 2000 curricula,
for the disciplines themselves are evolving.
Curriculum Improvement
Scholar Academic curriculum workers view curriculum improvement as taking
place within the existing socio-administrative structure of the educational establish-
ment. Their concern is with the knowledge structure of the school—primarily with the
scope and sequence of what is taught, and secondarily with the methodology used in
teaching—and not with the nature of the school as a social institution. Thus, Scholar
Academics may speak frequently of out-of-date content or poor teachers but seldom
of corrupt lay control or the complex power structure inside and outside the schools
that influences them. They see the school as an “ideal” institution whose primary pur-
pose is the acculturation of students into the world of knowledge and not as a social
institution functioning within the sociopsychological, socioeconomic, eco-environmental,
and politico-administrative structure of its society.
The two primary media used to stimulate curriculum improvement are the con-
ference and the textbook. The conference is a meeting between scholars, teachers, or a
combination of scholars and teachers that results in reports that make recommenda-
tions about what should be taught in schools. The intent of curriculum conferences
(whether intradisciplinary or interdisciplinary) is to bring about curriculum improve-
ment by producing prestigious s reports that affect the knowledge structure of the
curriculum by pressuring either schools or textbook preparers to implement the rec-
ommendations of the report. As Harold Rugg wrote in 1927 about the Committee of
Ten, the Committee of Fifteen, and other national committees of the 1890s, they
have exerted a tremendous influence in shaping the school curriculum. The prestige of
their reports was so great that, once published, their recommendations were copied into
entrance requirements of universities and they constituted the outline to which textbooks
had to correspond if the authors and publishers expected widespread adoption. Both state
and local, town and city systems came to base their syllabi definitely upon the recommen-
dations of the committee. (p. 64)
Such influence over the school curriculum was the hope of those who wrote more
recent reports, such as A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in
Education [NCEE], 1983) and Teaching at Risk (The Teaching Commission, 2004).
Such influence over the school curriculum was also the hope of those who wrote the
new mathematics, science, and history standards of professional organizations and
state departments of education.
The textbook is a daily program prepared by members of a discipline (including
teachers) that prescribes what is to be taught in schools. Textbook writing is an intra-
disciplinary endeavor. It can result in a text for students, a curriculum guide for teach-
ers, or both. Laboratory activities, movies, or field trips can accompany textbooks.
Textbook writing and school district curriculum guide writing are viewed as improv-
ing education by affecting what is taught within a course on a day-by-day, month-by-
month, and year-by-year basis.
Note that these mechanisms for curriculum improvement closely parallel two
modes of communication utilized by members of the academic disciplines: the schol-
arly conference and the research report or textbook.
Historical Context
Scholar Academics see themselves as having been given a hard time in the past. First,
other educators associate their endeavors with traditional education and with an
“imaginary traditional classroom” that is a composite of everything that is wrong with
our schools. This is not accurate, for Scholar Academics do not want education to be
sterile, regimented, and boring. They want to revitalize and enrich the education that
children receive in schools. Second, members of other ideologies have constantly
attacked and tried to change some of the things Scholar Academics hold most sacred
about our educational system. For example, proponents of vocational and commercial
education have attacked the Scholar Academic belief that all children should have
access to the academic curriculum because it is the best way for them to acquire the
knowledge our culture has accumulated over the centuries. The result is that many
children have been deprived of an academic education—of the education Scholar
Academics view as the great equalizer of democracy and that allows children from all
socioeconomic classes to compete for success in our society.
For many years, Scholar Academics quietly endured attacks on their educational
agendas, but in the last quarter century they have begun to strike back and vehemently
participate in the power struggle over who will control our schools and what will occur
in them. We are in a time of math wars, history wars, and reading wars. To judge the
energy underlying the current curriculum wars, one need only do an Internet search
using phrases such as “reading wars” or “math wars” and see the number of items
posted and the angry tone of many of them.
Let us look back a little over a century, to see—from the Scholar Academic
perspective—some of the roots of the current curriculum wars, some of the advo-
cates of the ideology, and how the ideology has changed over the last hundred years
until now.
Lester Frank Ward (1841–1913), a founder of the field of sociology, argued vehe-
mently against the popular belief of Herbert Spencer that the purpose of education
should be utilitarian and vocational. In the 1880s, he argued that the purpose of educa-
tion should be to transmit to all members of society knowledge of their cultural herit-
age, and that access to such knowledge is the key to individual betterment, equalization
of men’s position in society, maintenance of a democratic society, and social progress
(Ravitch, 2000a, pp. 26–29).
Charles W. Eliot (1834–1926), president of Harvard University and chairman of
the Committee of Ten, was a proponent of academic education under the belief that
the way to improve society is by improving the “intelligence” of individuals, which he
believed could be accomplished by developing people’s mental power: their power to

think and reason by studying their cultural heritage (Ravitch, 2000a, pp. 30–31). (At
the end of 19th century, faculty psychology was popular, and one trained the “thinking
muscles of the mind” by exercising them on the content of different disciplines.) As
president of Harvard, Eliot represented university academicians who had within the
last hundred years reorganized their way of viewing the nature of knowledge. The new
organization emphasized the plurality and autonomy of academic disciplines (and
their associated knowledge), as compared to the old organization that was based on
hierarchical dependency relationships among disciplines (and their knowledge). Eliot
wanted two things. He wanted to impose this new view of the nature of knowledge
embraced by the university on high schools (so their curricula would reflect the struc-
ture of knowledge at universities). He also wanted to standardize the high school cur-
riculum so that students from different high schools would arrive at college with
similar academic preparation. (It was difficult for universities when students came
from high schools with different types of curricula, curricula that differentially empha-
sized Greek, Latin, surveying, English literature, seamanship, etc.)
William Torrey Harris (1835–1909) began his educational vocation as an elemen-
tary school teacher in St. Louis in 1857. Later he was superintendent of St. Louis pub-
lic schools from 1868 to 1880, U.S. commissioner of education from 1889 to 1906, and
an influential member of the Committee of Ten and the Committee of Fifteen (which
reported on elementary education in 1895). He believed that the purpose of schooling
was to raise children above their natural state of being savages and prepare them to live
a civilized life in which they could knowledgably participate in the representative gov-
ernment of their American democracy. He was a proponent of academic education
who believed that the purpose of education is to provide individuals with the accumu-
lated knowledge of the human race by having them study certain academic subjects,
which he called “the five windows of the soul.” These “windows of the soul” repre-
sented the academic areas of study of what we would today call mathematics, history
(which included government), literature, language (which he labelled grammar), and
nature study (which he summed up with the word geography). Harris believed that
these academic areas needed to each be studied separately and equally, and he opposed
the Herbartian concept of curriculum concentration (in which different areas of aca-
demic study were related to each other, with one area of study dominating the others).
He promoted co-education and argued that all children should have access to an excel-
lent education, not just the children of the wealthy.
In 1892, the National Education Association (NEA) created the first blue ribbon
panel on education: the Committee of Ten, on which Eliot and Harris were prominent
members. The committee was formed to solve the problem of the diverse requirements
that existed for college admissions and the broad range of high school curricula and
graduation requirements (which were as likely to include surveying, Greek, and book-
keeping as history, mathematics, and Latin). The Committee issued its report in 1893.
Its recommendations resulted in the standardization of the high school academic cur-
riculum, which remains largely intact to this day: 4 years of English, history, mathe-
matics, and foreign language and 3 years of science (NEA, 1893). The Committee
merged Harris’s concern that students acquire rich academic content with Eliot’s
concern that students develop their thinking ability, asserting that students should
acquire the accumulated knowledge of our culture and its ways of thinking as repre-
sented in the academic disciplines of English, history, mathematics, science, and for-
eign languages. (The report did not say that all subjects were of equal value and it made
no decisions about the curriculum of vocational, manual, and commercial education.)
In addition, the Committee recommended that
every subject which is taught at all in a secondary school should be taught in the same way
and to the same extent to every pupil so long as he pursues it, no matter what the probable
destination of the pupil may be, or at what point his education is to cease. (NEA, 1893)
In other words, all children were to have equal access to an excellent education. These
remained important goals of the Scholar Academic ideology throughout the 20th cen-
tury and are reflected in such reports and acts as A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983), Teach-
ing at Risk (The Teaching Commission, 2004), the Goals 2000: Educate America Act
(1994), and the No Child Left Behind Act (2002). Many Scholar Academic endeavors
during the 20th century involved defending these goals and attacking those who chal-
lenged them.
William C. Bagley (1872–1946), a professor of education at the University of
Illinois, founder of the Journal of Educational Psychology, president of the National
Society for the Study of Education, and head of the department of teacher education
at Teachers College, Columbia University, beginning in 1918, was a major proponent
of the Scholar Academic ideology during the first half of the 20th century and
defended its assumptions against the attempts of other ideologies to control what
young people studied in schools. He fought against Learner Centered attempts to make
schools more responsive to the needs and interests of students by substituting interest-
ing activity for thoughtful study of significant cultural traditions; against Social
Efficiency attempts to promote industrial education, vocational education, commer-
cial education, domestic science, agricultural studies, manual training, and other utili-
tarian studies instead of the development of the intellect; against the intelligence
testing movement’s attempt to classify and sort children for different types of educa-
tion rather than provide them all with the best intellectual education possible; and
against Social Reconstruction attempts to make schools into social change agencies
critical of American traditions rather than to provide children with a common lan-
guage of cultural knowledge with which they could communicate. He believed that the
cultural knowledge accumulated by humanity over the ages was an invaluable heritage
that needed to be taught to each succeeding generation for social progress to continue.
He believed that schools should provide a common curriculum for all students that
was grounded in the academic disciplines of the liberal arts. He argued against cur-
riculum differentiation—against the tracking of students in schools into manual labor,
vocational education, general education, and college-bound groups, each receiving a
different type of education suited to their future occupations. He believed that all chil-
dren should have the same academic education, independent of their intelligence or
future occupation. In addition, he argued that what schools needed were better
instructional methods, better teaching materials, and more-qualified teachers (Ravitch,
2000a, chaps. 5–8).
Like Bagley, W. E. B. DuBois (1868–1963) fought against forces that opposed
Scholar Academic ideals. He was an outspoken opponent of Booker T. Washington’s
advocacy of manual education and vocational education for African Americans. He
argued for an academic and equal education for everyone, independent of race, and
suggested that “The Talented Tenth of the Negro race must be made leaders” for the
rest of the race through college education so that they could provide leadership to oth-
ers (Ravitch, 2000b, pp. 373–378). DuBois also argued against the view that education
was to build a new social order and eradicate social problems. Education, he pro-
claimed in 1935, was to teach academic content such as reading, writing, and counting,
which he refers to in this passage from a speech to African American teachers in
Georgia:
Whenever a teachers’ convention meets and tried to find out how it can cure the ills of
society, there is simply one answer; the school has but one way to cure the ills of society
and that is by making men intelligent. To make men intelligent, the school has again but
one way, and that is, first and last, to teach them to read, write and count. And if the school
fails to do that, and tries beyond that to do something for which a school is not adapted, it
not only fails in its own function, but it fails in all other attempted functions. Because no
school as such can organize industry, or settle the matter of wage and income, can found
homes or furnish parents, can establish justice or make a civilized world. (Null & Ravitch,
2006, pp. xiv–xv)
Other proponents of the Scholar Academic ideology who defended its assump-
tions in the 1930s and 1940s include Robert Maynard Hutchins (who promoted the
Great Books curriculum and believed that the aim of education was “the cultivation of
the intellect for its own sake” [Hutchins, 1936, p. 301]) and Isaac L. Kandel. Kandel’s
beliefs, which are typical of others who promoted the Scholar Academic ideology dur-
ing this period, may be summarized this way: Society creates schools “to perpetuate
themselves.” The function of schools is to perpetuate society by acculturating children
into our society’s cultural traditions and way of life by teaching them its “common
understandings, common knowledge, common values, and a common language of
discourse, all of which are necessary for participation of equals in a democratic soci-
ety.” Children, as well as society, have much to gain by acquiring the accumulated
knowledge and wisdom of humankind that has been created over the centuries and
preserved and organized in the academic disciplines. Teachers should transmit this
“priceless heritage to their students”; help “children understand [their culture and]
society and gain access to its tools—its books, techniques, customs, mores, and institu-
tions”; and help them acquire the “intellectual and moral discipline” necessary to
effectively function in a democratic society (Ravitch, 2000a, pp. 320–321).
What these educators were fighting for becomes clear when we note that between
1900 and 1955 the enrollment of students in academic tracks of high schools dropped
as new tracks in vocational education and general education multiplied and students
entered them. For example, between 1900 and 1955 enrollments in geometry dropped
from about 27% to 11% and enrollments in physics dropped from about 19% to 5%,
while between 1920 and 1955 enrollments in ancient and medieval history dropped
from more than 30% to less than 2% and enrollments in foreign languages dropped
from about 83% to 21% (Ravitch, 2000a, p. 350). If college entrance requirements had
not demanded that applicants to college complete the academic curriculum required
by the Committee of Ten, there might not have been any students left studying our
“priceless cultural heritage.”
During World War II, the U.S. Armed Forces and educators associated with it
noted the high level of illiteracy and lack of mathematical skills among the U.S. popu-
lation. Over the next 10 years, many educators and scholars began to worry about this
and to act to rectify it, including those who worked on UICSM mathematics. Then in
1957, when Russia launched Sputnik, the American public became terrified that we
would lose the cold war. Their terror resulted in demands that schools promote greater
participation among students in science, mathematics, and other academic subjects.
The president and Congress responded by authorizing and funding the National
Science Foundation and other branches of the government to develop new academic
curricula in the basic subject areas of elementary and secondary schools (starting with
science and mathematics)—curricula that reflected the essence of these subjects as
viewed by practicing scientists and mathematicians. It is out of these initiatives that
SMSG mathematics was funded, as well as curricula in physics, biology, and other areas
of science. For the next 15 years, scholars from academic disciplines ranging from
mathematics and science to history and the arts developed curricula that reflected
what was then the current view of the accumulated knowledge of their disciplines and
the ways of thinking about the world embraced by their disciplines. Their curricula
reflected both the content and ways of thinking that they assumed represented the
highest levels of our priceless cultural heritage (both Harris’s emphasis on rich aca-
demic content and Eliot’s emphasis on thinking ability). During this period, however,
the styles of thought taught to children reflected the academic disciplines’ modes of
inquiry rather than the intellectual muscles of children’s minds. This was a time in
which new exciting instructional methods and new more powerful teaching materials
were incorporated into school curricula. In addition, teacher education programs
began to place increased emphasis on intellectual excellence, as masters of arts (and
science) in teaching programs were begun that required not only that students have an
undergraduate major in an arts and sciences discipline but also that they do significant
graduate work in that discipline. From 1955 to 1970, Scholar Academics pursued
Bagley’s desire for better instructional methods, better teaching materials, and more-
qualified teachers for our schools.
From the mid 1960s to the mid 1980s, Scholar Academic initiatives were overtaken
by efforts of other ideologies.
Then the American public was aroused to again perceive the nation and education
to be in a state of crisis as international comparisons of children’s educational achieve-
ments showed the U.S. to be behind many other nations, as the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP, the federally funded program that periodically assesses
student academic achievement in the U.S.) showed declines in student achievement in

academic subjects, and as our “once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry,
science, and technological innovation [was reported to have been] overtaken by com-
petitors throughout the world” (NCEE, 1983, p. 1). The National Commission on
Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk to highlight the dangers facing the
U.S. and to insist that
all, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair chance [to succeed
in life] and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the
utmost . . . thereby serving not only their own interests but also the progress of society
itself. (NCEE, 1983, p. 1)
The report also recommended
that State and local high school graduation requirements be strengthened and that, at a
minimum, all student seeking a diploma be required to . . . [take] the following curriculum
during their fours years of high school: (a) 4 years of English; (b) 3 years of mathematics;
(c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies; and (e) one-half year of computer sci-
ence. For the college-bound, 2 years of foreign language in high school are strongly recom-
mended. (NCEE, 1983, p. 9)
Notice that these recommendations are almost identical to those the Committee
of Ten made 90 years earlier, both in the areas of required study in high school and in
the emphasis that all students be given “a fair chance” to study these subjects. News
media reported on A Nation at Risk and stirred up considerable public concern that
led to new initiatives in the curriculum wars. Many of these initiatives promoted
Scholar Academic agendas.
Three examples illustrate different ways in which educators promoted the Scholar
Academic ideology at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries: Hirsch’s
curriculum endeavors, Quirk’s Internet efforts, and the standards movement. Note in
these examples, which are described below, that they attempt to use political processes
to influence the school curriculum by appealing to the general public, as “lay policy-
makers,” to take action, often by “revolutionizing education from the outside in” (Finn,
1991, p. 46). Many of their writings are, in fact, addressed to parents, suggesting that
they take action through their local schools, school districts, state governments, or
national initiatives (Bennett, Finn, & Cribb, 1999). In general, the argument begins
with assumptions found in A Nation at Risk: that the future of our nation is “still at
risk” (Finn, 1991, p. 1) because our schools are failing (not because society, govern-
ment, or industry are not doing what they should). Evidence for this claim is gathered
primarily from standardized test scores, such as those of NAEP and the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS; Yecke, 2003), for it is believed
that standardized “testing and assessment results are our greatest single source of
information on academic performance” (Finn, 1991, p. 159). They proceed to argue
that the problem stems from “progressive education” forces having corrupted our
schools over the last century (Jacobs, 2006). As Finn (1991) asserts, “This mind-set is
characteristic of the child-centered philosophy that has dominated the education pro-
fession since the early twentieth century. But it is a philosophy that has brought the
nation to the brink of ruin” (p. 172). These forces have supposedly corrupted our
schools by promoting such things as “Multiculturalism,” “Discovery Learning,”
“Teachers as Facilitators,” “Developmentalism,” “Multiple Intelligences,” “Cooperative
Learning,” “Self-Esteem,” and “Bilingual Education” (Bennett et al., 1999, pp. 584–626).
The solution to the problem, it is argued, is to pay more attention to the “academic
curriculum . . . the basics . . . the academic core in five subjects: English; history and
geography; the arts; math; and science” (p. 91). As Bennett et al. continue, this is
because
some things are more important to know than others. . . . The [desired elementary and
middle school] curriculum puts academics first. It sets high but attainable standards. It
teaches fundamental . . . knowledge . . . knowledge that becomes a foundation for deeper,
more sophisticated studies in high school and college. (pp. 92–93)
E. D. Hirsch (1987) wrote the book Cultural Literacy, in which he asserted that
education should be a process of acculturating children into society in such a way that
they become good citizens by learning the shared accumulated knowledge of their
culture, which includes the background knowledge that literate adults use to under-
stand each other and events in their world as well as “the shared attitudes and conven-
tions that color” their understanding of human interactions and events (p. xiii). He
also insisted that all children—regardless of social class, economic status, and family
and cultural background—should have a chance to receive a stimulating intellectual
education, and he compiled long lists of the specific knowledge he thought children
should learn at each grade level.
Bill Quirk has fought the math wars for the Scholar Academic ideology through
the Internet. He has used his Web site, www.wgquirk.com, to attack those who do
not agree with the Scholar Academic position— “constructivists” in particular. His
following statement illustrates his views of the mission of education, teaching, and
assessment, as well as his belief that all children should have a rigorous academic
education:
[The math wars are] about the primary mission of American public education. . . . The
ongoing strength of any society depends on the quality of the shared tradition of knowl-
edge that is passed on from generation to generation. American schools need to teach
children the core content associated with the foundational knowledge domains of English,
mathematics, science, history, and geography. But our self-described “reformers” reject the
very concept of knowledge transmission, refusing to recognize a common core of knowl-
edge that all kids should learn . . . reformers have been forced to redefine the meaning of
“teacher” and “test.” “Teachers” are now to “guide” and “create rich enabling environments
for student discovery,” not impart knowledge. . . . They have redefined “test” to mean “find
out what each child has personally discovered,” not what the child has failed to learn.
(Quirk, 2005, ¶ 1, 2, 4)
Other Web sites that promote the Scholar Academic ideology include http://
coreknowledge.org, http://www.edexcellence.net, and http://www.mathematically
correct.com.
Other educators who have fought for the Scholar Academic ideology have contrib-
uted to the debate over what should be taught in schools by promoting their ideas
through the curriculum standards that many states and national organizations
develop. The standards delineate in each content area and at each grade level what
children should learn. From coast to coast, debates have raged over what should and
should not be included in the standards of specific content areas, such as history. In
many cases, public debate related to the math wars, history wars, and reading wars has
influenced state departments of education to favor particular ideological positions in
their state standards, as occurred in California and Massachusetts. Continuing pres-
sure is exerted on states by many Scholar Academic advocacy groups to make state
standards conform to the group’s conceptions of what the content of standards should
be, with passing and failing marks for standards being handed out frequently (Finn,
Julian, & Petrilli, 2006).
Partially as a result of Scholar Academic endeavors such as these, the percentage of
high school graduates enrolled in academic tracks versus vocational or general educa-
tion tracks rose from 42% in 1982 to 69% in 1994 (Ravitch, 2000a, p. 451).
We now shift from examining the context within which Scholar Academics work
to examining their conception of their professional aims, the nature of knowledge, the
nature of the child, the nature of learning, the nature of teaching, and the nature of
evaluation.
Aims
The aim of Scholar Academics is to extend the academic disciplines (the world of
knowledge and the world of the intellect) by transmitting their essence to students.
The extension of disciplines by acculturating new members into them serves the long-
range purposes of (a) preserving the existence of the disciplines by guaranteeing that
there exist members of the disciplines who will carry on their traditions and further
their epistemic development and (b) building literacy of the disciplines’ knowledge
within the general population so that its members will benefit from the knowledge
discovered by the disciplines and so that they will support the endeavors of the disci-
plines (as representatives of the accumulated knowledge of our culture). Doing so both
(a) preserves and extends essential components of our culture and (b) acculturates
children into an important dimension of its cultural knowledge base.
These long-range aims are rather vague and intangible. They do not specify why a
particular item is included in a curriculum. As a result, Scholar Academics are often
charged with being overly concerned about the means of accomplishing an unspecified
and vague end to the exclusion of being concerned about the ends of the educational
endeavor in which they are engaged. In essence, this charge reduces to the claim that
Scholar Academics have neither aims for their curricula nor justification for the exist-
ence of the substantive aspects of their curricula. These claims are not justifiable. If
people do not verbally specify their aims and clarify their justifications, this does not
mean that they do not exist. Scholar Academics assume a priori that the benefits of
being acculturated into the world of the intellect need no pragmatic defense—that the
benefits of preserving the culture’s ways of knowing by extending the disciplines are
central to the preservation of civilization and that the extension of the world of knowl-
edge within the minds of students is the defined mission of the school.
The means of extending a discipline is by transmitting its knowledge to students.
Because transmission of knowledge is the immediate task Scholar Academics continu-
ously face, it is often taken to be equivalent to acculturating students into a discipline.
Thus, it is often mistaken to be the primary aim (end) rather than recognized as the
secondary aim (means).
Knowledge
The Nature of Knowledge

The primary characteristic of the knowledge that Scholar Academics consider to
be potential curriculum content is that it is claimed by one of the academic disciplines
as belonging to its domain. For these educators, “the only really useful knowledge is
that which conforms to the structures revealed in the cognitive disciplines” (Phenix,
1964, p. 51). The knowledge of most worth is that on which the epistemic development
of a discipline depends and which contributes most to community development
within the discipline. Knowledge thus derives its value and its claim to being knowl-
edge from its ability to contribute to the extension of an academic discipline.
The Form of Knowledge

There are several characteristics of the knowledge valued most by Scholar
Academics.
First, knowledge gives people the ability to understand their world. This is in con-
trast to giving people, for example, the ability to do things, construct meaning, or act
in accordance with a set of values.
Second, knowledge takes the form of both “content” and “process” (Schwab, 1964a,
p. 72). When the word knowledge is used, it means both “that which is known” and “the
way in which something is known.” A bit of knowledge is viewed as implicitly carrying
both substantive and methodological aspects of a discipline.
Third, knowledge has a form that is called instructive, or didactic. As such, it is
capable of being transmitted from one human to another, retained in the mind of the
person to whom it is transmitted, and used by the person to whom it is transmitted to
give meaning to yet unknown knowledge. Didactic knowledge is repeatable and imper-
sonal. It can be repeated without losing its point, the occasions for delivering it are not
fixed, and special circumstances are not needed for its transmission. Any suitably
trained teacher can transmit knowledge to any suitably trained student. This means
that information tied to particular nonrecurring circumstances, such as a particular
item of conversational, bargaining, reassuring, or prosecuting information, is not
considered to be worthwhile knowledge for the school curriculum. It also means that
personal information that cannot be communicated without losing its point, such as
feelings of competence, power, self-esteem, or love, is not considered to be worthwhile
curriculum knowledge.
Finally, knowledge is a representation of reality and not reality itself. Whether real-
ity is taken to be an idea (as Plato believed) or a physical occurrence (as Aristotle
believed), knowledge is a representation of reality and not reality itself. Students learn
about reality; they do not learn reality. Teachers transmit knowledge of reality; they do
not transmit reality. People possess knowledge of reality; they do not possess reality.
The Origin of Curriculum Knowledge

The process of obtaining curriculum knowledge requires that (a) something exist
in objective reality, (b) the academic discipline discover it and sanction its existence by
including it in the discipline, and (c) the developer select it for inclusion in the cur-
riculum from the discipline, and then (d) it can be transmitted into the student’s mind.
Having collected curriculum knowledge, the developer can then imbed it within a
curriculum and transmit it to students. This is represented in Figure 2.2. Note that the
source for curriculum content is the discipline and that the test for the worth of knowl-
edge depends on how well it reflects the essence of the discipline. The creators of
UICSM, SMSG, and MACOS obtained the knowledge they embedded in their curric-
ula in this way.
Figure 2.2 The Scholar Academic process of obtaining curriculum knowledge.
Source
Curriculum
Reality Discipline Student
Knowledge
Test of Worth
Knowledge and Objective Reality

What is implicit in the above comments needs to be stated explicitly. Scholar
Academics accept the duality between the subjective reality within each individual’s
mind and the objective reality outside each person’s mind. Knowledge can originate
within either subjective reality or objective reality. However, only knowledge that can
be externalized, objectified, and impersonalized within objective reality is of worth.
Knowledge suitable for curriculum content must be observable within objective real-
ity. That which is known only within the mind of an individual and incapable of being
presented, observed, scrutinized, and acquired by the members of the discipline as a
community is not worthy of inclusion in the curriculum.
The Child
The Child as Mind

Scholar Academics are less concerned with the child than with curriculum con-
tent. When they do speak of the child, they speak of the child’s mind. In particular, they
speak of the rational or intellectual aspects of the child’s mind. Man—the child and the
student—is viewed as a creature of intellect. Other aspects of man’s nature are of little
concern to these developers.
Man is the symbolizing animal. He reasons. He remembers. He reflects. He meditates. He

imagines. He cultivates his mind by acquiring, retaining, and extending knowledge. He
struggles to control his emotions and actions with reason. He makes knowledge a virtue
and ignorance an evil. He questions appearances in search of reality. . . . These aspects of
intellect distinguish man from other creatures. The intellect is man’s schooled power of
knowing, of understanding. (King & Brownell, 1966, p. 20)
The child is thus viewed as a mind, the important aspects of mind being those
“powers” which are capable of being “schooled” within the academic disciplines.
The Child as Memory and Reason

The mind of man is viewed as consisting of two facilities: one is for storage and
the other for performing mental operations on that which is stored. The former is
often called memory and the latter reason. The former is capable of being filled and
the latter is capable of being shaped to conform to an academic discipline’s ways of
thinking.
The Incomplete Child

Scholar Academics view students as neophytes in the disciplines of knowledge:
The student is a neophyte in the encounters with the [academic] community of discourse;
he is, nevertheless to be considered a member of the community, immature to be sure, but
capable of virtually unlimited development. He is learning the ways of gaining knowledge
in the discipline . . . seeking always to gain meaning through the ensemble of fundamental
principles that characterize the discipline. (King & Brownell, 1966, p. 121)
Scholar Academics view the student as an immature member of an academic dis-

cipline who is capable of acculturation within that discipline as a result of learning its
content and ways of thinking. They see students as minds at the bottom of the aca-
demic hierarchy who are capable of being raised to a higher level within the hierarchy.
Scholar Academics regard students to be capable of learning because students’
minds are missing something they are capable of acquiring. Whether these educators
view the mind as empty and capable of being filled, blank and capable of being written
upon, untrained and capable of being trained, naive and capable of being made sophis-
ticated, or unexercised and capable of being exercised, they perceive students to be
missing something that exists outside their minds and is capable of being transmitted
into their minds. (As Locke said in 1690, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we
say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas” [Locke, 1690/1995, Book II,
chap. 1, section 2].) Scholar Academics often speak of students as sponges (Keynes,
1995, p. 64) capable of absorbing the ideas and ways of thinking of an academic disci-
pline (Bennett et al., 1999. p. 280). Both their memory and reason are considered
incomplete but capable of being made less incomplete as a result of their learning an
academic discipline.
Learning
The Learning ↔ Teaching Dynamic

The learning ↔ teaching dynamic is at the very core of both civilization and the
academic disciplines. Civilization is viewed as an organization of communal intelli-
gence whose central socialization process centers on its formal learning teaching func-
tion, and academic disciplines are viewed as communities of intellects whose central
dynamic is that of their learning ↔ teaching function. As a result, a learning ↔ teach-
ing atmosphere pervades all activity within the Scholar Academic ideology. Man is
viewed as an animal designed both to learn and to teach. Similarly, society is viewed as
a community whose major function is one of communal extension through teaching.
Direction Within the Learning ↔ Teaching Dynamic

Scholar Academics view learning as a function of teaching. Learning results from
teaching, and how a person learns is a consequence of how a person is taught. In its
starkest simplicity, learning is viewed from the perspective of “x teaches y to z” rather
than from the perspective of “z learns y from x.” Here the process “teaches y” deter-
mines the process “learns y,” and the phrase “teaches y to z” comprises the experiences
encountered by and learned by the student. Learning is thus viewed from the perspec-
tive of the transmitter rather than from the perspective of the receiver of learning.
Transmitting and Receiving Agents of

the Learning ↔ Teaching Dynamic
Within the learning ↔ teaching relationship, the teacher is viewed as a transmitter
and the learner is viewed as a receiver of the discipline’s knowledge. Students are
viewed as being drawn into the discipline. Disciplines “take . . . hold on the minds of
pupils” (NEA, 1893). Here it is assumed that “students have an enormous capacity to
learn and will absorb ideas like sponges if properly [taught,] motivated and encour-
aged” (Keynes, 1995, p. 64).
Whether the view is of students’ memory being filled or of students filling their
memory, students are on the receiving end of the learning ↔ teaching relationship.
Whether students’ disciplined reasoning ability is trained or students develop their
reasoning ability in correspondence with the thinking styles of a discipline, students
are shaped by the intellectual structures of the discipline. Whether the major emphasis
is on knowledge being impressed upon mind or on mind giving meaning to knowledge
presented to it, the source of knowledge lies outside the student and is actively trans-
mitted to the student by a teacher.
Within the Scholar Academic ideology, learning is the result of an intentional
activity initiated by the teacher and deliberately aimed at the student. That which is
learned is primarily a result of activity on the part of the teacher and secondarily a
result of activity on the part of the learner.
Learning Theory as Reflection of the Discipline

One of the central hypotheses of the Scholar Academic ideology is that the theory
of learning appropriate for use in an academic discipline’s curriculum is (a) unique to
the discipline and (b) to be a reflection of the structure of the discipline and derived
from the nature of the discipline itself. The belief is that the discipline carries inherent
within itself a methodology for teaching and learning.
Lack of Concern With Formal Learning Theory

Although Scholar Academics profess an interest in the writings on learning theory
produced by philosophers and social scientists, they tend to ignore such writings while
working on curricula. As developers at the Cambridge Conference on School
Mathematics (1963), which supported the endeavors of UICSM and SMSG, wrote,
“The conference should deal primarily with the goals of school mathematics, leaving
aside the relationship of these goals of existing educational resources,” and thus “we
made no attempt to take account of recent research in cognitive psychology” (pp. 2–3).
There is no need for a learning theory separate from the discipline, for it is believed
that the very nature of the discipline dictates the way in which it is to be learned and
taught. When educators engage in inquiry into the nature of learning, it is usually with
respect to a particular discipline and its curricula.
Many Theories of Learning

One of the implications of the belief that every discipline carries inherent within
itself a unique theory of learning ↔ teaching particularly suited to itself is the assum-
ption that there exist many different theories of learning rather than one generalizable
learning theory (Schwab, 1962, p. 19). Each of the many disciplines has its own unique
theory of learning ↔ teaching that reflects its nature, and each of these unique theories
of learning ↔ teaching is to be used in curricula corresponding to the discipline
(Phenix, 1966, p. 31).
Learning to Parallel Inquiry

Another implication of the belief that each discipline carries inherent within itself
its own theories of learning ↔ teaching is the assumption that children should learn
the discipline in a manner that parallels the way in which the discipline obtains new
knowledge and new ways of knowing, that is, that children learning the discipline
should engage in the same type of activity as the scholar doing research. “Education
should be conceived as a guided recapitulation of the processes of inquiry which gave
rise to the fruitful bodies of organized knowledge comprising the established disci-
plines” (Phenix, 1962, p. 63).
Readiness
Readiness issues are generally dealt with from the perspective of Bruner’s (1963)
statement “that any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form
to any child at any stage of development” (p. 529). A variety of elaborate interpreta-
tions of what this means have been offered (Shulman, 1968, p. 38). It is possible that
Bruner meant exactly what he said: that readiness is to be dealt with through the sim-
plification of topics initially too difficult for children to understand. When coordinated
with the concept of “a spiral curriculum, in which the same subject arises at different
times with increasing degrees of complexity and rigor” (CCSM, 1963, p. 13), the
Scholar Academic approach to readiness becomes more clearly defined. It becomes
even clearer when they appeal to Hutchins’s statement that “the best education for the
best is the best education for all” (Adler, 1982, pp. 6–7) and Keynes’s (1995) statement
that “the content, teaching styles, and support activities available to the students are
designed to enable virtually all students . . . to be highly successful.”
Scholar Academics do, however, differentiate between students. They do not
regard them as all the same, and as a result they see tracking as a useful practice. As
Bennett et al. (1999) elaborate,
the kind of tracking that can be useful is the type that treats all children to serious academic
content, regardless of the group they are in or the speed with which they’re mastering the
curriculum. Schools must deal with the reality that different children do learn at different
speeds and can handle subjects in varying degrees of depth. Grouping by ability and
achievement makes it easier for teachers to tailor instruction so that everyone is suitably
challenged. (p. 613)
Note here that while students can be grouped according to “ability and achieve-
ment” so that they can “learn at different speeds and . . . degrees of depth,” it is still
emphasized that tracking must treat “all children to serious academic content.” As
Adler (1982) writes, “a democratic society must provide equal educational opportunity
not only by giving to all its children the same quantity of public education—the same
number of years in school—but also by making sure to give to all of them, all with no
exceptions, the same quality of education” (p. 4) for “the innermost meaning of social
equality is: substantially the same quality of life for all. This calls for: the same quality of
schooling for all” (pp. 5–6).
Teaching
Teachers as Members of a Discipline

Teaching is a function of academic disciplines that enables students to learn them.
Its aims are to acculturate students into a discipline and to transmit the discipline to
students in such a way that its knowledge ends up in their minds.
Teaching is viewed within the context of the discipline. Its functions are functions
of the discipline. Its functionaries are functionaries of the disciplines. Its methods are
methods inherent in the discipline’s communications system. And its successes and
failures are the strengths and weaknesses of the discipline. Particularly important here
is the belief that
the teacher’s qualification as a member of one or more disciplines is basic. The teacher is
ideally an exemplar of the discipline to his students and to his colleagues; he is the embod-
iment of its values, its language, its skills, its ways of finding meaning. (King & Brownell,
1966, p. 157)
Most importantly he is a continuing member of the discipline who has reflected on the
nature of that discipline, its traditions, its ways of gaining knowledge, its assumptions
about what can be known and how it can be known. (King & Brownell, 1966, p. 121)
Teachers as Transmitters, Mediators, or Translators

Within the Scholar Academic ideology, teachers are primarily mediators between
the curriculum and the student. They are mini-scholars who devote themselves to
interpreting and presenting a discipline to students, rather than to the creation of new
knowledge (King & Brownell, 1966, pp. 121, 197). They are transmitters of the disci-
pline, and as such, they must have a thorough understanding of the discipline that they
teach. At the middle and secondary school levels, this means that they should have
majored in college in the content area that they teach.
According to Shulman (1986, 1987), teachers need to have three kinds of knowl-
edge associated with the discipline that they teach: knowledge of the discipline, cur-
riculum knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge (Deng & Luke, 2008). Knowledge of
the discipline involves a thorough understanding of all the forms and dimensions of
the academic discipline that they teach. Curriculum knowledge involves “an under-
standing of curricular and instructional materials available for teaching subject matter
at various grade levels” (Deng & Luke, 2008). Pedagogical knowledge involves an
understanding of how “to transform” an understanding one possesses of an academic
discipline “into forms that are pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the varia-
tions in ability and background presented by students” (Shulman, 1987, p. 15). As
Deng and Luke (2008, p. 78) describe it, pedagogical knowledge involves both “the
understanding of pedagogical representations and instructional strategies and of stu-
dents’ preconceptions with respect to particular curriculum topics at particular grade
levels” and how to use that understanding to translate their knowledge of their disci-
pline into a form comprehensible to students.
Taken together, these three types of knowledge require that teachers have, first, and
understanding of the discipline they are going to teach, and then second, the ability to
translate or transform their understanding of the discipline into a form that is com-
prehensible and inviting to the “varied interests, backgrounds, and capabilities of stu-
dents” (Deng & Luke, 2008, p. 78). During the translation or transformation process,
it is important that teachers accurately represent and present the knowledge of the
discipline they are teaching (Doyle, 1992, p. 499). One example of part of what is
involved in such a translation of a discipline’s knowledge is described by Deng and

Luke (2008), with respect to Bruner’s (1966) ideas, this way,
According to Bruner, the subject matter of the academic discipline needs to be converted
to modes of representation that align with the three distinctive stages of intellectual devel-
opment, the enactive, the iconic, and the symbolic. At the same time, this conversion needs
to be faithful to the basic ideas that constitute the structure of the discipline and the devel-
opmental capacity of the learner. (Deng & Luke, 2008, p. 78)
It needs to be noted that the entire translation or transformation process need not
be carried out by teachers alone. For example, part of the role of curriculum develop-
ers is to provide media—such as student textbooks, movies, and academic games—
that facilitate the translation process.
Teaching Methods
Three of the major teaching methods are didactic discourse, supervised practice,
and Socratic discussion. These are also the major communication media of most aca-
demic disciplines.
Didactic discourse is used during instruction to help students acquire organized
knowledge sanctioned by a discipline. It primarily takes the form of spoken language
utilized in either formal or informal lectures and written language utilized in textbooks
(or digital replacements of such; Adler, 1982, pp. 22–25). The descriptions of class-
room instruction using UICSM, SMSG, and MACOS at the beginning of this chapter
provide examples of how didactic discourse is used. Didactic discourse has the follow-
ing characteristics: (a) it is intended to be kept in mind (rather than responded to or
acted on); (b) it is intended to better the mind of the recipient (through strengthening
its power or improving its storage rather than simply interesting, soothing, or stimu-
lating the recipient); (c) it is intended to help students acquire greater understanding;
and (d) it is impersonal and nonsituational in that it can be transmitted to any suitably
prepared student in any situation (rather than needing a special recipient and a spe-
cially prepared environment, as in the case of making love; Ryle, 1949, p. 310).
Didactic discourse can be accompanied by such things as pictures, illustrations,
diagrams, equations, and demonstrations. It is also the primary mode of communica-
tion used by the academic disciplines to report their findings in journals and reports.
Supervised practice involves helping students acquire intellectual skills associated
with a discipline (Adler, 1982, pp. 25–28). For example, under supervised practice, one
might learn how to “do” the multiplication associated with the understanding of mul-
tiplication one acquires through didactic discourse, as illustrated in the SMSG class-
room example. Or, during supervised practice, one might learn how to use the
“anthropological methods of research” associated with the understanding of anthro-
pology that one acquires from didactic discourse, as illustrated in the MACOS class-
room example. Within the Scholar Academic ideology, supervised practice is always
connected to knowledge of a discipline and always refers to intellectual skills. It does
not refer to learning such things as how to drive a car, fix a flat tire, swim using the
sidestroke, or make a bed.
Socratic discussion is a form of
teaching by asking questions, by leading discussions, by helping students to raise their

minds up from a state of understanding less to a state of understanding or appreciating
more. . . . In no other way can children’s understanding of what they know be improved,
and their appreciation of cultural objects be enhanced. (Adler, 1982, p. 29)
This “interrogative or discussion method of teaching” (Adler, 1982, p. 29) requires

students to reflect on previously learned knowledge (acquired through reading or
didactic instruction) by testing their understanding against the understanding of
teachers or peers through disciplined conversation in order to acquire a greater depth
of understanding of the knowledge being discussed. This instructional method can be
used to sharpen children’s “ability to think clearly, critically, and reflectively” as a mem-
ber of an academic discipline might, using previously acquired intellectual skills
(acquired though supervised practice or didactic instruction; p. 30). Socratic discus-
sion “teaches participants how to analyze their own minds as well as the thought
of others, which is to say it engages students in disciplined conversation about ideas”
(p. 30) in the same way in which scholars might converse about ideas during an aca-
demic colloquium or discussion. Socratic discussion is always associated with knowl-
edge of a discipline or a discipline’s way of thinking or knowing, is used to enable
students to reflect on previously acquired understandings or skills, serves the purpose
of increasing students’ previously acquired understanding or skills, and takes place as
a result of testing such understanding or skills during a conversation, carefully orches-
trated by a teacher, with either a teacher or peers. It was illustrated during the discus-
sion of MACOS classroom instruction.
Note that didactic discourse, supervised practice, and Socratic discussion are
methods of instruction that complement each other, and that other instructional
methods can be used in coordination with them.
Note also that the instructional methods (and thus the manner in which the stu-
dent learns) embedded in a curriculum are to reflect the essence of a discipline:
For example, the primary method of teaching history at any level is that of historiography,
or the method of the mature professional [working within the discipline]. . . . Each mate-
rial, reading, and lesson sequence [making up the curriculum] should be consistent with a
warranted interpretation . . . of the characteristic elements of the discipline. . . . Therefore
every [aspect of the curriculum] plan must have an approach and a system or sequence in
conformance with the discipline. (King & Brownell, 1966, pp. 160, 189)
Within the Scholar Academic ideology, teachers are primarily mediators between
the curriculum and the student. They are transmitters of the discipline.
In summary, teachers are mini-scholars who devote themselves to interpreting and
presenting a discipline to students. In doing so, they are expected to have a thorough
understanding of the discipline they teach and the ability to translate or transform their
understanding so that it is comprehensible and inviting to students, using such instruc-
tional techniques as didactic discourse, supervised practice, and Socratic discussion.
Evaluation
Scholar Academics believe that worthwhile curriculum knowledge is objective rather
than subjective in nature. Similarly, they believe that evaluation should be objective
in nature—both in terms of what types of knowledge are assessed and in terms of
how one goes about assessing children, teachers, schools, and curriculum materials.
Scholar Academics are not shy or hesitant about giving tests, collecting data from
tests, or using the data they collect to make comparisons. As Finn (1991) says, “Testing
and assessment results are our greatest single source of information on academic per-
formance” (p. 159).
There are different purposes for evaluation. Some types of evaluation rank scores
from best to worst. Other types of evaluation are criterion based and simply indicate
whether a child, teacher, school, or piece of curriculum material is or is not adequate.
Consistent with their hierarchical view of academic communities, Scholar Academics
use evaluation measures that rank children, teachers, schools, and curriculum
materials—rather than simply indicating whether they pass or fail according to some
criterion. As Finn (1991) writes,
we’re accustomed to league standings in the world of baseball, price-earnings ratios in the
stock market, and circulation figures in the newspaper business. Comparisons of precisely
this kind in the field of education have been propelling the contemporary excellence move-
ment. (p. 172)
Given their belief in the value of objective evaluation that ranks the things being
evaluated, Scholar Academics are supporters of high-stakes testing, such as the “objec-
tive” national exams mandated by the Race to the Top Fund (and its predecessor, the
No Child Left Behind Act). As Bennett et al. (1999) say, “High-stakes tests—the kind
whose results really do count toward important decisions like promotion and gradua-
tion . . . are necessary” (p. 587). Scholar Academics believe that high-stakes testing of
children should be used for grading, promotion, and school graduation. They also
advocate high-stakes testing for teacher licensure. They believe in aggregating student
scores on high-stakes testing and using the results to compare schools and school dis-
tricts, both to determine which schools and school districts are failing (so that they can
be taken over by their state governments and improved) and to stimulate competition
between school systems and thereby improve their rankings (and thus the education
of their students). As Finn (1991) says,
the exams will appraise individual achievement but will be designed so that their results
can be aggregated, analyzed, and compared at all the other levels we care about: the class-
room, the school, the local system, the state, and the nation as a whole. (p. 265)
Scholar Academics believe in the use of aggregated student scores on high-stakes

national exams at the state level and the publication of the ranked performance of each
state for a number of reasons, including the stimulation of competition between states
as a way of getting them to improve their educational systems and the pressuring of
states to take curriculum initiatives, such as the implementation of specific types of
state academic content standards, which is one way of persuading teachers and schools
to teach to the tests and thereby influencing the content of the school curriculum (Finn
et al., 2006). As Finn (1991) emphasizes,
the exams will differ from today’s familiar standardized testing programs, too, in that
teachers and schools will be encouraged to “teach to” them; indeed, preparing students for
these exams will comprise a sizable portion of what schools do. . . . Working in league with
the curriculum, these exams are meant to alter behavior in millions of individual instances.
(p. 264)
Two types of evaluation need discussion: student evaluation and curriculum

evaluation.
Student Evaluation
Evaluation of students attempts to measure students’ ability to re-present to mem-
bers of the discipline that which has been transmitted to them through the curriculum.
This evaluation rests on a correspondence theory of knowledge: the extent to which
what is in one’s mind reflects the discipline is the extent to which one possesses knowl-
edge. The purpose of student evaluation is to certify those students who are rising
within the occupational hierarchy of the discipline. Evaluation has as its intent
the ranking of evaluees—assigning evaluees a sequential ordering from best to worst
within the test group. The ranking is determined a posteriori through norm-
referenced tests, the results of which are determined after students have been evalu-
ated. It is not used to separate students according to what they know, but according to
who knows it best.
Curriculum Evaluation
Scholar Academics use both summative and formative evaluation. Summative
evaluation takes place after a curriculum is created or implemented and serves the
purpose of informing the public of its effectiveness. Formative evaluation takes place
while a curriculum is being developed or implemented and serves the purpose of pro-
viding information that allows the curriculum to be revised and improved.
Summative evaluation measures how well the curriculum reflects the discipline
and prepares the student for further work in the discipline. Scholars (or persons
behaving as they believe scholars would) determine how well the curriculum reflects
the discipline. Ferris gives the flavor of this type of assessment when he writes,
“Because of the eminence of the scientists who have been involved in the develop-
ment of each of these new high school science courses, it can be presumed that the
course content is accurate and authoritative” (Ferris, 1962, p. 162). Standardized
achievement tests determine how well a curriculum prepares students for further
work in the discipline.
There are two aspects of formative evaluation: one pertains to curriculum content
and the other to the learning experiences used during instruction. Scholars (or persons
behaving as they believe scholars would) assess curriculum content through the use of
logical analysis to determine how well it reflects the discipline.
Evaluation of a curriculum’s learning experiences is carried out both through
logical analysis—to determine how well they embody the essence of the curriculum—
and through field-testing—to determine their effectiveness in helping teachers teach
and students learn the discipline. During field testing, learning experiences are assessed
primarily in terms of the teacher’s ability to use the curriculum with students (through
informal reports from teachers of what does or does not work in the classroom) and
secondarily in terms of the student’s ability to learn from the curriculum (using
achievement tests). In both cases, formative evaluation focuses on the overall effect of
a learning experience and provides feedback such as “more refinement needed” or
“things are fine” rather than details of the particular successes and failures of a learning
experience.
The Scholar Academic ideology is often assumed to represent traditional education.
This is an unfair assessment. The ideology has done much to give intellectual vitality,
excitement, depth, rigor, and currency to the school curriculum. Its intent of teaching
children our shared cultural traditions as they are codified in the academic disciplines
and stimulating children to explore the exciting world of knowledge and intellect in
the same manner as scholars goes far beyond traditional educational practice. Scholar
Academics’ insistence that children understand the knowledge they acquire, that teach-
ers be mini-scholars who expertly transmit that which is known to those who do not
know it, and that education promote intellectual excellence has done much to improve
our schools.
Through the endeavors of the Committee of Ten, the Scholar Academic ideology
exerted enormous influence on the school curriculum at the end of the 19th century,
when its advocates standardized the school curriculum with the academic disciplines
of English, mathematics, science, history, and foreign languages at its core. Its influence
then declined as other ideologies flourished. It regained its influence in the 1950s and
1960s, when, after the Sputnik scare and with the infusion of federal funds into educa-
tion, advocates of the ideology updated and revitalized the content of school curricu-
lum so that it reflected scholars’ most current understanding and ways of thinking. By
1970, its influence had again declined as other ideologies became prominent, although
its advocates continued their criticism of other ideologies through such media as the
back-to-the-basics movement. With the rise of the standards movement at the end of
the 20th century, this ideology again asserted its influence on updating the knowledge
of the school curriculum, redirecting students to take college preparatory academic
classes in high school, insisting that teachers be mini-scholars and have academic
degrees in the subjects they taught, and promoting academic excellence. The recurring
terrorist threats and fear that American education is not providing children with an
adequate education to maintain the country’s premier economic status provides a
natural political and social stimulus for the Scholar Academic ideology to continue to
assert its influence on American schools. Figure 2.3 provides a rough estimation of
when advocates of this ideology have been most active, with respect to their own
norms, in attempting to influence American education.
Figure 2.3 Times of relative high and low activity of the Scholar Academic ideology.
High
Level of Activity
Low
1890 1925 1950 1975 2012
Time
3
Social Efficiency
Ideology
A Scientific Technique of Curriculum Making

In 1913, Franklin Bobbitt launched the Social Efficiency ideology by demanding that
educators learn to use the scientific techniques of production developed by industry
(Bobbitt, 1913). In 1918, Bobbitt published The Curriculum—the book that marks the
birth of the field of curriculum. In it he declared that the educational “task preceding
all others is the determination of . . . a scientific technique” of curriculum design
(Bobbitt, 1918). He described the underpinning of his scientific technique this way:
The central theory is simple. Human life, however varied, consists in the performance of
specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares . . . for these specific
activities. However numerous and diverse they may be . . . they can be discovered. This
requires only that one go out into the world of affairs and discover the particulars of which
these affairs consist. These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations, and forms
of knowledge that men need. These will be the objectives of the curriculum. They will be
numerous, definite, and particularized. The curriculum will then be that series of experi-
ences which children and youth must have by way of attaining those objectives . . . that
series of things which children and youth must do and experience by way of developing abili-
ties to do the things well that make up the affairs of adult life; and to be in all respects what
adults should be. (p. 42)
Note here that the “objectives” of education are assumed to be the “numerous,
definite, and particularized” “performances” needed “to do the things well that make
up the affairs of adult life,” and that the curriculum should be the “series of things
which children and youth must do and experience” to obtain those performances.
In 1949, Ralph Tyler presented Bobbitt’s scientific technique in its broadest
form in Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction by introducing four basic
57
questions every educator must answer when creating curriculum or instructional

programs:
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? (p. 1)
Let us briefly examine each of Tyler’s questions.

The first question is “What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?”
In other words, what educational purposes should a curriculum or instructional pro-
gram have as its goal? These “educational purposes” are what Bobbitt called the “objec-
tives of the curriculum.” Determination of curriculum objectives is the first task for
Social Efficiency educators, for as Tyler (1949) says,
if an educational program is to be planned . . . it is very necessary to have some conception

of the goals that are being aimed at. These educational objectives become the criteria by
which materials are selected, content is outlined, instructional procedures are developed
and tests and examinations are prepared. (p. 3)
During the early stages of curriculum work, Social Efficiency educators devote “much
time to the setting up and formulation of objectives, because they are the most critical
criteria for guiding all the other activities of the curriculum-maker” (Tyler, 1949, p. 62).
Social Efficiency educators believe curriculum objectives must be stated in behav-
ioral terms: as observable skills, as capabilities for action, as activities people can per-
form, as demonstrable things people can do. The need to state objectives this way
provides several insights into the Social Efficiency ideology. First, the behavioral phras-
ing of objectives reflects the Social Efficiency conception of the nature of man: the
essence of man is expressed in the specific behaviors he can perform. Important here
are both the behavioral conception of man and the conception of man as a bundle of
specific skills. As Bobbitt wrote, “human life, however varied, consists in the perfor-
mance of specific activities.” Second, the behavioral phrasing of objectives reflects the
Social Efficiency conception of the nature of education. As Tyler (1949) wrote, “educa-
tion is a process of changing the behavior of people. . . . [E]ducational objectives, then,
represent the kinds of changes in behavior that an educational institution seeks to
bring about in its students” (pp. 5–6). The essence of education can be summed up by
the phrase “changing behavior.” Third, the behavioral phrasing of curriculum objec-
tives allows them to be stated in a form which facilitates the efficient scientific develop-
ment of curriculum: a form that “provides clear specifications to indicate just what the
educational job is” (p. 62), a form that is “most helpful in selecting learning experi-
ences and in guiding teaching” (p. 44), and a form that makes evaluation easy.
The second question Tyler asks educators creating curriculum or instructional pro-
grams is “What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these
purposes?” These “educational experiences” of Tyler’s are the same as Bobbitt’s learning
Chapter 3 Social Efficiency Ideology ❖ 59
“experiences which children . . . must have by way of attaining those objectives.” The
“experiences” from which the child learns comprise the substance of the curriculum and
are the means of attaining the ends of the curriculum as defined in its “objectives.”
Learning experiences have this place in curriculum because it is believed that “for a given
objective to be attained, a student must have [learning] experiences that give him an
opportunity to practice the kind of behavior implied by the objective” (Tyler, 1949,
p. 65). Here, “the term ‘learning experience’ refers to the interaction between the learner
and the external conditions in the environment to which he can react” (p. 63). Two
aspects of this concept of learning experiences are crucial. First, “learning takes place
through the active behavior of the student; it is what he does that he learns” (p. 63).
Second, “learning takes place through the experiences which the learner has; that is,
through the reactions he makes to the environment in which he is placed” (p. 63).
From this perspective, both the learner and the learning experiences are crucial.
The learner is crucial to the learning process because he “himself must carry on the
action which is basic to the experience” from which he learns, for “it is the reactions of
the learner himself that determine what is learned” (Tyler, 1949, p. 64). Learning expe-
riences are crucial because the actions and reactions of learners are controlled, molded,
or shaped through their interactions with the environment in which they are placed.
The significance of this for educators follows directly: they must control the learning
experiences students have by “manipulation of the environment in such a way as to set
up stimulating situations—situations that will evoke the kind of behavior desired”
(p. 64). In particular, they must contrive an educational environment that contains the
stimulus conditions that will elicit, stimulate, reinforce, and support the behavior
(actions and reactions) desired of learners as specified by their curriculum’s objectives.
Note that action that one performs is viewed as different from content stored in
the mind. It is the former that is valued and not the latter. Social Efficiency curricula
specify behavior that is learned, not content that is acquired.
The third question Tyler presents is “How can these educational experiences be
effectively organized?” This is similar to Bobbitt’s concern with creating an effective
series of experiences that children encounter as they run the curriculum.
In order for educational experiences to produce a cumulative effect, they must be so organ-
ized as to reinforce each other. Organization is . . . important . . . in curriculum develop-
ment because it greatly influences the efficiency of instruction and the degree to which
major educational changes are brought about in the learners. (Tyler, 1949, p. 83)
Important here is the word efficiency. Effective organization of learning experiences

allows curriculum objectives to be efficiently accomplished by stimulating learning to
take place in the most efficient manner possible—where efficiency is defined in terms
of expenditure of time, money, and human resources.
The fourth question educators must answer is “How can we determine whether
these purposes are being attained?” For the Social Efficiency ideology, “the process of
evaluation begins with the objectives of the educational program” (Tyler, 1949, p. 110)
and “is essentially the process of determining to what extent the educational objectives
are actually being realized by the . . . curriculum” (pp. 105–106). Since “educational
objectives are essentially changes in human beings,” it follows that “evaluation is the
process for determining the degree to which these changes in behavior are actually
taking place” (p. 106). Important here is that the behavioral conceptions of man and
education, which result in the stating of educational purposes as behavioral objectives,
also result in a concept of evaluation limited to the overt behavior of the evaluee and
the specific behaviors stated in the educational objectives. And since, as Bobbitt says,
“the objectives of the curriculum . . . will be numerous, definite, and particularized,” it
follows that evaluation will be numerous, definite, and particularized.
In summary, the scientific technique of the Social Efficiency ideology consists of
determining “educational purposes,” “educational experiences . . . to attain these pur-
poses,” effective organization of these experiences, and evaluative measures to “deter-
mine whether these purposes are being attained” in accordance with a behavioral
interpretation of the nature of man and education.
Programmed Curriculum and the Behavioral Engineer

The type of curriculum valued by Social Efficiency educators can be called “pro-
grammed curriculum.” Many types of programmed curricula exist, from individual-
ized computer instruction to programmed courses taught to large groups of students;
from mechanical teaching machines that offer students few learning choices to indi-
vidually prescribed instruction where student interests, abilities, learning styles, and
learning rates are accommodated; from environment simulators in which teachers are
unnecessary to curriculum packages where the teacher is the center of attention; from
programmed textbooks to multimedia courses. Description of one delivery system, the
assumptions underlying it, and the procedures used in creating it will illustrate what is
meant by programmed curriculum and the scientific technique.
Type to Learn is an individualized instruction curriculum designed to teach stu-
dents to type using a computer (Sunburst Technology, 2001). The program begins with
a movie that tells students about a time travel mission they are going on, introduces
them to keyboarding ergonomics, and shows them the keyboard and how to place their
hands on it. Students then begin the “mission,” which includes 30 lessons, each includ-
ing review of any previously learned keyboarding skills, demonstration of new key-
boarding skills, practice using the new skills, assessments, and a reward in the form of
a game when students pass the final assessment for the lesson. An early lesson teaches
how to type using the f, j, and space bar keys. The lesson begins with the computer
speaking to the student and demonstrating how to type f, j, and space using an ani-
mated image of a keyboard and three-dimensional hands. Immediately after the dem-
onstration, students practice typing f, j, and space, with one keyboard stroke being
introduced at a time. For example, students might have to type the following sequence
of strokes: fff jjj ffjj fjfj. If a student makes a mistake, he or she is not allowed to con-
tinue until the mistake is corrected. If a mistake is made or the student does not
respond in a certain amount of time, the computer first prompts the student with a
visual and auditory cue; if this fails to stimulate the appropriate response, it demon-
strates how to complete the task with an animated visual of the 3D hands typing the
appropriate response. The computer constantly assesses students’ accuracy and speed
and presents this information to them as well as saves this information in a teacher
management program. When students finish practicing typing the f, j, and space, they
are given a test. If they pass the test—with sufficient typing accuracy and speed—they
are given a reward in the form of a chance to play a game in which they practice the
typing skills they have learned thus far. There are several types of games. Key Figures
is a keyboarding speed–and accuracy–building exercise in which students meet 50
historical people. To play Dictation, students type exactly what they hear historical
people say. Windshield Typers is designed to improve left- and right-hand coordina-
tion as students clear the sands of time from their windshield.
Type to Learn carefully sequences the skills students learn as they move from typ-
ing individual letters to typing pairs of letters, short words, longer words, sentences,
and longer passages, including capital letters and punctuation marks. Students cannot
progress to the next lesson until they have satisfactorily completed all previous lessons.
As they work through the curriculum, their performance is saved in a teacher manage-
ment program that records such things as typing accuracy, typing speed, and keys
students have difficulty with. Teachers can thus review each student’s records and
individually adjust passing scores for tests, the amount of practice required, vocabulary
levels, and so on.
Type to Learn was designed to provide students with the keyboarding skills they
will need as adults to perform well in jobs that require the use of a computer—which
are most jobs these days. A secondary benefit of the program is that it builds keyboard-
ing skills that enable students to efficiently complete school and college assignments.
The skills students acquire are carefully sequenced from less difficult to more difficult,
until performance competency is achieved. The learning experiences students encoun-
ter directly simulate activities they will encounter as keyboarders—that is, they learn
to type by typing on a computer keyboard. During the program, students are active
learners who develop their skills by shaping their behavior in accordance with the
requirements of Type to Learn. Students’ progress is constantly assessed as they learn.
During the program, the teacher is a manager of student progress who adjusts such
things in the computer program as vocabulary levels.
Programmed Curriculum
Type to Learn is a programmed curriculum that consists of a carefully
sequenced set of learning experiences, each representing a behavior to be learned.
Each learning experience consists of one keystroke to be typed and the correspond-
ing correct response. The learning experiences that make up the program are
designed and sequenced in such a way as to gradually lead the learner from incom-
petence to competence.
The method of “behavioral engineering” used to design Type to Learn contains
both a conceptual component that explains how programmed curriculum teaches
and a methodological component that specifies how it should be created.
Underlying both is the curriculum developer’s conception of himself as a “behav-
ioral engineer.”
Understanding how programmed curriculum teaches requires an understanding

of the Social Efficiency view of the nature of teaching and learning. The behavioral
engineer views teaching as a process of shaping learners’ behavior through the use of
rewards or reinforcements. Learners’ behavior is to be shaped in such a way that the
occurrence of a specific stimulus automatically results in the emission of a desired
response. The stimulus that Type to Learn produces for learners is the auditory and
visual presentation of a letter, word, sentence, or (eventually) passage. The desired
response is typing the corresponding keystroke or keystrokes to replicate the stimulus.
Learners are provided several reinforcements and rewards for correct responses: pres-
entation of the next stimulus; a window that constantly updates one’s typing speed and
accuracy; and, after each lesson’s final test, a fun (skill-building) game. The behavior
of learners is shaped both by arranging the rewards of learning in such a way that they
reinforce the connection between the desired response and the specific stimulus upon
which it is contingent, and by not letting a learner proceed to more advanced learning
experiences until the desired response to a specific stimulus is automatically emitted.
Underlying this view of teaching and learning are several assumptions.
First, Social Efficiency educators assume that learning consists of a change in
behavior, the new behavior being the emitting of a response to a stimulus that would
not otherwise have taken place. Something is learned from Type to Learn when a learner
responds to a stimulus—correctly typing the keystroke presented by the computer—
in a way that he or she would not have prior to exposure to the curriculum.
Second, Social Efficiency educators assume that learning takes place only as a
result of learners’ practice of the behavior they are to learn, for it is what one does that
one learns. The assumption is that people learn by constructing in their brains the
connections that allow them to automatically respond appropriately to stimuli. In
Type to Learn, learners practice the behavior they are to learn and in so doing learn,
because they are required to respond to a stimulus by actually emitting the desired
behavior so many times that the stimulus response connections they construct in their
minds become automatic. Learning, in fact, takes place in three stages: a cognitive
stage, an associative stage, and an automatic stage (Lauber, Robinson, Kim, & Davis,
2001). During the cognitive stage, Type to Learn presents a demonstration of the skill
to be learned—an animated movie of hands typing the required keystrokes in response
to a verbal and visual stimulus (the letters or other material to be typed) as well as a
verbal description of how to type those keystrokes. During this stage, learners store in
memory an image of the skill that is to be performed and try to execute the skill by
talking or reasoning themselves through it. In the associative stage, learners gradually
eliminate errors in performance. Here, connections between stimulus and response are
strengthened by practice in such a way that reason can guide but does not need to be
used in performance of a particular skill (in other words, understanding combined
with the reason that leads to action is gradually transformed into procedural knowl-
edge that leads to automatic performance of the required skill). During the automatic
stage, skills learned in the associative stage become increasingly automatic as learners
continue to practice typing keystrokes in response to the presentation of text in visual
and verbal formats. At this stage, the need to use verbal knowledge, memory, and
reason to perform a skill disappear as the connections between stimulus and response
become automatic and occur with such ease that verbal mediation disappears.
Learning results as learners construct the mental connections that allow them to auto-
matically perform a keystroke in response to a verbal or visual stimulus.
Third, it is assumed that learning consists of acquiring specific responses to par-
ticular stimuli rather than general responses to vague stimuli. For example, in Type to
Learn, it is assumed that one does not learn to type in general, but that one learns how
to replicate specific letters seen or heard with specific corresponding keystrokes. Type
to Learn presents one stimulus to learners at a time, to which there is only one specific
and clearly defined response.
Fourth, it is assumed that learners acquire complex behaviors gradually by slowly
building up ever more complex repertoires of behavior out of simpler ones.
Programmed curricula move learners in finely graded steps through many unitary
learning experiences, each of which develops a single behavior in such a way that suc-
cessive, more complex behaviors build on the simpler behaviors preceding them. For
example, Type to Learn first teaches individual keystrokes, then combinations of key-
strokes, then words, and eventually teaches the learner to duplicate longer textual and
verbalized passages. In addition, a programmed curriculum guarantees that learners
will actually gradually build ever more complex repertoires of behavior, because it
evaluates learners’ responses to each learning experience and does not allow them to
advance to subsequent levels of complexity until they have demonstrated that they
have mastered the preceding material.
Fifth, it is assumed that all aspects of learning can be dealt with by using this view
of teaching and learning. Complex behaviors, such as learning how to fly an airplane,
simply require the development of complex teaching machines, such as the computer-
ized flight simulators developed by the U.S. Air Force. Learning intellectual skills can
also be taught. For instance, mathematical problem solving simply requires that learn-
ers be provided with (a) advanced organizers and problem solving demonstrations so
that they can, with the aid of memory and reason, respond to stimuli and replicate the
demonstrations when presented with new problems, and then (b) much practice inter-
nalizing the desired problem solving skills in such a way that they become automatic
responses to certain types of mathematical problems.
Behavioral Engineering
Social Efficiency educators construct programmed curricula through the use of
“behavioral engineering” (Holland, 1960, p. 275). Behavioral engineers engage in five
basic tasks, which parallel Tyler’s questions, while developing curriculum.
Their first task is to obtain educational purposes for their curricula. These are
behaviorally phrased and specify the terminal performances learners are to acquire.
Educational purposes are obtained from clients for whom programs are designed—
behavioral engineers do not invent them themselves. Possible clients include society,
scholarly organizations, parents, teachers, publishers, and businesses. Type to Learn
was designed for an educational publisher who had determined that businesses, indus-
try, and schools wanted workers and students to have keyboarding skills.
The second task behavioral engineers undertake is careful analysis of their pro-
gram’s educational purpose to find a sequence of specific behavioral objectives, each
of which represents one stimulus-response contingency that a learner must acquire in
order to gradually move from incompetence to competence. Different forms of this
analysis are referred to as task analysis, activity analysis, and the construction of a
learning hierarchy. Construction of a learning hierarchy
requires that the behaviors that lead to terminal behaviors [be] carefully analyzed and
sequenced in a hierarchical order such that each behavior builds on the objective immediately
below it in the sequence and is prerequisite to those that follow it. (Holland, 1960, p. 275)
Robert Gagne (1970) describes the construction of a learning hierarchy this way:
Analysis of a topic begins with the statement of the terminal objective—the performance
or performances one expects the student to be able to exhibit after the learning of that topic
has been completed. Once this objective has been satisfactorily defined, one can proceed to
identify a subordinate set of subtopics, each an individual learning act, that must be con-
sidered prerequisites for the learning. Each of these subtopics in turn may be subjected to
the same process of analysis, until one has arrived at performances that the students are
known to possess, at which point the analysis stops. Each subordinate objective, then, is
derived by systematically applying to the next higher objective the question, “What must
the student already know how to do, in order to learn this performance?” The description
of what the student must know—in other words, the prerequisite capabilities he must
have—identifies the subordinate objectives. (p. 329)*
This is not a simple endeavor, for creation of a program of any length requires
defining and sequencing many specific behavioral objectives. Underlying each of the
30 units in Type to Learn are several subordinate objectives, such as “When presented
with the letter j in written form, the learner will press the j key on a computer keyboard
with the first finger of the right hand.”
The third task behavioral engineers undertake is creation of the learning experi-
ences that the learner will encounter while moving through the curriculum. Learning
experiences consist of activities in which students engage that contain stimuli associ-
ated with the responses students are to learn. Each learning experience must be created
to correspond to one of the clearly specified subordinate behavioral objectives previ-
ously defined as a result of task analysis. Larger learning experiences may consist of
several smaller learning experiences. Each of the 30 units in Type to Learn presents
students with several learning experiences, including demonstrations, practice of
newly learned skills, practice of previously learned skills, and games.
The fourth task is to organize the learning experiences that the learner will
encounter. This involves creating a linear sequence of experiences that parallels the
sequence of specific subordinate behavior objectives derived as a result of task analysis.
*From The Conditions of Learning by Gagne, R. M., copyright © 1970. Reprinted with permis-
sion from Harriett T. Gagne.
In Type to Learn, part of the sequence of each unit involves the repeated format of
experiences that provide opportunities to review previously learned skills, demon-
strate new skills to be learned, practice new skills, assess new skills, and practice new
and old skills in the form of games. In the end,
the actual instructional content of a program consists of a sequence of learning tasks or

activities . . . through which a student can proceed with little outside help, and provides a
series of small increments in learning that enables the student to proceed from a condition
of lack of command of the terminal behavior to that of command of it. (Lindvall & Bolvin,
1967, p. 231)
The fifth task behavioral engineers undertake is designing evaluative measures to

accompany each learning experience. Evaluative measures are developed to assess
whether or not learners acquire the desired behavior from each learning experience.
They serve the following functions:
• They provide “rather immediate feedback to the student concerning the adequacy of his
performance on each frame or element of the program” (Lindvall & Bolvin, 1967,
p. 231) under the assumption that “learning is enhanced if students receive rather
immediate feedback concerning the correctness of their efforts in attempting to approx-
imate a desired behavior” (p. 249).
• They determine whether learners will be allowed to proceed to successive program
experiences or whether they must do additional work before proceeding. They do so by
assessing whether or not learners have acquired the desired behavior from each learning
experience—that is, made the correct response to the program’s stimulus.
• They provide a continual “monitoring function, both for the learner and the teacher”
(Lindvall & Bolvin, 1967, p. 231) that can keep them both “rather continuously
informed regarding [the learner’s] goals and his performance” (p. 249).
• They provide the behavioral engineer with information about the effectiveness of a
program in obtaining its educational purposes. Such information can be used as a basis
for revising either the learning experiences or their sequence (formative evaluation) or
for proving that the curriculum accomplishes its purposes (summative evaluation).
In summary, those who design programmed curriculum view themselves as

behavioral engineers who use scientific techniques to design a series of experiences
that shape the behaviors of learners to satisfy the needs of a client.
The Analogy
In an analogy comparing curriculum development to the industrial manufacture of
steel rails, Franklin Bobbitt laid bare the essentials of the Social Efficiency ideology.
The school is compared to a factory. The child is the raw material. The adult is the
finished product. The teacher is an operative, or factory worker. The curriculum is
whatever processing the raw material (the child) needs to change him into the finished
product (the desired adult). The curriculum developer is a member of the research
department who investigates what the consumer market (society) wants in terms of a
finished product and finds the most efficient way of producing that finished product
(Bobbitt, 1913).
Objectives and Standards

Curriculum workers, thus, have two tasks: they must determine what the con-
sumer market wants in terms of a finished product, and they must determine the most
efficient way of producing that product. Bobbitt (1913) describes these tasks in his first
two principles of curriculum making:
Principle I. Definite qualitative and quantitative standards must be determined for the
product [the desired adult].
Principle II. Where the material [man] that is acted upon by the labor processes [teacher]
passes through a number of progressive stages on its way from the raw material [child] to
the ultimate product [adult], definite qualitative and quantitative standards must be deter-
mined for the product at each of these stages. (p. 11)
The first principle refers to the creation of a curriculum’s terminal objectives, or

what Tyler calls “educational purposes.” They designate the ends of the curriculum and
the standards that indicate when the ends have been satisfactorily met. Social Efficiency
educators between about 1910 and 1940—including Franklin Bobbitt—focused their
efforts on fulfilling Principle I.
The second principle refers to the creation of progressive objectives, which consist
of the series of specific behavioral objectives that collectively specify the step-by-step
changes in learners that transform them from incompetence to competence and the
standards that indicate when each progressive objective is accomplished. Social
Efficiency educators between about 1950 and 1975 focused their efforts on Principle
II. Robert Gagne is an example of such an educator.
Both of these principles refer to determining “definite qualitative and quantita-
tive standards” that specify whether learners are meeting the requirements of objec-
tives as they traverse the curriculum. From 1980 until now, some politicians and
administrators promoting the Social Efficiency ideology have focused their efforts
on establishing curriculum standards and performance-based accountability meth-
ods that hold learners, teachers, and schools accountable for meeting the require-
ments of such standards. The establishment of educational standards has been
promoted by pressuring states to develop curriculum standards. Performance-based
accountability methods have been promoted through political means and involve
the use of management, accounting, and budgetary techniques to shape the behavior
of educators. These are illustrated by the No Child Left Behind Act, the Teaching
Commission report (2004), and the Race to the Top Program (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). Social Efficiency educators have emphasized the importance of
terminal objectives, progressive objectives, educational standards, and accountability
for almost a hundred years. However, differential emphasis has been placed on them
at different times.
Social Orientation and Terminal Objectives

In Bobbitt’s analogy, society is the source from which terminal objectives are
determined. Since society does not realize the importance of specifically stating termi-
nal objectives, it becomes educators’ job to discover them. Educators, acting as agents
of society, must determine the needs of society and the products that fulfill those
needs. Just as a steel mill is no more than a contractor to do a job for railroads in mak-
ing rails, so too are educators and schools no more than contractors to do a job for
society in making suitable adults. Bobbitt (1913) puts it this way:
It is well to note also, for our purposes, that the standard qualifications of the product
are not determined by the steel plant itself. The qualitative and quantitative specifica-
tions are determined by those that order the product, in this case, the railroads. The steel
mills are but agents of the railroad. . . . Now the relation of the school system to the
various departments of the world’s activity is exactly the same as the relation of the steel
plant to the transportation industry. . . . It is the need of the world of affairs that deter-
mines the standard specification for the educational product. A school system can no
more find standards of performance within itself than a steel plant can find the proper
height or weight per yard for steel rails from the activities within the plant. . . . The
standards must of necessity be determined . . . by those that use the product, not by those
who produce it. . . . Standards are to be found in the world of affairs, not in the schools.
(pp. 12, 33–35)
Progressive Objectives
This is not the case for progressive objectives. Although society specifies the
desired product of the schools, it is educators who determine the most efficient way of
producing it:
The progressive standards required by the second principle must be psychologically and
experimentally determined by expert educational workers within the school system itself.
This is a special professional problem requiring scientific investigation of a highly technical
sort. It is a field of work in which the untrained layman can have no opinion and in which
he has no right to interfere. Society is to say what shall be accomplished in the ultimate
education of each class of individuals. Only the specialist can determine how it is to be
done. (Bobbitt, 1913, p. 37)
Education
Within the Social Efficiency ideology, the production of an educated person
through schooling is viewed in much the same way as the production of steel rails:
Education is a shaping process as much as the manufacture of steel rails; the personality is
to be shaped and fashioned into desirable forms. It is a shaping of more delicate matters,
more immaterial things, certainly; yet a shaping process none the less. It is also an enor-
mously more complex process because of the great multitude of aspects of the personality
to be shaped if the whole as finished is to stand in full and right proportions. (Bobbitt,
1913, p. 12)
Scientific Instrumentalism
The central myth of the Social Efficiency ideology is “scientific instrumentalism”
(Patty, 1938, pp. 6–7). This myth asserts that (a) curriculum should be developed in a
“scientific” manner similar to the way industry produces its products and (b) curricu-
lum development should be an “instrument” in fulfilling needs unassociated with its
own vested interests in a manner similar to the way industry fulfills needs unassociated
with its own interests.
The method is called “scientific” because educators attempt to use scientific pro-
cedures, placing their faith in what they conceive to be scientific method and technol-
ogy. The method is called “instrumentalistic” because educators using it conceive of
themselves as instruments and of their method as an instrument useful in fulfilling an
end that is disjoint from themselves and their method.
Social Orientation
Society
The Social Efficiency ideology views education as a social process that perpetuates
existing social functions. Bobbitt (1924a) infers this when he writes,
We are accustomed to say that education is a social process. It is the process of recivilizing,
or civilizing anew, each new generation.
Each individual, we are told, is born on the cultural level of one hundred thousand years
ago. He is but a bundle of potentialities. He brings with him no portion of our accumulated
human culture. Literally, he is born a savage. Education is the process of so conditioning
his activities and experiences that, as he grows up, he is shaped into the normally civilized
man.
What is true of the individual is true of the whole new generation. . . . Society has the
responsibility of so conditioning the growth of this new generation that it takes over and
exhibits in its conduct the high and complex culture activities which man has been slowly
inventing, accumulating, and habituating himself to during the long period of human his-
tory. Society’s performance of this recivilizing function we call education. (p. 453)
Two Social Efficiency assumptions alluded to here are critical. First, society is
viewed as consisting of a “system of activities” (Bobbitt, 1926, p. 1). Second, the essence
of society is viewed as located in the activities its adult members engage in. Society is
defined in terms of the “affairs of the mature world” and not in terms of the affairs of
youth (Bobbitt, 1918, p. 207).
People in Society
People are first members of society and second individuals. As members of society,
people have two characteristics.
First, people are conceived of as actors within society. Their essence is determined
by the behaviors they can successfully perform. Bobbitt (1924c) elaborates on this
from the context of what Social Efficiency educators are reacting against:
A recently published book begins with the sentence “Education is the process of filling the
mind with knowledge.” In that single sentence we have the central conception of the old
education. According to this conception, a human being, as he begins life, is mainly but an
empty knowledge reservoir. The business of education is to fill this reservoir with the pre-
pared facts of history, geography, grammar, science, and the rest. . . . Man is not a mere
intellectual reservoir to be filled with knowledge. He is an infinitely complex creature of
endlessly diversified action. His most salient characteristic is not his memory reservoir,
whether filled or unfilled, but action, conduct, behavior. Action is the thing of which his life
is made. In his activity he lives and realizes the ends of his existence[;] . . . his behavior is his
life. Primarily, he is not a knower, but a doer. . . . Since he is primarily a doer, to educate him
is to prepare him to perform those activities which make up his life. The method of the new
education is not subject storage but action, activity, conduct, behavior. (pp. 45–47)
Second, people’s essence is viewed as embodied in their mature adult behavior. As

such, childhood is viewed as a stage of preparation for adulthood. Childhood is not
important in and of itself. It is important because it provides a time to prepare for
adulthood. Thus, education of the 6-year-old is to prepare for that of the 7-year-old,
the education of the 7-year-old for that of the 8-year-old, and so on until maturity is
reached. As Bobbitt (1924b) says, “it is helpful to begin with the simple assumption, to
be accepted literally, that education is to prepare men and women for the activities of
every kind which make up, or which ought to make up, well-rounded adult life” (p. 7).
Modern education . . . has discovered the child, but it does not see him merely as a
child. . . . It sees the man within the child as clearly as it sees the child. It sees its task as one
of bringing into full and complete being this man within the child. (Bobbitt, 1924c, p. 48)
The educator always keeps in mind “the man within the child,” viewing the educa-
tion of the child as preparation for his or her adulthood within society, for as Bobbitt
(1924b) insists, “education is primarily for adult life, not for child life. Its fundamental
responsibility is to prepare for the fifty years of adulthood, not for the twenty years of
childhood and youth” (p. 8).
Educating People to Live in Society

The aim of education is twofold: first, to perpetuate the functioning of society, and
second, to prepare the individual to lead a meaningful adult life in society. An indi-
vidual achieves an education by learning to perform the functions one must perform
to be socially functional. In addition, the educated person is one who acts appropri-
ately in society. Each of these statements needs clarification.
The necessity for perpetuating society is accepted unquestionably. The means of
perpetuating society is preparation of the individuals who will constitute it to fulfill
the social roles needed to sustain its functioning. This is the job of the school: “Society
possesses the right to require that the school shall educate its offspring so that they will
be prepared to carry on the work of society with efficiency” (Bobbitt, 1924b, p. 13).
Society is made up of people. And people take on their meaning, as well as their
fulfillment and pleasure, by participating in society. The way to prepare individuals to
lead meaningful adult lives in society is to provide them with the skills that will allow
them to be constructive, active members of society. This is also the job of the school:
It is this social organization that must transform the highly dependent young child into the
adult who, in his own individual manner, lives a life that is satisfying to himself largely
because it contributes to the goals of his society. (Gagne, 1965b, p. 237)
(Thus, children learn to type because keyboarding is a skill adults need to efficiently
contribute to the goals of society and to their success as members of society.)
People are taught to perpetuate the functioning of society and to constructively
function in society through “functional education,” a term that applies both to teaching
students to function in the future activities in which they will be engaged once they
become mature members of society, and to teaching students to act in the desired way
by having them function in the desired way. (Thus, children learn to type by typing with
the correct fingering.) Functional education thus derives the means by which education
is to take place directly from the ends of education: “One learns to act in desired ways
by acting in those ways” (Bobbitt, 1924d, pp. 292–293). Bobbitt (1924c) elaborates:
One learns to act by acting. One learns to live by living. Behavior is not only the end of life
but also the process of life and equally the end and process of education. . . . Education is
preparation for life, and life is a series of activities. Education, therefore, is preparation for
the performance of those activities. Let us discover what the activities are which make up
man’s life and we have the objectives of education. . . . In discovering the objectives in terms
of activities, however, one is also discovering the fundamental processes involved in achiev-
ing these same objectives, since, obviously, the way to learn to perform an activity is to
perform it. (pp. 47, 49)
Finally, the educated person is one who functions appropriately and effectively in
society. The ability to act correctly, rather than the knowledge of what the correct
action should be, is what is important to learn. As Bobbitt (1926) puts it, “the business
of education today is to teach to the growing individuals, so far as their original natures
will permit, to perform efficiently those activities which constitute the latest and high-
est level of civilization” (pp. 1–2). Education
has the function of training every citizen, man or woman, not for knowledge about citizen-
ship, but for proficiency in citizenship. . . . We have been developing knowledge, not func-
tion; the power to reproduce facts, rather than the powers to think and feel and will and act
in vital relation to the world’s life. (Bobbitt, 1918, p. iv)
Education for a Better Society

Social Efficiency educators view themselves as instruments furthering the develop-
ment of a future society superior to the existent one and not as proponents of the
status quo. Although they see the school as the guardian of the system of values and
institutions that the society has already evolved, their aims of education for both the
child and the society are phrased in the future tense:
Education under the circumstances has, therefore, a double task to perform: (1) to act
as a primary agency of social progress, lifting the world to a higher and more desirable
level; (2) to do this by educating the rising generation so that they will perform
their . . . functions in a manner greatly superior to that of their fathers. The task is to
develop in the rising generation, not merely the degree of proficiency found in the
world about them, but to carry them much beyond; to look, not merely to the actual
practices, but rather to those that ought to be. It is so to train them that the . . . mis-
takes, weaknesses, imperfections, maladjustments, etc., that now appear so numerously
in the . . . situations of their fathers shall be as fully as practicable eliminated in that
more harmonious and more efficient . . . regime that they are to establish and main-
tain. (Bobbitt, 1918, p. 64)
The preparation of society for the future is based on precedents within current
society. The strategy for change is not to look for new behaviors more appropriate than
existing ones, but to reinforce strengths and desirable traits within current society
while eliminating its weaknesses and deficiencies. The assumption is that cultural evo-
lution takes place by training youth to do that which is done most efficiently and
effectively in the culture and to avoid that which is done inefficiently and ineffectively.
By this differential reinforcement-elimination it is believed that the betterment and
evolution of society will be achieved.
Objectives
Several consequences of how Social Efficiency educators deal with terminal and pro-
gressive objectives require discussion. This requires that the form of objectives and the
methods of deriving them be examined further.
Terminal objectives are the educational purposes of curriculum, the ends toward
which educators directs their efforts in their attempts to perpetuate society by provid-
ing people with the skills needed to productively function within society. Their discov-
ery and clear specification is the first task educators undertake.
Franklin Bobbitt defines progressive objectives when he states that “the material
[man] that is acted upon by the labor processes [teacher] passes through a number of
progressive stages on its way from the raw material [child] to the ultimate product
[adult].” Progressive objectives are the specific behavioral objectives that designate the
particular tasks (“progressive stages”) the student must sequentially master (“pass
through”) in order to achieve competency in the activity inherent in the terminal
objective (become “the ultimate product”). Deriving and sequencing progressive
objectives is the second task of educators.
The Form of Objectives

The technology of scientific instrumentalism in combination with the behav-
ioral conception of the nature of man requires that curriculum objectives be
stated as behavioral objectives. There are several characteristics of behavioral
objectives.
First, they must be stated in behavioral terms that specify observable behaviors,
action capabilities, actions, skills, or cognitive processes. This excludes many things:
To “know,” to “understand,” to “appreciate,” to “gain insight into,” and so on, are excellent
words to convey general purposes, but they are not useful as descriptions of reliably observ-
able behavior; nor are their intended meanings easily agreed upon by a number of indi-
viduals. (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], Commission on
Science Education, 1968)
Second, to be useful, objectives must be self-contained, unitary in effect, “definite and

particularized.” Social Efficiency educators consider it impractical to attempt to accomplish
vague and general objectives, such as teaching citizenship. As Bobbitt (1918) phrases it,
education cannot take the first step in training for citizenship until it has particularized the
characteristics of the good citizen. The training task is to develop those characteristics. It is
not enough to aim at “good citizenship” in a vague general way. . . . The citizen has func-
tions to perform. We are to develop ability to perform those functions. But first we must
know with particularity what they are. (p. 117)
Third, Social Efficiency educators endeavor to state objectives in a standardized

form. From Gagne’s (1970) perspective,
an objective . . . is a verbal statement . . . having the following components: 1. A verb denot-

ing observable action (draw, identify, recognize, compute, and many other words qualify;
know, grasp, see, and others do not). 2. A description of the class of stimuli being responded
to (for example, “Given the printed statement ab + ac = a(b + c)”). 3. A word or phrase
denoting the object used for action by the performer, unless, this is implied by the verb (for
example, if the verb is “draw,” this phrase might be “with a ruling pen”; if it is “state,” the
word might simply be “orally”). 4. A description of the class of correct responses (for exam-
ple, “a right triangle,” or “the sum,” or “the name of the rule”). (pp. 326–327)
According to those who rewrote Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in

2001, “educational objectives indicate that the student should be able to do something
(verb) to or with something (noun)—a verb-noun relationship” (Anderson et al., 2001,
p. 265). For the cognitive domain, this involves using one of the following verbs (or one
of their many subtypes): remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create. Each
specifies a “cognitive process,” action, or behavior. Stating educational objectives this
way also involves using one of the noun phrases of factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, or metacognitive knowledge (or one of their sub-
types) to specify a type of knowledge students are expected to acquire or construct.
Fourth, terminal and progressive objectives can take on meaning associated with
many types of human activity, including cognitive, affective, and psychomotor activity.
In addition, terminal and progressive objectives are discoverable or derivable. As
Bobbitt (1918) says,
they can be discovered. This requires only that one go out into the world of affairs
and discover the particulars of which these affairs consist. These will show the abilities,
attitudes, habits, appreciations, and forms of knowledge that men need. They will be the
objectives of the curriculum. They will be numerous, definite, and particularized. (p. 42)
Social Efficiency curricula are, however, far more often designed to teach physical and
cognitive skills than affective skills.
Fifth, the form of curriculum objectives is often of greater concern to Social
Efficiency educators than their content. Educators view themselves as agents of clients,
whose vested interests are in the content of the objectives. Social Efficiency educators’
vested interests are in designing curricula that satisfy their clients. Educators focus
their endeavors on clearly specifying the clients’ desires, efficiently deriving objectives,
and accurately assessing behavior. As Mager (1962) comments in Preparing Instructional
Objectives, “this book is not concerned with which objectives are desirable or good. It
concerns itself with the form of a usefully stated objective” (p. 1).
Gathering Terminal Objectives

Essential to determination of terminal objectives is for educators to “go out into the
field, actually study the men and women as individuals, and generalize on the basis of a
numerical count of cases” (Peters, 1930b, p. 433). “Going out into the field” and “numer-
ical count of cases” are critical because society has not delivered to schools a complete
and definitive list of terminal objectives (except during the standards movement at the
end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, when Social Efficiency adherents
pressured states to adopt, adapt, or create content standards). As a result, educators must
act as agents of society in discovering terminal objectives. Different approaches can be
taken. Early in the 20th century, Bobbitt attempted to poll the whole of American society
as a first step to discovering both what its needs were and how it felt such needs could be
satisfied. During the middle of the 20th century, Gagne interviewed many scientists as he
worked on Science: A Process Approach (AAAS, 1968). In so doing, he made heavy use of
personal interviews as a means of collecting data. In both cases, it was necessary to “go
out into the field . . . and generalize on the basis of a numerical count of cases.”
In compiling terminal objectives, educators first determine “what are the major divi-
sions or fields of human action?” and then “in each major field—whether six, ten, twenty,
or fifty—what are the specific adult activities of the good type?” (Bobbitt, 1918, p. 5).
This involves first specifying the major fields of human action and then partitioning each
field into a set of specific behaviors, such that each specific behavior can be represented
as a terminal objective to be aimed at. As Gagne (1970) says of terminal objectives, it is
“necessary to break them down into smaller units representing fairly specific intellectual
skills” (p. 245). As Bobbitt (1924b)
1924b) states, these objectives will be “minute” and “numer-
ous” (pp. 8–10). This has been the procedure used by many states and professional orga-
nizations in developing curriculum content standards since the end of the 20th century.
Acquiring Progressive Objectives

The process of formulating the “progressive stages” which the student must pass
through in moving from incompetence (“raw material”) to competence (“finished
product”) is called activity analysis. Activity analysis exists in a wide variety of forms.
Two of them—Bobbitt’s and Gagne’s—will be briefly discussed.
Franklin Bobbitt’s early form of activity analysis is based on an assembly line

model of education. It includes three basic stages. First, the overall job to be com-
pleted—the performance necessary to achieve the terminal objective—is broken down
into a finite set of tasks that need to be completed, the sum of which result in the
completed job. Second, each task is analyzed to find the most efficient way of perform-
ing it. (Bobbitt used elapsed time as the criterion of efficiency.) Third, a flow chart is
created which specifies the manner in which each task is to be performed, the time
allowed to complete each task, the standards that each task must meet, and the
sequence in which the tasks are to be completed.
Robert Gagne’s form of activity analysis begins with the analysis of a terminal
objective. Gagne (1963) begins by asking the question, “What must the learner already
know how to do in order to achieve this performance, assuming that he is to be given
only instructions?” (p. 622). Let us say that the learner could not perform the task
specified by the terminal objective unless he could first perform prerequisite tasks A
and B. A pyramid begins, as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Pyramid of prerequisite objectives.
Terminal Objectives
A B
C D E F G
H I J K L M N O P
Tasks A and B are now the new objectives to be accomplished, which Gagne calls
“prerequisite objectives.” Gagne now asks his question again, this time regarding pre-
requisite objectives A and B: “What must the learner already know how to do in order
to achieve this performance, assuming that he is to be given only instructions?” Let us
say that the learner must be able to perform tasks C and D in order to perform task A,
and that he or she must be able to perform tasks E, F, and G in order to perform task
B. The learning pyramid grows, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The process is then repeated
with C, D, E, F, and G as the prerequisite objectives. The result of this next stage of
analysis might produce the more complete learning pyramid illustrated in Figure 3.1.
In this manner, educators build a pyramid of prerequisites to the terminal objec-

tive. The process ends when the subordinate performances possessed by every learner
for whom the learning program is intended are arrived at. This pyramid of prerequisite
objectives capped by a terminal objective is called a learning hierarchy. Once the initial
learning hierarchy is deductively derived, it is empirically tested to see if it is “psycho-
logically” complete and accurately ordered. Then the two-dimensional hierarchy is
broken down into a one-dimensional learning sequence that preserves the hierarchical
prerequisite nature of the learning hierarchy. In running the curriculum, the student
proceeds through this learning sequence to attain the performance abilities inherent in
the terminal objective.
Atomism
To put objectives in a behavioral form that is self-contained, unitary in effect, and
“definite and particularized,” the aims of an educator’s client must be broken down
into unitary and self-contained entities. This breaking down of a general objective or
partitioning of a complex behavior into its smallest unitary actions is called atomism.
In creating terminal objectives, educators must atomize the field of action they are
preparing individuals to function within. They must break up the field of action into
sufficiently small units such that each is of the smallest convenient size. They must
treat the behaviors they are formulating into terminal objectives as a set of independ-
ent actions, the sum of which make up the complete behavior. This means that one
must conceive of human life and human activity as capable of being “broken up into
a very large number of specialized activities, for the most part distinctly marked off
from each other” (Peters, 1930b, p. 84).
Constructing progressive objectives through activity analysis also involves atom-
ism. The process of transforming the raw material into the finished product involves
breaking the desired activity up into a finite sequence of unitary subactivities, each
of which is analyzed and treated as an individual atomistic process within the larger
activity.
Underlying the Social Efficiency approach to curriculum is, thus, the belief that
human life and human activity can be divided into a large number of self-contained,
specialized activities, each distinct from the others. In addition, Social Efficiency edu-
cators treat the atomistic activities they construct as though they can be directly assem-
bled into larger activities through a simple additive process. That is, the sum of the
independent unitary subactions comprising progressive objectives is assumed to equal
the complete terminal behavior.
Objective Reality
The necessity of collecting terminal objectives by “going out into the field, actually
studying men and women as individuals, and generalizing on the basis of a numerical
count of cases” raises questions about the types of reality Social Efficiency educators
are concerned about. The distinction has long been made between the “subjective real-
ity within man’s mind” and the “objective reality in the world outside of man.” Social
Efficiency educators accept this dichotomy and concern themselves primarily with
objective reality.
Terminal objectives refer to observable and measurable actions of people. They are
to be found in objective reality and not subjective reality. When collecting terminal
objectives, educators must “go out into the field” and actually study the actions per-
formed by people, for terminal objectives are drawn from the actions people perform
and the behavior repertoires mankind needs to successfully maintain the functioning
of society. For these educators, the starting point is always the activities of mankind as
manifested in objective behavior, rather than the needs of mankind as assumed to exist
within the subjective mind.
The necessity of determining terminal objectives by “generalizing on the basis of a
numerical count of cases” is also central to the Social Efficiency ideology. This is
because the reality conceived to be of most worth is defined in a normative manner
and not in an idiosyncratic manner. Social Efficiency educators’ concern is what the
majority of the members of society (or their client group) conceive to be “real” or
“true” or “necessary.” They care about social norms rather than individual uniqueness.
Thus, there is an emphasis on statistical analysis during curriculum work. This results
in an emphasis on concern for the individual with respect to achieving normative ends
rather than on concern for the person with respect to achieving idiosyncratic ends.
Social Efficiency educators focus on what the needs of the society are and not what
men think they should be (Bobbitt, 1926, p. 20).
Progressive objectives are also determined by focusing on the observable and
measurable actions in which a person engages rather than on the inherent nature of
the person. Consequently, Social Efficiency educators (a) make a weighted distinction
between the individual as a possessor of certain capabilities for action and the indi-
vidual per se, (b) partition individuals’ actions apart from the individuals themselves,
and (c) deal with individuals’ action capabilities as entities separate from the individu-
als themselves. As a result, only those aspects of people that can be atomistically
observed and measured—the objective aspects—are considered; the subjective aspects
of people, which are not readily observable, measurable, or atomistic, fade into the
background.
Causality
Underlying the process of designing progressive objectives through the use of
activity analysis are assumptions about causation, that is, how the raw material is
transformed into the finished product. The basic assumption is derived from
Newtonian mechanics; causation is conceived of within a context in which cause and
effect, action and reaction, or stimulus and response are linked together in a determin-
istic pattern reducible by analysis to single and simple atomic transferences of energy.
Three aspects of this assumption need elaboration.
First, planning for change in the human organism is thought of within a cause-
effect, action-reaction, or stimulus-response context. This conception of human
change requires that Social Efficiency educators use two types of planning while creat-
ing curricula: (1) they must predetermine the relationship between cause and effect,
action and reaction, or stimulus and response, and (2) they must plan the causes,
actions, or stimuli that in a direct and predictable manner will lead to the desirable
effect, reaction, or response. As a result, the changes that are planned for during cur-
riculum creation are only those which fit into a stimulus-response pattern and which
can be observed to be directly behaviorally linked.
Second, this interpretation of causality is deterministic. Educators believe they can
predetermine the changes that will take place in people’s behavior as a result of their
encounters with specified stimuli within the curriculum. That is, they assume that
changed behavior resulting from exposure to the curriculum can be known in its
entirety before the change takes place. Free will plays little part within this system—
events are entirely determined by previous causes. Bobbitt (1920) expressed the spirit
underlying the Social Efficiency posture toward determinism this way:
In the world of economic production, a major secret of success is predetermination.

The management predetermined with great exactness the nature of the products to be
turned out. . . . They standardize and thus predetermine the processes to be employed,
the quantity and quality of raw material to be used for each type and unit of product,
the character and amount of labor to be employed, and the character of the conditions
under which the work should be done. . . . The business world is institutionalizing
foresight. . . . There is a growing realization within the educational profession that
we . . . too, must institutionalize foresight, and, so far as conditions of our work will
permit, develop a technique of predetermination of the particularized results to be
obtained. (p. 738)
Third, change in human behavior is conceived of as a shaping process. It is “a shap-

ing process as much as the manufacture of steel rails” (Bobbitt, 1913, p. 12). The
behavioral engineer aspires to manipulate the human shaping process with the same
degree of control the industrial engineer exercises as he molds steel rails into the form
he desires them to be. Within this context, the human beings who will undergo the
shaping process are treated as though they have about as much to say about what is
happening to them during the shaping as the steel has to say about what is happening
to it during its shaping. Free will and self-determination do not have a prominent place
in the Social Efficiency ideology.
Ends, Means, and Instrumental Values

One of the distinctive aspects of curriculum creation within the Social Efficiency
ideology is the clear dichotomy that exists between terminal objectives and progres-
sive objectives, between the social orientation and the methodological orientation,
between the ends of the curriculum and the means of creating the curriculum.
Terminal objectives are associated with the ends of the curriculum: they are discover-
able in society. Progressive objectives are associated with the means of creating cur-
riculum: they are derived from the methodology of “scientific instrumentalism.” Ends
must be clearly specified, and their value lies in their ability to reflect the needs of
society. Means must also be clearly specified, and their value lies in their ability to
achieve the ends efficiently.
In both cases, the criterion of value is independent of the curriculum. Ends are
judged in terms of their ability to reflect the needs of society and not in terms of any-
thing inherent within themselves. Means are judged in terms of their efficiency in
meeting the ends and not in terms of anything inherent within either themselves or the
ends.
Thus, in both cases, educators ask that the value of their work be defined in terms
of a criterion independent of the work itself, and that criterion is essentially one of
efficiency. In the case of ends, efficiency is measured in terms of optimal reflection of
social needs in the terminal objectives. In the case of means, efficiency is measured in
terms of optimal cost (time, money, natural resources, etc.) in achieving the ends. Ends
and means are both to be judged as instruments that contribute to the attainment of
goals external from themselves, and instrumental values based on the ethically neutral
concept of efficiency are to be used as the criteria for judging them. As a result, there
is no criterion of value for judging “good” or “bad,” “just” or “unjust,” or “sane” or
“insane” ends for the curriculum. Neither is there a criterion of value for judging
“kind” or “unkind,” “moral” or “immoral,” or “responsible” or “irresponsible” means of
creating the curriculum. Bobbitt (1918) points out the pervasiveness of this system of
instrumental values when he writes that “any instrument or experience which is effec-
tive . . . is the right instrument and right experience; and . . . anything that is not effec-
tive is wrong” (p. 283).
Historical Context
The Social Efficiency ideology has its origins in four movements: social reform, utili-
tarian education, behavioral psychology, and scientific methodology (Callahan, 1962).
These movements are still active in promoting the Social Efficiency ideology today.
Social Reform
Muckraking journalism during the first two decades of the 20th century developed
a reform-conscious population that put social needs above all else. Bobbitt (1913)
expressed the spirit of the times when he exclaimed,
The ideal of social service is rapidly becoming the corner-stone of faith in every depart-
ment of human affairs—in none certainly more than in the field of education. In this
service, “social efficiency” is becoming the chief watchword and the chief aim. (p. 50)
Muckraking journalism and the accompanying social reform movement influenced

the Social Efficiency ideology by inspiring it to make the needs of society its highest
priority and to conceive of society as the sanctioning body in which individuals take
meaning.
As we enter the 21st century, the successors of earlier muckraking journalists con-
tinue to stir public discontent with education (Bracey, 2003). Currently, “there is a
distinct rhetoric of blame, shame, and punishment throughout the conversation about
quality [education], with the frontline classroom teacher and his or her students bearing
much of the day-to-day brunt of this tactic” (St. Pierre, 2006, p. 241). In 2004, the
Teaching Commission asserted that it wanted to “bring a national sense of urgency” (p. 5)
to “the sorry state of American Schools.” (p. 12). It attempted to do so by pointing out
that “academic achievement” in the U.S. is inadequate, as measured both by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress and international comparisons (“which
show that American teens continue to lag behind high-school students in many other
industrialized nations,” p. 13). The following statement sums up the tenor of the
national discussion on education: “The capacity of America’s educational system to
create a 21st-century workforce second to none in the world is a national security issue
of the first order. As things stand, this country is forfeiting that capacity” (p. 20).
Utilitarian Education
The movement for utilitarian education during the last quarter of the 19th cen-
tury and the first quarter of the 20th century emphasized the importance of making
schools useful and relevant to the life of individuals and the nation. Utilitarian educa-
tion was an outgrowth of the agricultural education, manual training, industrial edu-
cation, trade school, and vocational education movements and the increasingly
popular business ideology (Kliebard, 2004, chaps. 4–5). This was Bobbitt’s (1924c)
“functional education,” which trained “man for the performance of the functions or
activities which constitute his life” (p. 45). It involved providing students with job
training skills that would allow them, as adults, to function constructively in an indus-
trial society (as was the intent of Booker T. Washington’s Tuskegee Normal Institute,
which focused on the manual training of African Americans). The utilitarian educa-
tion movement also embodied a reaction to academic education in schools, which
consisted of generally useless textbook memorizing that prepared people only for life
in the university.
The movement for utilitarian education during the beginning of the 21st century
is considered by Social Efficiency advocates to be related to the economic health of
society—in particular the economic health of business and the U.S. economy: “A qual-
ity educational system is an absolute essential to the economic, political, and social
welfare of the United States. . . . There is a consensus that students need employable
skills for the new economy” (Lessinger & Salowe, 2001, pp. 11–12). Education must do
its job in training highly productive workers for business, whose continued health will
support a strong U.S. economy. According to the Teaching Commission (2004), the
goal, as before, is to help children learn “to become successful, contributing citizens,”
because “around the world . . . the most vibrant and stable economies draw their
strength from a well-educated, highly skilled citizenry”; “in a competitive global
economy, all citizens must continually race to obtain new, higher skills” for a “highly
skilled citizenry”; and “student achievement . . . is directly related to . . . national eco-
nomic growth” (pp. 12–14).
Even so, Schultz (2006), in an article in the journal of the Association for Career
and Technical Education regarding the reform movement that took place between
1985 and 2005, asks “was it good for you?” His answer, from the perspective of utilitar-
ian education, is that “one would suspect not” (p. 44). During this period, the percentage
of students enrolled in utilitarian courses decreased greatly as students in academic

courses increased.
Behavioral Psychology
During the first two thirds of the 20th century, behavioral psychology provided
the Social Efficiency ideology with a psychological context in which to frame its
endeavors. The deemphasis on the subjective behavior of people, the interpretation of
mind as the total behavioral response of people, the emphasis on the effect that con-
trollable conditions of learning have in molding behavior, and the concern with accu-
rate statistical evaluation provided Social Efficiency educators with an ideal tool.
Behavioral psychology, as first interpreted by John B. Watson (1878–1958) and Edward
L. Thorndike (1874–1949) and later reinterpreted by B. F. Skinner (1904–1990), was
rapidly accepted as the psychological base of the Social Efficiency ideology.
By the late 1960s, cognitive psychology began to replace behavioral psychology.
However, most of the assumptions underlying the behavioral psychology that
mid-20th-century Social Efficiency educators used continue to be relevant to Social
Efficiency endeavors in the 21st century. Social Efficiency cognitive psychologists
working on curriculum design emphasize that “the modern information-processing
approach in cognitive psychology would recommend careful analysis of the goals of
instruction” and “decomposing knowledge into its elements for purposes of study and
decontextualizing these elements for purposes of instruction” (Anderson, Reder, &
Simon, 1996, p. 1); that “learning requires a change in the learner, which can only be
brought about by what the learner does” (p. 13); that “learning is strongly influenced
by the sequence of stimuli and the feedback that tells the system when responses are
correct, and when they are wrong” (p. 12); and “that real competence only comes with
extensive practice” (p. 12).
Scientific Methodology
“Scientific methodology” became popular in education at the beginning of the
20th century. It referred to the methodology of technology and connoted a collection
of techniques such as statistics, accurate measurement, task analysis, efficiency engi-
neering, and industrial management (Parker, 1912; Taylor, 1911). Social Efficiency
educators adopted scientific methodology both as a reaction against the existing inef-
ficiency of education and in alliance with the successful use of “scientific techniques”
in the business and industrial worlds. At the beginning of the 20th century, Bobbitt
modeled his “scientific methodology” after “scientific management” in the world of
material production. In the middle of the 20th century, Gagne derived his approach to
“scientific methodology” from his training in task analysis as a behaviorist psycholo-
gist. And in the 1970s, Lessinger modeled his approach to “educational engineering”
after successful scientific and technological endeavors of the aerospace industry
(St. Pierre, 2006, p. 240).
As we enter the 21st century, “science” continues to be a magic word for Social
Efficiency educators: “The fundamental idea is that better science will make better
schools—that ‘quality’ science will enable us to finally reengineer schools so they

work” (St. Pierre, 2006, p. 240). Heavy use of statistics, technology, and measurement,
along with faith in man’s ability to comprehend the complexities of what goes on in
schools through objective assessment, underlies both the accountability and stand-
ards movements and many of the ways in which these two movements interact. For
example, the use of statistical analysis of standardized tests scores to pressure educa-
tors to improve student, teacher, school, and state educational performance (in ways
that are aligned with state content standards) is derived both from beliefs in scientific
methodology and scientific approaches to organizational management. For example,
the No Child Left Behind Act has “111 references to ‘scientifically-based research’”
(Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002, p. 4). Social Efficiency educators also continue to
be attracted to the scientific procedures of cognitive psychology. They continue to
assume that prestige and usefulness are automatically accorded their work if they use
“scientific” techniques.
A Century of Forgetting
Social Efficiency educators at the beginning of the 20th century believed that the
client for whom they worked was society. Their focus was on the preparation of the
individual for a balanced and constructive life in society. Part of the initial impulse
underlying the development of the Social Efficiency ideology was a reaction against
education’s servitude to special-interest groups—particularly “the dictation of the
special predilections of selfish academic interests” (Bobbitt, 1924c, p. 49). Education
was to serve society as a whole.
Things changed as time passed and Social Efficiency educators discovered the dif-
ficulty of drawing comprehensive objectives from society. By the middle of the 20th
century, the clients for whom Social Efficiency educators worked became any group
desiring their services. For example, Gagne, a strong Social Efficiency advocate, worked
for the American Association for the Advancement of Science to develop the curricu-
lum Science: A Process Approach.
By the beginning of the 21st century, with the rise of the standards and account-
ability movements, there was a further shift of emphasis from fulfilling social needs to
what Bobbitt called raising the “qualitative and quantitative standards” that deter-
mined the products of schools. The shift involved taking as a given the academic stand-
ards and programs condoned by state departments of education; determining the
degree to which those standards were being met and those programs were successful
by using accountability measures based on decontextualized testing of student acquisi-
tion of atomized academic content inherent in those standards and programs; and
emphasizing that high standards be used to assure that the academic goals of state
standards and curricula were met, that academic achievement was promoted, and that
“no child is left behind” (The Teaching Commission, 2004) as states “race to the top”
in promoting student academic achievement. As a result, the raising of student aca-
demic performance became the terminal objective of Social Efficiency educators, and
they began serving the very same special-interest groups (“of selfish academic interests”
promoted by advocates of the Scholar Academic ideology) from which Bobbitt and the
early Social Efficiency educators desired to free education.
In only a century the Social Efficiency ideology forgot its anger over academia’s
domination of the school curriculum and came to embrace the academic interests that
controlled the school curriculum. In the transition, this original socially oriented cur-
riculum development system became an academically oriented curriculum develop-
ment system and its major client became the academic disciplines.
Accountability Movement: From Educational

to Administrative and Political Initiatives
The 21st century accountability movement—as illustrated by the Race to the Top
Fund and its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act—provides an example of how
an educational ideology concerned with issues of curriculum and instruction can be
transformed into a political movement based in administrative (rather than educa-
tional) agendas, for the current “accountability [movement] is not primarily a peda-
gogical movement. It is an administrative system, and as such it is impervious
to . . . educational concerns” (Martin, Overholt, & Urban, 1976, p. 32).
Precursors of today’s accountability movement exist. The English “payment by
results” method of administering education (1862–c. 1892) rewarded educators whose
students performed well on standardized tests (Coltham, 1972). The efficiency move-
ment within educational administration early in the 20th century was the first
American attempt at imposing “scientific” industrial accountability methods on
schools (Callahan, 1962). It elevated “budgetary values over education concerns”
(Martin et al., 1976, p. 38).
The current accountability movement “seems so reasonable and simple. You
specify the changes in learners that should result from schooling. You evaluate the
extent to which the changes have taken place. You use the results of the evaluation to
improve the schooling process” (Anderson, 2005, p. 103). This viewpoint follows the
Social Efficiency ideology with only a few changes in emphasis:
First, there is increased emphasis on accountability to taxpayers who pay for educa-
tion: “Schools, like other sectors of our society, are accountable to the public for what
they do—or fail to do” and “taxpayer[s] . . . have a right to know what educational results
are produced by a given expenditure” (Lessinger, 1970, pp. 3–4). In other words, the
public deserves information related to student performance, teacher effectiveness,
school efficiency, the school district’s annual progress in meeting goals, and the state’s
progress in providing “guaranteed acquisition of basic skills by all of our children”
(p. 12). To demonstrate accountability, educators should provide taxpayers with an annual
report card on school effectiveness that describes changes in student achievement on
standardized tests that reflect national, state, or local curriculum standards and that
“relate learning to its cost” (p. 9) in terms of “measurable relationships between dollars
spent and results obtained” (Lessinger, 1971, p. 8). “Independent auditors” should create
the tests using scientific procedures to accurately reflect changes in student performance,
and they should be designed and administered in a way that eliminates “bias resulting
from race, ethnicity, sex, or income” (Fenstermacher, 2001, p. 333). Teachers (and school
officials) should be held accountable for their students’ performance on the tests.
Here, it is assumed that (a) curriculum standards reflect the educational aspira-
tions of the taxpayers to whom educators are accountable, (b) curriculum standards
include everything children need to learn in school, (c) school curricula reflect “cur-
riculum standards . . . [that] are simply mandated objectives . . . that teachers are
expected to teach regardless of how important the teachers themselves believe them to
be” (Anderson, 2005, p. 104), (d) standardized test questions reflect the content of cur-
riculum standards, and (e) learning consists of a change of learner behavior that can
be easily assessed by standardized tests.
Second, the accountability movement emphasizes that the educational effective-
ness of teachers, schools, school districts, and states rests solely on measurable gains in
student test scores resulting from teachers’ instructional endeavors. It is assumed that
teachers are the only ones responsible for and contributing to the education of chil-
dren and that children’s education is entirely under the control of teachers. This deter-
ministic view of direct causes and effects excludes the effects social and economic
factors outside the classroom have on children’s education.
Third, it is emphasized that “data-based decisions” based on the annual report
card of student, teacher, school, school district, and state curriculum effectiveness
should “drive” (Hanson, Durton, & Guam, 2006, p. 18) a process of “educational engi-
neering” (Lessinger, 1970, p. 12) that uses “modern management and budget tech-
niques” (Fenstermacher, 2001, p. 333) “currently employed by business and industry”
(Lessinger, 1971, p. 7) to shape the behavior of all involved in children’s education in
our public schools by the distribution of “penalties and incentives” (Lessinger, 1970,
p. 35), both in the form of tax dollars and public recognition of achievement or failure.
Fourth, it is emphasized that “full disclosure of information to all parties regard-
ing school effectiveness” (Fenstermacher, 2001, p. 333) based on aggregated student
test scores will pressure states, school districts, schools, teachers, and students to focus
intently on preparing students to perform well on standardized tests that assess their
achievements. Here is where political pressure (in terms of competition among
schools, school districts, and states and in terms of parental and community pressure
to provide children with an adequate education) and economic pressure (in terms of
competitive seeking of monetary rewards for student achievement) come into play.
Here the political and economic agendas of the accountability movement tie all of
public education to the rights of taxpayers both to know the results of their tax expen-
ditures and to determine how their tax dollars are spent.
Fifth, it is emphasized that society can be maintained and improved through this
administrative approach to education. This is because children who succeed in this
system will be prepared to function as adults in the jobs which provide our nation’s
economic foundation, since curriculum standards reflect the skills needed for full
adult participation in jobs at varying levels of employment.
Discussion of the Social Efficiency ideology will now shift from examining the
context in which educators’ work to examining the concepts that mold their view of
curriculum.
Aims
Social Efficiency educators consider their aim to be the efficient carrying out of a task
for a client. In fulfilling this aim, they see themselves as educational engineers who
design and implement educational programs that shape the behavior of people in
much the same way as industrial engineers design and manufacture railroad rails from
steel. This analogy involves the assumptions that the educational engineer and the
industrial engineer both obtain their tasks from a client; both are evaluated by the abil-
ity of their product to fulfill the needs of a client (both are accountable to a client in
the final analysis); both use a precise, particularized, and atomistic approach to accom-
plishing their purposes; both plan with a high degree of care and explicitness; both pay
rigorous attention to empirical events and standards; both value sophisticated use of
scientific techniques; and both take a programmatic approach to transforming their
raw material into a finished product.
Whether the task Social Efficiency educators engage in is the discovery of terminal
objectives, the design of a sequence of progressive objectives, the creation of learning
experiences, or the construction of standards for assessing performance, their aims are
not directly associated with the content of the curriculum per se, but rather with the
efficient and effective design and implementation of the curriculum and the resulting
student achievement. Their vested interests are not as much in what is achieved as in
how well it is achieved, and they are more concerned about the means of accomplishing
the ends than they are about the ends themselves. The criterion used to assess their
endeavors is efficiency, whether they are designing curriculum (“Activity analysis seeks
to discover the quite specific types of human activity which men should perform effi-
ciently” [Bobbitt, 1924c, p. 45]), determining how to best perform an activity (“The
business of education today is to teach growing individuals . . . to perform efficiently
those activities which constitute the latest and highest level of civilization” [Bobbitt,
1926, p. 1]), or facilitating learning (“Such a procedure should, if systematically fol-
lowed, bring about the required learning in the most efficient possible manner”
[Bobbitt, 1926, p. 1]).
Knowledge
The knowledge most valued by Social Efficiency educators has two characteristics.
First, it is by nature a capability for action that can be taught to learners. Second, its
identification and its worth demand the acceptance of the duality of subjective and
objective reality.
The Nature of Knowledge

Knowledge is a capability for action identifiable as the “successful performance of
a class of tasks” (Gagne, 1962, p. 355). It is a skill. It is something that a person can
learn to do.
Knowledge is defined in behavioral terms. Social Efficiency educators equate such
things as “knowledge,” “wisdom,” “insight,” and “understanding” with behavior. This is
partially because the only tangible evidence we have of knowledge, wisdom, insight,
and understanding is behavioral evidence, and partially because the only way to deter-
mine whether or not people “know” or “don’t know” something is to see how they
behave in certain situations.
The emphasis on the behavioral interpretation of the nature of knowledge results
in a corresponding deemphasis on the informational interpretation. The possession of
the correct behavior is emphasized over the possession of the correct information.
There is certainly a relationship between having the necessary information to act and
being able to act, between “knowing that” and “knowing how.” However, for Social
Efficiency educators, the ability to act is more important than the ability to be
informed. For example, in the debate over whether it is more important “to under-
stand” or “to do” mathematics, Social Efficiency educators, while not denying that both
are important, will always behave as though acquiring mathematical “skills” is more
important than acquiring an “understanding” of mathematics. Bobbitt (1924c) speaks
of this in comparing the “old education” with the “new functional education.” He
writes that, according to the old education, “the well educated man is to be defined as
a walking body of knowledge. The more swollen the bulk of information that he car-
ries about with him, the better educated he is” (p. 45), whereas within the new func-
tional education, “man is not a mere intellectual reservoir to be filled with knowledge.
He is a creature of . . . action. His most salient characteristic is not his memory reser-
voir, whether filled or unfilled, but action, conduct, behavior” (p. 46). Gagne (1966)
supports this behavioral versus informational interpretation when he writes,
“The most striking characteristic of these materials is that they are intended to teach
children the processes of science rather than what may be called science content”
(p. 49) and
that an emphasis on process implies a corresponding de-emphasis on specific science ‘con-

tent.’ . . . [C]hildren . . . are not asked to learn and remember particular facts or princi-
ples. . . . Rather, they are expected to learn such things as how to observe . . . and how to
perform experiments. (AAAS, Commission on Science Education, 1967b, p. 3)
Some confusion exists regarding the behavioral interpretation of the nature of

knowledge. For example, are the facts of Newtonian mechanics knowledge? For Social
Efficiency educators, information alone is not knowledge. By itself, the possession of
information by an individual does not mean that the individual possesses knowledge.
However, the ability to state a fact when appropriately stimulated does fall within the
behavioral context. The ability to act in accordance with the ability to state a fact falls
even more within the behavioral context. The relevant criterion is whether the possessor
of information is capable of acting on the knowledge represented by the information.
Let us take, for example, the case of knowledge about “honesty.” It is one thing to
have memorized what society considers honest behavior. It is another thing to be able
to state what society considers honest behavior. But it is another thing yet to be able to
act in an honest manner. It is the ability to act in the appropriate manner which Social
Efficiency educators call knowledge, rather than the ability “to know,” “to understand,”
or “to appreciate” what the appropriate behavior should be. What is in peoples’ heads
is not as important in the Social Efficiency ideology as the ability to translate what is
in peoples’ heads into behavior in which they engage.
Social Efficiency educators also believe that knowledge can be atomized, or broken
up into specific unitary behaviors: that “large tasks decompose into nearly independ-
ent subtasks” (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996, p. 3). Activity analysis is the method
of decomposing knowledge into specific atomistic elements and is one of the major
components of the Social Efficiency approach to curriculum design. A consequence of
atomism can be seen in the debate over using a “phonics” versus “whole language”
approach to reading instruction. While not having to deny that both approaches are of
value, Social Efficiency educators emphasize the phonics approach, in which words are
decomposed into groups of letters, which in turn are decomposed into individual let-
ters (each of which is an atomistic unit with a sound associated with it). This approach
may be compared to the whole language approach, in which comprehensive meaning
is emphasized.
One consequence of Social Efficiency educators’ conception of themselves as
instruments in achieving the ends of a client needs mention. The educator is con-
cerned about the means of achieving the ends more than about the ends themselves,
about the means of achieving knowledge more than about knowledge itself, and about
learning more than about knowledge. As a result, Social Efficiency educators pay more
attention to learning than to knowledge. In many ways they view knowledge from the
perspective of learning. Thus, they are more likely to write about The Conditions
of Learning (Gagne, 1965b) than they are about the conditions of knowing and are
more likely to speak about the nature of learning than they are about the nature of
knowledge.
Knowledge and Objective Reality

Social Efficiency educators accept the duality of subjective and objective reality,
and they believe that objective reality is the more significant of the two. Accordingly,
they deal with their world as an empirical entity. Behavior which cannot be observed
or measured is treated as though it does not exist—more to be ignored than denied.
Attention is directed toward those aspects of reality that can be observed. That which
cannot be observed, such as some of the “spiritual” dimensions of people’s being, is
simply not dealt with.
Curriculum knowledge has its origin in the objective reality of a client population—
in the normative aspects of a particular social group—and is discoverable by taking a
numerical count of the needs of the majority of the members of that group.
Knowledge derives its value from its ability to fulfill needs in the objective world
of mankind. Its worth is determined by the consequences that can result from its pos-
session. As such, curriculum knowledge is identified by evaluating the potential conse-
quences of its possession on those who possess it and the society in which they
function. The important criteria for identifying worthwhile knowledge are not the
insights into themselves that the possessors derive from its possession or the sources
from which the knowledge is derived, but rather the power such knowledge gives cur-
riculum clients to fulfill their needs and the power it gives those who possess it to
fulfill their own needs by fulfilling the needs of the curriculum client. If something
furthers the client’s aims, it is worthy of inclusion in the client’s curriculum.
This view of knowledge is represented in Figure 3.2. Knowledge has its source in
the normative objective reality of members of a curriculum developer’s client popula-
tion (ΣO where Σ represents the normative aspect of objective reality, O). Knowledge’s
worth for inclusion in curriculum is tested by determining the consequences that
result from its possession by the client population. Once curriculum knowledge is
determined, learners (S) can acquire it.
Figure 3.2 The Social Efficiency process of obtaining curriculum knowledge.
Test of Worth
∑O Knowledge S
Source
Learning
Learning is a central concept in the Social Efficiency ideology and is synonymous with
change in behavior.
Learning exhibits itself as a change in behavior[;] . . . the inference of learning is made by

comparing what behavior was possible before the individual was placed in a “learning situ-
ation” and what behavior can be exhibited after such treatment. (Gagne, 1970, p. 3)
In other words,
a learning event . . . takes place when the stimulus situation affects the learner in such a way
that his performance changes from a time before being in that situation to a time after being
in it. The change in performance is what leads to the conclusion that learning has occurred.
(Gagne, 1970, p. 5)
Learning is not viewed in terms of the natural growth or development of children,

societal acculturation or socialization of children, or filling the minds of children with
information. It is viewed in terms of changes in the observable behavior of learners, of
training learners to perform specific activities.
A Behavioral Viewpoint
The learning theory used by Social Efficiency educators is essentially that of
behavioral psychology. This may seem strange, for by the late 1960s cognitive psychol-
ogy began to replace behavioral psychology in the field of psychology. However, the
changes were evolutionary and, from the point of view of Social Efficiency educators,
enriched the previously accepted tenets of behavioral psychology rather than refuted
them (Anderson et al., 1988, p. 227).
For the Social Efficiency ideology, the development from behaviorism to informa-
tion processing and cognitive psychology “was an awakening to the complexity of
human cognition” (Anderson et al., 1996, p. 10) accompanied by postulation of the
existence of “mental structures and processes” (Anderson et al., 1988, p. 228). Now,
rather than having to consider the mind a black box about which nothing could be
assumed, educators could posit the existence of mental structures and processes of
thought (such as long-term memory, working memory, and schemas). Now they could
offer explanations for how children learn and what happens between the time children
are exposed to stimuli and the time they respond. However, the explanations of what
happens in children’s brains did not significantly affect the way Social Efficiency edu-
cators treated learning while they developed and used curriculum. They have contin-
ued to treat learning in essentially the same way as they did while using behaviorism,
for changes in psychological theory have not yet significantly impacted curriculum
practice.
The emphasis in the learning theory utilized by Social Efficiency educators is not
on the learner, but on the stimuli which cause the learner to change (S), the responses
which indicate that the learner has changed (R), and the relationships between the
stimuli and responses which account for the transformation which takes place
within the learner ( → ). The stimulus situation (S) is of primary importance,
because it can be controlled and deliberately manipulated by educators to produce
the desired learning in the student; it is “outside the learner and can be identified and
described in the terms of physical science” (Gagne, 1970, p. 6). Therefore, it is the
focus of educators’ attention while they are developing curriculum. The behavioral
responses (R) are the specific acts which can be identified as occurring as the result
of learners’ exposure to the stimulus situation (S). They are what indicate to educa-
tors whether or not the student is learning and whether learning experiences (S) are
producing the desired results. They can be observed in a learner’s behavior. The
relationship between the stimulus and the response ( → ) represents the transformation
that takes place within the learner. It tells educators how to get the results they desire.
“The learning change is from stimulus → (nothing) to stimulus → response” (p. 6).
The Type to Learn program discussed earlier provides an example of these elements.
The presentation to the learner of a letter in either visual textual or verbal auditory
form is a stimulus (S). The typing of the letter by the learner is the response (R). The
relationship between the stimulus and the response may be postulated to be the
activity within working memory of the dual linguistic and graphic subprocessors
(Baddeley, 1986), which allow the learner to associate sight of the letter (by the
graphic subprocessor) or the sound of the letter (by the linguistic subprocessor) with
the action of typing the letter. It may be postulated that when a learner is just begin-
ning to learn, it takes working memory considerable effort to produce the connec-
tions between S and R that produce the desired response. Once learning has been
automated and schemas have been formed in long-term memory, the connection
between stimulus and response ( → ) is automatic and the desired typing skill has
been learned (Chandler, Cooper, Pollock, & Tindall-Ford, 1998).
Note in this example that, under the behavioral psychology of the 1960s, nothing
would have been said about the nature of the connection between S and R, because
they would not have been able to be directly observed. Note also that, for all practical
purposes, the nature of the connections currently postulated are irrelevant to most of
the instructional designs of Social Efficiency educators. During curriculum and
instructional design, educators focus on analysis of the skill to be learned, division of
the skill into its component tasks, design and sequencing of learning experiences (S)
that result in the desired response (R), and assessment of whether or not learning has
taken place (R). During Social Efficiency educators’ administrative and political
(accountability) endeavors, they focus on making sure curriculum standards have been
satisfactorily met by publicly reporting student achievement test scores (S) in order to
shape teacher behavior (R) so that teachers more directly teach to the standards.
Assumptions About Learning

Several assumptions about the Social Efficiency view of learning need elaboration.
First, learning is an active process and “only the active learner is a successful
learner” (Anderson et al., 1996, p. 18). That is, “learning requires a change in the
learner, which can only be brought about by what the learner does” (p. 13). Learners
must make the responses they are to learn. They learn what they do. This refers to
Bobbitt’s “functional education,” in which learners must practice the behaviors they
are to acquire or make the responses they are to learn—that is, learn to function by
functioning in the desired manner. (For example, students learn to type by actually
typing.) Skilled performance develops only as a result of “learning-by-doing,” during
which “cognitive structure accommodates to experience” (p. 13). It is learners who
shape their behavior (and schema) in accordance with the requirement of the curricu-
lum (its stimulus, reinforcement, and response conditions), not the curriculum that
shapes the learner.
Second, learning skills requires practice: “Real competence only comes with exten-
sive practice” (Anderson et al., 1996, p. 12). The stimulus → response connection is
strengthened with practice. (For example, in running the Type to Learn curriculum,
students engage in many activities that allow them to practice typing.) One must be
careful with the types and amount of practice required of learners: “The instructional
task is not to ‘kill’ motivation by demanding drill, but to find tasks that provide prac-
tice while at the same time sustaining interest” (p. 13).
Third, “learning is strongly influenced by the . . . feedback that tells the system
when responses are correct, and when they are wrong” (Anderson et al., 1996, p. 12),
and learning progresses as correct responses to specific stimuli are reinforced. This
assumption refers to Thorndike’s law of effects (or Skinner’s contingency of reinforce-
ment theory) and pertains to the belief that the way to get learners to acquire a behav-
ior is to arrange the conditions in which they learn so that they are immediately
rewarded or given reinforcement when they emit the desired behavior. There are three
component assumptions making up this belief: (1) correct responses are strengthened
by being followed by immediate reinforcement, (2) incorrect responses are weakened
by not being followed by a reward, and (3) complex behaviors are built up gradually
through the reinforcement of prerequisite behaviors that gradually approximate the
desired terminal behavior. (All three assumptions are embedded in Type to Learn.)
Fourth, acquiring skilled performance requires that responses to stimulus condi-
tions be put under the control of particular stimuli in such a way that these stimuli
automatically generate the responses. This refers to the Social Efficiency belief that, to
be “efficient,” a learned behavior must become so ingrained that the learner responds
automatically and in a predetermined manner to the presence of specific stimuli—
without the contemplation or internal thought processing in working memory that
typically occurs when a behavior is just being learned (as in Type to Learn).
Fifth, Social Efficiency educators assume learning is atomistic. This shows up in
their concern with devising specific stimulus conditions that will condition the learner
to emit specific behavioral responses (as in Type to Learn). Associated with this is the
assumption that the total learning of a child with respect to a complex task is a sum-
mative accumulation of specific learnings associated with that task. Activity analysis,
during which knowledge is decomposed, uses this assumption.
Sixth, there is the assumption that not all learning is of the same level of complex-
ity: “Most complex skills are hierarchical in structure, with component skills within
component skills, and so on” (Anderson et al., 1996, p. 18). Curriculum developers
both derive unitary actions to be learned and define the hierarchical relationships
among those actions during activity analysis.
Readiness
Social Efficiency developers are primarily interested in learning versus growth. As
Gagne (1970) says, “learning is a change in human . . . capability which . . . is not sim-
ply ascribable to the process of growth. . . . [I]t must be distinguishable from the kind
of change that is attributable to growth” (p. 160).
As a result, these educators reject readiness arguments based on developmental
perspectives. “Readiness” to undertake learning is viewed as a function of the pres-
ence or absence of the necessary prerequisite learnings. Gagne (1970) phrases it this
way:
The acquisition of knowledge is a process in which every new capability builds on a
foundation established by previously learned capabilities. The convenient escape
mechanism that the student is not ‘mature’ enough to learn any particular content
needs to be studiously avoided, since it is valid for only the very earliest years of life.
A student is ready to learn something when he has mastered the prerequisites.
(pp. 26–27)
Thus, “at any given age, a child may be unable to perform a particular intellectual
task because he has not acquired the specifically relevant intellectual skills as prerequi-
sites to that task” (p. 290). However, “such learning may be readily accomplished if the
learner has acquired, or will undertake to acquire, the intellectual skills prerequisite to
the task” (p. 290). In particular, it is assumed that “children can learn any intellectual
thing we want them to learn, provided they have learned the prerequisites” (p. 300). In
terms of Figure 3.1, for example, when learners are competent in tasks C and D, they
are ready to learn task A. Until they are competent in tasks C and D, they are not ready
to learn task A.
Partitioning learning apart from growth and conceiving of learning as atomistic in
nature raises the question of what the relationship between the learning required by a
curriculum and the self-evolving nature of the child’s life is. That is, how is the organic
life series within the child united or meshed with the atomistic learning series of the
curriculum? The concepts of transfer, curriculum integration, and curriculum conti-
nuity are used to account for the relationships between the parts of the atomistic cur-
riculum and the organic life of the child. Transfer refers to generalizing specific
learnings so that they will be useful to the learner in contexts other than the specific
situations in which they are acquired. Lateral transfer “refers to a kind of generalizing
that spreads over a broad set of situations of roughly the same level of complexity”
(Gagne, 1970, p. 335). It involves the integration of (a) learnings that take place within
a curriculum and activities that take place in the learner’s everyday life and (b) learn-
ings within separate curricula that the learner is simultaneously experiencing. Vertical
transfer “refers to the effects that learned capabilities at one level have on the learning
of additional ones at higher levels” (p. 335). It promotes continuity by providing for
(a) the natural flow of learning from activity n to activity n + l and (b) the revisitation
of related learnings at several different levels of complexity.
The Child
Lack of Concern
Social Efficiency educators show little concern for the child per se while develop-
ing and using curricula. When they do show concern for the child, it is not concern for
the person but for the potential adult who possesses behavioral capabilities and can
provide an energy input into the educational endeavor (Gagne, 1966, p. 51).
Children are not viewed as entities who of themselves have meaning. Instead, they
have meaning because they can develop into adults and can serve their society. They
are first members of society capable of fulfilling social needs and only secondarily
individuals with needs. They are first potential adult members of society—“the man
within the child”—and only secondarily children. They are first bundles of action
capabilities and only secondarily persons possessing the ability to act.
If a distinction is made between the acts of a person and a person acting, it is the
former, not the latter, with which Social Efficiency educators are primarily concerned.
They are interested in the activity people engage in rather than the person engaged in
activity. People and their attributes are dichotomized in a manner similar to the way
objective and subjective reality are dichotomized, with emphasis being placed on the
attributes of people in contrast to people themselves.
Educators conceive of their endeavors as contributing to the next stage of develop-
ment of the child. They are constantly working on activity n so that activity n + 1 can
be accomplished and constantly thinking of children learning capability n so that they
will be able to learn capability n + 1 in the future (where n is a positive integer).
Educators’ concern is always the future learning of the child rather than the present
growing of the child.
The Child as a Worker

Within the Social Efficiency ideology, children are viewed as workers capable of
providing energy inputs into the educational endeavor:
Looking at a school system as a large organization of individuals for the purpose of turning
out certain necessary human products, the pupils are in fact the ultimate workers. They are
the rank and file over whom the teachers stand in supervisory capacity. The work is a
development of the potential abilities which the pupils carry around within themselves
into actual abilities of a given degree. These actual abilities are the educational products. It
is the work of the student, not the work of the teacher, that produces these products.
(Bobbitt, 1913, p. 32)
From this perspective, children are the ones who do the work in school. They
provide the energy inputs that work to transform them into suitable educational prod-
ucts. They know what work to perform on themselves and the standards they must
reach because of the supervision given by teachers and curricula.
Individualized Programmed Instruction

The stance of Social Efficiency educators toward individualized programmed
instruction highlights both of these points. First, individualized programmed instruc-
tion is designed to help children achieve a set of standard capabilities, to teach tasks
rather than students. It deals with a very limited part of children’s total functioning; it
is not intended to give students a complete, well-rounded education but to provide
them with a set of specialized skills. Second, instructional materials sit idle until they
are activated by students. Children provide the primary energy input that takes them
through the materials, which educate them at a rate proportional to the amount of
energy they expend on learning.
Teaching
Role of the Teacher

The teacher’s job is to make sure that learners appropriately work through cur-
ricula and acquire their terminal performances. “The teacher is the manager of the
conditions of learning” (Gagne, 1970, p. 324) who both prepares the learning environ-
ment for learners and supervises their work in that environment.
Part of the teacher’s job is to prepare the environment in which students learn (do
their work on themselves). This consists of doing whatever is necessary to prepare the
curriculum for use by students. Once students engage the learning environment, the
teacher’s job is to supervise student work, much as the manager of an assembly line
supervises the workers on the assembly line. As Bobbitt phrases it,
the teacher is supervisor, director, guide, stimulator, of the rank and file of the workers [stu-
dents] in order to bring about on the part of the latter the development of these various
abilities. The teaching problem is in fact a supervisory problem at the first level. (1913, p. 32)
In a school system . . . the pupils are the ultimate workers . . . [and] teachers rank as fore-
men. It is their business not to do the work that educates, but to get it done by the pupils.
In doing this, they must know the pupils: know their varying mental capabilities, their
interests, their aptitudes and abilities, their states of health, and their social milieu. They
must know how to arouse interest; how to motivate them from within; how to adjust the
conditions of the work to child-nature; how to keep up an abundant physical vitality in the
children; and how to employ community influences for vital stimulation of the pupils.
(1918, pp. 84–85)
Managing, directing, and supervising student work involves guiding them, moti-
vating them, and assessing them. Guiding students (as workers) involves indicating to
them what they are to learn (the work they are to do). In guiding students, the teacher
must be knowledgeable of the students and the curriculum so that appropriate help
can be given to students as needed.
Motivating students (as workers) involves knowing them and appropriately
interacting with them in such a way that they become persuaded to work through
the curriculum and acquire its competencies.
Assessing students involves monitoring students’ work as they progress through
the curriculum and maintaining quality control so that they acquire all of its prereq-
uisite and terminal competencies.
The job of teaching is to fit the student to the curriculum and fit the curriculum
to the student. It involves stimulating students to run the curriculum and adjusting the
curriculum to the capabilities of students. This entails knowing students and taking
into account their idiosyncratic natures. The curriculum developer designs curriculum
for a standard student; the teacher makes adjustments for particular students.
Consequences
There are three important consequences of this view of teaching.
First, the teacher’s role as manager, similar to that of a foreman managing an
assembly line, removes the teacher from having any input in determining the ends
toward which the student’s work is being directed or the learning activities in which
students engage. Teachers are not to question the ends or means of the curriculum or
implement their own ends or the ends of children in their care. Thus, although teach-
ers’ functions are different from those of curriculum developers, teachers are consid-
ered instruments of ends other than their own in the same way curriculum developers
are. That is, teachers are instruments who implement curriculum created by develop-
ers, developers are instruments who create curricula to fulfill client needs, and, thus,
teachers are instruments who fulfill client needs.
Second, excluding teachers from designing curricula to meet the idiosyncratic
needs of their students has the effect of guaranteeing that “a ‘quality control’ of the
choice of instructional conditions is insured and maintained” (Gagne, 1970, p. 325).
That is, allowing only curriculum developers to design curricula guarantees to the
greatest degree possible that the “ultimate product” resulting from the educational
process will measure up to the “definite qualitative and quantitative standards”
required to fulfill the needs of the curriculum client by making sure that “quality does
not suffer from variations in teachers’ skills” (p. 332). But this also produces a stand-
ardization of educational processes and products and an inhibition of classroom flex-
ibility, responsiveness, and innovation.
Third, “the objective of this management [teaching] is to insure that learning will
be efficient, that is, that the greatest change in the student’s behavior will occur in the
shortest period of time” (Gagne, 1970, p. 325). Teaching is evaluated in terms of both
student achievement and the efficiency with which the teacher produces student
achievement rather than in terms of how humane, creative, enlightening, or insightful
it is. When this is taken in combination with the emphasis on providing students feed-
back during learning, it should be no surprise that one of the recommendations of the
current accountability movement is that teachers should “be measured and compen-
sated [as part of their salaries] based on their classroom performance, including the
academic gains [amount of learning produced over a specified period of time] made
by their students” (The Teaching Commission, 2004, pp. 10–11). This includes using a
“value added” (The Teaching Commission, 2004, p. 27) method to assess “the rate of
improvement in student performance each year, as measured by state tests” and basing
“a significant percentage of teachers’ total compensation on improvements in student
performance” (p. 26). This is consistent with the Social Efficiency view of learning, for
our failure to link pay to performance [stimulus to response] . . . removes the possibility of
reward for success and accountability for failure [reinforcement through reward or punish-
ment]. Until teachers are rewarded and given responsibility for what really matters—their
impact on student achievement—we cannot expect to see a marked change for the better
in student performance [learning]. (The Teaching Commission, 2004, p. 23)
Evaluation
Reasons for Evaluation

Within the Social Efficiency ideology, it is essential to assess curricula, learners,
and teachers. Key concepts during evaluation are accountability and standards. There
are five primary reasons why evaluation is important in the Social Efficiency ideology.
First, educators conceive of themselves as instruments who fulfill the needs of a
client. They hold themselves accountable to their clients, and they demonstrate their
accountability by evaluating the efforts of curriculum developers and teachers to
produce evidence that the needs of the curriculum client have been fulfilled. To assess
their efforts, developers evaluate their curricula to demonstrate that terminal objec-
tives have been achieved. To assess the endeavors of teachers, individual schools, school
systems, and states, aggregated student achievement—as determined by standardized
tests—is used to provide evidence of success, failure, or annual yearly progress toward
meeting curriculum standards.
Second, Social Efficiency educators see their endeavors within the mainstream
of science. One aspect of the scientific endeavor is conceived to be the demand for
reproducibility, validity, reliability, and proof. As such, educators believe they must
use evaluation in order to demonstrate that their endeavors possess these qualities
and are therefore scientific. Mathematical and statistical procedures are viewed as
powerful scientific tools, and they are used on individual or aggregated standard-
ized test scores to “scientifically” determine educational success or failure of stu-
dents, teachers, individual schools, school districts, states, and the nation as a
whole.
A third reason why evaluation is important in the Social Efficiency ideology is
related to the nature of sequenced progressive objectives, which represent the sequence
of unitary learnings children must acquire one by one to move from incompetence to
competence. Learners’ mastery of each progressive objective in its turn guarantees that
they will reach competence. Their performance must be continually monitored and
evaluated to ensure that they do not proceed to successive objectives before mastering
previous ones.
[A] primary reason for direct measurement of the outcomes of a learning exercise session
is to insure that instructional objectives have been met. If a student fails to exhibit the
performance required on such a test, he needs to undertake additional learning covering
the same ground. It is inefficient, even useless, for him to try to proceed to the learning of
advanced topics, in view of the hierarchical nature of knowledge. . . . [T]he defined objec-
tive must somehow be achieved if subsequent learning is to be even minimally efficient for
this student. (Gagne, 1970, pp. 342–343)
A fourth reason why evaluation is important has to do with the effect that feed-
back has on children’s endeavors to learn. It is believed that the results of evaluation
constitute an important source of feedback to learners that helps them appropriately
shape their behavior, whether the feedback (and the accompanying rewards or rein-
forcement) is positive or negative. The same holds true for teachers, individual schools,
school districts, states, and the nation as a whole.
The fifth reason why evaluation is important is related to the role of standards in
assessing students, teachers, and school systems. Teacher tests certify that teachers meet
certain standards and are qualified to enter the classroom. In many states, student
achievement tests certify that students are qualified to graduate from high school
because they meet certain standards. Under the Race to the Top Program, and its pre-
decessor the No Child Left Behind Act, the results of aggregated student testing viewed
in the light of specific standards determine whether or not schools should be certified
as achieving or underachieving.
The Nature of Evaluation

Social Efficiency evaluation involves comparing a curriculum, student, or teacher
to a predetermined standard through the use of criterion-referenced tests. Such com-
parisons are made with respect to criteria decided on before evaluation takes place.
Evaluation does not involve comparisons that depend on population norms discovered
during or after testing. As Gagne (1970) says, evaluation’s “purpose is to compare each
student’s performance with an external standard representing the defined objective”
(p. 342).
The data obtained from evaluation come in a “pass or fail” form, not a ranking
form. The important thing for evaluation of students and teachers is whether they pass
or fail their tests and thus whether they meet certain standards, not that they are sev-
enth or eighth from the top. The important thing for summative curriculum evalua-
tion is whether the curriculum achieves the standards set for it, not how well it achieves
them. The important thing for formative curriculum evaluation is decisions such as
“the curriculum is acceptable” or “more refinement is needed.”
Objectivity and Atomization

Two characteristics of evaluation need mention.
First, evaluation involves objective, unbiased measurement of objective reality.
Two different perspectives on this are (1) that “accurate . . . assessment . . .
requires . . . that the competence being tested for . . . be specified precisely without
undue reliance on subjective judgment” (Anderson et al., 1996, p. 17) and (2) that
“the outcomes of learning, the achievements of the learner, need to be assessed by an
agent ‘external’ to the student, in order to ensure that they are objective and unbi-
ased” (Gagne, 1970, pp. 27–28). Statistical assessment is the preferred type of
evaluation.
Second, evaluation takes place within the context of atomization. The total learn-
ing or achievement to be evaluated is partitioned into specific atomistic events, each of
which is evaluated separately. When each of the partitioned events is evaluated, it is
examined in terms of characteristics inherent in the partitioned element. The question
asked is whether or not the partitioned characteristics are present in the curriculum,
child, or teacher, and whether they meet their respective standards.
Appropriateness of Evaluation
Three characteristics of the Social Efficiency ideology facilitate evaluation.
First, curriculum aims are stated as behavioral objectives that specify human per-
formances. Behaviors are observable and thus easily measured.
Second, learning is conceived within the context of an identifiable change in
behavior resulting from an identifiable stimulus condition. It is a change from the
absence of a behavior to the presence of a behavior. Conceptualizing learning this way
facilitates evaluation.
Third, the Social Efficiency conception of causation as deterministic facilitates

evaluation. One must simply show absence of behavior, display a stimulus-response
linkage, show the stimulus, and show the response to demonstrate that learning took
place as the result of a specific intervention. If causation were not so direct and easily
analyzable, evaluation would be more difficult.
The Social Efficiency ideology has done much to make American education practical
over the last century. Its insistence that education operate efficiently and accountably,
prepare people for many years of productive adult life within society, and prepare them
to perform useful skills rather than simply fill their minds with information, has done
much to make American education relevant and useful. Its views that the most useful
knowledge is the ability to perform skills, the teacher is a manager of classroom activ-
ity, the child is a doer, and educational objectives must be specified in terms of student
performances, along with its broadening of our view of evaluation to include crite-
rion-referenced testing, have done much to make schools more efficient, accountable,
and relevant to the future lives of students. This is the ideology that has brought us
behavioral objectives, behavioral management techniques, and objective quantitative
research methods.
The Social Efficiency ideology first gained influence on American education dur-
ing the last quarter of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century with
the rise of concern about utilitarian education (including agricultural education,
manual training, industrial education, and vocational education). It became increas-
ingly prominent during the second decade of the 20th century as a result of its influ-
ence on the field of school administration through the efforts of men like Franklin
Bobbitt. It continued to gradually gain influence as it adopted the “scientific” statistical
techniques of educational assessment and research. Ralph Tyler (with his systematic
approach to curriculum and instruction) and behavioral psychologists (with the learn-
ing theory that was adopted by the ideology) did much to promote the Social Efficiency
agenda in the middle of the 20th century. Between 1940 and 1980, Social Efficiency
advocates became the major group of faculty teaching within schools of education and
greatly influenced generations of teachers. With the rise of other ideologies in the last
third of the 20th century, the replacement of behavioral psychology by cognitive psy-
chology, and the replacement of Social Efficiency faculty in schools of education by
those holding other ideologies, the Social Efficiency ideology declined in influence. At
the end of the 20th century, as American society began to fear that the economic
prominence of the U.S. might be eclipsed and the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of
American education was made the scapegoat, the ideology again began to reassert its
influence on education with its views on accountability, efficiency, and the federal Race
to the Top funding and No Child Left Behind mandates. Figure 3.3 provides a rough
estimate of those times when advocates of this ideology have been most active, with
respect to their own norms, in attempting to influence American education.
Figure 3.3 Times of relative high and low activity of the Social Efficiency ideology.
High
Level of Activity
Low
1890 1925 1950 1975 2012
Time
4
Learner
Centered
Ideology
Ideal Schools
Underlying the thoughts and endeavors of Learner Centered educators is an image or
vision of an ideal school: a “school of tomorrow,” as John Dewey wrote in 1915 (Dewey
& Dewey, 1915). To the uninitiated visitor, the ideal Learner Centered school would
look nothing like a traditional school. This is the way Rugg and Shumaker described it
in 1928:
Is this a schoolhouse . . . ? These cheerful rooms—walls colorful with children’s paintings,

floors spotted with bright rugs, light, movable tables and comfortable chairs. . . .
Here is a group of six and seven year olds. They dance; they sing; they play house and
build villages; they keep store and take care of pets; they model in clay and sand; they draw
and paint, read and write, make up stories and dramatize them; they work in the garden;
they churn, and weave, and cook.
A group is inventing dances, which, we are told, are for a pageant. In a darkened room
films are being shown. A high school class is teaching the seventh grade how to use the
library. . . . A primary class is getting ready for an excursion . . . to a bakery. . . . At the end
of the hall is a toy shop where industrious members . . . ply lathe and saw, pattern and
paint, in fashioning marvelous trucks and horses. . . . Here is a nature-study laboratory
with green things growing. A breathless group is stocking a new aquarium to be sent to the
third grade; while over in the corner white rabbits, mice, and guinea pigs—even a turtle—
loll in well-attended ease.
. . . [W]e come across a shop where. . . . [o]ver all the walls are blueprints, maps, and
posters and models of things made and in the making—ships, steam engines, cars,
99
airplanes, submarines, sets for scenes, and even the swords and bucklers of medieval
armor. (pp. 2–4)*
What a contrast this picture of the ideal school presents when compared to the
Learner Centered view of the traditional school:
In that pattern children are pigeonholed in long rows of desks, filed in stereotyped class-
rooms. . . . Children must sit quietly, study their lessons silently, obey the teachers promptly
and unquestioningly. . . . The listening school is a place where the chief weapons of educa-
tion are chalk-talk on a dismal blackboard, a few intensely dull required texts, and a
teacher’s tired voice. . . .
Think of children sitting with arms folded, eyes front, putting up a hand for a begrudged
permission to move, chanting lessons in unison. . . . There memorize, recite, pay attention
are the keynotes. Not “What do you think?” but “What does the book say?” directs the
educative process. (Rugg & Shumaker, 1928, pp. 2–4)
Although this particular contrast between the ideal school and the traditional
school may sound oversimplified, making such a clear distinction is central to the
Learner Centered ideology. An important dimension of Learner Centered educators’
vision of their ideal school is that they perceive it to be dramatically different from the
traditional school. It is “different in atmosphere, housing, furniture; different in its
basic philosophy and psychology; different in the role that it assigns to pupil and
teacher initiative” (Rugg & Shumaker, 1928, p. 2).
Ideal Schools for All Learners

The ideal schools envisioned by Learner Centered educators have existed in the
past and exist today. They exist at all levels of education. Montessori and Reggio
Emilia schools are currently popular at the preschool level. Learner Centered schools
have been popular at the elementary through secondary school levels for more than
a hundred years. Francis Parker promoted them at all educational levels in the 1890s
in the Quincy, Massachusetts public schools. Marietta Johnson promoted her
organic school, which educated elementary through secondary school students, dur-
ing the first several decades of the 20th century (and it is still in operation today).
“Progressive education” had become popular by the 1920s and was widely practiced
in public and private elementary and secondary schools. In 1942 the results of the
Eight-Year Study, which examined the effects of Learner Centered secondary schools
on college performance during the 1930s, were published. During the 1960s and
1970s, the open education movement promoted Learner Centered education in
Grades K through 12. The Sudbury Valley School currently promotes Learner
Centered education from elementary through secondary school. Learner Centered
education has also been practiced in higher education; the free university movement
of the 1970s and 1980s provides one example, and Bennington College provides
*From The Child-Centered School by Rugg, H. & Shumaker, A., copyright © 1928. Reprinted
with permission from Ayer Company Publishers.
Chapter 4 Learner Centered Ideology ❖ 101
another. In addition, many adult education centers align themselves with this
approach.
Thus, Learner Centered schools have been a reality for a few individuals, but
Learner Centered educators believe they should become the schools of tomorrow for
all people.
Most of the educators quoted herein speak of “children” as young people in school
from preschool through college. In this chapter, I also speak of “learners,” “people,”
“students,” and “individuals”—not all of them children—to remind the reader of the
broad applicability of this approach.
A Learner Centered Curriculum

Observing how a Learner Centered curriculum unit is created and used provides
a starting point for understanding this ideology.
Pond Water was developed in the 1960s by a group of scientists and educators at
Elementary Science Study (ESS), a science curriculum development organization
funded by the National Science Foundation to create elementary school curricula.
Before deciding to develop Pond Water, ESS developers visited schools to observe
what children were interested in. They discovered that many children were interested
in ponds near their schools. The developers then created an initial set of activities for
teachers to use that provided children firsthand experiences exploring the biology of
local ponds. When teachers tried out the activities with children, beginning at local
ponds and then moving into their classrooms, the ESS curriculum developers watched
the children carefully to see such things as what they did and learned when engaging
the activities; what they were interested in and curious about; what types of questions
they asked and further activities they wanted to explore; what types of children’s intel-
lectual, social, and emotional growth occurred as a result of engaging in the activities;
and which types of science equipment and books might facilitate the children’s devel-
opment. Based on direct firsthand observations of children, the ESS developers then
created an initial version of the curriculum that included a teacher’s guide and a set of
instructional materials (such as inexpensive microscopes) that would further stimulate
children’s growth, learning, and scientific literacy. In the process, the developers also
narrowed the focus of their curriculum unit to pond water. The curriculum developers
then repeated several times the process of trying out their curriculum, observing chil-
dren and teachers while they engaged the curriculum, and revising the curriculum.
The finished curriculum, called Pond Water, included a teacher’s guide that described
and illustrated numerous children’s activities and a set of instructional materials
(including student work cards and microscopes) that facilitated children’s growth.
A teacher who decided to use Pond Water with her class—based on previous expe-
riences teaching children and observing their interest and curiosity about a nearby
pond—might proceed in the following manner. During the school year, as children
express interest in certain things, the teacher records their interests on a bulletin board,
and in particular highlights interests related to a local pond—interests related to things
such as tadpoles, flowers, and animals seen around the pond. When a sufficient number
of children have expressed an interest in both the pond and some nearby ant hills, the
teacher gathers her students together in a group and asks them to discuss whether they
would like to take a field trip and explore either the pond or ant hills. During the discus-
sion, the class explores what they might do on the two field trips and what types of
questions they have about the pond and ant hills. The teacher then asks her students to
make a choice about what they will explore first and to decide, by voting, whether they
would rather first study ant hills or the pond. The teacher asks students to make this
decision because she believes that it is important for children to make choices about
what they will learn and that children have the right to direct their own learning. When
the children decide to explore the pond first (and the ant hills later), at the teacher’s
suggestion they then set about discussing and deciding how they want to explore the
pond, and they make a list of what equipment they might need to carry out their explo-
rations. Under the teacher’s guidance, and with the teacher’s help, children with similar
interests form groups. Groups are formed to explore (and collect samples of) what is in
the pond water, which plants grow near the pond, and which animals live around the
pond. In addition, a photography group is formed to take pictures with a digital camera
of things in which children are interested. The photography group will also have the job
of uploading the pictures to a computer and printing them for the class to use.
Just before the field trip, the teacher gathers her students together and asks them
to discuss and decide what their class rules are for their behavior on the field trip and
how they will make sure that everyone obeys the rules. She does this because she thinks
it is important for her students to take responsibility for some of their classroom
governance.
During the field trip to the pond, the children discover many things, collect many
samples, have the photography group take many pictures, ask many questions, and
share discoveries with each other. From their discoveries, their questions, and their
collections of samples (such as buckets of pond water and jars of plants) will come
their future classroom explorations, based on what interests them most.
Upon returning to their classroom, study of the pond continues for the rest of the
school day. One group sets out to discover what is in the pond water (the teacher pro-
vides them with and shows them how to use microscopes). Another group is interested
in discovering which animals made the animal tracks they discovered around the pond
(the teacher has an ESS curriculum on Animal Tracks that she will prepare as a learning
center for the next day, to help them explore their questions). A third group (that col-
lected samples of leaves and flowers from around the pond) uses the Internet to
explore poisonous plants (one child said they collected samples of poison ivy, so they
explore poison ivy in particular).
After students have explored their independent interests for a while, the teacher
calls the class together as a group and asks them to report to each other the questions
and findings they have thus far generated. She then asks the students to decide on one
area to explore as a group for the next hour, giving them a choice of plants, animals, or
pond water. The class decides to explore pond water, as result of reports from the pond
water group that there are small animals swimming in the water that can be seen with
a microscope. The teacher asks students to get into groups of three as she brings out a
microscope for each group (she had set them up before class in a learning center on
optics that includes microscopes and a variety of lenses). The teacher demonstrates to
her students how to use a microscope and gives them the task of (a) finding the ani-
mals in the pond water that are invisible to the naked eye; (b) drawing the animals;
(c) writing observations, questions, and speculations about their discoveries; and
(d) seeing whether they can discover what the animals are called by examining books
on microscopic creatures she recently put in the class library. From the teacher’s per-
spective, this activity involves an integration of science, drawing, writing, reading,
discussion, and interpersonal interaction.
As the students work, the teacher moves about the classroom observing what chil-
dren are doing, helping children use their microscopes, asking certain children to share
their work with other children, helping children find words to express ideas that they
are having difficulty expressing, reading what children have written and commenting
on their written work, and making a list of future explorations that children say they
want to engage in. In doing so, the teacher discovers that several girls are calling the
microscopic creatures that they discover “dragons.” She decides that the next day she
will bring into the classroom several picture books on dragons for these children to
read, given their interest in dragons. After the students have worked for an hour, the
teacher asks them to share with the entire class their drawings, writings, observations,
questions, and speculations.
After the discussion, the teacher encourages children to explore whatever interests
them most about their experiences with the pond, from among the many things men-
tioned during their discussions. She asks that children find others interested in the
same things, and that they work together so that they can benefit from sharing their
ideas and observations. She also reminds the children to put all of their written work
and drawings in their portfolios when they are done, so that they can examine them if
they need to do so at a future time (and so that she, the teacher, can review the students
work at the end of each day). The children then get into groups and begin their explo-
rations, some of which will continue for days. As they work, many different hands-on
explorations take place simultaneously, and children are involved in learning many
different things (in contrast to everyone learning the same thing at the same time).
Several small groups continue to explore the microscopic creatures in the pond
water: what they are called, what they eat, how they multiply, and what their different
parts are and the function of each.
One group continues its exploration of poison ivy by pursuing questions such as,
What does it look like? Why and how does it give you blisters? How can a person get
rid of poison ivy blisters? Can you get poison ivy from another person or from clothes
that have come in contact with it? The poison ivy group decides to type its findings in
a poison ivy manual that it will print and distribute to the rest of the class.
Several children become interested in how microscopes work and spend time at
the classroom optics learning center. They explore the effects of different types of
lenses, try to start a fire by focusing the rays of the sun on some paper, and build a
homemade microscope and telescope from kits the teacher put in the learning center.
The next day, after the teacher brings in books on dragons, the girls interested in
dragons devour the books. As well as exploring the animals in the pond water, over
the next couple of weeks they explore stories about dragons in books that they get
from the school library and files that they download on the classroom computer.
They eventually decide to write their own stories about dragons, which they publish
in the class newsletter, along with their drawings of what they think dragons should
look like.
The group interested in the animal tracks that they found at the pond gets the
photography group to print out copies of the photos they took of the animal tracks.
They then explore the ESS learning center on Animal Tracks that the teacher sets up for
them. They identify the animals that belong to the tracks (rabbits, raccoons, skunks,
and dogs), read about them, and make a booklet for the class called “Animals That Live
Near Our Pond.”
As all these explorations, as well as others, continue simultaneously in the class-
room for many days, the teacher moves among the groups giving students individual
attention. She seems to be everywhere at once as she does such things as observe stu-
dents as they work, ask and answer questions, suggest experiments and activities, help
students find books that might provide answers to their questions, suggest Internet
search terms that might help students find desired information, and help students
work through interpersonal difficulties as they arise. Based on her observations, the
teacher also plans to do such things as get books from the public library (e.g., story and
picture books on dragons), set up learning centers as a result of the children’s expressed
interests (e.g., a center on Animal Tracks), and get equipment that will help students
pursue their interests (such as kits for building a microscope and telescope). Here, the
teacher is not simply an imparter of information, but a facilitator of children’s growth,
learning, meaning making, (intellectual, social, and emotional) development, and
self-actualization.
In this classroom, the students, teacher, and curriculum developer share responsi-
bility for what is occurring. The students decide what they will explore as a result of
what interests them, as well as provide the energetic involvement and activity that
allows them to pursue their interests. The teacher constantly observes and assesses
students’ needs, interests, and endeavors; sets up a learning environment that contains
activities and equipment that enable students to pursue their interests; and interacts
with students in ways that maximize their growth and self-actualization. The curricu-
lum developer creates teacher’s guides that suggest activities that interest children and
provides materials appropriate for student use that can help them pursue their inter-
ests and maximize their human potential. By working together, students, teachers, and
curriculum developers help make the ideal classroom of the Learner Centered ideology
possible.
The Ideal School

The ideal school envisioned by Learner Centered educators is different from the tradi-
tional school because it is a Learner Centered school, an activity (or experience)
school, an organic (or developmental) school, and an integrated school. Each of these
dimensions of the ideal school will now be discussed.
The Learner-Centered School

The learner-centered ideal school is different from the traditional school because
it is based on “nothing less than the reorientation of the entire school around the child”
(Rugg & Shumaker, 1928, p. 56). In the learner-centered school, the needs and interests
of learners, rather than those of teachers, principals, school subjects, parents, or politi-
cians, play a major role in determining the school program.
First, learner-centered schools are “child-centered institutions in contrast to the
teacher-centered and principal-centered schools of the conventional order” (Rugg &
Shumaker, 1928, p. 56). The interests, needs, and desires of learners influence the
nature of the school program, the content of the curriculum, and (to some degree) the
governance of the classroom. “These schools believe that boys and girls should share
in their own government, in the planning of the program, in the administering of the
curriculum, in conducting the life of the school” (p. 57). In the learner-centered
school, “the routine needs of the school, as well as the lesson assignments, the planning
of excursions and exhibits, and the criticism of reports are taken over by the pupils”
(p. 57) to as large a degree as is judged appropriate. This is very different from the
traditional school, where teachers and principals dictate all aspects of student educa-
tion and students must obey their every wish promptly and unquestioningly.
Second, learner-centered schools are organized around the needs and interests of
individuals rather than the demands of the school subjects:
In the formal schools . . . the program of the child’s education is organized about school
subjects. Not so in the new schools. . . . There is a . . . new article of faith—child interest as
the orienting center of the school program. . . . The new school is setting up a program of
work which has a personal connection with the immediate life of the child. It starts from
his needs and interests. The units of the new program approximate as nearly as possible
what to children are real-life situations. Hence the new school organizes its program
around the centers of interest rather than around academic subjects. (Rugg & Shumaker,
1928, pp. 60–61)
In the learner-centered school, centers of interest such as clay boats, pond water,
care of a flock of chickens, optical lenses, musical instruments, and building and using
a computer dominate the school curriculum. In contrast, academic subjects such as
mathematics, English, science, and history dominate the school program in the tradi-
tional school. In learner-centered schools, “the having of wonderful ideas” (Duckworth,
1987) is important, while in traditional schools the acquisition of information and
skills is valued.
Third, learner-centered schools orient themselves around the needs and interests
of children rather than around parental and societal expectations for children. Here, a
distinction is made between the “self-expressed needs of the child” and the “needs of
the child as inferred by adults” (i.e., what adults think the needs of children are;
Noddings, 2005a, pp. 147–148). This is difficult for many parents to accept, as Marietta
Johnson (1974) wrote 70 years ago of some parents of children in her School of
Organic Education:
He is afraid that the desired amount of “subject matter” will not be acquired. To think of
growth in other terms than reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, and geography is
impossible for him. . . . The idea that education is a preparation for something in the future
has such a strong hold upon the imagination that few parents can believe that if the need
of the present is met fully, the future is assured. (pp. 17, 25–26)
The learner-centered school concentrates on meeting the needs, interests, and

desires of children and insists that “children should not be conscious of [or subjected
to] adult expectancy. This is a source of self-consciousness and waste in childhood”
(Johnson, 1974, p. 25).
Here it is assumed that the “needs, interests, and desires” of students include such
basic human impulses as the need to communicate with others (through such activi-
ties as speaking, reading, writing, and telecommunicating), the desire to understand
one’s world (as a result of natural curiosity about such things as those that science,
history, mathematics, literature, and psychology are concerned with), and the need to
express oneself through creative endeavors (such as the performing, visual, and literary
arts). Children are not viewed as individuals lacking social, intellectual, artistic, and
physical interests and endeavors, but as individuals full of self-generated curiosity
about their world, impulses to be active participants and communicators in their
world, and active makers of meaning (and knowledge) as a result of their interest in
and interactions with their world.
The Activity School

The ideal school is a school full of activity; a school where experience is the
medium through which individuals grow and learn; a school where, indeed, “experi-
ence [is] the keynote of . . . education!” (Rugg & Shumaker, 1928, p. 5). Here it is
believed “that knowledge comes . . . through the interaction of an individual with the
surrounding world, both inanimate and social” (Hein, 1975, p. 2) and that “children
naturally think through experience—through activity” (Johnson, 1974, p. 10). Here it
is proclaimed, “I would have a child say not, ‘I know,’ but ‘I have experienced’” (Rugg
& Shumaker, 1928, p. 60). “I know” is taken to be the slogan of the traditional school,
whose program is based on reading and silence, on sitting and reciting, on listening
and acquisition of facts. In contrast, “I have experienced” is the slogan of the activity
school.
The activity school program is based on four practices: direct firsthand experience
with reality, experience with physical materials and people, experience involving
physical activity, and experience both inside and outside the classroom. Each practice
needs elaboration.
Firsthand Experience With Reality

The activity school provides learners firsthand experiences with reality and avoids
the traditional school’s practice of providing only secondhand experiences through
reading, writing, listening, and viewing. Those who maintain activity schools “feel it is
necessary for the student to confront the real world and its physical materials directly,
rather than through intermediaries such as textbooks” (Education Development

Center, 1966, p. 3):
One mandate is imperative for our style of work: there must be personal involvement. The
child must work with his own hands, mind, and heart. It is not enough for him to watch
the teacher demonstrate or stand in line to take a hurried glimpse of the reflection of his
own eyelashes in the microscope eyepiece. It is not enough for him to watch the skillful
classmate at work, not enough to follow the TV screen. He needs his own apparatus, sim-
ple, workable. (Morrison, 1964/1970, p. 111)
Activity school educators emphasize direct, firsthand experiences with reality—as

in the pond water example—because they believe that growth, learning, and knowl-
edge come through individuals’ personal interactions with their world.
Experience With Physical Materials and People

Because learners must personally experience reality in order to grow, learn, and
construct meaning, it becomes necessary for the activity school to provide them with
the “reality” they need to experience. It does this by furnishing them with a multitude
of activities involving physical materials and social encounters. Physical materials of
both animate and inanimate form are prominent in the activity school. Children expe-
rience the growing of plants firsthand in the activity school, instead of reading about
them as they would in the traditional school. They care for and personally handle
animals in the activity school, instead of looking at pictures of them as they would in
the traditional school. They, themselves, examine small creatures in pond water using
a microscope, rather than watching a movie about them or reading a book about them
as they might in a traditional school. Adolescents make things such as tables, model
airplanes, radios, dresses, cakes, and sets for plays, instead of listening to lectures about
how to make such things as they would in the traditional school. Adults paint, dance,
work on political campaigns, write and discuss poetry, and work in archaeological digs,
instead of listening to lectures or reading books as they would in the traditional school.
The belief is that
the child must discover the fact for himself. . . . He will do this if the relevant material is
available to him in sufficient quantity and variety, if he is given many opportunities of
handling it and trying it out. (Blackie, 1971, p. 87)
This is in contrast to beliefs operating in the traditional school, where students are
expected to learn facts that others have discovered by reading books and listening to
teachers.
In the activity school, “manipulative materials are supplied in great diversity and
range with little replication” (Walberg & Thomas, 1971, p. 90). For example, one might
find a tape recorder to tell stories into; a stove for cooking; a computer on which to
access the Internet or run a simulation; a camera for taking pictures of interesting
occurrences or projects just finished; a play store in which things can be bought and
sold; old clothes in which one can dress up and make believe; a multitude of books,
bottle caps, spools, seashells, peas, buttons, string, wire, rope, ribbon, and rulers; scales
and balances with which to weigh and measure; and magic markers, crayons, and
paints with which to create pictures. As a result, the traditional school, with its desks,
its chairs, and its standardized books neatly arranged, is very different in appearance
from the activity school.
In the activity school, encounters with peers and adults are also in abundance.
These are real social encounters where people work together, explore together,
exchange ideas with each other, play together, dispute ideas with each other, construct
meanings about their physical and cultural world together, and construct social and
individual meanings together. Sudbury Valley School (n.d.[c]) emphasizes this social
orientation on its Web site:
The school teems with activity. Adults and students of all ages mix freely. People can be
found everywhere talking, reading and playing. Some may be in the photo lab developing
or printing pictures. Some may be in a dance class or building a bookshelf in the wood
shop. There are almost always people making music of one kind or another, usually in
several places. . . . People may be at computers, doing administrative work in the office,
playing chess, rehearsing a show, or participating in role-playing games. People will be
trading stickers and trading lunches. A group may be selling pizza that they made to raise
money for new equipment. . . . Always there are people playing happily and busily, indoors
and outdoors, in all seasons and all weather. Always there are groups talking, and always
there are individuals quietly reading here and there. (¶ 2–3)
This social activity does not take place by accident:
In preparing the space [in which children learn], teachers offer the possibility for children
to be with the teachers and many of the other children, or with just a few of them, or even
alone when they need a little niche to stay in by themselves.
Teachers are always aware . . . that children learn a great deal in exchanges with their
peers, especially when they can interact in small groups. Such small groups of two, three,
four, or five children provide possibilities for paying attention, for hearing and listening to
each other, for developing curiosity and interest, for asking questions and for responding
to them. It provides opportunities for negotiation and dynamic communication . . . [and
for] planning and decision making. This type of small group also favors the emergence of
cognitive conflicts; such conflicts can initiate a process in which, while children find a
resolution, they construct together new learning and new skills. (Gandini, 2004, pp. 17–18)
Social, as well as individual, construction of knowledge is encouraged in the activ-

ity school, as illustrated by the group work in the pond water example. This is in con-
trast to what is encouraged in the traditional school, where students are expected to
“do their own work” and where sharing ideas, answers to questions, and solutions to
problems is often considered cheating.
Experience Involving Physical Activity

The ideal school is full of activity: physical, verbal, social, and emotional. It radiates
the belief that healthy intellectual, social, and emotional growth must be accompanied
by physical and verbal activity. It is a school where “children move freely about the room
without asking permission,” where “talking among children is encouraged,” and where
“many different activities go on simultaneously” (Walberg & Thomas, 1971, p. 90). It is
a school where one finds “a large amount of actual physical exertion, of overt bodily
movement, of a wide variety of sensory contracts, of the type of energy-release which is
ordinarily designated as play” (Rugg & Shumaker, 1928, p. 58). In the activity school, it
is believed that one must “free the legs, the arms, the larynx of a child” in order to “take
the first step towards freeing his mind and spirit” to grow and learn (p. 55). This is
because adherents of the Learner Centered ideology believe that perhaps the “most deep-
seated tendency in human life is movement, impulse, activity . . . that the basis of all
learning is . . . action” (p. 59). As a result, the activity school is very different from the
traditional school, which encourages stillness and quiet. “Where the [traditional] school
maintained . . . silence as the ideal classroom atmosphere, the new [activity school]
removes the ban from speech, [and] encourages communication as a vehicle for social
understanding and personal development” (p. 66).
In the activity school, for example, one might find adolescents acting out Greek
and Roman myths through improvisational drama rather than just studying classics
from a textbook; children telling each other stories rather than just writing language
arts essays; adults dancing old English folk dances and singing old English ballads
rather than just reading English literature; adolescents building a model railroad rather
than filling in a worksheet on the history of railroads; adolescents exploring and map-
ping gullies, streams, and bays near the school rather than just listening to a lecture
about physical geography; children collecting samples of water from a pond to exam-
ine with microscopes rather than watching a movie; children measuring the height of
their school rather than just writing in an arithmetic workbook; and adolescents dis-
cussing surface tension as they play with water rather than just watching the teacher
perform a physics demonstration. In the activity school, all of these activities might
occur simultaneously, in contrast to the traditional school, where one thing happens at
a time.
Experience Inside and Outside the Classroom

The activity school is designed to provide learners with experiences that occur
both inside and outside the classroom. Teachers within the activity school frequently
take children outside the classroom and the school to explore phenomena in their
everyday natural and man-made world (Fayerweather Street School, n.d.). By doing so,
they make available many rich and stimulating learning experiences from which chil-
dren can learn. Nature study offers experiences with animals, plants, geological forma-
tions, pond water, and observations of the moon. The man-made world offers the
ability to explore different types of transportation, buildings, and the local community.
When children are taken outside the classroom to learn, a whole world of rich learning
experiences opens up as part of the instructional environment.
Because the activity school provides learners with educational experiences outside
the classroom—in the halls of the school, in the schoolyard, and in the school neigh-
borhood—it is strikingly different from the traditional school. In the traditional
school, students are viewed as learning only in their classroom at their desks, while in
the activity school people are encouraged to learn wherever interesting occurrences
present themselves.
The Organic School

The Learner Centered ideal school is an organic, or developmental, school: a
school designed to further the natural growth of the developing human organism
(hence the term organic). It is founded on the belief that “life—growth—education—
are synonymous” (Johnson, 1974, p. 18) and with the “idea that education is growth
and that the school program must minister to growth” (p. 37), and it is organized to
“respect the inner movement of growth” (p. 22) of learners as they self-actualize and
to provide them with educational experiences compatible with their stage of social,
emotional, and intellectual development. The organic school is different from the tra-
ditional school in three ways.
First, the organic school is different because its curriculum is based on the natural
developmental growth of people, rather than on demands external to them. Marietta
Johnson (1974) says of her School of Organic Education, “Our school has always been
an effort to work with children from the point of view of meeting their needs rather
than getting them to meet the demands of any system” (p. 15). The organic school does
not pressure people to acquire academic skills and knowledge before they are develop-
mentally ready to do so. The differing approaches taken to reading and writing instruc-
tion in organic and traditional schools provides an example. Organic school educators
do not force children to learn to read or write before their bodies and minds are ready
to voluntarily do so—and a whole language approach to literacy is taken. In traditional
schools, children are encouraged, or required, to read and write as soon as they can—
and a phonics approach to reading is taken. The issue here is the difference between
training and growing:
“Training” and “growing” are quite different. In training, we often dominate or force in
order to accomplish certain definite external results. In growing, we provide the right con-
ditions and the end is human and immediate—included in the process—and the moving
power is within . . . the child. (Johnson, 1974, pp. 8–9)
It is the task of the organic school to provide the medium for growth—an intellectually
rich, physically interesting, socially humane, emotionally joyous, and aesthetically
pleasing instructional environment for individuals to experience, and teachers who
facilitate those individuals’ interactions with that environment—and it is the task of
individuals in that environment to grow in their own natural self-actualizing ways. In
contrast, the traditional school fills children’s minds and trains them by imposing
knowledge and skills upon them.
Second, the organic school is different from the traditional school because it
believes people evolve through a series of qualitatively different growth stages as they
develop from infancy to adulthood. Hence, the organic school views children as differ-
ent from adults, treats them differently, and bases its curriculum on the nature of
children as children, rather than as potential adults.
The organic school endeavors to educate people in the manner most appropriate
to their stage of development. This involves ministering directly to people as they expe-
rience their nature at a particular stage of growth. By doing this, the organic school
cherishes childhood and “stresses the present, not the future; living, not preparing for
life; learning now, not anticipating the future” (Barth, 1972, p. 97) under the belief that
to live life fully “as a child is the best preparation for adulthood” (Walberg & Thomas,
1971, p. 85).
The issues here are how people are treated and the activities in which they are
encouraged to engage. The organic school treats children as children and provides
them with “childlike” activities designed to be congruent with, to nurture, and to
elaborate on their stage of development. In contrast, the traditional school treats chil-
dren as potential adults and provides them with “adultlike” activities designed to pre-
pare them for and speed them on their way toward adulthood. For example, the
organic school provides the child with activities that might be classified as having the
essence of “play,” under the belief that
if the need of the present is met fully, the future is assured. Growth has no external end.
The end and the process are one. If the child is happily engaged in wholesome activity, he
is growing, he is being educated. (Johnson, 1974, pp. 25–26)
In contrast, the traditional school is perceived to provide children with activities that
might be classified as having the essence of “work,” under the assumption that
“schoolwork” is the work of children and that work is often unpleasant and difficult
and often requires both strenuous intellectual exertion and the painful activity of
sitting still.
In the organic school, “play is not distinguished from work as the predominant
mode of learning” (Barth, 1972, p. 24). In fact, the distinction between work and play
is considered inappropriate. It is more appropriate to distinguish between involvement
and lack of involvement in an activity because it is believed that if people are actively
engaged in an activity, they are constructing meaning, learning, and growing—which
is viewed as both play and work. As a result, the atmosphere of the organic school
fosters voluntary, happy, and active involvement in experiences. In contrast, the atmos-
phere of the traditional school is viewed as one that forces students to partake in tedi-
ous work.
Third, the organic school is different from the traditional school because it
believes individuals grow and learn intellectually, socially, emotionally, and physically
in their own unique and idiosyncratic ways and at their own individual rates rather
than in a uniform manner. The school is organized and conducted in a way that sup-
ports differences among individuals in all their qualitative richness. Three practices
follow:
1. Individualized instruction in organic and traditional schools is different. In organic

schools, many different activities take place simultaneously and learners choose among
them based on their personal needs, interests, and learning styles—as illustrated in the
pond water example. In traditional schools, usually only one activity takes place at any
one time, and all students must participate in that activity regardless of their personal
needs and interests. In the organic school, “activities do not arise from predetermined
curricula,” for “the teacher plans instruction individually and pragmatically, based upon
reflective evaluation of each child’s particular needs and interests” (Walberg & Thomas,
1971, p. 91). In the traditional school, a predetermined curriculum determines what
will occur in the classroom, independent of students’ needs, interests, abilities, and
learning styles.
2. In organic schools, “children have the right to direct their own learning, to make impor-
tant decisions regarding their own educational experience” based on their own felt
needs, interests, abilities, and learning styles (Walberg & Thomas, 1971, p. 93). Learners
exercise this right by deciding which activities, from among those built into the learning
environment by the teacher, they will become involved in; how long they will spend on
an activity; whether they will work alone or in a group; and, if they work in a group,
who will be the members of the group. The organic school “is a place where people
decide for themselves how to spend their days. Here, students of all ages determine what
they will do, as well as when, how, and where they will do it” (Sudbury Valley School,
n.d.[b], ¶ 1). In contrast, the traditional school is a place where the teacher decides all
of these things.
3. Organic schools are conducted with the dual belief that “there is no set body of knowl-
edge which must be transmitted to all” learners (Walberg & Thomas, 1971, p. 93) and
that the knowledge individuals construct as a result of their unique, personal, and idi-
osyncratic interactions with their world is a function of their developmental stages,
learning styles, and thinking styles. As a result, organic school teachers believe that what
individuals learn in their school is a function of their own unique organic nature at
their particular stage of development. In contrast, traditional school educators prede-
termine the knowledge students will learn without taking into account the students’
individual organic natures.
In essence, the organic school is organized and conducted in such a way as to sup-
port the multitude of differences that naturally exist among individuals—differences
in interest, learning style, rate of learning, and the specific meaning each has acquired
from previous experiences. In contrast, the traditional school is perceived to suppress
individual differences and attempt to establish uniformity in learning among students.
The Integrated School

The ideal school is an integrated school. It takes a unified rather than an atomistic
approach to people’s education. It is integrated in many ways.
First, it is integrated because it treats people as integrated organisms. People are
dealt with as inseparable conglomerates of intellectual, social, emotional, and physical
components, rather than as creatures whose attributes can be partitioned and dealt
with separately (Noddings, 2005b, p. 12). The integrated school takes “a holistic view
of personality” that requires one to “look at the whole child” and deal with all of his or
her attributes simultaneously (Hein, 1975, p. 2). Unlike the traditional school, the inte-
grated school
does not see “skill development” [or concept development] as a separate activity which can
be isolated, studied, and improved independent of the rest of the child. . . . [I]ntellectual
growth cannot take place without growth and development of the whole personality of the
child. (p. 2)
Rugg and Shumaker (1928) phrase it this way while pointing out how the diversity of
materials in the activity school supports its integrated approach, that is, the education
of all aspects of the child simultaneously:
The whole child is to be educated. Hence the materials of education are as broad and inter-
related as life itself. For experience is not only an intellectual matter, it is physical, rhythmic,
emotional. Thus the vocabulary of the new school has coursing through it a unitary, inte-
grating theme. (p. 5)
Second, the ideal school is integrated because it integrates knowledge of the school
disciplines. It does this by taking an interdisciplinary approach to knowledge in which
the separate “school subjects are rejected in favor of broader and more integrated cent-
ers of work” (Rugg & Shumaker, 1928, p. 61). Integrated schools do not view knowl-
edge as broken up into separate disciplines. For example, if children are exploring what
can be found in pond water, they are not asked to categorize what is being learned as
technology, science, mathematics, art, reading, and writing when they collect pond
water from a nearby pond, build microscopes to observe small living “creatures” in the
collected pond water, measure and paint what they observe, locate the creatures they
have observed in books and read about them, and then write about their observations
and discoveries. Further, it is assumed that children will integrate their understanding
of the meanings they create in their own unique ways and that the ways they interrelate
the meanings they construct will not necessarily correspond with the ways universities
have partitioned knowledge into the separate academic disciplines. Here, it is assumed
that it is the learner’s job to integrate knowledge and that configuring what goes on
inside learners’ minds is not the job of the teacher or the curriculum. The job of the
teacher and the curriculum is to create engaging learning experiences that naturally
integrate the content of the different academic disciplines in holistic ways that do not
atomize and partition knowledge.
Third, the ideal school is integrated because it has few fixed periods during the day
when particular events occur. There is a fluidity of time in the integrated school; learn-
ers begin activities, end their involvement in activities, and move on to new activities
when it feels proper and natural to them. In contrast, in the traditional school time is
broken up into segments for specific purposes, under the belief that students’ interests
and intellectual development can fit into neatly arranged time periods.
Fourth, the ideal school is integrated because many different activities take place
simultaneously. This is in sharp contrast to the traditional school’s practice of parti-
tioning the day in such a way that only one activity takes place at a time. Activities
naturally become integrated into each other in the following two ways: (1) activities
that simultaneously take place in different parts of the room merge together, as when,
for example, several children’s involvement with mice merges with other children’s
involvement with building blocks, resulting in mice running through block structures
and thus a study of animal behavior in mazes; and (2) activities that take place at one
point in time naturally flow into later activities, as when, for example, work with plants
leads to a search for information in the classroom library, which leads to reading.
Fifth, the ideal school is integrated because it attempts to integrate people’s home
and school lives. In the integrated school,
the boundaries most American children carefully draw between “school” and “home” are
blurred. Children, like teachers, take things and ideas of interest home to ponder, just as
they bring things and ideas of interest from home to school. The result is a more fully
“integrated day.” (Barth, 1972, p. 75)
The integrated school, unlike the traditional school, fosters in learners a sense that the
world is not fragmented into the isolated places “home” and “school.”
These five aspects of integration are not viewed in isolation from each other. The
simultaneity of activities in an undifferentiated classroom time schedule, a simultane-
ity that supports the continuity between home and school life while cutting across
subject areas, is directed toward fostering to the fullest extent possible all aspects of
people’s growth.
Learners
The Learner as Central Focus

Learner Centered educators see the world through the eyes of learners, who are
their central concern. In 1894, Francis Parker (1894/1964) affirmed, “The centre of all
movement in education is the child” (p. 383). In 1967, the opening sentences of the
Plowden Report declared,
At the heart of the educational process lies the child. No advances in policy, no acquisitions
of new equipment have their desired effect unless they are in harmony with the nature of
the child, unless they are fundamentally acceptable to him. (Plowden, 1967, p. 9)
An assumption of the Learner Centered “approach is that children constitute the basic
resources of the educational process. In contrast to those educational theories which
‘assume’ the presence of a child during instruction,” the Learner Centered “approach
‘requires’ the presence of a child to define instruction” (Bussis & Cluttenden, 1970,
pp. 14–15).
The Learner Centered approach to curriculum involves an effort to create and use
curriculum in such a way that the child’s organic nature, “the child’s own needs,” and
“his immediate interests . . . furnish the starting point of education” (Rugg &
Shumaker, 1928, p. 58). Learner Centered educators are concerned about people rather
than theories regarding people, about sensitivity and responsiveness to people rather
than scholarly rigor in the study of people, and about helping people learn the things
of greatest concern to them rather than teaching people what they “need” to know.
This involves an effort, in creating and using curricula, to “apply to the education of
children the lessons learned from the study of children themselves” (Jersild, 1946, p. 1).
The first consideration of Learner Centered educators in creating and using cur-
ricula is learners’ needs, interests, and concerns as learners themselves feel them. Lillian
Weber (1971) describes the centrality of learners to educators’ endeavors this way:
Central to the conversations [of Learner Centered advocates] was always a child: What does
he need? What is he interested in? What is he ready for? What are his purposes? How does
he follow them? What are his questions? What is he playing? These questions about chil-
dren seemed to be uppermost in developing plans for the classroom, for plans were made
not from the vantage point of a syllabus of demand which a child had to meet, but with
relevance to children in the most immediate way. A plan fitted itself to a child. It was devel-
oped in response to the pace and internal pattern of his own growth and in support of his
own purposes. It was developed through watching a child, studying him at his moments of
deepest involvement in play. (pp. 169–170)
This means that whatever knowledge educators possess about people is to be used
to help these people further their own ends. Knowledge of people is not to be used to
manipulate them to learn content not inherently deriving from their nature, to maneu-
ver them to endure styles of learning not natural to them, or to further ends other than
their own. The curriculum is to organize itself around individuals’ intentions to learn,
rather than educators’ intentions to teach them; around what individuals want to
learn, rather than around what educators want them to learn; and around individuals’
learning styles, rather than around teachers’ preferred teaching styles. Marietta
Johnson (1926) aptly states, “Our constant thought is not what do children learn or do,
but what are the ‘learning’ and the ‘doing’ doing to them” (p. 350).
The Nature of the Learner

The Learner Centered ideology sees people as naturally good, curious about their
world, and desirous of constructively interacting with their world. It also sees the stages
of life known as childhood, adolescence, and adulthood as naturally and inherently
good. It believes that people’s natural modes of growth and impulses for action will be
good and constructive if they are not inhibited or distorted, and that children will
naturally grow into happy, constructive, well-functioning adults if they are allowed to
do so. In addition, Learner Centered educators believe that people’s “capacity for self-
fulfillment is good, that the ability of humans to command their own educational
destinies is good, that a child’s search toward fuller understanding is normal, natural,
and good” (Rathbone, 1971, p. 113).
People are also conceptualized as self-activated makers of meaning, as actively self-
propelled agents of their own growth, and not as passive organisms to be filled or
molded by agents outside themselves. A person is viewed as “an active agent in his own
learning process. He is not one to whom things merely happen: he is one who by his
own volition causes things to happen . . . [through] his own self-initiated interaction
with the world” (Rathbone, 1971, p. 100). People’s inherent capabilities for growth are
activated by their own endeavors.
As a result, education is seen as an enterprise involving the drawing out of the inher-
ent capabilities of people. It is a facilitator of people’s natural growth in that it allows
learners to, as Rogers and Maslow would say, “self-actualize.” It will result in healthy,
virtuous, and beneficial learning if what is drawn out is allowed to come out naturally.
The Growing Individual

Because Learner Centered educators believe people contain their own capabilities
for growth, are the agents who must actualize their own capabilities, and are basically
good in nature, a central theme of their endeavors is the concept of “growth.” They
proclaim, “Not ‘what do they know’ but ‘how do they grow’ is our slogan” (Johnson,
1974, p. 15). These educators’ devotion to growth leads them to believe that “minister-
ing to growth, meeting the needs of the organism, is the sole function of the educa-
tional process” (p. 18). Growth of the learner in terms of his (or her) unfolding in
“conformity to the law of his being” (Parker, 1894/1964, p. 383) through self-actualiza-
tion becomes the objective of the Learner Centered approach. This doctrine of growth
demands that education of each individual be in harmonious resonance with the inner
“being” of that individual: that “education . . . respect the inner movement of growth”
of the individual (Johnson, 1974, p. 23), that education be “organic education,” that
learning be in vibration with the “rhythms of life,” and that growth occur through
creative self-expression. This perspective emphasizes the development of individuals
and their individuality, for it is assumed that each individual has a unique being and
must grow in accordance with that unique being.
The Learner in the Present Tense

Learner Centered educators dedicate themselves to the growth of people in the pre-
sent moment, to children as children rather than to children as potential adults, and they
refuse to sacrifice the here and now of childhood to the requirements of the future.
Educators view children as qualitatively different from adults and focus their endeavors on
enhancing the lives of children as children, undergoing growth as children, in the moment
during which they are undergoing the growth. Their assumption is that “each day’s activ-
ity is important and enough in itself” (Johnson, 1974, p. 26) and that “if the child is whole-
somely, happily, intelligently employed, he is being educated!” (p. 9). While creating
curricula, Learner Centered curriculum developers design materials and activities that
stress the present in people’s lives and not the future, living life and not preparing for life,
growing now and not worrying about how to reach some predetermined future goal.
Learning
Developmental Viewpoint
Two major assumptions underlying the work of Learner Centered educators are
that people grow through distinctly different developmental stages and that people’s
thoughts are different at different developmental stages. Whether the stages are psy-
chological, social, cognitive, or moral in nature, people are believed to evolve through
a sequence of qualitatively different development stages from infancy to old age.
People at different stages of growth are thought to perceive, understand, think about,
and interact with their world in different ways. For example, 8-year-olds in Piaget’s
“concrete operational” stage of cognitive development are viewed and treated differ-
ently from 14-year-olds in Piaget’s “formal operational” stage. It is important to cur-
riculum developers and teachers to design and use curricula so that they “respect the
inner movement of growth” of people and complement their developmental stages
(Johnson, 1974, p. 23). Since people are basically different at different stages of growth,
the curricula designed for and used with people at different stages of growth will also
be different.
To ascertain the nature of people’s stages of growth, Learner Centered educators
look to developmental learning theories. Marietta Johnson (1974) explains,
The main work of the child is to grow. To be able to recognize the signs of growth in
children at any age is a great art! One must study the results of the experts—must respect
the findings of authorities—and then one must study at first hand the reaction of chil-
dren. (p. 10)
Important here is that, after studying “the results of the experts,” “one must study at
first hand the reaction of children.” A critical component of Learner Centered educa-
tors’ endeavors is their firsthand observations of people.
Viewing people’s growth developmentally goes beyond just making sure that the
instructional activities match people’s intellectual, social, and psychological attrib-
utes. The developmental viewpoint also assumes that people’s evolution from
infancy to old age takes time. Learner Centered educators interpret this to mean that
people are not to be hurried from stage to stage, but that they are to be allowed to
evolve at their own rate from one stage to the next. Curricula are created and taught
so as to allow people to evolve naturally, each according to his or her own personal
developmental timetable and rate of learning. Curricula are not designed or taught
to efficiently accelerate people’s progress through stages of growth. From the Learner
Centered perspective, the purpose of curricula is to enrich people’s growth within a
developmental stage.
In addition, the developmental viewpoint includes the belief that people’s
thoughts and thinking processes evolve from concrete to abstract. As a result, Learner
Centered educators assume that real, concrete, personal experiences in one’s environ-
ment form the roots out of which thoughts and thinking processes grow. This means
that within Learner Centered curricula, “verbal abstractions should follow direct expe-
rience with objects and ideas, not precede them or substitute for them” (Barth, 1972,
p. 33)—as was the case in the pond water example.
Thus there is a stress on experience, materials, “stuff ” of the world, as well as concern that
people have time and opportunity to assimilate these experiences, to “work” on them inter-
nally so that they increase their capacity to learn, to reason, to think. (Hein, 1975, p. 1)
Learning Theory
The learning theory underlying the Learner Centered ideology is a form of
constructivism.
Learning takes place when people interact with learning environments. People
engage their environments with existing cognitive structures. Their cognitive struc-
tures consist of previously acquired meanings and an organizational structure that
relates the meanings. Learning takes place when people interact with their environ-
ment and perceive sensory information as a result of the interaction. This sensory
information might come from social, physical, emotional, or intellectual experiences.
Incorporating new perceptions into an existing cognitive structure involves the
twin processes of accommodation and assimilation. On one hand, new perceptions are
altered so that they are consistent with the individual’s existing meanings and can fit
into the individual’s organization of existing meanings. This involves constructing new
meanings by transforming perceptions. On the other hand, people’s preexisting cogni-
tive structures are changed when new perceptions are incorporated into them, in order
to eliminate any inconsistencies and discontinuities that might exist with previously
created meanings and in order to adjust the organization of previously created mean-
ings to give the new knowledge a place in the organization. This means that people
reconstruct their existing cognitive structures by transforming themselves. That is, in
learning, people construct and reconstruct meaning by transforming both the new
meanings they are acquiring and their preexisting cognitive structures—by transform-
ing both their new understanding of their world and themselves.
Learning Leads to Knowledge

Learner Centered educators are much less interested in knowledge than they are
in growth and learning. This is because their concern is, first, facilitating the growth of
individuals, and second, providing them with learning experiences through which they
can make meaning. Knowledge enters the scene because it is an inevitable by-product
of learning, and thus of growth. It results from individuals making meaning out of
their experiences.
From the Learner Centered perspective, the process by which an individual
learns—learning—yields the product of learning—knowledge. As such, “knowledge is
seen as an integral part of learning rather than a separate entity” (Barth, 1972, p. 47)
that individuals must go out of their way to acquire. Put another way, learning natu-
rally leads to the construction of knowledge, and individuals do not need to do any-
thing other than learn to construct knowledge. It is not that knowledge is of no
importance to Learner Centered educators, but rather that it is considerably less
important than growth or learning. It is not seen as an end of education—as is
growth—but rather as a byproduct of growth. Knowledge is viewed as the secondary
consequence of growth, and it derives from learning, which is viewed as the primary
consequence of growth. How children learn is thus linked to what children learn, the
knowledge children construct, and meanings that children comprehend. The Learner
Centered
model advanced for explaining the process of a child’s learning clearly implies that the
product of his learning results from the particular interactions he and he alone has experi-
enced. This further implies that what a child learns is not only his but may well be his alone,
even though it closely resembles the learning of someone else. (Rathbone, 1971, p. 101)
Two important assumptions flow from these beliefs. First, knowledge is a personal
creation of individuals who engage in learning by interacting with their environment.
Second, the knowledge the “child learns is not only his but may well be his alone”
because knowledge, which is the result of learning, is something personal that “results
from” an individual’s “particular interactions” with his environment that “he and he
alone has experienced.” The results of these assumptions are the twin beliefs that
“forming a conception of the way things are is an individual act based on experiences
that can never be identical to anyone else’s” and that “one must admit not only the
possibility but the inevitability of individual differences of conceptualization”
(Rathbone, 1971, p. 102). In other words, the knowledge individuals possess is a per-
sonal creation unique to each of them.
As a consequence of holding these beliefs, Learner Centered educators do not
express the objectives of education in terms of knowledge—because knowledge is
unique to the individuals who create it—but in terms of the experiences they desire
learners to have. One cannot give knowledge to other people in nice, neat packages, but
one can provide other people with experiences out of which they can construct knowl-
edge. Learner Centered educators are not givers of knowledge, but rather givers of
experiences out of which people will—with some degree of unpredictability—create
knowledge for themselves. Knowledge is thus rarely spoken of in terms of “to know”
but often in terms of “to experience.”
In addition, because “knowledge is a function of one’s personal integration of
experience,” knowledge “does not fall neatly into separate categories or ‘disciplines’”
(Barth, 1972, p. 45). Although it may be useful to Learner Centered educators to think
of certain materials or experiences as associated with specific disciplines, such thinking
is not used for the purpose of influencing people’s categorization of experience and
knowledge into traditional disciplines, but rather for the purpose of (a) enabling cur-
riculum developers to organize materials and experiences into curriculum and
(b) helping teachers to organize their classrooms so that they and their students will
know where to locate materials. Learner Centered educators believe that knowledge
does not have to be partitioned into academic disciplines and organized in the ways
currently conceptualized by scholars.
Teaching and Learning in Instructional Environments
The Person in an Environment

People grow, their thoughts develop, and their thinking processes evolve as a result
of stimulation that comes from their interaction with their environment. Learner
Centered educators believe both the weaker assumption that people’s learning is
facilitated by active interaction with an environment rich in physical, social, and intel-
lectual stimuli and the stronger assumption that “learning depends upon direct inter-
action with materials and one’s social and physical environment” (Weber, 1971, p. 93).
The underlying belief is that “all children naturally think through experience”
(Johnson, 1974, p. 10), and, as a result, “learning is seen as a consequence of the inter-
action between the child and the real world—be it an idea, a person, a gerbil, a book,
or a can of paint and a brush,” or a bucket of pond water and a microscope (Barth,
1972, p. 63).
Learning is a function of the interaction between people and their environment:
It takes place when inquiring learners engage a stimulating environment. The potential
for growth lies within people, and they are the ones who must activate that growth.
People are not passive agents during this interaction; they are active agents of their
own learning. Learning is not something transferred from the environment to people
but something created by people in response to their environmental interactions.
Learning is people’s “creative self-expression” that results from their active exploration
of and response to their environment.
Given this view of how people grow and learn, the following things are of critical
importance to Learner Centered educators: the nature of the learning environment,
the underlying structure of the learning environment, the role of the teacher in the
learning environment, and the role of the learner within the learning environment.
These will now be discussed.
The Learning Environment

The learning environment of a classroom is set up by the teacher and contains
learners, the teacher, and a variety of activities and objects (such as books, pond water,
microscopes, and furniture).
The objects and activities are deliberately arranged in the learning environment by
the teacher in order to accomplish specific purposes. For example, a quiet reading area
and a library are likely to be adjacent to each other. A place for people to gather, by
sitting on a rug or arranging chairs in a circle, is likely to be adjacent to a blackboard,
chart paper, or someplace where people can record the thoughts of the learners or
teacher. A block building space will contain both a place to store the blocks and a place
to build with them. A painting area might be near a sink. Desks or tables will be
arranged to accommodate exactly the number of learners the teacher decides should
be working together—and their configuration may change on a daily or hourly basis.
A classroom might contain partitions to separate different work areas in order to give
each a specific desired atmosphere—partitions that might be just a few feet high (such
as a low bookshelf) or that might reach to the ceiling. Student work that is posted on
bulletin boards or the wall will be selected and arranged with specific purposes in
mind. Everything will be arranged with a purpose in order to provide exactly the learn-
ing atmosphere the teacher desires.
Because Learner Centered educators think that it is important to give learners
choices within the learning environment, the activities that children can choose among
are highlighted. The choices available to learners are carefully planned by the teacher,
and the available choices are clearly visible. This does not mean that new choices can-
not be introduced by learners or accidental events (such as a fire truck unexpectedly
arriving in front of the school), but the teacher is always in charge of determining what
will or will not be included as an activity that learners might engage in. The choices
available to learners exist either (a) because the teacher has observed interests of learn-
ers that she might want to encourage and capitalize on (as when a teacher sees that
students are interested in dragons and brings books on dragons into the classroom) or
(b) because the teacher has a particular experience that she wants her students to have
because she thinks it will encourage growth, learning, and knowledge creation in a
particular area (as when a teacher might want students to learn about the local school
environment and science by giving them a choice of studying plants, animals, or pond
water collected from a pond near the school).
Structure of the Learning Environment

Underlying the learning environment is a carefully constructed academic and
social structure designed by the teacher to create the type of social and academic
atmosphere desired. These are not unstructured classrooms in which learners just fool
around doing what ever they desire. The social and academic structures established in
Learner Centered classrooms are, however, very different from those of the traditional
classroom (in which quiet is valued and only one teacher-directed activity takes place
at a time).
The social behavior of learners within a classroom—or the rules for how people
interact—is carefully constructed and maintained by the teacher, with student input
and with students taking responsibility for managing and maintaining that social
structure (in part because they have been given a role in establishing it). There are rules
for noise levels, rules for how to interact with other learners, rules for the completing
of tasks that are begun, rules for cleaning up after oneself, rules for how to get the
teacher’s attention and help without interrupting the teacher when she is interacting
with other learners, rules for respecting other learners, and rules for how to work alone
or in groups. The establishment of these rules—with the input from all participants in
the classroom—is usually one of the teacher’s main goals for the first several weeks of
the school year. In addition, because the rules become part of the normal, ongoing
social structure of the classroom, they are not usually immediately visible to the casual
visitor. But the expectations for how learners are to behave within the classroom exist
and are maintained and monitored by the students—with the teacher stepping in to
supervise whenever necessary.
There is also an academic structure within Learner Centered classrooms. This
structure often designates what types of activities are of value; what types of growth are
desirable; that self-directed, self-activated, and self-motivated learning (within the
teacher-designed learning environment) is expected of learners; and that learners are
responsible for their growth and the ongoing assessment of that growth. The academic
structure of the Learner Centered classroom is not like that of the traditional classroom
for numerous reasons, including that growth is valued more than knowledge acquisi-
tion, that learning is viewed as “fun” rather than “work” (because Learner Centered play
is considered an essential component of worthwhile academic work), that the classroom

is learner centered rather than teacher centered, that students make decisions about how
they will grow and what they will learn (in a learning environment designed by the
teacher that offers them well-planned choices of experiences), that the academic sub-
jects are integrated in units of study (such as Pond Water, in which science, mathematics,
history, reading, writing, and drawing merge into one academic exploration of our
environment) rather than held apart and studied separately (during reading time,
mathematics time, history time, science time, etc.), and that both students and teachers
are responsible for assessing student work (and that assessment is for the purpose of
helping learners and not comparing or grading them). Although the academic atmos-
phere of the Learner Centered classroom may look very different from that of the tra-
ditional classroom, this does not mean that the Learner Centered classroom lacks an
academic structure. The structure is simply not delineated by the acquisition of infor-
mation about and skills of the traditional academic subjects of reading and writing,
literature, mathematics, science, history, and foreign language study. Instead, the aca-
demic structure of the Learner Centered classroom focuses on helping learners self-
actualize through their growth in such things as their ability to communicate with
others (through such activities as speaking, reading, writing, and telecommunicating),
their understanding of their world (as a result of natural curiosity about such things as
science, history, mathematics, literature, and psychology), and their ability to express
themselves through creative endeavors (such a the performing, visual, and literary arts).
The structure of both the Learner Centered classroom and the traditional classroom
embody serious academic concerns, the teachers of both types of classrooms have seri-
ous academic goals for their students, and the students in both types of classrooms
engage in serious academic endeavors. It is simply the case that the academic landscapes
of the two types of classrooms look very different.
One of the distinguishing elements of the social and academic structure of Learner
Centered classrooms is that students have the freedom to make choices within those
classrooms, based on their interests and needs. However, students do not just get to do
whatever they desire in most classrooms; they get to make choices among the alterna-
tives designed into the learning environment by the teacher. In addition, it is expected
that students will make choices among the alternatives available to them and that they
will provide the motivation and curiosity to pursue those choices in ways that allow
them to grow and self-actualize in healthy and constructive ways. Part of what is spe-
cial about Learner Centered classrooms is that teachers are always observing students
to determine their needs and interests and then, based on what they observe, designing
activities that capitalize on those needs and interests and including those activities
among the choices available to students in the classroom—if they think the activities
will further students’ growth and self-actualization within the context of their goals for
the students. This does not mean that unexpected events (such as the arrival of a bear
outside of a classroom) or something special that a child brings into classroom cannot
alter the choices available to students, but those choices become available only if the
teacher sanctions them—based on her or his belief that they could lead to constructive
student growth, learning, and self-actualization.
Teaching
Within the Learner Centered classroom, teaching has three basic functions.
First, teaching involves careful observation of students and diagnosis of their indi-
vidual needs and interests. This observation is usually naturalistic and takes place both
while students are working in the classroom and from examining the artifacts (such as
written work) that students produce as a result of their classroom endeavors. It rarely
involves giving students tests and examinations or grading their work in comparison
to the work of other students. The next two functions of teaching result from these
observations of students and are designed to stimulate their growth based on their
needs and interests. Without knowing students and their interests and needs, it would
be impossible for the teacher to set up the learning environment.
Second, teaching involves setting up the physical, social, emotional, and intellectual
environment in which people learn. The environment is set up based on both the teach-
er’s goals for students and what the teacher has observed to be the needs and interests of
students. The choices available to students—the materials and activities in the classroom
(such as books on dragons and kits to build microscopes, in the pond water example)—
are all there because the teacher believes that they will be of interest to students and
stimulate their constructive growth and self-actualization. It is students’ interactions in
that environment that stimulate them to grow, learn, and make sense of their world.
Third, teaching involves facilitating students’ growth by intervening between them
and their environment to assist them as they learn. This involves doing many things,
as was described by the Pond Water curriculum example earlier in this chapter. It also
requires that
teachers also act as recorders (documenters) for the children, helping them trace and revisit
their words and actions and thereby making the learning visible. . . . They provide instruc-
tion in tool and material use as needed, help find materials and resources, and scaffold
children’s learning. (Edwards, 2002, p. 9)
What this means in terms of the teacher’s classroom performance is that the
Learner Centered ideology deemphasizes the role of the teacher as a deliverer of
knowledge, possessor of information, transmitter of answers, mediator between cur-
riculum and learner, conductor of children’s activity, and evaluator. Instead, it empha-
sizes the
teacher as trained observer, diagnostician of individual needs, presenter of environments,

consultant, collaborator, flexible resource, psychological supporter, general facilitator of
the learning requirements of an independent agent. This means that . . . the teacher is
mainly assistant to, not director of, the child’s activity. (Rathbone, 1971, pp. 106–107)
There is always the question: To what extent is the teacher really a director of eve-
rything that goes on in the classroom, versus simply a facilitator of student growth,
because of the way the teacher sets up and monitors the learning environment in
which students learn and grow?
Freedom, Individualism, and Shared Responsibility
Learner Centered educators insist on individuals’ “freedom to develop naturally, to

be spontaneous, unaffected, and unselfconscious” (Rugg & Shumaker, 1928, p. 56). In
the freedom-versus-control debate, Learner Centered educators insist on freedom:
freedom of individuals to participate in determining the nature of their education,
and, as a result, freedom of individuals to develop into the unique people that corre-
spond to their inner being.
The crux of the issue surrounding the freedom-versus-control debate concerns
which agent will decide the nature of an individual’s education: the individual, society,
academic subjects, teachers, parents, or politicians—in other words, the individual
alone, someone else without the individual’s input, or some combination of the indi-
vidual and others. Because people are greatly influenced by their family and society,
having individuals determine alone the nature of their education is really not the issue.
The issue is whether individuals will have a say in the nature of their education and the
type of person they will become. In particular, within the school, will individuals be
allowed to participate in determining their education and the person they will become?
Learner Centered educators declare that individuals must be allowed to participate in
determining their own learning, growth, education, and life (Sudbury Valley School,
n.d.[a]), within the context of a learning environment that offers choices among a
variety of options.
Learner Centered educators believe individuals should participate in determining
the directions their education will take, by responding to their own innate natures, felt
needs, and organic impulses. The desire of these educators is to let individuals grow
naturally into the people they will become. This requires that educators not attempt to
simply mold individuals to conform to the expectations of society, parents, academic
subjects, teachers, or politicians. Rather, they must allow individuals the freedom to
participate in determining their own directions for growth, their own education, and
their own lives: “It is the creative spirit from within [individual learners] that is
encouraged, rather than conformity to a pattern imposed from without” that involves
“social adjustment, adaptation to the existing order . . . [or] compliance with social
demands” (Rugg & Shumaker, 1928, pp. 62–63).
Insisting that individuals participate in determining their own education—as
independent, self-reliant, self-actualizing learners who are capable, on their own, of
providing direction to their own growth—leads Learner Centered educators to a belief
in individualism. This belief asserts that learners are different from one another, that
their own unique inner impulses motivate them to grow in different manners, and
that, as a result, education must be individualized. Seeing individuals as agents who
can participate in determining the nature of their education also leads Learner
Centered advocates to a position where they “not only acknowledge but deliberately
attempt to foster individual differences among children” (Barth, 1972, p. 72).
This individualistic view extends far beyond simple conceptions of individualiza-
tion based on learning style, thinking style, or rate of conceptualization, for it sees
all learners as fundamentally unique, independently self-directed, and competent to
participate in determining what and how they will learn, develop, and grow. Thus, the
Learner Centered “school provides a setting in which students are independent, are
trusted, and are treated as responsible people” (Sudbury Valley School, n.d.[b], ¶ 4).
Conceptualizing people as competent learners who have the right to participate in
determining their education means that they must be given a say in what they will
learn, how they will grow, and how they will self-actualize their potential. It also means
that when a “child firmly decides against doing what the teacher thinks is best, the
teacher often will make the decision to honor the child’s position and give up, for the
time being, this particular opportunity to extend his understanding” (Rathbone, 1971,
p. 112) because an important aspect of Learner Centered educators’ viewpoint is the
belief that it is often “more important for a child to have the experience of receiving
someone else’s respect for him and for his wishes than to have the experience of submit-
ting to someone else’s notion of ‘what’s good for him’” (p. 112). The need for individu-
als to actually recognize and feel that they have a say in determining their own lives and
learning, and to be respected as human beings in doing so, is essential to the way
Learner Centered educators construct their instructional environments.
This view of learners is a delicate one to handle, for on one hand it is believed that
learners’ needs and desires should be taken into account by educators, while on the other
hand Learner Centered educators have goals in mind for the learner—such as compe-
tence in literacy and mathematics. The problem is really one of priorities. Educators
must have objectives, but they must embed them in their curricula in such a way that
learners’ needs and desires always take priority over the teacher’s objectives when the two
come into conflict. In addition, educators must embed their objectives in their curricula
in such a way that learners are given choices as they encounter the curricula—choices
involving which direction to proceed, choices regarding the type of knowledge to con-
struct, and choices from a rich array of learning styles and rates of proceeding.
Learner Centered educators handle the issue by allowing students to participate in
making decisions about their education in such a way that the educators’ objectives can
be implemented when they correspond with the needs and desires of students.
Educators’ objectives are implemented more frequently than might be expected, for
educators proceed under the assumption that what teachers make available to students
has a powerful effect on their interests, what they become involved in, and thus what
they learn and how they grow. For example, by bringing into a classroom a bucket of
pond water, microscopes, and books on the creatures found in pond water, a teacher
can make it more likely that students will become interested in the microscopic crea-
tures found in pond water, learn about those creatures by looking at them through a
microscope and reading about them, and thereby improve their reading skills. If no
pond water or microscopes were available, children might not become interested in
them. If no books about the creatures found in pond water were available, children
might not explore what scientists have learned about those creatures and learn that
science. If no books were available on a subject about which children were interested,
children might not want to learn to read or improve their reading comprehension.
In general, students’ individualism is nourished within the Learner Centered ide-
ology through the creation of learning environments in which both educators’ control
of the learning environment and students’ ability to make decisions within the learning
environment are respected. The success of Learner Centered classrooms thus depends
not on adults giving up of control to children but on a deliberate and conscious sharing of
responsibility for learning on the part of both child and teacher. The adult, to a large extent,
determines the nature of the school environment; the child decides with which . . . materi-
als he will work, to which problems he will address himself, for how long, and with whom.
(Barth, 1972, pp. 27–28)
As a result, curriculum developers create curricula and teachers instruct students

in such a way that students’ uniqueness, individualism, and self-determination is pre-
served while adult direction for students’ growth and learning is provided.
The Curriculum: Unit of

Work Versus School Subject
Central to Learner Centered educators’ views about curriculum are issues of how to organ-
ize instructional materials and activities to maximize the growth of children, adolescents,
and adults. Curriculum is not thought of as subject-matter-set-out-to-be-learned but
rather as environments or units in which people can make meaning. Curricula are often
associated with Kilpatrick’s The Project Method (1918), physical materials, instructional themes, or
learning centers. Learner Centered educators often contrast their type of curricula—
here called units of work—with traditional curricula—here called school subjects.
Scope
The first difference between a school subject and a unit of work is one of scope.
The school subject is thought of as a relatively narrow and logically arranged body of
predetermined knowledge associated with established conventions (academic, social,
etc.). The unit of work is thought of in much broader terms, assembling for study
material often found in several subjects. Compare, for instance, the names given the
two types of curricula. Units of work display titles such as “Peas and Particles,” “Boats,”
“Batteries and Bulbs,” and “Pond Water.” School subjects have names such as “arithme-
tic,” “history,” “geography,” and “science.”
The school subject is thought of as one-dimensional subject-matter-set-out-to-
be-learned, whereas the unit of work is thought of as a multidimensional area of
investigation in which children can explore different directions and make choices
among the things they will learn. Either type of curriculum could be developed by a
mathematician hoping that the child would learn, for example, graphing. In creating a
school subject, curriculum developers first (a) delineate all the things the student must
know and then (b) lay them out to be learned. Here (a) and (b) are sequential.
Developers create a unit of work by (a) delineating all the things that might be learned
about graphing and (b) creating activities from which students might learn them. Here
(a) and (b) need not be sequential. As a result, a curriculum as designed by Learner
Centered developers and the same curriculum as experienced by students are different:
For students, the curriculum is the sum of the particular growth experiences they
encounter, whereas for the developer it is the range of activities that might bring about
students’ growth.
Sequence
A second difference between a school subject and a unit of work is one of internal
organization: sequence, integration, and continuity. Educators organize school sub-
jects with the assumption that their own organization of knowledge will be preserved
in students’ minds. Educators organize units of work for presentation to students, but
the organization of knowledge is the students’ job. Learner Centered educators believe
students integrate into their conceptual structures in unique ways the knowledge they
construct as a result of engaging in a unit of work. There is no one correct means of
organization, and it is the job of students—not educators—to meaningfully organize
that which is learned.
Flexibility
A third difference between a school subject and a unit of work is what might be
called flexibility. School subjects are thought of as content rigidly laid out in scope and
organization, ready to be learned by students. Units of work are designed for spontane-
ous activity and maximum flexibility based on the interests and needs of learners; they
are intended to operate through learner-initiated direction in a teacher-prepared envi-
ronment. School subjects do not allow room for learners to make meaningful choices.
Units of work present learners with opportunities for decision making based on their
needs and interests.
Concern for the Whole Person

A fourth difference between a school subject and a unit of work is the range of
learner capacities affected by the curriculum. School subjects are designed to affect
only a narrow range of students’ capabilities, usually only the cognitive (and generally
intradisciplinary), although the purely physical is dealt with in physical education.
Units of work show concern for the whole person and are designed to affect cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor aspects of growth—to help people grow socially, emotion-
ally, physically, and intellectually so that they develop “a fine body, an intelligent mind,
and a sweet spirit” (Johnson, 1974, p. 30). Units of work are designed to avoid isolating
people’s intellects from the rest of their being.
Movement From the Concrete to the Abstract

A fifth difference between a school subject and a unit of work is the range of learn-
ing experiences students are exposed to. School subjects present students with abstrac-
tions of experience and emphasize the learning of symbolic concepts. Units of work
emphasize the necessity of moving from personal, concrete, and physical learning
experiences to abstract, verbal, intellectual conceptualization. They often incorporate
physical experiences designed to actively involve the learner. Units of work are thus
associated with respect for physical activity and materials and with the belief that
symbolic abstractions should grow out of direct experience with objects, people, and
ideas. However, Learner Centered curricula, particularly those designed for adolescents
and adults, need not necessarily make use of physical materials.
Responsibility
A final and crucial difference between a school subject and a unit of work involves
the question, Who is responsible for what is learned in the curriculum? In school sub-
jects, educators make all the decisions related to curriculum content and bear full
responsibility for what students do or do not learn. In units of work, responsibility for
what is learned is borne jointly among curriculum developers, teachers, and students.
Curriculum developers are responsible for designing activities from which students
learn. Teachers are responsible for designing students’ learning environments and for
intervening between activities and students to facilitate growth and learning. Students
are responsible for providing the initiative, decision making, and capabilities that
shape the substance and content of the curriculum. Thus, both educators and students
are responsible for the student’s education: educators through the presentation of
activities and facilitation of growth and students through their responses to same.
Curriculum thus has “the quality both of adult initiation and uniformity and of stu-
dent initiation and diversity” (Barth, 1972, p. 50).
Historical Context
Four early Europeans who contributed to the Learner Centered ideology deserve
mention.
John Amos Comenius (1592–1670) emphasized that learning is developmental
and that it progresses from concrete experience to abstract thought. He wrote that
people learn by doing: “Artisans learn to forge by forging, to carve by carving, to paint
by painting, . . . let children learn to write by writing, to sing by singing, and to reason
by reasoning” (Comenius, 1657/1896, pp. 100, 152).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) wrote Emile in 1762 (Rousseau, 1762/1979),
which is frequently credited with being the source of Learner Centered ideas. Rousseau
viewed children as naturally good and society as corrupt. He believed that education’s
purpose is to nurture children’s natural goodness and powers of constructive develop-
ment in such a way as to keep them free from corruption by society’s evil ways until
they are adults and can withstand society’s corrupting influences. Since children are
naturally curious and good, intrinsic motivation in a world full of rich experiences is
what is needed to facilitate their growth. Rousseau insisted that children are not min-
iature adults; that childhood is a unique and valuable stage of life and should be nur-
tured, enjoyed, and not hurried through; that learning should proceed developmentally
from direct experiences with nature to sensory experiences with concrete objects to
abstract ideas; and that children’s natural growth should be the focus of education.
Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827) transformed Rousseau’s theory into
practice. He popularized his ideas in How Gertrude Teaches Her Children (1801/1898).
He emphasized that children should be free to explore their own interests, draw their
own conclusions, and have a role in directing their own education. He promoted spon-
taneity and play during learning, sought to educate the whole child, and advocated a
balanced education that equalizes concern for head, hands, and heart. He was troubled
by the tyranny of abstract language in children’s education and emphasized the impor-
tance of experience and observation as sources of understanding. He emphasized
children’s inner goodness and dignity and maintained that we should educate children
in an atmosphere of love and kindness.
Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852), a student of Pestalozzi, invented kindergarten. He
emphasized the education of children’s senses and perceptions in ways that are playful,
enjoyable, and spontaneous. In doing so, he invented “gifts” and “occupations” that
allow children to perceive the order and beauty of nature as a result of interacting with
it and acting on it. Gifts are structured physical manipulatives that children can play
with and personally interact with and include such things as building blocks and par-
quetry tiles. Occupations are creative materials that children can shape and manipulate
as they desire and include such things as clay, sand, and paints. Froebel also empha-
sized the use of games, songs, stories, and crafts.
Many educators contributed to the evolution of the Learner Centered ideology in
the U.S.
G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924), the president of Clark University, founded the child
study movement in the 1880s. This movement encouraged educators to study children
as they actually were—to watch them carefully, to listen to them intently, and to collect
data about them so that instruction could be designed based on observations of chil-
dren’s nature, needs, and interests.
Colonel Francis W. Parker (1837–1902), a Civil War hero, is known for his
work as public school superintendent in Quincy, Massachusetts and (beginning in
1875) his work at the Cook County Illinois Normal School (which John Dewey’s
children attended). Dewey called him the “father of progressive education” (Who
is Francis W. Parker? n.d.). Parker is best known for his desire to move children to
the center of education; his urging of educators to base curriculum on intense
study of children; his developmental view of children; his eagerness to nurture
children’s growth, to make schools enjoyable places, to emphasize the value of
understanding, and to integrate school subjects; his view that teacher-prepared
learning environments that allow children to explore nature and their world
through self-activity are central to instruction; his emphasis on intrinsic motiva-
tion and the shunning of grades as punishment or rewards for learning; his pro-
motion of “freedom” as a goal of education; and his belief that a social function of
education that “stands higher than subjects of learning” is to erase prejudice and
“make the public school a tremendous force for the upbuilding of democracy”
(Parker, 1894/1964, p. 420).
John Dewey (1859–1952), the great American education philosopher, inspired
many teachers with his work at the Laboratory School of the University of Chicago
between 1896 and 1904 (Mayhew & Edwards, 1966) and with his book Schools of
Tomorrow (Dewey & Dewey, 1915). Learner Centered educators believe his work sup-
ports many of their beliefs:
• Children and not content should be the focus of teaching.

• Children learn by doing (Dewey, 1938).
• Children make meaning and construct knowledge through the continuous reconstruc-
tion of their existing meanings as a result of new experiences they encounter (Dewey,
1948).
• Learning best takes place when children actively initiate and explore problems arising in
their world and solve them themselves because of their own interest and motivation.
• “The child’s own instincts and powers furnish the material and give the starting point
for all education” (Dewey, 1897a, p. 77).
• The teacher’s job is to prepare experiential environments that engage children and chal-
lenge them to learn and make personal meanings.
• School subjects should be integrated through project learning.
• Education should be concerned with children’s total (intellectual, social, emotional,
physical, and spiritual) growth.
• Social interaction and learning are central to the educational endeavor.
The Progressive Education Association was founded in 1919 as an umbrella

organization for the many Learner Centered educators working in private Country
Day Schools (such as Marietta Johnson’s School of Organic Education in Fairhope,
Alabama) and public schools (such as those in Winnetka, Illinois, which imple-
mented the Dalton Plan). One of its important contributions was the Eight-Year
Study, which compared the effectiveness of Learner Centered and traditional schools.
It found that students from Learner Centered high schools performed better in col-
lege than students from traditional high schools and that students who attended high
schools that integrated content from different disciplines did better in college than
students who attended high schools that kept the content of different disciplines
separate (Aiken, 1942).
The Great Depression, World War II, and McCarthy-era politics largely halted
development of the Learner Centered ideology. The ideology was reinvigorated in
about 1965 in response to the resurgence of the Scholar Academic ideology and gener-
ous funding of curriculum projects by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
During the 1960s, the Elementary Science Study, funded by NSF, provided energy
for resurgence of the Learner Centered ideology. It discovered and widely publicized
British Infant Schools, which had continued to develop in the Learner Centered tradi-
tion over the previous 25 years while the ideology stalled in the U.S. It developed many
physical manipulatives (such as pattern blocks) and instructional units (such as
“Batteries and Bulbs”) consistent with the project method (promoted by Kilpatrick in
the 1920s). And it promoted open education.
Open education flourished between about 1965 and 1980. It promoted many of
the same educational practices as Parker and Dewey. In the late 1970s, New York Times
editor Fred Hichinger began an extended attack on open education, claiming that it
was a failed experiment (Ellis, 2004, p. 44). Open education gradually atrophied. It was
not until 1984 that Walberg’s research concluded that the academic progress of stu-
dents in open education schools was equal to or better than that of students in tradi-
tional schools.
During the 1960s, the psychological (and epistemological) work of Jean Piaget was
“rediscovered.” Between 1960 and 1990, his views on the developmental stages through
which people develop an understanding of their world, genetic epistemology describ-
ing how children’s understanding is different from that of adults, and constructivist
theories concerning how people construct knowledge through the processes of assim-
ilation and accommodation provided major contributions to Learner Centered educa-
tional theory.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the counseling theories of Carl Rogers and Abraham
Maslow were also discovered by Learner Centered advocates and later elaborated by
educators such as Nel Noddings. Their emphasis on client-centered therapy was trans-
formed into an educational theory of learner-centered instruction, and their emphases
on the following ideas provided major support for the Learner Centered approach to
education: self-actualization; self-directed learning; lifelong learning; the prizing and
valuing of the learner’s opinions, feelings, and person; concern for the whole person;
empathy for the learner; importance of the learner’s subjective understanding; and the
role of the educator as a facilitator of growth who is genuine or real in his or her rela-
tionship with the learner.
During the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the whole language movement provided
stimulus to the Learner Centered ideology with its emphasis on constructivism, stu-
dent interpretation of text, learning in a social context, student meaning making, and
curriculum integration. Educators such as Ken and Yetta Goodman, Brian Cambourne,
and Donald Graves extended the earlier work of Louise Rosenblat on how learners
make meaning by transforming the objective written word into idiosyncratic, personal,
subjective meaning.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Howard Gardner’s theories on multiple intelligences
stimulated Learner Centered educators to extend his ideas into ways to differentiate
instructions by accounting for different types of learning and thinking styles.
During the last decades of the 20th century, the Learner Centered ideology con-
tinued to be nurtured and promoted by educators (such as Eleanor Duckworth),
schools (such as the Sudbury Valley and Fayerweather Street Schools), and organiza-
tions (such as Patricia Carini’s Prospect Center in Vermont and the North Dakota
Study Group). In addition, over the last 40 years, several versions of the Learner
Centered approach that were developed in Europe have been transformed to suit
American needs. Among these are the increasingly popular American Montessori
schools, Waldorf schools, and the Reggio Emilia approach, which have been described
this way:
They are built on coherent visions of how to improve human society by helping children
realize their full potential as intelligent, creative, whole persons. In each approach, children
are viewed as active authors of their own development, strongly influenced by natural,
dynamic, self-righting forces within themselves, opening the way toward growth and learn-
ing. Teachers depend for their work with children on carefully prepared, aesthetically pleas-
ing environments that serve as a pedagogical tool and provide strong messages
about . . . respect for children. (Edwards, 2002)
During the 1980s and 1990s, other educational movements arose that continued
the Learner Centered ideology by promoting such things as developmentally appropri-
ate practice. The following list of a few of the basic principles and practices of devel-
opmentally appropriate practice illustrates its continuity with Learner Centered ideas.
• Curriculum facilitates the growth of the whole child (the predictable sequences in
physical, emotional, cognitive, and social development) as well as the self-actualization
of individuals’ unique potentialities (of personality, learning style, interests, disposition,
cultural orientation, etc.) in ways that encourage self-directed, lifelong learning.
• “Curriculum planning is based on teachers’ observations and recordings of each child’s
special interests and developmental progress” (a) so teachers can prepare rich instruc-
tional environments in which children can construct meaning through self- initiated,
self-directed, playful, “active exploration and interaction with adults, other chil-
dren, . . . materials,” and experiences located both inside and outside of school, and
(b) so teachers can determine how to best interact with individuals and groups to pro-
vide “support, focused attention, physical proximity, and verbal encouragement” to
facilitate their growth (Bredekamp, 1987).
• Teachers “respond quickly and directly to children’s needs, desires, and messages and
adapt their responses to children’s differing styles and abilities” in such a way as to
“facilitate the development of self esteem by respecting, accepting, and comforting chil-
dren” in a loving and caring environment (Bredekamp, 1987).
Several developmentally appropriate practices include hands-on learning; the use

of concrete manipulatives and learning and activity centers; thematic unit study; the
use of integrated curriculum; cooperative learning; mixed-age grouping; family, school
and community partnerships; authentic assessment; portfolio assessment; celebration
of multiple intelligences; and culturally responsive teaching (Novick, 1996).
During the last years of the 20th century and first years of the 21st century, the
standards movement and the mandates of the federally supported and politically fash-
ionable No Child Left Behind Act (which were “deeply incongruent with . . . child-
centered . . . education”; Davson-Galle, 1998, p. 303) and the Race to the Top agendas
resulted in great animosity toward advocates of child-centered education and thus a
decline of emphasis on Learner Centered initiatives in public schools. However,
Learner Centered education continues to flourish in affluent communities and private
schools (such as those promoting the Montessori, Reggio Emilia, or Waldorf
approaches), and its initiatives continue to be promoted by organizations such as the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (whose September 2005
issue of Educational Leadership was on “the whole child”). Although many teacher
education programs promote the ideology, Learner Centered educators await a time
when concern for the child’s well-being again flourishes.
Aims
The aim of Learner Centered educators is to stimulate and nurture growth in students,
teachers, and others involved in education—to help all engaged in helping students
grow create meaning for themselves. One creates meaning by engaging in stimulating
experiences. Growth in students, teachers, and other educators is brought about by

preparing stimulating curricula and instruction for students and teachers to engage in
and by having others (for example, parents, school administrators, and curriculum
developers) interact with and grow along with students and teachers. The doctrine of
growth provides both the ends and means for Learner Centered workers.
The design of the educational environments in which students and teachers grow
is the responsibility of the curriculum developer. Students and teachers also have
responsibilities. They must engage the educational environments designed by curricu-
lum developers, initiate the directions of their growth, and make meaning for them-
selves by understanding their personal involvement in the educational environment.
This does not mean that developers present students and teachers with opportunities
for experience without expectations. They create curricula based on careful study of
students and teachers with certain growth goals in mind, and in so doing develop clear
expectations for what might or might not occur when students and teachers engage
their curricula. These expectations are furthered by the careful inclusion and omission
of curriculum activities, structuring of the curriculum, and suggestions of possible
directions for growth within the curriculum.
The Child
The Child as an Integrated Person

Learner Centered educators view children (and learners of any age) as integrated
organisms possessing an integrity as complete people. They view the child as a “whole
child,” as an inseparable conglomerate of intellectual, social, psychological, and physi-
cal dimensions.
The Learner Centered ideology values children because they are unique individu-
als. Educators are concerned about each child’s uniqueness rather than his or her abil-
ity to conform to standardized norms. They believe that a child’s innate nature is one
of goodness and that children’s natural impulses for growth and capabilities for growth
will mature constructively if they are not hampered or distorted by “corrupting outside
forces.” Educators value children because of who they are in the here and now, not
because of the behaviors or attributes they possess or because of what they might
become at some future time.
The Child as a Meaning-Making Organism

Learner Centered educators view children as meaning-making organisms. That is,
they see children as organisms who naturally create meaning—and thus knowledge—
for themselves as a result of interacting with their environment. They assume that
children contain within themselves their own capabilities for growth and that they are
the ones who activate those capabilities through their own efforts: “The assumption
[is] that children are innately curious and predisposed toward exploration and are not
dependent upon adults, for either the initiation or perpetuation of learning” (Barth,
1972, p. 20). Children are not considered empty organisms to which things happen;
they are vibrant organisms who by their own activity cause meaningful things to
happen to themselves. As Rugg and Shumaker say, “personality evolves from within. It
cannot be imposed from without. Individuality develops only through growth in the
power of self-propulsion” (1928, p. 5).
Children’s capacity to grow, their motivation to learn, and their ability to make
meaning occur because of their innate capabilities and exploratory inclinations and
impulses. From the Learner Centered viewpoint, it is crucial that the adult “trust in the
innate abilities of children, in their capacity to energize and direct their own explora-
tion, and in their wanting to explore and learn,” for it is believed that children “will
display natural exploratory behavior if ” they are “not threatened” by adults and that
they will learn and grow in ways that are best for them if they are not pressured to learn
by adults (Barth, 1972, pp. 20–21).
The Child’s Subjective Being

Learner Centered educators speak about processes and states of being that are
internal to children (and learners of any age). These internal processes and states form
the child’s subjective reality. They make up what educators consider to be the most
significant aspects of the child’s being.
Using conceptualizations such as those of Piaget, the Learner Centered educator
speaks of children as if one could look within them to see the inner workings of their
minds. It is not children’s behavior resulting from stimuli that is of interest to these
educators, but rather what goes on between the stimulation and the response, what is
“happening ‘within’ the individual” (Carini, 2005, p. 3). It is not “what the child
knows” or “what the child can do” that is important to these educators, but what is
behind the knowing and doing, or what structures internal to children support that
knowing and doing.
As a result, these educators are interested in parameters such as the state of chil-
dren’s cognitive structures, their meaning-making abilities, their self-esteem, their self-
concept, their self-confidence, their creative spirit, and their dignity, rather than in
specific knowledge and skills children might possess (Carini, 2001, p. 100). As Rugg
and Shumaker say, “witness the little girl of five . . . who said of her painting, ‘It looks
the way you feel inside.’ It’s the feel inside [that] . . . the new education seeks to evoke
and to build upon” (1928, p. 6). How children feel about themselves, their ability to
construct personal meanings, their ability to actualize themselves, and their disposi-
tion to be lifelong learners are considered crucial. Critical here is the child’s self-con-
cept, for it is believed that children will initiate and take responsibility for their own
learning, growth, education, and lives only if they have robust self-concepts, healthy
respect for themselves, and strong confidence in their abilities.
Learning
Learning as Natural
Learner Centered educators consider learning to be what happens to people while
they make meaning out of their interactions with their social and physical world—the
“undergoing” phase of learners’ growth. It is natural to people: both the impulse to

learn and the ability to learn are innate characteristics of the human species. People are
naturally self-activated constructors of meaning. Learning needs no justification. It
should be enjoyed in and of itself.
Natural learning takes place spontaneously and is congruent with people’s inner
nature. It occurs as a natural response to people’s interaction with their environment
and is in rhythm with their organic personalities. Learning is not an artificial construc-
tion of an agent other than the learner; rather, it is a natural function of living that
happens in the present tense and not the future tense, an innate response to experience
that does not have to be artificially forced on people.
The Mechanics of Learning

Learner Centered educators view learning from a constructivist perspective.
Learning takes place when people interact with the world around them and
make meaning for themselves out of those interactions. It takes place when a
receptive, inquiring learner engages a stimulating environment. Three things are
required for learning to occur: a learner, an environment, and the learner’s act of
involvement with that environment through direct experience. The learning
results from the process of making meaning for oneself out of one’s experiences
with one’s environment. It is the “making meaning” process that is important here,
for learning is not viewed as a process of discovering, memorizing, or in any way
absorbing information that already exists outside of and independent of the
learner. Figure 4.1 portrays the nature of learning. Stimuli from an environment
(the dotted straight arrows) impinge on the learner, some of which are perceived
by the learner. Many things can be located in the learning environment that can
stimulate learning, including other learners, teachers, books, learning materials,
and natural occurrences and phenomena (such as animals). In response to the
stimulation, the learner actively engages the stimuli (the solid curved arrow) and
makes meaning out of the interaction based on his or her own personality, stage of
development, learning style, and cognitive structure (which consists of prior
meanings learned, the relationships among them, and the ways they are organ-
ized). In learning, learners construct meaning by transforming what is perceived
so that it can be assimilated into their cognitive structure, and reconstruct their
previously existing cognitive structure so that it can accommodate the newly cre-
ated meaning. This construction and reconstruction process is unique to each
individual’s existing cognitive structure and particular experiences with his or her
learning environment. The learning arrow also represents a process that is unique
to the learner because it originates within the learner, engages the environment
that stimulates that learner, and returns to the learner. It is unique because each
individual is unique, because each individual has unique learning capacities,
because learning results from an individual’s active engagement in his or her envi-
ronment under unique circumstances of time and place, and because what indi-
viduals learn is the result of their own creative self-expression to themselves of
their experiences.
Learning is a function of the unique interaction of an individual with his or her

environment. The more active and personally engaging the individual’s exploration
and the richer the environment in which the exploration takes place, the greater the
potential for learning. Although both the learner and the environment are important
during learning, each has a different significance.
People learn when they experience the involvement and engrossment connected
with wholehearted play. Learning does not result from passivity. It results from peo-
ple’s absorbed involvement with their environment that comes from their innate
impulse to understand and to make sense out of interactions with their world.
Learners’ active and personal engagement in making meaning out of their experiences
for themselves is the crucial variable during learning.
Figure 4.1 The mechanics of learning in the Learner Centered ideology.
Environment Learner
= Learning Function
= Environmental Stimuli
For curriculum developers and teachers, however, it is the environment in which

individuals make their meaning that is of crucial importance, for it is the environment
that they can control. The developer and the teacher help people learn by arranging the
learning environment in such a way as to stimulate the desired learning. The developer
and teacher must stimulate people to learn in this way because it is not viewed as
appropriate to predictably manipulate the inner nature of people, indoctrinate people,
or inject information into their minds.
Stages of Learning
As previously mentioned, while growing, people develop through a sequence of
learning stages. The meanings people construct from that which is learned are dif-
ferent at each stage of growth. Further, educators emphasize enriching the learning
within a growth stage rather than stimulating people to move to more advanced
growth stages.
In addition, a distinction is made between concrete and abstract learning.
Educators assume the following:
• People’s learning should proceed from concrete to abstract.

• “Premature conceptualization based upon inadequate direct experience” is unhealthy
(Walberg & Thomas, 1971, p. 94).
• Concept formation progresses from concrete to abstract slowly (Featherstone, 1968).
• “All of us must cross the line between ignorance and insight many times before we truly
understand. Little facts, ‘discoveries’ without the growth of insights are not what we
should seek to harvest” (Hawkins, 1965/1970).
Learner Centered educators also make several other assumptions:
• People have different learning styles (that instruction should accommodate).

• “Children’s innate curiosity and self-perpetuating exploratory behavior should form
the basis of their learning in school” (“they should have the opportunity to pursue
interests as deeply and as long as they find the pursuit satisfying”; Walberg & Thomas,
1971, p. 94).
• “Individual children often learn in unpredictable ways” (and instruction should accom-
modate such; Walberg & Thomas, 1971, p. 94).
• “Children are capable of making intelligent decisions in significant areas of their own
learning” (and should be able to do so; Walberg & Thomas, 1971, p. 94).
• “The function of school is to help children learn to learn” (Walberg & Thomas, 1971,
p. 94) and to become lifelong learners.
• “Learning is facilitated by relationships of openness, trust, and mutual respect” (and
schools should provide “an accepting and warm emotional climate”; Walberg &
Thomas, 1971, p. 94).
Teaching
Learner Centered educators view teaching primarily as nurturing the growth of indi-
viduals. Within the overarching role of nurturer, teachers have three critical roles:
observer and diagnostician of learners, provider of the environment for learning, and
facilitator of learning.
The Teacher as Diagnostician

To plan the environment in which a person will learn and to determine how to
interact with that person in the learning environment, teachers must first understand
such things as the person’s interests, concerns, needs, fantasies, thought processes,
learning and thinking styles, intellectual development, social inclinations, emotional
profile, and physical abilities. As such, one of the first, and continuing, tasks of teachers
is to carefully observe and chronicle the nature of the students in their care. Data about
students are collected by watching what they do and say during instruction and at play,
gathering together the artifacts and productions they create, and consulting with par-
ents and other adults who care for them. Data are recorded in teacher diaries, student
portfolios, and individual learner histories. Based on analysis of the data collected,
teachers make decisions about the education of students. Studying and analyzing the
behavior of the students in one’s care is a critical component of what teachers do on a
daily and continuing basis. Based on their ongoing reflective evaluation and analytical
assessment of each student, teachers modify the content, arrangement, and structure
of the classroom; group students for instruction; gather the class for activities such as
storytelling and discussion; suggest, change, extend, or redirect student activity; and
interact with students to support their learning, growth, and development.
The Teacher as Provider of the Environment for Learning

One of the functions of the teacher is to provide the instructional environment in
which learning takes place. The environment is to be designed with personal, social,
material, psychological, and intellectual considerations in mind in order to provide
students with the experiences that will stimulate their intellectual, social, emotional,
and physical growth.
In designing the instructional environment, the teacher must do such things as
select curricula; choose and position instructional materials in the classroom in such
physical, emotional, and temporal contexts that they become maximally available to
student engagement; group students for learning activities; direct the flow of instruc-
tional activity over the course of the day; and structure and maintain classroom rules
that promote an atmosphere of warmth, openness, and respect for one another and a
sense of community and cooperation. Based on diagnosis of their students’ needs and
characteristics, teachers also set up interdisciplinary learning centers; place a diverse
assortment of physical manipulatives, books, and common environment materials
(plant life, rocks, animals, etc.) in activity centers; plan and supervise field trips;
arrange classroom furniture into spatial configurations with different learning atmos-
pheres (quiet reading centers, noisy construction centers, etc.); and create activities for
individuals and small groups to work on. In doing so, teachers attempt to
organize environments rich in possibilities and provocations that invite the children to
undertake extended exploration and problem solving, often in small groups, where coop-
eration and disputation mingle pleasurably. . . . [and where a] classroom atmosphere of
playfulness and joy pervades. (Edwards, 2002, p. 9)
The planning, construction, and maintenance of instructional environments in

which people learn and the tailoring of those environments to each student’s unique
nature, based on each student’s interests and needs and the teacher’s desires for each
student’s development, is a crucial role of Learner Centered educators. It is crucial
because providing the instructional environment which stimulates students to interact
with their world and to construct and reconstruct meaning is one of the major ways in
which teachers influence students’ growth and learning.
While providing environments in which people learn, teachers must design those
environments in such a way that they encourage people to feel that they are making the
important decisions about what they learn, are engaged in explorations of their own
choosing, and are pursuing those explorations in accordance with their own inner
direction and felt needs—even though they know that the teacher has structured the
learning environment and is supplying the learning alternatives they can pursue.
The Teacher as Facilitator of Learning

The teacher also functions as a facilitator, assistant, aid, advisor, and consultant to
people during their learning. As an assistant to students during learning, the teacher
intervenes between students and the environment (or ideas) they are exploring to
facilitate their growth and learning. The interventions are based on diagnosis of the
needs, interests, and natures of the students and on diagnosis of the nature and poten-
tial of the work in which they are engaged.
Teachers also act as resources or consultants to students during their learning. In
this role, teachers are consulted by students on how to learn something, complete an
activity, answer a question, or reach a goal. Acting in this capacity, the teacher “is, in a
sense, a travel agent. He helps the child go where the child wants to go. He counsels on
the best way of getting there” (Leitman, 1968).
Four examples illustrate the range of ways in which teachers can act as facilitators
of learning:
• Teachers can intervene when students are learning by helping them verbalize to them-
selves the meaning of their experiences. By doing so, teachers can help students make
sense out of their experiences by helping them find language to reflect on those experi-
ences, acting as evaluators who reflect back to students their thoughts, or prodding
students to move from more concrete toward more abstract meaning making.
• As a result of observing the interests, questions, and concerns students raise as they
engage in an activity, teachers can place carefully chosen books, manipulatives, environ-
mental materials, or other students in their presence to enrich, amplify, extend, or
redirect their growth and learning. Teachers can also facilitate students’ growth by ask-
ing questions, making suggestions, adding their ideas to the conversation, or increasing
“the difficulty, complexity, and challenge of an activity as children are involved with it”
(Bredekamp, 1987, pp. 7–8).
• As a result of observing students with common interests, teachers can ask students to
work together, ask them to teach each other or learn for each other, put them in small
groups to discuss their interests together, provide special activities for them, have dis-
cussions with them, or provide them with demonstrations or direct instruction.
• Teachers can “facilitate a child’s successful completion of tasks by providing support,
focused attention, physical proximity, and verbal encouragement” as a result of simply
being present, attentive, and engaged while the child is learning (Bredekamp, 1987,
p. 16).
While acting as facilitators of learning, teachers frequently “give individual chil-

dren small concentrated amounts of [their] time [through individualized conversation
and attention] rather than giving [their] general attention to the children as a class all
day” (Walberg & Thomas, 1971, p. 90).
And teacher behavior is always to be based on careful observation of the nature
of the learners and diagnosis of their needs and interests: “Interactions are based on
adults’ knowledge and expectations of age-appropriate behavior in children bal-
anced by adults’ awareness of individual differences among children” (Bredekamp,
1987, p. 13).
Characteristics of the Teacher

Learner Centered educators view the teacher’s main roles to be diagnostician, pro-
vider of an instructional environment, and facilitator of growth. Several characteristics
aid teachers in carrying out these roles.
Teachers must be able to spontaneously respond to children. They must be avail-
able, accessible, and capable of responding quickly and appropriately to children at all
times as they constantly scan “the horizon of children’s interactions, with materials and
with one another, for situations when a response, an appropriate intervention, will
contribute to a child’s learning” and growth (Barth, 1972, p. 107). Teachers directly
respond “to children’s needs, desires, and messages and adapt their responses to chil-
dren’s differing styles and abilities” (Bredekamp, 1987).
Teachers must be generalists, rather than specialists, with respect to knowledge.
They need to be knowledgeable about all of the school subjects, have one or two sub-
jects in which they have “special interest, experience, and competence,” and be “capable
of growing in any area as the need and interest of the children dictate” (Barth, 1972,
p. 68).
The teacher must be a person within the classroom rather than a paragon, exem-
plar, or ideal representing inhuman virtues. Teachers are
encouraged to be themselves: to be honest, angry, loving, upset, tired, happy—to be

real. . . . [F]rom the teacher’s honest expression of feeling, children learn to respect, expect,
and handle the wide range of behavior which they find in others, and to acknowledge and
accept it in themselves. (Barth, 1972, p. 65)
Teachers must take “an involved interest in what the child is doing” and must
become “actively involved in the work of each child . . . as one who seeks to help him
realize his goals and potential” (Walberg & Thomas, 1971, p. 91). This means that
teachers must be capable of becoming involved in children’s learning, interested in
what they are learning, and excited about what they are learning—and able to share
their involvement, interest, and excitement with children as they learn.
Knowledge
Personal Meaning and Knowledge Construction

Within the Learner Centered ideology, worthwhile knowledge takes the form of
personal meanings. These personal meanings are idiosyncratic to each individual who
possesses them, because knowledge has personal significance to its creator within the
meaningful context of previously acquired knowledge, because the unique environ-
mental context in which it is acquired is the result of a learner’s experience in a par-
ticular learning environment at a particular time, because it is not an internalized
representation of the real world that everyone views in the same way but a personal
construction of a meaning maker, and because it is basically subjective rather than
objective in nature.
Personal meanings are created when sensory information is perceived by a learner

and incorporated by the learner into his or her existing cognitive structure through the
twin processes of accommodation and assimilation. Meaning making—or knowledge
construction—enables learners to understand and adapt to their world. New knowl-
edge constructed by learners, which produces new cognitive structures that learners
reconstruct out of their existing cognitive structures, is unique to each learner, because
the new knowledge and cognitive structures are based on a learner’s uniquely con-
structed existing cognitive structure and because they carry contextual connections to
the specific environments in which they are learned. That is, Learner Centered educa-
tors assume that new knowledge acquired by learners does not float free from the
environment in which it was learned, but rather that it carries with it many connec-
tions to that environment. For example, a child who first sees a doe in a black-and-
white drawing in a book has a very different experience from that of a child who first
sees a doe in a field next to his grandparents’ house early on a cool morning while
holding a cup of hot chocolate and sitting on his grandmother’s warm lap. Knowledge
carries with it all sorts of emotional, social, and other contextual meanings associated
with where, when, and how it is learned.
Four things are important here.
1. Knowledge is constructed by learners because of the way in which newly perceived infor-
mation is transformed through the processes of assimilation and accommodation so
that it can fit into the learners’ existing cognitive structures.
2. Knowledge is repeatedly reconstructed by learners, because their previously existing
cognitive structures are constantly altered and updated as new knowledge is con-
structed through the twin forces of assimilation and accommodation.
3. Knowledge takes the form of personal meaning because of its personal significance to
its creator (and possessor) within the meaningful context of previously acquired
knowledge.
4. Knowledge takes the form of idiosyncratic personal meanings because of how it is related
to a learner’s uniquely organized set of previously acquired meanings and because of
the unique context in which it is acquired.
Knowledge is not an internalized representation of the real world that everyone

views in the same way. It is “a function of a synthesis of each individual’s experience
with the world” (Barth, 1972, p. 45). It is the result of an individual’s personal crea-
tive self-expression and based in conceptual structures comprehensible only within
the context of the meaning maker’s experiences. It is idiosyncratic to the individual
who creates it. Theoretically, no two individual’s knowledge can be identical. This
means that what individuals learn is not only their own personal possession, but that
it may well be theirs alone, even though it closely resembles the learning of other
individuals. That is, people’s conceptions of “house” or “justice” or “red” will not be
so different as to exclude communication, but there will be inevitable differences in
conceptualization.
The following assumptions are also important to note:
• Knowledge cannot be separated from the process of meaning making—or knowing.

Nor can it be isolated from the experience of the person who constructs it, for it is based
in its creator’s conceptual structures and prior experience.
• Knowledge is actively constructed, invented, created, or discovered by learners. It is not
passively received by them and stored in their minds as photographic images of objec-
tive reality—it does not magically appear in their mind in a form identical to what a
teacher, book, or real life experience might have transmitted to them.
• Learners are constantly constructing and reconstructing their cognitive structures, both
as a result of newly acquired knowledge and as a result of their reflection on previously
acquired knowledge. Reflection on previously acquired meanings is an important way
of constructing knowledge.
• Social interaction with peers and adults in a cultural context is extremely important in
individuals’ construction of knowledge. In most situations, the individual construction
of knowledge cannot be isolated from social and cultural influences. For example, when
peers (or teachers) challenge an individual’s previously accepted meanings and explain
their reasons for the challenge, the verbal exchanges are a type of experience that can
stimulate the individual to reconstruct those meanings. As Vygotsky (1979) has sug-
gested, when an individual constructs knowledge in the presence of others, those others
enrich the individual’s learning environment through their use of language, their con-
cepts, and the learning and thinking styles they use to create and judge the worthiness
of their knowledge.
• Children go through the process of rediscovering meanings and reconstructing their
conceptual structures continuously over an extended period of time as they learn about
their world and themselves and reconcile new information with past meanings.
Understanding is built up only gradually as children go through different developmen-
tal stages, each of which influences their conceptual structures and how they make
meaning. Meanings that make sense at one developmental stage frequently become
misconceptions at later developmental stages, because children’s evolving development
influences what and how they understand their world. For example, simple ideas of
number are reinterpreted numerous times by children as they move through the
Piagetian preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational stages of devel-
opment. As a result, the knowledge children possess changes over time. Both the nature
of children’s “knowledge” and their “way of knowing” are assumed to evolve as the child
grows through different developmental stages.
These views put the Learner Centered ideology within the epistemological context
of the constructivist movement, which became popular among American educators in
the 1980s.
Knowledge and Experience

The knowledge valued by Learner Centered educators has been called “experien-
tial knowledge” (Deng & Luke, 2008, p. 71) because they view the construction of
knowledge by learners as a consequence of their experiences with (and interactions
with) their social and physical environments. As Dewey (1938) writes, “education is
conceived in terms of experience” (p. 73). This is in contrast to viewing knowledge
from a perspective of learners’ receiving information from academic disciplines.

From the experiential perspective, what is important is learners’ firsthand experi-
ences with their social and physical environments, in which they are active in their
intellectual, physical, verbal, social, and emotional interactions, and in which they
are self-actualizing makers of personal meaning (knowledge) from their experiences
in the context of living their normal everyday lives. Here “knowledge is an ongoing
construction of meaning by social actors in relationships of exchange” through
firsthand experiences with (and interactions with) their environments (Deng &
Luke, 2008, p. 69).
From this experiential perspective on knowledge, curriculum is viewed as devel-
opmentally appropriate sequences of experiences for learners to interact with, and
from which they construct personal meanings (or knowledge). The sequence of experi-
ences (including interactions with teachers and peers) allows learners to construct
personal meanings that have progressively greater depth and breadth, that contain
progressively more sophisticated and exacting analyses of those experiences, and that
progressively more accurately approximate the way in which experts explain the mean-
ing underlying those experiences.
Many Learner Centered educators associate experiential knowledge with writings
of John Dewey, such as the following:
• “Now the primary point of concern of education is beyond question with the subject as
a special mode of personal experience for children, rather than the discipline as a body
of wrought-out facts and scientifically tested principles” (1897b, p. 361);
• “Anything that can be called a study, whether arithmetic, history, geography, or one of
the natural sciences, must be derived from materials which at the outset fall within the
scope of ordinary experience” (1938, p. 73); and
• A curriculum’s learning experiences need to be selected and sequenced to promote “the
progressive development of what is already experienced into a fuller and richer and also
more organized form” of personal meanings, and “this . . . is possible without departing
from the organic connection of education with experience” (1938, p. 73).
Knowledge as a Derivative Concept

Learner Centered educators are concerned less with knowledge than with learning
and growth. They assume that knowledge is an integral part of learning rather than a
separate entity to be learned: that the process by which a person learns—learning—
implies the nature of the product of learning—knowledge. Knowledge is the creative
response of unique individuals to their personal interactions with their environments,
a derivative of individuals’ learning and growth. Consequences of these assumptions
have already been discussed:
• Knowledge is not seen as a universal, abstract, impersonal quantity but as unique to the
individual knower.
• The goals of education are not expressed in terms of knowledge, since one has little
control over the idiosyncratic meaning individuals generate when they encounter an
experience.
• Because the child is viewed in the context of growth, it is assumed that the nature of
both the child’s knowledge and the child’s “ways of knowing” evolve as the child grows.
• It is believed that there is no one way of organizing or categorizing knowledge for learn-
ing (such as into academic disciplines), because it is learners who must organize mean-
ing in correspondence with their unique conceptual structures.
Knowledge and Reality

Learner Centered educators make a distinction between subjective and objective
reality. Worthwhile knowledge is considered to be person centered and not object
centered—to be within the province of the individual’s subjective reality and not
within the province of objective reality. Knowledge exists only within the individual
knower—it is not a thing apart from the individual knower. It is personal and not
objective. Even though the creation of knowledge depends on individuals interacting
with their objective environment, knowledge itself is subjective and idiosyncratic to
the individuals who create it. This belief does not deny the existence of the external
world of objective reality; what it denies is that the meanings created by individuals can
accurately mirror objective reality.
Knowledge is not viewed as a universal, abstract, impersonal quantity. It is unique
to the individuals who create it for themselves and does not exist outside of individual
knowers. The information found in books, in libraries, and on the Internet is not
viewed as the same as the meanings that people construct—as the personal knowledge
that people create for themselves. Although individuals can memorize and repeat the
information found in books, in libraries, and on the Internet, abstract and impersonal
knowledge requires a more personal connection to the lives of individuals before it can
become “real” to knowers. This does not mean that people cannot create situations that
allow them to somewhat imprecisely share their knowledge with others through such
media as language, books, and film. But Learner Centered educators do not confuse an
individual’s construction of a medium or environment that facilitates the creation of
knowledge by another individual with the direct transmission of knowledge itself.
The Learner Centered assumptions about knowledge’s subjectivity and deriva-
tiveness are reinforced by the belief that “the quality of being is more important than
the quality of knowing; knowledge is a means of education, not its end. The final test
of an education is what a man is, not what he knows” (Barth, 1972, pp. 44–45). The
Learner Centered educator emphasizes the learning person rather than knowledge,
the quality of people’s conceptual structures and meaning making abilities rather
than the knowledge of objective reality that they possess.
Evaluation
Assessment for Growth

Assessment is critical within the Learner Centered ideology. Teachers need to con-
stantly assess learners’ growth and interests by “observing, recording, and document-
ing the learner’s progress” (Cruz-Acosta, 2006, p. 1) so that they can plan the
instructional environment in which students will learn and plan the ways in which
they will facilitate students’ growth by interacting with them. Students need to con-
stantly assess their interactions with their world so that they can assimilate and accom-
modate new experiences to previously developed cognitive structures as they make
personal meaning and construct knowledge. Curriculum developers need to con-
stantly assess their curricula so that they can be revised to meet students’ developmen-
tal needs, individual learning characteristics, and interests. In all cases, assessment is
primarily for the benefit of students and for the purpose of facilitating their growth,
development, and learning. Evaluation is not looked on favorably when it is used to
inform someone other than students (such as school administrators or politicians)
about students or their growth. Specifically, evaluation is not to be used for the pur-
pose of comparing students to externally prescribed curriculum standards, except
when mandated by state or federal legislation or college entrance examinations—and
even then it is viewed unfavorably. Also, since valid assessment instruments are diffi-
cult to find, most assessment relies heavily on portfolio assessment and direct observa-
tion of students:
Assessment of individual children’s development and learning is essential for planning and
implementing developmentally appropriate programs, but should be used with cau-
tion. . . . Accurate testing can only be achieved with reliable, valid instruments and such
instruments . . . are extremely rare. In the absence of valid instruments, testing is not valu-
able. Therefore, assessment of young children should rely heavily on the results of observa-
tions of their development and descriptive data. (Bredekamp, 1987, p. 22)
Standardized Objective Testing

Learner Centered advocates are opposed to the “psychometric philosophy of edu-
cation, which posits that the learner possesses measurable abilities,” that “individual
differences in performance are regarded as reflecting differences in amount of ability,”
that “education is seen as imparting quantifiable knowledge and skills which can be
measured objectively on standardized tests,” and that “answers are either right or
wrong” (Novick, 1996, pp. 34–35). As a result, Learner Centered educators are opposed
to standardized objective achievement testing. They believe such tests
fail to describe children’s growth, development, and progress; measure a restricted view of
intelligence; are unrelated to classroom activities; provide no information to individualize
and improve instruction; limit the breadth and depth of content coverage; create stress for
children; label and stigmatize some children; are culturally biased; . . . emphasize lower
order thinking[;] . . . [pressure] teachers [to] teach to the test[;] . . . [dumb] down instruc-
tion[;] . . . [and place] emphasis on drill and practice of decontextualized skills. (p. 35)
Learner Centered advocates also give other reasons for viewing standardized
achievement tests unfavorably. One reason is that students frequently understand
things that they cannot verbalize as abstract symbolic expressions publicly displayable
in a form that can be objectively assessed on standardized achievement tests. Another
reason is that the dimensions of student learning that can be accurately measured are
usually not the most important ones. The important things, such as a student’s
self-concept, curiosity, and initiative, are difficult to measure and are seldom measured
in most schools, while trivial things such as students’ ability to recall when Columbus
discovered America tend to be repeatedly measured because they are easy to assess. A
third reason is that taking and confronting the results of standardized achievement
tests can have a negative effect on students’ learning. At the high school level, this is
seen in the rise in student dropout rates in states that require students to pass a stand-
ardized achievement test to graduate.
Grading
Giving letter or numerical grades to children is avoided. Lengthy written reports
describing children’s development, learning, and activity is the preferred mode of
providing parents and school records with a description of children’s growth.
(Edwards, 2002). Letter and numerical grades are avoided because it is believed that
learning should have intrinsic value and that the intrinsic value of learning is dimin-
ished when it is extrinsically rewarded, because the reward does not come from the
completion of the task but from pleasing the teacher. What is valued is the possibil-
ity of present learning empowering the children to engage in a lifelong love of learn-
ing rather than simply pleasing a teacher (Hein, 2005). As Dewey and Dewey (1915)
wrote,
rewards and high marks are at best artificial aims to strive for; they accustom children to
expect to get something besides the value of the product for work they do. The extent to
which schools are compelled to rely upon these motives shows how dependent they are
upon motives that are foreign to truly moral activity. (p. 297)
One of the central issues emphasized within the Learner Centered ideology is the
necessity for children to learn how to evaluate their own learning as well as to learn
when it is or is not possible for them to do so. It is assumed that whenever possible,
children’s work is best assessed by children themselves through their direct interactions
with materials, other students, and adults from and with whom they are learning,
rather than from authorities who are spatially and temporally removed from the chil-
dren’s learning interactions.
Student Evaluation
Since the 1880s, when G. Stanley Hall started the child study movement, the
preferred Learner Centered method of assessment has been through teacher obser-
vation of students during instruction and collection of artifacts created by stu-
dents. In current day language, authentic assessment that describes students’
performance during typical instructional activities is the preferred form of student
evaluation. Authentic assessments include, for each student, portfolio assessment,
teacher notes, teacher diaries, developmental checklists, learning logs and journals,
student self-assessments, student peer assessments, and informal anecdotal
narratives.
Portfolio assessment is one form of authentic assessment:
Portfolios are an organized collection of children’s work that provide a continuous record
of a child’s progress over time. . . . One of the strengths of portfolios is that they reflect
multiple voices and perspectives: that of children, parents, and teachers. They [can] include
writing samples, art work, self portraits, stories, audio tapes of children’s oral reading and
speaking, photographs, self-portraits, math papers, teacher and parent reflections, sum-
maries of progress, and children’s self-reflective comments about their work. Based on the
assumption that children should be active participants in their own assessment . . . , chil-
dren are encouraged to make judgments about their own work and reflect on their progress
during frequent individual and group conferences. . . . Teachers and parents can focus on
what children can do, rather than what they can not and children are able to see themselves
as successful learners. . . . [P]arents are able to compare their children’s work at different
times and understand that their children are learning. . . . Unlike many traditional assess-
ments, that are external to or even in conflict with instruction, portfolios may become an
integral part of the learning process. (Novick, 1996, p. 37)
Learning logs and journals are often kept on each student over an extended period
of time. These anecdotal records chronicle students’ activities and growth over time
and also contain comments and observations about such things as students’ relation-
ships with peers, learning styles, thinking styles, interests, physical demeanors, self-
concept, and social, emotional, physical, and cognitive growth. These logs and journals
are used to apprise children, parents, and teachers of individuals’ progress in school.
Learner Centered educators believe that
authentic assessments provide a more meaningful picture of children’s development than

test scores. They address a much broader definition of intelligence, encourage children to
become reflective, self-directed learners, help parents to see their children’s progress, and
enhance children’s parents’ and teachers’ ability to develop shared meaning and memories.
(Novick, 1996, p. 38)
Three characteristics of student assessment deserve mention.
1. Learner Centered educators desire to take the value loading out of evaluation. They
want to remove the connotation of good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse, from
the actions of learners in order to help them make use of their mistakes, as well as their
successes, to direct their future learning. They believe that mistakes are a natural part of
learning, just as successes are, and that both contain important feedback that can con-
tribute to future growth and learning.
2. Learner Centered educators tend to view students (and curricula) as wholes and take a
gestalt approach to assessment. The idea of partitioning learners (or curricula) into
component parts in order to atomistically evaluate each part, under the assumption
that the sum of the atomistic evaluations is equivalent to evaluation of the whole, is
avoided. Evaluation “should not be a separate ‘technical’ issue, conceptualized, analyzed,
and implemented independent from the entire educational setting” (Hein, 2005,
p. 177). It must “take into account the entire context of schooling” (p. 177), take place
over time, and consider students (and curricula) in their wholeness.
3. Student assessment is viewed as an integral part of teaching and learning. It is not some-
thing distinct from teaching and learning that needs a special time, place, or materials
set aside for it. It occurs whenever a student is learning from a teacher who is teaching.
It is an ongoing part of the dynamics of teaching and learning and occurs continuously
during instruction.
Curriculum Evaluation
Learner Centered educators tend to have little interest in summative curriculum
evaluation. When such is compiled, it tends to be in the form of testimonials, and it
tends to measure the degree of student involvement in the curriculum and the degree
of learner enthusiasm about the curriculum. Subjective formative evaluation of the
curriculum, in contrast, is undertaken with enthusiasm, for it leads to improvement in
the curriculum as it is being developed. Such evaluation is usually based on measures
such as the degree to which learners get involved with the curriculum, is usually
intuitively conducted through developer observation and teacher reports, and is usu-
ally based on criteria such as the extent to which the curriculum is believed to be in the
best interests of learners as dictated by their nature, needs, and interests.
An important assessment question to ask is, how effective is the Learner Centered
ideology in comparison to the traditional approach? Usually this question is phrased
in terms of whether students educated and assessed in nontraditional Learner Centered
environments do as well as students educated and assessed in traditional classrooms
when they go on to higher levels of schooling that operate and assess in more tradi-
tional ways. The findings of the Eight-Year Study in the 1930s (Aiken, 1942) and
Walberg’s research (1984) clearly indicate that children educated in Learner Centered
environments do as well as or better than children educated in traditional classrooms
in most academic and nonacademic areas at the elementary, secondary, and college
levels.
The Learner Centered ideology has done much to humanize education over the last
century. Its insistence on putting the learner at the center of the educational process,
belief that self-actualizing growth is the goal of education, view that teachers are
facilitators of learning, introduction of personal meaning to our vocabulary as a way
of speaking about knowledge, bringing to our attention the importance of different
learning styles, integration of curricula through the use of projects and learning cent-
ers, and broadening of our view of evaluation to include authentic assessment have
done much to make schools more humane and vital educational institutions from
preschool through adult education.
The Learner Centered ideology first gained influence on education at the end of
the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century as it was being introduced by
educators such as Parker, Dewey, and Johnson. It gained greater influence as part of
the Progressive Education Association when it insisted that education must minister
to the needs and nature of the child but fell from prominence when George Counts
challenged educators to dare to build a new social order and to attend to the poor
and needy in society. It regained its influence in the 1960s with the rise of the open
education movement, the rediscovery of developmental and counseling psychology,
and the infusion of funds into education by the federal government. The attempts to
implement open education by educators who did not fully understand it did much
to undermine the movement and decrease its influence in the late 1970s. However,
the whole language movement, constructivist philosophy, and the ideology’s promo-
tion of authentic assessment maintained Learner Centered influence on education
until the end of the 20th century. Attacks by the back-to-the-basics movement, the
social justice movement, and the Race to the Top Funding and No Child Left Behind
mandates did much to decrease its influence at the beginning of the 21st century.
Advocates of the Learner Centered ideology now wait for appropriate political and
social conditions that will allow them to again assert their influence to humanize and
revitalize education. Figure 4.2 provides a rough estimation of those times when
advocates of this ideology have been most active, with respect to their own norms,
in attempting to influence American education.
Figure 4.2 Times of relative high and low activity of the Learner Centered ideology.
High
Level of Activity
Low
1890 1925 1950 1975 2012
Time
5
Social
Reconstruction
Ideology
E ducators who promote the Social Reconstruction ideology view curriculum from
a social perspective. First, they assume that our society is unhealthy—indeed, that
its very survival is threatened—because the traditional mechanisms developed by soci-
ety to contend with social problems are incapable of doing their job. Second, Social
Reconstructionists assume that something can be done to keep society from destroying
itself. This assumption necessitates the development of a vision of a society better than
the existing one, a society whose problems and conflicts have been resolved. It also
requires action directed toward reconstruction of society based on that vision. Finally,
Social Reconstruction educators assume that education provides the means of recon-
structing society. They have faith in the ability of education, through the medium of
curriculum, to educate “the masses of humanity” to critically analyze themselves in
relation to their society, understand the ills of their society, develop a vision of a better
world based on a conception of social justice, and actualize that vision.
Social Reconstructionists begin with the assumption that the survival of our soci-
ety is threatened by many problems. These problems include, among others, racism,
war, sexism, poverty, pollution, worker exploitation, climate change, corporate exploi-
tation, crime, political corruption, population explosion, energy shortage, illiteracy,
inadequate health care, and unemployment. Underlying many of these problems are
deep social structures—many based in Eurocentric conceptions of knowledge, culture,
and values—that through the school’s hidden curriculum subtly shape student beliefs
and behavior in such a way that they, as both students and future adults, will contrib-
ute to the continuation and worsening of these problems. If these problems are not
resolved, they will threaten the survival of our society.
151
However, all is not lost. There are actions that can be taken to improve our situa-
tion and save society. As George Counts (1932a) wrote in 1932, during the Great
Depression,
the point should be emphasized, that the present situation is full of promise, as well as
menace. Our age is literally pregnant with possibilities. There lies within our grasp the most
humane and majestic civilization ever fashioned by any people. At last men have achieved
such a mastery over the forces of nature that wage slavery can follow chattel slavery and
take its place among the relics of the past. No longer are there any grounds for the conten-
tion that the finer fruits of human culture must be nurtured upon the exploitation of the
masses. The limits set by nature have been so extended that for all practical purposes we
may say that we are bound merely by our own ideals, by our power of self-discipline, and
by our ability to devise social arrangements suited to . . . [our] age. . . . In other words, we
hold within our hands the power to usher in an age of plenty, to make secure the lives of
all and to banish poverty forever from the land. (pp. 260–261)
To save society from self-destruction, we must develop a vision of a society better

than the existing one, a vision of “the most humane and majestic civilization ever
fashioned by any people” in which our present society’s problems do not exist and in
which social justice for all people prevails. Then we must reconstruct our society into
the envisioned one “that extend[s] the principles of liberty, equality, justice, and free-
dom to the widest possible set of institution[s]” and people (Giroux, 2005, p. 74).
For Social Reconstructionists, education provides the means by which society is to
be reconstructed. Counts and Giroux put it this way:
Today, as social institutions crumble and society is shaken by deep convulsions that
threaten its very existence, many persons are proclaiming that education provides the only
true road to safety. They are even saying that it should be brought into the service of build-
ing a new social order. (Counts, 1934, p. 533)*
Educators need to assume the role of leaders in the struggle for social and economic jus-
tice. . . . Educators must connect what they teach and write to the dynamics of public
life . . . and . . . concern for . . . democracy. (Giroux, 2006, p. 9)
Social Reconstructionists assume that education, if it is revitalized along the lines

they recommend, has the power to educate people to analyze and understand social
problems, envision a world in which those problems do not exist, and act so as to bring
that vision into existence. Thus, education of individuals in appropriately revitalized
schools can lead to social transformation.
Social Reconstructionists hold diverse beliefs about society, its problems, and the
vision for a better society, and therefore the particular beliefs of educators will not be
specified here. Rather, the context within which the beliefs are held will be discussed.
*Reprinted with the permission of Scribner, a division of Simon & Schuster Inc., from The
Social Foundations of Education by George S. Counts. Copyright © 1934 by Charles Scribner’s
Sons; copyright renewed 1962 by Charles Scribner’s Sons. All rights reserved.
Chapter 5 Social Reconstruction Ideology ❖ 153
Whether the curriculum is designed around the oppression of poverty or illiteracy, the
destructiveness of war or pollution, the social injustice of racism or sexism, the eco-
nomic problems of worker exploitation or political corruption, or other such prob-
lems, the particular issues and visions will not be our concern. Our concern will be the
assumptions that underlie Social Reconstructionists’ views. To give the assumptions
meaning, two Social Reconstruction educational institutions will be described: an
adult education school and a middle school mathematics classroom.
Highlander
The Highlander Folk School, founded by Myles Horton in 1932 on Monteagle
Mountain in Tennessee, provides an example of the work of a Social Reconstructionist.
The school was founded to stop an impending social crisis arising out of the industrial
revolution: rich industrialists and landowners were economically exploiting and
oppressing poor factory, farm, and mine workers to such an extent that democracy as
Americans knew it was threatened. Horton founded the school to provide an educa-
tional “means by which all suppressed people in America could challenge their oppres-
sors” (Adams, 1972, p. 516). The school’s purpose was to “educat[e] for a revolution
that would basically alter economic and political power relationships to the advantage
of the poor and powerless” (Horton, 1936, p. 117). To accomplish this, Horton invited
potential labor organizers to Highlander, helped them understand the nature of the
oppression under which the workers of America were suffering, inspired them with a
vision of an ideal society in which laborers were not oppressed, and helped them for-
mulate strategies for organizing oppressed laborers. He then sent the labor organizers
back to their factories, farms, and mines to organize the masses of oppressed workers
to strike for better living and working conditions, and thus begin the establishment of
a new social order. Horton believed “the Highlander Folk School’s most important
contribution [would] be to help the workers envision their [new] role in society and
in so doing, make the labor movement the basis for a fundamental social change”
(p. 118). Note that Horton assumed the existence of a social crisis that could be over-
come: the economic exploitation of the working class. To overcome the social crisis, he
used educational means: he educated labor leaders, who then educated the working
class, both to envision a new society lacking economic exploitation and to act in ways
that would transform the existing society into the envisioned new society. Crucial to
Horton’s educational program was his curriculum. Labor leaders educated via
Horton’s curriculum at Highlander used that same curriculum when they returned to
their factories, farms, and mines to educate the masses of oppressed laborers.
The essence of Horton’s curriculum consists of labor workshops that last for
6 weeks, during which about 25 potential labor leaders interact under the careful
guidance of the Highlander staff. The labor workshops progress through three
loosely structured, but carefully guided, stages of group discussion. During the first
stage, participants “state and analyze their problems” in terms of their actual experi-
ences and collectively paint a picture of a society in which such problems do not exist
(Horton, 1966, p. 492). On the one hand, a feeling of commonality is established
among strangers as they share their personal experiences with each other while
developing an understanding of the social crisis. On the other hand, a feeling of shared
hope arises as participants develop a vision of an ideal society that they might help
construct in order to eradicate the problems of the existing society. At this stage, an
understanding of society both “as it is” and “as it ought to be” is generated as
Highlander staff help workshop participants reflect on their firsthand experiences with
labor problems. This means that workshop participants are required to have had
firsthand encounters with labor problems so that they can both contribute to the dis-
cussion from their own experienced perspectives and understand the experiences of
others. Persons without the required experience are sent to participate in labor strikes
and to live alongside exploited workers before they are allowed to join workshops.
During the second stage of workshops, participants discuss alternate strategies
that might be used to eradicate society’s problems and bring into existence an
improved society. On the one hand, participants are guided to engage in “a lot of
criticism, a lot of informal discussion . . . about how they’ve failed” and about “their
inability to achieve what they want to achieve” in light of their vision of a better society
(Horton, 1966, p. 492). This self-criticism allows for discussion of unsuccessful change
strategies, gives workshop participants insight into their shortcomings as leaders, and
frees participants from guilt over past failures. On the other hand, participants discuss
each other’s successes in working to overcome oppression and share possible new
methods of acting as social groups to bring into existence the envisioned new society—
such as massive strikes and sit-ins. During this workshop stage, Highlander
“staff . . . deliberately reinforce talk in the group that points to united social action”
versus individual action (Adams & Horton, 1975, p. 213), deliberately draw solutions
to social problems out of the experiences and thoughts of workshop participants
rather than those of outside experts, and deliberately examine these solutions in terms
of participants’ firsthand experiences rather than judge them theoretically. Important
here is that solutions come from the people and relate to the people, and that
the search for solutions becomes, itself, a group process. Without saying so, Highlander
provides an experience in group problem solving. The group stretches the imagination of
every individual in it and becomes the vehicle for introducing the concept of collective
power. (Adams & Horton, 1975, p. 214)
(Here the social medium of group process complements the social message of collec-
tive power.)
During the third stage of workshops, participants are led to synthesize what they
have learned and to commit themselves to action directed toward transforming the
existing crisis-ridden society into the future good society. Commitment to action,
strengthened through vows taken openly in front of colleagues, is central to this work-
shop stage. Participants commit to what they will do when they return home: both to
educating their fellow workers in the same way they were educated at Highlander and
to taking action that will help their fellow workers establish the envisioned good soci-
ety. It is through workshop participants’ going home to act that Horton disseminates
his curriculum and uses it to educate “the masses,” which make up society, to recon-
struct society.
Three things occur at all stages of the labor workshops. First, Highlander staff act
more as catalysts for and companions to workshop participants than as teachers or
authorities. They communicate with participants rather than lecture at them or about
them. Second, at no time does Horton present “a clearly defined program of action”
for those coming to Highlander to mindlessly learn and then follow when they return
home. He does not intend to teach such a program, for he believes that men must solve
their problems in the context in which they arise. Horton does provide a value-laden
vision of a new society and a method of deep reflection based on critical analysis of
social forces that allows people to understand their problems, to have hope that they
can be overcome, to plan ways of overcoming them, and to act to overcome them.
Crucial here is that the particular action people must take depends on the specific time,
place, and situation in which they find themselves—the value-laden vision guides their
action but does not dictate their action. Third, in all three stages of the labor work-
shops, Highlander staff make heavy use of social media, such as group discussions,
singing, storytelling, and drama, as a means of binding people together into social
groups, leading them to see their problems clearly, helping them envision a new soci-
ety, and inspiring them to action directed toward building a new social order. Scores of
labor plays and songs, including “We Shall Overcome,” were written or rewritten from
earlier traditional folk versions at Highlander in its attempt “to develop feelings and
will more than memory and logic” (Adams, 1972, p. 501). Education at Highlander is
thoroughly social in nature. It uses the means of human interaction during discussion
and song to educate and motivate, it promotes social rather than individual ways of
acting (advocating massive strikes and sit-ins), and it educates people to improve soci-
ety as a whole rather than themselves as individuals.
What Myles Horton did as a Social Reconstructionist in the 1930s and 1940s for
the labor movement could be done at other times and in other places with different
social crises. For example, during the 1950s and 1960s, Horton devoted his efforts to
the civil rights movement. The Citizenship Schools that sprang up throughout the
South and the sit-ins of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)
were programs that originated at Highlander. Although the issues and times were dif-
ferent, the method, vision, and purpose were the same: using interactional workshops
as a social means of “educating for a revolution that would basically alter economic
and political power relationships to the advantage of the poor and powerless.”
Sixth-Grade Social Reconstruction Mathematics

The mathematics instruction described here took place in middle school classrooms in
a large urban public school and was reported in Rethinking Mathematics (Gutstein &
Peterson, 2005). The goal was to teach mathematics in a way that would allow stu-
dents—many of them poor or members of minorities—to use mathematics to help
them notice social injustices in their world, analyze and understand these injustices,
plan ways of righting the injustices, and take action to bring about a more just world.
Projects
Students worked on numerous projects, including the following (Gutstein, 2005,
pp. 117–120):
• Saving Morningstar Park (save a park from a condo developer who wants to build a
parking lot in its place)
• Environmental Hazards (clean up a neighborhood toxic waste site after exploring EPA
data)
• School Overcrowding (measure school size and population and compare the results
with the size and population of other schools and state recommendations for space per
student)
• Liquor Store Distribution (compare the density of liquor stores in your urban neigh-
borhood to the density of liquor stores in the suburbs)
• World Wealth Distribution (compare world wealth distribution to continental
population)
• Cost of the Iraq War (compare war costs to the costs of providing shelter for everyone,
removing land mines, eliminating illiteracy, and providing safe drinking water worldwide)
• Random Traffic Stops (analyze police data for racial profiling)
Instructional Procedures
The procedures used in teaching each project were similar. Issues to be explored
arose from student concerns. Students participated in an initial discussion, during
which issues and values were highlighted and concerns to be explored were identified.
Students went on a field trip, engaged in a simulation, listened to a speaker, exchanged
personal experiences, role-played, watched a movie, or in some way experienced the
issue they were exploring in a manner that personally involved them in it and touched
them intellectually and emotionally. The teacher introduced the mathematics that
would help students collect and examine data related to the issue being investigated,
and then students gathered and analyzed data using the mathematics introduced by
the teacher. Referring to the results of their mathematical analyses, students held fur-
ther discussion in an attempt to better understand the issues and to clarify their stance
on them. As part of the discussion, students also attempted to understand themselves,
the ways social institutions and issues liberated or enslaved them, and how they could
become more powerful and influential in their world. Related problems were raised,
and, where appropriate, explored, with discussion following. If possible, class consen-
sus about the issue was formed. Students discussed the types of action that could be
taken to improve their world and worked to construct a collective vision of a more just
society. If they could, they took social action in their community to get its members to
support their social agendas and improve their world.
Examining these procedures gives insight into the Social Reconstruction ideology.
Start Where Students Are

All the middle school projects began as a result of problems that students brought
to school from experiences in their community, that the teacher identified based on
personal familiarity with the community, or that newspapers reported about events
that touched students’ lives. Saving Morningstar Park, Environmental Hazards, School
Overcrowding, Random Traffic Stops, and Liquor Store Distribution (students fre-
quently encountered drunks in front of liquor stores on their way to and from school)
resulted from student experiences in their neighborhood. World Wealth Distribution
was explored when discussions of poverty and hunger arose after UNICEF collections
at Halloween and Thanksgiving. Cost of the Iraq War arose from newspaper articles
the teacher brought to class in response to student concerns.
Personal Experience
An experience that intellectually and emotionally involved the children in an issue
and its related mathematics was part of each project. The experience set the stage for
the mathematical activities and discussions that followed. Children took field trips in
coordination with the Morningstar Park, Environmental Hazards, and School
Overcrowding projects. They shared personal experiences during the Liquor Store
Distribution project, participated in a simulation during the World Wealth Distribution
project, and did both during the Random Traffic Stops project.
Examining one of these experiences gives insight into classroom instructional
dynamics. The simulation used during World Wealth Distribution provides an exam-
ple. “The purpose of this activity is to . . . demonstrate . . . differences in wealth
between different areas of the world” (Hersh & Peterson, 2005, p. 64).
To begin the World Wealth Distribution simulation, students are paired. Each pair
is given a world map and asked to identify the continents. Students are also asked to
estimate the number of people in the world. After they make their estimate, they are
shown a current estimate in an almanac. Students are then given 24 chips (one for each
of the 24 students in the class) and asked, “How many people is each chip worth?”
(Hersh & Peterson, 2005, p. 64). (Students do the calculations: since there are about
6 billion people in the world, each chip represents about 250 million people.) Each pair
of students is now given 24 red chips and asked to stack them on continents based on
where they believe people reside. Next, student estimates are discussed, and then the
accurate figures are disclosed. Students do calculations, rearrange their chips to reflect
the data, and discuss what the stacks of chips tell them about the distribution of the
world’s population. Students are now given 24 blue chips, which “represent all the
wealth produced in the world,” and asked “to put the chips on the continents to indi-
cate their estimate of who gets this wealth” (p. 65). Student estimates are discussed, as
are the comparative sizes of the two stacks of chips on each continent.
The direction of the activity now changes. Each student chooses “an ‘I was born
in . . . ’ slip from a container labeled ‘chance of birth’” (Hersh & Peterson, 2005, p. 65).
Students are now taken to the playground, where a large map of the world has been
drawn with chalk, and are asked to stand on the continent in which their slip of paper
says they were born. The students on each continent designate one student as a nego-
tiator. Students are now told that the world’s wealth is going to be distributed. They are
also told that once the wealth is distributed, each group needs to discuss their situation.
Twenty-four chocolate chip cookies (each representing one twenty-fourth of the
world’s wealth) are now distributed to the continents in proportion to the way in
which wealth is distributed in the world. After group discussions, negotiators from
each continent visit other continents to try to find out what others received and to
negotiate for a more equitable distribution of resources. Negotiators return to their
respective continents for discussion, and then another round of negotiation begins—
with some students pleading for a more equitable distribution of cookies. Negotiators
then return to their continents and discuss the results of their negotiations; trading
and donation of resources take place; students begin eating cookies; and, while eating,
they begin to discuss (with a great deal of emotion) what they think of the way the
world’s resources are distributed. Students then fill out a work sheet in which percent-
ages need to be calculated: the work sheet contains seven columns for continents,
population, percentage of world population per continent, number of students in class
(24) on each continent, wealth (GNP) of each continent, percentage of world GNP per
continent, and number of cookies (out of 24) each continent received. Students also
construct graphs that depict different aspects of their data using percentages, fractions,
and decimals.
Intense Discussion
Group discussion is an important Social Reconstruction instructional method. In
exploring an issue such as world wealth distribution, a discussion allows students to
expose their thoughts and values to each other, have their thoughts and values chal-
lenged, and reconstruct their thoughts and values in light of insights obtained from the
discussion and any group consensus that might arise from it. Students’ personal expe-
riences with an issue and their mathematical analyses of it provide the substance for
the discussion. For example, when students finish the World Wealth Distribution
simulation and complete their calculations and graphs, the teacher leads a whole-class
discussion during which students discuss the following types of questions: How do you
feel about the unequal distribution of world wealth? How does the inequality of wealth
affect the kinds of lives people lead? “Should wealth be distributed equally?” “How does
the unequal distribution of wealth affect the power that groups of people hold?” and
“What can be done about the unequal way wealth is distributed?” (Hersh & Peterson,
2005, p. 66). During the discussion, information is exchanged, injustices are high-
lighted, values are clarified, feelings are expressed, solutions to problems are suggested,
and alternative solutions are assessed. After the discussion, “students write an essay
about their feelings, what they learned, what questions they continue to have, and what
they might want to do about world poverty” (p. 66). Media other than the written
word—such as sociodrama, singing, painting, and dance—are frequently used to
express student thoughts and feelings.
Follow-Up
Follow-up activities examine related problems that can be analyzed using the
mathematics introduced in the initial activity. These activities provide practice for
both social analysis and mathematical development, and they allow students to explore
even more deeply their meanings, their values, the ways in which social institutions
and events liberate or enslave them, and how they might become more powerful actors
in their world. For example, World Wealth Distribution was followed up using news-
paper data about the unequal distribution of wealth in America, unemployment trends
in the U.S., and the hiring of 10,000 workers by a new company in the students’ neigh-
borhood (students compared the racial distribution of company workers and their
neighborhood population; Peterson, 2005, p. 13).
Teaching mathematics using simulations, discussion, and follow-up activities that
foster continuing discussion at ever deeper levels can be powerful. The teacher com-
ments about World Wealth Distribution as follows:
Not only does such a lesson connect math to human beings and social reality, it does so
in a way that goes beyond paper and pencil exercises; it truly brings math to life. I could
simply tell my students about the world’s unequal distribution of wealth, but that
wouldn’t have the same emotional impact as seeing classmates in the North American and
European sections of the map get so many more cookies even though they have so many
fewer people.
I have found that as a result of [using activities such as World Wealth Distribution
that] . . . my students’ interest and skill in math have increased, both in terms of their
understanding of basic concepts and their ability to solve problems. Furthermore, they can
better clarify social issues, understand the structures of society, and offer options for better
social policies. . . . Kids need every tool they can get to make this world—their world—a
better place. Mathematics is one very important tool. (Peterson, 2005, pp. 13, 15)
Vision and Social Action

In all of the above projects, students not only experienced, analyzed, and discussed
social situations, but they also discussed how they could improve their world and,
where feasible, took action to do so. Discussing how to improve one’s world involved
understanding a problem, examining options for improvement, clarifying values, tak-
ing a value stance, making a commitment, forming a group vision (or several visions,
if differing opinions existed) of what a more just world might look like, and deciding
what social action or actions should be taken to correct the problem. As part of this
process, students wrote reports on their opinions about the social justice issues
involved in each project and how these injustices might be rectified. Students’ discus-
sion of how they might improve their world was paralleled by discussion of how they
might improve themselves; their meanings, thoughts, and values; and their ability to
act with power, effectiveness, and wisdom in their world.
Social action directed toward making the world a better place included students’
attempts to convince their families and community to support their endeavors and
take the action necessary to mitigate existing problems. For some projects, students
shared their opinions about the issues with family and friends, collected data on their
family and friends’ opinions before and after sharing their own opinions, and then,
back in the classroom, aggregated the data they had collected using graphs and data
analysis in such a way that they could see the results of sharing their opinions.
Student social action during the Environmental Hazards project created such a com-
munity uproar that it resulted in the elimination of neighborhood toxic waste. When
students discovered that their school was overcrowded, they created and distributed fly-
ers, made a poster displaying their findings, shared their findings with the school district,
and gave a presentation to their school advisory council. Letters and reports were deliv-
ered to newspapers and city offices on issues such as liquor store licenses, racial profiling,
and the number of college scholarships that could be given for the cost of one B-2
bomber used in the Iraq War. Students shared with children in earlier grades the results
of their mathematical inquiries (including their graphs and data analysis) regarding
world wealth distribution and other social concerns—which involved teaching younger
children mathematics and showing them how it could help them better understand their
world. Action taken to reconstruct society followed and reflected action students took to
reconstruct themselves as part of class discussions and experiences.
Academics
All the projects involved mathematics presented in the school curriculum: calcula-
tion with integers, decimals, and percents; graphing and algebra; probability and sta-
tistics; measurement and data analysis; mathematical reasoning, problem solving,
communication, and representation; and the formation of mathematical connections.
The teacher reported that students learned the mathematics faster and with greater
understanding because it was relevant to their lives and because they saw how it gave
them insight into their world and power to influence events.
When asked whether it is appropriate to interject social or political issues into math-
ematics instruction or whether mathematics teachers and curriculum should remain
neutral, the teacher’s response was that “teaching math in a neutral manner is not pos-
sible. No math teaching—no teaching of any kind, for that matter—is actually ‘neutral’”
(Gutstein & Peterson, 2005, p. 6). For example, compare these two word problems:
A 14-year-old girl goes into a store and purchases 12 candy bars. Each candy bar costs 43
cents. How much does she spend?
A 14-year-old factory worker in Central America makes children’s clothing for Wal-Mart.
She earns 43 cents an hour and works 12 hours each day. How much money does she make
in one day?
The teacher continued,
While both problems are valid examples of applying multi-digit multiplication, each has
more to say as well. The first example has a subtext of consumerism and unhealthy eating
habits; the second has an explicit text of global awareness and empathy. Both are political,
in that each highlights important social relations.
When teachers fail to include math problems that help students confront important
global issues, or when they don’t bring out the underlying implications of problems like the
first example here, these are political choices, whether the teachers recognize them as such
or not. These choices teach students three things:
They suggest that politics are not relevant to everyday situations.

They cast mathematics as having no role in understanding social injustice and power
imbalances.
They provide students with no experience using math to make sense of, and try to
change, unjust situations.
These all contribute to disempowering students and are objectively political acts, though
not necessarily conscious ones. (Gutstein & Peterson, p. 6)
It is important to note that the “reconstruction of the curriculum” required for

teaching courses such as the mathematics class just described
would not call for the addition of new subjects. Indeed, to superficial observation, perhaps
no important changes would be discernible. The same disciplines would be
taught. . . . Children would learn to read and write and figure; they would work and play
together. But the . . . orientation would be different. . . . [T]he emphasis everywhere would
be placed on the social and co-operative. . . . [S]ubject matter composing the curriculum
would be given a social meaning. (Counts, 1934, pp. 544–546)
In addition to being given social meaning and being placed in a value-laden social
context, academic content is treated in an interdisciplinary manner, with content from
different disciplines being integrated together rather than being held apart.
Society and Reconstruction
Social Perspective
Social Reconstructionists view their world from a social perspective. The nature of
society as it has been, as it is, and as it should be determines most of their concepts and
assumptions. For example, human experience, education, truth, and knowledge are
socially defined. Human experience is believed to be fundamentally shaped by cultural
factors; meaning in people’s lives is defined in terms of their relationship to society.
Education is viewed as a function of the society that supports it and is defined in the
context of a particular culture. Truth and knowledge are defined by cultural assump-
tions; they are idiosyncratic to each society and testable according to criteria based in
social consensus rather than empiricism or logic.
As a result, Social Reconstructionists believe that “there is no good individual
apart from some conception of the nature of the good society. Man without human
society and human culture is not man” (Counts, 1932a, p. 258). They believe that
“there is also no good education apart from some conception of the nature of the good
society. Education is not some pure and mystical essence that remains unchanged from
everlasting to everlasting” (p. 258). They believe that there is no truth or knowledge
apart from some conception of the nature of the good society; “and the good society
is not something that is given by nature: it must be fashioned by the hand and brain of
man” (Counts, 1932b, p. 15). Important here is the belief in cultural relativity. The
“good individual,” the “good education,” and “truth and knowledge” are defined by a
particular culture, and the only thing that gives them either meaning or value is the
existence of that culture in a particular time and place. Counts (1934) affirms this:
The historical record shows that education is always a function of time, place, and circum-
stance. In its basic philosophy, its social objective, and its program of instruction, it inevi-
tably reflects . . . the experiences, the condition, and the hopes, fears, and aspirations of a
particular people . . . at a particular point in history. . . . [I]t is never organized and con-
ducted with sole reference to absolute and universal terms. . . . [E]ducation as a whole is
always relative. . . . There can be no all-embracing educational philosophy, policy, or pro-
gram suited to all cultures and all ages. (p. 1)
Since society is considered to be currently undergoing a crisis, it follows that its

conception of the good man, the good education, and truth and knowledge are also
undergoing a crisis. For stability to return, a vision of a good society must be devel-
oped. Conceptions of the good man, the good education, and truth and knowledge will
be derived from that vision. As individuals reconstruct themselves based on their
vision, they act on society so as to bring into existence new conceptions of the good
man, the good education, and truth and knowledge; and from the reconstruction of
society in accordance with the vision comes the actualization of these conceptions.
Deep Social Structures

Underlying the dynamics of society and schools are deep social structures that
shape and determine human behavior.
When examining, analyzing, and comprehending society, Social Reconstructionists
often connect social phenomena to concepts such as colonial Eurocentric conceptions
of knowledge, culture, social class, and values. For example, when dealing with social
problems, these educators are frequently concerned about how such things as “ine-
qualities, power, and human suffering are rooted in basic institutional structures”
(Giroux, 2005, p. 21).
When looking at schools, Social Reconstructionists frequently focus on hidden
aspects of the curriculum that invisibly shape human relationships and behavior. Here
their perspective might lead them to, for example, examine “schools . . . as part of the
existing social and political fabric that characterizes the class-driven dominant society”
(McLaren, 2007, p. 18); view “schooling as a resolutely political and cultural enterprise”
(p. 187); analyze “schools . . . as sorting mechanisms in which select groups of students
are favored on the basis of race, class, and gender” (p. 187); or discuss schools as insti-
tutions that “perpetuate or reproduce the social relationships and attitudes needed
to sustain the existing dominant economic and class relations of the larger society”
(pp. 214–215). As McLaren emphasizes,
the traditional view of classroom instruction and learning as a neutral process antisepti-
cally removed from the concepts of power, politics, history, and context can no longer be
credibly endorsed. . . . [R]esearchers have given primacy to the social, the cultural, the
political, and the economic, in order to better understand the workings of contemporary
schooling. (p. 187)
The Individual in Society

Social Reconstructionists’ concern is primarily the forces at work in society that
shape human experience and secondarily the individuals at work who shape society
(although both function together). They focus on economic, political, social, and edu-
cational forces that control the impact on individuals in society of such varied things
as social class, cultural and linguistic heritage, moral trends, and aesthetic movements.
Causal explanations proceed from the dynamics of society as a whole to the dynamics
of social subgroups to the individual. In this context, individuals are viewed as fulfill-
ing their potential in relationship to social groups, in interaction with other individu-
als, and as part of human communities. This does not mean that man is a creature of
social determinism. Man is shaped by society and man can shape society. In fact,
individuals must first reconstruct themselves before they can reconstruct society.
However, interpretations and intentions are expressed with respect to social groups
rather than individuals.
Society, Change, and Crisis

The Social Reconstruction view of society is one of historical evolution: societies
pass through periods of development, stability, and degeneration. One of the prime
characteristics of our society is that it is undergoing change that threatens its survival.
Whether because of technological, economic, political, cultural, racial, or psychologi-
cal factors, many of our society’s problem solving strategies and institutions are dys-
functional. If society fails to detect that its problem solving strategies and institutions
are dysfunctional, these strategies and institutions will become threats to its survival.
The situation of society, however, is full of promise as well as menace. The changes
wrought on society by its internal dynamics have extended the limits previously set by
its structure so that, as Counts said, “there lies within our grasp the most humane, the
most beautiful, and the most majestic civilization ever fashioned by any people.” The
possibility to significantly improve the total human condition lies within reach.
Hope exists, for it is believed that there is no deterministic, metaphysical design
that prescribes the history of a society, even though societies are largely formed and
limited by the characteristics of the period in which they exist. Society hammers out
its own history through the thoughts and struggles of its members: “The course it takes
and the goals it attains depend wholly upon the choice made and the failures and suc-
cesses experienced by man” (Brameld, 1956, pp. 60–61). As a result, the evolution of
society is “bound merely by our ideals, our power of self discipline, and by our ability
to devise social arrangements suited to” our situation (Counts, 1932a, p. 260).
Reconstruction and Vision

Faced with the crises of society, Social Reconstructionists devise a vision of a new,
better society that lacks its existing problems. They then develop educational programs
that allow people to see the differences between the crisis-ridden present society and
the future “good” society in such a way that it motivates them to transform the current
society into the future one.
Social Reconstructionists do not accept current societal conditions as unalterable

“givens.” Nor do they accept present social conditions as factors to be improved
through simple tinkering. They reject certain aspects of the present crisis-ridden soci-
ety, and they attempt to build a new society out of the existing one rather than attempt
to perfect the best aspects of the existing society in hopes that this will make the pre-
sent society more just and equitable. They seek to provide “for qualitatively better life
for all through the construction of a society based on nonexploitative relations and
social justice” (McLaren, 2007, p. 195).
In assuming that the way to overcome the present social crisis is to envision and
implement a future better society, Social Reconstructionists assume that people need a
“compelling and challenging vision of human destiny” (Counts, 1932a, p. 259) that
points the way to better social conditions:
The times are literally crying for a new vision of American destiny. . . . Such a vision of
what America might become . . . I would introduce into our schools as the supreme impo-
sition . . . one to which our children are entitled—a priceless legacy which . . . should be the
first concern of our [educational] profession to fashion and bequeath. . . . To refuse to face
the task of creating a vision of a future America immeasurably more just and noble and
beautiful than the America of today is to evade the most crucial, difficult, and important
educational task. (Counts, 1932b, pp. 54–55)
The Social Reconstruction vision of the future good society has several character-
istics. First, it is not a finished vision that portrays in precise detail a utopia in its ulti-
mate state, but rather a vision of direction that points to the way society must move
toward reconstruction. It is “a vision of the possibilities which lie ahead” (Counts,
1932b, p. 37) rather than the endpoint which society should reach in order to achieve
perfection (Freire, 1992, p. 175).
Second, the vision does not prescribe a specific program of action that dictates
how it is to be achieved. The situations in which people find themselves determine
this. The vision is a general one that provides values and directions, not a blueprint
that specifies exactly how to build the future good society. This is as it should be,
given the Social Reconstruction belief in social relativity and the uniqueness of the
particular “time, place, and circumstances” in which people find themselves
(Counts, 1934, p. 1).
Third, the vision of the future good society is created in response to existing social
conditions. As such, it embodies both a picture of reality as it is and a vision of reality
as it ought to be. Its power lies in its ability both to offer people salvation from an
intolerable reality, reality as it is, and to offer them a vision of life as it should be.
Understanding the vision requires that one understand society as it is in order to fully
appreciate society as it ought to be.
Fourth, the Social Reconstruction vision is a social rather than individual vision.
It is a “public vision of self- and social empowerment,” a “vision . . . that extend[s] the
principles of liberty, equality, justice, and freedom to the widest possible set of institu-
tional and lived relations” (Giroux, 2005, p. 74). It is a vision that allows the masses,
which comprise society, to overcome their problems together and to collectively
achieve the good life. It is not a vision that allows certain individuals to achieve the
good life and escape from their problems at the expense of others.
The Social Reconstruction vision of the future good society helps people recon-
struct society in several ways.
• The vision allows people from diverse situations to rise above their particular circum-
stances to see social crises as a whole (as, for example, when African Americans,
Mexican Americans, and Native Americans see that they are all oppressed), allows them
to share a common vision of a better life, and allows them to act together to meet com-
mon needs and to collectively better themselves and improve society as a whole (Apple,
1996, pp. 14–15).
• The vision offers people an alternative to and the possibility of escape from their crisis-
ridden society through “a language of possibility . . . [that] goes beyond critique,” “a
positive language of human empowerment” (Giroux, 1992, p. 10). Without the percep-
tion that their oppression can be overcome and without a language that allows them to
speak about overcoming their oppression, people would not be able to wage the struggle
to reconstruct their society.
• The vision has inherent values that enable people to see their problems as solvable
rather than to simply accept them as innate characteristics of their world. For exam-
ple, someone who places no value on freedom would not see the lack of it as a
problem. Educating people to value freedom prepares the way for dissatisfaction
that can lead to action. The vision educates people to see problems and to see them
as solvable.
• The vision offers people the hope of something better, hope that can motivate them to
act in ways not normal for them. As Freire (1997) says, “without a vision for tomorrow,
hope is impossible” (p. 45), and any “attempt to do without hope, in the struggle to
improve the world, as if that struggle could be reduced to calculated acts alone, or a
purely scientific approach, is a frivolous illusion” (1992, p. 2). Giving people hope and
courage that allow them to step outside their normal social roles is crucial in motivating
them to overcome their social problems, problems that so frequently trap them in hope-
lessness and ignorance (Greene, 1988, p. 25).
• The vision gives people clear long-range goals that offer direction to their thinking so
that they do not become distracted from their reconstruction endeavors by the imme-
diacies of daily life. Short-range and vaguely defined goals will not suffice, for “it is now
imperative that we know where we want to go . . . because, so long as we do not know
we shall be unprepared to go there” (Brameld, 1956, p. 76).
• The vision of the future good society defines the nature of the good individual, the good
education, and worthwhile truth and knowledge. Without the ability to identify these,
people would not be able to cultivate them and make them multiply in ways that help
reconstruct society.
The emphasis on developing a vision of a good society leads Social Reconstruc-

tionists to utopianism. Here the distinction must be made between utopias of escape
and utopias of social reconstruction. The first leaves society the way it is as small
groups or individuals escape from it; the second seeks to change society so that people
can live in it and interact with it on their own terms (Mumford, 1933, p. 15). Social
Reconstruction visions are utopias of social reconstruction.
Social Dynamics
In viewing society in its stark reality, Social Reconstructionists usually identify
three social subgroups: the “bad guys,” the “good guys,” and the “masses.” Freire (1970)
calls the good guys and the bad guys the “oppressed” and the “oppressors.” McLaren
(2007) calls them the “subordinate” and the “dominant” social classes (pp. 211–212).
Both the bad guys and the good guys are smaller groups who attempt to control the
masses. The bad guys perpetuate the status quo by supporting ideas and institutions
suited to a bygone age in order to selfishly exploit the masses. The good guys are
future-oriented forces attempting to bring into existence a better and more just society
run for the benefit of the masses. In 1956, Brameld made explicit this view of social
dynamics:
If the reconstructionist is prepared to argue that he is the minority spokesman for values
that are already cherished by the majority, whether consciously or not, he is equally pre-
pared to show that another minority actually dominates the majority. This is the minority
that now so largely controls the instruments of power and that has succeeded in persuading
the majority that their own interests are best served by perpetuating those controls . . . in
behalf of continued scarcity, chronic insecurity, frustration, and war. In this sense, indeed,
one may say that the great political struggle that goes on in our democracy is not, after all,
one between the majority and a minority . . . it is between at least two organized minorities.
One minority is concerned with widening. . . . The opposing minority works to nar-
row . . . (pp. 129–130)
Note several assumptions in this statement. First, the good guys are out of power
and the bad guys are in control of the masses. Responsibility for the ills of society falls
solely upon the shoulders of the bad guys.
Second, the good guys are “the minority spokesmen for values that are already
cherished by the majority, whether consciously or not [italics added]” (Brameld, 1956,
p. 129). This assumption leads to belief in a hierarchical set of values—where some
values are better than others—and to several other beliefs: that the good guys possess
the truth as represented in their better values; that those values are good for the masses
whether they are conscious of it or not; that it is permissible to educate the masses as
one chooses, since one knows what is really good for them; and that it is permissible
to control and manipulate the masses so long as it is for their own good.
Third, society is engaged in a “great political struggle,” with the good and bad guys
waging war over the masses. As McLaren and Giroux (1997) exclaim, “educators need
to wage nothing less than war in the interest of the sacredness of human life, collective
dignity for the wretched of the earth, and the right to live in peace and harmony”
(p. 13). This is a holy war, a great crusade in which good battles evil over value-laden
issues. Further, education and the school are weapons to be used in the war.
Fourth, the war’s emphasis is on forming a single, unified “group mind” that
agrees upon what the true values of society are and what the vision of the future good
society should be (Brameld, 1956, p. 247).
Underlying this view of social dynamics are several other suppositions. Only the
“oppressed” are the ones who can find within themselves the strength and vision to
rectify the problems of society. They do so because of the pain of the social injustices
they feel and their innate impulse to be recognized as fully human and to be treated as
such. The powerful and privileged of society cannot find the strength to transform
society into a more just and egalitarian institution because they cannot see human
equality to be in their vested interest. In improving their social conditions, the
oppressed correct some of the problems of society, and in so doing make society a bet-
ter place for everyone to live in (Freire, 1970). (For example, in the U.S. a century ago,
only a few women struggled for equal rights because they felt the pain of inequality,
but now that conditions have improved for women, we all benefit.)
Reconstruction Through Education

Education takes place in many locations, including the family, community, and school.
Social Reconstructionists want to influence how education takes place in all of these
locations and believe that it is the job of educators to do so. However, it is in the school
where educators focus their endeavors—whether the school is located in a school
building, home, factory, or park.
The School as the Institution of Change

Social Reconstructionists dedicate themselves to the reconstruction of society.
Their approach consists of analyzing and understanding society, constructing a vision
of an improved society, and acting to transform the existing society into a better one.
This approach is embedded in school curricula that are taught to students. Schools
then become the social institution through which leadership is provided and action is
initiated to reconstruct society.
Education, thus, has the role of preparing people to transform society. To accom-
plish this, educators
should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest. . . . To the
extent that they are permitted to fashion the curriculum and the procedures of the school
they will definitely and positively influence the social attitudes, ideals, and behaviors of the
coming generation (Counts, 1932b, pp. 28–29)
and through them enable the masses of society to reconstruct themselves. By doing so,
they will reconstruct society.
This requires educators to assume new roles and functions, for at present they are
meek followers of social consensus rather than dynamic leaders who mold social
beliefs and values. This means that “instead of shunning power, the profession [of
education] should rather seek power and then strive to use that power fully and wisely
and in the interests of the great masses of the people” (Counts, 1932b, pp. 29–30), for
“if the schools are to be really effective, they must become centers for the building, and
not merely for the contemplation of our civilization” (p. 37). Schools must
face squarely and courageously every social issue, come to grips with life in all of its stark reality,
establish an organic relation with the community, develop a realistic and comprehensive theory
of welfare, fashion a compelling and challenging vision of human destiny, and become some-
what less frightened than . . . [they are] today of the bogeys of imposition and indoctrination.
(Counts, 1932a, p. 259)
For this to be accomplished, current conceptions of education (which view

schools as transmitters of established disciplinary knowledge and social values) must
be reconceptualized so that they are in phase with a vision of the future based in con-
cepts of social justice and human empowerment and so that they prepare students to
live in and to transform our current society into the envisioned future society. Schools
will then be catalysts that stimulate the reconstruction of society.
Education as a Social Process

Social Reconstructionists want to reconstruct society through social processes.
Their first concern is the education of the group and their second the education of the
individual. From this perspective, learning experiences are construed to be group expe-
riences that take place through human interaction, and the focus is on the “group
mind” rather than the “individual mind.” As Freire (1970) writes, “in this theory of
action one cannot speak of an actor, nor simply of actors, but rather of actors in inter-
communication” (p. 123). Individuals are critical to the ideology, for it is through the
reconstruction of individuals that one reconstructs society. However, the education of
individuals is viewed as achievable primarily through group-centered, social processes.
Here one speaks of social self-realization for both the society and individuals, not
of individual self-realization. Here social consensus plays a central role, for it is
believed that once social consensus is reached about the nature of current society and
the vision for the future society, it will be possible for the masses to reconstruct society.
The aim is to fashion, through education, a social consensus among the masses which
will by majority rule force society to align itself with the vision of the future good
society and eradicate current social ills. It is through the creation of social consensus
that educators hope to achieve social reconstruction both by and for society.
Educational Methods: Group Discussion and Experience

Two of the primary instructional methods used by Social Reconstructionists are
the discussion and experience methods. Both depend on having students learn indi-
rectly through social media and are part of the hidden curriculum of the ideology.
The discussion method involves engaging students in conversations with their
peers, during which teachers elicit from them their thoughts and feelings. The
discussion process allows teachers to get students to expose their meanings to the
group so that the group—under the guidance of the teacher—can help them
reconstruct their meanings. During discussions, the teacher provides the rules for
discussion, the desired social perspective and values, and the model for the modes
of thinking in which students are to engage. The instructive function is embedded
in the language, questions, evidence, value judgments, modes of argumentation,
and criteria of relevance the teacher uses during discussion and urges students to
use by example. Here, it is primarily through the medium of the discussion process
rather than through the message (or topic) of discussion that instruction takes
place.
Many forms of the discussion method exist. Values clarification was popular dur-
ing the 1970s. By the end of the 20th century, critical analysis, which includes both a
“language of critique” and a “language of possibility” and is part of critical pedagogy
(Giroux, 2006, pp. 4–5), had become popular.
The experience method involves placing students in an environment where they
encounter a social crisis. Students learn about the social crisis both from those who
usually function in that environment and from their teacher. The people who normally
function in the environment share with students their attitudes, values, modes of per-
ception and interpretation, and worldview regarding the social crisis being examined.
The teacher acts as a counselor and discussion leader who provides instructional
opportunities during which students can share, discuss, reflect on, and construct
meaning about their experiences. This instructional method uses something like a
combination of group therapy and an apprenticeship system to introduce students to
an educator’s view of a social crisis and vision of a future utopia. During the experience
method, the teacher is not an imparter of information but a colleague who can be
trusted and confided in as a friend. This puts the teacher and students on the same side
of the experience and facilitates the sharing of experiences, knowledge, meanings, feel-
ings, values, and visions.
Students can be provided with many types of experiences with social crises. They
can participate in public protests or demonstrations, paint a school in a depressed
urban or rural community, clean up trash-ridden parks or streams, visit elderly adults
in nursing homes, work in shelters for battered women or the homeless, or help the
poor in food pantries or soup kitchens.
Education and Language

Underlying both the discussion and experience methods is a belief in the crucial
role that language plays in education and social reconstruction. As McLaren and
Giroux (1997) emphasize, “knowledge . . . is a social construction” that takes place
largely through language, “which means that the world we inhabit as individuals is
constructed symbolically by the mind (and body) through social interaction” (p. 27).
Further, “the nature of the language we use determines how we make sense of our
experiences and the type of social action we choose to engage in as a result of interpret-
ing our experiences” (p. 21). In addition, “language . . . is always situated within ideol-
ogy and power/ knowledge relations,” which means that “meanings of any event or
experience are only available through the language selected by the particular interpre-
tive community wishing to render such event intelligible” (p. 22). As a result, “the
struggle over how to name and transform experience [through language] is one of the
most critical issues in . . . the fight for social change” (p. 26), for
the purpose of developing a critical language . . . is not to describe the world more objectively,
but to create a more ethically empowering world which encourages a greater awareness of the
way in which power can be mobilized for the purposes of human liberation. (p. 21)
Education and Social Change

The question of how Social Reconstructionists—whose views are held by a minor-
ity within society—are to convince society what is best for it and thus bring into exist-
ence the desired social consensus raises questions about the civic responsibility of
educators to the society they serve, educators’ engagement in politics, and the sociali-
zation, acculturation, or indoctrination of a social majority by a minority. These ques-
tions arise because Social Reconstructionists believe that their insight into the nature
of society and what is good for the masses is superior to and different from that of the
masses, and because they believe that it is their job to transform society’s knowledge
base and values so that they agree with theirs.
Civic Responsibility
Do educators have the right to attempt to change the social patterns of a culture
without the permission of its members? Do educators have the right to teach children to
live in a world that might be different from that of their parents, and of which their par-
ents might not approve? What responsibility do educators have to the society they serve?
In other words, “are schools to uncritically serve and reproduce the existing society
or challenge the social order to develop and advance its democratic imperatives?”
(Giroux, 1992, p. 18). Giroux’s answer to this question is simple: “I opt for the lat-
ter. . . . I believe that schools should function to provide students with the knowledge,
character, and moral vision that build civic courage” (p. 18) in a manner that leads to
the reconstruction of society in accordance with “the principles and practices of
human dignity, liberty, and social justice” (p. 8).
From the Social Reconstruction perspective, educators have the responsibility to go
beyond simply reflecting the wishes of society and to do what is best for society. In fact,
“representing as they do, not the interests of the moment or of any special class, but rather
the common and abiding interests of the people, [educators and] teachers are under heavy
social obligation to protect and further those interests” (Counts, 1932b, p. 29). If this
involves educating a culture’s children in such a way that they will reject parts of the existing
culture, then it is necessary to do so for the good of the culture. The role of educators in
this time of crisis is different from the roles they have had in the past. No longer are educa-
tors simply charged with the responsibility of inculcating in children the myths of their
society or developing in children their ability to dispassionately analyze social history. They
must take a stance with respect to the current social crisis and educate students in such a
way that they, too, work to reconstruct society. This means that education must be
a form of social action. . . . [T]he educator fails . . . if he refuses to step out of academic
cloisters, . . . reject the role of a disinterested spectator, take an active part in shaping events,
make selections among social values, and adopt, however tentatively and broadly, some
conception of social welfare. (Counts, 1934, pp. 2–3)
Education and Politics

As actors within a “form of social action,” Social Reconstructionists engage in
political action with a clearly defined set of values and an ethical stance. A Social
Reconstruction educator “makes no claim to political neutrality” (McLaren, 2007,

p. 31) and unabashedly accepts that “no curriculum, policy, or program is ideologically
or politically innocent, and that the concept of the curriculum is inextricably related
to issues of social class, culture, gender, and power” (p. 213). This is because it is
assumed that
schooling always represents an introduction to, preparation for, and legitimization of par-
ticular forms of social life. It is always implicated in relations of power, social practices, and
the favoring of forms of knowledge that support a specific vision of past, present, and
future. (p. 188)
This is a surprise to many educators. As Freire (1987) emphasizes, “this is a great dis-
covery, education is politics!” (p. 46). Social Reconstruction education is political for
numerous reasons, including the following, which Giroux describes:
At best it teaches students to think critically about the knowledge they gain, and what it
means to recognize antidemocratic forms of power and to fight substantive injustices in a
world marked by deep inequalities. (2006, p. 8)
[It] create[s] new forms of knowledge through its emphasis on breaking down discipli-
nary boundaries. . . . This is . . . an . . . issue . . . of power, ethics, and politics. . . . At stake
here is . . . [the provision of] knowledge, skills, and habits for students . . . [that allow
them] to read history in ways that enable them to reclaim their identities in the interests of
constructing more democratic and just forms of life. (2005, p. 69)
[It emphasizes] the intellectual, emotional, and ethical investments we make as part of
our attempt to negotiate, accommodate, and transform the world in which we find our-
selves. The purpose and vision that drives such a pedagogy must be based on a politics and
view of authority, that links teaching and learning to forms of self- and social empower-
ment . . . that extend the principles of liberty, equality, justice, and freedom to the widest
possible set of institution[s and people]. (2005, p. 74)
While embracing their political agendas, Social Reconstructionists emphasize that

all educators promote one political agenda or another. If educators’ instructional
efforts are not directed toward social reconstruction, then they are directed toward
social maintenance—which is simply the opposite side of the political agenda.
Education and Socialization

To accomplish what they believe is best for society, Social Reconstructionists use
whatever means that they require, that society will tolerate, and that their visions will
support. But the means one uses to accomplish preconceived ends—as inherent in the
educator’s vision of the future good society—raises the question of social accultura-
tion and imposition.
Many educators are fearful of the phrase “social acculturation” (or “imposition”)
because they believe that it implies changing people’s values and social perspectives in
a manner that they are not fully conscious of and without their prior agreement
through the use of subconscious educational processes. This is not its meaning for
Social Reconstructionists. For them, socially acculturating students means deliberately
socializing them, accepting the biased values that underlie all socialization and educa-
tional processes. Those who are afraid of the phrase “social acculturation” or “social
imposition” often wish to replace it with either “socialize” or “educate.”
Do educators have the right to convince students of their values, views of current
day social crises, and visions of the future good society, either with or without their
consent? The answer for early Social Reconstruction educators during the 1930s was
“Yes!” Education must “become less frightened than it is today of the bogies of imposi-
tion and indoctrination” and deliberately use them openly and forthrightly during
instruction (Counts, 1932b, pp. 9–10).
There are many reasons why Social Reconstructionists condone the use of social
acculturation (or imposition). Central to them all is the belief that social acculturation
is unavoidable and that education cannot avoid being biased. Social Reconstructionists
believe that social acculturation is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.
As Counts (1932b) phrases it,
the most crucial of all circumstances conditioning human life is birth into a particular
culture. By birth one becomes a Chinese, an Englishman, a Hottentot, a Sioux Indian, a
Turk, or a[n] . . . American. . . . By being nurtured on a body of culture, however . . . the
individual is at once imposed upon [and acculturated]. (p. 13)
To grow from infancy to adulthood in a culture is to become socialized into and by that
culture. In fact, “the induction of the immature individual into the life of the group”
through the process of socialization is the traditional role of the school (Counts, 1934,
p. 536). In inducting “the immature individual into the life of the group,” education
“stands at the focal point in the process of cultural evolution—at the point of contact
between the older and the younger generation where values are selected and rejected”
(p. 532). As such, the school necessarily acts as an agent of society in acculturating the
child into society:
I am prepared to defend the thesis that all education contains a large element of imposi-
tion, that in the very nature of the case this is inevitable, that the existence and evolution
of society depend upon it, that it is consequently eminently desirable, and that the frank
acceptance of this fact by the educator is a major professional obligation. I even contend
that the failure to do this involves the clothing of one’s own deepest prejudices in the garb
of universal truth. (Counts, 1932b, p. 12)
From the Social Reconstruction perspective, bias and partiality are inherent in the
very nature of education. The questions teachers ask, the language teachers use, the
social interactions acceptable in school (e.g., respect for teachers), and the hidden cur-
ricula of schools (e.g., expectations for work-related behavior of children from differ-
ent economic classes; Anyon, 1980) all have social biases embedded in them. Questions
of what to teach, what to expect of students, where to teach, and how to teach all
involve value decisions that make impartiality impossible. Social Reconstructionists
believe educators who consider themselves impartial and neutral transmitters of
instruction to be ignorant of the nature of their endeavors.
What is really at issue is not whether social acculturation or imposition will take
place in schools or whether schools will be biased. The question is whether a social
minority should use education for purposes other than those of simply getting the
individual to fit into and adjust to society as it is. The Social Reconstructionists’ answer
is clear: “Neutrality with respect to the great issues that agitate society, while perhaps
theoretically possible, is practically tantamount to giving support to the forces of con-
servatism” (Counts, 1932b, p. 54). And to give support to the forces of conservatism is
to perpetuate the existing social crisis that threatens society’s very existence. The fol-
lowing statement by George Counts (1934) gives the flavor of one way in which social
bias could be introduced into the school:
The several divisions of subject matter composing the curriculum would all be given a
social meaning. . . . [For example, g]eography would be taught and studied, not merely as
a body of information useful and interesting to the individual, but as the physical basis for
the building of a finer civilization and culture. The natural resources of the nation would
actually be regarded as possessions of the nation—as the source of a richer and more abun-
dant common life, rather than as fields for the operation of profit-seeking enterprise and
the accumulation of great private fortunes. . . . All of the subjects of study would be inte-
grated by the might and challenging conception of the building of a great . . . civilization
conceived in terms of the widest interests of the masses. (p. 546)
Note that school subjects are still taught, but for purposes of understanding and recon-
structing society rather than for purposes inherent in the school subjects themselves.
What needs to be explicitly stated is that Social Reconstructionists do not want to
simply program learners’ minds or fill them with a specific collection of facts and
concepts. Because such an approach would prepare learners to deal with only the crises
of the past and not the crises of the future, it is inconsistent with the Social
Reconstruction belief in social relativity. It is the unknown crises of the future that
children must be prepared to encounter, understand, and act to resolve. Social
Reconstructionists want to have children construct a specific social orientation and
social perspective along with a specific set of social values and problem solving skills
that will allow them to confront, analyze, understand, react to, and rectify whatever
social problems might arise in the future—in a manner consistent with the social per-
spective and values of the educator. Providing learners with such a social perspective
and set of social values—which are by definition biased—is what Social
Reconstructionists call social acculturation (or imposition).
Historical Context
One could say that the origins of the Social Reconstruction ideology in the U.S. are as
old as the founding of the nation. Cremin claims that the American Revolution was
“essentially a matter of popular education” and that “teachers used the lectern to nur-
ture ideas of independency, while students organized symbolic actions ranging from
burning in effigy to boycotts of tea,” as much of the population of the countryside
opposed British political, economic, and social practices (1977, p. 38).
Lester Frank Ward began the discussion of the Social Reconstruction agenda in the
1880s and 1890s with the publication of Dynamic Sociology (1883) and The Psychic
Factors of Civilization (1893). He emphasized that men had the ability to influence the
social world in which they lived through their application of intelligence to the prob-
lems of their society and suggested that education through the development of intel-
ligence could influence society to be a more just and equitable place for people.
John Dewey prepared the way for the Social Reconstruction ideology in
Reconstruction in Philosophy (1948), where he described education as a crucial ingredi-
ent in social and moral development, and in Democracy and Education (1916), where
he described education as “that reconstruction or reorganization of experience which
adds to the meaning of experience, and which increases ability to direct the course of
subsequent experience” (p. 76).
The ideology was formally brought to life for educators in 1932 when George
Counts gave a rousing presentation at the Progressive Education Association annual
meeting in which he asked, “Dare the school build a new social order?” This speech led
to a deep split in the Progressive Education Association between those who advocated
the Social Reconstruction ideology and proponents of the Learner Centered ideology.
It also led to the publication, beginning in 1934, of The Social Frontier: A Journal of
Criticism and Reconstruction.
The Social Reconstruction ideology flourished during the Great Depression of
the 1930s, during which many educators questioned the American way of life. Myles
Horton started Highlander in 1932 to help labor deal with the oppression of indus-
try. A bit later, Harold Rugg published a popular social studies textbook series in
which he introduced students to controversial economic, social, and political issues
(1936–1938).
World War II dimmed the flame of the ideology, but during the 1950s Theodore
Brameld wrote books such as Toward a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education (1956)
advocating the Social Reconstruction ideology. During the 1960s and 1970s, the civil
rights movement, the women’s movement, and the protest against the Vietnam War
were stimulated and supported by adherents of the Social Reconstruction ideology.
Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner wrote Teaching as a Subversive Activity (1969)
and other such books to promote the ideology.
In the last quarter of the 20th century and the first years of the 21st century, criti-
cal theory began to flourish in academia in a variety of highly competitive forms,
including postmodernism, poststructuralism, radical feminism, and critical construc-
tivism (McLaren, 2007, p. 13). These forms of critical theory revolted against tradi-
tional ways of viewing and conceptualizing our world; against powerful (oppressive,
exploitative, and/or dominant) social groups who made economic, cultural, and edu-
cational decisions affecting the lives of those less powerful; and against rationalist,
Eurocentric cultural traditions that privileged those who were white, educated, rich,
and male in comparison to those who were nonwhite, uneducated, poor, or female.
They focused on the subjective and social construction of knowledge rather than on
objective knowledge. Critical theory is concerned with emancipation through the
questioning of political, economic, social, and psychological conventions that have
been previously taken for granted. It is critical of these conventions, using a value sys-
tem based on social justice and equity, and it promotes action to improve society and
the individual through education. Advocates of critical theory sought to do research
like that of Jean Anyon, who demonstrated how the hidden curriculum of education
influenced the work expectations, aspirations, and perspectives of children of different
economic classes (1980). Advocates of critical pedagogy also sought to engage in prac-
tical educational endeavors like those of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, who in
Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) described how poor people with little political, eco-
nomic, or social power could take control of their lives and education by critically
examining the social, political, economic, and psychological forces that enslaved them.
And advocates of critical pedagogy sought to write social analyses like those by Michael
Apple, who in Ideology and Curriculum (2004) and Education and Power (1995)
described how schools are reproductive agents of society that maintain social power
relationships by socializing students to society’s conception of appropriate class, gen-
der, race, political, cultural, and economic relationships among people through the
hidden curriculum of the school.
During the last decade of the 20th century and the first years of the 21st century,
aspects of the Social Reconstruction ideology have become fashionable among univer-
sity faculty in departments of education. Some of the slogans they frequently use
include “social [cultural, economic, and political] justice,” “empowerment,” “critical
analysis,” and “praxis.”
As we progress through the second decade of the 21st century, and the second
decade of the No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top mandates, many Social
Reconstructionists are greatly concerned by the way “Education [is] Under Fire
[because of] the U. S. corporate attack on students, teachers, and schools” (Monthly
Review, 2011). Their concerns relate to corporate capitalism’s school reform agendas,
which include such things as school privatization (which undermines public educa-
tion), the new accountability movement (with its assessment of student learning,
teacher effectiveness, school efficiency, and teacher education program effectiveness
based on “scientific” standardized academic achievement testing of students), for-
profit schools run by corporations that are “hijacking school reform” (Ayers & Ayers,
2011, p. 1) and trying to “‘reform’ public education out of existence” (Rethinking
Schools, 2010/2011), the return to the Social Efficiency view of education (which “pos-
its schools as businesses, teachers as workers, [and] students as products, and com-
modities” that are being shaped to serve the needs of business and corporations; Ayers
& Ayers, 2011, p. 2), the emphasis on objective knowledge as the preferred form of
academic content (the Scholar Academic form of knowledge that they consider the
primary form of knowledge embedded in state curriculum standards), and the shift in
control of school reform agendas from educators to corporations, business, founda-
tions, politicians, and wealthy powerful individuals (and the replacement of educators
as designers of curriculum and school reform agendas by such entities). These, and
other Social Reconstructionist concerns, call forth from them a cry that “we need to
view our role as American revolutionaries” (Boggs, 2011, p. 175) and reorient education
to “be construed as a fundamental human right geared toward the fullest development
of the human personality and the reconstruction of society around basic principles of
equality and justice,” as we transform our public educational system (which is being
increasingly controlled and hijacked by corporate capitalism) into “an education truly
controlled by the public” (Ayers & Ayers, p. 4). As a result, journals such as Rethinking
Schools were publishing issues with titles such as “Teaching for Hope and Activism,” in
which questions are posed and answered such as “How do we bring the fight to protect
and transform public schools into our classrooms?” and “How do we connect our
classrooms to the struggles in the streets?” and in which hope is provided in commen-
taries such as “As the crisis over public education escalates, activist teachers are exper-
imenting with new approaches” (Rethinking Schools, 2011).
We now turn from an examination of beliefs affecting the general context in which
Social Reconstructionists work to an examination of their aims and their views of
children, learning, teaching, knowledge, and evaluation.
Aims
The aim of Social Reconstructionists is to eliminate from their culture those aspects
they believe undesirable, to substitute in their place social practices and values they
believe more desirable, and in so doing to reconstruct their culture so that its members
attain maximum satisfaction of their material, social, cultural, and spiritual needs.
They wish to redirect the growth of their society to reconstruct it into a more just,
satisfying, democratic, egalitarian, and humane society than the current one.
To accomplish this, Social Reconstructions attempt to create a social consensus
that rejects the faults of the existing society and affirms the virtues of a future good
society. To develop the social consensus, educators manipulate society at the point
where it inducts children into the life of the culture: society’s educational system. Their
intent is to educate youth to reconstruct our current society and to live in a society
superior to the existing one. To do this, they build a social, political, economic, and
cultural educational program—a curriculum.
Different visions of the future good society and different strategies that suggest
how to transform today’s society into the future good society exist. The overall Social
Reconstruction orientation, however, begins with analysis of society, moves to the
creation of a vision of a subjective future good society, and then moves back to manip-
ulation of the existing social reality to transform it into the future good society that
will provide its members with the maximum possible social, cultural, economic, and
political equality, satisfaction, and justice. In the process, as new social problems and
crises arise, members of society become empowered to continually reconstruct them-
selves and society.
The Child
Children as Social Agents

Children are not viewed primarily as children. Rather, children are viewed
as products of society, as social actors, and as potential contributing members of
society who can aid in its reconstruction (McLaren, 2007, p. 94). As Giroux (1992)
indicates, “social betterment must be the necessary consequence of individual flour-
ishing” (p. 11).
Children carry within themselves unique collections of individual meanings that
result from experiences they encounter. They bring to school not only their potential
to act in the future but also their past histories from family, peer group, and commu-
nity interactions as well as their personal meanings and ways of thinking that result
from such interactions.
At birth, a child is by nature “neither good nor bad; he is merely a bundle of poten-
tialities which may be developed in manifold directions” (Counts, 1932b, p. 15).
Throughout their lives, children are “unfinished, uncompleted beings” (Freire, 1970,
p. 72) in the process of “becoming [ever] more fully human” (p. 52). It is the role of
education to guide the development of the child’s potentialities so that they contribute
to the functioning of the good society, which will in turn give value to the developed
potentialities.
Children are “born helpless” (Counts, 1932b, p. 13). As they grow they develop the
power and freedom to mold their world. It is the role of education to guide the devel-
opment of children’s growth so that they use their freedom and power to mold today’s
society into the best possible future one.
At birth, children are viewed as meaning-making organisms who contain little
meaning. As they grow, children construct meaning by actively interpreting the world
to themselves. It is the role of education to shape the meaning created by children and
the ways in which children make meaning so that they can act to support appropriate
visions of a future good society.
Children are not viewed primarily from a developmental context that emphasizes
their living fully in each stage through which they pass. As they grow, children progress
toward an educated state from which they can contribute to society’s reconstruction.
It is the role of education to speed children toward this educated state.
Children as Meaning Makers

Children are viewed as meaning makers. They make meaning for themselves as the
result of being stimulated by the environment in which they live:
We now know that each man creates his own unique world, that he, and he alone, generates
whatever reality he can ever know. . . . [W]e do not “get” meaning from things, we assign
meaning. . . . In other words, whatever is out there [in our environment] isn’t anything
until we make it something, and then it “is” whatever we make it. (Postman & Weingartner,
1969, pp. 98–99)
There are several corollaries to the assumption that people are meaning makers:
• Subjective reality within learners is distinguished from objective reality outside of

learners.
• Meaning is assumed to reside in individuals’ subjective realities and not outside of indi-
viduals in objective reality.
• Children are believed to make meaning as a result of being stimulated by their environ-
ment (which includes teachers, other children, the community, and any other experi-
ences they might encounter in their world).
• It is assumed that children actively make meaning for themselves; they are not passive
absorbers of meaning conveyed by agents external to themselves.
This view of the child as a meaning maker is portrayed in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 The child as a meaning maker.
S = Child’s subjective reality

O = Child’s objective reality
= Child’s meaning making
O S
= Environmental stimuli
= Child’s perceptive function
= Child’s interpretive function
In viewing children as meaning makers, four aspects of children’s minds are

distinguished:
1. Children’s minds have contents, called “meanings,” that include such things as their
knowledge, beliefs, facts, theories, affiliations, fears, and hopes.
2. The contents of children’s minds are stored in a “meaning structure” that contains,
among other things, the organization of meaning in children’s minds and the functions
governing the intake, output, and redistribution of their meanings.
3. Children have perceptual filters and functions that control the types of stimuli they
perceive from the many sensations that impinge on them. These filters and functions
control the manner in which children perceive reality. (The vertical crosshatching on
the meaning making arrow in Figure 5.1 portrays them.)
4. Children’s minds have “interpretive functions” that control how they give meaning to
the sensations they perceive and thus how they interpret reality. (They are portrayed by
the horizontal crosshatching on the meaning making arrow in Figure 5.1.)
Children’s perceptive functions, interpretive functions, and meaning structures

are important to Social Reconstructionists because they affect the manner in which
children perceive, interpret, and organize reality. They affect, for example, whether
or not children hear certain overtones in peoples’ complaints about society, how they
interpret the overtones they hear, and how they give meaning to that information by
fitting it into their meaning structure. While creating or teaching curricula, educa-
tors design and use instructional strategies to influence these structures and func-
tions as well as children’s meanings.
Children in Society
Children are viewed primarily as members of a social group, not as individuals.
They realize their potential in social interaction with others, are educated in a social
community, and act as part of a social group to bring into existence the future good
society.
Two types of communities to which children belong are of interest to Social
Reconstructionists: the community outside the school, in which children spend most
of their life and on which they must act to reconstruct society; and the community in
the school, over which the educator exercises control. Social Reconstructionists have
the task of figuring out how to both (1) bring aspects of society that function outside
the school into the school so that they can be used to educate children while they are
in school, and (2) bring endeavors that take place during school time outside the
school so that children can have firsthand experiences in their community. Bringing
children’s lives from outside the school into school involves dealing with all aspects of
their lives, including their experiences, thoughts, feelings, dreams, and ways of relating,
valuing, and acting, which are relevant both inside and outside the school.
Learning
Social Reconstructionists view learning from the perspective of social constructivism.
They regard learning as active assimilation of new experiences into learners’ meaning
structures in such a way as to force those meaning structures to accommodate to the
new experiences (McLaren & Giroux, 1997, p. 34). There are two significant compo-
nents of this view of learning. The first hinges on the phrase “meaning making”:
Learning occurs when learners construct meaning out of their sensations. Learning is
a process of actively assimilating and accommodating experience in such a way that it
makes sense to the learner. The second component of this view of learning depends on
the concept of “meaning structure”: Learning is based on what one already knows
about the world, and it is meaningful only when it can be accommodated to one’s
overall conception of reality. As a result, learning must happen in the context in which
what is learned occurs and in terms of what one already knows. Thus, educators
should construct curricula that draw upon the cultural resources that students bring with
them to school. This suggests not only taking the languages, histories, experiences, and
voices of students seriously, but also integrating what is taught in schools with the dynam-
ics of everyday life. This points to developing curricula that . . . address the real problems
and concerns that students face on a local, societal, and global level. (Giroux, 2006, p. 6)
Meaning Making
Learners are viewed as active agents in their learning. Learning is not a passive
process of incorporating objective reality into the mind by simple absorption. Learners
actively choose from among their many sensory experiences those that they will
become cognizant of (the perceptive function) and interpret those sensations into
perceptions that have meaning in relation to their existing meaning structures (the
interpretive function). As Postman and Weingartner wrote in 1969:
We do not get our perceptions from the “things” around us. Our perceptions come from
us. This does not mean that there is nothing outside of our skins. It does mean that what-
ever is “out there” can never be known except as it is filtered through a human nervous
system. We can never get outside of our own skins. “Reality” is a perception, located some-
where behind the eyes. . . . What we perceive is largely a function of our previous experi-
ences, our assumptions, and our purposes (i.e., needs). In other words, the perceiver
decides what an object is, where it is, and why it is according to his purpose and the
assumptions that he makes at any given time. You tend to perceive what you want and need
to perceive, and what your past experience has led you to assume will “work” for you. . . . If
rain is falling from the sky, some people will head for shelter, others will enjoy walking in
it. Their perceptions of “what is happening” are different as reflected in the fact that they
“do” different things. The fact that both groups will agree to the sentence “It is raining” does
not mean they will perceive the “event” in the same ways. (pp. 90–91)
Both choosing which sensations to perceive and choosing how to interpret those
perceptions are active functions on the part of learners and uniquely determined by
their meaning structures. The subjective reality learners come to know results from
their personally impressing meaning onto objective reality.
It is important to note that what learners come to know is not nature itself but
nature actively interpreted through such things as the structure and lexicon of their
language. Learners incorporate into themselves the stimuli impinging on them by
passing them through their perceptive and interpretive functions while applying
meaning-giving filters to them such as their language and modes of thinking. In
McLuhanesque terms, the medium (the mind) is the message (what one knows) in the
sense that the operators governing the working of the mind actively mold psychologi-
cal sensations into mental perceptions.
Meaning Structure
One learns things in terms of what one already knows and in the context in which
they occur.
First, it is believed that learning can take place only in relation to what one already
knows. For experiences to make sense to a learner, they must be capable of being
accommodated into the learner’s meaning structure. This means that they must be of
a form and contain a content that relates to both the learner’s meaning structure and
the totality of his or her past learning experiences. The mere occurrence of a “psycho-
logical fact” does not result in learning. It is only when the occurrence is related to
other phases of the learner’s experience and capable of being related to and incorpo-
rated into the learner’s meaning structure that learning occurs.
It is, in fact, learners’ meaning structures which gives import to what they perceive.
That is, whatever learners hear or see will be meaningful to them only on their own
terms and not on the terms of the emitter of the information: what they learn will be
a function of their past experiences, their assumptions, and their purposes—and not
those of the stimulator of their sensations. This means that
one cannot expect positive results form an educational . . . program which fails to respect
the particular view of the world held by the people. . . . The starting point for organizing
the program content of education . . . must be the present, existential, concrete situation,
reflecting the aspiration of the people. Utilizing certain basic contradictions, we must pose
this existential, concrete, present situation to the people as a problem which challenges
them and requires a response, not just at the intellectual level, but at the level of action.
(Freire, 1970, pp. 84–85)
Second, it is believed that, for valid meaning to be infused into anything, it must
be learned in the context in which it occurs and in the context of a total pattern of
events. The Social Reconstructionist’s concern is not the acquisition and then organi-
zation of unrelated atomistic facts but rather the learning of gestalts of occurrences in
organic relatedness. To be considered worthwhile, learning must be the product of
insight into the patterns that relate the parts of an event to the total occurrence of the
event.
The Nature of Learning

Learning has a number of important interrelated characteristics.
• Learning is primarily a social act rather than an individual act. In both process and
product, in both means and ends, it aims mainly at “social self-realization” (Brameld,
1950). Learning requires not only that a social group acquire knowledge but also that it
reach a consensus concerning both the nature and truth of that knowledge. Learning is
always directed toward the achievement of social consensus or agreement. In fact, “the
objective of the entire [learning] process is to attain a consensus upon which the group
can depend and from which it can act” to reconstruct society (p. 546).
• Learning takes place in both classrooms and communities. It requires immersion in and
interaction with a social group that “extends beyond the school proper into the com-
munity” (Brameld, 1950, p. 533). This means that curricula require two separate social
settings for learning: inside and outside the school.
• Learning takes place through language and communication, which include such things
as group discussion, talking, singing, acting, sociodrama, sculpture, group processing,
and value clarification. From a practical point of view, learning through communica-
tion transforms the traditional classroom:
Instead of communication being limited to the imparting of indirect evidence from

textbooks, pictures, or lectures, learning takes place by the reciprocal expression among
students and teachers alike. The effort to articulate interests [feelings or thoughts] is
encouraged and respected. Likewise the effort to interpret all evidence provided by sci-
ence, art, or history replaces the passive recitation, which does virtually nothing to bring
such evidence into vital relationship with one’s own experience. The more that genuine
back-and-forth communication takes place, the more spontaneous it becomes, and the
more facile and precise the meanings that emerge. (Brameld, 1950, p. 542)
• Learning involves some form of direct experience:
Fundamental to learning is the kind of evidence about our wants which springs from
our own experience, and of which we ourselves become directly aware. Education that
fails to provide generous opportunity for such experience . . . cannot hope to reach suc-
cessful practice of social consensus. (Brameld, 1950, p. 540)
• Learning is not limited to firsthand experiences, but Social Reconstructionists try to

keep learning as close to firsthand experience as possible. Thus, if a group is to learn
something like history, of which they cannot have firsthand experiences, educators
attempt to do such things as provide firsthand accounts of occurrences or engage stu-
dents in simulations that approximate experiences.
• Valuable learning requires not just thought, but also an emotional response to what is
understood that includes commitment to a social position and action directed toward
reconstructing society. Counts, writing in 1932, hints that learning has this tripartite
nature of thought, commitment, and action when he writes that society requires learn-
ers who, while “capable of gathering and digesting facts, are at the same time able to
think in terms of life, make decisions, and act” (1932b, p. 22). In the language of the last
quarter of the 20th century, learning requires praxis: “reflection and action, in such
radical interaction that if one is sacrificed—even in part—the other immediately suf-
fers” (Freire, 1970, p. 75).
• Learning requires interaction of learners with the environment outside themselves. The
learner must actively interact with someone or some situation to make meaning. In
terms of Figure 5.1, the learner (S) does not learn in isolation from stimuli coming from
an outside reality (O). Rather, the learner learns as a result of his or her meaning making
endeavors by engaging and interacting with stimuli from an outside source. That is,
there must be a learner (S) actively interacting with an outside reality (O) for meaning
to be made and learning to take place within the learner. Interactive learning best occurs
in social groups where both the group affects the learner and the learner affects the
group. Here it is important that “children . . . continually share in a social environment
which they enrich by that sharing, and which enriches them” (Brameld, 1950, p. 533).
Teaching
At one level, the intent of teaching is to reconstruct society. At another level the
intent of teaching is to stimulate students to reconstruct themselves so that they can
contribute to the reconstruction of society. At still another level the intent of teach-
ing is to stimulate students to learn how to reconstruct society. Stimulating students
to learn how to reconstruct society involves helping them construct a set of mean-
ings, meaning structures, perceptive functions, and interpretive functions so that
when they encounter social problems they can analyze and understand them, formu-
late a vision of better society where those problems do not exist, and act in such a
way as to eliminate those social problems.
It is important to note that it is not just students’ meanings that Social Recon-
structionists want to have an impact on. They want to stimulate students to construct
a method of perceiving and interpreting social events, developing a social vision, and
acting that will allow them to confront as yet unknown future social crises. Providing
students with a method is critical. Given the Social Reconstruction belief in social
relativity, it is important that students be taught an approach to confronting social
problems rather than a fixed formula that has proved useful in confronting past or
present social problems. Society’s past and present condition is not the only consid-
eration here—at stake is society’s future.
Social Reconstructionists use a variety of instructional methods. The two dis-
cussed here are the discussion and experience methods. Both depend on having stu-
dents learn indirectly through the media they encounter while engaging in educational
activities, media whose overt messages may not be their most important ones.
The Discussion Method

Group discussion is a social means of educating a group of persons. It requires
both a social context and social interactions. It is considered an ideal educational
medium because it uses language to help groups and individuals construct and recon-
struct their knowledge of themselves, their knowledge of society and its strengths and
weaknesses, a vision of a future good society, and a strategy for transforming the cur-
rent society into the future good society. Here language is viewed broadly as a primary
mediator of human perception, learning, knowing, feeling, and acting.
The discussion method of teaching involves engaging a group of students in a
conversation while the teacher elicits “from students the meanings that they have
already stored up so that they may subject those meanings to a testing and verifying,
reordering and reclassifying, modifying and extending process” (Postman &
Weingartner, 1969, p. 62). The assumption underlying this mode of teaching is that for
students to reconstruct their already established knowledge and ways of knowing, they
must regurgitate them so that they can be examined and reconstructed during the
discussion process. Group discussion accomplishes this transformation and recon-
struction of knowledge by getting participants to disclose to the group their social
understanding so that the group can help them reconstruct their social knowledge in
light of the knowledge of the group as a whole. Knowledge can thus be reaffirmed and
elaborated by the group to give greater insight into it; shown to be inaccurate or incor-
rect, so that it can be made accurate or correct by the group’s pointing out of its errors;
shown to be inadequate because it lacks connection to appropriate social values, so
that it can be made more adequate through group processes; or shown to be deficient
because it lacks the necessary commitment and inspiration, so that the group can help
develop such in the participant. The process involves getting participants to expose
their knowledge to the group so that the group can comment on that knowledge in
such a way as to allow participants to reconstruct their knowledge in light of the
group’s comments and peer pressure—all under the careful guidance of teachers who
differentially reinforce group understandings and values to guide the group to acquire
understandings and values consistent with those of the teacher.
The content for a discussion comes from those involved in the discussion. It is a
re-presentation to the group by its members of things they have experienced or already
understood and now want to understand more or in a new way. Thus, the actual social
experiences and knowledge of those involved in the dialogue are crucial. The discus-
sion is defined by those experiences and that knowledge and must take into account
those experiences and that knowledge as the persons who have had them perceive
them. Although the discussion is defined by the perceived experiences and knowledge
of its participants, it is not limited by those experiences and that knowledge, because
the social interactions that take place during a discussion can expand on the experi-
ences of its participants (as when two people’s thoughts are joined together to generate
a new thought neither would have been capable of generating alone) and because the
group can re-present the experiences of participants back to them so that they can see
them in a new way and thus perceive, experience, or construct them anew (as when one
person’s interpretation of the meaning of a particular experience allows another per-
son who has had a similar experience to understand that experience in a new way).
Important here is “starting where the people are” and participants’ prior social
experiences and knowledge (Adams, 1972, p. 516). Social Reconstructionists believe that
a discussion (and a person’s education) must start where the participants are; must start
with what people have experienced and what they understand, as they themselves per-
ceive them; and must relate to their prior experiences and knowledge. As a result, Social
Reconstructionists must either find a way to tap into the prior experiences and knowl-
edge of those who will experience a curriculum or find a way to provide them with the
experiences and knowledge the curriculum will build on. Important here is the central-
ity of the social experiences and knowledge of those participating in the discussion.
Anything said during the discussion as well as any input into the discussion from
sources such as outside experts, books, movies, or the like must relate to the prior expe-
riences and knowledge of participants if they are to benefit from them.
At their best, group discussions have three crucial components: thought, commit-
ment, and action. The potential for all three must be present in a group discussion for
it to be vital. If a group discussion lacks the potential for action, then the thinking that
takes place during it degenerates into useless verbalism. If a group discussion lacks the
potential for thought, then the action that takes place as a result of it degenerates into
meaningless activism (Freire, 1970, pp. 75–77). If a group discussion lacks the potential
for commitment, then the thinking that takes place during it will lack the power to be
transformed into action. If a group discussion does not carry the potential for thought
about society as it is and as it ought to be, the potential for commitment to transform-
ing current society as it is into society as it ought to be, and the potential for action
directed toward such, then the discussion is not vital within the context of the Social
Reconstruction ideology.
Social Reconstruction group discussions take place at two levels: (1) an “explicit”
level at which students are openly challenged by analysis of the present social crisis and
vision of the future good society, and (2) a “hidden” level at which students are sub-
consciously conditioned by group norms to have a particular social perspective and set
of social values. At the explicit level of discussion, students are aware of the messages
being communicated to them and they consciously and with understanding construct
their concepts and conceptual structures. At this level, they are aware of their decisions
and choices and what is happening to them while they are being educated. At the hid-
den level, educators manipulate the “hidden curriculum” to subconsciously condition
students to a way of viewing, valuing, and judging what they experience by subtly
socializing them to the educators’ perspectives on the world. At this level, the rules and
norms of the group discussion educate members without their understanding what is
occurring.
When operating at the explicit level, discussion tends to proceed by having stu-
dents learn about society, verbally analyze society, explicitly formulate a vision of a
future society, develop a social conscience that impels them to commit themselves to
transform the existing society into the future better society, and decide how to act to
implement the future good society. At this level, instruction depends on the power of
ideas to move students to reconstruct themselves and society. The belief is that if peo-
ple think about and understand the reasons for a reconstructed society, they will act in
such a manner as to bring it into existence.
When operating at the hidden level, the discussion process and the social environ-
ment in which the discussion takes place mold students to think and act in accordance
with an educator’s beliefs. During discussions, teachers provide the rules for discus-
sion, the desired social perspective and values, and the model for the modes of think-
ing in which students are to engage. The instructive function is embedded in the
language, questions, evidence, value judgments, modes of argumentation, and criteria
of relevance the teacher uses during discussion and urges students to use by example.
Thus, if “sharing” (as compared to competing) is valued, sharing (and the belief that
sharing is good) will be directly conditioned into students during the discussion by
their being required to conform to discussion norms that demand sharing behavior
and censor competitive behavior. Similarly, if “critical analysis” of social forces is val-
ued, critical analysis will be demonstrated by teachers, students’ engagement in critical
analysis will be rewarded by teachers, and students will learn critical analysis by con-
forming to discussion norms that value and reward critical analysis. In these cases, the
norms of the discussion and the behaviors expected during the discussion become
forces that mold students. Here it is the medium (the discussion itself) more than the
message (the topic of discussion) that is designed to provide the teaching.
The Experience Method
Social Reconstructionists believe that it is from one’s experiences with (and knowl-
edge of) an existing social crisis and in response to a perceived difficulty that one has
experienced within that social crisis that one is motivated to understand the nature of
society, envision a better society, and act to reconstruct society. This means that one’s
experiences (and related knowledge) play a crucial role in the Social Reconstruction
ideology. It also means that if Social Reconstructionists want group participants to
acquire a particular understanding of a social crisis and they have not already experi-
enced that crisis, then they must provide for those participants appropriate experiences
that will result in the corresponding appropriate understandings. This is why Myles
Horton insisted that participants at Highlander have experiences with exploited labor-
ers before attending Highlander. This is also why the teacher in the sixth-grade math-
ematics classroom described earlier referred to well-defined student experiences in the
community, took students on field trips, and had them engage in simulations.
Important here is that students obtain more than knowledge from a social experi-
ence. They also acquire feelings (including feelings about such things as their self-
concept and their power to act and make a difference in their world), a social
perspective, and a set of values about what is socially just or unjust, good or bad, fair
or unfair, right or wrong.
The experience method involves placing students in an environment where they
encounter a social crisis and learn from those who usually function in that environ-
ment. Experiences that students might participate in include public protests, recycling,
visiting the elderly in nursing homes, rehabilitating public places in depressed urban
or rural areas, and working with battered women, the homeless, or the poor in shelters.
The environments in which students are placed and those with whom they work are
specially chosen to educate students about particular social problems. It is assumed
that students will absorb the attitudes and values, modes of perception and interpreta-
tion, and worldview of those normally engaged in the environment—because they will
experience firsthand the reasons for these perspectives and because they will get car-
ried away by the immediacy of the experience in such a manner that they will recon-
struct themselves to be like the people who normally function in the environment.
Here teaching involves the provision of firsthand experience with social crises; coun-
seling sessions designed to help students adjust to the environment in which they find
themselves; and discussion sessions intended to help them construct meaning from
their experiences. Counseling and discussion sessions are a crucial part of the experi-
ence method, for in these sessions students are debriefed and reconstruct their previ-
ously held beliefs.
(One can only assume that the advent of powerful electronic communication
devices—such as the iPhone—will add new dimensions to the Social Reconstruction
experience method of teaching because the Internet can now deliver text, voice, audio,
and video messages that give students the ability to see and hear social events occurring
elsewhere almost as soon as they occur and to communicate ideas and emotions with
those involved in the events almost as though they were standing next to them. It is
also because such social media as text messaging, Facebook, YouTube, e-mail, web-
cams, chatrooms, and blogs enable students to observe social events, to directly com-
municate ideas and emotions with those involved in the events and critically reflect on
them, to communicate with others their ideas about social injustices and ways of
improving society by eliminating those social injustices, to share with others their
visions of a more just society, to plan strategies for improving society with those
involved in the events, and to act to improve society and to bring about social changes,
such as the election of President Obama in the U.S. and the overthrow of President
Mubarak in Egypt.)
The Teacher as Colleague

Social Reconstructionists view the teacher as a colleague or companion whom stu-
dents can look up to rather than as an authority who has control over them. The teacher
and the students are considered to be on the same side of both the discussion and the
experience. They are allied against the evils of the world. They complement each other
rather than combat each other. They teach and learn from each other: “There are not
teachers and students, but teacher-students, and student-teachers” (Freire, 1970, p. 67).
The teacher is not viewed as knowing everything and the students as knowing
nothing; rather, both bring experiences to share with each other during instruction. It
is not that the teacher actively thinks and the students passively absorb; rather, both
actively engage in meaning making in the presence of each other. It is not that the
teacher talks and the students listen; rather, both talk and listen as partners in a mutual
endeavor. It is not that the teacher chooses content and the students accept it; rather,
both have experiences that contribute to the content of instruction. It is not that only
students reveal their inner meanings to the group for analysis; rather, both students
and teachers contribute their inner meanings to the group for scrutiny for both their
own and the group’s educational benefit. It is not that teachers teach and the students
learn; rather, both teach each other and learn from each other. It is not that teachers
are emotionally disengaged and detached from discussions and experiences; rather,
both teachers and students become emotionally engaged in learning and present to
each other their thoughts and values—and these responses are considered intercon-
nected. As Freire (1970) writes, “authentic education is not carried on by ‘A’ for ‘B’ or
by ‘A’ about ‘B,’ but rather by ‘A’ with ‘B,’ mediated by the world” (p. 82).
Characteristics of Teaching
Several characteristics of what Social Reconstructionists consider good teaching
are common to both the discussion and experience methods.
• Both are group methods and make use of group pressures to teach students. Not only
are the messages often social, but also the medium used to convey the messages is a
social medium.
• Both methods depend on the relevance of their message in students’ lives. In the experi-
ence method, relevance comes from the immediacy of the situation in which students
find themselves. In the discussion method, topics often come from the expressed con-
cerns of students.
• In both methods, teachers find out what students know, draw it out of them, and help
them reflect, analyze, and reconstruct their meanings in a value-laden context—where
values shape much of what and how students learn.
• The important messages in both methods are often subliminal ones conveyed through
the learning medium—such as the rules of proper discussion or the proper values (for
instance, social justice) with which to view and interpret experiences.
Characteristics of Teachers
Three characteristics of teachers deserve mention, beyond those implied in the
above discussion.
Social Reconstructionists view the attitudes, interpretations, and visions of teach-

ers to be of crucial importance:
There can be no significant innovation in education that does not have at its center the
attitude of teachers. . . . The beliefs, feelings, and assumptions of teachers are the air of a
learning environment; they determine the quality of life within it. (Postman & Weingartner,
1969, p. 33)
Teachers must be capable of reflecting on themselves and on their society and of

using critical analysis to “raise fundamental questions about the social, economic, and
political forces shaping their lives and the lives of their students so that they can all be
better prepared for participating in—and changing—the larger world” (McLaren,
2007, p. 192). That is, they must be “able to critically analyze the ideologies, values, and
interests that inform their role as teachers and the cultural politics they promote in the
classroom” (Giroux, 2006, p. 7); “able to analyze their relationship with the larger soci-
ety in order to critically apprehend themselves as social agents capable of recognizing
how they might be complicitous with forms of oppression and human suffering”
(Giroux, 2006, p. 7); able to analyze the deep cultural, social, political, and economic
forces that contribute to injustice and inequality in their society; and able to envision
a future better society and act to bring it into existence. Giroux (1992) sums this up
when he says that teachers are
transformative intellectuals. . . . They understand the nature of their own self-formation,

[understand the nature of their society,] have some vision of the future, see the importance
of education as a public discourse, and have a sense of mission in providing students with
what they need to become critical citizens. . . . They believe something, say what they
believe, and offer their belief to others in a framework that always makes it debatable and
open to critical inquiry. . . . Above all, [they are] . . . able to exercise power. Pedagogy is
always related to power . . . to shaping public life and school relationships. (p. 15)
Social Reconstructionists believe that teachers should be “qualified to pro-

vide . . . vigorous, enlightened, and public-spirited . . . leadership, ready and compe-
tent to challenge the power of selfish interests and to champion the cause of the masses
of the people” (Counts, 1934, p. 558). This means both that teachers must be “people
on fire with an awareness of injustice and the determination to correct it” (Adams &
Horton, 1975, p. 501) and that “teachers should deliberately reach for power and then
make the most of their conquest” (Counts, 1932b, p. 28)—that teachers should be
leaders rather than followers.
Knowledge
The Social Construction of Knowledge

Social Reconstructionists view worthwhile knowledge to be a social construction.
Here, “knowledge (truth) is socially constructed, culturally mediated, and historically
situated . . . [and] dominant [social] discourses determine what counts as true, impor-
tant, and relevant” (McLaren, 2007, p. 210). In addition, worthwhile knowledge is
viewed as being constructed out of social interactions for social, political, economic, or
cultural purposes:
Knowledge is a social construction deeply rooted in a nexus of power relations[;] . . . it is a

product of agreement or consent between individuals who live out particular social rela-
tions (e.g., of class, race, and gender) and who live in particular junctures in time. . . .
[T]he world we live in is constructed symbolically by the mind through social interaction
with others and is heavily dependent on culture, context, custom, and historical specific-
ity. . . . [S]ome constructions of reality are legitimated and celebrated by the dominant
culture while others clearly are not. . . . [S]ome forms of knowledge have more power and
legitimacy than others. For instance, in many schools . . . science and math . . . are favored
over the liberal arts. This can be explained by the link between the needs of big business to
compete in world markets and the [social] imperative . . . to bring “excellence” back to the
schools. (pp. 196–197)
Knowledge and Value

Knowledge is a “value-laden social construction” (Joseph, Bravmann, Windschitl,
Mikel, & Green, 2000, p. 146). It embodies both truth and value. It embraces both
intelligence and a corresponding moral stance with respect to that intelligence
(whether in the form of meaning, functions, or structures). Knowledge and values are
interconnected. This interconnection has its origin in Social Reconstructionists’ view
of reality from the perspective of current social crisis and a future good society. By
processing reality through a vision of a future good society, intelligence becomes good
or bad, worthwhile or worthless, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical (Giroux, 2005,
pp. 29, 67), emancipatory or oppressive (McLaren, 2007, p. 198) as it supports or
refutes an educator’s utopian vision. Values and intelligence are considered real in the
same way, and little differentiation is made between the questions “Is x real?” and “Is x
moral?” A scientific fact (political interpretation, religious hope, or affiliative emotion)
is judged by the question, “Is it worthwhile intelligence with respect to the analysis of
the existing society and projection of the future society?” Knowledge is not an impar-
tial quantity and knowing is not a neutral affair. Knowledge is of worth because it
contributes to the attainment of a future good society, and the construction of knowl-
edge is a moral activity inseparable from the cultural activity of searching for and
implementing a satisfactory vision for the future good society.
Knowledge and Reality

Social Reconstructionists distinguish between subjective reality and objective real-
ity. They believe that worthwhile knowledge resides within the subjective reality of
both individuals and society. For them,
there is no such thing as “subject matter” in the abstract. “Subject matter” exists in the
minds of perceivers. And what each one thinks it is, is what it is. We have been acting in
schools as if knowledge lies outside the learner, which is why we have the kinds of curric-
ula . . . we have. But knowledge . . . is what we know after we have learned. It is an outcome
of perception and is as unique and subjective as any other perception. (Postman &
Weingartner, 1969, p. 92)
Worthwhile knowledge does not reside outside of people in such things as books
or magazines. It does not reside in “words” separate from people. It resides in the
meanings people create for themselves. Knowledge is defined in terms of the subjective
meaning it has to its possessors. For Social Reconstructionists, what society and people
believe to be true and valuable is more important than what might be true or valuable
in any absolute sense.
Knowledge resides in its possessor, originates in that possessor’s environmental
interactions, and is what each person interprets knowledge to be within the context of
a relativistic social consensus. This is a crucial assumption. Knowledge’s truth and
worth are verifiable through social consensus. What the majority of the members of a
society believe to be true is true for those persons:
The truth of those experiences most vital in the social life of any culture are deter-
mined . . . by the extent to which they are agreed upon by the largest possible number of
the group concerned. Without this factor of agreement or consensus, the experience simply
is not “true.” (Brameld, 1950, p. 456)
Knowledge is relativistic in nature, and its truth and value depend upon the society
within which it exists. For Social Reconstructionists, there is no such thing as absolute
knowledge that is true for all peoples under all circumstances in all cultures.
This does not mean that some knowledge is not better for certain purposes and
certain peoples than other knowledge. That knowledge which supports educators’
analysis of our past and current society and vision of the future good society is the
knowledge of most worth to them. It is that knowledge which educators desire their
society to accept and acquire through social consensus.
The Creation of Knowledge

In discussing the creation of knowledge, two cases need to be distinguished: the
creation of knowledge by members of society and the creation of curriculum knowledge.
Members of society create the knowledge they possess. Knowledge does not come
into existence by itself and passively reside in objective reality. It comes into existence
when someone actively impresses meaning on sensory data, and it resides within the
subjective consciousness of its possessor. The process by which a person actively loads
meaning and value onto sensory data is the process by which knowledge is created.
Sensory data or objective information without meaning and value loaded onto it by a
person is not called knowledge. As such, the meaning structure, the perceptive func-
tions, and the interpretive functions of a person are crucial to Social Reconstructionists.
They are the operators that give meaning and value to the knowledge a person creates.
In many ways, it is these meaning-giving operators that educators wish to orient toward
their future good society. In so doing, educators bring the knower to share their vision
of the future rather than simply cause him or her to be informed about that vision.
The knowledge curriculum developers embed in their curricula has its origin in
their subjective interpretation of the nature of society in the past, present, and future.
It derives from educators’ personal analysis of their world. It is chosen for inclusion in
curriculum because it acts to convert the child into a participant in the developers’
visions of the future good society. It is embedded in curriculum with the intention of
aligning children’s knowledge and ways of knowing with those of developers and of
activating children to reconstruct society. This view of the source of curriculum
knowledge is portrayed in Figure 5.2. Note here that curriculum knowledge has its
origin in educators’ subjective view of society and that it is specifically directed toward
affecting the subjective consciousness of children so as to make them into change
agents who swell the social consensus that will in turn hopefully align society with
educators’ visions. Objective information, such as that possessed by the academic dis-
ciplines, is of little use to these educators, except as value can be loaded onto it so that
it supports their vision of the future good society. Academic skills are also of little use
except as they can be used as analytical tools for the purpose of reconstructing the
knowledge base of individuals and their societies. This leads some Reconstructionists
to even believe that the “enlightenment notion of reason needs to be reformu-
lated . . . because [it denies] . . . its own historical construction and ideological princi-
pals” (Giroux, 2005, p. 70).
Figure 5.2 The Social Reconstruction view of the source of curriculum knowledge.
Society
Curriculum Curriculum
Child
Developer Knowledge
Social Action
Characteristics of Knowledge
Six other attributes of knowledge need mention.
1. Knowledge is not viewed as a purely intellectual quantity. Both people’s “gut” knowledge
and their “intellectual” knowledge are important and interdependent. Both their “unra-
tional” (subconscious) and their “rational” (conscious) knowledge are valued.
2. Knowledge is both cognitive and experiential in nature. Knowledge is not just “informa-
tion about” but also “experience with” a subject. Knowledge is based both in people’s
experiences and in their ability to understand those experiences.
3. Although knowledge is a personal attribute of the perceiver, Social Reconstructionists
are concerned with the knowledge possessed by society. Educators wish to reconstruct
society by reconstructing the social consensus of the masses—the summative total of
the knowledge held by the many individuals who make up society.
4. Social Reconstructionists take a gestalt approach to knowledge, viewing it in relation to
other knowledge. Knowledge has meaning and value because it fits into a structure or
pattern. Individual bits of information, atomistically unrelated to any organizing theme
or vision, have little value.
5. Social Reconstructionism views knowledge as “interdisciplinary in nature” and ques-
tions “the fundamental categories of all disciplines” (Giroux, 1992, p. 10). It creates
“new forms of knowledge through its emphasis on breaking down disciplinary bound-
aries and creating new spheres in which knowledge can be produced” (Giroux, 2005,
p. 69). As Giroux emphasizes, “the struggle over the production and creation of knowl-
edge” is “an . . . issue . . . of power, ethics, and politics” (p. 69).
6. Social Reconstructionists highlight the ethical and political dimensions of knowledge
and its use by emphasizing that schools “must be seen as places where culture, power,
and knowledge come together to produce . . . a vision of the future,” a vision that deter-
mines what knowledge we consider to be true, ethical, emancipatory, and worthwhile
(Giroux, 2006, pp. 4–5).
Evaluation
Student and Curriculum Evaluation

Social Reconstructionists do not usually use formal objective evaluation during
curriculum development. They primarily use subjective evaluation.
They recommend a gestalt field theory approach to the evaluation of both cur-
ricula and students. Questions asked are not of the form “How does curriculum z or
student y measure up to standard m?” but rather of the form “How does curriculum z
or student y measure up to standard m in a particular circumstance?” This is necessary
because the particular time, place, and setting in which social crises are confronted are
constantly changing, as are the students confronting them, and it is believed that the
only valid assessments are those made under real-world circumstances.
Evaluation is not a simple comparison of expected outcomes to achieved out-
comes, but rather a comparison of the evaluee—whether curriculum or student—to
both expectations and to the field in which the evaluee functions. In the case of
curriculum evaluation, this involves taking account of the social environment in
which the curriculum is examined. In the case of student evaluation, this involves
taking account of both the student’s performance and the student’s ability to per-
form. For example, in evaluating a child’s self-concept with respect to the variable
“power over environment,” one would use a function including the following
parameters: the power the child exhibits, the power the child is capable of possess-
ing, the power the child thinks other children have, and the power the child thinks
he or she has. Here the relation is between (1) the power the child possesses com-
pared to the power available to him, and (2) the power the child thinks he has
compared to the power he thinks he is capable of possessing.
For Social Reconstructionists, summative student evaluation and curriculum
evaluation are inextricably tied together in the particular social environment in which
students live. As Horton says, the measure of a curriculum’s “effectiveness—perhaps
the only valid one—comes when a workshop participant returns home. Many never
become active. Others become devoted to fundamental social change” (Adams &
Horton, 1975, pp. 215–216). Here curriculum is evaluated through student perfor-
mance outside of school. The same holds true for student evaluation. What students
learn is thought to be testable only in their everyday life outside of school as they work
to reconstruct themselves and society in light of the curriculum’s vision of the future
good society.
During instruction, and particularly during group discussions, teachers provide
students with feedback about their meanings, meaning structures, perceptive func-
tions, and interpretive functions—for the purpose of helping students gain insight that
will enable them to reconstruct and transform those meanings, meaning structures,
perceptive functions, and interpretive functions and become more insightful and pow-
erful in analyzing, understanding, envisioning, and acting in social situations.
Evaluation and feedback are for the purpose of aiding students in reconstructing
themselves so that they can, in turn, aid in the reconstruction of society.
Perspective on Increased Student Testing

Given this perspective on evaluation, it is informative to observe what some Social
Reconstructionists think about the increase in student testing in schools that has taken
place during the beginning of the 21st century.
Social Reconstruction educators view with alarm the increase in student testing
during the 21st century, under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top
(RttT) mandates. They believe the assessment requirements of NCLB and RttT have
significant subversive underpinnings that are leading to a crisis in education. Their
viewpoint follows, and it connects state academic standards, accountability, objective
student achievement testing, teacher effectiveness evaluation and school efficiency rat-
ing based on student test scores, school privatization, control of curriculum, control of
school staffing, the hidden curriculum, and corporate profits, among other things.
NCLB and RttT require states to have academic standards (which represent objec-
tive content disjoint from the time, place, circumstances, and social situation of any
particular learner), upon which objective tests are developed and periodically given to
children. The standards, which are sanctioned by state governments and developed
under their supervision by individuals and organizations with power and influence in
our society, are centrally controlled and determine what is to be learned in school. The
required student achievement tests are seen as part of an accountability process that
assesses to what degree students have learned the content inherent in the standards, the
effectiveness of teachers in teaching that content (which is determined by how well
their students do on the tests), and the efficiency of schools in requiring teachers to
“teach to the test” (which is also determined by how well their students do on the tests).
Students, teachers, and schools are all assessed in the process and can be rewarded (e.g.,
with praise or bonuses) or punished (e.g., by being penalized, fired, or declared under-
performing). Part of the subversive element here is that companies that develop, score,
and report the test results are not only determining what students should learn, but are
developing measures for controlling teachers and school administrators (through
rewards and punishments).
For Social Reconstructionists, the following things are also important: corpora-
tions (with their capitalistic value systems) create, score, and report the results of the
student achievement tests; creating, scoring, and reporting the results of the tests is
financially lucrative to the companies that do so; many of the companies that create,
score, and report the results of student tests also develop curriculum materials that
reflect the content tested in the tests (and advertise the close correspondence between
what is tested and taught); selling curricula is financially lucrative; and the money that
school systems use to purchase tests (and test scoring and test reporting) and the cur-
riculum materials that “teach to the tests” comes from funds collected for the public
support for schools. Corporations that are in this business can thus make a lot of
money—money that was collected for the support of public schools—by helping
schools meet the requirements of NCLB and RttT. As a bonus, in the process, they get
to indirectly define what is taught in the schools and to control what type of teacher
behavior is allowable in schools (particularly in terms of the hidden curriculum that is
concerned with values—and, needless to say, the values are those of capitalistic corpo-
rations that create the tests and curricula).
One more point needs to be added. Many educational corporations, businesses,
and foundations are promoting the privatization of public schools. Some urban school
systems have hired for-profit private corporations to run their schools; underperform-
ing urban schools (under the accountability requirements of NCLB and RttT) can be
taken over by private for-profit corporations; and, in a number of cases, charter
schools have been taken over by private for-profit corporations. The money to run
these schools comes from public funds collected for the purpose of supporting public
education—involved here is a lot of money and profit for corporations.
Social Reconstructionists are concerned with a number of things related to these
issues.
First, NCLB and RttT accountability requirements result in public money desig-
nated for public education ending up in the coffers of corporations and the pockets of
their wealthy investors. Social Reconstructionists view it as unethical for corporations
to take increasingly larger amounts of money from public schools at a time of shrink-
ing school budgets, downsizing of school faculty, and increasing student class size.
Second, the type of objective knowledge valued by the state standards is not the
kind of subjective knowledge valued by the Social Reconstruction ideology. The objec-
tive knowledge valued by the state standards and examined in the objective tests given
to satisfy state accountability measures shows little concern for such things as students’
ability to critically analyze themselves in relation to their society, understand the ills of
their society, develop a vision of a better world based on a conception of social justice,
and act so as to actualize their vision.
Third, “the rapid expansion of testing” (required by NCLB and RttT) is not just an
attempt to monitor students, teachers, and schools, but rather is “designed to exert
increased control over both teachers and students” (Monthly Review, 2011, p. 64). This
is distressing to Social Reconstructionists, who want to give more control to teachers
and students over their lives and society, rather than providing others with more con-
trol over them.
Fourth, underlying the desire to control students, teachers, and school administra-
tors is the hidden agenda of pushing “the whole [educational] system in the direction
of privatization,” in which “Teachers . . . ‘teach to the test’ with curriculum materials
being provided by the private sector” (Monthly Review, 2011, p. 64). Put in other
words, Social Reconstructionists view the accountability movement underlying NCLB
and RttT as part of the agenda of capitalistic corporations, businesses, and foundations
as they attempt to bring “A vast array of pressures and sanctions [on education] to keep
the workers—students, teachers, administrations—in line” as they “increase . . . pri-
vatization” of public schools and turn them into for-profit businesses (Assessor, 2011,
pp. 68–69). Social Reconstructionists do not conceptualize this as the purpose of
schooling.
Fifth, underlying the control of schools by corporations, businesses, and founda-
tions is a value system that is hidden in the tests, curriculum, and teacher and school
assessment procedures that they develop and support. This value system “posits
schools as businesses, teachers as workers, [and] students as products and commodi-
ties” that are being shaped to meet the employment requirements, business culture,
and needs of business and corporations (Ayers & Ayers, 2011, p. 2). This value system
involves hidden curriculum elements relating to such things as power relationships,
work ethic, role expectations, and individuals’ “place” in society—all of which are
repulsive to the values of Social Reconstructionists because they not only contribute to
depriving workers of the ability to think critically about society and the ability to act
to rectify social injustices, but also they contribute to such social injustices as inequal-
ities among social groups and the widening of the educational, social, and economic
chasm between the rich and poor. In addition, the corporate “school reform agenda”
conceptualizes “education as an individual consumer good, not a social good,”
(Assessor, 2011, pp. 68–69) in such a way as to benefit the financial ends of the private
companies rather than the social needs of the majority of the population.
From this viewpoint, the current obsession in the United States with standardized
achievement testing (which is supported and encouraged by NCLB and RttT) not only
leads schooling away from its mission of social reconstruction (and toward the mission
of capitalism), but also limits the ability of Social Reconstruction educators to act in
schools (for their instructional endeavors are, to a large extent, inconsistent with the
hidden curriculum of corporate capitalism’s educational endeavors, and as a result
their students might not do well on state achievement tests and consequently they
might be punished—often by being fired or not rehired).
Thus, Social Reconstructionists view the current trend toward increased use of
student achievement testing as part of a larger power struggle in which corporations,
businesses, and foundations are highjacking our public schools and subversively con-
verting them to serve their capitalistic ends, rather than to serve what Social
Reconstruction educators view as the needs of society.
The Social Reconstruction ideology has done much to introduce knowledge of the
social dimensions of education to our schools, helping us comprehend that education
is a social process, that the hidden curriculum has enormous influence on learners, and
that all knowledge carries with it social values. It has brought to the attention of educa-
tors the realization that they must take value stances themselves and that they must
attend to the social, political, and moral values of the children they teach. Social
Reconstructionism’s insistence that schools consider the problems of our society and
the injustices done to its members has had a powerful effect on schools and added an
important dimension to their academic and vocational concerns. This ideology laid
the seeds for the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that help children deal with issues
such as civil rights, racial and gender bias, and environmental pollution.
The ideology’s influence on education formally began in 1932 when George
Counts attacked the Learner Centered ideology for not attending to our society’s prob-
lems and the injustices done to its members, asking, “Dare the school build a new
social order?” This led to a split in the Progressive Education Association between
advocates of the Social Reconstruction and Learner Centered ideologies—and was the
blow that initiated the decline of the Learner Centered ideology’s influence on educa-
tion. Members of the ideology published numerous social justice textbooks during the
Great Depression that deeply influenced schools. The ideology’s influence declined
during World War II and the McCarthy era. Social Reconstructionism regained its
influence in the 1960s and 1970s through its involvement in educational programs
supporting the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, desegregation, Vietnam
War protests, nuclear weapons and energy protests, and the early environmental pol-
lution (recycling) movement. Its influence on schools lessened in the 1980s but began
to grow again as the World War II generation of faculty began to retire and be replaced
by critical theorists, postmodernists, social constructivists, and social justice advocates.
At the beginning of the 21st century, large numbers of Social Reconstructionists were
found on the faculties of schools of education promoting a social justice agenda and
attempting to influence the next generation of teachers. By 2007 the ideology
had begun to come under attack for its social justice agenda; however, environmental
pollution, climate change, corporate influence on politicians and government, unem-

ployment, governmental budgetary cutbacks, financial crises, and the energy crisis are
possible prime issues for a newly reconfigured Social Reconstruction agenda. Figure
5.3 provides a rough estimation of those times when advocates of this ideology have
been most active, with respect to their own norms, in attempting to influence American
education.
Figure 5.3 Times of relative high and low activity of the Social Reconstruction ideology.
High
Level of Activity
Low
1890 1925 1950 1975 2012
Time
6
A Comparative
Overview of the
Curriculum
Ideologies
I n the preceding four chapters of this book, I have described four curriculum
ideologies: the Scholar Academic ideology, the Social Efficiency ideology, the
Learner Centered ideology, and the Social Reconstruction ideology. In exploring each
ideology, I have examined several essential aspects of its conceptual framework. These
include educators’ professional aims, conceptions of knowledge, views of learning,
perspectives on childhood, conceptions of teaching, and beliefs about evaluation. Thus
far, these topics have been separately investigated in the context of each ideology. They
will now be compared. Afterward, several as yet unmentioned aspects of the ideologies
will be briefly examined.
Comparative Summary
The comparisons consist of two parts: a play in which four teachers present their
beliefs and a summary of the major ideas of each ideology.
The plays take place after school, in a middle school classroom, in which four
teachers meet to discuss their beliefs. The teachers’ names are Scholar Academic (SA),
Social Efficiency (SE), Learner Centered (LC), and Social Reconstruction (SR). The
teachers are meeting because their school principal has charged them with preparing
opening statements for school faculty meetings that will stimulate the faculty to think
about and discuss their curriculum beliefs. The teachers understand some of the dis-
tinctions and use some of the language presented in this book. Most plays also contain
199
a digression, of the sort that occurs in many discussions among educators, that raises
a current curriculum issue without discussing it thoroughly or in depth.
Aims Play
SE: I can’t believe that the four of us have been put on a committee to write a draft
of our school’s mission statement that our principal is going to use as a
discussion starter for a faculty meeting. And she wants a transcript of our entire
discussion, not just our end product.
SR: We four are the ones who always disagree with everything. Maybe what we come
up with will be a good discussion starter.
SE: The sooner we come up with a mission statement, the sooner we’ll get out of
here. Thank goodness I have a computer program that will record what we say
and then turn it into a written transcript. When I have the transcript I can
format it, record who said what, print it out, and then send it to the principal to
distribute to the faculty. In fact, my computer is recording us now, so let’s get
started talking about our mission statement.
SA: Let me start. Our mission is to pass on to our students the content of the school
curriculum and to get them to learn it. That includes the content of mathematics,
science, history, and literacy—including reading, writing, literature, and a
foreign language.
SR: And just how do you determine the content of those subjects?
SA: The content comes from the state’s content standards, which are derived from
content standards of our professional associations (such as the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics), which in turn reflect the content of the
corresponding academic disciplines.
SE: Why should students learn the content of the academic disciplines? What use is
that?
SA: The academic disciplines contain the essence of the traditions of our culture,
and by passing on to students that content we pass on to them the essence of our
culture. Who can disagree?
SE: I can! I don’t think the academic disciplines contain the essence of our culture’s
traditions. I think that the mission of our school should be to efficiently provide
students with the skills that will enable them to contribute to our democratic
society. And to certify to society, using tests, that students have obtained those
skills.
SR: So you think that our school mission should be to prepare students to fit into
our capitalist, free enterprise society that is under the control of big corporations?
You probably also think that we should be teaching students to read and write
just so they can do the jobs that our corporate leaders say need to be done by
Chapter 6 A Comparative Overview of the Curriculum Ideologies ❖ 201
their corporations, so that their shareholders can make money from the sweat of
hard working employees.
SE: So what’s wrong with that? We need engineers, doctors, and lawyers as well as
people to work in factories, banks, and fast-food stores. All these types of jobs
need to get done efficiently, if we are to continue to benefit from our society.
SR: Yes, but the problem is that by just giving kids skills to fit into society as it is, we
perpetuate our current social and economic inequalities and injustices. If we
continue the way we’re going, what we’ll soon have is wage slavery for most
people!
SE: So what do you think the mission of the school should be?
SR: I think we should provide kids with the knowledge, skills, and values to improve
our society and make it into a more just and egalitarian place where all its
members can satisfy their material and spiritual needs.
SE: You sound like a flaming radical who wants a socialist society. Our democratic,
free enterprise, capitalist society is best.
SR: I have a vision of a better society in which the poor and middle class have a far
better life than they currently have. Do you know how many homeless there
currently are? Do you know that the richest 1% earn more than 23% of all the
income in the USA—and that leaves less than 77% of the total income for the
remaining 99% of our population. Do you think that is fair?
SA: Enough arguing about social issues! LC, what do you think our mission should be?
LC: I think our mission is simply to help children grow and maximize their human
potential. They need to learn such things as how to communicate effectively so
that they can express their needs and desires, and by that I mean to read, write,
speak, do mathematics, and use technology effectively. It’s simple. You guys are
so interested in the needs of the curriculum that you overlook the needs of
individual children.
SR: I can’t believe your fuzzy ideas! Schools exist to do more than simply nurture
children and to help them grow, each in his or her own idiosyncratic way—as
you so frequently say. Schools have a social function, not just an individual
function.
SA: If we keep getting into arguments we are never going to finish. We need to come
up with a mission statement. And I think it would be nice if it had something to
do with Race to the Top, you know, the successor of No Child Left Behind.
SE: That’s a great idea.
SR: Do you have any idea what Race to the Top is about?
SE: Yes, I sum it up in four words: standards, assessment, accountability, and
innovation.
SR: And just what do those cute little words mean?

SE: Standards means designing and implementing rigorous academic standards that
prepare kids for college and careers. Assessment means designing and
implementing assessments that measure student performances that are useful in
making instructional decisions. Accountability means using the results of student
assessments to improve teaching, evaluation, compensation, and retention by
encouraging and rewarding effectiveness and discouraging and punishing
ineffectiveness. Innovation means using standards, assessment, and accountability
to improve schools through such innovations as implementing merit pay,
supporting charter schools, and promoting collaborations between business
leaders and educators.
SA: Good summary! To me the most important thing is the design of rigorous
academic standards for the core curriculum of mathematics, literacy, science,
and social studies. That is what is best for preparing students for the future.
SR: There is no proof of that, given the fast rate of cultural and technological change
taking place in our world!
LC: In addition, I just can’t see why you believe that if children can’t measure up to
current curriculum standards, we should raise the standards and make them
more rigorous. And lots of states are passing laws that go further and say that if
children can’t pass the new standards then we should deprive them of high
school graduation, and thus further education. This does not solve our problems
and is not in the interest of children.
SA: Haven’t you heard how poorly American students are doing in comparison to
students from other countries? We need to raise standards and get better
teachers, teachers who will teach the content required by the standards.
SR: Oh, yes! Teachers deserve all of the blame for poor student performance, don’t
they! I am sick of hearing this! It overlooks things such as dysfunctional families
and communities unsupportive of education; student transience; broad social
ills such as homelessness and hunger; and poor curriculum, poor teacher
working conditions, and lousy administrative support.
SE: If we implement Race to the Top innovations such as expanding support for
charter schools, implementing merit pay, and promoting collaborations between
business leaders and educators, it should help with the poor performance.
SR: Come on! You are assuming that because educators are to blame for poor
student performance, as a result we should turn decision making over to
business and corporate CEOs, wealthy philanthropists, and politicians. There is
no proof that educators are completely to blame. In addition, corporate CEOs,
philanthropists, and politicians have agendas that aren’t in the best interests of
most kids. They are also clueless about classroom realities.
LC: In addition, you are assuming that because public education in the U.S. has
failed—which is questionable—we should turn over traditional public schools
to charter schools and allow private for-profit corporations and businesses to

run them. This is lousy logic. Current research indicates that there is no evidence
that charter schools or schools run by for-profit corporations do a better job
than traditional public schools.
SE: Well, to me what is most important about Race to the Top is development of
standardized student tests that can be used to hold teachers accountable for their
students’ performance.
LC: Eee! You assume that standardized tests are free of cultural, linguistic, and other
biases; that they completely and accurately assess all the important dimensions
of children’s knowledge; that they cannot be circumvented by raising or lowering
passing scores, cheating, or teaching to the test; and as a result they should be the
primary determiners of student success and teacher effectiveness. I disagree!
SR: And you assume that merit pay for teachers based on student tests given once a
year will be fair. I disagree! Other factors than a teacher’s efforts influence test
scores, such as a high degree of student transience and discrepancies between
family support for their children’s education. In addition, you assume that merit
pay based on student test scores will improve education without adverse effects
on teachers or children. I doubt it. Competition between teachers for pay raises
will probably influence collegiality and morale, promote teaching to the test, and
limit teacher creativity and instructional design efforts. For children, it has
already resulted in narrowing the school curriculum to focus primarily on the
subjects tested, which often results in minimizing the teaching of things like the
arts and physical education and, where they are not tested, also history, civics,
and science.
SA: OK! Enough! What a rampage! Forget I ever brought up Race to the Top. We
need to come up with a mission statement. And we need to do it soon because I
want to go home.
SE: I agree. I want to leave. But I disagree with all of you. How we are going to agree
on anything?
SA: Well, how about if we agree to disagree. At least that is a starting point.
LC: Yes! That’s it! What if we say our school has many purposes and that they vary
depending on grade and subject taught?
SA: Good idea! What if we each get one sentence in the mission statement?
SR: I am willing to give it a try.
SA: OK! Here is the first sentence: “Our school attempts to accomplish a variety of
things.” Someone add a sentence.
SE: We provide children with the skills necessary to become efficient, constructive
members of our democratic society.
SA: We enable students to obtain academic excellence by acquiring the content
knowledge of the school curriculum.
LC: We facilitate the growth of children so that they can self-actualize and reach their
full human potential.
SR: We help kids learn the knowledge, skills, and values that will enable them to
contribute to building a more just and fulfilling society for all of its members.
LC: Ok, that’s it! Full of disagreement, but we all agree that this is what we are all
about.
SR: Yes, but it is just a bunch of slogans. It doesn’t commit us to any real social vision
or action.
SA: I disagree! I think that mission statement has lots of meaning! What do you
expect from a mission statement—other than a bunch of slogans? I vote we
accept it. Each of us has contributed something.
LC: I agree. Let’s do it, end this meeting, and go home.
SR: OK.
SE: Good! When my computer finishes transcribing what we said, I will format the
document, add labels that identify who said what, and then send a copy to our
principal so she can distribute it our faculty.
Aims Comparison
Educators have professional aims that give meaning to their endeavors. The fol-
lowing questions allow their aims to be compared:
• What do educators conceive their professional aims to be?

• For what kind of clients or ideals do educators believe they work?
• Where do educators’ vested interests lie?
• Do educators see themselves as responsible to a client whose vested interests are other
than their own?
The aim of Scholar Academics is to perpetuate the existence of their discipline

both by guaranteeing that future members of the discipline will exist (who will in turn
carry on its traditions and further its epistemic development) and by building literacy
for the discipline in the general public (so the public will support its endeavors and
benefit from its discovered truths). This aim usually takes the form of extending the
discipline by transmitting its essence to students. Educators conceive of themselves as
working within their academic disciplines in such a way that their own curriculum
construction endeavors coincide with those of their academic community.
The aim of Social Efficiency educators is to efficiently and scientifically carry out
a task for a client (often society). Educators conceive of themselves as unbiased agents
of their client whose vested interests are other than their own. Social Efficiency educa-
tors consider their vested interests to lie in how efficiently and scientifically they
accomplish their task rather than in which task they accomplish.
The aim of Learner Centered educators is to stimulate the growth of people by
designing experiences from which people can make meaning, fulfill their needs, and
pursue their interests. This aim includes within it secondary aims of stimulating cur-
riculum developers’ own growth and the growth of teachers (both of whom support
the growth of students). Learner Centered educators do not view themselves as respon-
sible to a client but as serving the ideal of learners’ growth. They believe their vested
interests are identical to those of learners.
The aim of Social Reconstructionists is to eliminate undesirable aspects of their
culture. They try to reconstruct their culture in such a way that its members will attain
maximum satisfaction of their material and spiritual needs. Social Reconstructionists
frequently conceive of themselves as working for downtrodden members of society
whose material and spiritual needs are not being met. However, they view themselves
as responsible primarily to their vision of the future better society. As such, Social
Reconstructionists’ vested interests (their vision of the future good society) are often
different from those of the members of society for whom they work. Educators try to
change this difference of opinion through education.
Knowledge Play
SE: The principal asked us to discuss what type of knowledge we think is most
important for students to learn in school. She wants to use the result to stimulate
talk in the faculty meeting next week.
SE: Let’s get to the discussion. My computer is recording us as we speak.
SA: I think that the most important knowledge for students to learn in school is the
information in our textbooks. They need to understand that information.
SR: What do you mean by “understand” and “information”?
SA: I mean the objective facts that experts in each school subject agree on. I also
include ways of thinking and experimenting used by scholars, such as historical
or scientific methods.
SE: I don’t think that schooling should be about filling the mind with facts. I think
it should be about learning how to do things, like reading and writing and
calculating. A mind full of facts without the ability to act is useless. The most
important types of knowledge students should learn in school are capabilities
for action that enable them to perform tasks; simply filling their minds with
facts does not give them anything they can use in their life to become productive
citizens.
SA: Bunk! Give me an example of why performance is better than information.
SE: That’s easy. In history we deal with civics and things like the importance of being
honest. So what is more important: the ability to define honesty and say how an
honest person should behave, or behaving as an honest person whether or not
you can describe how an honest person should behave?
LC: I think that worthwhile knowledge has to be more than simply things you
remember or do. It has to be personally meaningful to children. Simply being
able to repeat a fact or do something is not enough. The school knowledge

children learn should have personal meaning to them; it should connect to their
unique personal experiences with life and give them insights into their world.
SA: That kind of knowledge would be subjective, for each student would have
different views of things like who Christopher Columbus was, based on how,
where, and when they learned about him. School knowledge should be objective;
everyone should have the same understanding of it and be able to state that
understanding.
SE: It’s important that knowledge is objective, that everyone can agree on it.
SA: I agree. Worthwhile knowledge is objective, but by that I mean that scholars
agree it is true.
SR: Why does the knowledge we teach need to be objective and everyone’s
understanding of it need to be identical? Some of the most important things
kids learn in school are subjective.
SA: Like what?
SR: Like what it feels like to be discriminated against if you are Latino, or female, or
poor, or gay. I think that all knowledge carries values with it. In fact, I think that
the most important school knowledge is connected with a set of values. Knowing
about Hitler is one thing, but knowing in your gut both about Hitler and that
what Hitler did was evil is what is really important. Having a value-loaded
understanding of the past that allows kids to construct a value-loaded vision of
a future good society that they can act on in order to improve society is the type
of knowledge we should be teaching in school.
SE: I think we need to get concrete in our discussion and explain what we think
students should learn by studying a particular topic. For example, if we were
teaching about Christopher Columbus, what would we hope students would
learn?
SA: Excellent idea! And let’s assume that the major item we use in our study is
Columbus’s Ship’s Log of his first journey to the New World. It’s available in
English on the Internet.
SR: Why would you choose that, of all things?
SA: It’s an historical document, and if students are going to study history the way
they should, and learn to act as historians, they should do so like a historian and
use original documents.
SR: That says a lot about what knowledge you value most! I’ll agree if we can also
allow kids to use the Internet.
SA: Fine. So lets each tell how we would use Columbus’s Log and the Internet with
our students to illustrate what we value most about school knowledge.
SE: Why don’t you go first, SA, since this is your idea?
SA: Well, I would have students act as historians by getting the facts, writing research
reports that are put into a monograph, and then presenting their findings in a
mock scholarly conference. This is how I would do it:
1. I would have my students go to the Internet and find out about Columbus’s life. The
assignment would be to make a time line of his life. They need to know the facts about
his life and the historical events of the time to put his voyage in historical context.
Learning the facts, in historical context, is an important starting point.
2. I would have students read his diary of his first journey to the New World. We want
students to act like historians when studying history, and historians always try to use
original documents when attempting to understand the past.
3. From their reading of his journal, students will prepare a written research report
and an oral presentation that describe an event that occurred during Columbus’s
voyage. They will choose the event from his journal and see what else they can find
about it from the Internet. They will include at least one quote from the original
document in their written report. Students will hand in their written reports in
both printed form and as pdf files. I will compile the reports into a class monograph
and post it on the Internet.
4. Students will present their oral reports to the class as part of a conference on events
that occurred on Columbus’s trip.
LC: Very impressive. Everything is based on the facts, students use original documents,
and students behave like little historians as they attempt to understand things. This
illustrates your views. SE, why don’t you go next?
SE: First, you need to know how I would set up my classroom. Students would sit at
their desks and work individually, each at his or her own rate. Each would have
a pencil, a computer with Internet, a copy of Columbus’s Log, sets of multiple-
choice questions related to selected readings in the Log, and computer scanable
bubble answer paper on which they answer the questions. This is a sample of
what some sets of questions would be about:
• getting information from reading Columbus’s Log,

• finding information about Columbus on the Internet,
• finding the meaning of words in the Log in an Internet dictionary,
• identifying the meaning of contractions and constructing contractions, and
• using a book’s index.
At my desk would be a computer connected to a bubble paper scanner that can

grade student work. It would constantly provide updated student progress
reports. In this setting, this is how my curriculum would proceed:
1. Students would read a selection from Columbus’s Ship’s Log and answer a set of ques-
tions related to it by coloring in answers on the bubble paper.
2. Students would bring their answers to the scanner and scan them. The computer
would grade their work.
3. If students answered enough questions correctly, the computer would allow them to
repeat the previous two steps by reading another selection from Columbus’s Ship’s
Log and answering a new set of questions, which would then be graded by the com-
puter. If students did not correctly answer enough questions, they would have to
repeat the reading and answer the questions related to it again. This process would
continue until all the sets of questions were satisfactorily completed.
While students were completing the readings and related questions, I would call
individuals to my desk to do three things:
• read aloud a section of the Log, to test their reading fluency;

• copy a selection from the Log using good handwriting, to test their handwriting;
and
• copy a selection from the Log using touch typing, to test their typing speed and
accuracy.
I would enter in the computer whether a student passed or failed these tests. If
any performance was inadequate, the student would have to practice the skill
using computer programs I have, retake the related test, and continue this
process until performing up to expectation.
SA: That says a lot about the knowledge you value. There is nothing in there that
values facts, understanding of historical events, or the historical method.
Students are doing lots of things but are not required to understand anything.
In the reading test, you would value fluency and performance over comprehension
and understanding, while I would value the opposite.
SR: LC, why don’t you go next?
LC: First, I would set up learning centers around the classroom, with the materials
in each that were required to complete its activities (such as hand puppets and
dress-up clothing). I would make Columbus’s Ship’s Log available to students, as
well as a time line of its events and the pages on which they were described in
the Log. I would ask students to read about events that interested them. It would
be their choice. Then, based on what they read, I would ask them to select a
learning center and complete the activity described in it, as it related to what
they read and what interested them. Some activities would be for individuals;
others would require groups of students. Students would be assessed on their
unique endeavors in the context of their own potential. The learning centers
would be the following:
Puppet Show: Plan and perform a puppet show for the class that describes one of the
events that occurred on the Santa Maria. Construct your own puppets or use those in
the learning center.
Oral Story Telling: Create an oral story that tells about some of the events that
occurred on the Santa Maria. Tell it first to children in our class, then to children in
the second grade.
Make a Video: Go on the Internet and read about what Native Americans thought
about Columbus and what Columbus though about Native Americans. Then plan a
play that shows how each treated and thought about the other, perform it and record
it on our video recorder, present your video to the class, and then hold a class discus-
sion about your video.
Newspaper Article: Read on the Internet about what Native Americans thought about
how Columbus treated them. Then pretend that aliens from another planet arrive on
Earth with weapons superior to ours and start treating us like Columbus treated
Native Americans. Next, pretend you are a newspaper reporter and write a story about
what is occurring and what we Earthlings think about it. Finally, share your article
with friends and family members and ask them whether your article influenced how
they think about Columbus.
Opinion Paper: Read on the Internet about what Native Americans and Europeans got
from each other as a result of Columbus’s discovery. Include consideration of raw
materials, food, and population growth and/or decline. Then write an opinion paper
about what they got from each other, whether you think Europeans or Native
Americans got more, and your thoughts about how your life would be different today
if Europeans had never arrived on our continent.
Write a Log: Write your own log of what you think several days on the Santa Maria
would have been like as a sailor.
Comic Book: Draw and write a comic book about one of Columbus’s adventures.
Report on Columbus: Go on the Internet and find out about Columbus’s life. Then
construct and deliver either a written, oral, or dramatic report to the class of what you
discovered.
SA: Chaos would reign in your room if that occurred. And students would not learn
any common body of accepted facts about Columbus. Each would be learning
different things.
LC: Yes, the children would take their own unique meanings from what they did, as
they always do. In addition, what they learned would be meaningful to them and
they would remember it for years, which is different from the facts they need to
memorize in your class where everyone needs to have the same understanding.
SR: No fighting. This is about finding out what type of knowledge each of us
considers most valuable. Clearly, LC thinks that the personal meanings that
students construct in their own way as a result of their own interests are the most
important type of knowledge.
SA: Your turn, SR. What would you do?
SR: I would have my students work through the following three projects.
Columbus’s Views of Native Americans: Set this project’s context by discussing with
students how history books propagate national myths. First, students read about
Columbus’s life on the Internet and in their history textbook and create a time line of
it. Next, to discover Columbus’s views about and behavior toward Native Americans,
students read his Ship’s Log, Internet commentaries on him, and some of A Short
Account of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolomé de las Casas. Students then ask
their parents what they know about Columbus and his attitudes toward Native
Americans. Next, students write reports that compare their, their parents,’ and their
textbook’s pre-existing knowledge of Columbus with the things they have recently
found out about him, with special focus on how he viewed and treated Native
Americans and how they would have felt if they were a Native American who came
into contact with Columbus. Then, students discuss their reports. Finally, students
brainstorm how to change people’s attitudes about Columbus to correspond more
with current knowledge and take action to do so (for example, by speaking with a
parent or writing a letter to their history textbook’s author).
Telling the Truth: Set this project’s context by informing students that Columbus kept
two Ship’s Logs: one that his sailors could read, in which he underestimated the dis-
tance travelled each day (to mislead his sailors, who were afraid to sail far from land),
and another private log in which he accurately recorded distances. First, students
speak with parents and friends to discover when politicians have lied and their
responses when the lies were revealed. Students then write a report about people’s
responses when they discover they have been lied to. Next, students imagine a situa-
tion where it might be convenient to lie and write a short essay on what they would
do if they were in that situation—lie or tell the truth—and why. Third, students pre-
pare for and participate in two discussions: (1) If you thought it would help people if
you lied rather than told the truth, would you lie or tell the truth? and (2) If you
discovered a politician lying and if the lie harmed the people the politician was sup-
posed to represent, what might you do to disclose the lie? Fourth, students find a lie
that they do not like, plan a way to expose that lie, get feedback from teachers and
friends about the plan, and then take action to expose the lie (e.g., by calling a talk
show or writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper). Finally, students discuss how
they feel when their history teachers or textbooks tell lies of omission, as was the case
with their portrayal of Columbus by not disclosing his attitudes about and actions
toward Native Americans.
On Trial for Genocide: Set this project’s context by telling students that as many as
three million Native Americans who lived on the island of Hispaniola, which
Columbus “discovered” in 1492, died as a result of his actions. First, students prepare
for a trial of Columbus, Columbus’s men, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, and
the Native Americans, to determine who was responsible for the deaths. They prepare
for the genocide trial by reading further on the Internet and discussing their findings
with each other. Second, they role play the trial and video it, with the class divided
into groups that represent a jury and lawyers as well as representatives for Columbus,
Columbus’s men, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, and the Native Americans.
Students then discuss their trial. Finally, students use the Internet to examine other
genocides, find out about a current genocide, explore what they can do about it, and
then do something that will alert people to it (such as mounting a protest at their
school or a nearby place where people frequent).
SA: You call that worthwhile knowledge? You are teaching values and inciting
students to subversive action.
LC: Stop criticizing. SR has nicely shown what he thinks is worthwhile school
knowledge.
SE: Well it is clear that we value different types of knowledge. SA favors authoritative,
objective information that can be understood. I favor performances that can be
objectively demonstrated. LC favors subjective meanings that are unique to each
student and that they create from their personal creative experiences. And SR
favors subjective, value-laden information, opinions, and visions that students
can act on to improve society.
SA: I think we have finished discussing knowledge, and I want go home. How about
it?
LC: I agree!
SE: Good! I will get the transcript of our discussion to the principal tomorrow.
Knowledge Comparison
Educators’ conceptions of the types of knowledge that are most valuable and
most worthy of inclusion in curriculum are of great importance. The positions edu-
cators hold with respect to knowledge will be reviewed by examining the following
questions:
• What is the nature of knowledge?

• What kinds of abilities does knowledge give to a person?
• What is the source of knowledge?
• From where does knowledge derive its authority?
• How is knowledge’s truth verified?
Scholar Academics believe that worthwhile curriculum knowledge has the nature
of didactic statements and modes of thinking that correspond to the intellectual tradi-
tions of academic disciplines. Knowledge gives the child the ability to understand. It
has its source in objective reality as interpreted by the academic disciplines. It derives
its authority from the academic discipline to which it belongs. Its truth is verified
through a congruence method that evaluates the degree to which it reflects the essence
of the academic discipline to which it belongs.
Social Efficiency educators believe that worthwhile curriculum knowledge has the
nature of a capability for action. Knowledge gives children the ability to do things. It
has its source in normative objective reality as interpreted by the members of society.
It derives its authority from the impact it has in perpetuating society by providing
individuals with the skills that they need to function within society. Its truth is verified
through a congruence method that evaluates its correspondence to empirical reality as
interpreted by members of society.
Learner Centered educators believe that worthwhile knowledge takes the form
of personal meanings. Knowledge gives learners the ability to be themselves at
their highest level of self-actualization. It has its source in individuals’ direct expe-
rience with their world and their personal creative self-expression in response to
experience as directed by their felt needs and personality structure. It derives its
authority from the meaning it has to its possessor. Its truth is verifiable through
the personal insight of individuals who possess it. Acquisition of knowledge is not
a primary concern of Learner Centered educators—it is a first derivative of learn-

ing and a second derivative of growth, both of which are respectively more impor-
tant than knowledge.
Social Reconstructionists believe that worthwhile curriculum knowledge takes a
form that expresses both truth and value: both intelligence and a moral stance.
Knowledge gives children the ability to interpret, act on, and reconstruct their society.
It has its source in educators’ interpretations (and, through educators’ interpretations,
children’s interpretations) of the past, present, and future society. It derives its author-
ity from educators’ visions (and, through educators’ visions, children’s visions) of the
future good society. Its truth is verified through educators’ convictions regarding its
ability to improve the existing society as it relates to their visions of the future good
society.
Table 6.1 sets forth the answers given by each of the ideologies to these
questions.
Table 6.1 A comparison of the ideologies’ views regarding knowledge.
Scholar Social
Knowledge Academic Social Efficiency Learner Centered Reconstruction
The nature of didactic capabilities for personal intelligence and a

knowledge is . . . statements action meanings moral stance
Knowledge gives to understand to do to actualize to interpret, act

the ability . . . oneself on, and
reconstruct
society
The source of objective reality normative individuals’ individuals’

knowledge is . . . as interpreted by objective reality personal creative interpretation of
the academic as socially response to society’s past,
disciplines interpreted experience present, and
future
Knowledge the academic its ability to the meaning it individuals’

derives its disciplines perpetuate society has to its visions of the
authority from . . . through skills possessor future good
provided to its society
members
The truth of finding the degree seeing if it the personal individuals’

knowledge is to which it corresponds to insights of its beliefs in its
verified by . . . reflects the society’s view of possessor ability to improve
essence of an the nature of society
academic empirical reality
discipline
Educators’ views about the nature of knowledge can be further examined by

clarifying their answers to these two questions:
• Where does worthwhile knowledge reside: within the individual or outside the
individual?
• What is more important about knowledge: the source from which it originates or the
use to which it can be put?
Underlying these two questions is an implicit distinction between objective

reality and subjective reality. Objective reality refers to things in the real world
whose existence and nature can be impartially perceived and verified. Subjective
reality refers to things in the minds of individuals that are constructed from their
own unique observations, thoughts, feelings, temperaments, etc. Objective reality
refers to those things (that is, objects) independent of the mind of the perceiver.
Subjective reality refers to meanings or perceptions within people’s (that is, sub-
jects’) minds.
Educators believe that worthwhile curriculum knowledge has its origins in
either objective or subjective reality. Scholar Academic and Social Efficiency edu-
cators believe that knowledge originates and has a separate existence outside the
individual—that is, they believe it exists in the objective, publicly accessible world
of reality. In contrast, Learner Centered and Social Reconstruction educators
believe that knowledge originates and exists in the subjective minds of individuals
and is dependent on the subjective meanings of those individuals. As a result,
Scholar Academic and Social Efficiency educators believe that knowledge is uni-
versal and that anyone can come to understand it in its true form. In contrast,
Learner Centered and Social Reconstruction educators consider knowledge to be
idiosyncratic to the individuals who possess it in that each individual understands
knowledge in his or her own unique way, which is not easily accessible or compre-
hensible to anyone other than that individual. Thus, even though Scholar Academic
educators believe that knowledge has its origins in the objective interpretations of
the academic disciplines and Social Efficiency educators believe that knowledge
has its origins in the normative reality of society, they both act on the belief that
knowledge originates outside the individual. Similarly, even though Learner
Centered educators believe that knowledge has its origins in individuals’ creative
response to their personal experiences and Social Reconstruction educators believe
that knowledge has its origins in individuals’ interpretations of social events, they
both act on the belief that knowledge is created by the individual who possesses it
and that it has its origins in subjective reality.
Educators can also be differentiated according to whether they value knowledge
primarily because of the source from which it originates or because of the uses to
which it can be put. Scholar Academics believe that knowledge’s value comes primar-
ily from the fact that it has its origins in the academic disciplines, while Learner
Centered educators believe that knowledge is valuable primarily because it is created
by the individual who possesses it. In both cases, knowledge is believed to be valuable
because of its origins and not because of its uses. In contrast, Social Efficiency and
Social Reconstruction educators value knowledge primarily for the uses to which it
can be put. Social Efficiency educators believe that knowledge is useful and thus
important because of its ability to sustain and perpetuate the best of our present
society. Social Reconstruction educators believe that knowledge is useful and thus
important because it allows individuals to act to bring into existence a society better
than the present one.
If we correlate the questions “Are the origins of knowledge in objective or subjec-
tive reality?” and “Does knowledge’s importance come from its source or its use?” we
obtain a four-cell matrix that illustrates the relationship among the ideologies (see
Figure 6.1). In this matrix, the ideologies can be compared according to whether their
position is to the right or left of the vertical axis and whether it is above or below the
horizontal axis. Figure 6.2 substitutes in the place of the name of each ideology a visual
model of the essence of its views of the relationship between subjective and objective
reality. In each visual model, the relation between object (0) and subject (S), the origin
of the source of knowledge (plain arrow), and the existence and direction of the uses
of knowledge (slashed arrow) reflect the dynamic relationships among these elements
as conceived by each ideology.
Figure 6.1 The relationship of the ideologies’ views regarding the origins and importance
of knowledge.
Source of
Knowledge
Scholar Learner
Academic Centered
Objective Subjective
Reality Reality
Social Social
Efficiency Reconstruction
Uses of
Knowledge
Vertical Axis: Is knowledge valued primarily because of the source from which it originates or
because of the uses to which it is put?
Horizontal Axis: Does knowledge have its origin in objective reality or
subjective reality?
Figure 6.2 Visual models of the ideologies’ views of the relationship between the origins
and importance of knowledge.
Source of
Knowledge
O S O S
Objective Subjective
Reality Reality
O S O S
Uses of
Knowledge
S = Subjective Reality = Source of Knowledge

O = Objective Reality = Uses of Knowledge
Learning Play
SA: Our principal now wants us to discuss what we think is most important about
student learning. She wants to use the result to stimulate discussion among
faculty.
SE: Let’s get started. My computer is recording as we speak.
SA: When I think about learning, I think about what I have to do to get content in a
form that I can transmit to students so they will understand it and remember it.
Their minds are like little sponges, and I just need to figure out how to get them
to soak up the content I teach and store it in their minds.
LC: You are speaking about learning from the perspective of the teacher and not the
student!
SA: Of course! Learning is just the flip side of teaching. Learning is about students
getting into their minds what I teach.
LC: But what about children learning things like self-concept, how to socialize with
other children, and how to manage a bank account?
SA: I don’t consider that to be part of school learning, and it is school learning that
we should be concerned with. Not that other stuff. School learning is about
getting academic content into students’ minds.
SE: No! School learning is not about filling children’s minds, but about changing
their behavior—about acquiring skills. And not just academic skills, but the life
skills that will enable them to be productive adult citizens. Our job is to design
learning experiences that will let them acquire behavior so that when they are
presented with certain stimuli, they can respond in socially productive ways.
They are the ones who have to do the learning by practicing the desired behavior.
They do the work during learning, not teachers. LC was correct when raising the
issue of how we deal with children learning things like how to handle money in
a bank account. We have to concern ourselves with children learning occupational
skills as well as academic content.
SA: No! School learning is about students acquiring academic content. Nothing else.
LC: I disagree. We need to be concerned with all aspects of children and not just the
academic information they can recite. School learning involves their social,
intellectual, emotional, and physical development. Schools have to be concerned
with the whole child and with all aspects of his or her growth. I think school
learning is more about the natural growth of the whole child than simply about
the acquisition of content or skills.
SA: Growth! Come on, LC! We are not talking about growth but about learning.
LC: Well, from my perspective, learning is just a by-product of growth. Children’s
growth occurs naturally when we present them with stimulating learning
environments that they can interact with—environments that are full of
stimulating physical, social, and intellectual interactions. And that includes
interactions with teachers. Like SE said, children will do the work that facilitates
their growth—and as a result, learn—if we, as teachers, present them with the
appropriate stimulating learning environments.
SA: You think they are going to learn to read just by being in the right learning
environment?
LC: Yes! They will learn to read naturally without our having to drill them on
phonics, make them read aloud in reading groups, or give them reading tests.
They will learn to read naturally and without pressure, just the way they learned
to speak, if they are in a literacy-rich environment full of reading materials they
are interested in and other people who are reading and excited about what they
are reading.
SA: Bunk!
SR: Well, I sort of agree with all of you, but in my own way. I think that kids have to
acquire academic content, as SA suggests, so that they can understand their society
and be able to effectively counteract its unjust and inequitable aspects. For
example, they need to learn math so that they can present their ideas with statistics
and graphs, just as they need to know history so they can argue with opponents
using background information about events. And I think kids naturally learn by
being in stimulating learning environments, as LC suggests, where they can see
horrible social injustices taking place and discuss and reflect on those injustices
with me and other kids. Kids need to see how teachers think during discussions,
so that they can imitate our ways of thinking. And I think kids need to learn
behaviors, as SE suggests, that will enable them to combat our society’s injustices
and inequalities. I think they learn those behaviors by seeing others, such as us
teachers, behave in constructive ways and then themselves practicing the behaviors
they have observed. I think you call this learning theory “social constructivism”
because students construct their own meanings in a social context.
SA: Bunk!
LC: Well, I agree with constructivism as my learning theory, but I don’t add on the
social part. I also believe in developmental psychology.
SE: I certainly don’t agree with constructivism, social constructivism, or
developmental theory. I believe in straightforward conditioning into children
the behaviors we want them to acquire. We should put children in a learning
environment where there are clear connections between stimuli children will
encounter in the future and the responses to those stimuli that we want them to
learn, and we should train them to respond appropriately by rewarding correct
responses and either ignoring or punishing incorrect responses.
SA: I disagree! School learning is about getting into students’ minds the curriculum’s
content, and each content area has its own way of learning and thinking about
the world.
LC: There is a difference between a learned way of thinking and a theory about how
people learn. How do you think children learn?
SA: They learn each content area differently, and that should be determined by the
scholars in each content area. In general, however, it is through listening to
lectures or reading things, discussion, and practicing things.
SR: That’s a theory about teaching, not learning. You are just trying to socialize
children into each academic discipline and make them little mathematicians,
scientists, or historians. You want to fill their minds with the content of a
discipline and train them to think like that discipline’s scholars.
SA: At least I am not trying to indoctrinate them the way you are, or train them like
SE is, or grow them they way LC claims.
SE: Just a minute! I do more than just train children. I am trying to get them to learn
to behave as constructive members of society.
SR: Yes, but it is just a subtle way of shaping their behavior by using rewards and
punishments to socialize them so that they will fit into our current society.
SA: That is also what you do SR, except you are trying to get them to fit into your
conception of what society should be rather than what society currently is. I call it
indoctrination, but it is socialization the way you put students in undesirable
social situations and then get them to imitate your way of thinking by having them
discuss their thoughts with you and getting them to imitate your way of thinking.
SR: Well, if that is socializing children, then I socialize them to bring about a better
world, rather than socializing them into an academic discipline they way you try
to do, SA, or socializing them into our current society the way you try to do, SE.
Perhaps we all try to socialize or indoctrinate children into the type of society
we value most.
LC: Not me. I think children learn best by being nurtured in such a way that they can
naturally grow in accordance with their own inner being.
SA: Oh! Give me a break, LC. As far as I am concerned, we need to have national
content standards and force every teacher to teach them and every student learn
them. Then you three would see the value of my way of thinking.
SR: Why should we all have to teach the same thing?
SA: So that all students will have the same common knowledge base.
SR: But that knowledge base is heavily influenced by the agendas and special
interests of university academics, politicians, philanthropists, corporations, and
big business. And each of them has agendas and special interests that are
different from those of the general U.S. population. As a result, our standards are
very biased and not always beneficial to the average U.S. citizen.
SE: I agree; our content standards should reflect the needs of our entire society.
SA: No! Standards should be based only on what academicians think is the most
worthwhile knowledge in their disciplines. The best minds that are most
knowledgeable of the content should make the decisions about what should be
taught. I don’t think politicians, philanthropists, corporations, or businesses
should have a say about such things.
SE: They are an important part of society, so why shouldn’t they also have a say
about what children learn in our schools?
SR: But again, why do we need national standards?
SE: We need to have standards that tell us what knowledge children should learn,
standards that give guidance to curriculum developers who create the materials
we use when we teach.
SA: Haven’t you heard how poorly American students are already doing in
comparison to students from other countries? We need to change this. American
students should be the best educated in the world. We need to have all students
learning the same high-quality content. We need national curriculum standards.
As it is, what is taught in fifth grade at some schools is taught in the third grade
at other schools. And the achievement level as measured by NAEP is higher in
some states than in others. We need some uniformity, which would come from
national standards.
SR: But aren’t education decisions supposed to be local and not national? Having
national curriculum standards will greatly decrease the responsiveness of
education to individual student and local community needs, concerns, and
interests. Surely you want parents and communities to have a say about the
education of their children, as well as allowing children to have some say over
what they learn!
LC: And the current approach to national standards cuts teachers out of contributing
to the dialogue.
SR: I agree. If we make curriculum decisions at the national level, it will shut out
teachers from having any control over what they do in their classrooms. It will
disempower us. It will also disempower children and teach them that their
interests, talents, and abilities aren’t of value.
LC: Even when we have only state standards, making all teachers in a state teach the
same thing it is killing teachers’ creativity. It is making us into mechanical
factory workers whose jobs are so odious that in the future no new smart,
creative people will become teachers.
SA: We need to do what needs to be done to get America back on track to being the
best educated country in the World. If we don’t, our society will be in trouble. It
will help if we have good standards for everyone.
SR: Come on, there isn’t any evidence that controlling education and formulating
curriculum nationally rather than locally will solve our schools’ problems, is
there?
SA: Well, having good standards is only part of the solution. We also need good
teachers who will teach what is in the standards.
LC: My blood is starting to boil. You are now also blaming our educational problems
on teachers and implying that our current teachers are not as good as they
should be. Well, if you ask me, one of the biggest problems is that American
society does not value teachers or schooling very much. Just look at how our
society treats teachers: They don’t pay us much, they don’t provide us with very
good working conditions, they don’t give us much respect, and they don’t even
emphasize that smart people should go into teaching. In places where
international academic scores in math and science are high, like in Singapore,
teachers are given lots of respect, have much better working conditions than in
the U.S., and the society emphasizes that only the smartest people can become
teachers.
SA: Hey! Hold it everyone. I am sorry I ever brought up the standards movement. I
think we have finished discussing student learning, and I want go home. How
about it?
SR: Yes!
LC: I agree!
SE: Good! I will get a transcript of our discussion to our principal by tomorrow
evening.
Learning Comparison
Educators within each ideology have different views about learning.
Scholar Academics view learning from the perspective of the transmitter of what
is to be learned—who is the primary active agent during learning—rather than from
the perspective of the receiver of learning.
Social Efficiency educators view learning as a process by which learners’ behaviors
are shaped by an agent outside themselves. They believe that learning takes place when
a change in organization of mind manifests itself as a change in behavior.
Learner Centered educators view learning as a by-product of growth, during
which learners make meaning through creative self-expression as a result of organi-
cally interacting with their environment in a mode congruent with their inner nature.
Social Reconstructionists view learning as children’s having inculcated into them
a way of viewing events in their environment through an intelligence oriented around
a vision of a future good society. This intelligence allows them to learn things both in
relation to what they already know and within the context in which they occur.
The answers to the following questions (presented in Table 6.2) make explicit
some of the differences among the ideologies with respect to their views of learning.
• Is learning viewed from the perspective of the receiver or from the perspective of the
transmitter of what is to be learned? That is, do educators view learning through the
eyes of the teacher (adult) or through the eyes of the learner (child)?
• Is learning viewed primarily as a function of natural growth or as a function of societal
transmission? Here the question is whether educators believe that the type of learning
their curriculum provides is the same as or different from the type of learning children
can naturally acquire while growing up outside of formal schooling.
• Is learning treated as an integrated or as an atomistic process? That is, can one break
learning down into individual and disjoint (atomistic) acts, or must one treat the learn-
ing process in a holistic (integrated) manner?
• Is learning primarily a process of changing mind or a process of changing behavior?
• Is the desired result of learning a change of mind or a change of behavior?
• Is the primary actor during learning the learner or an agent outside the learner who
does something to the learner?
• Is there a concern for formal learning theory? What type of learning theory is used?
• How is the issue of readiness for learning addressed?
• How is the issue of individualized instruction handled?
Table 6.2 A comparison of the ideologies’ views regarding learning.
Scholar Social Learner Social

Learning Academic Efficiency Centered Reconstruction
Is learning viewed from the transmitter transmitter receiver transmitter

perspective of the receiver or
the transmitter?
Is learning seen primarily as transmission transmission growth transmission

a function of natural growth
or as a function of societal
transmission?
Is learning an integrated or atomistic atomistic integrated integrated

an atomistic process?
Is learning viewed as mind behavior mind mind

changing primarily mind or
behavior?
Is the desired result of mind behavior mind behavior

learning a change of mind or
a change in behavior?
Is the primary actor during agent agent/learner learner agent/learner

learning the learner or
another agent?
Is there a concern for formal no (discipline) yes yes yes (social

learning theory? (What (behaviorism) (developmental constructivist)
type?) and
constructivist)
How is the issue of readiness by by providing stages of gestalts of prior

addressed? simplification prerequisite growth experience
of difficult behavioral
topics capabilities
How is the issue of it is ignored by providing a by facilitating by using

individualized instruction (children are standard task individual individual
handled? grouped in for all and development interests to
terms of varying mold a
achievement) learning rates consensus
and styles
The Child Play
SE: Our principal has again asked us to prepare a statement for our next faculty
meeting. It is to be about how we view our students. She suggested that we
discuss our best and worst students.
LC: When is this going to end?
SE: Come now. It’s an honor to be selected to do this. My computer is recording us
now. Let’s begin.
LC: What about the confidentiality of the students we speak about?
SE: Before I send what we say to our principal, I will change all the children’s names
we speak about.
SR: What a day I’ve had. I can’t believe some of my kids are so wonderful and some
are such duds. So I am primed to discuss my best and worst kids.
SA: Me too! I have both Sue and Roger in my history class. Sue is brilliant! Roger is
as ignorant as they come!
LC: I have them also, but I wouldn’t call Sue brilliant and Roger a dud.
SA: Sue is brilliant. Such a wonderful mind she has. Any new information I present
to her she absorbs like a sponge. And her mind is like a library. She knows so
much information about history. Ask her about a person, or a place, or an event,
and she can give as good an answer as an encyclopedia. And it’s not as if her
mind is just a storehouse of information. She has also learned to think about
events the way a historian would, to use the same type of evidence in a discussion
as a historian would, and write the same way as a historian would. What a
beautiful mind! It wouldn’t surprise me if she got into Harvard and majored in
history. It wouldn’t surprise me if she got a doctorate in history and wrote a
book about history. What more could you ask for in a student?
SE: Lots more, if you ask me. I also have Sue in my class, and she is really out of it.
All she does is memorize whatever you tell her. She has no ability to apply
anything you tell her to her everyday world. That kid is going to be a social
misfit—not good for anything more than being an ivory tower researcher in a
university. She will never be able to relate to people in a social setting. She will
never be able to succeed in a job in an industry where you have to do something
practical. She will never be able to be a good parent—even though she might be
able to quote you something about psychology, along with the author and page
number of the book where the quote came from.
SA: And the next thing you are going to tell me is that Roger is great.
SE: Yeah! Roger is wonderful. He is going to be an outstanding member of society:
a marvelously productive contributing member of his community. He can do
anything I ask him to do. He may not be able to repeat what I say word for word,
but everything I teach him he transforms into some useful social behavior. Any
skill I teach him he learns in no time at all. He may not be able to tell you the
physics underlying how a computer works, but he can fix computers like no one
I have ever seen. And he knows how to use all sorts of business software, like
spreadsheets and presentation programs. He can also relate to people
beautifully—and that is such an important skill to have on any job. And you
should see him with kids—he is going to be a wonderful father. And as a worker
in a factory or corporation, you’re not going to find anyone better. He will be
able to do any job you give him to do. And that is what is really important about
kids—that we can help them develop into productive adults who can fit into and
contribute to their society and community. They are more than just minds that
learn school facts in the hopes of contributing to some ivory tower academic
discipline in the future. Roger will be a pillar of respect in his community—an
outstanding citizen.
SA: Rubbish! That student can’t remember anything. He doesn’t know the date of
any historical events. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t even know who Andrew
Jackson was. He is always asking what this or that has to do with everyday life or
his future jobs. Roger will never distinguish himself intellectually. He will be a
nothing because the measure of a person is the extent to which that person has
developed his intellect—the degree to which he learned to think in one of the
ways valued by our great scholars.
SR: I don’t see Sue or Roger as being all that great or terrible. My treasure is Maria,
and Jim will be the death of me. Maria is really going to help improve our
society. She can analyze social problems like no one else I have in my class, and
she has such a wonderful intuitive sense of how to intervene in society to
improve it and make it a more just place for everyone. Just the other day she got
a letter to the editor printed in our local newspaper that criticized how our town
was handling recycling—about the need for adults to preserve our environment
for the benefit of their children. And that letter came out the day before the city
council voted on recycling, and the city counselors voted to clean up the city
dump, partially because of Maria’s letter. Maria is going to be a wonderful social
change agent—an outstanding adult who makes the world a better place for
everyone.
SE: But she is always challenging everything and asking why, why, why. She will
never fit into society as a productive member of our work force.
SR: Kids should not just be made into little cogs in the machinery of society that
unthinkingly perpetuate our status quo. They should always strive to make our
world a better place. They should always be looking for social injustices and
attempting to improve society.
LC: What do you have against Jim? He is one of the most beautiful children in my
class. He is developing in such interesting ways, according to his own unique
innate nature. He is such a wonderful flower. He thinks in such unique ways, has
such an interesting perspective on life, and his oil paintings are so beautiful.
Have you read any of his poetry or listened to him play the guitar? He is living
life and experiencing life in a rich way that goes so far beyond that of any of the
other kids you have mentioned.
SA: Jim is a mush mind. His mind is not at all disciplined. He is like a 10-year-old in
his way of thinking about history, rather than a 13-year-old.
LC: Children grow according to their own internal timetables and developmental
needs—not according to some linear standard set out by our school curriculum.
You have to value children for who they are, not who you want them to be.
SE: Come on, LC; Jim is never going to become a productive adult member of
society—unless he has some extraneous occupation, like music or art.
LC: What? We need to view children as children, not as potential adults. We need to
see children as the beautiful creatures they are—not as the adults they might be.
Children are children first and foremost—not future academics or adult
workers. They are wonderful conglomerates of uniquely interrelated intellectual,
social, emotional, physical, and artistic abilities.
SA: No way! We need to view children primarily as minds. The essence of mankind
is our ability to think and reason in the disciplined ways developed by our
culture. The essence of mankind is our ability to acquire and understand the
ideas generated by the great scholars who have built the cultural foundations of
our society. Jim just doesn’t have it.
SE: Yes, sort of, but we need to see kids from the perspective of their potential as
future adults. Not just as minds, but as constructive workers who can perpetuate
our society. The essence of man is his ability to act—not just his ability to think
as a scholar but his ability to behave in ways that contribute to maintaining our
society.
SR: I disagree. The essence of kids is not primarily their ability to reason or act, but
their ability to think and act in the context of a value system that will bring about
a better society than the current one. They are potential social change agents—
and most of all we should cherish their ability to develop well thought out value
systems that enable them to analyze and challenge our current social assumptions.
That is why your flower child Jim will never distinguish himself—he is just into
living life from day to day in his comfortable middle-class family. He has no
vision at all. Maria is my shining star.
SE: You know, with all this talk of our best and worst students, I sometimes wish that
things were the way they used to be.
SA: How so?
SE: Well, we used to have tracking with 10 different levels, from the smartest to
dumbest kids. It was a lot easier to teach then. And when we were finished with
them, the kids would go to either a vocational or an academic high school.
SA: Well, I would agree with some, but not all, of that.
LC: I wouldn’t agree with any of it. From what’ve read, the only children who benefit
from tracking are the brightest few kids; whereas, if you don’t track children
according to ability level and instead group children with all different abilities
together, then all the children benefit more. Research says that tracking is not
good for most children.
SE: I disagree. Some children are suited to go to college and some are not. Those who
are not should have the chance to go to a vocational school and learn a trade so
that they can contribute to society in constructive ways, rather than just flunk
out of school and feel like failures the rest of their lives.
SA: I am opposed to vocational schools, although I agree with tracking students. I
believe that the different tracks should be differentiated by the kids’ ability,
achievement level, and the speed with which they learn, not by the content of the
curriculum. All children should be exposed to the same high quality academic
content. But they should be grouped in such a way that the gifted and smartest
kids are not held back by the others and in such a way that it is easiest for us to
teach them.
SE: That is because you are really just interested in the brightest children. But what
about those children who are wonderful with their hands but cannot do well on
academic tests, and what about the children with learning disabilities, physical
challenges, or social and emotional problems who find it difficult to keep up
with your academically talented students?
LC: Yes, every child has gifts of one type or another and problems of one type or
another. Just think of the discussion we just had about our best and worst
students.
SA: Aggh!!! I have had enough. We have done what we were supposed to do in
speaking about our best and worst students. I think we should finish up and get
out of here.
LC: I want to go home, too!
SR: I agree, for once. Let’s get out of here.
SE: OK! I will give a transcript of our discussion to our principal by tomorrow noon.
The Child Comparison

The way educators perceive children and childhood and the way they embed these
perceptions in their curriculum tells us much about their conception of education.
Their views also influence how educators behave toward children and, as a result, have
the potential to influence how children respond and who they become.
Scholar Academics view children as neophytes in the hierarchical community of
the academic disciplines. Children are viewed as lacking something that exists outside
of their minds in the educators’ discipline, something that is capable of being transmitted
into their minds by the discipline. Educators focus on two qualities of children’s minds:
memory (which can be filled) and reason (which can be trained).
Social Efficiency educators view childhood as a stage of learning that has meaning
because it leads to adulthood. It is in adulthood that people are seen as constructive
members of society. Children are viewed as raw materials to be shaped into finished
products that will possess well-developed behavioral capabilities. Educators focus on
the action capabilities of children rather than on children as actors in their world.
Learner Centered educators view the whole person as an integrated organism pos-
sessing natural goodness, as a self-propelled agent of his or her own growth, and as a
self-activated maker of meaning. They focus on people rather than on the acts or
attributes of people, and on the uniqueness of individuals as they are in the present
rather than as they might be in the future. These educators are concerned about pro-
cesses internal to people, such as mental health and self-esteem, and talk as though
they can visualize the inner workings of people’s minds during their intellectual, social,
and emotional development.
Social Reconstructionists view people as social beings whose nature is defined by
the society in which they live. Thus, they are concerned about children as maturing
members of society who can act upon society to redefine their own nature and the
nature of their society.
The following questions allow the ideologies’ concepts of the child and childhood
to be compared.
• Are children treated as active or passive agents in their world?

• Are children viewed as having something of worth or as missing something of worth?
• Are educators concerned about processes internal or external to children?
• Do educators focus primarily on children’s minds or their behavior?
• Are children viewed as integrated organisms or as atomizable organisms?
• Do educators focus their efforts on children themselves or on the acts or attributes of
children?
• Are educators concerned about children as they are or as they ought to be?
• Are children thought to exist for themselves or to further ends external to themselves?
• Are children viewed as unique individuals or in relation to norms?
• Are children viewed within a larger social context than their immediate one (and if so,
what type?) or outside and independent of a larger social context?
Answers to these questions are presented in Table 6.3.
Answers to two of these questions deserve comment. The questions are “Are chil-
dren viewed as having something of worth (that gives them value as children) or as
missing something of worth (which they must acquire in order to have value)?” and
“Are educators concerned about processes internal or external to children?” If we cor-
relate these questions, we obtain a matrix that illustrates the relationships among the
ideologies (see Figure 6.3). The position of the ideologies in this matrix can be com-
pared with the position of the ideologies in Figure 6.1 (which relates to knowledge).
Although the definitions of the axes have been changed, the relative positions of the
Table 6.3 A comparison of the ideologies’ views regarding children.

Children Academic Efficiency Centered Reconstruction
Are children treated as active passive active/passive active active

or passive agents in their
world?
Are children viewed as missing missing having having

having or missing something
of worth?
Are educators concerned internal external internal external

about processes internal or
external to children?
Are educators focused mind behavior mind behavior

primarily on children’s
minds or their behavior?
Are children viewed as atomizable atomizable integrated integrated

integrated organisms or as
atomizable organisms?
Do educators focus their attributes attributes children attributes

efforts on children themselves
themselves or on the acts or
attributes of children?
Are educators concerned as they ought as they ought as they are as they ought
about children as they are or to be to be to be
as they ought to be?
Are children thought to exist for external for external for themselves for external
for themselves or to further ends ends ends
ends external to themselves?
Are children viewed as norms norms individuals norms

unique individuals or in
relation to norms?
Are children viewed in a in the context of in the context of outside of a in the context of
larger social context (and if the discipline the present larger context the present and
so, what type?) or outside of a society future society
social context?
ideologies remain the same. This constancy offers hints about how educators’ views of
children relate to their beliefs about knowledge. For example, the variables on the
horizontal axes of Figures 6.1 and 6.3 (“Does knowledge have its origin in objective
reality or subjective reality?” and “Are children viewed as having or missing something
of worth?”) are closely related. The belief that children have something of worth cor-
responds to the belief that the origin of knowledge resides in children’s subjective real-
ity, while the view that children are missing something of worth corresponds to the
belief that the origin of knowledge lies outside children in objective reality. The ques-
tions defining the vertical axes are similarly related.
Figure 6.3 The relationship of the ideologies’ views regarding two aspects of children.
Internal
Scholar Learner
Academic Centered
Missing Having
something something
of worth of worth
Social Social
Efficiency Reconstruction
External
Vertical Axis: Are educators concerned about processes

internal or external to children?
Horizontal Axis: Are children viewed as having or missing
something of worth?
Teaching Play
SA: Our principal now wants us to discuss what teaching should be about in our
school. She wants our thoughts for another discussion starter for a faculty
meeting.
SE: My computer is recording us. Let’s start.
SA: As far as I am concerned, as a teacher my job is to transmit to students the

content and academic ways of thinking of the school curriculum. I just need to
find a way to get the information and thinking strategies of the curriculum into
their heads in such a way that they understand it. And, of course, so that they can
replicate the information and thinking strategies on tests I give them. The major
teaching media I use are lectures, readings, teacher-led discussions, tests,
projects, research papers, and experiments. Occasionally I also use things like
movies, games, and simulations that are academically correct and rigorous.
SE: I disagree. I don’t think my job as a teacher is to just fill children’s minds with
information and ways of thinking.
SA: It doesn’t surprise me that you disagree.
SE: I think that teaching involves shaping children’s behaviors so that they can
perform the jobs needed to continue our society. It is not about filling minds but
about conditioning into children the ability to do things. Knowing what it
means to be responsible is not enough; children need to be able to act in ways
that society expects of responsible people. My job is not to simply transmit
curriculum content to children. They are the ones who have to learn the required
skills. My job is to place the curriculum in the classroom and manage children
and the learning environment in such a way that children practice skills they
have to learn—and through their own work acquire the skills they need to be
functional adults in our society. The curriculum presents the stimuli, responses,
and rewards and punishments that allow children to learn by responding to its
stimuli appropriately. I am a classroom manager and supervisor of children.
SR: I suppose that the skills that your kids are to learn are those behaviors that will
allow them to fit into and perpetuate our current unjust capitalistic society.
SE: So what do you do as a teacher—other than criticize me?
SR: Well, I agree with SA, that we teachers need to provide kids with knowledge, but
the knowledge I convey is different knowledge than SA values: It is the knowledge
that will enable kids to understand and judge society. And I agree with SE, that
teachers need to help kids learn how to act, but not to fit into the current society;
rather, teachers need to help kids learn to act in ways that will improve society
so that everyone benefits from a more just and egalitarian society. I also believe
that teachers need to be colleagues and companions to kids, for that is one of the
most effective ways to mold kids’ ways of thinking, so they accept your values
about what is wrong with society and how to right the wrongs. By being a
colleague and companion to kids, I get on the same side of social issues as the
kids are on, so they see me as a trusted friend who is to be emulated, and by
being their friend I can provide them with a concrete example of what they
should value, what they should know, how they should think, and how they
might act. One way I teach is by getting them to imitate my way of thinking,
discussing, valuing, and acting.
SE: In other words, you want to be their colleague so that you can more easily
indoctrinate them because they think you are their friend? That is unfairly
manipulating them.
SA: Stop fighting, you two. We need to find out what LC thinks.
LC: I think my job as a teacher is to be an aid to children as they grow—naturally,
like flowers. This means facilitating children’s growth by observing them to
discover what they need, by presenting them with experiences—based on their
needs—from which they can make meaning, and by intervening between
children and those experiences to facilitate their growth. I am an aid to children
who facilitates their natural growth.
SA: Give me a break!
LC: In addition, I disagree with you, SA, and with SE about just teaching the
curriculum. I think that teachers should also take part in creating the school
curriculum. Teachers aren’t just assembly line workers who unthinkingly
implement someone else’s curriculum. We are professionals who have a
responsibility, along with curriculum developers, to determine both what
children should learn and what experiences will enable children to learn it.
SE: That should not be our responsibility as teachers. Curriculum developers have
the specialized skills needed to determine the curriculum. Our job is just to
make sure children learn what’s in the curriculum.
SA: I agree with SE. Scholars who are well versed in curriculum content should
design the curriculum. Not teachers. It is important for us, as teachers, to be
mini-scholars who are knowledgeable of the content we teach and capable of
effectively presenting that content.
LC: I can’t believe that you two believe that teachers should not have a role in
designing the curriculum we teach! You are abdicating one of your major
responsibilities. Who knows more about students than their teacher?
SA: Scholars, who know the content in greater depth than any school teacher, should
determine the content of the curriculum and how to embed it in a curriculum’s
learning experiences.
SE: Give me a break! Scholars, who live in ivory tower universities, have no
understanding of our curriculum. Curriculum content needs to be determined
by the needs of our society. An ivory tower mathematician, for example, would
have no idea of what mathematics people working in businesses or shops need
to know. Curriculum content should first be determined by developers, who are
trained in how to scientifically determine society’s needs. The learning
experiences that comprise the curriculum should then be created by curriculum
developers trained in how to scientifically derive learning experiences from
behavioral objectives. Curricula should then be mandated by our elected or
appointed government representatives—by national curriculum groups or state
education departments—in curriculum standards.
SR: No way! To begin by polling the needs of members of society such as the
business community, university scholars, or politicians will just continue to
perpetuate our unjust and inequitable capitalistic society—a society
desperately in need of reform. In addition, curriculum development needs to
be very local in nature in order to appeal to kids; it has to relate to events in
their local community, events that they are interested in or that they can be
enticed to be interested in. For that to happen, teachers must be involved in
formulating the curriculum. For example, if a playground our kids use is
being closed, it is our job to find out how we can make use of that opportunity
to teach kids how to combat such closures, and those sorts of things need to
be included in the school curriculum. As teachers we need to be curriculum
developers by taking advantage of things occurring in our community, and
those things need to be part of the curriculum. I am not saying we need
to develop the entire curriculum, but we need to be part of the team that
does so.
SA: No! No! No! Those things that are local occurrences that happen only once in a
while have no place in the curriculum. The content of the curriculum needs to
be information that has stood the test of time and is acknowledged by scholars.
Scholars, who best know the content of the curriculum, need to be the ones who
determine that content. Sure, educators, in organizations such as the National
Councils of Teachers of Science, can help formulate and promote the content in
such things as their content standards, but the content of each school subject
needs to be based in its corresponding academic discipline.
LC: I disagree. Teachers need to be part of the curriculum development team. Sure,
we can get suggestions from professional curriculum developers about how to
teach certain things. But in the end, we have to assess our children’s needs and
design our classroom curriculum to meet those needs. We, and our children, are
the ones who ultimately determine our curriculum. Being a curriculum
developer is an important part of our instructional role, and it has to take place
in each of our classrooms with our specific children in mind, and not at some
remote national or state level.
SE: If we have to be curriculum developers as well as supervisors of children and
classroom managers, how are we ever going to get good evaluations? After all,
what we will be evaluated on is how well children learn the content tested on the
state exams, and not on how well the curriculum is designed.
LC: Come on! Student scores on standardized tests are only one part of determining
whether a teacher is doing a good job and what children are learning. They do
not tell you anything about the emotional state of a child, for example, or how
much children have grown socially over the last year. If you just teach to the tests,
your classroom will eventually become boring and you will become a frustrated
teacher.
SR: Enough of this! We need to stop these digressions and focus on what teaching is
about.
SA: And we need to do it now, so that we can get out of here and get on with our
lives.
SE: OK! Let’s each say what we think teaching is about in as few words as possible
and then preface it with a statement that says, “Teaching involves many things,
including the following.” Like we did with our school’s mission. SA, you go first.
SA: Teachers should be mini-scholars of the content they teach, who are transmitters
of that which is known to those who do not know it, and who teach by conveying
to students curriculum content.
SE: Teachers are managers of the classroom environment who supervise children to
maximize their acquisition of skills that will enable them to constructively
function as members of society.
LC: Teachers are aids to children who facilitate their natural growth by observing
them to determine their needs, presenting them with experiences consistent
with their needs from which they can make meaning, and intervening between
them and those experiences to facilitate their growth.
SR: Teachers are colleagues and companions to kids who help them acquire the
knowledge, skills, and values that they will need to become effective change
agents who can bring into existence a more just and egalitarian society.
SA: Did you computer get all of that, SE?
SE: Yes. I will give our principal a transcript of our discussion tomorrow. Now, let’s
go home.
Teaching Comparison
Educators have different views about teachers and teaching. As previously men-
tioned, how teachers behave toward children can influence how children respond and
who they become.
Scholar Academics view teaching as that function of their discipline responsible
for initiating novices into the discipline by transmitting that which is known to those
who do not know it. Teachers are considered authorities who are to get the knowledge
of a discipline into children’s minds in the manner prescribed by the curriculum.
Social Efficiency educators view the teacher as a manager or supervisor of children
as they encounter the learning conditions and materials designed by a curriculum
developer. Teachers are to act in strict accordance with directions provided by the cur-
riculum. Teachers both prepare the environment in which children learn and supervise
children as they learn.
Learner Centered educators view teachers as aids to growing individuals. Their task
is twofold: to facilitate students’ growth by presenting them with experiences from
which they can make meaning, and to intervene between students and their experiences
in order to facilitate their growth. Teachers choose the experiences and modes of inter-
vention from among those within the curriculum to match students’ individual needs.
Social Reconstructionists believe teaching involves guiding children’s learning in

such a way that they become acculturated into the modes of knowing and acting that
belong to the educator’s vision of the future good society. Teachers are to primarily act
as companions to children, using group pressures and the medium through which
children learn to mold them, while also being transmitters of knowledge and facilita-
tors of social development.
The following questions allow these views of teaching to be compared.
• What are teachers’ primary roles during instruction?

• Is a teacher’s job primarily transmitting knowledge or preparing and supervising a
learning environment?
• What standards are used to measure teacher effectiveness?
• Are teachers to stimulate student diversity or uniformity?
• Are teachers to implement curricula without changing them or to creatively adapt cur-
ricula to their own situation? That is, do or don’t curriculum developers try to create
“teacher proof ” curricula.
• Is it the job of teachers or curriculum developers to plan for children’s individual
differences?
• What is the primary medium are used during teaching?
• What is the intent of teaching?
• Are teachers to be concerned about the whole child or only a single dimension of the
child (such as his or her cognitive, affective, social, or physical attributes)?
Table 6.4 A comparison of the ideologies’ views regarding teaching.

Teaching Academic Efficiency Centered Reconstruction
What is the teacher’s primary role transmitter manager facilitator colleague
during instruction?
Are teachers transmitters of transmitters preparers preparers transmitters,

knowledge or preparers and and and preparers, and
supervisors of classrooms? supervisors supervisors supervisors
What standards are used to accurate efficiency of facilitation of effective

measure teacher effectiveness? presentation student child growth transference of
of the learning the vision
discipline
Are teachers to stimulate student uniformity uniformity diversity uniformity/

diversity or uniformity? diversity
(Continued)
(Continued)

Teaching Academic Efficiency Centered Reconstruction
Are teachers to directly directly directly adapt (based adapt (based on

implement curricula unchanged implement implement on children’s social concerns)
or creatively adapt curricula to needs)
their situations?
Do teachers or developers plan neither teacher both teacher

for children’s individual
differences?
What is the primary medium didactic programmed child group dynamics

used during teaching? discourse instruction environment
interaction
What is the intent of teaching? to advance to prepare to stimulate to acculturate

students in a children to child growth students into the
discipline perform educators’ vision
skills
Are teachers to be concerned no no whole child whole child

about the whole child? If not, (primarily (primarily
which dimension is of concern? cognitive) skills)
Evaluation Play
SE: Our principal said we have to create one final discussion starter for our next
faculty meeting.
SR: Unfortunately, it is on my least favorite topic: student evaluation.
SE: My computer is recording. Let’s get started discussing student evaluation.
SA: I think that student assessment is important. For one thing, it makes students do
their work so they will not fail a test. For another, it provides important feedback
about what grades to give students. That’s just the beginning of my thoughts.
SR: So what else do you think?
SA: First, student assessment is an important part of teaching and learning. Second,
the purposes of evaluating students are to provide them and us with information
about how well they have learned the material that we have taught and with
information about how well they are doing in comparison to other students in
their class. The assessments should determine how well they can re-present to us
the knowledge we have taught them—about how well they understand the
information we have taught them. Third, when we assess students we should

give them grades that let them—and us—know how well they are doing with
respect to an absolute standard and with respect to each other. That is, they
should get grades like 92% correct, or third in the class, or B+. Assessments such
as “you are doing well” or “good job” or “you’ve made progress” or “pass” are
completely useless. We need to know who are the best students in the class so we
can encourage them to keep studying our subjects.
SE: Oh come on, assessment should not be about what children understand but
about what they can do. And we should not be ranking children and telling them
that they got 92% correct or they are third in the class. What is important about
assessment is simply whether the children have or have not acquired the
behaviors that we want them to learn. Thus the results of assessment should
simply be “pass” or “fail” or “proficient” or “not proficient,” which means that
children did or did not acquire the behavior. I really disagree with ranking
children, for it conveys the message that we determine who is and who is not
doing an adequate job after we give our tests and in a competitive manner, rather
than determining what we want all children to learn before we even begin
teaching. We need to know what we want them to learn before we start teaching
because assessment is not for the purpose of seeing “who is best” but for the
purpose of certifying to someone else, such as the school board or state, that the
children have learned the required material and that we have done our job as
teachers in getting them to learn the required material.
SA: You get me so angry! Assessment is about comparing students to rank order
them from best to worst. How can you test what students can “do” or “perform”
with a paper and pencil test anyway, unless it is just the same material that I am
testing for? In addition, I dislike the current view that student assessment lets
others know how well we have taught so they can determine our salary
increment.
LC: You two are so callous. SA, you want to use assessment to get children to
compete for your purposes, which are different from the needs of most children,
with the result that some children will feel good about themselves and others
will feel bad about themselves. That is terrible. And SE, you think that the
purpose of evaluation is to provide information about our children to others,
such as the state or school board. But children are not just objects to be
manipulated to serve the purposes of others; they are human beings who we
need to nurture to grow in accordance with their own innate natures.
SR: So what do you think about student evaluation?
LC: I think that the primary beneficiaries of student assessments should be the
children themselves and that the findings of assessments should be used to help
children grow into the unique human being that is in their innate nature, as
expressed through their needs, interests, talents, and abilities. I think that
assessments should take place primarily through informal observations of
children (and their work) by teachers during instruction and that the findings
should be used to help teachers better prepare instruction for children and to
give the children insights into how they are growing. I also think that parents
should be given information about their children’s assessments and encouraged
to look at their children’s work (such as their writings, recordings, art work,
projects, etc.) so that they will better understand their children and how they can
help them grow. I do not think that these high-stakes tests that SE is so much in
favor of that are given once a year are healthy for children, nor that the weekly
tests that SA thinks we should give children to get them to memorize the content
that he teaches and that ranks students from best to worse are good for children.
I think that assessment should help children become who they want to be and
should not be used to manipulate children into becoming who society, university
scholars, corporations, businesses, or government thinks they should become as
adults in order to serve their special interests.
SA: Blaw, blaw, blaw! That is a bunch of idealistic and unrealistic blabber.
SR: I am not so sure. I think that much of the formal testing of kids that we do in
school is useless. I tend to agree with LC about the testing and think that
informal rigorous teacher assessment of kids is usually sufficient. That is the best
way to take into account the relationship between what a kid is capable of
achieving and what a kid actually achieves, and that should be part of what we
are concerned with. In addition, the real test of what a kid learns is what the kid
does during life in the real world and not the results of an examination in school.
SE: I can hardly believe it; do you really think that objective testing of students in
school does not produce useful information?
SR: I do. In fact, it often produces harmful information. For example, in many states
standardized tests are used to determine who can get a high school diploma—
independent of teacher recommendations or student grades. And lots of times
kids who are just poor test takers are deprived of graduation even though they
have good grades and teachers think they deserve to graduate. How would you
like it if your daughter was the best flute player in the school orchestra, had good
grades, was admitted to college as a music major, passed the math but failed the
English part of her statewide graduation test, and as a result was deprived of a
high school diploma and the ability to go to college? You can find lots of stories
like this on the Internet.
LC: And those statewide tests usually only test mathematics and English proficiency.
What about the kids who are gifted in the arts, science, history, psychology, or
even auto mechanics, and who want to have careers in those areas? The
information from those supposedly objective statewide standardized tests can be
very harmful.
SR: I agree.
SA: Give me a break!
LC: In addition, people interpret the results of those standardized tests in any way they
want based on their preconceived notions. For example, even though international
studies of math achievement show that 4th and 8th graders in the U.S. are doing
average and 12th graders are well below average, everyone points their finger at
elementary school teachers and says the fault is theirs. Well, if you ask me, the
failure of the high school students to do well on the tests is the fault of the high
school teachers, and mathematicians and high school teachers with degrees in
math who are blaming elementary school teachers just have a preconception that
people with college math majors are better than anyone else so the fault could not
be theirs. Or, for example, just think about people who favor government support
for private schools by having for-profit corporations rather than school districts
run our schools or using vouchers for private school education. They interpret all
sorts of research reports to come up with the conclusion that our government
should financially support private schools, even though the research clearly shows
otherwise: that public education is just as good as private education when similar
students and economic communities are compared. Even worse, think about what
happened in LA where the LA Times newspaper reported that research proved that
teachers could be accurately assessed using student scores on the California
standardized math and reading tests. Well, soon afterward research was published
that showed otherwise. The National Education Policy Center in Colorado has lots
of examples of how people interpret research results to come up with support for
their preconceived agendas. Look them up on the Internet.
SR: So not only can standardized test results of student achievement be harmful to
kids, but they can also be harmful to teachers by promoting such things as
funding private schools with public school money (which would leave less
money for public schools) and by promoting the idea that we can determine
how good a teacher is by just looking at the results of student performance on
statewide standardized tests (which I hope we all disagree with).
SE: So you two don’t believe in the value of objective student tests?
LC: Well, I think that teacher observations are just as worthwhile. And I think that
people will interpret objective test findings any way they want to in order to
promote whatever agendas they wish.
SR: And unfortunately, big corporations and industry have a lot of money, so they
can publicize their “objective” tests and the way they “scientifically” interpret test
findings in order to accomplish what is best for their corporations and industry,
in contrast to what is best for most Americans. For example, it is in the vested
interests of for-profit corporations that create and score educational tests to
promote their tests’ usefulness and use for all sorts of purposes—including for
the hidden purpose of their making money.
SE: Well, despite what you say, I believe that the only way to assess students, teacher
effectiveness, and school effectiveness is through rigorous scientific procedures
that use objective testing of children’s performance.
LC: I disagree. I think that subjective teacher observations that take place over a long
period of time are just as valuable as your so-called objective paper and pencil
scientific tests that are given over a couple of hours.
SA: Wait a minute. We are getting sidetracked. I think we have covered everything
that we need to for the faculty meeting. Let’s quit and go home.
LC: Yes!
SE: I agree! I will get a transcript of our discussion to our principal by tomorrow
morning. Now let’s get out of here!
Evaluation Comparison
Educators have differing views about both student and curriculum evaluation.
Scholar Academics evaluate student success through the use of objective statistical
instruments designed to measure the extent to which students can re-present that
which has been transmitted to them. Students are evaluated with respect to a posteriori
standards so that they may be ranked in the discipline’s hierarchy.
Social Efficiency educators atomistically evaluate students with respect to an a
priori standard based in normative values. They evaluate in order to scientifically
determine quality control. In doing so, they use a binary criterion that determines
acceptance or rejection (pass or fail) of the evaluee.
Learner Centered educators attempt to use evaluation solely for the benefit of the
person being evaluated. Evaluation takes on a reflective quality devoid of “moral load-
ing.” The intent is to enable the evaluees to learn and grow from assessments. It is
believed that evaluative feedback should come directly from materials with which the
evaluees are interacting rather than from an outside authority.
Social Reconstructionists take a subjective and holistic approach to evaluating
students in relation to the social situations in which they exist and their potential.
The following questions allow different views of student evaluation to be compared.
• What is the purpose of student evaluation as it relates to the person who receives the
results of the evaluation?
• What is the intent of student evaluation as it relates to the evaluee?
• Is the development of formal evaluative measures for student evaluation considered to
be an integral part of the curriculum development process?
• What is the nature of the evaluative instruments used in evaluating students?
• Are subjective or objective instruments used to evaluate students?
• Is student evaluation viewed from an atomistic or holistic perspective?
• To whom are the results of student evaluation to be directed or beneficial?
• During student evaluation, is the focus on the individual, group norms, or a fixed cri-
terion?
• Does student evaluation take place during the instructional process or after the instruc-
tional process?
• When are the criteria for successful student work defined?

Table 6.5 A comparison of the ideologies’ views regarding student evaluation.
Student Social
Evaluation Scholar Academic Social Efficiency Learner Centered Reconstruction
What is the to rank evaluees to certify to a to diagnose to measure
purpose of for a future in the client that a student abilities to student progress
student evaluation discipline student has facilitate growth with respect to
for the evaluator? certain skills ability
What is the to test ability to to test ability to to reflect to to allow students
purpose of re-present what perform a specific evaluees their to demonstrate
student evaluation has been task progress their values to
for the evaluee? transmitted others
Is designing no yes no no
assessment part of
curriculum
development?
What is the nature norm referenced criterion informal informal
of evaluative referenced subjective subjective
instruments? diagnosis diagnosis
Are assessments objective objective subjective subjective
subjective or
objective?
Is evaluation atomistic atomistic holistic holistic
atomistic or
holistic?
Who gets or academic educators’ client child teacher
benefits from the disciplines (society, parents,
results of student (academicians, administrators)
evaluation? administrators)
During evaluation, group norms criterion individual individual with
is the focus on the respect to
individual, group criterion
norms, or a fixed
criterion?
Are students after after during during
evaluated during
or after
instruction?
When are criteria after evaluation before evaluation never never
for good student
work defined?
Two types of curriculum evaluation need consideration: evaluation that takes

place during the curriculum development process, which is designed to give curricu-
lum developers information that will help them improve their curriculum, and evalu-
ation designed to give potential curriculum users information on either the curriculum’s
overall worth and effectiveness with respect to its own goals or the curriculum’s com-
parative worth and effectiveness with respect to the goals of several different compet-
ing programs. The former is called formative evaluation and the latter summative
evaluation.
Scholar Academics enthusiastically engage in formative evaluation, to deter-
mine both how well their curricula reflect their discipline’s essence and the extent
to which it is teachable. The extent to which it reflects their discipline’s essence is
determined by logical analysis. The extent to which it is teachable is primarily
determined by subjective teacher reports that atomistically report on the success
or failure of parts of the curriculum using a binary (“OK” or “needs revision”)
scale that is determined during or after testing components of the curriculum.
Scholar Academics enthusiastically participate in summative evaluation using sta-
tistical measures, primarily for the purpose of proving the success of their curric-
ula in teaching academic content and for marketing purposes to disseminate their
curricula.
Social Efficiency educators enthusiastically engage in both formative and sum-
mative curriculum evaluation. They do so using scientific procedures to assess qual-
ity control, using a binary criterion, to determine the acceptance or rejection (pass
or fail) of what they evaluate. In both formative and summative evaluation, they
atomistically evaluate with respect to an a priori standard based in normative values.
Using objective scientific procedures, usually based in statistical approaches, is
important to them as they attempt to demonstrate accountability of both their cur-
ricula and their endeavors.
Learner Centered educators enthusiastically engage in formative evaluation
but not summative evaluation. Their approach to formative evaluation is based on
subjective observation, is holistic, and primarily involves firsthand reports by
teachers and curriculum developers of what they observe as children interact with
curriculum. The intent is to enable teachers and curriculum developers to learn
from children’s involvement with the curriculum, so they can make it more inter-
esting, involving, and powerful for promoting children’s growth. When Learner
Centered educators do engage in summative evaluation, it is primarily for the
marketing purpose of disseminating their curricula or as part of teacher research,
during which they report to the educational community what they learned about
children or curriculum.
Social Reconstructionists do not enthusiastically engage in either formative or
summative evaluation. When they do it is subjective, holistic, and involves firsthand
reports by teachers and curriculum developers of what they observe as children inter-
act with curriculum. Summative evaluation is usually in the form of teacher research
in which educators report to the educational community what occurred as children
learned from their curriculum.
Other Parameters
Freedom
Educators like to use the word freedom, but educators can mean many different
things when they speak of giving children freedom.
Scholar Academics wish to give children freedom from the restrictions of society
and nature by giving them knowledge that will allow them to understand society and
nature and thus avoid the ways in which they are influenced by them.
Social Efficiency educators wish to give children freedom to constructively contrib-
ute to and function within adult society in the manner they desire by providing them
with the variety of social behaviors and technical skills they will need to do so.
Learner Centered educators wish to provide children with freedom from the influ-
ences and controls of society so that they can develop naturally in accordance with
their organic selves.
Social Reconstructionists wish to give children freedom to control the destiny of society.
Time
Educators orient their efforts within different temporal frameworks, even though
each in some way considers the past, present, and future.
As Scholar Academics create curricula, they look to knowledge which has already
been accepted by their discipline—they look to the past for guidance.
Social Efficiency educators look to the present needs of society (or some other cli-
ent) to guide them in their endeavors to create curricula to meet those present needs
in the very near future.
Learner Centered educators attempt to focus on only the present as seen through
the eyes of learners.
Social Reconstructionists make use of the past and present to analyze the nature
of society while intently focusing on the future.
Social Improvement
Educators within each ideology have their own ideas of how to improve society.
Scholar Academics wish to improve society by educating an intellectual elite so
that scholar-kings can rule society through knowledge.
Social Efficiency educators wish to accentuate the best of the past and present in
training people to perpetuate the existing social order.
Learner Centered educators are concerned about the development of individuals
under the assumption that better people will make a better society.
Social Reconstructionists wish to break with the past and present and reconstruct
society according to their vision of a future better society.
Multicultural Education
As the 21st century began and the “melting pot” view of America faded, issues of
multicultural education arose.
Educators in all four ideologies accept the assumption that cultural diversity exists
and that children from different cultural backgrounds approach learning and knowl-
edge with different knowledge bases, conceptual frameworks, and learned ways of
making meaning. Further, they accept that differences in the structure of languages
influence how children comprehend, that thinking and learning styles children acquire
from early family interactions influence the way they learn, and that cultural interpre-
tations of the nature of knowledge that children learn in their families influence the
way they interpret, make meaning from, and understand what they are taught in
school (Schiro, 2004). However, because educators agree on some things does not
mean that they view the education of children from different cultural, ethnic, and
socioeconomic backgrounds in the same way.
The Scholar Academic posture toward multicultural education emphasizes two
types of equity. First, these educators focus on determining the true nature of the
contributions of different cultures to our intellectual knowledge base and helping
children understand and appreciate the intellectual knowledge created by different
world cultures. Their intent is to present an accurate picture of the historical and
cultural foundations of each discipline and to provide students with the understand-
ing that most cultures engage in disciplined intellectual activity and that “no single
culture has a monopoly” on intellectual endeavors (Nelson, Joseph, & Williams,
1993, p. 19). Children learn about the knowledge and methods of disciplined think-
ing discovered by different cultures. The intent is to help children understand and
appreciate the knowledge of their own culture (or cultures) under the assumption
that “an understanding of one’s own culture depends upon a knowledge of other
cultures, with which it can be compared and through which we can see what is often
taken for granted” (p. 3).
The second type of equity involves providing all learners—independent of race,
cultural background, or socioeconomic status—with equal access to the knowledge of
the academic disciplines and the chance to excel in learning that knowledge. Here it is
assumed that children must be presented with rigorous authentic instruction in the
academic disciplines (National Research Council, 1989). It is also assumed that “the
innermost meaning of social equality is: substantially the same quality of life for all.
That calls for: the same quality of schooling for all. . . . The best education for the
best . . . is the best education for all.” (Addler, 1982, p. 6) and that “the overall goal is to
provide an intense . . . challenging, and dynamic academic program . . . in order to
reflect the best current ideas about all subjects. . . . [T]he content, teaching styles, and
support activities available to the students are designed to enable virtually all stu-
dents . . . to be highly successful” (Keynes, 1995, p. 59).
The Social Efficiency approach to multicultural issues involves two initiatives.
First, these educators believe that to efficiently teach skills one must synchronize the
skills that children will need as adults to the variety of different culturally based con-
ceptual frameworks with which children come to school. In order to efficiently do so,
it is considered necessary to determine the nature of children’s knowledge bases
(acquired from families and communities) so that curricula can take into account,
accommodate, and compensate for those knowledge bases.
Second, Social Efficiency educators assume all children will have to live in a mul-
ticultural world as adults, and they seek to provide children with the necessary skills to
productively do so. Here, instruction is “seen as part of a broader set of efforts to create
a society that offers opportunity to each of its members to be successful and to con-
tribute to the social and economic good” (Silver, Smith, & Nelson, 1995, p. 10).
For Social Efficiency educators, equity issues relate to helping children—particularly
children of cultural, ethnic, and racial groups different from those in control of the
political, economic, and social functions of the society in which they are located and
children of the poor and working classes—obtain access to social positions of power
and success by learning appropriate skills. Here, the emphasis is on learning socially
useful skills because they are tools that will provide children with access to good jobs,
social prestige, and the ability to productively participate in society.
The Learner Centered approach to multicultural education emphasizes that the
purpose of instruction is to help children grow—intellectually, socially, and emotion-
ally—in accordance with their own innate natures and their cultural background. To
accomplish this, educators must make sure that powerful social and economic forces
within society—which want to keep certain social, racial, cultural, economic, and
sexual groups in their “subservient places” through the “hidden curriculum” of
schools—do not inhibit, limit, or pervert children’s natural growth. Here, educators
recognize and value the cultural heritage of different social groups; help their members
recognize, participate in, value, and use their indigenous cultural heritages; and
encourage individuals to make meaning and develop their thinking styles in accord-
ance with their cultural background.
From an equity perspective, this approach encourages children to find their own
unique ways of making meaning that are consistent with their innate and culturally
acquired intellectual, social, and emotional natures and their knowledge bases. This
not only builds children’s confidence and pride in their cultural background, it also
allows children to develop unique meanings and ways of making meaning that are
consistent with their cultural heritage, which in turn produces a more integrated,
holistic, coherent, and powerful view of knowledge within the child. Here, the concern
is not about accessibility to the knowledge of the dominant culture or accessibility to
skills that will allow one to be a productive member of society, but about allowing all
children to develop in their own unique manner in ways that are consistent with their
individual nature and cultural background.
Social Reconstructionists oppose social, economic, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and
racial inequities of instruction and society and urge teachers to transform instruction
and society to eliminate these inequities so that all children have equal opportunity.
Advocates have paid particular attention to urban education under the rallying call of
social justice and the elimination of Eurocentric views of knowledge. Anderson and
Ladson-Billings highlight this when they write,
Those of us who are genuinely concerned with educating students for liberation rather
than training them for the job market must attack, critique, and dismantle the
Eurocentric educational construct while simultaneously planting the seeds for more
holistic, in-tune-with-nature, popular, and egalitarian forms of learning. (Anderson,

1997, pp. 305–306)
The underlying assumption . . . is that the nation’s educational system promotes the status
quo and that the status quo is rife with inequity. . . . multicultural education assumes that
students are social, political, and cultural actors and that through experiences with school-
wide change they can promote social change . . . [that will] ensure . . . that students of
diverse race, social class, and gender groups experience equal educational opportunity.
(Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 126)
Here, equity issues relate to helping children acquire academic skills, knowledge, and
social values that will allow them to analyze and reconstruct society in such a way that all
of its members have an equal chance for success in a society that does not discriminate
among people because of their cultural background, racial origins, linguistic background,
economic status, or social class. This goes considerably beyond the goals of helping children
acquire academic knowledge, become productive members of the existing social structure,
or develop in accordance with their own unique personal and cultural potentialities.
Teacher Education
Zeichner (1983, 1993), Fieman-Nemser (1990), Cochran-Smith and Demers
(2008), and Cotti (1997) identify four conceptual frameworks that underpin teacher
education programs, which parallel the four ideological positions presented in this
book. The academic position views the mastery of the academic content that is to be
taught as the most important aspect of teacher education programs. The behaviorist or
technological position (our Social Efficiency ideology) is vocationally oriented and
emphasizes the acquisition of pedagogical skills that have been identified through the
scientific study of teacher effectiveness. The personal or developmentalistic position (our
Learner Centered ideology) is based on the child study movement, emphasizes con-
structivism, is concerned primarily with the personal and experiential meanings con-
structed by students and teachers, and focuses on the natural development of both
students and teachers. The inquiry oriented critical/social position (the Social
Reconstruction ideology of this book) prepares teachers to think critically about “per-
sonal, political, and professional issues that shaped their everyday thinking and prac-
tices as well as the institutional characteristics of schooling that affected the lives of
their future students” (Cochran-Smith & Demers, 2008, p. 266) and to take action to
bring about a “more just and humane society” (Zeichner, 1993, p. 6).
This chapter compares the conceptual structures and language of the Scholar
Academic, Social Efficiency, Learner Centered, and Social Reconstruction ideologies.
There are significant differences in the ways in which educators think about curricu-
lum, instruction, and schooling, and significant differences in the meaning they give to
such common terms as learning, teaching, and knowledge. If one desires to have con-
structive interactions with the wide range of educators (and the general public) who
are interested in our schools, it is necessary to know both how they conceptualize
education and what meaning they give to common educational words. In addition, it
is necessary to be able to quickly assess their educational ideologies and to use words
in the same way they do. Clarity on the differences that exist will help with this task.
Figure 6.4 combines earlier graphs that provide rough estimates of when the four
ideologies have been most active, with respect to their own norms, in attempting to
influence American education. Notice that the graph indicates two time periods dur-
ing which the four ideologies were simultaneously active. The first was between about
1890 and 1940, the second between about 1955 and 1995. Many questions can be asked
about what has happened in the past and what might occur in the future. They include
the following: Have the past endeavors of the Scholar Academic ideology to influence
schools resulted in a counter-response by other ideologies, motivating them to initiate
efforts to improve education? Are we now at the beginning of a new time period when
all four ideologies might simultaneously attempt to improve American education?
What sorts of events might initiate a new surge of effort by all of the ideologies to
improve education? Questions such as these should be asked, as well as speculative
answers offered, as we attempt to understand what is occurring now and what might
occur in the future.
Figure 6.4 Times of relative high and low activity of the four ideologies.
High
Level of Activity
Low
1890 1925 1950 1975 2012
Time
Scholar Academic Learner Centered

Social Efficiency Social Reconstruction
7
Individual
Perspectives on
the Curriculum
Ideologies
A fter studying the four curriculum ideologies presented in this book and reflecting
deeply on their beliefs about curriculum, educators frequently ask at least one
of the following two very personal questions: “My beliefs are a combination of two
different ideologies; is that OK?” and “I have changed my philosophy of education
since I first began teaching; is that acceptable?” This chapter addresses these types of
personal questions as this book turns its attention from describing the field of curricu-
lum as a whole to describing events in the lives of individual educators. The intent of
this chapter is to help educators obtain perspective on how the study presented in this
book is relevant to their individual lives over the span of their professional careers.
In this book, the four curriculum ideologies have been discussed as ideal types.
The ideal types were chosen because they represent the range of viable ideological
alternatives available to American educators over the last hundred years that have
exerted the greatest influence on educators’ practices and aspirations. Educators’
beliefs cluster around the ideal types that describe each ideological position, with the
density of all educators’ beliefs being the greatest around each ideology. However, most
educators’ beliefs deviate from the ideal types described in this book in one way or
another.
As a consequence of using this type of category system, a number of important
questions arise for educators as they attempt to relate their personal belief systems to
the ideal types that have been described. The most important questions include the
following: Can people simultaneously believe in more than one ideology? Over time,
247
do people change their curriculum ideologies? What forces influence educators to

change their ideologies? How do educators conceptualize the way in which they change
their beliefs about curriculum over time? Answers to these questions will now be pre-
sented. The intent is to introduce educators to some of the complexities of the field of
curriculum and life. Insight into these complexities should help educators obtain per-
spective on how the discussion within this book relates to their present and future lives.
Briefly, research indicates that educators can believe in more than one ideology at
a time, that they change their ideological orientation about once every 4 years, and that
the most frequently noted events associated with ideological shifts are changes in the
school or grade in which an educator works, the noting of and responding to previ-
ously unknown needs of children or communities, and changing jobs.
It is strongly suggested that readers now turn to the appendix and complete and
score the curriculum ideologies inventory. If you did so before reading this book,
please complete and score the inventory a second time and then compare the graph of
the curriculum beliefs you had before reading this book with the graph of the beliefs
you have after completing it.
The research results that follow are based on two studies of 100 experienced edu-
cators, all of whom studied the ideologies described in this book, completed the ideol-
ogy inventory before and after studying the ideologies as part of a graduate course, and
reflected on and wrote about the changes in their curriculum beliefs over the span of
their careers (Schiro, 1992).
Curriculum Life Histories

It is possible to study the manner in which educators conceptualize their ideologies,
and the way in which they view their ideologies as changing over time, by using the
biographical method (Denzin, 1989). This involves having educators describe their
ideologies at different times during their careers and make drawings that illustrate any
changes that have taken place. Descriptions and drawings note any critical events that
caused or coincided with a change in ideology. These descriptions and drawings are
called curriculum ideology life histories.
Five types of drawings that educators use to describe their curriculum ideology life
histories have been identified. A sample drawing of each type, along with a brief
description of what is occurring in each, is presented below. They are presented in a
“cleaned up” format that maintains the structural integrity of the originals while alter-
ing such things as uneven line quality, spatial orientation, and particular life events or
comments that might identify their authors.
Figure 7.1 portrays a “life history as a trip.” The educator who created this drawing
began teaching at the first-grade level with a close affiliation to the Scholar Academic
ideology (position 1). Experience teaching children gave this educator an increased
desire to nurture children’s individual needs, and he moved away from the Scholar
Academic ideology toward the Learner Centered ideology (position 2). When he began
teaching fifth grade instead of first grade, the increased emphasis on academics and
classroom control caused him to move to a combination of the Scholar Academic and
Chapter 7 Individual Perspectives on the Curriculum Ideologies ❖ 249
Social Efficiency ideologies (position 3). Another change of grade level that accompa-
nied a change of school and community placed him in a situation where he vacillated
between the Scholar Academic and Social Efficiency ideologies before subscribing to
the Social Efficiency position, a position supported by the parents of the children he
taught (position 4). When he moved again, from an urban to a rural community, he
found himself working in a school and for a principal who believed in open education
and the progressive approach; as a result he moved his ideology toward the Learner
Centered position (position 5). When his job changed from teacher to school principal
and he moved from a rural to a suburban school, he moved toward the Scholar
Academic ideology, which that reflected the desires of upwardly mobile suburbanites
Figure 7.1 Life history as a trip.
SA LC
6
7
1 2
4 8
SE SR
1. First three years teaching first grade

2. Fourth to seventh years teaching first grade
3. Three years teaching fifth grade
4. Four years teaching junior high in a large urban school
5. Five years teaching junior high in a small rural school
6. Five years as principal in an affluent suburban junior high
7. First year as principal at the Native American reservation
8. Second to fifth years as principal at the Native American reservation
SOURCE: From “Educators’ Perceptions of the Changes in Their Curriculum Belief Systems Over Time” by Michael
Schiro, in Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 250–286, copyright © 1992 by ASCD. Reprinted with
permission. Learn more about ASCD at www.ascd.org.
who wanted their children to attend the “best” colleges (position 6). Another reloca-
tion allowed this educator to serve as the principal of a school on a Native American
reservation, where he saw how problems of alcoholism, drugs, and unemployment
were daily concerns of the children. Because most children and parents on the reserva-
tion did not possess high self-esteem, the Learner Centered ideology became primary
for this educator during his first year at this location (position 7). Upon learning more
about the needs of the Native Americans, he moved toward the Social Reconstruction
ideology, for he felt he needed to help the Native Americans reconstruct the social
conditions under which they lived rather than to simply nurture them. He realized that
these children had to do something for their people. They had to become the leaders
of their people to combat the serious problems on the reservation (position 8).
Figure 7.2 portrays a “life history as a set of influences.” As a teacher of a single
academic subject to seventh- and eighth-grade students between 1965 and 1970, this
Figure 7.2 Life history as a set of influences.
High
Low
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Scholar Academic Social Efficiency

Learner Centered Social Reconstruction
1965–1970: Seventh- and eighth-grade teacher

1970–1972: Fifth-grade teacher
1972–1976: Second-grade teacher
1974–1976: Special education training
1976–1984: Special education teacher
1984–1987: Assistant principal
1987–1989: Principal
educator was most heavily influenced by the Scholar Academic ideology. In 1970, after
becoming a fifth-grade teacher, this educator became increasingly influenced by the
Learner Centered ideology as he became aware of the needs of the “whole child” across
all academic subjects and within the context of peers and family. This ideology contin-
ued to influence him for another 8 years, although the sociopolitical events associated
with the Vietnam War also resulted in the Social Reconstruction ideology’s influencing
him for a short time during the early 1970s. With a change of job from regular class-
room teacher to special education teacher in the mid 1970s, this educator had to follow
state and federal mandates and create behaviorally oriented individual education pro-
grams (IEPs) for children. As he did so, he began to subscribe to the Social Efficiency
ideology. Upon becoming a school principal in the mid 1980s, being freed from the
constraints of conceptualizing education through the lenses of IEPs, and being pres-
sured by veteran teachers to reevaluate the importance of imparting knowledge to
children, this educator gradually came under greater influence from the Scholar
Academic ideology while the Social Efficiency ideology exerted increasingly less influ-
ence over him.
Figure 7.3 portrays a “life history as a composite of ideologies.” In 1971, as a
student teacher, this educator’s ideological orientation was primarily Learner
Centered. (From her drawings, her orientation was determined to be 70% Learner
Centered, 19% Social Reconstruction, 10% Scholar Academic, and 1% Social
Efficiency.) During her first full-time job as an elementary school teacher, she mod-
ified her views slightly (60% Learner Centered, 30% Social Reconstruction, 5%
Scholar Academic, and 5% Social Efficiency). Between 1977 and 1979, she left teach-
ing to obtain a master’s degree in sociology. The academic atmosphere of the univer-
sity, which she resented, and the social and political contexts she found herself in as
a student influenced her to alter her ideology dramatically (19% Learner Centered,
70% Social Reconstruction, 10% Scholar Academic, and 1% Social Efficiency).
Returning to teaching and changing grade levels from elementary school to junior
college equalized the influence of the four ideologies (30% Learner Centered, 30%
Social Reconstruction, 20% Scholar Academic, and 20% Social Efficiency). When she
became a college dean in 1983, the managerial demands of her administrative posi-
tion influenced her to subscribe to the Social Efficiency ideology (25% Learner
Centered, 10% Social Reconstruction, 20% Scholar Academic, and 45% Social
Efficiency). Upon entering a doctoral program in 1988, while still a college dean, this
educator altered her ideological orientation to a position similar to the one she had
taken after entering her master’s degree program; thus, the influence of the Social
Reconstruction ideology increased while that of the Social Efficiency ideology
decreased (25% Learner Centered, 50% Social Reconstruction, 10% Scholar
Academic, and 15% Social Efficiency). This increase in the Social Reconstruction
ideology’s influence seemed to come as a reaction to her being a student within the
sociopolitical context of a university.
Figure 7.4 represents a “life history as a portrayal of internal change.” During
the 1960s, as an elementary school special education teacher working with poor
children in a poor urban community, this educator adopted the Social
Reconstruction and Social Efficiency perspectives. Her students lived in a world of
poverty and violence, and she knew that she wanted something better for them.
Figure 7.3 Life history as a composite of ideologies.
70
60
50
40
Percent
30
20
10
1971 1971–1977 1977–1979 1979–1983 1983–1988 1988–1989
Learner Centered Scholar Academic

Social Reconstruction Social Efficiency
1971: Elementary school student teacher

1971–1977: Elementary school teacher
1977–1979: Economics master’s student
1979–1983: Junior college teacher
1983–1988: College dean
1988–1989: Doctoral student and college dean
Thus, she worked hard to provide them with the literary tools they would need to
escape from their poverty and transform their world into a better place to live.
During the 1970s, her life took an interesting turn when she bore two children and
adopted two war orphans. Caring for these children, as well as teaching part time,
influenced her curriculum and instructional beliefs. While her children were grow-
ing up, she worked part time in a Montessori school and learned to enjoy letting
youngsters make their own decisions about what they wanted to do. In this context,
the Learner Centered ideology had a deep influence on her. At the same time, she
worked to establish an alternative school for dropouts. Here, Social Reconstruction
was a motivating ideology in her work with adolescents. The Social Efficiency ide-
ology took a position quite peripheral to her life because of her growing dislike of
IEPs. The early 1980s took this educator out of the traditional school arena and
into church activist work. By the mid 1980s, however, she was back in public
education as a high school assistant principal in charge of student services, staff-
student relations, and management. The managerial demands of the assistant
principal position enabled this educator to readopt components of the Social
Efficiency ideology and add it to her acceptance of the Social Reconstruction and
Learner Centered ideologies.
Figure 7.4 Life history as a portrayal of internal change.
1960s 1970s 1980s
Me Me Me
SR SR
SR
LC SE
SE
LC
SA SE
SA
LC SA
Figure 7.5 portrays a “life history as a vector analysis of influences on an educator.”

Between 1962 and 1966, the primary influence on this kindergarten teacher was the
Learner Centered ideology (position 1). After changing teaching levels from kindergar-
ten to high school in 1966, the major influences upon her were the Scholar Academic
and Learner Centered ideologies, with the Scholar Academic ideology having more
influence than the Learner Centered ideology because of the academic orientation of
her high school (position 2). In 1968, she became a special education teacher and was
heavily influenced by the Social Efficiency ideology (with its accompanying IEPs), even
though the Scholar Academic and Learner Centered ideologies continued to assert a
minor influence over her (position 3). In 1971, she left teaching for a year to study at a
university with a mentor, who influenced her to take a socially active role in addressing
Figure 7.5 Life history as a vector analysis of influences on an educator.
SA LC
2
1
7
5
4
6
SE SR
1. 1962–1966: Kindergarten teacher

2. 1966–1968: High school teacher
3. 1968–1971: Special education teacher
4. 1971–1972: University study
5. 1972–1977: Special education teacher
6. 1977–1985: Special education director
7. 1985–1989: Assistant superintendent
the injustices done by schools to special education students. As a result, she became
influenced primarily by the Social Reconstruction and Learner Centered ideologies,
with a little pull from the Social Efficiency ideology (position 4). Returning to teaching
in 1972 and continuing as a special education teacher until 1977, this educator became
increasingly influenced by the Learner Centered and Social Efficiency ideologies, and
the influence of the Social Reconstruction ideology decreased (position 5). In 1977, she
changed her job from teacher to director of special education. She became increasingly
influenced by the Social Efficiency ideology as she attended to her management tasks,
although the Learner Centered ideology continued to have a large influence over her
(position 6). In 1985, she accepted a job as an assistant superintendent, where she had
to deal with all students in her school system and not just special education students.
Concern for the academic needs of all the children in the school system led her to
become increasingly influenced by the Scholar Academic ideology. At the same time the
influence of the Social Efficiency ideology decreased, as IEPs mandated by the govern-
ment for special education students no longer claimed her attention (position 7).
Figures 7.1 through 7.5 illustrate five ways that educators portray how their cur-
riculum ideologies changed during their careers. They have been described as a trip, a
set of influences, a composite of ideologies, a portrayal of internal change, and a vector
analysis of influences. Inherent in the figures are answers to the following questions:
Can people believe in more than one ideology? Do people change their ideologies over
time? What forces influence educators to change their ideologies?
Can People Believe in

More Than One Ideology?
More Than One Ideology
People would like to believe that they are consistent. However, in everyday life,
they frequently hold beliefs that are mutually inconsistent. The inconsistency occurs
both at any one point in time and over the span of a career.
During any particular day, the context in which educators find themselves can
influence their beliefs. For example, reflect on how a second-grade teacher might
instruct the following two children: a second-grader who is having problems learning
to read and another second-grader who can read fluently but has problems with com-
prehension. While dealing with the former, a teacher might believe that phonics is the
best instructional approach to reading (with its stress on skills, in the context of the
Social Efficiency ideology); in contrast, while dealing with the latter, the teacher might
believe whole language instruction provides the best approach to reading (with its
stress on meaning construction, from the perspective of the Learner Centered ideol-
ogy). In this situation, a teacher might rapidly oscillate between the Social Efficiency
ideology and the Learner Centered ideology, depending upon his or her assessment of
the needs of particular children in the classroom. Consider another example: when
teaching mathematics, a teacher might act as a Scholar Academic (and assume that
understanding is the most worthwhile type of knowledge), but while teaching history,
he or she might act as a Social Reconstructionist (and assume that values are the most
worthwhile type of knowledge). In this situation, a teacher might systematically switch

ideologies depending on the school subject being taught. A superintendent of schools
describes how he rapidly oscillated between ideologies this way:
In 198[–] I became a superintendent of schools, and my authority, as well as my vision, was

broadened. . . . In retrospect, it would seem that any adherence, however temporary, to any
curricular ideology was, perhaps, a knee-jerk reaction. When the school committee or
community called on me to provide an answer, I moved in the direction of greatest benefit.
Some might say that I was a politician in that respect, and I might agree, except that I know
that I was running hither and yon just trying to figure out what I was doing. . . . As a budg-
eter, I heartened to the Social Efficiency way of thought; at an elementary PTO meeting,
paint me Learner Centered with a tinge of Scholar Academic; in giving a seminar to high
school kids, the Social Reconstructionist reigns supreme; and when comforting the high
school staff about lack of scholarship in this generation, that old Scholar Academic emerges
like a taken-for-granted wife. (Schiro, 1992, p. 274)*
The life history diagrams presented earlier in this chapter illustrate how educators
change their beliefs over the span of their careers. Flexible educators usually alter their
curriculum beliefs in response to changing social trends and the changing school
populations that they serve. One educator expresses his feelings about the beliefs he
has held during his career this way:
I am a chameleon. I often wondered, but I never believed it. . . . I have been called flexible;
I have been called adaptable; I have been called a survivor; but I am a chameleon, one who
changes (color if one is a lizard) in reaction to situations. . . . I discovered my new self when
I traced my life history through the perspective of curriculum ideologies. My span of
review encompasses 30 years, and my [life history] diagram reveals more than a few stops
at each of the curricular ideologies along the way. . . . I am, perhaps, at this venerable age,
understanding for the first time, that there are four (or even more) different approaches to
curriculum. More importantly, I, again for the first time, see how each of those approaches,
while built of theory, becomes “popular” in response to a societal stance or need. Up to this
point, I merely thought that I was altering methodologies in response to student needs,
when in fact, I was a victim of society’s tugs, my own desire to be continually competent,
and a lifelong frustration with sameness. I am a chameleon! (Schiro, 1992, p. 273)
Posture Toward Different Ideologies

Not only do some educators change their curriculum ideologies during a single
day or over the span of their careers, but there are also different intellectual postures
educators take on the relationships among ideologies that influence both their under-
standing of their own ideology and how they relate to others who hold different ide-
ologies. Following are brief descriptions of what have been identified as four different
positions educators take on the relationships among ideologies:
* From “Educators Perceptions of the Changes in Their Curriculum Belief Systems Over Time”
in Journal of Curriculum and Supervision Volume 7, Number 3 by Schiro, M., copyright © 1992
by ASCD. Reprinted with permission. Learn more about ASCD at www.ascd.org.
Dualistic. Educators believe, understand, and value only one ideology, using a dualistic
perspective of right versus wrong: those curriculum beliefs that agree with their own
are correct and good, and those that are different from their own are incorrect. From
this position, some educators see only two sets of curriculum beliefs: those similar to
theirs and those that are different. Other educators perceive a variety of different cur-
riculum belief systems, but they still believe, understand, and value only one curricu-
lum belief system from a dualistic perspective.
Relativistic. Educators perceive a variety of curriculum ideologies, and they operate from
a relativistic viewpoint that gives equal value to each way of viewing curriculum issues.
Here it is held that everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, that no opinion is
better than any other, and that curriculum ideologies cannot be measured against any
absolute scale of value. From this perspective, educators have the ability to identify and
understand the language and images of each curriculum ideology they recognize.
Contextual. Educators perceive a variety of curriculum ideologies, each of which they

believe is best for accomplishing certain goals or purposes. Here educators have the
ability to express curriculum opinions using the language and images of each ideology
they recognize. They switch their ideology depending on the nature of the curriculum
task they are engaged in or the ideology of the group or individual with whom they are
speaking. Here an ideology is valued because of its utility in accomplishing certain
tasks or purposes better than others.
Hierarchical. Educators can differentiate between a variety of well-defined, viable ide-

ologies while making a personal and thoughtful commitment to only one. Educators
can use other ideologies to further their endeavors and can hold discourse with other
educators who subscribe to different ideologies using their language and images while
still advocating their own curriculum beliefs.
Educators who take a relativistic or contextual posture toward the existence of dif-
ferent ideologies can believe in more than one ideology simultaneously and can com-
bine ideologies in unique (and often inconsistent) ways.
Educators who take a hierarchical posture toward the existence of different ide-
ologies can use different ideologies in the service of promoting a single ideology. For
example, they might believe primarily in the Social Reconstruction ideology and use
the Scholar Academic ideology for certain purposes to promote their ultimate Social
Reconstruction ends.
Educators who take a dualistic posture toward the existence of different ideologies
tend to hold only one curriculum ideology, and the ideological positions they take cor-
respond fairly closely to the ideological positions presented in this book. Many of the
curriculum wars waged by the general public, parents, and politicians—who have no
experience as teachers or school administrators—take place because those persons are
at the dualistic level of thinking about curriculum issues. The wars over skill-based
mathematics versus understanding-based mathematics, and the wars over phonics
versus whole language approaches to reading, are usually waged by educators and
members of the general public who take a dualistic posture toward the existence of
different ideologies.
Why Do Educators Change Ideologies?

Most educators report that they undergo important shifts in their educational phi-
losophies during their careers. Not only do educators report changing their educa-
tional beliefs, but they report doing so more frequently than might be expected—on
average, about once every four years. Despite public opinion to the contrary, most
educators are constantly assessing their curriculum beliefs and altering them as a result
of their interactions with their world.
Educators report 12 major reasons for ideology change—or 12 types of occur-
rences that formed turning points in their lives and stimulated a change in curriculum
ideology. They are listed here in order of frequency of occurrence:
1. A change in the school in which an educator works

2. A change in the grade level with which an educator works
3. Addressing or responding to the needs of the children or community served
4. A change from one type of administrative job to another (e.g., moving from being a
school principal to being an assistant superintendent)
5. Attending graduate school
6. Significant life events (e.g., having a child, confronting the death of a loved one, or
divorce)
7. A change in occupation from teaching to administration
8. Confrontation of the realities of teaching or administration
9. Temporary interruption of one’s career (e.g., to be a full-time mother, work in busi-
ness, or travel abroad)
10. Responding to social trends or sociopolitical occurrences (these include education-
based social trends, such as the popularity of whole language, or sociopolitical events,
such as a war)
11. A change from one type of teaching job to another (e.g., moving from being a class-
room teacher to being a special education teacher)
12. Working with an influential mentor (often for several years)
Other reasons reported for ideology change, with a small percentage of occur-
rence, include such things as a change in the academic subject taught, becoming com-
fortable with oneself as a teacher, taking a sabbatical, a change in school principal or
superintendent, and a significant religious experience. These reasons for change are
interdependent and cannot be treated as independent variables. Several of these rea-
sons for change in ideology need discussion.
The most frequently mentioned event that precipitates a change in ideology is the
changing of the school or school system in which an educator works. About 16% of
reported ideology changes have been linked to a change in school or school system.
While a change in school or school system may not have been the direct cause of an
educator’s change in ideology in these cases, it was identified as the factor resulting in
a change in ideology. This is because a change in school or school system can place an
educator in a situation where a new group of children or a new school community
must be dealt with, a new grade must be taught, or a new occupational role must be
assumed (such as when a teacher becomes an administrator).
The second most frequent reason given for changing curriculum ideology is a
change in the grade taught. About 13% of reported ideology changes have been linked
to such a change. Examination of ideology life histories seems to indicate that moving
from teaching a lower grade to teaching a higher grade pushes teachers to adopt
aspects of the Scholar Academic ideology. The reverse (moving from a higher to a
lower grade) nudges teachers to adopt aspects of the Learner Centered ideology.
Responding to the needs of the children or community served is the third most
frequent reason given for a change in ideology. This includes working in a school that
has a changing student population (as has occurred in many urban areas over the last
40 years), changing the type of children one teaches (for example, shifting from regular
to special education), visiting children’s homes and families, and dealing with parental
pressure. About 12% of reported ideology changes have been linked to educators’
responding to the needs of the children or community served. Its frequency supports
our current understanding of the complex ways that American schools are responsive
to, embody, and reflect both the general culture and the local communities in which
they are located.
Taken together, these three change factors—school change, grade change, and
response to children’s or community needs—reportedly account for more than 40% of
the reasons why educators change their ideologies. The school system an educator
works in (and the beliefs of the superintendent leading that organization), the school
environment an educator works in (and the principal heading that school), the grade
level an educator teaches (and the other teachers teaching at that grade level), and the
children and community with whom an educator works exert powerful social, politi-
cal, and ideological influences on an educator’s curriculum ideology. The normal,
everyday curriculum and instructional expectations and atmospheres in which educa-
tors work are the “hidden curriculum” of schools for teachers. When a change takes
place in these things, the educators confronting the changes frequently face turning
points in their lives that leave them open to change in their curriculum and instruc-
tional beliefs. Stability of the everyday relationships and expectations in educators’
lives enables them to maintain an ideological stance. Changes in ordinary working
relationships and expectations that educators confront stimulate change in their cur-
riculum and instructional belief systems.
Three other observations about the events that stimulate educators to change their
ideologies deserve mention.
First, most school administrators change their ideology upon moving from teach-
ing to administration. About 80% of school administrators report such a change. In
addition, most of the changes in ideology are toward the Social Efficiency ideology, as
administrators take on the duties of management.
Second, about 25% of educators report that their first change in ideology was due
to their confronting the realities of teaching, which include such things as classroom
control issues, appropriate grade level content, the limits on teacher time and energy,
the expectations of principals and fellow teachers, and external pressures from such
things as state-mandated achievement testing. New teachers need to expect that the
realities of teaching will exert pressure on them to change their ideology.
Third, about 10% of educators report that events that occur outside their profes-
sional lives stimulate them to change their educational philosophies. These personal
events include having children, having children enter school, marriage, divorce, midlife
crisis, death of a close relative, and a close call with death. This reason for change in
beliefs is particularly important because it points out that educators’ personal and
professional lives cannot be treated as completely disjoint realities. An educator who is
aware of the personal events occurring in an another educator’s life can direct the
energy generated from personal turmoil toward helping that individual change his or
her curriculum and instructional beliefs, if this is desired. Either fortunately or unfor-
tunately, we tend to excuse educators who are undergoing significant changes in their
personal lives from professional growth rather than to see changes in personal lives as
facilitators of professional growth.
Understanding these influences on ideological change can help educators compre-
hend some of the pressures they are likely to face as they traverse their professional
lives. For example, a change in ideology is likely when one changes the school one
works in or the grade one teaches.
Understanding these influences on ideological change can also help educators
direct their own careers and facilitate the growth of others. Three examples—one
involving a teacher, one involving a school principal, and one involving a school super-
intendent—illustrate this. Upon learning about these ideologies, one teacher realized
that she was unhappy in the school in which she was teaching because the dominant
ideology of the school was Social Efficiency while her ideology was Learner Centered.
She had the courage to resign from that school, search for a teaching position in a
school that was “friendly” to her ideology, and take a teaching position in a school in
which the dominant ideology was a combination of Learner Centered and Scholar
Academic. She was much happier in her new school than she had been in her old one
(Cotti & Schiro, 2004). A school principal reported moving teachers from one grade
level to another to facilitate and support their growth. And a school superintendent
reported moving a principal from one school to another to stimulate the development
of his educational philosophy.
Life span psychology asserts that as most adults confront the realities of their personal
lives, they grow through a series of crises. What occurs in the personal lives of adults
also occurs in the professional lives of educators.
Most educators who are sensitive and responsive to the professional environment
in which they work confront numerous philosophical and ideological crises as they
traverse their careers. I hope they will have the courage to deal with the crises with an
attitude that allows them to welcome changes in their beliefs about education. There
is nothing wrong with learning, growing, and changing in response to the events that
we confront as we live our lives. Usually this involves no more than welcoming for
ourselves the same things that we hope for our students.
In America today, four visions of what good education involves are actively vying
for influence over our educational system, as they have during the last century. As we
traverse the future, different visions will surely exert pressure on each of us in different
ways at different times in our lives as we interact with different groups of people, as we
do different types of jobs, and as social, economic, political, and cultural forces influ-
ence the direction of our society.
I hope the discussion in this book will provide readers with an understanding of
the philosophical visions they will surely confront in the future, a perspective on the
ideological landscape they will need to navigate in the future, and a perspective on the
ideological pressures for change to which they will have to respond.
I hope the discussion in this book will provide readers with an understanding of
their own visions for education, a perspective on how their visions relate to the other
visions that are active in shaping the future of our schools, and a perspective on how
their professional thoughts might evolve over time.
I hope the discussion in this book will provide readers with not only an under-
standing of the multiple languages that educators speak and the ability to speak in each
of those languages, but also a perspective on how the visions we have for education
influence the meaning we give to words and how the ways in which we use language
can influence our actions in the present and our visions for the future.
I also hope the ideas in this book will provide readers with a perspective on both
the field of curriculum and their own beliefs, a perspective that will enable them to
shape their own visions for the future of American education. And I hope this perspec-
tive will provide educators with the personal insights and power they need to make
themselves into the people they want to be as they confront the multiple visions for the
future of education that compete for their allegiance.
❖ Appendix
Curriculum Ideologies Inventory
Instructions
In each of the following sections you will find four statements with a blank in front of
each. Read each statement carefully and then rank the statements from 1 to 4, placing
1 next to the statement that you like most

2 next to the statement that you like second most
3 next to the statement that you like third most
4 next to the statement that you dislike the most
Use each of the numbers (1, 2, 3, and 4) only once in each part of the inventory.
Place the numbers on the lines to the left of each statement. This is not a test. There is
no one right answer. Take your time.
263
Part 1
____ Schools should provide children with the ability to perceive problems in
society, envision a better society, and act to change society so that there is
social justice and a better life for all people.
____ Schools should fulfill the needs of society by efficiently training youth to
function as mature constructive members of society.
____ Schools should be communities where the accumulated knowledge of the
culture is transmitted to the youth.
____ Schools should be enjoyable, stimulating, child-centered environments
organized around the developmental needs and interests of children as those
needs and interests present themselves from day to day.
Part 2
____ Teachers should be supervisors of student learning, utilizing instructional
strategies that will optimize student learning.
____ Teachers should be companions to students, using the environment within
which the student lives to help the student learn.
____ Teachers should be aids to children, helping them learn by presenting them
with experiences from which they can make meaning.
____ Teachers should be knowledgeable people, transmitting that which is known
to those who do not know it.
Part 3
____ Learning best proceeds when the student is presented with the appropriate
stimulus materials and positive reinforcement.
____ Learning best proceeds when the teacher clearly and accurately presents to
the student that knowledge which the student is to acquire.
____ Learning best takes place when children are motivated to actively engage in
experiences that allow them to create their own knowledge and understand-
ing of the world in which they live.
____ Learning best occurs when a student confronts a real social crisis and par-
ticipates in the construction of a solution to that crisis.
Part 4
____ The knowledge of most worth is the structured knowledge and ways of
thinking that have come to be valued by the culture over time.
____ The knowledge of most worth is the personal meaning of oneself and of
one’s world that comes from one’s direct experience in the world and one’s
personal response to such experience.
____ The knowledge of most worth is the specific skills and capabilities for action
that allow an individual to live a constructive life.
____ The knowledge of most worth is a set of social ideals, a commitment to those
ideals, and an understanding of how to implement those ideals.
Appendix: Curriculum Ideologies Inventory ❖ 265
Part 5
____ Childhood is essentially a time of learning in preparation for adulthood,
when one will be a constructive, contributing member of society.
____ Childhood is essentially a period of intellectual development highlighted by
growing reasoning ability and capacity for memory that results in ever
greater absorption of cultural knowledge.
____ Childhood is essentially a time when children unfold according to their own
innate natures, felt needs, organic impulses, and internal timetables. The focus is
on children as they are during childhood rather than as they might be as adults.
____ Childhood is essentially a time for practice in and preparation for acting
upon society to improve both oneself and the nature of society.
Part 6
____ Evaluation should objectively indicate to others whether or not students can
or cannot perform specific skills. Its purpose is to certify students’ compe-
tence to perform specific tasks.
____ Evaluation should continuously diagnose children’s needs and growth so
that further growth can be promoted by appropriate adjustment of their
learning environment. It is primarily for the children’s benefit, not for com-
paring children with each other or measuring them against predetermined
standards.
____ Evaluation should be a subjective comparison of students’ performance with
their capabilities. Its purpose is to indicate to both the students and others
the extent to which they are living up to their capabilities.
____ Evaluation should objectively determine the amount of knowledge students
have acquired. It allows students to be ranked from those with the greatest
intellectual gain to those with the least.
Graphing the Results of the Inventory

Graphing the results of the inventory involves two steps using the curriculum ideolo-
gies inventory graphing sheet (Figure A.1). First, transfer responses from the inventory
to the sorting form (found under the graph). Second, transfer the data from the sorting
form to the graph.
To transfer responses from the inventory to the sorting form, write the numbers
from each part of the inventory on the lines next to the letters in the corresponding
part of the sorting form in the same order in which they were recorded in each part of
the questionnaire. For example, if the numbers next to the statements in Part 1 of the
inventory are 3, 2, 4, and 1, reading from top to bottom, record the sequence 3, 2, 4, 1
from top to bottom on the lines next to the letters in Part 1 of the sorting form. The
letters and numbers will then be paired thus: C-3, D-2, A-4, and B-1. (See Figure A.2.)
The next step is to transfer data from the sorting form to the graph. First, for each
part of the sorting form, place a large dot in the middle of the corresponding cell in
the graph; that is, place the dot in the cell that matches the letter-number pair in the
sorting form. For example, if Part 1 of the sorting form contains the letter-number
pairs C-3, D-2, A-4, and B-1, place large dots in the middle of the following cells under
Part 1 of the graph: C-3 (Social Reconstruction), D-2 (Social Efficiency), A-4 (Scholar
Academic), and B-1 (Learner Centered). Second, connect the dots within each hori-
zontal section of the graph: those within the Scholar Academic (A) section, the Learner
Centered (B) section, the Social Reconstruction (C) section, and the Social Efficiency
(D) section. See Figure A.3 for an example.
Interpreting the Results of the Inventory

If the line in a section of the graph is high (mostly 1s and 2s), it means that you favor
the ideology corresponding to that line. If the line in a section of the graph is low
(mostly 3s and 4s), it means that you do not favor the position corresponding to that
line. If a line in a section of the graph zigzags from high to low, it means you have
mixed feelings about that position. Figure A.3 provides an example of a graph com-
pleted by a person who favors the Learner Centered position, does not favor the
Scholar Academic position, and has mixed feeling about the Social Efficiency and
Social Reconstruction positions. Note that a person’s beliefs do not have to fall entirely
within the confines of only one ideological position; the ideological positions described
here are ideal types rather than mutually exclusive belief systems.
The inventory presents and contrasts educators’ beliefs about instructional pur-
poses, teaching, learning, knowledge, childhood, and evaluation from four ideological
positions. To compare beliefs across ideologies in any one of these categories (pur-
poses, teaching, learning, etc.), look at the order of the letters in the sorting form for
that category and match them to corresponding statements in the inventory. As
correspond to Scholar Academic, Bs to Learner Centered, Cs to Social Reconstruction,
and Ds to Social Efficiency. For example, if the third statement on the sorting form
under Part 2 (which has the heading “Teaching”) is a B, then the third statement in the
inventory (which is about teaching) is the Learner Centered position.
Appendix: Curriculum Ideologies Inventory ❖ 267
Figure A.1 Curriculum ideologies inventory graphing sheet.
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6

Purpose Teaching Learning Knowledge Childhood Evaluation
A-1
Scholar Academic
A-2
A-3
A-4
B-1
Learner Centered
B-2
B-3
B-4
C-1
Reconstruction
C-2
Social
C-3
C-4
D-1
Social Efficiency
D-2
D-3
D-4
Figure A.2 How to transfer your responses from the inventory to the sorting form.
Part One
Social Effic
D-2
3 Schools should provide c
D-3
envision a better society,
better life for all people.
D-4
2 Schools should fulfill the Sorting Form:
mature constructive mem
4 Schools should be comm Part 1 Part 2

transmitted to the youth.
C 3 D
1 Schools should be enjoys D 2 C
organized around the dev A 4 B
interests present themselv B 1 A
Figure A.3 Example of a completed graph for the curriculum ideologies inventory.
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6

Graph: Purpose Teaching Learning Knowledge Childhood Evaluation
A-1
Scholar Academic
A-2
A-3
A-4
B-1
Learner Centered
B-2
B-3
B-4
C-1
Reconstruction
C-2
Social
C-3
C-4
D-1
Social Efficiency
D-2
D-3
D-4
❖ References
Adams, F. (1972). Highlander Folk School: Getting Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996).
information, going back, and teaching it. Applications and misapplications of cognitive
Harvard Educational Review, 42(4), 497–520. psychology to mathematics education. Retrieved
Adams, F., & Horton, M. (1975). Unearthing seeds of October 22, 2005, from http://act-r.psy.cmu
fire: The idea of Highlander. Winston-Salem, .edu/papers/misapplied.html
NC: John F. Wait. Anderson, L. W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and
Adler, M. J. (1982). The paideia proposal: An educa- the improvement of education. Studies in
tional manifesto. New York: Macmillan. Educational Evaluation, 31, 102–113.
Aiken, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W.,
study. New York: Harper. Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R.,
American Association for the Advancement of et al. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
Science. (1968). Science: A process approach. teaching, and assessing. New York: Addison
New York: Xeron. Wesley Longman.
American Association for the Advancement of Anderson, S. E. (1997). Worldmath curriculum:
Science, Commission on Science Education. Fighting eurocentrism in mathematics. In A. B.
(1965). The psychological bases of science: A Powell & M. Frankenstein (Eds.), Ethno-
process approach. Washington, DC: American mathematics: Challenging eurocentrism in math-
Association for the Advancement of Science. ematics education. Albany: State University of
American Association for the Advancement of New York Press.
Science, Commission on Science Education. Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden cur-
(1967a). Guide for inservice instruction: Science: riculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1),
A process approach (Miscellaneous Publication 67–92. Retrieved March 13, 2007, from http://
67–9). Washington, DC: American Association www.scf.usc.edu/~clarkjen/JeanAnyon.htm
for the Advancement of Science. Apple, M. (1995). Education and power (2nd ed.).
American Association for the Advancement of Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Science, Commission on Science Education. Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education.
(1967b). Science: A process approach: Purposes, New York: Teachers College Press.
accomplishments, expectations (Miscellaneous Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.).
Publication 67–12). Washington, DC: American Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Association for the Advancement of Science. Assessor, A. (2011, July/August). Testing, privatiza-
American Association for the Advancement of Science, tion and the future of public schooling.
Commission on Science Education. (1968). Monthly Review, 63(3), 67–76.
Science: A process approach: An evaluation model Association for Supervision and Curriculum
and its application (2nd report, Miscellaneous Development. (Ed.). (2005). The whole child.
Publication 68–4). Washington, DC: American Educational Leadership, 63(1).
Association for the Advancement of Science. Atkin, J. M. (1968). Behavioral objectives in curric-
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1988). ulum design: A cautionary note. The Science
Radical constructivism and cognitive psychol- Teacher, 35, 27–30.
ogy. Brookings papers on education policy: 1988. Ayers, W., & Ayers, R. (2011). Introduction. Monthly
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Review, 63(3), 1–4.
269
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Bobbitt, F. (1924d). What understanding of human
Clarendon Press. society should education develop? The
Barth, R. S. (1972). Open education and the American Elementary School Journal, 25(4), 292–293.
school. New York: Schocken Books and Agathon Bobbitt, F. (1926). Curriculum investigations.
Press. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beauchamp, G. A., & Beauchamp, K. E. (1967). Boggs, G. L. (2011). The next American revolution:
Comparative analysis of curriculum systems. Sustainable activism for the twenty-first century.
Wilmette, IL: Kagg Press. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Becker, J., & Jacob, B. (2000). The politics of Bracey, G. W. (2003). On the death of childhood
California school mathematics: The anti- and the destruction of public schools: The folly
reform of 1997–99. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7), of today’s education policies and practices.
527–539. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bell, D. (1966). The reforming of general education. Brameld, T. (1950). Patterns of educational philoso-
New York: Columbia University Press. phy. New York: World Book.
Bellack, A. A. (1964). The structure of knowledge Brameld, T. (1956). Toward a reconstructed philoso-
and the structure of the curriculum. In phy of education. New York: Dryden Press.
D. Huebner (Ed.), A reassessment of the curricu- Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appro-
lum (pp. 25–40). New York: Teachers College Press. priate practice in early childhood programs serv-
Bennett, W., Finn, C., & Cribb, J. (1999). The edu- ing children from birth through age 8. Retrieved
cated child: A parent’s guide from preschool June 15, 2005, from http://www.newhorizons
through eighth grade. New York: Free Press. .org/lifelong/childhood/naeyc.html
Bigelow, B., & Petersen, B. (Eds.). (2005). Rethinking Broudy, H. S. (1961). Building a philosophy of educa-
Columbus. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. tion (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Blackie, J. (1971). Inside the primary school. New Hall.
York: Schocken Books. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education.
Block, A. (2010). “And they’ll say that it’s a move- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ment.” In E. Malewski (Ed.), Curriculum stud- Bruner, J. S. (1963). Needed: A theory of instruc-
ies handbook: The next moment (pp. 523–527). tion. Educational Leadership, 20(8), 523–532.
New York: Routledge. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). The taxonomy of educa- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
tional objectives: Handbook I. Cognitive domain. Bussis, A., & Cluttenden. E. (1970). Analysis of an
New York: McKay. approach to open education. Princeton, NJ:
Bobbitt, F. (1913). Some general principles of Educational Testing Service.
management applied to the problems of city Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of
school systems. In S. C. Parker (Ed.), Twelfth efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
yearbook of the National Society for the Study Cambridge Conference on School Mathematics.
of Education (Pt. 1). Chicago: University of (1963). Goals for school mathematics: The report
Chicago Press. of the Cambridge Conference on School
Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Boston: Riverside Mathematics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Press. Carini, L. (2005). The philosophies underlying the
Bobbitt, F. (1920). The objectives of secondary prospect descriptive processes. Retrieved October
education. The School Review, 28(10), 25, 2006, from http://www.prospectcenter.org
721–749. Carini, P. (2001). Starting strong: A different look at
Bobbitt, F. (1924a). Education as a social process. children, schools, and standards. New York:
School and Society, 21(538), 453–459. Teachers College Press.
Bobbitt, F. (1924b). How to make a curriculum. Chandler P., Cooper, G., Pollock, E., & Tindall-Ford,
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. S. (1998). Applying cognitive psychology princi-
Bobbitt, F. (1924c). The new technique of curricu- ples to education and training. Retrieved
lum making. The Elementary School Journal, October 22, 2005, from http://www.aare.edu
25(1), 45–54. .au/98pap/cha98030.htm
References ❖ 271
Cheney, L. (1988). American memory: A report on Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography.

the humanities in the nation’s public schools. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Dewey, E., & Dewey, J. (1915). Schools of tomorrow.
Office. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Demers, K. (2008). Teacher Dewey, J. (1897a). My pedagogic creed. The School
education as a bridge? Unpacking curriculum Journal, 54(3), 77–80.
controversies. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & Dewey, J. (1897b). The psychological aspect of the
J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curricu- school curriculum. Educational Review,
lum and instruction (pp. 261–281). Thousand 13(Apr.), 356–369.
Oaks, CA: Sage. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New
Coltham, J. B. (1972). Educational accountability: York: Macmillan.
An English experiment and its outcome. The Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New
School Review, 81, 15–36. York: Macmillan.
Comenius, J. A. (1896). The great didactic of John Dewey, J. (1948). Reconstruction in philosophy.
Amos Comenius (M. W. Keatinge, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
London: Adam and Charles Black. (Original Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In
work published 1657) P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research
Connelly, F. M. (1964). Philosophy of science and on curriculum (pp. 486–516). New York:
the science curriculum. Journal of Research in Macmillan.
Science Teaching, 6, 108–113. Duckworth, E. (1987). “The having of wonderful
Cotti, L. (1997). The evolution of preservice teachers’ ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning.
educational philosophies. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI New York: Teachers College Press.
Dissertation Services. Education Development Center. (1966).
Cotti, R., & Schiro, M. (2004). Connecting teacher Introduction to the elementary science study.
beliefs to the use of children’s literature in Newton, MA: Author.
the teaching of mathematics. Journal of Education Development Center. (1968). Man: A
Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(4), 329–356. course of study: Unit 5. Baboons (Trial teaching
Counts, G. S. (1932a). Dare progressive education be ed.). Cambridge, MA: Author.
progressive? Progressive Education, 9(4), 257–263. Education Development Center. (1970). The ESS
Counts, G. S. (1932b). Dare the school build a new reader. Newton, MA: Author.
social order? New York: John Day. Edwards, C. (2002). Three approaches from Europe:
Counts, G. S. (1934). The social foundations of edu- Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia. Early
cation. New York: Scribner. Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1). Retrieved
Cremin, L. (1961). Transformation of the school. October 22, 2005, from http://www.ecrp.uiuc
New York: Knopf. .edu/v4n1/edwards.html
Cremin, L. (1977). Traditions of American educa- Eisner, E. (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curricu-
tion. New York: Basic Books. lum. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Cruz-Acosta, L. (2006, August). “Making and Ellis, A. K. (2004). Exemplars of curriculum theory.
remaking schools” Comments. Retrieved March Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
14, 2007, from http://review.prospectcenter Engel, B. S., & Martin, A. C. (Eds.). (2005).
.org/2006/08/louisa_cruzacosta_making_ Holding values: What we mean by progressive
and_r.html education: Essays by members of the North
Davson-Galle, P. (1998). The point of primary edu- Dakota Study Group. Portsmouth, NH:
cation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, Heinemann.
30(3), 303–310. Fayerweather Street School. (n.d.). Beyond the cam-
Deng, Z. & Luke, A. (2008). Subject matter: Defining pus. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://
and theorizing school subjects. In F. M. www.fayerweather.org/learning/beyondCampus
Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The .asp
Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction Featherstone, J. (1968). A new kind of schooling.
(pp. 66–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The New Republic, 158(9), 27–31.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Gagne, R. M. (1966). Elementary science: A new

Structural and conceptual alternatives. In scheme of instruction. Science, 151, 49–53.
W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula Gagne, R. M. (1967). Curriculum research and the
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher educa- promotion of learning. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne,
tion: A project of the Association of Teacher & M. Scriven (Eds.), AERA monograph series on
Educators (pp. 212–233). New York: Macmilllan. curriculum evaluation: Vol. 1. Perspectives on cur-
Fenstermacher, G. D. (2001). Educational account- riculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
ability: Features of the concept. Theory Into Gagne, R. M. (1970). The conditions of learning (2nd
Practice, 18(5), 330–335. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Soltis, J. F. (1992). Gandini, L. (2004). Foundations of the Reggio
Approaches to teaching. New York: Teachers Emilia approach. In J. Hendrick (Ed.), Next
College Press. steps toward teaching the Reggio way (2nd ed.,
Ferris, F. L. (1962). Testing in the new curriculums: pp. 15-26). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson,
Numerology, tyranny, or common sense. The Merrill, Prentice Hall.
School Review, 70, 112–131. Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers
Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.
Scientific culture and educational research. Giroux, H. (2005). Border crossings: Cultural work-
Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14. ers and the politics of education (2nd ed.). New
Finn, C. (1991). We must take charge: Our schools York: Routledge.
and our future. New York: Free Press. Giroux, H. A. (2006). America on the edge. New
Finn, C., Julian, L., & Petrilli, M. (2006). The state of York: Palgrave Macmillan.
state standards 2006. Retrieved March 12, 2007, Glaser, R. (Ed.). (1965). Teaching machines and pro-
from http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/ grammed learning: II. Data and directions.
publication/publication.cfm?id=358 Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Foshay, A. W. (1970). How fare the disciplines? Phi Glatthorn, A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. (2005).
Delta Kappan, 51(7), 349–352. Curriculum leadership: Development and imple-
Fraser, D. M. (1962). Current curriculum studies in mentation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
academic subjects. Washington, DC: National Goodlad, J., Klein, M., & Associates. (1970). Behind
Education Association. the classroom door. Worthington, OH: Charles
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New A. Jones.
York: Seabury Press. Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New
Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation. South York: Teachers College Press.
Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New
Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving peda- York: Teachers College Press.
gogy of the oppressed. London: Continuum. Grobman, A. B. (1967). The changing classroom: The
Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the heart. New York: role of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
Continuum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Friedrich Froebel Time Line. (n.d.). Retrieved Gutstein, E. (2005). Real world projects: Seeing
October 22, 2005 from http://members.tripod math around us. In E. Gutstein & B. Peterson
.com/~FroebelWeb/webline.html (Eds.), Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social
Gagne, R. M. (1962). The acquisition of knowledge. justice by the numbers. Milwaukee, WI:
Psychological Review, 69(4), 355–365. Rethinking Schools.
Gagne, R. M. (1963). Learning and proficiency in Gutstein, E., & Peterson, B. (Eds.). (2005). Rethinking
mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 56(8), mathematics: Teaching social justice by the
620–626. numbers. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Gagne, R. M. (1965a). The analysis of instructional Hanson, D., Durton, D., & Guam, G. (2006). Six
objectives for the design of instruction. In concepts to help you align with NCLB. The
R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed Technology Teacher, 66(1), 17–20.
learning: II. Data and directions. (pp. 21-65) Harvard Project Physics. (1969). Harvard Project
Washington, DC: National Education Association. Physics: Newsletter 1. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Gagne, R. M. (1965b). The conditions of learning. Hawkins, D. (1965/1970). Messing about in science.
New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston. In Education Development Center (Ed.), The
References ❖ 273
ESS reader (pp. 37–44). Newton, MA: Johnson, M. (1926). The educational principles of
Education Development Center. the School of Organic Education, Fairhope,
Hein, G. E. (1975). Open education: An overview. Alabama. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), Twenty-sixth
Newton, MA: Education Development Center. yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Hein, G. E. (2005). A progressive education per- Education (Pt. 2). Bloomington, IL: Public
spective on evaluation. In B. S. Engel & A. C. School.
Martin (Eds.), Holding values: What we mean Johnson, M. (1974). Thirty years with an idea:
by progressive education: Essays by members of The story of organic education. Tuscaloosa:
the North Dakota Study Group. Portsmouth, University of Alabama Press.
NH: Heinemann. Joseph, P., Bravmann, S., Windschitl, M., Mikel, E.,
Hendrick, J. (Ed.). (2004). Next steps toward teach- & Green, N. (2000). Cultures of curriculum.
ing the Reggio way (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall. Key Curriculum Press. (n.d.) The geometer’s sketch-
Hersh, S., & Peterson, B. (2005). Poverty and world pad. Retrieved July 28, 2011, from http://www
health: Recognizing inequality. In E. Gutstein .keypress.com/x24070.xml
& B. Peterson (Eds.), Rethinking mathematics: Keynes, H. B. (1995). Can equity thrive in a cul-
Teaching social justice by the numbers. ture of mathematical excellence? In W. G.
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.),
Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy. Boston: New direction for equity in mathematics education
Houghton Mifflin. (pp. 57–92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Holland, J. G. (1960). Teaching machines: An appli- University Press.
cation of principles from the laboratory. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. New
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, York: Teachers College Press.
3, 275–287. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1934). Launching the social fron-
Horton, M. (1936, January). The Highlander Folk tier. The Social Frontier, 1(1), 2.
School. The Social Frontier, pp. 117–118. King, A. R., & Brownell, J. A. (1966). The curriculum
Horton, M. (1966). An interview with Myles and the disciplines of knowledge. New York:
Horton: “It’s a miracle—I still don’t believe it.” Wiley.
Phi Delta Kappan, 47(9), 490–497. Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for the American
Huebner, D. (Ed.). (1964). A reassessment of the cur- curriculum: 1893–1958. New York: Taylor &
riculum. New York: Teachers College Press. Francis.
Hutchins, R. M. (1936). The higher learning in Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B.
America. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. (1964). The taxonomy of educational objectives:
Jackson, A. (1997a). The math wars: California bat- Handbook II. Affective domain. New York:
tles it out over mathematics education (Pt. I). McKay.
Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Krug, E. A. (1969). The shaping of the American high
44(6), 695–702. school: 1880–1920. Madison: University of
Jackson, A. (1997b). The math wars: California bat- Wisconsin Press.
tles it out over mathematics education (Pt. II). Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Making mathematics
Notices of the American Mathematical Society, meaningful in multicultural contexts. In W. G.
44(7), 817–823. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.),
Jacobs, J. (2006). It takes a vision. In C. Finn, L. New direction for equity in mathematics educa-
Julian, & M. Petrilli (Eds.), The state of state tion (pp. 126–145). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
standards 2006. Retrieved March 12, 2007, University Press.
from http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/ Lauber, E., Robinson, A., Kim, S., & Davis R. (2001).
publication/publication.cfm?id=358 The World Wide Web cognitive psychology tutor.
Jersild, A. T. (1946). Child development and the cur- Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://teach
riculum. New York: Teachers College Press. .psy.uga.edu/CogPsychTutor
Johnson, M. (n.d.). Organic education. Fairhope, Leeper, R. R. (Ed.). (1966). Language and meaning.
AL: Marietta Johnson Museum of Organic Washington, DC: Association for Supervision
Education. and Curriculum Development.
Leitman, A. (1968). Travel agent. In Association for and power. In P. McLaren (Ed.), Revolutionary
Childhood Education International (Ed.), multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the
Housing for early childhood education, Bulletin new millennium. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
No. 22-A. Washington, DC: Association for McNeil, J. D. (1977). Curriculum: A comprehensive
Childhood Education International. introduction. Boston: Little, Brown.
Lessinger, L. (1970). Every kid a winner: Monroe, P., & Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Research
Accountability in education. Palo Alto, CA: within the field of education: Its organization
Science Research Associates. and encouragement. The School Review
Lessinger, L. (1971). Accountability for results: A Monographs: No. I. Chicago: University of
basic challenge for America’s schools. In Chicago Press.
L. Lessinger & R. Tyler (Eds.), Accountability in Monthly Review. (2011, July/August). Education
education. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones. under fire: the U.S. corporate attack on stu-
Lessinger, L., &. Salowe, A. (2001). Healing public dents, teachers, & schools. Monthly Review,
schools. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. 63(3).
Lindvall, C. M., & Bolvin, J. O. (1967). Programmed Morrison, P. (1964/1970). The curricular triangle
instruction in the schools: An application of and its style. In Education Development Center
programming principles in “individually pre- (Ed.), The ESS reader (pp. 99–112). Newton,
scribed instruction.” In P. C. Lange (Ed.), Sixty- MA: Education Development Center.
sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Mumford, L. (1933). The story of utopias. London:
Study of Education: Pt. 2. Programmed instruc- Liveright.
tion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. National Commission on Excellence in Education.
Locke, J. (1995). An essay concerning human under- (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S.
standing. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Government Printing Office.
(Original work published 1690) National Education Association. (1893). Report of
Lye, J. (1997). Ideology: A brief guide. Retrieved the committee of ten on secondary schools. New
October 22, 2005, from http://www.brocku.ca/ York: American Book Company. Retrieved
english/jlye/ideology.html October 22, 2005, from http://tmh.floonet.net/
MacDonald, J. B., & Leeper, R. R. (Eds.). (1966). books/commoften/mainrpt.html
Language and meaning. Washington, DC: National Research Council. (1989). Everybody
Association for Supervision and Curriculum counts: A report to the nation on the future of
Development. mathematics education. Washington, DC:
Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objec- National Academy Press.
tives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon. Nelson, D., Joseph, G. G., & Williams, J. (1993).
Marshall, J. D., Sears, J. T., & Schubert, W. H. (2000). Multicultural mathematics. Oxford, UK:
Turning points in curriculum: A contemporary Oxford University Press.
American memoir. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education.
Merrill. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, D. T., Overholt, G. E., & Urban, W. J. (1976). Noddings, N. (2005a). Identifying and responding
Accountability in American education. to needs in education. Cambridge Journal of
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Book. Education, 35(2), 147–159.
Mayhew, K. C., & Edwards, A. C. (1966). The Dewey Noddings, N. (2005b). What does it mean to edu-
school. New York: Atherton Press. cate the whole child? Educational Leadership,
McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: 63(1), 8–13.
Pedagogies of dissent for the new millennium. Novick, R. (1996). Developmentally appropriate and
Boulder, CO: Westview Press. culturally responsive education: Theory in prac-
McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction tice. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://
to critical pedagogy in the foundations of educa- www.nwrel.org/cfc/publications/DAP2.html
tion (5th ed.). New York: Longman. Null, J., & Ravitch, D. (2006). Forgotten heroes of
McLaren, P., & Giroux, H. (1997). Writing from the American education. Greenwich, CT:
margins: Geographies of identity, pedagogy, Information Age.
References ❖ 275
Parker, C. S. (1912). The present status of education Prospect Center. (n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2006,
as a science. The School Review Monographs: from http://www.prospectcenter.org
No. II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Quirk, B. (2005). The anti-content mindset: The root
Parker, F. W. (1964). Talks on pedagogics. New York: cause of the “math wars.” Retrieved October 22,
John Day. (Original work published 1894) 2005, from http://www.wgquirk.com/content
Patty, W. L. (1938). A study of mechanism in educa- .html
tion: An examination of the curricu1um-making Rathbone, C. H. (1971). The implicit rationale
devices of Franklin Bobbitt, W. W. Charters, and of the open education classroom. In C. H.
C. C. Peters, from the point of view of relativistic Rathbone (Ed.), Open education: The informal
pragmatism. New York: Teachers College Press. classroom. New York: Citation Press.
Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Ravitch, D. (2000a). Left back: A century of battles
Policy, 18(1), 216–253. over school reform. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Peddiwell, J. A. (1939). The saber-tooth curriculum. Ravitch, D. (2000b). The American reader. New
New York: McGraw-Hill. York: HarperCollins.
Pestalozzi, J. H. (1801/1898). How Gertrude teaches Ravitch, D., & Viteritti, J. (2001). Making good citi-
her children. Syracuse, NY: C. W. Bardeen. zens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Peters, C. C. (1930a). Foundations of educational Resource Center for Redesigning Education. (1993).
sociology. New York: Macmillan. Student directed learning: The Alpha Program.
Peters, C. C. (1930b). Objectives and procedures in Brandon, VT: Author.
civic education. New York: Longmans, Green. Rethinking Schools. (2010/2011, Winter). Not wait-
Peterson, B. (2005). Teaching math across the cur- ing for superman. Retrieved July 29, 2011, from
riculum. In E. Gutstein & B. Peterson (Eds.), http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/
Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social justice 25_02/25_02_superintro.shtml
by the numbers. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Rethinking Schools. (2011, Summer). Teaching for
Schools. hope and activism. Retrieved July 29, 2011,
Phenix, P. H. (1962). The disciplines as curriculum from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/
content. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), Curriculum ProdDetails.asp?ID=RTSVOL25N4
crossroads. New York: Teachers College Press. Rousseau, J.-J. (1979). Emile (A. Bloom, Trans.).
Phenix, P. H. (1964). The architectonics of knowledge. New York: Basic Books. (Original work pub-
In S. Elam (Ed.), Education and the structure of lished 1762)
knowledge (pp. 44–74). Chicago: Rand McNally. Rugg, H. O. (1927). The foundations and tech-
Phenix, P. H. (1966). Curriculum and the analysis of niques of curriculum construction. In G. M.
language. In J. B. MacDonald & R. R. Leeper Whipple (Ed.), Twelfth yearbook of the National
(Eds.), Language and meaning. Washington, Society for the Study of Education (Pts. 1–2).
DC: Association for Supervision and Bloomington, IL: Public School.
Curriculum Development. Rugg, H. O. (1936–1938). Man and his changing
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New society (Vols. 1–8). New York: Ginn.
York: Grossman. Rugg, H. O., & Shumaker, A. (1928). The child-centered
Plowden, B. (1967). Children and their primary school. New York: World Book.
schools: A report of the central advisory council Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London:
for education. London: HMSO. Hutchinson.
Posner, G. J. (1992). Analyzing the curriculum. New Schiro, M. (1978). Curriculum for better schools: The
York: McGraw-Hill. great ideological debate. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching Educational Technology.
as a subversive activity. New York: Delacorte Schiro, M. (1992). Educators’ perceptions of the
Press. changes in their curriculum belief systems over
Powell, A. B., & Frankenstein, M. (Eds.). (1997). time. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,
Ethnomathematics: Challenging eurocentrism 7(3), 250–286.
in mathematics education. Albany: State Schiro, M. (2004). Oral storytelling and teaching
University of New York Press. mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schoenfeld, A. (2004). The math wars. Educational mathematics education reform in the middle
Policy, 18(1), 253–286. school. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B.
School Mathematics Study Group. (1962). Adajian (Eds.), New direction for equity in
Mathematics for the elementary school, Grade 4: mathematics education (pp. 9–56). Cambridge,
Student’s text (Pt. 2). New Haven: Yale UK: Cambridge University Press.
University Press. Sizer, T. R. (1964). Secondary schools at the turn of
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, the century. New Haven, CT: Yale University
paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan. Press.
Schubert, W. H. (1987). Foundations of curriculum St. Pierre, E. A. (2006). Scientifically based research
and program design. Teaching Education, 1(1), in education: Epistemology and ethics. Adult
88–91. Education Quarterly, 56(4), 239–266.
Schubert, W. H. (1996, Summer). Perspectives on Sudbury Valley School. (n.d.[a]). Retrieved October
four curriculum traditions. Educational 22, 2006, from http://www.sudval.org
Horizons, 169–176. Sudbury Valley School. (n.d.[b]). Independence:
Schultz, A. (2006, January). The reform movement: Creating leaders. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from
Was it good for you? Techniques: Connecting http://www.sudval.org/01_abou_01.html
Education and Careers, 44–45. Sudbury Valley School. (n.d.[c]). Involvement: The
Schwab, J. J. (1958). On the corruption of education day at Sudbury Valley. Retrieved April 9, 2007,
by psychology. The School Review, 67,169–184. from http://www.sudval.org/01_abou_02.html
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of Sunburst Technology. (2001). Type to learn 3
a discipline. The Educational Record, 43(3), [Computer software]. Valhalla, NY: Author.
197–205. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1989). History of the school
Schwab, J. J. (1964a). Problems, topics, and issues. In curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
S. Elam (Ed.), Education and the structure of Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific manage-
knowledge. Chicago: Rand McNally. ment. New York: Harper.
Schwab, J. J. (1964b). The structure of the natural The Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at risk:
sciences. In G. W. Ford & L. Pagno (Eds.), The A call to action. Retrieved March 14, 2007, from
structure of knowledge and the curriculum http://www.ctl.vcu.edu/images/documents/
(pp. 31–49). Chicago: Rand McNally. TeachingAtRisk.pdf
Sealey, L. G. W. (1966). Looking back on Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum
Leicestershire. In ESS Quarterly Report, Spring- and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Summer. Newton, MA: Education Development Press.
Center. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the
Secada, W. G., Fennema, E., & Adajian, L. B. (Eds.). Top Program executive summary. Retrieved
(1995). New direction for equity in mathematics June 28, 2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/
education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge programs/racetothetop/index.html
University Press. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Race to the
Seguel, M. L. (1966). The curriculum field: Its forma- Top Fund. Retrieved June 28, 2011, from http://
tive years. New York: Teachers College Press. www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index
Shulman, L. S. (1968). Psychological controversies .html
in the teaching of science and mathematics. Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem
The Science Teacher, 35(6), 34–38, 89–90. in the psychology of behavior. Soviet Psychology,
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: 17(4), 3–35.
Knowledge and growth in teaching. Educational Walberg, H. (1984). Improving the productivity of
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. America’s schools. Educational Leadership,
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: 41(8), 19–27.
Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Walberg, H. J., & Thomas, S. C. (1971). Characteristics
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. of open education: Toward an operational defi-
Silver, E. A., Smith, M. S., & Nelson, B. S. (1995). nition. Newton, MA: Educational Development
The QUASAR project: Equity concerns meet Center.
References ❖ 277
Ward, L. F. (1883). Dynamic sociology. New York: 22, 2005, from http://www.parker.org/
Appleton. WhoAreWe/who_is_francis_w_parker.htm
Ward, L. F. (1893). The psychic factors of civilization. Wikipedia. (n.d.). Ideology. Retrieved October 22,
Boston: Ginn. 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Watson, G. (1934). Education is the social frontier. Ideology#History_of_the_concept_of_ideol-
The Social Frontier, 1(1), 22. ogy
Weber, L. (1971). The English infant school and Wilson, S. M. (2003). California dreaming: Reforming
informal education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: mathematics education. New Haven, CT: Yale
Prentice Hall. University Press.
Weiler, K. (2004, Spring). What can we learn from Yecke, C. (2003). The war against excellence.
progressive education? Radical Teacher. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Retrieved March 14, 2007, from http://www Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of
.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JVP/is_69/ teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
ai_n6146721 34(3), 3–9.
Whitefield, R. C. (Ed.). (1971). Disciplines of the cur- Zeichner, K. M. (1993). Traditions of practice in
riculum. London: McGraw-Hill. U.S. preservice teacher education. Teaching and
Who Is Francis W. Parker? (n.d.). Retrieved October Teacher Education, 9(1), 1–13.
❖ Index
Abstract learning, 136–137 Adams, F.:

Academic achievement: on the characteristics of teachers, 188
declines in, 39–40 on the discussion method of teaching, 184
inadequate, 79 Highlander Folk School and, 153, 154, 155
Social Efficiency ideology and, 81–82 Adler, M. J., 13, 48, 51, 242
standardized, 175 Advocacy groups, 42
See also Student achievement African Americans:
Academic disciplines: Scholar Academic ideology and, 38
are constantly evolving, 33–34 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 165
classification of, 30–32 utilitarian education and, 79
curriculum as a reflection of, 32–34 See also Minorities
definition of, 27 Agricultural education:
determining the essence of, 33 Scholar Academic ideology and, 24
equivalence of, 24–27 Social Efficiency ideology and, 97
hierarchical organization of, 27–28, 29 utilitarian education and, 79
identifying the essence of, 33 Aims:
learning/teaching dynamic of, 29 comparing, 204–205
plurality of, 26 of Learner Centered ideology,
Scholar Academic ideology and, 24–30 132–133
teaching and, 49 of Scholar Academic ideology, 42–43
Academic skills: of Social Efficiency ideology, 84
organic schools and, 110 of Social Reconstruction
Social Efficiency ideology and, 216 ideology and, 176
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 191 American Association for the Advancement
See also Skills of Science (AAAS), 72
Accountability: A Nation at Risk:
Social Efficiency ideology and, assumptions found in, 40
66, 84, 94–95, 97 children to have equal access to
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 193–196 excellent education, 37
Accountability movement: curriculum improvement and, 34
Social Efficiency ideology and, 81, 82–83, 94 on dangers facing the U.S., 40
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 175, 195–196 Anderson, J. R., 86, 88
Achievement testing: Anderson, L. W., 72, 80, 82, 83
Learner Centered ideology and, 145 Anderson, S. E., 243–244
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 193–196 Anthropologists, 18, 19, 20
state-mandated, 260 Anyon, J., 175
See also Testing Apple, M., 175
Activity analysis, 64, 73–76, 86, 90 Aristotle, 31, 44
Activity schools, 106–110, 113 Assessments See Evaluations; Testing
279
Association for Supervision and Eurocentric conceptions of, 151

Curriculum Development, 132 evaluations and, 96, 97
Assumptions: ideology and, 10
about causation, 76–77 information and, 84–85
about classification of disciplines/ knowledge/objective reality and, 86
knowledge, 31–32 Learner Centered ideology and, 102
about cultural evolution, 71 nature of knowledge and, 85–86
about curriculum reflecting the discipline of people in society, 68–69
it represents, 32 shaped through the use of rewards/
about knowledge, 142, 143–144 reinforcements, 62
about learning, 62–63, 89–90 Social Efficiency ideology and, 88–89, 97,
about learning/teaching, 47 216, 217, 218, 220, 235
about multicultural education, 242–243, 244 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 162, 218
about stages of learning, 136–137 Behavioral engineering, 61, 63–65
about teaching, 49 Behavioral psychology, 78, 80, 88–89, 97
about teaching/learning in instructional Beliefs:
environments, 119–120 changing, 255–257, 261
of Learner Centered educators, 116–117 definition of ideology on, 8–9
on meaning making, 177–178 educators and, 167, 247–248
of Social Efficiency ideology, 84 Eurocentric conceptions of, 151
of Social Reconstruction ideology, four curriculum ideologies on, 3
151, 153, 161, 166 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 152, 166, 186
that learning leads to knowledge, 119 of teachers, 188
Atomism, 75, 86 See also Ideologies
Ayers, R., 175–176 Bellack, A. A., 27
Ayers, W., 175–176 Bennett, W., 41, 48, 52
Bilingual education, 41
Back-to-the-basics movement: Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS), 33
Learner Centered ideology and, 149 Blackie, J., 107
Scholar Academic ideology and, 21, 54 Bobbitt, F., 7
Bagley, William C., 37 aims of Social Efficiency ideology and, 84
Barth, R. S.: on children, 92
on characteristics of teachers, 140 on determinism, 77
on children, 133 on educating for a better society, 71
on control, 126 on functional education, 79
on the different stages of growth, 117 on the nature of knowledge, 85
on individualism, 124 on progressive objectives, 67, 72–73
on integrated schools, 114 on scientific techniques, 57
on knowledge, 118, 119, 141, 144 on social reform, 78
organic schools and, 111 on society, 68–69, 69, 70
on the responsibility of curriculum, 128 on special-interest groups, 81
on teaching/learning in instructional on teachers, 93
environments, 120 on teaching citizenship, 72
Beauchamp, G. A., 23 Boggs, G. L., 175
Beauchamp, K. E., 23 Bolvin, J. O., 65
Beberman, M., 16 Brameld, T.:
Begle, E., 16 on knowledge/reality, 190
Behavior: on nature of learning, 181, 182
changing, 5, 216 on social dynamics, 166
changing through education, 58–60 on society, 163
Index ❖ 281
on a vision of society, 165 Committee of Ten, 7

wrote books, 174 chairman of, 35
Bredekamp, S., 139, 140, 145 children to have equal access to excellent
Brownell, J. A., 45 education, 37
on the academic community, 29 college entrance requirements required by, 39
on academic disciplines, 25, 26 curriculum improvement and, 34
on discipline as a community, 27 curriculum standardized by, 32
on intellect, 24 reasons for formation of, 36
on SMSG/MACOS, 22 recommendations of, 40
on teaching, 49 Scholar Academic ideology and, 54
on teaching methods, 51 Communities:
Bruner, J., 20, 21, 28, 32, 48 multicultural education and, 242
Bussis, A., 114 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 167, 179, 219
Connelly, M. F., 22
Cambourne, B., 131 Constructivism, 2, 7, 131
Cambridge Conference on School Learner Centered ideology and, 118, 142, 217
Mathematics (CCSM), 26, 32, 47, 48 Social Efficiency ideology and, 217
Capitalism, 175, 176, 195–196 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 174, 179, 217
Carini, P., 131, 134 See also Learner Centered ideology
Causality, 76 Control:
Charter schools, 194, 202, 203 Learner Centered ideology and, 125–126
Child-centered education, 2, 41, 105, 132 learning experiences of students, 59
See also Learner Centered ideology multicultural education and, 243
Children: over the educational system, 9
comparison of the ideologies’ views Scholar Academic ideology and, 35
regarding, 225–228 of schools by corporations, 195
Learner Centered ideology and, 114–116, 133–134 Social Reconstruction ideology and,
the man within, 69 163, 166, 175, 179, 193, 194, 219
as meaning makers, 177–179 .See also Meaning testing and, 195
making Cooperative learning, 41, 132
Scholar Academic ideology and, 45–46 Corporations:
as social agents, 176–177 schools and, 194–195
Social Efficiency ideology and, 65, 91–92, 97 Social Reconstruction ideology and,
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 176–179 151, 175, 194–196, 218, 237
Child study movement, 129, 146, 244 Counseling psychology, 131, 149
Citizenship Schools, 155 Counts, G., 7
Civil rights, 155, 156, 174, 196 attacked the Learner Centered ideology, 196
Class: on the characteristics of teachers, 188
social construction of knowledge and, 189 on children, 177
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 162 on the civic responsibility of educators, 170
Class size, 194–195 on educational philosophy, 162
Cluttenden. E., 114 on good society, 161
Cochran-Smith, M., 244 on the nature of learning, 182
Cognitive psychology: on the reconstruction of curriculum, 161
Scholar Academic ideology and, 47 on saving society, 152
Social Efficiency ideology and, 80, 81, 88, 97 on schools as the institutions
Comenius, J. A., 128 of change, 167–168
Commercial education, 24, 35, 37 on social acculturation, 172, 173
See also Vocational education on society, 163
Committee of Fifteen, 34, 36 on a vision of America, 164
Cremin, L., 173 Social Reconstruction ideology and,

Criterion based evaluation, 52, 96 151, 160–161, 162
Critical theory, 174–175 social studies, 17–19
Cruz-Acosta, L., 144 teachers and, 92–93
Cultural factors, 261 terminal objectives of, 5
aims of Social Reconstruction wars, 2, 35, 40
ideology and, 176, 205 workers, 7–8, 12–13
civic responsibility of educators and, 170 See also Hidden curriculum
definition of ideology on, 8–9
education/politics and, 171 Data:
Eurocentric, 151, 162, 174 creation of knowledge and, 190
knowledge and, 142 curriculum evaluators and, 8
multicultural education and, 242, 243, 244 evaluations and, 96
Scholar Academic ideology and, 4, 17, 19, 24, Learner Centered ideology and, 129
35–36, 37, 41, 42, 54, 200 Scholar Academic ideology and, 52–54
social acculturation and, 171–173 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 158, 159, 160
social construction of knowledge and, 189 teachers and, 137
Social Efficiency ideology and, 68, 200 Democracy:
Social Reconstruction ideology and, aims of Social Reconstruction ideology and, 176
6–7, 151, 152, 161–162, 163 education/politics and, 171
Cultural literacy movement, 7 Learner Centered ideology and, 105, 129
Curiosity, 101, 106, 108, 122, 137, 145–146 Scholar Academic ideology and, 35, 36, 38, 48
Curriculum, 261 Social Reconstruction ideology and,
aims of Learner Centered educators and, 204–205 152, 153, 166, 170
aims of Scholar Academics and, 204 Deng, Z., 49, 50, 142, 143
aims of Social Reconstruction ideology and, 176 Determinism, 77
beliefs, 3, 4 Developmentally appropriate practice,
comparing classification schemes for, 11 2, 7, 132, 143, 145
designing, 22 See also Learner Centered ideology
educators change beliefs about, 247–248 Dewey, J.:
evaluations and, 96, 148, 240 on an ideal Learner Centered schools, 99
four ideologies of, 2–3 on grading, 146
Highlander Folk School and, 153, 154–155 on knowledge/experience, 142, 143
ideologies inventory, 248, 263–268 Learner Centered ideology and, 129–130
ideologies inventory graphing sheet, 266, 268 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 174
ideology, 8–10. See also Ideologies Didactic discourse, 50, 51, 234
ideology life histories, 248–255 Disciplines. See Academic disciplines
improving, 3, 34 DuBois, W. E. B., 38
integrated schools and, 113 Duckworth, E., 105, 131
knowledge, 44, 49, 190–191
Learner Centered ideology and, 101–104, 114, Economic forces:
116, 117, 123, 126, 133, 230, 231 accountability movement and, 83
learning required by, 91 aims of Social Reconstruction ideology and, 176
mathematics, 16–17 inequalities and, 6–7
objectives of, 58–59 multicultural education and, 243
organic schools and, 110, 112 problems with, 153
programmed, 60–63, 65. See also social construction of knowledge and, 189
Programmed curriculum Social Efficiency ideology and, 97
Scholar Academic ideology and, 19–24, 20, 25, Social Reconstruction ideology and, 163
30–35, 230, 231, 232 Education:
Social Efficiency ideology and, 65, 84, 230 agricultural, 24, 79, 97
Index ❖ 283
assembly line model of, 74, 93, 230 Edwards, C., 123, 131, 138
for a better society, 70–71 Efficiency movement, 82
child-centered, 2, 41, 105, 132 See also Social Efficiency ideology
commercial, 24 Eight-Year Study, 100, 130, 148
crisis in, 193 Elementary Science Study (ESS), 101, 104, 130
enriching, 35 Eliot, C. W., 7, 32, 35–36
four curriculum ideologies on, 3 Emotional involvement:
functional, 70, 79, 89 integrated schools and, 112, 113
industrial, 24, 79, 97 knowledge/experience and, 143
manual, 38, 79, 97 Learner Centered ideology and, 118, 123, 127
multicultural, 241–244 multicultural education and, 243
objectives of, 57, 70 organic schools and, 111
occupational, 24, 216 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 156, 157, 186
open, 2, 7, 10, 130, 149, 249 teachers as colleagues and, 187
progressive, 2, 7, 10, 40–41, 100, 129 Employment/unemployment, 83, 151, 159, 195, 197
reconstruction through, 167–173 Environmental issues:
role of, 177 evaluations and, 193
Social Efficiency ideology and, 5, 67 Learner Centered ideology and, 216
socialization and, 171–173 Social Efficiency ideology and, 217, 232
social orientation of, 68–71 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 151, 153, 196–197
as a social process, 168 See also Learning environments
Social Reconstruction ideology and, Equality issues:
6–7, 151, 152, 161–162, 163 education/politics and, 171
teacher, 244 multicultural education and, 242, 243
technical, 24, 30 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 164
used as a weapons of war, 166 Evaluations:
utilitarian, 78, 79–80, 97 Comparative overview, 238–241
See also Agricultural education; Industrial formative, 53, 54
education; Manual education; Occupational Learner Centered ideology and, 144–148
education; Traditional education; Vocational Scholar Academic ideology and, 52–54
education Social Efficiency ideology and, 94–97
Education Development Center, 17, 19, 107 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 192–196
Educators: summative, 53, 54
aims of, 204–205 See also Testing
beliefs of, 247–248, 255–256 Experience:
believing in more than one ideology by, 255–257 characteristics of knowledge and, 192
changing ideologies by, 258–260 discussion method of teaching and, 184
civic responsibility of, 170 integrated schools and, 113
classifying, 12–13 knowledge and, 142–143
dealing with crises by, 261 Learner Centered ideology and, 106–110, 118, 119,
designing curriculum by, 22 132–133, 232
ideology life histories and, 248–255 learning and, 135
Learner Centered ideology and, 126, 133 organic schools and, 111
organic schools and, 110 prior, 142, 184
posture toward different ideologies by, 256–258 Social Efficiency ideology and, 216
shaping behavior of, 66 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 157–158,
social acculturation and, 171–173 161, 163, 168–169, 182, 185–186
Social Efficiency ideology and, 5 teachers as colleagues and, 187
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 152, 167 Exploitation:
society and, 67 Highlander Folk School and, 154
See also Administrators; Teachers Social Reconstruction ideology and, 151, 153
Faculty psychology, 36 Gender issues:

Family issues: education/politics and, 171
multicultural education and, 242 Scholar Academic ideology and, 37, 38
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 167, 202, 203 social construction of knowledge and, 189
Feedback: Social Reconstruction ideology and, 6, 162
behavioral engineers and, 65 Gestalt field theory, 192
behavioral psychology and, 80 Giroux, H. A.:
evaluations and, 54, 95, 193 on the characteristics of knowledge, 192
learning and, 89, 94 on the characteristics of teachers, 188
Scholar Academic ideology and, 234 on children viewed as products of society, 177
Fenstermacher, G. D., 82–83 on the civic responsibility of educators, 170
Ferris, F. L., 53 on Eurocentric conceptions, 162
Field trips: on the creation of knowledge, 191
Learner Centered ideology and, 101–102, 138 on education/language, 169
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 156, 157, 186 on learning, 179
Finn, C., 41, 52, 53 on saving society, 152
Foshay, A. W., 33 on society, 166
Freedom, 241 on a vision of society, 164, 165
children and, 177 Goodman, K., 131
education/politics and, 171 Goodman, Y., 131
Learner Centered ideology and, 122, 124, 129 Grading, 52, 146, 235
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 152, 164, 165, Graduation:
177 Scholar Academic ideology and, 52
Freire, P., 175 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 236
on action, 168 Graves, D., 131
on children, 177 Group discussions, 153, 155, 158, 168–169,
on education/politics, 171 181, 183–185, 193
on meaning structure, 181 Growth:
on the nature of learning, 182 assessments for, 144–145
on teachers as colleagues, 187 characteristics of teachers and, 140
on a vision of society, 165 Learner Centered ideology and, 133
Froebel, F., 129 organic schools and, 111
Functional education, 70, 79, 89 personal interactions and, 107
See also Education teachers and, 138
Funding: teachers as facilitators of learning and, 139
Learner Centered ideology and, 130, 149 Gutstein, E., 156
Scholar Academic ideology and, 39, 54
Social Efficiency ideology and, 97 Hall, G. S., 129
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 194–195 Harris, W. T., 36
Harvard Project Physics, 22
Gagne, R.: Hawkins, D., 137
on the construction of a learning hierarchy, 64 Hein, G. E.:
on evaluations, 95, 96 on characteristics of student assessments, 147
on learning, 87, 88, 90, 91 on the different stages of growth, 117
on the nature of knowledge, 85 on experience, 106
on society, 70 on integrated schools, 112–113
on stating objectives in a standardized form, 72 Hersh, S., 157, 158
on teachers, 92, 94 Hichinger, F., 130
on terminal objectives, 73, 74 Hidden curriculum:
Gardner, H., 131 changing Ideologies and, 259
Index ❖ 285
multicultural education and, 243 Illiteracy, 151, 153

Social Reconstruction ideology and, 168, 172, Individualism:
175, 185, 193, 195, 196 Learner Centered ideology and, 124–126
Highlander Folk School, 153–155 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 168
Hirsch, E. D., 7, 15, 41 Individualized education, 60, 111, 221
Historical perspectives: Industrial education:
education/politics and, 171 Scholar Academic ideology and, 24
on ideologies, 7 Social Efficiency ideology and, 97
of Learner Centered ideology, utilitarian education and, 79
7, 128–132, 148–149 See also Vocational education
of Scholar Academic ideology, 7, 35–42 Inequalities:
of Social Efficiency ideology, 7, 78–83 education/politics and, 171
of Social Reconstruction ideology and, multicultural education and, 243, 244
7, 173–176, 196 Social Reconstruction ideology and,
History wars: 6–7, 158, 195, 217
California, 2 Institutions:
Scholar Academic ideology and, 35, 42 Learner Centered ideology and, 105
Holland, J. G., 63, 64 Scholar Academic ideology and, 34
Horton, M.: Social Efficiency ideology and, 70
on the characteristics of teachers, 188 Social Reconstruction ideology and,
on evaluations, 193 152, 153, 156, 159, 162, 163
Highlander Folk School and, 153, 154, 155, 174 See also Schools
Hutchins, R. M., 38 Instructional environments See Learning
environments
Ideal schools: Intellect:
integrated schools and, 113–114 knowledge/experience and, 143
Learner Centered ideology and, 112 Scholar Academic ideology and, 24–27
Ideological war, 9 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 156
Ideologies, 1–2 Intellectual skills, 50–51
behavior/beliefs and, 10 See also Skills
believing in more than one, 255–257 Internet:
changing curriculum, 4 acquiring knowledge from, 206, 207, 209, 210
comparing different views on children, 225–228 activity schools and, 107
comparing evaluation differences, 234–240 Learner Centered ideology and, 102, 104
comparing knowledge differences, 211–215 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 186
comparing learning differences, 220–221
comparing teaching differences, 232–234 Jersild, A. T., 115
curriculum inventory graphing sheet for, 266, 268 Johnson, M.:
definition of, 8–9 on the different stages of growth, 117
description of, 10 on experience, 106
educators and, 247–248 on growth, 116
four curriculum, 2–3 on intellectually development, 127
historical perspective on, 7. See also Historical Learner Centered ideology and, 105–106
perspectives on learning styles, 115
life history as a composite of, 252 organic schools and, 100, 110, 111
posture toward different, 256–258 teaching/learning in instructional
why educators change, 258–260 environments and, 120
See also Beliefs; Learner Centered ideology; Scholar Joseph, P., 242
Academic ideology; Social Efficiency ideology; Journals:
Social Reconstruction ideology didactic discourse and, 50
Learner Centered ideology and, 146, 147 objective reality and, 44, 86–87
Scholar Academic ideology and, 50 organic schools and, 110, 112
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 176 origin of curriculum, 44
Justice: pedagogical, 49
education/politics and, 171 personal interactions and, 107
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 164 personal meanings and, 140–142
reality and, 144, 189–190
Kandel, I. L., 38 Scholar Academic ideology and, 4, 21–22,
Keynes, H. B., 46, 48, 242 24–27, 43–44, 54, 211
Kilpatric, William, 126, 130 schools, 168
Kindergarten, 129, 253–254 shared, 15
King, A. R.: Social Efficiency ideology and, 84–87, 211
on academic disciplines, 25, 26, 27, 29 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 6–7,
on children, 45 161–162, 169, 188–192, 196, 229, 232
on intellect, 24 student evaluations and, 53
on SMSG/MACOS, 22 teachers/learners of, 27–28
on teaching, 49 teaching and, 49
on teaching methods, 51 value and, 189
Knowledge: viewing the nature of, 36
academic disciplines and, 24–25, 27 See also Meaning making
acquisition of, 90–91
activity schools and, 108 Ladson-Billings, G., 243–244
assumptions about, 142 Language, 261
characteristics of, 192 didactic discourse and, 50
characteristics of teachers and, 140 four curriculum ideologies on, 3
classification of, 31–32 meaning making and, 180
comparing different ideologies and, 211–215 multicultural education and, 242
conceptual/procedural/metacognitive, 72 nature of learning and, 181
constructivist theories and, 131 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 168–169, 183
creation of, 190–191 teaching and, 49
curriculum developers and, 22 Language movement, 131, 149
as a derivative concept, 143–144 Learner Centered ideology, 2, 5–6, 199
didactic discourse and, 50 activity schools and, 106–110, 113
discussion method of teaching, 183–185 aims of, 132–133, 204–205
education/language and, 169 charter school and, 202–203
education/politics and, 171 children and, 133–134
Eurocentric conceptions of, 151, 162 classrooms and, 121–122
experience and, 106, 142–143 comparing knowledge and, 205–211
forms of, 43–44 constructivist philosophy and,
ideologies views regarding the origins/importance 131, 135, 142, 149
of, 214, 215 corporations and, 202–203
initiation of children into the disciplines of, 20–24 counseling psychology and, 131, 149
integrated schools and, 113 curiosity and, 101, 106, 108, 115, 122, 128, 137,
Learner Centered ideology and, 115, 118–119, 127, 145–146
133, 140–144, 211–212 curriculum and, 101–104
learning leads to, 118–119 curriculum evaluation and, 148
multicultural education and, 242, 243, 244 decline of, 196
nature of, 43, 84–86 on the different stages of growth, 117
nature of learning and, 181 evaluations and, 144–148, 235–236, 237, 238
not just one type of, 26 freedom and, 122, 124, 129, 241
Index ❖ 287
freedom/individualism/shared responsibility natural, 134–135

and, 124–126 nature of, 115–116, 181–182
grading and, 146 organic schools and, 111, 112
on the growing individual, 116 people to live in society, 69–70
historical perspectives on, 7, 128–132, 148–149 personal interactions and, 107
ideal schools and, 99–101, 106 programmed curriculum and, 60
knowledge and, 118–119, 140–144, 203, 211–212 readiness to undertake, 90
language movement and, 131, 149 Scholar Academic ideology and, 46–48
learners and, 114–116 Social Efficiency ideology and, 5, 86, 87, 88
learning and, 116–119, 134–137, 215, 216, Social Reconstruction ideology and, 168, 179–182
217, 218, 219–220 stages of, 62–63, 136–137
learning theory and, 118 standardized objective achievement
meaning/knowledge and, 205–206, 209 testing and, 145–146
nature of learners and, 115–116 teachers as facilitators of, 139, 148
organic schools and, 110–112 Learning environments, 120–121
public schools and, 202–203 knowledge/experience and, 143
reality and, 213 Learner Centered ideology and, 123, 125–126,
social development and, 111, 112, 123, 127 128, 129, 133, 135, 136
social improvement and, 241 personal meanings/knowledge construction
on the stages of life, 115 and, 140–142
standardized testing and, 203 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 186, 217
students’ needs and, 201 structure of, 121–122
teaching and, 123, 137–140, 230, 231, 232–234 teachers and, 137, 138
teaching/learning in instructional teaching/learning in, 119–126
environments, 119–126 Learning styles:
time issues and, 241 assumptions about, 137
times of high/low activity of, 149, 245 developmentally appropriate practice and, 132
views on children by, 226 Learner Centered ideology and, 115, 125, 148
Learning: multicultural education and, 242
abstract, 136–137 organic schools and, 111–112
aims of Learner Centered educators and, 205 Learning theory, 10, 217, 221
assessments and, 148 Learner Centered ideology and, 118
assumptions about, 89–90 Scholar Academic ideology and, 33, 47
behavioral engineering and, 64–65 Social Efficiency ideology and, 88, 97
comparison of the ideologies views regarding, 220–221 Lectures:
construction of a hierarchy for, 64 didactic discourse and, 50
cooperative, 41, 132 Learner Centered ideology and, 107
education/politics and, 171 Leitman, A., 139
environments. See Learning environments Lessinger, L., 79, 82, 83
evaluations and, 96 Liberty:
experiences, 58–59, 59–61 education/politics and, 171
grading and, 146 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 164
hierarchy, 74–75 Life histories, 248–255
in instructional environments, 120 Lindvall, C. M., 65
Learner Centered ideology and, 104, 114–119, 124, Literacy:
134–137 aims of Scholar Academics and, 204
logs, 146, 147 organic schools and, 110
meaning making and, 6, 179, 180 Locke, J., 46
mechanics of, 135–136 Luke, A., 49, 50, 142, 143
multicultural education and, 242 Lye, J., 9
Mager, R. F., 73 teachers as facilitators of learning and, 139

Man: A Course of Study (MACOS), 17–19, 21, 22 teaching and, 49
didactic discourse and, 50 See also Knowledge
origin of curriculum knowledge and, 44 Media:
Socratic discussion and, 51 curriculum developers and, 50
supervised practice and, 50 social, 155, 168, 186
Manual education: Social Reconstruction ideology and, 183
Scholar Academic ideology and, 38 Memorization:
Social Efficiency ideology and, 97 knowledge and, 144
utilitarian education and, 79 learning and, 135
See also Vocational education of textbooks, 79
Martin, D. T., 82 Minorities, 155, 165, 166
Maslow, A., 131 See also African Americans
Math wars, 1, 35, 41 Montessori schools, 100, 131, 132
McCarthy era, 130, 196 Moral values:
McLaren, P.: civic responsibility of educators and, 170
on the characteristics of teachers, 188 knowledge/value and, 189
on children viewed as products of society, 177 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 174, 196, 212
on education/language, 169 See also Values
on education/politics, 171 Morrison, P., 107
on schools, 162 Muckraking journalism, 78–79
on the social construction of knowledge, 188–189 Multicultural education, 241–244
on social justice, 164
on society, 166 National Assessment of Educational Progress
Meaning making: (NAEP), 39–40, 79, 219
aims of Learner Centered educators and, 204–205 National Commission on Excellence in Education, 40
characteristics of knowledge and, 192 National Education Association (NEA), 36–37, 46
characteristics of teaching and, 187 National Science Foundation (NSF):
comparing different ideologies and, 204–205 funded MACOS, 17
creation of knowledge and, 190 funded SMSG, 16
evaluations and, 193 funding of, 39
on good society, 161 Learner Centered ideology and, 101, 130
integrated schools and, 113 Needs. See Students’ needs
knowledge and, 43, 140–142 Nelson, B. S., 243
knowledge/experience and, 143 Nelson, D., 242
knowledge/reality and, 190 No Child Left Behind Act:
Learner Centered educators and, 211 accountability movement and, 82
Learner Centered ideology and, 104, 106, 107, children to have equal access to excellent
108, 118, 130, 132–133, 133–134, 232 education, 37
learning and, 135 evaluations and, 95
multicultural education and, 242, 243 Learner Centered ideology and, 132, 149
nature of learners and, 115 Scholar Academic ideology and, 52
nature of learning and, 182 scientific methodology movement and, 81
organic schools and, 111 shaping behavior of educators by, 66
personal meanings/knowledge construction Social Efficiency ideology and, 97
and, 140–142 Social Reconstruction ideology and,
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 159, 161, 168, 175, 193–196
169, 177–179, 180 Noddings, N., 131
stages of learning and, 136–137 Norm referenced testing, 53, 239
teachers as colleagues and, 187 Novick, R., 145, 147
Index ❖ 289
Objectives, 57–60, 71–77 Phonics, 1

Objective reality: Learner Centered ideology and, 216
Comparative overview, 211–215 organic schools and, 110
knowledge and, 44, 86–87, 211 Social Efficiency ideology and, 86
Learner Centered ideology and, 142, 144 wars over, 257–258
Scholar Academic ideology and, 44–45 Physical development:
Social Efficiency ideology and, 75–76, 86–87, integrated schools and, 112, 113
96, 177, 180, 189, 190 knowledge/experience and, 143
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 177–178, Learner Centered ideology and, 108–109,
180, 189–190 118, 123, 127
subjective reality and, 213, 214, 228 organic schools and, 111
See also Reality Piaget, J., 131
Observations: Plato, 44
assessments and, 145 Play:
developmentally appropriate practice and, 132 developmentally appropriate practice and, 132
Learner Centered educators and, 240 Learner Centered ideology and, 111, 115,
Learner Centered ideology and, 123, 129, 146, 121–122, 129, 136
147, 148, 232, 235–236, 237, 238 Plowden, B., 114
teachers and, 137, 144 Plurality of the disciplines, 26
teachers as facilitators of learning and, 139 Politicians:
Occupational education: curriculum advocates and, 8
Scholar Academic ideology and, 24 evaluations and, 145
Social Efficiency ideology and, 216 Learner Centered ideology and, 105, 124
See also Vocational education Social Efficiency ideology and, 66
Open education, 2, 7, 10, 100, 249 Social Reconstruction ideology and,
See also Learner Centered ideology 175, 197, 218, 231
Oppression: Politics, 261
Highlander Folk School and, 153, 154 accountability movement and, 83
Social Reconstruction ideology and, aims of Social Reconstruction ideology and, 176
153, 165, 166, 167 characteristics of knowledge and, 192
Organic schools, 110–112 educators engagement of, 170
Overholt, G. E., 82 Highlander Folk School and, 153
influence curriculum, 2
Parents: Learner Centered ideology and,
civic responsibility of educators and, 170 130, 132, 149
Learner Centered ideology and, 105, 124 multicultural education and, 243, 244
Scholar Academic ideology and, 40 Scholar Academic ideology and, 40, 55
Parker, F. W., 7, 100, 114, 116, 129 social construction of knowledge and, 189
Personality: Social Reconstruction ideology and, 151, 153, 160,
developmentally appropriate practice and, 132 162, 163, 166, 170, 196
integrated schools and, 112–113 utilitarian education and, 79
Learner Centered educators and, 211 Pond Water, 101–104, 123
Learner Centered ideology and, 134 Portfolio assessment, 103, 132, 145–147
learning and, 135 Postman, N., 174, 180
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 175–176 on the characteristics of teachers, 188
Personal meanings See Meaning making on the discussion method of teaching, 183
Pestalozzi, J. H., 128–129 knowledge/reality and, 189–190
Peters, C. C., 73, 75 on meaning making, 177
Peterson, B., 157, 158, 159 Postmodernism, xvi, 174
Phenix, P. H., 23, 24, 29, 43, 47–48 Poststructuralism, xvi, 174
Poverty: Scholar Academic ideology and, 52, 201, 203

multicultural education and, 243 shaping behavior of educators by, 66
Social Reconstruction ideology and, Social Efficiency ideology and, 97, 202, 203
151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158 Social Reconstruction ideology and,
Power: 175, 193–196, 201
characteristics of knowledge and, 192 Rathbone, C. H.:
children and, 177 on learners, 115–116
education/language and, 169 on learning, 118–119
education/politics and, 171 on teachers, 125
social construction of knowledge and, 189 on teaching, 123
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 167, 194 Readiness issues:
Principals, school, 105, 260 Scholar Academic ideology and, 48
See also Educators Social Efficiency ideology and, 90–91
Prior experiences: Reading wars, 1, 35, 42
on the discussion method of teaching, 184 Reality:
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 142 creation of knowledge and, 190
See also Experience knowledge and, 189–190
Programmed curriculum, 60–63, 65 knowledge/value and, 189
Progressive education, 2, 7, 10, 40–41, 100, 129 meaning making and, 178–179, 180
See also Learner Centered ideology nature of learning and, 182
Progressive Education Association: objective/subjective, 44, 75–76, 92, 144, 177, 189
Learner Centered ideology and, 130, 148 See also Objective reality, Subjective reality
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 174, 196 Reder, L. M., 80, 86
Progressive objectives of Social Efficiency ideology, Reggio Emilia schools, 100, 131, 132
66, 67, 71, 72 Rethinking Mathematics, 155
acquiring, 73–75 Rethinking Schools, 175, 176
determining, 76 Rogers, C., 131
ends/means/instrumental values and, 77 Rosenblat, L., 131
evaluations and, 95 Rousseau, J. J., 128
Social Efficiency ideology and, 66, 67 Rugg, H., 34, 99–100, 174
Psychological factors: experience and, 106
Learner Centered ideology and, 100, 117, freedom/individualism/shared
122, 123, 131, 132, 138 responsibility and, 124
Scholar Academic ideology and, 17, 18, 19, integrated schools and, 113
23, 25, 26, 32, 34, 36, 47 Learner Centered ideology and, 105
Social Efficiency ideology and, 67, 75, 78, on learners, 114
80, 81, 88, 89, 97 on personality, 134
Social Reconstruction ideology and, physical activity and, 109
163, 174–175, 180
Salowe, A., 79
Quirk, B., 41 Schiro, M., 256
Scholar Academic ideology, 2, 4, 15, 54–55, 199
Race issues: academic disciplines and, 27–30
multicultural education and, 242, 244 aims of, 42–43, 204
social construction of knowledge and, 189 children and, 45–46, 225–226
Social Reconstruction ideology and, classification of disciplines/knowledge and, 31–32
6, 162, 163, 196 commercial education and, 24, 35, 37
Race to the Top, 7, 81 comparing knowledge and, 205–211
accountability movement and, 82 culture and, 200
evaluations and, 95 curriculum and, 20, 25, 200, 202, 203
Learner Centered ideology and, 21, 132 curriculum/disciplines and, 19–24
Index ❖ 291
curriculum issues and, 30–35 on freedom/individualism/shared

didactic discourse and, 50, 51, 234 responsibility, 124
disciplines/intellect/knowledge and, 24–27 on ideal schools, 99–100
evaluations and, 52–54, 234–235 on integrated schools, 113
examples of ways in which educators promoted, 40 Learner Centered ideology and, 105
freedom and, 241 on learners, 114
historical perspectives on, 7, 35–42 on personality, 134
important goals of, 37 on physical activity, 109
knowledge and, 21–22, 43–44, 203, 211 Silver, A. E., 243
learning and, 46–48, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 Simon, H. A., 80, 86
MACOS and, 17–19 Sizer, T. R., 29
mathematics and, 16–17 Skills:
multicultural education and, 242 academic, 110, 191, 216
readiness issues and, 48 accountability movement and, 83
reality and, 213 assumptions about learning, 89, 90
social improvement and, 241 behavioral engineering and, 64–65
standards and, 202 intellectual, 50–51, 91
subject matter and, 23 Learner Centered ideology and, 122, 134, 216
teachers and, 49–50, 202 learning, 62–63
teaching and, 48–50, 229, 230, 231, 232–234 to live in society, 69–70, 71
teaching methods and, 50–52 multicultural education and, 243, 244
time issues and, 241 organic schools and, 110
times of high/low activity of, 55, 245 Social Efficiency ideology and, 5, 58, 92, 97,
traditions and, 24, 26, 29, 37, 38, 42, 49, 54, 211, 216, 229, 232
200, 204, 211 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 232
training and, 24 teacher education programs and, 244
web sites for, 41, 42, 55 teaching and, 49
School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG), 16–17 typing, 60–61
didactic discourse and, 50 utilitarian education and, 79
funding of, 16, 39 Skinner, B. F., 80, 90
origin of curriculum knowledge and, 44 Smith, M. S., 243
supervised practice and, 50 Social acculturation, 171–173
School privatization, 175, 193, 194, 196 Social class:
School reform movement, 32 colonial Eurocentric conceptions and, 162
Schools: education/politics and, 171
assessing, 95 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 163
forces than have corrupted, 41 Social Efficiency ideology, 2, 5, 57–60, 97, 199
ideal, 99–101, 106 academic disciplines and, 200
learner-centered, 105–106 accountability and, 202, 203
privatization of public, 175, 193, 194–196 accountability movement and, 82–83
social acculturation and, 171–173 aims of, 84, 204
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 162, 167–168 assessments and, 202
See also Institutions assumptions about learning and, 89–90
Schultz, A., 79 behavioral engineering and, 61–65
Schwab, J. J., 31, 33 behavioral psychology and, 78, 80, 88–89, 97
Scientific instrumentalism, 68, 71, 77 behavioral viewpoint of, 88–89
Scientific methodology movement, 80–81 capitalist society and, 201
Set theory, 16–17 charter schools and, 202
Shulman, L. S., 49 children and, 91–92
Shumaker, A.: cognitive psychology and, 80, 81, 88, 97
on experience, 106 comparing knowledge and, 205–211
culture and, 200 Social media:

curriculum and, 93–94 Highlander Folk School and, 155
democracy and, 200, 201, 203 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 168, 186
educating for a better society and, 70–71 Social Reconstruction ideology, 2, 6–7, 151–153, 199
education and, 67 aims of, 176, 205
employment and, 83 capitalism and, 175, 176, 195–196, 200
ends/means/instrumental values and, 77–78 characteristics of knowledge and, 192
evaluations and, 94–97, 202, 235, 236, 237 characteristics of teachers and, 187–188
freedom and, 241 characteristics of teaching and, 187
free will/self-determination and, 77 children and, 176–179
historical perspectives on, 7, 78–83 children/society and, 179
innovation and, 202 civic responsibility of educators and, 170
knowledge and, 84–87, 211 civil rights and, 155, 156, 174, 196
knowledge/objective reality and, 86–87 climate change and, 151, 197
learning and, 87, 90–91, 216, 217, 218, 220 communities and, 167, 179, 202, 219
multicultural education and, 242–243 comparing knowledge and, 205–211
objectives of, 71–78 control and, 200
objectives/standards of, 66–67 corporations and, 200–201, 202
programmed curriculum and, 60–63 creation of knowledge and, 190–191
readiness and, 90–91 critical theory and, 174–175
reality and, 213 curriculum and, 202, 203
scientific instrumentalism and, 68 discrimination/knowledge and, 206
scientific methodology movement and, 80–81 educational methods and, 168–169
skills and, 200, 203 education and, 203
skills/knowledge and, 208 education as a social process and, 168
social improvement and, 241 education/language and, 169
social orientation of, 68–71 education/politics and, 170
social reform movement and, 78–79 education/social change and, 169
standards and, 201, 202 education/socialization and, 171–173
teaching and, 92–94, 229, 230, 231, 232–234 evaluations and, 192–196, 236, 237
terminal objectives of, 5, 66, 67, 71, 73, families and, 167, 202, 203
75–76, 77–78 feelings and, 169, 186, 196
testing and, 200, 203 feminism and, 174
time issues and, 241 freedom and, 152, 164, 165, 177, 241
times of high/low activity of, 98, 245 group discussions and, 153, 155, 158,
traditions and, 200 168–169, 181, 183–185, 193
utilitarian education and, 78, 79–80, 97 health care and, 151
view of the nature of teaching/learning, 62 hidden curriculum and, 168, 172, 175,
views on children by, 226 185, 193, 195, 196
See also Progressive objectives historical perspectives on, 7, 173–176, 196
Social institutions See Institutions injustices and, 153, 155, 186, 195, 196, 201, 217
Social interactions: knowledge and, 188–192, 204, 212
discussion method of teaching and, 184 knowledge/reality and, 189–190
knowledge and, 142 knowledge/value and, 189
knowledge/experience and, 143 learning and, 179–182, 217, 218, 219, 220
Learner Centered ideology and, 130 meaning structure and, 180–181
Social justice issues: multicultural education and, 243–244
multicultural education and, 243 nature of learning and, 181–182
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 151, 159, politicians and, 202
164, 168, 195 politicians/knowledge and, 210
Social justice movement, 7 pollution and, 151, 153, 196–197
Index ❖ 293
reality and, 213 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 6–7,

reconstruction through education and, 167–173 151–152, 162, 229, 231
school privatization and, 175, 193, 194, 196 terminal objectives and, 67
schools as the institutions of change and, 167–168 Socioeconomic status, 242
shaping society and, 163 See also Poverty
skills and, 201, 204 Socratic discussion, 50, 51
social dynamics of, 166–167 Spencer, H., 35
social improvement and, 241 Spiritual needs, 176, 205
social issues and, 201, 202, 204 Sputnik, 16, 39, 54
social vision and, 204 St. Pierre, E. A., 78–79, 80–81
society/knowledge and, 206 Standardized testing, 40, 52
society/reconstruction and, 161–167 accountability movement and, 83
spiritual needs and, 201 Learner Centered ideology and, 145–146
teachers and, 202 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 175
teachers as colleagues and, 187 summative evaluations and, 53–54
teaching and, 182–188, 203, 229, 231, 232, 233–234 See also Testing
testing and, 203 Standards:
textbooks/knowledge and, 209–210 accountability movement and, 82, 83
time issues and, 241 curriculum, 42
times of high/low activity of, 197, 245 curriculum improvement and, 34
truth/knowledge and, 210 developing curriculum content, 73
unemployment and, 151, 159, 195, 197 of high school curriculum, 36–37
urban education and, 243 Learner Centered ideology and, 145, 219,
values and, 201, 204 231, 236, 237
values/knowledge and, 206, 210 movements, 40, 54, 81, 132
views on children by, 226 professional associations and, 200
vision and, 204 Scholar Academic ideology and, 54, 218, 219, 231
vision/knowledge and, 206 Social Efficiency ideology and, 66, 67,
a vision of society and, 163–165 84, 89, 94, 95, 218
Social reform movement, 78–79 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 193–196,
Social values: 219, 236, 237
discussion method of teaching and, 183, 185 Student achievement:
multicultural education and, 244 accountability movement and, 83
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 196 Social Efficiency ideology and, 51–52, 84, 94–95
See also Values teachers and, 94
Society: utilitarian education and, 79
acculturating children into, 41 See also Academic achievement
aims of Social Reconstructionists and, 205 Student Nonviolent Coordinating
children in, 179 Committee (SNCC), 155
children viewed as products of, 176–177 Students:
corrupt, 128 assessing, 95
definition of ideology on, 8–9 control over, 195
educating people to live in, 69–70 evaluation of, 52–53. See also Testing
educators and, 67 grouping of, 48
educators manipulate, 176 Learner Centered ideology and, 105–106, 133
Highlander Folk School and, 153–154, 155 responsible for decision making, 128
individuals in, 163 Students’ needs:
Learner Centered ideology and, 105, 124 aims of Learner Centered educators and, 204–205
multicultural education and, 243 Learner Centered ideology and, 104, 105–106,
reconstruction and, 161–167 122, 123, 231, 232
Social Efficiency ideology and, 5, 68–71, 91 organic schools and, 111–112
spiritual needs and, 176, 205 Technology:

teachers and, 138, 139 Learner Centered ideology and, 113
Subjective reality: shaping society and, 163
comparative overview, 211–215 Social Efficiency ideology and, 40, 67, 71, 80, 81
Learner Centered ideology and, 134, 144, Social Reconstruction ideology and, 202
177–178, 180 Terminal objectives of Social Efficiency ideology, 5, 71
Scholar Academic ideology and, 44 associated with the ends of curriculum, 77
Social Efficiency ideology and, 75–76 atomism and, 75
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 189 ends/means/instrumental values and, 77–78
Sudbury Valley School, 108, 112, 125 gathering, 73
Supervised practice, 50–51 objective reality and, 75–76
Social Efficiency ideology and, 66, 67
Taxes, 82, 83 Testing:
Teacher education programs, 39, 244 accountability movement and, 82, 83
Teachers: decontextualized, 81
accountability movement and, 83 field, 54
are mini-scholars, 51–52, 54–55 increase in student, 193–196
assessing, 95 Learner Centered ideology and, 123, 216, 231
beliefs of, 10 Scholar Academic ideology and, 52–54
characteristics of, 140, 187–188 scores, 83, 193–194. See also Grading
as colleagues, 187 Social Efficiency ideology and, 95, 97, 231
control of, 194, 195 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 193–196
as diagnosticians, 137–138 Socratic discussion and, 51
as facilitators of learning, 139 standardized objective, 145–146
integrated schools and, 113 See also Achievement testing; Evaluations;
Learner Centered classrooms and, 121–122 Standardized testing
Learner Centered ideology and, 105, 108, Textbooks:
124, 125, 128, 133, 148 activity schools and, 109
organic schools and, 110, 112 curriculum improvement and, 34–35
role of, 92–93 curriculum workers and, 7
Scholar Academic ideology and, 49–50 didactic discourse and, 50
social acculturation and, 171–173 learner Centered ideology and, 106–107
Social Efficiency ideology and, 5, 65, 97 mathematics in, 16–17
Social Reconstruction ideology and, 168–169 memorizing, 79
testing of, 52 nature of learning and, 181–182
transmit knowledge of reality, 44 political influences on, 2
See also Educators programmed curriculum and, 60
Teaching: Social Reconstruction ideology and, 196
characteristics of, 187 Thomas, S. C.:
comparing different ideologies of, 228–234 activity schools and, 107
discussion method of, 183–185 on characteristics of teachers, 140
experience method of, 185–186 on learning, 137
Learner Centered ideology and, 123, 137–140 organic schools and, 111, 112
Scholar Academic ideology and, 48–50 on physical/verbal activity, 109
Social Efficiency ideology and, 92–94 on teachers as facilitators
Social Reconstruction ideology and, of learning, 139
182–188 Thorndike, Edward L., 80, 90
Teaching at Risk, 34, 37 Time issues, 241
Teaching Commission, 66, 79 Tracking, 37, 48, 224, 225
Technical education, 24, 30 Traditional education:
See also Vocational education integrated schools and, 112–113, 114
Index ❖ 295
Learner Centered ideology and, 100, 104, 105, of a good society, 161
106, 107, 108, 109 knowledge and, 43, 189
open education and, 130 schools and, 168
organic schools and, 110, 111–112 social acculturation and, 171–173
Scholar Academic ideology and, 54 Social Efficiency ideology and, 70, 240
See also Education Social Reconstruction ideology and, 158, 159,
Traditions: 164, 165, 166, 169, 212, 229, 232
aims of Scholar Academics and, 204 teachers as colleagues and, 187
curriculum ideologies and, 7 teaching and, 49
Eurocentric cultural, 174 See also Moral values; Social values
Scholar Academic ideology and, 24, 26, 29, Vision, 261
37, 38, 42, 49, 54, 200, 204, 211 aims of Social Reconstructionists and, 205
teaching and, 49 characteristics of knowledge and, 192
Training: knowledge/value and, 189
for citizenship, 72 Social Reconstruction ideology and, 169, 212
organic schools and, 110 Vocational education, 225
Scholar Academic ideology and, 24 Scholar Academic ideology and, 24, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38
Social Efficiency ideology and, 5, 97 Social Efficiency ideology and, 97
utilitarian education and, 79 trade schools, 79
See also Vocational education utilitarian education and, 79
Trends in International Mathematics See also Commercial education; Education;
and Science Study (TIMSS), 40 Industrial education; Manual education;
Truth: Occupational education; Training
academic discipline and, 27
aims of Scholar Academics and, 204 Walberg, H. J.:
knowledge and, 188–189 activity schools and, 107
knowledge/reality and, 190 on assumptions about learning, 137
knowledge/value and, 189 on characteristics of teachers, 140
nature of learning and, 181 on learning, 137
Scholar Academic ideology and, 4 organic schools and, 111, 112
Social Reconstruction ideology and, on physical/verbal activity, 109
6–7, 161–162, 166, 212 on teachers as facilitators of learning, 139
Tyler, R., 7, 57–60 Waldorf schools, 131, 132
Type to Learn, 60–61, 62–63, 64, 65 Ward, L. F., 35, 174
assumptions about learning and, 90 Watson, J. B., 80
Weber, L., 115, 120
Unit of work, 126–128 Weingartner, C., 174
University of Illinois Committee on School on the characteristics of teachers, 188
Mathematics (UICSM), 16–17 on children as meaning makers, 177
didactic discourse and, 50 on the discussion method
origin of curriculum knowledge and, 44 of teaching, 183
Utilitarian education, 78, 79–80, 97 on knowledge/reality, 189–190
See also Education on meaning making, 180
Utopias, 164–165 Whitefield, R. C.:
on academic discipline, 19–20
Values: on the disciplines of knowledge, 25–26
aims of Social Reconstruction ideology and, 176 on the nature of knowledge, 21
characteristics of knowledge and, 192 on priorities, 23
characteristics of teaching and, 187 on the purpose of education, 24
creation of knowledge and, 190 Whole language movement, 131, 149
educators and, 167 Wikipedia, 8–9
Eurocentric conceptions of, 151, 162 Williams, J., 242
❖ About the Author
Michael Stephen Schiro was born and raised in Washington, DC. He was a mathemat-
ics major at Tufts University, with minors in philosophy and English. He taught at the
high school, middle school, and elementary school levels in Massachusetts, North
Carolina, and Pennsylvania. He received his master’s and doctorate from Harvard
University in curriculum and instruction. He has taught courses on curriculum theory
and mathematics education at Boston College for the last 35 years. He has published
four books that explore ways of enriching the teaching of mathematics, including Oral
Storytelling and Teaching Mathematics, published by SAGE. He resides in Newton,
Massachusetts, and Mendocino, California. He has two children, Stephanie and Arthur.
His current hobbies include writing children’s novels, collecting puzzles that can be
used in the teaching of mathematics, and walking in forests and next to the ocean.
297
The Essential Online Tool for Researchers
. . . from the
The essential world’s leading
research methods
tool for publisher
Discover
SRMO Lists—
researchers . . .
methods readings
suggested by other
SRMO users
“I have never really

seen anything like this
Explore the
product before, and I think Methods Map
Find exactly
it is really valuable.” what you are looking to discover
John Creswell, University for, from basic links between
explanations methods
of Nebraska–Lincoln to advanced
discussion
Watch video
interviews
with leading
methodologists
Search on a Uncover more

newly designed than 100,000
taxonomy with more than pages of book,
1,400 qualitative, journal, and reference
quantitative, and mixed content to support
methods terms
your learning
ﬁnd out more at

srmo.sagepub.com

Schiro, M - Curriculum Theory. Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns (2nd Edition 2013)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schiro, M - Curriculum Theory. Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns (2nd Edition 2013)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

edition

Michael Stephen Schiro

SAGE Publications, Inc.

Acquisitions Editor: Brian Normoyle This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Curriculum Ideologies 1

Appendix: Curriculum Ideologies Inventory 263

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Curriculum Ideologies 1

Appendix: Curriculum Ideologies Inventory 263

Figure 0.1 Organization of this book.

(6) presents concluding perspectives on the ideology. This organizational plan is

Figure 0.2 Typical organization of each main chapter.

Objectives of This Book

New to the Second Edition

• Curriculum ideologies inventory

Comments on extension activities for faculty teaching courses on curriculum are

Rainy Cotti, Rhode Island College

I would also like to thank the following reviewers:

Alan Block, University of Wisconsin–Stout Marc Mahlios, University of Kansas

Your Beliefs About Curriculum

The Curriculum Ideologies

The Scholar Academic Ideology

The Social Efficiency Ideology

The Learner Centered Ideology

The Social Reconstruction Ideology

Social Reconstructionists is to rectify this situation by eliminating from their culture

Historical Perspective on the Ideologies

The Nature of the Curriculum Ideologies

Fenstermacher Zeichner Joseph et al.

social social social critical social confronting society centered social-meliorist

Two kinds of classificatory systems are useful in illuminating the differences

Figure 1.1 Classificatory systems.

SE = Social Efficiency LC = Learner Centered

Scholar Academic Curricula

UICSM and SMSG School Mathematics

used the associative, distributive, and commutative principles to prove mathematical

7 × 20 = 7 × (10 + 10) Rename 20 as (10 + 10)

= (7 × 10) + (7 × 10) Distribute 7 over (10 + 10)

= 140 Add 70 and 70 (SMSG, 1962, p. 346)

Man: A Course of Study

summer workshops, in-service workshops, and a telephone hotline (which teachers

Curriculum and the Disciplines

Initiation Into the Disciplines

A body of knowledge, enshrined in a university faculty and embodied in a series of author-

Curricula created by Scholar Academics do not embody just a back-to-the-basics,

Grounding Curriculum in a Discipline

Developers conceive of their curricula as embodying a portion of a discipline.

Drawing Upon the Discipline’s Knowledge

As such, the initial endeavors during curriculum construction are grounded in an

Whether a curriculum is designed by a scholar who has firsthand knowledge of a

Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge:

Education as an Extension of Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge

Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge: Global Considerations

Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge: Local Considerations

The Academic Disciplines

The Discipline as a Community

The Discipline as a Hierarchical Community

Figure 2.1 The hierarchical organization of a discipline.

intellectual activity anywhere is the same, whether at the frontier of knowledge or in a

The Learning ↔ Teaching Dynamic of the Discipline

The Educative Process Within the Academic Community

Classification and Selection of Disciplines

Curriculum as a Reflection of the Discipline

structures were best described as microscopic, dynamic, structural, relational, and