The American Curriculum: Historical Background

Patrick Fernandez
New Jersey City University
EDTC 807: Implementation and Evaluation of Curriculum
Spring 2023
 The history of the standardization of the curriculum is about a result of the NEA and the

committee of Ten; basically it decided students should attend secondary (high school) schools. The result

of the urbanization and modernization in major US cities led to an increase in enrollment in high schools;

Chicago in the 1850’s was a perfect example. The industrial revolution was full underway and the

creation of new sectors in the economy, but particularly in journalism and the railroad industry, would

create a demand for new skill sets.

This created two visions for what education should be in the United States; these two visions

would be a traditional view for education and a humanistic approach. Some thought that education should

just produce members of society that should be prepared to enter the new and modern workforce and

society as a whole. Cities like Chicago and New York had to decide what to do with young men and

women in urban areas and how they could improve this growing country.

Others thought primary and secondary educations’ main objective was to just provide exposure to

liberal arts context that would be useful for a post education. This vision was a traditional view of

education that served the benefit of most in the committee of Ten, whom were heads of elite universities

like Harvard and Yale. Charles Eliot, the longest serving president of Harvard himself was appointed

chairman of the committee of Ten.

Eliot regarded himself as having a humanistic view of education because he thought education

should prepare you for both life and work and they were one in the same. He would argue an education

should aid both in theory however he faced opposition both from the committee of Ten and other elite

institutions. Much of the opposition he would face could be attributed to elite traditional institutions not

wanting to change the population they served at their institutions even if the population and demographics

of the workforce was changing.

In short, the committee of Ten did little to help many middle class and working class citizens.

Toward the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th the economy in the United States would

have moments of panic and pressure; which led many to continue to wonder if it is really necessary for

students to know about Shakespeare as the economy and workforce waned. Eventually new pedagogical
ideas would offer alternative views for education to challenge both traditional and humanistic views. One

new viewpoint would be developmentalism which relied on looking at education through a scientific lens.

Stanley Hall was the first leading reformer to give credibility to this approach.

The developmentalist approach to education had its origins in childhood developmental

psychology and trying to answer questions like “how does the mind best learn? How does it retain

information? What information should it learn?”. The developmental approach was important in the

landscape of curriculum for several reasons. The first is because it did call for a much more scientific

approach to the profession. It also reasked the question “which subjects should be taught?” and advocated

for additional subjects and content areas to be featured in the curriculum other than just the traditional

liberal arts. Most importantly, it called for and implied that differentiation was needed in the American

curriculum primarily in secondary education if additional content areas were to be taught.

Over time, the committee of Ten would fail to change its educational curriculums to the changing

times and continue debate approaches at the expense of the educational system. Institutions and the elites

of society continued to ignore and adapt to a changing society, demographics and workforce. Additional

ideas and the latest social attitudes of the times like Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” would influence the

American curriculum. With the end of the committee of Ten, came the start of the Committee of Fifthteen

would allow additional voices, institutions and levels of education to also influence the curriculum.

As the 20th century came to a close and we’ve arrived in the 21st century, no one single

educational philosophy has really won out. If anything one can argue that all educational movements have

strengthened because they have simply gathered more information, statistics, and credibility. The only

thing that has changed over time is the discussion is larger because there are more stakeholders and

emerging voices or viewpoints of what is right for the American curriculum today.

Today the discussion between traditionalists and reformers still occurs today, when whether

curriculums should prepare students for the workforce or future education is debated. With private,

charter, technical/vocational and alternative education providing options to students and families whom

don’t share traditional values of education. Today the developmentalist question posed of what we should
teach in schools is still debated in the form of conversations about standardized testing and college exams.

When we discuss which subjects should be tested on state tests and college entrance exams. Should we

include social studies or science on high stakes tests or not? Is still a question we ask today. All in all, a

lot has changed but much of the same issues/visions of education have remained the same over time.