Alexis Lipson C&T709: M2T3: Response Paper #1 1

Easy to Write, Impossible to Carry Out?

The dictionary definition of the word curriculum seems cut and dry: the subjects comprising a

course of study. This short definition can easily trick one into believing that the theory behind

curriculum may be just as short and therefore quite simple. John Dewey and Herbert Kliebard would

disagree vehemently. These two theorists place a great deal of weight on constantly changing

circumstances, whether this involves the learner or the world around us. John Dewey clearly states his

beliefs through his piece, My Pedagogic Creed, while Herbert Kliebards theory is a tied into his praise

and criticism of other theorists in his piece, The Rise of Scientific Curriculum-Making and Its Aftermath.

Both theorists present theories with extremely difficult goals to attain, with very little specificity

provided. Of the theories studied thus far, these are the ones I find most compelling and aligned with

my own beliefs, although I am uncertain as to whether they are truly attainable in current classrooms.

Deweys My Pedagogic Creed lays out his theory very concisely through five separate articles.

The conciseness of Deweys writing is misleading, suggesting there may be a simple road map to

education perfection. Quite the contrary, his articles involve very lofty and difficult goals to attain,

although Dewey himself would tell those questioning him that the task at hand is a divine one worthy of

the effort required. Dewey presents a theory extremely focused on the individuality of each learner,

believing that a focus on the well-being of the learner, specifically by emphasizing a need for positive

growth both socially and psychologically, is what will produce the best results. Ignoring either the

psychological or the sociological aspect of education, Dewey states, will lead to evil results (Dewey

33). These results are important to Dewey not only for the good of the learner, however. He sees

education as the method for improving society, stating that all reforms which rest simply upon the

enactment of law, or the threatening of certain penalties are transitory and futile (39). There is simply

no point in expecting a change in law to have an effect on society without some change in the

educational process.
Alexis Lipson C&T709: M2T3: Response Paper #1 2

To carry out this lofty task, Dewey believes education must also mirror real life as well as

embrace a learners basic instincts and power, or natural abilities. An education that separates subjects

and creates special studies that do not mimic life, in Deweys opinion, serves no purpose. A good

example of subjects mirroring real life is history. While many find the stories about King Henry VIII of

England and the fate of his many wives to be intriguing, to teach this section of history without

explaining the major effect his decisions had on the Protestant Reformation, the results of which

continue to reverberate in todays world, would be a disservice to the learner, as it is withholding the

real-life lesson of cause and effect. One can also imagine the variety of opportunities other subjects,

such as science and mathematics, can provide.

In the end, no point is made clearer in his writing than that of the importance of keeping

education learner based. The teacher, in Deweys mind, is extremely vital, but must not stand in the way

of natural ability. The teacher must recognize and balance their responsibility to both the student and to

society. Teachers must recognize they are social servant[s], with the duty of maintaining proper

social order and the securing of the right social growth (40).

As stated previously, Dewey presents extremely lofty goals, those which many theorists

following him have claimed to include in their own attempts at curriculum reform (Labaree 485). As we

move into Kliebards piece, however, we see just how far from Deweys creed those who believe in

scientific curriculum making truly are.

Kliebards The Rise of Scientific Curriculum-Making and Its Aftermath focuses on Boyd Bodes

criticism of two theorists: Franklin Bobbitt and W. W. Charters. Taken out of context, parts of this theory

of curriculum could be manipulated in order to align with Deweys creed: for example, Bobbitts

objectives that suggest there was literally no activity of mankindsocial, intellectual, or practicalthat

was not potentially, at least, a curricular objective (Kliebard 73). In essence, I believe Dewey would

agree that all aspects of life are aspects that can be focused on in the classroom, as he believes
Alexis Lipson C&T709: M2T3: Response Paper #1 3

education should mimic life. The method in which Bobbitt carried this out, by creating an impossibly

extensive list of curricular objectives, would not follow Deweys belief system. Kliebard points this out,

stating that the curriculum became the ultimate survival kit for the modern world, or in other words,

was not giving the learner a tool kit that would allow them to deal with any situation they encounter but

instead determining exactly what situations they would encounter and exactly how to react to those

alone (73).

Kliebard also addresses the idea of a perfect teacher. He discusses the study Charters was

involved in, The Commonwealth Teacher-Training Study, which resulted in two lists: 83 traits and 1001

teacher activities that would determine whether someone was a good teacher or not. The specific

example Kliebard provides from the list of activities seems to debunk the study on its own, as the

activity, securing cordial relations with the superintendent, has absolutely no relation to the act of

teaching whatsoever. Kliebard seems to find himself at a loss for words, wondering why we retain,

even revere, the techniques and assumptions we have inherited from Bobbitt and Charters, at the same

time as we reject, implicitly at least, the actual outcomes of their research (76). I believe Dewey, too,

would have guffawed at this, seeing the research as unnecessary, if not hindering, to the task at hand.

In his conclusion, Kliebard states that the focus on this research and particular method of

curriculum making is likely the result of teachers and administrators looking for a quick fix, an easy

answer to two questions: what is a good teacher? And What is a good curriculum? (77). These

questions, Kliebard states, have no easy answers, and scientific curriculum making neglects the

complexity of the phenomena with which we deal (77). This statement aligns directly with those made

in Deweys creed, as any quick fix is never going to address students on an individual level; it is never

going to allow a teacher to embrace the learners instincts and power.

Alexis Lipson C&T709: M2T3: Response Paper #1 4

Both Dewey and Kliebard present important and valid theories of curriculum. I believe Kliebard

is unfortunately completely right when he acknowledges that the popularity of scientific curriculum

making is due to its promise of creating an easy answer for teachers and administrators. Deweys

theory, as promising and hopeful as it is, is not one easily followed. It requires constant adjustment and

assessment of both the teacher and the learner, but not the type of assessment seen in todays

classrooms. Deweys theory could not be tested through a standardized test nor through a list of 83

traits any good teacher should exhibit.

The challenge this poses, in todays classrooms, is that there are regulations and standards that

teachers must meet, leaving some with very little room in regards to creativity and variety in their

instruction. To carry out Deweys theory in todays world, one must remain diligent and push where

possible to embrace those key aspects of focusing on individual learners instinct and power. In the end,

the goals presented in Deweys creed are those every teacher should push to meet, but every teacher

must also acknowledge that theories such as Deweys and criticisms such as Kliebards are easy to write

down, but much harder to carry out in real life.

Alexis Lipson C&T709: M2T3: Response Paper #1 5

References

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

NY: Routledge.

Kliebard, H. M. (2013). The Rise of Scientific Curruculum-Making and Its Aftermath. In The Curriculum

Studies Reader (4th ed., pp. 69-78). New York, NY: Routledge.

Labaree, D. F. (1987). Politics, Markets, and the Compromised Curriculum. Harvard Educational Review,

57(4), 483-494. Retrieved September 2, 2017, from

https://web.stanford.edu/~dlabaree/publication2012/Politics_Markets_Curriculum.pdf

Simpson, D. J., & Jackson, M. J. (2003). John Dewey's View of the Curriculum in The Child and the

Curriculum. Education and Culture, 20(2), 23-27. Retrieved September 2, 2017, from

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1464&context=eandc