Herbert M. Kliebard

Curriculum Theory as Metaphor

(1982). Curriculum theory as metaphor. Theory Into Practice: Vol. 21, Curriculum Theory, pp. 11-17.

Curriculum Theory: Give Me a “For Instance”

Often, in our attempts to make sense out of social and intellectual movements, we use guideposts to set off the route our subject has taken. The publication of Origin of Species in 1859 is frequently taken as the starting point for a massive intellectual upheaval that went far beyond the realm of scientific inquiry alone. There is, of course, nothing in the curriculum field comparable to Darwins revolutionary theory. Nevertheless, we do have a few modest guideposts which help us mark our way in the development of curriculum as a field of study. One is the publication in 1918 of Franklin Bobbitts The Curriculum, which set off curriculum as a field of professional specialization in its own right and not simply, as had been considered earlier, an offshoot of general educational considerations. While the publication of Bobbitts book cannot be said to have actually initiated the movement toward a distinctive field of study called curriculum, it is reflective of that movement as it developed in the early part of this century, at least insofar as it embodied the particular assumptions and predispositions that were to dominate the thinking of those who were identified with the curriculum field for at least half a century and extending to the present. The publication of The Curriculum may be taken as the starting point of the era of so-called scientific curriculum making with all that implied for how the curriculum was to be conceived, how the development of the curriculum was to take place, and what constituted the criteria of success by which the curriculum was to be judged. A second milestone in the development of the field was the publication, in 1927, of the Twenty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for

Vocational Education as Symbolic Action: Connecting Schooling With the Workplace

Policy connecting education with the workplace is usually seen as a form of instrumental action. Vocational education, therefore, is commonly justified as either providing individuals with needed skills in order to enter the workforce or as making the United States economically competitive with other nations. The efficacy of these efforts has been called in question; but whatever success vocational education may have achieved in terms of instrumental action, its effects in terms of symbolic action also need to be considered. Symbolic action works not by achieving a defined goal but by organizing allegiances, conferring status, and ratifying certain norms. Under these circumstances, it becomes especially appropriate to ask who benefits from the policy. Vocational education, for example, can be linked to the rise of professionalism, and, therefore, it may be an emerging breed of education professionals who were the primary beneficiaries of the policy. Other significant symbolic effects include the reconciling of a traditional work ethic with a modern industrial system and even the way in which we conceive of the function of schooling itself.

Education at the Turn of the Century: A Crucible for Curriculum Change

At the heart of Americas educational system in the 19th century was t he t e a c h e r . I l l t r a i n e d , harassed, underpaid, and often immature, it was the teacher who was expected to embody the standa rd v i r t u e s and c o m m u n i t y values and, at the same time, to mete out stern discipline to the unruly and the dull witted. But by the 1890s, 19th-century society, with its reliance on the face-toface community, was clearly in decline, and with the recognition of social change came a radically altered vision of the role of schooling. No longer was the school the direct instrument of a visible and unified community. Rather, it became a mediating institution between t h e family and an increasingly distant and impersonal soc i a l o r d e r , a n i n s t i t u t i o n th rough which the norms and ways of surviving in the new indus t r ia l society would be conveyed. Traditional family life was in decline, but even when it remained stable, it was no longer sufficient to init iate the young into a complex and technological world.

The Cardinal Principles Report as Archeological Deposit

ABSTRACT Interpretations of the significance of the Cardinal Principles report (1918) are frequently based on a contrast with the Committee of Ten report (1893) issued 25 years earlier. For the most part, the Committee of Ten report is interpreted as attempting to preserve an elitist form of secondary education dominated by the college‐entrance function. By contrast, the Cardinal Principles report is seen as helping to usher in an era of democratic secondary education. In fact, much of the development of secondary education in the USA has been consistent with that reports recommendations. In retrospect, however, the Cardinal Principles reports recommendations for a differentiated curriculum along with the license to expand secondary school course offerings almost indefinitely may not have been so democratic after all.