Changing Course
From Eduwiki
Contents |
Introduction: Reform and Change in the American Curriculum
Kliebard claims that reformers of curriculum in the late 19th century and into the 20th, had successes that “were sporadic and notoriously short-lived”. His collection of essays discusses the early reform movements and compares them to a swinging pendulum: a backward and forward motion, but everything else continues to remain the same.
Modern day reform seek to improve the practice of education, but the most widespread reform “takes the form of rigorous achievement standards followed by high-stakes testing”. While high-stakes testing becomes the 'reform du-jour', criticism of reforms of the 19th and 20th century are being examined critically.
Examination of Early School Reform – 2 views:
The first takes the position that “progressive era” reforms were either not well-conceived or had negative consequences when implemented. He cites two recent books that present this viewpoint:
David Angus and Jeffrey Mirel, “The Failed Promise of the American High School, 1890-1995”
Diane Ravitch, “Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms” The authors purport that those reforms undertaken to improve schools have failed to accomplish their set goal and need to be undone completely.
The other viewpoint examines the specific reforms and asks why some reforms fail and others succeed in changing school practices. The book Kliebard cites is: David Tyack and Larry Cuban, Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform”
There are wide ranges of success within the early school reform movement. Part of the problem is lumping all types of reform together and comparing them equally.
The Reformers:
By the end of the 19th century and well into the 20th century, reform programs were challenging the status quo of education. The status quo was represented by the traditional academic subjects (history, English, math, science, etc...) being taught in the traditional manner, typically recitation. Reform came as a way to change “what was by and large a sterile and mindless pattern of schooling”.
Charles W. Eliot, President of Harvard University wanted modern foreign language and a wide range of electives to be taught in schools. He felt that while Latin and Greek were fine foundational languages, the modern foreign language would excite and capture the interest of the students. Language and electives would add a level of relevance to the student.
William Torrey Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education determined that math, geography, history, grammar, and literature were “the five windows of the soul”. These were the subjects through which we would transmit “the accumulated wisdom of the human race to a new generation.”
William Heard Kilpatrick wanted projects to replace the individual subjects. He felt that by creating a project and problem-solving through it, the passivity of traditional learning and the storing of information was overcome.
George S. Counts and Harold O. Rugg believed that curriculum in schols should be a reflection of social needs and problems. This movement became known as “social reconstruction” and continues to have a few contemporary supporters.
Franklin Bobbitt, W.W. Charters, and David Snedden wanted to create a “supremely functional curriculum guided by the “criterion of efficiency”. Their idea was whatever was to be taught in school had to relate directly to a job or vocation in the adult world. If the subject area did not relate directly, then that program was “curtailed, reconstructed, or eliminated, thus reducing waste”. This movement led to the creation of “vocationalism”.
Success & Failure of Reform
Kliebard cites two reasons for the success and failure of early school reform:
- Inconsistent with the basic structure of schooling
- when the reform replaces the subject
- when the reform redefines the roles of teachers and students
- when there is high-stakes testing acting as a reform
- Reform vs. Social context
- political and social climate dictate the success rate of reform
