The progressive movement led to moveable furniture, small-group work, and more hands-on work in classrooms.
Curriculum has gone through some major changes since the first schools were established in the Plymouth colony. It no longer has the religious and moral overtones of the past. Educators today are concerned about the academic performance of their students and providing equal access for all students to learn. In his reflections on curriculum changes over his 43 years of teaching, Mr. Kuhn reports that
you used to use the textbook to develop curriculum guides that reflected the current state standards. State standards existed, but they were not emphasized as much as now. At that time, the basic test taken by almost all Indiana students was the Iowa Basic Skills Test. Now it is the ISTEP, which all Indiana students take at exactly the same time of the year.
Audio Link Learn more about global education.
In addition, the curriculum has been influenced by the changing needs of businesses and evolving new technologies. The intensity of debates among educators, politicians, and the public about what should be taught and how it should be taught continues as reflected in numerous national and state reports about the state of education. In this section we will examine how the curriculum changed in different historical periods.
The Industrial Revolution
As industrialization took hold in the cities of the Northeastern United States at the end of the 19th century, schooling was greatly influenced by the need to help new immigrant populations become literate and disciplined workers. Education was becoming more standardized, compartmentalized, and centralized. The Lancasterian system was promoted as an inexpensive solution for the education of the masses.
The move toward preparing young people to contribute effectively to the industrial revolution was assisted by the work of psychologists at the turn of the century. Harvard philosopher and psychologist William James found evidence that the stimulus–response, or behavioral, concepts of learning could be used to help children develop desirable habits. His ideas were expanded by Edward Thorndike, whose ideas of teaching as a science and behaviorism in which rewards and punishment were used to control student behavior influenced education for the next few decades (Spring, 2011). He also promoted testing as a way of determining which people are suited for which social roles. Thorndike’s principles were applied to schools in the popular textbook Classroom Management by William Chandler Bagley, who believed that schools should help students develop the industrial habits needed for the assembly line.
Progressivism: Curriculum for Reform
In Emile, published in 1762, European philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau questioned the focus of education on memorization and the subordination to authority. He thought that learning occurred through experience and discovery. He also believed that moral education should occur in adolescence, not childhood (Urban & Wagoner, 2009). Influenced by Rousseau, Johann Pestalozzi of Switzerland introduced a teaching approach in 1781 that used teaching objects from the real world, learning by doing, and activities rather than seat work (Urban & Wagoner, 2009).
A philosopher who integrated psychology and pedagogy into his thinking about education, John Dewey opened his laboratory school in Chicago in 1896 to test his progressive ideas about a child-oriented curriculum. His classrooms had movable tables rather than individual desks to encourage group work and learning (Spring, 2011). Unlike most of his colleagues, Dewey saw education as critical to changing society and preparing students to participate in a democratic society (Urban & Wagoner, 2009).
A colleague of Dewey’s at Columbia University, William Heard Kilpatrick, introduced in 1918 the “project method” that was widely adopted by school districts. The project method developed school activities that were meaningful to students and relevant to society (Urban & Wagoner, 2009). In the eyes of progressives, traditional curriculum with its emphasis on lecture and recitation could not possibly address students’ individual needs and learning styles. They believed that curriculum must be moderated through activities directed by the learner.
Student-centered instruction had become good practice in the 1940s, and schools were more humane by the 1950s. As progressives pressed for reformed schools that they believed could solve societal problems, they became more vulnerable to criticism for neglecting academic subjects (Urban & Wagoner, 2009). Not to be kept down, progressive thought reappeared in the 1960s and early 1970s, but it was confronted by the back-to-basics movement at the end of the 1970s. Nevertheless, it continues to reappear. For example, Theodore Sizer founded the Coalition of Essential Schools in 1984 to create a group of high schools along progressive lines. The progressive ideology was adopted by hundreds of schools across the country (Coalition of Essential Schools, 2012). The progressive ideology continues to be reflected today in charter schools and other schools of choice that have some freedom from the central-office-driven culture. Many of the practices of the progressive movement are now taken for granted by educators as they use movable furniture, place students in small work groups, and teach an integrated curriculum.
The progressive movement led to moveable furniture, small-group work, and more hands-on work in classrooms.
Sputnik I
An urgent demand for new curriculum and teaching techniques emerged after the Soviet Union launched the first satellite, Sputnik I, on October 4, 1957. U.S. leaders were bound to do whatever it would take to regain their nation’s scientific and technological supremacy over the Soviet Union during this Cold War period. Congressional resistance to financially supporting education disappeared with passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958 to improve the curriculum and teaching of science, mathematics, and foreign languages. The law also included support for guidance, counseling, testing, and the identification of the brightest students. The development of more scientists, mathematicians, and engineers was seen as critical to U.S. prominence in the world, and the federal government began to take its first step toward a national curriculum (Kliebard, 2004).
The National Science Foundation (NSF) was charged with developing curricula for science and mathematics. Professors in major research universities, rather than professional educators, designed the new curricula that would transform the teaching of science and math in the nation’s schools. “New mathematics” was one of the outcomes of this work that changed how math was taught in schools. Math teachers participated in professional development workshops to learn the new math and how to teach basic concepts such as set theory and functions. Although the public generally supported the new focus on reforming schools, they questioned the need for the new math as they tried to help their children with their homework (Spring, 2011).
New formats for textbooks and ideas for the presentation of relevant subject matter emerged from these projects. Teachers were suddenly presented with an avalanche of choices regarding what and how to teach. There were Attribute Games and Tangrams. Elementary school science packages offered Petri dishes full of fungi and amoebas on order from the local science laboratory (Spring, 2001). Reading texts were organized around literary themes and generalizations relating to the students’ own lives. Many teachers benefited from the programs that taught new math and introduced them to new curriculum materials.
The curriculum reforms after Sputnik I continue to resurface in the nation’s discourse about improving education. Today’s critics once again are concerned that the United States is falling behind other countries in scientific and technological advances. As a result, achievement on standardized tests is of utmost importance to the public and policymakers. The federal government has called for the recruitment of more bright students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Finally, common core standards for mathematics and reading have been adopted by most states to improve the academic achievement of students and the prominence of the United States in these fields.