Show Summary Details

Page of

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 23 May 2022

A Chronology of Curriculum Questionsfree

A Chronology of Curriculum Questionsfree

  • William H. SchubertWilliam H. SchubertUniversity of Illinois at Chicago (Emeritus)


Curriculum studies can be characterized by dominant questions asked by those who have participated in the field over the years. Most of the questions that have dominated inquiry and praxis are variations on the central curriculum question: What is worthwhile? In the mid-19th century, the focus was on what knowledge was deemed most worthwhile, especially for elementary and secondary education, as nations began to take charge of what was taught and learned in schools. Most of the questions that characterize curriculum history continued to be debated and studied throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century. Arguments ensued about how developmental appropriateness, school and nonschool experience, and science or efficiency contributed to an understanding of what is worthwhile. Curriculum scholars and curriculum workers continue to address how to meet individual and social interests and needs and how curriculum of education should improve society. Curriculum studies offers guiding questions for studying, reflecting on, developing, or enacting curriculum derived from publications of curriculum scholars and policy makers. After the middle of the 20th century, many of the previously established questions were challenged by new generations of curriculum scholars who criticized the dominance of powerful political, racial, gender, and cultural groups in determining what should be taught and learned in schools; that is, the sources of what human beings should be and become. They questioned the capability of schools as institutions of nations that have become corporate states to guide this task for the benefit of all. Critiques have continued to proliferate regarding who benefits and who is harmed by questions that guide curriculum scholarship, policy, and practice in schools and all other societal institutions and relationships that educate. Much discrimination has been identified that provides markedly less educational benefit to those who are not part of the majority culture. The interests of wealthy White males are often privileged, and the needs of racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, those who have disabilities, and those who are otherwise different are harmed. Moreover, the purposes of education in schooling seem to be to advance the benefits accorded to powerful and privileged groups. To understand this situation, curriculum scholars have drawn upon questions derived from critical theory and cultural studies. Curriculum studies literature also offers ideas for creating curricula that benefit more of humanity throughout the world, as well as seeking insights from many different world cultures, including indigenous and grassroots ones. A larger question deals with the extent to which humans are able to construct educational opportunities wherein all are educated in worthwhile ways. Struggles over meanings of “worthwhile” continue to resound throughout curriculum studies scholarship and its influence on educational policy and practice and concomitant impacts on the world.


  • Curriculum and Pedagogy

What Knowledge Is Worthwhile for Current and Future Generations?

Although societies, cultures, philosophers, theologians, parents, and others have pondered this question from time immemorial (Schubert, 1986, chapter 3; Ulich, 1954), it became central to the history of curriculum studies when posed by British social theorist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), in Education: Intellectual, Moral and Physical (Spencer, 1861), the first chapter of which is titled “What Knowledge Is of Most Worth?” Many curriculum scholars still claim that the basis for curriculum studies lies in this Spencerian question. Others say it cannot be relegated to knowledge alone, and requires an understanding of realms of life that also deal with that which is worth needing, experiencing, doing, being, becoming, overcoming, sharing, contributing, wondering, and more (Schubert, 2009b). Many objected that Spencer, an avid supporter of Charles Darwin (1809–1882), inappropriately applied Darwin’s biological theory of evolution to the social life of human beings. Spencer’s overly literal interpretation of the “survival of the fittest” idea brought criticism when he characterized worth as largely capacity for survival.

What Should Secondary and Elementary Schools Teach?

During the 19th century many areas of study were formed and facilitated by scholarly associations, such as the National Geographic Association, and “within a forty-year period before 1890, national societies had been founded in . . . history, mathematics, and eight scientific fields, almost always with the appearance of the corresponding university chairs and departments in those areas” (Seguel, 1966, p. 9). In 1857, the National Education Association (NEA) was formed in the United States and took a leadership position in curriculum and teacher education. Normal schools populated the country, following the lead of England, France, and other European countries, to provide specialized education (usually of two years) for teacher certification, which offered courses in curriculum, mostly as subject matter methods. As school populations increased to support universal schooling advocated by Horace Mann (1796–1859), the NEA addressed how to meet needs of both college-bound and non-college-bound students. The NEA was led by renowned school administrators, esteemed professors, and administrators of institutions of higher education. By the 1890s, political and corporate leaders recognized elite members of the NEA as key deliberators in the formation of educational policy. From the early 1890s through the 1940s, the NEA had become a major intellectual force in the formation of educational policy, issuing many reports that influenced curriculum in schools. NEA reports furthered study of expanded dimensions of the Spencerian question: What knowledge is of most worth? A key manifestation of this question in the 1890s was: Should college-bound students and those who entered the workforce immediately after high school be prepared with the same configuration of courses or with differentiated curricula? The NEA Committee of Ten (1893) focused on high school curricula and the NEA Committee of Fifteen (1895) addressed elementary school curricula. Debates raged among proponents of liberal arts and sciences and advocates of developmentalist approaches. William Torrey Harris (1835–1909), Superintendent of the Saint Louis Public Schools, U.S. Commissioner of Education, and Hegelian philosopher, and Charles W. Eliot (1834–1926), president of Harvard, advocated for the liberal arts and sciences. They were labeled intellectual traditionalists (Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1980) or traditional humanists (Kliebard, 1986) and met challenges from a combination of developmentalist followers of Johann Frederick Herbart (1776–1841), such as Charles DeGarmo (1849–1934), Frank McMurry (1862–1936), and his brother Charles McMurry (1857–1929), whose interpretations of Herbartian methods had a huge influence on schools in the United States from 1895 to 1905 (Dunkel, 1970). Herbartians gained power in debates with intellectual traditionalists, such as Harris and Eliot, by joining forces with experientalists (Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1980) or emergent progressives (Schiro, 1978). Herbartians and experientialists differed considerably from each other on the nature of developmental appropriateness, the locus of curriculum decision-making, and the social role of education in fostering democracy. Experientialists or progressives such as Francis W. Parker (1837–1902) and a young John Dewey (1859–1952) advocated building on the interests and needs of students, and through heated struggles continued decades of debate and dialogue with intellectual traditionalists and social behaviorists. Nonetheless, a liberal arts curriculum was emphasized more fully in documents set forth by the NEA Committee of Ten for secondary schools and Committee of Fifteen for elementary schools, supporting mostly an academic education for college-bound students and those who went directly into the workforce (NEA, 1893, 1895). The curricula they advocated continued to dominate schooling throughout the 20th century and into the 21st.

How Can Students’ Interests and Needs Be Met in Developmentally Appropriate Ways?

The developmentalists (Kliebard, 1986) and experientialists (Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1980) were similar enough to work together in opposition to the traditionalists, and they offered a major influence on a burgeoning curriculum studies field in the United States and around the world. The Herbartians encouraged emergent curricularists to address questions about the developmental appropriateness of subject matter and teaching by positing that children develop in stages and that curricula need to be compatible or correlated with those stages. The exact meaning of compatibility was problematic. The Herbartian idea of stages was derived from a cultural epoch theory, which held that individual human development recapitulates biological and cultural development from uncivilized prehistory to contemporary civilized life. The theory was extrapolated by Francis Parker, John Dewey, and later Jean Piaget’s (1896–1980) genetic epistemology and Lev Vygotsky’s (1896–1934) zone of proximal development. Dewey, especially, drew from Herbart’s notion that experience creates an “apperceptive mass” that is an ever-evolving lens through which each human interprets their learning and growth (Dunkel, 1970, p. 11; Schubert, 1986, p. 68). Relative to these concepts, a central curriculum question became: Is a given activity or aspect of subject matter developmentally appropriate? Derived from his experiments with and reflections on curriculum as the lived experience of children in the Laboratory School he and Alice Chipman Dewey (1858–1927) created at the University of Chicago from 1896 to 1904, Dewey (1902) began to define education as the reconstruction of experience, which brings meaning and continuously guides the course of subsequent experience (Dewey, 1916, p. 76). Students and teachers should work together to coconstruct curricula that guide their lives, applying principles and practices of a practical interpretation of science drawn from the emerging pragmatist position in philosophy championed by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910). The pragmatist position described situational reasoning built on eclectic study of diverse academic areas and practical precedent. It held that inquiry should be judged based on its direct and indirect consequences, including ethical, political, social, economic, and psychological effects.

How Can Curriculum Be Researched and Designed Efficiently?

Another interpretation of science emulated by educators differed markedly from the pragmatists. Instead of seeking to understand situations in their complexity, these researchers looked more for generalizable qualities among situations. From the 1890s through the1920s, such researchers also were captivated by an efficiency movement that touted time and motion studies in business and industry heralded by industrialist Frederick Taylor (1856–1915). Appearing in the mid-1890s, proponents of this curriculum field were later labeled conceptual empiricists (Pinar, 1975), social behaviorists (Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1980), and social efficiency advocates (Kliebard, 1986). The embryonic idea of curriculum studies was influenced greatly by a coupling of efficiency and an empiricist interpretation of science that valued measurement and statistics along with concise explanations and analyses based on generalizable assertions of fact. Efficiency in business and industry exemplified by Taylor brought reverence for what Raymond Callahan (1962) later criticized as the “cult of efficiency.” This orientation was reiterated in educational policies and school practices throughout the 20th century, which reached a crescendo in its dominance in the 21st century with slogans about evidence-based accountability. One of the first to call for educational efficiency was a pediatrician, Joseph Mayer Rice, who was intrigued by the beginnings of progressivism in education and later concluded that educators were not capable of enacting it. Already highly regarded as a doctor, Rice was commissioned by a respected journal, The Forum, to travel and write reports about the status of education in the United States. The more schools he visited, the more he found a lack of progressive practice, meaning, and scientific inquiry; instead, he found disorganization, wasted time, and unjustified practices (Rice, 1893). Over the next two decades, Rice (1913) concluded that schools needed scientific management.

Meanwhile, another empiricist event swept much of the world and greatly influenced curriculum studies. IQ testing was initiated by Alfred Binet (1857–1911) and Theodore Simon (1873–1961), who created the first IQ test in 1904 for the French Ministry of Education. Following work of British statistician Francis Galton (1822–1911), Simon and Binet were among early researchers who influenced Edward L. Thorndike (1874–1949), a pioneer scientific educational psychologist who also was influenced by J. McKeen Cattell (1860–1944) and William James. Thorndike studied with William James at Harvard and then moved to be mentored by Cattell at Columbia. Thorndike and James conducted empirical studies that discredited the rationale for classic languages and other time-honored subjects in the curriculum as a basis for training the mind as one might exercise muscles. This research influenced policy and practice by diminishing widespread requirement of such study (Travers, 1983). Thorndike argued that if something exists, it exists in a certain amount, and therefore can be measured—a logic that led Thorndike and his followers to conduct many empirical studies. This orientation to educational and curricular inquiry was criticized as conceptual empiricism (Pinar, 1975) or social behaviorism (Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1980), and was often juxtaposed with Dewey and his followers among the experientalists (Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1980) or progressives. Historian Ellen Lagemann (2000) concluded that these contrasting orientations could be traced back to Dewey and Thorndike, who were both highly influential in educational thought; however, it was Thorndike who influenced educational policy more fully.

How Can Curriculum Respond to Immediate Social Needs?

Curriculum workers caught up in the social efficiency emphasis in the late teens and early 1920s were supported widely in the field, as evidenced by a report on economy of time by the National Council of Education (1913) and accentuated by the work of Franklin Bobbitt and W. W. Charters, both of whom clearly supported the social behaviorist, social efficiency, or conceptual empiricist orientation to curriculum studies. Bobbitt (1918, 1924) addressed the question of worth directly, asserting that there was no need to perpetuate the classics just because they had stood the test of time. Instead, he said the curriculum should be based on perpetuating what successful members of society do and what they need to know in order to do those things. He led teams of researchers to study successful societal members in different locales in the United States, researched what they spent time doing, and designed curricula for others to acquire the necessary skills, knowledge, and dispositions that brought success. Charters (1923) did basically the same, but as a former student of Dewey, he advocated starting with ideals of successful persons and designed curricula to enable them to realize those ideals.

What If Being Successful Did Not Fit With What Individuals and Social Groups Wanted to Do and Be?

At the Laboratory School at the University of Chicago, from 1896 to 1904, John and Alice Chipman Dewey studied student experiences, interests, and needs as a basis for democratically engaging with them and their teachers in the collaborative construction of their education. Students were seen by Dewey (1899, 1902) as continuously engaged in the reconstruction of their educational experience (i.e., their curriculum) in and out of school to meet their changing social needs and interests (Dewey, 1916). Nonetheless, it was apparent that the dominant curriculum of most U.S. schooling was an amalgam of the social behaviorist and intellectual traditionalist orientations, which was generally less sophisticated than William C. Bagley’s (1874–1946) intellectual traditionalist calls for liberal education or the efficiency of Bobbitt and Charters. Dewey’s educational and philosophical work at Columbia University, beginning in 1905, and the widening spread of his ideas throughout the United States and around the world led educational theorists, practitioners, and others to create an organization to further his work in 1919—the Progressive Education Association (PEA). Through this organization, progressive education scholars, teacher educators, and teachers gathered to share experiences and ideas about educational practices that embraced democracy, engaged educators in the study and improvement of teaching, and helped students grow by reconstructing experiences that guided their lives. They also critiqued traditional education as an autocratic imposition on the natural learning of students.

How Did the PEA Develop Dewey’s Ideas Through the Eight Year Study?

PEA educators hoped for more widespread practices based on Deweyan ideas, and conducted what many consider to be the most elaborate study in curriculum studies: the Eight Year Study (Aikin, 1942). This study is often regarded as a comparison of students educated through progressive curricula with those taught traditionally, but actually it was much more. Wilford Aikin (1942), the director of the Eight Year Study, chronicled its story from 1933 to 1941 and elaborated the curriculum, evaluation, success in college, and stories from the participating schools. Approximately 60 schools in 30 school systems experimented with progressive education, and matched pairs of students in these schools were compared with students from traditional schools. Results showed that students educated progressively did as well or better than those educated traditionally in most academic areas and developed a keener interest in self-education, cooperative learning, and problem-solving to meet their own needs (Aikin, 1942). Moreover, continued analysis of the archives of the Eight Year Study by Craig Kridel and Robert Bullough (2007) revealed that teachers and consultants engaged collaboratively, studied their work experimentally, redefined student needs, developed a new conception of core curriculum, and showed how human relations could be a basis for living more democratically. While the results and the study garnered some attention, it was obviously overshadowed in the news media by World War II, and was likely ignored by many because the democratic ideology embedded in it differed from autocratic or plutocratic beliefs of power wielders emerging in the United States and throughout the world at the time.

Can and Should Curriculum Change Society?

John Dewey, who inspired democratic approaches to the continuous growth of education and society, also inspired curriculum advocated by educational social reconstructionists, especially through Reconstruction in Philosophy (Dewey, 1920). Two of the most prominent of the social reconstructionists were George S. Counts and Harold Rugg. In the 1920s both wrote about the need for education to change society. In the 1920s Rugg wrote a series of social studies books for high school students that questioned assumptions of capitalism and autocratic/oligarchic government. These materials sold in the millions until conservative groups figured out what he was doing and tried to end his career (Rugg, 1929–1932, 1941). Counts (1932) raised the powerful question captured in his book title: Dare the School Build a New Social Order? Counts wrote many other books that argued for what might be called democratic socialist education and society. Theodore Brameld (1956) later summarized and amplified the social reconstruction position on philosophy of education and the culture it could provide.

What Additional Questions Do the Foregoing Orientations to Curriculum Studies Necessitate?

The history of intellectual traditionalist orientations to curriculum studies and the challenge of social behaviorist, experientialist, and reconstructionist orientations led curriculum scholars to augment and centralize the growing array of questions that characterized the field. Harold Rugg (1927) brought together a group of the most noteworthy and widely regarded curriculum scholars under the auspices of the National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE), which met several times from 1924 through 1926 to identify the key curriculum questions that should be addressed—ones that curriculum scholars and school leaders of differing orientations could agree were important. In addition to Rugg, members of the team of professors with diverse orientations included William Bagley, Franklin Bobbitt, Frederick Bonser, W. W. Charters, George Counts, Stuart Courtis, Earnest Horn, Charles Judd, Frederick Kelly, William Kilpatrick, and George Works. They identified 18 areas of inquiry (Rugg, 1927):


What period of life does schooling primarily contemplate as its end?


How can the curriculum prepare for effective participation in adult life?


Are curriculum-makers required to formulate a point of view concerning the merits or deficiencies of . . . civilization?


Should the school be regarded as a conscious agency for social improvement?


How shall the content of the curriculum be conceived and stated?


What is the place and function of subject matter in the education process?


What portion of education should be classified as general and what portions as specialized or vocational or purely optional?


Is the curriculum to be made in advance?


To what extent is the organization of subject matter a matter of pupil-thinking and construction of, or planning by, the professional curriculum-maker as a result of experimentation?


From the point of view of the educator, when has learning taken place?


To what extent should traits be learned in their natural setting (i.e., in a life situation)?


To what degree should the curriculum provide for individual differences?


To what degree is the concept of minimal essentials to be used in curriculum construction?


What should be the form of organization of the curriculum?


What, if any, use should be made of the spontaneous interests of children?


For the determination of what types of material . . . should the curriculum-maker analyze the activities in which adults actually engage?


How far shall methods of learning be standardized?


How should the curriculum be administrated [rephrased from a lengthy list of possibilities]? (pp. 9–10)

The authors endeavored to construct a collaborative response or consensus statement for these questions, and each participant wrote their own commentary about ways in which they differed from the consensus statement. Despite the existence of differences, these questions gave coherence to the curriculum field, which, without an attempt at consensus, may have disintegrated due to controversy almost before it began. The questions still have immense relevance to curriculum concerns, as evidenced in an extensive interpretation by Timothy Leonard and Peter Hilton (2010, pp. 953–970) in the Sage Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (Kridel, 2010).

What Are the Key Curriculum Questions To Be Drawn From Experiences of Teachers and Curriculum Leaders in Schools?

The 18 questions were drawn from the NSSE committee led by Rugg, which was exclusively made up of professors. Concerns of educational leaders and teachers in schools were explicated in another set of questions by L. Thomas Hopkins (1929, pp. vii–xiv), who consulted widely in schools throughout the United States in the 1920s and carefully organized curricular concerns of those engaged in school practices. Hopkins arrived at a table of contents that consisted of eight pages of questions. The most central questions constituted the chapter titles and each was followed by between 10 and 30 subquestions. Hopkins’s elaboration on these questions was another window into what curriculum scholars, policy makers, leaders, teachers, the public, and even students should address and study.

The article title questions (Hopkins’ main questions) are:


Is curriculum construction necessary?


What is the function of the aim of education in curriculum construction?


What is the function of the aim of a subject in curriculum construction?


What is the function of content in curriculum making?


What is the function of method in curriculum construction?


What is the function of outcomes in curriculum construction?


What are the functions of research and measurement in curriculum construction?


How should a school system be organized for curriculum construction?


How should the curriculum organization be set up?


How should the duties of the aims committee be performed?


What procedure should production committees follow?


How should a new course of study be installed?


What are some important problems of production?


What are some important problems of installation?

Hopkins’s massive array of questions and subquestions recognized the influence of Alexander Inglis, Hopkins’s doctoral adviser at Harvard University. Inglis inspired Hopkins (1929, p. iii) in 1922 to focus on curriculum construction, which he considered the biggest problem confronting education.

Four years earlier Inglis had been principal architect of the widely distributed statement published by the NEA’s Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education (1918). The principles described in this statement pertained to seven emphases, aims, or objectives of education: (a) health, (b) command of fundamental processes, (c) worthy home membership, (d) vocation, (e) citizenship, (f) worthy use of leisure time, and (g) ethical character. Each of these purposes could be framed as a question, for example: How could the (purpose in question) be defined, developed, and enacted? These broad statements were deemed necessary to address in part because more students were attending school than ever before and the aims had to be interpreted not only for college-bound students but also for those who would enter job markets directly after high school. Thus, all of the questions about curriculum construction raised by Hopkins had to be interpreted not only for developing traditional knowledge and skills (i.e., fundamental processes) but also for acquiring the wherewithal to learn progressive principles that ebbed and flowed in importance in the context of changing times. Hopkins (1931, p. 5) saw this as necessitating practical technique for educators, an approach advanced by Henry Harap (1928), an exemplar of curriculum-making as a means of translating the extensive theoretical literature of curriculum studies into policy and practice.

What Was the Role of Synoptic Curriculum Texts?

Curriculum scholars sought to centralize and summarize curriculum knowledge that would enhance the work of curriculum theorists and practitioners. Thus, synoptic curriculum texts, a label coined by Schubert and Lopez Schubert (1980, pp. 76–77), were developed to provide access to the key ideas, principles, and practices needed to be explored by those who would do curriculum work. The term “curriculum development” (sometimes just the term “curriculum”) was often used in titles of synoptic curriculum texts. The first such text was Caswell and Campbell’s (1935) Curriculum Development, which was augmented by the publication of a collection of key articles from the curriculum field: Readings in Curriculum Development (Caswell & Campbell, 1937). Attempts to build upon the synoptic tradition started by Caswell and Campbell continued throughout the 20th century. Some of the most influential included Alberty (1947); Doll (1964); Eisner (1979); Marsh and Willis (1995); Saylor and Alexander (1954); Schubert (1986); Smith, Stanley, and Shores (1950, 1957); Stratemeyer, Forkner, and McKim (1947); Taba (1962); Tanner and Tanner (1975); Walker (1990); and Zais (1976). The best synoptic curriculum texts were more than repositories of salient ideas that guided the field of curriculum theory, policy, and practice. They also provided new ways to conceptualize that knowledge. The key question faced by authors of synoptic texts was: What were the most important ideas, skills, and dispositions in the curriculum field and how can they be organized to facilitate the work of curriculum scholars, leaders, and others who want to learn about the field (Schubert, Lopez Schubert, Thomas, & Carroll, 2002)?

Another kind of synoptic curricular venture was to simply and concisely characterize key questions that needed to be addressed by curriculum developers and designers who wanted to propose or improve curriculum. The most influential text of this type was written by Ralph Tyler (1949), as he drew from his earlier work as Director of Evaluation for the Eight Year Study, extensive consultative experience nationally and internationally, and his work as University Examiner and an administrator at the University of Chicago. The following questions became primary organizing factors for curriculum development, design, lesson planning, unit construction, teacher and curriculum evaluation, textbook construction, training of curriculum leaders, and much more:


What educational purposes should the school seek to provide?


How can learning experiences be selected which are likely to be useful in attaining these objectives?


How can learning experiences be organized for effective instruction?


How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated? (Tyler, 1949, pp. v–vi)

Other scholars who contributed to synoptic texts created their own variations on synoptic questions. For instance, J. Harlan Shores (1973), coauthor of a prominent synoptic text of the 1950s (Smith, Stanley, & Shores, 1950, 1957), derived a set of synoptic curriculum questions from both that text and from related curriculum studies of other decades:


Who is to be educated?


Educated for what?


Education with what?


When to educate?


For whom is the content relevant? . . . For which individuals or groups should the content be relevant?


How to educate?


How to change the curriculum?

How Was This History of Curriculum Studies Questions Challenged? How Was Its Revision Sought as the Field Expanded?

Beginning with the pervasive questioning of social, political, economic, cultural, and educational institutions in the 1950s and extending into the third decade of the 21st century (most probably much longer), a host of new challenges emerged for curriculum studies. While the importance of these challenges extended worldwide, the power and dominion of the United States in the second half of the 20th century revealed the need to address neglect and injustice in the United States and throughout the world. Curriculum studies literature, like literature of most fields, was dominated by White, Western European (including the United Kingdom) men and their intellectual descendants in the United States and the British Commonwealth. In the United States, following World War II, the evolution of the Civil Rights Movement (vis-à-vis race and gender), ecological destruction, the persecution of those deemed Communists, and wars of expansion (such as the U.S. war in Vietnam), conquest, and neo-colonialism, brought waves of protest movements in many dimensions of society, including education and curriculum studies. Many did not trust established institutions and practices. Implications for changes in the kinds of questions that characterized curriculum studies and extant curriculum in schools were immense. We now consider examples of such questions.

How Could Curriculum Questions Be Expanded and Revised to Provide Greater Public Representation?

Revisionist history is history that includes the stories of more than accomplishments and values of White males of Western European and British descent who control much of the political, economic, and educational capital of the world. Too often women, racial or ethnic minorities, persons of poverty, those who suffer from disability, and those who are from colonized or otherwise oppressed nations or cultures are given less status because they have been conquered. Many of them are left out of educational practices, policies, studies, and conversations about education; thus, their histories and contributions have been extinguished from making curriculum decisions.

In the realm of curriculum studies, for instance, contributions of the relatively few women scholars who managed to reach levels of respect rarely have been given due credit. Some women did influence White male curriculum scholars with whom they worked by tempering rationalistic, stoic, and competitive outlooks with collaborative, empathic, and caring practices. For instance it can be argued that John Dewey’s perspective was broadened by Alice Chipman Dewey’s mother-like and perceptive work with children at the University of Chicago Laboratory School, by Jane Addams who shared a deep understanding of lives of the poor, immigrant populations at Hull House in Chicago with which Dewey was associated, and by Ella Flagg Young, the first woman superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools and Dewey’s doctoral student. Ann Shumaker augmented sensitivity to needs of children in education in Harold Rugg’s view of education in the child-centered school (Rugg & Shumaker, 1928). Hollis Caswell, founder of the first department of curriculum, called “Curriculum and Teaching” in 1938 at Columbia University Teachers College, coauthored the first synoptic curriculum text in 1935. It is likely that Caswell’s curricular outlook was expanded by former female students who became eminent professors in his department. For example, Florence Stratemeyer and Alice Miel, who each authored synoptic curriculum texts. Stratemeyer (Stratemeyer, Forkner, & McKim, 1947; Stratemeyer, Forkner, McKim, & Passow, 1957) joined with colleagues to show how the analytic work of Caswell and Campbell (1935) on pupil pursuits of curriculum would be better received through study of the persistent life situations pupils faced. Alice Miel (1946) showed that changing the curriculum could be enhanced if treated as a social process, and she later called for learning itself to be collaborative (Miel & Associates, 1952). Such extrapolations by Miel and Stratemeyer also brought Dewey’s key ideas to a wider array of educational practitioners. Similarly, Dewey’s perspective and that of Ralph Tyler, Director of Evaluation on and general consultant to the Eight Year Study, was enhanced by the immense contributions of several women: Alice Keliher’s perspective on human relations and guidance in study of and work with adolescents; Caroline Zachery’s call to augment the idea of student needs; Louise Rosenblatt’s emphasis on readers as transacting with and embodying literature; Laura Zirbes’s insightful advancement of the importance of creativity; and Margaret Willis’s exemplary work on teacher workshops that focused on personal and professional growth (Kridel & Bullough, 2007). Tyler was also influenced by Hilda Taba’s (1950, 1962) pioneering of intergroup relations in curriculum to pursue Tyler’s (1949) questions and enact his principles of curriculum and instruction. These and others are exemplars of how a small number of women in curriculum studies during the first half of the 20th century subtly tempered the curricular outlooks of many of the male leaders of the field by making them more personal and social. Much more on the history of women after the 1950s was provided by Janet Miller (2005).

In the turmoil of protest that surrounded curriculum studies, still called curriculum development in the 1960s, calls for revised perspectives invoked criticism of whether the questions that shaped the curriculum field were inclusive enough. Part of the turmoil was wrought by post-Sputnik curriculum reform that began with attempts to defeat Russians in technology and science through the work of Jerome Bruner (1960), other psychologists, scientists, government officials, and too few curriculum studies scholars. Critics of such large-scale attempts to reform education included Paul Goodman (1960, 1964), who questioned the absurdity of institutions that distort the lives of the young, criticizing schooling as “compulsory miseducation.” Carter G. Woodson (1933) had used the term earlier and Noam Chomsky (2000) carried the concept forward. Goodman’s colleague Jules Henry (1965) argued that dominant forms of culture work against the best aspects of human beings, and raised a host of questions to show how much the study of education (thus curriculum) would be expanded if cultures themselves, not just schools, were deemed the bases of education (Henry, 1972). During the mid-1960s, counterculture educators (such as John Holt, Jonathan Kozol, George Dennison, Herb Kohl, and Terry Doran) criticized schools for adhering to educational policies and practices that perpetuated the “establishment” or what was later referred to as the “corporate state” (Karier, Violas, & Spring, 1973; Spring, 1972), a union of the federal and state government interests with those of powerful national and international corporations. Henry Perkinson (1968) argued that schools were far from capable of achieving a panacea that could create the kind of democracy envisioned by John Dewey and others. Some scholars of curriculum studies were drawn by these and other sources to critique education driven by dictates of the corporate state. Toward this end, James B. Macdonald (1977) raised broader questions:


What is, or should be, curriculum talkers’ and workers’ idea of goodness?


What is the meaning of human life?


How shall we live together? (pp. 20–21)

How Should Curriculum Scholars and Workers Respond to the Moribundity of Curriculum Studies?

Some in the curriculum field in the late 1960s and 1970s were concerned about moribund curriculum development, particularly in regard to schooling that served plutocracies of the corporate state. Joseph J. Schwab (1970) advocated practical inquiry focused on situational needs, drawing eclectically from theory and research that fit the ever-flowing river of problems encountered in any educational situation. Schwab held that curriculum comprised four “commonplaces”: teachers, learners, subject matter, and milieu. He suggested that curriculum development and design workers should not simply facilitate theoretic or highly generalized mandates of and for the corporate state. Instead, local level curriculum workers should address the “what is worthwhile” questions in consultation with experts on relevant topics. In doing so, curriculum leaders, teachers, and students would continuously investigate the flow of possible and actual consequences of interaction among the commonplaces. Later, Schwab (1973) elaborated on the vastness of the milieu—that is, how it extends far into the community, nation, culture, belief systems, and world. This extensive scope necessitates ongoing eclectic inquiry that draws upon dynamic and vast arrays of knowledge, expertise, and experience.

What Does the Concept of “Currere” Offer That Curriculum Does Not Provide?

Another approach assumed that curriculum development that simply facilitated the dictates of the corporate state had led to the moribundity of curriculum studies. It held that curriculum studies that only seeks means for developing and designing the education dictated by the corporate state was misseducative. Curriculum studies was dying because it did not represent genuine human interests or study that freely sought self-development.

“Currere” is derived from an infinitive form that contrasts with the noun “curriculum” (Pinar, 1975; Pinar & Grumet, 1976); it is reflection on the meaning of one’s educational experience To study and understand currere involves perceptive, careful, and continuous reconceptualization of the experience of learning and growing. It is an autobiographical method that draws on many sources besides the technical and scientific ones that dominated curriculum development research in the first half of the 20th century. Advocates of currere drew upon Dwayne Huebner (1966), who called for political, ethical, and aesthetic inquiry. To pursue currere, learners and teachers focus on understanding their past (called the regressive) and possibilities for their present and future (called their progressive) by uncovering, deciphering, and decoding (the analytic), and by reframing and reconceptualizing what/who to become (the synthetic). This process of autobiography or self-education exceeds what schooling can provide under the auspices of the corporate state, which is unwilling or unable to address the wide range of life and culture that shapes one’s being and becoming. This next generation of curricularists argued that too often schooling does, in fact, disable the pursuit of currere, which is continuous study that enhances self-education in the public sphere.

Thus, curriculum studies should not simply provide a package to implement and apply, a design that teachers deliver to students. Instead, it should be a process of drawing from a vast array of thought and experience that does the following: perceives the importance of an organic view of nature, sees individuals as creators of knowledge and culture, uses experimental and experiential method, taps into preconscious experience, seeks new sources of literature, pursues liberty and higher levels of consciousness, realizes that means and ends are enhanced by diversity and pluralism, and understands that individual reconceptualization leads to political and social reconceptualization (Klohr, 1980; Schubert, 1986, pp. 178–180). Through such sources, anyone who engages in autobiographical study is composing the text of who they are and who they aspire to be, which is a lifelong process. Moreover, as curriculum studies grew and proliferated, scholars resonated to and drew upon diverse sources of understanding or discourse texts, from the 1970s to the end of the 20th century: historical, political, racial, gender, phenomenological, poststructuralist, autobiographical/biographical, aesthetic, and theological. These discourse communities expanded curriculum studies, which moved away from institutionalized text that focused primarily on teachers, students, and curriculum development in schools or similar institutions (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995). By the second decade of the 21st century, Marla Morris (2016) had added more to the array of concepts often addressed in curriculum studies to include historical, political, multicultural, gender, literary, aesthetic, spiritual, cosmopolitan, ecological, cultural, postcolonial, poststructural, and psychoanalytic.

Who Benefits From Extant Curriculum and Who Is Harmed by It?

The likelihood that schooling can disable serious quests for self-education led Ivan Illich (1970) to call for “deschooling society” (1970) and for starting over by creating learning spaces wherein communities of learners can learn by sharing expertise and topics of interest. Based partially on a response to Illich, James Macdonald, Bernice Wolfson, and Esther Zaret (1973) expressed hope that public schools could be “re-schooled” to enact learning that truly represents public interests and needs. Macdonald (1974) drew from the critical pedagogy of Brazilian scholar-pedagogue Paulo Freire (1970) to provide public spaces for communities of learning to build skill, knowledge, and disposition that poses problems from the learners’ own experiences to address the disparity between oppressors and the oppressed.

The emphasis on Freire’s critiques of oppressors who control curricula for their own benefit and Illich’s call for deschooling to prevent domination by neocolonial forces led some curriculum studies scholars to advocate questioning through critical theory derived from neo-Marxian scholarship and concomitant praxis. Michael Apple’s (1979) first book on curriculum showed curriculum to be strongly tied to ideology. Influenced by Karl Marx, Michael F. D. Young, Paul Willis, Pierre Bourdieu, Antonio Gramsci, and others, Apple (1993) critiqued curriculum in schools for perpetuating the “official knowledge” sanctioned and promoted by the leaders of the corporate state, which often contradicts democratic practices. The question of who benefits addresses ways in which knowledge is reproduced by schooling institutions, how it is reproduced, and what are the consequences. Jean Anyon (1980), for instance, conducted and interpreted critical ethnographies of schooling that differed relative to socioeconomic class in the United States, asking what students learned to value as routes to success as a result of schooling. She found that students from low socioeconomic classes learned to find success by following rules made by dominant classes, while working and lower middle-class students learned that success derived from giving the “right answers” (i.e., giving those in charge what they wanted to hear). Students from professional class families achieved success by being productive and creative, as long as they did not rock the boat of the ruling class. They would be free to live rather well-to-do lives, while being controlled by having to pay their ever-mounting bills regularly. The ruling class, in contrast, only needed schools to round out their repertoire of credentials. They had plenty of money and connections with other power brokers, and prestigious diplomas would maintain their status at the pinnacle of power. They are taught that manipulation of the system is a prime path to success, and hence, schools serve them by providing apt credentials.

How Does Curriculum Studies Connect With Cultural Studies? Are Contexts Neglected and Necessary Curricula?

Frantz Fanon (1925–1981), a West Indian psychiatrist and revolutionary political philosopher from Martinique, showed that much of the world is made up of impoverished people of color. Fanon called their condition “wretched” (Fanon, 1963). Building on sensibility to this condition, cultural studies is often said to have begun at the University of Birmingham under the intellectual leadership of Stuart Hall (1932–2014). Born in Jamaica, Hall (Morley & Chen, 1996) and other critical sociologists had global impact, showing that diverse dimensions of cultures shape perspectives of humans who participate in them. Thus, we could conclude that these contexts are not mere influences; they are curricula. Building on the historical study of cultures, John Willinsky (1998) vividly showed that cultivated conquerors had long bestowed curricula that taught how to divide the world into black and white, east and west, north and south, undeveloped and developed. Noteworthy is the realization by curriculum studies scholars that these and other cultural attributes are curricula that symbiotically shape other dimensions of cultures and persons within them. The takeaway for curriculum studies is that these cultures and contexts are curricula, as exemplified by Henry Giroux, Roger Simon, and Peter McLaren (Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Giroux, Simon, & Contributors, 1989); the vast corpus of work by each of these scholars and many others who followed in subsequent decades is clearly illustrative. Insights from cultural studies and related areas for curriculum studies are often referred to as “public pedagogy” (Sandlin, Schultz, & Burdick, 2010). Schubert (1981, 2010) referred to such cultural and contextual dimensions as “outside curriculum,” an area of study that highlights the need for curriculum studies to draw from all aspects of culture, which can provide more insight into forces that shape human outlooks. Study of public pedagogy as curriculum reveals emergent insights of individuals, groups, tribes, and communities through an ecological integration of diverse educative forces. For instance, Jake Burdick, et al., have shown that curriculum can be conceived as reflective action in response to troubled times in many spheres of societal expression, and in that edited volume, Kevin Clinard (2019) argues that hip-hop composers of color (such as Immortal Technique, Dead Prez, and KRS-One) articulate critical perspectives similar to those of curriculum theorists and manage to reach much larger audiences among youth and young adult communities. Thus, public pedagogy and cultural studies fuel the argument that for curriculum of schooling to meaningfully influence students, the myriad cultural curricula must be taken into consideration. Similarly, school curriculum is one of many cultural curricula that shape perspectives of students.

Can Public Spaces Be Created Apart From the Domination of Colonial or Imperialist Corporate States?

Critical investigations of comparative literature by Edward Said (1993) show how older versions of imperialism grew from colonial domination and how cultures experienced a new kind of imperialism forged by corporate states in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The work of Said (1935–2003) and many critical theorists vividly connects with work by Maxine Greene (1917–2014), who admonished curriculum studies scholars to derive critical questions from literature, other arts, and philosophy to ask how to release imagination to create public spaces. Greene (1995) declares:

The central questions will continue to haunt us. How can we reconcile the multiple realities of human lives with shared commitment to communities infused once again with principles? How can we do it without regressing, without mythicizing? How, like Tarrou in The Plague, can we move ourselves and others to affirm that “on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims, and it’s up to us, so far as possible, not to join forces with the pestilences?” . . . How can we, in every predicament, “take the victims’ sides, so as to reduce the damage done?

(Camus, 1948, pp. 229–230)

Is Separation of School and (Corporate) State Needed?

This question draws from similar principles that undergird the doctrine of separation of church and state asserted at the founding of the United States. This principle is generally interpreted as separation of church and school (if governed by the state). If, however, schooling is dominated by the wealthy few, regardless of its alleged sponsors, it does not represent the whole public. In a call for public schooling to be truly public (i.e., of, by, and for the public), Dewey (1938, p. 29) drew from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which followed the U.S. Civil War (Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1981). If schools labeled public schools are perpetrators of the corporate state, the argument is that they need to be separate in order to allow students to learn without curriculum geared to enhance leaders of the corporate state. When considering whether the public and its educators can revise state (or wealthy private or parochial) schooling by involving the public at the grassroots level, they face Audre Lorde’s (1984) admonishment to remember that, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” (p. 110). If freedom of religious views is not to be challenged by a position on religion by the government, then would it not follow that freedom of access to knowledge and ideas should not be governed by the state either? Nonetheless, the question remains: Who would pay for schools without being able to influence them?

An example of education that serves the public and is not under the governance of the corporate state or individual wealth is the Freedom School movement in the United States in the 1960s. Educators in Freedom Schools offered a curriculum of questions from the movement’s founders to educate African Americans to pass voting tests and to reflectively act as public citizens in Mississippi and other Southern states. Septima Clark (1898–1987), Ella Baker (1903–1986), Charlie Cobb (b. 1943), and many others engaged in considerable curriculum thinking to involve students in questions such as the following:


Why are we in Freedom Schools?


What is the freedom movement?


What alternatives does the movement offer us?


What does the majority culture have that we want?


What does the majority culture have that we do not want?


What do we have that we want to keep? (Ayers, 2010, p. 181)

It is obvious that curriculum thought (i.e., the study of curriculum) had to be present in the African American community in the United States for these questions to be asked in Freedom Schools. The Freedom School experience reveals that curriculum studies occurred in at least two ways: (a) theory and practice were conducted by African American scholars and (b) the focus of that thought was to address that which was and was not worthwhile for African American students. Despite this, African American theorists and curriculum theorists and developers who developed Freedom Schools are rarely if ever cited in the dominant curriculum literature of the 1960s and the next several decades. Nonetheless, the history of such endeavors traces historically back to a great procession of African American theorists, writers, and activist educators, for example, Sojourner Truth (1797–1883), Frederick Douglass (1818–1895), Harriet Tubman (1822–1913), Booker T. Washington (1856–1915), Anna Julia Cooper (1858–1964), W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963), Carter G. Woodson (1875–1950), and William A. Robinson (1890–1972). Robinson was principal architect of the Black High School Study in the southern United States, which was patterned after the Eight Year Study (Kridel, 2015). One could also include artists and public intellectuals who could be considered educators of outside curriculum, such as Paul Robeson, Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, Zora Neale Hurston, Louis Armstrong, Billie Holliday, James Baldwin, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Muhammed Ali, Harry Belafonte, Alice Walker, Cornel West, Tupac Shakur, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. While African Americans were omitted from what and who should be taught, they were even more absent from those considered capable of studying and creating curriculum in the academy.

Nonetheless, the unfair voter eligibility tests that students from Freedom Schools endured from White racist architects of the corporate state symbolized multiple curricula constructed to control people of color across the United States and globally (Watkins, 2001). Moreover, by declaring the U.S. National Defense Education Act (1958) as precedent for post-Sputnik curriculum reform, leaders of the corporate state redefined schooling and its curriculum as a national defense problem and could supersede control of schools by local and state authority. Seeing this avenue to power, subsequent leaders conjured emergencies to create continuous federal-corporate control of schooling , thus of curriculum, while rarely consulting with curriculum scholars or other educators, leading to criticism epitomized in The Manufactured Crisis (Berliner & Biddle, 1995).

Starting anew with the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) and the publication of A Nation at Risk, other programs of control through schooling followed—for example, America 2000 (1992), No Child Left Behind (2002), Race to the Top (2009), and the push to privatize education for the benefit of the corporate state. These and other proposals not only involved creating curriculum materials and a multitude of tests but also brought massive wealth to the already most wealthy. Tests were used and continue to be used for comparisons of students, teachers, administrators, communities, states, and nations. The great, almost frenetic, interest in national comparisons by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test data is done on a regular basis while ignoring construct validity of defensible notions of what is worthwhile. Questions raised by what Kincheloe, Steinberg, and Gresson (1997) call “measured lies” is a relevant caveat for those who want to challenge this pervasive phenomenon of testing for profit.

Ethnic minority groups in the United States and other countries suffer most from scores that give priority to the ethnic majority—for example, Whites in the United States, Han in China, and so on. Native American scholar Joel Spring (1994) portrayed the history of the vast deculturalization of African Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, and Asian Americans. Their cultures were often disregarded by extant curricula and their lives and cultures were “subtracted” by curriculum given value by dominant White authorities (Valenzuela, 1999). One likely reason for deculturalization has been the paucity of curriculum studies scholars of color who are included in the professoriate. Although this topic is too broad for the confines of this short article, it is clear that White supremacy and neocolonialism have been practiced widely in the curriculum field even if it was not intended or even realized by the dominant White Western scholars who led the curriculum field throughout most of the 20th century. In addition to the African American curriculum studies scholars noted previously, other ethnic minority scholars have also been excluded. Native American curricularists include Chief Seattle (1786–1866), Black Elk (1863–1950), Chief Joseph (1840–1904), Cochise (1805–1974), Red Cloud (1822–1909), Sarah Winnemucca (1844–1891), Gertrude S. Bonnin or Zitkala-Sa (1876–1938), Black Hawk (1767–1838), Tecumseh (1768–1813), and Chief Luther Standing Bear (1838–1939). Similarly, Latinx educators such as Rafael Cordero y Molina (1790–1868), Jose Marti (1853–1895), George Sanchez (1906–1972) should be noted. In the second decade of the 21st century, Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez (2015) made a widely regarded case for “browning” the curriculum, both attending to the needs of students of color and involving more scholars of color. Anthony Brown and Wayne Au (2014) and Au, Brown, and Calderon (2016) indicated that curriculum studies could incorporate key sources of scholarship and praxis that enable inclusion of work of Native Americans, African Americans, Latinx Americans, and Asian Americans. Work by William H. Watkins (1993, 2001, 2005) illustrates the need to acknowledge racial and ethnic minority scholars who have often been neglected in the curriculum studies literature, as does work by Carl Grant, Anthony Brown, and Keffrelyn Brown (2015. Theodorea Berry (2017) inspires perspectives and praxes that conjoin intersections of Africana studies and curriculum theory to counter Western narratives for social justice, which leads to realization that insights of oppressed minority positions exist in many regions, nations, and cultures. To tap such sources has potential to prevent domination and allow possibilities to flourish.

What Is Curricular Epistemicide and How Can It Be Overcome Through Sharing Insights From Diverse Cultures?

Commensurate, metaphorically at least, with the ecological movement and its place in curriculum that acknowledges the destruction of many species of plants and animals, languages and cultures are also being destroyed. With destruction of languages and cultures (especially indigenous ones) there is, in addition to genocide, the threat of epistemicide, or the destruction of knowledge systems, forms of inquiry, and modes of expression. Joao Paraskeva (2016) called for dangers of epistemicide to be addressed as a basis for achieving greater inter-cultural understanding. The attention to neglect of and potential within ethnic and racial minorities in the United States points to the need for increased awareness and valuing of minorities unique to myriad other regions, nations, and cultures of the world.

Intercultural understanding, including communication and understanding of cultures of ethnic minorities and indigenous populations, is necessary to prevent epistemicide. Some curriculum studies scholars strive to overcome or dissipate prejudice against or extermination of such groups by working for international awareness and exchange of ideas through international or transnational curriculum organizations. The World Council for Curriculum and Instruction (WCCI), founded by Alice Miel and furthered by Louise Berman, Maxine Dunfee, Norman Overly, and others in the 1970s, has origins based on two key sources within the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: the 1950 Committee on International Understanding and its1966 Commission on Cooperation in Education. Tonya Huber-Warring and Lisa A. Holtan (2010) stated that WCCI is

a nongovernmental organization of the United Nations in consultative status with a consultant to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Preamble of the WCCI constitution challenges educators in the world community to ensure that education contributes to the promotion of equity, peace, and universal realization of human rights, developing a comprehensive sense of respect of self, others, and the environment. (p. 949)

Another transnational organization, the International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies (IAACS) focuses on the exchange of scholarship and was founded in 2000 under the leadership of William Pinar, William Doll, Jr., Donna Trueit, and Hongyuu Wang. Alan Block (2010) characterized contributions of IAACS as based on an understanding that

often curriculum inquiry is constrained by government, culture, and tradition. However, IAACS recognizes that those borders have become very permeable and that the advancement of the field of curriculum studies acknowledges the importance . . . of opening conversations through and across these borders. The mission of the organization is to promote scholarly conversations concerning the content, context, and process of education in specific localities. (p. 491)

The statements of both WCCI and IAACS are hopeful about the possibility of international or transnational collaboration and exchange. Nonetheless, the idea of nation is too often associated with separatism and competition, not synergy with other nations. Neither WCCI nor IAACS intend this. Admittedly, emphasizing the idea of culture instead of nation helps to overcome attempts to tyrannize or colonize cultures. Hopefully, the extant history of conquest and destruction is not due to the nature of humans themselves who fail to empathize, collaborate, and learn from one another, as John Gray (2002) contends. David Hansen (2007), for instance, expresses hope for exchange of ethical visions around the world, much as one finds in the amazing array of more than 60 book-length dialogues between Daisaku Ikeda and public intellectuals from around the world by (Ikeda, 2010, 2011). Additional narratives of insightful and inspiring grassroots cultures are provided by Madhu Prakash and Gustavo Esteva (1998) and James C. Scott (1990) who showed that some indigenous cultures resist the benefits offered by corporate states by simply not wanting them. These exemplars illuminate curriculum studies that will continue the search for insight and wisdom through cooperation, diversity, pluralism, understanding, justice, love, personal~passionate~participatory inquiry, and new forms of education that can flow from them (He & Phillion, 2008; Schubert, 2009a).

Concluding and Beginning

These questions are offered in an effort to portray dimensions of the history of the curriculum field that are offered in an effort to whet the appetite for continued use of this Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. They are to be asked, re-asked, pondered, and lived (He, et al., The questions delineated in this chapter are not presumed to be inclusive. Rather, they are intended as illustrative of the myriad heuristic perspectives available in this volume and even more fully in the extant literatures and practices of curriculum studies.

Bibliography of Further Recommended Readings for OECS

Au, W., Brown, A. L., & Calderon, D. (2016). Reclaiming the multicultural roots of the U.S. curriculum: Communities of color and official knowledge in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Baker, B. (Ed.). (2009). New curriculum history. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Connell, W. F. (1980). A history of education in the twentieth century world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Connelly, F. M., He, M. F., & Phillion, J. A. (2008). Handbook of curriculum and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Cremin, L. (1961). The transformation of the school. New York, NY: Knopf. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Flinders, D. J., & Thornton, S. J. (Eds.). (2017). The curriculum studies reader. New York, NY: Routledge. Gallegos, B. (2017). Postcolonial indigenous performances: Coyote musings on Genízaros, hybridity, education, and slavery. Boston: Sense. Grande, S. (2015). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Tenth Anniversary Issue. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. He, M. F., Schultz, B. D., & Schubert, W. H. (Eds.). (2015). Guide to Curriculum in Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hendry, P. M. (2011). Engendering curriculum history. New York, NY: Routledge. Jackson, P. W. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York, NY: Macmillan and the American Educational Research Association. Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (Eds.). (1995). Thirteen questions: Reframing education’s conversation. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kridel, C. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of curriculum studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Lewy, A. (Ed.). (1991). The international encyclopedia of curriculum. London, UK: Pergamon. Malewski, E. (Ed.). (2009). Curriculum studies handbook: The next moment. New York, NY: Routledge. Marsh, C., & Willis. G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches: Ongoing issues. Columbus, OH: Pearson. Marshall, J. D., Sears, J. T., Allen, L., Roberts, P., & Schubert, W. H. (2007). Turning points in curriculum: A contemporary curriculum memoir (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. Morris, M. (2016). Curriculum studies guidebooks. Volume 1 &2, Concepts and theoretical frameworks. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Schubert, W. H. (2010a). Journeys of expansion and synopsis: Tensions in books that shaped curriculum inquiry, 1968-present. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(1), 17-94. Schubert, W. H. (2010b). Outside curricula and public pedagogy. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.). Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling. New York, NY: Routledge. Sears, J. T., & Marshall, J. D. (Eds.), Teaching and thinking about curriculum (pp. 211–227). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Seguel, M. L. (1966). The curriculum field: Its formative years. New York, NY: Teachers College. Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. L. (Eds.). (2004). 19 urban questions: Teaching in the city. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Tillett, W. (2017). Living the questions: Dispatches from a life already in progress. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Westbury, I., & Wilkof, N. (Eds.). (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Essays of Joseph Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Willis, G. H., Schubert, W. H., Bullough, R., Jr., Kridel, C., & Holton, J. (Eds.). (1993). The American curriculum: A documentary history. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Further Reading

  • Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (Eds.). (1995). Thirteen questions: Reframing education’s conversation. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  • Schubert, W. H. (2010). Outside curricula and public pedagogy. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.). Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Willis, G. H., Schubert, W. H., Bullough, R., Jr., Kridel, C., & Holton, J. (Eds.). (1993). The American curriculum: A documentary history. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.


  • Aikin, W. M. (1942). The story of the Eight Year Study. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
  • Alberty, H. (1947). Reorganizing the high school curriculum. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67–92.
  • Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Au, W., Brown, A. L., & Calderon, D. (2016). Reclaiming the multicultural roots of the U.S. curriculum: Communities of color and official knowledge in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Ayers, W. (2010). Freedom schools. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 381–382). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
  • Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. New York, NY: Longman.
  • Berry, T. R.(2017). The intersections of Africana studies and curriculum theory: A counter-Western narrative for social justice. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 32(1), 53–66.
  • Block, A. A. (2010). International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (p. 491). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
  • Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Bobbitt, F. (1924). How to make a curriculum. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Brameld, T. (1956). Toward a reconstructed philosophy of education. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.
  • Brown, A. L., & Au, W. (2014). Race, memory, and master narratives: A critical essay on U.S. curriculum history. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(3), 358–389.
  • Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Camus, A. (1948). The plague (S. Gilbert, Trans.). New York, NY: Knopf.
  • Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1935). Curriculum development. New York, NY: American Book Company.
  • Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (Eds.). (1937). Readings in curriculum development. New York, NY: American Book Company.
  • Charters, W. W. (1923). Curriculum construction. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Chomsky, N. & D. Macedo (Ed.). (2000). Chomsky on miseducation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Clinard, K. W. (2019). Critical hip-hop: Pedagogy and the populace. In S. L. Raye, S. Masta, S. T. Cook, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Ideating pedagogy in troubled times: Approaches to identity, theory, teaching, and research (pp. 183–198). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Counts, G. S. (1932). Dare the school build a new social order? New York, NY: John Day.
  • Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Doll, R. C. (1964). Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Dunkel, H. B. (1970). Herbart and Herbartianism: An educational ghost story. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of educational programs. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. New York, NY: Grove Press.
  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
  • Gaztambide-Fernandez, R. (2015). Browning the curriculum: A project of unsettlement. In M. F. He, B. D. Schultz, & W. H. Schubert (Eds.), Guide to curriculum in education (pp. 416–423). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
  • Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Giroux, H. A., & Simon, R. I.; Contributors. (1989). Popular culture: Schooling and everyday life. New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey.
  • Goodman, P. (1960). Growing up, absurd: Problems of youth in the organized system. New York, NY: Random House.
  • Goodman, P. (1964). Compulsory miseducation. New York, NY: Horizon Press.
  • Grant, C. A., Brown, K. D., & Brown, A. L. (2015). Black intellectual thought in education: The missing traditions of Anna Julia Cooper, Carter G. Woodson, & Alain Locke. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Gray, J. (2002). Straw dogs: Thoughts on humans and other animals. London, UK: Granta Books.
  • Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Hansen, D. T. (Ed.). (2007). Ethical visions of education: Philosophies in practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press in association with the Boston Research Center for the 21st Century.
  • Harap, H. (1928). Techniques of curriculum making. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • He, M. F., & Phillion, J. (Eds.). (2008). Personal~passionate~participatory inquiry into social justice in education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Henry, J. (1965). Culture against man. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  • Henry, J. (1972). On education. New York, NY: Vintage.
  • Hopkins, L. T. (1929). Curriculum principles and practices. New York, NY: Benjamin H. Sandborn.
  • Hopkins, L. T. (1931). Curriculum making: General. Review of Educational Research, 1(1), 5.
  • Huber-Warring, T., & Holtan, L. A. (2010). World Council for Curriculum and Instruction. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 949–950). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
  • Huebner, D. (1966). Curricular language and classroom meanings. In J. Macdonald & R. Leeper (Eds.), Language and meaning (pp. 8–26). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Ikeda, D. (2010). A new humanism. New York, NY: I. B. Tauris.
  • Ikeda, D. (2011). Toward a world of dignity for all: The triumph of the creative life. Tokyo, Japan: Soka Gakkai.
  • Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  • Karier, C. J., Violas, P., & Spring, J. (1973). Roots of crisis: American education in the twentieth century. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
  • Kincheloe, J. L., Steinberg, S. R., & Gresson, A. D., III. (Eds.). (1997). Measured lies: The bell curve examined. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Kliebard, H. M. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893–1958. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Klohr. P. R. (1980). The curriculum field: Gritty and ragged? Curriculum Perspectives, 1(1), 1–7.
  • Kridel, C. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of curriculum studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Kridel, C. (2015). Progressive education in Black high schools: The Secondary School Study, 1940–1946. Columbia, SC: Museum of Education, University of South Carolina.
  • Kridel, C., & Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2007). Stories of the Eight Year Study and rethinking schooling in America. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Leonard, T., & Hilton, P. M. (2010). Fundamental curriculum questions. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 953–970). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
  • Lorde, A. (1984). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In A. Lorde (Ed.), Sister outsider: Essays and speeches (pp. 110–114). Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press.
  • Macdonald, J. B. (1974). A transcendental developmental ideology of education. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Heightened consciousness, cultural revolution, and curriculum theory (pp. 85–116). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
  • Macdonald, J. B. (1977). Value bases and issues for curriculum. In A. Molnar & J. Zahorik (Eds.), Curriculum theory (pp. 10–21). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Macdonald, J. B., Wolfson, B., & Zaret, E. (1973). Reschooling society. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Marsh, C., & Willis. G. (1995). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Columbus, OH: Pearson.
  • Miel, A. (1946). Changing the curriculum: A social process. New York, NY: Appleton-Century.
  • Miel, A.; Associates. (1952). Cooperative procedures in learning. New York, NY: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
  • Miller, J. L. (2005). Sounds of silence breaking. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  • Morley, D. & Chen, K-H. (Eds.). (1996). Sturart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Morris, M. (2016). Curriculum studies guidebooks (Vol. 1–2). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  • National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • National Council of Education Committee on the Economy of Time. (1913). The report. Washington, DC: NEA & U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • National Defense Education Act. (1958). Public Law 85-864, 85th Congress of the United States of America, September 2, 1958.
  • National Education Association Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies. (1893). The report. Washington, DC: NEA.
  • National Education Association Committee of Fifteen of Elementary School Studies. (1895). The report. Washington, DC: NEA.
  • National Education Association Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). The report. Washington, DC: NEA.
  • Paraskeva, J. (2016). Curriculum epistemicide. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Perkinson, H. J. (1968). The imperfect panacea: American faith in education, 1865–1990. New York, NY: Random House.
  • Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
  • Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (2003). International handbook of curriculum research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Pinar, W. F., & Grumet, M. R. (1976). Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
  • Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  • Prakash, M. S., & Esteva, G. (1998). Escaping education: Living as learning within grassroots cultures. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  • Raye, S. L., Masta, S., Cook S. T., & Burdick, J. (Eds.). (2019). Ideating pedagogy in troubled items: Approaches to identity, theory, teaching, and research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Rice, J. M. (1893). The public school system of the United States. New York, NY: Nobel & Eldridge.
  • Rice, J. M. (1913). Scientific management in education. New York, NY: Nobel & Eldridge.
  • Rugg, H. O. (1927). Foundations of curriculum making. Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.
  • Rugg, H. O. (1929–1932). Man and his changing society (Vols. 1–6). Boston, MA: Ginn.
  • Rugg, H. O. (1941). That men may understand: An American in the long armistice. New York, NY: Doubleday.
  • Rugg, H. O., & Shumaker, A. (1928). The child-centered school. New York, NY: World Book.
  • Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York, NY: Knopf.
  • Sandlin, J. A., Schultz, B. D., & Burdick, J. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Saylor, J. G., & Alexander, W. M. (1954). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  • Schiro, M. (1978). Curriculum for better schools: The great ideological debate. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  • Schubert, W. H. (1981). Knowledge about out-of-school curriculum. Educational Forum, 45(2), 185–198.
  • Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Schubert, W. H. (2009a). Love, justice, and education: John Dewey and the Utopians. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Schubert, W. H. (2009b). What’s worthwhile: From knowing and experiencing to being and becoming. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 6(1), 21–39.
  • Schubert, W. H. (2010). Outside curricula and public pedagogy. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Schubert, W. H., & Lopez Schubert, A. L. (1980). Curriculum books: The first eighty years. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
  • Schubert, W. H., & Lopez Schubert, A. L. (1981). Toward curricula that are of, by, and therefore for students. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 3(1), 239–251.
  • Schubert, W. H., Lopez Schubert, A. L., Thomas, T. P., & Carroll, W. M. (2002). Curriculum books. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81, 501–522.
  • Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Seguel, M. L. (1966). The curriculum field: Its formative years. New York, NY: Teachers College.
  • Shores, J. H. (1973). Course syllabus, ED 439.
  • Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., & Shores, J. H. (1950). Fundamentals of curriculum development. Yonkers-on-the-Hudson, NY: World Book.
  • Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., & Shores, J. H. (1957). Fundamentals of curriculum development (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
  • Spencer, H. (1861). Education: Intellectual, moral, and physical. New York, NY: D. Appleton & Company.
  • Spring, J. (1972). Education and the rise of the corporate state. Boston, MA: Beacon.
  • Spring, J. (1994). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  • Stratemeyer, F. B., Forkner, H. L., & McKim, M. G. (1947). Developing a curriculum for modern living. New York, NY: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
  • Stratemeyer, F. B., Forkner, H. L., McKim, M. G., & Passow, A. H. (1957). Developing a curriculum for modern living. New York, NY: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
  • Taba, H. (1950). Elementary curriculum in inter-group relations. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
  • Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
  • Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (1975). Curriculum development. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Tillett, W. (2017). Living the questions: Dispatches from a life already in progress. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Travers, R. M. W. (1983). How research has changed American schools: A history from 1840–present. Kalamazoo, MI: Mythos Press.
  • Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Ulich, R. (Ed.). (1954). Three thousand years of educational wisdom. Cambridge, MA:. Harvard University Press.
  • U.S. Bureau of Education. (1913). Report of the Committee of the National Council of Education on Economy of Time in Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Walker, D. F. (1990). Fundamentals of curriculum. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich.
  • Watkins, W. H. (1993). Black curriculum orientations: A preliminary inquiry. Harvard Educational Review, 63(3), 321–338.
  • Watkins, W. H. (2001). The white architects of black education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Watkins, W. H. (Ed.). (2005). Black protest thought and education. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  • Willinsky, J. (1998). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s end. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Woodson, C. G. (1933). The mis-education of the Negro. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers.
  • Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum: Principles and foundations. New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell.