ABSTRACT

In her most insightful book, Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice about Children (2003), Ann Hulbert notes that throughout the 20th Century, there always existed a tension between expert advocates of “hard” parenting (parent-centered) versus “soft” parenting (child-centered). For every Margaret Mead or Benjamin Spock, it seems there has been a John Watson or James Dobson. The basic argument is over whether parents ought to take a more “naturalistic/laid back” or “directive/interventionist” approach to raising their children. What are parents to think when the experts so clearly disagree? What are educators to think about curricular propriety when the experts so clearly disagree? The purpose of this book is the examination of various theories, models, and exemplars of curriculum. Our examination has made it clear to anyone who might have doubted it, that there is a wide range of opinion regarding curricular propriety. The possibilities, while perhaps not endless, do indeed cover a considerable amount of ground, raising fundamental questions regarding the purposes of school. We can think of the possibilities spread out along a continuum from traditional to experimental, but such a designation does little more than serve as a port of entry. Traditional forms of the curriculum, all of which are in agreement on a pre-planned, adult-directed course of study, do themselves vary when it comes to how students should best spend their time. And experimental forms vary fundamentally in their emphasis on the individual versus the group, over whether the pre-eminent goal of the curriculum is self-realization or societal change, and even the extent to which a curriculum exists. Knowledge is at the heart of any curriculum, but Herbert Spencer's question 150of what knowledge is of most worth is a matter of contention. Knowledge of history, mathematics, and literature is one thing; knowledge of self and others is quite another. Who decides what students should learn? Is it best for informed adults to plan and manage the learning experience? Or should the student(s) decide what to learn? Who, after all, knows better than the learner? Will students be disadvantaged at some point if they do not cover a systematically planned scope and sequence throughout their school years? These questions will summon different answers depending on one's sense of educational propriety. Finally, is some sort of accommodation possible between complete student interest and a pre-planned curriculum? Can we have the best of all possible worlds? What might a curriculum look like that achieves proper balance among learner, society, and academic knowledge?